NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 407

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/ National Bureau of Standards

Report of the

59th National Conference

on

Weights and Measures

1974
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: ( 1 ) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, ( 3 ) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (41 technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau consists of the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, the Institute for Applied Technology,

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, and the Office for Information Programs. THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the United

States of a complete and consistent system of physical measurement; coordinates that system

with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce. The Institute consists of a Center for Radiation Research, an Office of Measurement Services and the following divisions: Applied Mathematics — Electricity — Mechanics — Heat — Optical Physics — Nuclear

Sciences - — Applied Radiation - — Quantum Electronics " — Electromagnetics ' — Time

and Frequency " — Laboratory Astrophysics " — Cryogenics THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement, standards, and data on the properties of well-characterized materials needed by industry, commerce, educational institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies; and develops, produces, and

distributes standard reference materials. The Institute consists of the Office of Standard

Reference Materials and the following divisions: Analytical Chemistry — Polymers — Metallurgy — Inorganic Materials — Reactor

Radiation — Physical Chemistry. THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services to promote

the use of available technology and to facilitate technological innovation in industry and Government; cooperates with public and private organizations leading to the development of

technological standards (including mandatory safety standards), codes and methods of test; and provides technical advice and services to Government agencies upon request. The Institute consists of a Center for Building Technology and the following divisions and offices: Engineering and Product Standards — Weights and Measures — Invention and Innovation —• Product Evaluation Technology — Electronic Technology — Technical Analysis — Measurement Engineering — Structures, Materials, and Life Safety ' — Building Environment' — Technical Evaluation and Application' — Fire Technology. THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts research and provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in improving cost effec- tiveness in the conduct of their programs through the selection, acquisition, and effective utilization of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus within

the executive branch for the development of Federal standards for automatic data processing equipment, techniques, and computer languages. The Institute consists of the following

divisions: Computer Services — Systems and Software — Computer Systems Engineering — Information Technology. THE OFFICE FOR INFORMATION PROGRAMS promotes optimum dissemination and

accessibility of scientific information generated within NBS and other agencies of the Federal Government; promotes the development of the National Standard Reference Data System and

a system of information analysis centers dealing with the broader aspects of the National Measurement System; provides appropriate services to ensure that the NBS staff has optimum

accessibility to the scientific information of the world. The Office consists of the following

organizational units: Office of Standard Reference Data — Office of Information Activities — Office of Technical

Publications — Library — Office of International Relations.

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

3 Part of the Center for Radiation Research.

^ Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302.

* Part of the Center for Building Technology.
Report of the

59th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1974

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, B.C., July 7-12, 1974

Report Editor: Sandra J. Edgerly

c„^ United States Department of Commerce

V \ Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary

^/ National Bureau of Standards

V*u of " Richard W. Roberts, Director

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 407, 284 pages (June 1975)

Issued (June 1975)

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. C13.10:407) Price S3.75 (Add 25 percent additional for other than U.S. mailing)

Stock .Number 003-003-01379
Abstract

This is a report of the proceedings (edited) of the Fifty-Ninth National

Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, held in Washington, D.C., July 7-12, 1974, and attended by state, county, and city weights and measures officials, the Federal Government,

business, industry, and consumer organizations.

Key words: Digital indicators; drained weight; laws and regulations; metric

conversion; metrication; net weight; package control; petroleum products;

scales; survey; temperature compensation; uniformity; weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 26-27766
CONTENTS

(Note: The reports of the standing and annual committees and the

treasurer's report, which were presented on Wednesday and Thursday, have

been arranged together, beginning on page 199 for easier reference.)

Page

Officers of the Conference VI

Standing Committees VI

Annual Committees VII Open Committee Meetings, Monday, July 8, 1974 VIII MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1974

Advancing Measurement Assurance in the Marketplace, by John H.

Lewis, Conference Chairman, Chief, Weights and Measures Section,

Dairy and Food Division, Washington Department of Agriculture 1 Address, by Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science

and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce 6 Expanding the Nation's Measurement System, by Dr. Arthur 0. McCoubrey, Director, Institute for Basic Standards, National Bureau of Standards 11 Presentation of Honor Awards 23 Award of Appreciation to Mr. Arthur Sanders 24

International Diplomacy in Weights and Measures, by Bernard Athane,

Director, International Bureau of Legal Metrology, Paris, France 26 AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1974

Observations on Our Mutual Objectives, by Harold F. Wollin, Executive

Secretary, National Conference on Weights and Measures 35 Weighing the Future—A New Challenge, by J. Donald Zelazny, General Sales Manager, Toledo Scale Division, Reliance Electric Company 46 Metric Conversion:

Role of the American National Metric Council, by Dr. Malcolm E. O'Hagan, Executive Director, American National Metric Council 54 Consumers Call for a Rational Approach, by Louise A. Young, Extension Specialist in Family and Consumer Economics, University of Wisconsin 61 Conversion in Australia, by James A. Servin, Warden of Standards,

Standards, Weights and Measures Branch, Thebarton, South

Australia 67 TUESDAY EVENING—JULY 9, 1974

Reception by Associate Membership 86 MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1974

Metric Plans, Programs, Problems:

The Metric Conversion of Scales as Viewed by the Scale Industry, by

William N. Shannon, Vice President, Marketing, Berkel Incor- porated 87

III
Page

Petroleum Industry, by Keith E. Bailey, Manager of Operations,

Williams Pipe Line Company 93 Metric Conversion for Gasoline Dispensing Systems, by Alfred C. Evans, Director of Engineering, Veeder-Root, Inc 97 The Implications of Metrication for the Packaging Industry, by

William E. Young, President, William E. Young and Company 108 NCWM Committee on Metric Planning, by Edward H. Stadolnik,

Head Administrative Assistant, Division of Standards, Executive

Office of Consumer Affairs, State of Massachusetts 114 AFTERNOON SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1974

No General Session Was Scheduled

Manufacturers' Equipment Display 127 MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1974

Net Weight—Policy and Procedure:

Progress Towards Uniform Compliance Testing, by Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards 131 USDA Net Weight Philosophy and Procedures, by Irwin Fried, Chief

Staff Officer, Systems Development and Sanitation Staff, Technical

Services, APHIS, Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, U.S. De- partment of Agriculture 136 The Case for State and Local Enforcement, by Herbert Cohen, Administrative Adviser, Department of Food and Agriculture, State

of California 142 An Industry In-Plant Quality Control Program, by Edward E. Wolski,

Manager, Quality Control, Colgate-Palmolive Company 153 Temperature Correction of Petroleum Products at Retail: Why Temperature Correction?, by George E. Mattimoe, Deputy Director, Division of Weights and Measures, Hawaii Department of Agriculture 166 Temperature Correction of Petroleum Products at Retail, by Harold

E. Harris, Engineering Coordinator, Exxon Company, U.S.A 181 REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Report of the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government, pre- sented by Lyman D. Holloway, Chairman, Supervisor, Division of Weights and Measures, Idaho Department of Agriculture 199 Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs, presented by Daniel I. Offner, Chairman, Commissioner of Weights and Measures, Department of Public Safety, City of St. Louis, Missouri 210 Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations, presented by Ronald M. Leach, Chairman, Chief, Food Inspection Division, Michigan

Department of Agriculture 218 Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, presented by

Trafford F. Brink, Chairman, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Vermont Department of Agriculture 228

IV
REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Page

Report of the Executive Committee, presented by John H. Lewis, Chair- man, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Dairy and Food Division,

Washington Department of Agriculture 243 Report of the Committee on Nominations, presented by George L. Johnson, Chairman, Director, Division of Weights and Measures, Kentucky

Department of Agriculture 246 Report of the Committee on Resolutions, presented by William H.

Korth, Chairman, Director, Weights and Measures, Consumer Affairs, Ventura County, California 247 Report of the Committee on Auditing, presented by W. B. Harper,

Chairman, Chief Inspector, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Inspection Services, City of Birmingham, Alabama 250 Report of t'he Treasurer, presented by C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights

and Measures, City of Gary, Indiana 250

Conference Registration List 252

V
OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

President: Richard W. Roberts, Director, National Bureau of Standards.

Executive Secretary: H. F. Wollin, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures,

National Bureau of Standards.

Chairman: J. H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Dairy and

Food Division, Washington Department of Agriculture.

Vice Chairmen:

L. H. De Grange, Field Supervisor, Weights and Measures Section, Division of Inspection and Regulation, Maryland Department of Agriculture.

L. D. Draghetti, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Agawam, Massachusetts.

G. E. Mattimoe, Deputy Director, Division of Weights and Measures,

Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

W. R. Sevier, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Gibson County, Indiana. Treasurer: C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana.

Chaplain: J. I. Moore, Superintendent, Weights and Measures Division, North

Carolina Department of Agriculture.

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Sergeants at Arms:

R. R. Roof, Laboratory Metrologist, Bureau of Standard Weights and

Measures, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

W. C. Sullivan, Supervisor, Weights and Measures, Seattle, Washington.

Parliamentarian: D. L. Griffith, Director, Division of Consumer Protection,

West Virginia Department of Labor.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

R. E. Bowers L. A. Rick

A. W. Fenger N. M. Ross

G. S. Franks H. E. Sandel

E. Keeley J. C. Stewart

R. K. LORENZ C. Wooten

(All officers of the Conference are, ex officio, members of the Executive Committee.)

(Officers and Executive Committee members elected by the 59th National

Conference to serve the 60th National Conference on Weights and Measures

will be found in the report of the Nominating Committee, page 246.) STANDING COMMITTEES

(The remaining term of office for each committee member, in years, is shown in parentheses.)

EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

D. I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri, Chairman (1) W. B. Harper, Birmingham, Alabama (4) E. Prideaux, Colorado

S. Valtri, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (3) R. T. Williams, Texas (2)

VI
(W. H. KORTH, Ventura County, California, was appointed for a five-year

term to replace E. Prideaux, whose term expired. Mr. Offner was reelected as chairman.)

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

R. M. Leach, Michigan, Chairman (1)

S. D. Andrews, Florida

J. L. O'Neill, Kansas (3) R. L. Thompson, Maryland (2) C. H. Vincent, Dallas, Texas (4)

(J. T. Bennett, Connecticut, was appointed for a five-year term to replace

S. D. Andrews, whose term expired. Mr. Thompson replaced Mr. Leach as chairman.)

LIAISON WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

L. D. HOLLOWAY, Idaho, Chairman (1) A. Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association

W. N. iSeward, American Petroleum Institute (2)

J. F. Speer, Milk Industry Foundation (3) E. H. Stadolnik, Massachusetts (4)

(C. G. Gehringer, Pennsylvania Scale Company, was appointed for a five- year term to replace A. Sanders, whose term expired. Mr. Seward replaced Mr. Holloway as chairman.)

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

T. F. Brink, Vermont, Chairman

W. E. CzAiA, Minnesota (3) M. L. Kinlaw, North Carolina (4) K. J. SiMiLA, Oregon (2) W. S. Watson, California (1)

(J. R. Bird, New Jersey, was appointed for a five-year term to replace

T. F. Brink, whose term expired. Mr. Watson replaced Mr. Brink as chair- man.)

ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Nominations: G. L. Johnson, Kentucky, Chairman; E. H. Black, Ventura

County, California; J. C. Boyd, Iowa; S. H. Christie, New Jersey; G. L. DeLano, Montana; J. F. Lyles, Virginia; C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana.

Resolutions W. H. Korth, Ventura County, California, Chairman; N. BUCUR,

Lake County, Indiana; R. H. Helmick, Arizona; W. F. JuNKiNS, Pennsylvania; T. E. KiRBY, Georgia; D. L. Lynch, Kansas City, Kansas; W. J. Tusen, New Hampshire.

Auditing: W. B. Harper, Birmingham, Alabama, Chairman; W. M. Baker,

Missouri; R. W. Probst, Wisconsin.

Associate Membership: J. F. Speer, Milk Industry Foundation, Chairman;

M. S. Godsman, Bennett Pump Company; C. E. Joyce, The Pillsbury Company; L. J. MOREMEN, International Nonwovens & Disposables Association;

VII
A. Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association; R. Southers, American

Petroleum Institute; R. Tolley, National Canners Association; E. F. Wehmann, Neptune Meter Company; E. E. Wolski, Colgate-Palmolive

Company.

REGISTRATIONS

Eva Beard, Kay Churchey, Daphne Gray

Patricia Raschella, Sandra J. Edgerly

LADIES' ARRANGEMENTS

Mrs. H. F. Wollin

MONDAY, JULY 8, 1974

OPEN COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Monday was set aside for meetings of the four Conference standing

committees. Notices of these meetings were carried in the Conference

Announcement booklet, in all pre-Conference publicity, and in the printed

Conference program. Many delegates participated in the committee meetings.

The discussions which took place were particularly helpful to the members

of each committee and played an important role in guiding the committees

in their deliberation and preparation of their final reports. The final reports

of the committees will be found beginning on page 199 and will reflect the

discussion that took place and the actions taken by the Conference at the time the final reports were presented to the delegates.

MANUFACTURERS' EQUIPMENT DISPLAY

An informal display of new equipment by manufacturers was held on Wednesday afternoon from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. for the education of the Conference delegates.

VIII
REPORT OF THE FIFTY-NINTH NATIONAL

CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1974

(John H. Lewis, Chairman, Presiding)

Mr. J. I. Moore, North Carolina, the Conference Chaplain,

delivered the invocation and led the delegates in the Pledge of

Allegiance,

ADVANCING MEASUREMENT ASSURANCE

IN THE MARKETPLACE

by John H. Lewis, Conference Chairman, Chief, Weights

and Measures Section, Dairy and Food Division, Washington

Department of Agriculture

Ladies and gentlemen and special guests,

it gives me a great deal of pleasure to ex- tend a warm w^elcome to the 59th Annual

Conference on Weights and Measures.

I feel very honored to be serving as your

chairman. I appreciate the confidence you

have placed in me by the election to this

position. At the time of my election in

Minneapolis, I had no idea I w^ould also be

chairing the meeting of the joint meetings

of the standing committees as we met for

the first time in a combined interim venture last January. The

many favorable comments and recommendations attest to the

success of this venture. The benefits derived from such a joint

meeting were recognized by the Executive Committee as it put

its stamp of approval on the slight increase in our registration

fee to cover the added cost. This added responsibility of chairing the joint meeting provides another challenge to the newly elected chairman; but I am

sure he w^ill find, as I did, the results will be just compensation

for the effort expended. I trust this opportunity to expose items

under consideration by the committees to a larger group for

counsel and deliberation will make a smoother running annual

Conference. It is my recommendation to the Conference that the

joint interim meetings be approved as a standard procedure.

1
Advancing measurement assurance in the marketplace has

been the goal of this Conference since its inception in 1905. There

have been many different titles, themes, and subjects considered

through the years, but the goal remains the same. The subjects

covered have run the gamut.

The concern over the accuracy and correctness of mechanical

devices resulted in the development of specifications and toler- ances which were set forth in various handbooks over the years.

Various devices have received their due consideration. These have

ranged from the simple steelyard scale used in weighing bales of

cotton to the new concept of computerized checkstand weighing

systems. Volumetric devices from the standardized dry pint and

dry quart containers range through the sophisticated liquid measure dispensers; the more recent design being the remote elec- tronic digital readout units. Meters ranging from the lowly length

meter used to measure wire and rope to the sophisticated liquid

petroleum and vapor meters have had their day under consideration by the Conference.

Methods of sale, as developed by the Conference, have contributed to measurement assurance. One of the earliest items to receive consideration was the method of sale of ice cream on the

agenda of the 18th National Conference in 1925. A standing committee on methods of sale functioned from the thirty-first through

the fortieth Conference. This committee had a real impact upon

uniform methods of sale as well as standardized units in such

areas as dairy products, flour, small fruit and berry containers,

and, to some degree, uniform labeling. It seems some products

continue to bug us—peat moss is a prime example, having appeared on the agenda of at least six different Conferences. Sale

and labeling of garden seeds was considered at the 38th Conference ; and this item again appears on the agenda at this, the 59th.

Model laws and regulations as developed by the Conference

have been a part of the procession of advancing measurement

assurance in the marketplace. The justifiable trend to provide the consumer with means to make comparative price evaluations

through more adequate informative labeling has also had an

effect upon accuracy in the marketplace. The new labeling requirements not only provided a clear, conspicuous quantity statement

but basically eliminated the philosophy of the approximate, minimum, or when packed weight concept.

The attainment of compliance and accuracy has been the result

of a cooperative effort on the part of many.

Many men of history in the weights and measures fraternity

have made their contribution to the establishment of the founda2
tion upon which we work today. One is always reluctant to mention names in the fear of slighting the memory of those who have

each had a share in history making. While my tenure with the

Conference is limited compared to many of you here today, I must say there are those in my memory who have made a lasting

impression on me and on the weights and measures community.

These have been men from both the regulatory side of the coin

as well as many from industry—men who took the trouble to concern themselves with the issues and participated in the discussions and open forum opportunities to enlighten some of us who were not so well informed. I must say there were occasions

when those who spoke most often soon convinced us they were

the least informed. But the opportunity to be heard has been

limited only by the clock itself. For as time permitted this Conference has enjoyed a very democratic atmosphere.

Many men from industry have given us the benefit of their

knowledge and expertise. The relationships and understanding of

mutual problems that have arisen between the regulator and the

regulated has produced one of the finest of working atmospheres.

Common respect for one another, willingness to listen, and each

opponent giving a little has resulted in reasonable solutions to many sticky problems. These men who have made their contribution, whether still active or having passed into the background,

are, nevertheless, men of history.

Those of us who the Good Lord permits to meet the challenges

of tomorrow are men of destiny. We will each make our contribution, in our own way, in our own time, in our own circle of

influence. The decisions made during this Conference and those

Conferences to follow will have their effect on the future. I am

convinced that frequently the unheralded make a greater contribution than we realize. The men in the field, the secretaries and

the clerks are those who get the job done. They are truly the

individuals who advance measurement assurance in the marketplace. Those of us who sit in policy or rule-making roles merely

furnish the tools with which to work.

In my own jurisdiction with our relatively small staff, it is evident that consistent enforcement has been effective. When I speak of my jurisdiction I take pride in including the four cities

of Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane (incidentally the site of Expo 74),

and Everett. Our combined effort and cooperation has had a

definite effect on advancing measurement assurance. Specifically,

I would refer to the improvement we have observed in the prepackaging industry.

I recall that initially some fifteen years ago our checkweighing

resulted in some 42 percent of all packages checkweighed being

3
ordered off sale. Through consistent checkweighing programs

carried on by our field personnel, follow-up letters by our office

staff, and certainly the cooperation of industry and assistance of

enforcement people in other jurisdictions, the percentage of off sale has declined to approximately 5 percent. I should add that

this percentage figure also includes off-sale action taken for mislabeling as well as short weight.

The same dedicated effort that brought about the results in

prepackaging has also been reflected in the field of mechanical

devices. Those of us who meet to make decisions, draft laws and

regulations, and establish policy would be of no avail if the many

workers on our staffs failed to function with the zeal and dedication that produce results.

We are now participating in a very real advancement of accur- acy in the marketplace. The computerized checkstand systems,

while in their infancy, have the potential to eliminate many

human errors. Errors are always costly to someone—either the

producer/merchandiser or the ultimate consumer. While many of us in the enforcement field must, of necessity, take a wait and

see attitude toward these new electronic systems, we must also

concede that upon perfection they will help us to achieve the goal

of measurement accuracy which we all desire.

We are now in the planning stage for metrication. While many

hours have been expended in planning for a changeover, we have

only just begun. The need to avoid duplication of effort and/or

authority, assumed or otherwise, is very real. Jealousies, allegations, innuendos, and bickering must be avoided if a smooth and

reasonable transition is to be accomplished.

An unknown author has left us with some rather sage advice:

As you travel down life's pathway,

Whatever be your goal,

Keep your eye upon the doughnut

And not upon the hole.

It is SO easy for us, and I include myself, to lose sight of our

goal and objective when we become distracted by trivia. As we

work with individuals or even groups we frequently allow ourselves to become annoyed with their insignificant peculiarities

and idiosyncrasies to the point that we are prone to overlook the

virtues, abilities, and traits we should recognize and reward with

commendation and praise.

I am sure we all recognize the rather disorganized total metric

picture. I feel that until Congress assumes the leadership responsibility that is rightfully theirs and takes the steps to establish a

4
national metric board, we can only assume our present position

and move forward as best we can. We must recognize and applaud those who are making an effort

to bring order out of chaos. Groups have been formed by industry, by individual firms, and by organizations such as ours to make contributions to orderly organization. As we hear from those on the program of our Conference we will learn of efforts, plans,

accomplishments, and hopes from various segments that are deeply involved with the challenge that lies before us. The metric system is advancing upon us faster than we care

to admit. At one point metrication was given consideration as being the theme of the 59th Conference. The advent of certain

setbacks and delays caused us to reconsider and reach a decision

that possibly we were moving too fast. However, you will note

from your program that much time has been devoted to this

subject. The metric system with the interrelated units, decimalized, and in conjunction with our decimalized monetary system

will definitely advance measurement accuracy and price comparison in the marketplace.

I am sure we as men and women of destiny will accept the

challenge to do our part in advancing measurement assurance in

the marketplace. This involves participation in the national picture or fulfilling our responsibility at home; we each have our

part to play. But let us each keep our eye upon the doughnut.

May we make every effort to evaluate our priorities and not get

too concerned about those things which are inconsequential.

Some of you have been prevailed upon to speak to groups on

the metric system. As we move closer to metrication, more, if not all, of us will face the need to calm the fears of the common

man or woman as they anticipate what they consider a horrible

confusion caused by the changeover. While not an expert, I have

had a few occasions to speak to groups on the metric system. I have had the opportunity to attend a metric seminar conducted

by experts. I was pleased to note the general tenor of the seminar was one of assurance that a calm approach to metrication was

not only desirable but possible if we keep the technicalities to a minimum. The relief you see in the faces of people when they

realize it will be a progression rather than a thunderbolt approach emphasizes our need to reassure those to whom we speak

rather than confuse them with terms they may never use. A case in point is the rather big to-do about the proper spelling

of the word "metre" or whether someone refers to a gram or litre as a base unit when talking about the metre, gram, and litre. We

sometimes get so involved with technicalities that we forget our prime purpose is to help people understand the units they will be

5
using. May we leave the technicalities to the technicians. Time

will iron out such changes as are needed for uniformity.

I wish to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to those with whom I have been working closely this past year: to Dr. Richard Roberts, as president of our Conference, for his

hospitality, confidence and understanding; to Dr. Ernest Ambler

for his interest in our interim meetings, his hospitality and contribution to the success of our Conference; to Harold Wollin and

his staff, without whom we would have no Conference (their

attention to detail, putting the Conference together, and keeping

me informed of program and committee matters has made this

year as chairman a highlight in my career) ; to each officer, committee chairman, and committee member, my appreciation for

the effort you have expended to make this a successful year; to each speaker and each panel member for your effort and expertise that adds to our knowledge that we may zero in on that

doughnut rather than the hole ; to each member of the Conference

as your attendance and participation will make a real contribution to the continuing achievement of our perennial goal of

advancing measurement assurance in the marketplace.

ADDRESS

by the Honorable Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary

for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce

At a time of sharpened focus on the differing but complementary functions of the

various levels of government, it is particularly appropriate that I address, today, one

of the models of cooperative efforts among

Federal, state and local governments. I am

talking about you!

A success model like this Conference is one of the examples to which the Department of Commerce points with pride when

the philosophy of the "New Federalism" is discussed.

Just what is the "New Federalism"? It is the realization that

it is not always necessary or efficient to use direct national action

to achieve national goals. It is the recognition of the differing

roles appropriate to each level of government. It is the implementation of partnership rather than domination among the

levels of government.

6
Our national highway system and the Agricultural Extension

Program have established records of achievement with each

focusing upon a national goal, implemented, however, at the

state and local levels. All fifty states have been partners with the Federal Highway

Administration and the USDA Extension Service in the communication of national needs and in their satisfaction. In both cases sophisticated technical know-how was required,

but implemented through officials familiar with the local population and responsible to it. Let me add some perspective to this concept of "New Federalism." Despite our tendency to accept such terms as the pollution

problem or the transportation problem, we know that the character of these and other public needs is not the same across the

nation. The states and the localities within each state differ

greatly in size, population, physical environment, and economic

development.

Each state has its own administrative framework, the result

of its constitution and legislative process, giving differing types

of authority to county and municipal or other local governments.

But it is at these levels—state and local—that the responsibility

primarily exists for direct services to the people. Thus, it is not

surprising that the characteristics of many domestic problems

and their detailed solutions vary from locality to locality. Moreover, our nation and its various governmental systems have grown

incredibly complex—requiring some rather sophisticated re- sponses to public needs.

Fully one-half of the states have populations greater than three

million (as large or larger than Ireland, Israel, or Norway). Sixty

percent of the states spent as much as $2 billion in 1969 (or as much as Israel, Turkey, and Venezuela). Approximately one-half

billion dollars in general revenue sharing funds went to New York

and California last year, but each of these states spent $30 billion

of their own money that year. Only eleven out of the fifty states are less than fifty percent urban in character ; and none of these

eleven has less than forty percent urban population. My contention that our governmental systems have grown complex is self- evident; indeed, there is no alternative.

The depth and enormity of the public service requirements

generated by a nation of our size and composition are such that a partnership, drawing upon the resources of government at all levels, is the only sensible approach to meeting these requirements

and, I think, will continue to prove the strength of the American

political system.

7
At the Federal level, government is building the nation's

capacity to act rather than react—to move avv^ay progressively

from crisis management towards a planned, deliberate choice of

options for the future—meeting problems before they become

crises.

For example, there is an enormous effort at the Federal level to make the United States less dependent on imported oil. Our

goal is the development of domestic technological options in

energy supply which will make it possible to avoid in the future our international vulnerabilities recently demonstrated so vividly

in the energy crisis gas station lines. At the National Bureau of Standards and elsewhere in Federal

scientific laboratories, we are studying the merits of, and developing the potential for, increased utilization of coal, oil, natural

gas, nuclear fuel, and solar radiation in this effort to reestablish

the self-sufficiency of our nation's energy supply.

State and local governments must plan far into the future for

their citizens' energy requirements. They must make these plans

with an understanding of the several and growing number of

energy options and their drawbacks. These governments must

choose sites of power facilities appropriate to environmental,

growth, and other concerns. In short, they must implement these

new technologies for the public good.

However, energy needs cut across the fabric of society. And

all of the government must weave the diverse threads of energy

industries and consuming sectors—private citizens, commerce,

and industry—into cloth of a common purpose.

There appears small chance of closing the gap between domestic supply and demand unless growth of demand can be restrained.

Energy conservation by improving the efficiency of manufacturing processes must be increasingly practiced by industry. Public

services delivered by local and Federal Government, such as trans- portation and housing, must be planned with conservation of

energy as a major objective for public benefit. Again, a partnership of all levels of government and industry towards meeting

our common goal is the mechanism for achieving that goal.

Another instance of Federal action, also international in scope,

is the accession of the United States to the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). We are negotiating with other

nations—developed and developing alike—to arrive at international standards of weights and measures.

This international harmonization of legal requirements in the

general areas of measuring device performance and the assur- ance of protection against economic fraud (as Mr. Athane later

8
will be discussing) will help each state to look with its industries

towards markets not only with other states but with other nations.

Let me give you another example of federal partnership provided by another organization in my secretariat. Senator Inouye

of Hawaii requested information from a number of government

sources in 1971 asking whether proposed national communication

satellite systems adequately addressed the communications needs

of his state. The senator considered the response received from

the Office of Telecommunicaitons to be most useful in his inquiry.

Also in 1971 the Governor of Alaska asked the Director of the

Office of Telecommunications for analytical assistance on numerous issues relating to telecommunications for his state. The Office

of Telecommunications made a significant contribution by helping

institute long-range planning and management required to satisfy

Alaska's emerging needs as a developing frontier state rapidly

advancing to a position of great national importance.

Our nation's industries need and deserve this broad viewpoint;

we must all—Federal, state, and local—cultivate it. As a scientist and public servant, I see many of the nation's

requirements, such as clean water, proper land use, law enforcement, traffic and mine safety, and disaster mitigation, for examples, being met with programs or components of programs which

are products of science and technology. Yet, science and technology have not yet become central enough in the strategies of

state or local governments. It is here, again, that a partnership

is called for. As I have indicated, effective, workable public service programs

require that the state and local government officials who will be

implementing these plans be participating in the design and organization of the programs. However, the problems do possess com- mon elements which a central research focus is most efficient in

handling. And, Federal laboratories represent huge central re- sources of science and technology—469 installations, an annual

combined budget of approximately $7 billion, and major installations of more than 100 professionals apiece located in 32 states. The Department of Commerce's laboratories and technical services are somewhat special in that they are quite experienced in

interfacing and cooperating with state and local governments

towards mutual objectives. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the

National Conference on Weights and Measures and its close relationship with NBS is a model which other Federal laboratories

could well use in developing a working relationship with other

levels of government in their own mission areas. To help us work together, however, I must emphasize the

importance of state and local governments identifying and articu9
lating their problems and needs in terms specific enough so that

the resources of technology can be applied. For this, an ongoing

communications and delivery system is essential. Development of

this system is the role of such organizations as yours and a

responsibility of everyone working in the commercial w^eights

and measures system.

By promoting uniformity, you are setting standards of performance in both measuring devices and enforcement procedures.

This standardization in state and local governmental requirements on a national scale aggregates the market to which industry can then respond. Few industries can invest funds to produce

a product which only one or two states will buy or approve for

sale in its jurisdiction. Therefore, through the activities of such

organizations as the National Conference on Weights and Measures, you have developed an even larger partnership—government

and industry working toward the public good.

In an effort to satisfy what appear to be emerging public

needs, look into the future with me now:

NBS is working in areas which are aspects of what we used

to call quality, but are being defined, measured, and, therefore,

quantified for today and tomorrow.

There is work going on at NBS in consumer and government

product performance and safety, flammable fabrics, and water

and air quality, to name only a few—a far cry from custody of

the standards of mass and length.

What I propose is that you at the state and local governmental

levels have an opportunity and responsibility in such matters also. The traditional responsibility of state and local governments has

been the regulation of the measure of goods and services bought

and sold within the state. This is a basic public service which

preserves the integrity of marketplace transactions in the United

States today.

Still, within this traditional scope of weights and measures,

you may already be confronted with commercial measurement

problems far beyond your traditional measurements and assur- ance of mass, length, and volume. Accuracy determinations of

clinical thermometers, of timing devices, or of instruments to measure moisture in grain are all part of your basic mission to insure equity in the marketplace. However, today's citizens are asking for more. Recent legislation is a barometer of that demand.

The National Environmental Protection Act, the Occupational

Safety and Health Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Act

are all indicators of the public awareness that economics is not

the sole factor in the quality of life.

10
However, implementation of these technologically dependent

programs is often hampered by the absence of knowledgeable and

capable agencies at the state and local levels—except for weights

and measures. Your weights and measures departments are staffed

with technicians and other professionals who understand the

importance of measurement. You, therefore, have the opportunity,

like NBS, to get involved in measurement of some aspects of the

quality of life. I have kept in mind that these additional responsibilities will

require intense development and refinement of government's ability to manage its programs. Priorities and objectives will have

to be set, resources allocated, and mountains of information and

data properly utilized in arriving at these decisions. We in government are being called upon to improve our efficiency and ulti- mate productivity.

The overall standardization process in which you are involved

now—the operating objectives of the National Conference on Weights and Measures—will do much towards attaining these

goals. And, I know as part of this government partnership, the

National Bureau of Standards will be working with you all to

define, measure, and improve those fields of mutual concern which

contribute towards equity in the marketplace.

EXPANDING THE NATION'S

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

by Dr. Arthur 0. McCoubrey, Director, Institute for Basic

Standards, National Bureau of Standards

It is a great pleasure for me to address

this distinguished gathering of those who

make our national measuring system work.

Although I am rather new at weights and

measures, I am not new to the general busi- ness of measurements. I enjoyed many years

of participation in the industrial development of time and frequency standards and

I well appreciate the great importance which

measurements have for industry, science,

and for the public at large. Therefore, I am

pleased to represent Dr. Roberts, your Conference president, at

this plenary session of your organization; and I want to express

to you, for him, the continuing enthusiasm and good will which

the National Bureau of Standards brings to its work with this

Conference. I also want to say on behalf of Dr. Roberts how

11
pleased we are to be working with the International Organization of Legal Metrology.

I want to talk to you briefly about three things. The first is a

detailed study of the National Measurement System of the United

States which we have been carrying out in parts at the National

Bureau of Standards for the last two years. We continue to ask

ourselves serious questions about our role in expanding the

Nation's measurement system, about the economic dimensions of

this system, about the leverage of our work and about the details

of our many programs. We have gained many new insights and

I think that you will be interested in some of the findings.

As a second topic, I would like to discuss a few things about

technologies in which you and we have a common interest. There

is a variety of problems on which we ought to do our forward

thinking together as we participate in the expansion of the

Nation's measurement system.

And third, I would like to show you just a couple of the interesting results which our scientific work has led us into recently.

These are pleasant spinoffs of measurement science—some of

them exotic and others very practical.

I. THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEM STUDY

Our National Measurement System study is an outgrowth of some ideas which were described before this Conference in 1967

by Dr. Huntoon. By the National Measurement System we mean

something very broad; namely, the network of measurement

standards, instruments, procedures, institutions, and people that

generate the base on which all day-to-day measurement operations are conducted at all levels of accuracy throughout the

United States. The study is an effort to determine the organizational structure and the economic leverage of physical measure- ment activities and the purpose of the study is largely to guide

us at the National Bureau of Standards in making more effective use of the taxpayer's dollar. Our National Measurement System studies of the past two

years have been carried out in two parts. The first part, a macrostudy, consisted of a look at the overall system in order to determine something about the economic dimensions. This was a study

in economics carried out by an economist and the information

which we used was taken from some detailed Department of

Labor and Department of Commerce statistics. From these data

it was possible to draw some rather broad estimates of how

measurement related activities contribute to the gross national

product of the Nation.

12
For example, the study indicated that six percent of the gross

national product, or about 70 billion dollars, is generated bymeasurement related activity. Of this amount, about 20 billion

dollars consists of value added to the gross national product by

industries represented in the National Conference of Standards

Laboratories. The cost of services provided by these standards

laboratories throughout the Nation is 230 million dollars. These

figures indicate, first, that measurement activity is indeed a large

business ; and, second, there is, in fact, a great amount of leverage

in the services provided by standards labs. For the second part of our intensive study, v^e divided our measurement activities into twenty-one areas and undertook a microstudy in each case examining each of the technical areas in

fine detail. The microstudies were carried out by the people who

are actually responsible for the work in each of the different technical areas. Data were collected by several different methodf

including visits to industry, special reports written by committees organized for the purpose, the reports of our National Academy of Sciences Evaluation Panels, and information from industry associations.

Our microstudies have provided us with many important results. For example, in the case of the Mass Measurement System

we were able to determine that National Bureau of Standards'

services are effectively available for all the identifiable users representing all levels of accuracy. We were able to get a feel for

the large volume of commercial weighings with which your

organization is concerned.

While our studies revealed that the Mass Measurement System

is a mature measurement system with no important needs which

are not satisfied, it is also clear that it is not a static subsystem,

and many new developments will be required in order to maintain it. For example, data handling is expanding so rapidly in

the area of consumer weighing and so many measurements can

be made so fast that the consumer's whole relation to the information will be changed.

We are going to have to rethink our whole approach to measurements control in this area due to the rapid growth of automation in point-of-sale equipment. Your concern for this is reflected by an entire afternoon devoted to related topics during

your plenary meeting last year. My friends in industry have

recently shown me some of the new developments in automatic

label reading equipment, and I am convinced that we will all have to work together very effectively if we are to meet these

needs in expanding the National Measurement System.

13
In the case of length, we found that 80 percent of all industrial

measurements involves displacement. While methods and standards for measuring length are adequate, there are important

areas of application which require new development.

In some of our microstudies we found areas of requirements

which we had not been aware of previously. For example, we

learned that the surface finish on dairy pipes and containers is important to the inspector because he must be able to see by

reflection that things are clean. We also learned that the surface

finish on surgical implants is very important to avoid blood clot- ting and to insure compatibility with the body.

In several important cases, our microstudies revealed needs for

which we do not now have adequate capability to provide services

which are required. For example, in the case of humidity which

Dr. Ancker-Johnson has mentioned, we discovered the real importance of large scale agricultural needs for the determination

of moisture in grain; and we are now trying to find ways of

helping the United States Department of Agriculture to solve

this problem. We had a workshop on this topic recently with

George Johnson of your organization, representing the state of

Kentucky, and Edward Waggoner, representing the state of

California.

Our National Measurement System studies are giving us some

guidance on management questions including the allocation of our limited resources. For example, they help us determine

whether or not we should undertake new measurements assur- ance programs such as the program which Mr. Cameron, of my

office, and Mr. Harry Johnson, of the Office of Weights and

Measures, are now carrying out on two-pound weights in cooperation with several state laboratories which have received the

NBS sets of masses. We still have many steps in this study to complete including

the development of meaningful methods for determining the

economic value of each of our many services in the society.

Our intensive study of the National Measurement System has

established a much closer relationship between the staff members of the National Bureau of Standards and the users of our

services. This is very much becoming a way of life, and it is indeed a healthy one. These studies give us a picture of the National Measurement

System as a vast corporate structure, having private elements

as well as government elements at the federal, state, and local

levels. I suggest that we should all regard NBS as the central

research and development facility for this complex National

Measurement System, providing central standards, undertaking

14
special projects of broad common interest and providing the new

measurement technologies for those who are responsible for the

delivery of measurement services. Our role in the government

partnership described by Dr. Ancker-Johnson, as well as our

response to the trends of "New Federalism," seems clear within

this context.

II. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY

Now I would like to talk about some developments in new technologies which are important at NBS and which I think will be

of special interest to you. These are areas in which our joint

efforts will be essential in the near future.

A. We have recently entered into a contract with API for an

extensive project—measuring the densities of crude oil samples

from 175 fields around the world. These fields account for 80

percent of known international reserves and production. All samples will be measured by a common controlled technique, with

enough repeat measurements to characterize the variability both

of the substance and of the measurements. The API selected

NBS because of our extensive experience with international meas- urement standards. I see that Harold E. Harris, from the Exxon

Company and from API, will be speaking tomorrow on related

questions in connection with petroleum products at retail. B. You may recall that in 1971, Doug Mann, LNG Program

Manager of our Cryogenics Division, addressed the NCWM on

cryogenic fluids. Since then a new code for cryogenic fluid metering has been adopted on a tentative basis as part of Handbook

44; and NBS cryogenic fluid and fluid metering programs have

been concentrating increasingly on liquefied natural gas, and

especially on ways to measure its heating value accurately, when

it is loaded on or off tanker ships. The problem is that LNG is a mixture of fluids which evaporate at different rates during an

ocean voyage; at the off-loading dock, where enormous volumes

must be pumped at high speed, the mixture is not the same as that originally loaded into the tanks. As much as $30,000 worth

of heating value may be at stake in a single shipload. NBS is trying to help this situation by providing better means for using

flowmeters and better methods for verifying the heating value

of the mixture with calorimetric sampling. The project is sponsored largely by the American Gas Association.

C. Now to change to a different subject, I would like to illus- trate how NBS is helping with a new problem connected with

pollution, which is something that the state members of this

audience are going to be seeing more and more in the near future.

15
The Environmental Protection Administration has asked us

to help them in establishing uniform methods of measurement

for pollutants in the atmosphere. Figure 1 shows a tiny glass

critical-flow nozzle, which we have provided for their laboratories

to enable them to sample air at specified intake rates. Figure 2

shows a scheme for mixing standard polluted atmosphere under

controlled conditions. Figure 3 shows how we do this with controlled leak valves. By attaching sulfur dioxide to one inlet and

compressed air to the other, the user has only to read the two

pressure gauges to know what mixture of standard pollutant gas

he is delivering to his test rig. Figure 4 shows this assembly

ready to work in an EPA test lab. And finally, we are also looking into methods for measuring exhaust flow rate from a car

tailpipe (figure 5). This turns out to be pretty complex; and the

presently recommended apparatus is larger than the car.

Figure 1

16
Polluted Air Delivery System

Critical

X Nozzle

Pure

^R T < 5 LPM

r MIXER ANALYZER

.25X10"'^ LPM

.01 PPM SO'

2.5X10"^ LPM

.1 PPM SO'

2^XlQ~^ LPM

1 PPM SO2

POROUS PLUGS

2000 PPM SO'

FiGXJRE 2

D. Turning now to Monsieur Athane's area of international

legal standards, we are cooperating with the Conference on

several "Pilot Secretariats" for the International Organization

of Legal Metrology, especially Secretariats 7 and 8 on Masses

and Weighing, respectively. My own office, in the Institute for

Basic Standards, will provide, through Dr. Chester Page, Pilot

Secretariat 13 on Measurement of Electric and Magnetic Quantities and, through Mr. J. M. Cameron, Pilot Secretariat 22 on

the General Principles of Measuring Instrument Verification.

17
FiGxniE 3

Figure 4

18
Figure 5

III. SOME RECENT NBS SCIENTIFIC SPINOFFS

Next I would like to tell you about some of our more exciting

recent accomplishments which do not necessarily demand our

joint efforts in the near future. A few days ago, NASA launched a satellite which will soon be turned over to the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration for their weather service programs. This satellite provides a high frequency channel by means

of which we will be able to send out a new time and frequency

broadcast signal. The coverage of this new broadcast signal is wide and reliable—it will be received more easily and more accurately than the signals from our present stations, WWV and

WWVH. We have tested the broadcast channel, and it works!

This is just the beginning of a new form of service that should

ultimately replace our famous earth-bound stations which have

been operating for more than fifty years.

Next I will mention a result which is "far out" in many

respects. As you know, NBS is very highly skilled in the interpretation of emission and absorption spectra. This skill has

recently been applied to millimetre wave signals coming from

the direction of the Orion Nebula molecular cloud and dimethyl

ether has been identified by its emissions at 90.9 and 86.2 GHz.

This molecule, with two methyl groups, is the most complex

molecule ever detected in interstellar matter. The discovery indi- cates that large organic molecules have indeed been produced out

in space in sufficient quantities to be detected. The observed

19
spectra, although complicated, are amenable to analysis ; and they

give hints as to the environment in which the molecules find

themselves. The result may have an important bearing upon the

question of life in other parts of the universe.

To close, I would like to give you a little bit of a fish story.

The state of Washington, under the sponsorship of the National

Marine Fisheries Service, has placed with NBS a couple of projects for the large scale mathematical modeling of the Pacific

Coast salmon hatcheries and fisheries. This is big business in the

state of Washington; the annual yield is thought to be over 100

million dollars, when both commercial and sport fishing are considered. Dr. Fred Johnson, the NBS mathematician conducting

this research, came to NBS from the state of Washington.

The problem is to augment the hatchery-supplied fraction of

the catch, which as we see in figure 6 is a good half of the total.

FiGXJRE 6

The hatcheries are constrained by the amount of water they have

available through the breeding season; and the schedule on which they let out one year's crop of salmon youngsters, and

start the following year's, turns out to be very critical. Figures

7 and 8 show a before-and-after approach to the timing of raise

and release and the improvements in the cycle which Fred Johnson recommends. At about $10,000 of increased hatchery costs,

it is possible to produce a salmon crop for which a million dollars' more value winds up in Washington State—so this is a very

good bargain for the state.

20
COHO 1 COHO 0

JAN. FEB. MM. APR. MAY JUNE JUU AU6. SEPT. MOMTNLV WATER AUOUTHM

MINTER CREEK—PRODUCTION COMPROMISI

POUNDS RELEASED 259.000

FISHERY BENEFITS $2,090,000

HATCHERY COSTS $209,000

B=C RATIO 10.0 Figure 7

JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AU8. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. MONTHLY WATER ALLOCATION

MINTER CREEK—HATCHERY OPTIMIZATION

POUNDS RELEASED 282.000

FISHERY BENEFITS $3,100,000

HATCHERY COSTS $211,000 B=C RATIO 14.7Figure 8

21
Next we see the sort of answers which come from the hatcherymodeling—they are many and varied. A very interesting follow- on is what happens to the salmon in the coast fisheries. The sal- mon leaving the river may turn north and go to Canada ; or with

careful timing and a little coaxing, they can turn south and wind

up on a U.S. hook. A most difficult feature of this fisheries problem is to insure that the Indians can take from the fish crop the

full half of the fish passing their shores—this is a matter of long

standing treaty rights.

And finally, I show you Fred Johnson himself; and you see why he is interested in the whole matter (figure 9).

Figure 9

22
It is now my privilege to announce the appointments for service on the four Conference standing committees. The individuals

appointed to these committees have all had considerable experience in the field of weights and measures and in the work of

this Conference. I believe they fully understand the obligations

and opportunities of standing committee service. We are grateful

to them and to the outgoing committee members.

The appointment of new committee members is as follows

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances:

Mr. James R. Bird, Deputy State Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Department of Law and Public Safety, State of

New Jersey, is appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr.

Trafford F. Brink whose term is expiring.

Committee on Laws and Regulations:

Mr. John T. Bennett, Chief, Weights and Measures Division,

Department of Consumer Protection, State of Connecticut, is appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr. Sydney D.

Andrews whose term is expiring.

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Aifairs:

Mr. William H. Korth, Director, Weights and Measures, Con- sumer Affairs, Ventura County, California, is appointed for a

five-year term to replace Mr. Earl Prideaux whose term is expiring.

Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government:

Mr. C. G. "Joe" Gehringer, Vice President of Operations,

Pennsylvania Scale Company, Leola, Pennsylvania, is appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr. Arthur Sanders

whose term is expiring.

PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

Dr. McCoubrey presented Honor Awards to members of the

Conference who, by attending the 58th Conference in 1973,

reached one of the five attendance categories for which recognition is made—attendance at 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 meetings.

23
Award Recipients

W. E. Kerlin

W. W. Wells

B. S. CiCHOWicz

W. E. CZAIA

N. BUCUR

E. M. BURNETTE

D. B. COLPITTS

G. L. Delano

F. A. Dobbins

M. Greenspan

S. Hasko

L. J. MOREMEN

A. A. MULLIKEN

J. L. O'Neill

W. R. Sevier

J. C. Stewart

S. F. Valtri

E. E. WOLSKI

25 YearsAmerican Petroleum Institute

Formerly District of Columbia

20 YearsSouth Bend, Indiana

15 YearsMinnesota

10 YearsLake County, Indiana

Formerly National Bureau of

Standards

General Mills Inc. Montana

Quaker Oats Company

Formerly New York City,

New York

National Bureau of Standards

International Nonwovens &

Disposables Association

Chemical Specialties

Manufacturers Association

Kansas

Gibson County, Indiana

Virginia

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Colgate-Palmolive Company

AWARD OF APPRECIATION TO MR. ARTHUR SANDERS

Mr. Arthur Sanders, who recently retired as Executive Secretary, Scale Manufacturers Association, was presented an award

for his many valuable contributions to the National Conference on Weights and Measures over a period of 28 years.

Top photo: Mr. Wollin presents Mr. Sanders with a certificate

of appreciation which reads:

In appreciation for service rendered to the National Conference on Weights and Measures

and to weights and measures administration

nationally

Bottom photo: Mr. Wollin presents Mr. Sanders with a National Conference on Weights and Measures medallion commemorating the signing by President John Adams of the first weights

and measures law in the United States on March 2, 1799.

24
25
INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY IN

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

by Bernard Athane, Director

International Bureau of Legal Metrology

It is for me a real pleasure and honor to attend and address the 59th National Conference on Weights and Measures. The relations between the National Conference and

our International Organization of Legal

Metrology (OIML in its French abbreviation) have always been real and friendly.

Let us always remember some important

dates of this collaboration:

• In 1937 Dr. Crittenden, assistant director of the National

Bureau of Standards, was the U.S. delegate at the First

International Conference of Practical Metrology (that is the

first attempt to create the organization, ruined by the international situation two years after).

• In 1958 Dr. Muhe of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (who is now the member of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) for the German Federal

Republic) ; then in 1963 Dr. Stulla Gotz, Director of the

Austrian Metrological Service and president of the CIML,

addressed your Conference on OIML.

• More recently, we must remember the elocution in 1970 of

Mr. Van Male, director of the Dutch Metrological Office and

president of the International Committee of Legal Metrology

and in 1972 the address of Mr. Andrus, now United States

member of the International Committee, only a few months

before the U.S. joined our organization.

At the end of his speech, Mr. Andrus said, "In conclusion,

I would like to say we are over the first hurdle. We have come to an agreement within the Executive Branch of the

Government that U.S. membership in OIML is desired and

needed. The next hurdle is that of obtaining Senate approval,

and early action on this is dependent upon the sense of

urgency associated with this legislation."

Now, a little more than two years later, I can only say that,

like a good racer, the U.S. has prepared itself so that it can pass

all the hurdles which separated it from OIML; and that, carried

26
on by its enthusiasm, it is now becoming one of the most active

countries in our organization, as can be seen by the number of

pilot secretariats they hold.

It may well be true to say that until now OIML has been

dominated by European countries. However, I feel that this time

is past and perhaps now we may find it difficult to prevent OIML

from being dominated by the United States!

I shall come back, at the end of my address, to the part that

your nation can and must play in the OIML activities ; but before

this I would like to develop certain considerations about the

international aspects of weights and measures. Diplomacy is both the science and the practice of good relationships between countries. Diplomacy is conducted by representatives of the countries; and these representatives, by means

of negotiations, try to reach agreements which will be accepted

and implemented by the different parties.

In fact, OIML, like all intergovernmental organizations, is a

diplomatic institution. We can examine how the diplomatic work

which applies to a specific subject, that is legal metrology, can be done. This leads me to the different subject headings of my

address

• Who are the actors in the diplomatic activity?

• How can the negotiations be conducted?

• What must be the relations with other international

institutions?

• How are the decisions to be implemented?

THE ACTORS

By definition, legal metrology is a governmental matter. In

consequence, the principal participants in the negotiations are

representatives of the legal metrology (weights and measures)

departments. But, by a sort of paradox, it appears that the

weights and measures officials are perhaps the least concerned

with the modifications which can result from international

agreement.

The people most concerned are, of course, the trilogy: manufacturers, users, consumers.

Let us have a simple example : Suppose that in some countries

the maximum error tolerated on a meter used in gasoline pumps

is 0.5 percent (under- and overregistration) . Imagine that by an

international agreement, this error is reduced to 0.2 percent. The

manufacturer will be the first concerned, because he will be

obliged to review the conception of his meters—adjusting device.

27
tightness, and so on—in order to improve the metrological characteristics of his product. Then the user will no longer be able

to have his pump adjusted to take advantage of the 0.5 percent

error to compensate perhaps for losses such as evaporation or

leakage, or to increase his profits. The consumer, finally, should

be quite happy since he pays a fairer price for the gasoline he

uses, although he may not be aw^are of this!

For the weights and measures official, the work will not be

changed at all. The pattern approval procedures and testing in

the field will be carried out with the same standards and testing

equipment; only the tolerances will have changed.

As they are not personally involved, the weights and measures

officials are able to represent impartially their national interests;

that is, the sometimes conflicting interests of their manufacturers,

users, and consumers. Of course, we must not be too formal on this point and it is not

essential that the representative of a country in an OIML meeting be always a government official; he can, for example, be a member of a manufacturers association. But in that case, he is not the spokesman of his association but of his country as a whole.

I do not feel I need to dwell on this point. I can only admire

the logical and realistic way in which you have undertaken the

creation of national committees which are entrusted with the

definition of the U.S. national point of view in regard to OIML

studies, according to the interests of U.S. manufacturers, users, and consumers.

THE NEGOTIATIONS

It is obvious that a few hours of discussion are better than a long exchange of letters and documents. That is why most of the

progress in the technical work of OIML is made during meetings

in which the reporting secretariat (that is, the weights and measures department of the country which has accepted responsibility

for the study subject) and the collaborating countries meet

together. At these meetings the spirit of compromise fundamental

to negotiation must prevail if valid decisions are to be reached.

It is not necessary for me to say much about these meetings

because they are all very similar and especially since the United

States has participated in nearly all the OIML meetings since

they joined our organization. But, I would like to point out some

difficulties connected with these meetings, and which hinder the

development of OIML work.

In many countries, weights and measures departments are very

small government institutions with just enough officials for their

28
own national work. We must consider that participation in OIML

work is a sort of overtime which, in its turn, does not reduce the

national work in an appreciable manner. Perhaps, I could make

a comparison with the field of standardization.

You know, perhaps, that the Danish Standardization Institution has decided to stop its national work so that it can devote

all its activity to international standardization. In doing so, the

Danish Standardization Institution has not abandoned its national

responsibilities; the Danish standards will simply be issued

through international standards.

In the field of legal metrology, such a solution is not possible

because the legislative work of weights and measures departments is only a small part of their activity, the main part being

the various technical operations of pattern approval, ispection,

and testing.

In consequence, the organization of a technical meeting is a heavy charge; and secretariat countries cannot undertake this too frequently. This is one of the explanations of the slowness of

the OIML activities.

Another diflJiculty, for certain collaborating countries, is the

financial impact of the meetings. You know how expensive journeys from one country to another are today; and very often, for

this reason, weights and measures departments cannot properly

fulfill their role as collaborators in a working group. Because of

this, a large part, too large in my opinion, of the OIML technical

work is done by correspondence. I strongly hope that the creation

of pilot secretariats will remedy these difficulties by better coor- dinating the work and by making it possible to hold at the same

time connected meetings of their reporting secretariats.

The last point under this heading I would like to mention is the problem of communication ; that is, language. You know that

the only official language in OIML is French, although any major

language may be used during working group meetings. In addition, I would like to asssure you that I strongly favor the setting

up of a translation center which will provide the English speaking

member countries with translations of all the letters, drafts, rec- ommendations, comments, and other international documents,

etc., produced by our organization.

RELATIONS WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

I can class the international institutions with which OIML is in

relation into two categories:

29
1. International institutions without specific technical aims,

for which OIML can play the role of technical adviser; and

2. International institutions with technical aims connected

with those of OIML.

In the first category there are, for example, some economic or

political institutions—like the European Economic Commission

of UNO, the Customs Cooperation Council, and also the institutions concerned with the industrial development of developing

countries.

I can say that the work of these institutions does not really

overlap with ours, but they can use our organization as technical

adviser, for example, to provide them with international documents they can use or to give valuable information about legal

metrology.

This activity of technical advisers will increase in the future,

particularly for developing countries for which a special department has been created inside the Bureau.

The second category is composed of international institutions

which deal with measuring instruments either from the technical

point of view (particularly the standardization institutions—ISO

and lEC) or from the legal point of view (for example, the Common Market and the Mutual Economic Assistance Council).

The international standardization institutions have, of course, a lot of work to do on measuring instruments. It is necessary

that this standardization work be done in close cooperation with

our organization and, conversely, that OIML work be carried out

with the participation of these institutions to save time, undesirable overlapping, and publication of contradictory international

documents.

Concerning ISO and lEC, you know that agreements were

signed several years ago between OIML and these institutions

but these agreements were general. It has not been found possible

to define precisely the frontiers between standardization and legal

metrology. In fact, no general principles can be laid down which

make it possible to draw these frontiers exactly.

In my opinion, it is necessary to examine, for each instrument,

the possibility of reaching an agreement about the repetition of

the responsibilities of the diff"erent organizations.

As a guideline for that repetition, we can take the fact that

OIML recommendations must deal with the metrological performance of measuring instruments, protection of all parties

against fraud, and give some prescriptions about pattern approval

and testing in order to obtain international harmonization of the

legal requirements of the diflferent member countries.

30
It is possible that some technical characteristics of the instruments may influence their metrological performance. In such a

case, it is necessary for our organization to deal with these

special technical characteristics ; and there is a possibility here

of overlapping with standardization work.

I can say that the relations between OIML and the standardization institutions are making good progress through a systematic study of the subjects of common interest, by a mutual

participation in meetings, and in the elaboration of documents.

It has been suggested that national weights and measures

departments and standardization institutions join together wherever possible to define their national position in regard to OIML

draft recommendations and international draft standards.

Of course, it is clear that good relations at the international

level between legal metrology and standardization are conditioned

by good relations at the national level. I would like now to say a few words about the relations between OIML and some international institutions which deal with measuring instruments from

the legal point of view. I shall take as examples the European

Economic Community (or Common Market) and the Mutual

Economic Assistance Council.

You know that one of the aims of these regional institutions is to harmonize the legal requirements of their member countries

in order to facilitate the circulation of goods. Of course, measuring instruments are one of the objects of this harmonization. For

example, the Common Market issues directives which must be

implemented by its nine member countries. These directives give

the metrological and technical requirements with which the measuring instruments must comply in order to be submitted successfully to European type approval and initial verification. In this

way an instrument which has been approved and verified in one Common Market country will be accepted by the other countries.

You understand the usefulness for OIML to have close relations with these regional institutions. Where these regional directives or requirements are in conformity with OIML recommendations, this makes it possible for the recommendations to be

automatically implemented, in an indirect manner, in the national

regulations.

I now come to the last item of my address.

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN NATIONAL

REGULATIONS

As is said in the Convention establishing the International

Organization of Legal Metrology, the member countries are mor31
ally obliged to implement the decisions of the Conference as far

as possible. This applies to financial and political decisions of the

Conference but also to the international recommendations, which

are always submitted to the approval of this highest authority in our organization, even when they have already been adopted by

the International Committee.

