\

NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 599

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

Report of the

65th National Conference

on

Weights and Measures

1980
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on 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 (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers: Absolute Physical Quantities2 — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers: Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology2 — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods. THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities: provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The Institute consists of the following centers: Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted: mailing address Washington, DC 20234.

: Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
Report of the

65th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1980

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, DC, June 23-27, 1980

Report Editors: Harold F. Wollin

Louis E. Barbrow

Ann P. Heffernan

United States Department of Commerce

/ ^fif \ Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

\ pfip. / National Bureau of Standards

Ernest Ambler, Director

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 599, 319 pages (Jan. 1981)

Issued January 1981 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 - Price $6.00
ABSTRACT

This is the proceedings of the Sixty-fifth National

Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the

National Bureau of Standards, held in Washington, D.C.,

June 22-27, 1980, and attended by State, county, and city

weights and measures officials, and representatives of

the Federal Government, business, industry, and consumer

organizations. The publication includes papers presented

by Conference officials and other top authorities from

Government and industry in the United States and several

foreign countries. Reports by the several standing and

annual committees of the Conference are also included.

Major issues discussed at the National Conference

included measurement science education, enforcement

uniformity, national type approval, computers and microelectronics, new design and performance requirements for

weighing and measuring technology, radiation measurements,

metric conversion of retail gasoline dispensers, and

weights and measures program evaluation.

Key words: Domestic standards; education programs;

electronic devices; international recommendations; legal

metrology; measurement assurance; metrication; model laws

and regulations; packing and labeling; specifications and

tolerances; technology transfer; weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog No. 26-27766
CONTENTS

(Note: The reports of the standing and annual committees and the treasurer's report, which were presented on Thursday, have been arranged together beginning on page 179 for easier reference.) Officers of the Conference v Standing Committees v Annual Committees vii Open Committee Hearings, Monday and Tuesday, June 23-24, 1980 viii MORNING SESSION - Monday, June 23, 1980 EXPECTATIONS FOR THE EIGHTIES, Charles H. Vincent, Conference Chairman 1 1980 - A DIAMOND ANNIVERSARY, A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY, Dr. Ernest Ambler,

Director, National Bureau of Standards 6 Committee Appointments 10 Honor Award Presentations 12 SOCIETAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEMANDS UPON LEGAL METROLOGY - A STRATEGY FOR MEETING INCREASED NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL NEEDS, Knut Birkeland,

Director, Justerdirektoratet , Norway 14 SHARING POWER, RESPONSIBILITY, AND RESOURCES IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, William J. Page, Jr., Executive Director, Council of State Governments 25 A UNIVERSITY LOOKS AT MEASUREMENT SCIENCE EDUCATION, Dr. Bryce Jordan,

President, The University of Texas at Dallas 34 AFTERNOON SESSION - Monday, June 23, 1980 THE SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION REPORT ON SCALE TOLERANCES, John J. Elengo, Jr., Vice-President, Engineering - Revere Corporation of America 39 THE ROLE OF THE U.S. METRIC BOARD IN THE VOLUNTARY CONVERSION OF GAS PUMPS TO METRIC MEASUREMENT, Stephen A. Vastagh, Program Manager,

U.S. Metric Board 45 MORNING SESSION - Tuesday, June 24, 1980 REPORT BY THE SPECIAL STUDY GROUP ON ENFORCEMENT UNIFORMITY, Introduction, Kendrick J. Simila, Administrator, Weights and Measures, Division - State of Oregon; Summary, Chip Kloss, Section Head, Research and Development, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. 54 AFTERNOON SESSION Tuesday, June 24, 1980 MECHANISMS FOR UNIFICATION OF STATE AND LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS, William J. Pierce, Professor, University of Michigan Law School, and Executive Director, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform

State Laws - 64 4:00 p.m. ASSOCIATION'S SPOT REPORTS: Western Weights and Measures Association, by Fred A Gerk 69 Southern Weights and Measures Association, by James F. Lyles 71 Northwest Weights and Measures Association, by Frank C. Nagele 73 Northeastern Weights and Measures Association, by Thomas F. Geiler 74 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture,

by James B. Grant 76 National Scale Men's Association, by Raymond C. Canfield 77 American Petroleum Institute, by Harold E. Harris 79 Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling,

by Alfred E. Johanson 81 Scale Manufacturers Association, by Raymond J. Lloyd 82

iii
MORNING SESSION - Wednesday, June 25, 1980 SCALE DESIGN AND WEIGHING TRENDS IN THE EIGHTIES, Walter M. Young, Vice President, A. H. Emery Company 85 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES REGULATIONS - THE EUROPEAN SCENE IN THE EIGHTIES

Dr. G. F. Hodsman, Director, Avery Research Administration, Limited,

England, President, Comite Europeen des Constructeurs d ' Instruments

de Pesage 95 THE CONSUMER MOVEMENT OF THE 1980s - WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, Dr. Louis S. Meyer, Director, Conference of Consumer, Organizations, and Faculty, Edinboro State College 102 COMPUTERS, MICROELECTRONICS, AND PEOPLE, Dr. Michael W. Blasgen, Technical

Advisor to the Chief Scientist, International Business Machines Corporation 110 INTERDEPENDENCE OF METROLOGY, STANDARDIZATION, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, Professor Dr.-Ing. W. Muhe, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

Federal Republic of Germany 115 AFTERNOON SESSION, Wednesday, June 25, 1980 LIQUID HYDROCARBON MEASUREMENT IN THE DECADE OF THE EIGHTIES: THE NEED

FOR RESEARCH AND RESOURCEFULNESS, Richard P. Trask, President, Petroleum Equipment Institute 127 TYPE APPROVAL - A TOOL FOR MEASUREMENT ASSURANCE IN LEGAL METROLOGY,

Dr. E. Seiler, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Federal Republic of Germany 138 RADIATION MEASUREMENT - A CHALLENGE THAT CALLS FOR COOPERATIVE FEDERAL

AND STATE ACTION, Dr. Marshall W. Parrott, Manager, Radiation Control

Section, Oregon State Health Division, and Chairman, National Conference

of Radiation Control Program Directors 147 THE 1980s FOOD MARKETPLACE - DEMOGRAPHICS, LIFESTYLES, AND TECHNOLOGY, Jeanne Warren Eagle, Consultant, Arthur D. Little, Inc. 156 THE SYSTEM OF CONTROL OF PREPACKAGED PRODUCTS IN THE NETHERLANDS, Anton C. Bijloo, Director, Metrology Service, Van Swinden Laboratorium,

VSL, The Netherlands 165 REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

List of State Voting Representatives 179

1 . REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND POLICY AND

COORDINATION, Presented by Charles H. Vincent, Committee Chairman 180

2. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS, Presented by

Daniel I. Offner, Committee Chairman 202

3. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES, Presented by

Darrell A. Guensler, Committee Chairman 212

4. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER

AFFAIRS, Presented by Administration and Consumer Affairs, presented

by Stan J. Darsey, Committee Chairman 241

5. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON, Presented by Charles H. Greene, Committee Chairman 249

iv
REPORTS OF THE ANNUAL COMMITTEES

6. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, Presented by Charles H. Vincent, Conference Chairman 263

7. REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE, Presented by Thomas W. Scott, Committee Chairman 271

8. REPORT OF THE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE, Presented by Kendrick J. Simila, Committee Chairman 273

9. REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE, Presented by Fred A. Gerk, Committee Chairman 276

10. REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER, Presented by Allan M. Nelson, Treasurer 277 Conference Registration List 281 Weights and Measures Publications 307 OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

PRESIDENT: Ernest Ambler, Director, National Bureau of Standards EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: Harold F. Wollin, Assistant Chief, Office of Weights

and Measures, National Bureau of Standards

CHAIRMAN: C. H. Vincent, Dallas, Texas VICE CHAIRMEN: J. R. Bird, New Jersey

E. C. Heffron, Michigan

E. Keeley, Delaware

W. C. Sullivan, Seattle, Washington

TREASURER: A. M. Nelson, Connecticut

CHAPLAIN: J. H. Lewis, Washington

(All officers are, ex officio, members of the Executive Committee) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

K. R. Adcock, Ohio

M. W. Cain, Virginia

R. J. Cord, Prince Georges County, Maryland

E. F. Delfino, California

P. M. Fullinwider, Arizona

M. A. Maldonado Garcia, Puerto Rico

E. P. Skluzacek, Minnesota

D. R. Smith, Santa Clara County, California

F. A. Thomas, Pennsylvania APPOINTED OFFICIALS

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS : D. Brahos, Hammond, Indiana

A. B. Moody, Jr., Richmond, Virginia

PARLIAMENTARIAN: D. L. Griffith, West Virginia ASSISTANT TREASURER: J. H. Akey, Wisconsin

ASSISTANT CHAPLAIN: F. W. Daniels, Wayne County, Indiana STANDING COMMITTEES

The number of years each committee member has remaining to serve on the committee

as of the 65th Conference is shown in parentheses. Also noted are the new appointees

and newly designated committee chairmen.

v
NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND COORDINATION

C. H. Vincent, Chairman

S. J. Darsey, Interim Chairman, Education Committee

C. H. Greene, Chairman, Liaison Committee

D. A. Guensler, Chairman, S & T Committee

D. I. Offner, Chairman, L & R Committee

(The members of this committee include the presiding chairmen of the other four standing committees and the Conference chairman who serves as the chairman of this committee. Mr. Stadolnik will serve as chairman next year.) COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

D. J. Offner, Chairman, St. Louis, Missouri (1)

J. J. Bartfai, New York (3)

S. F. Hindsman, Arkansas (2)

W. R. Mossberg, Los Angeles County, California (4) R. W. Probst, Wisconsin

Eric A. Vadelund, Staff Assistant, NBS

(Edward P. Skluzacek, State of Minnesota, was appointed for a 5-year term to replace Mr. Probst whose term expired. Mr. Bartfai replaced Mr. Offner as chairman.) COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

D. A. Guensler, Chairman, California (5)

S. A. Colbrook, Illinois (4)

L. H. DeGrange, Maryland (3)

G. L. Delano, Montana (1) F . C. Nagele, Michigan (2) Otto K. Warnlof, Staff Assistant, NBS (Darrell A. Guensler, State of California, was reappointed for a 5-year term.

Mr. Delano replaced Mr. Guensler as chairman.) COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

S. J. Darsey, Interim Chairman, Florida (5)

A. L. Christie, South Dakota (1)

J. L. Swanson, Alaska (4) R. W. Walker, Indiana (2) Richard N. Smith, Staff Assistant, NBS

(Thomas F. Geiler, City of Barnstable, Massachusetts, was appointed for a 5-year

term to replace Mr. Ladd, whose term expired. Mr. Darsey continues as chairman.) COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

C. H. Greene, Chairman, New Mexico

C. R. Cavagnaro, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs (4)

C. E. Forester, Texas (1) E. C. Heffron, Michigan (3) M. S. Thompson, Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings, Ltd. (2) Stephen Hasko, Staff Assistant, NBS (Kendrick J. Simila, State of Oregon, was appointed for a 5-year term to replace

Mr. Greene, whose term expired. Dr. Heffron replaced Mr. Greene as chairman.)

vi
ANNUAL COMMITTEES Resolutions

T. W. Scott, Chairman, North Carolina

L. Letey, Colorado

B. Merrick, Missouri

L. Miller, Dayton, Ohio

E. J. Stephens, Utah

G. Williams, Mississippi

K. J. Simila, Chairman, Oregon

S. D. Andrews, Florida

J. T. Bennett, Connecticut

G. L. Johnson, Kentucky

J. H. Lewis, Washington

J. F. Lyles, Virginia

R. L. Thompson, Maryland

F. A. Gerk, Chairman, New Mexico

R. H. Claussen, Porter County, Indiana

G. J. Tommasi, Middletown, Connecticut

J. C. Blackwood, Chairman, Dallas, Texas

E. Hanish, LaPorte County, Indiana

L. D. Holloway, Idaho

E. Allen, Chairman, The Measuregraph Company

T. M. Stabler, Toledo Scale Company

L. Waite, Diamond International Corporation

B. L. Bloser, Brooks Instrument Division-Emerson Electric

W. F. Gerdom, Tokheim Corporation

A. E. Johanson, Foremost-McKesson, Inc.

R. W. Miller, Jr., Jewel Companies, Inc.

A. T. Rhoads, Milk Industry Foundation

R. Southers, American Petroleum Institute

E. E. Wolski, Colgate-Palmolive Company

Nominations

Auditing

Credentials

Associate Membership

REGISTRATIONS

Ann Heffernan

Dawn Alger

Susanne Basford

Evelyn Tallerico

Barbara Meigs Vickie Weedon

LADIES' ARRANGEMENTS

Virginia Wollin

vii
METROLOGY WORKSHOPS

There were three metrologist 1 s workshops scheduled during Conference week. The purpose of these workshops was primarily to train State and local metrologists in laboratory calibration procedures and techniques.

Monday, June 23, 1980 and Tuesday, June 24, 19S0 OPEN COMMITTEE HEARINGS Monday and Tuesday were set aside for hearings of the five Conference Standing

Committees. Notices of these hearings were carried in the Conference Announcement

booklet, in all pre-Conference publicity, and in the printed Conference program. Many

delegates participated in the committee hearings and presentations were given by

representatives of weights and measures, industry, government, and consumer groups. The discussions that took place played an important role in guiding the committees in their deliberations and in the preparations of their final reports. The final reports

of the committees will follow later in this publication and will reflect the discussions

that took place and the actions taken by the Conference at the time the final reports were presented to the delegates.
EXPECTATIONS FOR THE EIGHTIES

Presented by CHARLES H. VINCENT - Conference Chairman,

and Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, City of

Dallas, Texas

In beginning, I want to welcome

all of you to Washington, D.C. for

the 65th National Conference on Weights and Measures. I want to extend a particularly enthusiastic

welcome to our visitors from other

nations

.

We are honored and flattered

that a number of weights and measures

officials from other nations who were in the City last week for the

meeting of the International Organization of Legal Metrology have been

able to remain here for this Conference. The United

States is most pleased to have had the opportunity to host OIML, and we appreciate your joining us this week

for the exchange of views and the pursuit of common

interests

.

Your presence here offers United States officials a unique opportunity for exposure to the functioning of the

international community of legal metrology. Being well aware of the motivation and persistence of U.S. officials, I am certain that full advantage will be taken of

this rare opportunity.

For the edification of our OIML visitors, let me present a brief descriptive summary of this Conference.

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is an organization of weights and measures enforcement officials

of the States, counties, and cities of the United States,

along with officials of the Federal Government, and

representatives of manufacturers, industry, business,

consumers, and other interested persons. The annual

meeting of the Conference brings together these enforcement officials and representatives of the public and

private sectors to discuss and act on matters that relate

to weights and measures technology and administration.

The Committees of the National Conference represent

all areas of this economically important segment of

government regulatory service. The Conference develops

and adopts model laws and regulations, technical codes

for weighing and measuring devices used in commerce, test

1
methods, enforcement procedures, and administrative

guidelines that serve as recommendations to enforcement

officials in the interest of promoting uniformity of

requirements and methods among State and local jurisdictions . A major objective of the Conference is to foster

understanding and cooperation among weights and measures

officials and between them and all industry, business,

and consumer interests.

In summary, the fundamental goal of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures is uniformity! The

Conference motto is . . . "That Equity May Prevail."

This Conference is sponsored by the National Bureau

of Standards which also furnishes the necessary technical

and professional staff support. Without the strong and

enthusiastic support that the Bureau of Standards has

historically provided, I am firmly convinced that the

National Conference on Weights and Measures would be

unable to continue as a viable and effective organization

in responding to public measurement needs.

This 65th National Conference is significant in a number of different ways. To me it symbolizes in a very

real sense our organization's formal beginning of the new

decade of the 1980s. I am certain that all of you have a variety of impressions as to what this new decade will

hold in store. I share with you such a broad spectrum of

impressions

.

I certainly do not lay claim to even the slightest

degree of clairvoyance. However, a rather philosophic

analysis of the recent past and the imminent future has

led me to one projection for the 1980s that I consider to be valid. That projection is as follows: For weights

and measures, or legal metrology in the United States,

the 1980s will be characterized by dramatic technological

change and by intensified demands upon technical and

regulatory resources.

In looking ahead at this new decade of the '80s, I think that how we frame our perspective will be critical

to our ability to shape and to control our collective

destiny as weights and measures officials. I think that our initial and fundamental choice will be that of viewing

probable future events either in the positive context of

challenge, or in the negative context of threat.

Adherence to the positive concept of challenge will,

I think, underlie our ability to respond effectively to the broadened measurement demands of the 1980s. In spite

2
of our occasional tendency to sell ourselves short in the

public arena, the history of weights and measures administration in the United States has been one of continuing,

effective response to changing conditions, needs, and

circumstances. To gain a more concise view of the increasing complexity of our regulatory endeavor, one needs

merely to compare an annual Conference program of 20

years ago to the program that will guide our activities

this week. I would venture that someone who had been out

of touch for the past 20 years would be astounded by some

of the topics that we will discuss and examine this week.

I would predict also that those of us here today would be

equally amazed at the content of the 1990 Conference

program if we were able to view it at present in the form

that I expect it will take.

In departing from the past, I think we can legitimately indulge ourselves in the conclusion that the

weights and measures regulatory system in the United

States has performed responsibly, with a relatively high

degree of efficiency, and with a continuing and genuine

focus on the public interest. In embarking on the course

of the future, however, I think we have to free ourselves

of indulgence and nostalgia. We can begin this transition

by looking analytically at the broad challenges that the

1980s promise.

In deference to the several very distinguished

speakers who will address us this morning, I am anxious

to confine my remarks to as brief a period as is possible.

However, in looking at the 1980s, there are several broad

considerations that I think should underlie and set the

tone for our deliberations this week. These are: DEFINITION OF MEASUREMENT PRIORITIES

By and large, I think it is reasonable to conclude

that we have relied more heavily up until now on tradition

than on comprehensive research and analysis in determining

how State and local regulatory resources will be utilized

in responding to perceived public needs. I consider it a certainty that our resources will diminish in the future

in relation to the expanding demands that will be placed

upon them. This being the case, our responsibility to our constituents will demand a strict definition of

priorities and of programs to respond to those priorities.

I am pleased to note and to emphasize one very

important development in this area. It is a National

Measurement Study, which is being sponsored by the National

Bureau of Standards. That study, which I believe Dr. Ambler plans to discuss, represents a necessary response

3
to concerns we must face, and it merits the full support

of this Conference, of our regional organizations, and of

industry. The Scale Manufacturers Association made a very important contribution in this area through the

innovative concept of a National Metrological Control

Program discussed at our Conference last year and also

during our recent Interim Committee Meetings.

IMPROVED ALLOCATIONS OF REGULATORY RESOURCES

In context, the critical need for optimal utilization

of State and local regulatory resources is obvious. Such

attempted optimization will require dramatic improvements

in our managerial and technical capabilities. To achieve

such improvements, we must look toward new liaisons

between legal metrology and the academic community. As Conference Chairman this year, I have had the very thrilling opportunity to be a part of tentative discussions of

possible new relationships in this area. Dr. Bryce Jordan,

the President of the University of Texas at Dallas, will

discuss one such possible program with us. Another similar

program is being considered by Texas A&M University, my

alma mater. Dr. Lee Phillips is here from A&M.

RECOGNITION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND NEEDS

The hosting of the OIML Conference this year by the

United States and the presence of a number of distinguished

officials from other nations serves to stress, I think,

the increasing importance of uniform measurement standards

and programs at the international level. I am grateful

to our colleagues from abroad for presenting us with an opportunity for enhancement of our international measurement

perspective as we prepare to meet more complex domestic

challenges in legal metrology.

CONTINUATION OF STATE AND LOCAL CONTROL OF WEIGHTS

AND MEASURES

There is no question in my mind that the basic

structure of weights and measures regulation in the

United States is sound. I am also convinced that the

public interest in this nation will be best served by

perpetuation of regulatory control at the State and local

level. This, of course, will require continuation of

technical and professional staff support at the Federal

level such as that which we now receive from the National

Bureau of Standards.

The alternative would be the exercise of Federal

regulatory authority in weights and measures, which this

4
Conference has traditionally resisted. I predict that

our posture in this regard will remain unchanged.

I have spoken briefly of the challenges that the

1980s are sure to hold for legal metrology in the United

States. I am confident that we can master these challenges

and continue to serve the public interest effectively.

One thing I expect to remain unchanged is the spirit of

dedication common to weights and measures officials.

That spirit of dedication translates into basic integrity,

which will, I am sure, continue to guide our efforts in

the 1980s and assure the success of those efforts so that

equity will, indeed, prevail.

5
1980 - A DIAMOND ANNIVERSARY

,

A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY

An Address by ERNEST AMBLER , Director

National Bureau of Standards

As always, it is my great pleasure to be with you. This Conference, more than any other group I know, is

living proof that cooperation between

various levels of government, and

between government and industry, can work. The Conference motto--that

equity may prevail —of course refers to equity in the marketplace.

But I believe it also means equity

between all members of this organization. Equity and cooperation have

always been the hallmarks of Conference activities, and must remain so if we are to continue serving the

American public.

It was 75 years ago that Samuel Stratton, the first

Director of the National Bureau of Standards, opened the

inaugural meeting of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures. Attending at that time were 11 people--

two from NBS , one from the District of Columbia, and one each from the states of Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts,

Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and

Virginia. Today marks the 75th or Diamond Anniversary of

that first meeting. It also provides us with a golden

opportunity to marshall our forces for the challenges of

the 1980's.

And challenges there will be. To me one of the most

intriguing aspects of measurement is that there is always

something new; new phenomena to be quantified, new techniques for measuring, new demands for speed and accuracy.

In the marketplace, price adds yet another element of

urgency. With gasoline now running SI. 50 a gallon in some areas, and projected to further increases by year's

end, the need for accuracy—and honesty— is even greater.

While we can look back with pride on our achievements

of the last 75 years, it is more important to look ahead

with foresight and dedication at the challenges of the next

decade. In my remarks this morning, I will comment on some of those challenges, and on actions that may influence

the effectiveness of our weights and measures operations.

To start with, I believe the decision to broaden

Conference membership is a very positive action. In the

6
past, membership consisted of weights and measures officials from States, counties, and cities of the United

States.

Now, membership is open to anyone from this country,

or from abroad, having an active interest in Conference

activities and objectives. This change has doubled

Conference membership, bringing in new faces, and new

ideas, from scale manufacturers, service companies, and

calibration labs, from packaging, food, and petroleum

companies, and from abroad. The result will be a much

stronger organization in which people involved with all

phases of weights and measures can work together towards common goals.

I am particularly pleased by the fact that there is

a substantial trend of people from other nations now participating in Conference affairs. I understand that

our neighbors in Canada are exploring areas of common

interest and possible joint programs with us. We will

certainly benefit from the experience and unique perspectives of those in other nations. The end result may be

smoother trading with partners around the world.

The extra revenues generated by increased membership

will be used, in part, to expand Conference participation

in the International Organization for Legal Metrology.

This organization promotes worldwide measurement uniformity, much as you do within the United States, and it is

important that U.S. positions be strongly represented in

the OIML standards setting process.

OIML held its 6th International Conference in

Washington last week. I had the honor to officially open

this Conference, and Charles Vincent, Chairman of this

Conference, was a member of the U.S. delegation. Many of

the participants in the OIML meeting are in the audience

today, and I extend to them a most hearty welcome.

A moment ago I mentioned measurement challenges in

the years ahead. Many of them arise as a result of laws

and regulations passed by all levels of government. In order to better focus our efforts, NBS has commissioned a study of the most pressing measurement needs of State and

local government in the areas of weights and measures,

health, environment, and resource recovery.

The study is being conducted by the Middlesex Research

Center here in Washington, and will be completed in May

of 1981. It is a broad ranging study that will assess

such factors as the importance of a measurement, the

economic, health, and safety consequences of not meeting

7
particular measurement needs, the state-of-the-art of the

measurement, and the adequacy of current measurements.

Also to be identified are equipment, operational, calibra

tion, and institutional problems.

The end result of the study will be a separate

listing of problems, in priority order, for each of the

four areas I described earlier. In essence, the study

will be used as a planning document. The list will help

us, and you, concentrate on the most important problems

in weights and measures. Obviously, a study of this magnitude will require a great deal of input from weights and measures officials,

and I invite your participation and cooperation. The

data gathering will be done by the Bureau's Office of

Weights and Measures , and will involve detailed input

from five to ten States. The data will be submitted to

the contractor for analysis and integration into the

final report.

I believe this study is a unique opportunity to assess where we are, and where we need to go, in meeting

measurement needs. The results can help all of us do a better job.

There is another study that I should mention, one specifically requested by Senator Cannon. He called on

NBS, working with the State Conference of Radiation

Control Directors, to assess major national measurement

needs for radiation health and safety. In the case of

ionizing radiation, closer coupling between NBS and the

States who must make compliance measurements in their

regulatory role, was identified as the top priority

action. This is a direction in which we are headed, and

the result should be more reliable measurements at the

point of use.

I think the future will bring more complexity to State measurement needs in general and to weights and measures operations in particular. New measuring equipment, greater demands for accuracy, perhaps pressures for more frequent testing, will combine to challenge our metrological and organizational skills. A partial answer

lies in training. Two universities are working with NBS

in exploring interest in potential courses for metrologists. One of these is the University of Texas at Dallas

where a masters degree program in measurement science is

being considered. The President of the University, Dr. Bryce Johnson, will present a look at measurement science

education later this morning. I will merely add that a workshop will be held in Dallas in September to explore

8
the needs for this post graduate education in measurement

science

.

Another school in the Lone Star State —Texas A&M

University-is also working with NBS to determine the

needs for technical training for weights and measures

officials through their extension service. Dr. Lee

Phillips of Texas A&M is spending the week here to talk

with you along these lines. They, too, are in a factfinding stage, and will be holding a workshop next

January at which you can present your views. There is a clear need for more effective training and education in

the field of metrology, and we applaud the efforts of

these two universities to explore the possibilities.

At NBS, our Weights and Measures Office is looking

into the use of video tapes for training purposes. What

they are considering is the production of tapes on particular aspects of measurement, and then making the tapes

available to Conference members for use in your own

facilities. Such an approach would greatly increase the

audience we can reach, and reduce travel costs and time.

The procedures for producing such tapes are now being

explored, and you will be notified if we are able to go

in this direction.

While it is not training as such, I would like to mention one related action in the field of publication.

We have automated the production of Handbooks 44 and 130,

the two most important NBS works in the weights and measures field. This means that revisions can be incorporated quickly, and distributed to all members of the

Conference

.

During the past year one of our oldest weights and measures programs was transferred to the Department of

Agriculture. I am referring, of course, to the testing

of railway track scales.

It was back in 1913 that our first scale test car rolled on the rails. With time out for wars and depression, the cars had been rolling ever since. Their main

function was to regularly calibrate the 17 master scales

maintained by railway companies, and as many as possible

of the other 5200 scales around the country. Back in the

1940' s we had eight people devoted to this program, but

tighter funding and new responsibilities had cut that

number to two in recent years.

Then Congress passed the Grain Standards Act in

1976. This Act gave the Federal Grain Inspection Service

regulatory authority over 36 track scales used to weigh

9
grain for export. Rather than have them build new cars

and, in essence, duplicate what we were doing, we struck

a deal. We agreed to completely refurbish our two test

cars, and transfer them over to the Grain Inspection

Service. The two men who operated the cars, and who had

been doing so for 20 years, also went to the Inspection

Service. In return, the Inspection Service agreed to take on the responsibility of calibrating the 17 master

scales operated by the railroads. I believe this is an entirely satisfactory arrangement, and the integrity of

the measurements will be preserved.

Turning to improved measurement capabilities, I believe the measurement assurance program in mass, in

which seven northeastern States are now active, is a major step in the right direction. Such programs give

the participants a powerful means for establishing and

monitoring their actual measurement performance. The

fact that one lab acts as the group contact point with

NBS minimized the amount of our involvement without in

any way diluting the quality of our service. I encourage

you all to consider the advantages of measurement assurance programs, and to work with us to help meet your

needs

.

Last month I had the privilege of visiting some of

the measurement facilities in the People's Republic of

China. While their philosophy and organizational approach

is different, they, too, are concerned with equity in

trade. It was agreed that next year a group from China

will visit the USA and that about half of them will be

regional inspectors. They specifically asked me to arrange for them to visit some of your facilities.

I brought back from China not only vivid impressions

of a vast nation and a very hospitable people, but of an ancient saying as well. That saying is~"May you live

in interesting times." I believe that all of us involved

in measurement certainly do, and will continue to do so in this decade. The National Bureau of Standards will

continue to work with you to ensure the times are not only

interesting, but productive and satisfying as well, and

that our Conference motto "that Equity may Prevail" con- tinues to be realized.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BY DR^ AMBLER

It is my privilege, as the President of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, to announce the

appointment of individuals to serve on the Conference

standing committees.

10
You are all aware how important the work and accom- plishments of these committees are to the success of the

Conference and to weights and measures administration and

technology in the United States. In behalf of the Conference, I want to express my sincere appreciation to all

committee members for their valuable contributions over

the year.

To outgoing committee members we give special thanks

for your service to the Conference, and to the new members

who are taking on this vital responsibility we offer our best wishes for an enjoyable and rewarding experience.

The appointments to committees are as follows:

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Mr. Darrell A. Guensler, Assistant Chief, Division

of Measurement Standards, California Department of

Agriculture, is reappointed for a 5-year term. Mr. Guensler was previously appointed to fill the unex- pired term held by Mr. Council Wooten, State of

Florida, who retired.

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Mr. Edward P. Skluzacek, Director, Division of

Weights and Measures, Minnesota Department of Public

Service, is appointed for a 5-year term to replace

Mr. Robert W. Probst, State of Wisconsin, whose term

is expiring.

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER

AFFAIRS

Mr. Thomas F. Geiler, Sealer, Department of Weights

and Measures, Barnstable, Massachusetts, is appointed

for a 5-year term to replace Mr. Anthony J. Ladd,

Akron, Ohio, whose term is expiring. I wish to note

that Mr. Ladd retired on June 1 after 34 years of

weights and measures service with the City of Akron.

COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

Mr. Kendrick J. Simula, Administrator, Division of

Weights and Measures, Oregon Department of Agriculture, is appointed for a 5-year term to replace Dr. Charles H. Greene, State of New Mexico, whose term

is expiring.

Again best wishes to all for the year ahead!

11
PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

Dr. Ambler presented Honor Awards to members of the

Conference who, by attending the 64th Conference in 1979,

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

Award Recipients

25 Years

Single Service Institute

National Bureau of Standards

Executive Secretary, National

Robert W. Foster

Richard N. Smith

Harold F. Wollin

Bureau of Standards

20 Years

Blayne C. Keysar

Marion L. George S. Charles H

Kinlaw

Franks

Oakley

(posthumous) National Bureau

of Standards

Retired, State of North Carolina

Cumberland County, New Jersey

U.S. Department of Agriculture

15 Years

Trafford F. Brink

Richard Southers

Eric A. Vadelund

Sam F. Valtri

Otto K. Warnlof

State of Vermont

American Petroleum Institute

National Bureau of Standards

City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

National Bureau of Standards

10 Years

Joseph F. Devitt

Allen J. Farrar

David P. Leahy

Kendrick J. Simila

Tony Zeller

Lockheed Electronics

National Bureau of Standards

The Kroger Company

State of Oregon

Presto Products

Certificates of Appreciation

The Certificates were presented by Charles H. Vincent,

Conference Chairman, to the following:

John H. Lewis

George L. Johnson

James F. Lyles

A. J. van Male

State of Washington, Conference

Chaplain

State of Kentucky (retired)

State of Virginia, NCWM Represen'

tative to 0IML

The Netherlands (0IML President)

12
Anthony J. Ladd

Charles H. Greene

Robert W. Probst

Akron, Ohio (retired), Committee

Chairman

State of New Mexico, Committee

Chairman

State of Wisconsin, Committee

Chairman

13
SOCIETAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEMANDS UPON LEGAL METROLOGY - A STRATEGY FOR MEETING INCREASED NATIONAL AND

INTERNATIONAL NEEDS . Presented by KNUT BIRKELAND, Director,

Norwegian National Service of Legal Metrology

INTRODUCTION , HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. President, Mr. Chairman,

distinguished officers and members,

ladies and gentlemen - This is a great honor and privilege for me, both as the head of the metrological

service in a small but highly industrialized European country and as the President of the International

Committee of Legal Metrology, to

address the National Conference on Weights and Measures now on the

footsteps of the eighties.

I am grateful for this opportunity to tell the

Conference how OIML looks upon the challenge of the

eighties, and I hope by doing so that I can contribute to

strengthening the already good relations between the

Conference and OIML. And, at this point, I would also

like to use the opportunity, on behalf of the International

Organization of Legal Metrology, to express my profound

gratitude for your invitation to the OIML delegates to

attend this Conference, for the possibility to exchange

views and knowledge, and to establish friendship, all of

which I consider most important.

I will try to tell you about some of the societal

and technological demands of the eighties as seen in an international/global perspective and I shall try to suggest more strategies to meet the needs. Obviously,

half an hour is a little short to go into very great

detail, but I will try to focus on a few of the most

important demands and strategies.

Measurement, of course, is a very ancient activity.

It was probably born the minute food had to be shared.

Legal metrology was born the minute that ancient king

realized that he wanted to tax trade to get what he

considered to be his fair share of good living as well as the money to pay the little army he needed to secure long

life and continuity of the good living.

So, regardless of how old we claim our profession to

be, it may not always have served only the noblest of

14
purpose, equity in and beyond the marketplace. It is the same now and will be in the eighties. Legal metrology

must always work to keep its integrity and to stand up

against pressure to serve irrevelant purposes such as protectionism, trade barriers, etc., instead of its real

purpose, securing accurate measurement.

Development in metrology has come in steps. In particular, industrial development has been responsible

for this. Until the last century every nobleman or every

county proved its integrity by having its own system of

legal metrology, including units and the lot. Of course,

this met the needs as long as worldwide trade and industrial production was at a minimum and the local activities dominant.

During the 19th century this changed drastically.

Clearsighted men realized that no nation could have an economy independent of trade with other nations. The

metrological chaos was however evident for everybody to see at the big world trade fairs of the middle of the

century. The confusion was complete and judgment and

comparison prohibited, since all goods from different

parts of the world were measured in different and

incongruent measures and units.

METER TREATY

Consequently, this led to the creation of the oldest

scientific, international treaty, the meter treaty in

1875, which is perhaps the most significant event in

metrology. It rapidly inspired a high degree of uniformity as well as the creation of important national metrological institutions of which NBS is such an outstanding

example

.

Further technological development however led to renewed confusion, now in the field of measuring instruments. To satisfy the market, the manufacturer had to produce a hundred different versions of an instrument.

And legal metrology went along with this ridiculous

development, even amplified it by producing local

regulations and requirements, incompatible with

those of other nations.

OIML TREATY

To help solve this difficulty, to give legal metrology the tool to work with, the International Organization

of Legal Metrology, OIML, was created by an international

treaty in 1955. The creation of a global, as opposed to local or even regional organization, to deal in cooperation

15
and harmony with these problems, was the second significant step in metrology.

I have spent much time looking into this, because it

is evident that technical development also has an adverse

effect on the process of creating and maintaining uniformity in legal metrology. Twice this has been success- fully handled, but that has been in a situation where the

development was slow as compared to the rate of change

now. We must definitely be aware of the danger that fast

growing technological complexity will tempt legal metrology to look for all sorts of local, improvised solutions

to the detriment of rational solutions based on worldwide

cooperation and expertise. I will come back to this

later

.

WHAT IS LEGAL METROLOGY

Having said this, it is now time to look at what

legal metrology really is. By definition it is that part

of metrology which deals with units of measurement,

methods of measurement, and measuring instruments in

relation to the mandatory technical and legal requirements that have the object of ensuring a public guarantee

from the point of view of the security and of the appropriate accuracy of measurements. This of course leaves

the responsibilities of legal metrology wide open to various legislative and administrative practices in the

different countries, ranging from classical equity in the

marketplace to securing accurate measurement in every

field of human activity.

SOCIETAL DEMANDS ON LEGAL METROLOGY

Now, what are the societal demands on legal metrology. A lot could be said about this, all of which could

be condensed into two controversial demands: increased

activities - for less cost, and increased responsibilities - without restrictions. In short society wants to keep its cake and eat it.

What it means is that we cannot be satisfied being

good metrologists ; we must also be better than our com- petitors, justifying cost-benefit, fighting for funds.

This is a challenge to be taken more seriously in the

eighties than ever before. What it also means, the

symptoms being more public guarantee with less legal

requirements, is that the demand upon legal metrology is

to find balanced, and above all, metrologically sound

solutions

.

16
INCREASED ACTIVITIES

By increased activities I am not so much thinking of

the increasing number of instruments to be verified.

That is the least significant change, and straightforward

to tackle. I am thinking of much more profound changes

that perhaps are more difficult to recognize as having

vital importance to legal metrology since many of us like

to be biased by tradition.

Traditionally legal metrology's concept of trade was very much focused on the marketplace. This was the case when the meter treaty was created, when NCWM and even when OIML were founded. The concept of trade has however

gradually developed, and now this catches up to legal

metrology.

Important commercial transactions nowadays frequently include, and for obvious technological reasons,

reference to quality control as well as certification of

quality in a sense that can only be verified by metrology,

by measurements with qualified traceability to standards.

Legal and commercial implications are the consequence of

requirements not met. The contract, the survival of a factory, employment might be at stake. This is trade

just as much as is the marketplace. And because of its

apparent legal as well as metrological implications,

society already demands involvement from legal metrology.

For what is quality except what you can quantify by

measurement, certified and traceable, which is what legal

metrology is all about. It might just happen that because

of the economical importance in the area of quality con- trol and certification of quality, priority might shift

from traditional to less traditional areas of activities

in the eighties.

Let me add that some countries have had a better

opportunity than others to deal with this demand within

the scope of legal metrology. However, I am convinced

that the eighties will present the challenge to legal

metrology in the most profound way, which is: help

solve the quality control and certification problems of

the industry or stagnate. But in the eighties society

will put demands on legal metrology not only for reasons

of economy and trade. Quite different aspects come into

focus as well. They are all consequences of scientific

and industrial development. I am thinking of environment,

safety, medical instrumentation. Industry develops pollution, society tries to protect itself by legislation

and measurement, and there you are, legal metrology

again. It might not concern all of us directly today.

But in most countries there are people and institutions

17
concerned, and as soon as their metrology becomes sophisticated enough, they will have to prove their accuracy,

and this at least demands involvement, cooperation, and

coordination, as well as increased responsibilities upon

legal metrology.

What about safety, where legislation exists and

where measurement is the criterion. This area covers a lot; police radar, crane safety force meters, verification of manometers for pressure vessels, weighing of

aircraft to conform with Air Navigation Orders - you name

it. Society demands it from legal metrology.

Last, but not least, medical science has developed a high degree of sophistication. The complexity of instrumentation for diagnosis and treatment is impressive

and increasing.

There are demands for verification, and proven

accuracy within prescribed limits, all of which point to legal metrology as the target when society makes its

demands. And society is going to demand just that. I am even convinced that the eighties will present us with an eruptive development of society's demand on legal metrology in this field. In sum, society will demand that the

old trunk of legal metrology grow new, strong branches,

some of them perhaps brand new, others perhaps transplanted from others. For this country in particular, the

eighties are going to present a special demand, metrication, however controversial and loaded with feelings it

may be. I am sure you are well aware of the challenge,

and I shall look forward to the day when you have com- pleted this enormous task with success, which literally

will mean a metrologically united world.

TECHNOLOGICAL DEMANDS

Now I will turn my attention to the demands upon

legal metrology from the complexity and sophistication of

the technology of the eighties. It is certainly going to change our concept of the purpose of legal metrology.

For many the main purpose has been to prevent fraud, next

to assure accurate measurement.

The complexity of tomorrow's instruments may make it

too difficult, risky, and time consuming to manipulate

them for fraud. On the other hand the same complexity

might increase the probability of unintentional inaccuracy of measurement by instrument or component failure.

But this means that equity in the marketplace will demand more attention to assure accuracy and less to fraud.

18
Another example of shift of emphasis is brought to legal metrology by the microprocessor and its relatives.

So far the microprocessor has presented us with increased

difficulties in verification and pattern approval. I can assure you that not only is it going to become much worse before legal metrology comes to grip with it; it is also

going to change our very basic concept, that the criterion

of a good instrument is linearity.

It is very deeply rooted in every metrologist that

linearity is basic; the linear range of the instrument is

the legal range, regardless what kind of instrument we are talking about. But the properly programmed microprocessor can straighten out any lack of linearity - if

there is not another parameter not programmed for and the

parameters keep within the range of the program, and if

humidity does not shortcircuit the processor, etc., etc. In short, we can forget about the linearity of the instrument as such. Fine, so will the manufacturer as well.

He will ask himself, why spend $1000 dollars on this high

quality pick-up when 10 bucks worth of microprocessor can straighten up $100 worth of pick-up. Not so fine for

legal metrology, for this cheap pick-up will be sensitive

to a lot of influences and parameters and lack of repeatability and will bring us no end of extra trouble.

The microprocessor will demand a shift of attention

from linearity to a more global concept of instrument

performance. On the other hand the microprocessor will

help significantly in solving other problems such as storing and telecommunicating information. How conve- niently will the local inspector in the middle and late

eighties be able to get all the information he needs for

a complicated in situ verification just by reading his

online or offline terminal screen. And how easily will

he be able to feed back to headquarters all relevant

information.

However, technology has more demands in store.

Legal metrology will be facing a large range of more or less new sources of measuring errors. Surely we are used

to temperature effects, but perhaps not all of us so much

to humidity effects. And what about electrical noise and

electromagnetic interference or even radiation. These

will be the demands of the eighties.

A completely different kind of technical demand will

be presented by Standard Reference Materials, SRM's.

They have quickly gained an increasingly important place

in metrology and are being integrated into legal metrology,

the objective again being equity beyond the marketplace.

19
THE THIRD WORLD AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

Impossible to predict, it may well come to affect

legal metrology more than anything I have already said.

We can always ask ourselves to what extent legal metrology

in the developing countries can meet their needs or to what extent other countries can help. Unless a significant

effort is made by legal metrology, I am afraid the prospects

are a little less than bright.

However, the most important demand upon legal metrology that technology presents is brought about simply by

the accelerating rate of change of technology. I shall

only remind you how the introduction of electronics nearly

paralyzed parts of legal metrology. We wanted to see how

the thing developed, wanted the situation to mature and

settle. Then and not before, would we deal with it. Of course that is a cautious and reasonable approach based

on previous experience where the same method had been

applied with perfect justification and great success,

such as when the scale based on the double pendulum came

in the first third part of this century. That contraption was not allowed into the world of legal metrology

until it had reached a metrological perfection that made

it equal to scales and balances already in existence,

which was a stimulating challenge to the manufacturers.

No such luck this time with electronics. The only but

significant difference now, making all previous experience obsolete, is basically the rate of change. Whereas

our predecessors could let a new development reach its

final stage and then deal with it, there is no time for

that today. We must provide a solution for technical

development before the development defeats us. We do not

want to be in the position in which we have to tailor the

requirements to the instruments instead of having the

instruments tailored to the performance criteria, nor do we want to be thrown into the limbo of not being able to provide any requirements and criteria, as is the sad case

in many countries when it comes to electronics.

This technological demand on legal metrology relates

to rate of change, i.e., that yesterday's instruments are obsolete today and we have only little knowledge about

what will be the technological reality of legal metrology

of tomorrow.

STRATEGY FOR MEETING NEEDS

I believe the following presentation will suggest

that the strategy for meeting many International needs is to start working at it on a National level, just like

strategy for National needs starts on the International

20
level. I would therefore rather like to distinguish

between specific needs and general needs.

PERFORMANCE NOT DESIGN

Is there for instance any strategy to deal with the

need to avoid being defeated by rate of change, by the

fact that we know little at present of tomorrow's instrumentation, whereas today's will soon be obsolete. Oh yes

there is. The obvious strategy is that all kinds of

requirements be written in terms of performance and not

of design or construction. Needless to say, this basic

strategy has already been agreed upon as a guideline for

the elaboration of OIML recommendations. But it is

hardly sufficient to leave it at that; all must remind

themselves of this strategy whenever elaborating regulations. It is so easy to slip into design criteria and as

a consequence be defeated by rate of change, and it takes

a lot of courage and knowledge to concentrate on performanceregardless of technical solutions.

FROM INSTRUMENT TO MEASUREMENT RESULT

Is there a strategy to deal with increasing technical

complexity on the verification level, the need arising

partly from technical development and partly from new

areas of interest for legal metrology. There are several,

I believe, of which the following might be the most

important. The strategy actually implies that legal

metrology needs to accept a wider concept of responsibility than the traditional one, and this is no contradiction. Legal metrology will gradually change

or rather widen the emphasize from instrument to measurement result. Accurate measurement is what we want.

It might have been the sufficient condition to make

certain that the instrument was correct. This might no longer be so in all cases, although it still will remain

the basic, if not the sufficient condition, that the

instrument is right. No one can measure accurately with

an erroneous instrument. The strategy will be to start

shifting attention to the accuracy of the measurement

result, and start looking into how we may start putting

that into practice during the eighties.

COOPERATION-NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL

There is however one strategy, more complex and

difficult but more efficient and rewarding, that will

prove increasingly important through the eighties, and

the keyword is cooperation. Now, that may mean everything

- or nothing. What will it mean for legal metrology?

One way of putting it is to say that it is obvious that

21
increasing technological complexities will mean an openness and willingness to greatly incease crossprofessional

cooperation and coordination of resources. Another way

of saying the same thing is to point at the importance of

working actively to establish credibility and create

confidence. Friction reduces and slows down cooperation;

confidence is the oil that reduces friction. However

evident the need for cooperation, it cannot exist without

confidence

.

Let us look at a practical, down to earth example.

Let us assume a bottleneck in the system. It could be

anything, but this bottleneck is caused by lack of willingness to cooperate, insistence on doing it myself, ourselves,

because only then will we know it to be O.K. Now, society

has a tendency of getting rid of bottlenecks , one way or other, so it might be wiser to beat it than to be beaten

by it. If the bottleneck is, say, pattern approval or initial verification, it could be resolved by sharing

work with somebody, avoiding double work; i.e., letting

somebody else, another country for instance, do your

work. Now, this is not at all that easy, because I do

not know the competence of this other service nor the

quality of its work. The obvious answer is rejection, I better do it myself, then I will be sure. There is only

one flaw in this reasoning; it gives the wrong answer. The right and logical answer is, if you do not know, get

to know. Get knowledge about competence and quality,

when you know, not before, you can decide. Decision must

be based on knowledge, not on lack of knowledge.

This, of course, means a systematic, active effort

to establish credibility and create mutual confidence.

This is a road of vital importance and we must not underestimate the difficulties. I am convinced that the means

must be pragmatic and in steps. It will hardly be possible

tc achieve anything by declaring that everything that is

accepted by country A also goes in country B; the latter

will never be happy. But it might be possible for B to accept, for a start, that if A declares it has verified

an instrument, and accepted it as conforming to specified

requirements, this leaves it open to B to check or not.

luring the process A will build up credibility and B will get confidence. Similar examples could be given to cover the range of activities of legal metrology. The answer will always be, cooperation must be founded on confidence, based on knowledge. Having thus the key to useful cooperation, it is fair to state that this is the

strategy of ultimate importance to meet the needs.

22
Another practical example refers to one of the

controversial demands of society, increased activities - for less cost.

Legal metrology is being generously charged with new

activities and responsibilities, but is, I dare say,

rather less generously supplied with adequate resources

to do the job. Now, how can one execute full responsibility

without having enough people and funds to do the job.

Let us look for a moment at what NBS and other national

laboratories did when they realized that they could no longer do all the calibration work that was required.

They left a lot of calibration work to other laboratories,

in particular the less demanding work. In some cases this happened after a process of accreditation. However,

the national laboratories maintain their responsibility

by means of traceability , systems of supervision, and

above all, maintained competence and knowledge.

Could legal metrology develop something similar to ease the problem. One has to bear in mind the particular

quality of the responsibility of legal metrology, which

is unique. Legal metrology does the job on behalf of the

government. The actions have legal consequence and

validity. It follows that delegation of work is no simple, straightforward matter that can be based on the

single criterion of know-how.

However, I feel convinced that legal metrology will

have to develop and use new ways to execute the responsibilities. One way will no doubt be based on increased

inter-institutional and similar collaboration on a national

or state scale.

As the main problem is associated with new activities

and responsibilities, the strategy to meet the needs will

be to develop watertight systems of supervision rather

than to try to undertake all of the field work, as such.

This is where the collaboration comes in to cover the

need. The strategy is, however, entirely dependent on legal metrology's ability to develop and maintain knowledge.

No one can collaborate without knowledge, nobody can supervise without deeper and more comprehensive knowledge.

Accordingly, the key words of the strategy are supervision

and knowledge. This means increased cooperative activity,

a field where NCWM has such a fine tradition, making NCWM

an obvious cornerstone in this job. Another cornerstone

will of course be OIML, younger than NCWM, but also

strong and willing.

23
EDUCATION-KNOWLEDGE

The next strategy will be to encourage metrological

education, to establish knowledge on all levels, throughout

the world, education and training. The best investment

is to keep abreast of technological development. I would

like to add here that some of the activities of cooperating

and coordination of resources have a very strong educational

spin off effect indeed.

I am thinking of increased intercomparison of standards - very educational. Development of internationally standardized methods for testing and verification of instruments and measurement procedures, particularly relating

to pattern approval and initial verification, is very

educational. So will be co-work for the purpose of

rationalizing methods for subsequent in situ verification.

INTEGRITY

Through all this legal metrology will have to keep,

perhaps even strenghen its integrity. Without integrity,

no credibility.

CONCLUSION

I feel convinced that legal metrology faces a highly

difficult, as well as highly interesting and challenging

immediate future. Technology races at a rate that forces

us to rethink and change ideas, methods, and concepts.

Society is going to ask much more and in new fields. We

might risk being defeated, but united through strong and

frictionless cooperation and effort we will be able to meet the needs, and to serve society adequately.

However we are all, you as well as I, responsible

for whether or not we are going to succeed. This is why

I am so grateful for this opportunity to address you.

Like NCWM, OIML will only be effective if we contribute

to its inputs and make use of its outputs.

I am glad to be able to say that the contribution of

your country to the work of OIML has already been significant

and will be even more so in the future. Your resourceful

country has so much to offer and on the other hand, such

an enormous capacity for making use of the output.

24
SHARING POWER , RESPONSIBILITY , AND RESOURCES

IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

Presented by WILLIAM J. PAGE, JR., Executive Director

The Council of State Governments

It gives me genuine pleasure to join you for a portion of the 65th

National Conference on Weights and

Measures. I was surprised when I received the invitation from Harold

Wollin, your able Executive Secretary.

I knew that he wanted the Secretary

of Commerce for this spot on your

agenda. My sympathy for Harold

increased when I reflected on the

difficulty of his task. The truth

is that I am the only person Harold

could find who is not preoccupied

with running for, or from, a political

situation this year.

Government is an increasing part of the total experience of life in the United States. Approximately one-third

of our national product is governmental activities. Our

governments employ approximately 13 million persons or about six percent of the total population. Clearly,

government is the most extensive and pervasive element of our national experience.

Size alone is not an adequate index to governmental

activity. Our 80 000 Federal, State, local, and other

types of governmental jurisdictions defy comprehension,

appropriate planning and coordination, and accountability.

Size, complexity, and trends require attention of elected

officials who value a responsible partnership. Continual

learning is required to understand trends and current

situation, for anticipation of future problems, and for

intelligent initiatives to assure appropriate governance

of the entire system of public services.

My remarks today will cover trends of special interest

to States, issues of integrity in the Federal system,

financial responsibilities and patterns, and problems and

opportunities in the probable future of our Federal

system. Having invested my life in intergovernmental

affairs since I was old enough to vote, I feel free to celebrate the good and to slam the deficiencies of our

system. Also, I feel entitled to a few opinions.

25
TRENDS : ISSUES OF INTEGRITY IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

Three trends are particularly important to elected

State officials. The first notable trend is general and

rapid expansion of governmental activity. The second

trend is the increasing level and shifting pattern of

intergovernmental finance. The third trend is increasing

centralization and control by the Federal government.

These three trends are closely related.

The expansion of government may be measured in scope

of governmental activities at various times, in dollar

costs, and in employment. I have mentioned one index of

scope: one dollar in three of our Gross National Product

is government. The next selected index is approximately

500 federal assistance programs, most of them enacted

during the past two decades. The most amazing change in

these intergovernmental programs is not in number or

size. Instead, it is in the bewildering variety of

persons, groups, and organizations eligible for

specialized financial assistance, most of whom are organized as special interest groups. As I will mention

later, the diffused availability of funds makes real

accountability nearly impossible and actually stimulates

the creation of single-purpose districts and other governmental fragments.

We have reached the stage where our willingness and

ability to create governmental activities has outstripped

our ability to govern them.

The second trend, increasing financial demands of

intergovernmental programs, will be addressed in a later

section of my remarks. Today we address this trend with

increasing awareness that the intergovernmental financial

barrel does have a bottom in it -- placed there by a declining economic growth rate and increasing numbers of

taxpayers who feel overburdened with taxes.

The third trend, increased centralization and control, was aptly labeled by the Advisory Commission on Intergovern

mental Relations. The Commission called it "a tilt

toward Washington." This trend is closely related to the

flow of funds. The Golden Rule, government style, is:

"He who has the gold makes the rules." But centralization and control are not limited to the flow of money.

There is an increasing tendency of Federal legislators

and bureaucrats to mandate actions by State and local

governments, regardless of financial support. States

sometime show this same tendency toward local governments.

Other mandates have proliferated in contractual agreements

between Federal grantors and their State and local grantees

26
They have been added to formula grants based on State

entitlements and they abound in discretionary project

grants. These mandates are reinforced by regulations,

which have the force and effect of law. Today, we have

approximately 100 Federal agencies producing 7000 regulations per year. More than 50 of these agencies do business

with the States. The regulations conflict, one with

another, and with State laws. Here is probably the

messiest situation and one of the knottiest problems

facing State government now and in the future.

The present situation raises serious questions

whether our capacity to govern has kept pace with the

expansion of governmental activities. This issue is a current study topic of the National Academy for Public

Administration, among others. The Council of State

Governments, I am happy to say, has begun work on several

dimensions of this problem, in regional organizations and

nationally. So have the Congress, the Executive Office

of the President, and the private sector.

FINANCING AND MANAGING THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

Growth of intergovernmental finance during the past

twenty years exceeded the total growth of the first 175

years of our nation's history. The evidence supports Al

Toffler's thesis of an exponential rate of change.

Trends show changes in the relative and absolute

financial roles of State and local governments in the

United States. State and local governments raised 33

percent of all public revenues in 1957. Twenty years

later, they raised 42 percent. The major gain in State revenues occurred through increases in sales and income

taxes. Service demands require more workers. In 1977, more than 82 percent of all civilian employees of public

organizations worked for State and local governments.