Of course, there is neither enforcement by the Conference of

the adoption of the international recommendations, nor penalties

against refractory countries. We feel that the moral obligation

is strong enough, and the member countries understand the interest they have in following the international decisions. However,

the moral obligation is attenuated by the words "as far as

possible."

In order to understand this point thoroughly, we have to remember that the philosophy of legal metrology differs widely

from one country to another. In some countries almost all measuring instruments are covered by legal requirements; in others,

only a small number of instruments, and then only when they are used in specific conditions (such as for commercial transactions), are covered by official regulations.

It is not the purpose of OIML to obtain complete uniformity

of all weights and measures legal requirements in its member

countries. "The hate of uniformity is the first mental health," as Einstein said, I think. Let every country keep its own specific

conception of legal metrology, according to its historical and

economic situation.

The main purpose of OIML is to reduce the divergences existing

in national legislation in order to facilitate trade and to diminish

the administrative barriers between countries. In that connection,

I can say that when there are legal requirements in a country for an instrument which is covered by an international recommendation, that country has the moral obligation to change its regulations in order to make them compatible with the recommendation.

If a country decides to publish legal requirements for that same

instrument, the new legislation should be in conformity with the

recommendation. But if a country has no legal requirements for

the instrument, there is no obligation for it to implement the

recommendation.

Does this mean that countries in which only a small number

of instruments are covered by regulations are not concerned with

the whole of OIML work? Of course not. Firstly, the participation in OIML meetings of delegates who

are not directly concerned at their own national legislative level with the results of the work is of importance because these dele32
gates can contribute pure and impartial technical ideas to the

discussions.

Again, it is very useful that the recommendations are circulated among all the manufacturers concerned so that they can

get to know about the metrological basis of the regulations which

exist, or are likely to exist, in other countries. Also, if they wish,

they will be able to comply with these international requirements

to a greater or lesser extent by means of voluntary standards or

specifications. In this way, one of the aims of OIML will be indirectly reached.

To conclude, I would like to give you briefly some personal'

considerations about the role of the United States in OIML.

I know that you have not joined OIML solely for the unproductive pleasure of being a member of one more international

organization. Your accession has been based on a careful study

of the economical impact of your participation. I consider that

fact as a proof, as far as this may be needed, of the importance

of our organization.

I have said previously that wide differences exist in the philosophy of weights and measures between different countries. In fact,

your system is quite different from that which exists in the

majority of other member countries.

I am sure you know that in chapter 4 of Handbook 82 there is a paragraph dealing with foreign organizations which underlines

the extensive centralization of the legal metrology departments

of many foreign countries.

In order to ensure that our international work of collaboration

produces good results, it is essential that we all have a good

understanding of the weights and measures methods in other

countries. For this purpose, the OIML "Bulletin" is at your

disposal to enable you to show your conception of legal metrology,

the differences which may exist in your different states, and the

coordinating activity of the National Bureau of Standards. These

matters will be of considerable interest for other countries.

Conversely, the Bureau, with its documentation center, the

development of which we are working on, will do its best to give

you all the information you need about foreign countries.

The United States now holds five pilot secretariats. I consider

it to be a sign of your deep-rooted implantation in OIML that

besides your responsibility for a pilot secretariat on "Measurement of Pollutions," which is rather a new field in legal metrology, you have considerable activity in the old classical weights

and measures—weighing instruments, for example; instruments

which are always improving, which now give the price of weighed

33
goods, deliver tickets, and the importance of which in the marketplace is always increasing.

It is very important that your country participate as widely

and actively as possible in the work of our organization. Both

OIML and, if I may be allowed to suggest, the United States will

benefit considerably from this participation. Your country, with

its advanced technical know-how and original methods in this

field, can do much to make our international documents even more international. We think that we, in our turn, can offer much

that is of value to you and we look forward to continuing and

increasing cooperation.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your invitation and your kind attention; thank

you for your activity in OIML.

34
AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1974

(George E. Mattimoe, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

OBSERVATIONS ON OUR MUTUAL OBJECTIVES

by H. F. WOLLIN, Executive Secretary, National Conference on Weights and Measures

(Over 70 slides were shown during the presentation of this paper.)

INTRODUCTION

Occasionally, I will read through some old

reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to see what action

had been taken on a particular matter. This

research often leads me back many years,

sometimes to the very beginning of the Conference in 1905. It is always a fascinating

experience to review these reports, to read

what people were saying about the programs

and problems in those years, and to study

what action was taken by the Conference. For those of you who

have not yet looked over some Conference reports of yesteryear,

I recommend you try it sometime.

One of the amusing, and sometimes frustrating, observations I have made concerning the past is that people were saying pretty

much the same things back 10, 20, and even 50 years ago as we

hear today—and about problems that were not too dissimilar

from those we face today.

For example, let's go back fifty years to remarks made by the

Secretary of Commerce, Honorable Herbert Hoover, who addressed the 17th National Conference on Weights and Measures

on May 29, 1924

"Gentlemen, I am very glad to have the pleasure of . . . welcoming this conference at the Bureau of Standards. . . . "The original purpose of your . . . work, of course, was limited to the

inspection of standards of weights and measures as a matter of the public's

protection against fraud. Herein lies a very great principle which has only

begun to be recognized in its wider vision throughout our entire commercial

fabric. That is the great principle that it is impossible even to establish

ethical practices or standards of conduct without a definition of the stan- dards themselves. There is no way by which right or wrong can be

maintained in the vast processes of trade and exchange unless there are

precise standards, and, with the development of science and the enormous

35
development of industry ... we must determine some accurate bases

before we can have a determination of the vital principle of right and

wrong. . . . "Your particular offices in the States . . . have in many instances been

expanded in order to take account of this enormous development in service and industry. Some of you already have . . . problems of testing . . . (devices) of various kinds. Sooner or later you will be confronted with

the problems of determining standards of quality. . . . "I should like to see the time come, a thing which we cannot expect overnight, but it should be in our plans, when our commissioners of weights

and measures shall be not solely inspectors of minor questions of weights

and . . . (measures), but when they shall have behind them a trained

scientific staff and a certain amount of laboratory development . . . for

better organization of their work. . . ."

Well, then, I am sure these remarks of Mr. Hoover sound

familiar. They also help to point out that some of the problems

in weights and measures are long standing, or reoccurring, and

they may be difficult, if not impossible, to solve quickly or completely throughout the nation. Some of the problems or issues I am referring to were covered in my talk to the 57th National

Conference in 1972, which was titled "The Future is Now." I would like to briefly reflect on some of my views at that time:

1. I said then : "It is time for weights and measures administration to be duly recognized and adequately supported at all levels of government."

Comment now: We have seen some improvement, but have a long way to go.

2. I said then : "It is time for weights and measures programs

to be placed near the top of the consumer movement spectrum."

Comment now: This has and is happening in many jurisdictions.

3. I said then : "It is time for weights and measures oflficials to understand that they would find it difficult to justify the maintenance of their programs on the basis of the status quo."

Comment now: Same view, only stronger.

4. I said then : "Weights and measures officials must be prepared to get involved in new programs in which their measure- ment expertise and enforcement qualifications can be put to effec- tive use to achieve new goals and to meet the growing need for

more efficient and equitable measurement control in commerce."

Comment now: Many weights and measures organizations are developing new approaches and expanding their measurement

services to keep pace with advances in technology and commerce.

5. I said then : "To meet the demands for more effective and

efficient government, we must apply sound management techniques to maximize the use of our resources and to prove the

benefits of our effort."

36
Comment now: Is the same.

6. I said then: "Weights and measures technology will continue to take on greater sophistication, which will require new

methods and requirements, but care must be taken not to impede

innovation."

Comment now: The need today is even greater.

7. I said then : "A new trend is developing in which business

and industry must be aware of, and assume full responsibility

for, compliance with weights and measures laws and regulations.

Weights and measures inspection is changing from a service mode

of operation to that of regulatory supervision."

Comment now: This policy is growing throughout the United

States, and many new programs for its implementation have been

established.

8. Lastly, I said then : "Let's awaken the American public to the virtues of weights and measures people and their work for

they will need us more than ever as America goes metric . . . and

increases its relations with other nations in the field of metrology."

I see no need to comment on this last point.

What I would like to present now is an overview of the program of the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM). There are many things to show and tell you about concerning our mission.

Unfortunately, time will not allow me to cover all the activities

we are engaged in ; and I will also skip over some of our activities

that will be discussed later during this Conference.

OWM MISSION

Briefly, our goals are to provide the leadership and technical resources to weights and measures officials which will assure accuracy in commercial quantity determinations, promote new

technology, remove impediments to the free flow of commerce,

and maintain an effective and uniform system of weights and

measures laws and methods of inspection. Simply said, we are

in business to help you.

STANDARDS AND LABORATORY PROJECT

We are happy to report that on June 12, the State of Colorado

became the forty-second jurisdiction to be formally presented

with a new set of weights and measures standards and laboratory

instruments. The standards were presented to Colorado Governor

Vanderhoof by Dr. Richard W. Roberts, Director of the National

Bureau of Standards, during an impressive ceremony which

37
included the dedication of a truly outstanding new weights and

measures laboratory facility.

I believe that most of you are familiar with the hardware that

makes up the set of reference standards given to the states by

NBS as a gift of the Federal Government. The standards will be

distributed to 54 jurisdictions—which include the District of

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In addition to the

42 presentations mentioned, our office has forwarded most of the

standards to five other jurisdictions. Some of the last six states have notified us that plans for a laboratory are shaping up, and

they hope to qualify for the new standards during the year ahead.

State program administrators realize that many of the instruments provided, and procedures recommended, are too complex

to expect all officials to become versatile in their use. Consequently, one criterion in qualifying respective states to receive

the standards has been dependent on the assignment of specific

laboratory responsibilities to individuals selected for their skill as metrologists. These representatives become active participants

in an OWM sponsored training efi'ort designed to constantly monitor state laboratory capabilities. Our present efforts to provide

the training service have become involved in an annual certification of the state laboratories. One qualification for certification

is active participation in our Laboratory Auditing Program,

commonly referred to as LAP. Ideally, LAP serves to review

and comment on a constant flow of input data submitted by state metrologists.

During the past five years, OWM has worked with over 100

individuals in private sessions and small group seminars at NBS

and throughout the United States discussing laboratory recom- mendations and procedures. We are delighted that this new technical competence has encouraged some states to use the laboratory

facility as a focal point for the expansion of its measurement

services and the maintenance of other reference standards. For

example, the calibration of clinical thermometers in the State of

Connecticut.

RAILWAY CALIBRATION PROJECT

The cooperation between the states and railroad industry

exhibited at the National Conference on Weights and Measures

last year, in resolving problems relating to railroad weighing

marked the beginning of a new era for the NBS Railway Calibration Project. This development, coupled with a financial agreement between the Bureau and the Association of American Rail38
roads, has provided much needed resources and technical support

for the project.

We are now better able to carry out our commitment to state governments and the railroad industry by testing the 18 master

railway scales located throughout the United States and to cali- brate standard test cars at our station in Clearing, Illinois. We

will continue to conduct special tests of railroad scales and perform calibration of test cars in the field as circumstances allow.

In this connection, we use, and can make available to others,

three specially designed tank test cars for testing in-motion

weighing systems.

Looking ahead, I see new and challenging responsibilities in

the parameters of electronic coupled-in-motion weighing. Government officials and industry representatives must cooperate and

work together as they have in the past to provide the information and data that are needed to develop, or refine, technical

procedures and requirements in this area. To help solve the mutual weighing problems facing weights

and measures officials and the railroad industry, we have sponsored a series of seminars to keep all parties concerned with

railroad weighing better informed. We have also participated in numerous discussions and meetings with regard to the work in

this area by the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances.

And, lastly, we hope that as a new member of the Scale Committee of the American Railway Engineering Association, we

will be able to make a meaningful contribution to the goals of

that important committee.

TECHNICAL STUDIES AND ASSISTANCE

We have been concerned with several phases of activity in the area of technical studies and assistance.

Our work in cryogenic liquid meter proving has been a cooperative effort with the California Division of Measurement Standards, the Compressed Gas Association, and NBS-Boulder. Two

potential transfer standards were field tested over a two-week

period last September in California. The results of these tests were promising, and more extensive field testing of the two refer- ence standards over a three-month period has been initiated. The

data collected will be viewed by NBS personnel in Boulder; and

they will prepare a report outlining their conclusions concerning

the performance of the transfer standard meters.

Now, significance extends beyond this research and development

activity. This is a model for other cooperative studies among

39
NBS, the states, and industry. We are trying to develop a similar approach with respect to grain moisture meters and have

been working with several states that are active in this area. For example, states that are exploring the approach of using

grain samples of predetermined moisture contents for checking

the grain moisture meters.

We have solicited the aid of the NBS Humidity Section and

helped them arrange a workshop on the measurement of moisture

in grain that was held at NBS last month. As a foUowup to the

workshop, we recently sent to the states questionnaires which

will serve as documentation for a proposed study by NBS in this area in the immediate future.

Moving on, we are developing a new handbook devoted to "The

Examination of Mileage Measuring Devices.' It will include procedures for the calibration of fifth wheel devices and for testing

rental cars and taximeters. In order to simplify simulated road

test procedures used particularly in odometer testing, we have

developed a photodiode wheel turn counter that will count the

wheel turns without having to be physically attached to the wheels

under test—thus resulting in considerable saving of installation

time with each test. As you know, the LPG Vapor Meter Code was removed from

a tentative status two years ago; and there has been a definite

need for the publication of a test procedure for these devices.

Such a procedure is now being finalized and will soon be prepared for publication.

The revision of Handbook 67 has top priority on our list of

objectives. You will hear from Dr. Carroll Brickenkamp on Thursday morning about our progress on the revision and developments surrounding this vital matter,

API RESEARCH ASSOCIATE PROJECT

Since April 1970, we have participated in the research project

sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute at the National

Bureau of Standards. The purpose of the program is to investigate weights and measures and petroleum industry needs and

applications for metal volumetric field standards (provers) in the

measurement of liquid hydrocarbons.

Based upon evaluations and research, equipment was designed

and fabricated that is capable of calibrating meters at flow rates from less than 100 to 1,000 gallons per minute. The trailermounted system consists of 50, 100, 760, and 1,545 gallon metal

provers. The large provers include provisions for top or bottom

40
loading, closed fill with vapor recovery, or open-to-atmosphere

loading.

In January we conducted the cold weather phase of the field test program in Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia. The brave

and hearty individuals involved with the field test program are Blayne Keysar of OWM, Bill Kerlin of API, and Joe Hine, API

Research Associate. The warm weather phase of the testing program will be completed next month. A report including all data

evaluation, testing procedure recommendations, and complete

equipment specifications should be ready for distribution to weights and measures officials and petroleum industry representatives by the 1975 Conference.

PROTOTYPE EXAMINATION PROJECT

Several years ago we initiated a new project for the examination of prototype weighing and measuring devices used in commerce. This is a voluntary effort between NBS, the states, and

manufacturers to insure the introduction of new devices that are

in compliance with Handbook 44 and other established standards.

From a slow beginning (six examinations the first year) the

program has broadened, becoming one of major importance and

impact. We now conduct approximately 40 examinations annually

and, to date, have issued 225 Reports of Test. Throughout the history of the National Conference, we have

often heard stated "we are in a period of a rapidly expanding

technology." It seems to us that this has never been more so than

in the last several years.

Digital displays have been developed for virtually all measuring

equipment. Measuring devices are no longer measuring devices

but rather elements of a system. This is most evident in the con- version from a computing drum scale at the checkout stand of a supermarket to the electronic point-of-sale systems. Now, when a package is placed on a weighing element at the checkout stand,

computers not cashiers take the tare, determine the net weight,

"look up" the unit price, and compute the total price, printing all of this information on a cash register tape—all in fractions of a

second.

We have conducted examinations on all types of equipment

ranging from sophisticated point-of-sale systems to simple berry

baskets. We have aided the manufacturers of vapor meters to metric conversion, and provided guidance to other manufacturers

on many similar problems. We have invited state weights and

measures officials to participate with us in the conduct of these

examinations whenever possible.

41
Much of the equipment submitted for examination is evaluated

in our laboratory at NBS. Recently, we examined a new slow-flow

meter—not a meter to measure fuel oil in a mobile home, but a meter to be mounted under the hood of an automobile to measure

gasoline consumption. This device will interface with another

electronic piece of equipment to provide the driver, as he drives, a digital display of the consumption rate updated every .01 gallon.

The prototype examination project has aided us considerably

in guiding the S & T Committee in the development of appropriate requirements for inclusion in Handbook 44. It will also be

extremely beneficial in our work regarding OIML and other areas

of our program.

FAIR PACKAGING AND LABELING ACT

A major activity of the Office of Weights and Measures involves our work under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. One of our roles is to determine whether the reasonable ability

of consumers to make value comparisons of any packaged con- sumer commodity is impaired by the undue proliferation of the

weights, measures, or quantities.

A second role is to bring about the voluntary elimination of

such undue proliferation. To accomplish this result informal package quantity standards and, in a few cases, formal Voluntary

Product Standards have been developed with full participation by

industry representatives. To illustrate what can be achieved

through such effort, we can point to the reduction in quantities

of packaged toothpaste from 57 down to only 5 easily recognizable

tube sizes. Current emphasis is directed to market surveillance activities to determine the level of compliance by industry with the established standards. Product categories are divided into three groups

with data to be collected for each group every third year. Data

obtained from each survey is analyzed and where a procedure is not being observed, industry representatives will be informed

and encouraged to comply with the simplified quantity patterns.

If noncompliance continues, formal inquiry into undue proliferation will be activated.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those officials who have participated in our surveillance activities.

Another role of our office is to promote nationwide uniformity

in consumer package labeling. The purpose of this effort is to

facilitate the exercise of good judgment by consumers in the

marketplace. Accordingly, liaison with state and local weights

42
and measures officials, and with representatives of agencies of

the Federal Government, has been an activity vigorously pursued.

This has resulted in a close alignment of the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation with appropriate Federal regulations. Official documents issued under the Act or impacting on

the model laws and regulations continue to be distributed pursuant to our responsibilities.

Finally, a word about metric labeling. As you know, the

required use of customary units is implicit in the language of the

Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. This does not, we feel, reduce our responsibility to strive for uniformity in the labeling of

packages in metric units. In fact, the situation regarding metric

labeling is in a state of confusion and will get worse unless

national policy and guidelines are established. Obviously, uniformity in metric labeling has been severely hampered with the

failure of Congress to pass a metric bill. The latest bill which was voted on by the House of Representatives gave the Department of Commerce the authority to interpret and modify the SI

system, and this implies the responsibility to issue guidelines for

appropriate units, symbols, and conversion factors.

I firmly believe that the National Conference on Weights and

Measures is the logical organization to take whatever action is needed to provide suitable metric packaging and labeling guidelines and with your help we shall do so.

TECHNICAL TRAINING

Our training project is, of course, the activity with which many

of you are most familiar. Since its beginning over a decade ago,

members of OWM have visited every jurisdiction at least once and many jurisdictions several times.

We will continue to conduct state training sessions, administrative and technical seminars, and field sessions. However, since resources are always limited, we must attempt to achieve the

greatest coverage of our training with a minimum expense. To

do this, we need your cooperation in implementing these most

effective, cost-saving measures

1. Schedule regional schools whenever possible. We have

found that this is not only more efficient in providing broader

coverage, but it also provides an opportunity for an exchange of

ideas among jurisdictions . 2. Open the training sessions to manufacturing, service, and

sales personnel. They need to be informed of their legal responsibilities and be instructed on H-44 requirements, test procedures,

and the like. Our experience has shown that industry does appre43
ciate this opportunity; and it results in better understanding

and compliance with weights and measures requirements.

3. Schedule your training sessions on a specific date, annually

or biannually, to provide us the opportunity for better advanced

planning.

4. Make your request for training at least three months in

advance. We can then be more responsive, and this will also aid us in more efficient scheduling.

When these measures are fully operational, it will allow us

to provide: (a) more training aids, (b) quarterly tech memos,

(c) home study course revisions, and (d) metric training material.

This seems to be a good point to tell you about a new program

we plan to set up. We want to provide the opportunity for weights

and measures officials to work with us for periods of 3 to 6

months to aid us in the conduct of our programs. This plan would

work similar to our research associate program with industry.

Here, however, rather than industry representatives, it would be

weights and measures officials as participants.

We know that in weights and measures there is an expertise

that we can use for our mutual benefit in areas such as the

development of training aids, the conduct of training sessions,

technical studies, and prototype examinations.

Notification of this plan will be sent out as soon as final arrangements have been completed. However, let us know if you

are interested at any time.

FOREIGN VISITORS AND GUEST WORKERS

During the past year OWM has cooperated with the NBS Office

of International Relations by providing assistance and training

for foreign weights and measures officials. We feel this steppedup activity and increasing involvement with our overseas counterparts is in line with our responsibilities in the International

Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). This effort is also in

keeping with last year's Executive Committe recommendation

that the states assist NBS in matters involving visitors from

other countries.

Over the past twelve months, we have had visitors in our office from Germany, Australia, Sweden, Finland, South Africa, Russia,

and the Philippines. The duration of these visits was from a few

hours to several days. The main topic covered was a detailed

explanation of the weights and measures control system in the

United States. The most significant activity in this area was the development

of a four-month training program for two officials from Ethiopia.

44
These gentlemen are from the Ethiopian Standards Institute and

are receiving training under a program arranged through the

Agency for International Development. Mr. Mekonnen Betru is Finance Division Head and General Administrator at the Insti- tute; and Mr. Negussie Abebe is General Supervisor and Laboratory Metrologist for the Weights and Measures Section.

They have received instruction at NBS and in the states of

Maryland, Virginia, and New Jersey. They have also had the

opportunity to visit manufacturers and such business establishments as a bakery and a dairy. Effort was made throughout the

program for them to observe and participate in all facets of a weights and measures inspection program, such as inspecting

bread and meat, and testing small scales, large scales, and fuel

oil truck meters.

Now the program is about completed, and Mr. Betru and Mr.

Abebe will be heading home next week. They are in attendance

at this Conference and would enjoy meeting and talking to as many of you as possible.

Well, that about wraps up what I have prepared for presentation today. As I said earlier, there is much more that we do, or

that we are involved in, or that we have plans for, but I trust these observations have helped to update your knowledge of the

programs of the Office of Weights and Measures and to show how

they relate to "Advancing Measurement Assurance in the Marketplace."

And so to conclude, allow me to go back again fifty years to the Conference in 1924 and quote Mr. Joseph J. Holwell, Commissioner of Weights and Measures for the City of New York,

who offered these remarks during a testimonial for Dr. Samuel

Wesley Stratton, the first Director of the National Bureau of

Standards and the first President of this Conference:

"I do not know of any group of public officials who have done more to promote a higher standard of ethics in the business life of America than

have the weights and measures officials of this country. They have been the pioneers in our states, in our cities, in our towns, in our villages, and in the sparsely settled sections of this country for the square deal in all transactions between the buyer and seller. They have labored . . . (long

and hard) in the cause of promoting the introduction and the use of honest

and accurate weighing and measuring devices in all merchandising. They

have fought the fight; they have been the vanguard; and in their fight for honest weights and measures they have contributed immeasurably toward

the highest standard of citizenship in the United States. They have

invariably been men of character, possessing courage, honesty, integrity,

and a love for their work."

45
WEIGHING THE FUTURE—A NEW CHALLENGE

by J. Donald Zelazny, General Sales Manager,

Toledo Scale Division, Reliance Electric Company, Toledo, Ohio

I appreciate this opportunity to be with

you and to participate in this 59th National

Conference on Weights and Measures. I am

going to make a few brief remarks about

"Weighing the Future—A New Challenge."

My remarks are about technology in

weighing, its rapid growth, and the challenge

that it presents to industry and to weights

and measures. Rather than providing an- swers or conclusions to these challenges

and they are really opportunities too—it is my intent to raise some of the basic questions that must be

jointly addressed by industry and by weights and measures. Let us begin with a brief look at the history of weighing. The

ancient Egyptians were known to use an even-arm balance as long ago as 5,000 B.C. or 7,000 years ago. This device is still in use today and the principle is still used for precision weighing.

As long ago as 200 B.C., or about 5,000 years after the balance,

the Romans developed the steelyard scale which uses an unequal

lever arrangement. A small ratio weight can be used to balance

a larger weight. This principle is also still in use today.

In 1830, or 2,000 years after the steelyard scale, Thaddeus

Fairbanks patented in the USA a multiplying lever platform beam

scale. This permitted large heavy objects such as wagons to be

weighed conveniently and accurately. The load is balanced by

moving a small known weight called a poise into position along a beam.

About 1900, or 70 years after the Fairbanks patent, the DeVilbiss fan scale was patented. Also, about the same time, Henry

Theobald, the founder of Toledo Scale, patented the double pendulum dial scale. In the 1940's the strain gauge was developed. This led to the

load cell and the first electronic scales in approximately 1950,

fifty years after the first double pendulum dial. However, only since about 1970 has the electronic load cell scale made a major impact in weighing and it is destined to be

the scale of the future. The availability of miniaturized, reliable,

low cost, solid state electronic devices has provided the impetus.

The rapid development of these electronic devices and circuits

46
continues to be the motivating force behind the growth for elec- tronic applications.

The scale is basically an information instrument; it tells us how much. By well known means, we can convert how much

weight to how many dollars. We can add directly connected printers to print out the weight and eliminate operator errors. We can provide time and date and selective numbering devices.

We can add controls, such as cutoffs or selective output signals

proportional to weight, and tie the scale into increasingly complex control schemes. All of this is well known and old hat. So

what about the future?

Precision load cells, reliable miniaturized electronic circuit and

memory devices, digital readouts and other related developments

are permitting the industry to make scales into truly wonder

devices.

Installed today are electronic scales connected directly to, and

interacting with, digital computers. We can weigh boxes of precut meat or other commodities in motion at relatively high speeds

with electronic scales and digital computers and the results are

legal for trade. (See figures 1 and 2.)

All sorts of data from the weighment can be instantly available

at the weighing site and also at other sites many miles or even hundreds of miles away. With the proper developments, it is probable that in-motion speeds will be increased, improving effi- ciency and reducing costs. It is also probable that the concept

will be expanded on a legal-for-trade basis for many other

applications.

An electronic scale working with a digital computer and card

reading device is used in a refuse disposal system (see figure 3),

helping to reduce the costs of improving our ecology to a practical level. A driver's identification card is automatically read

by an unattended card reader, a legal-for-trade weighment is made, and complete data and billings are instantaneously and

automatically generated. By means of modems and telephone

lines, these results can also be transmitted instantaneously to remote locations.

At last year's Conference the Universal Product Code (UPC)

and electronic cash registers for supermarkets were widely discussed. This is a current topic of much interest. Several speakers

referred to this development this morning. Installations of these

systems are, in fact, being made as we meet here. In these installations where a checkstand scale is used, the scale is frequently

tied into a digital computer for purposes of recording data.

47
Figure 1

In some system designs, the indication of weight is made on

the electronic register rather than on the scale. Also in some,

the indication or printout of price is the combined result of the

weighment and of price information stored in, and computed

by, the digital computer rather than solely a function of the scale. In the near future, many of the functions now performed by

an external computer or control device will be performed within

the scale itself by means of miniature dedicated electronic

computers.

Toledo Scale introduced its new 8300 automatic prepack scale

in May of this year. It will be installed in supermarkets this summer. This is an all solid state load cell operated, digital read48
Figure 2

out scale with automatic or manual digital preset tare, automatic

zero tracking to 0.0025 of a pound, and a built-in dedicated elec- tronic digital computer to compute prices for printout by weight

or by count. It is also equipped to be tied in directly to a Universal

Product Code random weight printer provided by Toledo as well

as the conventional printer. (See figures 4 and 5.)

The General Atomic Company and Southwest Pump Company

jointly presented a paper at the Northeast Weights and Measures

Conference in Columbus, Ohio, in May of this year on their unattended gas pump system. This system utilizes several digital elec- tronic techniques new to gasoline retailing and which open up

new horizons.

The possibilities are unlimited. In the near future many different parameters or commodity characteristics may be randomly

inserted by an operator into the dedicated computer built into a

scale or measuring pump system and many results in addition to simple weight, volume, or price may be read out, printed out or used for process control purposes.

Now how does all of this concern weights and measures, whose

main function is the protection of the buyer and the seller? First,

let us go back to our discussion of the history of weighing with

the emphasis on time. The even-arm balance has been with us

49
Figure 3

for 7,000 years; the steelyard scale for 2,200 years; the beam

scale for 144 years; the pendulum dial scale for 74 years; and

the electronic load cell scale for 24 years.

Toledo introduced its first digital electronic scale in 1965. Only

eight years later, in 1973, the fourth generation electronic scales were introduced. They are much more complex and more accurate

than those introduced in 1965. Another generation was introduced this year, and the next generation already lives. It is not

just a laboratory dream. I am not speaking of routine product

model changes, but rather of major steps in technology. The

point, gentlemen, is that technology is moving rapidly. Things

are happening quickly and the pace will continue to increase.

50
Figure 4

The effects of the move to metric as such will not directly affect

these changes. But indirectly, the opportunity that metric will

present will invite new people into the industry. Most will come

from other high technology—mainly electronic, industries, both

domestic and foreign. They will not be new capital intensive

industries whose main strength is machining iron.

This all leads us first to Handbook 44—definitions, regulations,

protection of the buyer and seller. For the most part. Handbook

44 is more than adequate for today's immediate needs with the

usual revisions and additions discussed and effected at these

Conferences. However, we are faced with a whole new technology

51
Figure 5

that is coming upon us rapidly as we just saw. In order to guide

the manufacturers in their development with regard to compliance with weights and measures, and in order to guide weights

and measures officials throughout the country in uniform interpretation and enforcement, it is essential that attention be given

to new definitions and regulations that particularly recognize this

new technology. It may also be desirable to group and classify

them for easier use. Furthermore, regulations must be written

in such a way as to promote and enhance the development of

these new devices and not to restrain it. This is economically

essential.

The question then is, How can this best be accomplished? We

must look ahead and anticipate what is coming so that we can be

prepared to move more quickly than has been the historical case

in developing Handbook 44 regulations.

This, in my opinion, will require some very close cooperation

between weights and measures and industry. Together, we must

work out ways to accomplish this that are more effective and

more efficient than they have been at least with regard to the

time required.

The next question is one of jurisdiction. The most timely

example is that of the checkstand scale and the electronic cash

register and UPC system. With the stand-alone mechanical or

52
electronic checkstand scale, there is no question of jurisdiction.

The question does arise, however, when the scale weight readout

is in the cash register rather than in the scale or when the price

information comes from the central computer rather than the

scale chart. We must arrive at the right answer. It is essential

from an economic viewpoint that the answer does not result in

precluding the use of such systems. Some of the other future

possibilities that I referred to earlier will lead to similar jurisdictional questions.

The next question involves information and training, particularly for weights and measures enforcement officials. Quite

obviously, to be effective, weights and measures officials must

not only understand their role and the regulations that they are

enforcing, but must have a basic functional understanding, at

least, of the devices and principles involved. I doubt that there

are any experienced officials in the field today who do not fully

understand the functions and principles of mechanical scales

currently in use and probably most present electronic scales as

well. But how many officials fully understand a computerized in- motion box scale system with all its possible ramifications? I am

not really sure, but I would guess that the number is not great.

You might say that there are not many occasions for weights

and measures to become involved in a computerized in-motion

box scale system. I grant you that is true today. However, my

point is that the technological complexity of devices is coming

upon us rapidly and will be in wide use in many applications.

I do not propose that weights and measures officials become

computer or circuit experts at all in an engineering sense. They

must, however, have a basic functional understanding of the

equipment and principles in use. Many of you from weights and

measures present here today have raised the point of information

and training with us in our conversations here and in many of

your state meetings.

Believe me, based upon our experience in the industry, this

training is no small task. It must be undertaken, however. The

questions then are. How can this best be done in the most efficient

manner? How can industry cooperate with and assist weights

and measures in this endeavor?

With the rapid growth of technology, with the opportunity

that metric will present, with the push from consumerism, and

in our own enlightened mutual best interest, I submit that it is essential that we begin together to address ourselves to these

questions now. These are by no means all of the questions. I have

53
merely tried to point out the need and a few of the basic areas where the need is most critical. As pointed out by Dr, AnckerJohnson and Dr. McCoubrey this morning, where a need exists,

it will be filled by someone. We have ample examples around us today where needs were filled by people other than those most

qualified. Is any further comment required?

I would highly recommend these topics for consideration by

the appropriate committees of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures. Toledo Scale stands ready to counsel with you.

Without being presumptuous, I am sure that all others in the

scale industry, and other industries involved with weights and

measures, will be ready to cooperate as well. Together we can anticipate our needs in this accelerating technological environment and hopefully derive the best possible answers to the many questions. Are you ready to accept the

challenge ?

METRIC CONVERSION

Role of the American National Metric Council

by Dr. Malcolm E. O'Hagan, Executive Director,

American National Metric Council, Washington, D.C.

The ANMC was established in 1973 under

private sector initiative to provide a focus

for planning and coordinating activities in

organizations and industries converting to the metric system of measurement. We are a non-advocate organization, involving all segments of our society that are affected by

the change. ANMC operates under the principle of voluntary consensus. The Metric

Council does not duplicate the activities of

existing groups. Instead, the Metric Council

works through established consumer, labor, professional, technical,

and trade organizations. When a national metric conversion board

is created, ANMC will maintain close liaison and facilitate the

work of the government metric conversion board by providing an established working interface with industry and commerce. By addressing the situation with a business prospective, the

American National Metric Council will ensure that conversion

to the metric system of weights and measures in the private

sector is accomplished in an efficient and timely manner.

54
Adrian G. Weaver

Chairman of the Board

American National Metric Council

To provide assistance, through coordination, planning, and

information services, to various segments of society in the United

States which are involved with usage of, and/or conversion to, metric measurement, and specifically:

To help guide metric conversion in a manner that

• Maximizes potential benefit and minimizes cost.

• Avoids duplication of work and effort.

• Advances the national economy and benefits the public health,

safety, and welfare.

• Properly considers and evaluates the impact on various segments of society, particularly labor, smaller business, and

consumers.

• Promotes consistent application of metric units.

From Article II Articles of Organization

American National Metric Council

Compared with the worldwide flood tide of change to the

metric system of weights and measures, the United States is drifting toward metric conversion. Each week another company

announces its decision to convert to the metric system. These

actions are independent of passage of national metric legislation.

Many in the private sector have decided to take the initiative in

determining how to cope with metric conversion. Their decision

reflects the inevitable—the United States will one day be a predominantly metric country.

FORMATION OF ANMC

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) recognized

the need for coordinating metric conversion activities at an early

stage and recommended that a coordinating mechanism be established within the private sector. This recommendation was

strongly endorsed at a meeting of industry, business, and government leaders in September 1972. Subsequently, ANSI appointed a task force to develop specific recommendations and

guidelines; and in December 1972 the ANSI Board of Directors

approved the formation of the American National Metric Council

(ANMC). Initial funding was provided by ANSI. Prominent indi55
viduals representing major industries, small business, organized

labor, consumers, and education accepted the invitation to serve on the ANMC Board of Directors. The Board held its first meeting on May 7, 1973, and the Metric Council was underway.

Initial efforts were directed at defining the purposes and policies of ANMC, at structuring its scope and mode of operation,

and at developing a basis of financial support for ANMC activities.

The Board quickly adopted the philosophy that the Metric

Council must serve all interests and segments of society.

Accordingly, in establishing subscription rates a low minimum

and a low maximum rate were established. In this way all companies and businesses can share in supporting the work of the

Metric Council and can benefit from its coordination and information services.

ANMC OPERATING POLICIES

Articles of Organization and By-Laws were approved by the

Board at its meeting on January 30, 1974. Among the operating

policies specified for ANMC in the Articles of Organization are the following:

• ANMC is an advisory and coordinating body, and shall operate under principles of voluntary consensus, encouraging

active and objective participation of groups and organized

segments of society.

• ANMC shall not become involved directly in the development

of standards, but will assist existing standards-making

bodies by identifying needs for standards in SI units, evaluating priorities, and making recommendations for such

standards development.

• ANMC shall maintain the closest possible liaison and coordination with local, state, and Federal Government bodies, and

with the National Metric Conversion Board when such a Board is established.

• ANMC shall be apolitical and shall not become involved in

lobbying activities. This does not prohibit ANMC from submitting objective advice and recommendations as necessary.

• ANMC does not advocate metric conversion for any segment

of society, but encourages coordination and planning on the

part of those desiring to convert to metric usage.

• Because of the magnitude of the problem of metric conversion, ANMC will endeavor to work, primarily and to the

extent possible, with established organizations and groups

56
representative of consumers, labor, professions, and business

throughout the various segments of the economy.

ANMC BOARD

Members of the Board are elected for a three-year term with

one third of the Board replaced each year. In this way, continuity

is assured while -new members join the Board. All subscribers to the Metric Council are entitled to vote on the election of Board

members. The By-Laws provide that the Board consist of individuals "Whose viewpoints encompass the interests of all major

segments of commerce and industry, including consumers, educators, labor, large and small businesses, and professions." Such

board representation is reflected in the present Board and efforts are being made to apply this policy to all ANMC committees to the extent appropriate.

Three Board committees have been established: an Executive

Committee, a Finance Committee, and a Nominating Committee.

Four operations committees provide guidance for ANMC activities. These committees are Government Liaison, Metric Practice,

Procedures, and Services.

Metric Practice Committee.—One of the key purposes of ANMC

is to promote consistent application of metric units and metric

practice. The Metric Practice Committee is entrusted with the

responsibility of providing guidance in this area. Operating in

conjunction with the Metric Practice Committee will be a Metric

Advisory Panel. The panel will consist of 75 to 100 technical and

trade associations, editors, and others who can provide informed

advice. The panel will represent a suitable cross section of educated opinion, and it will be asked comment on issues of metric

usage and metric practice where a clear consensus does not exist.

Issues such as the spelling of the metre, the use of the pascal versus the bar, the use of the megagram versus the tonne, and

the use of the comma as a decimal marker will be under

consideration.

All polls of the Metric Advisory Panel will be preceded by a

full explanation of the conflicting schools of thought, and each

school will have an opportunity to present its case to its own

satisfaction including rebuttal where appropriate. An early service of the Metric Council will be the publication of an editorial

guide to provide guidance to authors, typists, editors, and publishers on proper metric usage.

Procedures Committee.—Of major concern in any industrycoordinated activity is the antitrust implications of such activity.

Activities of the American National Metric Council are guided

57
by a Procedures Committee. This committee, consisting of lawyers,

establishes guidelines for meeting agendas, recording and distribution of minutes, and representation at meetings. Any activity or subject matter with antitrust implications will be reviewed by

the Procedures Committee prior to action.

ANMC COORDINATING AND SECTOR COMMITTEES

The primary function of ANMC is to coordinate metric activities in various segments of the economy. This is being managed

through a series of committees. Five major coordinating committees have been established in the areas of materials, engineering industries, building and construction, consumer products, and

education and industrial training. Operating under each coordinating committee is a series of sector committees (refer to table

1). In dividing the coordination task and establishing the committee breakdown, ANMC recognized that in most cases the

immediate and direct impact of metric conversion will be on

products. Accordingly, the committees were structured to address

broad classes of products similarly impacted by metric conversion.

The Standard Industrial Classification was adhered to as closely as possible. Additional guidance was provided by the committee

structures established in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to coordinate metric conversion in those countries. ANMC

has established a close working relationship with the Canadian

Metric Commission at all levels, and their advance planning and

experience are serving as a valuable guide.

The initial work of the sector committee will be of an investigatory nature. It will determine the status of metric activities

within the sector it represents. The primary source of information will be the trade, technical, labor, and education associations

and, in some instances, individual corporations. Associations not

directly represented on the sector committee will be asked to present written inputs to the committee. In some cases, an

industry-wide conference will be conducted by the sector committee to which all associations will be invited. The purpose of

such conferences will be to provide status reports to the industry on the activities of the sector committee and to encourage their

involvement as appropriate. It is expected that each association

will have its own metric task force. It will be through these task

forces that the associations interface with the sector committee.

Among the initial activities of the sector committee will be the

following

58
• Determine the status of metric activities within the industry.

• Prepare a report for the industry on relevant activities underway in other industries or other parts of the economy.

• Initiate an analysis of the metric units to be used in the

industry.

• Identify the federal, state, and local laws, codes, and regulations requiring amendment for the industry to go metric.

• Identify in general terms where soft conversion will be appropriate and where hard conversion represents an opportunity.

• Identify the elements of a minimum cost of conversion strat- egy for the industry.

• Identify the key factors controlling the industry's rate of

conversion to the metric system.

• Identify the need for metric engineering standards required

within the industry.

• Determine the nature of such standards, establish the priority in which they should be developed, and recommend a

timetable for their development.

• Prepare a report summarizing the findings of the above.

Distribute this report to the industry for information and

comment.

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

Fundamental to ANMC operation is the dissemination of useful

metric information. The work, findings, and recommendations of

the sector committees will be published in special reports. Summary accounts will appear in the "Metric Reporter," the official bi-weekly pubhcation of the Metric Council. The "Metric Reporter"

is also designed to provide timely information on all key metric

developments. Its format is concise and to the point so that it can be used with ease as a reference document. The "Metric

Reporter" is the spearhead of the dissemination program. It is supplemented by special publications and ANMC sponsored metric

conferences. A resource center has been established at ANMC

offices in Washington, D.C. at 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

;

and anyone is welcome to use the center for research purposes.

ANMC ACCEPTS METRIC CHALLENGE

The task of coordinating a process as complicated as metric

conversion on a national level presents a mighty challenge. It can

only be achieved through the active cooperation of all segments

of our society. Metric conversion is a business venture ; it makes

sense only if it offers some real advantages, only if it can be

59
turned to opportunity. A voluntary national movement is underway in the private sector through the American National Metric

Council which is the only organization coordinating metric con- version on a national scale. We have the opportunity to chart oUr

own course and manage our own destiny; the opportunity for

each segment of society to undertake conversion in the manner

and on a timetable best suited to its own particular needs. And

in going metric, we must avoid the pitfalls of expediency and

short term convenience. We must convert in a way that makes

sense for the future and contributes to a sound, growing economy.

Table 1 ANMC Coordinating and Sector Committees

MATERIALS

Primary Metals

Chemicals and Allied Products

Energy (Fuels)

Wood and Lumber Products

Paper

Mined Products

ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES

Aerospace

Highway Vehicle

Instruments and Related Products

Off-road Vehicle

Machinery (except electrical)

Power Generation and Distribution

Marine

Rail

Computer and Office Equipment

Electronic Equipment and Components

Electrical Goods

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION

Codes and Standards

Design

Building Materials

Construction

Real Estate

60
CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Food and Grocery Products

Apparel and Household Furnishings

Commercial and Consumer Measurement Practices

EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

In-Service Training

Teacher Education

Educational Materials

Consumer Education

Administrator-Staff Training

METRIC CONVERSION

Consumers Call for a Rational Approach

by Louise A. Young, Extension Specialist, Family and

Consumer Economics, University of Wisconsin-Extension,

Madison, Wisconsin

Consumer attitudes toward metrication

have changed considerably over the past

four years. When a positive approach to metric education is used and consumers

really understand the need for the change,

most of them are willing to accept that

change; but they do want a rational, orderly,

and consistent approach to conversion and

an educational approach which is simple

and clear. They recognize that to be wedded to the

present is to be widowed in the future in this situation. However, motivation for really understanding metric as it will apply

to them and developing a positive attitude will be the keys for

the adult consumer. Along with this must come efforts to alle- viate the fear which many older consumers have for change

in this case, from the customary to the metric system. Perhaps

this is true for others, too. Educators, other professionals, business, and the media must

take the lead and cooperate to assist in making people aware of

the metric potential and educating people regarding it. Four

years ago at the American Home Economics Association Conven61
tion (AHEA) I made an informal survey of a few exhibitors'

reactions. These were primarily professionals and business people

involved with foods, clothing, equipment, and home furnishings.

When I asked what they were doing to prepare for a changeover

to the metric system, I estimate 90 percent of the ones I talked

with had given little or no consideration to this. However, I got

various reactions.

Particularly concerned were home economists involved with

recipe and cookbook development for their products. Many of

them indicated a hope that they would not be faced with such

involvement, but as an afterthought would say, It is a good idea.

Other exhibitors said. The sooner the better. Finally there were

those who said, I haven't even thought about it; in fact, I don't

believe our company has.

The week before last I repeated my cursory survey of exhibitors at AHEA. What a change ! Many companies have equipment

available providing both customary and metric measurements;

in other words, dually marked. Much literature—some excellent

was being distributed, and the educators were clamoring for it. Several were introducing materials which would be ready for fall classes.

And, as you all know, the study made in 1970 by the Survey

Research Center at the University of Michigan reported that 33

percent of the consumers favored change, 34 percent thought

conformity with other countries was desirable, 47 percent thought

the decimal measuring system would make price comparisons

easier, and 55 percent thought the metric measures would be

easier for children to learn. The higher the educational level, the

greater the receptivity.

Early in my involvement with metrication as I worked with

both professionals and lay persons, I frequently got the question,

Why don't other countries change to our system? This question

is not so frequently raised now. When a map showing that the

United States is the only industrialized nation not on, or committed to, metric is presented along with other reasons for going

metric, people change attitudes rapidly. They ask the question,

What will it involve? They say. Let's get on with the show.

Today, practically all consumers and professionals with whom

I talk have changed attitude, especially after having been ex- posed to metrication. They want more information. They continue

to say, and to greater extent. The sooner the better. They follow

with such questions as: When is this change going to be made?

Tell us more. How can we get tooled up for this change?

The rational approach for education for conversion will be

different for different groups of consumers, particularly different

62
age groups. Although the metric system is being taught in

schools, some states are moving toward teaching only the metric

system in math in the next couple of years, and youth will be

thinking metric, the adult consumer will require help with conversion. They will not immediately think in metric.

Let us look at some methods and effects of metric changeover

on the adult consumer. We here all have a responsibility to assist

with this to make it simple yet meaningful.

The foods area is one of the most critical. Families will be more frequently involved, and straight conversion is not the answer. When one studies and converses with business people, one recognizes complications in some segments. However, an

orderly change to metric is not insurmountable if we all cooperate.

Dual labeling will be essential for an interim period. Its use is increasing and especially as we have more nutritional labeling.

However, consumers are asking that the dual labeling also be

placed on the front panel of cans and packages. More and more

companies are doing this but it can be expanded. Rather than

confusing people, I believe it will assist people in learning rela- tionships, perhaps subconsciously. We need to help increase awareness among consumers of the availability of this dual labeling.

Although I recognize concerns of some business, hopefully the

changeover to metric can provide another spark to reduce the

number of sizes of packages and provide more uniformity, both

of which will assist the consumer in price comparisons. (I am

concerned when I see a three-quart milk container being proposed—not only for the size proliferation but also considering

the cost factor when a changeover to litre units will undoubtedly

be forthcoming.)

One critical decision affecting the home food preparation area

as well as business is the determination of the standard unit of measure which will be used. Although some are suggesting we

change to weighing dry ingredients as is done in many countries,

my investigations indicate that the average consumer is not will- ing to change from volume to weight despite the fact that the

latter is a more accurate method. Institutional food preparation

is really the only area where such procedures have been used to any great extent in the United States. How accurate are inexpensive scales which many homemakers would buy, and how

accurate could all scales be kept—what with many children in

homes using it as a delightful toy?

As we know, the cup has been the basic unit of measure. Under

the Z61 ANSI standards the present cup capacity is 237 millilitres, which is difficult for decimalization. A committee tentatively proposed the 250 ml cup which has the same relation to

63
the litre as the present cup has to a quart, a seemingly logical

relation and one which falls within the 5 percent tolerance allowed

in the Z61 standards.

Unfortunately, many have accepted this new metricup as the

standard—perhaps too quickly. Despite the fact that there is less than one tablespoon difference, that difference appears critical in some sensitive recipes and has created concern among some food

and equipment companies.

Decisions regarding the unit of measure should be made soon. A small group is meeting tomorrow to consider making plans for

reaching this decision. Already there are on the market two 250

ml measuring cups (metricups) dually marked. If we do change

to this unit of measure, consumers can continue using present

day measuring equipment with their favorite recipes. However,

there is indication from research done that straight conversion

of recipes to metric will not be made but new recipes will be

developed to utilize new standards of measure when determined.

This includes measuring spoons also. Incidentally, some wish a new name for the measure too. Baking pans and cooking utensils will probably not need to be

altered. The rounding off of metric measurements as done in the

Z61 standards indicates sufficient accuracy.

Fresh produce and meat, when sold by kilogram, should create no problems other than learning the relationship to the present

day pound. Packaging of butter and margarine may present a problem for consumers if we move to a 500 gram unit instead

of the 454 gram pound, a change which seems logical metrically.

Changing range and recipe temperatures to the Celsius scale

will require education, but this can be simple. Conversion tables can be developed to be attached to the range or cookbook. Again,

the rounding off of Celsius temperatures with new recipes should

prove no problem.

Metrication in the clothing area can have important ramifications—not so much in decisions as to units of measure of fabrics

and related items as in sizing. Interestingly, it is in this area that

many companies are offering new metric equipment. Now many

sewing accessory items are dually labeled. The metric tape measure is much more readily available as are meter sticks and sewing

gauges. One company is dually marking precut lengths of sewing

aids.

Perhaps there are some, but I have not found fabric widths

marked in centimetres in this country although pattern material

requirements do give this information. Several pattern manufacturers have been dually marking seam allowances for some time,

64
primarily because of international trade. They also indicate body

measurements in centimetres, either on the pattern jacket or on

construction sheets and in their construction books.

A psychological problem arises among some women regarding

the body measurements in centimetres! However, this is not so with weight, which, of course, is less in kilograms. I have not

found men so much concerned.

Again, going 'metric can provide an opportunity for greater

standardization of clothes sizing which many consumers would

like. Development of international standard sizes will be helpful

for both trade and travel.

Going metric will greatly simplify, for the consumer as well as businessman, the calculation of the amount of carpeting and

material needed for draperies and curtains in home furnishings.

How much simpler will be calculation in metres than the yards,

feet, and inches combination we currently use . Using the Celsius scale instead of Fahrenheit for indicating

climatic conditions and health determination introduces consumer

concerns similar to the baking temperatures. However, new thermometers will soon appear. Some radio and TV stations are giving

weather in both Fahrenheit and Celsius, but I understand sur- veys have found some people are paying no attention to Celsius

temperature reports. We must assist in this educational program helping people recognize relationships. How many of us can readily use the formula for conversion of temperatures?:

C = 5/9(F -32).

Metric sizing for equipment and furniture other than built-ins

will not be a problem; however, availability of repair items will

probably create confusion for both the business person and the consumer for a period, since items in both customary and metric

must be available. We have not mentioned many other consumer

concerns—gasoline, speed limits, etc.—but time does not permit.

Now I would like to discuss ways to assist consumers in moving to metric using a reasonable and positive approach and carried

out by business, educators, other professionals, and the media.

• Decisions regarding standards critical for consumers should

be speedily made by official leaders to prevent the appear- ance of contradictory information and confusion for con- sumers. This appears to be moving forward quite rapidly now.

• Educators must be motivated and given assistance through

accurate information and suggested methods for teaching at

all levels. They must be given criteria by which to judge

65
materials. Different approaches must be recognized for use

in the elementary and secondary schools and among various

ages and groups of adults.

• Many more adult consumers must be helped to understand

the need for, and methods of, conversion in areas affecting

them. Correct information must be made available. Any

changes in increases in unit package quantities, such as a

litre of milk or a 500 gram unit of butter or margarine, with

accompanying price increases must be explained and be fair. Otherwise the consumer's concern that prices are being in- creased unfairly will be exaggerated still more.

Despite the fact that all SI units should be taught in formal

classes, older consumers have different problems. Basic information they need and which will serve their purposes must be

developed, identified, and presented to gain acceptance by con- sumers. I refer to material such as materials prepared by the

Metric Information Office of the National Bureau of Standards

the fact sheet "All You Will Need to Know About the Metric

(for Your Everyday Life)" and the booklet "What About

Metric?" Recognition that rounding off can be done in many

cases and not affect the consumer product will make metric con- version more acceptable to consumers.

Finally, how do we meet these and other problems?

• Can we all work to have consumers promote the passage of

the metric legislation which would provide a body to give

leadership to an orderly changeover and give a time period

for the changeover?

• Can we—educators, weights and measures personnel, busi- ness representatives, and other involved professionals—get

together on a state basis, perhaps organize committees which

can help coordinate state efforts to avoid duplication of

efforts ; identify educational gaps ; identify, develop, or make

suggestions for educational materials for effective teaching

at all levels; and make certain we are going in the right

direction ? • Can state and local weights and measures personnel and

educators cooperate more closely in local educational efforts at all levels? Is more consumer involvement needed in your work? If so, how do you see that we who are involved

in the consumer movement can assist in increasing that

involvement in concerns you specifically have or with metrication in general? Would consumer representation on your

national committee be helpful, particularly your Committee

66
on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs and

Committee on Metric Planning?

• What are the implications for your state food and packaging

laws if we move toward a metric country? Can consumers

or other professionals be of assistance in these areas?

In conclusion, we need to recognize that what we are ten years

hence depends upon what we do today and tomorrow.

METRIC CONVERSION

Conversion in Australia

by James A. Servin, Warden of Standards,

Standards, Weights and Measures Branch, Thebarton,

South Australia

It gives me great pleasure to be here

today. When I was asked to address the 58th

National Conference in Minneapolis last year,

I never thought that I would be fortunate

enough to be attending the 59th National

Conference this year or that I would be

asked to address you once again.

My subject is conversion in Australia; and

I propose to deal with this subject mainly

looking at the implications for a weights and measures organization. I would be remiss in

my task if I did not give you at least a thumbnail sketch of the

complete conversion in Australia. In January 1970, the then Australian Prime Minister announced

that Australia was to convert to the International System (SI)

of measurement over the following decade. In April 1970, a meeting was held between the Commonwealth and State Ministers

to seek active cooperation by the states in the exercise. This

support was given. The Australian Parliament then passed the

Metric Conversion Act, which, among other things, says that

Australia shall convert to the sole use of the International System

of Units.

Of the 113 conversion programs which have been worked out,

36 have already been completed; and 65 had been commenced

before January 1, 1974. A further 10 either have commenced or are to commence this year, and the remaining three will com- mence next year. Now this does not mean that Australia has

67
converted. What it does mean is that we are past the point of no return. All this has been achieved in a little over four years.

The following is the method Australia used to achieve this.

First, a Board was established of some 13 members. Under

that Board 11 advisory committees were established. The function of an advisory committee is to advise the Board concerning

metric conversion in a particular area of activity, e.g., Education

and Industrial Training is one advisory committee; Engineering

is another advisory committee; Primary Industry is another

advisory committee, and so on. The Board, in essence, split up

the whole spectrum of Australian involvement into 11 categories

each advisory committee being responsible for a category. Each

advisory committee then established a number of sector committees, responsible to it, to cover all the different facets of industry

within the parameters of its responsibility.

If we take education as an example, the Education and Industrial Training Advisory Committee established seven sector committees

1. Primary Education

2. Secondary Education

3. Technical Education

4. Industrial Training

5. Tertiary-University Education

6. Tertiary-Non-University Education

7. Adult Education

The sector committees were made up of men who were experts

in their particular field. The committee's functions were to draw

up the conversion program for that particular sector and to establish all that had to be done for conversion to be complete

in that particular sector. When a sector committee had drawn up

its program, it was submitted to the advisory committee. The

advisory committee, first of all, ensured that it was compatible

with the other programs from the other sector committees and,

if supported, it was recommended to the Board. The Board then

checked to see that the program was in line with the other programs over the whole spectrum and that it was possible for

attainment before they publicized the draft program for comment

around the industry concerned.

After the comments had been received, the program was subsequently accepted, approved, and returned to the sector committee for implementation.

One of the most important sector committees in the Board's

establishment is the Units Sector Committee. Its prime function

68
is to see that the system being introduced into Australia is as pure as is practicable and to see that only one unit is used for

each physical quantity.

For example, we found fairly early that if the various sector

committees were allowed to have the final say concerning the

units they would use, it would not be long before we would have

one section of industry using the bar as the unit of pressure,

another the pascal, and another the kilogram force.

While in the International System there is only one, the pascal,

you can, if you are so inclined, argue a reasonable case for any

of the others on either economic or world usage grounds. One of

the main functions of the Units Sector Committee was to see that

this did not happen. Indeed, in the example I have just quoted,

the pascal was used as the unit of pressure throughout Australia.

Another important function of this committee is to see that the

correct abbreviations or symbols are used. At the moment these

symbols are internationally uniform. Yesterday, you had some

discussion on them. I must stress that it is vital that America

accept the internationally uniform abbreviations or symbols irrespective of how much pressure you get from industry. If the one

thing both the Arabs and the Israelies can agree on is these

symbols, if the one thing both the Protestants and Catholics of

Northern Ireland can agree on is these symbols, surely America

can also agree on them and make them truly international.

It matters not whether you spell metre correctly with an "re" or "er" ; what matters is that when abbreviated it is a lower case "m," so that when it is written here, whether it is read in

Ethiopia, Western Samoa, or Chile by a person who can read

English or can hardly read at all, it is understood. That is what is important.