The States have become the financial managers of the

intergovernmental system. We are the middlemen although

the Federal and local governments constantly aspire to go

further into direct business between themselves. They

apparently wish to forget that the Constitution provides

two tiers, not three. Direct Federal-local financial

assistance has increased about twenty-fold in the past

two decades. To the extent that direct Federal-local

financing and mandatory pass-throughs occur, to that same extent the decline of State-local aid should be expected.

For example, if the General Revenue Sharing Act is changed

this year to provide a larger share to, or only for,

local governments, the States undoubtedly will reduce the

proportion and amount of State funds now allocated to

27
local governments. If the States are cut out of the

General Revenue Sharing program, their incentive and

their fiscal capability to assist local governments will

be greatly reduced, especially in public education.

Another trend of the past twenty years is upward

shifting of costlier public services. Education and

welfare are examples. Many States have assumed all or increased shares of the cost of education, while the

Federal share of total support has increased only seven percent. In welfare, the share of total program costs

from Federal sources has declined three percent, while 30

States have assumed ninety percent or more of welfare

costs. As the local tax base shrinks, the burden on State governments will increase. Direct Federal-local

aid will reduce the demonstrated tendency and incentive

:f State governments to assume such costs.

The States have shown greater fiscal effort than

either Federal :r local governments. In constant dollars.

States produced a 360 percent increase in revenues during

the period 1957-1977, while the Federal increase was only

l~l percent and the local increase was 270 percent,

luring this sane period a six-fold increase in FederalState grants occurred while direct Federal-local grants

increased nearly 19-fold.

This massive increase in direct Federal-local aid

has changed the whole character of intergovernmental

finance, making local governments much more dependent on Federal aid. Local governments in 1977 received over 75 cents in State and Federal aid for every dollar raised

iron local sources, lies recreseics mere than doubled

local fiscal dependency since 1942. Dur local governments

cave become "grant-in-aid junkies." States are losing

tie battle to help local governments control their fiscal

habits because the Federal pushers are on every street corner

!

1 an afraid that we and the "feds" too frequently

forget that States provided Sol billion in aid to localities m 19", which was the year in which Federal grantsm-aid began t; level cff. With the current slow-down in

Federal aid -- actually a decline in real dollars -- we can expect the State burden to increase, unless we correct

our course of the past two decades.

States nave made substantial progress in improving

their own financial systems. Their revenue instruments

ire now more balance: ate responsive to economic conditions.

They are less regressive. Homeowners are shielded from

property tax overloads in 1? states. Thirty-seven States

28
now use the two most powerful revenue devices, income and

sales taxes, compared to 18 States in 1950.

States carry a larger share of the taxation load.

For example, in 1963 we raised $1 for each dollar of revenue produced by local governments; in 1978 we produced

about $1.40 for each dollar collected locally.

The General Accounting Office studied the financial

prospects of a sample of nine states in 1979. The financial

outlook in these states was good to excellent, even when

inflation and tax and expenditure limitations were taken

into account. California's prospects were an exception

to the general pattern but this State's prospects were dramatically improved on June 3. The taxpayers voted two

to one against a measure to reduce state income taxes by

50 percent. I see this action by voters as a restoration

of balance in financial support of public services.

We now need to face the fact that some of our objectives

are different from the objectives of the Federal government.

Not all national goals have high priority for State and

local governments. As responsible financial participants,

we must begin to choose what we will and will not support

with State and local dollars.

Whatever else the decade of the 1980s may hold,

vastly improved policy management and higher expectations

of productivity will become absolute necessities. We can

no longer afford to invent new programs or expand old

ones and continually employ additional staff in response

to every known need or pressure from special interests.

Governmental revenue projections will not support the

expansive pattern of the 1960s and 1970s. Heavily burdened

taxpayers will not allow it. Simply stated, we shall

have to accomplish goals in some order of priority with

greater resource limitations.

Hard choices can be made intelligently through the

discipline of policy management, which can help to establish

goals at each level of government, consider alternative

strategies for achieving such goals, measure progress,

and evaluate outcomes. This discipline will have the

comfortability of a hair shirt for many policymakers,

administrators, and specialized professionals. For

example, in human services, the area in which I have

spent a major portion of my time, activity counts frequently

are substituted for evaluation of outcomes. In other

words, we do a lot of "good things" for people but we do

not satisfactorily answer the question: "What difference

does it make?" This issue becomes terribly important

when one realizes that States spend one-half of their

29
total dollars in human services. Actual savings are less

likely than improved productivity, which is just now being discovered as a possible way of coping with increased

demands for services, fiscal constraints, and inflation.

I am confident that careful prioritization and

emphasis on productivity gains in the public sector will

become a part of our way of life in the 1980s. A recent

study by the Academy for Contemporary Problems reveals

that almost one-third of all current capital investment

in the United States is being non-productively diverted

to finance the costs of delay. This is a major reason

for increased inflation and productivity losses. Too

much of this delay is caused by governmental regulation

and slow decision-making.

PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR STATES

As we attempt to cope with intergovernmental problems, we need to be constantly aware of our opportunities.

Sometimes they are the same. A contributing cause of excesses in costs of public

services is the number of governmental units. We have

thousands of unnecessary and inefficient units of government -- tiny municipalities and single-purpose jurisdictions. Many of these limited jurisdictions have been

established solely to qualify for Federal or State funds.

Once established, they are forever in fiscal need. It

may be incredible to you, but we actually have 37 units

of government per 100 000 population! The total count is

nearly 80 000 units of government. One in four (21 000)

does not even have one full-time employee; 11 000 of

these small or fractional governmental entities receive

General Revenue Sharing checks from Uncle Sam.

Here is a problem which the States must handle more effectively if the costs of government in the United

States are ever to be controlled. And it is a State

problem. One thing that the Congress or the White House

cannot do directly is create a local government.

State priorities clearly are different in some instances from Federal emphases. When one subtracts the

direct Federal pass-through from total state aids to local governments, two facts stand out clearly. First,

State financial emphasis is placed on education and

general aid to local governments. Federal aids consistently

place more emphasis on welfare and highways. Federal aid

to education has never exceeded ten percent of the total

cost of this function.

3C
In addition to too many governments, a State perspective of the Federal system today reveals too many controls.

The overall problem here is attributable to the mistaken

notion that control of process, or procedures, assures desired outcomes and accountability. Even if process

control could guarantee outcomes, a further problem is

that many of the intergovernmental programs do not specify

the outcomes to be achieved. The overall result is a tangle of regulations that is impossible to manage and

bales of statistical data that are useless for executive

management or policymaking.

State hands are not entirely clean in this matter of

futile efforts to control intergovernmental programs.

Our first fault is that we do not frequently and vigorously

challenge inane or excessive controls. We could win more

issues if we made more issues.

The second problem in our effort to control process

is that we relay all of the Federal procedural controls

as we pass resources through to local governments. Too

frequently, we even add a few for good measure. The end

result is that local administrators cannot do an honest

day's work without violating some of these regulations.

If we continue in this pattern, we will breed contempt

for all efforts to get proper control and accountability.

"Proper control" means to me assurance of outcomes

that are understood and accepted by all persons involved

in an operation. This requires that we let our public

employees know what we want as products or outcomes of

their work. Accountability also should be expressed in

these terms. Certainly we expect, and usually get,

fiscal integrity. Public employees, in my experience,

rarely steal or deliberately misuse money. A more frequent

problem is that they work hard but accomplish very little--

because no one has specified what they are expected to accomplish.

A great opportunity for the States may be even more difficult to achieve than productivity of administrative

agencies. We might stop onerous mandates and proliferation

of fragmented programs at the source if we can develop

effective intergovernmental legislative relations. There

was a time when we could rightly blame the President and

the executive branch for many increments of programs.

Now credit is more correctly given to the Congress for

such initiatives. Presidential and Congressional initiatives are likely to be stifled by the projected economic

situation expected in the next decade.

31
Executive relations in intergovernmental affairs

have been fairly well developed for a long time. It is

not unusual for a President, as Jimmy Carter has done

frequently, to invite State and local officials to the

White House to discuss policy matters. State legislators,

governors, mayors, and county officials have had ready access to the President in recent years.

The big gap that remains is the absence of an effective

overall relation of the Congress and State legislatures.

Current efforts of the National Conference of State

Legislatures and the Council of State Governments are not

sufficiently extensive and not appropriately designed to achieve this objective. Elected State officials must be

willing to find the time and adopt different methods to make federalism work.

I have not yet referred specifically to the major

public policy issue facing the United States today. I refer, of course, to development of ample and reliable

sources of energy to meet our future needs. On this

issue the States must be as concerned and involved as the

Federal establishment.

My immediate concern is that the trend toward Federal

centralization will cause Federal and State policymakers

to assume that the Federal government should handle the

energy problem alone. If States permit this to happen we will have failed to engage effectively with the most

critical and pervasive problem of our time. The supply

and cost of energy are critically important to every

citizen of the United States. Elected and appointed

officials must insist on, and handle responsibly, a significant portion of public policymaking and execution.

We are lagging behind the action at this time.

Natural resources is another area where we need to assert ourselves. The intelligent use of land, water,

and mineral resources is closely related to our energy

and economic futures. It may be more difficult in some ways and easier in other ways to get sensible policy

established through heavy State involvement. Hard or easy, I do not believe that we have a responsible alternative . CONCLUSIONS

Though the increasing size of the public sector is

impressive, the complexity of policy choices and administration are probably even more significant for the 1980s.

The Federal system has become overburdened because nearly

all governmental functions are shared by national, State,

32
and local governments. The current and prospective

situations raise issues of our capacity to govern the

intergovernmental system created during nearly a halfcentury of expansion.

The States have become the fiscal intermediaries for

the intergovernmental financial system. Their own contributions are an absolutely and relatively increasing

portion of intergovernmental resources. Excessive reliance on regulation has been costly in

terms of productivity and attitudes toward government.

All levels of government have fallen into the trap of

regulating process rather than outcomes. This generic

issue is now receiving national, State, and local government attention.

Fiscal stringency is and will continue to be a strong motivator of improved policy management and

initiatives to improve productivity. Legislative over- sight is expected to increase.

Incremental change rather than constitutional or other radical revision is the most probable prospect for

the Federal system of government in the United States.

Though the system appears to be overburdened, it has

produced and continues to produce direct or indirect

benefits for a majority of persons in the United States.

33
A UNIVERSITY LOOKS AT MEASUREMENT SCIENCE EDUCATION

Presented by BRYCE JORDAN, President

The University of Texas at Dallas

It is a pleasure to be with you

this morning. I confess to a sense

of anxiety in speaking to an audience

of professionals about whose subject

I know practically next to nothing.

It does give me some comfort that

your fine Conference Chairman, Mr. Charles Vincent, is a fellow Texan

and Dallasite. Also, it gives me

some relief to recognize that while

I know little about measurement

sciences, you in turn probably know

little about the University of Texas

at Dallas.

Let me say just a brief word about UTD. Formerly

the Southwest Center for Advanced Studies, the University

was created in 1969 by an act of the Texas legislature as

a component part of the University of Texas system. UTD

is an upper level institution, without freshmen and

sophomores. Nearly half of the student body of 6000 is

at the graduate level, enrolled in one of our 10 Ph.D.,

or 16 Master programs. The University has a tradition

growing out of the natural sciences and continues to place a strong emphasis on graduate instruction and

research in the natural sciences. Indeed, in terms of

per capita faculty research funding, UTD ranks second

among all of the public colleges and universities of the

State. I emphasize these points by way of saying that

UTD possesses most of the resources that might be required

to train measurement scientists.

In speaking to the subject of "a university looks at

measurement science education," I want you to know that

UTD has been considering this subject for about a year.

Our University was first made aware of the need for

measurement science education about one year ago. A

fellow Texan from Dallas, Sy Raskin--whom many of you

know—initiated our discussion based on industrial users'

needs for education and research. Coincidentally , the

National Bureau of Standards was investigating better

means for education and training of Bureau personnel, or State regulatory personnel, and others engaged in development, inspection, service, and operation, relative to the

measurement function. We were one of a sample of universities across the Nation contacted regarding potential

34
solutions to needs for education and training. It is a step in this progression of activities that leads me to speak to you today.

As a layman, I can understand that measurements of

physical quantities are important technologically, economically, and socially. I am told that timely and precise

measurements are a source of improving operations in

fields as diverse as steel-making and medical care. Also, the economic fairness of commercial transactions

depends on correct measurements. Environmental protection

relies upon measurement of physical quantities. The

planning, organizing, and controlling of processes by

managers requires measurement of performance in relation

to operating goals.

Since measurement science apparently has such a potentially broad scope of influence on our Nation's

productivity and the quality of life, the education of

measurement scientists should be of considerable potential

interest

.

As an educator responsible for the conduct of a new major public university, the first question I asked is

what is the current status of university programs in

measurement science. I am informed that there are none,

though George Washington University had attempted such a program some years back. If measurement science is so important, why are not adequate programs already in

existence? It seems to me that there are at least two

significant reasons. One possible reason why educational programs in

management science do not presently exist in universities

may be that the conventional organization of universities

does not readily accommodate the essentially interdisciplinary character of the educational program that would

need to be designed to train measurement scientists. I believe it was former Governor Campbell of New Mexico who

observed that attempting to change an academic department

is much like trying to move a cemetery--it has as many

complications, and many of the same implications. It is,

of course, true that universities typically are organized

into departments by academic discipline. Attempts to bridge or recombine these organizational forms are indeed

extremely difficult. At the same time, one important

reason why UTD is seriously interested in the possibility

of inaugurating a Master's level program in measurement

science is that the design of the university is in large measure interdisciplinary in character. The newest five

of our Ph.D. programs, for example, are not in traditional

35
disciplines. Rather they are in environmental sciences,

communication disorders, international management, political

economy, and a cohesive integration of literature, aesthetic

studies, and history of ideas in the humanities.

In any event, the subject of the relation of organizational form to the nature of knowledge and the conduct

of human activities is a complex and even profound subject

that need not occupy further attention today, except to

say that it is my assumption that graduate education in measurement science must, of necessity, be interdisciplinary.

A second reason for the absence of graduate programs

in measurement science may be that educators have yet to

appreciate the changing character of the measurement

sciences themselves.

This was illustrated to me with the example of such

change in the medical thermometer. For years the device

was a column of mercury in a glass tube, requiring several

minutes to expand to a readable condition. Today, we have a thermally sensitive probe with electronic readout

that reads in seconds; and the data can be transmitted to remote locations. We also have available to us a strip

of plastic which can be held against our skin and which

changes color with temperature, according to a digitally

indicated code. Apparently the science of measuring body

temperature today involves faster, simpler operations;

but the operations are based on more complex technology

involving several traditional technical disciplines.

I understand that measurement technology has changed

in the last generation from simple mechanical, electrical,

or optical devices to sophisticated computerized systems.

I am told that the development, since World War II, of

electronic data processing hardware, and its associated

software, have caused a technological revolution in

measurement science. The use of computer speed and

memory to gain data processing advantages on a real time

basis has generated a hunger for computer inputs. Measurement devices are being sought to sense, quantify, and

generate data proportional to physical characteristics on

a real time basis. And the measurement system may involve

any number of technical disciplines other than electronics.

In short, a body of measurement science knowledge is

developing rapidly, and it may be that it is timely to collect and formalize such knowledge in sufficient quantity

and appropriate forms of elaboration to justify a graduate

degree program in measurement science. If this is the

36
case, a final critical question remains --what are the career opportunities in business and industry and in

government for the graduates?

If we are to invent a new graduate program, there

must be career opportunities for the graduates and a related ability to attract qualified students to these

opportunities

.

To this end, as a next step in our learning, we have

scheduled a two-day seminar and workshop in Dallas for"

September 30 - October 1, 1980. Last month the National

Bureau of Standards mailed out preliminary announcements

requesting an expression of interest in attending the

workshop to assist us in our planning. To date, approximately 200 people have indicated their desire to attend

the seminar/workshop at Dallas. In reaction to this

encouraging response, we are preparing a final program

mailing for next month, with formal registration material

attached.

The first day of the program will include presentations

by speakers from various industrial and government organizations. The speakers will have backgrounds in a variety

of technical disciplines. They will present their views

regarding career opportunities and curriculum needs in

measurement science. The second day will be devoted to workshops of interchange between the attendees and university scientists from chemistry, computer science, physics,

statistics, and the environmental and management sciences.

A summary of the proceedings of the seminar and any

recommendations that come forth will be circulated. It

is intended that a two-month follow-up period will enable

in-depth interviews with faculty and a sample of attendees,

after the attendees have returned to work and have had

opportunity to discuss the results of the seminar with

their associates.

At that time—approximately December, 1980, --we hope

to have the information on which to base a program development decision regarding education in measurement science.

In closing, I wish to emphasize that our interest at

UTD is with education and research in measurement science.

Our interest does not include training directed toward

the measurement practitioner.

The application, use, regulation, and service of

currently available technologies and hardware frequently

require skills that are new to the practitioner. At UTD we are not equipped to provide this training.

37
Fortunately, NBS and Mr. Raskin last year had contacted

the Texas A &. M University system, among others,

friends at College Station have expressed a posit,

interest in developing programs of training for the

measurement practitioner. The Texas A & M system ha^, as one of its components, the Texas Engineering Extension

Service, which is an established operation well- suited

for training of i type that appears to be needed.

The :ension service decision-makers also want to be sure of their ground before commitment of plans.

Therefore, they have established a goal for conducting a seminar/workshop in January, 1981. Their workshop program

will be similar to ours, except it will be dedicated to identifying needs for "training in measurement practice."

In spite of the well-known rivalry between the

University of Texas and the Aggies at College Station, I am pleased to report that Dr. Lee Phillips of the Texas

Engineering Extension Service visited our campus last

month to compare notes as to the directions being taken

by the two institutions. We will continue to coordinate

our independent activities so that, together, the total

need for education and training may be met.

While I have had the privilege of bringing you news

of the thinking and plans to date, a large number of

people have been, and currently are, involved in this

work. People who are present today--and who are more familiar than I regarding certain specific areas of the

program—including Dr. Ernest Ambler, Director of NBS;

Mr. Albert Tholen, Chief of the NBS Office of Weights and

Measures; Dr. Lee Phillips of Texas Engineering Extension

Service; Mr. Charles Vincent, Director of Consumer Affairs

for the city of Dallas and your National Conference

Chairman, and Mr. S. H. Raskin of the Raskin Corporation,

who has coordinated our activities.

I wish to express our appreciation to these people

for leading us in the directions we have taken, and I am grateful for this opportunity to tell you what we are about

.

38
THE SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION REPORT ON

SCALE TOLERANCES

Presented by JOHN J. ELENGO, JR. , Vice President-Engineering

Revere Corporation of America

The Scale Manufacturers Association,

a non-profit organization, was established

by scale industry leaders in 1945 to provide a permanent instrumentality

for coordinating the efforts of many

individuals in the best interests of

the public, the owners and users of

scales, and the scale manufacturers.

Since its inception, SMA has enjoyed

an unusually high degree of respect

and appreciation from the public,

affiliated professionals, and Government regulatory agencies.

Since April of 1979, the SMA has been engaged in an effort to review the structure of tolerances for weighing

devices. This effort is an outgrowth of proposals put

forward at the Southern and Western Regional Weights and

Measures Conferences and at the interim meetings of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures in 1979. As

a result, the SMA had gone on record with the NCWM to address this subject.

FACTORS LEADING TOWARD A REVIEW OF THE TOLERANCE STRUCTURE

Before getting into the details, it would be wise to review the factors that have led to the necessity of

reviewing our national tolerance structure.

The first factor is the advancement of electronic

technology. In recent years, particularly as a result of

efforts in space, an entirely new technology has been

developed—that of semiconductor devices, integrated

circuits, and now microprocessors. This technology is

having a profound effect on the design and performance of

weighing devices.

A second factor is the increased dependency among

members of society, particularly as a result of resource

limits and distribution. No one community, State, or nation possesses all the resources that it needs to operate its economy. And so, goods and services based on weight become increasingly more important as sophistication

in society increases. This is further kindled by a third

factor--that of the increased efficiency of communications

and transportation--in other words, our shrinking world.

39
With communication satellites, jumbo aircraft, and super

sea carriers, we are able to communicate and move commodities

at a rate heretofore unknown. As a result, the need to upgrade existing scale codes has resulted in a high rate

of revision, sometimes with discontinuity and confusion.

Superimposed upon that are the generation of independent

new scale codes, both nationally and internationally,

which has resulted in a genuine need to harmonize these

codes for reasonable uniformity.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

With this in mind, a group of experts in the field

met for the purpose of establishing a base working draft

document to serve as a launch point for expanded discussions.

The purpose of the effort is the construction of an acceptable, simplified tolerance structure for commercial

weighing devices, incorporaing the views of concerned and

interested parties. It was agreed that the simplified

tolerance structure should apply, within the technical

resources available, to all scale types now covered in

the Scale Code of NBS Handbook 44. Belt conveyor scales

are specifically excluded.

CONSIDERATIONS

In this effort, consideration would be given to the

desirability for the new simplified tolerance structure

to be in reasonable harmony with the principles of the

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIMI) , and

be structured for ready adaption into a national metrologicai

control system. The effort would also consider existing

codes for scales and seek out the viewpoints of the NCWM,

the Office of Weights and Measures, the Federal Grain

Inspection Service, the Packers and Stockyards Administration,

the American Railway Engineering Association, and other

interested parties. Every attempt would be made to coordinate and resolve conflicting tolerances among

various scale codes in the interests of national uniformity.

A second major consideration would be an attempt to quantify the environmental performance requirements for

weighing devices, to the extent possible within the

current state of the art. By becoming more specific, we can reduce the amount of judgment required to determine

suitability of the weighing device for conformance with

the intent of NBS Handbook 44.

PARTICIPATION

A first draft tolerance structure was produced after

an approximate 6-month period by members of the Scale

40
Manufacturers Association. Immediately following the end

of the interim meeting for the 1980 Conference last

January, an expanded participation committee was formed

to deal with the subject of scale tolerances. The first

draft was presented as a starting point for discussion.

The committee presently includes representatives of the

American Railway Engineering Association, the Federal

Grain Inspection Service, the Office of Weights and

Measures of the National Bureau of Standards, the National

Conference on Weights and Measures Specifications and

Tolerance Committee, the National Grain and Feed Dealers

Association, the National Scale Men's Association, the

Scale Manufacturers Association, the Packers and Stockyards

Administration, and others. Participation is not limited.

CONSENSUS

The committee utilizes the consensus process.

Consensus is defined as substantial agreement reached by

concerned or affected interests according to the judgment

of a committee. All matters discussed are resolved on

the basis of a consensus. This implies more than a simple majority. The committee must consider the viewpoints of one, two, or other minority interests and do

its best to resolve conflicts. When a consensus is

achieved, the matter will proceed. If some disagreement

remains, it can be noted for the record if the dissenter

so wishes.

TIMETABLE

With a base draft and a consensus procedure in

place, a timetable was established to provide the committee

with goals. During 1979, the base organization was brought together--the first draft document produced.

During 1980, the expanded organization was formed.

Today, we are refining the draft and nearing completion

of a final recommendation. It is our intention to submit

that final recommendation to the National Conference on Weights and Measures at its 1981 Interim Meeting. Hopefully, during 1981, the United States' position can be

finalized on the matter of tolerances. This position can then serve as the base of future negotiations by our representatives to OIML.

TOLERANCE STRUCTURE

At this point, I would like to generally describe

the tolerance structure under consideration. The tolerance

structure is intended to be performance-oriented, rather

than design-oriented. It is intended to serve as a base

structure for defining the tolerances appropriate for

41
pattern approval, initial verification, and subsequent

verification. Pattern approval is closely related to

type approval. It is the extensive laboratory testing of

a representative article of a weighing device. Initial

verification is the first verification of each individual

weighing device, as it is first put into use. And finally,

subsequent verifications are the regular, periodic verifications that take place during the life of the weighing

device

.

PRINCIPLES

The tolerance structure is intended to be independent

of the device measuring principles. The device may be

electronic, mechanical, hydraulic; it may employ beams,

strain gages, diaphragms; it may be analog, or digital.

Regardless, all weighing devices are subject to the same performance requirements. The tolerance structure is

based on a step-type error function. This simplifies

field testing requirements. The inspector is no longer

required to interpolate. The tolerance for an analog

device is identical with the tolerance for a digital

device. The tolerance is expressed in number of divisions.

ACCURACY CLASSES

The tolerance structure has provisions for accuracy

classes. Two or more accuracy classes are anticipated,

and they are characterized by different tolerances. The

tolerance values are plus and minus. For example, at a given test load, the tolerance might be plus or minus

three scale divisions. In the case of tare, the tolerances

apply from the tare zero reference or, in effect, to the

net loads. The tolerances apply for both increasing and

decreasing loads and within a normal specified temperature

range

.

There are provisions within the tolerance structure

for tolerances relating to multiple, indicating, recording,

and ranging devices. The tolerance structure also provides

for the evaluation of main components when submitted

separately. However, it is not intended that a weighing

device be disassembled in order to test separate main

components. This provision is intended only to provide

guidance for the evaluation of main components when they,

as entities, are submitted separately.

OTHER FACTORS

The tolerance structure goes on to include a host of

other factors, which include the following:

42
A tolerance is provided requiring

agreement between multiple representations . A minor allowance is anticipated for

load indication variation with time,

the creep phenomenon, and will also

include zero recovery.

A tolerance is established for

repeatability.

A tolerance is established for

variations due to load displacement,

commonly referred to as "shift

test."

Tolerances are provided for sensitivity and discrimination, as appropriate,

and in both the loaded and unloaded

condition.

Consideration is given to the requirements for leveling the weighing

device

.

Limits are established for both

temperature and humidity within

which the weighing devices must

perform within the tolerances.

Provisions are also made for special

temperature and humidity ranges for

those cases where the normal range

is unacceptable. In addition,

tolerances are established for both

temperature and barometric effects

on the device zero indication.

The tolerance structure includes a provision that precludes unusable

readings until the weighing device

has reached operating temperature.

The tolerance structure establishes

a range of electric power limits for

both alternating current and battery

power within which the device must

43
Hie tolerance structure includes a

o And finally, where it has not been

f : :

--
THE ROLE OF THE U.S. METRIC BOARD IN THE VOLUNTARY

CONVERSION OF GAS PUMPS TO METRIC MEASUREMENT

Presented by STEPHEN A. VASTAGH, Program Manager,

U.S. Metric Board

Good afternoon! It is an honor

to participate at this important,

well-organized Conference. I bring

you regards from Syd Andrews of

Florida, your representative to the

United States Metric Board. Syd,

who is Senior Vice President of the

American Society for Testing and

Materials, cannot be with you today

because he is chairing an ASTM

Petroleum Products and Lubricants

Committee Meeting.

The United States Metric Board

was created by the Metric Conversion

Act of 1975 as an independent agency to coordinate the

voluntary increased use of the metric system in the

United States. The role of the Board, in general, is to actively implement the national policy of voluntary con- version. To carry out this role, the Board has responsibilities in the areas of research, planning, coordination, and public education. The key element of this

national policy is its voluntary nature; rather than occur by force of law, metrication is to proceed by the

voluntary, coordinated decisions of each segment and

sector of our society.

One of the current activities of the Metric Board is

the coordinating of the ongoing conversion of gasoline

pumps to measure by the liter, a metric unit. This

conversion reflects the voluntariness expressed in the

national policy.

The role of the Board in this process is not to advocate or promote metric conversion of gasoline pumps,

but to assist those who voluntarily decide to change to liter dispensing. This responsibility involves specific

research, coordination, and public education. I will

describe the Board's past and current activities in that

order.

RESEARCH

The steady climb in early 1979 of gasoline prices

toward $1.00 per gallon posed a problem for petroleum

retailers since most pumps could not compute prices above

45
this level. This was brought to the attention of the

Board by various governmental and private groups. The

USMB became involved as we recognized that some action by

the private sector was imminent and because the potential

existed to gain a national savings by converting gas

pumps to dispense by the liter. An important element of

this potential savings was savings by the small businessmen

that own or operate the majority of the nation's service

stations. In May 1979 the Board gathered information

through public hearings and conducted additional staff

research that analyzed costs and other factors associated

with the various alternative solutions.

Based on testimony given at the hearing and the

subsequent economic analysis and research, the USMB staff

issued a detailed report which concluded that equipment

costs could indeed be saved by converting pump computers

to liters. The report also stressed the importance of

providing adequate information at the pump to allow unit

price comparison and to ensure consumer understanding.

PLANNING

As a result of the hearing and subsequent research,

the Board declared in June 1979 that it was an "opportune

time for the development of a planned and coordinated

voluntary program of dispensing gasoline by the liter"

and urged "all affected parties to participate in the

planning process."

The planning was undertaken by the American National

Metric Council's Petroleum and Natural Gas Sector Committee

task force composed of representatives of jobbers, retailers,

equipment manufacturers , weights-and-measures officials,

consumers, and trade associations.

COORDINATION

In the dynamics of the marketplace, events frequently

overtake planning. It has been true in this situation.

Actual conversion began in the marketplace with the first

station changing on March 27, 1979 in Oregon; the second

on May 4 in California; and the third again in Oregon on June 1. The conversion rate increased during the summer

and in October there were about 600 stations measuring by

the liter. In July 1979 your organization, the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, adopted a policy

statement that provided guidelines for liter dispensing

along with recommended timeframes. The U.S. Metric Board

responded to the National Conference's Policy Statement

and to the actual conversion in the marketplace by approving a 13-point program of coordination and public

education.

46
The basic and most necessary element of coordination

is to assure that all the various parties involved are aware of each other's activities. To do this the coordinators must know who the parties are and what their

apparent or committed positions are at any point in time.

This necessitates a constant monitoring activity.

The greater the number of involved parties, monitoring and coordination becomes more difficult. As you can

see from figure 1, in the voluntary conversion of gas

pumps the number of parties involved is quite large.

Although accurate data are not available, these estimates

will indicate the approximate size of the groups. Each

of these thousands of individuals makes decisions voluntarily and independently. The relative impact of each of

these decisions depends on both the number of pumps owned

by the decisionmaker and the degree of control this

decisionmaker has over making an equipment change of this

kind.

Decisionmakers Ownership of Pumps

21 major and semi-major oil companies 40 percent

(80 000 lessee dealer outlets)

200 independent refiners and/or marketers

15 000 jobbers 60 percent

50 000 branded contract dealer outlets

investors

100 trade associations (national, regional, State, local

100 government agencies (Federal, State - Weights and

Measure, Revenue, Consumer Protection, etc. Figure 1

.

Although approximately 40 percent of the equipment

is owned by the largest companies, most of it is leased

or operated by independent businessmen. The independent

dealer is a decisionmaker with respect to a change to

liter dispensing just as he is in pricing the product.

Additionally, the potential change of the remaining 60

47
percent of the equipment depends on an even larger number

of independent decisionmakers, as you can see from figure 1. Trade associations and various governmental bodies also

have an effect on the process.

It is clear that monitoring and coordinating among

so many independently acting parties is an overwhelming

task. The best we can do is to gather as much information

as possible and make it available to the parties involved

so that they may make informed decisions.

In this regard we attempted to monitor the extent of

completed conversions and associated matters. We found

that 46 States were converting. These 46 States now allow

liter dispensing. There is no liter dispensing in Alaska,

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and West Virginia. These four

States, plus the District of Columbia, are in the process

of making a decision.

The number of stations estimated to have converted

to liter dispensing was approximately 9000 and according

to new estimates I just received from some States, it may

be up to 10 000-10 500. While this is a large number, it

is only a little over 5 percent of the total estimated

number of service stations. Nor is it necessarily the

latest status as the data on some States are several

months old. It is virtually impossible to have up-to-date

information because of the fragmented nature of the

process and because the situation is constantly changing.

In June 1979 there were virtually no liter stations. In October there were 600. By December that had doubled to 1200. In February of this year it had reached 4000. The

deadlines for discontinuation of half-pricing have been

set by 36 States and the District of Columbia.

In addition to our own direct efforts to keep track

of conversion, you, the State Weights and Measures officials,

have provided invaluable information and assistance.

Trade organizations have also conducted their own market

surveys. The American Petroleum Institute, the Society

of Independent Gasoline Marketers, the National Oil

Jobbers Council, and the Service Station Dealers of

America were asked to determine what kind of equipment

modifications are being made.

The combined membership of the organizations conducting

the surveys accounts for the great majority of service stations. API's survey, to which 19 companies responded, indicates the status as of April 1, 1980. The results illustrated

in figure 2 show that of the 561 000 computers surveyed,

220 000 have been modified. Of the 220 000 modifications,

144 000 or 65 percent have over-a-dollar capability and

160 000 or 73 percent have metric capability.

48
SERVICE STATION PUMP COMPUTER SURVEY

Status as of April 1, 1980

1. Total number of units requiring

change or modification due to

limited pricing capability 561 000

2. Total number of units provided with

whole unit pricing exceeding $l/gallon

3. Total number of units provided with

capabilitiy to indicate price/liter

4. Total number of units using metric

capability

5. Total number of units modified or changed

6. Total number of units remaining to be

changed or modified

144 000

160 000

24 000

220 000

341 000

Note: Items 2 and 3 do not equal Item 5 due to the dual

capability of some units.

Of those units modified 65 percent have over-a-dollar

capability and 73 percent have metric capability.

Approximately 4.3 percent of the units surveyed are being

utilized in the metric mode.

Approximately 39 percent of the conversion has been

completed.

The above figures represent the results of a poll in which

19 companies responded. It includes all of the larger oil

companies. The figures confirm the estimate that the

"majors" own approximately 40 percent of the dispensers in

use. This includes equipment at owned or leased locations

plus equipment furnished through contract arrangements.

Figure 2.

The API returns indicate that more computers priced

in the $l-plus mode (144 000) than in liters (24 000) on April 1 and that the majority of the 144 000 have liter

capability as well. We appreciate the efforts of the

trade associations as their surveys contribute to the

overall coordination.

49
Additional information from Veeder-Root Company

indicates that during the 12 months following the May

1979 Board hearings 442 000 Model-2002 computers were

produced. Approximately two-thirds or 300 000 were equipped with a gear box for metric conversion. In addition, over 150 000 metric gear boxes were supplied

loose for field installation on existing equipment.

Veeder-Root expects that the majority of 2002E

computers --which are capable of handling prices up to $2.99 per gallon—will be ordered with the metric gear

box option. Coupled with other makes of gear boxes,

direct gear conversions, electronic equipment, the

majority of which have dual capability, this indicates

the availability :: a substantial -ggregaae liter

dispensing capability.

Another aspect of coordination is to maintain contact

with those organizations that need to take some action to accommodate the ongoing voluntary process, in other words

to see that everybody is in step with each other. The

coordinating function is to provide to these organizations (e.g., State and Federal agencies, North American

Gasoline Tax Conference) current information and suggest

to them the possibility that some action is needed. As we make suggestions, we hope that we are not misunderstood

and perceived to be presumptuous; we do not profess to have all the answers, nor do we want to introduce an improper bias in the voluntary decision making process.

We merely call the attention of the parties to the issue.

This is a function of coordination. For example, one of

the issues we are currently discussing with DOE is the

effect of rounding, in the conversion from gallon to liter price, on the maximum legal selling price.

Yet another aspect of coordination is to bring real

or perceived problems that are discovered during the

monitoring activity to the attention of the various

parties who have jurisdiction in the area. Again the

coordinator--who is by definition a jack-of-all-traces

but expert in none--provides no answers, merely calls

attention to the issue. We did this during a recent news briefing by pointing out various ongoing price posting

practices. Figure 3 shows four stations all selling at the same price. We urge this Conference and other organizations to take action; we will then coordinate solutions

agreed upon by the affected parties, because the Board

does believe that the consumers should be given the

opportunity to easily compare prices.

5C
THE PROBLEM

Figure 3. The problem.

As I mentioned earlier, the role of the Board is not

to promote but to provide facts for informed decisionmaking.

Toward this end we have prepared a guide to the selection

of retail motor fuel dispensing equipment. This guide

provides to the service station owners information on the

types of equipment available to help decide whether to modify, rebuild, or buy new equipment. We are soliciting

comments on this document from relevant organizations

including this Conference and will make the guide available

to trade associations for distribution to their members.

PUBLIC AWARENESS AND EDUCATION

The last major area in which the Board has a role is

Public Awareness and Education. We have already produced

a series of four radio public service announcements which

are being distributed directly by the USMB to radio

stations in areas where conversion activity is occurring.

Petroleum marketers, weights and measures officials, and

others are invited to request such distribution by us to

51
radio stations in areas where conversion is underway.

These media spots are not designed to endorse or encourage

conversion, rather to explain why it is happening, to familiarize motorists with the meaning of a liter, and

let them know where to get more information.

Listener response to these spots helps us to gauge

public reaction and to determine the need for specific

types of education materials. We have found, for example,

that one of the biggest concerns people have is how to figure their gas mileage. We will be making that information available and encouraging others to do likewise.

Preliminary review of these listener responses indicates

that around 98 percent of the approximately 230 letters

ask for more information and 2 percent are opposing

liters

.

We are also developing television public service

announcements for distribution to broadcasters in affected

markets. As the last major current Public Awareness

activity, we will soon have ready a packet of camera-ready

consumer education materials designed particularly to assist the independent marketers who are interested in

converting but do not have the resources of a major supplier

behind them. The packet will include camera-ready copy

for a customer handout booklet, pump toppers and window

signs, conversion charts, and other materials.

A State, regional, or national retailer, or a jobber

association could reproduce this material using the

camera-ready copy provided by the U.S. Metric Board and

offer it for sale to its membership. This would enable

the retailers to provide information to their customers

at a much lower cost than if they designed and printed it

individually. The camera-ready material will provide

space for individual station identification. With this

material the Board aims to increase the consistency and

accuracy of information provided to the consumers.

The fundamental objective of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures is to encourage and promote

uniformity of requirements and practices among jurisdictions.

The importance of this objective is demonstrated in this

issue of retail motor fuel dispensing.

The Board recognizes the significant contribution to national coordination that this Conference has already

made with your 1979 Policy Statement. I look forward to continued good cooperation between the U.S. Metric Board

and the National Conference on Weights and Measures. We have similar aims in that the Board is committed to informing and protecting the consumer, the buyer, and,

although not well enough recognized and publicized, the

52
weights and measures officials are true professionals

dedicated to protecting buyers and sellers, thereby

ensuring that equity may prevail.

53
REPORT BY THE

SPECIAL STUDY GROUP ON ENFORCEMENT UNIFORMITY

Introduction by KENDRICK J. SIMILA

Administrator, Weights and Measures Division,

State of Oregon

It is my pleasure this morning

to report to you as co-chairman,

together with Chip Kloos of HuntWesson Foods, on the activities to date of the NCWM Special Study Group

on Enforcement Uniformity.

One of the fundamental objectives of the National Conference on Weights and Measures is to encourage

and promote uniformity of requirements and practices among jurisdictions. The NCWM has achieved

considerable success in developing

and seeing through to their adoption, various model State

laws and regulations used in the enforcement of measurement

standards requirements by the States, counties, cities,

and territories. It is apparent, however, that the

enforcement practices and procedures actually employed by

the different jurisdictions has significantly affected

the actual level of uniformity achieved in the field.

Concern about the long term implications of non- uniformity in weights and measures enforcement at the

State and local level led to the appointment during the

past year of this special Study Group by the Conference

Chairman, Charles Vincent. The study group, consisting

of four weights and measures officials and four members

from industry, first met during the NCWM interim meetings

of the Conference standing committees last January.

The identified goal or purpose of the Study Group is to achieve a high degree of uniformity in weights and measures enforcement policies and practices. In recognition of the extremely wide range of measurement standards

responsibilities that weights and measures jurisdictions

have throughout the U.S., the initial scope of the Study

Group's efforts was deliberately limited to issues involving

enforcement practices pertaining to packaged products.

It was felt that the Group's involvement in other areas where weights and measures uniformity of enforcement is an issue may be appropriate or desirable, but only after

the issue of uniform package control has been adequately

addressed.

54
The Study Group determined three fundamental objectives

that, when satisfied, would contribute toward meeting its

goal. These objectives are:

1. To identify the net content enforcement

practices of the States and principal

local jurisdictions.

2. To identify the degree of consistency

or uniformity in the enforcement

practices among these jurisdictions.

3. To recommend to the National Conference

on Weights and Measures through the

Committee on National Measurement

Policy and Coordination, ways and means of increasing the degree of

uniformity among the various jurisdictions .

The approach taken toward fulfilling objectives one and two was to develop and send to all the State-level

and to 16 of the principal local weights and measures jurisdictions a questionnaire about their package enforcement programs. Analysis of the information received from

these jurisdictions will serve as a basis for developing

recommendations to fulfill the third objective.

Prior to the 65th National Conference in June, 1980,

94 percent (50 of 53) of the State-level weights and measures jurisdictions and 60 percent (9 of 15) of the

local jurisdictions responded to the Study Group's

four-page Enforcement Policy and Practice Questionnaire.

This was a very encouraging overall response of 87 percent

(59 of 68).

Here to report on the tabulation of the questionnaire

responses to date, and to describe the preliminary results

is Chip Kloos, Study Group Co-Chairman, from Hunt-Wesson

Foods

.

55
PRELIMINARY REPORT OX RESPONSES TO ENFORCEMENT

UNIFORMITY QUESTIONNAIRE

Presented by CHIP KLOOS . Section Head,

Research and Development

Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. Thank you Ken and members of

the Conference.

The questionnaire developed by

the Study Group was designed to collect information about the netcontent, package-inspection programs

utilized by weights and measures

officials. The questions were divided into four areas which included:

1) Identification of the net-content

compliance standards utilized br- each jurisdiction. 2) How these

standards are interpreted and applied

3) Action taken when evidence :f low-net content is

found. - Frequency of enforcement options utilized.

The preliminary results consist of a summary of the

responses to each question and are shown in tables bearing

the question number. In general, the results indicate

that although there is a reasonably high degree of uniformity

with regard to established package-compliance standards,

there is a significant amount of variation in how these

standards are interpreted and implemented. By standards,

we mean official net-content compliance requirements and

not physical-test standards.

The first question asked "What are the package

net-content standards of your State or jurisdiction?".

The responses are shown in table 1A. Fifty-six of the 59

respondents answered this question. Upon close examination of the "other standards" submitted as copies to the Study Group, we found that several included the

provisions contained in the National Bureau of Standards

7a: le 1A. Net- content standards.

3.

5iar.:ar:s Used

NBS Handbook 67 only

jther Spaniards

Combination of both HB 6' and other standards

Number Responding

30

16

10

lotal oo 56
Handbook 67. In fact, overall, 49 of the 56 or 88 percent

of those responding utilized the provision of Handbook

67.

Table IB summarizes the responses to the question

"How were these standards adopted?". Fourteen respondents

indicated that more than one method was used to adopt the

standards. Over 70 percent indicated that the standards

received official legal recognition by nature of the fact

that legislative acts or administrative rule were utilized

to adopt them.

Table IB. How were standards adopted?

Method of Adoption Number

Legislative act 35

Administrative rule 15

Local ordinance 5 Policy decision 13

Table 1C summarizes the responses to the question

"Are the State package net-content standards uniformly

enforced throughout your jurisdiction?". As one would

expect, there was a high degree of implied uniformity.

However, the responses of the States usually excluded

reference to large metropolitan jurisdictions within the

State where separate weights and measures offices exist

or where Federal jurisdictions such as the USDA or FDA

were involved. Most States strive for uniformity but

recognize that deviations exist.

Table 1C. Are standards enforced uniformly

throughout jurisdiction?

Response Number Responding

Yes 54

No 4 Total 58

Table ID shows the responses to the question "If

local net-content standards are enforced, do they conform

to the State standards?". For those States where no local standards exist or where specific knowledge of the

local standards is lacking, the response "not applicable"

was used. We also recognize that some local jurisdictions

may conform to the State standards but may also go beyond

them by enforcing more rigorous standards.

57
Table ID. Do local standards conform to state standards?

Response Number Responding

Yes 33

No 0 Not applicable 26

Total 59

Table 2A-C summarizes the responses to the questions

concerning the amount (percent) of the total weights and measures activity devoted to net-content enforcement of

standard packages. The question asked first identified

the percent of the total weights and measures activity

devoted to package-control programs. Then, what percent

of the package-control activity was devoted to standardpackage programs? Finally, what percent of the standardpackage programs was devoted to net-content enforcement?

By multiplying these three percentages together, we inferred for each respondent what percent of their total

activity was devoted to the net-content enforcement of

standard packages. The results indicate that the average

portion of all weights and measures activities spent on

this effort is approximately six percent. We recognize

that this may be a rough estimate and that the range of

individual responses varied from less than one percent to over 40 percent.

The next four questions were designed to identify

how the standards are interpreted and applied. Table 2D

summarizes the responses to the question "If a group of

34 packages on a shelf has two different date codes, one with nine containers, the other with 25 containers, how

would you choose the items for an inspection sample?".

This question was intended to see whether an inspection

lot at retail is composed of a single-date code or a composite of date codes. Eighty-six percent of the

respondents indicated they would draw two separate

samples, one from each date code.

Table 3A shows the responses to the question "What

is your lot acceptance/rejection criterion based on?".

The results indicate that 80 percent of the respondents

utilize both the sample average and individual errors as the basis, while 10 percent utilize only one criterion.

58
coCU

5-1 CO

CU CJo £ ft 3 CO 5? cu +

5-2 o

COs

CO

5-1 00 CO o CO $-2 u CO Q>

ft rH <T U 1 1—I

5-2 o cu o u 00 <t P CO d p o el 5-2 y cu o> U CO

cu 5-1 1 CU 5-2

CO ft O

CO u >»

COft 5-2 o d <N

4J •H 1 T3 5-2 TJ d ©

0) O CM

+J ft O CO > CU 5-2

cu 5-( <T\ rH U 1 >> CU 5-2 P rQ O

•H S rH > 3

•HPU

CO 5-2 4HO 1 5-2 P O d

CUu

5-1 CU P

0) 00 d

ft CO CU

5-1 u

CU J-l > cu CJ < ft 1 <CM

cu rH

,£>CO H

>> P

•H>

•HPO<

rH T3

CO CU p +J O O P >

cu o

CO Idou

CO

cu j-i 00 00

<0 O p h

•H Oft > <0 'H ft rHO O H

0_i <o P P PdUU P

cu u

00

CM CO I -H O

-*S P O U U U P ft

CO <0 ft TJ CU i—I CU 00

<4-l O P CO O J-l O M +J > U p d cu co d O T3 ft

CO >> • s

CU P CO CU 0© -H P J-l ft CO > CO 00

CU U u

5-1

CO • S i T3 CO 4-> +-> J-l CU co oo d o m 5-i o O ft P

+J 0) T5 d oo cu cu co -p U M O

5-1 U >

cu co cu ft ftT5

ft

to

co d

co co

CO -d

rH P U

CU

cu J-i 00 o

co s pd

cuu

5-1 5-2

cu o

ft rH >>5^2

00

00d

•HX) 5-2 dO I ft 5-2

CO <f

CU

5-1 5H $^

CU CO

rH TD

CO CU

59
Table 2D. How would an inspection sample be chosen?

Response Number Responding

Draw one inspection sample 8 combining both date codes

Draw two inspection samples, 50 one from each date code

58

Table 3A. Lot acceptance/rejection criteria.

Response Number Responding

Sample average only 4 Individual unreasonable errors only 1 Both sample average and unreasonable

individual errors 40

Other bases 5 Total 50

The information in table 3B summarizes the responses

to the question "If an inspection sample of packages with

a declared net weight of 12 oz has an average net weight

of 12.05 oz but two of the containers have a net weight

of 11.65 oz, what would you conclude about the lot?".

The objective of this question was to see how a sample

with an acceptable average net weight and two unreasonable

individual minus errors (underfills) would be considered.

It is interesting to note that in table 3A, 82 percent

indicated that unreasonable individual errors were used

as a basis for lot acceptance (rejection). However, in

this table (table 3B) , 34 percent indicated they would

pass the lot and only 34 percent indicated they would

fail the lot even though there was an excessive number of

unreasonable individual errors in the inspection sample.

Table 3C summarizes the responses to the question

"If an inspection sample of 12-oz containers has an average net weight of 11.98 oz, what would you conclude

about the lot sampled?". The objective of this question

was to see how a sample with a low average net weight

would be considered. Table 3A indicated that 88 percent

used the sample average as a basis for lot acceptance/

60
rejection but only 59 percent of the responses to this

question noted that they would fail the lot.

Table 3B. Action taken if an excessive number of unreasonable

underfills are found in an inspection sample.

Response Number Responding

Pass lot 20

Take more samples 8 Mark underfills off-sale 1 Fail lot 20

None of the above 10

Total 59

Table 3C. Action taken if a low average net weight

is found in an inspection sample.

Response Number Responding

Pass lot 9 Take more samples 3 Mark underfills in

sample off-sale 2 Fail lot 35

None of the above 10

Total 59

Tables 3B and 3C highlight the fact that the lack of

uniformity is greatest in the interpretation and application of the standards and not in the standards themselves.

The responses to question 4A, which sought to identify

under what conditions various enforcement options would

be exercised, are not included here for the sake of

brevity.

Table 4B highlights the frequency with which the

various enforcement options are utilized. For the purpose

of clarification an assurance of voluntary compliance

plea is a consent order, one that states that from now

on, we will comply; civil penalties involve no criminal

implications; prosecution implies criminal intent, and an

61
injunction is a court order. We see that marking containers

off-sale and warnings are used most frequently and that

injunctions and civil penalties are used the least.

Table 4B. Frequency of enforcement options utilized.

Number Responding

Option -."ever Sometimes Always

L. Marking containers off sale 0 21 36

2. Warnings 0 26 31

3. Assurance of voluntary com- pliance plea 11 24 17

4. Administrative hearings 19 31 4

5. Civil penalties 27 23 1 6. Injunction 23 27 0

7. Prosecution 5 49 1

8. Other 5 8 0

Table 4C summarizes the responses to the question

"If an inspection sample fails your enforcement requirements, would you take a second sample to confirm, your

findings before taking legal action0 ". Eighty-six percent

of those responding indicated that a second confirmation

sample would be taken. This implies that many officials

use a screening approach where the initial sample is usee

to identify potential lots in violation and the second

sample is used to confirm the findings.

Table 4C. If sample fails compliance standard, would a

a second confirmation sample be taken before

taking legal action'

Response Number ?.esc:r_i_r.g

Yes 5

1

No 8 Total 59

62
The preliminary results of our survey summarized in

the ten preceding tables indicate that uniform standards

would be helpful in insuring uniform-compliance practices

but will not guarantee such practices. Attention must be

focused on training of officials and their understanding

of these standards. Further recognition must be given to the political pressures of the job, attitude of the

officials, and other factors affecting motivation, before

any real uniformity in practice can be achieved.

Efforts will be made after this Conference to obtain

responses to the questionnaire from the nine jurisdictions

that did not send in replies as of June, 1980. In the

coming weeks , the Study Group will further analyze the

data from the questionnaires to identify specifically

what enforcement policies and practices contribute most

to problems of uniformity and consistency in package

net-contents control. From this analysis, the group

intends to develop its recommendations to the P&C Committee for ways and means of increasing the degree of uniformity among the various jurisdictions.

The Special Study Group intends to draft its final

report at the Western Weights and Measures Conference in

Juneau, Alaska, during the week of September 8 and to present the final report to the P&C Committee in ample

time for consideration at the next interim committee

meeting in Washington in January, 1981.

The Study Group on Enforcement Uniformity has also

been approached concerning the possibility of expanding

its study activity to cover other areas of weights and measures enforcement. Specifically, the Study Group will

be exploring the feasibility of becoming involved in

further consideration of the issue of a national metrological control program for the United States and in participating in or assisting with the NBS-sponsored study of the

Bureau's programs of assistance to State and local weights

and measures authorities.

63
MECHANISMS FOR THE UNIFICATION OF STATE AND LOCAL

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Presented by WILLIAM J. PIERCE, Executive Director,

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws

A person seeking unification of

law in the discrete but complex area

of weights and measures is faced with

a bewildering task if the problem is

approached from the perspective of

pure legal power. The fundamental

problem arises because of the fact

that the power to adopt laws and

regulations under the police power

is shared by the Federal, State, and

local levels of governments in the

United States. Although Federal

authorities seem to act as if unification can be achieved by actions of

the States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico, the fact is that thousands of local

governmental units exercise various police powers for

historical and economic reasons. Furthermore, in some instances, the police power is shared under the State

constitutions with local units of government having home

rule powers. In theory, therefore, extreme Balkanization

of laws and regulations could evolve placing undue con- straints upon the national distribution system for goods

and services. In recent years there has been a growing

tendency to respond to problems created by diversity

among State and local laws by seeking Federal enactments

which supersede State and local laws under the supremacy

clause of the United States Constitution. However, with

respect to several legal problems, Federal intervention

remains impossible or impractical for a multitude of historical, political, social, and economic reasons. Therefore, other avenues for the achievement of uniformity must

be and are being utilized effectively.

Despite the potential horror story of a mass of con- flicting State and local laws impeding the channels of com- merce, in reality a substantial amount of uniformity is

obtained through formal and informal channels in the United

States. Two questions may well be posed: First, what

mechanisms are available for the unification of State and

local laws, and second, why are these mechanisms successful

in obtaining a reasonable level of unification?

Among the States two formal devices might be employed:

namely, compacts or agreements and uniform State laws.

64
In a number of areas, the States have entered into formal

contracts to handle various regional or national problems

that transcend State lines. If sovereignty is involved

in the compact arrangement, approval of the compact by

Congress is essential under the United States Constitution.

If sovereignty is not involved, the agreement among the

States does not require Congressional approval, and the

States have entered into a number of agreements dealing

with enforcement of laws, exchanges of information, and

joint auditing of tax returns. In some instances, State

administrators are directed by their State law to cooperate with corresponding officials of other States in

establishing uniform regulations.

Throughout our history uniformity in State law has

been achieved by the common device of borrowing and copying

statutes in sister States. In 1892 a more formal mechanism for the development of uniform laws was commenced by

the creation of the National Conference of Commissioners

on Uniform State Laws. At that time, each State was requested to establish a commission on uniformity of law

within its own State, and each State commission was directed to participate with the corresponding commissions

of other States in the development of uniform laws.

Typically, the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws are appointed by the Governors of the States for fixed terms.

In a few instances, certain State officials serve as ex-officio members of their State commission. Although

the typical State commission has three members, some States have as many as nine members. However, within the

National Conference, regardless of the number of commissioners, each State has one vote for purposes of voting

on the promulgation of a uniform act. Today there are approximately 260 commissioners representing all States,

the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform

State Laws has directed its attention to the problems of

unification of private law, with undoubtedly its most

outstanding success being the Uniform Commercial Code

which has been adopted in all States and the District of

Columbia. You can readily understand the necessity for

uniformity in the commercial law arena with the number of

interstate transactions involved every single day. For

example, each of us would encounter extreme difficulty if

signing a check created different liabilities as one crossed State lines within the United States.

The National Conference works similarly to a legislative body in that special committees are assigned to topics and are to report their recommendations to the

National Conference. Currently, approximately twenty

special committees of the conference are preparing drafts of

65
proposed uniform legislation dealing with a multitude of

subjects varying from condominium legislation to extradition

and rendition. Each year the National Conference receives

a number of suggestions from groups throughout the country

for uniform laws. Each of these proposals is carefully

reviewed by the Committee on Scope and Program, which

selects a few new topics each year for inclusion in the

program of the Commissioners. Obviously, subjects are selected on the basis of priorities viewed from the

standpoint of the necessity and desirability of uniformity.