I have digressed from my main point, but this is so important.

This is a rather sketchy outline of how Australia has converted

in the stage to which we have arrived in mid-1974. I have done

it in this manner because half an hour is not long for an address on metrication; and I wish to devote most of my time to looking

at metric conversion as it affects weights and measures organizations. I have done this because this will be of prime importance

to most of the people present here today, and because, to a

certain extent, it is the cornerstone of any conversion program.

I have outlined eight points concerning weights and measures

administration and metric conversion, and I propose to spend a few minutes on each point.

The first point is the need to convert your own thinking from

customary units to SI units ; and I deliberately said SI units, not

metric units.

69
I believe the intention here is to go to the predominant use of

SI units. The Intrenational System is a far superior system of

units than any of the older metric systems. It is a completely

coherent, logical, and rational system of units. There is one, and

only one, SI unit for each physical quantity. While any country

in the throes of conversion needs to include some non-SI units in

its new system, at least in the transitional stage, one is wise to keep these to the absolute minimum or you will find that you

have lost quite a lot of the advantage of conversion.

When a country changes its system of weights and measures

it is presented with an opportunity that it may never get again

to rethink what it has done in the past, and why. I say that in all seriousness. How often does a country change its weights and measures system? In the case of Australia, this is the first time

that we have ever changed it. In the case of England, it is the

first time in over a thousand years that they have changed their

system; and in the case of the United States, it is the first time

since the Pilgrim Fathers set foot on American soil that you have

changed or that you have contemplated changing your system of

weights and measures.

It follows, therefore, that the first thing which one has to do is to rethink just what are the basic aims one has been trying to achieve in the customary system and then to try to establish the

best way of achieving those aims in the new system. Now to do

this, one has to think in the new system. If I can give you an example from industry: When we first started to convert, most

of the businessmen who rang me up would say, "We are packing

such-and-such in 1 pound or 2 pound packs now, and we wish to convert these to the metric system. We believe the right thing

to do is to convert to 450 gram and 900 gram packs because this

will mean the least modification to our pack design, to our filling

machines, to our cartons, and because they will be far easier to price."

And I would say, "Easier to price? How will you be pricing

when you have changed to the metric system?"

They would hesitate for a minute and then they would say, "Oh, so much per kilogram."

And I would say, "Well, would it not be simpler to work the

costing of your packaging plan out if the units were 500 grams

rather than 450 grams, or 1 kilogram rather than 900 grams?"

Again, there would be a moment of silence. They would suddenly realize that, of course, it would be. They had been looking

at the problem from the point of view of the customary system

where they were used to pricing in pounds and multiples of

pounds; and they thought they would still be doing this in the

70
new system. The same sort of thing is basic in our own sphere

of activities, e.g., in weighing instruments the graduation values

are in relation to the pound and multiples of the pound; in a metric environment they must be in relation to the kilogram and

multiples of the kilogram, not 450 gram values or 900 gram

values.

Conversion to the International System or metric system is not

difficult, provided you have oriented your thinking to the new

system. It is most difficult if you try to plan your conversion

process while you are still thinking in your own mind in terms

of the customary units. I can think of no better example for this

than the technical requirements which you have for instruments

as laid down in your Handbook 44. When I was preparing this

paper, I read through your Handbook 44 and noted at least 193

references that required conversion to the International System.

In most of these places a direct conversion or a soft conversion

did not seem to me to be in anyone's best interest.

The second point in the conversion of a weights and measures

organization is the need for an in-depth study of your own organization to see what needs to be done to convert it, so that it will

be predominantly metric early. It must, of course, be remembered

that complete conversion of a weights and measures authority

cannot take place until the whole country is converted.

A weights and measures organization has a unique role in con- version in that it must be the first organization in the country

to have a capability to work in the new system; and it must be

the last organization in the country to relinquish its capacity to work in the old system. This, in itself, creates many problems.

What we did was to make an in-depth study of our whole

operation to see what was needed to give us a capacity to work

in the old system. This, in itself, creates many problems.

What we did was to make an in-depth study of our whole operation to see what was needed to give us a capacity to work in the

metric system early ; to see what facets of our organization could

be converted to sole metric operation early; to see what facets

of our organization would need to remain in the customary sys- tem, at least for the initial period; and, finally, to see what

facets of our organization need to remain in the customary system until the end of the conversion program.

The first thing was to provide sufficient numbers of inspectors

with working standards in the metric system to allow any instrument to be tested in that system. Coupled with this was the need

for early training of the organization, but I will deal with that one a little later. Then we found all of our own internal reporting

71
could be metric; and if it was metric, we would make it simpler

and easier on the inspectorate and the office staff. Very early in the conversion program we were prosecuting

people for delivering short weight in the customary system and

advising the court of the shortages expressed in grams or millilitres as the case may be. This had a side advantage; it helped

to teach the courts an appreciation of the metric system.

We found we were able to convert the large test weights on our

vehicle scale test truck from a half ton to a half tonne very early.

It was a comparatively simple matter for the inspector to use those weights to test a weighbridge irrespective of whether the

weighbridge was calibrated in terms of either the metric system

or the customary system. We had a need to buy additional inspectors beam scales for testing weights and packaged goods. We

commenced a program of buying Mettler top-pan constant load

balances which were calibrated in terms of the metric system.

The inspectors had no problem in setting weights in the customary system on the Mettler balance or in checking packaged goods

for accuracy against the quantity statement. Indeed, in the latter case it was found to be far easier to work out the percentages in

the metric system than in the customary system.

We have gone about as far as we can go in our own branch's

conversion until Australia's conversion program is completed.

Each inspector has a set of metric standards of mass and a set of imperial or customary standards of mass; a yard measure of

length and a metre measure of length; a balance, which is a metric constant load balance; and we have sufficient measures

of volume to give each inspector a complete set. Now it is a matter of waiting for the particular facet to completely convert when we will be able to start to withdraw the

customary standards from the inspectorate. But because our program is a voluntary one, the same as yours will probably be,

it is anticipated that it will be the end of 1980 before we will be

able to completely withdraw the customary standards from the

inspectorate and withdraw the references to the customary units

from our Act and regulations. Until that day, the Branch cannot

completely convert. The third point is the need to ensure early in the program that

there is no legal impediment to conversion or use of metric units or instruments. This is a comparatively simple matter of going

through your Act and your regulations and ensuring they make

provision for the lawful use of the metric units or metric instrument in all, and I stress the all, situations.

One of the catches to be aware of in this particular exercise is a comparatively minor regulation or section of an act, or indeed

72
definition, which is restrictive on the use of the metric system,

sometimes in a very oblique way. There is no short cut available

here. It is simply a matter of sitting down with your legislation

and seeing what amendments are necessary to couch it in metric

terms. I stress that, however, to couch it in metric terms.

Again, early in the program we in South Australia had the

opportunity to amend our Act an'd regulations to couch the Act

in metric terms ;* and we framed our regulations so that the only

time that customary units are mentioned is in the tables of

tolerances permitted on instruments. Any regulation which re- quires that an instrument shall be situated so far from a building

or some other obstruction or that the length of a hose on a driveway flowmeter shall be no longer than so much, or the approaches

of a weighbridge will be concreted for so much, all these were

redrafted to specify those distances in rounded metric quantities.

This, of course, means that you have to put amending legislation

through your legislature ; and one can never guarantee to control

the speed of output from those august institutions.

This automatically leads to the fourth point which is one that

I have mentioned previously and that is the need to examine your

own pattern approval, as we would call it, or type approval

requirements, as you would call it, or type approval requirements,

as you would call it (your Handbook 44), to ensure that provision

is made for:

1. metric requirements for new metric patterns or types

2. existing customary system patterns or types to be manufactured in metric

3. conversion of existing instruments to metric.

Now they might all sound like the same thing, but they are three totally distinct things. They may be related, but they are

totally distinct from one another. In the case of the first one, you

need to ensure that there is provision for a manufacturer to design a new instrument purely and solely in terms of the metric

system. You may well be saying to yourselves, "We have a sec- tion in our Handbook 44 which already permits this to be done."

It is paragraph G-A.4. of the General Code, but from any reading of it that paragraph could lull you into a false sense of security. I do not claim to be an expert in your Handbook 44, but from

my reading it I believe a manufacturer would have difficulty in

trying to design a metrically designed instrument calibrated in

terms of the metric system in line with your existing Handbook

44, because of its heavy orientation towards thinking in the

customary system.

73
To enlarge on what I mean, paragraphs S.1.1.2., 1.1.3., 1.1.5.,

and 4.2. of the LPG Vapor Measuring Devices Code are the best

examples of what needs to be done. In these paragraphs the

requirements are specified in both systems, not as direct conversions one of the other, but each in its own right as they ought to

be. A quick comparison between these paragraphs in this section

and the same paragraphs in any other section will show you what

I mean. Paragraphs 1.2. and 1.3. of the Scale Code is a fair

example of the category of references which have to be altered.

In paragraph 1.2.3. you are talking about the clear interval

between graduations and you say that it shall be not less than

0.02 inch. That is 0.5080 millimetres. Surely if you are going to allow 0.02 inch intervals in customary scales, you would allow 0.5 millimetre intervals in metric ones.

I might add that in Australia we require a larger interval

between graduations. We used to require an apparent interval of

1/16 inch; we converted this to 1.5 millimetres. In paragraph 1.5. you talk of money values and you talk of

cents per pound. Now you must decide whether or not you are going to double this for cents per kilogram. Two cents per pound

is near enough to 4 cents per kilogram. But the whole problem

is that 4 cent graduations are an inconvenience. Five cent graduations are a lot more practical.

In table 1 you specify minimum travel instruments of varying

capacity. Again, the question is whether 2 pounds is to be con- sidered equal to 1 kilogram for all practical purposes. We took

the view that for instrument conversion purposes 2 pounds equal

1 kilogram. This is an increase of a little over 10 percent, but the

scales are quite capable of the resultant increase in capacity.

In most cases the resistance mechanism was found to have

sufficient range to cater for this. If a scale had a capacity of 2

pounds, it could be converted to 1 kilogram or 10 pounds to 5 kilograms. Similarly, we required scales graduated in 14, V2» or 1 ounce graduations to be converted to 5, 10, or 20 gram graduations. This was a tightening up, but was the only practical

solution because in the metric system the logical graduation

values are the 1.2.5 principal as opposed to 1.2.4.8 principal of

the customary system.

The second category is provision for existing customary system

patterns to be manufactured in metric. Now this is different from

the first one. In the first one, you have the case of a hard con- version, a metrically designed instrument; in the second one, it is soft conversion. You have the case of the existing instrument

or instruments of an existing pattern or type which a manufac74
turer wishes to continue to make in the new system. These will,

in essence, be customarily designed instruments that are con- verted before sale, or in the course of manufacture, to the metric

system.

In the third category is provision for conversion of existing

instruments to metric and here you will say to me, "Ha, I have

got you because these are the same as number two." They may

be, they may not be; but they all have one subtle difference and

that is: These are instruments that have previously been made

and have been stamped and used for maybe twenty years in the

customary system. They are now going to be converted to the

metric system by their owner who was not the manufacturer. It may even be that the type is no longer made today. It does not

automatically follow that the requirements which you could

allow these instruments are identical with the requirements that

you would allow the second category of instruments. Indeed, one would normally expect that you would be harsher on the second

category of instruments than you would be on this third cate- gory in an environment of no compensation.

In both the second and the third categories it will, in all probability, be necessary for you to allow these instruments to be

converted or made without fully complying with the metric

requirements of your handbook. This is what we have found in

Australia anyway.

One of the major problems we found there was that the decision was made and announced that Australia was to go metric.

Even though there was approximately an 18-month planning

period in which very little conversion work was being done,

people immediately wanted our instrument specifications in metric

because they wanted time to design new instruments.

So speaking for a moment on a national basis, I would com- mend to you the fact that one of your prime tasks is to have

your Committeee on Specifications and Tolerances convert the

requirements of your Handbook 44. Here we found that, in essence, we have two sets of specifications; those for customary

instruments and those for the newer metric types of instruments.

We have also found that, speaking generally, the specifications

for the metric instruments are far more rational and coherent

than the specifications for the customary instruments ever were. This again leads to the fifth point, the need to produce your

regulations or ordinances stating both customary system and

metric system requirements. It is impossible for them to be the same. This, of course, is a real heaven-sent opportunity to rationalize and rethink what your requirements are. However, if you

75
are going to avoid being accused of tightening up your requirements at the time of conversion, you have got to be careful.

We in Australia were faced with the problem that both the

Federal Government and each state government declared that it would endeavor to see that the burden which was placed on the

public after conversion of regulations would not be greater than

the burden on the public before the regulations were converted.

This is a very good principal which at least keeps the administrator honest; but it creates headaches at times because it is not

always a cut-and-dried matter as to which is the correct way to go to ensure that the burden placed on the public is not greater

after conversion than before.

I will give you an example of one which is not in the weights

and measures area at all but which I came across in my role of

being the officer responsible in the South Australia Government

for coordinating the whole Government's conversion exercise. We

have in South Australia a local government ordinance which

requires that the height of a fence at an intersection shall not

be greater than three feet; and this had to be converted to the

metric system. The question arose as to whether it should be

converted to 1 metre, 0.91 metre, or 0.9 metre. To make it 1 metre, you are being more lenient on the property owner but

harder on the motorist driving down the street who is trying to see what is coming around the corner as he approaches it. Alternatively, if you make it 0.9 metre, which is slightly less than the

yard, you are being easier on the motorist but harsher on the

person who owns the property. That is one of the best examples

of the administrator being wrong no matter which way he goes.

I will give another example also of why the regulations will be different in both systems ; and, again going outside the weights

and measures area, I will give you the example of the requirement

which used to be in the South Australia law which made it an

offense to consume alcohol within three hundred yards of a dance

hall. Now, if you do a direct conversion, that ordinance would be

changed to make it an offense to consume alcohol within 274.32

metres of a dance hall. The two things which are ridiculous about

that are the actual statement itself and the implied degree of

accuracy.

In the first statement it is within three hundred yards of a dance hall, and the implied accuracy could be as liberal as fifty

yards or as tight as one yard, depending on how you interpret it. But in the second case, and we are talking about the same dis- tance of 274.32 metres, the implied accuracy is between 274.33

metres and 274.31 metres, a distance of two centimetres or roughly three quarters of an inch.

76
This is a major hazard for people whose responsibility is the

conversion of legislation. The tendency is to take the distance

that is quoted in existing legislation and convert it directly to the new system without taking into consideration the degree of

accuracy intended, inferred, or implied in the original statement.

One should remember that it is possible to work out some of the

conversion factors to 32 decimal places and while they may be

mathematically correct, from the point of metrology they are

ridiculous.

My sixth point is the need to ensure that the testing and

enforcement staff has adequate metric equipment early. I mentioned this in my second point dealing with the need for an in- depth study in the organization. This point is vital and, indeed, as a corollary to it, there is the fact that we have found it wise

to set a date after which distinct preference was given in purchasing solely metric equipment, second preference to dual metric

equipment and customary equipment, and, only as a last resort,

purchasing purely customary equipment. We have now reached

the point where we would not buy purely customary equipment.

The major point to bear in mind here is the life span of the

equipment that you are purchasing in relation to the length of

the conversion exercise. If the equipment has a life span which

is less than the conversion exercise, then it does not matter which

system you buy it in. But if the equipment has a life span which

exceeds the conversion exercise, then there is a distinct advantage

in buying it in terms of the new system. This will largely depend

on Government policy.

In my case the South Australia Government decreed early in

the exercise that due preference should be given to metric if the

life span of the equipment was anticipated as greater than the

length of the conversion program.

This has had many advantages for us. Probably the best example would be that in Australia all road speed and distance signs are being converted in the month of July of this year; but from

February 1972, all new vehicles purchased by the S.A. Government have been fitted with a metric speedometer and a metric

odometer with a m.p.h. decal on the inside of the speedometer.

This has meant that at the time that the speeds legally change,

all the vehicles driven by S.A. public servants have a metric

speedometer at no cost to the Government. The whole fleet has

been changed at least once in that period.

The seventh point is the need to train your staff so that they

are proficient in the metric system and so they can and do think

in it. This needs to be done early. The public will look on the

77
weights and measures inspector as an expert ; and if he is unsure

of the system, they will think it more difficult than it is. That

aside, as a straight public relations exercise, it is essential for the

weights and measures staff to be proficient in the metric system

as early as possible in the conversion program.

The eighth point is the need to ensure that weights and measures enforcement authorities through one or more representatives

have a very real voice in the overall planning of metric conversion in the country and are consulted beforehand on projected

industry conversion dates. This is of prime importance because

of our involvement at all levels of industry and commerce. Consultation on projected industry conversion dates is essential

because one of the major bottlenecks in conversion is the lack of

trained technicians to convert instruments and the need for those

instruments to be recertified by an inspector of weights and measures after they have been converted.

In conclusion, I would like to draw your attention to a couple

of points. Firstly, Australia is converting to the use of the

International System of Units as the sole system of measurement

and, as I understand it, the United States is converting to the use

of SI as a predominant means of measurement. There is a vast

gulf between these two. It is far easier to get a country to con- vert to a system as the sole system than to get a country to convert to it as the predominant system. How do you convince

business people that they are not included in that section which

can remain in the old system?

Secondly, I have just recently come from a Pacific Nations

Metric Conversion Conference at Lae in New Guinea where some

22 countries of the South Pacific area met to consider the problems associated with metric conversion. One of the main problems

that stemmed out of this conference was the fact that we can

only go so far in our conversion exercise before America converts

or at least before America announces her intention to convert and

starts to plan towards that end. Even in Australia's case, we

cannot completely convert our meat industry because those people

who pack for export to the United States must mark their export

meat packs 25 pounds net and are forbidden to put a metric

statement on it even as an additional statement.

There is also the question of timber sizes which cannot be

satisfactorily resolved until the world's biggest producer, the

USA, enters the discussions.

Thirdly, I have not even mentioned conversion of packaged

goods. That is a completely diflferent ball game and would take a

half hour just to scratch the surface.

78
Finally, I hope that this dissertation has been of some benefit.

I can assure you that the rest of the world is eagerly awaiting

America getting its feet wet in metric conversion. I can also assure you that the problems which you have to face in the period

ahead of you in metric conversion will not be as great when you

are face to face with them as they now appear.

DISCUSSION

Mr. W. a. Scheurer (H. J. Fuller & Company) : What is the

legal unit of weight for postage in Australia now?

Mr. J. A. Servin (Australia) : Grams.

Mr. Scheurer: One letter?

Mr. Servin : Ten grams replaced the half-ounce weight ; twenty

grams replaced the one-ounce weight limit. We have gone to the

international system.

Mr. Scheurer: An ounce there is twenty grams?

Mr. Servin : Twenty grams, yes ; and for air mail it has gone

to ten grams instead of half an ounce. Ms. Joanna Lindquist (Virgin Islands) : I would like to direct

my question to either Dr. O'Hagan or Miss Young. Would metrication eliminate the need for unit pricing?

Dr. M. E. O'Hagan (American National Metric Council) : The

isssue, looking at this from a consumer viewpoint, as opposed to standard packaging seems to be a very important one. There

seems to be a general preference not only here but abroad as

well. I mentioned that with respect to the EEC there is a definite

preference for standard packaging as an alternate to unit pricing

where that can be applied.

Personally, I feel that in areas where there are requirements

for unit pricing now those requirements will not necessarily be

eliminated in a change to metric. Even in a simplistic case of

something that costs 59 cents for 500 grams, some people may

find it difficult to calculate in their head what the price would be

in kilograms—even though it is only twice fifty-nine.

In general, I think there seems to be a preference against unit

pricing because there are many business problems associated with

it. The emphasis is on standard packs. If the standard packs can

be carried far enough, it should take care, I think, of the con- sumer's requirement for easing comparative shopping.

Miss Louise Young (University of Wisconsin) : I think I would agree. I would say that it would not do away with the need

for unit pricing for some of the reasons that Dr. O'Hagan mentioned. It will make it much easier if we do not have unit pricing

79
and certainly we do not have it in all stores—but I still think it can be helpful to people to have unit pricing regardless. Do you

have any comments, Mr. Servin, on this?

Mr. Servin : I would agree that if there exists a need for unit

pricing now, there still would exist that need for unit pricing in

the new system.

Mr. S. J. Darsey (Florida) : In all the discussions I have heard

on converting to metric, the primary interest has been to convert on even metric units; five hundred grams, for instance. Now

there are multitudes of products in this country that are 16%

ounces. How are we going to convert to metric without an accom- panying method of sale regulation that is going to say they have

to be converted to even metric figures?

Mr. Servin : My answer would be that you cannot. I have been

amazed at the proliferation of package sizes that I have seen in

the United States. In Australia we do have standardization of

certain commodities—packaged goods. As far as I am aware, you

are about the only country of any major importance that does

not have items of goods standardized; that is counting the EEC

coming into it right now.

If you hope to convert to the metric system and at the same

time arrive at voluntary standardization of packaged goods, then

my comment would be that you would have as much chance of success in that as you had in the past in voluntary standardization of packaged goods in the avoirdupois system—which is nil. Mr. Darsey: In Australia you do not have packages 451.6

grams and 1.23 kilograms? You have even figures all the way?

Mr. Servin : We try. We have packaged goods in Australia

generally fall into three categories: either those commodities

which are required by law to be sold in standard sizes; those

commodities which are not ; and the third category would be those

commodities which are straight random weights and sold under

unit pricing; namely, cuts of meat and things like that. In the conversion exercise we gave the packaging industry a

list of sizes that we considered would be ideal. We said to them,

"If you do not wish to, at some stage, have to justify why you

should not sell your packs in standard sizes, then we suggest you

pack them in these sizes. If you are prepared to take the risk,

pack them in whatever sizes you like, but be prepared to justify

that the size you have chosen is in the public's interest." Those

are the only grounds that we would listen to. Mr. Darsey: In other words, you have standard legs of lamb,

right?

Mr. Servin: As I said before, they would be required to be

marked with the weight, the unit price, and the price of the piece.

80
Mr. Darsey : Well, I think the random weight packaging would

definitely indicate then that unit pricing would be absolutely

necessary.

Mr. W. N. Shannon (Berkel Incorporated) : I have several

questions for Jim Servin. I am interested in the population of

Australia, which is, as I understand it, approximately two million.

I am interested in the number of qualified scale technicians, the

estimated time to convert both retail scales and industrial scales,

and in a recent issue of "The Metric Reporter" of the American

National Metric Council which described another commonwealth

country, New Zealand, in saying that the retail sector was con- sidering opposition as far as conversion of its weighing devices,

but it was overcoming it even though it was letting the costs fall where they may.

Mr. Servin: We have slightly more than two million people;

it was thirteen million at the last count. I would not have a clue as to the actual number of qualified scale mechanics. It would be

only hazarding a guess at around 250 or 300. The industry has

estimated, and there are no real figures to prove this other than

the industry itself, that it will take approximately four hours to convert an instrument, either retail or industrial, to metric. That

is an average. Some, of course, will take less because some only

need minor modifications ; others will take a lot longer.

In answer to your question concerning New Zealand, we also

have that same problem. In fact, I would think that New Zealand

is probably a little further advanced in the area of conversion at the retail shop level than Australia. The problem here boils down

not so much to conversion as to opposition to being the first cab

off the rack. No one wants to be the first shop to convert because

of fear of losing trade ; and no one wants to be the last shop to convert because of fear of losing trade.

We are trying a pilot exercise in Sydney at the moment. Here,

in effect, a whole area is being done on a geographical basis. The

whole area has been interviewed, and they are trying to convert

in six weeks.

Mr. Shannon : Was there an estimate of the time period for

the country to convert scales?

Mr. Servin : We had a couple of estimates of this, one of which

proved so wrong very early in the piece that we disregarded the

second one as well

1 mean that in all seriousness. You have a problem here, you know. The people who are giving you this information are from the scale fraternity. In all due respect (I have some very good friends in the scale fraternity), they are either

in the business to sell scales or to repair them and their figures are sometimes exaggerated a little bit. It seems to us that the

81
retail sector will take about three years to convert. About 60 percent of the wholesale sector ,has been converted in eighteen

months.

Mr. L. 0. Leenerts (Purex Corporation) : This is also for

Mr. Servin. What is the status of products being imported into

Australia? Will they have to be in the regular units that you

require for your own manufacturers, I mean the same sizes?

Mr. Servin: You mean prepackaged goods?

Mr. Leenerts : Yes, prepackaged goods in the exact same sizes

that you recommend?

Mr. Servin : The situation in Australia regarding prepackaged

goods at the moment is that they can be marked either in metric

or in Imperial—the option is yours—up until the first of January

1976. We have not, and will never, legislate for dual marking.

From the first of January 1976 on, every package must have a metric mark on it whether or not there is a customary mark on

it. If the goods that you are exporting to Australia are goods that

would be required in Australia to be sold in standard sizes—such

as sugar, tea, flour, these sorts of things—then they would not

be allowed into the country for sale unless they were packed in

those sizes. This is the same in any other country. If you are exporting to a country, you must pack the goods so that they

comply with the law of that country.

Mr. K. Simila (Oregon) : One of the problems with the cus- tomary system, of course, is the confusion between mass and

weight. In the SI, or metric system, you have kilograms, mass,

and Newton's force. Do you refer, Mr. Servin, in Australia to your packaged quantities that normally would be referred to in terms of weight units as mass or net mass. Do you not use weight

in reference to those?

Mr. Servin : Australia has been accused of being the second

purest country on Earth as far as metric conversion is concerned,

South Africa, being the purest, is where they talk of a weighing instrument as being a massometer. We have not gone that

far. We, through the medium of education, are teaching children

that the correct term to use is mass and not weight.

We recognize that this will take probably twenty-five years to get general acceptance. As an interim measure we are endeavoring to change our legislation to make it clear that for all legal

purposes mass and weight are the same thing and that when a person says weight he means mass. We are putting the emphasis

that way (weight means mass) rather than the other way (mass means weight) unless he is talking about a gravitational force,

and this has a spinoff which we, at the moment, are going through

in my own state.

82
What do you call your Weights and Measures Act? Not Mass

and Measures. What do you call your department? We are looking

at this at the moment. South Africa has changed its departmental

name to Trade Metrology.

Mr. D. Offner (St. Louis, Missouri) : I am curious as to what

size containers are allowed for the sale of milk in Australia.

Mr. Servin : A quarter pint, a third pint, a half pint, a quart, a half gallon, and a gallon in the Imperial gallon system, not your

gallon. In the metric system 200 millilitres, 300 millilitres, 500

millilitres for UHT milk, and 600 milUilitres for all other milk,

and one litre. Now the reason that we stopped at 600 was an

obscure one—the dairymen thought they would sell less milk if we

converted our pint milk bottle to 500 millilitres. The answer to the question that you did not ask is that there is no three litre size. Mr. a. Sanders (Scale Manufacturers Association) : I was

interested in Mr. Servin's answers to Mr. Shannon a little while

ago about a voluntary conversion of retail food stores and such

other competitors as grain elevators and so forth who deal with

customers and whose customers may prefer to deal in the regular customary system. How are we going to get those converted

over to the metric system?

I think, in many cases, it is a larger job than four hours to convert a good, big scale. In Canada, one of the things they

would like to do early is to convert the retail food stores so their

customers, the public, will begin to learn about the metric system.

Now did I understand you to say that within about three years

you calculate that about 60 percent of your retail food stores will

have their scales converted?

Mr. Servin : I would think that within three years almost all of the retail food stores would be converted with the exception

of what we would term the small corner stores where grandma

and grandpa are waiting to die. At this point in time, about 60

percent of the industrial scales are converted.

Mr. Sanders: Industrial scales?

Mr. Servin: Yes. The point that you have got to remember

with the time I gave you, and I stressed it, is that it was average.

Now the thing that you have got to remember when an average

time is quoted is that in the case in point there are far more, shall

I say, small capacity platform scales than there are vehicle or track scales. It may take twelve to sixteen hours to convert a vehicle or track scale; but when you pull them together in averages, it brings the figure down to about four hours average for

the lot. Mr. Sanders: We have the same problem you do about not

having enough servicemen to make a fast conversion of all these

83
scales. Presumably, the servicemen are already busy or they

would not have jobs. We thought some schedule could be worked

out for scheduling these conversions to make an orderly conversion over a period of time; and Canada was thinking the same

thing in the assumptions they made.

Mr. Servin : This is true ; and it is attainable in a country

where there is no compensation in one of two ways. The first way

is if you can do it as New Zealand is attempting to do it on an

industry basis. For example, this may sound funny, just recently

New Zealand changed all its fish and chips shops. I think sometime earlier this year they had a program whereby all their fruit

and vegetable shops were converted to the metric system.

They are attacking their conversion system on an industry

basis. One of these days they will get around to supermarkets

and another time they will get around to hardware stores. We did that in the industrial sector where all our wineries

converted at the same period of time, all our paper mills at the

same period of time, and so on ; but we have not attempted it in

the retail area because the shopkeepers have complained that if they are the only shop in an area that is converted they will be

disadvantaged. Remember that supermarkets sell meat just as much as butchers sell meat so if you convert the butcher before

you convert the supermarket, you have a little problem.

What we are trying, and it is difficult in a voluntary country,

is to get people in a geographic area—such as a council, a city

ward, or a city electorate—to all go over a period of time, say

six weeks, so that any disadvantages are only for a short period

of time in a given shopping area. After the first areas convert,

the other areas suddenly realize that they are the ones at a disadvantage and they will want to go too. Mr. Sanders : Thank you, Mr. Servin. You have made a valuable contribution to this problem we are considering.

Mr. R. Ogg (Illinois) : We have a problem, or will have a problem, in the State of Illinois if weights and measures converts to the metric system. We are very unlucky; we control everything.

What happens, or has it happened, in Australia or New Zealand

in the guaranteed analysis of chemicals, fertilizers, and feeds

which are on a hundred-weight basis?

Mr. Servin : When you say a hundred-weight, you mean one- hundred pounds?

Mr. Ogg: Right, sir. Mr. Servin : Right, well most of your figures are on a percentage basis.

Mr. Ogg: Yes, sir. Some of them get down into the ten thousandths of one percent.

84
Mr. Servin : Well, look, it is simpler in metric. I mean that. A

milligram is one millionth part of a kilogram. It is as simple as

that.

Mr. Ogg: The industry had no problem changing to it?

Mr. Servin: No, none. Mr. E. H. Stadolnik (Massachusetts) : When the land is con- veyed from one person to another, what is done about the description of that land because it is in acres? I wonder how the

description is going to be handled in the future.

For precious metals the troy ounce is customarily used all over dering if any member of the panel would have any comments

the world. The carat is used for precious stones. I was just wonto make on this.

Mr. Servin : With regard to the land measurements, there are two alternatives and they have both been used with regular gay

abandon. For instance, I believe if you go to Austria today you

can still find some titles that are in the old customary system.

In that country I believe they are converting titles as the land

is transferred. In Australia the Registrar Generals, the people who are in

charge of titles in Australia, wanted new equipment. They wanted

computers and they wanted to be able to justify them, so they

said all titles had to be changed to metric. They got people to believe them. As a result they are getting beautiful computers

and all the titles are being changed at that period of time.

There is no need to change the titles until you sell the land. In

Australia, when speaking of land, the units used are square metres

to hectares. Ten thousand square metres would take the place of

about ten town blocks. After that the units are hectares or square

kilometres, depending on how big the ranch is. The system that we are going to at the moment for precious

stones is the metric carat; although I think the Metric Conversion Board also believes that it will eventually die out and the

unit to be used will be straight out the units of mass, of milligram

and gram.

For the precious metals, once again we are waiting for America.

The world's biggest bullion market is the London bullion market

and it will not convert from the troy ounce until America decides

what it is going to do. In South Africa and Australia, all gold is mined, worked, and recorded up to the point of sale in terms of

the metric system. Then, because of the London bullion market,

it is converted to troy ounces for sale.

85
TUESDAY EVENING—JULY 9, 1974

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP RECEPTION

Conference delegates enjoyed a delightful reception on Tuesday

evening, which was sponsored by contributors of the associate

membership. Photographs of the reception and representatives

of the sponsors are shown.

86
MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1974

(Lacy H, DeGrange, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

METRIC PLANS, PROGRAMS, PROBLEMS

The Metric Conversion of Scales

As Viewed by the Scale Industry

by William N. Shannon, Vice President, Marketing,

Berkel Incorporated, LaPorte, Indiana

Many of you know the Berkel Company

by its former trade name of U.S. Slicing

Machine Company. The Berkel Group, a multinational company, is one of the largest

scale and weighing equipment companies in

the world ; and Berkel scale production probably exceeds that of any U.S. scale manufacturer. Berkel Incorporated, the U.S. subsidiary, formerly made scales; and we

anticipate a limited resumption of the U.S.

manufacture in a very short time.

Prior to joining Berkel, I had been associated with Hobart and

previously Toledo Scale. Through May 1 of this year, I served as chairman of the Metric Conversion Advisory Council of the Scale

Manufacturers Association, as a member of the SMA Technical

Committee, and on the SMA Board of Directors. Because many

Canadian scale companies are subsidiaries of U.S. firms, I established a liaison with the Canadian Association of Scale Manufacturers; and I have met with the two co-managers of the

Canadian Weights and Measures Task Force of the Metric Commission. With the soon-to-be accomplished resumption of Berkel

scale manufacturing in the U.S., Berkel will apply to become a member of the Scale Manufacturers Association. I mention this

background so that my remarks are not considered official Scale

Manufacturers Association position statements.

You may find it useful to take notes as we look at the Canadian

approach to metric conversion which appears to be moving from

the investigative phase into planning, scheduling, and implementation phases.

Several of you may be interested in obtaining the comprehensive and detailed reference papers on which I will draw this

morning, such as "The Official Canadian Weights and Measures

Guidelines for Metric Conversion of Weighing & Measuring De87
vices Used in Trade," and the 76-page Metric Commission (March

1974) Task Force Report on the Metric Conversion of Weighing

and Measuring Devices in Canada. If you are interested, please

drop me a line at Berkel Incorporated, LaPorte, Indiana 46350.

I suggest that we look at the work that has already been accomplished in Canada in the investigative phase to see what might

be in store for us in the U.S.

The population of Canada is approximately 22 million people, or about one-tenth that of the United States. When considering

the following figures, is it realistic to consider that in the U.S. our scale population would be ten times larger than Canada?

Remember, that is just a question.

• There are over 116,000 scales used in retail food stores in

Canada.

• There are approximately 180,000 industrial type scales used

in Canada outside the retail food industry.

To convert an estimated 217,000 retail and industrial scales in

Canada, not considering those existing scales that will be merely

replaced, 180,000 man-days or 758 man-years of skilled scale

service will be required.

The total scale population in Canada of retail, industrial, and

postal scales is estimated to be 346,000 units, of which 245,000

will be converted and 101,000 scales replaced. There are 730 scale

service technicians in Canada. Just a rough first estimate yields an estimated $75 million to $100 million cost of converting

Canadian scales to metric.

The Canadian Metric Commission Task Force on Weights and

Measures was under the direction of two co-managers: Mr. John

Armstrong, who was formerly chief of weights and measures

with the responsibility for the entire program of type approval

and device inspection for all of Canada; and Mr. Don Kendall,

who was formerly chief scale engineer of Toledo Scale, Toledo,

Ohio. Mr. Kendall has been associated with the scale industry

for over forty years ; for ten years he was chairman of the Technical Committee of the U.S. Scale Manufacturers Association

which contributed knowledge to the U.S. Metric Study.

According to the Task Force, it seems clear that retail devices

used in trade—principally gasoline dispensers, post office scales,

and retail food store scales—are key elements in creating awareness of metric conversion. They are highly visible and, if con- verted early in the overall plan and on a schedule carefully

coordinated with an effective program of public information, will

88
help create a climate of acceptance so that the Canadian public

will rapidly come to "think metric." Given this climate of public

acceptance, all other elements of metric conversion will slip into

pace with minimum friction.

Amount of increase Leadtime. Years service force Postal scales 1 year 2-6 months

Retail scales 1% years 2 years 16-20 percent

Industrial scales Some now 6 years 25-30 percent

The Canadian Government will not subsidize conversion. The

official guidelines for metric conversion of weighing and measuring devices state:

• Metric conversion is to use only parts supplied by the original manufacturer of the trade device or by an organization

to which the approval certificate was issued, unless written

permission to use other parts is granted by the Directorate

of Consumer Standards.

• The weights and measures regulations make no special allow- ances for metric conversion.

• Inspection following conversion, in most cases, will be to "in

service" limits of error.

There has already been formed a working group on scales in

the retail food industry in Canada looking at retail scales which

may be converted by the end of 1978.

Retail Trade Scales

Total Est. cost of Number to Type of scale number Converted conversion be replaced

Computing cylinder

or projection 61,000

Computing fan 15,000

Automatic labeling 5,000

Even arm 3,500

Spring hanging 2,600

Floor 3,100

Miscellaneous

portable platform __ 26,600

Totals 116,800

48,000 $ 160 180 13,000

12,000 90 3,000

3,500 1,500 Min. 1,500

3,000 Avg.

unit

3,000 100 , 500

2,000 40 600

2,700 500 Beam 400 200/800 Dial

18,000 250 Port. 8,600

beam

100/200

Soft dial 400 Hard

dial 1,000 Printer

89,200 27,609

89
The report indicates that in Canada there are about 730 scale

service technicians. About 440 specialize on retail type scales or can work on both retail and industrial. The remaining 290 servicemen specialize on industrial type scales. For the various types of

scales in the retail food industry, a man should average two

scale conversions per day. Not counting floor and miscellaneous

scales, the retail total is 68,500 scales to be converted, or 34,250

man-days. Assuming 240 days per year, 72 retail scale servicemen

would be required, or 16.5 percent of the 440 man service force.

Similarly, 7.5 percent of the 290 man industrial scale force would

be required to convert the floor scale and miscellaneous types used

in retail. Since other industrial type scales would be converted

at the same time, the Canadians believe a 16 percent to 20 percent increase in the technician work force, or an equivalent

amount of overtime, would be adequate for a retail scale conversion program extending over two years.

Industrial Scales

Total Est. cost of Number to Type of scale number Converted conversion be replaced

Even arm 28,000 22,500 $ 150 5,500

Portable, bench

monorail 110,000 77,000 350 Beam 33,000

400 Dial

Platform

hopper—crane—truck 39,000 27,000 1,000 Beam 12,000

1,000 Dial Railroad 900 600 3,000 300 Dump conveyor 1,400 1,050 2,000 350

Totals 179,300 128,150 51,150

The Canadian Task Force believes that a skilled technician

should be able to convert two even arm scales or one portable,

bench, or monorail scale per day. Larger scales would require two

man-days per scale. This comes out to 146,000 man-days. Using a 240 day year for six years, about 100 service technicians will be

required full time. In Canada there are 370 technicians qualified to convert industrial scales, but some would not be available during retail scale conversion period. One hundred men full time

represent a 27 percent increase in the technician work force. An

increase in the work force of 25-30 percent with some overtime

work because of equipment unavailability will be required.

90
Postal Scales (Government and Private)

Total Est. cost of Number to Type of scale number Converted conversion be replaced

Beam letter 21,520 None — 21,520

Beam parcel 6,540 5,200 $ 40 1,340

Computing fan 16,350 16,350 90 —

Computing cylinder 5,300 5,300 200 —

Miscellaneous 600 600 250 Beam —

Totals 50,310 27,450 22,860

It would be more likely to take two to four months to convert

the Post Office scales and six months to convert privately owned

postal scales, assuming retail food store scales were not being

converted at the same time.

Number of Weights

10 pounds or smaller 152,000

11 pounds-30 pounds 16,500

31 pounds-250 pounds 89,000

Over 250 pounds 2,500

The application of weights by industry is

Retail Food Industry:

Industrial Application and

Non-Retail Food:

Scale Calibrating Use

14,000 weights on even-arm

balances

196,000 weights on even-arm

scales

50,000 weights

For automatic prepacking label scales, the Task Force believes

that for $300, a unit reading 25 pounds by .01 pound could be

converted to 11.5 kilograms by 0.01 kilogram, only the scale unit

would be affected. A stiffer spring would be installed, the scale

adjusted to read in kilograms instead of pounds, and the overload stop set at just over 11.5 or 12.0 kilograms instead of just over 25 pounds. With the present scale, a 2.205 pound piece ot meat at $2 per pound would be priced at $4.40 or $4.42 depending

on whether the scale read the weight as 2.20 pounds or 2.21

pounds. On the converted scale, a 1.005 kilogram piece of meat

at $4.40 would be priced at $4.40 or $4.44. Since these scales are used to price random packages, the Task Force believes neither

the consumer nor the merchant would be expected to suffer. This

simpler method could be used on scales of a limited life. Taylor Soper, formerly of Fairbanks Weighing Division, stated

in a March/April 1974 article in the ''Metric News" that graduation size needs to be investigated. Using an example of a 50 ton

truck scale converted to a 50,000 kilo scale, the conventional dial

91
could have been 100,000 pounds by 20 pounds with a primary

chart of 20,000 times 20 pounds and four unit weights. The basic

tolerance of a 100,000 pound scale at full capacity is 100 pounds

acceptance and 200 pounds maintenance, presently 5 and 10 graduations if the converted scale is 50,000 kilos, the avoirdupois

tolerance at maximum capacity would be 110 pounds acceptance

and 220 pounds maintenance. So basic tolerances should increase

only the same amount as the scale's capacity was increased. Basic

tolerance at capacity would be 2.2 graduations acceptance and

4.4 graduations maintenance.

The estimated charge for changing the dial to a primary chart

of 20,000 kilos times 20 kilos (44 pounds) would be $200 and

would involve only the change of a shelf lever and disablement of

the third and fourth unit weights. The estimated charge for

conversion of the existing 20,000 pound chart to a 10,000 kilo

chart with corresponding tare and printer changes is $700 to $800.

For scale conversions the scale manufacturers must learn from

the scale owners their needs in order to determine suitable specifications. The scale industry manufacturers will then design new

charts, get acceptance of weights and measures, provide tooling,

provide engineering for ease of conversion, order raw material,

and begin the manufacture of parts for conversion of existing

scales while also manufacturing new metric scales for those

scales to be replaced rather than converted.

To accomplish this, the scale industry will have to make con- siderable investment in development and inventory in preparation

for conversion. This investment will be made once it is known

what is wanted in terms of scales and if reasonable assurances can be developed that agreements on parameters and timing will be held.

The scale industry, the scale users of all industries, and weights

and measures officials must work together if our hopes for metric

conversion in the United States are to go forward.

92
METRIC PLANS, PROGRAMS, PROBLEMS

Petroleum Industry

by Keith E. Bailey, Manager of Operations,

Williams Pipe Line Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma

I appreciate the opportunity your group has

offered me of being able to discuss with you

the American petroleum industry's position

with regard to metrication. I feel this is an

appropriate forum for this discussion, and

that you people represent the key to a

rational and efficient implementation of the

metric system of measurement in United

States commerce.

Yesterday, and again today, you will hear

reasons for the need to convert to metric.

What I hope to do is give you the petroleum industry's points of

view, its current program, and its outlook for the future after

which I will participate in the panel and will be happy to respond

to any specific questions you might have.

When I say I am presenting the petroleum industry viewpoint,

you must realize that I am speaking as a member of the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Committee on Petroleum Measurement (COPM) which is a nondivisional committee. As such,

we are charged with developing overall measurement policies,

procedures, and standards which, in turn, are reviewed and

adopted as applicable by the various divisions within API.

I am sure you can appreciate that the different major divisions

(production, refining, marketing, and transportation) have different needs and pressures acting on them. Beyond that, individual

member companies also have widely varying situations. In essence what I am saying is that while I am presenting the API

position, this is a consensus position and within the industry I am sure you will find a wide diversity of individual opinions on

this subject. Many of the multinational majors have already

begun conversion efforts while other domestic companies such as mine will, in all probability, delay changes until the latter phases

of the industry timetable for overall conversion.

Last year Frank Ikard, president of the American Petroleum

Institute, stated in a letter to the House Subcommittee on Science,

Research and Development:

93
"In recognition of increasing worldwide acceptance of the metric system

. . . the API supports immediate federal legislation initiating domestic

conversion to metric units. This support recognizes the need for a coordi- nated and orderly conversion, executed in a rational manner to facilitate and encourage standardization efforts nationally that are compatible with

such efforts worldwide."

This statement, in a very brief summation, outlines the petroleum industry's commitment to metrication. There is no equivocation with regard to need nor is there with regard to timing.

I would like to analyze this position for a minute. The American

petroleum industry, by and large, has moved from being a predominantly domestic industry to being a predominantly multinational one. Very few of the companies within the industry can

limit their activities to strictly domestic transactions. Even small

landlocked marketing companies are being forced into the international arena to secure supplies. This forces them into conducting business in international units of measure which, of course, are metric.

As the balance shifts from predominantly domestic transactions to a significant percentage of international transactions, the

logic supporting dual measurement systems is negated. This has

been true within individual companies in other industries who

have begun total metric conversion, and it is true in our industry.

There is little justification to support dual measurement systems,

with the inherent cost of dual training, engineering standards,

accounting, etc.—particularly when one system is rapidly losing

any semblance of international support.

I will not go into the merits of the technical aspects of the SI

metric system as compared to our customary units; I think you

are all familiar with these. Obviously, if scientific merit and logic were the only basis for our selection of measurement units, we

would have adopted the SI system long ago.

This alone, of course, does not provide any tangible incentive

for change ; and the view I hear expressed frequently in my work

with the energy sector of the American National Metric Council

is that a real economic need for change will be the primary basis

for changes which are made. This can take the form, as it has in our industry, of the majority of supplier and/or consumer nations

utilizing the system and imposing its use on us if we are to engage

in trade with their countries. As primary industries adopt metric

standards, the residual effect will be to force support industries

into adopting them. This seems to me to be the avenue we are currently taking ; and it is one which has the potential for great

inefficiencies in the conversion process if it is not supported by

Federal, State, and local legislation.

94
With the current lack of any firm governmental direction, the

petroleum industry is attempting to establish consistent and

rational timetables and standards for conversion within the industry. Total conversion will still be dependent on government action

;

however, we are moving very rapidly toward a metric standard for

all areas except direct domestic consumer sales. Our conversion

process will take the form of both hard and soft conversion. At

this point in time, our effort has primarily been that of soft

conversion.

Over the years, the API has developed a number of standards

which, in turn, have become international standards on either a formal or an informal basis. These are standards which must be

maintained if we are to minimize the ultimate cost of metric

conversion. In order to assure this posture API, in conjunction

with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and

the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), is cooperating in presenting many of these standards for formal adoption

by the International Standards Organization. This in turn would,

in effect, unify worldwide petroleum standards. Specific standards

currently being pursued in this area are viscosity classification

systems and a standard set of base conditions for volumetric

measurement of oil and gas. Other current activities include joint efforts with the American

National Metric Council's energy sector, which I chair and whose

overall range of activity Dr. O'Hagan outlined yesterday after- noon. The API Committee on Petroleum Measurement has recently

published API Publication 2564, entitled "Conversion of Operational and Process Measurement Units to the Metric (SI) System."

This will complement the joint API-ASTM-ANSI Metric Practice

Guide publication ; and its purpose is to encourage uniform selection and equivalence of operational and process measurement

units while also accomplishing three other more general goals:

1. The user's knowledge of the SI system is supplemented by

information specifically designed for use within the petroleum industry.

2. The users are very clearly alerted to the fact that the API

envisions them having to do an ever increasing amount of

their business in SI units.

3. The users are encouraged to commonality of SI usage by

simplified tables which are provided for that purpose.

The publication does make four rather significant changes which

are directly related to your area of activities. API gravity and

95
specific gravity are to be eliminated from usage and be replaced

by absolute density and relative density respectively.

Base conditions for the preceding parameters as well as volumetric measurements for oil and gas will be established as 15

degrees Celsius and 191.325 kilopascals.

Finally the volumetric units of barrel and gallon will be re- placed by cubic metre and cubic decimetre respectively.

API's Committee on Petroleum Measurement has set a ten- year goal beginning January 1, 1974, for the elimination of these

units of measure from all API standards. In addition, as API

standards are reviewed and reissued, they are being converted to SI units as the preferred unit of measure.

Corollary to COPM's activities, the API has an Advisory Committee on Metric Planning which is coordinating the activities

of metric subcommittees within the various divisions. This committee is primarily concerned with implementation and has active

studies proceeding on the formulation of standard employee training techniques which will be used during the conversion period.

It also is attempting to identify other areas within the industry

which can best be accommodated by a unified industry effort. I could go on and discuss other specifics of our activities, but

in summary I think you can see that:

1. The petroleum industry has established, to its satisfaction,

the economic incentive to commit to metrication.

2. The petroleum industry has already begun a comprehensive

conversion process both collectively and individually.

3. The petroleum industry will continue to be active in encour- aging any action by any body, either private or public, which

it deems necessary for a rational systematic conversion.

We solicit your support in this area and are prepared to work

in any way we can to support your efforts.

96
METRIC PLANS, PROGRAMS, PROBLEMS

Metric Conversion for Gasoline Dispensing Systems

by Alfred C. Evans, Director of Engineering,

Petroleum Products Division, Veeder-Root Company,

Hartford, Connecticut

INTRODUCTION*

At the interim weights and measures

meeting in January, Veeder-Root made a

presentation during the session on the ener- gy crisis which was directed toward three

major areas of concern in gasoline dispensing. These three areas included:

1. Inability to post a price in excess of

49.9 cents per gallon on some older

computers and to display a total sale

beyond $9.99 on many 3 wheel computers.

2. Price of gasoline exceeding 99.9 cents per gallon.

3. Metric conversion.

Subsequently, the Specifications and Tolerances Committee's

tentative report under the subject of "Code for Liquid Measuring

Devices" made recommendations regarding these areas of con- cern as follows:

1. It is the committee's view as an interim measure that the

Office of Weights and Measures' memorandum of December

6, 1974, that recommends setting the variator at one-half

the unit price, etc., be officially recognized in all jurisdictions until modifications can be made.

2. The appropriate modification of gasoline dispensers would

be extending the variator capability to 99.9 and a 4 wheel

($99.99) total price indication.

3. The $14.99 modifications of gasoline dispensers would have

a limited life and eventually a fourth wheel total price indication would be necessary. This modification would only be

appropriate for sales not exceeding that amount.

4. The committee's long range solution for this problem is to encourage the American Petroleum Institute to take immediate action and initiate the use of the metric system

throughout the petroleum industry.

97
As a background for further discussion particularly related

to metric conversion, the illustrations show the computers cov- ered by the S & T report.

Figure 1 shows a 3 wheel limited range computer where the

maximum price setting as shown is limited to 49.9 cents per gallon. This is generally the configuration which concerns the one- half gallon pricing consideration.

Ml 2 0 PL-T

gallons

FlGtTRE 1. 3 Wheel—Limited Range Computer.

98
In the computer shown in figure 2 the price posting capability

is extended to 99.9 cents per gallon. In the rebuilding of this

computer the maximum sales capability is extended to $14.99.

The gallons display is limited to 99.9 gallons.

Figure 2. 3 Wheel ($li.99)—Full Range Computer.

99
Figure 3 shows the 4 wheel full range computer which has

been in production since 1969. The maximum price posting is 99.9 cents per gallon ; and the total sales display goes up to $99.99

while gallons displayed are extended to 999.9 gallons.

FiGXmE 3. U Wheel—Full Range Computer.

100
METRIC CONVERSION

As we approach the problem of metric conversion we are con- cerned with how to effectively accomplish a transition from gallons to litres. This involves not only the gearing changes required,

but also a display consistent with anticipated sales value (dollars

and cents) and quantity delivered (litres).

The objectives in such a transition must consider: (1) the least

confusion to the consumer, (2) the ability to effect a quick change

enabling a station or a region to convert in a short interval, and

(3) a minimum cost for the changeover.

Reading from the "Interim Report, U.S. Metric Study," NBS

Special Publication 345-3:

A mechanical gasoline dispensing system is composed of three basic

parts: (1) a pump, (2) a meter, and (3) a mechanical computer. The

pump, usually a positive displacement type, forces the liquid (gasoline)

through the meter (which contains a series of rotating adjustable cali- brated chambers). As the chambers rotate they drive a shaft-gear mechanism which is connected to the computer. The computer records, for any

set price per gallon, the total gallons delivered and the total sale in dollars and cents.

In order to adapt these systems to metric units, the gearing

between the meter and the computer must be changed. Likewise,

computers which have only a 3 wheel display in the quantity

section and only provide for readings up to 99.9 litres (equivalent

to 26.4 gallons) would probably be considered inadequate.

As there are 3.785 litres per gallon, the gearing must reflect a speedup of 3.785 to 1. It is possible to effect this change on new

gasoline dispensers, which typically have 4 wheel computers, by

designing the system so that the output of the meter is increased

by this factor and the computer remains unchanged.

The presentation would then be as shown in figure 4. This is a repeat of figure 3 with the dial face indicating in litres. Total

sales capability is $99.99, total quantity display is 999.9 litres and price posting in cents per litre is more than adequate to permit price setting in excess of $1.00 per gallon. This would

probably be the most effective approach on new pumps once the

changeover to the metric system has been accomplished.

The problems we are confronted with, however, are:

1. The vast number of existing dispensers to be converted, and

2. What to do about new pumps produced today which deliver

in gallons and will later require conversion to litres.

101
total sato

Figure 4. ^ Wheel—Full Range Computer (Litres).

A proposed solution is a "quick change" gear box which is readily attached to the underside of the computer. As the name

implies, the conversion from gallons to litres could be quickly

accomplished in the field. Figure 5 shows such a gear box. The

gear box is easily attached to most computers in the field today,

although in some pump applications slight sheet metal modifications are required. Initially the gear box is operating in a mode

whereby the gear ratio is 1:1 and the display is in gallons.

102
FiGXmE 5. Quick-Change Gear Box.

When the time for conversion to the metric system arrives it is a simple procedure to remove the cHp and shift a shaft to the

litre or "in" position. This is an irreversible change and results

in the computer being speeded up by a factor of 3.785:1. It is possible, too, that in some dispensers recalibration of the meter

will be required.

Figure 6 shows a 4 wheel computer with the quick change gear

box in the gallons mode. In figure 7 the gear box has been changed

over to the litres mode. The price per litre, 21.1 cents, is equivalent to 80.0 cents per gallon so both computations result in the same sales display.

The use of a gear box is, admittedly, not a new concept. A convertible gear box of the type described, however, affords the

103
Figure 6. ^ Wheel Computer With the Quick-Change Gear Box in the Gallons Mode.

opportunity to gradually update equipment over the next several

years in such a manner that they will be readily convertible in an orderly fashion to the metric system. New pumps produced

today could likewise be built with a gear box, enabling a quick

change as required.

A convertible gear box is currently being manufactured for

installation on computers in new pumps produced in the United

Kingdom prior to the conversion date to litres.

104
i9Li9', m

total sale

4i ,7i i5i IB

litres

Figure 7. ^ Wheel Computer With the Quick-Change Gear Box in the Litre

Mode.

In Canada, where metric conversion is probably more imminent

than in the United States, this approach is being seriously considered.

Although no one likes to think of gasoline exceeding 99.9 cents

per gallon, the possibility should be considered. If gasoline does

105
reach a value greater than $1.00, a quick conversion to the smaller

unit of quantity—the litre—could be the practical solution. The

price posting limitations of today's computer would then be

alleviated.

A FURTHER LOOK TO THE FUTURE

Possible higher prices of gasoline and increased flow rates may

be required in some applications. The result will be increased

speeds in the computer wheels with resulting effect on life. We

are, therefore, proposing a right hand money wheel which has a

value of 20 cents per revolution rather than 10 cents per revolution. In this way the right hand money wheel speed will be reduced

by one-half. We have chosen 20 cents per revolution because the

visual change in the presentation is relatively insignificant, caus- ing least confusion to the consumer.

Figure 8 shows a 20 cents per revolution presentation. Note

the two money wheels which represent cents are reduced in size. The aperture is likewise reduced with a clip-in mask. Each cent

is identified with a character as in the standard display.

It is felt that truck stops and self-service applications where

pulsers are added and driven from the right hand wheel will be

the first to require equipment of this type. In this connection, the

future potential self-service will be significant.

SUMMARY

In summary, we are proposing that a quick change gear box be

mounted to the underside of the standard 4 wheel full range

computer at this point in time. This would apply to new computers, rebuilt computers, and 4 wheel computers in the field. The

gear box will then provide the means for a rapid transition to the

metric system in the future with minimum confusion and cost.

106
1 /

Figure 8. XSIOI with 204 Right Hand Money Wheel and Gear Box.

107
METRIC PLANS, PROGRAMS, PROBLEMS

The Implications of Metrication for the Packaging Industry

by William E. Young, President,

William E. Young and Company, Neptune, New Jersey

The length of the meter is based on a decimal portion of what

was believed to be the circumference of the earth. This distance was engraved on a platinum bar kept in Paris and still remains

the metric standard of length, even though the earth's circumference has been found to be different from what it was thought

to have been when the first meter bar was made.

The gram, the metric unit of weight, is based on the weight of a cubic centimeter of water, which certainly is a practical value.

But the real value of the metric system lies only in its making

use of the decimal system rather than fractions.. This makes all calculations easier and reduces the chance of arithmetical error.

If the English system had been modified on a decimal basis, it would be just as useful as the metric system. The English have

finally been smart enough to decimalize their monetary system,

along with adopting the metric system.