Once a special committee is established, a reporter,

typically a law professor, is assigned to the committee

to assist it in the research and drafting process. A

typical committee will meet three or four times each year

to develop the language of a uniform act and then present

its draft at the annual meeting of the Commissioners.

Uniform acts require two readings in the National Conference

and therefore the processes are slow and deliberative.

Some uniform acts, such as Uniform Commercial Code, take

as long as twelve years for their development. Drafts of

the proposals are circulated among all interested and

affected groups for comment and criticism. In many

instances a special committee is assisted by an advisory

committee appointed by the President of the Conference.

The advisors represent various affected groups, and

various points of view are equally represented among the

advisors. The committees typically meet for three consec- utive days and work upon the drafts, line by line, in

order to perfect the policy conclusions reached by the

Committee in their deliberations. The Special Committee

presents its proposal at the annual meeting by reading it

line by line and any comissioner can propose Amendments

or ask questions about any specific proposal of the

Special Committee. As a result of this deliberative

process, the Commissioners have developed considerable

expertise, and the products are uniformly of high quality.

Uniform laws that deal with subjects that are con- stantly changing due to new and improved technologies

create special problems. To be satisfactory for even as long as a decade, the legal structure must be so developed

as to avoid inhibitions to new developments. That usually

means that within certain broad legislative principles,

refinements are to be made by regulations prepared by

administratve officials. In many of these instances the

Uniform Act will specifically require the administrative

official to consult with corresponding officers of other

States in drafting and approving rules that will maintain

uniformity.

66
Of special interest to this group is the Uniform Metric

System Procedure Act approved by the Commissioners last

August. That Act specifically States that the "Act must

be administered with a view to the conversion to the

metric system in this State on a basis coordinated with

developments in other States". Despite constitutional

power in Congress to "fix the Standard of Weights and

Measures," actual administration of weights and measures

has been a State and local function. Necessary uniformity

has been achieved by the efforts of this Conference. The

uniform act recognizes these processes for avoiding

conflicting requirements for commerce and industry by

reorganizing "general accepted practices".

The informal processes for obtaining uniformity among

States and local units of government within States have

been more significant in our history than the formal

processes. Informal processes have been effective for a number of reasons. Among them is the fact that problems

occurring in one State or locality tend to emerge simultaneously in another State or locality. Secondly, knowledge of problems, and recommendations for their solutions,

are obtained from a common fund of resources and from

publications disseminated on a national basis. Third,

Americans have developed a multitude of organizations that

have a community of interests. Some examples are associations of State and local officials, associations of

businesses, associations of labor, associations of

consumers, etc., which provide a framework for discussing

and analyzing problems and submitting recommendations.

Each of these multitudinous organizations is turned to by

persons seeking advice in resolving problems. Obviously,

if the particular organization is the only one to have

seriously considered the problem, the tendency will be for

the product of the organization to be utilized by both the

public and private sectors. If one examines regulations

of State or local governments, he will often find exact

duplication of terminology prepared by one of these

unofficial organizations. In many instances, particularly at the local level, one will find the organization's

product adopted by reference. Our common heritage,

culture, education, and legal background make this informal

process effective. Legally speaking, foreigners who

examine our system of diffusion of law among the Federal

Government, 50 State governments, and over 80 000 local

governments look upon our system of law as an impossible

morass. Practically and realistically, however, the

system works.

On some occasions, particular strong and dedicated

public officials and private citizens have led major move- ments for unification although lacking final authority to

67
compel that result. Immediately, Herbert Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce, comes to mind as a public official

who made possible national distribution of various goods

by stimulating efforts for standardization.

Our informal mechanisms for obtaining a practicable

level of uniformity have two major advantages over the

formal mechanism. The informal mechanism is more adaptable

to changing circumstances and needs. The basis of uniformity is ever-changing, thereby requiring an evolutionary

process. Formal arrangements often tend to rigidity

because they represent factual circumstances and policies

extant at the time of their promulgation. They tend to continue beyond the date of their effectiveness because

of lethargy and the pressures of other business. Avoidance

of strict legal uniformity allows continued experimentation among State and local governments. New and improved

levels of uniformity are then evolved. Although pressures

and demands for strict uniformity are often made, I would

emphasize that caution is merited. Justice Holmes observed

that the law is restated for each generation; therefore, we must be alert to the necessity of continuous change.

Strict uniformity may impede desired and needed change

unjustly and perhaps disastrously. In promulgating

uniform laws, the Commissioners have recognized the need

for constant monitoring. When new technologies or legal

problems emerge, we either prepare recommended amendments

or completely revise our previous recommendation. The

availability of experimentation is the major strength of our Federal system. Certainly, at various stages experimentation has caused some undesirable results, but overall

I have concluded that the experimentation has been extremely

helpful and has improved our legal system.

The second major advantage of the informal mechanisms

has been the opportunities afforded by them for broad citi- zen and expert participation in promulgating model laws and

regulations. The existence of the informally devised models

exerts a salutary influence on government decisions, making

our elected and appointed officials accountable. Even in

formal rule-making we have attempted to incorporate these

benefits by requiring public notice of rule-making and

affording public hearings on proposed rules under the

Federal and State administrative procedure acts. The models

provide a carefully considered set of rules, which can be

compared with the formally adopted rules, and often a com- parison of the model and official rules reveals the opportunities available for improved governmental services.

Adoption of a responsible model as the official rule, of

course, tends to strengthen the confidence in, and support

for, government by the citizens and experts who participated in promulgating the model.

68
ASSOCIATION'S SPOT REPORTS

WESTERN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by FRED A. GERK, Association President

and Assistant Chief, Weights and Measures,

State of New Mexico

The Western Weights and Measures

Association held its last technical

conference in Phoenix, Arizona,

August 5-10, 1979. There were about

125 weights and measures officials

and industry representatives in

attendance. All of the standing

committees of the Association developed

their usual excellent final reports

that were adopted by the Western

Weights and Measures Association.

The Association also developed three

major policy positions that were pursued throughout this last year.

The first was relative to the Federal Grain Inspection

Service approach to grain scale requirements and official

testing. The Western Conference requested the Federal

Grain Inspection Service to make use of present State and

local resources and expertise to minimize costs and

improve uniformity.

Another policy position encouraged FDA to require

net weight labeling on aerosol containers. The third

important position recommended major revisions within the

Association: To develop voting procedures and a committee

structure that basically coincides with that of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Other highlights of the Phoenix conference were the

bestowing of Honorary Membership on Earl Prideaux of the

State of Colorado, selection of Lyman Holloway of the

State of Idaho to receive the coveted Ray Rebuffo Award,

and the presentation of the prestigious Les Murphy Award

to Bill Kerlin of California.

The Western Weights and Measures Association, at our meeting during the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, will start the implementation of a new voting

procedure and committee structure. We hope final adoption

will take place in Juneau, Alaska, at our annual meeting

on September 6-11, 1980.

69
This will be the first Western Weights and Measures

Association Conference ever held in the State of Alaska.

At this time, I would like to extend a cordial invitation

to each of you personally to attend this meeting, not

only for the aesthetic value of the trip, but for the

outstanding program that we have developed. We are planning to depart from Seattle by ferry on Friday evening,

September 5, and arrive in Juneau early Monday morning,

September 8. The current plan is to hold our Association

business meetings aboard the ferry, leaving the "on land"

portion of the meeting to informative, panel-type discussions by a wide array of experts m various fields. The

meeting will conclude with a banquet on Thursday evening,

leaving the weekend open for enjoying the beauty of

Alaska. We feel we are taking a rather unique approach

to this meeting and are very optimistic about an extremely

successful conference.

70
SOUTHERN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by JAMES F. LYLES, Association Director and

Supervisor, Weights and Measures, State of Virginia

On behalf of the SWMA it is my

pleasure to invite you to the 35th

Southern Conference on Weights and

Measures to be held October 19-23,

1980, at the Heart of Town, Holiday

Inn, Charleston, West Virginia. Dave

Grifith, Director, Consumer Protection

Division, West Virginia Department of

Labor, our President, is making plans

for a great conference in October.

David is recuperating from a recent

stay in the hospital and hopes to return to work by July 1 . Dave

deeply regrets that he could not be

here today and he sends his best

wishes to each of you.

The Southern Association has always had a good

conference, backed by strong active members. Officials

come from eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and

a number of city and county jurisdictions. Each of our member jurisdictions has its own problems and we have

found that by working together problems can be solved.

Many of the problems noted at regional levels also exist

at national levels. For this reason, over the years the

Southern Association has had good working committees that

have made outstanding contributions to the parent committee

at National levels. The Southern Association is proud of

its track record and is dedicated to striving for continued

support and uniformity in application of model laws and

regulations

.

The Southern Association has enjoyed a good working

relationship with industry representatives. Industry has

been a vital part in the Association through support to the various committees, providing speakers for the programs,

and giving assistance in State and regional technical

training schools. We wish to take this opportunity to thank industry for their support over the years.

Several of our dedicated members have earned the

opportunity and have gone fishing. They are George

Johnson, Kentucky; H. K. Sharp, Oklahoma; and Jake Slaughter,

Alabama. They will be missed, however, we wish them many

happy years of retirement. Hopefully they will leave a few fish for the rest of us. We were saddened by the

71
recent loss of Gene Williams from Mississippi and extend

to his family our heartfelt sympathy.

As we look back over the conference report, we find

that some problems of yesteryears are still with us today. Looking into the future, we see many new opportunities

for working closer together than ever before. Some of

these opportunities are metrication, OIML requirements

and implication of H-44, reciprocal type approval, automatic temperature compensation of petroleum products, and

method of sale of commodities. Hopefully, we can continue

to exchange ideas, express our individual positions, and

still work toward an equitable solution for the mutual

benefit of all.

The Southern Association will continue to give

support and provide a leadership role to the National

Conference on Weights and Measures. On behalf of the

Southern Association I want to take this opportunity to thank Tom Kirby for assuming the Editor's position and

publishing the Southern Newsletter. Tom is doing an outstanding job as photography editor and publisher. I am looking forward to seeing many of you in Charleston,

West Virginia, at the Southern, October 19-23.

72
NORTHWEST WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by FRANK C. NAGELE, President and Specialist,

Weights and Measures Association, State of Michigan

The annual meeting will be held in mid-April, 1981,

at a location in Northern Michigan to be announced at a later date. Our officers are Vice-President, Jim O'Connor

of Iowa; Secretary-Treasurer, Harold Birgy of Michigan;

Sergeant-at-Arms , Al Lemke of Wisconsin; and current

President, yours truly.

The member States of the Northwest Association are Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South

Dakota, and Wisconsin. I believe the regional associations

are a very good sounding board for the National Association

and I would like to leave with you a thought: that the

Presidents of each of the four regional associations

should be members of the executive committee of this

conference

.

I invite you all to our joint Michigan-Northwest

Conference next Spring.

It is my pleasure to be included

in this portion of the program. I am here today to tell you that the

Northwest Weights and Measures Association

meeting for the coming year will be a joint meeting of the Michigan Association

of Weights and Measures officials,

and the Northwest Association. It will be the 66th Annual Conference

for the Michigan officials and the

43rd annual meeting for the Northwest

Association.

73
NORTHEASTERN" WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by THOMAS E. GEILER, Association Chairman and

Sealer, Weights and Measures, Barnstable, Massachusetts

The Northeastern Weights and

Measures Association Sth Annual Conference was held on April 2S through

May 1, 1980, in Springfield. Illinois.

This Conference was hosted by the

Illinois Department of Agriculture

and I would like to thank the department

for their successful efforts. The

Conference Chairman was Sid Colbrook,

who conducted an excellent program

that was both timely and educational.

The program included such subjects

as: The Northeastern Measurement

Assurance Program, The Laboratory

Auditing Program, USDA Packers and Stockyard Procedures

and Regulations, Gasohol-A Motor Euel, Regional Training

Meetings , Temperature Compensation and the Effects on Consumers, Activities of the Metric Board and the Sale of

Motor Euel by Liters, The Leasing of Equipment, and a review of the tentative reports of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures Committees. We were also treated

to a tour of the historic sites of "The Land of Lincoln."

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association

was organized to provide a regional forum for the discussion

of all problems related to Weights and Measures Laws,

enforcement methods, testing procedures, and user requirements.

To accomplish this, we are presently working to cooperate

with the National Bureau of Standards, the National Conference on Weights and Measures, and the various State

and regional Weights and Measures Associations together

with Industry and Scientific Associations interested in

the promotion of more uniform and effective Weights and

Measures Administration.

Membership of the Northeastern Weights and Measures

Association is comprised of State, county, and local

Weights and Measures officials predominately from the 13 Northeastern States and industry members from throughout

the United States.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite all

the National Conference participants to join us in our Ninth Annual Conference in Hyannis . Massachusetts, which

will be held May 11 through 14, 1981. I also urge anyone

74
who may wish to participate in our program to contact me before our Interim Committee Meetings which will be held

at the Ben Franklin Hotel in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

on November 19 and 20 of this year. Plans for our 1982

Conference are underway and the Pennsylvania Weights and

Measures Association has agreed to host the 1982 Northeastern Weights and Measures Association Conference.

Again, I would like to emphasize our desire to work with

any and all organizations in the promotion of more uniform

and effective Weights and Measures Administration.

75
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS

OF AGRICULTURE

Presented by JAMES B . GRANT, Executive Secretary, NASDA

On behalf of the Commissioners,

Directors, and Secretaries of Agriculture

of the 50 States and four territories,

I would like to compliment the leadership

of this conference for the excellent

job that you are doing in putting

this conference on. Those of us who

work in agriculture here in Washington

and throughout the United States

understand the importance of the job

you do, and the excellent contributions

you are making to agricultural and consumer programs throughout the

country. Also on behalf of the

Commissioners, Directors, and Secretaries of State Departments of Agriculture, I would like to give a very special

welcome to our foreign visitors here at the conference.

We hope that your stay in our country will be pleasant.

I would just mention that Weights and Measures is one of our direct responsibilities in State Departments

of Agriculture. We at NASDA also have an associate

organization that is affiliated with this conference;

that is the Weights and Measures Division of NASDA, of

which the President this year is Kenneth Adcock, from

Ohio. We work very closely with this organization on all

Weights and Measures issues that need our attention. We

call upon our people because they are our technical

experts in this particular field and make a great contribution to our program.

I also would be remiss if I did not recognize my

good friend Hal Wollin. We work very closely with Hal

throughout the year. And we hope to continue this excellent

working relationship. It is a pleasure to be here, and

it is a great meeting. Please be assured that our Association will continue to work with you in every way

possible

.

76
NATIONAL SCALE MEN'S ASSOCIATION

Presented by RAYMOND C. CANFIELD, President,

NSMA, and President, Acme Scale and

Supply Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

It is incredible! But then this

is America where a boy from a "peanut"

farm in Georgia can become President

of our great USA and a boy from a "potato" farm in western New York can become "President" of a prestigious

Association involving so many of you

regulatory officials, as well as many

other individuals involved in our "exciting" "vibrant" weighing and

measuring industry. I am truly

humble and honored.

It apparently is my duty, as President of NSMA

(National Scale Men's Association) to submit a sort of

"State-of-the-Association" report. As so many of you are

aware, by your attendance, we have just held our 61st

Annual Technical Conference in San Francisco, California.

We again broke all records, at that Conference, for

registration and attendance, with a registration of 1845,

of which 413 persons attended our Presidents Award Banquet.

Eighty equipment exhibitors, with 114 booths, our largest

ever, exhibited the latest "amazing" electronic and

mechanical weighing units.

Our 1979-1980 President, William "Bill" Goodpaster,

long active in your Conferences, again proved his organizational ability, hence these records. Certainly, while

it may be a little difficult, we are working to beat

these records in our 62nd Conference, to be held in

Toronto, Canada, in May of 1981. We know the job we have

to do, but our 1980-81 team will again break records.

We would like to extend an invitation to each and

every one of you to attend our 62nd Conference, our First

International Conference since 1969. It will be a honey;

do not miss it.

Our present membership, involving regulatory officials

manufacturers, technicians, sales personnel, distributors,

and many others involved in this industry, is a record

2374. We have set a goal of 3000 national and internationa

members by the end of 1981.

Incidentally, we also set a record of attendance of

international people in San Francisco. We had 159 persons

representing 27 foreign countries in attendance.

77
.u: 6 W state-c r -the

will be read; cur "Handbook ~cmmictee

savs

lore Stabler,

do his usual exce

cur "Scales on Sa workhorse Gene Bo Seminars , when in

educational mater

people

.

You should attend some cf these

•ea, and be priw to the excellent

We will really see seme publicity for our industry

this year, states our "publicity and public relations"

Chairman George A. Dillon, of V. C. Dillon and Company.

"8
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

Presented by HAROLD E. HARRIS, Chairman and Technical

Advisor, API Weights and Measures Technical Task

Force, Exxon Company, Houston, Texas

It is my pleasure to be included

on the program to present a brief

review of recent API participation in

certain Weights and Measures activities. Today I will cover the status

of two items, Service Station Computer

Capability Survey and Table 6 Coefficient

of Thermal Expansion Project.

At the request of the NCWM, API

undertook a member company survey to determine the status of computer

upgrading. Survey recipients were asked to provide information as of

April 1, 1980. Ninety-five percent of the member companies

responded and the following totals were reported:

o Total computers requiring change or modification due to limited pricing

capability 561 000

o Total modified or changed to date 220 000 or 39%

o About 4 percent of the total units

surveyed are being utilized in the

metric mode

The API survey results represent only a portion of

the total computers currently in use. In an attempt to determine the status of the remaining computers, the

Petroleum and Natural Gas Sector of the American National

Metric Council asked three other organizatons to survey

their respective members: National Oil Jobbers Council,

Service Station Dealers of America, and the Society of

Independent Gasoline Marketers of America. The totals

reported by these organizations are: Total computers to be modified 960 000

Total computers changed to date 454 600 or 47%

If we combine all of the survey data we find the number

requiring change or modification is:

79
Total conversions as of April 1, 1980:

1 521 000

674 600

With the number remaining to be changed or conve r t e d : S^c -+CC In total, approximately 44 percent of the necessary

conversion has been completed with 60 percent capable of

metric measurement. It should be noted that the total

modified represents work completed over a longer time

period than from the July 1979 NCVM Policy Statement date

to the April, 1980, survey date as some companies started

conversion programs as early as 1978. Future API plans

include another survey effort to determine December 31,

1980, status with results available for the Interim

Conference in January, 1981.

Another API activity of interest to Weights and

Measures is the recent API Committee on Petroleum Measurement announcement that the new Table 6, which identifies

the correlation between density and coefficient of thermal

expansion for petroleum products, recently received final

approval for publication as a joint API-ASTM document.

August 1 has been targeted as the effective date for the new table to become the official API Standard. Traditional

English and metric versions will be available in both

computer software and hard copy formats. Also, C0PM is

preparing video slide tapes to assist in implementation

of the new data

.

In closing. API is active in

and Measures and will continue to

and the National Conference. let

to contact API Staff or members o that are attending the 65th ftatio

is felt there is seme wav in whic

many aspects :t Weights

work with State Officials
INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ON PACKAGING AND LABELING

Presented by ALFRED E. JOHANSON, Chairman, ICPL, and

Counsel, Foremost-McKesson, Inc. The Industry Committee on Packaging

and Labeling (ICPL) is an organization of over 100 representatives of

companies and trade associations in

the packaged goods industries. ICPL's

principal function is to serve as liaison between its members and the

Conference and its committees. ICPL

normally holds a meeting in conjunction

with the National Conference and may

also meet at the time of the interim

meetings. The interests of ICPL are broad but certainly include such matters

as labeling, net weight, and metric

conversion.

The Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling is

eager to assist the Conference in its important work of

producing high quality model laws and regulations and

encouraging uniformity. We believe that open communication between industry and the Conference is mutually

beneficial. ICPL compliments the Office of Weights and

Measures and the Conference Officers on the organization

of this Conference; we particularly appreciate their

efforts to keep us advised of pending matters.

Many years of experience in weights and measures work and considerable technical and legal expertise is

available through the membership of ICPL. We encourage

the Conference to make use of this expertise. If we can be of assistance, please call me or Austin Rhoads,

secretary of ICPL.

81
SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Presented by RAYMOND J. LLOYD, Executive Director,

SMA

The member companies of the

Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA)

value very highly this opportunity to

meet with weights and measures officials

from throughout the United States and

the world. We consider the National

Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM) an outstanding example of

government and industry working

together for the common good.

We are pleased that this forum

for exchange of important information

has been broadened substantially in

recent years to include the NCWM interim committee meetings,

the conferences of the regional weights and measures

associations, and our own SMA meetings.

At our recent 35th Annual Meeting, for instance, our guest speakers included Sydney D. Andrews and Stan Darsey

of the Florida Weights and Measures organization and

Albert D. Tholen, Harold F. Wollin, and David E. Edgerly

of the National Bureau of Standards. At our Fall meeting

last November, we were pleased to hear from Merle Anker

of St. Louis County Weights and Measures, Daniel I. Offner of City of St. Louis Weights and Measures, and

Otto K. Warnlof of the Office of Weights and Measures at

NBS.

As many of you know, SMA undertook some major changes

in 1976 to support this information exchange more efficiently

and more effectively. The Association appointed its

first staff technical director, Daryl E. Tonini, at that

point and named him Chairman of its reorganized Technical

Committee. As such, Daryl is technical spokesman for SMA

before organizations such as the NCWM.

Now, we have taken another significant step to

bolster our support of your efforts. Effective February 1,

1980, SMA appointed Hal C. Christensen as staff engineer.

One of Hal's principal assignments is to broaden and

strengthen SMA's liaison with the weights and measures

community.

We are pleased to report that SMA's technical efforts

are making progress on several fronts. Two specific

programs worth special mention here are:

82
Tolerance Subcommittee . - This group has been expanded

beyond SMA members to include representatives of other

interested parties, including weights and measures officials.

John J. Elengo, Jr., Chairman of the subcommittee, presented

a progress report before your Committee on Specifications

and Tolerances earlier this week. We are looking forward

to renewing this discussion at your interim committee

meetings next January and at the 66th NCWM next summer. OIML . - Our members remain very active in working groups

assigned to international standards on load cells and

electronic weighing, in addition to other OIML activities.

The SMA technical director was a member of the U.S. delegation at the Sixth International Conference on Legal

Metrology in Washington, DC, last week.

Our most recent technical initiative is the appointment

of a Subcommittee on Type Approval. Our objective here

is to provide additional technical resources for your own task group and other organizations working on type approval

proposals

.

In concluding this presentation, SMA would like to pay special tribute to the National Conference. On

behalf of SMA's member companies, it is my pleasure to present this plaque to Chairman Charles H. Vincent and

Executive Secretary Harold F. Wollin, as your representatives. The plaque says:

"In recognition of outstanding service and major

contributions to the United States weights and measures

system over the past 75 years, the National Conference on Weights and Measures is hereby recognized and commended

by the Scale Manufacturers Association. Washington,

D.C. , June 24, 1980."

83
84
SCALE DESIGN AND WEIGHING TRENDS IN THE EIGHTIES

Presented by WALTER M. YOUNG, Vice-President,

A. H. Emery Company

I enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on the past, present, and

future of the weighing industry,

especially the future. I have never before taken the role of a prophet;

actually, my one-year business forecasts were never so hot and now I presume to comment on what may

happen over a ten-year span.

Bob Zweig, President of the

Scale Manufacturers Association,

recently presented his views on "metrology in the 80s" to the

National Scale Men's Association

and he told the story of a President who was retiring and was looking for a successor. He had three candidates:

the Vice President of Engineering, the Vice President of

Sales, and the Vice President of Finance. He devised a simple test and would make a selection based on the answers. And so he called in the Vice President of Engineering and

asked him how much is 2 x 2? The engineer retired, pondered the question, calculated, and returned with the answer that based on known practices and tolerances, the three

sigma probability is that the answer is 4. The President then called in the Vice President of

Sales and asked him the 2x2 question. After due con- sideration, he replied that based upon current inflation

rates, list prices and commission rates there probably

was no one answer. However, his personal judgment was 4. The President then called in the Vice President of

Finance and put the 2x2 question to him. He cautiously

looked around, asked whether he could close the door, and

whispered "Boss, what do you want it to be?" Well, let

us see what we want it to be.

The history books say that for over 5000 years, the

progress of man seemed to be at a standstill. He tamed

the horse around 4000 B.C., transported himself more efficiently; he used water current, wind, and muscle.

Energy sources were not his to control. Suddenly in the

19th century, inanimate energy under the complete control

of man came into being, and technology was jet-propelled

into the 20th century. The scale industry was privileged

to go along for the ride. Rapid changes took place and

85
the scale industry exerted itself, and took on the role

of a basic industry, producing accurate weighing machinery.

I did some research to find out what the Lord had to say about metrology, and to my pleasant surprise, He had

a great deal to say. He left no doubt as to where he

stood on the matter of metrology and what he expected

from mankind. It may be interesting to read just a few

of the passages in the Bible that bear on our subject.

Daniel 5 : 27 "Thou are weighed in the balance

and art found wanting."

That fellow was in big trouble.

Proverbs 11: 1 "A false balance is abomination

to the Lord, but a just weight

is His delight."

That is why we have a Weights and Measures, so the Lord

does not get too angry.

Job 31: 6 "Let me be weighed in even balance, that God may know mine

integrity.

You can bet your life that balance was supersensitive

with a most unusual indicator.

Proverbs 20: 10 "God condemns fraud and injustice

in commerce."

That is pretty clear.

Deuteronomy 25: 13 "Thou shalt not have in thy bag

divers weights."

This is an interesting one. The Hebrews of old did not

use coined money of standard determined weight. They

weighed all the gold and silver used in trade. The

standard weight used was called a "stone." Merchants were known to keep two different weights in their bag; one to sell with and one to buy with. No wonder the Lord

set the record straight on this issue. And there are those that will say things have not changed all that

much

.

Ecclesiasticus 42 "Deliver all things in numbers and

weight; and put all in writing that

thou givest out and receivest in."

In other words, when you buy a scale, make sure it is

equipped with a printer. The above is quite a mandate

So
and it comes from the highest authority. It certainly

shows where the Lord stands on the subject of metrology.

Now, let us briefly look at the U.S.A. metrological

community as it stands today:

1) Over 200 scale manufacturers.

2) Scale salesmen that number in the thousands.

3) Scale service technicians that number over

ten thousand.

4) Independent scale dealers and distributors

that number a few thousand.

5) The Weights and Measures community, with many

thousands required to regulate.

6) Metrology laboratories, government and industry,

that number in the hundreds.

7) Colleges and universities with metrology programs;

small in number, but growing.

The above is not exact but it does place a substantial

dimension on what we commonly call the "Scale Industry."

It is a complex industry with many specializations and

product lines. Any two scale manufacturers may be miles

apart in technology, manufacturing requirements, regulatory requirements, markets.

Because of the many divergent interests within the

scale community, some of the comments must necessarily

be general in nature, and will not apply equally to each

and every segment of the scale industry.

NOW , INTO THE 1980s

1. How will the scale manufacturing industry fare

in the 1980s? Through much of the 1900s, we will say into the 70s, the scale industry hung

onto the GNP; was unable to grow any faster.

The reported figures are 346 million in 1977.

The 1978 and 1979 figures are not available;

however, industry leaders have recognized and

acknowledge a more rapid growth in these years

than in the past.

We forecast increased growth in the U.S. Scale

Manufacturing Industry during the 80s, exceeding

the rate of growth of the GNP possibly by a factor of two by the end of the decade.

This growth potential will be benefitted by the following influences:

a) The expense of direct materials in the manu- facturing process demands better control,

87
therefore, more and better scales. This is

a matter of economics.

b) The U.S.A. conversion to the metric system

will have a long-range positive impact on the industry; albeit modest.

c) OSHA regulations are a positive influence.

d) The need for many U.S. industries to modernize their processes and increase

productivity.

e) The U.S. Scale Manufacturers will successfully increase their share of the export

market.

f) Environmental laws are a positive influence.

g) The increasing ability of U.S. Scale Manufacturers to make their product do more--make it more important to the process.

2. How will individual scale product lines fare in

the SO's? Almost without exception, the consensus

is bullish. I see unit and dollar sales on the

increase, specifically:

a) bench and floor scales up,

b) counting scales to continue their sharp

increase with a leveling off in the

mid-eighties

,

c) motor truck scales will continue strong

through the 80s. The old line mechanical

lever scale which today is the dominant

version sold here in the U.S., will

continue to be an important version, but

with pressure from full load cell, pit

and above the ground versions. This market,

which numbers some 3000 units per year, is

ready for real innovation; with emphasis in

two areas: 1) How scales are installed.

Pits cost a lot of money and usually add

to the maintenance problems and costs.

2) What these units will do for the customer.

The small, table top "microcomputer" will be

a standard option; a great variety of soft- ware programs will be available- -with a modest price and a gigantic capability.

d) Railroad Track Scales will increase in

unit and dollar modestly through the 80s.

Because of the tremendous expense involved

in pit construction for the conventional

i:
in-the-ground unit, look for the 80s to replace in-the-ground with shallow pit and

above the ground versions.

Tank and Hopper Scales on the increase.

Mechanical versions to survive the 80s but

just barely. Load cells will dominate

this market.

Automatic Hopper Scales, with computer

control, will enjoy an excellent decade.

Mail Scales, the sophisticated variety,

with computer capability, will have an outstanding decade. The mail room of the

future is, for all intents and purposes,

,at hand and will grow dramatically.

Bathroom and Medical Scales with digital

indication will become commonplace.

Reliability will be a problem as the

manufacturer struggles with the market

pressure for low cost units.

Continuous Weighing Units should enjoy one

of their best decades ever. There are many positive influences that support this

optimistic view; e.g. 1) the explosive

increase in coal as a primary energy

source and 2) the need to upgrade U.S.A.

cement producing facilities. The energy

cost per barrel of U.S.A. produced cement

is substantially higher than that of the more modern facilities in Europe, especially West Germany. Both of these industries

are capable of using many millions of

dollars worth of continuous weighing

machinery.

Bagging and Packaging Scales should have a strong decade ahead. Look for the microprocessor, which has already been introduced

into this market, to become the dominant

method of control. Robotics, on the input

and output sides of a packaging line, will

become the packaging scale manufacturer's

responsibility. The economics of removing

direct labor cost will justify research

and development in this fast growing and

exciting field.

Force Sensors. The use of load cells as a primary scale component came of age in the

70s. They were introduced to the scale

industry in the 50s, used sparingly in the

89
60s, and expanded rapidly in the 70s. The

80s will be an outstanding decade for many

force sensors. 1) The strain gage cell,

already a mature and refined product will

continue its dramatic climb as a primary

scale element. Look for all sorts of new

shapes and designs; round ones, square

ones, donut, pancake, "S" shaped, "U" shaped, tiny ones, large ones, plates that

include strain gage elements and thus

become within themselves load cells capable

of sensing weight. A bright future indeed.

2) The hydraulic load cell entered the

realm of precision in weighing in the 70s.

A full line of industrial scales with

hydraulic weight sensors has been test

certified and are now extensively used in

Weights and Measures regulated areas. Look for the hydraulic cell to increase

its penetration into the industrial market,

particularly in hostile environments.

Currently, this type of cell is being

produced with accuracies in the order of 1 part in 14 000. The 80s will generate the

techniques for more complete utilization

of this high performance device. 3) While

the load cells described above are the

most commonly used in industry, there are others. These include force/frequency,

mass/frequency, nuclear, gyroscopic transducer,

the electromechanical linear variable differential transformer, and others. Each

of the above has certain pluses for certain

applications. The 80s will bring further

refinement to these sensors. The mass/frequency

and gyroscopic transducer have excellent

potential for high accuracy work. The

gyroscopic transducer is stated to have

accuracies in the order of 1 part in

100 000. We will see more scale products

built around these sensors in the years

ahead

.

Batching-by-Weight Systems will have a very good decade. These are big ticket

sales for scale manufacturers. A $1

million order is no longer an oddity. We

are at the point where a scale manufacturer

can substantially influence the process

configuration: dictate the characteristics of bulk materials and select feeders,

bins, conveyors, control; in fact, design

and build feeders, bins, conveyors, etc.,

90
to meet the process objectives. At least

one West Germany scale firm now offers a most complete service; from plant design

to system installation. Orders have

reached the 10 million range. A few

select U.S. scale manufacturers will reach

this rarefied plateau; it offers an excellent

opportunity. More and more industries

will call upon Weight Systems producers

for a "complete package." The risks will

remain high but the rewards for the successful

ones will be substantial.

m) Computers as a scale control product will

be commonplace. Even the smallest scale

companies will offer good reliable computer

packages—with software packages galore.

n) Retail Scales sales will also increase

during the 80s. In recent years sales were more or less determined by supermarket

start-ups. To an extent, this will continue

to be true during the 80s. However, look

for R & D to pay off handsomely in this

field. The supermarket weigh-out systems

of the 80s, both up front and in the back

room, will reflect substantial change, es- pecially in the data collection and control

area. This segment of the scale industry

is susceptible to challenge from imports,

and it will come from Japan and other Far

East countries. Watch out! Exports - In 1978, we exported approximately

$50 000 000 worth of scales, with Canada being

our largest customer, followed by Australia,

Venezuela, Mexico, England, and West Germany,

who are all in the low 2 to 3 million dollar

range

.

It may be hard to believe, but in the 50s, the

U.S. supplied 40 percent of the entire world

export of scales. West Germany approximately

10 percent. From that point on, it was all

down hill with West Germany taking over the

export leadership—and now it supplies in the

order of 40 percent of the world exports, and

the U.S. is under 10 percent. During the 50s

and early 60s the scale capitol of the world

was firmly planted in the U.S.A. Unfortunately,

this is no longer so; the scale capitol of the

world is now in West Germany. However, look

for the U.S. export picture for scales to

91
improve dramatically during the 80s. There are some very positive factors at work here:

a) A shift in international value of money

will favor U.S. exports.

b) An increase in productivity will take

place. For example, one small scale

company in Connecticut invested $200 000

in high speed computer-controlled work

centers with an astounding improvement in

productivity.

c) Further, many of the smaller scale companies

will mature in the 80s and export activity

will become part of their marketing program--

with good results

.

4. Imports - Through the 50s, 60s, and well into

the 70s, the U.S. scale industry had little or no market pressure from imports. In 1968,

recorded imports were 1.7 million, and by 1978,

it was 16.9 million. Although this is a com- pounded growth rate of approximately 75 percent

per year, the U.S. scale industry still exports

three times more than it imports. Imports are still less than 5 percent of the total scale sales

in the U.S. This happy situation will change in

the coming decade. Specific product lines will

be attacked first--the counting scale market--

the retail scale market--bathroom and medical

scales--load cells.

5. Legal Metrology - We can expect substantial

change to take place in the important area of

rules, regulations, and standards of Weights

and Measures. As we know, in the U.S., weights

and measures is a State responsibility, with

the National Bureau of Standards functioning at

the national level, setting standards, publishing documents, training, setting up metrology

laboratories, and the National Conference on Weights and Measures, which is the single

most-dominant U.S. force in legal metrology.

Although change will come slowly, it nevertheless will occur. We see a steady improvement

in the performance standards of the land, and

acceptance of these standards by all States. A

formal prototype examination program will come into being during the 80s.

92
The U.S. standard will have moved significantly

closer to the "world" standards of the International Organization of Legal Metrology. International markets will demand that U.S. scale

manufacturers comply with OIML standards--and in

harmony with NBS the OIML standards will become

our standards.

Whereas the number of scale manufacturers grew

substantially in the 60s and 70s, we will see the 80s bring a halt to this growth. Stricter

standards will apply the brakes. I fully expect

that a substantial number of the present scale

companies will not answer the 1990 roll call.

The overall effects of legal metrology on the U.S.

scale industry will be beneficial--very much so. METRIC SYSTEM

Conversion to the metric system will continue to be

painfully slow, and it appears that we will be struggling

with it throughout the remaining years of the 20th century.

THE SCALE DEALERS

The single largest and most powerful sales and

service force in the U.S. is the community of independent

scale dealers. By shear numbers, they tower over even

the largest U.S. scale company. The future looks very

good for their continued prosperity and growth. The

scale entrepreneur will find opportunities galore in this

branch of the scale industry. He will need to be a scaleman, a service technician, a businessman. But above

all, he will need to be a man of integrity.

The opportunity will also be there to be either a specialist in a specific area or a generalist, operating

over a broad band of scale products and markets. The

growth of the scale dealers will exceed that of the

companies with their own sales and service force, by a very significant amount.

PEOPLE WITHIN THE SCALE COMMUNITY

I am most optimistic about the people requirement

during the 80s. Needed in substantially larger numbers

will be salesmen, service technicians, engineers, technicians, machinists, computer experts, etc.

93
PRODUCT RELIABILITY

The introduction of electronics into the scale

industry certainly did not produce a more reliable product.

Quite the contrary. Product reliability suffered. The

70s saw some improvement in this area but by no means has

reliability reached acceptable levels. The 80s will

demand more reliability from scales. The market will

pressure for improved warranties.

SUMMARY

The scale industry is alive and well, with a potentially

explosive decade ahead. It has come of age. The pressure

placed upon it to fulfill its vital role is increasing,

and with it will come opportunities galore. You need

only pick your spot. During my 30 years in the scale

industry, I witnessed phenomenal change, and the extent

of change within the industry has been accelerating; that

is, some change in the 50s, still more in the 60s, and

much more in the 70s.

The 80s will be the most exciting decade yet. We

may even get to know the difference between metrology and

meteorology.

94
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES REGULATIONS

THE EUROPEAN SCENE IN THE EIGHTIES

Presented by G. F. HODSMAN

Avery Research Administration Ltd.

Birmingham, England

This paper describes the way in

which weights and measures regulations are being harmonized in Europe

and how the manufacturers and metrologists collaborate on an international

level. The way in which the harmonize

regulations operate and some of the

problems which are also considered.

COMITE EUROPEEN PES CONSTRUCTEURS D ' INSTRUMENTS DE

PESAGE ( CECIP ) This organization, founded in May 1959, represents

virtually the entire weighing machine industry of Western

Europe. The members of CECIP comprise the weighing machine

industries of nine countries: Belgium, Denmark, France,

Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and

United Kingdom. Sweden and Switzerland are not members of

the European Economic Community (EEC) so CECIP has a wider

representation than simply the EEC countries.

The National Federation of weighing machine manufacturers in each country is a member of CECIP. It is not

possible for an individual manufacturer to be a member.

The policy of CECIP is controlled by a General Assembly, which meets annually in the member countries in rotation and to which each member country sends delegates. A

Bureau (or Committee) of the Officers deals with the admini

stration during the year. The Secretariat and office is

located in Paris.

The work of CECIP is conducted in a series of "Working

Groups" which deal with specific topics; e.g., Non-Automati

Weighing Machines, Legal Metrology, Electronic Systems,

Ticketing, Checkweighers , etc. Working Groups can be formed to deal with specific

problems as they arise. These groups, comprising experts

from the member countries, meet as necessary in Paris and

95
form the focal point for links with the EEC and OIML.

Through CECIP, therefore, every European weighing machine

manufacturer has the opportunity of influencing the

formulation and operation of international weighing

machine regulations.

THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (EEC)

OBJECTIVES

A principal objective of the EEC is to establish a "Common Market" in which the manufactured goods of all

the member countries can circulate freely without restriction. The financial restrictions have long since been

eliminated and no customs duties are applied when goods

pass from one country to another. However, this does not ensure freedom in our particular area. Each country has

its own weights and measures regulations which are mostly

quite different and, of course, written in different

languages. To sell a weighing machine in an EEC country

it was necessary to secure approval and stamping in that

country, which meant making different models for each

country. The Community had, therefore, to institute a program of "Harmonization" to eliminate these so-called

Technical Barriers to Trade. It has been a formidable

operation and is still far from complete. The process is

being undertaken under Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome.

HARMONIZATION OF REGULATIONS

The EEC Commission which is the "Civil Service" of

the Community is advised in this task by Working Groups.

If, for example, the regulations for Checkweighers are to be harmonized, the Commission convenes a Group of Metrological experts from the member states under a Commission

official as Chairman. Their job is to prepare a draft

"Directive" embodying a set of regulations likely to be

acceptable to all. This is not a simple task and is very

time consuming. Until recently the manufacturers had

little opportunity to influence this process.

However, CECIP is now increasingly being invited by

the Commission to participate in the work of these Groups

and delegates from the correponding CECIP working Group

(e.g., checkweighers) are beginning to participate more

fully in the work.

In due time, the Commission presents the proposals

to the Council which provides the political control of

the EEC with representation at Ministerial level. The

Council is first required to submit the proposals to two

bodies for an opinion: the European Parliament and the

96
Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC). The Parliament

comprises members elected by the population of the member

countries and usually has little to say about specialized

technical Directives. The ECOSOC comprises representatives

from Industry, Trades Unions, and Consumers and often

makes strong criticisms of proposed Directives.

After further consultations at Council and Commission

level, and if all goes well, the Council eventually

issues the Directive, (the decision of the Council must

be unanimous). Under the Treaty, every member state must

implement the provisions of the Directive by National

Legislation, usually within 18 months.

In this way a harmonized set of regulations (e.g.,

for checkweighers) becomes the law in each member country.

It is important to realize, however, that the EEC regulations sit alongside the existing national laws and do not

replace them. Harmonized regulations are now in operation

for nonautomatic weighing machines, belt-weighers, checkweighers, weights, prepacks, among many others in different

areas

.

EEC TYPE APPROVAL AND VERIFICATION

The first Directive of interest to weighing machine

manufacturers, called the "Directive Cadre", set up the

whole framework for approval of weighing and measuring

equipment.

A manufacturer can submit a new machine to the

Metrological Service of any member state (not necessarily

his own country) . The service will examine the machine

to see whether it complies with all the requirements of

the harmonized regulations for that type of equipment

(e.g., checkweighers). If satisfied, the service issues an EEC Approval Certificate and notifies all the other

member Services. The manufacturer can now submit production machines to his local Weights and Measures official

usually at his factory, who will check general conformity

with the approved type and check weighing accuracy. He

will then apply an e-stamp to each machine. This e-stamp

is the European passport. The machine can be sold and

used for trade in any member country without any further

control whatsoever by local officials in that country.

The machine can only be prohibited if it subsequently

exhibits weighing errors outside the "in-service" tolerances, usually twice the verification tolerance. In this

way the objective of the EEC of creating a single free

Common Market is achieved.

97
SOME PROBLEMS

The procedure outlined above does not operate without

creating difficulties for both raetrological Services and

manufacturers. These difficulties are currently exercising

the minds of the Commission and CECIP and are problems

for which solutions must be found if the objectives are

to be fully realized in practice.

INTERPRETATION

This is the most serious difficulty whose full

significance is just beginning to be realized. The

Directives are issued in all the Community languages:

French, Danish, German, Italian, Dutch, and English. All

the texts are of equal validity. The Council goes to considerable trouble to see that the texts are exactly

equivalent at all points, but clearly, with the nuances

of different languages, this is an impossible task. In examining for type approval, each metrological service

may take a different view of the meaning of a particular

regulation. One service could accept what another service

will reject. Even without the language problem, it is

perhaps too much to expect nine metrological services to have exactly the same view of every aspect of very detailed

technical regulations.

At the request of CECIP, the Commission has begun

work on the important nonautomatic weighing machine

directive, to identify and eliminate interpretation

problems. The size and difficulty of this task is only

now beginning to be appreciated. Perhaps time and experience will lead to a greater uniformity of view among the

services; as manufacturers we think this is vital if

unfair competition is to be avoided.

A European Type Approval Laboratory would eliminate

these interpretation problems, since there would be only

one source of EEC approval. Europe, unfortunately, is

not yet ready for such an innovation since the national

metrological Services still jealously guard their right

to issue approvals. However, unless the Commission and

the metrological services can solve the interpretation

problem, such a step may well be the only solution if

unfair competition is to be avoided.

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

The Commission has been grappling for over six years

with the problem of the regulations which should apply to weighing and measuring equipment incorporating electronics.

98
No agreement has yet been reached or seems imminent.

There are broadly two opposing views which the Commission

has not yet been able to fully reconcile. Some countries

argue that an electronic machine must always indicate

correctly (within tolerance). Any electrical or radio

interference or failure of components that alters the

reading must result in the machine shutting down and not

being capable of operation until the fault has been

rectified or interference eliminated. The opposing view

argues that this is too harsh, increases costs, and is

unnecessary for consumer protection.

As a result of this difficulty no EEC approvals can be given for any machine incorporating electronics, and

since virtually all new machines incorporate electronics,

the harmonization permitted in theory by all the adopted

Directives is largely inoperative. A solution to this

problem must be found if the work of the Community in

eliminating technical barriers to trade is to have any

meaning.

ADAPTATION TO TECHNICAL PROGRESS

Technology is changing ever more rapidly. New ideas

emerge, which conflict with requirements in the harmonized

regulations. The EEC has a procedure for adapting Directives to take account of technical progress. Unfortunately

it operates slowly. The full implications of this have

not yet been felt since most developments are electronic

and not, therefore, now eligible for EEC approval. Once

they are, the community will be faced with the need to find a way of adapting regulations very quickly to suit new techniques to avoid restricting the activities of the

innovative manufacturer.

DELAYS IN TYPE APPROVAL

There are serious delays in obtaining type approval

in some member states. In some cases this can exceed two

years and places an intolerable burden on manufacturers

whose access to the market with new ideas is severely

restricted. Indeed the technology may be almost obsolete

by the time the manufacturer is free to market. The

problem is becoming more serious as equipment becomes

more complex and involves longer type approval examination.

THIRD COUNTRIES

A rather delicate problem has arisen more recently.

The manufacturer from outside Europe has free and unre- stricted access to the EEC approval procedure in exactly

99
the same way as a manufacturer in a member country. He

is thus able to make one model which will be acceptable

to all nine countries, instead of, as previously, having

to make nine more or less different models to meet the

regulations of the individual countries. He has access

to a single market of over 250 million people.

In CECIP we believe that this is right and we are prepared to meet this competition, fair and square. We

do say, however, we think fairly, that in return there

should be reciprocity and that no unreasonable restrictions should be imposed on the free sale of our e-stamped

machines in third countries. In many countries there is

little problem but there are still troublesome areas. The EEC Council is now looking at ways of ensuring that

true reciprocity is encouraged and achieved.

RELATIONS WITH OIML

CECIP collaborates very closely with the appropriate

working groups in OIML, which frame the International

Recommendations and which are eventually adopted at an International Conference such as the one this year in

Washington.

CECIP is concerned to see that the OIML regulations

and EEC Directives on the same equipment march in step.

This has been one of the successes of international

cooperation. To date OIML and EEC requirements are very

closely harmonized.

CONCLUSIONS AND EXPECTATIONS FOR THE EIGHTIES

It is easy to be critical of the slow progress made

with harmonization by EEC and OIML. The problems of

securing agreement between countries with widely differing

cultures, legal backgrounds, and languages are immense.

In a relatively few years, solid progress has been made

and already manufacturers are beginning to see the benefits

of less diverse European and world-wide regulations. We are some way from a single set of regulations applicable

everywhere, but by the end of the eighties, that goal may

well be in sight, if not fully achieved.

It is sometimes said, why do we have all these

regulations? Why do we have type approval and stamping?

Why control weighing machines except in a very elementary

way? Control the product that is weighed (or measured)

,

and apply severe penalties for short weight. This is

enough. The CECIP view on this is clear and unequivocal.

We believe that strict, but sound regulations are good

100
for both the industry and the consumer. We sometimes

disagree with some of the detail which appears in harmonized

regulations , but never with the need for the firm control

they provide.

The author is indebted to GEC-Averys Ltd. of the

United Kingdom, for facilities in connection with the

preparation and presentation of this paper.

101
::-z ::N5ZiZr .::

~

Presented by LOUIS 5. 'Z ":Z?. . ] Conference of Consumer Organization;

Edinboro State College

I would lii National Confer*

to be here toda1 National Conferi few ideas rcgar

tations as we m< However, I do m

30 minutes but,

tc suggest sere: issues that wil!

marketplace in "

I feel it very important that broad marketplace

issues should be identified, whether directly related to

weights and measures or not, because every agency, company,

profession, occupation, or industry ~usc recognize that it

cannot withdraw into its own arena of operation and neglect

other peripheral problems that impact on the marketplace.

In this regard I would call your attention to a situation involving reconstituted milk and the contention

by several Washington public interest groups that consumers particularly low income consumers , could save 19C on reconstituted milk. However, what: they fail to

into account is what this program might do to the

small dairy farmers. We might well end up with ma

these farmers being driven out of business and thu

milk prices much higher than the 19C per gallon vh

ponents say will be saved through use of the recon

milk. In many respects the consumer movement has

price-oriented and we must see other aspects :d tc

related problems as well as those that affect us o For too long, too many people have contented thems

thinking that the other problem belonged to someon

solve. For too long government agencies, industri

wide variety of occupations and professions have b

fied by thinking that only the utility company, th

the supermarket chain, the auto repair shop or ser

tion, or the local medical center need be given co: regarding testifying at hearings incident to legis

= s : y

JLS- tr

102
regulation affecting those entities. After all, what

does the consumer, the public, know about such matters as utility rates and nuclear power, about airline schedules,

lost baggage, and overbooking flights; about the universal

product code, the direct correlation between high food

advertising costs and the nutritional worthlessness of

the commodity and shortweighing of produce; after all,

what does the consumer know about defective gear shift

slippage and Chevy engines in Oldsmobiles, or about

exorbitant in-house sweetheart contracts held by hospital

pathologists, anaesthesiologists , and radiologists to the

tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in health care

costs paid for by the consumer? Historically, there has

been an attitude quite rampant in the land that the

general public, the consumer, does not know and does not

really have the right to know; that this right is conveyed

upon the government official, political appointee, corporate

executive, and professionals and occupationists in our economic system. These are the sacred cows to whom we must supposedly defer.

I am suggesting to you that this decades-old policy

and belief that the system can harbor a business-as-usual

attitude is as outdated as believing that we can fight

metric and win. The fact of the matter is that no one can rest assured that he or she is exempt from assisting

in the solution of marketplace issues that transcend

weights and measures. Just as some American corporations,

trade associations, and industries are being drawn into

the joint decision-making structures between themselves

and consumerists , so, indeed, shall occupations and

professions come to realize that they must sit down with

public or consumer representatives —those who work with

consumer groups and have a bona fide constituency--and

early on in the game identify the issues and problems

that must be resolved.

I fully realize there are those who will disagree

and fight this idea. So be it. If confrontation, adversarial relationships, or unreasonable attitudes are what

such people desire, I am sure there are those from within

the public sector who will accommodate such feelings.

For one, I believe such a course of action will only

intensify the lack of problem resolution that is so important in the marketplace today.

What does all of this mean to you as public officials

and others in the private sector involved in weights and

measures? First, I believe it means that you must be

attuned to the issues that are being identified by consumer representatives as the key problems likely to surface in

the months and years ahead. I do not mean only those

103
issues that relate directly to your occupation or profession; but, rather, the many others that are outside

your jurisdiction—or seem to be today. The interrelationship of direct and indirect issues must be recognized

if the problems are to be resolved, irrespective of the

difficulty in confronting such issues.

I am reminded of a conference at which I spoke last

November. I was asked to give a consumer or public perspective on quality assurance in the hospital laboratory.

I decided to go beyond telling them that the consumer- patient would be satisfied if the lab vials were kept

clean and the floor swept, and address numerous significant issues such as lab personnel training programs,

duplicative tests performed, technological accuracy of

tests, pathologist contracts that are built around a percentage of the take and their resultant effect on quality assurance, and a host of other related issues.

Needless to say, this is not what they had in mind and I was immediately accused of raising issues that I had no business raising. (I think what really bothered them was

the fact that my remarks were to be printed in the final

Conference Proceedings for all the world to see!)

And so I suggest to you that you become aware, if

you are not already so, of what is bothering consumers as we enter the 1980s: such things as low income consumer

issues in the marketplace, prospective changes in our health care system, energy policies as they impact on consumer interests, public participation by public

groups, the consumer stake in regulatory reform, the

impact of multinational corporations on consumer

interests, the long-term effect of the computerized

scanner and UPC in the supermarket, the alternative

marketing systems being established across the country

and their implications, the move to metric and how it can negatively affect consumers unless we make ourselves

aware of the potential problems and, of course, other

select issues. But, in the process recognize how weights

and measures may be a part of these issues.

How do you gain an understanding of the issues?

First, I believe, by making yourselves openly available

to consumer groups in your States and communities. I think in all sectors we must involve others affected by

our activities and talk less to ourselves. I appreciate

the fact that many weights and measures offices and

operations are understaffed and ill-equipped to do the

job entrusted to you decades ago. But, all the more

reason to make contact with public interest groups in the

community. A pertinent question is, when was the last

time you moved out of your State or local office and

104
sought out consumer groups to discuss what they viewed as problems in the weights and measures arena? I would like

to believe last week, but I am afraid it did not happen.

And why not? Which of your offices is overbudgeted so that you are financially solid with no worries? Very

few, if any! Which of your offices is overstaffed with

no personnel concerns? Very few, if any! My point is

that you have natural allegiances with concerned consumers upon which alliances and coalitions can be built, and as you do so, strengthen the legislative, regulatory, and

constitutional responsibilities of your offices, such as the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation

(Pennsylvania, in many places, has as many as 7-9 different

size loaves of bread on supermarket shelves). I know of

no other matter so compelling in the decade ahead as this

need to establish public dialogue in the pursuit of issue

resolution. In this regard, I commend the Report of the

Committee on Liaison and particularly Section 502, "Position

Development and Advocacy;" it is important to get input

from other quarters.

Second, an understanding of the issues is also

gained by attending consumer conferences and workshops,

where you have an opportunity to meet consumer representatives and discuss their perspectives of mutual concerns.

Two cases in point: How many of you attended the Eastern

Consumer Conference at Harrisburg, PA, three weeks ago?

Or the Conference of Consumer Organizations (COCO) Annual

Conference on Regulatory Reform at Madison, WI , last

October where Al Tholen spoke? Aside from the fact that

some of you did not know about these conferences, most

State offices received notices, and few were represented.

Similarly, consumer representatives are an important

adjunct to meetings such as this, but they must receive

financial assistance to get here. Comments from consumer representatives on food lifestyles, energy concerns, and

weights and measures problems would, I think, be quite

helpful to you. I strongly urge the Department of Commerce

to undertake an examination of prospective ways by which

greater consumer input can be obtained at such conferences

as this. In those cases where revamping or amending of

State laws is being considered, pre-amendment meetings

should be held with representation from the consumer

sector.

With these ideas in mind, let me turn to a few concerns consumer representatives have about weights and measures. First, is the absolute necessity of weights

and measures investigators and other officials to view

themselves as consumer protection people. It is all well

and good to recognize weights and measures as the oldest

105
of the consumer protection professions; it is something

else to operate and respond as such on a day-to-day basis

in the marketplace. And this means many things--such as no wearing of campaign buttons while enforcing laws; or holding conferences at any level—Federal , State, or local, where the hospitality room is not stocked by local

merchants who are subject to weights and measures inspections.

In order to operate effectively and in the consumers'

best interest, weights and measures must be taken out of

the clutches of politics. While I realize that many

inspectors and other local and State officials will

strongly deny any consideration of political ramifications

in their jobs, the evidence is adequately strong to point

up the need to develop a professionally trained cadre of

weights and measures inspectors, sealers, and other

officials. This means that the time is at hand when the

Federal training of inspectors would be considered,

including the required technical training, utilization of

textbooks, experts, and facilities. In other words, a major part of weights and measures training should be

standardized

.

At the present time the professionalism of weights

and measures varies widely. In some States the tradition

is solid and the performance a good one; law enforcement

is handled well; complaint handling is good. In other

States the reverse is true with little knowledge as to how to swear out a citation; little pre-package checking;

poor equipment; and other problems. Granted, as pointed

out by one consumer activist and former county official,

much of the problem stems from county operations as contrasted to State operations. And considering the

sophistication of coming technological needs, many questions

have been raised as to the capability of counties (except

in some circumstances) to handle the weights and measures responsibilities

.

Closely related to this is the need to reexamine the

old adage that that government is best that is closest to the people. I am not suggesting that the Federal bureaucracy

is a cure-all for our extensive list of societal ills.

But I think there are questions to raise about the effectiveness of business at the local level on weights and measures enforcement. This is not strange. If anyone

questions the idea, I suggest you examine the extent to which local zoning has become a marketable commodity. We

are close to our neighbors and public officials and that

closeness can often breed questionable decision-making.

It is simply a fact of economic, social, and political

life.

106
Similarly, consumers are concerned about enforcement

of weights and measures laws in those locations that are not established places of business. I refer to such

operations as the sale of cord wood where the commodity

is sold by every nonlegal quantity known to man. Such

transactions are elusive to track down, while the consumer

is taken by slick operators. At the same time, this kind

of sale will become increasingly important as wood is

utilized in greater quantities by consumers. There is a strong feeling among many aware consumers that much of what is needed would be found in specialized

training programs of State inspectors, with the elimination

of State and county duplication where it exists. It also means a form of civil service operation that, to a large

extent, is removed from politics. As one consumer activist

emphasized--a former sealer--numbers 1-5 on my list of

priorities are Federal government training of inspectors

with the personnel becoming a cadre of civil servants.

The real experts, facilities, and programming capabilities

are there and they should be utilized to their fullest

extent if weights and measures offices are to provide the consumer protection intended.

The decade ahead is going to bring new technologies

in many areas affecting consumers. These will demand

increasing competencies and expertise with greater expectations on the part of consumers for greater uniformity

and consistency in enforcement policies and practices.

It is going to mean the need for extensive educational

programs, formal and informal, to assist consumers in

better understanding these technologies. Nowhere will

this be more demanding than in metric conversion. In my

considered judgment, as the complexities of the marketplace

increase, the aggravations of the consumer will compound

themselves. As this develops, frustration takes over and

the forward movement of conversion will be lost.

Not only is the educational or informational aspect

important in metric, but equally significant is the need

to work with consumer organizations in providing weights

and measures information to the public. What are the

laws in any State? What can the consumer do? Some time

ago I went into the Edinboro, PA, IGA and noticed that

all the in-house prepackaged potatoes in a certain group

of thirty packages all weighed the same--3 pounds--and

all cost the same--87C. Now, I am not sure if any of you

were brought up on a farm where they grew potatoes; but

if you were, you know they do not grow that way. And in

checking the packages we found shortweighing of up to 3-4 ounces; e.g., 2 lb, 14 oz; 2 lb, 13 oz; 2 lb 12 oz. I am suggesting to you that regulations and policies governing

107
such problems are not well known to consumers, and offices of weights and measures must assist in the education

of consumers in order to counter the frustration and

aggravation in the marketplace.

So, I must go back to the beginning. As Lewis

Carroll said in Alice in Wonderland , "The place to begin

is at the beginning". After almost five years of joint

dialogue between various companies and industries I am convinced that we begin the solution of problems in the

1980s by recognizing the tremendous public-marketplace

responsibility of those involved in weights and measures

.

Your budgets and legislative-regulatory capabilities

will need to be strengthened in the months ahead, needs

that can draw from coalition-building within communities

and the States. Support is there, but it is up to everyone

in this room to seek it out, and I refer to public support

to bring the obligations and responsibilities of weights

and measures operations to the forefront of consumer

protection, where it belongs.

It will not be easy, breaking some of the old molds

and creating new ones. But the marketplace is changing

and that is what we will be witnessing through the decade

of the 1980s, the "Decade of the Marketplace." It will mean greater consumer awareness, sophistication, and,

yes, at times, demands. But it is also bringing about a greater recognition on the part of business and industry

of what is meant by societal responsibilities, and their

acceptance of such responsibilites , starting with the

realization that the corporate franchise was not sonehow

ordained by God for their benefit, but rather it was granted by the people for the benefit of the public.

More and more corporate types are coming to recognize

this . But easy or not, it must be done, for to do otherwise

will mean the court of last resort to the consumer,

regulatory, and legislative action. It is your choice,

it is our choice, to do the job that needs doing, to protect the consuming public. It may mean rocking the

boat a bit, but it will not be the first time that competent

public officials were accused of that.

Eighty-five years ago Colorado produced a great

public official whom some of you may remember, the great

inland populist, Mary E. Lease, who, during some very

trying times, said that what this country needs is to raise more hell and less corn. And I believe she was right, but it must be effective hell-raising by committed

and knowledgeable people who understand the issues and

108
worry not about creating waves. It cannot be left to someone else; it must be our concern to effect positive

public interest change in the decade ahead, and do it as we interest and reinterest people--consumers--in the

vitality and historic responsibility of the mission of

weights and measures in the months to come.

109
COMPUTERS , MICROELECTRONICS , AND PEOPLE

Presented by MICHAEL W. BLASGEN, Technical Advisor

to the Chief Scientist, IBM Corporation, Washington, DC

INTRODUCTION

I have recently learned the

meaning of the word "ubiquitous,"

as in "the ubiquitous computer."

I have attended conferences and

Congressional hearings on this

subject, and the media find it

irresistible. The cover story

of this week's Newsweek is "Machines

That Think," subtitled "And Man

Created The Chip." The article

states that "a new generation of

electronic servants has been

spawned—and they will change the

way we all live." Is all this

excitement justified?

Computer and micro-electronics can be expected to find numerous applications, and the effects on people are not always understood. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal

has a front page article on management resistance to an increasingly automated office. Articles like this serve

to remind us that, just as throwing money at a problem

does not always fix it, so throwing silicon will not

always help. I am reminded of a cartoon showing the king

at the roundtable saying to his knights: "Since all the

king's horses and all the king's men couldn't solve the

problem, I say we need more horses and more men."

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

You might ask what all this has to do with weights

and measures, and that is a good question. Although I am not an expert on metrology, let me suggest some ways that

computers relate to measurement.

First, the computer is an essential tool in extending

the science of metrology. The computer has an unparalleled

ability to deal with low signal-to-noise environments, to cope with nonlinearities , and, perhaps most importantly,

to patiently monitor input from as many sensors as may be

needed to avoid systematic error. These advancements in the science of metrology are in turn critical to the continued progress of electronics.

In IBM, for example, we must control tolerances in manufacturing to an extreme degree (a few atoms of thickness in

110
some cases) and support parts interchangeability for

products built in two dozen countries, sold and serviced

in ten dozen countries, and built with the help of 80 000

subcontractors worldwide.

As a third relationship between computers and measurement, computers offer a path of progress in measurement

technology. You would, of course, understand this better

than I. One can expect to see our ubiquitous computer

packaged inside measuring devices of all k^nds. It is in

this sense that computers will be around us. There is a useful analogy here with electric motors.

If you visit in Washington, there is a wonderful

exhibit entitled "1876" at the Smithsonian. There you

will see that, 100 years ago, rotary motion for a factory

was centrally generated and then distributed by a complex

of belts, pulleys, and drive shafts. Today electrical

motors are found everywhere. Someone has counted 68

electric motors in his house. You do not think of them

as motors, of course, but as shavers and drills and air

conditioners. In the same way, computers will find their

way into homes and factories, embodied in other useful

devices. "Home computers" will be only a tiny fraction

of the total. I expect most measurement devices will

contain computers in the future.

SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL

It is useful to review some of the key developments

in computers and microelectronics. In almost no other

area is it so clear that "small is beautiful." In the

computer business, smaller normally means cheaper, faster,

simpler, and better, although sometimes we fail to achieve

the goal of simplicity. Making things smaller has managed

to make computers cheaper at the rate of 20 percent per

year. This is true whether you measure the cost of

computations, the cost of main storage, or the cost of

auxiliary storage. In every case there has been an exponential decrease in the cost of these things. This

has been true for over twenty years. Miniaturization is

the key to this achievement. IBM manufactures a 64K RAM

chip, containing 155 000 devices on a chip of silicon

less than a centimeter on a side. Two hundred of these

are fabricated at a time on a single 3 1/4 inch wafer of

silicon. Thus, this single wafer has the ability to store 13 million bits of information.

The cost of manufacturing these chips depends on the

technical complexity of the manufacturing process but

does not depend on the circuit density. That is why

"small is beautiful."

Ill
DISK STORAGE

The desirability of small size is not limited simply

to electronics. In the case of disk storage, we have seen a similar exponential improvement in storage density

causing a similar reduction in cost to the user. In the

late fifties we stored approximately ten bits per square

millimeter on the surface of a disk, whereas today we can store approximately 10 000 bits per square millimeter.

The key to detecting such small changes in the magnetization of the oxide coding on the disk is to fly the head

very, very close to the surface. In today's devices we fly the head at approximately 20 millionths of an inch

from the surface and when one considers how rough the

surface of the disk is, this is roughly equivalent to flying an airplane between San Francisco and Denver at

600 miles an hour at 100 feet above the ground.

PRINTING

Even in printers miniaturization is the key . For

example, in ink jet printing the ability to form regular

droplets of ink depends on our ability to fabricate

extremely small nozzles which produce the droplets.

SOFTWARE

Behind these technological advances lies some good

news and some bad news. The good news is that computers

do, in fact, contribute to everyone's productivity and

therefore, we can hope to deal with the inexorable rise

in wages and prices with productivity enhancements induced

by the use of computers and electronics. The bad news is

that as computing capacity has dropped in cost, the price

of people, in particular, data processing professionals,

is rising in cost. And it is these data processing

professionals who produce software, the production of

which is, at least so far, a comparatively labor intensive

task.

Software has risen in importance in the last 20

years. In the 50s a negligible fraction of the cost of

installation was associated with maintaining and developing software. Today, if the vendors and installation

software costs are considered, some 85 percent of the

cost of maintaining the installation is associated with

the software, and only 15 percent is associated with the

hardware. One aspect of this is the rise in the amount

of the systems control programming required to run a sophisticated central computation complex. In the early

70s there were perhaps 3 to 4 million lines of programming

whereas today we are looking at 25 million lines.

112
Of course, this software does buy you something. As

needs arose, software has been used to address the needs

of users. To enhance hardware utilization, we began

building operating systems with multiprogramming. When

programmer productivity became a problem, interactive

timesharing systems were developed. When programs and

applications needed relief from constraints, virtual

storage was developed. And finally we are moving into a database/data communications environment where the reliance on software has increased even further.

NEW APPLICATIONS

In the future, we can look to new applications of

computing. These applications will include image capability, the ability to handle speech, and ever more sophisticated communication networks. With respect to speech, I cite the opinion of a bank vice president who,

with his computer unplugged and facing the wall, said to

a Wall Street Journal reporter: "I would much rather

talk than write." His complaint, of course, is that

today's terminals require typing. One solution to his

problem, speech recognition, is on the horizon. In fact,

today, isolated word recognition is easy. For applications such as inventory and process control the ability

to recognize words such as "stop," "start," "slow,"

"fast," in isolation is a relatively straightforward

task. It is much more difficult to recognize continuous

speech, as in "put this in the fifth box from the left."

However, in experiments carried out at the IBM Research

Laboratory in Yorktown Heights, New York, successful

recognition of rather complex sentences was done recently.

An example sentence is: "Rod eighteen may be any of the

known crystalline lasing materials such as ruby, or, alternatively, the active material could be any of the

lasing gases or any of the injection type lasing media."

Sentences of this form were successfully recognized with

an accuracy exceeding 90 percent by programs developed at

that laboratory. Of course, it did take quite a bit of

computer time. In fact, what might take the speaker ten

to twenty seconds to say took approximately two hours of

computation to recognize.

PRODUCTIVITY

The thing that makes all this work worthwhile is, of

course, the enhancement of productivity. Investment in

computers and computer technology can pay off in enhanced

productivity. For example, although in the U.S. as a whole there are approximately fifty employees per computer

terminal, in IBM there are only five employees per terminal

Peter Drucker considers this the key to the "^industrialization" of America. He says, "The most important approach

113
to reindustrialization is the integration of the computer

into the machine, the tool, the instrument. This development is proceeding so fast and furiously that some observers

speak of a third industrial revolution."

For this "revolution" to be successful, there are some things to look out for. The limitations of computers

must be recognized and dealt with. Computers and associated

microelectronics are the most important tools developed

to help mankind in recent history, but they are only

tools

.

With respect to the limitations of these tools,

there are two techniques available to us. We can try to remove or reduce limitations by carrying out computer

science research, and at the same time, we can try to extend the usefulness of the computer despite its limitations by doing human factors research. Only through

outstanding research, both in human factors and in computer

science, can our hopes for an enhanced environment be

achieved

.
INTERDEPENDENCE OF METROLOGY , STANDARDIZATION , AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

Presented by PROFESSOR DR. ING. WALTER MUHE,

Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

,

Federal Republic of Germany

Let me start with two general

remarks: First of all, when there

is something doubtful or not acceptable in my speech, please believe

that this could result from my

limited knowledge of your language.

And second, I feel very privileged

to be accepted as a speaker at your

remarkable National Conference with

the general topic "Expectations for

the Eighties."

My short talk has to deal with

the interaction and interference

among metrology, standardization, and quality assurance.

This interdependence has been discussed in past years in

several international seminars or workshops. During the

next decade, however, we must expect an increasing importance of metrology and standardization as basic means for

quality assurance. This may concern "product quality"

expressed by measurable quantites like accuracy, reliability, stability, reproducibility, or durability. This may

also concern "quality of life" ensured, e.g., by better

medical diagnostics and therapeutics, by pollution control,

and by improved safety in traffic or at dangerous working

places

.

Furthermore, increasing activities should be expected

to diminish trade barriers caused by different metrological

standards in different countries. In this connection,

overlapping of work must be avoided, and a still better

cooperation between international metrology organizations

(like OIML, IMEKO, and CGPM) on the one hand and international standards organizations like ISO, IEC, or ICUMSA) on the other hand, is desirable. The following remarks

are addressed to only a few aspects of these very complex

problems

.

HISTORICAL RELATION BETWEEN METROLOGY AND STANDARDIZATION

In the earliest national or political communities,

thousands of years ago, there existed some standardized

rules for measurement [1,2] 1

. It was already known that

x Figures in brackets indicate the literature references

at the end of this paper.

115
even primitive manual production and all exchange of

goods must be based on comparisons and on comparable

physical units. So one may find more or less clear ideas

for some simple measurements, especially for dimensional

quantities (length, area, volume), for time, and for

weight (mass). Comparative units and standards were derived from proportions or abilities of human beings

(ell, foot, daywork) or from systematic phenomena of the

environment (earth's rotation, sun's altitude).

Weights and measures requirements of later centuries

up to the Middle Ages were developed from such observations

and conventions of the ancient cultures. The local or regional diversities of metrological reference standards,

however, caused remarkable uncertainties and difficulties

in trade and production. Accordingly, many efforts were made to develop generally acceptable reference standards

and to fix their realization and their use by State

regulations. Even statistical methods were described as shown by an illustration of an old German book published

more than 400 years ago (fig. 1).

Figure 1. Setting up a length standard by statistical

averaging. Ancient Graph from the book "Geometrey,"

published 1575 in Germany by Jakob Koebel.

In this figure the author shows a way to determine a "standardized foot" by taking the mean value of the feet

of a number of persons, just as they may come from church,

116
i.e., by adding the feet to yield a distance and then

dividing by the number of persons. To speak in the

terminology of modern statistical quality control: By a sampling plan from a lot of individuals a sample was taken to find out the statistical mean and the dispersion

values. But the specialists for statistical quality

control know that good decisions, i.e., about the standard

deviation or the confidence level could only be made if

the distribution curve is well known and preferably is a normal distribution.

A new situation arose in metrology and measurement

techniques in the 19th century when several countries

became quickly industrialized. Mass production and

interchangeability of technical components depended

greatly upon uniformity and precision in production

within narrow metrological tolerances. This need was met

by two measures: 1) Increasing international cooperation

in the realization of basic physical units and standards

resulted in 1875 in an international treaty, the Meter

Convention, and in the establishment of a scientific

laboratory, the "Bureau International des Poids et Mesures.

This organization internationally coordinates measurements

in the whole field of basic physical units and constants

and standard calibration procedures. 2) The establishment

of national metrological laboratories doing research work

in basic metrology and well equipped with calibration and

testing facilities for science and industry was another

important measure. One of the first institutes of this

kind was the "Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt ,

which was founded in 1887 in Berlin-Charlottenburg [3]

and which later served in some ways as a pattern for

the establishment of the National Physical Laboratory in

England and the National Bureau of Standards in the USA

[4,5]. Now all developed countries have one or several

of such metrological centers to achieve traceability to national standards and compatibility of measurements in

the whole country.

QUALITY ASSURANCE BY MEANS OF METROLOGY AND STANDARDIZATION

Quality is defined mainly as the totality of features

and characteristics of a product or service bearing on

its ability to satisfy a given need. Many of these

features or characteristics are measurable quantities

that result in a decision like "tolerable" or "not tolerabl

(quality inspection by attributes). So metrology, which

stands, in this paper, for measurement science and measure- ment technology, is an indispensible means to guarantee a sufficient product quality. The other necessary means is

the development of product standards or standardized specifications with tolerance values of these characteristics.

117
Figure 2 indicates in a schematic way this fundamental

role of metrology and standardization for quality assurance

during production and for final quality control related

to standardized mandatory regulations or to voluntary

product standards. Both means have to ensure a sufficient

and invariable product quality.

MetroJogy and Standardization: Fundamentals of Quality Assurance

Metrology

STANDARDS - I N3TR JMENTATI QN-| CALIBRATED TEST EQUIPMENT

Standardization

UNIFORM TECHNICAL REOUIR! MENTS FOR INSTRUMENTS AN] TECHNICAL PRODUCTS

Quality Assurance during Production

CONTINUOUS METROLOGICAL SUPERVISION PROCESS CONTROL - FEEDBACK TO PROCESS DATA - FINAL PRODUCT INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TESTS

Quality Contro . Testing, Certification on Products

INSPECTION AND VERtwith regard to national

or international standapc:

TESTING AND CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS

EY CONSUMER OR MANUFACTURER ASSOCIATIONS

Figure 2. Fundamentals of quality assurance and

quality control: Metrology and standardization.

In most countries, metrology is based on a more or less centralized national measurement assurance system,

including scientific metrology centers, legal metrology

institutes, and authorized domestic test laboratories.

The national system of the USA, for example, is described

in several publications [6,7], and may be well known to this audience.

As an example from European countries , figure 3 ex- plains the structure of the measurement quality assurance system in West Germany [8] . The left side of this illustration shows the Federal part of this system with the

"Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) , " allied to

the Federal Ministry of Commerce, as scientific center

for basic metrology. PTB is also the supreme technical

authority for traceability to national standards, for

type testing and pattern approval, and for metrological

specifications. The State part is governed by 11 competent

118
State ministries, each having a central legal metrology

institution. These institutions direct and supervise the

activities of some hundred State legal metrology offices

and authorized test laboratories. Their testing activities cover a broad field of such measuring equipment and

metrological comparisons, where public interest for

accuracy and reliability is highly involved. That concerns,

for example, trade and commerce, health and safety,

traffic supervision and pollution control.

An important new part of this measurement system is

the calibration laboratories of the "Deutscher Kalibrierdienst

,

accredited on a voluntary basis by PTB. Until now, about

60 laboratories from industry, scientific metrology

institutes, or test institutions asked for such an accreditation, by which appropriate test equipment and traceability to PTB standards is ensured.

Structure of the National Measurement System of West - Germany

Federal Ministry

for Economics

Physikalisch Technische

Bundesanstalt (PTB)

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT - BASIC METROLOGY - TYPE

TESTING AND PATTERN APPROVAL - TECHNICAL REGULATIONS

Joint Committee for Legal Metrology

Competent Ministries of 11 Federal States

National Conference of Legal Metrology

11 Lartdeseichdirektionen

STATE METROLOGY BOARDS SUPERVISING THE METROLOGY

OFFICES AND TEST LABORATORIES

Laboratories of the German Calibration Service

ASSURANCE OF TRACEABILITY TO PTB STANDARDS BY APPROVED

LABORATORIES ON. A FACULTATIVE

BASIS

Staatlich anerkannte

Prufstellen

OFFICIAL TESTING AND CERTIFICATION OF MEASURING

INSTRUMENTS FOR ELECTRICITY.

GAS. WATER. HEAT

Eichamter

STATE METROLOGY OFFICES

WHICH TEST MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

USED IN COMMERCE. MEDICAL FIELDS. AND FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES - TESTING

OF PRE-PACKED COMMODITIES

Figure 3. Structure of West Germany's measurement

system assuring traceability to national physical

standards

.

The whole described measurement quality assurance

system may have a staff of about 6000 people. PTB itself

has about 1500 employees: physicists, engineers, technicians, skilled workers, and administrative staff.

An important means to meet the quality standards for

measuring instruments for complex measuring devces is

119
type testing and pattern approval. This is executed in

most European countries on a mandatory basis by national

laboratories. For some kinds of instruments, such, pattern

approvals of a member country of EEC are valid in the

whole community on the basis of harmonized technical

regulations. There is, however, up till now, no common EEC directive prescribing which kinds of instruments have

to be submitted to the mandatory rules of legal metrology.

Accordingly, such a pattern approval may be in one country

mandatory, in another country voluntary.

In any case, such type tests may ensure that the

metrological characteristics such as accuracy, stability,

or reliability can be preserved under the expected conditions of practical use. These conditions may be simulated

during the type test by, for example, mechanical shocks,

electromagnetic interference, or variation of temperature

and humidity.

Figure 4 shows some types of measuring apparatus

submitted to pattern approval in the field of legal or regulatory metrology. Besides some instruments from the

classical field of weights and measures (weighing instruments, length measures, volumetric apparatus) one may

find here, for example, sound level meters, radiometric

speedometers, dosimeters for ionizing radiation, measuring

apparatus for blood pressure, and carbon monoxide indicators.

These instruments belong to fields like public health,

radiation protection, and public safety, where accurate

and reliable measurements and measuring instruments have

at least the same importance as measures for commercial

transactions

.

In the requirements for regulatory metrology in some European countries, only such type tests and pattern

approvals qualify the legal metrology offices to execute

routine tests on individual instruments. Such individual

tests, however, may be replaced by statistical supervision

of measuring results or by round robin tests among test

laboratories. In West Germany, for example, these methods

are introduced for clinical laboratories, instruments

measuring electrical energy, or electronic data processors

connected with measuring apparatus [9,10].

Moreover, volumetric or gravimetric filling apparatus

used in the field of prepacked commodities is not submitted

to mandatory pattern approvals or individual tests. In

this field, sampling inspection of the prepacked com- modities is prescribed by detailed technical regulations

and standardized test procedures. The mean values of all

filled quantities must exceed the indicated nominal

value. Only a limited number of packages may have a lower content than a prescribed negative \alue. By this

120
indirect means the filling companies are urged to use weighing apparatus or volumetric filling machines of a "reasonable quality" as shown in the simplified graph

(fig. 5).

Figure 4. Kinds of measuring instruments submitted

to mandatory type testing and pattern approval in

several European countries.

COOPERATION BETWEEN INDUSTRIALIZED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

It is now generally accepted that metrology and

standardization are basic needs for developing countries

also. Both are important parts of a necessary infrastructure for economic and technical development and for

improvement of public health and safety.

There exist several activities to assist industrializing countries in the establishment of national metrological

institutes, of standards organizations, and of test

facilities for quality assurance. Other activities

result in the training of technical staff or in the

transfer of know how in seminars or workshops by experts

in metrology and standardization from industrialized

countries. This is done on a bilateral basis between two

countries, but also by cooperating international organizations like UNESCO, UNIDO, OIML, IMEKO, ISO, and IEC.

121
Let me please restrict myself to some remarks about

our national activities and experiences. Figure 6 indicates some focal points of PTB cooperation with industrializing countries especially in the fields of industrial

and legal metrology, of physical standards and metrological

standard specifications, and of calibrating facilities

and instrumentation advice. The different toning in the

graph indicates different stages of cooperation: training

of staff and advice by experts (black) , extended bilateral

projects in preparation (dotted), and current bilateral

projects (gray).

Relative frequency

in %

Nominal fill quantity"

1 Mean fill quantity

Figure 5. Optimizing the median of prepacked commodities

by using volumetric or gravimetric filling machines

of suitable accuracy and repeatability.

PTB prefers such projects when a partner-institute

already exists in the respective developing country.

This may be a governmental metrology center, a nongovernmental standards institution, or an independent test and

calibration laboratory. If the discussions lead to some results about possible cooperation, and if the governments

are interested in such a project, a bilateral agreement

may be prepared describing all details of the project.

122
The principles in most cases are as follows: some basic instrumentation, including certified physical

standards and test equipment, may be delivered as a gift.

We are not forced to use instrumentation from our country

only; we are free to choose the most suitable apparatus

for the desired purpose from any country or from any

manufacturer. The sites, buildings, and installations

are provided by the partner country. We send experts for

preliminary studies of the built-in equipment and of the

need for new laboratory equipment. Our partner-institute

sends trainees to us to work in our laboratories or in

other suitable institutes engaged with calibrations or conformity tests related to technical standards.

Figure 6. Activities of PTB in industrializing

countries to develop national centers for metrology

calibration, and testing.

I should add that our possibilities are very limited

by the lack of time and available personnel. Nevertheless

we made good progress in some of these projects.

Very often industrializing countries want to have

the establishment of a Central Measurement Institute or a Metrological Service associated with some assistance in

the development of printed standard specifications for

technical products. Such an association is justified by

the common aim of metrological standards and of technical

123
standards to ensure a sufficient and invariable product

quality

.

The request from a developing country is usually

made for three reasons: 1) the desire to take over the

experience of more industrialized countries on the quality

level that has to be achieved to overcome technical trade

barriers, 2) to assure by metrological tests the required

standard quality for goods produced within the country,

and 3) the ability to control, owing to national or international product standards, imported goods as to their measurable characteristics, specified by foreign

manufacturers

.

Sometimes industrializing countries think that the

problem of product quality has to be solved primarily by

governmental activities, e.g., by a system of rigid

quality control by governmental laboratories. In accordance

with our experience this will not work without assistance

to the producers" own quality assurance activities and to their capability to produce within appropriate tolerances

at a sufficient and uniform quality level.

When we advise, not only in the development of

metrological services, but also in the establishment of

technical product standards, we always recommend the use

of international standards as far as possible. Very

often, however, such standards have to be adapted to the

abilities of the country's own manufacturers and to the

economic situation in the country.

CONCLUSIONS

Some ideas presented in this paper may be summarized

by the following remarks:

o Metrology and standardization are fundamentals for quality assurance. The

importance of these disciplines will

increase in the eighties because of

automated quality control in production

and in test laboratories, integration of

measuring instruments into complex

information systems, and the rapid

development of medical, biological, and

agricultural techniques.

o In developing countries, metrology and

standardization are keys to sufficient

product quality. These disciplines

belong to a necessary infrastructure for

technical and economic development, like

124
education, agriculture, and public

health.

o Numerous international activities exist

to harmonize metrological standards and

to avoid barriers in the exchange of

products, energy, and technical know-how.

A better coordination of these activities

seems to be desirable. Regional standardization should accept, as far as possible,

results achieved on a worldwide basis.

o The statement that standardization is an "integrated discipline," as sometimes

proclaimed by national or international

standards organizations, is not acceptable

for metrology. Such a statement does

not consider the creative part of metrology.

New developments of measurement science

and measurement technology cannot be

standardized in advance. To the contrary,

they often have to overcome obsolete

standard specifications. Metrology and

standardization are mutually linked from

several points of view; they are, however,

individual and independent disciplines.

o Metrology and standardization are very

closely connected to attributes like

objectivity, justice, accuracy, and

reliability. Especially in metrology

these characteristics are much more important than any political point of

view. This may give us the hope that a narrow worldwide cooperation in assuring

uniform standards and meaningful measurements will considerably contribute to a better international understanding in an advancing world.

REFERENCES

[1] Alberti, H.-J. v., Map und Gewicht. Akademie-Verl .

,

Berlin, 1957.

[2] Vieweg, R. , Map und Messen in kulturgeschichtlicher

Sicht. Steiner Verl., Wiesbaden, 1962.

[3] Hauser, W. and H. Klages, Die Entwicklung der

PTR/PTB zum metrologischen Staatsinstitut . Phys

.

Bl, 33 (1977), S. 439 ff.

125
[4] Langdon-Davis , J., Jubilee Book of the National

Physical laboratory, Chapt. II: How it all began - The German Example, London 1951, p. 16 ff.

[5] Cochrane, R. C, Measures for Progress, NBS Misc.

Publ. 275, Washington 1966, see p. 38-42 and p. 60-61

.

[6] Sangster, R. C, Structure and Functions of the

National Measurement System, NBS Tech. Report NBSIR

75-949, Washington, 1977.

[7] McCoubrey, A. 0. , Measurement Assurance - The

Future of Legal Metrology, Bull. 0IML Nr. 78 (1980),

p. 15 ff.

[8] Muehe, W. , Amtliches Me£- und Eichwesen. Handb. d. Qualitatssicherung. Carl Hanser, Verl., Miinchen

1980.

[9] Muehe, W. , Statistical evaluation of measuring

stability in order to fix accuracy requirements and

re-testing periods. Proc. IMEKO Symp . Information

?r : ::S5ii g :i .-.eas -rang 5vs~er_5 . Buiar-est 19 "1 ana Bull. CIML Nr. -5 [I9~l .'p. 26 'ff.

[10] Muehe, W. and Seiler, E., Application of statistical

methods to verify the characteristics of measuring

instruments and to fix re-testing periods, Proc . TMEKO Symp. Application of Statistical Methods in

Measure-en, . Leningrad 1978.

::6
LIQUID HYDROCARBON MEASUREMENT IN THE DECADE OF THE

EIGHTIES : THE NEED FOR RESEARCH AND RESOURCEFULNESS

Presented by RICHARD P. TRASK,

President, Petroleum Equipment Institute

It is the purpose of this paper

to present a perspective on liquid

hydrocarbon measurement that may

differ slightly from the perspective

to which the Conference has addressed

itself in recent years. I respectfully request that you look at the

petroleum marketing equipment industry

as a complete economic entity, just

as we look at the petroleum industry

as a complete industry from manufacture

of its product to final dissemination

in the marketplace.

You have heard from manufacturing members of the

Petroleum Equipment Institute in recent years. What is

often less obvious is that the manufactured products in

the equipment industry often pass through the hands of a distributor who maintains local stocks of parts and

equipment. That distributor may or may not actually

install his product. If he does not install and service

it himself, there is a complete network of service/

installers that functions in every jurisdiction in the

country, however small.

As an industry, we are extremely proud of the manufacturers who research, develop, and make available for

sale, the finest liquid marketing equipment available in

the world. Almost universally, they are proud of the

firms that offer their goods in the marketplace and

effect sound installations within the many codes that

must be followed in various jurisdictions. The enforcement officials in this country impact on a day-to-day

basis with this far reaching network of service and

distribution personnel. Few pieces of equipment offered

by the oil marketing equipment industry pass from manu- facturer into use and through continual operation without

the services of members of the Distributor and Affiliate

Divisions of the Petroleum Equipment Institute.

My personal perspective is that of a second generation

distributor of oil equipment in a major metropolitan

area. I represent almost twenty manufacturers of products

used in the sale of gasoline and other liquid hydrocarbons.

I compete in the New England area with eighteen other

firms who sell, service, and install the products of

127
almost every equipment manufacturer in the nation. A

manufacturer cannot survive in the equipment market

without local sources of parts, service, and expertise.

A distributor cannot survive without viable innovative

manufacturers. Service and installation contractors do

not survive without each of the others and we cannot

survive without them.

Every problem of liquid measurement that manifests

itself in the marketplace impacts on the entire industry.

PEI will soon reach a total membership of 800 firms. Of

these, almost five hundred are distributors. Two hundred

are manufacturers, and the balance are affiliate members

with a business interest in oil equipment. Affiliate

members service, install, test, and publish information

critical to our industry. There are scores of manufacturers' representatives. This is a tremendous resource

for weights and measures authorities. Most of you are familiar with us as an industry. Please call on us for

any assistance. Please consider the needs of our entire

industry as you implement standards. Ours is a long

tradition of operating in close harmony with those who

evaluate and enforce standards on the equipment that we bring to the market.

Liquid hydrocarbon measurement in the decade before

us will likely change, but change will be relatively

minor in the sense that "presence of product" is determined by a hydraulic device of some type. The informational science is the area that will become unrecognizable. We begin the decade in a period of confusion

and change in petroleum marketing equipment, and it is

important to sort out the root of our confusion and

reorient ourselves to the actual physical problems in

measurement as opposed to those being created by a unique

coincidence created by the size of our unit of measurement,

the value of our monetary unit, and the capacity of our computing devices.

Let us briefly look at each of these three parameters

and see why our present predicament is unique and coincidental.

First, if our unit of measurement were larger in volume,

the pricing crisis would already have occurred. The U.S.

gallon has no logical base other than its traditional

acceptance. If it were smaller in volume, the pricing

crisis would not have occurred, and we would either still

procrastinate or make an orderly transition to a smaller

unit. Introduction here in our discussion of the metric

system would be counterproductive. The U.S. quart would

be as logical physically. Only the introduction of a second limit renders the size of the unit important.

That limit is the capacity of our monetary unit.

128
The U.S. dollar is at a unique spot on its value

curve. Suddenly, it is no longer capable of procuring in excess of 1.0 multiple of a standard unit of common refined hydrocarbon. The arguments can be so abstruse as to question the very basis of money or as simple as supply, demand, and the political environment. If the

dollar had a higher value in absolute terms, we would

still have time to procrastinate or make an orderly

change. If it had significantly less value, the pricing

crisis would have passed, and a transition would have

been made but perhaps at a more optimum time. Only when

we interface the monetary unit with the volumetric unit,

do any of the equipment deficiencies manifest themselves.

Obviously, the most common device that fulfills

these criteria is the standard mechanical gasoline dispens

pump. There are, at present, six major manufacturers of

such equipment in the United States. Their requirements

for mechanical computers are supplied by one domestic

manufacturer. All seven of these firms are members of

the Petroleum Equipment Institute. The single most

pronounced characteristic of the products of all seven

firms is their reliability. Electronic calculation of

selling prices might have been a natural technological

advance of the decade of the eighties; that will never be

known. Mechanical calculation is neither passe, nor, if

it passes into history, will it be a result of an inherent

problem in the device. For just short of a half-century,

that one mechanical device produced accurate, reliable

information. It was affordable, repairable, readable,

and traditional. The new generation of mechanical devices

first had the capability of pricing to $1.99, and even

now, pricing to $2.99 is available in this type of device.

Gearing is available which will permit a change to the

metric mode with minimal effort. The problem within our industry is the transition time.

Industry sources report that there are approximately

1.3 million service station pumps and dispensers in use

in the U.S. today. The same source indicates that, as recently as eighteen months ago, practically none of them

were capable of either liter measurement or pricing over

99. 9C per gallon. A survey of the major oil companies by

API reports that 19 companies surveyed had 561 000 pumps

in operation. Of this number, 144 000 or 25.7 percent

have been converted to price in whole units in excess of

$1.00 per gallon. That is, they have been provided with

Veeder Root 2002 computers, an electronic computer, or are electronic pumps. A total of 160 000 pumps are equipped with the capability of pricing by the liter and an additional 24 000 are now pricing by the liter. The

129
most significant figure is that 341 000 or 61 percent of

the total surveyed remain to be converted. 1 It is logically concluded that the major oil companies are probably further along than the independent

marketers. It is safe to assume that of the total population of gasoline pumps in the U.S. today, no more than 30

percent are now capable of pricing in whole units over

$1.00 per gallon or in the metric mode.

The responsibility of implementing the conversion

lies with the petroleum industry. They have proceeded

with dispatch and have let contracts and purchased equipment wherever available. The supply industry that services

the petroleum industry has never been as taxed as it is

at the present time. We have literally gone from crisis

to crisis for the last ten years. The petroleum marketing

equipment industry has been asked to respond in that time

frame to the following:

1) Initial introduction of a third product to permit lead-free marketing.

2) Phase I vapor recovery.

3) Partial Phase II vapor recovery.

4) The introduction of gasohol.

5) Consumer use of diesel fuel on a large scale.

6) Transition from 49. 9C to 99. 9C pricing.

7) Large scale self-service marketing.

8) Fleet fuel accountability on an unprecedented scale.

Few industry figures probably retain a true grasp of

the underlying industry which exists without artificially

induced programs. Behind the major equipment manufacturers

mentioned above, there is a network of distributors and

maintenance/installers who physically provide the service

that is performed on the 1.3 million pumps in the field.

The number of qualified installers and mechanics is a finite quantity. This trade has traditionally worked in

close concert with the weights and measures enforcement

officials in every jurisdiction in the country. We need

ask no further than our officials in the weights and measures areas to prove just how finite is the quantity

of qualified pump and tank people in the industry. There

must be a reasonable time framework in which those qualified individuals can perform traditional services as well

as make a major mechanical change in every dispensing

unit in the nation. January 1, 1982 does not represent

the end of a reasonable time frame.

lM Tulsa Letter", May 8, 1980, Tulsa, Oklahoma, The Petroleum

Equipment Institute, p. 4. 130
The strength of the petroleum marketing equipment

industry does not seem to lie in any quantum technical

leap during our lifetimes. Rather, it is the technology

that has not changed that proves ours to be a mature,

sound economic structure. The three aspects of hydrocarbon measurement that concern each of us are hydraulics,

information, and integrity. The hydraulics of petroleum

measurement manifest themselves most often in the positive

displacement meter by which the majority of transactions

are measured. Pipeline activity seems to utilize turbine

meters to an extent that will probably never be equaled

in marketing operations. The basis of the positive

displacement technology, which we see on a day-to-day

basis, goes back to Ancient Greece when Archimedes determined that if he placed a rock of amorphous shape into a vessel full of liquid and measured the spillover of

"product," he would then know the actual displacement of

the rock. This most basic principle has not changed. We

work in multiples of a known displacement.

Really, what we do is to measure the volume of a vessel, less the volume of a rotary element placed therein,

and count the number of times that we replace the supply

displaced by the rotation of the element. There are problems: we must make sure the vessel is tight; we must

keep liquids and gases that we do not want to measure

out of the vessel. We must make sure that the tolerances

are as close as economically feasible to insure that

little of the hydrocarbon slips past the element, and is

therefore not measured, or measured and not delivered.

Certainly, also, we must insure that the materials of

which we construct vessels, seals, and elements are compatible with the liquid being transferred. We must

make sure that the liquid does not destroy the meter and

that the meter does not destroy the liquid.

Only the economic feasibility of the tolerances and

the materials of construction appear likely to change in

the hydraulics system. Petroleum has become, for reasons discussed previously, a semi-precious liquid. Economic

feasibility changes as it behooves the owner of the

liquid to assure that he loses not one drop. Materials

of construction will change as thermoplastics and sealing

compounds change, but this is likely less significant

than the fact that increased use of products like gasohol

will necessitate use of materials compatible with their

unique properties. The motivation for change has its

roots both economically in the desire to account for all

product and equally in the economics of the life cycle of

the measuring device.

Knowledge will increase in fluidics, lasers, and as yet unexplored properties of materials. But the decade

131
before us will not see the demise of the positive displacement meter for the simple reason that of all possible

devices, it works, can be economically produced, and is

possessed of a confidence level with consumer, user, and

enforcer. The positive displacement meter is nothing

more or less than a hydraulic motor. The motor generates

a known quantity of rotary motion. It is what we do with

that rotary motion that will significantly change in the

decade ahead.

Our hydraulic motor, driven by the liquid to be

dispensed, is a system of integrity. Traditionally, the

meter drives a rotary register, which may or may not

compute. It may look like an odometer, a series of

rotary discs, or the tumbling wheels which are so common

in the mechanical computer presenting today's problems.

In the decades of the sixties and seventies, we began a subtle transition in bulk transfers which has always been

performed in shipload quantities . We began to compensate

for changes in the product volume for the temperature at

time of measurement.

A restatement of temperature compensation is that we

have begun to measure liquid in terms of the amount of

work it would perform. The motivation for commercial

temperature compensation was to assure a uniform pricing

of a refined product which certainly was not volumetrically identical to the product shipped, but could be

returned to that volume with a change in temperature back

to the conditions under which the shipment was "packaged."

The consumer justification for temperature compensation

is that the consumer will begin to perceive his dollar as being spent for a unit of work rather than a unit of

volume

.

The deepest fiber of our consciousness will never permit most of us to think in other than volumetric terms

for hydrocarbon measurement. Temperature compensation

permits the product to be sold in the reality of the Btu

or calorie. It is not inconceivable that heating fuels

may someday soon be dispensed by the energy therein

contained. This appears less likely for motor fuels.

Even in the discussion of temperature compensated fuels,

there will emerge the apparent logic of the metric forms

of measuring energy as opposed to traditional U.S. measures

of energy rather loosely based on the archaic British

system. There is great logic to expressing liquid measure- ment of hydrocarbons in this manner. It uniformly dispenses

product from day to day, buyer to buyer, and geographic

locale to geographic locale. The only requirement is a total reorientation of the thought processes of some 200

million people.

132
Herein lies the problem with conversion to the

metric system of measurement. Most of us, no matter how

far we go with national metrication, will spend the rest

of our lives thinking of oils, gasoline, and most other

products in terms of the U.S. gallon and its subdivisions.

My children are capable of conceptualizing liters. I probably am not. I can visualize a liter, but my subconscious

is reassuring me that it is a big quart.

The logic of the system is not the motivating force

in the movement to adopt the system, particularly for

sale of gasoline. The motivation is that it attacks the

first of the three parameters of the computational problem

discussed earlier in this paper. If the liter were

larger than the gallon, there would be no outcry for its

adoption.

Nonetheless, it is extremely likely that we will be

actively measuring the majority of our principal burnable

hydrocarbons by the liter and its multiples by the middle

of the decade. Any manufacturer or distributor who is

not operating on this assumption is doing his customers

and himself a tremendous disservice. Our monetary unit

is unlikely to change. Our hydraulics are unlikely to change. Where then is the tremendous call for research

and resourcefulness to have its basis?

The principal area is in the transmission and processing of data outboard of the traditional device that

allows a numerical readout of the transfer of product.

It is no secret that the oil marketing equipment industry

has only scratched the surface of the adaptation of electronics to our equipment. The petroleum measurement

specialist of the eighties will have as thorough a grasp

of data processing systems as he will of hydraulics.

Bulk facilities will be tied in together for purposes of

allocations, transmission of credit data, and control of

inventories. Those responsible for the integrity of the

system will have to be familiar with devices that are unknown today. Decisions will have to be made on the

basis of parameters that today appear strictly experimental.

The converse of the ultra-technology may be appearance

in the marketplace of refiners and bulk facilities that

are far smaller and different than anything that is now

an integral part of the system. The introduction of

gasohol on a commercial scale has seen the establishment

of many small refiners or distillers of alcohols who

often use equipment and innovations that are unfamiliar

to those of us who have dealt in the more traditional

markets. To what extent will we have to be satisfied

with the integrity of measurement systems of feedstocks

133
for distillation? How can we insure the purity of the

distilled product that is being blended with traditional

hydrocarbons? Who can predict what further products will

be rendered economically feasible by the increased world

price of petroleum?

Synthetic fuels are no longer an economic unreality.

The decade ahead of us will see the introduction of fuels

that will function in an internal combustion engine but

of which we know little except that they will be liquid

and must be measured and taxed. Is it unreasonable that

there may be ramifications of the introduction of electrically operated vehicles, which may necessitate the sealing

of recharging equipment?

American industry will respond to the challenge of

measuring the energy sources that will emerge in the next

decade. The full-unit sale of over $1.00 per gallon fuel was simultaneously achieved in small scale shops all over

the country by mechanics who knew how to alter the gearing

of traditional devices to achieve a temporary expedient.

It is commonly agreed that most of these "kits" were temporary expedients, but the speed with which they

appeared and the soundness of the engineering were indeed

encouraging. The speed with which manufacturers of

equipment were able to increase their production is

amazing in light of the magnitude of the problem. It would be a far safer gamble to assume that the measurement industry will respond than to assume that we will

face an insoluble measurement problem just by the uncer- tainty of the product that will dominate.

In preparing my comments, I surveyed every member of

the Petroleum Equipment Institute whose principal product

dealt with the measurement of products for resale. Each

and every company surveyed responded. The complexion and

tone of the comments was a confident statement of concern. There was no mood of pessimism for the decade ahead.

Technical concerns were significant by their absence.

The only concern was for time. The observations were

sincere. They recognized some trends and contained far more encouraging information than could have been expected.

None of those surveyed appeared to resent or dread

the implementation of the metric system measurement.

Indeed, most have been measuring metrically in other

political jurisdictions for many years. Most report that

restricted availability of hydrocarbons has seen an increase in their sales of measuring devices. One of

these companies reported significant activity by consumers metering incoming product to verify the information from

the traditional truck meters. Another discussed the

134
value of his product as being only as good as the field

people who serviced it and the sealer who evaluated it.

The most common theme was that the companies were in the

business of measuring "value."

The relationship between the members of the equipment

industry and the sealer in each jurisdiction has almost

always been one of great mutual respect. Within the

framework of the public good, sealers have almost always

been sympathetic to the needs of our industry, and certainly

the industry's respect for a conscientious, strict and

fair sealer has changed little in the more than sixty

years since liquid measurement has become a mature science.

Strict enforcement of standards is certainly not a new

concept. Bartenders in Ancient Babylon who were convicted

of pouring a "short drink" were condemned to death by

drowning. Today's standards are perhaps a bit more reasonable to work with.

The most interesting standard to come from the

introduction of the metric system will be the actual

conversion that is determined to be significant. A price

per liter should be stated as equivalent to a price per

gallon stated to three decimal places. On what scale do

subdivisions beyond this become significant? Is it

significant that electronic gasoline pumps be capable of

measuring the gallon or liter into hundredths subdivisions?

Each new generation of service station pump computer will

be plagued by these questions. Are any of these considerations significant in the light of the integrity of the

remainder of the hydraulic system?

In the standard dispensing device we must examine

also such components as the hose, nozzle, pumping unit,

and air eliminator to see if they permit inaccuracies

that could be more significant than those in the actual

displacement of the meter. Certainly, too soft a hose

can cause more significant "computer creep" than an inaccuracy in the computing mode of the electronic computer

at the third digit after the decimal. The location of

the check valve in a nozzle is certainly of more significance than accuracy to three places.

We will continue to have new problems while we discard some of the old. A mechanical computer needed

service when it read differently on both sides. Electronic

computers will probably not have that problem, but certainly

a burnt out numitron is as important to the aware consumer.

I am frightened by the ease with which we drift into the

"lingo" of a new era. A numitron is an incandescent bulb

that illustrates in a readable manner the information

calculated within. The generic terms that we use to

135
describe the components of new systems will be a potential

problem. The sooner we separate marketing semantics from

a workable generic description, the easier it will be to sort future problems out into workable standards.

There are jurisdictions that concern themselves with

the readability of the incandes cents used in dispensing

devices. Others have a much broader interpretation of

what constitutes the actual act of visibly imparting

transaction information to the consumer. Informational

considerations that are workable on a commercial level

may not always be sufficiently understandable for consumer

use. In short, there is a strong case for intermediate

generations of hydrocarbon dispensing devices that have a form and shape for no other reason than that they ''look

like a gasoline pump.''

A P.E.I, member in Canada described that country's

conversion to metric dispensing of gasoline as the biggest

"non-event'' that he had ever seen. Why would such a conversion be so different in this country? The reasons

are numerous. First, there is the perception that someone

is profiting from the change by elevating prices. Second,

there is the fact that the unit price of our hydrocarbon

has already exceeded the price of 1.0 unit of volume per

traditional measure. Third, a lot of our dispensing

equipment no longer looks traditional. Finally, our population actually believes that since we have shied

away from the metric system for so long, there is something

complicated and confusing about it. It was mentioned earlier that in terms of the actual

computational device, the same thing would be accomplished

by a change in calculation by the quart as would be

accomplished by liter measurement. There is no need to examine the numerous advantages of changing to the metric

system as a basically more logical system. For the

equipment industry, however, much more must be learned

than the gallon/liter conversion if the system is adopted

in its entirety.

While the average individual has little difficulty

with conceptualizing solid and liquid measurement, other

units present more problems. The thought processes that

must go into structural strengths to handle a given

number of kilopascals of pressure and pipe velocities in

meters per second are more difficult. More complex

calculations utilizing all aspects of the system derive

their advantage in the ease of physical calculation. The

part that is lost is the ability of the experienced

equipment man to gauge by experience when gauges and

flows are functioning properly. Such functions of

136
"Kentucky Windage" as 50 gallons per minute requiring a 2-inch pump and meter are no longer obvious choices.

Such universal adoption of the metric system is further

down the line than the adoption of the liter as the

standard unit of volume.

The advantages in international trade need no further

detail. Domestic manufacturers would certainly benefit

from the uniformity after initial investment considerations.

The problem in the remainder of the system from well to nozzle is more complex. Oil company estimates if the

entire system were legislatively mandated are staggering.

Metrication is the solution to the retail and pricing

problems, but there are disadvantages for all if there is

not further time for implementation and investigation of

the other facets of the various hydrocarbon industries.

We are on the horns of a dilemma that was caused by

no single factor. We are on the threshold of numerous

changes affecting the very fiber and framework of the

liquid energy industries. One is reminded of the snake,

which ingests its victim; its body distends almost un- believably during the early stages of digestion. My

industry has the same digestive problem. There is a program at hand that is greater in magnitude than the

industry can solve in the time allowed. We have too much

pride to do the job incorrectly. The membership of the

Petroleum Equipment Industry has a long tradition of

innovation, resourcefulness, and service. Before we can re-embark on the mission of providing the best in new products and methods of processing information, we must

have additional time necessary to implement the changes

that the idiosyncracies of time, market, political climate,

and monetary values have artificially perpetrated on a mature industry.

Thanks are offered to the following members of the

Petroleum Equipment Institute who generously offered

comments in response to my inquiries.

Liquid Controls Corporation

Dresser/Wayne

Neptune Measurement Company

Brooks Instrument Division

Petro Vend Inc. Northeastern Petroleum Service

and Supply, Inc. Southwest Pump Company

137
TYPE APPROVAL - A TOOL FOR MEASUREMENT ASSURANCE

IN LEGAL METROLOGY

Presented by DR. E. SEILER,

Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

,

Federal Republic of Germany

First of all, I would like to

thank the organizers of the confer- ence for giving me an opportunity to

attend the conference and to speak

to you. The general topic of this

year's conference, "Expectations for

the 80s" is also of interest for

those concerned with legal metrology

in other countries because international cooperation is well established and becomes more and more

important. This collaboration

requires a minimum knowledge of the

legal metrology system of other

countries. One way to reach this goal is to attend

conferences like this one. May I take the opportunity

here to thank those of you who informed me about your

system during my stay in your country.

Before I start, I would like to mention that I use technical terms as defined in the Vocabulary of Legal

Metrology [l] 1

. According to this vocabulary, pattern

approval is "a decision taken by a competent state authority, generally the national service of legal metrology,

recognizing that the pattern of a measuring instrument

conforms to the mandatory requirements."

In the Federal Republic of Germany the PhysikalischTechnische Bundesanstalt (PTB) is responsible for pattern

evaluation and pattern approval of measuring instruments

while the verification is actually carried out by the

competent State authorities (Eichamter der Bundeslander

In my report, I will give a short outlook on what we will

have to expect for the 80s as far as measuring instruments

are concerned. Then, let me mention a few problems that

will come with this development and describe which role

pattern approval may play in order to assure correct

measurements

.

To deal with the expectations of the 80s requires a prognosis of the development of new types of measuring

Figures in brackets indicate the literature references

at the end of this paper.

155
instruments. As a first approach, assume that today's

technologies will also be used in the future to an increasing extent for the design of new measuring instruments.

As in other technical fields, the strongest impulses

can be expected from electronics and data processing

techniques. The following example will demonstrate what

is realizable today by semiconductor technology.

You all know weighing machines, the functions of

which go far beyond mere determination of masses. Let me only mention here automatic zero correction, tare device

with storage, automatic range switching, price computer

with totalizing facility, printed output, data storage,

and remote control of data storage.

If this weighing machine had, for instance, been

installed in a supermarket, it could have been connected

to a central computer together with many others. With

the computer, unit prices as stored in memories of the

remote weighing machines could be changed for all of them

at the same time. Moreover, these data could be read by

the computer and be made available for central evaluation

at any time.

Progress from simple measuring instruments to complex

data acquisition and processing systems is not restricted

to weighing machines. For this reason, instead of simple

measuring instruments, measuring systems with the following characteristics will be used to an increasing extent

in the eighties: 1) electronic equipment replacing mechanical parts, 2) digital signal processing and display, 3)

programmable control devices, 4) intelligent systems, 5)

remote control, and 6) sophisticated peripheral equipment.

Such a development entails an increase of electronic

components in the measuring system. Due to the programmability of certain modules it will be possible to adapt

one basic measuring system to many different applications.

New generations of measuring devices will be put

into the market at shorter and shorter time intervals.

This certainly causes new problems in the evaluation of

the pattern of new instruments such as reliability and

long-term stability of new components, electromagnetic

interference and compatibility, testing of software, and

interface problems with peripheral equipment.

In the following, I will restrict myself to the

problems of electromagnetic interference and programmability of measuring instruments and outline some ideas

of our approach to solving these problems.

139
As far as EMI is concerned, you will certainly

remember the lectures given two years ago at the U.S.

National Conference dealing with "Electromagnetic Interference - A Problem of Growing Concern" [2] , and "A Practical Approach to the Electromagnetic Interference/Radio

Interference Problem in the Field" [3]

.

Let me explain by an example from our experience why

even today measuring instruments must be tested with re- gard to their immunity from electromagnetic interference.

Press reports in our country had informed the public

that radar equipment used for speed checks of road traffic

may be influenced by electromagnetic interference from portable transmitters (such as CBs , etc.). As a consequence,

traffic offenders caught by the police protested in Court

against their convictions. The judges were puzzled by

these press reports and demanded that the police furnish

proof that measurements had not been falsified by interference. Generally, the police were unable to give that

kind of proof, and therefore, many traffic offenders had

to be declared not guilty. In order to eliminate this

uncertainty in furnishing substantiated proof, the pattern

approval of radar equipment by PTB will now comprise tests

concerning the susceptibility to interference.