Going metric is regarded by the public in general as a terrible

thing. Housewives are afraid that they will be susceptible to being cheated by merchants, since they think the metric system

is too complicated for them to learn. But their children are already

learning the metric system in many of our schools ; and I am sure that they can help their mothers when they go shopping in a metric supermarket.

One educator expressed the thought that the best part of a year might be saved in elementary education if fractions did

not have to be taught the way they have been in the past.

Children would be taught the decimal system as now; fractions

would be covered, but briefly. If this educator is correct, perhaps

As most of you know, the metric system was designed by a group of French scientists,

and imposed by Napoleon on the countries

that he conquered. If he had won at Waterloo, both England and we might, today, be

metric countries. Prior to Napoleon's conquests, all countries had different systems

of measurement, most having a basis related

to that of the English system, such as the

length of some man's foot or the weight of a particular stone in the king's palace.

108
we could assure that the year saved would be put into giving our

children a real ground work in biology, chemistry, and physics

at the secondary school level. This could mean that our lawyers,

who generally go to arts school where the sciences are not

stressed, would be able to vote more intelligently on legislation

should they be elected to Congress. Just about every bill pending

in Congress has technological implications, and very few of our

legislators have enough science in their backgrounds to intelli- gently evaluate these implications.

Business is also afraid of the metric system. The retailer thinks

he will have to buy new scales, stock new containers, and be

plagued with having to teach his clerks how to operate metrically.

The food manufacturer is afraid that he will have to get new

packaging machines to handle different size packages because of

the metric changeover. Can manufacturers are concerned that

they will have to completely retool their equipment in order to turn out metric cans. Machine shops are worried that they will

have to go out and buy metric machine tools and discontinue use

of most of their present equipment. But, I cannot see that any

of their concerns are based on fact. These people just do not

understand how the change to metric will come about and how

little it will really cost for most businesses. Retailers' scales, for

example, need only a new card placed in them to adapt to metric.

If one goes into the supermarket, one will find packages of

many items, such as detergents, with contents of strange numbers like 311/2 ounces. All that will happen someday is that the same package, with the same contents, will, in addition to being

marked 31 1/2 ounces, be marked 893 grams. Years later, the ounces

will be omitted. If one wants to compare prices between two of

these products, it will be easier to calculate directly with grams

rather than get involved with fractions of ounces and pounds.

Cans will be treated in exactly the same way. Today, they are

identified by numbers; and a given can, when Allied with dried

mashed potato flakes, will weigh a lot less than when filled with

string beans in their liquid. So why bother to change the can

size anymore than one would change the size of the detergent

package ? Some confusion will occur where things are weighed out, such

as meat, vegetables, and dehcatessen items. But in these days of

prepackaging, one rarely finds a package of fruit or hamburger

that weighs exactly one-half pound or one pound. The clerk still must compute a price to put on this package ; and eliminating the

involvement of ounces with pounds will simplify the task. Additionally, most supermarkets have scales that automatically print

109
a label with the weight, unit price, and total price, which is affixed to each package.

If the housewife merely remembers that a kilogram is just a

little bit over two pounds, and that 500 grams is about 10 percent over a pound, she will not have any problems in giving the clerk some idea of how much she might want of a particular item.

When buying yard goods, she will work with a meterstick instead

of a yardstick. Once again, the meter is just a little longer than

the yard, so I think she will be pretty much at home with meters

when she buys material for her draperies. My secretary informs

me that dress patterns now contain the metric dimensions as

well as the English dimensions.

The construction industry will be a slow one to convert to the

metric system—the sizes of doors, windows, bricks, and cement

blocks will probably never be changed. All do-it-your-selfers who

purchase lumber know that nominal lumber dimensions, such as

2' X 4', yield a piece of lumber considerably smaller. The dimensions of water pipes are quite different, when measured, from

their nominal size. So even in the construction industry there

will be no need to make any changes. Certainly, when innovations

enter into the construction industry, metric sizes will ultimately

be used. But these will in no way affect the cost of these new

products.

In oil fields, all of the mechanical components used throughout

the world, including Red China, are made to U.S. designs; since

we and Howard Hughes' father really built it into what it is today. There will certainly be no reason to make changes here,

since compatibility of new equipment with the old is essential.

Someday, perhaps, these various components will be reidentified

in accordance with some metric nominal dimensions, but I rather

doubt it. Now, I will get back to packaging. In the pharmaceutical, optical, and photographic industries, the metric system has been used

for many years. Only the drugstore continues to use the English

system in connection with certain prescriptions ; but this will

quickly pass at no cost to anyone. When it comes to food, packagers will eventuallly change the containers of packages to round

out weights in metric terms—the one-pound package weighing

454 grams may end up as either 400, 450, or 500 grams. Free

flowing products sold by net weight are measured into containers

by automatic filling equipment, which can be simply adjusted to meet these small changes.

Some costs will be found with items that are sold volumetrically,

such as milk, bleach, and the like, since changing the tooling

necessary to produce containers to hold a different volume is

110
expensive. But these containers are changed periodically for

marketing or economic advantages, and replacement of the present ones will occur gradually and without any more expense than

if the new containers were made to hold English measured

contents. Products such as vacuum packaged sliced luncheon meats, now

on the market in weights of 4, 6, and 12 ounces and one pound,

may end up supplied later in 100, 200, 300, and 400 gram packages, resulting in a lower unit cost. But when the Government

adopts the metric system, it will undoubtedly set up weight guidelines or requirements for many products ; and these packages may

end up weighing 125, 250, 375 or 500 grams. I think, however, to make price comparisons easier, the Government will probably

stick to even 100 gram weights for such packages.

Insofar as packaging equipment is concerned, most of it will

be readily adjustable to meet any new metric standards. But since

most packaging equipment is amortized in somewhere between

five and ten years, I believe that marketing pressures will encour- age the equipment manufacturer to begin to redesign so-called

fixed-size machines to meet metric dimensions. The packager is always looking for something new to catch the housewife's eye, so why not come out with his new package in metric dimensions ? It certainly will not cost more.

Insofar as machine parts are concerned, one already finds a high percentage of packaging and other machines in this country

using metric sized anti-friction bearings. These are used as a matter of convenience, since the metric dimension just happens

to fit better into the machine than a bearing with a nominal

English dimension. So, since metric bearings have caused no problems to machine builders working in the English system, English

sized bearings will still continue to be used indefinitiely and cause no problems in a metric world. English bearings have been used

for years in metric countries for the same reason that we have

used metric bearings.

Major changes will eventually occur in the steel and nonferrous

metals industries. Along with English sizes, metric sizes of bars,

sheets, and other shapes will begin to be offered; and the only

important added cost will be debt service on inventory. Rolling

equipment is already adjustable to produce different sizes from

those now being produced ; and many American mills are already

supplying metric dimensioned products abroad.

Just about every machinist has worked with the metric system.

The metric dimensions are converted to English dimensions on

the drawing board, and the necessary machine operations are performed. Eventually, when machine shops buy new metric equipIll
ment, the machinist will not have to make these changes. When

parts are built on metric machine tools to English dimensions,

the engineering department will have already turned out drawings converted to metric dimensions so that the machinist will

not have to stop and make computations before performing an

operation. Insofar as machine maintenance is concerned, additional inventories will have to be carried on items such as nuts,

bolts and washers ; but installing metric dimensioned components

presents no different problems than those with present English

components.

The English Board of Trade has adopted a series of standard

weights as follows: 25, 50, 75, 125, 250, 500, 750 grams, and 1, 1.5 and 2 kilograms (thereafter multiples of one kilogram). These

values are about 10 percent heavier than the nearest old English

unit of weight, and the packaged product produced will, therefore, sell at about 10 percent more than its former English equivalent. I feel that housewife psychology would make it more desirable for us to go to a series that weighs a little less than its nearest English equivalent, such as the 100, 200, 300, and 400 gram

series. This would result in a lower unit cost per package, and

might even help the weight watchers program!

The English study to develop new metric screw thread standards has included trying to improve screw thread technology.

They have tentatively adopted a single series of pitches for their

new thread diameters rather than the two series now used here.

This will ultimately reduce fasteners inventories in half. Along

with improving the shape of the thread, the new fasteners will,

all in all, be an improvement over either existing metric or English fasteners.

In the packaging industry, we are all confused by the number

of different ways currently in use for expressing weights of paper;

for example, a 20-pound bond paper is almost twice as heavy as 20-pound kraft paper, and 26-pound linerboard is three times as heavy as 25-pound kraft paper. These weights refer to specific ream sizes, which are sometimes 480 sheets and sometimes 500

sheets. In plastics, we talk about square inches per pound, when

polyethylene resin, paid for by the pound, is sold to the final

customer at so much per thousand square inches of film. Metrication offers a wonderful opportunity for all of the sys- tems of specifying packing materials to be readily understandable, so here is one more example of where it will be of benefit

to our packing industry. When the Government finally sets standards on packing sizes, it will also offer the packager an opportunity to reduce the number of different sizes of packages, simplifying the retailer's inventory and shelf space problem. We might

112
also consider selling more products by volume, rather than by

weight, even though the weight would be noted on the package.

Products of different density could be put into standard containers and sold by the liter or multiples thereof. We now sell paints

by volume—pints, quarts, gallons, etc. Just imagine, if we sold

paints by weight, how many diflerent container sizes would be

required because paints vary so much in density.

Export sales ai-e bound to improve once we get into the system

used by the rest of the world. Our only important customer not

using metric today is Canada, and they are ready to change to metric the minute we do. It would be impractical for them to make this change before we do, since so many Canadian companies are owned by or affiliated with American companies and

are now turning out the same types and sizes of products.

Summing up, changing to metric may be costly to some segments of our economy, but would be of great benefit to all of us

in the long run. If the changeover is done intelligently and over a period of, let us say, 10 years, I think its cost will be just about

unnoticeable in our general economy. Intelligence also dictates

that no changes be made in many items, such as some of those

things mentioned before in the construction or oil industries. The

change to metric will not be a monster—it will be a normal evolutionary process bringing us into step with the rest of the world

and providing many benefits that I am sure even those of us who

have studied it do not fully appreciate today.

113
METRIC PLANS, PROGRAMS, PROBLEMS

NCWM Committee on Metric Planning

Presented by Edward H. Stadolnik, Head Administrative

Assistant, Division of Standards, Executive Office of Consumer

Affairs, State of Massachusetts

Since the report of the Committee on Liai- son will be presented later this morning, I am not going to comment too greatly on it at this time. It will be read to you, and at

that time you can ask questions or make

any comments or suggestions in relation to

it. I would like to address my comments this

morning to potential opportunities that do

exist to improve and expand our role in

weights and measures administration. Improvements could be brought about through

the change to the metric system. I have selected several of the

items listed in the goal and work plan of the final report of the

Committee on Liaison as a guide to these comments.

One of the most important segments that we in weights and measures will have to deal with will be an analysis of our state and local laws and regulations and a determination of what

amendments should be made to remove obstacles to metric conversion. We all have to take steps to review all aspects of our

state laws and all aspects of local ordinances covering all areas where amendments will be required for the use of metric units.

Now this will provide each jurisdiction also with an opportunity

to review the entire range and scope of their weights and measures laws.

In all areas of regulatory, enforcement, and administrative

organizations, metrication could prove to be a vehicle for receptive legislative action in the modification of existing statutes in

all areas of weights and measures administration. That could

include restructuring of departmental organization as well as developing additional staffing requirements. In other words, we

should not limit ourselves merely to the matter of reviewing

those parts of our laws that will only deal with metric alone. Let

us also take a good look at what we have in our state and local laws and determine what is there based on tradition and what is there based on laws that were passed in colonial days that we no

longer use. This would give us a good opportunity to clean up

our law and maybe go into new, different directions.

114
Another possibility, based in part on offers such as Ralph

Barra's offer of assistance on Monday and some comments that were made by Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson yesterday, is whether

or not we want to expand our scope of measurement services.

Can we use metric conversion to bring us to new fields in light

of a new measurement language?

In many states there are programs being conducted that extend

beyond the traditional weights and measures programs. If I may

take the State of Massachusetts as an example, we in the Division

of Standards have a Program in Clinical Thermometry, which

we have had for many years, that fundamentally relates to the

mercury in glass instruments. In recent years we have had a development coming into the field of clinical thermometry that

dealt with digital electronics systems. We have had requests from

the Division of Hospital Services and from many of the major

medical institutions in Boston to analyze these instruments. We

are now also working with the ASTM in developing new standards for testing and design of electronic clinical thermometers.

We also test gasoline, including octane testing, motor oil for

viscosity, heating oil and antifreeze, all generally quality standards for determinations made through measurement processes.

Again, I know there are many other states that have played

leadership roles in the development of these quality standards.

Should we, in our State, plan goals for broader ranges of temperature measurements? We have in our codes for liquid measuring devices the permissive use of temperature compensators

when you are taking temperature measurements. In testing compensating systems, how do you know your thermometers are accurate? What standards do you have to prove the accuracy of

these instruments while you are testing vehicle tank or bulk

storage metering systems?

We get into cryogenic measuring devices. Again, we are dealing

with temperature ranges. We may be receiving requests for

standardizing services from State environmental or occupational

hygiene offices. Should we pursue the need for acquisiton of standards for

standards cell calibration in Massachusetts? Should this be something that we should offer the electronics industry to have within

the confines of our State a measurement center to which they can

take this particular device for standardization in the same way

that they bring in their standard weights for traceability purposes? Or should we consider opening up into the laboratory cali- brations of certain classes of Johansen blocks to weigh segments

of our tool industry?

115
Planning for use of a new measurement language can readily

provide the impetus to review our whole program of weights and

measures administration—on state, county, and local levels. Another one of the outlines in the report deals with packaging

and labeling practices. Will the change to the metric system provide a real opportunity for the National Conference on Weights

and Measures to take constructive action to explore the need for a rational program of standardization of package sizes within a broad range of commodities that make up a significant portion of

the market basket?

It has been alleged that the advent of unit pricing has eliminated the need for standardization of packages. However, this

has yet to be proved. If the weights and measures community

does not set objectives in this field, I believe other consumeroriented organizations will seek implementation of such requirements.

I was glad to note that the previous speaker acknowledged the

need for standard sizes and, indeed, accepted the supposition

that standard sizes would become, in effect, a reality.

Another area that deals with the work plan section of the

report is the development of training programs for weights and measures officials. As we develop plans for training—metric training programs—it will also provide an opportunity to review our

entire educational approach for our weights and measures inspectors, beginning with fundamental concepts of the science of

measurement, introduction of statistical concepts, review of mathematics, introduction to laws of physics—all requirements in the

increasing sophistication that we now face in weights and measures administration.

From these stepping stones we could further develop training

sessions in law, investigation, and specialized areas relating to device examination, to name only a few types of ramification and

variation. Again, if we develop a program that is merely going

to be related with how we deal with metric terms, I think we will

be missing the boat. Let's sit down and develop a real program

of education to provide our inspectors with the proper tools and

the proper background so that they can function effectively in the

field. Another comment is on promotion of metric—consumer educational material for consumers. Since we lay claim to being weights

and measures experts, we will be called upon to address con- sumer groups, civic organizations, industry, to appear on radio

and television, and to take on speaking engagements relating to metric conversion.

116
We should plan an effective metric presentation, but by no means let it stop there. Take the opportunity to devote at least as much time in your talk to spreading the word of what we do

in weights and measures. Let the public know what we are doing

and seek their support. Let it be a National Weights and Measures Week fifty-two weeks of the year. Particularly, in these infla- tionary times, we must let the public know that good measure- ment means money saved.

I might comment further, when you are making your presentation to a group of consumers, do not try to scare them or become overly technical. Try to reassure them that the change

to the metric system will not be a drastic thing to understand.

Several weeks ago I gave a talk to a group of nutritionists at the University of Massachusetts. One of the first things I did was to give them a handout listing all the prefixes and terms

relating to systems of mass, length, and volume dealing with the

kilo, kilogram, hectogram, decagram, decigram, centigram, milli- gram, and so forth.

People are confused by these prefixes. They must be reassured

that they will not be using most of these terms. The general

terms in use for measurement of weight would probably be kilogram, gram, and milligram. Dealing with volume, the terms kilolitre, hectolitre, decalitre, decilitre, and centilitre are rarely used.

Generally, only the terms Htre and millilitre would be used. Again,

get away from the confusion existing with too many prefixes as far as the consumer is concerned.

When you are speaking to a group of consumers, don't try to make it too technical. Bring it down to a point where they will be

able to understand and be reassured that the change to the

metric system will not be one that will cause vast confusion.

When we talk about change to metric, we call for an opportunity to review our whole program of weights and measures. When we go metric in weights and measures, do we want only a

soft conversion or are we willing to engage in a little hard con- version ourselves. A change to the metric system will not only

provide challenges to us, but will present opportunities to effec- tively improve and expand the role of weights and measures

officials in measurement services.

117
DISCUSSION

Mr. a. Ladd (Akron, Ohio) : I would like to address this question to Mr. Shannon. Earlier today, when you were addressing

this group, you mentioned a lot of statistics and cost factors rela- tive to conversion in Canada, the cost of scale conversion to metric, and so forth. What is the scale industry doing insofar as getting technicians prepared for this?

Mr. W. N. Shannon (Berkel Incorporated) : Tony, in answering your question with regard to what the scale industry is doing,

my comments should be taken as a general industry observation

and, at the most, the Scale Manufacturers Association viewpoint.

All the manufacturers are very definitely trying to fill their service organizations right now even without the thought of metric

conversion because of the expanding industry and demand for

scales and weighing equipment. In Canada, which gives us our

closest reference because here in the United States we do not

know the timetable for metric conversion, many of the companies

which have a primary position in the Canadian area, such as Hobart, Toledo Scale, Fairbanks, Berkel, and others, are looking

from an active standpoint. Once they understand what the practical timetable is, they can begin to acquire additional people and

provide that type of training.

This is one of the problems that the scale industry is beginning to approach, recognizing that first we need to know when,

how much, and what type of schedule. In Canada the postal scales as a plan could be approached first; and then a logical evolution

would be to add on the retail scales used in supermarkets. Using

that as a basis of discussion, it is important to have a plan where

the scale manufacturers participate with the other industry sec- tors so that the resources of the industry are appropriately used.

We cannot take on the training of scale technicians and hold

them in abeyance for possible conversion of an industry that

may be four or five years out. Mr. Ladd: Yes, but it is my understanding, based on many

years of experience, that the scale industry today is in dire need

of technicians as it stands. Are you people doing anything at all about training new people or seeking out new people?

Mr. Shannon : I can assure you that the scale industry is doing

it because many of us find that we are competing for qualified

people. So very definitely the scale industry is working to train more people ; companies that I mentioned such as Fairbanks,

Hobart, Toledo, Sanitary, Berkel, and others are really scrambling for people to get involved in the scale industry—to provide

118
them with training and to provide for the change in the industry,

which is going from just straight mechanical to electromechanical

and even electronic. Companies have on-going programs.

It is a massive investment in training and manpower. A good

service technician who is capable of both retail scales, such as the automatic prepackaging scale and the electronic industrial

scale, probably needs somewhere between six and nine months

of eight-hour-a-day training over a relatively tight time period.

So there is a significant investment for capable, qualified scale

service.

Mr. R. Roof (Pennsylvania) : I would like to address this question to Ed Stadolnik of Massachusetts. Ed, one of the things that

I have been holding my breath on in Pennsylvania is getting calls from laymen's groups, consumer groups, associations like these,

to talk on the metric system. You stated in your speech that you

had some speaking experience with the metric system before

organizations. What approach do you think a weights and measures official should take when he goes to speak to one of these

organizations ? We made slides of all the pages in the NBS publication "What

About Metric?" What approach do you think you would take? Is your committee preparing any type, or planning to prepare any

type, of prepared speech for distribution to weights and measures

officials ? Mr. E. H. Stadolnik (Massachusetts) : In answer to your first question, I think in my talk I outlined a need for reassurance. I think that is one of the primary factors facing the general public.

Do not go into a presentation with a great deal of technical

background. Go in with some sort of simple physical demonstration of what these particular volumes, masses, or lengths are; as

outlined in some of the material that you get from the National

Bureau of Standards. Have pictures of the quart versus the litre.

I took several half-gallon containers and a quart container that

I got from one of the milk companies. I just doctored one up for

comparison to show the variation in size. In fact, there was not a great deal of variation in the sizes of the quart and the litre or the half-gallon and the two litre. You could also use the comparison of a metre stick and a

yardstick. There are other comparisons you could use relating to weight.

I would express to them that I would like to see a system where

we would phase gradually into metric. This could create a situation where consumers would be dealing with a general supplementary marking system. Whether a supplementary marking

119
system will be voluntary or required, we do not know at this

point. I think this would make it a great deal easier for consumers. With regard to your second question, promotion of education,

educational material for consumers is one of the work plans laid

out by the Metric Planning Committee. We would hope to develop

material that would be available for distribution on a regular

basis to each weights and measures official. Mr. J. Stewart (Virginia) : I have a question for Mr. Evans.

How much longer will the price per half-gallon be with us?

Mr. a. Evans (Veeder-Root Company) : I can only comment

as a manufacturer of replacement equipment—the rebuilt computer and new computers. I certainly did not have someone in the

audience ask that question intentionally ; but I anticipated it and

I have a prepared statement I would like to read.

Veeder-Root has tripled its production capacity over the past

five months in the rebuilding and conversion of computers. We

are now shipping greater than 10,000 rebuilds per month.

We are presently able to make normal deliveries (that is, in

four to six weeks) of the 56 computer for both rebuilt and parts.

The delivery on the old 36 computer—the number, incidentally,

implies the year in which it was introduced—is presently eight

to ten weeks due to the age of the product. However, our normal

delivery of that will also be later this summer. We are presently able to ship new four-wheel computers from

stock for rebuilt or conversion of pumps or new pumps. We are not sure of the exact number of units in the field which have the

49.9 cents limitation. There have been some previous numbers as high as 200,000 units, and it may be more ; but if I use the figure

of 10,000 per month and shove that into 200,000, I get twenty

months. If the figure is 100,000, it would only be ten months.

That is about the way I can comment on it in terms of our

capacity.

Mr. W. H. Marks (American Can Company) : I would like to refer back to the previous question. Will the educational and promotional material be available to industry as well as weights and measures ? Mr. Stadolnik : At this point I do not have a definitive answer

for that, but I would think that it would be public information.

Mr. E. Young (Sun Oil Company) : This changeover is going

to be confusing enough as it is without having different spellings

for different units. Are we going to have a standard spelling for

metre and litre, for instance?

Mr. K. E. Bailey (Williams Pipe Line Company) : Well, from

the petroleum industry's viewpoint, the answer is yes. Publication

120
2564 sets it out very clearly as to the proper spelling and the

proper usage of terms. We are supporting, as an industry, the

SI (International System) and a consistent use of terminology

within that system. The application, spelling, and abbreviations

that are to be used are very definitely spelled out in that one

publication.

Mr. Young: I do not happen to have that in my pocket right now. Could you say just what the spelling is going to be?

Mr. Bailey: If we use the "re" spelling, there would be no

confusion. The unit of measure would not be confused with the

instrument.

Mr. Young: That would be metre and litre in the "re" spelling?

Mr. Bailey: That is right. And, of course, litre as such is not

a preferred SI unit, although we recognize that it will probably

be used.

Mr. Young: How about the pronunciation of "ki' lometre" as against "kilom' etre"?

Mr. Bailey: "Ki'lometre" is the proper pronunciation.

Mr. T. E. Morgan (Huntsville, Alabama) : I know that we are going metric, but I would like someone to tell me what the advantages are of going metric.

Mr. Stadolnik: One of the fundamental reasons, I think, is that we are an island unto ourselves and we are an industrial

nation. We are a nation that is dealing more and more with the

rest of the world. I think it is just a matter of keeping in step.

There could be advantages such as cleaning up the number of

standards that we have now. The English or customary system

could be one of these types of factors. It gives an opportunity for

everybody to review their standards.

I realize that this country has built a tremendous industrial

complex. We lay claim to having the highest standard of living

in the world, and we have done it with our customary system.

I do not think that the use of that system has been a bar to us in

attaining these goals. However, I think the time has come. I think

we do see that over the long term the continued use of a type of

measurement language or a measurement system that will be the

only one of its type could prove to be more costly than if we take

steps now to effect the change.

Mr. Evans: Yesterday the gentleman from Australia was

pointing out some of the problems that are created for them by

the United States not being metric. I am sure this is true for

Canada also. This is a two-sided problem; it is a problem for us

in dealing with countries that are metric and it is a problem for

them in dealing with us.

121
Mr. Stadolnik : I got a call not too long ago from a paint com- pany in Massachusetts who had to sell paint in terms of the litre when they were exporting to certain countries overseas. There was no way they could sell the paint in customary English gallons.

Not being metric does become a trade barrier. There are cer- tain states that do have a great deal at stake in export products.

Mr. H. F. Wollin (NBS) : I think Mr. Morgan's question is a good one. I know we hear it all the time from many people

neighbors, friends at home. Just why are we going metric?

The National Bureau of Standards conducted a three-year study.

As a result of that study, a series of reports was issued. The

covering, or first, report was entitled "A Metric America—

Decision Whose Time Has Come." Probably the best way for you

to prepare yourselves to answer the question as to why we are going metric is for you to get copies of that report. It explains

the rationale for going metric. Then I think you will have a better

appreciation and be better able to answer questions.

Upstairs, we have a display on metric. I believe you will see a copy of the publication "A Metric America—A Decision Whose

Time Has Come" up there. I suggest you look at it. That is the

best piece I think you could read that would help you to explain

why we are going metric.

Mr. K. J. SiMiLA (Oregon) : I would like to address this question to the gentleman from Veeder-Root. If a progressive retailer

of petroleum products wished to anticipate the metric conversion

and install these quick change gears on a four-wheel computer,

are they presently in production or available? In round numbers,

what would the cost be in quantity for modifying on the one to one ratio now that could be changed to the 3.8 to one, or whatever the ratio is?

Mr. Evans : We are anticipating that they will be available

around the first of the year. Canada has a more imminent problem, and our immediate gear ratio tooling considerations are for

their Imperial gallon to litre ratios. Around the first of the year,

we would anticipate gear boxes would be available and easily

adapted to four-wheel 101 computers. It is anticipated that the

cost will be about $15.00.

Mr. T. F. Routhier (Fairbanks Weighing Division of Colt

Industries) : I would like to address this to Mr. Shannon. Of the

hundreds of thousands of scales in Canada to be converted to metrication, how was it determined the percentage to be con- verted opposed to the replacement numbers?

Mr. Shannon: Rephrasing your question, if I may, how did

the Task Force of the Metric Commission come up with this very

122
clear-cut set of statistics and guidelines? They are used because

Canada has a National Weights and Measures activity with

twenty-one districts. They had access to inspection reports, age

of equipment, generally good cooperation on surveys from manufacturers and users, plus the competence of not only the director

of Weights and Measures but of a scale industry engineer. I would call them educated guesses, but they are certainly within

the realm of proper perspective.

They had ages of machines, the dispersion of population of the

machines, type of use and expected longevity of them, so that

they gave a tight area to work in as opposed to broad generalities.

There has been an immense amount of work done by the Metric

Task Force for the Metric Commission in Canada.

Mr. Routhier: Well, that seems to me to be more statistical

data on scale population in Canada. I was wondering if there was

a number one influencing phenomena, either the age of the scale or whatever, that would give them the numbers you came up

with, which was a high percentage of scales, which would be

converted as opposed to replaced with new?

Mr. Shannon: They had the benefit in addition to their own

study of the other sector areas, including industrial areas, where

there was contribution. I suggest to pursue this question further

that the presentation of the entire Task Force Report of March

be read to get the background information; and then there will be additional information from the Metric Commission. But the

approach that they used seemed to be what I will call logical in

coming up with some of these good, solid estimates, Tom.

Mr. J. Pilch (Cleveland, Ohio) : This is not a particular question, but it may evoke a general comment from the panel. We,

as weights and measures officials, because Congress has not

passed the metric system as being the system for the United

States, are still going to have to deal with both. I think the com- ment was made that on many of the packages appearing in our

stores now both are shown, both the metric weight and the cus- tomary weight.

I ran into one here just about two weeks ago. This was a con- sumer complaint that wanted me to order all the 32-ounce bottles

of ketchup off the shelves in all the supermarkets of Cleveland.

I asked on what basis. He said they show 32 ounces per bottle

plus 907 grams; and as far as he knew from what he learned in

school, there were 454 grams in 32 ounces.

Luckily, while sort of fighting for time, I had my secretary take

out our conversion table. I found out that there are 453.5 plus

grams in 16 ounces.

123
He was arguing about the one gram, and he insisted that there

should be 908 grams in that bottle. He said maybe on the basis

of one bottle, there is nothing happening; but for one gram in a

million bottles of ketchup sold to consumers, the consumers are getting cheated.

So, this conversion sometimes becomes a thing that We have

to take as a factor. Fortunately, after about fifteen minutes, I think I was able to convince the gentleman that what he was

getting was correct. About two hours later, from another part of

town, I got the same call on the same item. So it means that we

may not want to deal in metric or the two systems at present;

but I think we, as weights and measures officials, are going to

find ourselves in the position of having to deal with it, whether

we like it or not. So, is there a general comment on that? I know that I am

keeping my conversion table right on my desk in view so that if

I get any more calls, I will at least appear to be intelligent.

Mr. W. E. Young (William E. Young and Company) : Well, I think there are a lot of wags in this world, and all of the weights

and measures officials are going to be inundated with comments

like that. They are picayune things in many cases and I do not

think most of them will be serious. However, you are going to have to field them. You are just stuck with this problem.

Mr. Stadolnik: I just might comment a little further on that.

I think you are going to run into certain situations where packers

will be coming out with supplementary declarations (both cus- tomary and metric) which are not forbidden either by the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act or by the model state laws and regulations. Of course, the statement must be correct. We had some

communication from Pennsylvania not too long ago about a packer in Massachusetts who was not really aware of what the

relationship was between 32 fluid ounces and the supplementary

statement, which he had marked in grams. He had placed the

responsibility for this type of labeling on the label manufacturer.

You have people in small shops, for example, who might be

printing labels. They might be converting from an old metric

chart; and they may not have that much expertise in metric.

This is truly a situation where there will be some confusion on the part of people in the printing industry, in the packing

industry, and certainly among consumers. This is why we talk

about the need for a rational, planned approach to metric conversion.

When you talk about the statement in terms of decimals—so many grams and fractions of a gram—where do you round off?

124
In effect, is it better not to round off so that when you have two

terms you are not going to have the metric term actually a larger

quantity than the customary term. Again, these are some real

practical applications in making up appropriate, supplementary

label statements.

Mr. J. Bird (New Jersey) : I would like to counterpoint something that Mr. Stadolnik attended to and that is the changing of

laws and regulations in the state relating to the terminology

customary system and so forth. I believe that it may be appropriate for us, although we have a great deal of other work to do

along with what we are doing here, if the research of state laws

and regulations could determine, in fact, what we have that may

have to be changed when we go to this program.

Mr. Stadolnik : In my presentation I did not go into an aspect

of forming a state metric board or a state metric coordinator. I think checking out legal implications of all state laws and ordi- nances will be a tremendous job.

Proposed legislation, which was not passed this year, called for

the formation of a National Metric Conversion Board. We would

suggest that there would be coterminous with this type of a National Metric Conversion Board the setting up of state metric

boards. One of the functions of these state metric boards would

be to amend all state statutes which define measurement values

in the customary terms. You are not going to throw them out

altogether. You would have to deal rationally with each particular area of each statute. For example, when you are dealing with

mileage terms, how are you going to go right into kilometres?

You will deal with a great many amendments to statutes and

also regulations that are other than weights and measures regulations. There will be other areas, such as the State Purchasing

Office, which will have a great deal to do with setting up certain

types of contractual purchases. This will apply also to local purchasing boards and offices. You will have functions that relate to the State Tax Department regarding tax statements based on customary terms, and

the most common one is gasoline. You are taxed at so much per

gallon. Now how will it affect the whole tax structure when you

go to cents per litre or cents per cubic decimetre, or whatever

term they may use. You are going to get into Department of Public Works situations, which will require massive changes in signs, length measurements, road markers, and what have you.

It is not going to be merely the weights and measures administration looking over its own statutes, but it is going to have to

125
be a concerted effort on the part of all legislative and regulatory

bodies to take a look at their own statutes and their own

regulations.

Mr. L. 0. Leenerts (Purex Corporation) : This is directed to Mr. Young. Would it not be well for the packaging industry to use legitimate lobbying in the different halls of the legislature

to get some guidelines for metrication? I was thinking primarily

of a period of soft conversion. We have no guidelines now as to how far you are supposed to round off. One product that we have

acquired was labeled differently in grams than we would have

labeled it. It was rounded up, and it would be my tendency to round it down—just to keep from that confusion of the ketchup

situation. Do you think the packaging industry could do some

good by lobbying for legislation?

Mr. Young: I think that lobbying relative to legislation might

not be the best way to do it. I think working with the National

Bureau of Standards and their Weights and Measures Office

might be a simpler and more efTective procedure. These fellows

know what you are talking about in the first place, and most of

the legislators do not. Your weights and measures officials in the

government, I think, will present packages to Congress and have

Congress act on them. I do not think industry will advantageously

deal directly with Congress.

Mr. Stadolnik: If you are going to do any lobbying, maybe

you might lobby to have Congress make the commitment to the

metric system rather than make any special laws at this particular time.

Mr. Young: I agree wholeheartedly with that.

Mr. K. Allen (Hobart Corporation) : The comment I have to make goes back to your ketchup discussion, and I just wonder if there is not more to that than meets the eye. While we were talking, I heard somebody say fluid ounces. Then there was a statement that an ounce is 454.5 grams, or something like that. That is an ounce of weight, not a fluid ounce.

If your ketchup bottle is in 32 fluid ounces, it can be any number

of grams according to the specific gravity of the contents. So, if you are talking about this ketchup and saying an ounce is so many grams, let us think about what kind of an ounce that was.

I think that was fluid ounce, and everybody missed that.

It might be a rather important comment. I think you fellows

might be very much embarrassed if somebody called up and you

made a firm statement that a fluid ounce was so many grams.

That is not so. Mr. Young : One great advantage of going metric will eliminate

this confusion between fluid and weight ounces, because we will

126
be dealing with units that have different names. When we are

talking of volume, we will have something that means volume

;

and when we are talking about weight, we will have something

that means weight.

Mr. Stadolnik : I would still say that it would be an incorrect

statement even though the weight was actually correct, because a supplementary statement should certainly deal in the same units as the required statement.

AFTERNOON SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1974

No General Session Was Scheduled

MANUFACTURERS' EQUIPMENT DISPLAY

Photographs of some of the equipment displayed by manufacturers are shown.

127
128
1
130
MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1974

(William R. Sevier, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

NET WEIGHT—POLICY AND PROCEDURE

Progress Towards Uniform Compliance Testing

by Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Office of Weights and Measures,

National Bureau of Standards

Since I am first on the panel to address

you this morning, I thought it would be

important to provide you with some perspective on the general area of "Net Weight

Policy and Procedure."

The packaging industry, with one million

workers, could be considered the largest

industrial employer in the United States;

it is certainly third largest in sales volume.

Fully 75 percent of all finished goods (on a

dollar basis) delivered to the consumer is packaged. The major package user is the food industry, with the

cost of packaging in that industry ranging from less than 5 percent of the manufacturing cost of such items as bacon or frankfurters, through 24 percent of the cost of canned corn, to fully

50 percent of the cost of manufacturing fruit drink mixes.

But packaging contributes to more than just our dollar econ- omy—it makes possible an efficient system of mass physical

distribution that preserves and protects products and is a con- venience and a time-saving device. In short, it contributes a great

deal to our way of life today.

There is a certain amount of buyer risk inherent in packaged

products ; he sometimes cannot see the product itself and cer- tainly cannot attest at the time of purchase to its ingredients,

quality, or quantity except by referral to the package label. To

reduce this buyer's risk to some acceptable level, which I will not

define at this point, someone has to control the package's quantity and quality.

The State and local weights and measures jurisdictions, the

United States Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug

Administration, the Fair Trade Commission, and the producers

of the packaged products themselves are all involved to a greater

1 Milgrom, J. and Brody, A., Packaging in Perspective, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974.

131
or lesser degree in this policing activity. Ideally, the various

government and industry sectors complement each other; in fact,

there are a number of serious discrepancies between the regulations and methodology of the government agencies, as well as a wide range of expertise apparent in the industrial sector in the area of package control.

Before I talk about the possibilities of remedying this situation,

I feel my audience, the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, deserves a progress report on the revision of NBS

Handbook 67, the weights and measures manual for compliance

testing of prepackaged commodities.

First, I think I should reassure you that there will not be that

much which is unfamiliar to you. The manual will retain its straightforward, simple manner of giving step-by-step procedures, with many examples to demonstrate those procedures.

We have nearly all of the procedures outlined, primarily gravimetric in approach, for the determination of quantity labeled by

weight, liquid volume, count, linear or square measure, combination quantities, and such special problems as aerosol, viscous and

paint products, drained weight, and frozen products.

Since this handbook is an operational guide for package control

under the law, the method of control will continue to be based on

the average concept as outlined in the Model State Packaging

and Labeling Regulation ; that is, the average of the actual package quantities in a lot, shipment or delivery, must be at least

equal to the stated quantity ; that there will exist, however, variations between the actual package contents and the label declaration. This concept, at least, is the common theme among all the

government agencies and, indeed, international in its acceptance.

The protection to the buyer of packaged commodities which

can be afforded by these laws, however, must be based on the

practical necessities of compliance inspection. It is usually impossible to test or inspect the entire lot, shipment, or delivery.

So we select a few items out of a lot by a sampling procedure

that insures that our sample reflects the lot from which it was

taken.

In most instances, definition of the lot for a standard pack item

is fairly straightforward. We would, in general, look for the

manufacturer's code when it is available. Therefore, we suggest

that when the place of inspection is the retail store or wholesale

warehouse, a lot would consist of all packages with identical labels

and, where possible, with the same manufacturer's lot symbol or code number. When the place of inspection is the packing plant, a lot would consist of packages with identical labels and manu132
facturer's code number and would not exceed some unit of time,

say an hour's production, from one production run. For random packs, however, we would suggest the definition

of the lot at the packing plant or central meat processing plant

to be all packages of one type or style of product produced at one

establishment on a particular day, bearing identical labels, and

available for inspection at one time. When the manufacturer's

code number or lot symbol is available, these would be used to delineate the random pack lot. When inspection is at the retail

store, a lot would consist of all the packages of a particular

department on the same day available for inspection at one time.

Conceivably, this could mean that most of a meat counter, say,

in a supermarket, would be the lot. Why would we do this?

Because in many instances we have reduced the variables sufl^i- ciently by this definition—we have limited the lot to the same

packager, the same device, and the same method of tare determination by the packager.

The variables are the physical characteristics of the product,

the tare, and the interrelationship between the two. There may

be too many variables; but some weights and measures jurisdictions have used this definition of the lot before, and have found

it time saving and fair. Again, I want to add that we will have

to experiment with this definition and hear your reaction to it. Perhaps after you have tried it with the many if's, but's, and

when's that the actual procedure would have written into it, you

will find your job of inspecting random packs considerably easier. In order to make a decision on the lot, we must choose a sample

to be representative; it should be a "random" sample. This will

be a little different, since your long standing practice of picking

carefully from the top, bottom, left side, right side, front, back,

and center is not strictly a random sample. If I might explain,

any time there is a pattern to the choice of a sample, that is precisely when the sample is nonrandom. What I have described

to you as the old handbook's method has a certain, if vague, pattern to it. In order to use this sample to make a judgment about

the lot, you need to know what is a good lot; that is, what is acceptable for selling. Our Model Regulation defines this partly

with the average concept; but for any process which is subject

to variations, we have to know what those variations are to see

if any buyer is getting too little when some other buyer is getting too much. But what is too little or too much ? Eric Vadelund reported to you last year that we were planning

a collection of data from all types of commodities which would

define what reasonable variations are. We would have to amend

133
or update this as packagers get better at package control themselves. I think you can imagine the enormity of such a proposal. In the interest of getting this document out to you to field test,

I would like to suggest to you that we begin with an arbitrary

definition of equity ranging, say, from 1/4 to 5 percent variation

allowed from the average which, as before, would at least have to equal the labeled weight. This variation, which I propose, would

depend upon the product's physical and chemical properties, the

process control, the package material's properties, the size of the

package, and the inspection situation in the marketplace, from

in-plant to retail. K exceptions are necessary, we will have to define the criteria

for these exceptions so that as new products come into the market, you, as weights and measures officials, will have guidelines as to how to deal effectively with them. Presently, we need evidence for the quantitative definition of product variations. As I said, I know the analysis of this data will be lengthy, but I would

like to enlist your help now to provide us with data—up-to-date

data—of the type such as quality control charts or weights and

measures, industry, and federal agencies as well. As an aside, you can see that the standardization of report

forms would be an important objective to us in this scheme. We

would need this standardization in an ongoing data collection for

review of commodity variations. In effect, we expect these variations to be variable.

Admittedly, there are policy questions which still have to be

resolved. For example, there is the definition and measurement

of tare, whether wet, dry, or, as some are wont to call it, "real.' We know that in these days of material shortages, there is presently no hope of providing you with, or giving you a procedure

which would, in effect, define a few standard tares. Tare will have

to be measured every time. We have been looking, however, at commodity types which represent special problems in tare such

as: (a) toothpaste, because of the difficulty of complete delivery;

and (b) bacon and milk, due to their exposure problems. This

might require estimates of tare based on the variability of packing materials with respect to the variability of the product inside.

This could be original research ; I hope not. If any of you listening

to me today have data on this or similar items, I hope you will get

in touch with me either here or on a confidential basis at the

Office of Weights and Measures.

As you can see, we have the skeleton and some flesh, or muscle,

if you will, on the body of the handbook. We are waiting to hear

from you, especially from weights and measures, since this handbook is for your use.

134
I think it is appropriate that I introduce the authors of this

document-to-be. Of course, the entire Office of Weights and Measures has provided input, especially Mr. Harold F. Wollin, Chief

of OWM; Mr. Stephen Hasko, who, as you know, has worked

on the procedures for problem packages in some depth ; Mrs. Mary

Natrella from the Statistical Engineering Laboratory at NBS,

our statistician in this effort; and Dr. Joan Rosenblatt, Chief of

the Statistical Engineering Laboratory.

Now, what about uniform compliance testing; where is it today? It was reported last year that NBS, FDA, and USDA

were meeting. There were two problems, as I see it. First, there were changes in personnel both at FDA and NBS. More importantly, as far as I can determine, our group had no clear objectives. We just exchanged information as to where we were. Right

after the Conference we intend to meet again—a planning ses- sion—to spell out those specific policy and procedural elements

which we can and must address.

Let us look at some differences which are apparent today. When

FDA says full net weight, they mean a sample which averages

99 percent or greater of the labeled weight. Compare this with

NBS Handbook 67, New Jersey's Article 13, California's Article 5, or New York or Wisconsin's methods. USDA and FDA both check

mainly at production point; traditionally, weights and measures

have concentrated on the retail level. But I hasten to add, this

situation is changing—methods for package checking in the plant were requested by two regional associations at the interim meetings of the NCWM last January.

Our differences are vast becauses our priorities are different.

Health and cleanliness are, and should be, higher concerns to FDA and USDA than net weight and net quantity. I realize, as Mr. Wolski will probably point out again this morning, that we

are driving industry crazy with the array of different regulations.

On the whole, the consumer takes full net quantity for granted,

precisely because the weights and measures guarantee, as it were, of buyer-seller equity has been managed so well by the

states; and because weights and measures assurance is so basic a right as to have been written into our Nation's Constitution

and, indeed, dates back to the Magna Carta.

Before closing, I would like to add a particular concern of mine

which we should all examine: Is it reasonable that the producer's

and packager's responsibilities for full net quantity be limited

to certain levels in the marketplace transaction and not extended

to the retail consumer level? This question, if answered positively,

might make possible, I think, a subtle form of discrimination of

packagers who package at the retail level, as well as further

135
deviation from accurate labeling at retail as to the quantity con- tained in a package. This question is being asked; we, all of us

here, must try to answer it. In conclusion, I want to say that we do not, any of us who

would be working towards a uniform compliance program, plan

to make documents such as the Meat and Poultry Inspection

Manual of APHIS, or the FDA Inspector Programs Manual, or NBS Handbook 67, for instance, into one book for all the agencies

use. We would hope, I think, to extend the similarity of concepts

upon which they are based, but still aim at responding to the

needs of their various users. My job is to revise NBS Handbook

67 for you, weights and measures officials. NET WEIGHT—POLICY AND PROCEDURE

USDA Net Weight Philosophy and Procedures

Presented by Irwin Fried, Chief Staff Officer, Systems

Development and Sanitation Staff, Technical Services, APHIS

Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, U.S. Department of

Agriculture

I would like to present some of the machinations that we in APHIS, or at least the

APHIS part of USDA, have gone through

during the past year and share with you some of our experiences, some of our findings, and where we are at the present time.

There was a certain case in California

that caused widespread publicity where

shortages were found in bacon. There were

suits and countersuits. After the judge in

the case had made his original decision, we

came away with one very firm understanding insofar as we at APHIS were concerned. That is the fact that under the terms of

the Federal Meat and Poultry Acts, the states are definitely

prohibited from taking action against Federally inspected product

in any field unless, and this is the big unless, they use standards

and procedures which are the same as those by which the product was judged originally.

Now this is a very important point. It is spelled out in our

law, but it has caused a lot of controversy. It also pointed out

something else to us. The judge in the case refused to allow the

procedures which we in Meat and Poultry Inspection had been

using for many years. He refused to allow those procedures to

136
be entered into the legal proceeding. The reason why he did this was that the procedures themselves were not contained in our law or in our regulations but were in our inspector's instructions,

which had no legal basis.

What did this mean? It meant that states which had concurrent jurisdiction over Federal product, as long as they used the same standards and procedures, in effect, could not exert that

concurrent jurisdiction because of the fact that there were no

procedures in the regulations.

We had entered into discussions with the National Bureau of

Standards, the Food and Drug Administration, and with other

parts of USDA, notably AMA, who were interested in the net

weight area. Although we had entered into discussion with them

toward finding one, or as close to one as we could get, standard

procedure for everyone, we felt that we could not wait for the

complete fruition of that before coming out with a regulation of our own so that states could continue to check Federally inspected

product.

As a result, we published a proposal in December of 1973 for

comment. The comment period was supposed to expire in March,

I believe. The volume of comments and requests for additional

time to supply data was such that we extended the comment

period to May 31. We are now in the process of digesting those

comments.

There were so many misunderstandings and so many requests

for changes on both sides of almost every problem that had to be solved that we have decided to come out with a revised proposal for comment instead of going into final rule making. Hopefully, this will be in the Federal Register for your review in the near future.

I have divided my presentation into a couple of different areas.

I call number one the problem areas on reexamination for compliance, because I think the reexamination aspect is of more

interest to you than is the original examination.

In APHIS we have a rather unique position as far as regulatory

agencies are concerned in that we have inspectors stationed at every plant that is under Federal inspection. We have input on

the contents of packages before they ever leave the plant. The

problem areas that come up when a reexamination or an examination is made for compliance at the retail level are slightly

different. What are some of these problem areas? Getting back

to the point of production, to begin with, a particular lot might

not have been in compliance when it left the plant. I would be

the very first to admit this. There are going to be times when

137
the product is not right and should not have been allowed into commerce. So that is problem number one. Another problem is the fact that the procedure used to judge

the product originally is now different when applied at the retail

level. In other words, we are now talking about a lot that would

be in compliance by anyone's standards but because a different

system was used to judge the compliance at some other point, the

lot would be found out of compliance. One of these differences

might be different sample sizes used at different points of

inspection.

The next problem is products that change weight. At the production point the products meet the requirements; but as they

proceed into commerce, the weight changes. Usually we are con- cerned with the fact that the change that takes place is a loss in

weight. In dealing with live tissue, tissues that contain a great

deal of moisture may shrink. If the packaging is not hermetically

sealed, there is a good chance that moisture evaporation will take

place. That package, when judged at some future point, will weigh

less than what it did originally.

There is a change of weight that is due to loss of moisture but

not necessarily evaporation. The weight change might actually

be leakage away from the product as moisture or leakage con- tained in the package (or it might not be contained in the package) ; but if we are going to judge the product itself, there has

been a change in weight. This ties in with a problem I define as a difference in definition. The lot was okay originally. The evaporation that took place is now considered unacceptable. Perhaps

the original law or regulation under which it was judged said that a reasonable loss of moisture is acceptable. So there is a difference

here in definition as to what is acceptable.

Again, is loss of fluid by actual leakage, whether these are contained in the package, absorbed in the package, or lost through

the package, acceptable or unacceptable? Differences in definition cause problems in judging compliance at two different points.

Then we have to discuss the problems of sampling. We do know

that in taking any sample of a product there are certain probabilities of judging the actual condition of the lot correctly, and

there are other probabilities of making an incorrect decision. So

now we have a case where the product originally might have

been in compliance but because of sampling differences or because

of drawing a different size sample, we might find that the product, although it was correct, was now judged unacceptable.

Well, those are the problems. What do we do about problem

solving? I have tried to condense the needs of all of us. When I say all of us, I am talking about regulatory agencies, officials

138
who judge compliance, producers who have to know what they

should do in order to meet the requirements, and the consumers and what the consumers expect to receive.

First on my list of priorities is the need for a definition of net

weight. To me this is one of the biggest failures that we have.

For years we have been talking about net weight; yet in reality

we do not have an exact definition of net weight. Now why do

I say this? Shrink is a very good example. Is net weight the net

weight of a product immediately when it is put into a container

or is it the net weight at whatever future point it may be judged,

be that three weeks, three months, six months, or a year later?

At what point is the net weight the net weight? We must decide

and define.

We rarely, if ever, judge net weight by actually weighing the

product. In most instances, we take a gross weight of a package

and its container and determine the net weight by subtracting a

tare weight. Therefore, the definition of a tare weight becomes

very important in defining net weight. Some of the problems that

we have been encountering during the past year are in defining

dry tare, defining the products on which a dry tare is to be used,

defining wet tares, and defining when a wet tare is to be used.

These are very important considerations.

In addition, the actual determination in any lot of product of

what that tare weight should be will depend upon an even smaller

sample of packaging material than we usually use for determining

the net weight of the lot. So, again, we have problems because of variations in the

weights of the containers and packaging material that effect our

tare weight which could effect our recording of what the net

weight might be. Last, but certainly not least in this day and age, is the question

of drained weight. Speaking for Meat and Poultry Inspection, we

thought that we were quite a bit ahead of the game in that in

many instances we defined the net weight of certain products as being the drained weight. We did this because we felt that the

product itself, the particular piece of meat or poultry, was really

the only thing being sold in that container. This was true, especially when things such as water and brine were being used to

fill a container so that it could be properly processed. On the

other hand we had a definition that in products of this type, the

net weight of the container was the total net weight. This would

be true where the liquid that was added to the container was

nutritious. This is a definition that, if kept in the revised proposal,

will certainly need further definition because of the volume of

139
comments we had concerning the puzzlement about what constituted nutritious and nonnutritious.

To summarize what our proposal said as far as defining net

weight is concerned, the first problem that I spoke about was

moisture loss or shrink. In our proposal we removed this allow- ance. We removed it by saying nothing aoout it, which meant

that the net weight would be the weight of the package as found

upon examination at any point.

As far as tare weights were concerned, we, for the first time,

introduced the concept of using a wet tare. We defined the wet

and the dry tare usage as follows:

"If the container itself was impervious to moisture absorption, and if the product itself was a legal product when it went into the container,

then everything recoverable from that container was part of the net weight."

In effect those were the products that would have a dry tare. K the product had a tendency to weep or to lose moisture

because of its nature and it was absorbed by the packaging material so that the product was not recoverable by the consumer,

then that absorbed moisture was included with the weight of the

packaging material, was included with the tare weight and,

therefore, was reduced from the actual net weight. (Most meat

and poultry products are in this category.)

So we actually defined the tares to be used by the type of

materials that were used in packaging. Anything absorbed by the

package, and therefore lost to the consumer, was part of the tare weight. This is the wet tare concept.

When a product is placed in a container and then liquid packing

material is added, we have always used the drained weight as the

net weight statement when that added liquid was water or ice

nonnutritious. If the added liquid was broth or sauce, we counted

it as part of the net weight.

The next problem that needs solving is a standardized procedure for determining compliance. As part of the procedure, we

almost invariably prescribe a sample selection that is used to represent the lot; and the sample size needs definition. It must

be practical and, at the same time, must give the degree of confidence in the result that we need.

We must make a decision as to whether to continue to use the

average concept versus no individual package in a lot being below

the stated weight. This is a very difficult decision to make insofar

as many consumers are concerned who feel very definitely that no package they receive should ever be below.

These are the problems. Shall we use the average of the sample

140
or shall we introduce a procedure that says no package shall be

less? Problems with the average are that a consumer, in buying

a package, will occasionally receive a package that does not contain the full stated net weight.

The problem with no low individual is the amount of overpack

that would be necessary in order to meet no individual package

in a production lot being below a stated minimum. Certainly a gross overpack is needed and this will show up in the cost. Suppose you are willing to pay this cost? There is another problem

involved—the inspection system. Inspection for compliance of no

low weights in the lot is almost impossible. The sample size

needed would be so large that it would be totally impractical. To

really assure no low weight, you would have to look at 100 percent of the packages.

If we stick with the average concept, shall we just say the

average of the sample or shall we put a limit on how any individual product, any individual sample unit, may go? I think we

would all agree that if we are going to use the average concept,

we should have a limit as to what would be unreasonably low and

unacceptable to the consumer even though the average of the

lot was acceptable. We have got to find a way of determining

what those reasonable shortages are and write them into our

procedures.

This is going to be a long study ; it is going to be a continuing

process. We need as much input as we can get. We have got to really put as much of our available statistical manpower into the

studies as possible. We cannot arbitrarily say one-half of one percent is unreasonable. We cannot arbitrarily say that 5 percent is unreasonable. We need actual studies that say for this particular

product or for this category of products, in these particular con- tainer sizes, this amount would represent an unreasonable shortage and most of industry should be able to meet the requirements.

Under the uniform procedure, we must determine the average

tare that we are going to use in determining compliance. We must

have a tare weight procedure that can get the job done.

I would like to summarize for you under this procedure how

our proposal stated that these problems should be handled. In our

proposal, we suggested that the procedure used to determine compliance would determine the net weights of the individual packages in the sample and that the average of the sample would be one factor in determining compliance. The average would have to meet the stated label weight. We put a limit in the proposal, we

divided products into six different categories, and we defined

unreasonable shortages for each of those categories. The cate- gories were determined on the basis of product type and the size

141
of the package. We suggested a sampling plan of 10 to be used

for small lots of 250 packages or less and a sample size of 30 for

larger size lots. We have been advised that in many instances some lots contain less than 10 packages, so we are very definitely

going to have to do something about that sample size of 10. In summary, we are in the process of digesting close to 2,000

comments received ; we are making some decisions as to changes

to be made in the proposal. Hopefully, they will be made soon and

will be out again in the Federal Register for comment. We would

like to continue our dialogue with the entire population insofar

as input. We pray that the input given is as meaningful as it possibly can be. The statement, "We do not like this" is fine. It

is a very definite expression ; but we must know what you do like. If we can get actual supportive data for changes, that is something we can evaluate in coming to a final rule making.

In closing I would like to confirm the fact that we are very

happy that we have, in fact, agreed upon a forward-going group

of government regulatory and nonregulatory agencies concerned

with net weights. Hopefully, we will make some of these decisions

that have to be made quickly so that we can reach our

ultimate goal of having everyone—producer, consumer, enforcement agencies—^working with one uniform concept of net content

measurement.

NET WEIGHT—POLICY AND PROCEDURE

The Case for State and Local Enforcement

Presented by Herbert Cohen, Administrative Adviser,

Department of Food and Agriculture, State of California

We are in a period of transition in weights

and measures law which is unlike that which

has ever existed within America. We are moving from a period when you, as the state,

county, and city officials, had primary

responsibility for enforcement of weights

and measures law into a period where federal agencies are taking over that responsibility and you have a somewhat subordinated role. The larger issue before us is to what

extent the states are going to maintain their place in the weights

and measures system for the protection of their industries and

142
their consumers. I stress wholesalers and retailers as well as consumers because they certainly need the protection that you

have been giving them.

We are dealing immediately with the Federal Meat Inspection

Act and the Federal Poultry and Poultry Inspection Acts; but,

actually, we are dealing with more. We are dealing with the

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Alcoholic Beverage Control

Act, the Seed Law and, finally, the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act.

When we put this package of federal legislation together, there

is virtually no packaging that requires your services that is not

covered within this array of federal legislation. The pattern which

is developed by USDA is very likely to set the pattern for the

entire United States packaging industry and package checking

programs. Thus, I say that we are in a transition era. It behooves

us, indeed, to look very carefully and to move somewhat more

slowly than Mr. Fried has suggested.

I appreciate the desire of USDA to get on with its work of

producing practical, workable regulations. Indeed, I commend

USDA for getting to the job. However, there is a considerable

amount of dispute as to what these regulations would propose in

practice, how they would actually operate at the local level. Our statisticians and USDA statisticians talk a similar technical language, but they do not arrive at the same conclusions in

many cases. Certainly, our lawyers and the federal lawyers do

not arrive at the same conclusions; that is not so unusual. But

when the statisticians do not agree, then I do have a little more

concern.

If I would have any one overall message in my speech today,

it is that you, as state, county, and local weights and measures

officials, need to consult with USDA, and USDA needs to consult

with you to go over in detail the operation of these proposed

regulations. What happens in the next six months, or perhaps

even three months, is going to set a pattern which may last for

100 years.

Let me go back to the beginning of this new era. The controversy arose in California where we have Joseph Jones, Director

of Weights and Measures for Riverside County, and Maynard

Becker, Director of Weights and Measures for Los Angeles

County, taking action against Rath Packing Company for short

weight.

The Jones case resulted in action in the Riverside County

Superior Court and an injunction against Rath. The Becker case went to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Rath then

143
brought a cross complaint in the Federal Court in Los Angeles.

The Attorney General went into Federal Court and said we have

state prosecutions here under state law. The defendants are going to Federal Court to try and get out of the state prosecutions. Let them come back and argue their defenses in State

Court. The U.S. District Court said fine. You go back and you

defend yourselves in the State Courts. Nothing is going to happen to you in those State Courts that should not. Rath then filed additional actions on their own in Federal Court

asking for injunctions against the State action. In the first case

it was removal, in the second case it was a request for injunction.

The cases went on to trial and United States District Judge

Manuel L. Real decided that he would take jurisdiction of the

case, notwithstanding the fact that the cases were already pending in State Courts and, in fact, an injunction had been issued

against Rath in State Court. He wrote a decision in the case of

The Rath Packing Company versus Becker and Christensen,

Director of Agriculture of the State of California, and The Rath

Packing Company versus Jones, which will become a landmark

in the law of weights and measures.

Basically, Judge Real held that under the Meat Inspection Act

the law was designed to improve the position of consumers to give them more knowledge and more protection; that the Secretary of Agriculture had a responsibility for the labeling, which

included net weight labeling, of meat food packages not only at the plant level but also at the retail level so that, in effect, the

labeling would continue all the way down the commercial channel; and that the states, while they had concurrent jurisdiction as the law provided, had concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the

federal standard.

The State of California argued something like this. The con- current jurisdiction is for USDA to say what label shall be put on the product at the plant level. We do not say you have to put

any label on at all, Mr. Packer, but when it gets distributed in our

state or in a county or city, then that label must be accurate

under state law.

Judge Real said that the Secretary of Agriculture's guidelines were to produce regulations under the law which allowed so-called

reasonable variations but that the Secretary of Agriculture had

failed to define what these reasonable variations were. No inspec- tor could be given the keys to the jailhouse, as it were, to determine what was reasonable and, therefore, the federal regulations were invalid. However, he went on to say that the states were not

left helpless; and here I guess we have an ideological difference

144
with USDA. Judge Real made a sweeping statement that con- sumers were meant to be protected by this legislation and that

federal law, therefore, left the states a remedy. We could not

have a sampling plan which was different from USDA's sampling

plan—and USDA just did not have a sampling plan—but we

could take packages off sale on a one-for-one basis.

The Secretary of Agriculture has not defined what reasonable

variations are, therefore, the standard of the act is accuracy ; and

any package which is not accurate as to weight labeling, the state could take off sale. We, in California, adopted regulations to do

just that.

Now with that bit of background, let me read you from Judge

Reals' decision.

It is clear in the provisions for concurrent jurisdiction outside an inspected

plant that such actions as are undertaken by states in the regulation of meat and meat food products must be consistent with the requirements of the federal Wholesome Meat Act of 1967. That Act has spoken upon the

subject of misbranding—and more particularly when misbranding is related to comparison of the label with contents as provided in 21 U.S.C.

§ 601(n)(5) in this language:

"(n) The term 'misbranded' shall apply to any . . . meat or meat food

product. . .

(5) If in a package or other container it bears a label showing . . . (B) an accurate statement of quantity ... in terms of weight . . .. Provided that under Clause (B), reasonable variations may be permitted ... by regulations prescribed by the Secretary."

To implement subsection (5), the United States Secretary of Agriculture

published rules and regulations in Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations.

In section 317.2(h)(2) the Secretary provides:

"(2) The statement as it is shown on a label shall not be false or misleading and shall express an accurate statement of the quantity of contents of the container exclusive of wrappers and packing substances. Reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practices or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice will be recognized. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall not be unreasonably large."

And then Judge Real comments upon these regulations of the

Secretary and how the California law applies. He says:

California Article 5 (That is our sampling plan.) just does not meet this Federal standard. Nowhere in the measuring processes set forth therein

in detail is any consideration given to the possible "loss ... of moisture

during the course of good distribution practice." The measure of Article

5 is "absolute" as determined by accepted statistical methods and, as such.

145
erroneously encroaches upon the standards provided by the Federal Whole- some Meat Act of 1967. Defendants argue, however, that section 317.2(h) (2) is void for vagueness; that, therefore, we are left with the absolute standard, "an accurate statement of . . . weight." Though valid, this argument does not end the inquiry in favor of state action. California Article 5—though measuring

the absolute provided in California Business and Professions Code section 12211—applies a statistical "averaging" concept for the sealer to make

the final determination of whether or not packages in violation should be ordered "off-sale." The Federal Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 does not give

state legislatures or state officers—even in the grant of concurrent enforce- ment jurisdiction—the right to substitute their judgment of what variances, either plus or minus, come within the absolute standard of "an

accurate statement of ... in terms of weight."

Let me interject here that you will notice that Judge Real

states that the term "variances" in distribution practice, manufacturing practice, and so on, applies both to overages and underages and does not mean tolerances. It does not mean any minus

standard at all. Following the adoption of our new regulations in California,

in which we gave our directors of weights and measures in the

counties authority to take off sale packages on a one-for-one

basis, we had further action by Mr. Jones. There was a response

by three flour manufacturers in a related case called General

Mills, The Pillsbury Company, and Seaboard Allied Milling Corporation versus Jones, which again went before Judge Real.

Mr. Jones is represented by Loyal E. Keir, County Counsel

Deputy in the Office of the County Counsel of Riverside County.

Mr. Keir has had primary responsibility in this case, with some

assistance from the Attorney General. Judge Real said the same

general proposition applied in the General Mills case as in the

Rath case except that here it was the Food and Drug Administration. They provide for reasonable variations but they do not

say what the reasonable variations are. No inspector can decide

what these reasonable variations are ; therefore, the standard of

reasonable variations is void. What is left is a requirement of

accuracy. The State of California then adopted further regulations as to flour saying (as to these products) we will take them

off sale on a package-by-package basis.

So, it is not really accurate to say that Judge Real told the

State of California, or any of you, to go away and leave these

products alone. Judge Real did say that the federal agencies had

not done the job Congress required them to do. The federal agencies were giving their inspectors so much discretion that there was no way that the packager could know what was legal and

what was not. In fact, this much discretion amounted to no

146
enforcement at all because if the packager did not know, how

could you hold him really responsible?

Judge Real went on to say that the states still have this con- current jurisdiction, the fereral standard of accuracy remains,

and the states can take these packages off sale on an individual

basis.

The next question will be what happens under the proposed

regulations which will be adopted by USDA. I am really very

proud and delighted that USDA, as I said, did get busy. They

recognized their responsibility. We have a great many differences

of opinion as to what their regulations say. Many of you apparently share these problems because of the large number of

responses that Mr. Fried has commented upon.

In the flour case the response of the Food and Drug Administration was completely different. Carroll Brickenkamp commented

that FDA is an organization beset with many problems, and

perhaps weights and measures is not at the top of their list of

priorities. I could only concur. She mentioned their annual dry

tare program and the fact that they found in this program 93

percent of their products were full weight because they defined

full weight as not being more than 1 percent underweight. While

they found something like 15 percent of all the products that

they sampled were underweight, and something like 12,000 or 14,000 packages were samples, they managed to make one seizure

throughout the United States as a result of this nationwide

survey.

You can understand that with this approach (drug safety, for

example, is a lot more important than minute differences in the

amount of flour) USDA inspectors would take a somewhat similar attitude. In fact, we might say that if you looked through

the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law Reporter under the sections

of misbranding and adulterations you would find that the Food

and Drug Administration has been comparatively active in bringing cases involving mislabeling of drugs when they did not contain the right ingredients or when deleterious materials had been

added.

But you are not going to find very many cases dealing with

short weight product at all. In fact, the lawyers in this case are arguing over the most important case in the field, and probably

the only one which we are able to cite, called Shreveport Grain

Company, which was decided in 1932. The argument is over how

important this last case was (this precedent in 1974) and what

it meant anyway. The courts cannnot seem to decide what Shreveport Grain meant.

147
Let's get back to what FDA did. FDA went to the AttorneyGeneral of the United States and filed an amicus brief in which

they said there is nothing wrong with our reasonable variation

regulation. It is a perfectly valid regulation and, in effect, all of

this is a little picayune.

Perhaps I could read to you a small portion of their approach

because I think the brief speaks for itself better than any com- ments that I could make. We are talking about flour. USDA says

through the Attorney General:

In the case of flour strict adherence to the letter of the statute produces

a useless result that is wholly inconsistent with the intent of the statute.

In the case of packaging and labeling flour an unthinking insistence on

accurate labeling of weight at the time of retail sale does not necessarily

best serve the needs of consumers. If moisture content is not considered,

the stated weight may be extremely deceptive. The present regulation

carries out the statute's purpose and should be upheld.

To avoid inconsistency with federal law and policy state enforcement

policy must therefore support the federal requirement of accurate labeling.

A state policy of prosecuting short weight packages, no matter how little the actual weight is less than the stated weight, would be inconsistent with

federal law and policy and would be barred by the supremacy clause. The reference to good manufacturing practice indicates that packages are permitted to use ordinary commercial equipment. Unavoidable is an explicit term and creates no doubt. The provision for variations caused by

gain or loss of moisture during the course of good distribution practice

is equally explicit. Requirement for good distribution practice is parallel

to the requirement for good manufacturing practice and leaves no doubt

to the manufacturer of his obligations under the law.

In respect to variations arising from the packaging process the officer (that is the enforcement officer) must exercise some judgment but not on what variation is reasonable. Instead, the judgment made is to what deviations are unavoidable.

That judgment requires understanding of the capabilities of commercial

packaging machinery and the only source of diff'erence in judgment among

enforcement officers would be a difference of opinion on what their capabilities were. That possibility is hardly the unbridled discretion a lower

court asserts exists under the regulations.

The Food and Drug Administration simply takes the view that

they want to continue the way they were.

I apologize if I have misquoted the brief or if I have given

undue emphasis to certain parts. The brief itself runs 21 pages,

and you can read it if you wish. I think you get the flavor at least as we interpreted it. When a government agency takes a position, it takes the position for both sides of the queston. The result is that at present

the State of California has an injunction against the Rath Pack148
ing Company for short weight of packages. The Rath people did

get an injunction for a little while against the State in Los

Angeles County, but that was voided by an appellate court. In Judge Real's case, Judge Real says the State can continue to mark

packages off sale and should do so when they are short weight,

whether in flour, meat, or any other product.

The cases are now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals in Los Angeles. They may be heard sometime within

the next two years. We have asked the court to try and speed

this up because of the enormous public interest. We are hopeful

these cases will be consolidated and maybe they will be heard in six months.

Now, I have mentioned the role of USDA. They got busy and

they did something. We disagree somewhat with what they did

but we want to talk with USDA about that.

I have mentioned the role of FDA. They do not want to change

apparently. And, finally, there is the Federal Trade Commission.

They are, as far as we are able to determine, an unknown quantity. Unlike USDA and the Food and Drug Administration, they

have never taken any position opposed to state action. Lideed,

when these suits were first filed, we went to USDA and asked

them to come in and support us. The Wholesome Meat Act was

meant to protect citizens and wholesalers and retailers. They

said that for reasons that are best known within their organization, they were not going to get involved in this lawsuit. Personally, we regret that because when you are in a federal court

and the federal agency does not give you any support, your

position is not as strong as it would otherwise be. We asked the Food and Drug Administration for support. They

said, in effect, that they were really not quite in agreement with

what California is doing.

Even before this began, FTC adopted a regulation which you

will find in 16 Code of Federal Regulations Part 500, which comes

under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. They have the same

type of language in their statute, all of which started with the

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Their language parallels a great

deal of what the model law is talking about. After talking about

reasonable variations they said, "provided that such variations

shall not be permitted to such extent that the average of the

quantity in the packages comprise a shipment or other delivery

of the commodity below the quantity stated and no unreasonable

shortages in any package will be permitted."

If USDA and FDA has taken the same approach as FTC did

independently sometime ago (this was adopted June 27, 1967),

this whole thing might have been wound up with the packing

149
companies agreeing to stop this litigation and talk about adopting

regulations. We would still need to adopt regulations, but we

would not need to spend these thousands and thousands of dol- lars and manhours on this litigation.

As to the USDA regulation, what have we been objecting to?

I think you are familiar with it. First, we said that the Rath

people come into court and say the only enforcement is through

the federal agencies. We said the regulation is absent on this

subject. Therefore, we cannot be sure that USDA really intends

the states, counties, and cities to really have an active part.

USDA people have indicated that USDA does not intend to do

away with the local jurisdictions having enforcement power.

Exactly to what extent, we are still not sure. That is one of the

things that we must talk with USDA about before the new federal regulation proposal is put out. There was a weight range proposal I think most of you are familiar with. We do not know what USDA intends to do with it. We had all sorts of dry tare problems. We are afraid that there are lots of cases where consumers will still be paying for cardboard that is saturated with what USDA calls nutritive fluid as part of the net weight. Basically, if a packer is allowed to pump fluid into the bird or the piece of meat and it weeps out

into the cardboard, we do not care if it is called nutritive fluid or anything else. The consumers cannot use that cardboard for

anything, and we do not think they should have to pay for it as part of the net weight.

We think that the regulations, for example, should prescribe a certain overpack requirement at the packing house level because

we do not see any way in which it is possible to have net weight

on the average at the packing house level and still have net

weight on the average of lots at the wholesale and retail levels. USDA has another problem. Federal budgets are tight just the

way your budgets are tight; and there are not enough inspectors

to go around. These inspectors are not always equipped to check

the scales of the packer and they may be accepting the packer's

scales. This is another general area that we need to talk with

USDA about, in terms of whether or not the local sealer, for

example, will be able to go in and look at the scale the packer

is using to see if it is actually running accurately. We have heard

reports of USDA people saying, "You stay out of USDA plants.

You take on faith that we have checked everything all right."

You see, when the law talks about concurrent enforcement

jurisdiction, somehow we think that word "concurrent" has a lot of meaning. We need to talk with USDA about what that concurrent means. If concurrent means only that after USDA says to

150
do it a certain way, we have authority to go in and say after we

have done it that old way we still find it short. Then we go back

to the USDA compliance oi!icer and say, "Do something,"

That kind of concurrent jurisdiction is what any housewife can

do when she takes home a package of bacon, weighs it, finds it is short, goes running back to USDA, and says, "Do something."

We think concurrent jurisdiction was meant by Congress to mean a great deal more. Judge Real's stress on the fact that the

purpose of the law is to protect consumers convinces us that

what we think is right.

The purpose of this law was to further protect consumers. The

USDA certainly acknowledged this. There is an interesting state- ment by the Under Secretary of Agriculture in sending this

proposed law to the Congress. He said that we need this law to protect consumers, to prohibit fraud and to make competition fair. We need to improve our level of service.

If the result, after all of this, is to reduce these standards of

protection to the wholesaler, we think USDA needs to reexamine

what they are doing. If it is to reduce the level of protection to the consumers, we think USDA needs to think again what their

role should be in terms of the states' rights and also states' obligations.

What we are really talking about is plain old integrity in government. The sealers do not get too many complaints about short

weights because the people trust them. They have got you out

there as local officials. You are neighbors. You are there to talk

to them. They can go in and see you any time. They know when

they call you there is going to be somebody on the other end of

that telephone or in that office to talk to. If we arrive at a situation where our consumers can no longer really trust our public

officials in this area, this will be a grave situation. It seems to us that there is no way in which you can have an inspector of

weights and measures and a consumer standing side by side

before a tray of meat packages and the consumer says to the

inspector, "Now, have you checked all of these?"

Inspector, "Yes ma'am, I have."

Consumer, "And are they all up to weight?"

Inspector, "Well, ma'am, according to the inspection manual

that has been given to us, they are all okay."

Consumer, "Well, are they all up to weight?"

Inspector, "Actually, no." Consumer, "What are you going to do about it?"

Inspector, "We are going to leave the meat on sale because

that is what the inspection manual says."

151
If we arrive at that situation, we are going to lose the most

important asset we have in weights and measures—the belief of

the people in what we do. That is a very important part of the

integrity of government.

As long and detailed as the regulations are in the USDA's

inspector's manual, they do not begin to tell the whole story nor

the changes that can take place without any further action. The

inspector's manual that I have seen is something like 3 or 4

inches thick and the changes come along every week. They are

looseleaf filed, and there is no Federal Register action going on

while these changes are taking place. One part of that, of course, has to do with net weight changes.

Judge Real said that he was not going to consider the manual

itself, because the Federal Register Act, which is an act of Congress, provides that standards of general applicability such as

this have to be published in the Federal Register so that the

public has an opportunity to comment. There is a very famous

case called Hotch versus the United States in the Ninth Circuit

which says if an agency adopts a regulation, in effect, through

this manual procedure, these regulations are void. The manufacturer who is subject to them can just forget about them. The

agency cannot make them comply with them. This is another

matter where we need to talk to USDA in some considerable

detail. We need to ask how we should deal with this problem of

Hotch versus the United States and a whole series of cases in

that circuit that follow along from it. How do we deal with the

problem of changing regulations through the manual when there

is no further opportunity for comment?

We would like to have net weight on the average. We would

like to have a wet tare procedure. We would also like to ask the

Congress to look at this twenty-day clause, this so-called libel or

seizure clause, which we think hinders USDA in its prosecution

or holding this product even if it is short weight in getting out

of federal plants.

In closing, I want to say that weights and measures laws take

substance from what we do. They are not prescribed on high.

California has the burden principally in this case, but the State

of Hawaii, George Mattimoe's state, has filed an amicus brief.

We did not ask Hawaii to do this, they did it on their own because

they thought it was important. You might want to talk to your

attorney general and ask him if he wants to follow the route that

Hawaii did.

We have available a number of copies of the brief, both by

Loyal E. Keir, Riverside County, and Allan Goodman, representing California's Attorney General Younger, that can be supplied

152
to your attorney general. Your attorney general can review these;

and if he feels that we are on the right ground, he can make

such comment as he wants. If you wish to do this, you can go

through Walter Watson of California's Department of Food and

Agriculture. He would be happy to supply you with material that

you could take to your attorney general.

The law of weights and measures derives, for lawyers, from a very important- source and that is the Magna Charta. We have

the privilege of administering very few laws which have their

direct reference and beginning for integrity in the Magna Charta.

As you know, the Magna Charta was forced from King John by

the merchants, arising in their day because they needed protection. We still need protection for these merchants. We need it for

the packers because they have competitors. They all need to know

what the rules are and all should be held to the same plan. We

need it for our wholesalers, retailers, and consumers. We are in a tradition running from Magna Charta to the cases started by

Becker and Jones. We have 700 years of work behind us and now

we are in a period of transition. What is done in this period of

transition is going to reflect the next 100 years of weights and

measures work. I give you this opportunity and this challenge.

NET WEIGHT—POLICY AND PROCEDURE

An Industry In-Plant Quality Control Program

by Edward E. Wolski, Manager, Quality Control,

Colgate-Palmolive Company, New York, New York

Our panel's theme is "Net Weight—Policy

and Procedure." As an associate member

my involvement is with procedure as it relates to achieving and maintaining compliance in the manufacture of my company's

products.

An in-plant quality control program has

broad application in a manufacturing operation, in the systematic utilization of selected

testing procedures to measure the various

product properties, and the systematic implementation of correction or adjustment when they are warranted. "Systematic" and "when warranted" are the keys to a

well designed and effective program. When warranted means

always when correction or adjustment are required, and means

never if they are not. Systematic means the adjustment or cor153
rection is by a standard amount, determined through study of

the performance characteristics of the operation.

As you know, any series of items being produced will exhibit

variation from unit to unit. No two will be exactly the same if you examine them closely enough. The pattern of variation must

be determined so that the control points can be established. At

any average, or target, value for a product property, there will

always be this characteristic pattern of variation. As you would

expect, most of the units produced will be near the average, both

above and below, with fewer being observed as we move further

from the average. The spread of the values is as characteristic

of an operation as if it were its fingerprint. Values outside this

characteristic pattern are a certain sign that something has gone

amiss and correction is required. Likewise, adjusting the knobs

and twisting the dials when the process is actually in control

will only move the whole thing up or down. If you move it up and

then down, the well meant knob twisting has only spread it out

more, overall. The only way to reduce the spread is to do something positive by way of a significant change in the design of the

system to actually modify its fundamental behavior characteristics.

These facts apply to any property—chemical analysis, size,

color, or net weight, for example. When a product is planned, its design must take into account the variation which will be ex- pected to occur so that it can be controlled to produce acceptable

goods.

We have all purchased items that leaked, did not fit, did not

work, or otherwise have disappointed us. Our own reaction in

making it a point not to go back for more of the same is the reason that an effective control program is so important for

product success. By now you are wondering what all this has to do with weights

and measures enforcement, or with product compliance. It is really the same thing. In this case the regulations specify one of

the design properties of the product—the declared net quantity.

The regulations also specify the degree of variation which can

occur, as well as the frequency—reasonable error, plus and minus.

Handbook 67 tells us what is required of us. Of course, there are problems in knowing what everybody wants us to do, and I will come to those later. For now let us look at Handbook 67 and see what a packager should do.

First, let us see what he needs to consider. Well, he certainly

has motivation to operate within the law. The motivation is there

if he is honest and ethical, and the consequences surely provide

it if he is not.

154
Second, he has to make a profit. If he does not, he will not have

his problem for very long. Failure to control well can clean out

the profit in a hurry in two ways. The cost of sorting and scrapping short weight goods is so prohibitive that I am sure I do not

need to elaborate on it. Any well designed system will have the

target high enough, even if it might have other weaknesses. But

he has big trouble in the long term if his target is too high. There

can be enormous reduction in profit from what would seem like so little. Think what would be represented by a thimble full of

overpack in every carton of cereal, can of beer, carton of detergent, bottle of milk, or bag of sugar sold. For example, my own

company produces well over a billion packages a year. Roughly,

I estimate that one-sixteenth ounce of unnecessary overfill would

amount to about a million dollars a year.

He just cannot afford unnecessary overpack. The job has to be

done right. No doubt about it, any responsible packager has to satisfy his obligations, intends to satisfy his obligations, and

holds his employees responsible for their performance in that

regard.

Our country's business structure is highly competitive. Companies compete in all facets of their corporate performance, and

the better managed are the more successful ones which grow.

Let us talk about how they do the job . The operating characteristic for each product on each production line needs to be determined to find out just where the target

should be and what the control points are. This will satisfy the

requirements of the regulations and for holding the overpacking

cost at the minimum consistent with the current equipment performance and product filling characteristics.

But now the expected begins to happen. Think about it. Even

this minimum overpacking costs a lot of money. If the product

filling characteristic can be improved, or the performance of the

equipment improved, some of the overpacking cost can be reduced.

And other good things happen at the same time. Because of such

improvements the variation is reduced; the units are more uniform. The light ones are not so light and the heavy ones are not

so heavy. And this work will, of course, continue as long as the

savings in overpacking will pay for the engineering improvements. The cost will go down, the population of packages will be

more uniform, and all will be closer to the label quantity.

All is well. The manufacturer is not only doing a better job and

operating much closer to the ideal of the regulations, but he has

accomplished a savings as well.

155
But like every other real life story, we had better look again

at the happy ending. The hard fact is that the better this job is done, the more likelihood there is for problems to occur. I know

this somehow does not sound right, so let me explain.

Packaged goods are inspected, and they should be. But the

inspection is traditionally at retail where, at most, two or three

cases of an item will usually be on display for sale. What is on

the shelf may represent only five or ten seconds of production of

that item. They come from a controlled population, with some

light and some heavy, just like they are supposed to be and just

like everybody wants them to be, and averaging at or above the

label just as they should. But which ones are these particular

ones? Just what segment of the population was produced during

those few seconds? We do know they will be a little light or a

little heavy. If they are the heavy ones, all is well. But if they

happen to be the light ones, you have no choice but to take the

item off sale at that store. Of course it is not a long term problem because in your many

samplings you will see the pattern. You readily identify which

packers do their jobs, which ones need a little firm encouragement, and which ones need a hard line approach to straighten

them out. And you do a good job in this regard.

But short term is a problem. Store officials rightly turn to the

packager and insist on stock replacement and reassurances. The basic shortcoming in current practice, as I see it, is that

although a small sample may be adequate to verify performance

for goods packed there individually, or random packs, a small

store sample simply does not measure the performance of a high

volume, high speed operation whose output is widely and ran- domly distributed. It can only indicate what happened during the

few seconds of production represented by those goods on that

particular shelf. The high volume packer is entitled to the same fair and equitable sampling as is applied to goods which are packed at point

of sale. I do not mean to say that current practices are not fair

and equitable, it is just that the volume packer will take his

lumps while you are establishing that he is doing his job.

There are some weights and measures oflScials who favor sampling at distribution warehouses or at point of manufacture. I think this would be good. Certainly the good operator would have

no trouble with it and should welcome it. The "bad guys" would

certainly get hurt. Right now they lose goods by the small store

lot; this way they would lose goods in warehouse lots. Wherever

the packer who has engineered out all the fat has been able to

156
reduce his fill, he has, as we have seen, increased the percentage

of light in-tolerance units. And he has increased his failure rate and level of problem in store samplings. Representative sampling

of warehouse lots would take care of that inequity.

But this poses a dilemma which would take a good deal of

thought and work and openmindedness to solve. You see, true

equity will require sampling plans designed not on the basis of

simplicity, but on a sound statistical basis to reliably determine

whether a lot of a given size meets the requirements of the regulations. And these plans would recognize that where a tolerance

is required for individual units due to the unavoidable variation

which must occur, a tolerance is also necessary for the average

of the sample.

If equity is to prevail, it must one day be accepted that individuals cannot be 50 percent minus and 50 percent plus but always

average at label quantity or heavier. This is why I said that

thought and work and openmindedness would all be required.

Many certainly will find it difficult to accept the fact that a light

sample average does not mean the lot is below weight. But that

is not an insurmountable problem given the assurance that the

procedures are soundly designed.

The packager has another problem, and it too is very real. Not

all jurisdictions approach inspection and enforcement in the same

way, or with the same standards for compliance. Some have iso- lated themselves from the rest of us. In a country where goods

are sold freely in interstate commerce there are a few jurisdictions who enforce minimum regulations when the balance of the

country, the economy, and the competitive pricing of goods are based on the principle of the average. What that means is that

in those locations the packager fails nearly all the time. Almost

every lot will contain some light in-tolerance units. These are considered as individual violations.

Another question comes to mind. At what point does the packager's liability logically cease? For example, some products lose

moisture and shrink with time. The manufacturer accepts the

responsibihty to provide for such shrinkage. But what is a reasonable time ? I know of five citations for five individual units which

were two and a half years old. The case in point is only a single

small occurrence, but it happened. He should be fully accountable

where he has control, but where he has no control at all his

responsibility should stop somewhere.

There are other questions which will eventually require resolution. Not long ago an imported food shipment was found to show

excessive weight variation and was impounded by the FDA at

157
port of entry. Without going into the details, the matter was

resolved on reinspection and the goods found to be in compliance

and released. From all of this we learned that on tolerance for

individuals, goods acceptable to weights and measures can be

condemned by FDA. Goods acceptable to FDA on tolerance can

fail weights and measures requirements.

What this comes to is that the packager can certainly design

and engineer a system for control and can make it work; but he

can have several masters. They can require conflicting standards

of performance for compliance.

There is a need for change here and there to provide for uniformity. There is a need for some change to provide for broader

scale sampling for better and more equitable control of goods

which are widely distributed.

But these are not crying needs. They would represent just

that—improvement. The present system is a good one and does

its job well. There are problems—of course there are. But they

are small when one considers the overall order which exists in

the marketplace due to your efforts. In noting these needs, it certainly has not been my purpose to advocate sweeping change.

Rather, I would hope I have planted the seed for some constructive thought.

DISCUSSION

Mr. H. Couden (Safeway Stores, Inc.) : From the standpoint

of Dr. Brickenkamp and Mr. Fried, I am disturbed that they are considering tables of tolerances, if indeed that is what they mean

by separate products. I think that for industry to accept a comprehensive sampling plan that must stand for the next 100 years, as Herb Cohen has said, that sampling plan must have universal

applicability to all products and for all types of weights and measures whether it be by weight, volume, count, or linear measure. We want that in industry, particularly in the retail business

which I represent, because we have 9,500 food items alone and

hundreds of products. I think that any sampling plan must be

applicable also wherever it is valid to use that sampling plan, not

just in one location.

I want to caution the panelists and those in government who

are responsible for this plan not to fall prey to what we will call the unique variables syndrome by different industries who say

they have their unique variables. I have written specifications for

the processing and finished products of over 400 items. I know

that every item absolutely has its own unique variables; but I do not know of any one variable which is unique to a single item,

158
although I would recommend that you make allowances for that.

Just leave an opening in your procedure, whatever it shall be.

I would say that a successful and an acceptable package testing

program must have an assured, built-in, high degree of confidence

that the enforcement action it dictates is correct and that it is not the result of sampling error. We can statistically determine

the error. There is no reason why Mr. Fried's method should be

any different or why he should regard it as different because the

number of samples in one plan is different from the number of

samples in another plan. Statistically, we can arrive at the same

level of confidence by any number of sampling plans.

Another guideline I would give you is that an enforcement

action must be measured against the lot being tested, not against

the samples. This is a tremendous, devastating falacy in the

USDA proposal that was given to us last December, unless, of

course, the action is just to be taken against the samples that

are measured. But if you are going to take action against the lot, you must measure your action against the lot and not just against

the samples.

The procedure, of course, must define unreasonable error, and

I know you have all brought that into your discussions today.

Unreasonable error can be defined in a manner that is not the

table of tolerances which you all seem to favor. In Article 5 of California, and the same procedure that has

been adopted in Hawaii, we use unreasonable error definition as

a lot characteristic of the values which have been received on

the basis of the samples. A 1.96 sigma, just to simplify the matter, has been used as unreasonable error there. This system has

been successful for over 14 years in those two states. There is no reason to believe that such a system cannot be used for

defining unreasonable error rather than all these people, all these

man hours, all these tables you folks have talked about. I would

like to hear why you believe this not to be true.

I am very disturbed that there should be tolerance tables

because any tolerance table is going to be discriminating somewhere. If you pack grapefruit you have one tolerance ; if you pack

rice or sugar you have another tolerance.

Mr. E. E. Wolski (Colgate-Palmolive Co.) : If you recall. Dr.

Brickenkamp made the comment about tolerance tables and I commented about broader scale sampling. The broader scale sampling would provide a fair sampling with the samples selected

from, I would visualize, a chart or table of sample plans to guide

the inspector. It is very difficult to expect all of the inspectors to be well versed in statistics. Therefore, I assume the concept

would be that for various product categories there would be

159
determined tolerances which would coincide, having been treated

statistically, with the variation pattern which would be significantly different from one product to another.

Take, for example, my own products. I can control the net fill of toothpaste to something in terms of less than one-hundredth

of an ounce. It is filled like a hypodermic. It is a piston fill with

a micrometer adjustment and the product is extremely uniform.

You put it in the tube. Now I have detergents which vary in their

density. With your high volume filling, you measure a volume

and you control the weight of that volume. I do not have the

degree of control over detergents that I do over toothpaste.

There has to be some basis of determining what is reasonable.

Unless each and every inspector is well versed and able to determine what those statistics are on the scene, he cannot function.

I think that is what Dr. Brickenkamp meant by tables.

Dr. C. S. Brickenkamp (NBS) : I mentioned that we would

have to make a somewhat arbitrary decision as to what equity was if we did not supply, at some point in time, tables. What I suggested was that the preliminary document not have these

tables. You cannot wait that long. There is an amount of arbitrariness here that will strike some of the industrial sectors short because we have to base it on what evidence we now have.

We can make estimates and we can make some preliminary state- ments about these variations. However, if you are going to con- tinue with the average concept and go for a true balance for the

buyer/seller, we must arrive at the equitable solution, both now

and at some future date if data is given on variations. I am not

saying we have this data now and I address even Article 5 as having to make certain arbitrary decisions about no single process

having better control than any other packaging process. I am

simply saying that there is evidence that can be collected to show

whether or not that decision or any other has any basis in fact. Mr. Fried (USDA) : As far as the concept of Article 5 versus

the listing of products by categories and thus defining the amount

of reasonable variation, I believe there is a concept there that has

to be decided. In one case we are saying that the consumer is entitled to know, provided this is adopted, that in all cases X

amount below the stated net weight would be considered unreasonable. If I am correct, this differs from the Article 5 concept in

that individual lots can contain different unreasonable errors because the determination of what is unreasonable is made on

the basis of a sample of each lot which leaves the consumer

without any knowledge of what, in that particular purchase, might

be considered an unreasonable error. I think this is the difference

160
in concept between the two; and it is something that has to be

decided in adopting a final procedure.

Mr. H. Cohen (California) : May I add a comment to this?

I am not a statistician. I have had my head filled by statisticians

for the last couple of years. I think Mr. Couden first makes the

point for us that not all the expertise is in the government. I tried to make the point in my talk that we are all in this together

and we hold no 'hard feelings for any company involved in any

lawsuit with us. We take the position that there is no place for

enmity here. We all treat this as a problem of universality from

every day forward. When industry is able to come forward with

suggestions like this, they need to be taken account of and considered carefully because they do have tremendous expertise. In the Code of Federal Regulations in 7 CFR Part 43, the

United States Department of Agriculture has a whole series of

statistical sampling plans dealing with product attributes. As far

as we are able to determine, they would certainly apply to net

weight attributes, although there are other attributes of a product.

One of the things I think we need ot talk with USDA about is whether or not these sampling plans, which are statistically

sound, should not be used for meat products as well as grain or other products. These plans work on the traditional 95 percent assurance level. Our statisticians would like to see the the same

type of statistical attributes applied in the sale of these food

products.

We need to think of philosophy too. In the sale of borax, for

example, USDA has a circular which they put out saying borax

dries out. If it is sold to farmers, it should be overpacked suffi- ciently so that after it has dried out that farmer is going to get

exactly the labeled weight. We need to bring industry into this, too ; and we need to do it before we go out into the Federal Register again.

Mr. G. L. Johnson (Kentucky) : My question is to Mr. Fried.

Using the example of fresh poultry, under your authority where

would you require full net weight using the average concept

the packing plant, when it reaches the wholesaler or distributor, at the retailer, or when the consumer purchases the package?

When would you require full net weight on the average concept?

Mr. Fried : Our requirements are contained in our manual. Let

me quote our proposal and how it would work. In the official establishment the product would have to meet that average weight.

If the product continued to lose weight during distribution, any

point where it is checked is the point that it is judged. Therefore,

the procedure listed in the proposal would state that wherever

161
you make the determination, that is where the average would

have to be met and that is where the individual unreasonable

shortages would be applied.

Mr. Johnson : Would you consider my inspectors making an

inspection on the unloading dock at the first point of entry in my

state in error if they ordered off sale a shipment that was found

to be short weight at that place, using the average concept?

Mr. Fried: Under the terms and procedures of the proposal,

they would have every right to order that off sale. Mr. Cohen has

mentioned this twenty-day detention, which is in our law. This

is only beyond the plan, not in the plan itself. We are limited and

should be limited, because if we do not take action within twenty

days we cannot sit on a product forever. But a state is not limited

by that twenty-day period. In other words, having once found a product, exerting the con- current jurisdiction, and having found the product out of compliance by the procedure as it is finally adopted, you may then

take action against the product as given to you by your own state

law.

Mr. Cohen : I may say there is a difference in legal interpretation of the Wholesome Meat Act between counsel for USDA

and counsel for the Attorney General of California. We just do

not know of any federal court cases supporting the USDA counsel's position. It is, again, one of these things that needs to be

clarified and set down in the regulations because we cannot

operate as enforcement officials on the basis of different interpretations of lawyers.

Mr. W. H. Korth (Ventura County, California) : I have a couple of questions for Mr. Fried. If there has been a problem

that has not been corrected, weights and measures has traditionally taken legal action. Mr. Cohen has alluded to the comparison

with the FDA case which is one of the few to be found. Over the

years how many legal actions and prosecutions has the USDA

instituted and carried out?

Mr. Fried: Prior to the Wholesome Meat Act, our authority

ended at the door of the official establishment. Under the Whole- some Meat Act and the Wholesome Poultry Products Act, our

authority has been extended. However, we have traditionally left the enforcement of weights and measures to the local authorities.

We do not have the manpower to expend on going back through

retail outlets to recheck product that has previously been found

to be acceptable.

Mr. Korth : Has the USDA considered Article 5 as a starting

place to work out a regulation that would be acceptable to enforcement officials and industry as Article 5 is and has been so far?

162
Mr. Fried: Basically, as far as procedures go, there is verylittle difference in concept. Mr. Cohen laughed at the inspector

having to tell the consumer about whether packages were in compliance or not using this manual, yet at the same time he closed

with a plea that we use the average concept. We all agree so far

that the average concept is the way to go.

I believe that I answei^ed the differences between our determination of unreasonable shortages and California Article 5 by

saying that Article 5 bases the unreasonable shortage upon each

individual lot ; whereas we have proposed basing it upon an

industrywide type of acceptability that would give a certain base

to the consumer. Some decisions have to be made. You cannot

please everyone because everyone has his own way of doing things.

Dr. Brickenkamp: When I asked weights and measures offi- cials whether or not they had tried to use Article 5, I always got

the response, except from California, that it is a little too complicated.

Mr. Cohen : We have no monopoly on brains in California. If our people can use Article 5, everybody can. There is a more important point that is raised here. Why can't USDA say that packages must meet the state standards as they

are now and no state can have a standard which is less stringent

than USDA's proposal but for the time being it can use a more

stringent standard if it has one ? We will work out the details and

when we come to something that the weights and measures com- munity feels is acceptable, then we will move into this national

program. Why are we being forced into this mold? USDA has to make some decisions. There is a universe of experience out there

among you people. We suggest that what we have lived with for

the last 100 years would suffice very well for the next year or so while this national program is being worked out. We see nothing

in USDA's law that says this cannot, in fact, be worked out. It

is a matter of whether USDA wants to go this way.

Mr. Fried : I believe that the Supreme Court has found that

the Wholesome Meat Act does say that you cannot put in a

standard which is more stringent than USDA's. Additional re- quirements cannot be imposed upon federal products.

Mr. Cohen: Sure. All USDA has to do is say we adopt state standards.

Mr. E. Stadolnik (Massachusetts) : My question is directed

to Mr. Fried. Could you clarify USDA's stand on the authority

of state and local weights and measures officials under the provisions of their state and local ordinance to test and seal scales

within USDA packing plants.

Mr. Fried : Our general counsel has provided me with the opin163
ion that this is not possible. I do not know if this has ever been

tested in court. In fact, somewhere in the back of my mind I have

the impression that perhaps this is being tested at this time. All

I can do is give you an opinion which was given to me and that is no, you cannot.

Mr. Cohen: The Wholesome Meat Act says the states are to have concurrent jurisdiction and that this is to be done for the

benefit of packers to prevent unfair competition. If the states have concurrent jurisdiction, we cannot understand why USDA

can't let state inspectors help them out a little bit. If USDA is going to take the approach that concurrent jurisdiction means

exclusive jurisdiction, except where they say, no operational plan

put out is going to long have the results that Congress intended

because there will never be enough USDA inspectors to do this

job. I know that USDA has men on routes who may visit a plant one hour a day and packages are coming out of these plants all day long. What we must have in terms of concurrent jurisdiction

is concurrent cooperation.

Mr. Stadolnik's question is very pertinent. It is the type of

thing we need to talk to USDA about very carefully before the

next set of regulations goes to the Federal Register.

Mr. M. Trujillo (Puerto Rico) : Is the Department of Agriculture really interested in enforcement of whatever they put out

in the Federal Register? If so, they better do something that is coherent with a state's activities because our experience in Puerto

Rico is that they have one inspector. He has not been able to come to my office to give a briefing to my inspectors on other

activities, like the type of meat—whether it is choice, tender, etc. He has not been able to come around. He is too busy and I understand that he is busy. How is he going to have time, in addition,

to check packages or scales ? I do not see how. If that is the case and if it is correct to assume that USDA is interested in its regulations being enforced, why not let the states develop the standards for net weight at the retail level where the consumer buys

the product?

Some of USDA's proposals, if passed, will produce labeling that

will go not against our weights and measures regulation but against our misleading advertising and practices regulation, because it will mislead the consumer. I assume USDA is not interested in

that. My thinking is that maybe USDA could defer its rule making and formally ask the National Bureau of Standards for a comprehensive comment on this regulation. I am sure the Bureau

will come out with something that is in the line of thinking with

the weights and measures enforcement officers in the Nation.

164
I also would like to ask Mr. Cohen a question. I am an attorney,

too, but I have not read the provisions that are now called into

question, especially the Wholesome Meat Act. I would like to know the constitutional authority under which these acts have

been passed because from that point on it would depend upon the

extent of the concurrence of the state jurisdiction and to the

extent they can or cannot be preempted. My position is that the

weights and measures legislation is enacted by the states under

their police power authority. I would like to know the constitutional base for these USDA and FDA acts. Mr. Cohen : There are two sides to the question in terms of

original jurisdiction under the Constitution. I mentioned Loyal

Keir, who in his brief to the Ninth Circuit argues that there is inherent power in the states to control a fraud. Whenever a product is short weight, this is fraud and nothing that the Federal Government can do can take away this reserve power.

The Federal Meat Act or any other act Congress passes cannot

deprive the states of jurisdiction in this manner. He cites a number of cases, which I am sure you are familiar with, saying that

particularly in the field of meat and food products the states have plenary jurisdiction. He goes on to discuss the point of what

concurrent jurisdiction means. He makes quite an argument that

in the cases involved in Prohibition the states were given con- current jurisdiction. They had tremendous power to control liquor, as you well know, until the Constitution was amended.

There has not been any Constitutional amendment here. This

is one of the areas where the attorneys general of the various

states, in looking over Mr. Keir's argument or Mr. Goodman's

argument, might be able to help the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals in reaching a correct decision.

Mr. Fried : We are not, in our proposal, talking about product

in which a net weight statement is placed on the package at retail. You can do whatever you want with that and in the area of fresh

meats and fresh poultry, much of it is sold in that manner. So

we are not talking about that particular type of product. Nor are we talking about a product which is under state inspection. We

are only talking about federally inspected product, and there

when we talk about enforcement, that is our business. We have

between 8,000 and 9,000 inspectors who are stationed in plants

every day whose duty is to see that the product leaving that plant

is wholesome, unadulterated, and truthfully labeled. The truthful

labeling part contains the net weight as well, so we are interested

in enforcement. The point I made before, I am willing to make

again; that is, having left the plant, we do not have the man165
power necessary to go beyond the plant and recheck something

that has been produced under inspection and found acceptable to begin with.

The states then can exert authority over federally inspected

product, provided we can agree upon a regulation and one that can be found equitable. We are looking for input from everyone.

We do not consider ourselves the only experts in the field. There

are many people who can provide expertise ; this is the purpose of a proposal, to get expert comments.

TEMPERATURE CORRECTION

OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AT RETAIL

Why Temperature Correction?

Presented by George E. Mattimoe, Deputy Director,

Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

State of Hawaii

Just by way of preamble, we cite the general picture as it relates to Hawaii. Any

identification of companies or equipment is incidental to the pictorial presentation and

can be assumed to be fictitious. The Union

Oil Com.pany of California, while complying

with the requirements of temperature cor- rection in Hawaii, has not expressed any

support or opposition for our program. The

inclusion of various oil company slides is merely indicative of their goodwill.

We present the following as an informational exposure to the

petroleum program now ongoing in Hawaii. We ask consideration

of the possibility of amending the present Liquid Measuring

Device Code so as to make temperature correction permissive in

those jurisdictions where it will have an economic benefit. Such

a benefit is factual in Hawaii, yet it was impossible to procure a model or guide to follow in establishing the program.

It is our hope that by making such a proposal permissive, other

jurisdictions will only have to open Handbook 44 to the Liquid

Measuring Device section to determine the correct and uniform

course of action to follow, instead of suffering through the original sessions of saber-rattling as we did three years ago.

It is our proposal that dispensers currently in service remain

in service and be adjusted to accommodate the average temperature for a given locale and for a given period of time at local

166
option/While the approach is a step in the right direction, it will

not be a panacea for all conditions or all installations. However,

it will permit not only the development of equipment but its sale

and application, which has automatic temperature compensating

capabilities. This request should not create any great furor, since

the exact precedent exists in the LPG liquid, the LPG vapor, and

the proposed cryogenic codes—we merely ask that the codes be

uniform.

Cost figures have been tossed about—some approaching

$700,000,000, which when divided by the 1,750,000 dispensers

equals $400 per device. I do not know about all other jurisdictions,

but we have many pumps complying with the temperature compensation requirements of Hawaii that did not cost $400 new.

In addition, at that figure it would have cost $1,540,000 to effect

compliance in Hawaii.

The facts are that we phased in the adjustment process over one year's time; and we caused the replacement of about 50

dispensers, 10 or 11 of which were old visibles and most of the

others were of such vintage that their adjustment devices were

frozen or nonexistent. So replacement was not a function of our temperature correction law; replacement was due mainly to old

age.

The division, in cooperation with the Hawaii Automotive Retail

Gasoline Dealers Association, recalibrated 80 percent to 85 percent of all the dispensers. The total cost was minimal since it was

effected during our routine inspection. The $700,000,000 does not

appear realistic since our cost for the whole project, computed

at $13.95 per hour, was about $50,400, or just about 15 percent

above our normal cost to effect dispenser inspection ($36,000).

We must mention that all adjustments, all energy calculations,

and all tables employed were either American Petroleum Institute

(API) documents, or they were derived from such documents.

If there are any errors or transpositions, they do not detract from

the fact that gasoline expands and contracts. By way of background information, the state of Hawaii presented a technical dissertation on the necessity of temperature

correction in the measurement of petroleum products to the

interim committees in their meetings last January. According to the interim report, that is the reason we are here today. The

slide presentation we made last January was only slightly dissimilar from that which follows.

On November 20, 1973, we directed a letter to Mr. Harold

Wollin, as executive secretary of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, requesting that serious consideration be

given to amending the present Liquid Measuring Device Code in

167
Handbook 44 so as to extend to the consumer those provisions

relating to temperature correction now exclusively reserved for

industry. The request was based in part upon the findings of our

five-year study and the fact that the Liquid Measuring Device

Code, being the oldest of the codes, is inconsistent with the newer

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid Measuring Device Code, the

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Vapor Measuring Device Code, and the

proposed Cryogenic Code, all of which make permissive temperature correction to the ultimate consumer without any great

confusion.

To amplify our position, we direct your attention to the 96

major sections of the Liquid Measuring Device Code. Fourteen

of these sections, or 14.58 percent, are devoted to temperature

correction, involving the industry's benefit; but not a single one

of the sections is permissive of application to the consumer's

benefit.

Recognizing that the Liquid Measuring Device Code predates

1935, we are still compelled to question the creditability of the

Conference motto that "Equity Shall Prevail" in this case. In

eflfect, the code actually provides for equitable transactions only

in those rare instances when the product temperature is 60°F.

By way of contrast, a quick look at the Liquefied Petroleum

Gas Liquid Measuring Device Code reveals 70 major sections of

which 12, or 17.14 percent, are devoted to temperature correction

in some detail. There is no discriminatory inconsistency in this

code, however, since all 12 provisions are applicable equally to the

benefit of the industry, the retailer, and the ultimate consumer. A similar check of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Vapor Measuring Device Code reveals 50 major sections of which 6, or 12 percent, are devoted to temperature correction in some detail ; and

in addition to temperature correction, consideration of density

and altitude differential are included.

Reference to the proposed Cryogenic Code reveals that a similar pattern exists in all three of the newer codes which was

excluded from the Liquid Measuring Device Code and which provides a definition of the unit of measure which may be used by

parties to a transaction. Our request at the interim committee

meetings, and now to the Conference as a whole, would merely

extend this definition to the retailer and the consumer. Logic

dictates such an extension, or such a provision, for temperature

correction to the retailer; and the ultimate consumer should not

have been included in the three newer codes.

By using building blocks it is sometimes easier to convey a

clearer picture of the problem and its obvious solution. (See figure

1.) The center cube is a 231 cubic inch displacement block and

168
Figure 1

represents one gallon of gasoline at 60°F whose gravity is 58°API. The cube on the left is a 228.239 cubic inch displacement

block and represents the same one gallon of gasoline cooled to 40°F. The cube on the right is a 233.838 cubic inch displacement

block and represents the same one gallon of gasoline heated to 80°F.

Each of these three blocks has the following in common:

1. They are each one U.S. petroleum gallon of 231 cubic inches

at 60°F

2. They each weigh 6.216 pounds irrespective of their temperature

3. They each contain 18,860 net Btu's (net heat of combustion)

.

When observed side by side the difference of 2.8 cubic inches

of displacement in each block is barely discernible. When stacked

side by side (see figure 2), the progressive difference block by

block becomes quite apparent. The center stack of 1155 cubic

inches represents 5 U.S. petroleum gallons at 60°F of a gasoline

whose gravity is 58°API. The stack of 1141 cubic inches on the

left represents the same 5 U.S. petroleum gallons now cooled to a more dense product occupying less space at 40°F. The stack of

1169 cubic inches on the right represents the same 5 U.S. petroleum gallons now heated to a less dense product occupying more

space at 80°F.

169
Figure 2

The one-half pint graduate on top of the stack on the right

reveals the 14 cubic inches of expanded volume not delivered to the consumer when he receives 1155 cubic inches of 80°F gasoline. The one-half pint graduate on top of the stack on the left reveals the 14 cubic inches of contracted volume by which the

retailer is mandated by law to short himself whenever he deliv- ers 1155 cubic inches of 40°F gasoline.

170
To illustrate, 5 U.S. petroleum gallons of gasoline at 60°F,

whose density is 58°API, have the following physical characteristics (which by definition they should) :

They weigh: 6.216 x 5 = 31.08 pounds

They contains : 18860 x 5 = 94300 Net Btu's

They occupy: 231 X 5 — 1155 cubic inches

Under the provision of the existing Liquid Measuring Device

Code a retailer is compelled to deliver as 5 U.S. petroleum gallons

1155 cubic inches of gasoline irrespective of product temperature.

This means that when the gasoline temperature is 80°F and in compliance with the existing Liquid Measuring Device Code, on

every alleged 5-gallon sale the consumer is being shorted 14 cubic

inches of volume, 1145 net Btu's of energy and, at 70 cents a

gallon, about 4 2/10 cents because at 80°F the alleged 5 gallons

of gasoline exhibit the following characteristics:

They weigh: 6.140 X 5 = 30.70 pounds

Not 31.08 as they should

They contain: 18631 x 5 = 93155 Net Btu's

Not 94300, as they should

They occupy: 231 x 5 = 1155 cubic inches

Not 1169 cubic inches, as they should

When the temperature of the gasoline is 40°F and in compliance with the existing Liquid Measuring Device Code, on every

alleged 5-gallon sale the retailer is being shorted 14 cubic inches

of volume, 1145 Btu's of energy and, at 70 cents a gallon, about

4 2/10 cents because at 40°F the alleged 5 gallons of gasoline

exhibit the following characteristics:

They weigh: 6.291 X 5 = 31.45 pounds

Not 31.08 as they should

They contain: 19088 x 5 = 95440 Net Btu's

Not 94300 as they should

They occupy: 231 X 5 = 1155 cubic inches

Not 1141 as they should

By way of analyzing the retailer's plight, let us look at two

separate 200,000 gallons a month Union Oil Company of California

stations, one in Honolulu, Hawaii, and the other in Juneau, Alaska.

It is a matter of record that each station operator receives

temperature correction on all deliveries from his supplier. How171
ever, only in Honolulu is the station operator permitted to deal

with his customers in terms of the same size gallon he receives

from his supplier. In Juneau, the station operator is required to deliver 1155 cubic inches of gasoline, in compliance with the

existing Liquid Measuring Device Code as 5 U.S. petroleum gallons, to his customers irrespective of the product temperature

and irrespective of the fact that in the past thirty years the

mean average temperature has never warmed up to 60°F (being on the average 40°; and ranging from 27° to 57°F).

In Honolulu, the station operator delivers the same size gallon

to the consumer chat he receives from his supplier; specifically,

233.8 cubic inches per gallon or, for 5 U.S. petroleum gallons,

1169 cubic inches.

Their relative costs are:

Cost of gasoline in Juneau

200,000 X $0.4500 (rack price)

Cost of gasoline in Honolulu

200,000 X $0.4500 (rack price)

Revenue Juneau

The 200,000 gallons at 60°F have contracted into 197,500 gallons at 40°F. With the retail dispensers calibrated to deliver 231

cubic inches at 6Q°F, the station operator loses 2.8 cubic inches on each 40°F gallon he sells or 14 cubic inches on each alleged

5 gallon delivery.

The Juneau retail dispensers must be calibrated to deliver

228.2 cubic inches of gasoline at 40°F per gallon to eliminate the

retailer loss and the consumer windfall. This loss equals $1750

per month, or $21,000 a year, and is determined by the difference

in revenue generated on the sale of 197,500 gallons at 70 cents a

gallon as opposed to the revenue which would have been generated on the sale of 200,000 gallons at 70 cents a gallon.

Revemie Honolulu

The 200,000 gallons at 60°F have expanded into 202,040 gallons at 80°F. With the retail dispensers calibrated to deliver 233.8

cubic inches of 80°F gasoline per gallon, the retailer delivers 1169

cubic inches per 5 gallon delivery and all parties to the trans- action are treated equitably. No one loses and no one gains since

the 2040 gallons of expanded 80°F gasoline are received by the

station operator and delivered to the consumer.

= $90,000 per month = $90,000 per month

172
The 200,000 gallons generate $140,000 at 70 cents a gallon ; so the Honolulu station operator is $1750 a month better off than

the Juneau station operator because of temperature correction in

Hawaii.

Since only the Honolulu station operator delivers the required

weight of 6.216 pounds and 18860 net Btu's of energy as specified

by API, for a gallon of gasoline at 60°F with a density or gravity

of 58°API, the Juneau station operator is obviously delivering

something other than a gallon of gasoline.

It is a fact by definition that whenever a station operator

delivers a gallon of gasoline at 40°F through dispensers cali- brated for gasoline at 60°F, he shorts himself. It is a curious

paradox that without temperature correction there are those who

cite this over-delivery to customers as being a justifiable reason why such an inequity should not be changed.

Yet, most of these same inspectors would be the first to advise a baker that he was delivering 17-ounce loaves of bread as 1 pound, in spite of the consumers' unjust enrichment; or con- versely should he be delivering 15 ounces as 1 pound, ofi'-sale would be instantaneous! One can only ask, "Why not gasoline?"

The answer to this rhetorical question is, "Because the Liquid

Measuring Device Code of Handbook 44 does not provide for it!"

We believe this should be changed.

The problem is not at all peculiar to Alaska and Hawaii. The

northern area of the United States sells gasoline at 40°F because

the thirty-year mean average annual temperature is below 60°F.

The southern area of the United States sells gasoline at 80°F

because the thirty-year mean average annual temperature is above 60°F. The central area of the United States sells gasoline

at 60°F because the thirty-year mean average annual temperature is 60°F.

Presumably, along this 60°F isotherm the "average concept"

or the "balance-out" theory would prevail, wherein the cold dense

gasoline over-delivered in the winter would be off"set by the warm

less-dense gasoline short-delivered in summer. Such a presumption is wrong and is based upon the premise that two wrongs

make a right. How does shorting the consumer in the warm

season and shorting the retailer in the cold season equate to equity ? It does not and there is nothing equitable about it

!

Couple these two wrongs with the fact that the average American motorist drives 10.05 percent more in the warm season than

in the winter season and you amplify the consumer disparity.

Under CFR 19, section 13.10(B), the U.S. Treasury Department, through the Bureau of Customs, defines a U.S. petroleum

173
gallon as 231 cubic inches at 60°F and admonishes all importers

to correct observed volume of any imported petroleum products

brought into the United States to U.S. petroleum gallons at 60°F

by application of D-1250, table 6, as does the Federal Trade Commission under CFR 16, section 500.8(b) relating to packaged

petroleum products.

The following societies have likewise adopted as a standard

table 6 of D-1250

The American Society of Testing and Materials

The American Petroleum Institute

The Institute of Petroleum, Great Britain

The American National Standards Institute

The International Standards Organization

Adoption of table 6 of D-1250 by the above apparently escaped

the notice of this Conference, thus was not included in the Liquid

Measuring Device Code.

As final argument in support of our proposal, we direct your

attention to D-1250, table 8, entitled "Pounds per U.S. Gallon

and U.S. Gallons per Pound," which is identical to API table

6A1.1 in chapter 6 of the Technical Data Book on Petroleum

Refining.