What happened to the traffic radar equipment may

also happen to other types of instruments equipped with

electronic devices. This was the reason why we tested

scales of different patterns under the influence of

electromagnetic radiation [4]

.

The scale to be tested was placed into an electromagnetically shielded chamber. It bore a constant load.

Frequency and amplitude of the electromagnetic waves emitted by an antenna were swept and adjusted by frequency

generators and amplifiers. The field strength at the location of the scale was measured by means of two measuring

antennas. It turned out that all four scales tested were influenced by the electromagnetic field.

The following effects were observed at certain

frequencies and at sufficiently high amplitudes of the

field strength: 1) The indication of the scale did not

come to a standstill or a total blackout of the indication was observed, 2) the printing device was activated

so that tickets were printed continuously, and 3) the mass indication increased with increasing field strength.

This behavior of the scale under the influence of electromagnetic radiation is very critical since a user of the

scale may not notice any reason for false indication, which

will last as long as the electromagnetic radiation is present.

140
For the scale under test nothing happened up to about 5 V/m. But with increasing strength of the field

at a frequency of about 44.5 MHz the indication of the

scale changed significantly and showed a larger mass. The same effect was observed at the first and second

harmonics with respect to 44.5 MHz, i.e., 89 MHz and

178 MHz.

To avoid the risk of false measurements because of

electromagnetic fields, we will further test the susceptibility of instruments to electromagnetic radiation. Requirements given below are taken from a European-draft-directive

[5] for this purpose. These tests were carried out using

the following values.

Specifications of External Disturbances

Electromagnetic radiation

Field strength Frequency range

10 V/m 100 kHz - 5000 MHz

1 V/m >500 MHz - 1 GHz

Magnetic field

60 A/m; 50 Hz

Electrostatic discharge

6 kV with energy of 2 mJ on earthed chassis

Because it is difficult to imagine what 10 V/m may

be, figure 1 shows the distribution of the field strength

near a broadcasting station. As can be seen, field

strengths of some V/m occur at not too far a distance

from the station.

You all know what happens if you walk on a carpet

made out of synthetic materials and then touch a conductive

part: the charge accumulated on your body will discharge.

This may influence or even destroy electronic devices.

This is one reason why we ask for this discharge test.

A magnetic field is always present when an electrical

current is flowing. The magnetic field mentioned here

will be produced by a current of 10 A at a distance of

about 2.5 cm from the wire. The figures given here will

have to be reexamined as soon as more comprehensive

experience has been gained.

141
Figure 1. Electrical field strength in the vicinity

of a broadcasting station emitting 800 kW at 755 kHz,

As the tests require a large amount of test equipment

and a comprehensive know-how of the personnel carrying

out the tests , this should be done not later than at the

time of pattern approval. If constructional changes of

the measuring instrument were required, then the manufacturer would still have the opportunity of making these

changes before starting production.

In addition to the electromagnetic radiation, disturbances which affect the measuring instruments via power

lines must also be considered. The following table

summarizes requirements to which future tests will be

carried out within the framework of EEC pattern approval.

Various interferences superposed on the mains that are simulated by special test generators, are considered

typical for disturbances that occur in power supply

lines

.

By doing these tests during pattern evaluation of

instruments we make sure only instruments which are sufficiently immune against electromagnetic disturbances

will be used for legal metrology purposes. These tests

are as necessary as temperature and humidity tests, and

they will be of increasing importance in the future be- cause the electromagnetic environment will become worse

142
due to the increasing use of electronic devices and equipment, which again will produce electromagnetic disturbances.

Mains-Borne Disturbances

Amplitude Risetime Half-amplitude

duration

Repetition rate

500 V

1500 V

300 V

2 ns

25 ns 100 ns

1 (JS 10 Hz

10 Hz

10 Hz

Burst of pulses lasting for

about 1 ms of about 1 MHz

5 % of the

nominal value

sine wave superimposed on 30 kHz - 150 kHz

the mains

1 V 150 kHz - 400 MHz

Now I come to the problem of programmability

.

Programming certain electronic components, instead of a permanent wiring, which then control the desired measure- ment procedure, is state-of-the-art and will apply more

and more. Apart from the process control, mathematical

operations can be carried out in order to correct, for

example, non-linearities in the transfer function of the

pick-up, to modify a measured value in a desired way, o^

to calculate a price of a measured quantity.

Thus, verification authorities will be confronted

with the new task of checking software. Does this mean

for the future that we have to recruit computer specialists as verification officers?

I do not believe that would be realistic, but I am convinced that we will soon cooperate very closely with

such specialists during pattern approval of programmable

instruments. What must be done and what can be done

during pattern approval?

As the programs are, in general, established in a very special computer language they are, even for rather

simple operations, very long, complex, and difficult to

check, even for experts. Very often the test will be an indirect one. First, it has to be determined from the

underlying flow charts, mathematical formulae, and algorithms, whether fundamental errors exist. Second, it has

to be checked out by independent numerical samples that

the program is correct and yields the expected results.

143
In addition to testing the software, a check must be

made as to what measures were taken to prevent unintentional and false operation and intentional, fraudulent

manipulation. Either must not happen without notice to the user or lead to false results.

Last, but not least, an essential part of the pattern

evaluation should result in establishing a test procedure

which has to be carried out during verification to make

sure the approved program is really incorporated, is

being used, and is running perfectly. All this demands

comprehensive know-how regarding the structure of microand minicomputers and their programming.

For the purposes of verification, a detailed repeat

test of the software of each individual series-produced

instrument is, however, unnecessary if it can be guaranteed

that approved programs have been used in the series-produced

instruments. It is, therefore, expedient and useful for

the verification officer that test procedures be fixed at the pattern approval which are applied for the verification of instruments manufactured in series. These

instruments can then be checked efficiently even by

officers who are not software experts.

Although the technical world becomes more and more

complex, new technologies can also be applied to facilitate

work and to provide means to assure correct measurements.

Let me give an example to illustrate what I have in mind.

If it is necessary to add two measured values to get

the required result, and if the calculation is done by a microcomputer, the function of the microcomputer can be

tested by a self - checking procedure in the following way:

After certain time intervals preset by the internal

clock of the microprocessor a subroutine is executed

automatically which adds two stored quantities, A + B. If A = 1 001 and (binary num- ber system)

B = 0 111,

the sum C must yield C = 10 000.

The computed result is compared with the content of

a memory which contains the correct result. If no equivalence can be established, an error flag must be set. This can be used for stopping the computer and for drawing

the user's attention to the fault by an optical or acoustical

signal

.

1 —
By means of this simple test program, important

functional devices, such as Central Processor Unit (CPU),

Arithmetic and Logical Unit (ALU), Accumulator (ACC)

,

Read Only Memory (ROM) , and essential functions such as the carry-over of values from memory into the accumulator

and the addition, as well as the transmission, of the

carry-bits can be checked.

Such test programs require additional programming

efforts and storage capacity; however, they represent

very efficient software test tools for complex measuring

equipment. By including appropriate reference sources

into the measuring device, these tests can be extended

easily such that automatic self-calibration of the measur

ing instrument becomes practicable.

The trend of technical progress is, indeed, such

that it is easier for the manufacturers of measuring

instruments to comply with an early requirement of the

PTB: electronic devices of measuring instruments must

function correctly or any functional error must be

recognizable

.

In the past, this requirement could only be met by

additional hardware involving considerable extra cost.

As a result of the semiconductor technology, checking

circuits or test programs can be integrated in measuring

instruments, without considerable cost and in such a way

that failures are recognized and incorrect measurements

suppressed to a large extent. The efficiency of checking

devices, however, has to be proved during pattern approva

Therefore, we consider the pattern approval tests one of

the most important prerequisites for ensuring correct

measurements

.

There is another reason why I believe that pattern

approval will become more important in the future to assure correct measurements. The development of new

instruments speeds up so fast that it is a big problem

for verification officers to stay up-to-date. On the

other hand, by carrying out tests that are required for

pattern approval, extensive information about the design,

performance, and susceptibility of the instruments is

gained. This information is essential for testing the

instruments during verification and has to be transferred

to the authorities responsible for verification. For

this reason the documents that the PTB makes out, for

example, on pattern approvals, comprise concrete instructions which are essential for carrying out the verification. It is thus ensured that the verification officers

are able to carry out their task in an effective way and

145
that all measuring instruments are tested and verified

independently of where they are installed and according

to the same procedure.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have given you some rough

ideas about pattern approval as a tool for measurement

assurance. I hope this tool will also be sharp enough to

shape the future of legal metrology in the eighties.

REFERENCES

[1] Vocabulaire de Metrologie Legale, Termes fondamentaux, Bureau International de Metrologie Legale, 11,

Rue Turgot, 75oo9 Paris, Edition Francais - English

(1978) .

[2] Miller, C. K. S. , Electromagnetic Interference - A

problem of growing concern, NBS Special Publication

532, Report of the 63rd NCWM, 1-12 (1978).

[3] Piatt, F. L., A Practical Approach to the Electromagnetic Interference/Radio Interference Problem in

the Field, NBS Special Publication 532, Report of

the 63rd NCWM, 13-16 (1978).

[4] Hente, B. and Seiler, E., Zum Einflup elektromagnetischer Storungen auf Waagen mit elektronischen

Einrichtungen, PTB-Mitt. 88, 398-402 (1978).

[5] Commission of the European Communities Proposal for

a Council Directive Amending Council Directive

71/316/EEC of July 1971 COM (78) 766 final, Brussels

(1979) .

146
RADIATION MEASUREMENT- -A CHALLENGE THAT CALLS FOR

COOPERATIVE FEDERAL AND STATE ACTION

Presented by MARSHALL W. PARROTT, Chairman,

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and

Manager, Radiation Control Section, State Health Division,

State of Oregon

is radiation? It is not simple. Broadly speaking,

radiation may be separated into two components, ionizing

and non-ionizing.

Ionizing radiation is basically any radiation with

sufficient energy to eject an electron from the atom,

leaving the remainder as a positively charged particle.

This results in the production of an ion pair, the atom

and an electron. Non-ionizing radiation, on the other

hand, generally does not have sufficient energy to eject

the electron; therefore, transmits its energy by exciting,

vibrating, or oscillating molecules. The electromagnetic

spectrum is the entire range of radiation as we know it

today. Starting at the top of that spectrum, the wave- lengths are very short, but have extremely high energies.

Progressing down the spectrum to the very long wavelengths,

the energies become very, very small.

The upper end of the energy spectrum is ionizing

radiation. This radiation includes x-rays, and cosmic

and gamma rays. At the lower end of the energy spectrum

is the non-ionizing radiation. This consists of visible

light, infrared, microwaves, radar, television, shortwave

radio, and electric power. The very, very long wavelengths

of smallest energy are being investigated as modes of

transmission of radio signals. The length of a single wave at this long wavelength is approximately one-half

the diameter of the Earth.

The States have responsibility

for the protection of public health

along with police powers for the

protection of the public. One of the

public health responsibilities is

protection against exposure to un- necessary radiation.

Radiation is no different from

any other imperceptible pollutant.

The general public is not aware of

what radiation is or what it does

.

Radiation in the minds of each of you

strikes a different note. Just what

147
The questionable radiations, of course, fall near

the middle where the energies may, or may not, be high

enough to eject an electron from the atom. Some ultraviolet light and some x-rays actually span those areas that

may be called ionizing or non-ionizing. Visible light

takes up but a small fraction of an exceedingly small

place in the electromagnetic spectrum where both ionizing

and non-ionizing radiation can be produced.

Some of the occupations subject to exposures that

may occur from non-ionizing radiation include workers

using RF sealers, welders, movie projectionists, ski

instructors, wood curers, chemists, glassblowers , plastic

heat sealer workers, rubber product workers, grocery

checkstand clerks, etc.

The amount of damage caused by non-ionizing radiation

has yet to be established across the non-ionizing portion

of the electromagnetic spectrum. Ultraviolet light is

known to produce certain forms of skin cancer as well as serious problems like snow blindness. Visible light, in

the form of lasers, has been known to cause eye damage

and skin burns. From there on, to infrared through

microwaves, there are certain kinds of cataracts caused

by microwaves if they are high enough in energy and long

enough in duration. It is actually possible to determine

by the location of a cataract within the eye whether that

cataract was caused by non-ionizing or ionizing radiation.

Whether some biological damage is caused by your CB radio

or your neighorhood television station is still an unknown

entity.

Radiation, obviously, is a complex and sophisticated

topic, both technically and institutionally. A large

number of groups, such as the American College of Radiology

the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, The

American National Standards Institute, the Health Physics

Society, the Radiation Research Society, the Conference

of Radiation Control Program Directors, and many others

are involved in radiation and have spent much of their

time investigating the effects of ionizing radiation and

methods of protection against those effects.

There are a large number of different instruments

used for ionizing radiation measurements but the ability

of those instruments to accurately define what is being

measured is frequently in doubt. The presence of an alpha particle, a beta particle, a gamma ray, a neutron,

or an x-ray may confuse the instrument as well as the

operator. Even more confusing is the fact that the

instruments frequently are sensitive to temperature,

pressure, and humidity and respond to outside electromagnetic interference such as radio transmissions. The

148
simple task of calibrating a single instrument is a time-consuming and expensive process.

The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors

is attempting to work to solve many of the real problems

and develop criteria for national standards on radiation

measurements. The public sensitivity and interest run very high, creating an ever growing load upon each of the

individual State programs. Three Mile Island used thousand

of man hours of State radiation control personnel time in

States that were unaffected directly by the event. That

is not to say that Pennsylvania was particularly affected

by the event except by being inundated by large numbers

of Federal personnel.

There are an exceptionally large number of Federal

agencies involved in radiation. Table 1 lists, I believe,

all of the Federal agencies known to have radiation

regulations, which frequently overlap, cause confusion,

and lack coordination.

Radiation regulations are issued at many levels in

Federal, State, and city government. The Conference of

Radiation Control Program Directors has, in part, been

organized to elicit conversation and understanding between

Federal agencies, for self-preservation if nothing else.

This circumstance is unlike Weights and Measures where

only a few Federal agencies peripherally have an input.

I have been told that the Food and Drug Administration

has requirements on weight and volume in packaging and

the U.S. Department of Agriculture on grain weight machines

Otherwise, the States have complete responsibility for

maintaining and operating a national weights and measures

system which is traceable directly to the National Bureau

of Standards. This arrangement, as I understand it, is

different from other countries of the world where the

national governments assume total authority and responsibility for weights and measures [l] 1

.

figures in brackets indicate the literature references at

the end of this paper.

149
Table 1. Federal agencies having radiation regulations.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Department of Energy (DOE)

Department of Defense (Army, Navy, Air Force)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Veterans Administration (VA)

Department of Commerce - National Bureau of Standards (NBS) - National Communication & Information Administration,

formerly Office of Telecommunications Policy

Department of Health, Education and Welfare - Health and

Human Services, National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Food and Drug Administration (Bureau of Radiological Health - BRH)

Department of Interior (Mine Safety and Health)

Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration,

Federal Railroad Administration, Bureau of Materials

Transport, U.S. Coast Guard)

Interstate Commerce Commission

National Transportation and Safety Board

Department of Labor-Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

U.S. Postal Service

Consumer Products Safety Commission

Department of Agriculture

National Science Foundation

Executive Office of the President (Office of Science and

Technology Policy, Radiation Policy Council)

The technical range of radiation types, energies,

and intensities presents a difficult problem of adequate

public health coverage of all of these radiation sources

[2]. Judging from the large number of sources, it is

obvious that it is hard to pay attention to all of them

adequately with limited resources. Furthermore, it is a dynamic field that is growing at both ends. While the

people employed in radiation medicine are worried about

higher energies for radiation therapy, the public health

people are concerned as much about lower concentrations

and intensities that impact on the environment. The

scientific opinions in this latter area are very different

although admittedly the resultant injuries may well be

very few. The discussions are heated, thus newsworthy.

Historically, State programs begin by examining x-ray

sources, which produce over ninety percent of the man-made

radiation by which people are affected in the United

States. Table 2 refers to these x-ray machines as well

as other non-Atomic Energy Act sources.

150
Table 2. Elements for a minimum State radiological

health program for non-atomic energy act sources [3]

.

I . X-ray Sources

A. Machine Registration/Licensing

B. Standards

C. Compliance - Machine Inspection

- Facility Inspection

D. Enforcement

E. Constant Alertness to New Sources

II . Non-Ionizing Sources

A. Registration/Licensing

B. Standards

C. Compliance - Machine Inspection

D. Enforcement

E. Constant Alertness to New Sources

III. Natural Sources (Manufacture , Byproducts , Tailings, Phosphates , Radium , etc

.

) A. Registration/Licensing of Radioactive Material

B. Radioactive Material and Environmental Standard

C. Compliance - Environmental Monitoring

- Radioactive Waste Control

(Effluents, etc.)

D. Enforcement

E. Constant Alertness to New Sources

IV. Cyclotron-Produced Radioactive Materials

A. Licensing Users and Equipment

B. Standards

C. Compliance for Production and Users

D. Enforcement

V. Other

A. Public Information and Technical Training

B. Program Effectiveness

C. Emergency Response (Fixed Facility and

Transportation)

Planning

Training

Response to Incidents

D. Legislation - Writing and Testifying

E . Budget

F. Personnel

G. Update and Publish Regulations

151
The scope of the pro]

A;:i:: Iters'." Ac. s:urces

percent of the money spe]

radiation produc

reactors tiar.sol

approximately 20

- : r e : r Compared to about 400 000 x-ray ma the various States, it is obvious the sources are but a small part of the tot

sources, naturally occurring radioa:ci".

form of uranium daughter products , bypi

mining, and radium. Then, there are c\

radioactive materials, which are also u the Atomic Energy Act. Obviously, you

Measures vould understand, as a group i like public information, technical trad

writing and testifying, budget, personr

publishing regulations

.

As you can see from the foregoing, there are number of responsibilities that have f alien ut:n ' radiation protection people exclusive of agreemen

Yet, tnese responsibilities can be better met if ; radiation program is developed by a State, includ:

agreement sources, agreement sources, and an envi:

surveillance program.

The major State organization, which is accomplishing a great deal at this time at national levels, is the Conference

of Radiation Control Program Directors mentioned earlier.

The Conference is made up of all radiation control program

directors in the United States, territories, and some za :r counties and cities. There are technically about 60 program

directors. This group evaluates and writes the Suggested

State Regulations for the Control of Radiation in co:peratic:

with Federal agencies and has established several standing

committees that deal with a number of subjects. Radiation

measurements, personnel dosimetry, naturally occurring radio

active materials, emergency response, laser light shows, and

is:
several others are on-going projects. Members of the Confer

ence have spent a great deal of time testifying before Congressional committees, and as a unit, have been very respons

in assisting Federal agencies in their regulatory processes.

The States have become very concerned in the last

several years over their ability to defend their radiation

measurements in a court of law. We feel that effective,

equitable enforcement of regulations requires measurements

that are reliable, uniform, and sufficiently accurate.

What are the present needs of the States to meet

such an approach to enforcement [4,5]?

1) The States need an independent evaluation

of available instrumentation to determine

the relative merits for a variety of uses and designs for instruments if none of

those currently available meets all of the

needs

.

2) National calibration facilities are needed

for all types of radiation sources and

instruments and the provision of transfer

standards and quality assurance checks.

3) Assistance is needed in equipping an inexpensive in-house quick check facility

to determine reliability of in-use equipment.

4) Standardized procedures for all types of

radiation measurements are necessary.

5) An annual peer review of all facets of the

State's radiation control program, such as those currently done by the NRC on the

Agreement States program, should help upgrade each of these programs.

6) Totally funded continuing education, like

that provided by NRC to Agreement State

personnel, would aid the new employee and

sharpen the experienced employee (formerly

funded by the Public Health Service)

.

7) More direct National Bureau of Standards

assistance to the States in the areas of

physical standards and measurements for

radioactive materials and ionizing radiation

are important.

153
8) More standard reference sources, especially

in the environmental levels of radiation,

need to be sent directly to the States at little or no cost.

9) The National Bureau of Standards should

review and approve all Federal guidelines,

standards, and regulations that require

radiation measurements prior to the promulgation of those standards, and guidelines

and regulations to assure that such radiation

measurements are both technically feasible

and practically attainable by States doing

the measurements

.

10) The National Bureau of Standards, in

cooperation with the Environmental Protection

Agency, should be designated as the Federal

agency responsible for coordinating efforts

among the Federal and State agencies to immediately develop a uniform data reporting

system so that the present environmental

data, which are being generated throughout

the country, can be utilized and evaluated

in terms of possible population exposures.

What does the future hold? Regional secondary-standard

laboratories are now being developed in the States of

Illinois and South Carolina. Ideally, more secondary-standard

laboratories can be established regionally to make them

readily accessible to the State radiation regulatory

personnel for not only the calibration of instruments

traceable to the National Bureau of Standards but the

additional benefit of training in instrument response,

capability, and use. The "States" regional calibration

laboratories must be independent of those utilized by

"licensees" because of the potential conflict of interest

of having a State operated laboratory calibrating their own licensees' instruments. This, by inference, makes

those laboratories responsible for the measurements made

with those instruments. It would be most embarrassing in

a court of law if the regulator and the regulatee were arguing over a measurement when the calibration had been

done by the same laboratory. Federal and private industry

calibration facilities are in several instances already

available. Federal intermediate radiation calibration

laboratories, such as Brookhaven and Argonne, are in

existence. Good industrial calibration facilities are still lacking in availability except for the American

Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Regional

Calibration laboratories which are currently functioning

but used primarily for radiation therapy.

154
One last and important area, to achieve accuracy in

radiation measurements, is the development of criteria

for operation and accreditation of laboratories, measurement quality assurance, and performance test for people

making field measurements. These criteria are not only

desirable but also nearly mandatory at this point in

time

.

I would like to thank Ms. Alice Holte and Ms. Sue

Gulick for their clerical assistance and patience with

the Author.

REFERENCES

[1] Simila, Kendrick, Personal communication, 1980.

(Administrator, Weights and Measures Division,

Oregon Department of Agriculture.)

[2] Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors,

Inc. Ionizing radiation measurement criteria for

regulatory purposes. National Bureau of Standards

Publication NBS GCR 79-174, 26 pages, NUR 1979.

[3] Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors,

Inc. Criteria for an Adequate Radiation Control

Program. Task Force Report 1979.

[4] Eisenhower, Elmer, Report of the National Bureau of

Standards Survey of State Measurement Needs, pp.

117-126, 9th Annual National Conference on Radiation

Control, Seattle, Washington. Publication U.S.

DHEW/PHS/DA (June 19-23, 1977).

[5] Parrott, M. W. , State responsibilities and the

radiation measurement system, NBS 75th Anniversary

Symposium Measurements for the Safe Use of Radiation,

NBS SP 456 (1976) pp 31-36 (March 1-4, 1976).

155
THE 1980s FOOD MARKETPLACE DEMO GRAPHICS , LIFESTYLES , AND TECHNOLOGY

Presented by JEANNE WARREN EAGLE , Consultant,

Arthur D. Little, Inc. INTRODUCTION

For the past 30 years, we experienced very rapid economic and

population growth accompanied by

dramatic technological advancements.

By 1980, there will be some definite

sociological and economic structural

changes in the United States, as we learn how to live with these changes.

During this period of adjustment,

demographics, social attitudes,

economics, and the political environment will come into focus in the

marketplace. We all want some clues about the market place. I will highlight demographic changes, lifestyle choices,

and technological issues for the food industry for the

next decade.

DEMOGRAPHICS - *HAT CHANGES WILL OCCUR IN THE

NEXT DECADE 0 The generation that caused rapid growth in sales of

infant products in the 1950s created a new mass teenage

market in the 60s. The same generation produced an uncommitted, non-traditional young adult in the 70s who

will mature to middle-age and raise his family in the

1980s. The total U.S. population will increase ten percent, or over 21 million people between 1980 and 1990.

(That is two and a half times the number of people in the

New York metropolitan area.) All of us interested in the

marketplace want to know where the major changes will be

taking place, who will have the consumer dollar, and what

the attitudes of these groups will be by 1990. First, I will outline some major demographic changes.

CHANGES IN THE POPULATION MIX

Table 1 provides a quick look at relative changes

for each of the major age groups. Table 2 shows the

relative size of age groups in 1980 and 1990. There will

be a decline in this period in the 14-24 age groups;

thus, products associated singularly with that market

will decline. The fastest growth throughout the period

156
will be in the 35-44 age group, but the 25-34 age group

will be most important to the marketplace in absolute

numbers. Those people from the peak of the baby boom

will be 23 years old this year; the first of the baby

boom will be 34 years old. The median age was 28.0 in

1970, 30.2 in 1978, and is projected to be 32.8 in 1980 1

. The increase in the youth group results from the children

of the postwar baby boom having their own children,

maturing of the women's lib movement, and mechanisms in

the system that allow women to have children and still

pursue a career. Table 1. U.S. population in millions of people for

1980 and 1990 by age group.

Age Group 1980 1990 Change % Chang

Millions Millions Millions

<14 46.2 52.0 +5.8 + 12.5

14-17 15.8 12.8 -3.0 -19.0

18-24 29.5 25.1 -4.3 -14.6

25-34 36.2 41.1 +4.9 +13.6

35-44 25.7 36.6 + 10.9 +42.3

45-54 22.7 25.3 +2.6 +11.5

55-64 21.2 20.8 -0.4 -2.0

>65 24.9 29.8 +4.9 19.6

Total 222.2 243.5

Source

:

Based on information from U.S. Department of

Commerce

,

Bureau of the Census, CPR Series

P-25, No. 704, Series II

Table 2. Percent of U.S. population by age group for

1980 and 1990.

Age Group 1980 1990

<14

%

20.8

%

21.4

14-17 7.1 5.3

18-24 13.3 10.3

25-34 16.3 16.9

35-44 11.6 15.0

45-54 10.2 10.4

55-64 9.5 8.5

>65 11.2 12.2

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Based on information from U.S. Department

Commerce, Bureau of the Census, CPR Series

P-25, No. 704, Series II. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. CPR Series

P-25, No. 704, Series II and Census of Population, 1970.

157
REGIONAL GROWTH

Growth by 1990, in terms of actual numbers of people,

will occur as shown in table 3. Table 3. U.S. regional population growth in millions

of people - 1980-1990.

Increase in population

1980-1990

1' • : . : . r. : : z~:zi :z North Central + 13.0

South + 10.6

West + 5.8

Northeast + 2.0

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

the Census, CPR Series P-25, No. 796,

Series II B. HOUSEHOLD FORMATION

The growth, size, and form of households is also

important in the marketplace. In the past ten years, the

number of households went up 2.5 percent/year; in the

next five years, it will be just slightly lower at 2.4

percent/year, slowing to an additional 1.4 percent/year

in the last half of the decade; i.e., 63 million households

in 1970, 80 million in 1980, and almost 97 million by

1990. Peering inside the 1990 households, we see other changes. As most of us expected, the average

household size continued to decrease. In 1970, it was averaging 3.14 persons; in 1980, it is 2.73, and by 1990,

it will be 2.47. In fact, by 1990, more people will be

choosing to live alone than marry, bringing all single

person households to 25 percent of all households by

1990. That has important implications for the food

industry for both in-home and out-of-home eating.

THE 1980s : THE MANAGING OF LIFESTYLE CHOICES

BY THE INDIVIDUAL

The 1980s will be a period of the managing of lifestyle choices by the individual. There will be a continued

increase in the real consumer dollar available for spending

by 1990, partially as a result of the increase in the population reaching career ages, and the increased education and

158
sophistication for money-earning ability of this population,

but we also know that we will have increasing costs and

increasing inflation. What we really want to know is how

is the consumer going to allocate the consumer dollar in

the marketplace and this is determined by the lifestyle

choices we make.

Through the 1970s, there was a basic shift in the

importance of individual choice. The early 70s was a reactionary period and was dubbed "the Me Generation."

By the late 1970s, we called it "the period of selfindulgence." In the 1980s, we will see a refinement in

these attitudes; it will be a period where the individual

manages his lifestyle choice by balancing his own set of

interrelated, yet often conflicting, attitudes.

MANAGING INFLATION AND ENERGY

Over the next ten years, we are going to see people

making lifestyle choices to help manage inflation. Over

the past two decades, we have increased our standard of

living and our expectations of what we want from life.

At the same time, our incomes were increasing in parallel;

thus, what we wanted, we bought! Now, however, there is

a growing gap--income levels are rising more slowly and

are not keeping pace with our expectations. How we manage that gap has important implications for the marketplace over the next ten years. We probably have two

choices: one option is to continue flashing that credit

card while draining our savings. These, however, are temporary moves. In the long run, the second option is

probably going to prevail: we will accept some changes

in our standard of living. We will probably make fewer

purchases, buy higher quality items; we will keep durables

longer; we will make more careful selection of food

products. By 1990, we will drive a much more fuel-efficient

car, vacation closer to home, stay home more often, and

entertain less. We will find other convenient ways to cut back and those who can handle the mortgage will find

they may purchase a smaller, more manageable home. As we have heard, the average household size over the next ten

years will also be declining. This will put a damper on

the "bigger and better" markets and support a continued

need for one-and two-person housing, furnishings, and

products for that household.

BALANCING OF TIME AND MONEY/NEW PRODUCTS

By 1990, more services will be purchased if they

improve the quality of life, increase discretionary time,

or allow both men and women to work and maintain the

home. Consumers will look for new products that will

159
save time, money, or energy, but products will have to

promise much in order to get the consumer to •'buy in" or

trade up" in this time of income constraint.

URBANIZATION

We will also see over the next ten years a restabilization of the central cities, though the central cities

will never regain their former size. A narrow exurbia

will encircle the suburban parameter.

WOMEN CONTINUE TO MOVE INTO THE WORKFORCE

Women will continue to move into the workforce . although the increase will be at a slower rate. In terms

of dollar income, the importance of the women working

will continue to increase rapidly because more women will

be moving into higher-paying jobs. At present, only

about 20 percent of all management positions are held by

women. We expect this to increase, so look out! With women moving into the workforce, it leaves both the man

and the woman freer to make mid- career and lifestyle

choices and the percent of part-time and temporary work

will increase for both men and women. ACCOUNTABILITY

In this next decade, there will be a continued

expectation that the industry can be held accountable.

Industry will be expected to provide quality products,

reasonable pricing, durability; the industry will be

expected to bear increasing risks in a fluctuating social/

political environment.

HEALTH, NUTRITION, PHYSICAL WELL-BEING

Nutrition and fitness will remain hot topics as long

as the perception prevails that healthiness means happines

We will see a continued slow change in food consumption

patterns and continued consumer pressures for more informa

tion about food. Medical and health insurances are actually considered necessities and we will see universal use of the health maintenance organization to reduce costs

and to "prevent medical disasters."

EATING PATTERNS BECOME INDIVIDUALIZED

The family breakfast and lunch become part of our history; and even the evening meals may be individually

prepared and consumed.

160
FOOD PURCHASE PATTERNS

More men and teenagers will buy food and prepare

meals. By the 1990s as many as 60 percent of men in all

households will be consistently involved in the purchase

of food. By 1985, 40 cents out of every dollar will be

spent on "food away from home" and households will be

making fewer trips per week instead of three by the

mid-1980s. For many households, convenience stores will

supplement one weekly supermarket trip.

TECHNOLOGY

In theory, basic research and applied R&D lead to technology2

. Basic research results are random. Innovation is planned for and makes use of economies of scale.

The process of innovation (technology) is a difficult

one, and it requires time and resources. Most experts in

the field of technology forecasting seem to agree that

the rate and direction of innovation is influenced by 1)

demand; 2) cost of inputs/availability of resources; 3)

competitive pressures; and 4) technological capabilities.

Demand for a type of product or process that is not

satisfied by the marketplace (or even the potential of a demand) can stimulate the basic research and technology

development process. On the other hand, a discovered

principle may wait years for a suitable application, or

it can create a demand and thus the innovation process

commences. It takes about ten years for basic research

to be applied. Therefore, we already should know in

1980, what can be applied through this decade. To forecast

the technology issues we will face in 1990, you need to be aware of basic research in the 1980s.

SOME EXAMPLES OF AREAS OF BASIC RESEARCH IN THE 1980s

CREATING TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES BY 1990

First, let me suggest just a few areas of basic

research in the 1980s of interest in the food industry.

Such research may produce random results that could

affect technology as we enter the 1990s.

2 This theory has been declared by some technological

experts to be invalid. They argue that this process - Basic Research - applied R&D - technological innovation,

cannot be documented in more than a few isolated situations. They go on to say that many studies of the process

have been made with no significant findings that indeed one leads to the other. Basic research, they say, is generally

directed by academic scientists, while technology is driven

by the needs of the marketplace.

161
.d Jiscr

: i _ : _._

i-_i_r= vi;i lizzie

zz:r= iz lie "fir zem fir

1 1 is : _ 1 1 r i : i _ 1 i r r i £ i ~ z : v z: i _5 z arch fwppniiBg the fraction of nacm

r rel£zziz_szzz z: iiseise. ;ii izzer.

BTHilazilzZT if mixxisiixs zz zzods. , rfwnx.g fiz lis e1^tt»p- zs . li is : izsszrl ncn a posh does, indeed, result in increased basic

arch zzesr Ere^s . zz=z vr ilet h:v n<: re 11 Ifr.

ii ."f z : if;

ill b= i ifrni if

. s i : i vzi iz

-_ = - .J

1:1
assume the long-term risk necessary to spur innovation.

Adequate incentives for the industry do not exist. In mature industries (e.g., the food industry) it takes a bigger piece of technology to create a sensation that it

did a decade ago, because products are pretty well satisfying market demand. Thus, mature industries have turned

their focus to product costs and production efficiencies.

Selection of manufacturing process technologies will

depend importantly on their efficient use of energy,

labor, and raw materials. With the burdens of energy

costs, inflation, cost of capital, and credit tightening,

industry will be looking for ways to reduce costs, reduce

waste, minimize labor, and maximize quality. The focus

is on those factors whose costs may experience the strongest

increase. In the 1980s the food industry is in a position

to benefit from technological spillover from innovative

areas, such as intelligent electronics, and thus may be

recycled into a growth pattern.

One of the most important changes we will see in the

next decade will be in information technology. Application

of this technology will cause many changes in the way man

functions and corporations operate in the environment in

both new mass communications media and intelligent electronic

devices. The impact could eventually exceed the impact

of the industrial revolution.

Also, in the area of information technologies, the

1980s will continue to witness a creative application of

intelligent electronics—microprocessors with a logic and

a memory, for example. But even by the 1990s, we will

not know what is critical to future innovation, how far we can go with the electronic memory. At this point, we have only scratched the surface of the human mind's

functions. As it is, technological devices are appearing

faster than man can incorporate them. One of the activities of the 1990s will be prevalent in the food processing

industry. There will be sensors for temperature, pressure,

and additional properties such as texture. Applications

could also include analytical measures to maintain nutrient

content. Actually, the food industry lags behind other

industries in the use of process controls due to sanitation

requirements, seasonality of plants, and limited size of some plants. But pressures for more on-line process

controls include increased legislation, need for more computerized recording, increased need for efficiency in

production, less waste, increased quality of product,

better quality control, less hold-up for lab testing.

Energy costs will continue to be the major force for

change in the food industry. It is particularly of concern to water-intensive processes. Reverse osmosis is

163
a process in which water is partially removed through the use of an RO membrane without heat. Applications in the

1980s include corn refining, sugar, juices, milk, and

waste operations

.

We forecast that in the 1980s we will also see 1)

increased use of grain to make chemical feedstock to replace petrochemicals; 2) superficial fluids applications to foods; 3) increased use of enzymes ; and 4)

application of catalysts technology to improve contribution of chemicals from fuels, giving us chemical materials with different properties and maybe new plastics

packaging materials. We will see alternative production

methods such as hydroponics, mariculture, new storage

methods, such as controlled atmosphere, and new packaging,

and even such things as completely automated warehousing.

CONSUMER PRODUCTS

By 1990, we will have TVs with which we can hold

conversations , microwave ovens that tell us how to cook

the stroganoff and call us to dinner when it is ready,

and lots of "toys"—video recorders, home computers,

programmable appliances. Right now, for less than S550,

a home computer can be purchased that can help in household

management. By 1990, we will use TV to scan catalogs,

want-ads, and recipes, and computers to maintain household

inventory and measure energy consumption. The way consumers

shop will be dramatically different by the early 1990s,

as time and energy needs drive the movement toward at-home

ordering for inventory products. The rudiments are already in place with the UPC code, principles of the

home computer, telephone-to-warehouse shopping, and

experimental television usage.

While the 1980s will probably not be remembered as a time of great innovation in other consumer products and

services, there will be labor and energy savings introductions. By 1990, the food industry will be facing a new

round of innovation in product development—products to fit the programmed appliances, redesigned or new energy

efficient appliances, and products that incorporate new research information on nutritional requirements and

metabolism.

164
THE SYSTEM OF CONTROL OF PREPACKAGED

PRODUCTS IN THE NETHERLANDS

Presented by ANTON C. BIJLOO, Director Metrology Service,

Van Swinden Laboratorium, VSL, Delft the Netherlands

Recently, a new system of

control of prepackaged products was introduced in the Netherlands , to supplement the existing regulations

in this field. As a result of

treaties within the European Economic

Community, this new system follows

the Common Market directives con- cerning the control of prepackaged

products. Directives of this kind were formulated in Brussels in

deliberations among the nine member

states of the E.E.C. Many of these

directives are intended to break

down the trade barriers created by

the differences in the regulations

of the different member states.

It is obvious that it is difficult for manufacturers

exporting their products to various countries to comply

with different regulations which in some cases may even

be contradictory. Some countries also try to protect

their own industry by imposing regulations that make it

nearly impossible to import products from other countries.

As the European Economic Community is primarily meant to be a common market, its authorities try to make binding

regulations in such a way that trade among the nine mem- ber states meets no barriers. Several of these regulations are optional, which means that every common market

country introduces the regulations into its own national

law, but is allowed for the time being to maintain also

its own existing regulations for its own territory.

Concerning the control on prepackages this is the

situation in Holland at present. Those packers who do

not want to apply the new EEC directives adopted in Dutch

law, may stick to the old regulations as they have been

in force for Dutch territory for a long time. In principle the old regulations are rather simple; they are based on the so-called minimum-principle. The packer has

to declare the contents on each package. Furthermore, he

has to see to it that at least the declared quantity is

really present in the packages. In fact, for the packer

to be sure that the official inspectors will never find a package containing less than declared, he must always

overfill by at least three times the standard deviation.

165
For the control authorities this system is very

convenient; it is possible to check prepackages anywhere

they are found. Any prepackage in a shop has to contain

at least what is declared on it. If it does not, the

packer is breaking the law. Of course there may be

problems in deciding whether a packer is really committing an offense or not, such as caused by drying out. But this can be solved by allowing reasonable percentages

and the like. Basically this system is rather simple.

The new regulation that is now brought into the law

in accordance with the EEC directives on prepackaging

starts from a different point of view. This system is

based on the principle of the mean contents. The packer

also has to see that the nominal quantity is declared on the packages. Not the contents of the individual prepackage but the mean contents of a number of prepackages

has to be equal to the quantity declared.

To make this system operational, a number of prescriptions and tolerances are laid down in the EEC directives and adopted in the national laws of the member

states. The aim of these regulations is that there will

be a system of control in every member state on which the

other members can rely.

If a member state has a control system completely in

accordance with the EEC directives then the other member

states are not allowed to object to the importation of

prepackages. This applies only to the contents of the

prepackages, of course. The question that arises is how

there can be built up a system such that all the member

states can rely upon it.

One could think of a way of inspection executed by

officials, using the same procedure in every member

state. But you can imagine that for a reasonable frequen

cy of such inspection an army of officials would be

needed. Moreover, it is not possible to use fixed,

prescribed procedures because inspection procedures often

depend on the packaging procedures and these in their

turn often depend on the properties of the products and

the properties of the packaging material. Accordingly, a method was chosen by which the packer is placed under the

obligation to carry out an inspection system in his own undertaking or factory.

This system has to be approved by the government of

the member it which the ttiett akitg is situated.

Part of this sx^tem is the obligation to record the result

of the checks taken during production. Next to that, the

officials visit the packers without prior notice and take

166
samples in accordance with a procedure of sampling and

calculating. This procedure is strictly prescribed in

the EEC directives and is the same in all member states.

I will explain this procedure to you later on. In the Netherlands, the assessment of the packers' own control system is done by the Services of Weights and

Measures. This service evaluates the way in which, and

the frequency with which, the samples are taken, the • number of samples and the statistical calculation of the

results

.

For example, it could be of great importance to the

packer that the performance of each individual filling

station of a multifilling machine is controlled and

recorded. Furthermore, the possibility to adjust the

whole packaging process in an easy and proper way so that

the prepackages are filled with the right quantity is

examined. All equipment used in the packer's internal

control system must be officially calibrated; and not

only calibrated, but, what is very important, also deemed

suitable for the job. This means that weighing machines

for example must not only be calibrated but they must

also have the right capacity and accuracy. Similar

requirements apply to all other kinds of equipment needed

for measuring volume and density, if the prepackaged

products are sold by volume and controlled by weighing.

Sometimes very special equipment is involved, such

as for measuring the density of aerosols in pressure

containers. This equipment is also calibrated. The

packer has to record the results of his own checks. The

way of recording is also evaluated by the Service of

Weights and Measures. The records must clearly show what

is found and if necessary, what is done to adjust the

packaging machines to turn out the required contents

within the given tolerances. The records must be preserved for at least one year and must be shown to the

officials who visit at irregular times to inspect the

whole procedure.

The whole of the evaluation of the packager's controlprocedures is carried out by the Service of Weights and

Measures. For these evaluations there are no strict

rules. The procedure is mainly based on the know-how of

the Inspectors of Weights and Measures in charge. However

in case of doubt they tend to communicate with colleagues

in one or more of the other member states to solve the

problems that have arisen. When an evaluation is com- pleted, the whole of the findings on the approved control

system is described in a report. This report is given to the packer and to the control authorities involved.

167
These authorities are not only the Inspectors of Weights

and Measures but also the Inspectors of the Food Control

Services

.

When these inspectors pay their visits at irregular

intervals to do their own checks, they check whether the

packer has not changed the control procedure laid down in

the report. If the packer wishes to change his own internal procedure, he has to ask the Service of Weights

and Measures for a re-evaluation. As I stated, the

checks made by the inspectors are strictly prescribed in

the EEC directives.

One might ask: why shouldn't a packer use the same control procedure as the inspectors use; then he can expect the least trouble. Well, the official procedure

is rather extensive. It is intended to give a good idea

of the situation of a batch of prepackages. This method

is not suitable for frequent sample taking nor for following the packaging process in an adequate way.

To prove that the prepackages are filled in accordance with EEC prescriptions, the packer, once evaluated

and his system approved, has the right to print the

letter e on the packages. This letter must have a special

form

When a packer prints this letter on his package

without authorization he is committing an offense. Next

to this letter e, on every package must be printed the

net contents and an identification of the packer.

The new EEC regulations are used only for prepackages

between 5 g and 10 kg or between 5 mL and 10 liters.

Now about tolerances. There are three conditions

to fulfill. First of all, the mean contents of the

prepackages must not be less than the declared nominal

contents. You see that here the principle of the minimum

quantity has been abandoned in favor of the mean quantity.

This has had important consequences.

Of course it is not possible for the inspector to

check a whole batch. So he takes one or more samples.

168
The sampling procedure is prescribed rather strictly as I will show you. No longer is the packer obliged to take care that every package is at least of the nominal weight.

Accordingly, the inspector always has to check a sample

out of a whole batch of prepackages to verify if the mean

contents is right.

In practice this means that it is no longer possible

to take prepackages from a store. Samples have to be

taken from the warehouses of the packers or even better,

directly from the packaging lines at the filling machines.

In doing so, it is really an advantage that there is no need to consider the effects of drying out of products.

For practical reasons the samples are nearly always taken

from the production of each filling line in a factory and

not from the production of the factory as a whole.

A second requirement is postulated for the individual

packages. The tolerances for the individual packages are given in the next table.

Nominal

Quantity

in g or mL

Tolerable

Negative Error

% of Qn

g or mL

5

- 50 9_

50 - 100 4.5

100 - 200 4.5

200 - 300 9 300 - 500 3 500 - 1000 15

, 1000 - 10000 1.5

The tolerance is only minus and depends on the

nominal quantity. It varies from 9 percent for the

smaller quantities to 1.5 percent for the larger quantities. The intervals where an absolute value is given are steps between the intervals with percentage tolerances.

In sampling, and in the following calculations, a confidence level of 2.5 percent is taken into account.

This means that a certain number of packages out of the

169

Mean Tare Admitted

< 0.25 F

t — max

/F > S > 0.25

/ max t \X

t

< 10% Q

n

o If the standard deviation of the tare

weight (S

t

) is smaller than or equal to \

of the minus tolerance (F ) on the

contents , the mean tare weight may be

used

.

o If the standard deviation is larger than \

of the minus tolerance on the contents but

smaller than that tolerance, and when at

the same time the mean tare weight of

the package (X ) is less than or equal to 1/10 of the net weight of the contents,

then also the mean tare weight may be

used.

In these two cases it is possible to test nondestruc

tively. That is to say that when samples are taken out

of storage, it is necessary to open at least ten packages

to determine the tare weight of the empty packages. In all other cases it is no longer possible to work with a mean tare weight.

Still, it is possible to test nondestructively

provided the samples are taken out of the production

line. Then a number of packages or containers at least

equal to the size of the sample are marked and weighed

first and then brought into the production line. At the

end of the line they can be picked up again and checked.

So every package can be corrected for its own individual

tare. It is wise to mark and weigh a few more packages

than the exact number of the sample since, in practice,

very often a few marked packages pass the check point

unseen.

If it is necessary to take the sample out of storage

the only possible procedure is to test in a destructive

way; all the prepackages have to be opened and the net

contents has to be determined individually.

For the nondestructive sampling procedure the follow

ing schedule is used.

171
Batch Size No. '•- Aggre Acc. Rej . gate

100 - 500 3

j 5 501 - 3200 1 50 2 5 Z 100 c

6 - 3201

n 80 — 8 Q

than 100 pieces a sample is

is controlled. Normally

. i - o. ia r d

1^

;ample, in a batch of 500 prepackages, the

sample is 30 packages. How first of all

f the individual prepackages is checked,

iple no more than one package is found, with

or between once and twice the tolerance,

.ccepted. If three or more packages are

tegative error of between one and two times

the batch is rejected. If two packages

. a negative error of between one and two

.ranee, another sample of 30 prepackages is

eccnd sa~ode is aided to one first. So

i total sample of 60 packages. If in the

.here are n:o n:re ohan four packages with a

• between one and two times the tolerance,

ccepted. But if there are now five or more

such a negative error the batch is rejected

die s anodes ode re is only cue package with a

* larger than twice the tolerance, the batch

rejected because such a package should

esorocoive oeso .ouso de

c a e

20 1 2

l"d
From batches equal to or larger than 100 packages

the sample should always be 20 packages. Now only one package with a negative error between one and two times

the tolerance is acceptable but when two or more of these

are found the batch is rejected.

Batches of less than 100 prepackages which should be

tested in the destructive way are not checked at all.

This case occurs very rarely.

Thus after every package in the sample has been

checked, the mean of the sample is calculated and also

the standard deviation with the well-known formulas.

Ix

n

* n-1

Or

if

2 - 2 Ix - n(x)

n-1

The mean is tested according to the following table

Sample Acceptance Rejection

Size Criterion Criterion

20 - 0.640 s - 0 640 s 30 - 0.503 s - 0 503 s 50 - 0.379 s - 0 379 s 60 x > Q - 0.344 s x < Q - 0 344 s - n n

80 - 0.296 s - 0 296 s 100 - 0.263 s - 0 263 s 160 - 0.204 s - 0 204 s

In these formulas Q is the nominal contents of the

prepackages and s is the standard deviation. Partly this

table is taken from the EEC directives and expanded in

the Dutch law and is based on Student's t-test with a 0.995 confidence level for the mean. Here also, as said

173
regarding the individual checks on the contents of the

packages, depending on whether the sample fulfills these

demands or not, the whole batch is approved or rejected.

If a batch is rejected the packer commits an offense and

the disapproved batch cannot be sold.

Especially when bottles are used as packaging material,

the dispersion in tare weight is usually so wide and

hence the standard deviation in the tare weight so large,

that the method of using the mean tare weight very often

is impossible to apply. This is regrettable, because it

is rather labor intensive to weigh and mark every bottle

of a sample before the filling procedure and then take

them out of the production line for weighing again afterwards. This is a lot of work not only for the inspectors,

but also for the packer in his own checking procedure.

So, for the control of prepackaged products in bottles

another system has been developed.

The basis of this system is that the bottles themselves can serve as measures for checking the contents.

Therefore the bottles must be produced in such a way that

they satisfy a number of specifications concerning their

shape and regularity. There is an EEC directive dealing

with these bottles. In the Netherlands this directive is

also brought into the national law. This means that the

Service of Weights and Measures controls by sampling the

production of such bottles on their specification.

Here, in the same way as with the control system on the prepackages, it is important that the producer has

his own evaluated control system. The bottles are marked

with a special EEC mark and an officially approved trade

mark. Also in the glass of the bottle there are some figures giving the nominal contents, the contents brimful

or the number of millimeters representing the distance

between the level of the liquid and the rim, if filled to

the nominal capacity. These bottles, which have a constant

form, may be used as a means of control, but only in

combination with a height measurement device.

174
TEMPLET

For : 0.625 L Vinegar ABC .Co Amsterdam

Such a device can be a templet. A templet is made

following the shape of a specific bottle and is only

usable for that specific bottle. These templets are designed by the Service of Weights and Measures, as a kind of type approval of a measuring instrument. Derived

from the design, as many templets as required by the user

are made to control his filling lines. All these templets

must be calibrated by the Service of Weights and Measures.

This calibration is the official verification that each

templet corresponds with the original design within given

tolerances

.

Usually the templets are made of stainless steel or

if a great number is required of plastic. Normally the

templet is placed over the bottle and over the closure

which is included in the design. In the design of the

templet all the uncertainties, as for example the possible

differences in thickness of the closure, are rounded off

to the advantage of the consumer. So when the bottles

are filled to the right level according to the templet

they are in fact slightly over-filled. This means that

when the inspectors arrive at a good result for the

175
samples, they can approve the batches sampled. But when

results are not good they cannot conclude that the batch

has to be rejected. In that case they have to carry out

a check using the weighing procedure to find the real

contents of each bottle before deciding whether the batch

is to be rejected or not. On the templet there are a number of lines of which

the most important are

o the line giving the nominal volume V

o the line giving the tolerance in minus T

o the line giving the double tolerance in minus

"^abs

' The rest of the lines are for determining the approximate contents of the bottle. In this way an average

contents of the bottles in a sample can be calculated.

This combination of bottle and matching templet provides

an easy way to check the filling of bottles in a quick

way. The templet is designed on the basis of measuring

one hundred bottles with an EEC mark. The mean shape of

these bottles is determined. So much about the regulations . Now I would like to show you some slides showing the

equipment we use. Experience has shown that in many

factories there is no suitable accommodation for inspectors to work in a proper way; even a really rigid table

may be missing. Therefore the inspector takes his own equipment with him. Figure 1 is a trolley which is

transported by a van. The trolley can be fixed horizontally on the floor so that the top of it forms a rigid

table for the weighing machine (fig. 2).

In the trolley are stowed away three electronic

weighing machines with a capacity of

o 1200 g with scale divisions of 0.01 g

o 8000 g with scale divisions of 0.1 g and

o 16 kg with scale division of 0.1 g (fig. 3).

Via interfaces these weighing machines are connected

to a calculator. The entire system is fully automatic

and controlled by the calculator. The inspector has only

to feed the calculator with the data asked for by the

calculator such as

o nominal quantity of the prepackages checked

o production per hour or size of the batch

o name of the packer

o product

o etc

.

176
Now a number of possibilities which may occur are programmed. For working with the mean tare of the packages,

the program flow is as follows: The calculator demands

the placing on the weighing machine of the gross weight

of the prepackages in standard weights. The error of the

weighing machine is taken into the memory of the calculator

and all the next weighings are corrected to the right

values. Now all the prepackages of the sample are placed

on the weighing scale one by one. The correct weight is

memorized, the given tare weight is subtracted and the

net weight is printed. After reaching the needed number

of packages the weighing machine is blocked automatically

by the calculator. Now the mean and the standard deviation are calculated and printed. Furthermore, the printer

gives the number of packages with a net weight between

the limits of one and two times the minus tolerance.

This number is compared with the memorized critical

numbers of the EEC tables. The printer tells whether the

batch is approved, rejected, or when a second sample has

to be taken.

When packages are found with a contents of less than

twice the tolerance the printer gives the number of them

and indicates also that the batch is rejected. In the same way the calculator prints out the mean and also the

decision as to acceptance or not. Finally, the printer

indicates when the packer should be fined.

All the data are put on tape and at the head office

of the Service of Weights and Measures read out and

stored in a computer. So we have a view of all the

inspections and their results.

In the trolley there are several instruments which

may be needed for inspection. To determine the density

of a liquid the so called "Gammaball" is often used.

This ball is fixed to a rod (fig. 4). When the ball is

immersed in a liquid up to a marking on the rod, a volume

of exactly 100 cm3 is displaced. So if the liquid is in

a glass or container placed on a weighing machine which

is tared to zero the force reacting to the buoyancy gives

a reading in grams on the display that is equal to the

density of the liquid in grams per 100 cm3. To determine the density of corrosive liquids it is

preferable not to use the gammaball but to use other

means, as for example glass pycnometers, measuring cylinders, and aerometers. Special instruments exist for

determining the density of aerosols and of pastes. A

special method is followed to find the density of a liquid with carbon dioxide in solution.

177
The trolley has a cable for connecting to a power

supply and holds several useful things such as boots, ear protectors, and tools. Inspection can thus be carried

out quickly and the possibility of the inspector making

mistakes is nearly nil.

This survey I have given you of the way in which we

in Holland control prepackaging can, of course, not be

complete. Nevertheless, I hope to have given you a general idea.

As I stated, at this moment we have only an optional

system which is meant in the first place to break down

trade barriers within the Common Market. However, I foresee for the near future that in Holland this system

will become the only system for all prepackaged products

because there is an increasing need for more consumer protection as regards delivered quantities. For the

years to come I also expect an increase in the cooperation between government and industry and not only in this

field of prepackaging. One can see this increase in

cooperation in Europe in many fields and I believe that

this is a very good thing.

Thank you for your attention.

178
Figure 2. Trolley top forms rigid table

178a

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

The following is a list of designated State representatives who were present

and voting on the reports presented by the Conference standing and annual committees : State Representative Alternate

1

.

AT ^ T_ / AT \ Alabama (AL; John B. Rabb Don Stagg

2. Alaska (AK) Joseph L. Swanson James E. Snyder

3

.

Arizona (AZ) P. M. Fullinwider D. L. Sorensen

4

.

Arkansas (AR) Sam F. Hindsman Ed Holiman

5

.

California (.LA; Ezio F. Delfino Darrell A. Guensler

6

.

Colorado (CO) Leo Letey

7

.

Connecticut (CT) John Bennett Guy J. Tommasi

8

.