Under the coordinates of 58°API and pounds per U.S. gallon,

we observe that a gallon meeting this requirement weighs 6.216

pounds and it can occupy any amount of space from 244.440

cubic inches at 150°F to 222.940 cubic inches at 0°F. So we alert

you to the obvious fact that even though the space occupied by

a gallon changes with temperature, its weight and net heat of

combustion (net Btu's) remain constant.

The device in figure 3, a somewhat antiquated Boyle prover

designed with a unique adjustable reference, is placed on a scale

which is tared to reflect zero load. We then fill exactly 1155 cubic

inches into the prover and establish the net weight at 31.08

pounds (5 X 6.216 = 31.08). We verify the temperature of the

gasoline at 60°F; and we verify, by hydrometer, the gravity as 58°API. By definition and by observation, we have 5 U.S. petroleum gallons in the prover.

Now by application of ice we pull the temperature of the gasoline down to 40°F and observe in the cooling process that the

miniscus drops below the zero reference as the gasoline temperature drops. The colder the gasoline, the more the miniscus drops.

At 40°F (see figure 4), the miniscus most nearly aligns with

minus 14 cubic inches. The observed volume is now only 1141

174
Figure 4
cubic inches. While this might appear to be less than 5 U.S.

petroleum gallons, it is not. How can it be when all we have done

is cool it? Its weight, which has remained constant during the

cooling process, belies the fact that it is any amount other than

5 U.S. petroleum gallons.

By application of heat we raise the temperature of the gasoline

to 80°F, noting that as the temperature rises the miniscus rises

in the sight glass (see figure 5). The observed volume is now

1169 cubic inches. While this might appear to be more than 5

U.S. petroleum gallons, it is not. How can it be when all we have

done is heat it? Its weight, which has remained constant during

the heating process, belies the fact that it is any amount other

than 5 U.S. petroleum gallons.

Figure 5

In compliance with the Liquid Measuring Device Code, we

skim off the 14 cubic inches of expanded volume of gasoline at 80°F, causing the miniscus to drop back down to the zero refer- ence. As we draw off the 14 cubic inches, the equilibrium of the

scale is disturbed and ultimately reflects an underweight condition not evidenced when we heated or cooled the gasoline.

We reestablish the net weight of the remaining 1155 cubic

inches of 80°F gasoline and observe that it now weighs only

30.70 pounds, or 0.38 pounds less than the original 1155 cubic

176
inches of 60°F gasoline weighed. The net Btu's have decreased

to 17,731 per gallon, or 88,655 total, instead of 94,300 specified.

To make a point, we again apply heat and raise the temperature to 100°F, noting that as the temperature increases the volume increases. At 100°F we have again 1169 cubic inches of

gasoline whose weight is still 30.70 pounds. We again skim off the

14 cubic inches of expanded gasoline causing the miniscus to drop back down to the zero reference. Note that the 1155 cubic

inches of 100°F gasoline only weighs 29.32 pounds and the net

Btu's have decreased to 16,602 per gallon, or 83,010 for the alleged

5 gallons instead of the 94,300 specified.

We repeat this procedure ; that is, heating and skimming, until

the temperature of the gasoline has been elevated to 160°F, when

we again skim off the 14 cubic inches of expanded gasoline leaving 1155 cubic inches of 160°F gasoline in the prover. All totaled,

we have skimmed off 70 cubic inches of gasoline and we still have

as much left as we started with, or 1155 cubic inches. This could

be more lucrative than a money tree and certainly it is legal

under the existing Liquid Measuring Device Code. The weight

has now decreased to 28.85 pounds, the energy contained in the

1155 cubic inches has decreased to 13215 net Btu's per gallon, or 66,060 for the alleged 5 gallons instead of the 14,300 as specified.

Yet, we have some people who would still contend that this 1155

cubic inches of 160°F gasoline is still 5 gallons.

We wonder if those same people would condone the installation

of steam coils in all retail gasoline service station underground

tanks so that the dealer could heat up his gasoline and thereby

have more to sell. It would be one way to resolve the fuel shortage—just heat up what we have! Unfortunately, such an approach is permissible, even if morally wrong, under the existing

Liquid Measuring Device Code.

We ask that you amend the Liquid Measuring Device Code in

Handbook 44 to provide for temperature correction at all levels

of the distribution hierarchy. It seems to this observer that this

Conference, not the industry, may well have been the major

impediment to the development of equipment capable of accom- modating the delivery of petroleum products at any temperature

by the very existence of the present Liquid Measuring Device

Code, which makes it illogical to expect any pump manufacturer

to research and market a retail level gasoline dispenser with

automatic temperature compensating capabilities when such a

device is precluded from sale by this Conference's present Liquid

Measuring Device Code.

By way of summation, you may wonder why the Conference

has done nothing about the code before now, considering that:

177
1. When industry extracts crude in Venezuela, Alaska, Newfoundland, Sumatra, or even Saudi Arabia (when it is available), they account for it in terms of U.S. petroleum gallons

of 231 cubic inches at 60°F

2. When they ship it, they account for it in terms of U.S.

petroleum gallons at 60°F

3. When they distribute it, they account for it in terms of

U.S. petroleum gallons at 60°F

4. When they process it, they account for it in terms of U.S.

petroleum gallons at 60°F

5. When they transport it, they account for it in terms of U.S.

petroleum gallons at 60°F

6. When they wholesale it, they account for it in terms of

U.S. petroleum gallons at 60°F.

7. When they prepackage it into quart containers, they ac- count for it in terms of U.S. petroleum gallons at 60°F

8. When they barrel it into 55-gallon drums, they account for

it in terms of U.S. petroleum gallons at 60°F

9. When they fill it into this container (airplane) as the instrument panel verifies, they account for it in terms of U.S.

petroleum gallons at 60°F.

10. Only when they fill it into this container (automobile) do

they ignore the temperature and, in effect, deliver any old

amount as a gallon—depending upon the gasoline temperature.

This presentation would not be complete if we failed to mention the tolerances established for retail dispensers, as a separate

consideration, and their relative merit without temperature

correction.

In Hawaii we have maintained for five years with no difficulty

2i/> cubic inches new and 5 cubic inches maintenance on all dispensers, and Oregon has done the same for a lot longer period.

Our data indicates that we could easily maintain 2 cubic inches

new and 4 maintenance. It is interesting to note that if we fill 55-gallon drums on scales that we are compelled to hold the

tolerance to 0.10 percent new and 0.2 percent maintenance, we

are compelled to ask why, then, should pumps be accorded such

a loose tolerance (three times that of scales or 0.3 percent new

and 0.6 percent maintenance) in these days of such high-priced

gasoline and advanced technology.

We suggest that what may have been applicable to devices

such as those in figures 6, 7, and 8, when gasoline sold for 15

cents a gallon 35 to 40 years ago, are no longer applicable in our

178
Figure 7

179
Figure 8

current market. We suggest that consideration be given to amending the Liquid Measuring Device Code in this regard to require

that the tolerances be more comparable to those for gravimetric

devices, such as 1.5 cubic inches new and 3.0 cubic inches maintenance. These double tolerances represent 0.13 percent new and

0.26 percent maintenance so they are still not as tight as we now

require for scales. When you consider that under the existing Liquid Measuring

Device Code a change in product temperature of 10°F will throw

the delivery of 5 U.S. petroleum gallons beyond legal tolerance

for in-service devices and as little as 5°F will throw the delivery

of 5 U.S. petroleum gallons beyond legal tolerance for new devices,

you can readily see how the "why" in "Why Temperature Correction?" becomes obvious.

After we made this presentation to our legislature, they unanimously enacted into statute law Act 239, which the Governor

signed on June 14, 1974. It mandates temperature correction on

all petroleum product transactions, whether public or private,

and ratifies the actions of the Division of Weights and Measures

taken three years earlier. We trust that this Conference will concur in the action of the Hawaii legislature and amend the

Liquid Measuring Device Code accordingly and, barring this, to at least provide for the permissive application of temperature

180
correction to the benefit of the retailer and the consumer. Only

then will you have assured "That Equity Shall Prevail."

You have seen the general approach we have pursued in Hawaii.

Some of you will, no doubt, consider it unnecessary for your

jurisdiction. We believe that to be your decision. Again, there

may be other jurisdictions similar enough to ours where this

approach could be employed beneficially just as provided in Handbook 44 for LPG liquid, LPG vapor, and the proposed cryogenic

codes.

We think Handbook 44 should be amended to permit and guide

those jurisdictions that desire to temperature correct so as to assure optimum uniformity.

(Mr. Mattimoe showed approximately 200 slides. Only a

small portion of that number has been reproduced here with

his presentation.)

TEMPERATURE CORRECTION OF

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AT RETAIL

by Harold E. Harris, Engineering Coordinator,

Exxon Company, U.S.A., Houston, Texas

A rather intensive investigation by the

American Petroleum Institute (API) into

the relationship between temperature and

retail sales of motor fuel in the United States

proves that it is the consumer who benefits

from the present practice of selling without

temperature compensation.

In the next 25 minutes, we will show you

how we conducted our investigation, the

results of which are summarized in figure 1. We will show that 68 percent of the total

motor fuel volume in the United States is consumed geographically above the 60°F ambient isotherm with 32 percent con- sumed below. We will also show that the overall average gallon

of motor fuel is sold at 56.2°F (not 60°F) which provides an

advantage to the overall American consumer of some 228 million

gallons annually.

Immediately after the January 1974 interim meeting of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures, an API Task

Force was established with two primary objectives:

181
60°F AMBIENT TEMPERATURE

Motor Fuel Consumption

56.2°F avg. M.F. Temp. - 228 M gals./yr. to consumer

Figure 1

1. Investigate the validity of the claim made by the State of

Hawaii that 60 percent of the retail gasoline sold at retail

in the United States was sold at short measure or at temperatures exceeding 60°F.

2. Completely analyze the temperature effect on gasoline sold at retail.

This subject has arisen in the past, however, primarily with

regard to potential dealer losses relative to amount delivered versus amount sold to the consumer. One of the most prominent

cases occurred in the State of Texas in 1954-55. A very comprehensive survey was performed, and the results were documented

in the July 1962 Congressional Record. Sixty retail outlets were

involved and supplied a total of some 127,000 transactions. The

conclusion drawn was that for every 1,000 gallons delivered to the retail dealer, he actually sold 998. This 0.2 of 1 percent is well

within the required tolerance of a new retail meter. It was proven

that the 60°F base was entirely equitable.

The results of surveys such as this have historically borne out

the petroleum industry's contention that temperature effect is

182
not really significant as it will balance out for the overall con- sumer. (It is worthwhile to note that most of the State of Texas

lies geographically south of the 60°F isotherm.)

Before proceeding with the detailed analysis of temperature

effect, we perhaps need to address the question of present in-house use of temperature compensation by some petroleum companies.

Stated very simply, temperature adjustment is utilized for purposes of overall stock control. Also a tight inventory control

system is a necessity in order to fulfill our responsibility for pollution control and safety. Due to the large volumes involved,

utilization of many modes of transportation, long distances en- countered, and storage in above-ground vessels, very significant

changes in temperature can be encountered and make temperature adjustment necessary. Generally, these adjustments are made on a manual basis.

We will now turn to our analysis of the State of Hawaii study.

Because the API investigation follows a very similar path to the one taken in the Hawaii study, we believe that we should explain

why we have arrived at different conclusions. We certainly have

no argument with the basic concern relative to temperature

adjustment or of the established operating criterion: The base

for petroleum measurement in the U.S. is a 231 cubic inch gallon

at 60°F and 58 API gravity and gasoline volume does change at the rate of 6 to the minus 4 power per degree of temperature

change. The task force agreed that the location of the 60°!'

ambient isotherm was a fundamental factor. In figure 2 we see the thirty-year ambient isotherm as presented by the State of Hawaii which is based on data for the

period during 1899 to 1938. While this may represent the 60°F

line for that period, our research has uncovered more recent data

(1942-1972) compiled by the U.S. Weather Bureau that describes a somewhat different isotherm.

As you can see in figure 3, the isotherm has moved from south

to north or from warm to cool, which tends to enhance the State

of Hawaii's position.

As we understand it, the next step taken by the State of

Hawaii utilized API data to determine the seasonal variation in

driving by the American consumer. All data was taken from the

1971 volume of "API Petroleum Facts & Figures." The data in figure 4 is for the year 1969, but is quite representative of any

one-year period in the last fifteen years.

The average motorist drove 5,280 miles in the warm season and 4,314 in the cool season, or 966 miles more while it was warm.

(This is not to say that warm versus cool is the same as above or

183
60T AMBIENT ISOTHERM

Figure 2

60°F AMBIENT ISOTHERM

Figure 3

below 60°F.) The average auto consumed 13.75 miles per gallon,

utilizing 700 gallons annually. A calculation is then made by

dividing the warm season differential mileage by annual con- sumption at 10.06 percent.

184
STATE 0^ HAWAII STUDY

DATA BASE (FROM API PETROLEUM FACTS & FIGURES)

- MILES DRIVEN BY AVERAGE MOTORIST

- 5,280 WARM SEASON

( A = 966)

- 4,314 COOL SEASON

9,594

- AVERAGE AUTO CONSUMPTION

- 13.75 MILES/GALLON

- 700 GALLONS ANNUALLY

CALCULATION

QQfi MTI FS

1 3 75 m.p.g . / 700 GAL. = 10.06%

Figure 4

A conclusion was then drawn (assuming that a fifty /fifty distribution of motor fuel purchases above/below the 60°F isotherm

exists) utilizing:

• The 10.06 percent calculated as a warm season factor was

then stated as delivered short measure.

• Further, the 10.06 percent is additive to the 50 percent short

(assuming a fifty/fifty distribution) and 60.06 percent of all gasoline delivered at retail is delivered short measure.

Here we find an error in statistical logic:

State of Hawaii Study

Statistical Error — 100 percent consumed minus 10 percent equals 90 percent

remaining, therefore, 10 percent is additive to 45 percent.

+ 55 percent of all gasoline delivered is consumed during the

warm season.

185
Taking 100 percent consumed minus 10.06 percent (10 percent

for ease), there can be only a total of 90 percent remaining.

Therefore, assuming a fifty/fifty distribution, the 10 percent is additive to only 45 percent. A true conclusion can be drawn that

55 percent of all gasoline delivered is consumed during the warm

season (again, this is not to say above 60°F).

This may be rather confusing, so let us look at the same data

from a different approach by returning to figure 4 showing the

10.06 percent calculation. Looking specifically at two pieces of

this data—5,280 miles driven during the warm season of a total

of 9,594 miles driven—enables us to make a direct calculation as shown at the bottom of figure 5. The 5,280 miles driven in the

warm season is divided by the 9,594 total miles driven. This

equals 55 percent driven in the warm season, which checks with

our analysis.

STATE OF HAWAII STUDY

ERROR

- 100% CONSUMED MINUS 10% = 90% REMAINING,

THEREFORE, 10% IS ADDITIVE TO 45%

+55% OF ALL GASOLINE DELIVERED IS

CONSUMED DURING THE WARM SEASONT

5280 MILES DRIVEN (WARM SEASON)

9594 TOTAL ANNUAL MILES DRIVEN

55.0%

Figure 5 Since this was the key point in the State of Hawaii study, we

decided to look at the seasonal driving factor historically. (See

figure 6.) The published warm versus cool season data actually

depicts fall/winter versus spring/summer, or September 23 to March 20 and March 21 to September 22. Looking at the last 17

years, we see an average 45 percent fall/winter (or cool) con- sumption and an average 55 percent spring/summer (warm)

consumption. The 1968-69 data highlighted is that used in the

Hawaii study.

186
STATE OF HAWAII STUDY

TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION STUDY

SEASONAL DRIVING FACTOR

GASOLINE

YEAR SEASON (MILES) CONSUMPTION

19_ F/W S/S %

55-56 3952 5030 44/56

60-61 4323 5265 45/55

65-66 4230 5170 45/55

68- 69 4314 5280 45/"55"

72-73 4500 5500 45/55

AVERAGE 55% - WARM SEASON

Figure 6 The task force also noted another error, one of data selection.

A total annual gallonage consumed of 62.5 biUion was elected.

Essentially, this gallonage included automobiles only and excluded

gasoline consumed by such vehicles as motor trucks and commercial/school buses. The actual annual gallonage consumed

relative to the 62.5 billion (which is for 1969) was some 88.1

billion gallons. After this 41 percent differential is taken into

account, the 55 percent consumption in the warm season changes

to 53.5 percent.

While all of the preceding has a bearing upon the magnitude

of the imbalance between warm and cool season sales, it still shows the consumer coming out on the short end. This would be

true if it were not for the most serious error in the Hawaii

study—an error in assumption: A normal fifty/fifty distribution

of motor fuel purchases above and below the 60°F isotherm exists.

We will discuss this point in more detail later. After this review of the Hawaii study, the API task force

commenced its own study of temperature versus product con- sumed. As you will see, it was determined that the American

consumer benefits from present retail practices.

Believing that distribution of sales, as they relate to the aver- age 60°F ambient isotherm, to be the key factor in any analysis

to be made, we established our study objectives:

187
• Establish accurately the average 60°F ambient isotherm.

• Determine the motor fuel volume and temperature above and

below this 60°F isotherm. With this data we can then determine the average degree-gallon, i.e., temperature times con- sumption.

• Then we can determine the average temperature of the total

motor fuel volume.

• It also seemed appropriate to look at present trends to determine the future direction and rate of change.

The data input that was available was determined:

• (1971) API Petroleum Facts & Figures

• API compilation of 1972 motor fuel sales volume by state/

month

• Automobile registration data by county and by state

• U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Data—1972 summary

• National Petroleum News "Factbook" (1970-1974)

• Industry temperature survey data

As previously mentioned, the establishment of the 60°F ambient isotherm is fundamental.

Input data was obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Actual 1972 data from some 6,050 weather stations was

compiled and adjusted for the 30-year period of 1942-72. The

approach chosen was one of a weighted geographical average.

After establishment of the isotherm we next attempted to determine the relationship between ambient temperature and

underground product temperature. The State of Hawaii con- cluded that the average temperature of motor fuel product in

underground tankage is equivalent to the average ambient temperature. Data available on this subject is very limited. The

assumption made may or may not be correct for any individual

location, but probably will be reasonably close overall due to a balancing effect. After considerable study of all available data, the task force

determined that this basic asssumption should be utilized.

We should point out that effort is continually being made to learn more about the nature and behavior of petroleum products.

As part of a vapor emissions project, an API task force is presently conducting a very comprehensive temperature survey. Continuous temperatures of motor fuel are measured within the

underground tank and near the dispensing nozzle. This will cer- tainly give us a better understanding of this subject; however,

188
unfortunately, the final test results will not be known until mid1975.

API has recently entered into a $500,000 program at the

National Bureau of Standards related to developing information

about the physical properties of petroleum products. Also, most

of you are aware of the Research Associate project which has

been going on for the past three years. This project, funded by

API and under the supervision of the Office of Weights and

Measures, is directed towards establishing better proving procedures which will be of value to both industry and the regulatory

officials. Turning again to the 60°F ambient isotherm, we utilized the

line that reflects 1942 to 1972 data. (See figure 7.) We divided

the United States into three geographic categories:

1. Above the 60°F isotherm

2. Divided by the 60°F isotherm

3. Below the 60°F isotherm

60°F AMBIENT ISOTHERM

Figure 7

Each category was handled separately in our statistical analysis.

First, looking at the approach to the states either completely

above or completely below the isotherm:

• The total product sold in 1972 was determined on a monthly

basis.

189
• The average ambient temperature was determined on a monthly basis.

• The product of the two quantities (gallons and degrees) gives

the degree-gallon determination.

• By totaling the degree-gallons for a year's period and dividing by the yearly product sold, we determine the "weighted

average product temperature," i.e., the average temperature

at which the product was issued.

For those states divided by the isotherm, one additional item

had to be utilized : vehicle registration by county.

Since monthly gallonage figures are generally available only by

state total, vehicle registration by county was used to determine

the division of sales between two areas. The remainder of the

analysis was made in the same manner as for those states completely above or below the isotherm, i.e., total monthly product

sales times the average monthly ambient temperature equals the

degree-gallons, and weighted average product temperature can

be determined. Perhaps an example would assist in a better understanding of the overall approach that was taken:

In figure 8 we show the State of Arizona with the 60°F iso- therm dividing the State. The dots shown represent some 200

weather bureau stations. The monthly average from each of these

stations was utilized to calculate yearly average temperature of

weather divisions. These numbers shown, ranging from a low of

51.6°F to a high of 71.5°F, illustrate the extreme variations in

temperatures geographically. Though we show yearly averages

here, our motor fuel consumption calculations utilized monthly

data as you will see later. Figure 9 shows the State of Arizona divided by counties and

again locates the 60°F ambient isotherm. The numbers indicate

the percentage distribution of automobile registration. As previously stated, this allows us to estimate the motor fuel volume

consumed by county above and below the isotherm. We have

determined the "zoned" average monthly ambient temperature

below and above the 60°F ambient isotherm or warm/cool. Also,

we have determined the monthly motor fuel consumption by

zones. The calculations (figure 10) then consist of the summation by

month by zone of the multiplication of the average monthly

temperature times the monthly motor fuel consumed. We then

obtain degree-gallons of 68,741,000,000 and 2,727,000,000.

The weighted average temperature can then be determined by

dividing the total degree-gallons by the total gallons consumed.

190
ARIZONA

Average Yearly Ambient: 62.5"^

Indicates 60''F Isotherm

Figure 8

This was determined as 65.8°F in the warm zone and 55.4°F for

the cool zone. The conclusion relative to temperature effect on retail motor

fuel product in the State of Arizona can then be stated:

Warm Zone : One billion, 45 million gallons of motor fuel were consumed at an average temperature of 65.8°F.

Cool Zone : Forty-nine million gallons of motor fuel were con- sumed at an average temperature of 55.4°F.

191
ARIZONA

Automobile Registration (percentage)

Figure

MONTH

[AVERAGE AMB. TEMP, x M.F. CONSUMED] = DEGREE-GAL.

ZONE

WARM ZONE 68,741 DEGREE - M GAL.

COOL ZONE 2,727 DEGREE - M GAL.

Figure 10

192
The examples just given illustrate our approach to all states divided by the isotherm. States completely above or below the

isotherm were treated generally in the same manner with the

exception that it was not necessary to utilize car registration by

county to estimate the volume of motor fuel consumed.

In figure 11 let us now look at. the results of these calculations on a nationwide basis. We see the three major state categories

below, above, and divided—as well as the warm and cool subdivisions of the divided states. States below have an average ambient

of 66.6°F, 12 billion, 914 million gallons are consumed, or 12.9

percent of total U.S., all at a temperature of 67.5°F. Above the

isotherm is where we see the large impact of the average ambient temperature being below 60°F with gasoline consumption

being 60.1 percent of the total. States divided by the isotherm

have an average ambient temperature of 62.7°F warm and 55.0°F

cool, with product consumed at an average of 64.4°F warm and

56.9°F cool.

API TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION STUDY

ALL STATES

AVE.AMB. M.F. CONSUMED

(°F.) (MGALS.) % TEMP(°F. )

BELOW ISOTHERM (WARM) 66.6 12,914 12.9 67.5

ABOVE ISOTHERM (COOL) 48.5 60,123 60.1 50.8

DIVIDED BY ISOTHERM

WARM 62.7 19,097 19.1 64.4

COOL 55.0 7,935 7.9 56.9

TOTAL 100,070 56.2

Figure 11

193
I

Showing this in another manner (figure 12) and taking into

account all 50 states, we see that:

• Sixty-eight percent of all motor fuel representing 68 billion

gallons is consumed geographically above the 60°F ambient

isotherm, whereas 32 percent is consumed geographically

below.

• The average gallon of motor fuel sold at retail is sold at 56.2°F (not 60°F) and the advantage is to the overall American consumer, by some 228 million gallons annually.

60°F AMBIENT TEMPERATURE

Motor Fuel Consumption

56.2°F avg. M.F. Temp. - 228 M gals./yr. to consumer

Figure 12

As you will recall, the final objective of the API task force was

to look at current trends and attempt to determine the future

direction and rate of change. The following are noted trends:

• The 60°F ambient isotherm is moving from south to north.

• The distribution of motor fuel consumption is moving from

north to south.

• The travel factor (warm versus cool) is remaining constant.

Also, as previously discussed, additional data relative to actual

dispensed product temperature is needed.

194
Taking these trends into account, we have attempted to fore- cast the potential for the justification of temperature compensation at the retail level. K the current trend of dispensed product

"warming" is projected into the future, it appears that by about

1985 a new study of temperature compensation should be made.

We would recommend that this be a joint effort of API and the

National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The API task force also looked at other aspects, including the

potential impact on the marketplace, of requiring temperature

compensation at retail. The following are their considerations:

API TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION STUDY

• Motor fuel volume change due to temperature favors the consumer.

• Temperature compensation would not be cost effective to the consumer. Based on the procedures outlined by the State of

Hawaii, to manually compensate until such time as automatic equipment could be developed and installed might well

result in a total cost of some $700 million. The consumer

would lose rather than benefit.

• If true equity is to prevail for the overall consumer, then

temperature compensation should not be selective by geographical area or by petroleum product.

• Equitable manual compensation is virtually impossible and

automatic equipment is not presently available. Our analysis

of Weather Bureau data revealed a very wide variation from

thirty-year normal for many monthly average temperatures.

It appears that a year is the smallest element of time where

average temperatures will reflect the long-term normal.

• If it is determined that retail motor fuel sales are to be

temperature compensated, it will be necessary to make temperature adjustments throughout the complete distribution

chain.

There is one additional factor we need to consider; and while

last, it is perhaps the most significant of all:

• Since competition and cost of doing business determine the

price of products in the marketplace, the pricing structure

for retail sales reflects loss or gain of product.

In the presentation that you have just heard, we have attempted

to point out the logic and facts concerning temperature correction

195
I

of petroleum products at retail and have proven that the American consumer benefits from the present practices. In conclusion, the American Petroleum Institute recommends

to the National Conference on Weights and Measures that temperature compensation at retail should not be mandatory nor

selective geographically.

DISCUSSION

Unidentified Voice: I have a question for Mr. Harris. I was

kind of interested in that isotherm of 60 degrees that you discussed. That isotherm was actually based on atmospheric conditions as I recall, was it not? Actually, it does not really reflect the temperature of the gasoline that is stored in the ground. It seems to me there is a significant difference in temperature

between actually what is on the outside and what the temperature of the gasoline is stored in the ground. I would suspect that

the temperature of the gasoline in the underground tanks is actually

less than what your isotherm actually is. The temperature going

into the tank of the car is probably less than what your isotherm

is. Am I correct?

Mr. H. Harris (Exxon Company, U.S.A.) : Yes and no. It is a very good point and, if you remember in our study, the one

point that we had to make an assumption. We finally agreed with

the assumption that Mr. Mattimoe had made that ambient was

equivalent to underground tank temperature. I think it probably

is but, again, on an overall averaging basis what you are saying can be exactly true in one area, whereas you can go just a few

miles perhaps into a difi'erent type of underground strata and

have just the reverse happen. It is something we, frankly, just

do not know that much about to pinpoint it that accurately.

Mr. G. E. Mattimoe (Hawaii): Might I add a thought to that? I agree with Harold 100 percent. It was an extremely diffi- cult problem to come up with information relative to (1) the

underground temperature in a given locale and (2) the heat

transfer after the product was put into the tank in that underground locale. The University has done a great deal of study on

the effect of heating the heat diffusivity, if you will, under black

polyethylene and its effect at given depths. It was concluded by

a professor at the University that at about three metres in depth

the temperature approaches that of the mean average—of the

mean average at 60 inches in height.

Why did we use two different systems of measurement? Apparently the Weather Service at one time set its little white

boxes about five feet off the ground. I do not think there is any196
one in this room or perhaps anyone in any university who could

categorically say precisely what the temperature was three feet

underground. It was an approximation, and in this instance we

did not differ. Mr. M. Kinlaw (North Carolina) : We failed here to mention

that Handbook 44 does not now contain one single syllable that

prohibits a person from using a temperature compensator if he

wishes to do so at retail level. Another thing we failed to mention is that the Constitution of the United States delegated to Congress the authority to fix the standards by which goods are bought and sold in this country and in almost the same breath it also gave it the authority to coin money. I think if you use the

temperature compensator, that is still within the meaning of what

Congress is doing because a gallon is 231 cubic inches and it updates it constantly; but if you set it manually different than

that, you have set a standard different than Congress set. By the same logic, the state could also coin money, if we follow that.

Mr. M. Trujillo (Puerto Rico) : Mr. Harris, is there direct

opposition to amending Handbook 44 to make permissive temperature correction?

Mr. Harris : If I understand your question correctly, the objection would be permitting selectivity.

Mr. Kinlaw : It is already permissible in the handbook. There

is not one single syllable that prohibits it; if a temperature compensator is available. I think what it does not want to do is to have you set a gallon different from 231 cubic inches because

that would be unconstitutional.

Mr. Trujillo: If I understood correctly, Mr. Mattimoe said

the standard that has been approved by Congress was a U.S. gallon at a particular temperature. If that is the standard, then what

is being done now is unconstitutional because it is a particular

volume not at a particular temperature. I would like to know

what the facts are regarding the particular standard established

by Congress.

Mr. Mattimoe: What we have had generated we attempted

to show on the chart dating back to about 1912 through 1917.

The Bureau entered into a cooperative program whereby they

investigated a multitude of North American crudes. They came

up with a plurality of dots which are included in this white book.

From that they decided various thermal coefficients of expansion

for various density petroleum products. It has subsequently been

determined that these tables may not be correct for the current

crudes that originate throughout the world.

Of a consequence, API, as I understand it, has now entered

into a program of one-half million dollars to have the Bureau

197
update these tables. Although there will probably be changes in

the coefficients or correction factors for crudes, there probably

will be minimal changes in the correction factors for the finished

products. That fact notwithstanding, the basic unit described is 231 cubic inches at 60 degrees. That was established not by Congress but by apparent agreement with England.

The statutory requirement for 231 at 60 degrees prevails, but

it prevails under FPLA and it relates to packaged products.

Therefore, any extension from 231 to 60 degrees relating to packaged products gives us two standards, two different size

gallons, if you will. It would merely be a logical extension of any

231/60 throughout the whole hierarchy and that is what we

suggest.

Mr. Trujillo: Mr. Harris, due to the fact that you apparently cannot temperature correct because of the devices for pumping out gasoline throughout the Nation, you are well aware that

we are under mandatory price regulations by the Federal Energy

Administration. Would the petroleum industry be willing to temperature compensate their prices? They do change the prices

every month taking into account cost factors. They can put into

their computer the prevailing temperature of the particular zone.

I think the electronic people can work wonders with the computers; how about compensating the price instead of the pump?

Mr. Harris: I certainly cannot answer that question directly

for the petroleum industry, but it goes back to a point that we

made. If you are in a competitive society or competitive market,

the cost of doing business actually determines the price of products in that marketplace. Any loss or gain in product is auto- matically taken into account in that pricing structure which is saying essentially the same thing, I guess, that you were asking;

but it is saying it already is there.

Going back to your previous question, one other point relative

to states that are completely south of the isotherm—one other

point other than the competition in the marketplace—is that generally, and I believe probably for all states, it would not be cost

effective. I am certain that on a manual adjustment basis trying

to adjust monthly would not be cost effective. Putting it another

way, the cost benefit ratio is just not there.

Mr. Trujillo: You are assuming for purposes of your study

that the petroleum industry is a fully competitive industry within

the terms that the economists consider as competition or nearing

perfect competition. That is the assumption?

Mr. Harris: That is correct. Going back to your 1972 price

control, since everything is based on 1972 and it was competitive

in 1972, it stays competitive.

198
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Presented by L. D. Holloway, Chairman, Supervisor,

Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

Boise, Idaho

(Wednesday, July 10, 1974)

The Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government submits its report to the

59th National Conference on Weights and

Measures. The report consists of the tentative report as offered in the Conference

Announcement and as amended by the final report. Also included as an attachment is the report of the Committee on Metric

Planning.

The report represents recommendations of

the committee formed on the basis of careful

analysis of the interim meeting discussion, written comments

received during the year, and oral presentations made during

the open meeting of the committee. The committee intends to expand its communications with the Federal Government and to advocate the NCWM's interests before it. The committee also

intends to promote greater Federal-State-local government cooperation towards attaining one of our common goals—measure- ment assursance in the marketplace.

METRIC CONVERSION

The Liaison Committee was instructed by vote of the 58th

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) to com- mence immediately in preparing plans for a rational and orderly

national conversion to the metric system of weights and measures. This action was taken because of the increasing use of the metric

system throughout the United States by industries, educational

institutions, and state and local government.

Federal legislation for metric conversion has been moving

forward and its passage will bear heavily on the responsibilities

and programs of weights and measures officials and the work and

goals of NCWM. A national planning and coordinating board

will be created by the passage of a metric conversion act for the

199
purpose of leading and guiding the changeover throughout the

nation. It is, therefore, important that the National Conference

be prepared to assist the national conversion board and to properly represent the interests of the NCWM membership in all metrication activities.

On the basis of its own recommendation and to facilitate immediate action that was determined to be advisable, the Conference

Executive Secretary designated the Liaison Committee to serve

as the nucleus of a new special committee of NCWM to be entitled "Committee on Metric Planning." This special committee

will be formally set up according to the published Organization

and Procedure of the Conference. The essential features of its organizational structure are as follows:

1. Membership—The committee shall be comprised of the five active members of the Committee on Liaison with the Federal

Government and the following three state weights and measures

directors: Mr. George L. Johnson (Kentucky), Mr. John H. Lewis

(Washington), Mr. George E. Matttimoe (Hawaii). Other members may be added as the need or circumstances require.

2. Duration—The committee will serve for a period not to exceed two years. At the end of that time, a decision will be made

as to its future organization and role in the NCWM.

3. Liaison—The three state directors will be responsible for

and provide liaison betweeen the other three standing committees

of the Conference.

The committee acknowledges the statement by Mr. Maximiliano

Trujillo, Puerto Rico, that the responsibility for rational conversion to the International System of Units, without Federal legislation, appears to rest with the state jurisdictions of weights and

measures. The committee acknowledges the receipt of a draft of

model state metrication legislation from Mr. Trujillo with his

suggestions (1) that the National Conference on Weights and

Measures consider adopting such a type of legislation, and (2)

that the states help the Office of Weights and Measures draft

metric versions of the handbooks. The committee also acknowledges the suggestion by Mr. Henry Thompson, Virgin Islands,

that if certain of the handbooks are converted to metric, versions

should be published in both English and Spanish.

Further reports on metric conversion will be isssued by the

Committee on Metric Planning.

200
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY

The United States gained membership in the International

Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) in August of 1972.

This action was taken to improve opportunities for exporting

measurement instruments and to influence internationally adopted

measurement techniques so that U.S. products and practices

would not be put at a disadvantage. The Department of Commerce was assigned general responsibility for program implementation and direction. Within Commerce, the National Bureau

of Standards (NBS) was assigned responsibility for the development of U.S. positions for technical matters arising in OIML.

The mechanism for establishing U.S. positions is extremely important in that consideration must be given to both the technical and

commercial consequences of international recommendations.

A report on the latest developments concerning OIML was

presented to the committee by Mr. David E. Edgerly, Special

Assistant for International Programs, NBS. It was reported that

the charter for an Advisory Committee on International Legal

Metrology was going through Government channels and that the

committee should be given official status in the very near future.

(Note : The committee was formally chartered on March 20, 1974.)

Following the establishment of the Advisory Committee which

will be composed of representatives of industry. Government, and

national standards bodies, a meeting will be called to elect officers,

adopt by-laws, name technical advisers for secretariats, and

develop national and international technical working groups.

The committee was advised that NBS representatives who

attended meetings of the International Committee on Legal

Metrology in Paris, France during October of 1973 were successful in achieving several major goals, including the assignment of seven secretariats (5 pilot and 2 reporting). This assures active

participation by the United States in OIML, for this country now

holds more pilot secretariats than any other country. The following is an up-to-date report on OIML matters presented during

the Conference by Mr. James F. Lyles, State of Virginia, who

serves as the NCWM representative on the U.S. Advisory Committtee on OIML.

The United States Advisory Committee for International Legal

Metrology was formally chartered March 20, 1974. Mr. William

E. Andrus, Jr. of the National Bureau of Standards is committee

chairman; Mr. David E. Edgerly of NBS is committee secretary.

At its first official meeting on April 22 and 23, 1974, the commit201
tee, composed of both industry representatives and government

officials, reviewed and revised the Charter and By-laws, heard

status reports on U.S.-held pilot secretariats in OIML, and discussed other OIML activities in which the U.S. might involve

itself. The U.S. has accepted five pilot secretariats:

P.S. 7 Measure of Masses

P.S. 8 Weights

P.S. 13 Measure of Electrical and Magnetic Quantities

P.S. 17 Measure of Pollution

P.S. 22 General Principles of Inspection of Measuring

Instruments

Both the United States and Germany expressed interest in

accepting the pilot secretariat for the "Measure of Liquid Hydrocarbons." However, there are currently no provisions for resolving such a situation in the OIML procedures. Since only one

nation can hold a given pilot secretariat, no country presently

holds this particular one. Under each pilot secretariat, reporting secretariats carry out

the work plan which the pilot secretariat formulates. However,

since many working groups of the reporting secretariats ante- date the pilot secretariats, all the international recommendations

and other work which has been accomplished up to this date have

not had explicit objectives or work plans by which to operate.

The U.S. Advisory Committee also considered other areas in

which the United States might wish to take an active role, either

accepting a reporting secretariat or membership in working

groups which are part of reporting secretariats chaired by other

countries. Suggested areas were:

General Legal Metrology

Judicial and Administrative Questions

Measures of Liquid Volume

Measures of Gas Volume

Measures of Density

Measuring Instruments for Automotive Vehicles

Packaged Products

Measuring Instruments Used for Public Health

The Office of Weights and Measures, NBS, acts as technical

adviser on Pilot Secretariat 7 and, with the NBS Institute for

Basic Standards, acts as technical adviser on P.S. 8 and 22 as well.

202
In these areas, the Office of Weights and Measures has formed

a national working group for P.S. 7, "Measure of Masses," composed of Mr. Marion L. Kinlaw, Division of Weights and Measures, North Carolina; Mr. Lacy H. DeGrange, Division of Inspection and Regulation, Maryland ; Mr. Robert Bradley, Toledo Scale

;

Mr. Charles Knodel, Fairbanks Weighing Division of Colt Industries; Mr. Bernard Shapiro, BLH; Mr. John Aquadro, Howe

Richardson Scale Company; Mr. Otto K. Warnlof, Office of

Weights and Measures, NBS; and Mr. Harold F. Wollin, Office of

Weights and Measures, NBS. This working group has formulated

a work plan which will be submitted for review to OIML. A

second national working group has been formed for P.S. 22, "General Principles of Inspection of Measuring Instruments."

On May 21-23, 1974, Mr. Otto K. Warnlof attended a meeting

of an OIML working group whose reporting secretariat (held by

the United Kingdom) is under Pilot Secretariat 7. Document 19,

"Fourth Draft—International Recommendation on Automatic

Weighing Machines—Continuous Totalizing Weighing Machines,"

containing design, performance, and use requirements for belt

conveyor scales, was discussed. As soon as the new draft based on this meeting is sent from the United Kingdom, it will be

circulated to U.S. manufacturers, and a meeting will be held to develop a consensus.

In its tentative report to the 59th NCWM, the Committee on

Liaison with the Federal Government wishes to define the limit

of moral obligation that the NCWM is willing to accept in regard

to model regulations recommended by the OIML. The committee's

proposed resolution was presented to the U.S. Advisory Committee for International Legal Metrology. Since this resolution would

be the first of its kind, in that it would explicitly define our obligations to OIML, Mr. Andrus asked that the resolution be formally transmitted to him if the NCWM approved the tentative

report on OIML. He would then read this statement from the

NCWM before the next meeting of the OIML.

The United States has accepted tremendous responsibility in

the OIML; and it will take a concerted effort on the part of the

NCWM to fulfill our national obligation.

The Liaison Committee proposes the following resolution for

the consideration of the Resolutions Committee of the National

Conference

Whereas the purpose of this resolution is to define the limit of moral

oblig-ation that the National Conference on Weights and Measures is willing

to accept with regard to model regulations promulgated by the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) ; and

203
Whereas it is the recommendation of the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

that this Conference should implement only those model regulations in which the National Conference on Weights and Measures has, through active review and ultimate acceptance, agreed with the technical content of each

proposed regulation or document: Therefore be it Resolved, That it is an established policy of the National Conference on Weights and Measures that it will not consider itself morally obligated to adopt, promote, or domestically implement an official OIML model regulation

until such time as (first) the NCWM agrees that the U.S. should cast an

affirmative vote and (second) that the U.S. has cast that vote on behalf of

the model regulation under consideration in the International Conference

of OIML.

OTHER ITEMS

1. The committee received a memorandum from Mr. Lrouis

Barbrow of the NBS Metric Information Office concerning action

regarding metric conversion of measuring devices. The committee would like to refer this item to the Committee on Metric Planning for its consideration.

2. The committee acknowledges a request by Mr. S. D. Andrevi^s,

State of Florida, that it contact those federal agencies having

authority in the area of packaging and labeling of imported prepackaged products and attempt to work with them on obtaining

a consensus on methods and control regulations in this area.

3. The committee would like to acknowledge a statement by

Mr. Ralph Barra of NBS. He has been assigned by Dr. Ernest

Ambler, Deputy Director of NBS, the task of meshing necessary

standards and other technical needs of state and local governments with those specialists who might help at NBS. It was his

opinion that weights and measures jurisdictions might wish to get involved for one of two reasons: (1) The cooperative work

of weights and measures regulatory officials with the Office of

Weights and Measures of the NBS is a model of Federal-Statelocal government interaction towards a common goal. Therefore,

weights and measures jurisdictions could very easily serve as advisers on any new working arrangements between state and

local governments and NBS. (2) This may afford an opportunity

for those weights and measures jurisdictions that wish to get

involved, or are involved, in commercial measurements extending

beyond classical mass, length, and volume, e.g., clinical thermometry, time measurements, or laboratory certification.

L. D. HolloWAY, Chairman, Idaho

A. Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association

204
W. N. Seward, American Petroleum Institute

J. Speer, Milk Industry Foundation

E. H. Stadolnik, Massachusetts

C. S. Brickenkamp, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. WOLLiN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Liaison with the Federal

Government

(Mr. Holloway moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the report of the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government was

adopted in its entirety by the Conference by voice vote.)

ATTACHMENT TO THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

ON LIAISON WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON METRIC PLANNING

Because industry and state and local governments of the

United States are increasing their voluntary use of the metric

system of weights and measures at an ever-expanding rate, the

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM), at the

58th Conference held last year, empowered its Committee on

Liaison with the Federal Government to assess, evaluate, and

plan for the impact of conversion to the metric system. The

Liaison Committee was instructed to prepare advice needed to ensure a rational and orderly conversion.

In keeping with its responsibility and in conjunction with the

Conference executive secretary, the Liaison Committee recom- mended that the Conference president designate a new special

committee on metric planning which is comprised of the five active members of the Liaison Committee plus three additional

state weights and measures officials. The committee respectfully

requests that Mr. J. F. Lyles, representative to the U.S. Advisory

Committee on International Legal Metrology, be included as an

ex officio member of this special committee.

GOALS

Initial goals were established by the committee at the interim

meetings early this year to provide coordination and establish

policy in the following areas:

205
(a) State and local laws and regulations

(b) Federal requirements

(c) Weighing and measuring devices

(d) Packaging and labeling practices

(e) Physical standards and test methods

(f) Publications

It should be noted that advocacy of the International System

(SI) of Units is another goal of the Metric Planning Committee.

WORK PLAN

Among the matters identified and discussed by the committee,

the following were selected as the basis for an initial work plan

(a) Analysis of state and local laws and regulations and

determination of amendments to remove obstacles to metric conversion.

(b) Development and publication of metric companion ver- sions of NBS Handbook 44 and other weights and measures publications.

(c) Modification of test equipment, standards, and procedures.

(d) Study and development of training programs for weights

and measures officials and industry personnel.

(e) Specification of preferred units of weights and measures

in commerce under the metric system.

(f) Coordination with federal agencies and with international standards organizations regarding regulations in

the area of weights and measures.

(g) Promotion of educational material for consumers.

(h) Identification of weights and measures terms where soft

conversion would be appropriate and, where permissive,

hard conversion would represent an opportunity.

(i) Review of priorities for the changeover to the metric

system and recommendation of timetables for such

changes.

These items and initial strategies were selected primarily from

papers submitted by Mr. Edward H. Stadolnik, Head Administrative Assistant, Executive Office of Consumer Affairs, Division of

Standards, State of Massachusetts, and Mr. George E. Mattimoe,

State Deputy Director of Weights and Measures, Department of

Agriculture, State of Hawaii.

206
STATE ANALYSIS

The Mattimoe report included a study on state legislation to determine whether metric conversion was permissible in the

various states. The study indicated that in thirty-eight of the

jurisdictions (including Puerto Rico) the metric system is permissive. Six jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia)

indicated that only the U.S. customary system is recognized. At

the time of Mr. Mattimoe's report, eight states had not responded.

It was felt that the committee needed to learn more about our

current state weights and measures systems in terms of the

impact of metrication before this year's Conference, which was

a little over a month away at the time of the decision. Although

it was determined that only three man-weeks could be allocated

to a followup to the Mattimoe effort (and, of course, the states would have very little time to respond), it was decided to go

ahead.

The Conference executive secretary appointed a staff assistant

to the Committee on Metric Planning with instructions to develop,

with the highest priority, a metric inquiry. Its purpose would be

to determine obstacles and suggest amendments relating to metrication and current state laws and regulations. A copy of the

metric inquiry is presented below.

National Conference on Weights and Measures

June 7, 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR State and Local Weights and

Measures Officials

From : Terrance N. Troy

Staff Assistant

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Subject: Committee on Metric Planning—Request for Information

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is preparing plans for a

rational and orderly conversion to the metric system of weights and measures. This action is necessary because metrication is accelerating and creat- ing problems. These problems range from consumer confusion resulting from

nonuniform metric-labeled packages to export barriers caused by our use of customary units which are increasingly unacceptable to the world market.

207
I

A special committee has been designated to carry forward the planning which

is necessary to determine our objectives and priorities. This Committee on

Metric Planning needs to learn more about our current state weights and measures systems in terms of the impact of metrication. We are therefore asking that an analysis be made, with legal assistance if possible, of your

State and local weights and measures laws and regulations in terms of metrication and that you provide us with a concise opinion on this subject.

Specifically, your analysis should distill any provision or class of provisions

which could be obstacles or barriers to metrication. It would be helpful if your opinion would suggest what changes or amendments are needed, particularly as your laws and regulations relate to the models and handbooks of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Finally we would like for you to indicate how these changes should be made considering probable

difficulties which may arise and what role the National Bureau of Standards

should play in coordinating this effort. We cannot overly stress the importance of this information for the Conference. It is vitally important that weights and measures officials provide the leadership which our responsibilities demand. A summary report must be

given at this year's Conference so I am asking that all responses be sub- mitted to me before June 28, 1974. We are most appreciative of your cooperation and thank you in advance.

If you have any questions, please phone me at 301: 921-2401.

cc: Committee on Metric Planning

Responses to the metric inquiry identified a significant number

of barriers and needs for amendments. Several statements were made which indicated the major barrier was the fact that the

Congress of the United States did not pass metric legislation. It seems to us that this pinpoints the most salient metric question

this year's Conference should answer. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act was cited as an example

of the kind of barrier existing at the federal level ; in particular,

in Section 4(a) which implies the use of U.S. customary units.

Action by the Conference through revising the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation could go a long way toward facili- tating metrication for many items. In view of these discussions, the committee would like to make

the following recommendations to the National Conference on Weights and Measures:

1. hi spite of the lack of federal legislation, the National Conference on Weights and Measures should take an active role in

preparations leading to metrication.

In other words, the Conference should strive to move forward

at every opportunity in all possible activities, rather than merely

help coordinate in those areas where movement is already taking

place.

208
2. There should be prepared comparable metric editions of the

handbooks and comparable metric versions of the model laws and

regulations.

This would require, for example, that metric codes be developed

for H-44. This recommendation is based on the need for both

editions during a transition phase and that, eventually, the

metric version^ would supersede the customary.

3. The National Conference on Weights and Measures requests

that the Office of Weights arid Measures continue to exchange

weights and measures information relatirig to metric.

4. The National Conference on Weights and Measures also

requests that the Office of Weights and Measures actively collect and document suggestions on changes to weights and measures

methods, administration, specifications, units, and other technical

requirements thought to be necessary for metrication. These items

should then be reviewed by the Metric Planning Committee. Based

on these reviews, authoritative voluntary guidelines should be

promulgated by the Metric Planning Committee.

COOPERATION WITH AMERICAN NATIONAL METRIC COUNCIL

Several meetings were held after the interim meetings ; and of

particular note are the discussions which took place with Dr.

Malcolm O'Hagan, executive director, American National Metric

Council (ANMC), and his staff. The American National Metric

Council is organized into various sector committees, one of which

is titled "Commercial and Consumer Measurement Practices."

This sector committee is part of a Coordinating Committee on Consumer Products. The area of coverage of this sector committee is virtually identical with those of the NCWM Committee on

Metric Planning. It was agreed that duplication of effort should

be avoided. For this reason, the Metric Planning Committee should

be the ANMC's sector committee on Commercial and Consumer

Measurement Practices, if ANMC so desires.

J. H. Lewis, Chairman, Washington

G. L. Johnson, Kentucky

G. E. Mattimoe, Hawaii

L. D. HOLLOWAY, Idaho

A. Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association

W. N. Seward, American Petroleum Institute

J. Speer, Milk Industry Foundation

E. H. Stadolnik, Massachusetts

J. F. Lyles, Virginia

T. N. Troy, Staff Assistant, NBS

209
C. S. Brickenkamp, staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. WOLLJN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Metric Planning

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Presented by D. I. Offner, Chairman, Commissioner of

Weights and Measures, Department of Public Safety,

City of St. Louis, Missouri

(Thursday, July 11, 1974)

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs submits its final report to the 59th National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report consists

of the tentative report as offered in the

Conference Announcement, and as amended

by the final report. The report represents

recommendations of the committee that

have been formed on the basis of written

and oral comments received during the year

and oral presentations made during the open

meeting of the committee.

NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

The committee expresses its thanks to Mr. Arthur Sanders of

the Scale Manufacturers Association for his unselfish efforts

through the years in promoting the Week and especially for the

excellent kit of material he supplied this year to w^eights and measures jurisdictions and to industries. In view of Mr. Sanders'

recent retirement as SMA executive secretary, the committee

recommends that the National Conference on Weights and Measures formally acknowledge the dedicated efforts made by him on

behalf of the weights and measures profession.

The national chairman for Weights and Measures Week, Mr.

Sam Valtri, suggested, and the committee concurs, that in addition to the normal activities carried on in promoting the Week

each year, one specific item or theme be promoted nationally for

the Week and requests that weights and measures officials forward suggestions of themes for subsequent years.

210
The committee feels that the State and Local Activity Summary Report distributed during the Conference is the logical

vehicle for the dissemination of information regarding local promotional activities of the Week. Since publication of the tentative

report several jurisdictions did, in fact, incorporate a report of

Weights and Measures Week activities in their activity sumimary

report. The committee appreciates this response ; however, it feels

that many other jurisdictions could follov^ this example in future

years. The suggested theme for next year's Weights and Measures Week promotion is "Think Metric."

The committee feels that in viev^^ of the energy crisis, probable

metric conversion, and financial implications involved in this

proposal, this item should be deleted from our agenda at this time.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES

1. Weights and Measures Commemorative Stamp

The committee reluctantly advises that the Stamp Advisory

Committee did not take action on our request this year. However,

weights and measures officials are urged to express their support

to appropriate agencies and officials for such commemorative

stamps next year.

The committee is informed that the issuance of a commemorative weights and measures stamp in 1975 will depend largely on

the efforts of weights and measures officials in informing their

congressmen, senators, and other elected officials of the desirability of such a stamp.

2. Weights and Measures Commemorative Medallion

The committee is happy to report success in this project. The

Franklin Mint has submitted samples of a weights and measures

medallion commemorating the 175th anniversary of the signing

by President John Adams of the first weights and measures law.

The medallion is available for sale in sterling silver and bronze.

It is of proof quality. The price of the medallion is as follows

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Sterling Silver:

Bronze

An optional

$15.00

$ 7.50

presentation case

for either medallion

$ 2.50

211
An order form is attached to this report. Additional order

forms and an explanatory brochure will be available from the NBS

Office of Weights and Measures.

The committee stresses the fact that the prices quoted above

are dependent on a minimum order of 500 medallions. It is important, therefore, that orders be sent as soon as possible to:

R. N. Smith

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Checks or money orders should be made payable to the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

For years the committee has been looking for the means of

underwriting certain educational projects. The sale of these

medallions will allow the funding of such efforts in the future.

3. Scouts of America Weights and Measures Merit Badge

Our request, including objectives and requirements, for the

merit badge is presently in the hands of the Scout Selection Committee. It is expected that work will be completed in October of

this year. We strongly urge all weights and measures officials to support this project by agreeing to serve as counselors for scouts

wishing to qualify for the badge.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION EXHIBIT OF

WEIGHING AND MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

The committee was advised during the interim meeting that

Dr. Jon Eklund is presently on a year's leave of absence to accept

a teacher assignment in New York State. Thus, we have no choice

but to keep this item temporarily in abeyance. This item will be

revived and pursued when Dr. Eklund returns.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ARTICLE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Contact has been made with Mr. Kenneth Weaver, Science

Editor, regarding the possibility of an article in 1976 (our bicentennial year) on weights and measures and the impact of metrication in this country. Mr. Weaver has expressed an interest in

this project and, consequently, has been invited to attend and

observe our next National Conference in action.

212
NATIONAL SURVEY OF WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES ADMINISTRATION

A summary of the census of weights and measures personnel

has been completed and was distributed to the Conference weights

and measures delegates during registration. In addition, copies

of a completed weights and measures directory, which was an

outgrowth of the census information, were also distributed to the

weights and measures delegates.

A second questionnaire, phase two of the national survey, cov- ering activities and resources was sent to all jurisdictions in May

of this year. The committee hopes that all weights and measures

officials will respond by the suggested August 1 deadline. The

committee wishes to express special thanks to Mr. Daniel Minnick

of the NBS Technical Analysis Division for his dedicated efforts

in the preparation and conduct of this survey.

RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUALS FOR

NOTABLE CONTRIBUTIONS

It is a recommendation of the committee that the National

Conference on Weights and Measures make a genuine effort to recognize individuals, by name, for achievements suggestions, or notable contributions to the advancement of weights and measures, if only by naming names in the Conference Report. In this

regard, it is the thought of the committee that while there is limited opportunity to recognize such contributions by individuals,

with advancement to positions of responsibility within the Conference, this fact shoud not preclude permanent recording and

acknowledgment of individual effort in the Conference Report.

This committee recognizes that a great many invaluable contributions to the advancement of weights and measures are made

by dedicated officials who, for a variety of reasons, may never be

either officers of the Conference or members of the standing

committees.

UPDATING OF MODEL REPORT FORMS

The committee recommends that the Office of Weights and

Measures update its recommended model report forms which have

not been revised in recent years. In this regard the committee

recognizes an increasing imperative for uniform recording and

reporting methods among the several jurisdictions as meaningful

statistics in weights and measures are to be assembled. The need

for such information becomes all too apparent as OWM brings

213
statistical and other managerial expertise into its efforts to meet

the administrative problems of the various jurisdictions.

DEVICE OWNER AND CONSUMER INFORMATION

It is the view of this committee that if general public understanding of today's complicated consumer problems is to be

achieved in an era of shortages of materials, complicated by a gradual change to a basically unknown system of measurement,

it will be essential to involve many groups (such as the scale

industry, the meter industry, the packaging industry, the milk

industry, and consumer spokesmen). To this end, as an initial step, the various industries are invited to assist the committee

in the preparation of a list of "dos and don'ts" for their respective devices or areas of operations to be posted in business establishments for both the guidance of device owners and the understanding of the consumers.

REPORT OF SURVEY OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

JURISDICTIONS ON PROBLEMS AND PRIORITIES

The committee polled the various weights and measures jurisdictions to secure an expression of the views on the most pressing

problems now facing officials. Eighty-three jurisdictions were contacted, representing 50 States and 33 local jurisdictions. Fifteen

replies were received ; seven were from States and eight were from local jurisdictions. The States that responded are Alabama,

California, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and South

Dakota. The local jurisdictions that responded are Birmingham,

Alabama ; Cincinnati, Ohio ; Kansas City, Kansas ; Monroe County,

New York; St. Louis, Missouri; St. Louis County, Missouri; Santa

Clara County, California; and Ventura County, California.

Since one of the responses dealt in great detail with H-44

matters exclusively, it was felt that the S & T Committee should

address itself to the points raised. Therefore, the summary below

takes no account of that one reply, to the survey.

A total of 33 different problems were mentioned. Since many

of the problems were mentioned more than once, the tabulation

shows a total of 50 specific responses. The following summary

groups the responses into broad categories and indicates the number of responses for each category.

1. Quantity Control in Packages (15)

These comments related to various facets of package checking

for full delivery of the labeled quantity. The comments expressed

214
a. Generalized concern over the status of H-67.

b. A significant anxiety over the question of weights and

measures jurisdiction over products (such as meat and

flour) which are, to some degree at least, within the purview of various Federal regulatory agencies.

c. A serious concern over the delivery of full quantity of single- use blow-molded plastic containers of milk, the point being

made that frequently the containers would not hold the

labeled quantity.

d. Other points made in this area included the net weight of

packaged turkeys (bringing up the problem of "wet tare"

vs. "dry tare") ; the desirability of using drained weight,

instead of net weight, on canned foods; the need to establish standards for judging slack fill; and temperature considerations in milk measurement.

2. Problems Requiring Assistance from OWM in Developing Techniques and

Procedures (15)

The most commonly mentioned item in this category is the

need for an accurate method for testing grain moisture meters.

Another point raised in this category is the need for improved

odometer and taximeter testing equipment and procedures. The

committee expresses the hope that an early solution to these problems is feasible.

A matter mentioned frequently was the need for additional

guidelines to control technology being developed by the weighing

industry. Also stressed was the need for National Conference

guidance in properly displaying the unit price of gasoline. Other

problems in this broad category include:

a. The need for guidance in the testing of truck scales of ever- increasing capacity with a limited amount of testing equipment.

b. The need to develop an adequate test tape for linear measuring devices.

c. The development of test procedures and equipment for use with vapor recovery systems.

d. The need for testing methods for various timing devices

not now covered ; for example, meters used in rental aircraft, heavy construction equipment, etc.

3. Metrication (3)

The emphasis here was on the need for a coordinated metric

training plan.

215
4. Fiscal Constraints Under Whicli the Jurisdictions Operate (3)

It was pointed out that some jurisdictions' very limited budgets

are making the purchase of needed new testing equipment impossible, especially in view of the probable need to acquire metric

test equipment in the near future.

5. Misuse or Poor Design of Equipment (7)

In this category were mentioned:

a. The use of the same liquid meter for products of different

viscosities.

b. The use of the Richardson automatic hopper scale in ele- vators.

c. The use of stenciled tare weights on railroad cars in determining the net weight of the load.

d. The use of truck scales as livestock scales by the addition

of a 5-lb TRB.

e. Modifying an approved prototype without going back for a new approval, the point being made that the official needs

guidelines to judge how far such modifications can go.

f. Nonstandardized closure methods on adjustable weights,

with a suggestion that H-105-1 needs revision on this point.

g. The uses of pressure-sensitive labels (instead of permanent

labels) to indicate scale or section capacity.

6. Miscellaneous Problems (7)

There was a group of problems, each mentioned once, which

were difficult to fit into any broad category.

a. The old problem of "hanging weight beef."

b. Short-width roll carpeting.

c. Improper advertising.

d. Mandatory use of the term "sealer."

e. Need for better public relations programs.

f. Lack of uniformity among jurisdictions.

g. Need for additional H-44 definitions related to railroad

weighing.

216
ORDER FORM

FOR

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES MEDALLION

Please enter my order for:

Sterling Silver Weights and Measures Medallion $15.00 each

Bronze Weights and Measures Medallion $ 7.50 each

Presentation Case for Weights and Measures $ 2.50 each

Medallion

Total amount enclosed $

Name

Address .

Make check or money order payable to:

National Conference on Weights and Measures

and mail to:

R. N. Smith

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Please allow 8 to 10 weeks for delivery after the main order is placed with

Franklin Mint.

D. I. Offner, Chairman, St. Louis, Missouri

W. B. Harper, Birmingham, Alabama

E. Prideaux, Colorado

S. Valtri, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

R. T. Williams, Texas

R. N. Smith, Stalf Assistant, NBS

H. F. WOLLIN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs

(Mr. Offner moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by voice vote.)

217
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND

REGULATIONS

Presented by R. M. Leach, Chairman, Chief, Food Inspection

Division, Department of Agriculture, State of Michigan

(Thursday, July 11, 1974)

The Committee on Laws and Regulations

submits its final report to the 59th National

Conference on Weights and Measures. The

report consists of the tentative report as

offered in the Conference Announcement

and as amended by the final report.

The report represents recommendations of

the committee that have been formed on the

basis of written and oral comments received

during the year and oral presentations made

during the open meeting of the committee.

MODEL STATE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

1. Drained Weight

Several weights and measures oflJicials expressed concern for

the Food and Drug Administration's request for data and information on "Label Declaration of Drained Weight" published in

the December 5, 1973 issue of the Federal Register. Even though

certain commodities are already sold by drained weight, the

Model State Weights and Measures Law does not reflect this

practice. Section 1.2. should, therefore, be revised as follows:

1.2. Weight.—The term "weight" as used in connection with any commodity means net weight; except where the label declares that the product

is sold by drained weight, the term means net drained weight.

The committee further recommends that items to be sold by

net drained weight be determined on a commodity-by-commodity

basis, approved by the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, then listed in the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation.

218
MODEL STATE PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

1. Metrication

The National Conference on Weights and Measures has taken an advocacy position in favor of metrication, a legal system of

units in the U.S. since 1866. This position should be implemented

by beginning now to convert and update, where appropriate,

model laws and regulations to reflect relevant information which

will be needed during the transition period. A step in this direction can be made by separating customary unit abbreviations

from metric symbols and following the International System of

Units. The committee, therefore, recommends consideration and

adoption of the following amendment:

6.4.1. Abbreviations.—Any of the following abbreviations for customary

units, and none other, may be employed in the quantity statement on a package of commodity:

avoirdupois avdp ounce oz

cubic cu pint pt

feet or foot ft pound lb

fluid fl quart qt

gallon gal square sq

inch in weight wt

liquid liq yard yd

(There normally are no periods following, nor plural forms of, these abbreviations. For example, "oz" is the abbreviation for both "ounce" and "ounces.")

6.4.2. Symbols.—Any of the following metric symbols may be employed

in the quantity statement on a package of commodity:

metre m litre 1 millimetre mm gram g

square metre m' kilogram kg

(a) The litre is widely used for volume in preference to its equivalent the cubic decimetre [dm'].

(b) Symbols are not capitalized unless the unit is derived from a proper name. Periods should not be used after the symbol. Symbols are always written in the singular form—do not add "s" to express the

plural when the symbol is used.

(c) Multiples and submultiples of the above units and symbols may be

used provided they follow the guidelines of the International System

(SI) of Units or ISO Standard 1000.

219
2. Fractions

It has been called to the attention of the committee that cer- tain commodities are being sold to consumers in "unacceptable"

fractional units of dry measure in violation of section S.7. Specifically, the committee has been asked for an interpretation as to whether the packaging of oranges in a 4/5 bushel, which is later

sold unweighed to a consumer, is a violation of the binary submultiple principle as implied in 6.7. Some committee members asserted that a clear exception exists

under section 6.7. (a) which is applicable to this long established

tradition of crating citrus fruit in 4/5 of a bushel. Approximately

85 percent of this fruit is sold by this trade practice. Additionally,

it was asserted that the packager never intends the 4/5 bushel

to be a consumer package but if the 4/5 bushel of citrus fruit is sold to consumers this would be a matter between the appropriate State or local official and the retailer.

The consensus of the committee is that this action of the packagers is not in violation of the indicated section.

3. Motor Oils A communication from the Society of Automotive Engineers,

Inc., suggested that a word substitution be made in section 11.25.

Motor Oils. The use of the word "grade" carries a connotation of

quality, which is not intended, and should be changed to "viscosity number." The revised section will read as follows:

11.25. Motor Oils.—Motor oils, w'hen packed in 1-liquid-quart units, shall be exempt from the dual quantity declaration requirements of subsection

6.6.4. Additionally, motor oil in 1-liquid-quart, 1-gallon, 1'/^ -gallon, 2-gallon,

and 2 '/2-gallon units, bearing the principal display panel on the body of the

container, is exempt from the requirements of section 3. IDENTITY to the extent that the SAE viscosity number is required to appear on the principal

display panel, provided the SAE viscosity number appears on the can lid and is expressed in letters and numerals in type size of at least one-fourth

inch.

4. Packaged Seed

The Association of American Seed Control officials, in their

resolution of September 27, 1973, indicated that they would strive

to achieve as soon as possible a quantity statement on the label as to the number of seeds being represented. They asked that the

Conference consider the use of the number of seeds in small

packets and containers in lieu of the net weight declaration.

220
They want this change to provide more meaningful information

and so that consumers will be better able to make value comparisons. This section was recently changed in keeping with the principal that, in general, solid items should be sold by weight and

because of the trend toward greater use of metric units.

Arguments raised by the American Seed Trade Association

(ASTA) express concern for the cost incurred because of the

recent change to metric units and for the problems associated

with counting extremely small seeds.

The consensus reached by the committee is that this problem

should be fully aired by an ad hoc committee composed of members of ASCO, ASTA, NBS, USDA, and appropriate consumer

representatives before attempting another solution. Such a meeting will be held at the National Bureau of Standards this fall. It will be chaired by Mr. R. L. Thompson.

5. Reciprocal In-plant Statistical Package Control Program

A feasibility study of having a national uniform statistical

package control program has been recommended by the Western

Weights and Measures Association and endorsed by the Southern

Weights and Measures Association for consideration by the committtee. The ultimate goal of this program would be to allow an exchange and acceptance of in-plant control information between

jurisdictions. All information received concerning this suggestion

has been, and will be, sent directly to the NBS Office of Weights

and Measures for their consideration in the development of a new

NBS Handbook 67.

6. Net Weight Labeling

A number of State and local weights and measures officials expressed concern about the APHIS proposal published in the

December 3, 1973 issue of the Federal Register. This proposal

sought to amend part of the federal meat inspection regulations

(9 CRF, part 138).

Because of time constraints, submissions were due by April 5, 1974, and because there was a clear consensus in opposition to

this proposed rule, it was decided that it would be expeditious

and proper for the committee to take action which could be ratified by the Conference at its annual meeting. The action taken was a formal transmittal to the Hearing Clerk, USDA, stating

the basis for opposition to this proposed rule.

221
MODEL STATE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES REGULATION

1. Meat, Poultry, and Seafood Products

It was brought to the attention of the committee that a great

deal of confusion (and lack of uniformity) exists as to what is permissible with respect to the method of sale of precooked,

stuffed turkeys. Among other methods, this item is sold by:

a. weight range before cooking

b. quantity sufficient to serve a specified number of people

c. size (small, medium or large)

d. average weight after cooking

Clarification is sought as to which method is preferred by the

Conference. The preferred method will be included in the Model

State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation to encourage

uniformity. The committee felt that the consumer is most con- cerned about the weight of the meat before cooking. Weights and measures enforcement, at the point of sale, would be difficult on any basis other than total weight of the product after cooking.

The committee will issue a guideline as to the preferred method

of sale for these items in next year's tentative report. Comments

are requested.

2. Sale of Eggs by Weight

Communications have been received concerning the addition of a section to the Model Regulation for the sale of eggs by weight.

The American Egg Board is promoting research studies and,

through Kansas and other States, it has been suggested that this

issue should be brought to the attention of the Conference. Additionally, the packaging and labeling program of OWM has re- ceived information that there may be concern when a consumer

gets 11 eggs of equal size and one which is obviously "too small"

because the consumer believes he is buying eggs by count (one

dozen) when, in fact, the controlling factor is weight. This means

that the "too small" egg is perfectly legal in some jurisdictions,

and is used to reduce "overpack" by the seller. The committee believes that the present method of sale is fully

informative and that there is adequate regulation with current

State egg laws coupled with the USDA grading system. The committee further believes that it would be premature for the Conference to consider any action until the final reports of studies on

the sale of eggs by weight have been completed.

222
3. Fluid Milk Products

The International Paper Company has proposed that a threequart milk package be adopted as a standard package size by the

National Conference on Weights and Measures. This would require a revision to section 6, to provide for the inclusion of this new

size.The proposal indicates that it is permissible to sell milk in

three-quart containers in a few States at the present time and

Conference approval is sought to achieve nationwide acceptance

and uniformity. It was also pointed out that the three-quart container would yield significant savings in scarce materials such as paperboard and plastic coatings.

Although the United States has not established a national policy committing itself to conversion to the metric system, the committee has taken an advocacy position on going metric and

consideration will ultimately have to be made to adding liter sizes. Additionally, adding another size in customary units could be

construed as undue proliferation, which is a sensitive issue with consumer groups.

The consensus of the committee is that they should not oppose

this request at this time but that it be brought to the floor for a

vote without a committee endorsement. The committee needs to receive additional inputs from other segments of industry, weights

and measures officials, and other concerned interests.

4. Other Milk Products

Concern was expressed over the possibility of undue proliferation of package sizes for cottage cheese. It is felt that this can be

avoided by limiting the allowable package sizes for cottage cheese

as provided in section 7. for sour cream and yogurt.

It is the consensus of the committee that evidence of actual

proliferation of sizes is needed before considering what further

action should be taken. The Milk Industry Foundation has agreed

to survey the current situation and submit a report to the committee by the next interim meeting.

5. Cardboard Carton Containers

Copies of letters received by the New York Bureau of Weights

and Measures regarding cardboard containers were forwarded

to the committee. These letters highlight the confusion that exists

when these containers are sold to new businesssmen by an identity number, which is often mistaken for the size of the box. For

223
example, a 30 x 4 identification number refers to a box whose

actual size is 27V2 x 3l^ inches. It is suggested that a new section

be added to the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation so that

these containers can be sold on a basis which will provide more

accurate information.

An important argument in support of adding a new section is that small businesssmen just getting started need as much assist- ance as can be provided in order to survive and grow.

An argument opposing this change is that a table, similar to Table 1 of section 10, Softwood Lumber, could be printed showing

the relationship between identity and size but this would not solve

the problem.

It is the consensus of the committee that these containers

should be sold by actual size. The committee does not believe,

however, that every trade practice must be controlled through

the model laws and regulations. This is particularly true where

the item does not directly concern the consumer. The committee,

therefore, recommends that the appropriate trade associations be

contacted and asked to correct this practice on a voluntary basis.

6. Combination Quantity Declarations

Previous National Conferences have recognized that numerous

packaged products bearing combination quantity declarations presented problems in applying the average concept to such quantity

declarations. It was decided to deal with this problem on a case- by-case basis; and last year the first of these regulations, for

paper plates, was specified.

This year the committee continued discussions with the American Glassware Association (AGA) to define allowable differences

for the following items:

Beverageivare: Pressed and Blown Tumblers and Stemware

Pressed Items: Small (Bowls, blenders, pitchers, sherbets,

desserts, soups, cups, mugs)

Pressed Items: Large (Bowls, mixing or casserole; loaf pans;

utility dishes; roasters)

Up to 5 oz capacity

Over 5 oz capacity

± 1/4. oz tolerance

±5% tolerance

Up to 6 oz capacity

Over 6 oz capacity

± % oz tolerance

± 6.25% tolerance

224
Up to 2 qt capacity

Over 2 qt capacity

± 4oz tolerance

± 6.25% tolerance

Blown Items, T.T. (Pitchers, apothecaries)

Up to 2 qt capacity

Over 2 qt capacity

± 4 oz tolerance

± 6.25 7o tolerance

The committee finds the proposed tolerances for beverageware

to be acceptable and recommends consideration and adoption of

the following and appropriate renumbering of existing sections:

16.1. Beverageware: Pressed and Blown Tumblers and Stemware.—The

allowable diflFerence between actual and declared capacity shall be:

(a) Plus or minus '/4 oz for items of 5 oz capacity or less; (b) Plus or minus 5 percent of the stated capacity for items over 5 oz

capacity.

The tolerances proposed for the other items exceed the standard of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which

is 5 percent. For this reason, and because AGA members do not

have a sufficient percentage of the market for the other three

categories, the committee feels that additional data is required

from other manufacturers before action on those categories can

be considered.

The committee concurs with the proposal received from the

American Paper Institute and, therefore, recommends consideration and adoption of the following amendment:

16.3. Sanitary Paper Products.—The allowable difference between actual and declared dimensions for toilet tissue shall be plus or minus 1/16 inch. The allowable difference for paper towels, paper napkins, and facial tissue

shall be plus or minus inch.

The committee also considered, with appropriate trade associations and other interested persons, other items which include

paper cups, paper containers, plastic containers, and thermos

bottles. The committee would like to receive information and

data as to suggested allowable differences for the above or for

any other items for which an allowable difference should be

established.

7. Railroad Car Tare Weight

The National Scale Men's Association recommended to the committee that reweighing and restenciling of freight cars, under

certain conditions, be done only by the car owners or their repre225
sentatives. They want the exceptions outlined in section 2 C of

Rule 70 of the Field Manual of the Association of American Railroads Interchange Rule of 1973, to be incorporated in the Model

State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation, section 17. The Association indicated that the reason they want this change

is because the rule, as now constituted, leaves considerable room

for tare weight error. No identifiable arguments were raised opposing the change at

last year's National Conference, but since this item was not placed on the agenda until the interim meeting, it is not clear if the

committee efi'orts to provide a speedy response to this problem

might later prove to be unfair. The consensus of the committee

is if no significant opposition arises before the annual meeting of

the National Conference, the AAR section should be incorporated

in the Regulation this year. The committee, therefore, recom- mends consideration and adoption of the following amendment

and appropriate renumbering of existing sections:

17.5 Tank cars, covered hopper cars, flat cars equipped with multideck

racks, or special superstructure, mechanical refrigerator cars, and house-type

cars equipped with special lading protective devices must be reweighed and

restenciled only by owners or their authorized representatives.

(a) When car bears no lightweight (empty weight) stenciling.

(b) When repairs or alterations result in a change of weight in excess

of the permissible lightweight tolerance.

MODEL STATE UNIT PRICING REGULATION

1. Presentation of Unit Price

The committee now believes that this issue should not be

decided this year. The problem is more than the committee ini- tially perceived it to be. Therefore, the committe recommends

that this item be tabled until next year.

OTHER ITEMS

1. Precooked and Prepared Foods

From the State of Hawaii comes the suggestion that the National Conference should consider the development of a Model

State Menu Regulation.

Directly involved would be the enforcement of listed quantity

statements of such items as 10-ounce steaks and of identity state- ments such as baby beef liver and Roquefort dressing.

226
The only comment received was a transmittal from the National

Restaurant Association (NRA). No comments were received from

weights and measures officials or from other consumer advocates.

Because of the persuasive arguments contained in the NRA transmittal and because of the apparent lack of favorable interest, the

committee recommends that this item be tabled indefinitely.

2. Importation of Packages in Violation of Legal Requirements

The Southern Weights and Measures Association requested that

the appropriate committee within the framework of the National

Conference determine what action the Federal Government can

successfully take to preclude the importation of packages not in compliance with existing Federal and State laws and regulations.

The committee concluded that no direct action can be taken

within the scope of the model laws and regulations. It is the rec- ommendations of the committee that this issue be forwarded to the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government, because

of its mission to coordinate with other federal agencies, for its consideration. The Liaison Committee has indicated that more

factual information would be useful. Thus, anyone wishing to comment on this issue should write directly to the Committee on

Liaison with the Federal Government.

The Committee on Laws and Regulations extends its thanks to

all those members of the Conference and business and industry

representatives who submitted items for consideration. Only

through such continuing communications can the committee fulfill its function to the Conference.

R. M. Leach, Chairman, Michigan

S. D. Andrews, Florida

J. L. O'Neill, Kansas

R. L. Thompson, Maryland

C. H. Vincent, Dallas, Texas

T. N. Troy, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. WOLLIN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Laws and Regulations

(Mr. Leach moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by voice vote.)

227
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Presented by Trafford F. Brink, Chairman, Director, Division

of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

State of Vermont

(Thursday, July 11, 1974)

The Committee on Specifications and Tol- erances submits its report to the 59th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The report consists of the tentative report

as olTered in the Conference Announcement

and as amended by its final report.

The report represents recommendations

of the committee that have been formed on

the basis of written and oral comments

received during the year and oral presentations made during the open meeting of the

com.mittee. All recommended amendments are to appropriate provisions of the codes of the National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44, Fourth Edition, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other

Technical Reqidrements for Covunercial Weighing and Measuring

Devices.

GENERAL CODE

1. G.S.l. Identification.—A recommendation was received from

the Southern Weights and Measures Association that the part of

this paragraph requiring a nonrepetitive serial number be made

retroactive for remanufactured or rebuilt commercial devices. It

is the committee's interpretation of paragraph G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements that equipment that has been removed from

service and substantially rebuilt has again been "manufactured"

and that it would be the rebuilder's responsibility to mark that

equipment with all of the information required under paragraph

G.S.l. including a nonrepetitive serial number.

To provide a clearer understanding of Paragraph G-A.6., the

committee recommends the addition of the following definition to the General Code

Manufactured Device: Any new device and any other device that has

been removed from service and substantially altered or rebuilt.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

228
2. G-UR.1.1. Suitability of Equipment.—Following the publication of the S & T Committee's tentative report of 1973, the

committee received a communication from the state of Colorado

concerning the problems brought about by increased prices and

the limited unit prices of many computing scales in use. Since the

committee did not have adequate time to fully study the problem

in its 1973 final report, it referred the item for study during the

ensuing year. Since that time, a recommendation has been re- ceived from the Northwest Weights and Measures Association

that a reference to unit prices be included in this paragraph.

It was the committee's view that this problem extended beyond

selling prices exceeeding the unit prices of computing scales;

specifically, that retail merchants were establishing selling prices

of commodities at prices different from the unit prices included on computing scales. For example, a selling price for a particular

commodity could be advertised as 4 pounds for $0.49; and since

this unit price did not appear on computing scales, the clerk or

cashier would establish the total price based on a unit price of

$0.13 a pound.

So that these conditions can be corrected, the committee rec- ommends this paragraph be amended to read:

G-UR.l.l. Suitability of Equipment.—Commercial equipment shall be suit- able for the service in which it is used with respect to elements of its design, including but not limited to its weighing capacity (for weighing

devices), its computing capability (for computing devices), its rate of flow

(for liquid-measuring devices), the character, number, size, and location of its indicating or recording elements, and the value of its smallest unit and unit prices.

It is the committee's view that the application of this paragraph in the enforcement process is an administrative responsibility. It is not intended to preclude the use of computing scales

with unit prices which differ from the selling prices of commodities. However, when problems are found to exist, the weights

and measures administrator should communicate these problems

to the users of this equipment and jointly work toward a satisfactory solution to pricing errors.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. G-UR.2.2. Installation of Indicating or Recording Element.—

A recommendation was received from the Southern Association

that this requirement be amended to require an indicating ele- ment to be installed so that an individual located at the weighing

or measuring element could observe the quantity indication. It

229
was the committee's view that this is appropriate only in direct

sale applications ; that is, when both buyer and seller are present

when the quantity is being determined, and recommends the

following

Amend G-UR3.2. to read

G-UR.3.2. Position of Equipment.—A device equipped with a primary in- dicating element and used in direct sales, except a prescription scale, shall be so positioned that its indications may be accurately read and the weighing Or measuring operation may be observed from some reasonable "cus- tomer" position. The permissible distance between the equipment and a reasonable customer position shall be determined in each case upon the

basis of the individual circumstances, particularly the size and character of the indicating elements.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

4. Design of Digital Indicators.—Several suggestions were

received from Toledo Scale Company and the Northwest Association for new requirements for digital devices. It was the committee's view that last year's recommendations as adopted by the

Conference were suitable and that further requirements were not

necessary at this time. However, there was a need for a definition

of the word "increment." Therefore, the committee recommends

adding the following definition to the General Code:

Increment: The value of the smallest unit that can be indicated or recorded by a digital device in normal operation.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

SCALE CODE

1. Digital Indicators.—The committee received from Toledo

Scale Company a detailed report concerning digital designs and

recommendations for additional requirements. It was the committee's view that this was an excellent report and that when

reviewed by weights and measures officials, would certainly provide them with a clearer understanding of digital systems. The

committee encouraged Toledo Scale Company to make this presentation to all state and regional meetings.

After careful consideration of this study, the committee rec- ommends the following:

Add a new requirement S.1.4. as follows:

230
S.1.4. Digital Indications.—The zone of uncertainty on digital indicating

scales shall be not greater than 0.3 the value of the minimum operating

increment.

Renumber paragraphs S.I.4., S.I.5., and S.I.6., to read S.I.5.,

S.I.6., and S.1.7.

It is not intended that tests to determine compliance with the

design criteria set forth in S.1.4. be conducted in the field where

environmental factors may influence the test. Therefore, the committee recommends adding the following note to the Scale Code:

N.1.5. Zone of Uncertainty Test.—The zone of uncertainty test on digital

instruments shall be conducted under controlled conditions in which envi- ronmental factors are reduced to the extent that they will not affect the

results obtained.

Renumber present paragraph N.1.5 to read N.1.6.

Add the following definition

Zone of Uncertainty: The zone between adjacent increments on a digital device in which the value of either of the adjacent increments may be

displayed.

(The foi'egoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. Livestock Scales and Weighing.—A recommendation was

received from the Southern Association to delete all references to animal scales since there are many instances when single heads

of livestock are weighed on a livestock scale. After consulting

with USDA Packers and Stockyards Administration, it is the

committee's view that the present references to animal scales are appropriate. However, it is not the intent of existing Handbook 44 requirements to prohibit the occasional weighing of a

single animal on a livestock scale. It is intended that when only

single animals are weighed at a buying station that they be

weighed on a single animal scale. The committee recommends the

definition of animal scale be amended by deleting the terms

"adapted to" and inserting the words "designated for" so as to read:

Animal Scale: A livestock scale designed for weighing single heads of

livestock.

It was also brought to the attention of the committee that large

capacity motor vehicle scales were being equipped with stock

231
racks and used for weighing trucks or livestock on the hoof. It is the committee's view that a five pound minimum graduation on

a 50 ton scale is not appropriate. However, it would be appropriate to weigh large amounts of livestock on the hoof on a 50

ton scale. To make provision for this type of weighing, the committee recommends that the definition of "livestock scale" be

amended to read:

Livestock Scale: A scale of 60,000 pounds capacity or less equipped with

stock racks and gates and adapted to weighing livestock standing on the

scale platform.

This amendment means that a scale of more than 30 tons

capacity equipped with stock racks will be considered a motor

vehicle scale when applying the requirement of Handbook 44. It

is the committee's view that when a motor vehicle scale is used

for weighing livestock on the hoof that it would be unsuitable

to weigh loads of livestock of 10,000 pounds or less with a 20

pound minimum graduation or loads of less than 5,000 pounds

with a 10 pound minimum graduation. Therefore, the committee

recommends that UR.3.2. be amended by adding the following

requirement:

UR.3.2. 1. Used for Weighing Livestock.—A vehicle scale with a capacity of more than 60,000 pounds that is adapted to weighing livestock shall not

be used for weighing net loads of livestock of less than 10,000 pounds

when the value of the smallest unit is 20 pounds; or less than 5,000 pounds

when the value of the smallest unit is 10 pounds.

The USDA Packers and Stockyards Administration also ex- pressed a concern that when an in-motion monorail scale with a one-pound minimum increment was being used, many times the

tare value of the gambrels and hooks were not whole pounds.

Consequently, if the tare value were to be 7.5 pounds with a one- pound minimum increment, there would be a constant error in

every weighing of Y> pound. To alleviate this problem, the committee recommends adding the following new paragraph:

S.2.1.4. For Monorail Scales.—On a monorail scale equipped with a digital

indicator, means shall be provided for setting the zero-load balance and

any tare value of less than five percent of the scale capacity to within 0.1 the value of the minimum operating increment. On an in-motion system, means shall be provided to automatically maintain the zero-load balance

condition and tare values to within 0.2 the value of the minimum operating

increment.

Renumber present paragraph S.2.1.4. to S.2.1.5.

232
The report of the Northwest Association S & T Committee

expressed the concern that many times the tests of livestock and

vehicle scales had to be postponed due to the effects of w^ind. It was their view that if wind affected the testing, it also would

affect weighing in normal operation. In recognition of this problem, the committee recommends amendment to UR.2.3. as indicated below; however, the committee also wishes to express the

view to the Conference that this amendment will not make mandatory that weighing elements be covered. Rather, when a problem exists, this paragraph is the basis for requiring adequate

protection.

UR.2.3. Protection Against Wind and Weather Effects.—The indicating

elements, the lever system or load cells, and the load-receiving element

of a permanently installed scale, and the indicating elements of a scale not intended to be permanently installed, shall be adequately protected

against wind and weather effects.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. Railroad Track Scales and Weighing Practices.—Suggestions

and recommendations for Handbook 44 amendment for railroad

track scales and weighing practices were received from the Northwest, Southern, and Western Weights and Measures Associations.

Included were the following: (1) Provide a separate code for

railroad track scales; (2) Eliminate the commercial application

of certain railroad weighing practices ; and (3) Change definition

of "unit train" and provide definition for "test train."

At its interim meeting the committee heard comments from a number of railroad representatives, users of railroad track scales,

and weights and measures officials. After careful consideration

and due deliberation concerning all of these suggestions, the committeee offers the following comments and amendments:

(1) At the present time, there is no need for a separate code

for railroad track scales.

(2) As stated in the S & T Committee's final report of 1973, the

requirements recommended and adopted by the Conference were

the committee's attempt to resolve a difficult problem, and the

applications of these requirements would determine the feasibility

and practicability and will require the cooperation of all con- cerned. At this time it is the committee's view that these requirements have not been in force for a sufficient amount of time to determine their full effect. The railroad industry will continue to study railroad weighing practices and provide data to the S & T

Committee.

233
(3) Since a problem seems to exist concerning the definitions

of "unit train" and "test train" and the appHcation of tolerances,

for clarification purposes, the committee recommends the following amendments:

Delete present definition for "unit train."

Add a new paragraph N.2.1. to read:

N.2.1. For Coupled-In-Motion Tests.—The test train shall be a train of no less than 10 cars yielding 100 car weights.

Delete T.3.6.3. Weighing CoupIed-in-Motion Unit Trains and

T.3.6.4. Weighing Coupled-in-Motion Cars.

Add a new T.3.6.3. to read:

T.3.6.3. Weighing Coupled in Motion.—The basic maintenance and accept- ance tolerances shall be as follows:

(a) The difference between the motion gross weight value and the static weight value of the test train shall not exceed two pounds per 1,000

pounds (0.2 percent).

(b) The difference between the motion gross weight values and the

static weight values on 100 car weights shall not exceed:

(1) 0.2 percent on 30 car weights,

(2) 0.5 percent on 5 car weights, and

(3) 1.0 percent on any car weight.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

4. Construction Materials Hopper Scales.—A recommendation was received from the Scale Manufacturers Association to provide

a minimum tolerance on construction material hopper scales equal

to the value of the minimum graduated interval. The committee

recommends the following:

Amend T.2.8. to read:

T.2.8. For Crane and Construction Material Hopper Scales.—The mini- mum tolerance shall be 0.1 percent of the weighing capacity of the scale Or the value of the smallest unit, whichever is less. Amend T.2.1. Minimum Tolerance Values, General by inserting

the term "construction material hopper" after the word "crane."

Amend the heading in table 3 by inserting the term "construction material hopper" after the word "crane."

Add the following new definition:

234
Construction Material Hopper Scale: A scale adapted to weighing construction materials such as sand, gravel, cement, and hot oil. Amend the last sentence in the definition of "hopper scale" so

it will read:

See also automatic hopper scale, grain hopper scale, and construction

material hopper scale.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

5. Value of Minimum Graduated Intervals.—Because digital

indicating scales do not have minimum graduated intervals, but

rather increments, the committee recommends that UR.1.1.

Value of Minimum Graduated Intervals on Primary Indicating

and Recording Elements be amended to read:

UR.1.1. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary Indicating and Recording

Elements.

Amend the remaining UR.l. Selection Requirements by deleting all references to the "value of the minimum graduated interval" and inserting the term "value of the smallest unit."

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

CODE FOR LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

1. Unit Price Computing Capability.—The committee received

several comments concerning the limited unit price capability on

certain retail petroleum dispensers. At its interim meeting, it heard several presentations concerning available modifications for

these devices. It is the committee's view as an interim measure

that the recommendation made by the Office of Weights and

Measures in its memorandum of December 6, 1973; that is, to

set the variator at one-half the unit price, etc., be officially recognized in all jurisdictions until modifications can be made.

It is also the committee's view that:

The appropriate modification of gasoline dispensers would be

extending the variator capability to 99.9 and a four-decade

($99.99) total price indication.

"The $14.99" modifications of gasoline dispensers would have

a limited life and eventually a four-decade total price indication

would be necessary. Further, if this modification were to be

made, it would only be appropriate for sales not exceeding that

amount.

235
The committee's long-range solution for this problem is to encourage the American Petroleum Institute to take immediate

action and initiate the use of the metric system throughout the

petroleum industry. Obsolete dispensers could then be directly

converted to, or replaced with, metric indicating equipment.

The committee wishes to recommend to program administrators

that before the issuance of regulations setting specific dates for

the modification of $.499 variators, discussions be held with

petroleum dealers afi'ected and suppliers of the modifications to make certain the specified dates are realistic.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. Tolerance Tables.—A communication was received stating

that there was some confusion as to the meaning of the word

"indication" as it appeared in the left-hand column of all of the

tolerance tables. It was the committee's view that there was no

need to reprint these tables but to remind the Conference that

this word applies to the indication of the device under test.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. Temperature Compensation.—A detailed, comprehensive

study was received from the state of Hawaii outlining the reasons

for implementing the temperature compensation of liquid hydrocarbons at retail. The state of Hawaii also made an audiovisual presentation to the committee at its interim meeting with a recommendation that

amendments be made to Handbook 44 to permit temperature

compensation at retail. It was generally the view of the committee that this actiop would allow gasoline to be sold at retail either

temperature compensated or not temperature compensated and

that this practice could bring about more confusion in the marketplace. Since it is the object of weights and measures administration to provide and maintain uniform standard units, this would

in effect provide two different units: (1) 231 cubic inches per

gallon at any temperature, and (2) 231 cubic inches at 60 degrees.

After a lengthy discussion, the committee could not reach agreement and, therefore, had no recommendations but suggested that

the state of Hawaii make a presentation at the National Conference.

At the Conference, a motion was moved and seconded that the

LMD Code be appropriately amended to provide permissive temperature correction of petroleum products sold at retail.

(After lengthy discussion, the foregoing item was defeated by a standing vote)

236
However, Mr. Harold F. Wollin, executive secretary of the

Conference, assured the Conference that the Office of Weights

and Measures of the National Bureau of Standards would continue

to study the issue of temperature compensation at retail.

4. N.4-3.2. Temperature Adjustment.—A recommendation was

received from the Northwest Association that this paragraph be

amended to make reference to an appropriate petroleum measure- ment table for determining changes in volume brought about by

a change in temperature. The committee wishes to call to the

attention of the Conference that in NBS Handbook 112, "Examination Procedure Outlines for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices," in EPO No. 25, the procedure for the examination

of loading rack meters, reference is made to ASTM-IP Petroleum

Measurement Tables. It is the view of the committee that when

corrections are made that these tables be used. The publication

entitled "ASTM-H* Petroleum Measurement Tables, D-1250" is available from the American Society for Testing and Materials,

1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The committee recommends that N.4.3.2. be amended by striking the last

sentence of the paragraph and inserting the following:

When adjustments are necessary, appropriate petroleum measurement

tables should be used.

Amend N.5. Temperature Correction on Wholesale Devices with

Automatic Temperature Compensation by adding to the end of

the paragraph the same sentence as was added to N.4.3.2.

When adjustments are necessary, appropriate petroleum measurement

tables should be used.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

CODE FOR VEHICLE TANK METERS

1. Split Compartment Test Tolerances.—Over the last several

years, the committee has received numerous comments that the

tolerances applicable when conducting a split compartment test on a vehicle tank meter are impractical. The existing tolerances

are based on the capacity of the prover used in the test ; however,

the error resulting from this test is not a function of prover

capacity but rather it is related to the rate of flow and the system

itself. The committee agrees with these comments and recom- mends changing these tolerances by amending the Vehicle Tank

Meter Code as follows:

237
Add the following new table T.2.:

TABLE 2.—TOLERANCES FOR VEHICLE TANK METERS

ON SUPPLY EXHAUSTION TESTS EXCEPT MILK METERS

Manufacturer's rated

capacity Maintenance and

(Maximum gpm) acceptance tolerances Up to 125 125 in' 126-250 200 in^ 251-500 300 in' Over 500 400 in'

Amend T.2. to include table 3 and renumber present table 2 to table 3. To further clarify this table, the tolerances listed are applied

from "0" (zero) —not added to the error found during a normal

test.Since these requirements are applicable to wholesale devices

in the LMD Code, appropriate amendments are recommended to be made to that code.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

TENTATIVE CODE FOR CRYOGENIC LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

1. Cryogenic Liquid Measuring Devices.—The committee recom- mends this code remain tentative for at least another year.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

CODE FOR VEHICLE TANKS USED AS MEASURES

1. S.2.i. Design of Compartment Indicators, Location.—A suggestion was received from the Northwest Association that paragraph (c) limits the marker from extending into the fill opening

but provides no limit for placing the marker back from the fill opening. The committee recommends that this paragraph be

amended to read:

(c) So that it shall not extend into, nor more than six inches from, that

section of the compartment defined by a vertical projection of the fill opening.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

238
CODE FOR GRADUATES

1. T.l. Table 3.—A suggestion was received from the Northwest Association that the headings in this table be amended since

measurements between the given whole values do exist and the

question arises that if the inside diameter of a graduate is 20.5

millimeters, what tolerance would be applied ? The committee rec- ommends that this table's columnar subheadings be amended

accordingly. The recommended new columnar subheadings and

several entries from the table are as follows:

TABLE 3.—MAINTENANCE AND ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES, IN

EXCESS AND IN DEFICIENCY, FOR GRADUATES

Inside diameter of Toler- Inside diameter of Toler- graduate ance graduate ance

From to but From to but

not in- not in- cluding

Fluid

drams

cluding

Milli- Inches Minims Millimeters liters 0 9/16 2 0 16 0.1 9/16 13/16 3 16 21 0.2 13/16 1-1/16 6 21 25 0.4

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. S.3. Shape.—A communication was received indicating that some graduates were found to be elliptical in shape. It was the

view of the committee that paragraph S.3. Shape precluded the

use of elliptical graduates. However, for further clarification, the

committee recommends this paragraph be amended to read:

S.3. Shape.—A graduate of a capacity of more than 4 fluid drams (15 milli- liters) may be of either the conical type having a circular interior or the cylindrical type. A graduate of a capacity of 4 fluid drams (15 milliliters) or less shall be of the single-scale cylindrical type.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

CODE FOR ODOMETERS

1. N.l. Mileage Tests.—For clarification purposes, the committee recommends the following N.l. paragraphs be amended to read:

N.l. Testing Procedures.

239
N.1.1. Test Methods.—To determine compliance with mileage tolerances, a mileage test of an odometer shall be conducted utilizing one or more of

the following test methods:

(a) Road Test.—A road test consists of driving the vehicle over a precisely measured road course.

(b) Fifth- Wheel Test.—A fifth-wheel test consists of driving the vehicle over any reasonable road course and determining the distance

actually traveled through the use of a mechanism known as a "fifth wheel" that is attached to the vehicle and that independently measures and indicates the distance.

(c) Simulated-Road Test.—A simulated-road test consists of determining the distance traveled by use of a roller device, or by computation from rolling circumference and wheel-turn data.

N.1.2. Test Runs.—Test runs shall include a minimum of two runs at

least two miles in length. The test runs shall start from, and finish at, a dead stop with a minimum of 80 percent of the run at a speed of approximately 45 miles per hour. The acceleration and deceleration shall be carefully controlled to avoid spinning or skidding the wheels.

N.1.3. Test Conditions.

For further clarification, a new N.1.3.2. is added as follows:

N.l.3.2. Tire Stabilization.—Road tests or fifth-wheel tests shall be pre- ceded by a run of at least 5 miles for the purpose of stabilizing tire temperatures. Simulated road tests on a roller device shall be made at

stable tire pressures.

Renumber present paragraph N.l.3.2. to read N. 1.3.3.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

TENTATIVE CODE FOR TIMING DEVICES

1. Timing Devices.—Based on the suggestions received, the

committee recommends that this code be removed from tentative

status and made final.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

OTHER ITEMS

1. Unleaded Gas Coyitamination.—It was brought to the committee's attention by representatives of the American Petroleum

Institute (API) that unleaded gas could be contaminated during

tests of equipment used to deliver this product. In recognition of

these problems, the API informed the committee that it has been

240
recommended that all fill openings in service stations be uniformly identified.

It was their recommendation that in the test of petroleum

dispensers at service stations, unleaded product should be returned

to unleaded supply since a five-gallon test measure that had been

previously used to test other products, when properly drained,

could not contaminate unleaded 'product.

They further recommended the following

(a) Communicate with the operator of the equipment to be

tested to make certain a clear understanding exists as to the problems involved and that contamination will not

result in the conduct of any tests. (b) In service station tests, request operators to sign a form

prior to conducting any tests, stating the following (or

words of similar import) : "I certify that I have directed

the return to storage of all products used during test."

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. Scale Manufacturers Association Reco^nmendation for Scale

Pits.—The 56th Conference in 1972 endorsed a publication of

SMA entitled "Recommendation for the Design and Installation

of Pit-Type Scales for Weighing Highway Vehicles and their Axle

Loads." In response to requests received, the SMA has developed

a supplement to this publication entitled "Recommended Construction Standards for Vehicle Scale Pits." The committee has

reviewed this document and recommends its endorsement by the

Conference.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. Liquid Feed Supplements ayid Heavy Oils. —In a communication from the Southern Association, it was stated that the use

of meters for measuring liquid feed and heavy oils is increasing

rapidly. Since conventional provers cannot be used to test these

devices, it was their recommendation that the Office of Weights

and Measures conduct a study as soon as possible so that test equipment, methods, procedures and requirements, where necesary, are available.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

4. Weights and Measures Studies.—Comment was received

from the Western Association that various jurisdictions were

conducting studies in a number of measurement areas. It was

241
their view that the NCWM S & T Committee could best serve as

a clearinghouse on device studies; and with the cooperation of

all weights and measures jurisdictions and industry, duplication

of effort could be prevented and assistance could be provided. A

form entitled "Report of Device Study Underway" was included

and copies were available at the Conference.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

5. Weighing Household Goods When Moving.—At its interim

meeting the committee heard a presentation by Mr. Charles Coon

of the American Movers Conference requesting consideration for

increased tolerances when weighing household goods. This request was made to recognize on-board weighing systems which are not

technically capable of meeting the existing tolerances for motor

vehicle scales. It was the committee's recommendation that this

item be brought to the attention of the Conference.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

The committee expresses its appreciation to all who have con- tributed to and participated in the committee deliberations. The

committee urges all weights and measures officials and other

affected parties to promptly communicate with the committee on

all matters of concern. It is only in this manner that the committee can consider all problems and fully evaluate all situations

prior to issuing its reports.

T. F. Brink, Chairman, Vermont

W. E. CzAiA, Minnesota

M. L. KiNLAV^, North Carolina

K. J. SiMiLA, Oregon

W. S. Watson, California

0. K. Warnlof, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. WOLLIN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances

(Mr. Brink moved for adoption; and after a second from the floor, the report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by voice vote.) (On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the Conference by voice vote authorized the executive secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, provided

that the requirements thus adopted are strictly adhered to.)

242
REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Presented by J. H. Lewis, Chairman,

Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Dairy and Food Division,

Washington Department of Agriculture

(Wednesday, July 10, 1974)

The Executive Committee of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures met

in open session on Monday, July 8, 1974, at 1:00 P.M. The following items were presented for consideration and action by this

Conference

1. Plans for the 60th National Conference.—The plan and general arrangements

for the 60th National Conference on Weights

and Measures were reviewed and include the

following principal features

Site : San Diego, California

Hotel : Sheraton Harbor Island Hotel

Dates : July 13-18, 1975

Rates : Single $22 ; double $27 ; suites are available

in the price range of $50 and up.

Other arrangements are open. An unusually large attendance is anticipated.

2. Future Conference Sites.—Since it is necessary to make

plans for future meetings of the National Conference several

years in advance, the committee recommends that the executive

secretary proceed with arrangements according to the following

schedule and details:

1976: July 10-16—Washington, D.C . Shoreham Americana Hotel

"Bicentennial Year" with special events

1977: State of Texas (site selection and arrangements

to be made)

3. Program Format.—The committee is in agreement that the

program for the 60th National Conference (1975) should follow

243
the general format that was established for this Conference

meeting. It is recommended that foreign speakers be included in

the Conference program to broaden the input in metrication and

OIML related activities.

The committee would like to encourage members of the Conference to send in their suggestions as to program speakers,

topics, schedules, and related matters to the executive secretary

so that such suggestions may be considered by the incoming

Executive Committee in the development of the program for next

year.

4. Committee on Metric Planning.—A Committee on Metric

Planning was established as a result of action which occurred

during the interim committee meetings January 29 through February 1, 1974. The committee consists of all members of the

Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government and, in addition, G. Johnson, Kentucky; J. Lewis,, Washington; and G. Mattimoe, Hawaii. The committee will serve for a period of two years.

5. Report of the Associate Membership Committee.—As is a customary procedure, the Executive Committee called on the

Associate Membership Committee for its report. The following

report was presented by Mr. John Speer, committee chairman:

The Associate Membership Committee held its semi-annual

meeting at the Holiday Inn in Gaithersburg, Maryland during the

interim Conference meeetings in January 1974. The committee

would like to compliment the officers and staff for the excellent

interim meetings, particularly the Special Session dealing with

metrication. As an outgrowth of the session, at this annual meeting the Conference should be better able to deal with issues and

problems concerning metrication which would normally have been

passed on to a following Conference.

The Associate Membership Committee is pleased to continue

hosting a reception for all Conference attendees. It serves an important purpose of providing an informal atmosphere for the

exchange of views and thoughts on a myriad of issues.

At the general meeting a proposal was made to have the Associate Membership Committee prepare a questionnaire which could

be used by associate members in evaluating the annual Conference. It should be pointed out that such an evaluation sheet would

not speak to the issues and programs of the Conference, but

rather the scheduling of meetings throughout the week. The

Associate Membership Committee would be pleased to make avail244
able any expertise it may have in the selection of subjects and

speakers for the annual Conference.

During the year the Associate Membership Committee lost a very valuable and trusted friend, C. W. "Chuck" Campbell. Chuck,

w^ho for many years gave much of himself to the operation of the

Conference, passed away suddenly this spring. Chuck was admired not only for his accomplishments and contributions to the

National Conference on Weights and Measures but, more importantly, for his dedication and strength of character.

6. Other Items.—The committee recommends that the executive secretary be empowered to appoint a committee which could

assist in developing special activities related to the bicentennial

year Conference.

The committee wishes to thank those delegates who attended

the open meeting session and offered suggestions and comments

on the items under consideration.

J. H. Lew^is, Chairman

L. H. DeGrange

L. D. Draghetti

G. E. Mattimoe

W. R. Sevier

C. C. Morgan

J. I. Moore

R. E. Bowers

A. W. Fenger

G. S. Franks

E. Keeley

R. K. LORENZ

N. M. Ross

H. E. Sandel

J. C. Stewart

C. WOOTEN

E. H. Black

G. L. Johnson

H. F. WOLLIN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Executive Committee

(Mr. Lewis moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the report of the Executive Committee was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by voice vote.)

245
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS

Presented by George L. Johnson, Chairvian, Director, Division

of Weights and Measures, Kentucky Department of Agriculture

(Thursday, July 11, 1974)

The Committee on Nominations met on Wednesday, July 10, 1974, for the purpose

of selecting a slate of nominees for all elec- tive offices and for the ten elective memberships of the Executive Committee. In the

selection of nominees from the active membership, consideration was given to attend- ance records, geographical distribution,

Conference participation, and other factors

deemed by the committee to be important.

The Committee on Nominations submits

the following names in nomination for office to serve during the

ensuing year and at the 60th National Conference on Weights

and Measures:

Chairman: S. D. Andrews, Florida.

Vice Chairmen: J. G. Gustafson, Minneapolis, Minnesota; E. Prideaux, Colorado; H. D. Robinson, Maine; H. E. Sandal,

San Bernardino County, California.

Treasurer: C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana.

Chaplain: J. I. Moore, North Carolina.

Executive Committee: C. P. Conrad, New Jersey; J. A. Etzkorn, South Dakota; E. Hanish, LaPorte County, Indiana;

W. B. Harper, Birmingham, Alabama; F. D. Morgan, Utah;

P. E. Nichols, Alameda County, California; L. P. Romano,

Monroe County, New York ; R. F. Schulmeister, New Mexico

R. A. Tharalson, Minnesota; E. Whitesides, Texas.

G. L. Johnson, Chairman, Kentucky

E. H. Black, Ventura County, California

J. C. Boyd, Iowa

S. H. Christie, New Jersey

G. L. Delano, Montana

J. F. Lyles, Virginia

C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana

Committee on Nominations

246
(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.) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS

Presented by William H. Korth, Chairman, Director, Weights

and Measures, Consumer Affairs, Ventura County, California

(Thursday, July 11, 1974)

The Committee on Resolutions wishes to express the appreciation of the 59th National Conference on Weights and Measures

to all who contributed in any way toward

the conduct of a successful meeting. A

special vote of thanks is extended to the

following

1. To Dr. Richard W. Roberts, Director

of the National Bureau of Standards, for

his active support and recognition of the

importance of weights and measures administration in the United States.

2. To Dr. Arthur 0. McCoubrey, Director, Institute for Basic

Standards, National Bureau of Standards, for his very interesting and informative address and his participation in the Conference Honor Awards Ceremony.

3. To the Honorable Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce,

for her excellent keynote address and interest in the concerns of

the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

4. To the Honorable Bernard Athane, Director, International

Bureau of Legal Metrology, and the Honorable James A. Servin,

Warden of Standards, Australia, who traveled to the United

States for the express purpose of addressing the National Conference on Weights and Measures and whose presentations were

outstanding.

5. To all speakers of the Conference for their valuable contributions to the program.

6. To all officers and appointed officials of the 59th National

Conference on Weights and Measures for their valuable service

and contributions to the functioning of an orderly and successful

Conference program.

7. To all committee members for having given generously of

their time and efforts during the year and in the preparation and

presentation of their reports.

247
8. To the governing officials of all state and local jurisdictions

for their manifest interest in the progress of weights and measures administration in the United States.

9. To representatives of business and industry for their liberal

cooperation and hospitality.

10. To the management and staff of the Shoreham Americana

Hotel for their fine facilities and many courtesies which contributed to the enjoyment and comfort of the delegates.

11. To the National Bureau of Standards, and in particular the

staff of the Office of Weights and Measures, for planning and

administering the many details involved in the work and program

of the National Conference.

The following resolutions are presented in their entirety for

consideration of the members of the Conference:

Adoption and Use of the International System of Units (SI)

Whereas the United States of America is moving toward the implementation of the International System of Units (SI) of weights and measures; and

Whereas the Congress of the United States has not enacted appropriate

legislation, which the National Conference on Weights and Measures con- tinues to support and encourage; and

Whereas the use of the International System of Units (SI) together with

the customary system in net content labeling of all commodity packaging for

private, public, and commercial consumption and use becomes an excellent avenue for associative learning of the International System of Units (SI)

and

Whereas government departments and agencies on all levels, businesses,

industries, and institutions can render a vital service of education by encour- aging use of both systems in (for example) labeling, statistical reporting,

blueprints, and engineering; and

Whereas the use of dual systems of weights and measures provides the appropriate opportunity for getting our nation and its jurisdictional subdivisions into the logical second step of conversion where there would be

legal equality of the two systems of weights and measures: Therefore be it Resolved, That the National Conference on Weights and Measures strongly

recommends that member jurisdictions secure appropriate modification of laws, statutes, regulations, and ordinances to provide and secure the equality

of the International System of Units (SI) with the customary system of weights and measures and to allow and make legal the International System

of Units (SI) for all matters in which it is in the best national interest.

Adoption and Use of a National Sampling Procedure

Whereas the federal agencies of the United States of America have pre- empted many sectors of the package labeling field; and

Whereas these federal agencies have, or are developing, sampling plans

and procedures in their various areas of responsibility; and

Whereas these numerous sampling procedures will result in confusion in the packaging industry and a significant decline in local enforcement; and

Whereas this will limit the flexibility of local agencies in the exercising

of concurrent jursdiction; and

Whereas the primary purpose of package sampling is consumer protection:

Therefore be it Resolved, That the National Conference on Weights and Measures strongly

recommends that the Federal Government of the United States take the immediate and necessary steps to proclaim:

248

(
1. that it is the responsibility of the National Bureau of Standards to approve and publish a single national sampling procedure for all packaged commodities;

2. that the National Bureau of Standards is to solicit recommendations

from other federal agencies, state, county, and city weights and measures officials, industry representatives, and consumer groups in the development of a national sampling procedure; and

3. that the national interest would best be served by the application of a

single sampling procedure on all products throughout the entire chain

of distribution.

Request that the Secretary of Agriculture

Defer Action on Proposed Net Weight Labeling Regulations

Whereas the 59th National Conference on Weights and Measures convened

in Washington, D.C. in general assembly July 7-12; and

Whereas the National Conference on Weights and Measures is composed

of members of every State, the Commonwealths, and a myriad of local jurisdictions; and

Whereas the constituent members of the National Conference represent

the national community of weights and measures, whose personnel, expertise, and responsibility have been long established at State level; and

Whereas the USDA has, without adequate consultation with the weights

and measures community, published proposed regulations in the Federal

Register; and

Whereas the Secretary of Agriculture has now before him these regulations which, without further publication, exposure, or consultation, he may

promulgate; and

Whereas there exists a preponderance of evidence that these regulations

will, in fact, derogate from recommendations of this Conference's Model

Law and, in fact, be detrimental to the consumer's best interest: Therefore

be it Resolved, That this Conference go on record in opposition to any proposal,

however amended, which provides for less than equitable treatment for the packer and the consumer alike; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of Agriculture defer any action on the regulations currently under consideration until such time as the weights and

measures community has had adequate input and effective consultation which will result in a consensus and provide the public with a practical

program, equitable to all; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of Agriculture, in recognition of the expertise, equipment, and personnel existing in the weights and measures community, be respectfully requested to communicate with this group prior to and in anticipation of the publication of any proposed regulations involving

any consumer commodity; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of this Conference be instructed to supply

copies of this resolution to President Nixon, Secretary of Agriculture Butz,

Under Secretary Feltner, and each of the Congressional delegates to Congress.

W. H. KORTH, Chairman, Ventura County, California

N. BUCUR, Lake County, Indiana

R. H. Helmick, Arizona

W. F. JUNKINS, Pennsylvania

T. E. KiRBY, Georgia

D. L. Lynch, Kansas City, Kansas

W. J. TUSEN, New Hampshire

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.)

249
REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Presented by W. B. Harper, Chairman, Chief Inspector,

Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Inspection

Services, Birmingham, Alabama

(Thursday, July 11, 1974)

The Auditing Committee on the 59th National Conference on Weights and Measures

met on Wednesday, July 10, 1974, for the

purpose of reviewing the financial records

of the Conference treasurer, C. C. Morgan.

The committee finds these records to be in

accordance with the Conference procedure

and correct.

W. B. Harper, Chairman, Birmingham, Alabama

W. M. Baker, Missouri

R. W. Probst, Wisconsin

R. N. Smith, Staff Assistant, NBS

Committee on Auditing

(On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the report

of the Auditing Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

REPORT OF THE TREASURER

Presented by C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Gary, Indiana

(Thursday, July 11, 1974)

250
Balance on hand July 1, 1973 $ 3,141.13

RECEIPTS

Registrations (407 at $25.00) $10,175.00

Committee Meetings 1,020.00

Subtotal 11,195.00

Total $14,336.13

DISBURSEMENTS

Marine Enterprises Inc. $ 225.00

Robert Williams 25.00

Artcraft Press Inc. 102.68

Radisson Hotel Master Account 2,129.77

Joe Jung, Orchestra 365.00

IBM Typewriters—Rental 87.00

S & A Lines 180.00

Committee on Liaison with the Federal

Government 1,881.64

Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances 1,772.60

Committee on Laws and Regulations 1,269.93

Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs 1,460.39

Stamps 10.00

Franklin Press, Printing 94.50

James Akey, Film and Flashbulbs (cash) 36.00

Reception, Registration, Hotel Expense

(cash) 298.50

Bank Service Charges 9.89

Subtotal 9,947.90

Balance on hand July 1, 1974 $ 4,388.23

Depository: Bank of Indiana

(Signed) C. C. Morgan, Treasurer

(On motion of the treasurer, seconded from the floor, the Report of the Treasurer was adopted by the Conference.)