Delaware (DE) Eugene Keeley

9

.

District of Columbia CDC; Absent

10. Florida (FL) Stan J. Darsey W. A. Cogburn, Jr.

1 1

.

Georgia (GA) Tom Kirby S. S. Abercrombie

12

.

Hawaii (HI) Absent

13

.

Idaho {LD) Lyman D. Holloway

iiiinois {LLj Sidney A. Colbrook Wayne W. Behrns

1 j . Indiana ^ in ; Robert W. Walker M. Morris Thompson

16

.

Iowa (.IAJ James M. O'Connor Robert E. Hollis

17

.

Kansas John L. O'Neill Harold Hedge

1 0 Kentucky (.Ki J Ron Egnew

19

.

Louisiana (LA) Philip A. Stagg James L. Mahomes

20

.

Maine (ME) Gay Ion M. Kennedy Marshall White

21

.

Maryland (MD) Richard L. Thompson Lacy H. DeGrange

22

.

Massachusetts (MA) Edward H. Stadolnik

23. Michigan (MI) Edward C. Heffron Frank Nagele

24

.

M ' ~ *- f YAW \ Minnesota (.MN ) Edward P. Skluzacek George W. MacDonald

25

.

Mississippi (MS) Absent

26 Missouri (MO) Bob Merrick Jack Pierce

27

.

Montana (nl

J

Absent

x y ^ "U ^- 1 r ( \TT? \ Nebraska {Nh) John Alloway Rick Loock

29

.

Nevada CNV; Absent

30 New Hampshire (.NHJ Walter J. Tusen

31

.

New Jersey (,NJ

)

James R. Bird Carl Conrad

32

.

New Mexico (NM) Charles H. Greene Fred A. Gerk

33 WllCW AW Ynrlf IOLlV (NY'l John J. Bartfai Kenneth R. Gridley

34. North Carolina (NC) N. David Smith Tom Scott

35. North Dakota (ND) Bruce Niebergall

36. Ohio (OH) Kenneth R. Adcock James C. Truex

37. Oklahoma (OK) Absent

38. Oregon (OR) Kendrick J. Simila James F. Clifford

39. Pennsylvania (PA) Fred A. Thomas

40. Puerto Rico (PR) Maria A. Maldonado Juan A. Rios

41. Rhode Island (RI) Absent

42. South Carolina (SC) Charles T. Smith Carol P. Fulmer

43. South Dakota (SD) Allen Christie

44. Tennessee (TN) John Shelton Robert G. Williams

45. Texas (TX) Charles E. Forester

46. Utah (UT) Edison Stephens Archie S. Hurst

47. Vermont (VT) Trafford F. Brink Douglas Jones, Sr.

48. Virginia (VA) James F. Lyles Marion W. Cain

49. Virgin Islands (VI) Absent

50. Washington (WA) John H. Lewis William C. Sullivan

51. West Virginia (WV) Vivian Kidd

52. Wisconsin (WI) Donald J. Soberg Robert Probst

53. Wyoming (WY) Absent

179
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL MEASUREMENT

POLICY AND COORDINATION

Presented by CHARLES H. VINCENT , Director,

Department of Consumer Affairs, City of Dallas, Texas

(Thursday, June 26, 1980)

VOTING KEY

100 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on National

Measurement Policy and Coordination

(P & C Committee) submits its final

report to the 65th National Conference

on Weights and Measures (NCWM) . 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.

101 NATIONAL METROLOGICAL CONTROL PROGRAM

FOR THE UNITED STATES

Social, economic, and technological changes that

have occurred during recent years suggest a need for the

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) to play an active and aggressive role in shaping the future

of weights and measures administration in the U.S. In response to the need, the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination considers it important to initiate consideration of issues that would be fundamental to the ultimate development of a National Metrological

Control Program for the United States.

It is felt that the development of a metrological con- trol program would benefit NCWM and its member jurisdictions

in a number of ways. One such potential benefit identified by the committee would be a clearer and more formalized determination of the optimum relationship between

NBS and NCWM in their joint pursuit of measurement equity.

Prior to further consideration of possible development

of a National Metrological Control Program, the committee

feels that the following conceptual issues should be

addressed

:

180
1) What degree of uniformity in weights and measures enforcement policies and practices in the U.S. can be

reasonably attained?

2) What should be the full scope of State and local

weights and measures programs?

3) Should the examination of weights and measures devices from type approval through periodic inservice

examination be a function of State and local jurisdictions exclusively?

4) Can an overall objective of a metrological control

program be established in quantitative terms?

5) To what extent is the federalization of weights

and measures regulation in the U.S. necessary or desirable?

6) What are the components of the present metrological

control process and how do they relate to each other?

7) What types and levels of NBS support of NCWM would

be optimal for assurance of measurement equity in

the U.S.?

8) Should NBS play an active leadership or passive

advisory role in U.S. weights and measures issues?

9) If quantitative national objectives for metrological

control can be established, how can priorities for use of public and private resources be determined

and utilized?

10) If a National Metrological Control Program is developed, would it be feasible to formalize the program

by law?

The committee encourages member jurisdictions to evaluate these issues and to submit their comments and

suggestions. The committee also recommends that a special

study group be appointed by the NCWM Chairman to consider

these and other issues that would be fundamental to the

ultimate development of a National Metrological Control

Program for the United States.

(Item 101 was adopted)

102 SPECIAL STUDY GROUP ON ENFORCEMENT UNIFORMITY

A fundamental objective of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures (NCWM) is to encourage and promote

181
uniformity of requirements and practices among jurisdictions. Though the NCWM has achieved a relatively high

degree of uniformity in codes and regulations that are utilized in the enforcement of measurement standards by

the States, counties, cities, and territories, it must be

recognized that the enforcement practices employed by the

jurisdictions significantly affect the actual level of

uniformity achieved in any particular program area. The

lack of uniformity can be a serious deterrent to the

effectiveness and continuation of State and local weights

and measures programs.

A special study group has been appointed by the

Conference chairman to study enforcement policies and

practices utilized in package net contents control by

NCWM member jurisdictions. This study group, consisting

of four weights and measures officials and four associate

members who represent industry, is an initial step in

seeking background information on the existing enforcement

practices being used in the United States. For this

purpose a brief questionnaire was prepared and distributed to the States and several other jurisdictions to determine the current policies and practices being used

in package control programs.

The following is a summary of the plans developed

by the study group at the interim committee meetings:

A. Goal : To achieve a high degree of uniformity in enforcement policies and practices.

B. Scope : The issues of uniformity will be initially limited

to the enforcement practices of packaged commodities.

The issues can be expanded at a later date to include

other areas where weights and measures enforcement is

concerned but only after the issue of uniform package

control has been essentially completed.

C . Obj ectives :

1. To identify the net content enforcement practices

of the States and principal jurisdictions.

2. To identify the degree of consistency or uniformity

in the enforcement practices among these jurisdictions .

182
3. To recommend to the National Conference on Weights

and Measures through the National Measurement Policy

and Coordination Committee ways and means of increasing

the degree of uniformity among the various jurisdictions.

D . Approach : Send out a questionnaire to collect information for

jurisdictions on their enforcement policies and practices . MEMBERS OF SPECIAL STUDY GROUP:

Kendrick Simila

Chip Kloos

James Bird

Charles Greene

Richard Thompson

Gary Hagopian

Austin Rhoads

Edward Wolski

Oregon

Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. -Co-chairman,-Co-chairman,

-New Jersey

-New Mexico

-Maryland

-Procter and Gamble Company

-Milk Industry Foundation

-Colgate-Palmolive

LIST OF JURISDICTIONS RECEIVING QUESTIONNAIRE:

Fifty State weights and measures offices (plus D.C.,

Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)

Akron, OH

Baltimore, MD

Birmingham, AL

Chicago, IL Dallas, TX

Indianapolis, IN

Kansas City, KS

Los Angeles , CA

Miami, FL

Minneapolis, MN

New York, NY

Omaha , NE

Philadelphia, PA

Seattle, WA

St. Louis, MO

During the Conference, Mr. Simila and Mr. Kloos

presented a report on the progress of the Study Group.

Preliminary results follow:

RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE:

Responses to the Enforcement Policy and Practice

Questionaire were received prior to the 65th NCWM from 94

percent (50 of the 53) of the State-level jurisdictions

and 60 percent (9 of 15) of the principal local jurisdictions contacted. Overall response was 87 percent (59

of 68).

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:

Although there is a reasonably high degree of

uniformity with regard to established package compliance

standards, there is a significant amount of variability

183
in how these standards are interpreted and implemented.

By standards we mean official net contents compliance

requirements and not physical test standards.

The initial survey results indicate that approximately 83 percent of the respondents utilized the

standards contained in the National Bureau of Standards

Handbook 67 for checking standard package items. Over

70 percent of those responding indicated that official

legal recognition has been given to these standards

through legislative acts or administrative rule.

The average portion of all weights and measures

activities devoted to net content enforcement of standard

packages was shown to be approximately 6 percent. We

recognize that this is a rough estimate and that the

range may vary widely from less than 1 percent to over

40 percent among the various jurisdictions.

The criteria used in testing for net content com- pliance usually included both the sample average and

unreasonable individual errors (80 percent of the

respondents), but some jurisdictions indicated that

they base their decision on the sample average only

(8 percent) or the number of individual errors only

(2 percent) , while some indicated that other bases for

decisions are used (10 percent). Although the vast

majority utilize both criteria for compliance, only

34 percent indicated they would fail a lot if the number

of unreasonable errors was excessive and only 59 percent

indicated they would fail a lot if the sample average fell

below the declared label contents. These results indicate

that the lack of uniformity is greatest in the interpretation and application of the standards and not in the

standards themselves.

In terms of the frequency of enforcement options

utilized, the results indicated that marking products

off-sale was most frequently used, followed by issuing a warning, assurance of compliance plea, criminal prosecution, administrative hearings, injunctions, civil

penalties, and other (unspecified) options in descending

order. Before legal action is taken, 86 percent of those

responding indicated that they would take a second inspection sample to confirm their findings.

Again as stated above, uniform standards would be

helpful in insuring uniform compliance practices, but it

will not guarantee such practices. Attention must be

focused on training of officials and their understanding

of these standards. Further recognition must be given to

184
the political pressures of the job, attitude of the

officials, and other factors affecting motivation before

any real uniformity in practice can be achieved.

FINAL REPORT PREPARATION:

The Special Study Group intends to present its

final report to the P & C Committee in ample time for

consideration at the next interim committee meetings on January 18-23, 1981.

Efforts will be made after this Conference to obtain

responses to the questionnaire from the nine jurisdictions that did not send in replies as of June 19-80. In the coming weeks, the Study Group will further

analyze the data from the questionnaires to identify

specifically what enforcement policies and practices

contribute most to problems of uniformity and consistency

in package net contents control. From this analysis,

the group intends to develop its recommendations to

the P & C Committee for ways and means of increasing

the degree of uniformity among the various jurisdictions.

FURTHER ACTIVITY

The Study Group on Enforcement Uniformity has

been approached concerning the possibility of expanding

its study activity to cover other areas of weights and measures enforcement. Specifically the Study Group

will be exploring the feasibility of becoming involved

in further consideration of the issue of a national

metrological control program for the United States

and in participating in or assisting with the NBSsponsored study of the Bureau's programs of assistance

to State and local weights and measures authorities.

(Item 102 was adopted)

103 TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL TYPE APPROVAL

The Task Force met during the interim meetings

and a number of points relating to the general subject

of national type approval were discussed. The following

is a summary of these matters at that time.

A progress report was made on the pilot program

that is underway between the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and the California Division of Measurement

Standards. These two organizations have entered into an agreement to accept the results of each other's

185
prototype examinations of electronic scales and cash

registers. As of January 1, 1980, California has

been charging industry directly for type approval

examinations and the MBS Office of Weights and Measures

(0V>1) had issued one report, one was waiting for review,

and two were in progress under the NBS-California agreement.

OWM is surveying the States to identify those jurisdictions

that have the ability and desire to perform endurance

testing for certain types of scales. There was a strong consensus that other jurisdictions that are willing to do

endurance testing should be found as soon as possible.

California and OWM have been developing check lists

for endurance testing. Several questions were raised

regarding "grandfathering in" devices that had received

some type of examination in the past few years. Both

OWM and California indicated that those particular

cases would have to be examined on a case by case basis

and that there could be no "blanket" grandfathering.

Mr. Ben Banks, representing the USDA Federal Grain

Inspection Service (FGIS) , was present at the interim

meetings. It was reported that FGIS and OWM have met

and discussed jurisdictional concerns among various

agencies regarding type approval. There is a possibility that FGIS will concentrate on approval of

grain hopper and railroad scales while relying on XBS and weights and measures jurisdictions for

approval of other type scales.

Mr. Ezio Delfino, Task Force Chairman, reported that

the State of California is willing to accept the type

approval results of other jurisdictions, including FGIS,

only if there are well defined, written, and agreed upon

procedures to follow and OWM can give assurances that

those procedures will or have been followed. This applies

to initial verification as well as endurance testing.

Mr. Al Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures,

indicated that OWM will continue a commitment of one person to coordinate the national type approval effort.

The task force consensus was that the first priority

should be to attempt to utilize existing resources nationwide to carry on national type approval rather

than encourage individual jurisdictions to build up

their present capabilities.

Concern was expressed by several task force members

representing industry that some jurisdictions might

begin charging for type approval as a means of gaining

income, and yet give the subject of reciprocity a low

priority. The Task Force members agreed that there

should be a well understood policy for all jurisdictions

186
that the goal of any type approval program should be one of working toward full reciprocity where each participating jurisdiction accepts the other's work. Any jurisdiction considering charging fees for type approval examination should first be committee to the reciprocity of

type approval examination.

The Task Force wishes to commend the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) on its excellent paper titled,

"A Legal Metrology Control System Applicable to the U.S.,"

which contained a detailed documentation of the existing

system of manufacture, testing, installation, modification,

subsequent testing, and problem areas that are applicable in the commercial measurement system. The Task

Force believes the SMA paper along with an earlier proposal for a National Type Approval Program prepared by

Ken Simila, State of Oregon, will be very helpful in the

development of an overall type approval system.

Task Force members discussed how a national type

approval program might be structured on a long range basis.

After considerable discussion, the consensus appeared to be that the program should continue to develop and progress

on a step by step basis with strong coordination by OWM.

The relatively short term goal is to encompass as maiiy

devices and jurisdictions as possible into the system and

implement any organizational changes as the need arises.

More discussion of specific task assignments is needed

so detailed comments are requested from Conference members.

The role of private laboratories is to be explored once

the performance tests and procedures are agreed upon for

specific devices.

The Task Force was called upon to discuss ways in

which it felt the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) would strengthen and support NCWM type approval

activities. It was suggested that one possible interaction in this area could be the development of criteria

and test methods for type approval examinations. Generally, the Task Force members expressed concern that the

involvement of ASTM could slow down Task Force activities

by involving an unnecessary number of people and organizations. The Task Force believes that ASTM involvement

should be carefully studied and will begin by examining

pertinent existing ASTM standards to determine if they

may be useful to type approval. Although direct ASTM

involvement in type approval criteria is not anticipated

at this time, the Task Force will consider asking for

ASTM assistance on a case by case basis when it feels

greater resources and input are needed, and when the

issues go beyond the capability of the Conference members.

187
During the committee's open hearing at the Conference

Mr. Delfino reported that because of scheduling difficulties

the task force would not be able to meet prior to the P & C Committee meeting but would meet later during the Conference

The following is an update on task force activities since

the interim meeting:

1) Four devices have NBS/California approval.

2) Two devices have California approval; test results

have been forwarded to NBS.

3) Seven devices are currently under consideration for

approval by NBS and California.

4) Checklists have been agreed upon and are being used

for electronic digital scales and electronic cash

registers

.

5) Draft prototype test procedures for vehicle scales,

platform scales, and commuting scales have been sent

to California for comment by NBS.

6) California has sent to NBS for comment a draft test

procedure for bulk weighing systems and automated

batch controller and electronic hopper scales.

7) Checklists are being developed for heavy capacity

scales

.

8) Checklists are in progress for compressed gases,

liquid measuring devices, taximeters, and odometers.

(Item 103 was adopted)

104 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY

Since the 1979 National Conference on Weights and

Measures, the International Organization of Legal Metrology

(OIML) has been busy preparing for its 6th International

Conference which was hosted by the United States, June 16-20

1980, at the Department of State in Washington. The OIML

International Conferences are held every four years and

are very formal meetings. One main item of business

during the Conference is the adoption of a quadrennial

budget (1981-1984) for the operation of the International

Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) . Additionally, the

Conference votes on the acceptance of proposed International Recommendations (technical standards) for

188
various types of measuring instruments. Such recom- mendations are the products of the 200 or so technical

committees within OIML that are studying a wide variety

of measuring instruments and methods. Further, the

Conference sets policy for OIML in areas relating to international operations; relations with other international organizations; and the adoption of new work

programs

.

The dates of the OIML Conference were chosen to just

precede the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(June 22-27) in hopes that there would be a free exchange

of national and international visitors to both meetings.

Harold Wollin, Executive Secretary of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, and Dave Edgerly,

U.S. Program Manager for OIML, cooperated in planning

arrangements for both meetings. Mr. Charles Vincent,

NCWM Chairman, participated as an official member of the

U.S. Delegation to the OIML conference. Several foreign

officials presented papers on the legal metrology programs

in their country. During the National Conference,

Mr. Edgerly reported on the OIML Conference and reviewed

actions that were taken on International Recommendations.

The level of technical activity in OIML during 1979 was very high. Some 40 draft International Recommendations

were received by the United States for review and comment.

Subject areas of interest to the weights and measures community included: fluid metering systems (water and

petroleum); gas pipeline measuring systems; check-weighing

and belt-conveyor scales; grain moisture, and load cells.

Additionally, the United States participated in eleven

OIML technical level meetings. Included in the meetings

was the first international meeting of Reporting Secretariat

PS7/RS8 dealing with load cells, a Secretariat chaired by

the United States. Members of the National Conference

participated in the U.S. Delegations to three of the

eleven international meetings. Of further significance

to the NCWM since its last meeting has been the creation

of a new OIML Secretariat on "Electronics Associated with

Weighing Devices," also under Chairmanship of the United

States. This new Secretariat is drafting an International

Recommendation dealing with performance requirements for

weighing systems equipped with electronic components.

The relevance of OIML activities to activities of

the National Conference on Weights and Measures remains

strong and will, no doubt, increase over time. In this

regard, the NCWM will need to continue its interest in

the work of OIML and should consider appropriate means

189
for a H-n fT- - r greater .:~ ~ ~ : .m " '7' *r:vrf: V i , "wj

;

:f : tiremertts

(Item 104 was adopted.)

105 >:v" ASTt ::o?±?atic»}v A iLfr;::: :r t:p- level :f facials :f the :•' Jr. and lis

American Society f;r lasting and ffiatewials (ASBi) was

held on Ivcvember 19. l-"f -z k£ T~ :f-:^.-::f:i m 1 nt 1 2

- delphia, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called in respons

to an invitation ry Mr . Villi am 7. lavat 2 _ at. AiTrl hatigt.

Director, during 225 2:2225= 2: 222 :-2i 2222-2! meet2hg

:f tie ivlvY in 1?~S 22 Portland, .'regit Tre rtrtise if

the mee-iug vos t: erg lire 2 number :f §t2itg on within ASTM of interest no the weights and measures

community and to discuss how both SCHf and ASHfl night

benefit from the participation of State and local weights

2222 Ee22_re5 :2221221s :r sele2t AS'Trl te r-' ttal 2:>ttitt" t- tees.

A thorough review of the aims and. objectives of the

two orgam' za tt ins vas rrivtded during the meeting 22:

2 re r entations of ASI33 and JClVrl ry ret resettattves 12" 22:2

group. The r 1 ll:.W22g 25 2 summary :t some :r 222 inflrmation and viewpoints that were ex otitge

1) ASTM V2 2 chartered in 1898- It presently has a

permatett 52122 if 2222: xm.2 telv 2 v ; 2. _t : 2 e i erne 1 2 ye

and it operates on an $11 million budget which is

generate: from the 52le :f ouTh standards 12: ::m

members hit fee 5 1 There 222 lit 2222222202! rcamLi trees 222 1£-X sui com- mittees in emsteire an ASTrl . Af'Tn 225 arret till

published standards 222 25 r r: dtrthg some 151 rev 5i2ui2rds :n an annual :222s.

3) ASTM provides a standards process fcrininistrative,

legal, and other functions related to piodnction ©£

standards), bsnt its staff does not provide technical

input 2: standards being developed.

4) £SHI does not charge for its services in developing

standards. If pet2ti:ned alSTr! t: assnst nn

developing 522222225 f:r tne weights ati measures CQMHuj ~y mere v:ald be no direct costs to WDQNL

5 \ ASTM has mintes 0222221:22 2:2 255252:2:2 2: s ome £2222 and 1: 22 1 giverroment .2 22:2215 22222:2222222

22 .-or If 2 ommittees . 1: -zeis :f :: ::f :::::2 222
identified between ASTM/NCWM, financial assistance

in the form of travel expenses and per diem for NCWM

delegates to ASTM committees may be possible. There

are some 1300-1400 State and local officials now involved in ASTM committees and subcommittees (not

all of whom receive financial assistance from ASTM.)

6) The ASTM "process" which is predicated on openness,

due process, and balanced representation of interests

offers the possibility of standard practices and

test methods for weighing and measuring devices that

could complement NCWM outputs like NBS Handbook 44,

"Specifications and Tolerances for Commercial Weighing

and Measuring Devices." The existence and use of

such ASTM standards should in no way diminish the

role of NCWM.

7) There is high interest within NCWM in the development

of a National Type Approval Program that will permit

uniform type approval tests within those jurisdictions

having such a program. A necessary ingredient to the program is standard test methods for type approval

of a wide range of commercial weighing and measuring

instruments. ASTM might be helpful in developing

standard criteria and methods of test for type

approval of devices.

8) ASTM might be of service to NCWM through the conduct

of workshops in cooperation with NCWM/NBS in subject

areas of interest to the weights and measures community

(e.g., octane testing, statistics, laboratory accreditation, laboratory automation.)

9) Cooperation with ASTM in developing standards useful

to NCWM will require private sector support and

plans should be made to bring industry viewpoints

into any future discussion with ASTM.

10) The move to increase ASTM/NCWM interaction should

proceed slowly with the areas of cooperation chosen

very carefully.

During the interim meetings of Conference committees

at NBS, Mr. Hank Stremba, Deputy Managing Director, and

Mr. Sam Etris, Special Assistant to the Managing Director

of ASTM, attended several of the committee sessions and

discussed some of the above points in a joint session of

all committees. The committee greatly appreciates the

interest and cooperation of ASTM management toward NCWM

and it will continue to explore means by which our two

organizations can be of benefit to each others' objectives . 191
At the committee's open hearing the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) expressed its opposition to

the NCWM becoming involved in the ASTM process and stated

that the NCWM should continue as a model regulator and

not give up its type approval role to ASTM. The following

rationale was presented by SMA:

1) The proposal would have a major impact on SMA's

ability to support the ASTM process concurrent with

its present technical obligations to the NCWM and

other weights and measures related technical activities . 2) The consensus vs. regulatory process is an important

issue with respect to ASTM involvement in the National

Conference. The NCWM should fully consider these

implications with respect to its prerogatives under

the NCWM charter and by laws.

(Item 105 was adopted)

106 REPORT ON THE UNITED STATES METRIC BOARD

The Committee was pleased to have Mr. Sydney D. Andrews, Director, Division of Standards, State of Florida,

and NCWM Representative on the United States Metric

Board, attend the committee's interim meeting sessions

and provide valuable input on metric matters. A summary

of his report on the plans and progress of the U.S.

Metric Board is given in the following paragraphs.

Since the last report given to the National Conference

on Weights and Measures during the meeting in Portland in

July 1979, the U.S. Metric Board has continued to hold

meetings around the country - San Francisco in August,

Detroit in October, and Orlando, Florida in December.

The format continues to allow at least one half-day for an open forum with the public invited to present their

views to the Board. Attendance has been quite good at

these sessions, with some very spirited comments. The

pros and cons have been pretty well balanced. The bimonthly meetings for 1980 were scheduled for Phoenix, St.

Louis, Seattle, Minneapolis, Columbus, and New Orleans.

Special meetings on topical issues, such as the motor

fuel dispenser forum last year, will be held as circumstances indicate need, and if funds are available.

The Board is still having difficulty finding a smooth operating mode, and because of the diversity of

its membership it may never achieve this . An inordinate

amount of time is spent on procedural matters, rather

192
than substance. However, with additional support from

the staff up to full strength, continuity has improved.

Committees are beginning to function, and projects are beginning to emerge. The program for coordinating State

metric activities got underway in 1979.

Dr. Frank Hartman, who represents State and local

governments on the Board, is in charge of this, and I have been asked to assist him. Five regional meetings were held around the country with each State invited to send a representative. Attendance was quite good with

only eleven States not sending a representative. Reports

from these representatives indicated metric activity in

the various States varying from well organized programs

to no interest at all - even apparent opposition in some. An annual meeting of State representatives is planned by

the Board in the Fall of 1980 at some central location in

the country to which all States will be invited to send a representative. The Board hopes to be able to provide

some funds for this meeting to assist in travel expenses.

At the August 1979 meeting in San Francisco the

Board passed a resolution stating its interpretation of

the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, the interpretation

being that the Board should be completely neutral, and

should in no way promote, or facilitate metric conversion.

I opposed the motion on the grounds that I do interpret

the Act to intend for the Board to facilitate voluntary

metrication. The motion carried thirteen to two. Following its public forum last year on the feasibility

of converting retail motor fuel dispensers to a metric

mode, the Board has continued to monitor progress in this

endeavor and is working with interested groups, including

the NCWM. Stephen Vastagh, of the U.S. Metric Board

staff, has been assigned as Project Manager for this

program. The American National Metric Council's Petroleum and Natural Gas Sector Committee formed a Task Force

to develop a recommended plan for making this conversion.

A draft of the plan has been completed and the U.S.

Metric Board is helping ANMC publicize it for comment.

The contract with Middlesex Research Corporation to

make a sample searching of Federal, State, and local laws

and regulations has been completed. Their conclusion was that there are no legal barriers, per se, only perceived

barriers, and legal deterrents and nuisances. On the

basis of this the Board has reported to the President and

Congress that no new mechanism is needed to change laws or regulations to allow voluntary metrication at this

193
time, but that all needed changes could be made by using

existing methods. A copy of this report, which is entitled

"Providing a Metric Option/1 has been sent to each State

Weights and Measures Director.

The first annual report of the Board to the President

and Congress was scheduled for completion on March 1,

1980. I requested that a copy of this report be sent to

all weights and measures officials.

Activities within the Federal government are responding

to the considerable expansion of metric usage in the

private sector. This activity is being guided by policies

developed within the Interagency Committee on Metric

Policy which is made up of high ranking officials of the

major Federal agencies and chaired by Dr. Louis Polk,

Chairman of the United States Metric Board. This committee has developed a metric policy statement which has

been adopted by twenty-seven agencies. The policy states

that "Federal agencies shall encourage and support an environment which facilitates metrication."

The IISMB is developing, with other Federal agencies

(Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Commerce, et alia) antitrust guidelines. The

spector of antitrust violations continues to be a concern

to sectors engaged in coordinated metric planning. The

Board cannot offer protection from anticompetitive practices

and should not, but cooperative metric planning is essential

and means must be provided for doing this without violating

antitrust laws.

In response to the NCWM resolution regarding possible

amendments to the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act, which was directed to the USMB, the Board's General

Counsel has established an interagency committee on FPLA

which is made up of representatives from those Federal

agencies that have responsibility for implementing this

act. They will work toward developing necessary amendments

for voluntary metric usage as well as exemptions, rules,

and regulations to help this cause. In response to another resolution directed to the Board

they defeated a motion to reconsider their decision to use "er" spelling for the words metre and litre.

The Board's Private Sector Committee has developed

planning guidelines which have been published in the Federal

Register, and a period of one year will be allowed for

comments. Meanwhile, the Committee is working to develop

in-house review procedures

.
The Uniform Metric System Act, which is a model

State metric implementation act, is under consideration

by the Board. It probably will be given further study by

our new State Program Committee, but the Board has such

limited staff to fully review such documents that it may

be some time before final action is taken. The committee

received a suggestion that thorough study be given to the

Uniform Metric System Act by NCWM as well. The committee

intends to follow through on this suggestion and recommend

that members of NCWM obtain copies of the Act from the

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State

Laws, 645 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 510, Chicago, Illinois

60611.

The Standards Liaison Committee continues to work

with all standards developing organizations. It is also

working on a project guideline for giving better direction

to the Committee's activities. The Research Committee is

conducting a survey of the top one thousand businesses in

the country to determine the extent, and cost of their

metric conversion. The Public Awareness and Education

Committee continues to sponsor eductional and informational programs, media appearances, and speaking engagements of USMB members and staff.

A Speakers Directory is being organized by the Board

for the purpose of identifying people who qualify, and

have volunteered their services to present programs on metrication. Due to budget limitations no financial

assistance can be offered these volunteers, but the Board

will serve as a clearinghouse.

The Board received $1,575,000 for all its activities

in fiscal year 1979, and had twenty-five full-time employe

For fiscal year 1980 Congress has authorized a budget of

$2,474,000 and a staff of thirty-six permanent and twelve

temporary employees. Regretfully, the Board was not

authorized the 1.2 million which was requested for grant

programs to assist State and local governments in metric

planning, as well as other deserving metrication activities . (Item 106 was adopted)

107 NCWM POLICY ON METRIC CONVERSION

OF RETAIL MOTOR-FUEL DEVICES (GAS PUMPS)

The Committee on National Measurement Policy and

Coordination has been tracking the progress being made

throughout the nation concerning the changeover from

gallon measurement to the sale of gasoline by the liter.

195
Because of the importance of this issue and the timeli- ness of the policy that was adopted by the NCWM in 1979,

the committee wishes to reiterate the guidelines as set

forth in the policy for the benefit of those who may not

be aware of them. In doing so, the committee is hopeful

that those State and local jurisdictions that have not

developed and issued a plan (or regulation) and timetable

for full gallon measurement and computation (instead of

half-gallon and half-pricing practices) , or conversion to

liter measurement and computation, will take such action

in the immediate future. As the U.S. Metric Board stated

in 1979, this is an opportune time for the development of

a planned and coordinated voluntary program of dispensing

gasoline by the liter; the Board noted that without this

action, metric usage is likely to proceed in a haphazard

fashion, leading to public confusion, disparate end

results, and the negation of the positive cost advantages

that a nationally planned and coordinated program offers

.

STATEMENT OF CONFERENCE POLICY

The National Conference on Weights and Measures as assembled during its 64th annual meeting in Portland,

Oregon, on July 22-27, 1979, adopted as its policy the

recommendation that each State, county, and city in the

United States implement a three-phase general plan and

timetable for the eventual metric conversion of all

retail motor-fuel devices. In establishing this plan and

timetable, it is recognized that the conversion time

within any jurisdiction will be dependent upon such

factors as: local area price increases, existing device

computing capabilities, replacement parts availability,

and availability of "pump" repair or service personnel.

It is recommended that each jurisdiction:

PHASE I - UP TO JANUARY 1, 1982

o Allow gallon measurement and price computation per

gallon.

o Allow liter measurement and price computation per

liter.

o Allow "half-pricing per gallon" wherever devices are not capable of computing in whole gallons and total

dollars. In each jurisdiction the duration of

half-pricing should be held to a minimum period

determined by economic and other factors in that

jurisdiction.

196
o Require each establishment to use exclusively only

one of the measurement methods of sale (gallon,

liter, or "half-pricing.") A change from one method

to another must be carried out for all devices

dispensing motor fuels in the establishment.

o Require all roadside signs and similar advertisements

of motor fuel offered for retail sale to be by the

price per gallon or price per liter.

o Require in the case of liter sales suitable posting

of per gallon and per liter prices at the device,

service island, and premises of the establishment in

accordance with State and local laws, regulations,

and ordinances, and in a manner which facilitates consumer comparisons between the per gallon price

and the per liter price.

PHASE II - FROM JANUARY 1, 1982 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1982

o Allow gallon measurement and price computation per

gallon.

o Allow liter measurement and price computation per

liter.

o Discontinue "half-pricing per gallon" methods still

in use effective January 1, 1982.

o All other requirements remain unchanged.

PHASE III - ON JANUARY 1, 1983 AND THEREAFTER

o Encourage only liter measurement and price computation per liter.

FURTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

In adopting this policy, The National Conference on Weights and Measures recognizes:

o That the U.S. Metric Board is the logical entity to act as the focal point for the coordination and

planning of all necessary details for the orderly

and efficient transition to liter measurement in the

sale of motor fuels at retail, and

o The advice and assistance of the American National

Metric Council, the American Petroleum Institute,

the North American Gasoline Tax Conference, State

Metric Councils and/or Boards, and such other

197
organizations as may be interested in participating

in the effort are essential in addition to that of

the National Conference on Weights and Measures, and

o That comprehensive and appealing public education

programs must be conducted by both government and

industry to fully familiarize the public with the

changeover to metric measurement in motor fuel

dispensing

.

(Item 107 was adopted)

108 THE COMPUTATION AND POSTING OF PRICES OF MOTOR FUELS

SOLD BY THE GALLON OR THE LITER AT RETAIL OUTLETS

At the 64th annual meeting in July 1979 in Portland,

Oregon, the National Conference on Weights and Measures

adopted a policy which recommended that each State and

local jurisdiction implement a uniform three-phase plan

and timetable for the sale of motor fuels by the gallon

or liter. The policy provided a solution to the problem

of price computation by retail motor-fuel devices that

did not have the capability to compute on the basis of

unit prices in excess of $0,999.

The policy recognized the urgent need to allow

"half -pricing" as an expedient, short-term method of

sale. However, since metric conversion of retail motorfuel devices was recognized by authorities in both

government and industry as being economically feasible

and cost-beneficial to the nation overall, the NCWM

policy recommended conversion to liter pricing for the

long term.

During the past year, significant progress has been

made in many areas throughout the United States on the

voluntary conversion to the metric system of measurement

in the sale of gasoline. Most State and local jurisdictions

have established requirements based upon NCWM recommendations for the elimination of half -pricing , or other

interim measures, and have set timetables for either

whole gallon or liter measurement and price computation.

The several methods of sale and advertising practices

that exist today have led to confusion and to a lack of

uniformity of requirements among the States. There is a need to establish additional recommendations to guide

State and local jurisdictions and the petroleum industry

for the computation and posting (advertising) of prices

of motor fuels sold at retail.

198
The sale and purchase of motor fuel by the liter

will be one of the first major exposures consumers will

have to metric measurement in the marketplace. How well consumers accept the conversion program will depend on their understanding of the change and the information

that is made available to them that enables value com- parisons among alternative products, comparison of miles

per liter with miles per gallon, and comparison of prices

per liter and per gallon.

The Conference had an opportunity to review a discussion paper that recommended guidelines pertaining to the computation and posting of prices of motor fuels and

which included information on:

1) Street signs

2) Posting of prices at the dispenser

3) Metric equivalent values and conversion factors

4) Conversion tables

5) Quantity and price display on dispensers

6) Dispenser Modification kits

The guidelines were discussed during the hearing by

the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S & T)

.

The S & T Committee recommended to this committee that

due to the short time available for adequate review and

development of a Conference position on the recommended

guidelines, the paper be held over for further consideration by all interested parties in the months ahead and

be placed on the P & C Committee's agenda for the interim

meetings in January 1981. The S & T Committee further

recommended that OWM/NBS give consideration to distributing appropriate guidelines on this subject based on the

comments and suggestions that were made during the

Conference, and for the purpose of receiving input for

study and use during the interim meetings. The P & C Committee agrees with the recommendations of the Committee

on Specifications and Tolerances and will plan to carry

this item on its agenda for 1980-81.

The committee also wishes to gratefully acknowledge

the letter it received from Mrs. Esther Peterson, Special

Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, who

expressed great concern with the growing consumer confusion regarding the posting of prices at retail motor-fuel

199
outlets. She called upon the NCWM to give priority

consideration to the formulation and adoption of guidelines for a uniform method of advertising and posting of

prices. She stressed that any guidelines adopted should

reflect the recommendations set forth in the position

paper Factoring The Consumer Into Motor Fuel Dispenser

Conversion Programs prepared by the Consumer Liaison

Committee of the American National Metric Council and

endorsed by the Council on March 26, 1980. There was extensive consumer input into those recommendations, and

she indicated her high regard for them to the American

National Metric Council.

(A motion to amend was made and

adopted to refer this subject matter

to the Committee on Laws and Regulations for future consideration. Item

108 was adopted as amended.)

C. H. Vincent, Dallas, Texas, Chairman, NCWM

D. I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri, Chairman, L & R

Committee

D. A. Guensler, California, Chairman, S & T Committee

S. J. Darsey, Florida, Interim Chairman, Education

Committee

C. H. Greene, New Mexico, Chairman, Liaison Committee

H. F. Wollin, NBS, Executive Secretary, NCWM

COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL MEASUREMENT

POLICY AND COORDINATION

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of

Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination

voting key items 100 through 108 was adopted in its

entirety by the Conference. The results of the voting in

the House of State Representatives and the House of

Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows. The Conference also

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.)

200
VOTING RESULTS -Committee on National Measurement Policy

and Coordination

Voting Key

House of State

Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

100 41 0 58 0 101 41 0 48 0 102 41 0 52 0 103 40 0 54 1 104 41 0 55 0 105 42 0 47 0 106 42 0 55 0 107 39 2 53 1 108A 32 8 52 6 108 40 2 54 1 A=Amendment

201
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Presented by DANIEL I. OFFNER, Commissioner,

Officer of Weights and Measures, Department of

Public Safety, St. Louis, Missouri

(Thursday, June 26, 1980)

VOTING KEY

200 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Laws and

Regulations submits its report to the 65th National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report

consists of the tentative report as offered in the Conference Announcement and as amended by this final

report.

The report represents recommendations of the committee that have

been formed on the basis of written and oral comments

received during the year and oral presentations made

during the open meeting of the committee. Unless

otherwise specified, all recommended amendments are to appropriate provisions of the Model Laws and Regulations

as compiled in NBS Handbook 130, 1979 Edition.

201 MODEL STATE "WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

201-1 ADOPTION BY CITATION

Adoption by citation has been a feature of the

process by which Handbook 44 has achieved wide acceptance.

The Committee is of the view that a similar mechanism

should be available for other models developed by the

Conference. With the development of Handbook 130, it is now possible to provide a similar mechanism. Accordingly,

the Committee recommends the addition of the following

Section to the Model State Weights and Measures Law and

the renumbering of subsequent sections:

Section 5. Technical Requirements for Commodities

The methods of test, inspection procedures, moisture

determinations, measurement system changes, units, terms

and other requirements for the packaging, labeling,

method of sale, unit pricing, and open dating of com- modities, as adopted by the National Conference on Weights

202
and Measures and published in the National Bureau of

Standards Handbook 130, and supplements thereto or revisions thereof, shall apply to all commodities kept,

offered, or exposed for sale in this State except insofar

as specifically modified, amended, or rejected by regulation.

(Motion to table item 201 passed. Following

adoption of report, motion to remove this item from

table for consideration next year was passed.)

202 MODEL STATE PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

The Committee has been made aware of the need to correct some oversights and modify some sections of the

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation, particularly as they relate to metric labeling. The cor- rections and modifications are necessary to bring the

Model into harmony with appropriate Federal statutes

(Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and Metric Conversion

Act of 1975). Accordingly, the Committee recommends the

following amendments:

202-1 SECTION 6. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY:

CONSUMER PACKAGES

Section 6.6.1. Symbols - Include the lower case "1" as an acceptable symbol.

Section 6.6.1. (b) - Reword as follows:

(b) The "1" symbol for liter and "ml" symbol for

milliliter are permitted; however, the "L" symbol

and the M mL" symbol are preferred.

Section 6.8.1. Proviso - Change two to three in the

number of decimal places for random package labels in the

metric system.

(Items 202 and 202-1 were adopted.)

202-2 SECTION 11. EXEMPTIONS

In providing for conversion to the metric system

through the Model Regulation, certain labeling exemptions

were granted to commodities packaged in specified metric

quantities. Under the terms of the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act, such exemptions would first have to be

adopted by the cognizant Federal agencies before they

would have any force or effect. Accordingly, the

203
Committee recommends deleting the exemptions and metric

references from--

Section 11. 13 Butter

Section 11 . 15 Flour

Section 11 . 16 Small Packages

Section 11.17 Decorative Containers

Section 11.19 Margarine

Section 11 . 20 Corn Flour and Corn Meal . Also the Committee recommends* deleting the term

"round metric size" from--

Section 11 . 23 Paints and Kindred Products

Section 11.25 Motor Oils . (Item 202-2 was adopted.)

202-3 SECTION 12. VARIATION TO BE ALLOWED

The existing language in Section 12.2 limits the

magnitude of permitted variations to those contained in

NBS Handbook 67 and the Model State Method of Sale of

Commodities Regulation. The Committee notes that package

quantity variations are not contained in the Model State

Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation, and that Section

10.9.3. of the Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation does contain provisions for package quantity

variations for textiles. The net effect of the existing

language is to deny in Section 12.2. what is provided for

in Section 10.9.3., and to refer to non-existent provisions

in another Conference Model Regulation. Accordingly, the

Committee recommends the following:

12 .

2

. Magnitude of Permitted Variations

The magnitude of variations permitted under Sections

12, 12.1., 12.1.1., and 12.1.2., of this regulation,

shall be those expressly set forth in this regulation and

those contained in the procedures and tables of National

Bureau of Standards Handbook 67, Checking Prepackaged

Commodities

.

(Item 202-3 was adopted.)

203 MODEL STATE UNIT PRICING REGULATION

The committee is of the view that metrication of the

Model State Unit Pricing Regulation would be premature

until such time as preferred sizes in the metric system

204
for the various commodities are developed. Accordingly,

the Committee proposes to keep this item on its agenda

and report developments as necessary.

(Item 203 was adopted.)

204 MODEL STATE METHOD OF SALE REGULATION

The Committee has reviewed the following three

sections of the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities

Regulation and, to clarify the intent, recommends they be

amended as follows:

204-1 SECTION 1.2. BREAD - Remove the phrase "within

reasonable variations or tolerances."

The removal of the phrase will make Section 1.2.

consistent with all other provisions in the regulation

and restrict the requirements to methods of sale which is

the original intent.

(Items 204 and 204-1 were adopted.)

204-2 SECTION 1.11. MEAT - Reword as follows:

Section 1.11. Sale of Meat by Carcass, Side or Primal Cut - At the time of delivery of bulk meat to the

purchaser, the seller shall provide a written statement

giving the following information:

(a) The name and address of the seller (firm).

(b) The date of the sale.

(c) The name and address of the purchaser.

(d) The identity in the most descriptive terms

commercially practicable.

(e) The quality grade and yield grade, if so represented

.

(f) The price per pound before cutting and wrapping

and the total price of the sale.

(g) The total net weight (hanging weight) of the

carcass, side, or primal cut prior to cutting

or processing.

(h) The total net weight of the cut and processed meat

delivered to the purchaser.

205
(i) A list by name of all cuts delivered.

( j ) An itemized list of any and all charges over

and above the original sale price of the

carcass, side, or primal cut.

(k) A separate indication of the quantity of

any meat or other commodity(s) received by the

purchaser as an inducement in connection with

the purchase of the carcass, side, or primal cut. The rewording of Section 1.11. provides for an identity requirement that is currently lacking; provides

for grade identification of the total item rather than

the individual cuts as now required; and provides that

inducements offered as a part of the sale be listed

separately on the sales or delivery ticket rather than

omitted as now required.

(Item 204-2 was adopted.)

204-3 SECTION 2.12. POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTS - Reword the

headings as follows:

"Consumer products offered and exposed for sale at

retail shall be sold in terms of:

"Products not intended for the retail consumer shall

be offered and exposed for sale in terms of:".

Delete the last paragraph concerning average thickness,

sampling procedures, and label declarations.

It is the Committee's view that the wording of

Section 2.12. should be restricted to method of sale, and

extraneous items, such as labeling and sampling requirements,

are adequately covered elsewhere and only create confusion

by their inclusion in this Section.

(Item 204-3 was adopted.)

204-4 The Committee recommends deletion of the following

sections

:

Section 3.2.2. Cups: Paper and Plastic

Section 3.2.3. Paper Plates

Section 3.2.4. Sanitary Paper Products .

206
These sections provide for tolerances on certain

commodities. The tolerances apply to products covered by

the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, which preempts State

and local requirements that are less stringent than the

requirements adopted by the Federal Trade Commission

under that Act. The FTC has made its views known to the

Committee. It is the view of the FTC staff that there is an absence of any information indicating that such products

cannot consistently meet the labeled quantity on the

average as currently required by the FTC's regulations

implementing the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The

Committee is persuaded by this view and, therefore,

recommends deletion of the three sections and appropriate

renumbering of the Regulation.

The Committee recommends the addition of the following

sentence at the end of each section:

"The Committee recommends the withdrawal take place

July 1, 1981."

(Motion to amend the report by deleting the committee's

last recommendation setting a withdrawal date passed.

Item 204-4 as amended was adopted.)

The Committee recommends the addition of the following

two sections:

204-5 SECTION XX TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

Home heating oils shall be sold by the gallon,

temperature compensated to 60 °F, or by the liter,

temperature compensated to 15 °C. In considering this matter, the committee reviewed

all prior Conference action with respect to requirements

for the sale of home heating oils and noted that the

Conference had recommended their sale on a temperature

compensated basis more than 25 years ago. It was also

noted that the Conference had acted with respect to the

sale of packaged goods, including petroleum products, by

requiring the volume to be expressed at specified temperatures. The Conference also adopted device codes (Handbook

44) dealing with devices that measured specific productsliquefied petroleum gas and cryogenic fluids--and with

devices that were not product specific--wholesale liquid

measuring devices--which incorporated requirements for

those situations where the user chose to employ an automatic temperature compensator.

207
In short, the Conference recognized, approved, and

required that products be sold on a temperature compensated basis. For this reason, the Committee offers the

addition of the requirement.

(Motion to table was defeated. Item 204-5 as proposed was also defeated.)

204-6 SECTION XX LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS CYLINDER TARE

WEIGHTS - Whenever stamped tare weights on cylinders are employed in the sale of liquefied petroleum gas, the

following shall apply.

Section XX. 1. All newly stamped tare weights shall

be accurately represented to the nearest 0.25 pound.

Section XX. 2. The allowable difference between

actual tare weight and stamped tare weight on cylinders in use shall be 0.25 pound.

Evidence supplied to the Committee indicates a need

for some action by weights and measures in the matter of

cylinder tare weights. The data supplied show the problem

of incorrect tare weights extends to both new cylinders

and those in use. The Committee recommends holding over

this item for one year to determine any possible conflicts

with U.S. Department of Transportation requirements.

(Item 204-6 was adopted.)

204-7 SOFTWOOD LUMBER

The committee has not received any comments concerning

proposed changes to this section of the Model. Accordingly,

the committee proposes to delete this item from its

agenda

.

(Item 204-7 was adopted.)

204-8 WALL COVERINGS

The committee has received extensive input from

producers, retailers, and users of wall coverings concerning

the need for a standard size for the product. It is the

committee's conclusion that any possible difficulties in

determining the amount of wall covering to purchase

cannot be resolved by the adoption of a standard size

roll. Design considerations and room configurations are such that the applicable method of sale for wall coverings

208
must be on a square footage basis. The committee urges

weights and measures jurisdictions to make certain that

packaged wall coverings are fully labeled with the required

quantity elements, and that point-of-sale quantity information, provided to the consumer when products are being

ordered, is full and complete. The Committee has requested

that the Wallcovering Manufacturers Association seek to develop a standard format for the presentation of quantity

information in sample books and other point-of-sale references

and instructions.

(Item 204-8 was adopted.)

204- 9 PRODUCE

The Committee proposes adoption of the guideline

entitled "Method of Retail Sale for Fresh Fruits and

Vegetables" as it appeared in the Committee's Tentative

Report to the 64th National Conference with one proviso.

The Committee recognizes the difficulty faced by consumers when more than one method of sale is employed in the same outlet for the same product. The Committee urges that

non-comparable methods of sale (e.g. weight and measure)

for the same produce item in the same outlet be minimized.

(Item 204-9 was adopted.)

205 OTHER ITEMS

205- 1 FIELD VERIFICATION OF WEIGHING DEVICES

The Committee has received significant input on the

proposal for a Model State Program for the Field Verification

of Weighing Devices from weights and measures jurisdictions

and associations. On the basis of these comments, the

Committee feels it would be inappropriate to proceed with

the proposal for several reasons:

1) The proposal is limited in that it only deals

with weighing devices;

2) The proposal makes no provisions for other

methods now employed by various jurisdictions

such as witness of test arrangements, variable

frequency of test programs, and the like;

3) It is not clear that the proposal has received

sufficient exposure to all parties concerned

including device owners, independent service

companies, the general public, etc.

209
The Committee recognizes the value of the concept of

greater utilization of private sector capability in

testing programs. It notes that private sector capability

has been extensively employed in many jurisdictions in

such areas as livestock and railway track scale testing

efforts

.

For these reasons, the Committee will continue to explore this matter and begin an extensive review of the

Model State Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of

Servicepersons and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing

and Measuring Devices.

(Item 205-1 was adopted.)

205-2 STANDARD BARREL ACT

The National Bureau of Standards has requested that

the Conference express its views on the repeal of the

Standard Barrel Acts. These Acts were originally passed

in 1915 and 1916 and provided for standard barrels for

fruits, vegetables, and other commodities. To the best

of our knowledge, standard barrels are no longer used for

such purposes. Therefore, the Committee recommends the

repeal of the Federal Standard Barrel Acts

.

(Item 205-2 was adopted.)

205-3 BEER AND VINE PACKAGING AND LABELING

The Committee w7 ishes to acknowledge receipt of

communications concerning beer and wine packaging and

labeling from the State of California, California Brewers

Association, and the Wine Institute. The Committee

proposes to place this item on its agenda and would

welcome comments on the matter from all interested

parties

.

(Item 205-3 was adopted.)

D. I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri, Chairman

J. J. Bartfai, New York

S. F. Hindsman, Arkansas

W. R. Mossberg, Los Angeles County, California

R. W. Probst, Wisconsin

E. A. Vadelund, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. Wollin, Executive Secretary, NCWM

21C
COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

(On motion by the committee chairman, the report of the

Committee on Laws and Regulations voting key items 200

through 205-3 was adopted in its entirety as amended by

the Conference. The results of the voting in the House

of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under

the Conference voting system are totalized in the table

that follows. The Conference also 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.)

VOTING RESULTS--Committee on Laws and Regulations

House of Representatives House of Delegates

Voting Key

Yes No Yes No

200 41 0 57 0 201T 38 2 36 7 202 ) 202-1

:

JO

202-2 ) 202-3 ;! 0 56 0 203 40 1 56 0 204

204-1

204-2 41 0 56 0 204-3

204-4A 31 6 24* 10

204-4 37 1 36 2 204-5T 9 22* 13 42

204-5 8 29 9 48

204-6 41 0 53 0 204-7 40 0 53 1 204-8 34 4 52 5 204-9 38 3 54 3 205

, 205-1

I « 0 53 0 205-2

' 205-3 37 2 52 0

T = Table

A = Amendment

* = Failed Minimum Vote Requirement

211
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Presented by DARRELL A. GUENSLER, Assistant Chief, Division

of Measurement Standards, State of California

(Thursday, June 26, 1980)

VOTING KEY

300 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Specifications

and Tolerances submits its report to

the 65th National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report

consists of the tentative report as offered in the Conference Announcement

and as amended by this final report.

The report represents recommendations

of the committee that have been formed

on the basis of written and oral comments received during

the year and oral presentations made during the open meeting

of the committee. All recommended amendments are to appropriate provisions of the codes of the National Bureau of

Standards Handbook 44, 1979 Edition, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial

Weighing and Measuring Devices."

NOTE: Except where paragraphs are to be added or completely revised as indicated, changes are shown as follows: that which is to be deleted is shown lined out,

and that which is to be added is underlined.

301 CODE FOR SCALES (2.20.)

301-1 S.l.l. ZERO INDICATION.

In the committee's report to the 64th National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) there were

several references to this paragraph as it applied to

electronic digital indicators. The committee reviewed

the comments made on the items during that Conference and

the comments received since that time. The committee

reconfirms its views for the most part as expressed in

that report, and offers the following comments and summary.

In order for the display of a zero balance condition

on an electronic digital indicator to meet the requirements

of this paragraph and paragraph G-S.5.1. Indicating and

212
Recording Elements /General, a zero balance condition can be indicated only by a display of zeroes without a display

of either a minus or a plus sign. Further, the minimum

number of zeroes required to be displayed is all of the

decades to the right of a decimal point in the display

and at least one active decade to the left. For example,

a 25 lb x 0.01 lb scale would require at least 0.00; a 100 000 lb x 20 lb scale would require at least 00 since

the last decade is a constant zero. A negative balance condition can be displayed in any

of the following ways consistent with the specific application.

(a) Blanking the display. If this method is used, the

following applies. If the device also blanks to

indicate over capacity and the load condition of the

load receiving element is not evident to the operator,

this method cannot be used. For example, on a hopper scale where the operator does not have available

a clear indication as to whether or not there is any

product in the hopper, the indicating element cannot

use the same means to indicate an over capacity

condition and a negative balance condition.

(b) A display of a symbol or a series of symbols which

cannot be interpreted as quantity values, e.g., -, or - - - -, or E, or EEE, or Err, or Error, or

E S-l, or E S-2, etc. A display of a minus sign with

a zero or zeroes is not considered appropriate,

e.g., -00, or -000. In last year f s report, the

committee had indicated that a display of complements

(9999) was an appropriate display of a negative

balance condition providing that the value displayed

exceeds scale capacity. It is the committee's view

that this technology is appropriate for limited

applications where the display of complements is not

confusing.

(c) When a device is equipped with a tare capability, a negative no load balance condition may be indicated

in any of the previous ways; however, a tare value

must be displayed as a negative value in the net

mode.

On indicators equipped with an auxiliary or supplemental "center of zero" indicator, this indicator must

define a zero balance condition to + 1/4 of a scale division

or better. The committee is considering recommending this

feature as mandatory in the near future.

213
Until that time, the committee recommends Paragraph

S.l.l. Zero Indication be amended by adding the following

sentence at the end of the paragraph:

On a digital indicator equipped with an auxiliary or supplemental "center of zero" indicator, this indicator

shall define a zero balance condition to ± 1/4 of a scale division or better.

(A motion to amend by deleting the interpretations included in this item was defeated following considerable discussion.

Item 301-1 was adopted.)

301-2 S.2. DESIGN OF BALANCE, TARE, LEVEL, DAMPING, AND

ARRESTING MECHANISMS.

The committee reviewed its comments and recommendations

on this section in last years' report and the discussion,

comments, and suggestions it received during and since

that time. On that basis, the committee recommends the

code be amended as follows:

Add these new definitions at the end of Code 2.20

(pages 2-25 to 2-30) zero setting mechanism. Means provided to attain a zero balance indication with no load on the load receiving

element

.

manual zero setting mechanism. Nonautomatic means provided to attain a zero balance indication by the direct

operation of a control.

semi-automatic zero setting mechanism. Automatic means provided to attain a direct zero balance indication

requiring a single initiation by an operator.

automatic zero setting mechanism. Automatic means provided to maintain a zero balance indication without the

intervention of an operator.