251
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

State, City, and County

Weights and Measures Officials ALABAMA

State John B. Rabb, Metrologist, Weights and Measures

Division, P. 0. Box 3336, Montgomery 36109

(Tel. 205: 269-7722)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Birmingham 35203 W. B. Harper, Chief, Weights and Measures, City

Hall, Room 207 (Tel. 205: 252-0251)

Huntsville 35801 T. E. Morgan, Chief, Weights and Measures,

Huntsville Field, Airport Road

(Tel. 205: 883-8332)

ARIZONA

State Raymond H. Helmick, State Inspector, Department of Weights and Measures, 2980 Grand Avenue, Phoenix 85017 (Tel. 602: 271-5211)

ARKANSAS

State Sam F. Hindsman, Director, Weights and Measures, Department of Commerce, 4608 W. 61st

Street, Little Rock 72209 (Tel. 501: 371-1759)

Billy W. Sullivant, Metrologist

CALIFORNIA

State Walter S. Watson, Chief, Division of Measure- ment Standards, Department of Food and Agriculture, 8500 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento 95826

(Tel. 916: 445-7001)

Herbert Cohen, Administrative Adviser, Department of Food and Agriculture, 1220 N Street, Room 104, Sacramento 95814 (Tel. 916:445-6429)

County Weights and Measures Officials: Alameda Patrick E. Nichols, Sealer, Weights and Measures,

333 Fifth St., Oakland 94607 (Tel. 415: 874-6736) Los Angeles M. H. Becker, Director, Weights and Measures,

3200 North Main Street, Los Angeles 90031

(Tel. 213: 225-1357)

Orange William Fitchen, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

1010 South Harbor Blvd., Anaheim 92805

(Tel. 714: 774-0284)

Riverside Joseph W. Jones, Director, Weights and Measures,

2950 Washington Street, Riverside 92504

(Tel. 714: 787-2620)

San Bernardino H. E. Sandel, Director, Weights and Measures &

Consumer Affairs, 160 East Sixth Street, San

Bernardino 92415 (Tel. 714: 383-1411)

San Joaquin Thomas H. Ladd, Director of Weights and Measures, P. 0. Box 407, Stockton 95201

(Tel. 209: 982-4532)

San Mateo H. E. "Gene" Smith, Director, Weights and Measures, 702 Chestnut Street, Redwood City 94063

(Tel. 415: 364-5600, Ext. 2227) Santa Clara Robert W. Horger, Director, Department of Weights and Measures & Consumer Affairs, 1555 Berger Drive, San Jose 95112 (Tel. 408: 299-2105)

252
Ventura Everett H. Black, Administrator, Consumer Protection Agency, 666 El Rio Drive, Oxnard 93030

(Tel. 805: 487-5511, Ext. 4460)

William H. Korth, Director, Weights and Measures, 608 El Rio Drive, Oxnard 93030

(Tel. 805: 487-5511, Ext. 4378)

COLORADO

State Earl Prideaux, Chief, Weights and Measures, De- partment of Agriculture, 3125 Wyandot, Denver

80211 (Tel. 303: 892-2845)

Milton D. Schneider, State Inspector of Oils, Colorado Division of Labor, 1024 Speer Blvd., Denver 80203 (Tel. 303. 892-2096)

CONNECTICUT

State John Bennett, Chief, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Consumer Protection, State

Office Building, Hartford 06115

(Tel. 203: 566-4778)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Hartford 06103 John Mokrycki, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

550 Main Street (Tel. 203: 566-6457)

Middletown 06457 GUY J. TOMMASI, Sealer, City Hall

(Tel. 203: 347-4671)

Stamford 06901 Alfons Koziol, Sealer, City Hall

(Tel. 203: 348-5841, Ext. 274)

DELAWARE

State Eugene Keeley, Supervisor, Office of Weights and

Measures, Division of Standards and Inspections,

Department of Agriculture, Drawer D, Dover

19901 (Tel. 302: 678-4824)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

District Kenneth G. Hayden, Chief, Division of Weights

and Measures, Bureau of Building, Housing, and

Zoning, Department of Economic Development,

1110 U St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20020

(Tel. 202: 629-4662)

David K. Forbes, Supervisor

FLORIDA

State Sydney D. Andrews, Director, Division of Standards, Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services, Mayo Building, Tallahassee 32304

(Tel. 904: 877-8161, Ext. 146)

Council Wooten, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures (Tel. 904: 877-8161, Ext. 112)

Stan J. Darsey, Assistant Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures County Weights and Measures Officials: Dade John C. Mays, Director, Consumer Protection Division, 1399 N.W. 17th Avenue, Miami 33125

(Tel. 305: 377-5111)

GEORGIA

State Thomas E. Kirby, Director, Weights and Measures

Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Forest Park 30349 (Tel. 404: 361-6764)

253
0. D. MULLINAX, Director of Fuel and Measures,

Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Building,

Capitol Square, Atlanta 30334

(Tel. 404: 656-3605)

HAWAII

State George E. Mattimoe, Deputy Director of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 1428

S. King Street, P. 0. Box 5425, Honolulu 96814

(Tel. 808: 941-3071)

IDAHO

State Lyman D. Holloway, Supervisor, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 2126 Warm Springs Avenue, Boise 83702

(Tel, 208: 384-2345)

ILLINOIS

State MuRViL D. Harpster, Chief, Bureau of Products

Inspection and Standards, Department of Agriculture, 531 E. Sangamon Avenue, Springfield

62706 (Tel. 217: 782-7655)

Russell Ogg, FSS Inspector II, Bureau of Products

Inspection and Standards

City Weights and Measures Ofiicials: Chicago 60602 Theodore R. Heller, Supervising Consumer Service Officer, Department of Consumer Sales,

Weights and Measures, Room 808, City Hall, 121 North La Salle Street (Tel. 312: 744-4092)

Herbert Riederer, Supervising Consumer Service

Officer Joseph Silka, Consumer Service Officer II INDIANA

State Lorenzo A. Gredy, Director, Weights and Measures, State Board of Health, 1330 West Michigan

Street, Indianapolis 46206 (Tel. 317: 633-6860)

John E. Basham, Supervisor, Sanitary Bedding

Section, Division of Weights and Measures

County Weights and Measures Officials: Clark Robert W. Walker, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, City-County Building, Room 314, Jeffersonville 47130 (Tel. 812: 283-4451)

Gibson W. R. Sevier, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Court House Annex, Princeton 47670

(Tel. 812: 385-2426)

Grant George W. Sharp, Deputy Director of Weights and

Measures, Grant County Courthouse, Marion

46952 (Tel. 317: 664-9974)

Lake Nicholas Bucur, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

400 North Lake Park Avenue, Apt. 10, Oxford

West, Hobart 46342 (Tel. 219: 942-4455)

La Porte Edwin Hanish, Inspector of Weights and Measures, 2702 Franklin Street, Michigan City 46360

(Tel. 219: 879-9486)

Madison Charles W. Moore, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Madison County Government Building,

Lapel 46051 (Tel. 317: 534-3328)

Marshall Gordon Schultz, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Route #1, Bremen 46506

(Tel. 219: 546-2949)

254
Monroe Hal B. Rayborn, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Box 13, Bloomington 47401

(Tel. 812: 336-5881)

St. Joseph Chester S. Zmudzinski, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, County/City Building, 227 W. Jefferson

Blvd., South Bend 46601 (Tel. 219: 284-9751)

Tippecanoe Webster McMurry, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, P. 0. Box 444, LaFayette 47902

(Tel. 317: 742-0626)

Vigo Robert J. Silcock, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Room 4, Court House, Terre Haute 47801

(Tel. 812: 232-5746)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Anderson 46011 Earl Gadberry, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Anderson City Offices, P. 0. Box 2100

(Tel. 317: 646-5814) East Chicago 46312 Thad A. BOGUSZ, Inspector of Weights and Measures, 4713 Northcote Avenue (Tel. 219: 397-0073)

Gary 46407 C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall Annex East, 1100 Massachusetts Street

(Tel. 219: 944-6566)

Indianapolis 46204 Frank L. Brugh, Administrator of Weights and

Measures, Room G-6, City-County Building

(Tel. 317: 633-3733)

James M. Douglas, Deputy Inspector

Ralph Hannah, Deputy Inspector Joe Roberts, Deputy Inspector

Mishawaka 46544 George W. Staffeldt, Sealer, City Hall

(Tel. 219: 255-2281)

New Albany 47150 Edward G. Silver, Inspector, City-County Building, Room 325 P. 0. Box 362 (Tel. 812: 945-5357)

Joseph F. Waddington, Inspector

South Bend 46621 Bert S. Cichowicz, Sealer, 701 W. Sample Street

(Tel. 219: 284-9294)

IOWA

State J. Clair Boyd, Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Division, Department of Agriculture, Capitol

Building, Des Moines 50319 (Tel. 515: 281-5716)

KANSAS

State John L. O'Neill, Sealer, Weights and Measures

Division, State Board of Agriculture, State Office Building, Topeka 66612 (Tel. 913: 296-3846)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Kansas City 66101 Donald L. Lynch, Chief, Weights and Measures,

Municipal Office Building, 701 North 7th Street

(Tel. 913: 371-2000, Ext. 212)

KENTUCKY

State George L. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 106 West Second Street, Frankfort 40601

(Tel. 502: 564-4870)

Gilbert C. Wallace, Supervisor

Virgil A. Price, Supervisor, Weights and Measures,

1055 Legion Park Road, Greensburg 42743

(Tel. 502: 932-4983)

LOUISIANA

State Charles S. Johnson, Assistant Director of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 44292, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge 70804

(Tel. 504: 389-5168)

255
MAINE

State Harlon D. Robinson, Deputy State Sealer, Bureau

of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, State Office Building, Augusta 04330

(Tel. 207: 289-3841)

Gaylon Kennedy, Metrologist

MARYLAND

State Richard L. Thompson, Chief, Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, University of Maryland, Symons Hall, Room 3205, College Park

20742 (Tel. 391: 454-3551)

Lacy H. DeGrange, Field Supervisor

County Weights and Measures Officials: Montgomery Paul L. Peterson, Chief, Weights and Measures

Unit, 6110 Executive Blvd., Rockville 20852

(Tel. 301: 279-1443)

Prince George's Robert J. Cord, Chief, Weights and Measures Division, County Service Building, Hyattsville 20781

(Tel. 301: 779-3850)

Melvin L. Matthews, Deputy Inspector

Roy D. O'Connor, Deputy Inspector

MASSACHUSETTS

State Eovv^ARD H. Stadolnik, Head Administrative Assistant, Division of Standards, Executive Office of Consumer Affairs, State House, Room 194, Boston

02133 (Tel. 617: 727-3482)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Agawam 01001 Louis D. Draghetti, Inspector, 36 Main Street

(Tel. 413: 786-0400)

Everett 02149 Lawrence L. Elliott, Inspector, Room 27, City Hall

(Tel. 617: 389-2100, Ext. 20 and 21)

Fitchburg 01420 Wilfred T. Deloge, Inspector, City Hall, Main

Street (Tel. 617: 343-7012)

New Bedford 02740 Frank E. Przybyszewski, Deputy Sealer, 306 Liberty Street (Tel. 617: 993-2454)

Plymouth 02360 David Montanari, Sealer, 35 Davis Street

(Tel. 617: 746-0556)

MICHIGAN

State Ronald M. Leach, Chief, Food Inspection Division,

Department of Agriculture, Lewis Cass Building, 5th Floor, Lansing 48913 (Tel. 517: 373-1060)

Jack Hartzell, General Supervisor

Raymond Hankey, Food Inspector, 12481 15 Mile

Road, Marshall 49068 (Tel. 616: 781-3448)

County Weights and Measures Officials: Washtenaw Robert Harter, Director, Department of Weights

and Measures, 4133 Washtenaw, Ann Arbor 48104

(Tel. 313: 971-6054)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Dearborn 48120 James A. Hughes, Director of Licenses, Weights

and Measures, 2951 Greenfield Road

(Tel. 313: 548-8501)

MINNESOTA

State Warren E. Czaia, Director Division of Weights

and Measures, Department of Public Service, 1015 Currie Avenue, Minneapolis 55403

(Tel. 612: 333-3249)

256
Ray a. Tharalson, Supervisor Inspector

Arvid W. Fencer, Senior Weights and Measures

Inspector

Marlowe C. Axell, Supervisor, 520 North 19th Avenue, East, Duluth 55812 (Tel. 218: 724-5373)

Allan Erie, Inspector, Box 105, Clarkfield 56223

(Tel. 612: 669-7321)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Minneapolis 55415 John G. Gustap^son, Director of Consumer Services

and Licenses, Room lOlA, City Hall

(Tel. 612: 348-2080)

MISSISSIPPI

State Joe B. Hardy, Jr., Director, Consumer Protection

Division, Department of Agriculture and Commerce, State Office Bldg., P. 0. Box 1609, Jackson

39205 (Tel. 601: 354-6258)

MISSOURI

State J. W. Abbott, Director, Weights and Measures,

Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 630, Jeffer- son City 65101 (Tel. 314: 751-3440)

William M. Baker, Program Supervisor, Weights

and Measures Division

City Weights and Measures Officials:

St. Louis 63104 Daniel I. Offner, Commissioner of Weights and

Measures, 1220 Carr Lane Avenue, Room 145

(Tel. 314: 453-3251)

MONTANA

State Gary L. Delano, Administrator, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Business

Regulation, 804 North Main, Helena 59601

(Tel. 406: 449-3163, Ext. 8) NEBRASKA

State Roger Sandman, Assistant Director, Department

of Agriculture, P. O. Box 94695, State House Station, Lincoln 68509 (Tel. 402: 471-2341)

Steve Malone, Administrator, Weights and Measures (Tel. 402: 471-2536)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Omaha 68102 Norman M. Ross, Chief, Weights and Measures

Section, City Hall, 108 South 18th Street

(Tel. 402: 341-8122, Ext. 245)

NEW HAMPSHIRE

State Walter J. Tusen, Chief Inspector, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Division of Markets and

Standards, Department of Agriculture, State House Annex, Concord 03301 (Tel. 603 : 271-3700)

NEW JERSEY

State Samuel H. Christie, Jr., State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Division of Consumer

Affairs, Department of Law and Public Safety, 187 W. Hanover Street, Trenton 08625

(Tel. 609: 292-4615)

James R. Bird, Deputy State Superintendent

Carl P. Conrad, Jr., Supervisor of Licensing

257
County Weights and Measures Officials: Bergen James A. Pollock, Superintendent, Weights and

Measures, 66 Zabriskie Street, Hackensack 07601

(Tel. 201: 646-2729)

Burlington Earl D. Gaskill, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, 54 Grant Street, Mount Holly 08060

(Tel. 609: 267-3300, Ext. 210)

Camden A. J. Francesconi, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Room 306, Camden 08101

(Tel. 609: 964-0242)

Cape May A. David Gidding, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, 6807 Seaview Avenue, Wildwood Crest 08260 (Tel. 609: 522-4861)

Cumberland George S. Franks, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, 800 East Commerce Street, Bridgeton

08302 (Tel. 609: 451-8000, Ext. 296)

Nicholas Dimarco, Deputy Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Court House, Bridgeton

08302 (Tel. 609: 451-8000, Ext. 296) Essex William C. Lesino, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, 520 Belleville Ave., Belleville 07109

(Tel. 201: 961-7633)

Gloucester Robert J. Morris, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, County Building, 49 Wood Street, Woodbury 08096 (Tel. 609: 845-1600)

Joseph Silvestro, Assistant Superintendent Mercer Ralph M. Bodenweiser, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Administration Building, 640 S. Broad Street, Trenton 08607 (Tel. 609: 989-8000)

Middlesex John M. Chohamin, Superintendent, Department

of Weights and Measures, 103 Bayard Street, New Brunswick 08901 (Tel. 201: 246-6297)

Monmouth William I. Thompson, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Hall of Records, Freehold 07728

(Tel. 201: 431-4000, Ext. 401)

Warren Gerald E. Connolly, Superintendent, Court House,

Belvidere 07823 (Tel. 201: 475-5087)

James P. Burns, Deputy Superintendent

City Weights and Measures Officials: Kearny 07032 James Pollock, Municipal Superintendent, Town

Hall, 402 Kearny Avenue (Tel. 201: 991-2700) Paterson 07505 William J. Kehoe, Superintendent, 115 Van Houten

Street (Tel. 201: 684-3430) Trenton 08608 Richard J. Boney, Superintendent, Trenton Civic Center, Armory Drive (Tel. 609: 392-3341, Ext.

360)

NEW MEXICO

State Richard F. Schulmeister, Inspector and Metrologist. Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 3170, Las Cruces 88003

(Tel. 505: 646-1616)

NEW YORK

State J. F. Tucker, Director, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture and Markets, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany 12226

(Tel. 518: 457-3452)

NORTH CAROLINA

State John I. Moore, Superintendent, Division of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 27647, Raleigh 27611 (Tel. 919: 829-3313)

258
Marion L. Kinlaw, Supervisor

Parley B. Rasmussen, Chemist (Tel. 904:425-2044)

Ray DeWitt Sigmon, Gasoline and Oil Inspector,

Department of Agriculture, 321 McClure Circle, Charlotte 28216 (Tel. 704: 392-5682)

OHIO

State Mark R. List, Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture, 9000 E. Main Street, Reynoldsburg

43068 (Tel. 614: 866-6361)

RojER E. Bowers, Chief, Division of Weights and

Measures

County Weights and Measures Officials: Clark James S. Powers, Sr., Inspector of Weights and

Measures, County Building, P. 0. Box 1325,

Springfield 45502 (Tel. 513: 324-5871)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Akron 44304 Anthony J. Ladd, Superintendent of Weights and Measures & Consumer Protection, 69 North Union

Street (Tel. 216: 375-2612)

Cleveland 44113 John S. Pilch, Commissioner, Markets, Weights

and Measures, West Side Market, 1979 West 25th

Street (Tel. 216: 694-3386)

Dayton 45402 Leon Miller, Sealer, 960 Ottawa Street

(Tel. 513: 225-5304)

OKLAHOMA

State H. K. Sharp, Assistant Director, Marketing Division, Department of Agriculture, 122 Capitol

Building, Oklahoma City 73105

(Tel. 405: 521-3861)

OREGON

State K. J. SiMiLA, Program Director, Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture

Building, Salem 97310 (Tel. 503: 378-3792)

PENNSYLVANIA

State Dean F. Ely, Metrologist and Weights and Measures Supervisor, Bureau of 'Standard Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 2301 N. Cameron Street, Harrisburg 17120

(Tel. 717: 787-9089)

Ronald R. Roof, Metrologist (Tel. 717: 787-6426)

County Weights and Measures Officials: Allegheny Walter D. Scott, Chief Inspector, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Room 4, Court House,

Pittsburgh 15219 (Tel. 412: 355-4480)

City Weights and Measures Officials: AUentown 18103 Arnold L. Heilman, Jr., Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 302 Gordon Street (Tel. 215: 437-7770)

Philadelphia 19107 Sam F. Valtri, Chief, Weights and Measures, Room

622, City Hall Annex (Tel. 215: 686-3475)

Cornelius E. McHugh, Field Supervisor

(Tel. 215: 686-3474)

PUERTO RICO

Maximiliano Trujillo, Assistant Secretary,

Weights and Measures Division, Bureau of Enforcement, Department of Consumer Affairs,

P. O. Box 13934, Santurce 00908

(Tel. 809: 724-6565 or 725-7555)

Puerto Rico

259
RHODE ISLAND

State Edward R. Fisher, Administrator, MercantileWeights and Measures Division, Department of Labor, 235 Promenade Street, Providence 02908

(Tel. 401: 277-2758)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Providence 02907 Joseph E. D'Elena, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Casino, Roger Williams Park

(Tel. 401: 421-7740)

SOUTH CAROLINA

State C. T. Smith, Director of Consumer Protection, De- partment of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 11280, Columbia 29211 (Tel. 803: 758-2426)

E. W. Ballentine, Executive Assistant

John V. Pugh, Metrologist

D. D. Morrison, Consumer Specialist

SOUTH DAKOTA

State James A. Etzkorn, Heavy Scales Supervisor, Con- sumer Protection Division, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, State Capitol Building, Pierre 57501 (Tel. 605: 224-3242)

TENNESSEE

State Dale Wilkinson, Director, Division of Marketing,

Department of Agriculture, Melrose Station, Box

40627, Nashville 37204 (Tel. 615: 741-1561)

TEXAS

State : Robert T. Williams, Director of Programs, De- partment of Agriculture, Box 12847 Capitol Station, Stephen F. Austin Building, Austin 78711

(Tel. 512: 475-3140)

Ed Whitesides, Director, Consumer Services Division, Department of Agriculture, Box 12847 Capitol Station, John Reagan Building, Austin 78711

(Tel. 512: 475-4304)

Charles E. Forester, Supervisor

(Tel. 512: 475-6577)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Dallas 75201 Charles H. Vincent, Director, Department of Con- sumer Affairs, City Hall (Tel. 214: 748-9711)

James C. Blackwood, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures, Department of Consumer Affairs, 1500

W. Mockingbird, Room 408, Dallas 75235

(Tel. 214: 630-1111, Ext. 421)

UTAH

State Fred D. Morgan, Supervisor of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Room 412, State

Capitol, Salt Lake City 84114 (Tel. 801 : 328-5421)

VERMONT

State Trafford F. Brink, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 116

State Street, State Office Building, Montpelier

05602 (Tel. 802: 828-2436)

260
VIRGIN ISLANDS

Virgin Islands Joanna P. Lindquist, Director, Consumer Services

Administration, 4AB Strand Street, Royal Strand

Building, Christiansted, St. Croix 00820

(Tel. 809: 773-2226)

Lionel A. Hendricks, Sr., Deputy Director, #2

East Street (Tel. 809: 773-2226)

Vegon Jones, Chief Inspector, DeCastro Building,

Third Street, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Vir- gin Islands 00801 (Tel. 809: 774-3130)

Henry A. Thompson, Inspector

VIRGINIA

State J. F. Lyles, Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Section, Division of Product and Industry Regulation, Department of Agriculture and Commerce,

1 North 14th Street, Room 032, Richmond 23219

(Tel. 804: 770-2476)

J. C. Stewart, Assistant Supervisor

0. T. Almarode, Field Supervisor

Dennis Williams, Inspector

Robert L. Sink, Inspector

Marion W. Cain, Metrologist

County Weights and Measures Officials: Arlington James P. Noonan, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Arlington County Courthouse, Room 207, Arlington 22201 (Tel. 703: 558-2343)

Fairfax D. C. Hughes, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Department of Consumer Affairs, 4100 Chain

Bridge Road, Fairfax 22030 (Tel. 703: 691-2388)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Alexandria 22313 Louis W. Vezina, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Finance Department, Tax Enforcement Division,

P. O. Box 178, City Hall (Tel. 703: 750-6241)

Danville 24541 Clyde A. Shumate, Sealer of Weights and Measures, P. 0. Box 3300 (Tel. 804: 792-9211)

Richmond 23219 Andrew^ B. Moody, Jr., Senior Inspector of Weights

and Measures, Safety-Health-Welfare Building,

Room 130, 501 North Ninth Street

(Tel. 804: 649-4208)

William Alvis, Inspector

Michael P. Gleason, Inspector

Virginia Beach 23456 _-J. N. McClanan, Consumer Protection Officer, Virginia Beach Municipal Center

(Tel. 804: 427-4421)

J. F. Zegan, Inspector

WASHINGTON

State John H. Lew^is, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Dairy and Food Division, Department of Agriculture, 406 General Administration Building, Olympia 98504 (Tel. 206: 753-5042)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Seattle 98104 William C. Sullivan, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures, 104 Municipal Building

(Tel. 206: 583-2950)

WISCONSIN

State Robert W. Probst, Director, Bureau of Standards,

Division of Food and Standards, Department of Agriculture, 801 West Badger Road, Madison

53713 (Tel. 608: 266-7241)

261
City Weights and Measures Officials: Sheboygan 53081 Roland K. Lorenz, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 1208 South Eighth Street

(Tel. 414: 457-5011, Ext. 47)

West Allis 53214 Ronald M. Buege, Supervisor of Weights and Measures, West Allis Health Department, 7220 West

National Avenue (Tel. 414: 476-3770)

Manufacturers, Industry, and Business

American Can Company

William H. Marks, Supervisor, Dixie Technical Support, 333 North Commercial Street, Neenah, Wisconsin 54956 (Tel. 414: 722-4211, Ext. 5509)

American Corn Millers Federation

Fred H. Mewhinney, Executive Director, 1030 15th Street, N.W., Washington, B.C. 20005 (Tel. 202: 296-5488)

American Paper Institute William V. Driscoll, Manager, Tissue Division, 260 Madison Avenue,

New York, New York 10016 (Tel. 212: 889-6200)

American Petroleum Institute Wallace N. Seward, Assistant to the Vice President, Industry Affairs, 1801 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202: 833-5660)

R. SOUTHERS, Coordinator of Operations and Engineering

(Tel. 202: 833-5643)

J. K. Walters, Assistant Petroleum Measurement Coordinator

(Tel. 202: 833-5660)

William A. Kerlin, Special Representative (Tel. 202: 833-5643)

D. J. Hine, API Research Associate, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. 301: 921-2137)

Association of American Railroads

Earl W. Hodgkins, Executive Director, 59 East Van Buren Street, Chicago, Illinois 60605 (Tel. 312: 939-0780/81)

John J. Robinson, Executive Director, Operating Transportation Division, 1920 L St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202: 293-4144)

Amoco Oil Company

Robert W. Sorensen, Director, Marketing Facilities Design, 200 E. Randolph Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60601 (Tel. 312: 856-5725)

Amstar Corporation

Michael O'Sullivan, Attorney. 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York,

New York 10020 (Tel. 212: 489-9000, Ext. 338)

Walter J. Zielnicki, Quality Control Supervisor

Roger P. Fremgen, Quality Control Supervisor

Armour Food Company

V. J. DelGiudice, Manager, Government Relations, 8849 South Greenwood,

Chicago, Illinois 60619 (Tel. 312: 734-3804)

Atlantic Richfield Company

Richard W. Schmitz, Equipment Engineer, 515 S. Flower Street, Room

1873, Los Angeles, California 90071 (Tel. 213: 486-2877)

Bennett Pump Company

John Hauet, Manager, Field Service, Broadway & Wood Streets, Muskegon, Michigan 49444 (Tel. 616. 733-1302)

Mitch Godsman, Manager, Richmond District, 1118 Westbriar Drive,

Richmond, Virginia 23233 (Tel. 804: 282-6965)

Berkel, Incorporated

William N. Shannon, Vice President, Marketing, One Berkel Drive,

LaPorte, Indiana 46350 (Tel. 219: 362-3165) Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad

J. E. Foreman, Manager, Facilities and Structures, 160 Main Street, Greenville, Pennsylvania 16125 (Tel. 412: 588-5700, Ext. 321)

Boyle-Midway Division of American Home Products, Inc. William E. Doheny, Director of Quality Control, South Avenue, Cranford. New Jersey 07016 (Tel. 201: 276-3900)

Brooks Instrument Division, Emerson Electric Company

R. P. Buffington, Product Manager, P. 0. Box 450, Statesboro, Georgia

30458 (Tel. 912: 764-5471)

262
Harry Sugden, Chief Engineer

Bunker-Ramo ESIS

Thomas P. Sims, Product Safety Supervisor, 5300 Newport Drive, Rolling

Meadows, Illinois 60008 (Tel. 312: 259-6500)

CG Systems, Inc. Billy J. Click, President, Box 570, Colton, California 92324

(Tel. 714: 825-2932)

CPC International, Inc.—Best Foods Division A. E. JOHANSON, Division Counsel, International Plaza, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 (Tel. 201: 894-2383)

Campbell Soup Company

James H. Bunting, Manager, Technical Administration, Campbell Place,

Camden, New Jersey 08101 (Tel. 609: WO 4-4000)

Can Manufacturers Institute M. W. Jensen, President, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D. C. 20036 (Tel. 202: 232-4677)

National Canners Association

Edgar R. Elkins, Manager, Chemistry Division, 1133 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202: 331-5975)

Cardinal -Scale Company

Mack Rapp, Manager, Special Services, P. O. Box 151, Webb City, Missouri 64870 (Tel. 417: 673-4631)

National Cash Register Corporation

Dale Falknor, Special Representative, Main & K Streets, Dayton, Ohio

45479 (Tel. 513: 449-2030)

Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings

Merrill S. Thompson, Attorney, Room 2360, 135 South La Salle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603 (Tel. 312: 726-2545)

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association

Alfred A. Mulliken, Consultant, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202: 872-8110)

Dallas Sparre, Legislative Consultant

The Chessie System

Emil Szaks, Assistant Chief Engineer, P. 0. Box 1800, Huntington, West

Virginia 25718 (Tel. 304: 525-0341, Ext. 5740)

Vance H. Freygang, Applications Engineer

Cities Service Oil Company

R. C. Primley, Field Engineer, 1207 Broad Street, St. Joseph, Michigan

49085 (Tel. 616: 983-3942)

The Coca-Cola Company

Robert L. Callahan, Jr., Washington Affairs Coordinator, P. 0. Drawer

1734, Atlanta, Georgia 30301 (Tel. 404: 897-2092)

Joseph F. Murphy, Attorney, 310 North Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30313

(Tel. 404: 897-3924)

Colgate-Palmolive Company

E. E. WOLSKi, Manager, Quality Control, 300 Park Avenue, .New York,

New York 10022 (Tel. 212: PL 1-1200, Ext. 6131)

Rose Candeloro, Assistant Counsel (Tel. 212: PL 1-1200)

Control Data Corporation

William Steiner, Management Analyst, 901 S. Highland Street, Arlington, Virginia 22204

Crown Zellerbach Corporation

Fred C. Chace, Manager, Planning—Converted Products, 1 Bush Street, San Francisco, California 94104 (Tel. 415: 823-5882)

Dairy and Food Industries Supply Association

D. H. Williams, Technical Director, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Washington,

D.C. 20015 (Tel. 202: 652-4420)

J. B. Dee & Company, Inc. Gene Fishman, President, 1722 W. 16th, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202

(Tel. 317: 635-5548)

Miles Fishman, Vice President

Detecto Scales, Inc. Sam Jacobs, Executive Vice President, 103-00 Foster Avenue, Brooklyn,

New York 11236 (Tel. 212: 272-4500)

263
Diamond International Corporation

LiANE Waite, Director, Home Economics, 733 Third Avenue, New York,

New York 10017 (Tel. 212: 697-1700, Ext. 571)

Disc Instruments Everett L. McElroy, Director of Marketing, 102 E. Baker, Costa Mesa,

California 92626 (Tel. 714: 979-5300)

Doric Scientific Paul M. Haas, Vice President, Engineering, 3883 Ruffin Road, San Diego,

California 92123 (Tel. 714: 565-4415)

Dover Corporation/Blackmer Pump Division

Clair J. Tracy, Product Manager, 1809 Century Avenue, S.W., Grand

Rapids, Michigan 49509 (Tel. 616: 241-1611) Dresser Industries, Inc.—Petroleum Equipment Division

Warren J. Dubsky, Chief Engineer, Fuel Dispensing Systems, 124 West

College Avenue, Salisbury, Maryland 21801 (Tel. 301: 749-6161)

Eaton Corporation

Thomas Edmonds, Sales Engineer, 191 E. North Avenue, Carol Stream,

Illinois 60187 (Tel. 312: 682-8051)

Ellisco Incorporated

Clifford E. Sifton, Jr., Manager, Product Development, American and

Luzerne Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140 (Tel. 215: 223-3405)

A. H. Emery Company

James P. Billings, Director of Research and Development, 70 Pine Street, New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 (Tel. 203: 966-4551)

Exxon Corporation

Raymond A. Hartmann, Coordinator, 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New

York, New York 10020 (Tel. 212: 974-3764)

Robert S. Hansen, Operations and Engineering Advisor

(Tel. 212: 974-3394)

Harold E. Harris, Engineering Coordinator, P. 0. Box 2180, Houston, Texas 77001 (Tel. 713: 221-2936)

Thomas C. Covill, Manager, Operations Department, Exxon (Esso) London, England, Victoria Street, Westminster, London, England

Fairbanks Weighing Division of Colt Industries

Kenneth F. Hammer, President, 711 E. St. Johnsbury Road, St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 (Tel. 802: 748-2371)

Charles H. Knodel, Vice President, Engineering

Pete Rozema, Vice President, Marketing

Thomas F. Routhier, Marketing Manager

Roger H. Damon, Manager, Manufacturing Engineering

Flowtron Industries, Inc. Henry Wilkens, President, 2 Alsan Way, Little Ferry, New Jersey 07643

(Tel. 201: 440-1503)

Daniel Sabatino, Secretary-Treasurer

National Association of Food Chains

Paul A. Korody, Jr., Director of Governmental Affairs, 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 210, Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202: 331-7822)

Thomas Zaucha, Director of Public Affairs Franklin Electric John A. Whitney, Manager, Engineering Advance Development, 400 E. Spring Street, Bluffton, Indiana 46714 (Tel. 219: 824-2900)

H. J. Fuller & Company

W. A. Scheurer, Public Relations, 2146 Elgin Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221

(Tel. 614: 488-3312)

Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association

Robert M. Byrne, Technical Director, 331 Madison Avenue, New York,

New York 10017 (Tel. 212: 661-2050)

General Foods Corporation

Gordon A. Goodrich, Director, Central Engineering, 250 North Street, White Plains, New York 10625 (Tel. 914: ME 1-6400)

Charles P. Orr, Corporate Quality Assurance Consultant

(Tel. 914: 694-4073)

264
General Mills, Inc. Donald B. Colpitts, Technical Manaper, Weights and Measures, 9000

Plymouth Avenue, North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427

(Tel. 612: 540-2729)

Neal Peterson, Attorney, 1730 M Street, N.W., Room 907, Washington,

D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202: 296-0360)

Gerber Products Company

J. Lyle Littlefield, Government Relations Manager, 445 State Street, Fremont, Michigan 49412 (Tel. 616: 928-2264)

Getty Oil Company, Inc. Joseph C. Gassert, Engineering Manager, 660 Madison Avenue, New

York, New York 10021 (Tel. 212: 832-7800)

Gilbarco Inc. John N. Hastings, Chief Experimental Engineer, Friendly Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 (Tel. 919: 292-3011)

Grocery Manufacturers of America

Jonathan W. Sloat, Vice President, Suite 900, 1425 K Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202: 638-6100)

Elaine R. Williams, Research Assistant

Gulf Oil Company—U.S. (Central Region)

George R. Davis, Manager, Operations, P. 0. Box 661, Tulsa, Oklahoma

74102 (Tel. 918: 587-2121)

Gulf Research and Development Company

W. J. McGuiRE, Technical Consultant, P. 0. Drawer 2038, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania 15230 (Tel. 412: 362-1600)

Haskon, Inc.—Equipment Division

James D. Ross, National Sales Manager, 2285 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 (Tel. 612: 645-0651, Ext. 221)

Heinz U.S.A.—Division of H. J. Heinz Company

John S. Elliott, Senior Manager, Government Regulations, 1062 Progress Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212 (Tel. 412: 237-5862)

Hi-Speed Checkweigher Company, Inc. Charles R. Pettis, III, Sales Administrator, Box 40, Ithaca, New York

14850 (Tel. 607: 273-5704)

Hobart Corporation

Arnold L. Waite, Marketing Manager, Weighing Systems, World Headquarters Building, Troy, Ohio 45374 (Tel. 513: 335-7171)

Fred Katterheinrich, Sales Engineer

Kenneth C. Allen, Consultant, 216 South Torrence Street, Dayton, Ohio

45403 (Tel. 513: 254-8451)

George A. Hormel & Company

Byron M. Crippin, Jr., General Counsel, P. 0. Box 800, Austin, Minnesota

55912 (Tel. 507: 437-5671)

Howe Richardson Scale Company

John W. Aquadro, Vice President, Engineering, 680 Van Houten Avenue,

Clifton, New Jersey 07015 (Tel. 201: 471-3400)

Bruce A. Murphy, Director of Market Development (Tel. 201: 471-3400,

Ext. 331)

George A. Bartlett, Custom Products Service Manager

(Tel. 201: 471-3400)

Robert D. Meek, Regional Manager, 4363 Tacony Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19124 (Tel. 215: 744-6200)

Jewel Food Stores Ralph W. Miller, Vice President, Regulatory Research and Planning,

1955 West North Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60160 (Tel. 312: 531-6103)

Johnson & Johnson

George E. Heinze, Manager, Scientific Standards, New Brunswick, New

Jersey 08903 (Tel. 201: 524-5151)

A. J. Huetteman, Assistant Manager, 501 George Street, New Brunswick,

New Jersey 08903 (Tel. 201: 524-5525) Keene Corporation

William D. Graybeal, New Product Development, Box 250, Greeneville, Tennessee 37743 (Tel. 615: 638-8156)

265
Keson Industries, Inc. Frank J. Nosek, Vice President, 8864 West 47th Street, Brookfield, Illi- nois 60513 (Tel. 312: 485-3220)

Donald A. Laferriere, Regional Sales Manager

Kraft Foods

Charles E. White, Supervisor—Process Controls, 500 Peshtigo Court,

Chicago, Illinois 60690 (Tel. 312: 222-2861)

Kraftco Corporation

C. Roger Test, Attorney Kraftco Ct., Glenview, Illinois 60025

(Tel. 312: 998-2473)

John M. Creger, Associate Counsel (Tel. 312: 998-2487)

The Kroger Company

David P. Leahy, Technical Consultant, 1212 State Avenue, Cincinnati,

Ohio 45204 (Tel. 513: 921-5300, Ext. 473)

National LP Gas Association

Arthur C. Kreutzer, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, 1800

N. Kent, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (Tel. 703: 525-5135)

Liquid Controls Corporation

Howard Siebold, Vice President, Technical Services, P. 0. Box 101, North

Chicago, Illinois 60064 (Tel. 312: 689-2400)

William Reitz, Product Manager

Lockheed Electronics Company

Joseph F. Devitt, Service Manager, U.S. Highway #22, Plainfield, New

Jersey 07061 (Tel. 201: 757-1600)

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company

J. L. FiNNELL, General Scale Inspector, 908 West Broadway, Louisville,

Kentucky 40201 (Tel. 502: 587-5415)

Martin Decker Company

W. H. Garner, Industrial Sales Manager, 1928 South Grand, Santa Ana,

California 92705 (Tel. 714: 540-9220)

E. I. Shelley, Regional Sales Manager

Jon Hall, District Sales Manager

The Measuregraph Company

P. B. Krieger, National Service Manager, 4245 Forest Park Boulevard,

St. Louis, Missouri 63108 (Tel. 314: 533-7800)

Stephen P. Girard

American National Metric Council Dr. Malcolm E. O'Hagan, Executive Director, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202: 232-4545)

Metrodyne Corporation

Sal Barbera, Vice President, 20 Acosta Street, Stamford, Connecticut

06904 (Tel. 203: 348-9255)

Michigan Bean Company

C. H. Roth, Director, Packaging Sales, P. 0. Box 2069, 1741 N. Niagara,

Saginaw, Michigan 48605 (Tel. 517: 754-0471)

Midwest Scale Company

M. J. DeBo, President, 1327 7th Street, Rockford, Illinois 61108

(Tel. 815: 968-3731)

Milk Industry Foundation

John F. Speer, Jr., Executive Assistant, 910 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202: 296-4250)

Austin T. Rhoads, Administrative Assistant

Mobil Oil Corporation

Joseph A. Petrelli, Manager, Operations-Engineering, 150 East 42nd

Street, New York, New York 10017 (Tel. 212: 883-5204)

Monsanto Company

Thomas I. Bidgood, Eastern District Sales Manager, 200 N. 8th Street, Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033 (Tel. 201: 276-2900)

Carl L. Timmons, Area Sales Manager, P. 0. Box 3790, Anaheim, Cali- fornia 92803 (Tel. 714: 772-3010)

Morris Scale Company

Clifford V. Morris, President, 1537 S.E. Morrison Street, P. 0. Box 14306,

Portland, Oregon 97214 (Tel. 503: 232-5339)

266
National Controls, Inc. Jay Donald Fisher, Regional Manager, 1526 Biltmore Avenue, Lancaster,

Pennsylvania 17601 (Tel. 717: 392-7521)

Neptune Measurement Company

John C. Hart, Market Development Manager—Petroleum Measurement,

2606 Fortune Circle East, Indianapolis, Indiana 46241 (Tel. 317: 247-1551)

Emmett F. Wehmann, Assistant Chief Engineer

International Nonwovens & Disposables Association

Lee J. Moreman, Executive Vice President, 10 East 40th Street, Room

4000, New York, New York 10016 (Tel. 212: 686-9170)

Ohaus Scale Corporation

Richard Walker, Manager of Product Engineering, 29 Hanover Road,

Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 (Tel. 201: 377-9000)

Ormond Inc. Stephen J. Fryer, Vice President, 11969 Riubra Road, Santa Fe Springs,

California 90670 (Tel. 213: 698-0641)

The Packaging Institute, U.S.A. Paul B. Reuman, Executive Director, 342 Madison Avenue, New York,

New York 10017 (Tel. 212: 687-8874)

National Paint and Coatings Association

Richard W. Murry, Assistant Technical Director, 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202: 462-6272, Ext. 52)

Bruce Hamill, Counsel (Tel. 202: 462-6272)

International Paper Company

Joseph Cannon, Product Manager, Dairy Packaging, 220 East 42nd

Street, New York, New York 10017 (Tel. 212: 490-5876)

Paperboard Packaging Council

J. J. Wuerthner, Vice President, Public Affairs, 1800 K Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202: 872-0180)

Penn Central Railroad

F. D. Day, System Engineer, Bridge and Building Maintenance, 6 Penn

Center, Room 750, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (Tel. 215: 594-1664)

John A. Hawley, Engineer, Bridges and Buildings

Pennsylvania Scale Compaiiy

C. G. Gehringer, Vice President, Operations, 21 Graybill Road, Leola,

Pennsylvania 17540 (Tel. 717: 656-2653)

Phillips Petroleum Company

John W. Hale, Technical Representative, 8A3 Phillips Building, Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004 (Tel. 918: 661-5786)

D. L. Adams, Senior Operations Representative, 305 W. Chesapeake Avenue, Towson, Maryland 21204 (Tel. 301: 823-7260)

The Pillsbury Company

C. A. Taubert, Quality Associate, 608 Second Avenue, South, Pillsbury

Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (Tel. 612: 330-4332)

Pitney Bowes

Rutherford H. Fenn, Director, Corporate Standards, Walnut Street, Stamford, Connecticut 06904 (Tel. 203: 356-6148)

Pressure Sensitive Tape Council

R. G. Breeden, Manager, 1201 Waukegan Road, Glenview, Illinois 60025

(Tel. 312: 724-7700)

Presto Products, Inc. Tony Zeller, Director of Packaging, P. 0. Box 407, Appleton, Wisconsin

54911 (Tel. 414: 739-9471)

Procter and Gamble Company

Robert E. Trunick, Associate Director, Paper Product Development,

Winton Hill Technical Center, 6000 Center Hill Road, Cincinnati, Ohio

45224 (Tel. 513: 977-7696)

John P. Siegfried, Counsel, 301 E. 6th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(Tel. 513: 562-4400) Purex Corporation Lester 0. Leenerts, Manager, Technical Copy Control, 24600 South Main

Street, Carson, California 90745 (Tel. 213: 775-2111, Ext. 562)

267
The Quaker Oats Company

Fred A. Dobbins, Director, Quality Assurance-Compliance, 617 West Main

Street, Harrington, Illinois 60010 (Tel. 312: 381-1980, Ext. 248)

RJR Foods, Inc. Gordon E. Carlson, Director, Technical Coordination, P. O. Box 3037,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 (Tel. 919: 748-3340)

Robert D. Appleyard, Regulations Administrator (Tel. 919: 748-3767)

Railweight, Inc. Maurice J. Buchman, Executive Vice President, B502 6166 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22044 (Tel. 703: 533-3480)

The Rath Packing Company

Don L. Bohnsack, Director, Quality Assurance, P. 0. Box 330, Waterloo,

Iowa 50704 (Tel. 319: 235-8703)

Morris Y. Kinne, Secretary (Tel. 319: 235-8775 or 235-8900)

Safeway Stores, Inc. Harry N. Couden, Food Technology Division Manager, P. 0. Box 94660,

Oakland, California 94601 (Tel. 415: 444-4711)

Sands Measurement Corporation

S. H. Raskin, Chairman, 6901 Forest Park Road, Dallas, Texas 75230

(Tel. 214: 358-3433)

John R. Morrill, Vice President

Sanitary Scale Company

John V. Farwell, IV, Sales Manager, 910 E. Lincoln Avenue, Belvidere,

Illinois 61008 (Tel. 815: 544-2181)

Santa Fe Railway

I. M. Haw^ver, Superintendent of Scales, 1001 E. Crane Street, Topeka,

Kansas 66616 (Tel. 913: 235-0041)

Scale Manufacturers Association

Raymond J. Lloyd, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, 1000 Vermont Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202: 628-4634)

Arthur Sanders, Legal Counsel, 5202 Massachusetts Avenue, Westmoreland Hills, Bethesda, Maryland 20016 (Tel. 301: 229-7973)

National Scale Men's Association

Sylvia T. Pickell, Executive Secretary, 214y2 South Washington Street, Naperville, Illinois 60540 (Tel. 312: 355-4788)

Seaboard Coastline Railroad N. A. Wilson, Supervisor, Scales and Weighing, 500 Water Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (Tel. 904: 353-2011, Ext. 368)

Sealright Company, Inc. Fenton J. Smith, Quality Control Manager, 314 South First Street, Fulton, New York 13069 (Tel. 315: 593-5311)

American Seed Trade Association

Robert J. Falasca, Assistant to Executive Vice President, 1030 15th

Street, N.W., Suite 964, Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202: 223-4080)

George Weaver, President, Fredonia Seed Company, Box 180, Fredonia,

New York 14063 (Tel. 716: 672-2174)

Seraphin Test Measure Company

Raymond R. Wells, Sales Manager, 30 Indel Avenue, Rancocas, New

Jersey 08073 (Tel. 609: 267-0922)

Robert L. Hopkins, Office Manager

Shell Oil Company

R. D. Mueller, Manager, Retail and Commercial Engineering, Marketing

Engineering, Two Shell Plaza, P. 0. Box 2105, Houston, Texas 77001

Larry R. Spitzenberger, Senior Engineer (Tel. 713: 220-6973)

Singer—American Meter Division

John P. O'Hara, Regional Sales Manager, 7 Wynnewood Road, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 (Tel. 215: 839-4097)

Single Service Institute, Inc. Robert W. Foster, Executive Vice President, 250 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10017 (Tel. 212: 697-4545)

Thomas W. LaCascia

Skelly Oil Company

W. C. Grosshauser, Weights and Measures Task Force, P. 0. Box 1650,

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 (Tel. 918: 584-2311)

268
A. 0. Smith Corporation

Paul R. Fishburn, Senior Product Engineer, Meter Systems Division,

1602 Wagner Avenue, Erie, Pennsylvania 16510 (Tel. 814: 899-0661)

Philip E. Swanson, Engineering Supervisor, P.D. Meters The Soap and Detergent Association

Wendy Abravanel, Public Affairs Assistant, 510 Southern Building, 15th & H Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202: 393-5360)

National Soft Drink Association

Drew M. Davis, Assistant to the Legal Counsel, 1101 16th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202: 833-2450)

Southern Weighing and Inspection Bureau

M. R. Gruber, Jr., Supervisor of Weights, 151 Ellis Street, N.E., Suite

306, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (Tel. 404: 659-6266)

Streeter Amet Division of Mangood Corporation

R. T. Brumbaugh, President, Slusser & Wicks Streets, Grayslake, Illinois 60030 (Tel. 312: 223-4801)

Emil J. MicONO, General Service Manager

Suburban Propane Gas Corporation

John R. Kukucka, Manager of Engineering and Regulatory Services, Box

206, Whippany, New Jersey 07981 (Tel. 201: 887-5300)

William H. Butcher, Assistant Manager, Engineering

Sun Oil Company

Joe Brown, Manager, Service Station Maintenance and Equipment, 1608

Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (Tel. 215: 985-1600,

Ext. 3755)

J. Elberfeld, Manager, Retail Facilities Department (Tel. 215: 985-1600,

Ext. 3754)

Einar Young, Newtown Square—Applied Physics Laboratory, Bishop

Hollow Road, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 (Tel. 215: 356-1800)

Swift and Company

Harvey L. Hensel, Assistant General Counsel, 115 West Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, Illinois 60604 (Tel. 312: 431-2631)

Thurman Scale Company

Joseph R. Schaeffer, Vice President, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio

43209 (Tel. 614: 443-9741)

Tokheim Corporation

Walter F. Gerdom, Manager, Customer Service Division, 1600 Wabash

Avenue, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801 (Tel. 219: 423-2552)

George N. Tsiguloff, Sales Manager, Electronics, P. O. Box 360, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801 (Tel. 219: 423-2552)

Toledo Scale Division, Reliance Electric Company

John P. Landis, Vice President, Marketing, P.O. Box 6757, Toledo, Ohio

43612 (Tel. 419: 470-6200)

J. Donald Zelazny, General Sales Manager

Robert 0. Bradley, Chief Scale Engineer (Tel. 419: 470-6306)

James T. Hoyle, Account Executive—Washington, D.C, 5300 Kilmer PI., Hyattsville, Maryland 20781 (Tel. 301: 277-3646)

Walter A. Donnelly, Jr., Area Manager—Washington, D.C. Robert D. Drake, Regional Manager, 1505 Parkway Avenue, Trenton,

New Jersey 08638 (Tel. 609: 882-3900)

Henry Troemner, Inc. Wilbert D. Abele, Vice President /General Manager, 6825 Greenway Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142 (Tel. 215: 724-0800)

Union Oil Company of California

Earl I. Lash, Manager, Marketing Engineering, P. 0. Box 7600, Room

416, Los Angeles, California 90017 (Tel. 213; 486-6224)

Union Railroad

Donald E. Keeper, General Supervisor, Buildings and Bridges, 664 Linden

Avenue, East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15112 (Tel. 412: 823-5000)

United States Steel Corporation

David K. Johnstone, Traffic and Transportation Engineer, 600 Grant

Street, Room 547, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 (Tel. 412: 433-3074)

269
Veeder-Root Company

Alfred C. Evans, Director of Engineering, 70 Sargeant Street, Hartford,

Connecticut 06102 (Tel. 203: 527-7201)

Thomas J. McLaughlin, Manager, OEM Sales Spencer Struble, Assistant to the President

Western Oil and Gas Association

Joseph A. Stransky, Jr., Manager, Comm. Relations Department, 609

South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90017 (Tel. 213: 624-6386)

Williams Pipe Line Company

Keith E. Bailey, Manager of Operations, P. 0. Box 3448, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 (Tel. 918: 583-1711, Ext. 8761)

William M. Wilson's Sons, Inc. Charles J. Denny, Manager, Customer and Technical Services, P. 0. Box

309, Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446 (Tel. 215: 855-4631)

Winslow Scale Company

Joseph Giner, Vice President and General Manager, P. 0. Box 1523, Terre

Haute, Indiana 47808 (Tel. 812: 466-1231)

William E. Young and Company

William E. Young, President, Jumping Brook and Essex Roads, Neptune, New Jersey 07753 (Tel. 201: 922-1234)

United States Government

Department of Agriculture

Irwin Fried, Chief Staff Officer, Product Standards, Technical Services,

APHIS, Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, Washington, D.C. 20250

(Tel. 202: 447-3521)

Robert D. Thompson, Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch, Packers and

Stockyards Administration, Washington, D.C. 20250 (Tel. 202: 447-3140)

Charles H. Oakley, Assistant Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch

M. W. Stephens, Assistant Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch

Thomas C. Harris, Area Supervisor, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Room 601 B, 1621 N. Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209

(Tel. 703: 235-8663)

DURWOOD E. Helms, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Packers and Stock- yards Administration, 970 Broad Street, Room 335, Newark, New Jersey

07102 (Tel. 201: 645-3440)

Federal Trade Commission

Earl W. Johnson, Attorney, 6th & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington

D.C. 20580 (Tel. 202: 962-7688)

Robert R. Hannum, Attorney

Food and Drug Administration

John C. Werren, Food Technologist, 200 C Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20204 (Tel. 202: 245-1081)

Dr. R. Clifton Bailey, Mathematical Statistician (Tel. 202: 245-1024)

Stephen F. Bingham, Mathematical Statistician

Department of Commerce

Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. 20230 (Tel. 202: 967-3111)

National Bureau of Standards

Allen J. Farrar, Legal Adviser

David E. Edgerly, Special Assistant for International Programs

Dr. James R. Wright, Deputy Director, Institute for Applied Technology

Office of Weights and Measures: Harold F. Wollin, Chief, and Executive Secretary, National Conference on Weights and Measures

Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Program Manager, Program Research

and Development

Otto Warnlof, Program Manager, Technical Services and Training

Terrance N. Troy, Program Manager, Consumer Laws and Regulations

270
Richard N. Smith, Technical Coordinator

Stephen Hasko, General Engineer

Harry K. Johnson, Engineering Technician

Blayne C. Keysar, Engineering Technician

Allen E. Banks, Engineering Technician

Benjamin F. Banks, Engineering Technician

Sandra J. Wilson, Secretary

Eva M. Beard, Administrative Assistant

Patricia Raschella, Secretary

Kay Churchey, Secretary

Daphne Gray, Secretary

Daniel J. Minnick, Systems Analyst, Technical Analysis Division, lAT

Dr. Arthur 0. McCoubrey, Director, Institute for Basic Standards

James M. Wyckoff, Radiation Safety Coordinator, IBS

Dr. Joan Rosenblatt, Chief, Statistical Engineeering Laboratory, Applied

Mathematics Division, IBS

Mary Natrella, Mathematical Statistician, Applied Mathematics Division,

IBS

Frank E. Jones, Physicist, Humidity Section, Mechanics Division, IBS

Richard A. Mitchell, Research Structural Engineer, Engineering Mechanics Section, Mechanics Division, IBS

Brenda Umberger, Administrative Aide, Administrative Services Section,

Office of the Associate Director for Administration

Fred McGehan, Public Information Specialist, Editorial Section, Office of Information Activities, Office of the Associate Director for Information

Programs

J. Sonnichsen, Photographer

H. S. Reiser, Chief, Office of International Relations, Office of the Associate Director for Information Programs

Other Guests Negussie Abebe, Chief of Weights and Measures Laboratory, Ethiopian

Standards Institute, P. 0. Box 5948, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia

Bernard Athane, Director, International Bureau of Legal Metrology, 11, Rue Turgot, Paris IX, France (Tel. 878-12-82 and 285-27-11)

Jackie Bailey, Editor, Dairy, Natural & Dietary Food Industry Newsletter,

Federal-State Reports, Box 986, Court House Station, Arlington, Virginia

22216 (Tel. 703: 525-4950)

Mekonnen Betru, Finance Division Head and General Administrator,

Ethiopian Standards Institute, P. 0. Box 2310, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia Irene I. Boone, 2279 Jenkintown Road, Glenside, Pennsylvania 19038

(Tel. 215: 887-0700)

Cornelius Brodersen, Equipment Editor, National Petroleum News, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10021 (Tel. 212: 997-3316)

Marcia B. Kass, Reporter, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1231 - 25th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (Tel. 202: 223-3500)

Howard Marder, Associate Editor, Modern Packaging Magazine, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10021 (Tel. 212: 997-6259)

Paul Michaud, Assistant Director, Department of Consumer & Corporate

Affairs, Room 830, 219 Laurier Avenue, W., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

(Tel. 613: 995-8431)

Helen Nelson, Director, Center for Consumer Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Extension, 929 North Sixth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203

(Tel. 414: 224-4177)

Natalie M. Pargas, Food Chemical News, 420 Colorado Building-, Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202: 783-7472)

Bill Pfeil, Office of Congressman Matsunaga from Hawaii, Cannon House

Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 (Tel. 202: 225-2726)

James J. Powers, Advisory Member, 869 Ronnie Lane, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19128

James A. Servin, Warden of Standards, Ministry of Prices and Consumer

Affairs, 8 West Thebarton Road, Thebarton, South Australia 5031 W. H. Staple, Regional Supervisor, Ontario Region, Weights and Measures,

706 - 480 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1V2

(Tel. 416: 369-3346)

271
Susan Watters, Reporter, Fairchild Publications, 399 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20004 (Tel. 202: 737-7090)

W. W. Wells, Advisory Member, 6035 26th Street, Arlington, Virginia 22202

Judy B. Wiessler, Correspondent, Houston Chronicle, 1750 Pennsylvania,

Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202: 223-1770)

Louise Young, Extension Specialist in Family and Consumer Economics,

University of Wisconsin, 235 Home Economics Building, 1270 Linden

Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 (Tel. 608: 262-2611)

272

t^ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975 O 568-925


^ ^ \

'o ^ % % ^ ^

«k % \ % <V ^

^ t). <)

% % ^ '^.^

<r % % % <1 '^o

% <S' ^

Op

IP ^ 'o S • 'O-

SELECTED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PUBLICATIONS OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBS Handbook 44

1971 (Replacement

Sheets issued annually)

NBS Handbook

105-1 NBS Handbook

105-2

NBS Handbook

105-3

NBS ilANDBOOK 108 NBS Miscellaneous

Publication 286

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing

and Measuring Devices. Looseleaf (binder not included) . Specifications and Tolerances for Field Stan- dard Weights

Specifications and Tolerances for Field Stan- dard Measuring Flasks

Specifications and Tolerances for Metal Volumetric Field Standards

Weights and Measures Labeling Handbook

Units of Weight and Measure—Definitions and Tables of Equivalents

5.40

.25

.25

.25 3.25

2.25 REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1969 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 318 1.50 1970 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 342 1.75 1971 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 358 1.50 1972 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 379 1.85 1973 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 391 2.50 Order above publications, with remittance, from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Other publications available, at no charge, from the Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234.

Organization and Procedure of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures

Mission of the Office of Weights and Measures

Model State Weights and Measures Law

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation

Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation

Model State Unit Pricing Regulation

Model State Weighmaster Law

Model State Registration of Servicemen and Service Agencies Regulation

Model State Open Dating Regulation

Model City Ordinance
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-215

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK


1