Amend S.2.1.2. to read:

S.2.1.2. ON SCALES USED IN DIRECT SALES.—A manual

zero setting mechanism shall be operable or accessible

only by a tool outside of and entirely separate from

this mechanism or enclosed in a cabinet. A balance

ball shall either meet this requirement or shall not

itself be rotable.

214
A semi-automatic zero setting mechanism shall be operable

or accessible only by a tool outside of and entirely

separate from this mechanism or enclosed in a cabinet,

or shall be operable only when the indication is stable

within:

(a) plus or minus one scale division (d^) for all scales

other than axle load, railway tracks and vehicle scales,

(b) plus or minus three scale divisions (d^) for axle

load, railway track, and vehicle scales,

(Subsection (a) is nonretroactive and enforceable as of

January 1, 1977, for scales of more than 5000 lb capacity;

retroactive as of January 1, 1981 for scales of 5000 lb

capacity or less.)

[Amended 1980]

Amend S.2.1.3. to read:

S.2.1.3. ON SCALES EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTOMATIC ZERO

SETTING MECHANISM.

Under normal operating conditions , the maximum load

that can be "rezeroed" when all at once placed on or removed from the platform shall be:

(a) For bench, counter, and livestock scales -0.6 scale

division, (b) For axle load, railway track, and vehicle scales - 3.0 scale divisions,

(c) For all other scales - 1.0 scale division.

(Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1976)

[Amended 1980]

The committee offers the following interpretations with

respect to this technology.

Under Paragraph (a) AZSM may be operable with the device

at a gross zero, a net zero, or a negative indication as

a result of tare.

Under Paragraphs (b) and (c) the AZSM can be operable at a gross zero only. The reason that these devices should

215
operate only at a gross zero is that a slow loading or unloading operation may bring about the tracking of a quantity that was intended to be a part of the weight.

It is further the committee's view that AZSM should not

be operable on any hopper scale. It is the committee's

intent to include these restrictions in recommended code

amendments next year.

Revise S.2.4.1. to read:

S.2.4.1. ELECTRONIC ELEMENTS. - Electronic indicating

elements equipped with recording elements shall be

equipped with effective means to permit the recording

of weight values only when the indication is stable

within:

(a) plus or minus one scale division (d.) for all

scales other than axle load, railway track, livestock,

and vehicle scales,

(b) plus or minus three scale divisions (d^) for axle

load, railway track, livestock, and vehicle scales.

The values recorded shall be within applicable tolerances.

(Subsection a) is nonretroactive and enforceable as of

January 1, 1977, for scales of more than 5000 lb capacity;

retroactive as of January 1, 1981, for scales of 5000 lb

capacity or less.) [Added 1975, Amended 1980]

(Item 301-2 was adopted.)

301-3 TARE

In response to a request for the committee's views on tare design and application, the committee offers the

following: There are many considerations with respect to

devices equipped with a tare capability. The primary con- sideration is whether or not a tare capability is necessary

for a given weighing application. A device equipped with a tare capability in an installation where there is absolutely no need for tare can facilitate manipulation by

the operator. Another consideration is whether the device

is used for direct sales or for indirect sales only; or whether the device is used for buying, selling, batching,

or any combination of these. A key factor is the requirements of G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud and G-S.5.1. which

requires the indications to be clear, definite, accurate,

and easily read by all parties involved in the weighing

operation.

216
Means for taking tare can be defined or described as follows

:

o Graduated or ungraduated tare poises on a tare beam or bar.

o Thumbwheel Tare - The dialing in of tare values by- means of thumbwheels or knobs

.

o Keyboard Tare - The operation of keys on a keyboard;

e.g., with a typical 10 key keyboard with values 0 through 9, by the pushing of a key numbered 5, the

number 5 is entered as a tare value.

o Digital Tare - By the repeated operation of a particular

key, tare values are entered in amounts equal to the

value of a scale division. For example, on a 25 pound

x 0.01 pound scale, each time a key marked T2 is

depressed, a tare is entered equal to 0.01 pound. If

that key were depressed five times, the tare value would

be equal to 0.05 pound.

o Push Button Tare - With a load on the platform, the

operation or depressing of the tare key enters a tare

value equal to the weight of that load. For example,

if an empty container is placed on a computing scale

or any empty truck is driven on a vehicle scale, the

weight display will be equal to the weight of the

container or truck. Then by depressing the tare key,

the weight display will be "zero." With the removal

of the tare load, the weight display will be a negative

value equal to the weight of the tare material.

There are many considerations with respect to each of

these technologies. The committee has attempted to sum

them up as follows:

o A device equipped with any type of tare capability must

indicate the tare value identified as tare in some clear

manner, e.g. with a "minus sign" or a display of the word

"tare."

o An indication must be provided to clearly show that a tare has been entered, except on electronic cash registers.

o If the possibility exists that a tare value can be cleared

when a load is on the platform, a clear indication that

the tare has been eliminated must be provided.

o Push button tare should not be operable when the scale is

in "motion" or an equilibrium has not been attained.

217

applies for both increasing and decreasing loads and

within specified normal limits of environment- temperature

,

etc. ; tolerance regulation includes zero and tare set

tolerance; tolerance regulation covers multiple representations; tolerance regulation includes repeatability

and shift test tolerances; tolerance regulation includes

discrimination/sensitivity tolerances; tolerance regulation

specifically includes provisions for out-of- level and other

environmental conditions including temperature /barometric

effect on zero, warm-up, electrical power, previous loading

history, in-motion, and time differences; tolerance regulation generally includes provisions for effects of vibration,

wind, snow and rain, washdown, gravitational effects, shock

and side loads, temperature gradients, radiation effects,

and EMI/RFI.

The committee wishes to express its appreciation to the

SMA Subcommittee for its excellent efforts to this date,

especially in attaining a consensus within the SMA membership on the principles expressed in its report. The committee looks forward to its representation and the representation

of other interested parties with the subcommittee in the

development of a final recommendation for review and action

by the 66th NCWM in 1981.

The committee recommended that a report of this subcommittee be made during the 65th NCWM in 1980, and possibly

during a session at which OIML representatives will be in

attendance. A report was presented during the open

meeting by the subcommittee chairman, Mr. John J. Elengo,

Jr., Vice President, Engineering, Revere Corporation of

America.

With respect to the suggestion received for the presentation in Handbook 44 of tolerance tables applicable to specific devices, which include basic, minimum, shift test,

increasing and decreasing load test tolerance values, the

committee feels this is appropriate but a bit premature.

When a revision of the tolerances is adopted by the Conference,

the committee may propose appropriate tables if deemed necessary for ease of field officials in determining tolerance

values. In the meantime, the committee encourages any

individual jurisdiction to develop tables it deems necessary

for its own staff.

(Item 301-4 was adopted.)

301-5 UR.3.2. MINIMUM LOAD ON VEHICLE SCALE.

The committee received recommendations from three regional

associations and the Scale Manufacturers Association on this

219
paragraph. One association indicated it wanted a specific recommendation from the committee, the other two

wanted the word "net" to be included in the paragraph.

It is the view of the committee that the report and

discussions of the last three National Conferences provide adequate background information on this item and,

consistent with the views expressed repeatedly by the

committee, recommends this paragraph be amended to read:

UR.3.2. MINIMUM LOAD ON VEHICLE SCALE .--A vehicle

scale shall not be used for weighing a net load aaalie*

thaft-i-999-petmasr less than _a quantity equal to 50

scale divisions

.

(After a lengthy discussion, Item 301-5 was defeated.)

301-6 COUNTING SCALES

The committee discussed these devices and the need

for additional requirements directed to this technology.

Sufficient time was not available to develop final criteria

for action by this Conference. The committee recommends

to those jurisdictions where counting scales are examined,

that a judicious application of the existing requirements

of the General Code and the Scale Code are sufficient for

adequate control. The committee generally felt that

counting scales should have the capability of indicating

weight values, and that a minimum capacity should be

considered to minimize the uncertainty in the sample

weight determinations. The committee will report on any

specific recommendations it receives for additional

requirements over the ensuing year.

(Item 301-6 was adopted.)

301-7 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The committee reviewed all of the comments, and recom- mendations made in its tentative report of last year under

Item 302-16 "Interpretations and Other Problems Solving."

Some of that material has already been referenced in this

report, other portions will be dealt with in the future.

A prototype examination check list for electronic indicators that includes most of the interpretations in 302-16

has been developed and is available from OWM on request.

With respect to interpretations of code requirements

when a disagreement between interested parties develops,

the committee is the appropriate party to resolve any of

these issues. For an interpretation or a guide to any

220
technical problem, write or call the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, c/o the National Conference on Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234, (301) 921-2401.

(Item 301-7 was adopted.)

302 CODE FOR BELT-CONVEYOR SCALES (2.21)

At the interim meeting, a special time was set for a discussion on this code. Many representatives of belt

conveyor scale manufacturers and users were present. The

committee had also received several communications on

this code. A lengthy discussion ensued on tolerances,

installation requirements, test procedures and other

aspects of belt conveyor scales and their use. A consensus did develop that although a tolerance re- duction may be desirable, a tolerance reduction was not

feasible because of the uncertainties in the test standards

used and in the testing process. Further discussion also

resulted in the development of a consensus on a number of

other considerations. These results are reflected in the

following recommendations of the committee.

Add new paragraph T.3. to read:

T.3 TOLERANCE VALUES-SIMULATED TESTS-REPEATABILITY

TESTS. The variation in the values obtained during the

conduct of simulated tests shall not be greater than

plus or minus 0.125% (1 part in 800) of the value

obtained on the first acceptable simulated test.

Amend Paragraph UR.2.2. CONVEYOR INSTALLATION as follows

Strike the last four words of the first paragraph . . to-a99tn?e-s-afcis#aetoify-pe¥^««!ianeeAmend subparagraph b) as follows:

(b) The scale shall be installed at least 20 feet or 5 idler spaces, whichever is greater, from loading point,

skirting, training-idiets , head or tail pulley, or convex curve in the conveyor , and at least 40 feet from

any training idler.

Amend subparagraph (e) as follows:

(e) The conveyor shall be no longer than 2990 1000

feet from tyead pulley to tail pulley.

221
Add a new subparagraph (i) as follows:

(i) A conveyor scale shall be so installed that neither

its performance or operation will be adversely affected

by any characteristic of the foundation, supports, or any other equipment

.

Add a new subparagraph (j ) as follows

:

(j ) The scale area and 3 idlers on both ends of the

scale shall be of a contrasting color, or other suitable

means shall be used to distinguish the scale from the

remainder of the conveyor installation, and the scale

shall be readily accessible on both sides of the conveyor

Reletter existing subparagraph (i) to (k)

.

Amend Paragraph UR.2. Installation Requirements, by

adding the following new non-retroactive paragraph.

UR.2. 3. MATERIAL TEST. - A belt conveyor scale shall

be -Installed so that a material test can be conveniently

conducted. ('Nonretroactive as of January 1 3 1981) . Amend note paragraph N.l. General, fourth sentence as follows

:

Wheneve^-ieasibie- The first test of the device should

be a Material Test in accordance with N.3.2. and the

correlation with the Simulated Test (N.3.3.) suitable

for the device should be ve?i#ied established at this

time.

(Item 302 was adopted.)

303 CODE FOR LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES (3.30)

30 3-1 S.l.4.4. FOR RETAIL DEVICES ONLY, EXCEPT SLOWFLOW METERS /MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATIONS.

The committee received a comment on this paragraph

and heard several others at the interim meeting. One of

these issues was directed to that part of this paragraph

that allowed the maximum total sales value to be computed

and displayed to either the capacity of the quantity

indications or the capacity of the total sales indication,

whichever is less.

In the delivery of product to a receiving vehicle by

some existing equipment the display of the total quantity

delivered is correct, but when this quantity is multiplied

222
by the unit price, the computer does not have the capacity

to indicate the total sales value. A specific example of

this condition is that device most commonly referred to

as "the three wheel computer."

It is the view of the committee that the ideal situation

is to require that a computing type device have the

capability of indicating a maximum total sales value that can be computed when multiplying the maximum quantity

that can be indicated (sufficiently large enough for most

sales) by the maximum unit price for which the device is

designed to compute. This is a multi-faceted problem

since all of the following must be considered:

analog - digital, mechanical - electronic, gallons - liters, trucks - automobiles, existing - future, etc. For example, if a computer was designed as follows:

Total Sale $XXX.XX ($999.99)

Unit Price $ X.XXX ($ 9 . 999 /gallon)

Quantity XX. XXX ( 99.999 gallon)

this design might not be considered appropriate for truck

stops since the maximum gallonage displayed is only

99.999 gallons, and many trucks have fuel tanks larger

than 100 gallons

.

This design when converted to metric becomes:

Total Sale $XXX.XX ($999.99)

Unit Price $ X.XXX ($ 9.999/liter)

Quantity XXX. XX (999.99 liter)

This design might then not be considered appropriate

since when multiplying the maximum quantity by the maximum

unit price, the result is a greater money value than can be displayed. However, this design provides an equivalent

maximum unit price of almost $38 per gallon, a maximum

quantity indication of almost 265 gallons and a maximum

total sales value of almost $1,000.00. This design will

present a mathematical agreement problem when the unit

price exceeds $1.00 per liter. It is the view of the

committee that quantity indications in liters should not

be smaller than 0.01 liter and that the mathematical

agreement problem can be resolved before unit prices

exceed $1.00 per liter and total price intervals exceed

1 cent. These examples converted to a mechanical design

pose a different set of problems. This discussion and

examples, are only to illustrate that there is no simple

solution to this issue and perhaps not a single solution

at all.

223
It might seem that the most practical solution would

be to require the device to automatically stop any delivery

whenever the capacity of any indication is reached. The

committee requests that manufacturers consider this as a most practical solution and requests their comments

during the ensuing year.

Another problem in need of an equitable and cost

effective solution is the design of electronic consoles

that interface with retail petroleum dispensers in prepay

or postpay systems. The present design of most systems

"pulse" the total sales value from the retail petroleum

dispenser and send only that information to the console.

The unit prices are manually input to the console and the

total quantity is determined in the console by dividing

the total sales value by the unit price. Consequently,

the total quantity at the console may differ by a small

amount from the total quantity value at the dispenser

because of the rounding off of total money values. When

the dispenser is analog the total difference is always

less the one-half graduation; consequently, the digital

quantity value in the console is always a value rounded

to the closest analog graduation. If the dispenser is

digital, the difference between the dispenser and the

console is never greater than 1/2 cent worth of product,

and as the price increases the difference between the

values decreases. This design has been considered correct

but difficulty arises when the console is used with a pre-set stop for quantity. Since, the quantity value in

the console is determined by dividing the total money

value by the unit price, the requested gallonage amount

displayed at the dispenser may be less than the quantity

requested. For example, if the quantity requested was 5 gallons and the unit price was $1,198 the console then

determines the stopping point as follows: 5 gallons x $1,198 = $5.99. However, at that unit price $5.99 is the

total sales value for all quantities from 4.996 gallons

to 5 . 004 gallons

.

Therefore, the delivery will cease at the first

quantity equal to $5.99 worth; in this instance 4.996

gallons. Mathematical agreement is met, the quantity

indication is correct, but the volume is 0.004 gallon

less than requested. Expressed in cubic inches this

quantity is only 0.924 cubic inch or less than 1 cubic

inch

.

It may be difficult for some to explain this discrepancy even though it is almost an unmeasurable quantity. The

problem could be even more difficult to explain in the

224
event that mandatory rationing is established in the

United States. It is the view of the committee that this

issue impacts on weights and measures officials, consumers,

equipment manufacturers, equipment users, and other

officials having responsibility for a rationing program.

The committee would appreciate receiving the views of all

parties on this problem.

Further discussion ensued concerning the second

sentence in this paragraph which reads : "Money value

divisions shall not be greater than one percent of the

unit price rounded up to the next higher cent." It is

the committee's view that this requirement should be a separate paragraph with an appropriate clarifying heading

and recommends code revision by adding the following

subparagraphs

:

5. 1.4. 4.1. MONEY VALUE DIVISIONS, ANALOG. - The

value of the graduated intervals representing money

values on a computing type device with analog

indications shall be as follows:

(a) Not more than 1 cent at all unit prices up to and including $1.00.

(b) Not more than 2 cents at all unit prices greater

than $1.00 up to and including $3.00.

(c) Not more than 5 cents at all unit prices greater

than $3.00.

5. 1.4. 4. 2. MONEY VALUE DIVISIONS, DIGITAL. - A

computing type device with digital indications shall

comply with the requirements of paragraph G.S.5.5. Money

Values, Mathematical Agreement, and the total price

computation shall be based on quantities not exceeding

0.01 gallon intervals for devices indicating in inch-pound

units and 0.02 liter for devices indicating in metric

units

.

Delete second sentence of paragraph S.l.4.4.

Further discussion ensued on the last sentence of

this paragraph which reads : "Any analog money value

indication shall be in mathematical agreement with its

associated quantity indication to the nearest money value

graduation." It is the view of the committee that for

clarification purposes this sentence should be amended to read:

Any analog money value indication shall not differ from

the mathematically computed money value (Quantity x 225
Vr.it Price = Sales Price), for any delivered quantity,

by an amount greater than one-half the value of the

money value division.

(Item 303-1 was adopted.)

303-2 1.2.1. TOLERANCE VALUES /ON RETAIL DEVICES EXCEPT

SLOW-FLOW METERS

.

Several comments had been received on this paragraph.

The committee had also referenced this paragraph in its

report to the 64th Conference in 1979. This paragraph

had also been the subject of discussion at many preceding

conferences and between a large number of weights and measures officials for at least the last 20 years. The

committee reviewed all of this material and the following

served as the basis for their recommendation for action

by the 65th National Conference or. Weights and Measures

(1980).

o Existing tolerances have been in effect for over 50

years and measurement technology has certainly advanced

since that time as clearly indicated by the test

results reviewed.

o Compatibility between tolerance values for devices

indicating in inch-pound units and for devices indicating in metric units is necessary.

o A 19-liter test draft is an interim measure only.

Therefore, the committee recommends code revision by

deleting 7.2.1. and substituting the following:

T.2.1. TOLERANCE VALUES/ON RETAIL DEVICES EXCEPT

SLOW-FLOW METERS

.

T. 2.1.1. FOR DEVICES INDICATING IN INCH-POUND UNITS.

The maintenance tolerance on normal and special tests,

except on elapsed time tests, shall be one cubic inch

plus one cubic inch per indicated gallon. The acceptance

tolerance shall be 1/2 the maintenance tolerance.

1.2.1.2. FOR DEVICES INDICATING IN METRIC UNITS. The

maintenance tolerance on normal and special tests,

except on elapsed time tests, shall be 20 milliliters,

plus 4 milliliters per indicated liter. The acceptance

tolerance shall be 1/2 the maintenance tolerance. The

tolerance applied to a 19-liter draft shall be that

tolerance applicable to a 20-liter draft.

(Item 303-2 was adopted.)

226
303-3 METRIC REPORT

During the interim meeting, the committee heard a number of comments including a report by Stephen Vastagh,

a staff member of the U.S. Metric Board, responsible for

coordinating the change to liters at the "gas pumps."

From all the information available, it was evident

to the committee that there is a definite trend toward

the retail merchandising of fuel by the liter. The

committee is encouraged by this, since it has always been

its view that the U.S. will eventually be predominantly

metric and that metric conversion of "gas pumps" is an example of a cost effective procedure for solving a problem resulting from inflation.

Motor fuel is now being sold at retail by the liter

in 45 States. It is the view of the committee that this

is sufficient justification for the elimination of another

problem in metric conversion, by the establishment of

liter-based tax rates. The committee recommends that

each State establish or make provisions for liter-based

tax rates including associated matters such as rules for

rounding, guidelines for reporting and refunding for all

types of motor fuels. The committee further recommends

that for the sake of uniformity an ad hoc task force of

the North American Gasoline and Tax Conference be formed

to review these issues, to review the work that has

already been done by some States and to develop basic

guidelines and model legislative language for use by all

States. The timely solution of these issues will serve

the best interests of the States, wholesalers, retailers

and consumers as well.

(Item 303-3 was adopted.)

303-4 METRIC EQUIVALENTS

The committee was requested to provide metric equivalents for inch-pound values for various commercial and

other transactions. The committee responds that the

National Bureau of Standards published equivalent rounded

values are: 3.785 411 784 liters = 1 gallon, 0.264 172

052 4 gallon = 1 liter.

The committee recommends that a "Rule of Reason"

should apply and that the value used should be consistent

with the kind and quantity of the transaction. The conversion factor should never have fewer than four significant

227
digits and should have at least the same number of significant digits as the number of significant digits in the

quantity of product being converted. For example, if a 1000 gallon delivery were to be converted to liters the

value would be 3785 liters; for 10 000 gallon - 37 854

liters; for 100 gallons - 378.5 liters.

In the case of expressing a unit price equivalent

for consumer value comparisons, the committee recommends

the following formula:

(Advertised, posted, or computing device unit price per

liter) x 3.785 = (equivalent unit price per gallon,

rounded to the nearest 1/10 cent.)

For example:

26.9 cents per liter x 26.8 cents per liter x 26.7 cents per liter x 26.5 cents per liter x

26.4 cents per liter x

3.785 = $1,018 per gallon

3.785 = $1,014 per gallon

3.785 = $1,011 per gallon

3.785 = $1,003 per gallon

3.785 = $0,999 per gallon

This method, in the committee's view, is preferable

to the alternative method of dividing the price per gallon

by 3.785, which results in the same price per liter for 3 or more different prices per gallon, when rounded to the

1/10 cent. For example:

$1,009 -r 3.785 = 26.7 cents

$1,010 -r 3.785 = 26.7 cents

$1,011 -r 3.785 = 26.7 cents

$1,012 + 3.785 = 26.7 cents

Further considerations with respect to price posting

and other conversion values discussed by and referenced

to the committee were considered by the committee to be

outside its purview and have been referred to the Policy

and Coordination Committee for appropriate action.

(Item 303-4 was adopted.)

303-5 INTERIM MEASURES

The committee recommended to the P&C committee that

jurisdictions be encouraged to follow the National Conference on Weights and Measures policy guidelines and require

that all interim measures used for "gas pumps" not capable

of computing on the basis of unit prices above 99.9 cents

be eliminated from use as early as practical and in any

228
case not later than December 31, 1981, and that on January

1, 1982, all devices be in full compliance with the Code.

(Item 303-5 was adopted.)

304 CODE FOR VEHICLE-TANK METERS (3.31.

)

304-1 TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

The committee once again reviewed this issue and its

recommendation, consistent with last years' recommendations is as follows:

Since automatic temperature compensators that interface with vehicle-tank meters are apparently readily

available from several manufacturers, and currently in

commercial use, it is the view of the committee that this

technology should be recognized in the Code for Vehicle-Tank

Meters. It is also the committee's view and intent that

this action neither requires this equipment to be used, nor does it make its use entirely voluntary. It merely

removes an obstacle if, in the sale of any product measured

by a vehicle-tank meter, it is considered appropriate and

legal to compensate for temperature variations.

The specific changes recommended for adoption in the

Code are as follows:

5.2.4. THERMOMETER WELL. - Means shall be provided

for inserting, for test purposes, a mercury-in-glass

thermometer either

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) in the meter inlet or discharge line and immediately adjacent to the meter.

5.2.5. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION. - A

device may be equipped with an adjustable automatic

means for adjusting the indication and registration

of the measured volume of product to the volume at

60 °F. S.2.5.1. PROVISION FOR DEACTIVATING. - On a device

equipped with an automatic temperature compensating

mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms

of gallons compensated to 60 °F, provision shall be

made to facilitate the deactivation of the automatic

temperature compensating mechanism so that the meter

may indicate, and record if it is equipped to record,

in terms of the uncompensated volume.

229
S.2.5.2. PROVISION FOR SEALING. - Provision shall

be made for applying security seals in such a manner

that an automatic temperature-compensating system cannot

be disconnected and that no adjustment may be made to the system.

S.5.5. TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION. - If a device is

equipped with an automatic temperature compensator,

the primary indicating elements, recording elements,

and recorded representation shall be clearly and

conspicuously marked to show that the volume delivered

has been adjusted to the volume at 60 °F. N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS. - The "normal" test of a device shall be made at the maximum discharge rate

that may be anticipated under the conditions of

installation. If the device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator, this test should

be conducted with the compensator deactivated and

activated.

*Note: This amendment clearly states that both

activated and deactivated tests are normal tests.

N.4.1.1. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION. - If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature

compensator, the compensator shall be tested by

comparing; 1) the volume indicated or recorded by

the device with the compensator connected and

operating with, 2) the actual delivered volume

corrected to 60 °F.

N. 5. TEMPERATURE CORRECTION. - Corrections shall

be made for any changes in volume resulting from the

differences in liquid temperatures between time of

passage through the meter and time of volumetric

determination in the test measure.

T.3. TOLERANCES FOR AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATORS

ON VEHICLE TANK METERS. To the tolerances that would

otherwise be applied to the device under test, there

shall be added an amount equal to the change in the

volume of the product for a 2 °F change in temperature.

UR.2.4. TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.

UR. 2.4.1. USE OF AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATORS. - If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature

compensator, this shall be connected, operable, and

230
in use at all times. Such automatic temperature

compensator may not be removed, nor may a compensated

device be replaced with an uncompensated device, without

the written approval of the weights and measures authority having jurisdiction over the device.

UR.2.4.2. WRITTEN INVOICES. - Any written invoice

based on a reading of a device that is equipped with

an automatic temperature compensator shall show

thereon that that the volume delivered has been

adjusted to the volume at 60 °F. UR. 2.4.3. NONAUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.

If the volume of the product delivered is adjusted to the volume at 60 °F, the product temperature shall be

taken during the delivery in the liquid chamber of the

meter or in the meter inlet or discharge line adjacent

to the meter. The accompanying invoice shall indicate

that the volume of the product has been adjusted for

temperature variations to a volume of 60 °F and shall

also state the product temperature used in making the

adjustment

.

(After a lengthy discussion, Item 304-1 was defeated.)

304-2 T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES.

The committee was requested to provide tolerance

values in metric units for devices indicating in metric

units. The committee is in the process of reviewing

existing tolerances and developing appropriate and equitable metric equivalents. It already has a working draft

but wishes to receive ideas from interested Conference

members before making a recommendation for Conference

action. It would appreciate receiving comments during

the ensuing year.

(Item 304-2 was adopted.)

304-3 TEST PROCEDURES AND METRIC EQUIVALENTS

In order to provide guidance to those testing vehicle

tank meters that indicate in metric units, with 100

gallon or 200-gallon provers , the committee recommends:

If:

Prover is 100-gallon with 10 in3 divisions, and the indicated delivery is 378.5 liters and the value of d is 0.1

liter

231
Approximately

Then:

Acceptance Tolerance Band is: +35 in3 (+ 3 1/2 div.)

- 40 in3 (- 4 div.

)

And:

Maintenance Tolerance Band is: + 72.5 in3 (+ 7 1/4 div.)

- 77.5 in3 (- 7 3/4 div.)

If:

Prover is 100-gallon with 10 in3 divisions, and the indicated delivery is 378 liters and the value of the smallest

unit d is 1 liter

Then:

Acceptance Tolerance Band is: + 4.5 in 0 (+ 1/2 div.)

- 70.5 in3 (- 7 div.)

And:

Maintenance Tolerance Band is: +42 in3 (+ 4 div.)

-108 in3 (- 11 div.)

If:

Prover is 200-gallon with 10 in3 divisions, and the indicated delivery is 757.0 liters and the value of d is 1 liter

or 0.1 liter

Then:

Acceptance Tolerance Band is: + 57.5 in3 (+ 5 3/4 div.)

67.5 in3 (- 6 3/4 div.)

And:

Maintenance Tolerance Band is: + 120 in3 (+ 12 div.)

- 130 in3 (- 13 div.)

(Item 304-3 was adopted.)

305 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS VAPOR-MEASURING DEVICES (3.33)

305-1 S.2.1. PRESSURE REGULATION.

In order to provide a clear meaning to this paragraph,

the committee recommends this paragraph be amended to read

:

S.2.1. PRESSURE REGULATION. - The vapor should be measured

at a gage pressure of 11 inches of water (0.40 psi) + 2.75

inches of water (0.10 psi). Where vapor is being measured

at a pressure other than 11 inches, a volume multiplier

shall be applied based on the following equation:

232
Volume Multiplier = atmospheric pressure (psia) + gage pressure (psi)

atmospheric pressure (psia) + 0.40 psi

(Item 305 was adopted.)

306 VEHICLE TANKS USED AS MEASURES (4.40)

306- 1 VEHICLE TANKS USED TO COLLECT LIQUID WASTE

The committee received a comment that some vehicle

tanks used to collect liquid waste were marked for capacity only in terms of 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and full. The comment

concluded that these values were not precise enough, and

that the code should be amended to provide specific

quantity level markings. The committee recommends that

if this is considered a problem in any jurisdiction, the

jurisdiction could apply the principles expressed in

G-A.3. Special and Unclassified Equipment to specify

liquid levels deemed appropriate. If the committee

receives further evidence that this is a national problem,

it will provide more specific criteria in the future.

(Item 306 was adopted.)

307 CODE FOR FARM MILK TANKS (4.43)

307-1 T.4. BASIC TOLERANCE VALUES, MASTER METER METHOD.

The committee received a recommendation that this

tolerance value should be reduced from 0.4% to 0.2%. The

committee's response relating to standard and system

uncertainties is as follows:

The 5-gallon sticker plate standard provided by NBS

is the State Primary Standard. This standard has an uncertainty of + 0.02%. This uncertainty value is transferred

to any other prover calibrated from it, and then to that

value must be added + 0.02% uncertainty on the prover

being calibrated. Thus, the uncertainty in the volumetric

provers used to verify the meter used to calibrate the

tanks is + 0.04%.

Added to the value must be the uncertainty of the

metering system and the measurement process. This value

is generally accepted as 0.05%. Thus, the standard

uncertainty is 0.09%. Since the error in the standard

cannot exceed 25% of the smallest tolerance applied

(H-44, pages 1-9), the smallest tolerance value becomes

4 x 0.09% = 0.36%. It is on this basis that the value

of 0.4% was developed and cannot effectively be reduced

233
to any value less than 0.36%. Consequently, the committee

recommends no action on this item.

(Item 307-1 was adopted.)

307-2 GAGE RODS

A comment was received that long gage rods on larger

tanks were bending and causing other measurement problems.

It is the view of the committee that the measurement

process would be improved with the use of external gage

assemblies on large tanks and recommends code amendment

by adding the following new non-retroactive paragraph:

S.3.7. DESIGN OF INDICATING MEANS ON TANKS WITH A

CAPACITY GREATER THAN 2000 GALLONS OR 8000 LITERS.

Any farm milk tank with a capacity greater than 2000

gallons - or 8000 liters - shall be equipped with an

external gage assembly . [Non-retroactive and applicable

only to tanks manufactured after January l 3 1981. ] (A motion to amend by adding applicability

date of January 1, 1981 passed. Item 307-2

as amended was adopted.)

307-3 S.3.6.3. VALUE OF GRADUATED INTERVAL.

The committee received a comment that when a certain

manufacturer changed his gage rod graduations from the

inch-pound system to the metric system, several of his

tanks, at the least sensitive level, slightly exceeded the

requirements of this paragraph. The change was from 1/32

inch graduations to 1 mm (approx. 1/25 inch). The committee

feels this sensitivity value should not be compromised; it

therefore recommends no change to the code, and does not

view this action as a hindrance to metric conversion. There

are other options available to the manufacturer that do not

increase this sensitivity value.

(Item 307-3 was adopted.)

307-4 METRIC CONVERSION

To facilitate an orderly change to metric, the committee recommends this code be amended to accommodate metric

measurement. The changes recommended are as follows:

Change the word "gallonage" or "gallons" to "volume"

or the change as indicated in the following paragraphs:

234
S.l

S.3

S.3

S.3

(c)

2.4.

6

S.4,

S.4,

S.4,

S.6,

2.

2.;

4.;

S.4

; s l4 S.5,

3.

3.

gallons

gallonage

gallonage

inches

inches

gallonage

gallons

gallonage

gallons

volume

volume

volume

add or centimeters

add or centimeters

volume

the volume

volume

volume

gallonage - volume

S.2.2. 1. 500 gallons add or 2000 liters

S.4. 2. 250 gallons add or 1000 liters

1/4 gallon - add or 1 liter

S.4. 3. 251 gallons add or 1001 liters

500 gallons - add or 2000 liters

1/2 gallon add or 2 liters

S.4. 4. 500 gallons add or 2000 liters

gallon add or 4 liters

T.2. 1/2 gallon - add or 2 liters

UR.3. pounds per gallon - weight per unit volume

gallonage volume

S.3. 6. 3. Gallons Liters

Interval Capacity Interval Capacity

(a) 1/2

(b) 1 (c) 1 1/2

(d) 2 (e) 1 add

250

251

501 - 1501 - over

500

1500

2500

250

24

6

8 add 4

1000

1001 - 2001 - 6001 - over

2000

6000

10 000

10 000

Definition: farm milk tank gallons - volume

(Item 307-4 was adopted.)

308 CODE FOR TAXIMETERS (5.54)

308-1 T.l. TOLERANCE VALUES.

The committee received a recommendation to eliminate

the 100-foot tolerance in T.l.l.(b), to change T.l. 2.1. (a)

and (b) to + 5 seconds on the initial intervals and + 2 seconds per minute on subsequent intervals, and change

T.l. 2.2. to + 1 1/2 seconds per minute.

235
The committee offers the following comments and recom- mendations : The taximeter is so designed that the customer is

always charged in advance for any distance or time interval.

Thus, the customer may receive as little as one foot or

one second for the last drop of his trip. This is the reason that the tolerances are greater on underregistration

than overregistration, and the committee recommends no change

.

It is also the view of the committee that the suggestion

to eliminate the added tolerance of 100 feet whenever the

initial interval is included in the interval under test

is premature and not supported by data covering the broad

spectrum of taximeters in use today. This change was

possibly proposed under the impression that we are dealing

with new and more accurately designed electronic taximeters.

The committee wishes to remind the Conference that this

is not the case, and that there are many kinds and types

of taximeters in use today. Also there are many variables

such as gear ratio, tire size, type, construction, speed

and inflation, which will result in a wide variation in

the performance of the system. The 100 feet also allows

the taximeter mechanic a broader tolerance range to work

with when necessary, without exceeding the tolerance on overregistration.

(Item 308 was adopted.)

309 OTHER ITEMS

309-1 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS HANDBOOK 44

The committee has received many comments on the new

Handbook 44 format. Most were favorable and others indicated that additional improvements can be made.

It is the goal of the committee to provide a viable

and readily usable document. Accordingly, the committee

will continue to recommend changes in format to the Conference. It has made use of many of the comments already

received and urges Conference members to continue providing

suggestions for improvement. The committee is considering a format in which the requirements applicable to electronic

designs are consolidated in a separate section.

(Item 309-1 was adopted.)

236
309-2 FIELD STANDARD TEST WEIGHTS

The committee was informed that for testing vehicle

scales, there are in use today field standard test weights

that are powered by liquid fuel which is consumed during

the conduct of the test. The committee wishes to advise

the Conference that in most instances it is impossible to maintain these devices within the tolerance limits

(1/10 000) as required by National Bureau of Standards

Handbook 105-1 or within 25% of the smallest tolerance

applicable as required by NBS Handbook 44.

(Item 309-2 was adopted.)

309-3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE

The committee wishes to advise the National Conference

that in order for it to act effectively on recommendations

it receives, the following information must be included:

(a) A definition or explanation of the problem,

(b) Recommended action, such as Handbook 44 amendment,

interpretation, or enforcement consideration,

(c) Data supporting any recommended code amendment.

(Item 309-3 was adopted.)

309-4 REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

The committee has noted that most of the code amendments applicable to electronic equipment appears in the

Code for Scales. It is the view of the committee that some of these new requirements are also applicable to other kinds of electronic devices. The committee is

reviewing these paragraphs and it is their intent to recommend in next year

f s report that certain of these

paragraphs be a part of the General Code. The committee

would appreciate receiving comments from the members of

the Conference on this subject.

(Item 309-4 was adopted.)

309-5 SCALES USED FOR WEIGHING PRECIOUS METALS

The committee has developed guidelines to aid in

determining the appropriateness of and the requirements

applicable to these devices and will circulate them shortly

after this Conference.

(Item 309-5 was adopted.)

237
The committee expresses its appreciation to all who

have contributed to and participated in the development of

this report. The committee urges all interested parties

to promptly respond on matters of concern. It is only

through this cooperative effort that the Conference can continue to attain uniform and equitable measurement

standards

.

D. A. Guensler, California, Chairman

L. H. DeGrange, Maryland

F. Nagele, Michigan

G. L. Delano, Montana

S. A. Colbrook, Illinois

0. K. Warnlof, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. Wollin, Executive Secretary, NCWM

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

(On motion by the committee chairman, the report of the

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances voting key

items 300 through 309-5 was adopted in its entirety as amended by the Conference. The results of the voting in

the House of State Representatives and the House of

Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized

in the table that follows. The Conference also 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.)

238
VOTING RESULTS—Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Voting Key

House of State

Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

300 42 0 54 0 301-1A 25 10 13 23

301-1 32 4 39 10

301-2 36 0 55 0 301-3 35 1 43 0 301-4 42 0 55 0 301-5 18 23 14 45

301-6 ) 39 0 58 0 301-7 f 41 0 60 0 39 0 56 2 37 0 54 0

40 0 57 0

304-1 26 13 26 33

304-2) 39 0 54 0 304-3 J 40 0 58 0

40 0 56

239
-ouse c: it ate

Representatives House of Delegates

Voting Key

Yes ^ No " " Yes No

307-2A

3 M 40

309-]

3:9-2

309-3

309-4

309-5 /

39

53

--

50

240
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION , ADMINISTRATION , AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Presented by STAN J. DARSEY, Chief,

Bureau of Weights and Measures, State of Florida

(Thursday, June 26, 1980)

VOTING KEY

400 INTRODUCTION

The committee on Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs

presents its final report to the

65th 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.

401 NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

One of the important responsibilities of the com- mittee is the coordinating of National Weights and Measures

Week each year. Mr. Robert Walker of Indiana who served

as National Chairman for the 1980 Week is sincerely

commended by the committee for his very successful effort

to secure promotional materials and for his overall

effort to make the Week a success. Along with the usual efforts to distribute material

and publicize the Week, much effort has been expended by

other officials to have a Proclamation, signed by the

President of the United States, calling attention to the

work of the weights and measures officials across the

Nation. Senator Mathias of Maryland has introduced

Senate Joint Resolution No. 148 which provides for a Presidential Proclamation declaring March 1-7, 1981,

National Weights and Measures Week.

This Resolution is presently in Committee and to move it out of Committee it must have the support of a minimum of twenty-five U.S. Senators of whom at least ten

must be Democrats and at least ten Republicans. It is

241
essential that Conference delegates contact their Senators

for support of this Resolution by no later than mid- July

1980. Your Senator should address his support directly

to Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Judiciary

Committee

.

The committee would like to personally thank Dick

Hurley of Fairbanks Weighing Division, Colt Industries,

Tom Stabler of Toledo Scale, Fred Katterheinrich of

Hobart Corporation, and Ray Lloyd of the Scale Manufacturers Association, not only for their individual

efforts and help, but also for the excellent promotional

materials they provided for all of the coordinators for

the Week.

In order to assure the continuity of future successful

Weights and Measures Week, the committee is very happy to announce that Mr. Allen Christie, State of South Dakota,

has very graciously accepted the Chairmanship for National

Weights and Measures Week for the year 1981.

The committee is happy to announce that the theme

for the 1981 week will be WEIGHTS AND MEASURES - EQUITY

FOR ALL.

(Item 401 was adopted)

402 PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES

Approximately thirty-five remaining Conference

membership plaques were offered for sale at $5 each

during the 65th Conference in Washington. Since the

announcement of the new membership plan, a greater

interest in obtaining the plaques has become evident.

The committee has had several requests for the

Conference neckties that were so successfully offered for

sale two years ago. Plans are underway to explore the

possibility of obtaining a new supply of the Conference

ties in both the clip-on and hand tie types.

(Item 402 was adopted)

403 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

In accordance with the committee's projected timetable

for this item, Dick Smith, Staff Assistant, did attend

and appear on the program of each of the four regional

associations to explain the proposed program and seek the

support of the Regional Education Committees in reaching

our goal. In each case, everyone agreed with the new

242
concept and pledged support. The followthrough in helping

us get each State into a regional training group and to have each State name someone as training coordinator has

been slow, but progress is being made. At this time we have eight well-established regional groups, representing more than half of the fifty States, and twelve States

have formally named State training coordinators.

The committee wishes to thank those States that have

taken positive steps in this regard and urges the Regional

Conferences to continue to assist them by getting the

remaining States to take action. One hundred percent

cooperation and participation is needed if we are to receive maximum benefit from this new approach.

(Item 403 was adopted)

404 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PROGRAM EVALUATION

The committee feels that the weights and measures program evaluation criteria are ready for testing.

Therefore, between the interim meetings and the 65th

National Conference in June, each member of the Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee voluntarily

tested the criteria by answering the questions as they

relate to his own jurisdiction.

These trial evaluations have been completed by all

committee members of their respective jurisdictions. The

data obtained were circulated among the committee and the

results were used in the committee's continuing effort to further refine the criteria.

The committee is now prepared to conduct a minimum

of three on-site evaluations between now and the interim

meetings in January 1981. To begin this pilot program of

evaluations, the committee requests that the Conference

approve a sum, not to exceed $2500.00, for expenses during

the upcoming Conference year to conduct on-site evaluations.

We encourage any jurisdictions wishing to be evaluated during the pilot period to communicate with our staff assistant, Dick Smith, at NBS, or any member of our committee, during or as soon after the annual

Conference as possible.

(Item 404 was adopted)

405 IMPROVED EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Tom Stabler, Manager of Weights and Measures for

Toledo Scale, gave the committee a presentation outlining

243
the possxbility or establishing a

a local college or university,

and the project is being studied by

il^i-£-c- :::ie;e :r 2 hie. Ihic

The Ir.s~iwUt.= =v = rcs : = r~ifi;a~ = 5 ~: :i::::::ii:s

zzzTleii:- :f = plaznei :urri;_lu.-. The cer'iiicaue

is recognition of achievement in a highly technical field

vher= rr;f=5si-~al siills are reeuirei :y ill vh: :ir;::::i:e:

_--
in Texas and California during the past year. Interest

has been expressed by the universities contacted at the

graduate, undergraduate, adult education, and extension

services levels. Both Texas A&M and the University of

Texas at Dallas have sent high level officials to NBS to explore the feasibility of developing such programs and

return visits to the respective campuses have been made

by NBS officials. It appears that the extension service

at Texas A&M is well able and interested in establishing

technician or inspector level training for weights and measures officials.

During the committee's open hearing, Dr. Lee Phillips

from Texas A&M University informed the committee of a seminar to be held in early January at the University to further explore interest level and possible curriculum

development for a formal extension service program in the

weights and measures field. Dr. Phillips requested

future participation of this committee in the development

of this program and extended an invitation for committee

members to attend the seminar.

Several conference delegates and the committee's

staff assistant took advantage of the opportunity to attend open sessions of the OIML Conference as U.S.

observers. It was learned during this conference that

member countries of OIML are interested and concerned

regarding the increasing need for training and educational programs that would form the basis for international uniformity. The committee was also impressed by

the importance given to educational programs by

Mr. Birkeland of Norway during his remarks to the Conference.

The committee agrees wholeheartedly that the key to national and international uniformity is effective training

programs. We wish to further point out that effective

educational and training programs will be necessary to

meet the challenges of the eighties.

The committee has taken the position that education

is the cornerstone of professionalism and, therefore,

highly endorses both of the above efforts with the

suggestion that correspondence courses be included in any

formal program that may be developed. Comments from

Conference members are invited on this subject.

(Item 405 was adopted)

406 INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT DISPLAY

The committee was asked to explore the desirability

of providing space and arrangements for a formal industry

245
equipment display at the National Conference. After

considerable discussion and input by industry representatives, it is the feeling of this committee that a formal

display area is not warranted; however, if any industry

members wish to display equipment at an annual conference,

they may do so in their own rooms or hospitality suites,

providing there is no conflict with formal Conference

sessions

.

(Item 406 was adopted)

407 NEW MEMBERSHIP PLAN

The committee was asked to study and comment on the new Conference brochure entitled "The National Conference

on Weights and Measures - A New Membership Plan and

Application Form."

After considerable study and discussion, the committee

has reached the decision that this new membership plan

will do much to strengthen the Conference as an organization and greatly enhance the cause of uniformity in

weights and measures enforcement in this Nation. For the

first time an opportunity for all interested parties to receive Conference documents and handbooks in a timely manner will be provided. The committee strongly recommends

adoption of this plan by the Conference.

(Item 407 was adopted)

408 SIMPLIFIED PACKAGE CHECKING PROCEDURES

It has been called to the attention of the committee

that a serious problem exists due to the fact that NBS

Handbook 67 "Checking Pre-Packaged Commodities" has been

out of print and unavailable for several years. Many of

the States have officially adopted this handbook as part

of their regulations and therefore have need for the

material found in the handbook.

The committee respectfully requests that OWM look

into the possibility of having this handbook reprinted as

a Conference document or of having the material in the

handbook incorporated into NBS Handbook 112 "Examination

Procedure Outlines for Commercial Weighing and Measuring

Devices" when this handbook is revised. A definite need

exists for "auditing" or "screening" procedures such as are found in Handbook 67 for day-to-day routine package

inspection.

246
The committee is cognizant of the fact that more detailed statistical sampling and checking procedures

will be available in the future in the new package control

handbook under development at OWM to cover those situations

where court action is necessary.

(Item 408 was adopted)

409 NEW WEIGHTS AND MEASURES FILM - "THE MARKETPLACE"

The new weights and measures film, "The Marketplace,"

produced jointly by the National Conference and the

National Bureau of Standards, continues to enjoy great

interest and demand by the general public.

The committee wishes to again provide information on how to purchase or borrow the film. The purchase price

of the film is $67.50 plus $1.50 shipping charge for

either 16 mm prints or 3/4 inch video cassettes. Order

from: Screen Presentations, Inc., 309 Massachusetts

Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. 20002. Free loan service

for the film is available from: Modern Talking Picture

Service, 5000 Park Street, North, St. Petersburg, Florida

33709. Conference members are urged to take advantage of

the opportunity to either purchase or borrow the film for

future use. (Item 409 was adopted)

S. J. Darsey, Florida, Interim Chairman

R. W. Walker, Indiana

J. L. Swanson, Alaska

A. L. Christie, South Dakota

R. N. Smith, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. Wollin, Executive Secretary, NCWM

Committee On Education, Administration,

And Consumer Affairs

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs, voting key items 400 through 409 was adopted in

its entirety by the Conference. The results of the

voting in the House of State Representatives and the

House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows. The Conference also

authorized the executive secretary to make any appropriate

editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference.)

247
VOTING RESULTS

Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs

House of State

Representatives House of Delegates

Voting Key

ICS Yes No

400 38 0 45 0 401 37 o 44 0 402

, 403

404

| 405 39 0 45 I

- 406 1 407 1 408

409

248
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

Presented by CHARLES H. GREENE, Chief, Division

of Consumer and Marketing Services, New Mexico

Department of Agriculture, Las Cruces, New Mexico

(Thursday, June 26, 1980)

VOTING KEY

500 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Liaison submits

its report to the 65th National

Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM) . The report consists of the

tentative report as offered in the

Conference Announcement and as amended

by this final report. The report

represents recommendations of the

committee that have been formed on

the basis of written and oral comments

received during the year and oral

presentations made during the open

meeting of the committee.

501 STATE MEASUREMENT NEEDS STUDY

The committee was briefed by Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp of the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) who

outlined and discussed a study to be carried out by NBS

and an outside contractor in the coming year (1980). The

study's objective is to identify and assess the needs at

the State and local level for accurate and uniform physical

or chemical measurements which derive from governmental

laws and regulations. The study will involve visits to five to ten States (in some way representative of the 50

States) by OWM staff members in the area of weights and measures. One purpose of the study is to identify the

most important measurement needs of State and local

governments and their local industries. Another purpose

is to determine what costs are being incurred because of

inaccurate measurements.

Expected dividends from this study are expected to be cost/benefit analysis information for weights and measures budget justifications as well as guidance in

program planning and the establishment of priorities.

As the study progresses OWM will be in contact with

individual States. States interested in participating in

this study should advise OWM of their interest.

249
(Item 501 was adopted)

502 POSITION DEVELOPMENT AND ADVOCACY

The Liaison Committee has considered in depth the

procedures and capabilities of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to assess the importance of issues,

to develop and refine Conference positions (particularly

with respect to issues deemed crucial to Conference

objectives) and to advocate the positions once developed.

As a result of these considerations the Liaison

Committee offers the following tentative conclusions:

(a) The Conference can, without a substantial investment

of "new" money, improve its procedures designed to select and prioritize the issues presented to it.

The committee feels that this organizational effort

should be made, possibly by a steering committee

composed of past Conference chairmen.

Care should be exercised to avoid formalities which

unduly impede the timely consideration of issues by

the Conference.

Corollary to the screening process is the development of Conference positions on adoption and revision of model laws, regulations, and handbooks. The

committee is aware that the Committee on Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs has undertaken

the task of developing a format for submission of

proposals to the Committees on Laws and Regulations

and on Specifications and Tolerances.

While this has been an informal procedure in the

past, the lack of formality apparently has not

limited the effectiveness of the pre cess in providing valid and reasonable results. The committee is

cognizant of the efforts of OWM to improve scheduling of Conference iceios and one efo"e:o of ohese

efforts in dealing with the increased workload

imposed by advances in technology and an increasingly complex culture. The attention of the Conference

is directed to the need to develop a completely

functional approach to dealing with such items in

order to facilitate the ability of the Conference to

act effectively and efficiently.

(b) The Conference should seek support and assistance

from all appropriate sources to permit a more adequate development, substantiation, and refinement of

a position prior and subsequent to adoption by the

Conference. It is recognized that a well-stated and

250
well -documented Conference position paper is the

most effective means for fully informing Conference

members and preparing them for the efforts they must

make in support of the Conference objectives. It is

also recognized, however, that there may be little

that can or should be done to revise the organization

or functioning of the Conference for the purpose

described until there is reason to believe that the

Conference chooses to move in this direction and

additional resources are made available.

(c) One thing that is clear with respect to the role of

the Conference as an advocate of its positions and

with outreach to other than its members, is the need

for review and clarification of the benefits of such

a policy. The posture of the Conference in relation

to this conceptual characteristic must be founded

upon its charter and related to the Conference's

ability to survive as a viable, respected forum for

informational exchange, education, and debate.

Advocacy by the Conference as a representative body

can be highly effective when professionally accom- plished. On occasion direct Conference advocacy can appear to be the most reliable and effective means

of communicating a Conference position to a non- Conference decision-maker. At the same time the

process of arriving at a representative position to be advocated on behalf of a substantial, loosely-knit

group of independent sovereign jurisdictions may

necessarily involve a polarization of views that can

be counter-productive in relation to other important

purposes of the Conference.

The Committee recommends that the Policy and Coordination Committee initiate and coordinate a broadlybased study and debate regarding the advantages and

disadvantages of the Conference acting as an advocate

of its own positions.

(Item 502 was adopted)

503 FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

503-1 NET WEIGHT

The committee met with John McKelvey, U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA-FSQS) , and William Randolph, U.S.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concerning the status

of the proposed USDA net weight regulations and any

pending FDA actions or regulations.

At this time it appears there will be several changes

from the December 2, 1977, USDA proposal in a re-proposal

251
to be published for public comment. No exact changes

could be disclosed by USDA; however, it was intimated

that the proposal would be similar to the 1977 proposal.

It was stated that the proposal would also include some provisions from a 1973 proposal and would supersede both

the 1973 and 1977 proposals. It was stated that the issue

is a priority item on the USDA calendar.

FDA will be making a companion net weight proposal

to be published simultaneously with the USDA re-proposal.

As a result of USDA and FDA joint meetings the two proposals are expected to be fundamentally the same. Representatives of the Federal Trade Commission

(FTC) were not present at this meeting. However, it was not anticipated that FTC will propose an additional or alternative net weight proposal. Rather, it was reported

that FTC has indicated it will utilize FDA regulations

for all consumer commodities.

The committee recommends that if the comment period

for the two expected proposals expires prior to the next

Conference (July 1981) the Conference Executive Committee,

through the Conference Chairman, formulate and express

the position of the Conference. The committee also

advises weights and measures officials of the need and

value of their comments to USDA and FDA as individuals or representatives of their respective jurisdictions.

Comments relative to proposal provisions should include

reasons for approval or disapproval and should include

suggestions when appropriate. The committee feels that

the joint efforts of USDA and FDA for uniformity in

regulations is commendable and deserves the cooperation

of the NCWM and NBS.

(Item 503-1 was adopted)

503-2 FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE (FGIS)

The committee met in January with representatives of

the FGIS. Present were Dr. Leland Bartelt, Administrator,

Mr. Dick Pforr, Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch, and

Mr. Ben Banks, Scales and Weighing Specialist.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the relationship between FGIS and the Conference and member

jurisdictions and to seek ways to enhance cooperation

between FGIS and the weights and measures community. The

committee expressed the concern communicated to it by

Conference members that FGIS has not taken full advantage

of the expertise that exists in State and local jurisdictions relative to weights and measures in general and

grain weighing in particular. Efforts should be made by

252
FGIS and the weights and measures community to establish

agreement on specific comprehensive test procedures to be

used in testing scales under FGIS mandate. Communication

should be improved between the organizations involved so that each fully understands the test objectives and data

obtained and is in complete agreement concerning the test

results

.

It is the position of FGIS that, where their scale

specifications are different, these differences are the

result of the mandate that Congress gave FGIS to resolve

grain weighing and inspection problems. The FGIS has

patterned their scale specifications after Handbook 44,

and has proposed regulations which differ from Handbook

44 only in the tolerances to be applied.

Dr. Bartelt stated the FGIS intention to utilize

other than Federal employees to test grain scales. A

Federal inspector will observe all tests on grain scales

that come under the purview of FGIS. These are basically

the 600 or so scales at grain export locations. Dr. Bartelt was asked about the possibility of a program of

Federal-State agreements similar to those that the Packers

and Stockyards Administration has for testing livestock

scales. He indicated this was a possibility for future

consideration.

Another subject discussed has to do with scale

prototype approval. FGIS expressed an interest in participating in and being a part of any national program for

scale prototype examination. It is the committee's

understanding that an FGIS representative has been added

to the National Task Force on Type Approval.

The U.S. Grain Standards Act and its amendments,

which established the FGIS, imposed some requirements on FGIS to deal with grain weighing and inspection in such a manner as to correct some very real problems in grain

exporting, and to develop a better grain weighing and

inspection system than existed at the time. Insofar as their grain weighing activities are concerned, there are substantial areas of common interest with State and local

weights and measures officials. It is the committee's

recommendation that the Conference and its members and

the Federal Grain Inspection Service strive for full

cooperation in scale specification and tolerances, testing and certification of scales, design criteria and type

approval for grain scales, and other areas of mutual

concern. (Item 503-2 was adopted)

253
503-3 RAILROAD TRACK SCALES

Traceability for railroad track scales depends on a series of interconnecting links. Few States have the resources to provide testing and certification through

State-owned standards. Thus, the railroads have owned

most of the standards and have done most of the testing.

Some States participate in the testing and certify correct

scales. Most State and local weights and measures jurisdictions are not involved.

Railroad track scales are generally tested by test

cars owned by the railroad that owns the scale. Verification of these test cars for purposes of traceability is

done on ''master" scales. There are presently 16 of these

owned by railroads and located at various points around

the nation.

The National Bureau of Standards for a long period

of years owned two test cars, known as NBS 1 and NBS 2,

which were used to verify the ''master" scales. NBS 1 and

NBS 2 in turn had their test weights calibrated at Clearing Illinois at a facility owned and operated by NBS.

The Clearing, Illinois, facility has a master scale and a set of standards used to keep the scale in calibration.

The standards were periodically returned to the Bureau

for recalibration

.

In summary, the traceability chain passed from NBS

through its test facility at Clearing, through its test

cars, through the railroads' master scales, through the

railroads' test cars, to the 5500 or so commercial

railroad track scales in the various States. There are

two weak links in this chain. One is the small number of

State and local jurisdictions participating in the testing and certification of the scales. The other weak link

was lack of adequate funding to keep the two NBS test

cars in repair, to maintain the Clearing Illinois facility, and to operate the program. The Association of

American Railroads (AAR) was contributing funds plus

moving the test cars. NBS has put no funds into this

program since 1975. The AAR support has not been adequate

to maintain both test cars in good operating condition.

NBS 1 has been idle due to poor condition since 1976.

Thus it was difficult for NBS to check the railroad

master scales at appropriate intervals.

NBS has completed an agreement with the FGIS to transfer NBS 1 and NBS 2, and an extra set of nine tenthousand pound weights to FGIS. NBS 2 has been refurbished and transferred to FGIS in good operating condition. A replacement for NBS 1 has been purchased. The

254
standards and equipment will be installed, and the car will be operational in the near future.

NBS is currently seeking to transfer ownership and

operation of the Clearing Illinois facility to another

entity. This was earlier reported to be the State of

Illinios, but it now appears that this is more likely to be FGIS.

A representative of FGIS explains that they intend

to test the master scales once each year. They will also

test 36 railroad track scales at grain export locations

twice a year. According to the FGIS representative, the

test cars will not be made available to test any railroad

track scale that does not come under FGIS jurisdiction.

It was reported that AAR is expected to continue to fund

the program at essentially the same level as before, and

will continue to move the test cars.

It is of concern to the committee that traceability

for railroad track scales will soon be indirect and will

be from the NBS through FGIS (or possibly the State of

Illinois and FGIS) to the master scales. The committee

has been assured by OWM that it will continue to review

the operation of the program. The committee has been

further assured by OWM and FGIS that the processes of

calibrating the primary standards, training the personnel

in measurement assurance, and certifying the Clearing

Illinois facility will in themselves provide the necessary assurances of traceability.

It is the recommendation of the committee that the

Conference work with the National Bureau of Standards to develop appropriate mechanisms to assure traceability for

railroad track scales. It is further recommended that

the Conference develop recommendations to its member

jurisdictions on ways to become involved in the testing

and certification of railroad track scales. This might

be accomplished by means of an ad hoc committee consisting of representatives of NCWM, NBS, and AAR.

(Item 503-3 was adopted)

503-4 SPHYGMOMANOMETERS

In October 1979 the Association for the Advancement

of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) submitted two drafts on sphygmomanometers for consideration by the AAMI Sphygmomanometer Committee and other interested parties. One

draft was a proposed standard for nonautomated sphygmomano

meters and the other draft was a proposed Standard for

Electronic or Automated Sphygmomanometers. Comments on

255
the drafts were received by the AAMI Sphygmomanometer

Committee at their meeting in November 1979. Balloting

on the Standards will be completed before the AAMI Sphygmomanometer Committee meeting in April 1980. If approved

by the committee, the two documents would then be submitted to the American National Standards Institute for

public review and final approval.

(Item 503-4 was adopted)

503-5 ICE-GLAZED SEAFOODS

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) re- quested advice and cooperation in an effort to standardize the method of measuring the net contents of iceglazed seafoods. Representatives of the Service suggested

that the service, FDA, and State agencies may all be

using different methods. It was subsequently decided by

the Committee that the first action required is to achieve

the agreement of the NMFS and FDA regarding the method.

Thereafter the Committee met with FDA representatives and were advised that both the Service and the FDA use the same American Organization of Analytical Chemists (AOAC) procedure. It was acknowledged that for budgetary reasons the

FDA has been unable to initiate checks or enforcement

action, with the result that producers not participating

in the Service's voluntary seafood inspection program may

not be adhering to standards required by the Service.

Certain State weights and measures officials have

confirmed that they have experienced difficulties achieving consistent results using the AOAC method, and others

observed that the cost of destructive testing is such

that the product is infrequently checked in their jurisdictions. The committee has received an unsubstantiated

impression that there may be a commercial problem of some dimension.

More input is needed from member jurisdictions

regarding their experiences with the official test procedure and the results of their testing for net quantity

compliance. Until more input is received, the committee

can take no further action on this issue.

(Item 503-5 was adopted)

503-6 AEROSOL PACKAGE LABELING

On May 4, 1979, the NCWM petitioned the FDA to amend

its regulations to require that food and cosmetic aerosol

products bear declarations of quantity in terms of net

weight only. That petition has been assigned FDA Docket

256
No. 79P0170. All correspondence relating to that petition

should include a reference to this docket number.

The Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs

has advised the National Conference that budgetary restrictions have caused delays in the agency's action on the

petition. The Conference Chairman wrote to the FDA's

Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs acknowledging his interim response, reconfirming the Conference's

interest in the subject matter of the petition, and

stressing the importance of appropriate action by the

agency. The Associate Commissioner has responded by

stating that the Bureau of Foods has now been authorized

to prepare a draft Federal Register document consistent

with the Conference petition. The document will be

subject to review by FDA bureaus concerned with prescription and over the counter drugs and cosmetics.

The Conference Chairman wrote to the FDA's Associate

Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs acknowledging his

interim response, reconfirming the Conference's interest

in the subject matter of the petition, and stressing the

importance of appropriate action by the agency.

(Item 503-6 was adopted)

504 METRIC LABELING

The Liaison Committee has been charged with the task

of monitoring the need to amend Federal statutes to permit labeling in metric units only, pursuant to an orderly and voluntary conversion. The Conference filed

with the U.S. Metric Board (USMB) a petition urging the

Board to ask Congress and the President to initiate such

legislative amendments as may be required for the stated

purpose. In response to the Conference petition the USMB

created a Federal interagency committee consisting of

FDA, FTC, and USMB representatives to explore the problem

and develop recommendations.

The committee met with staff representatives of the

Board. They advised the Committee that (1) the Board had

reported to Congress that no such amendments to Federal

statutes are needed; (2) the Conference must specifically

identify needed statutory amendments if Board support is

to be expected; (3) there is a preference to avoid requests

for legislative action if the problem can be solved other

ways; and (4) the FDA and FTC had advised them that

"metric only" labeling is possible without amending the

Fair Packaging and Labeling Act if it is accomplished in an orderly sequence relative to logical product categories

257
in accordance with "notice and comment rulemaking procedures .The Board staff representatives promised that they

would provide the Conference with a more formal written

response to its petition accompanied by a copy of the

Metric Board's most recent formal report to Congress.

The June 4, 1980, written response to the NCWM

President from the Executive Director of the USMB communicated substantial doubt that "metric only" labeling can

be used without prior amendment to the Federal Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act. Moreover, it seems clear

that the Board intends to defer any recommendation to Congress that the FPLA be amended. This policy appears

to be premised upon the position that the FPLA, without

amendment, permits the use of metric quantity declarations

as the principal (though not exclusive) declarations.

In view of the foregoing, it is the committee's

conclusion that in order to have any hope for success, a future NCWM request for a "metric only" regulation addressed to the FDA or the FTC must relate to a specific

category of products which has for an extended time borne

metric declarations as the principal declarations of

labeled quantity. It seems also that as to each category

of products, the applicable exemptions and the new Federal

regulation would have to apply uniformly to all like

articles within the category throughout the U.S. The

committee has not been made aware of any asserted need

for a change in any Federal regulation to permit "metric

only" labeling.

(Item 504 was adopted)

505 TASK FORCE ON GRAIN MOISTURE MEASUREMENT ASSURANCE

A total of 33 representatives from fifteen States

attended the Grain Moisture Measurement Task Force Seminar

held in Atlanta, Georgia on September 11-13, 1979. The

following States were represented: Alabama, Arkansas,

California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,

Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South

Carolina, and Tennessee. Dr. Carroll Brickenkamp from

NBS and Mr. Charles Hurburgh from Iowa State University

were also in attendance.

The three regional coordinators (Leo Letey, Colorado,

Sid Colbrook, Illinois, and Jim O'Connor, Iowa) and Sam

Hindsman, National Coordinator, chaired the task force

meeting on January 14, 1980, at the Interim Committee

Meetings of the NCWM at NBS in Gaithersburg , Maryland. A

258
summary of these task force activities are in the following paragraphs.

In Atlanta, laboratory personnel spent three days in

the laboratory so as to develop greater uniformity in

procedures and technique. Each participating State

agreed to exchange five samples with USDA and with at

least two other States to assure uniformity and traceability.

Uniformity in field testing procedures was also

discussed by field personnel in Atlanta. All States in

attendance agreed on uniform field testing procedures and

the use of prepared samples of a known moisture content

as the State standard. A model field test report form

was constructed by the field personnel.

Administrative, laboratory and field representatives

from the following States have agreed to use the uniform

field test report on corn: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,

South Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, California, Iowa,

and Wisconsin.

The following States have agreed to use the same field test report forms for soybeans: Arkansas, Florida,

Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois,

Iowa, and Mississippi.

Field test reports will be submitted to the Office

of Weights and Measures to the attention of Dr. Carroll

Brickenkamp. The Office of Weights and Measures will

provide the necessary information to Charles Hurburgh,

Iowa State University, as supporting data for his research

project on corn moisture measurement.

The Office of Weights and Measures will be in contact

with Mr. Hurburgh and the participating States prior to the 1980 grain harvest. Procedures for submitting data

will be clearly defined for those participating in the

program.

Upon completion of the research projects, the information will be made available to the (1) Grain Moisture

Measurement Assurance Task Force, (2) USDA, (3) moisture

meter manufacturers, and (4) participating States.

The following letter to FGIS requesting immediate

evaluation of the reference standard for moisture for corn and soybeans, was prepared and submitted by the task

force. The letter was sent on September 20, 1979, by Sam

Hindsman to Dr. Leland Bartelt, Administrator of FGIS.

259
"The National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM) is a voluntary organization of State and

local weights and measures officials who have regulatory authority over the accuracy of measurements

necessary for commerce. The NCWM is a forum for

developing national standards of practice and perfor- mance for weighing and measuring in the U.S.

"The National Task Force on Grain Moisture Measurement of the NCWM has been established (1) to encourage the adoption by weights and measures officials

of uniform laboratory and field test procedures to be used to test grain moisture meters, and (2) to

evaluate the capabilities of moisture meters in

order to set reasonable tolerances on the meters.

"Grain moisture meters are calibrated using the USDA

official oven standards. However, the oven method

can often give erroneous results especially for the

major U.S. crops of corn and soybeans.

"Mr. W. H. Hunt (FGIS, retired) and Mr. S. W. Pixton

in their article "Moisture-Its Significance, Behavior

and Measurement" from the book Storage of Cereal

Grains and Their Products (AACC, St. Paul, 1974)

said "This [nonaqueous] loss [for soybeans] occurs

at low temperatures in the early stages of drying

and a satisfactory oven method has not been developed

to counteract this." They also said that U.S. flint

corn (which is being hybridized and grown more now

in the U.S.) is essentially identical to corn grown

in France and that "corn grown in France gave moisture

values about 1% too low when dried by this [USDA]

procedure." They also reported in that same article

that "The Karl Fischer method, as modified by Hart

and Neustadt (1957), apparently gives the true

moisture content of grain. Therefore, all U.S.

Department of Agriculture oven methods have been

designed to give results which agree with those

obtained by the Karl Fischer method," and that gas

chromatograph (GC) "may. . .prove to be an accurate measure of 'true' moisture content. Agreement

between the GC and Karl Fischer methods was excellent." Mssrs. Hunt and Pixton' s conclusions are based on the work of Weise, Burke, and Taylor from

the National Bureau of Standards.

"The known inaccuracies added to the reported precision of the oven method may seriously undermine the

accuracy of the moisture meters themselves. Therefore, the National Task Force on Grain Moisture

Measurement requests FGIS to immediately re-establish

260
the Karl Fischer method in combination with gas

chromatography as the USDA basic reference method,

and, based upon these techniques, to re-evaluate the oven methods for precision and accuracy for corn and

soybeans, in particular. (It may be, for example,

that the meters should be calibrated using a basic

reference such as Karl Fischer or GC, for corn and

soybeans, whereas oven techniques are suitable for

calibration of the meters for other crops such as wheat and rice.)

"We look forward to your response in this matter."

A seminar planned for Kansas City during the month

of September, sponsored jointly by the task force and Dr. Cliff Watson, USDA, has been postponed until after the

1980 grain season. Plans are in progress to meet at the

USDA grain moisture laboratory in Kansas City during the

month of March 1981. The task force believes that the

meeting will be more appropriate and useful for all con- cerned following an analysis of data received for corn

and soybeans from the various States.

Dr. Carroll Brickenkamp (NBS) and Mr. Sam Hindsman

(Arkansas) were among the U.S. delegation to the OIML

meeting on grain moisture meters in Paris, France on October 2-4, 1979. Also in that delegation were Dr. Cliff Watson, FGIS, USDA, Mr. David Funk, Dickey-john

Corp., and Mr. Lawrence Kirsen, Motomco Inc. The U.S.

raised questions concerning the proposed tolerances on

the meter and reference methods of the draft standard. A

third meeting will have to be held before a final document

can be prepared.

The task force does not have sufficient supporting

information to submit recommendations to the L&R Committee

or the S&T Committee concerning model regulations or device codes.

The committee wishes to express its thanks to the

following States that are participating in the Grain

Moisture Measurement Assurance program. Arkansas,

California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa,

Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and

Tennessee. Data has been received from the 1979 grain season and plans are proceeding for additional data

during the 1980 grain season. (Item 505 was adopted)

261
C. H. Greene, New Mexico, Chairman

C. R. Cavagnaro, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs

C. E. Forester, Texas

E. C. Heffron, Michigan

M. S. Thompson, Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee, and

Hastings, Ltd.

S. Hasko, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. Wollin, Executive Secretary, NCWM

Committee on Liaison

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the

Committee on Liaison voting key items 500 through 505 was adopted in its entirety as amended by the Conference.

The results of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows.

The Conference also authorized the executive secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language

adopted by the Conference.)

VOTING RESULTS--Committee on Liaison

Voting Key

House of State

Representatives

262
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Presented by CHARLES H. VINCENT,

Conference Chairman, Director, Department of

Consumer Affairs, City of Dallas, Texas

(Thursday, June 26, 1980)

VOTING KEY

600 INTRODUCTION

The Executive Committee submits

its final report for consideration by

the 65th National Conference on Weights

and Measures.

The following items were initially

referred to the P & C Committee and the

appropriate standing committees at the

interim meeting in January and were subsequently referred to the Executive

Committee for its consideration.

601 NEW MEMBERSHIP PLAN AND CHANGES TO

THE NCWM ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE

The new membership plan that was adopted as a proposal

by the 64th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM) has been worked into the Conference Organization

and Procedure. These changes were originally published

in the Membership Prospectus that was distributed at the

1979 Conference and later revised and widely issued as an offer to join NCWM as a Charter Member.

The Executive Committee is pleased to report that 1078

Charter Memberships have been received to date. We trust

that the new membership plan will be beneficial to the

Conference

.

In addition to the establishment of a paid membership

plan, the NCWM Organization and Procedure has been expanded

to reflect the growing nature of its programs and professional stature. In summary, these are the additions and

changes that have been made to the NCWM Organization and

Procedure

:

(Item 601 was adopted)

263
601-1 DEFINITION OF MEASUREMENT OPERATIONS (ADDED)

Measurement operations is the total process of assuring compliance with those codes and other duly enacted regulatory measures that seek uniformity and equity based on measurement in commerce, general public health, welfare,

and safety. The practitioners of measurement operations

are employed at all levels of government, and in the

private sector, and they perform a wide variety of functions including highly specialized laboratory calibration,

field inspections, manufacturing, packaging, and maintenance

operations. They deal with a highly diversified body of

technical knowledge - yet they find common causes and

interests in their basic objectives and work approaches

within a distinct sector of the public service.

(Item 601-1 was adopted)

601-2 FEES (CHANGED)

All classes of membership: Active, advisory, and associate membership is on an annual basis (as of July 1 of each

year) and is effectuated through:

a) Registration at the annual meeting of the Conference

and payment of the registration fee of $75 or,

b) Payment of an annual membership fee of $25.

In both cases, the member receives all products and

services of NCWM. The $25 annual membership fee will be

credited to the registration fee if paid in advance by

those who attend the Conference annual meeting.

(Item 601-2 was adopted)

601-3 PROFESSIONALISM IN MEASUREMENT OPERATIONS (ADDED)

The impact of professionalism will be felt at all

levels of government, in industry, and by the general public. Membership in this Conference will be highly beneficial

to all those who employ, work with, are regulated by, or are served by you. Some of the benefits visualized are a rationalized structure of the applied measurement function,

improved regulatory procedures, and a general upgrading

of competence among practitioners throughout the Nation.

You will have an expanded appreciation of all functions

beyond the technical aspects - including the intent of

the legislation, general administrative and regulatory

laws, sociology and psychology, and a fundamental knowledge of the activities with which you must interface.

(Item 601-3 was adopted)

264
601-4 DUTIES OF OFFICERS (CHANGED)

The NCWM Chairman has the responsibility to make appointments, based on the recommendations of NBS-OWM and approved

by the Executive Committee, to the several annual and

standing committees and to appoint other Conference

officials as needed during his term of office. The

appointment of standing committee members had previously

been made by the Conference President.

(Item 601-4 was adopted)

601-5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT (ADDED)

The NCWM constantly strives to expand its capabilities for providing meaningful services to the profession.

Professional development projects undertaken are aimed

at the preparation of comprehensive guidelines for use in

conducting educational and training programs at colleges,

universities, and other organizations involved in such

activities. Standards for the conduct of certification

programs will be developed and supplemental competency

measurement systems will be designed as needed. Research

is conducted in the principles and practices of the

profession to improve and expand the tools available to practitioners in meeting present and future job needs.

Systems and procedures for maintaining the NCWM coordinating services will continually be updated.

As the various milestones toward the completion of

basic development programs are reached, NCWM's ability to provide services to the profession will grow. The real

impact of professionalism will be felt with the implementation of each new service, product or recommendation.

(Item 601-5 was adopted)

601-6 VOTING SYSTEM (CHANGED)

As a result of action taken by the 64th NCWM, the sec- tion on Floor Amendments has been revised as follows:

a) Committee chairmen are allowed to offer amendments

during the day of voting to make editorial changes

in their final reports.

b) Substantive changes can be made at the request of

weights and measures officials only, and:

265
1) a majority of the voting delegates of each

House must agree to debate a proposed amendment,

and

2) a two-thirds favorable vote of each House on the

amendment is required for passage (the requirement

for a minimum vote of 27 in both Houses also

applies .

)

(Item 601-6 was adopted)

601-7 MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION (ADDED)

The NCWM invites all who are interested in or affected

by weights and measures administration and measurement

technology to become members of the Conference. An

application form is provided with the Organization and

Procedure booklet. The membership period runs from

July 1 to June 30. [Note: The NCWM Executive Committee

approved the implementation of a Charter Membership drive

which ran from January 1 to June 1, 1980.] Members will

receive the following publications and material:

o NBS Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and

Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and

Measuring Devices"

o NBS Handbook 130, "Model State Laws and Regulations"

o Report of the Annual Meeting of the Conference

o NCWM announcements, programs, and other published

material and information

o Membership certificate and wallet-size membership

card.

(Item 601-7 was adopted)

602 PROPOSALS TO NCWM COMMITTEES

The Conference standing committees have expressed

their concern with the quality of content and timeliness

of proposals submitted to them for consideration during

the interim meetings. A realistic approach to effectively

deal with the growing number and complexity of issues

brought to the attention of the committees must be implemented. This is necessary to assure a manageable

workload and to adequately analyze and develop recom- mendations on each proposal.

266
In 1977 the Committee on National Measurement Policy

and Coordination recommended a policy to deal with this

problem and certain procedures of the standing committees.

The policy as adopted by the Conference that year called

upon all organizations and individuals to adhere to the

guidelines in the policy statement for submission of

proposals to NCWM committees. The policy guidelines

pertaining to proposals are as follows:

a) An interim meeting of the standing committees

of the NCWM shall be scheduled approximately

five months (usually in January) prior to the

annual Conference meeting.

b) All proposals to be considered by a committee

for action during the upcoming Conference shall

be presented in writing to the committee sixty

days (usually by December 1) prior to the

interim meetings.

c) Proposals should contain a concise statement of

the problem and clearly outline the purpose and

national need for its consideration.

d) Proposals should include the submission of

adequate background material including test

data, analysis of test data, or other appropriately researched and documented material from

which a committee will be able to make a suitable

judgment for either a firm recommendation or to consider the need for further study. When

possible, solutions to problems shall be

proposed and stated in specific language in

amendment form to Conference documents.

e) Weights and measures officials are encouraged

to utilize their regional associations for

initial exploration of issues and to use the resources of all member States within that

regional association to assist in the develop

ment of well documented proposals where applicable

f) If a proposal involves a new area of weights

and measures activity, it would be appropriate

to make recommendations for both regulations

and test methods to provide for proper enforcement

267
g) Tentative agendas listing the issues that may

be discussed by the committees during the

interim meetings should be available upon

request from the Office of Weights and Measures

thirty days (usually by January 1) prior to the

interim meetings.

h) Upon request, committees will hold hearings for

presentations by Government officials, industry

representatives, or consumer groups during the

interim meetings. Requests for hearings must

be received at least two weeks prior to the

start of the meetings so scheduling can be

arranged.

(Copies of the entire policy statement are available from

the NCWM Executive Secretary.)

The Executive Committee strongly recommends that all

proposals that fail to meet these guidelines be rejected

and those who have offered the proposal should be notified

as to the reason for rejection. The Executive Committee

does not feel that a standard format for proposals would

be necessary or desirable for all committees. For this

reason, each standing committee may offer its recommendations on a format for proposals to be submitted to their

committee and which would be in keeping with the overall

policy and guidelines of the Conference. The committee announces that all proposals for the 66th Conference,

with supportive data, are due to the respective committees

by November 18, 1980. The 1981 interim committee meetings

will be held January 19-23, 1981 at the National Bureau

of Standards. [Editors' note: changed to January 14-17,

1981, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas]

In response to the recommendation adopted by the

Conference last year, the Committee has approved a fiveyear plan concerning future meeting dates and sites as developed by the Conference Executive Secretary. The

site selection and schedule is as follows:

Date City Hotel

(Item 602 was adopted)

603 FUTURE CONFERENCE PLANS

July 12-17, 1981 St. Louis, MO Stouffer's Riverfront Towers

July 11-16, 1982

July , 1983

July , 1984

July , 1985

Atlanta, GA

Sacramento, CA

Boston, MA

Washington, DC

Marriott

Not selected

Not selected

Not selected

268
Although specific dates have not yet been determined for

1983-1985, the plan is to make arrangements for either the

second or third week in the month of July. Negotiations

are underway for the selection of the headquarters hotel in

each city.

Looking ahead to next year, St. Louis is a very lovely and

exciting city and we are sure the Conference members will

enjoy the many outstanding facilities and visitor attractions that are offered there.

The Honorable George Busbee, Governor of the State of

Georgia, and Mayor Maynard Jackson, City of Atlanta, have

written to the Conference expressing their great delight and

support concerning the plan to meet in Atlanta in 1982.

(Item 603 was adopted)

604 REPORT OF THE ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE

(Presented by Eric Allen, The Measuregraph Co.,

Committee Chairman)

At its meeting on Sunday, June 21, the committee discussed

and completed its plans for the industry party which took

place on Tuesday evening in the Blue Room and which was in

keeping with tradition of parties of the past.

The committee has had an opportunity to review the corre- spondence files of the Associate Membership Committee for

the past several years, dating back to 1968. The one theme

that runs through this 12 years of correspondence and

reports to this Conference is the concern that the com- mittees of the Conference do not make use of the vast

reservoir of expertise represented in the associate mem- bership. Again this year, we urge you to consider this

expertise in your planning.

(Item 604 was adopted)

c. H. VINCENT, Chairman K. R. ADCOCK, Ohio

J. R. BIRD, Vice Chairman M. W. CAIN, Virginia

E. C. HEFFRON, Vice Chairman M. A. MALD0NAD0 , Puerto Rico

E. KEELEY, Vice Chairman R. J. CORD, Prince Georges

County, Maryland

W. C. SULLIVAN, Vice Chairman E. F. DELFINO, California

A. M. NELSON, Treasurer P. M. FULLINWIDER, Arizona

J. H. LEWIS, Chaplain E. P. SKLUZACEK, Minnesota

H. F. WOLLIN, Executive D. R. SMITH, Santa Clara

Secretary County, California

F. A. THOMAS, Pennsylvania

269
Executive Committee

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the

Executive Committee voting key items 600 through 604 was adopted in its entirety by the Conference. The results

of the voting in the House of State Representatives and

the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system

are totalized in the table that follows. The Conference

also 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.)

VOTING RESULTS - Executive Committee

Voting Key

House of State

Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

600 37

601 - 601-1

601-2

601-3 — 35

601-4

601-5

601-6

601-7 _ 602 37

603 38

604 38

52

44

43

44

46

270
REPORT OF TEE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

Presented by THOMAS W. SCOTT, Chief,

Measurement Section, Consumer Standards Division,

Department of Agriculture, State of North Carolina

(Thursday, June 26, 1980)

VOTING KEY

700 INTRODUCTION

The Resolutions Committee ex- presses its appreciation on behalf

of the 65th National Conference on Weights and Measures to each and

every one who contributed their time

and talents towards the arrangements

for, the conduct of, and participation in this National Conference.

701 THANKS TO PROGRAM CONTRIBUTERS

The Conference gives a special vote of thanks to:

1) All speakers of the Conference for their expertise,

information, and contributions to the program.

2) All officers and appointed officials of the

65th National Conference on Weights and Measures

for their assistance and service towards a very

successful Conference.

3) All committee members for their time and efforts

throughout the past year to prepare and present

their reports.

4) The governing officials of the State and local

jurisdictions for their interest and support in

weights and measures administration in the

United States.

5) Representatives of business and industry for

their cooperation, assistance, and hospitality.

6) Consumer representatives, members of the public

media, and other participants who have shown

their interest and support for the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

7) The staff of the Shoreham Hotel for their fine

facilities, assistance, and courtesies, all of

which contributed to the enjoyment and comfort

of the delegates.

271
8) To the National Bureau of Standards and the Office

of Weights and Measures for planning and conducting

the work and program of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The following resolutions of appreciation are presented for adoption by the members of the Conference:

702 Be it resolved that the National Conference thank the

members of the International Organization of Legal

Metrology for their attendance and participation.

703 Be it resolved that the National Conference express

its appreciation to John H. Lewis, State of Washington,

for his long service as the Conference Chaplain.

T. W. SCOTT, North Carolina, Chairman

L. LETEY, Colorado

B. MERRICK, Missouri

L. MILLER, Dayton, Ohio

J. M. O'CONNOR, Iowa

E. J. STEPHENS, Utah

Resolutions Committee

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the

Resolutions Committee, voting key items 700 through 703, was adopted in its entirety by the Conference. The re- sults of the voting in the House of State Representatives

and the House of Delegates under the Conference voting

system are totalized in the table that follows. The Conference also authorized the Executive Secretary to make

any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted

by the Conference.)

(Item 701 was adopted)

(Items 702 and 703 were adopted)

VOTING RESULTS - Resolutions Committee

Voting Key

House of State

Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

700

701

38 0 46 0 702

703

272
REPORT OF THE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE

Presented by KENDRICK J. SIMILA, Administrator,

Weights and Measures Division, Department

of Agriculture, State of Oregon

(Thursday, June 26, 1980)

VOTING KEY

800 INTRODUCTION

801

The Nominations Committee met

during the Conference for the purpose

of selecting a slate of nominees for

all elective offices and for the ten

elective memberships of the Executive

Committee. In the selection of

nominees from the active membership,

consideration was given to the professional experience and qualifications of individuals, attendance

records, geographical distribution,

Conference participation, and other

factors deemed by the committee to be important.

NOMINATIONS

The Nominations Committee submits the following names

in nomination for office to serve during the ensuing year

and at the 66th National Conference on Weights and Measures

Nominations

Chairman:

E. H. Stadolnik, Massachusetts

Vice Chairmen:

C. H. Greene, New Mexico

S. F. Hindsman, Arkansas

P. E. Nichols, Alameda County, California

R. W. Probst, Wisconsin

Treasurer:

A. M. Nelson, Connecticut

Chaplain:

F. W. Daniels, Wayne County, Indiana

273
Executive Committee:

1. R. Anderson, New York

2. T. F. Brink, Vermont

3. L. D. Holloway, Idaho

4. J. O'Connor, Iowa

5. J. L. O'Neill, Kansas

6. K. Petitte, Chicago, Illinois

7. N. M. Ross, Omaha, Nebraska

8. J. Shelton, Tennessee

9. D. Smith, North Carolina

10. E. J. Stephens, Utah

(There being no further nominations from the floor, the

Chairman declared nominations closed and requested the

Executive Secretary to cast a unanimous ballot for all

nominees .

)

802 FUTURE ISSUES

During its deliberations the committee discussed two

issues impacting on the current Organization and Procedures

of the Conference. The Committee wishes to share with

the Conference membership knowledge of its having discussed

these issues so that all may be aware of them.

The first issue deals with the length or term of

office of the Conference Chairman. Since the inception

of the Conference 70 years ago, the Conference Chairman

has served a one-year term. A case can be made that

perhaps the time has come to consider whether the term of

office of the Conference Chairman should be changed.

Specifically the issue is whether a term of office for

the Conference Chairman longer than one year may be

appropriate or called for.

Factors that give rise to this issue include, for

example, the increasing complexity of legal metrology

issues, the short time the Conference Chairman currently

has to effectively lead and represent the Conference, the

loss of continuity that frequent changes in the Chairmanship can bring, and the incongruence of a one-year term

with a two-year appointment of the Conference's Chairman

in alternate years to the U.S. OIML Advisory Committee.

One approach the Conference could take is to change

the term of office of its Chairman to two years. Another

approach might be the re-election of Chairmen able and

willing to serve more than one term. Other possibilities

concerning the term of office for the Conference Chairman

also exist.

274
The second issue discussed by the Committee was that

of modifications to the makeup and size of the Executive

Committee. Specifically the concept of a nine-member

Conference Executive Committee made up of the five members

of the Policy and Coordination Committee and the four

Conference Vice Chairmen was discussed. In a number of

respects such an organizational structure for the Executive

Committee could better suit the needs of the Conference.

Both of these issues are obviously not action items

at this 65th Conference. The Committee on Nominations

took no position on these issues. Our intention in

discussing them, and mentioning them now, has been to stimulate further thought on how the Conference can best

structure itself for the decade of the 80s and beyond.

If changes in these areas are in fact warranted, during

the coming months they can be proposed, and in due course,

debated and dealt with. We hope you will participate

actively in this process.

(Item 802 was adopted)

K. J. SIMILA, Oregon, Chairman

S. D. ANDREWS , Florida

J. T. BENNETT, Connecticut

G. L. JOHNSON, Kentucky

J. F. LYLES, Virginia

J. H. LEWIS, Washington

R. L. THOMPSON, Maryland

Nominations Committee

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the

Nominations Committee, voting key items 800 through 802, was adopted in its entirety by the Conference. The results

of the voting in the House of Representatives and the House

of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows.)

VOTING RESULTS - Nominations Committee

House of State

Voting Key Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

800 40 0 51 2 801 39 0 55 0 802 38 0 53 2

275
REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Presented by FRED A. GERK, Associate Chief,

Division of Consumer and Marketing Services,

Department of Agriculture, State of New Mexico

(Thursday, June 26, 1980)

VOTING KEY

900

The Auditing Committee met on Wednesday morning, June 25, for the

purpose of reviewing the financial

records of the Conference Treasurer,

Mr. Allan M. Nelson. The Committee

finds these records to be in accor- dance with Conference procedure and

correct.

F. A. GERK, New Mexico, Chairman

R. H. Claussen, Porter County, Indiana

G. J. Tommasi, Middletown, Connecticut

Committee on Auditing

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the

Auditing Committee, voting key item 900, was adopted by

the Conference. The results of the voting in the House

of Representatives and the House of Delegates under the

Conference voting system are totalized in the table that

follows

.

VOTING RESULTS - Auditing Committee

House of State

Voting Key Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

900 39 0 45 0

276
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER

Presented by ALLAN M. NELSON, Metrologist , Weights and

Measures Division, Department of Consumer

Protection, State of Connecticut

(Thursday, June 26, 1980)

VOTING KEY

1000 INTRODUCTION

It is my pleasure to report to you today on the financial status of

the Conference treasury as follows:

Balance on hand, July 1, 1979 $ 4,909.27

General Account (including $2,070.00

receivable from U.S. Metric Board) $ 4,347.04

Medallion Account 394.13

Necktie Account 511.75

Membership Plaque Account (343 . 65)

TOTAL $ 4,909.27

Total cash balance, July 1, 1979 $ 2,839.27

Promotional Account Cash Balance 562 . 23

General Account Cash Balance $ 2,277.04

RECEIPTS

Registrations-64th Conference $17,300.00

346 @ $50.00

Breakfast tickets-68 @ $5.00 340.00

Party tickets -132 @ $8.00 1,056.00

Ladies tour -68 @ $5.00 340.00

U. S. Metric Board payment 2,070.00

Certificates of Deposit

Redeemed 11/13/79 15,000.00

Interest on Certificates of Deposit 209.37

Preregistrations-65th Conference

49 @ $50.00 2,450.00

277
Charter membership

1,068 members @ S25.00 26,700.00

Pacific Telephone Company rebate .62

Union Trust Account Transfer 16 . 24

TOTAL RECEIPTS $65,482.23

TOTAL of General Account Cash Balance

July 1, 1979 and Receipts S67,759.27

DISBURSEMENTS

Lacy H. DeGrange, 01ML trip S 491.30

Pronto Print-Conference Copy Service 628.95

Johnny Reitz, Conference Orchestra 650.00

Two 90-day Certificates of Deposit 10,000.00

Gray Line Sightseeing Co., Ladies Tour 552.50

Tri-Met. Conference Outing Transportation 1,737.42

Red Lion Motor Inn, Conference Expenses 2,868.03

Audio/Visual Rental & Services

Conference Rental 714.65

Sam F. Hindsman, OIML Trip 931.00

Greater Portland Convention & Visitors

Association-Registration Desk 114.37

Franklin Press, letterheads 51.00

Associate Membership Committee/NCWM Outing 1,056.00

Gerber Foto, Conference photographer 543.88

Oregon Department of Agriculture

Conference expenses 105.37

IBM Typewriter rental 105.00

Frank Nagele, OIML trip 5-5.79

Franklin Press, business cards 25.02

Frank Nagele, balance of travel OIML trip 18.30

Bank charge, printed checks 11.11

Charles Vincent travel Metric Board & XASDA 836.20

Charles Vincent travel Southern Conference 386.75

Interim meeting expenses 13,452.45

Franklin Press, letterheads 52.30

Hartford Postmaster (50 stamps) 7.50

James Akey, Treasury expenses 209.37

Hartford Stamp Works, Inc., rubber stamp 6.42

Washington Boat Lines, Inc. deposit 300.00

Association Management Magazine, renewal 15.00

Allan M. Nelson, Treasurer,

Conference transportation 176.00

Xerox Corporation, placement and copy- machine rental 183.83

Xerox Corporation, supplies (developer) 37.80

National Bureau of Standards, Membership

Brochure, HB 130, Conference Announcement 7,943.97

278
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $44,757.28

General Account Cash Balance as of June 1, 1980 $23,001.99

TOTAL General Account Disbursements and

Cash Balance $67,759.27

Promotional Account Cash Balance as of

July 1, 1979 $ 562.23

RECEIPTS

OWM Educational Material $ 240.00

Sale of 67 Conference Plaques 335.00 $ 575.00

TOTAL $ 1,137.23

DISBURSEMENTS

Donald Lynch-Conference caps $ 50.00 50.00

Promotional Account CASH BALANCE as of June 1, 1980 $ 1,087.23

RECAP

General Account Cash Balance June 1, 1980 $23,001.99

Promotional Account Cash Balance June 1, 1980 1,087.23

TOTAL cash balance June 1, 1980 $24,089.22

DEPOSITORIES

Southington Bank & Trust Co., Southington, CT $24,072.98

Union Trust Co., Gaithersburg , MD 16.24

$24,089.22

"Medallion, Necktie, and Membership Plaque

Accounts have been consolidated into the

Promotional Account for the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs

.

(signed) Allan M. Nelson, Treasurer

(On motion of the Treasurer, the report of

the Conference Treasurer, voting key item

1000, was adopted by the Conference. The

results of the voting in the House of State

Representatives and the House of Delegates

under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows.)

279
VOTING RESULTS - Conference Treasurer

House of State

Voting Key Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

1000 39 0 44 0

280
REGISTRATION LIST

65TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

June 22-27, 1980 Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D.C.

ALABAMA

STATE JOHN B. RABB, Weights and Measures Laboratory Supervisor, State of Alabama, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 3336, 1445 Federal Drive, Montgomery, Alabama

36193 (Tel. (205) 832-6766) ALASKA

STATE JAMES E. SNYDER, Metrologist, Weights and Measures, State of Alaska, P. 0. Box 10-1686, Anchorage, Alaska 99511 (Tel. (907) 349-7631) JOSEPH L. SWANS0N, Chief, Weights and Measures, State of Alaska, P. 0. Box 10-1686, Anchorage, Alaska 99511 (Tel. (907) 349-7631) ARIZONA

STATE PATRICIA M. FULLINWIDER, Assistant Director, State of Arizona, DoA - Weights and Measures Division, 3039 West Indian School, Phoenix, Arizona 85017 (Tel. (602) 255-5211)

THE NAVAJO NATION BARNEY TSINAJINNIE, Weights and Measures Inspector II, The Navajo Nation - Commerce Department, Window Rock, Arizona 86515 (Tel. (602) 871-4941 Ext. 1473) ARKANSAS

STATE - SAM F. HINDSMAN, Director, Arkansas Weights and Measures, 4608 West 61st Street, Little Rock, Arkansas

72209 (Tel. (501) 371-1759) CALIFORNIA

STATE EZI0 F. DELFIN0, Chief, Division of Measurement Standards, State of California, 8500 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California 95826 (Tel. (916) 366-5119) DARRELL GUENSLER, Assistant Chief, Division of Measurement Standards, State of California, 8500 Fruitridge

Road, Sacramento, California 95826 (Tel. (916) 366-5119)

281
JOSEPH ROTHLEDER, Metrologist, Division of Measurement

Standards, 8500 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, Cali- fornia 95826 (Tel. (916) 366-5119) COUNTY

Alameda PATRICK E. NICHOLS, Director of Weights and Measures, Alameda County, 333 - 5th Street, Oakland, Cali- fornia 94607' (Tel. (415)874-6736)

Los Angeles W. R. MOSSBERG, Director, Los Angeles County Depart- ment of Weights and Measures, 11012 Garfield Avenue, South Gate, California 90280 (Tel. (213) 922-8921)

San Bernardino R. E. MORDEN, Assistant Director, Department of Weights

Measures, County of San Bernardino, 777 East Rialto

Avenue, San Bernardino, California 92415

(Tel. (714) 383-1411)

Santa Clara DANIEL R. SMITH, Director of Consumer Affairs, County

of Santa Clara, 1555 Berger Drive, San Jose, Cali- fornia 95112 (Tel. (408) 299-4700)

Yuba JACK A. HUEY, Director of Weights and Measures, Yuba County, 921 West 14th Street, Marvsville, California 95901 (Tel. (916) 674-6377) COLORADO

STATE LEO LETEY, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture, 3125 Wyandot, Denver, Colorado 80211 (Tel. (303) 839-2845) CONNECTICUT

STATE -- JOHN T. BENNETT, Chief, Weights and Measures, State

of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection,

State Office Building, Room G-17, Hartford, Connec- ticut 06115 (Tel. (203) 566-4778 or 566-5230) ALLAN M. NELSON, Metrologist, Department of Consumer

Protection, Weights and Measures Division, State Office Building, Room G-17, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06115 (Tel. (203) 566-5230) WILLIAM J. SLAMON, JR., Assistant Metrologist, Department of Consumer Protection, 165 Capitol

Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06115 (Tel. (203) 566-5230)

CITY --- GUY J. TOMMASI, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City

of Middletown, City Hall, Middletown, Connecticut

06457 (Tel. (203) 347-4671 Ext. 215) DELAWARE

STATE - EUGENE KEELEY, Supervisor, Delaware Weights and Measures, Drawer D, Dover, Delaware 19901

(Tel. (302) 736-4824) FLORIDA

STATE WILLIAM A. COGBURN, JR., Metrologist Supervisor, Florida Department of Agriculture, Mayo Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (Tel. (904) 488-9295)

282
STAN DARSEY, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Ser- vices, Mayo Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(Tel. (904) 488-9295)

JOHN C. MAYS, Director, Dade County Consumer

Protection, 140 West Flagler Street, Room 1604, Miami, Florida 33130 (Tel. (305) 579-4222) ARTHUR HERSHBEIN, Deputy Director, Metro Dade County Consumer Protection Division, 140 West Flagler

Street, Room 1604, Miami, Florida 33130

(Tel. (305) 579-4222) GEORGIA

S. S. ABERCROMBIE, Assistant Director, Georgia Depart- ment of Agriculture, Agriculture Building, Capital

Square, Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (Tel. (404) 656-3704) REGINA CAROL BABB, Lab Technician, Georgia Department

of Agriculture, W & M Lab, Atlanta Farmers Market, Forest Park, Georgia 30050 (Tel. (404) 363-7611) THOMAS E. KIRBY, Director, Weights and Measures

Laboratory, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Atlanta Farmers Market, Forest Park, Georgia 30050

(Tel. (404) 363-7611) GUAM

FRANK C. BENAVENTE, Compliance Officer, Weights and Measures Inspector, Department of Revenue and Taxation, P. 0. Box 2796, Agana, Guam 96910

(Tel. (671) 472-6197) HAWAII

GEORGE E. MATTIMOE, Deputy Director, Measurement

Standards, State of Hawaii, 1428 South King Street,

P. 0. Box 22159, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

(Tel. (808) 548-7152) CHARLES G. B0CKUS, Supervising Metrologist, State of Hawaii, P. 0. Box 226, Captain Cook, Hawaii 96704

(Tel. (808) 323-2608) IDAHO LYMAN D. H0LL0WAY, Chief, Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, 2216 Kellogg Lane, Boise, Idaho 83702 (Tel. (208) 334-2345) ILLINOIS SIDNEY A. C0LBR00K, Weights and Measures Program

Supervisor, Illinois Department of Agriculture, Emmerson Building, State Fairgrounds, Springfield, Illinois 62706 (Tel. (217) 782-3817)

283
CITYChicago JESSE BLACKMON, Deputy Commissioner, Consumer Service,

121 North Lasalle Street, Room 808, Chicago, Illinois 60602 (Tel. (312) 744-4008) WILLIE JACKSON, Deputy Commissioner, Consumer Service,

121 North Lasalle Street, Room 808, Chicago, Illinois 60602 (Tel. (312) 744-4008) INDIANA

STATE ROBERT W. WALKER, Director, Division of Weights and Measures, State of Indiana, 1330 West Michigan

Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 (Tel. (317) 633-0350

COUNTY

Clark HAROLD D. BRADSHAW, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Clark County, City-County Building, Room 314, Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130 (Tel. (812) 283-4451) Floyd - JAMES M. MOREILLON, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Floyd County, 627 East Fourth Street, New Albany, Indiana 47150 (Tel. (812) 944-0470) Gibson WILLIAM R. SEVIER, Weights and Measures Inspector, Box 302, Somerville, Indiana 47683 (Tel. (812) 795-2532

Lake ALBERT M. MYS0GLAND, Lake County Sealer, Department

of Weights and Measures, 2293 North Main Street, Crown Point, Indiana 46307 (Tel. (219) 738-2020) Laporte EDWIN HANISH, Inspector, 119 Tilden Avenue, Michigan

City, Indiana 46360 (Tel. (219) 879-9486) Madison - -- CHARLES W. MOORE, County Inspector, Weights and Measures of Indiana, Madison County Government Center

and Courts, Anderson, Indiana 46016 (Tel. (317) 646-9359) Porter RICHARD H. CLAUSSEN, Inspector, Porter County,

1401 North Calumet, Room 105, Valparaiso, Indiana, 46383 (Tel. (219) 766-2323)

St. Joseph CHESTER S. ZMUDZINSKI, Inspector, Weights and Measures,

St. Joseph County, 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, South Bend, Indiana 46601 (Tel. (219) 284-9751) Tippecanoe - WEBSTER MC MURRY, Inspector, Tippecanoe County Weights

and Measures, P. 0. Box 444, LaFayette, Indiana

47902 (Tel. (317) 423-9229)

Vigo - ROBERT J. SILC0CK, Inspector, Vigo County Weights and Measures, Room 5, Court House, Terre Haute, Indiana

47802 (Tel. (812) 238-8349

Wayne FRANCIS W. DANIELS, Administrator, Wayne County

Weights and Measures, 50 North 5th, Richmond,

Indiana 47374 (Tel. (317) 935-4813)

284
FRANK L. BRUGH, Administrator, Division of Weights

and Measures of Indianapolis, City-County Building, Room G6, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

(Tel. (317) 633-3733)

GUS PAPPAS, Deputy Inspector, Weights and Measures, City of Indianapolis, Room 6G, City-County Building, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (Tel. (317) 633-3733) SHARON RHOADES, Deputy Inspector, Weights and Measures, City of Indianapolis, Room 6G, City-County Building, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (Tel. (317) 633-3733 JOSEPH V. DI FILIPPO, Assistant Inspector, Weights and Measures Department, #1 Main Street, City-County

Building, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802 (Tel. (219) 423-7804) JOANNE PITZEN, Inspector, Weights and Measures

Department, #1 Main Street, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802 (Tel. (219) 423-7804) DEAN BRAH0S, City Sealer, Weights and Measures

Department, 741 Michigan Street, Room 104, Hammond, Indiana 46320 (Tel. (219) 853-6377) GEORGE STAFFELDT, City Sealer, Weights and Measures, City Hall, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544 (Tel. (219) 259-5265) BERT S. CICHOWICZ, Sealer, Weights and Measures, City of South Bend, 701 West Sample Street, Room

113, South Bend, Indiana 46621 (Tel. (219) 284-9273)

IOWA JIM M. O'CONNOR, Supervisor, Standards Control, Weights and Measures Division, Iowa Department of Agriculture, Wallace Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (Tel. (515) 281-5716) KANSAS

JOHN L. O'NEILL, State Sealer and Director, State Board of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Division,

901 Kansas Avenue, Topeka, Kansas 66612

(Tel. (913) 296-3846) HAROLD HEDGE, Inspector, Kansas Weights and Measures,

503 Kansas Avenue, Topeka, Kansas 66601

(Tel. (913) 296-3846) KENTUCKY

RONALD C. EGNEW, Laboratory Supervisor, Kentucky De- partment of Agriculture, Division of Weights and Measures, 106 West 2nd Street, Frankfort, Kentucky

40601 (Tel. (502) 564-4870)

285
GEORGE L. JOHNSON, State of Kentucky (Retired) Route

6, Frankfort Kentucky 50601 (Tel. (502) 695-3649)

KATHLEEN M. LUCAS, Supervisor, Division of Weights

and Measures, 701 West Jefferson Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (Tel. (502) 587-3595) LOUISIANA

PHILIP A. STAGG, Director, Louisiana Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

44456, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

70804 (Tel. (504) 925-3783) MAINE

GAYLON M. KENNEDY, Deputy State Sealer of Weights and Measures, Maine Department of Agriculture, State Office Building, Station #28, Augusta, Maine 04333

(Tel. (207) 289-2751) MARSHALL WHITE, Metrologist, Maine Department of Agriculture, State Office Building, Augusta, Maine

04333 (Tel. (207) 289-2751) STANLEY K. MILLAY, Weights and Measures Inspector, Maine Department Agriculture Weights and Measures, Office Building Station 28, Augusta, Maine 04333

(Tel. (207) 289-2751) MARYLAND

LACY H. DEGRANGE, Assistant Chief, Weights and Measures, Maryland Department of Agriculture, 3205 Symons

Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

20742 (Tel. (301) 454-3551) RICHARD L. THOMPSON, Chief of Weights and Measures, Maryland Department of Agriculture, 3205 Symons

Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

20742 (Tel. (301) 454-3551) THOMAS WELCH, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Maryland Department of Agriculture, 3205 Symons Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

(Tel. (301) 454-3551)

BARBARA B. GREGG, Executive Director, Office Consumer

Affairs, 611 Rockville Pike, Room 201, Rockville, Maryland 20852 (Tel. (301) 279-1776)

GEORGE ROSE, Inspector, Montgomery County Office of Consumer Affairs, 611 Rockville Pike, Room 201, Rockville, Maryland 20852 (Tel. (301) 279-1776

286
MASSACHUSETTS

STATE — - EDWARD H. STADOLNIK, Assistant Director of Standards, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Standards, Room 1115, One Ashburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (Tel. (617) 727-3480 CITYAgawam LOUIS D. DRAGHETTI , City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Town of Agawam, 36 Main Street, Town Administration

Building, Agawam, Massachusetts 01001 (Tel. (413) 786-0400 Ext. 232) Barnstable THOMAS F. GEILER, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Town of Barnstable, 397 Main Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 (Tel. (617) 775-1120) South Hadley ALLEN W. HENRY, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Town

of South Hadley, 110 Main Street, South Hadley, Massachusetts 01075 (Tel. (413) 532-5166) Springfield ROBERT E. CLARK, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Town

of Springfield, Room 9, City Hall, Court Street, Springfield, Massachusetts 01103

(Tel. (413) 787-6078) MICHIGAN

STATE EDWARD C. HEFFRON, Chief, Food and Dairy Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

30017, Lewis Cass Building, Lansing, Michigan

48909 (Tel. (517) 373-1060) FRANK C. NAGELE, Weights and Measures Specialist, Michigan Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

30017, Lewis Cass Building, Lansing, Michigan

48909 (Tel. (517) 373-1060) RONALD REEDY, Food and Dairy Regulatory Inspector, Michigan Department of Agriculture, 487 North Main, Frankeomuth, Michigan 48734 (Tel. (517) 652-9961) MINNESOTA

STATE - - JAMES J. MONCUR, Inspector, Department of Licenses and Consumer Services, City Hall, Room 105, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407 (Tel. (612) 348-2080) EDWARD P. SKLUZACEK, Director, Minnesota Weights and Measures, 1015 Currie Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota

55403 (Tel. (612) 341-7200) MISSOURI

STATE BOB M. MERRICK, Director of Weights and Measures, Missouri Department of Agriculture, 2630 Industrial

Drive, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (Tel. (314) 751-4278) JACK C. PIERCE, Laboratory Program Supervisor, Missouri Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 630, Jefferson

City, Missouri 65102 (Tel. (314) 751-3440)

287
DANIEL I. OFFNER, Commissioner of Weights and Measures, City of St. Louis, 1220 Carr Lane Avenue, Room 145,

St. Louis, Missouri 63104 (Tel. (314) 622-3252) NEBRASKA

STATE JOHN W. ALLOWAY, Assistant Director, Department of Agriculture, Division of Weights and Measures, 301 Centennial Mall South, Box 94757, Lincoln, Nebraska

68509 (Tel. (402) 471-2341, Ext. 208) RICK LOOCK, Supervisor, Division of Weights and Measures, Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Box

94757, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509

(Tel. (402) 471-2341) RICHARD C. SUITER, Metrologist, State of Nebraska Division of Weights and Measures, Box 94757, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509

(Tel. (402) 471-2341 Ext. 284) CITYOmaha NORMAN M. ROSS, Chief, Weights and Measures Division, Public Safety, Department of Weights and Measures, Douglas Civic Center, 1819 Farham, Omaha, Nebraska

68183 (Tel. (402) 444-5368) NEW JERSEY

STATE JAMES R. BIRD, Deputy State Superintendent, New Jersey

Weights and Measures, 187 West Hanover Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (Tel. (609) 292-4615)

S. H. CHRISTIE, JR., Retired State Superintendent,

123 Hillcrest Road, Arren, New Jersey 07060

(Tel. (201) 647-3267)

GEORGE S. FRANKS, Superintendent, Weights and Measures

and Consumer Protection, Cumberland County, 788 East Commrce Street, Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302

(Tel. (609) 451-8000 Ext. 369 and 370) Gloucester JOSEPH SILVESTR0, Superintendent, Gloucester County

Weights and Measures, 49 Wood Street, County Building, Woodbury, New Jersey 08096

(Tel. (609) 845-1600 Ext. 252) Middlesex JOHN M. CHOHAMIN, Superintendent, Middlesex County Department of Weights and Measures, 841 Georges

Road, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902

(Tel. (201) 745-3878) Monmouth -- WILLIAM G. DOX, Superintendent, Monmouth County Department of Weights and Measures, Hall of Records

Annex, Main Street, Freehold, New Jersey 07728

(Tel. (201) 431-7363) Salem ROBERT B. JONES, Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Salem County Department of Weights and Measures, 94 Market Street, Box 24, Salem, New

Jersey 08079 (Tel. (609) 935-7510 Ext. 369)

CITY

St. Louis

COUNTY Cumberland

288
NEW MEXICO

FRED A. GERK, Associate Chief, Weights and Measures, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

3170, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003 (Tel. (505) 646-1616)

CHARLES H. GREENE, Chief, Division of Consumer and Marketing Services, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 3170, Las Cruces, New Mexico

88003 (Tel. (505) 646-1616) NEW YORK

ROSS ANDERSEN, Metrologist, New York State Bureau of Weights and Measures, Building 7-A, State Campus, Albany, New York 12235 (Tel. (518) 457-3449) JOHN J. BARTFAI , Director, New York State Bureau of Weights and Measures, Building 7-A, State Campus, Albany, New York 12235 (Tel. (518) 457-3452) KENNETH R. GRIDLEY, Weights and Measures Specialist

III, New York State Bureau of Weights and Measures,

35 Spring Terrace, Corning, New York 14830

(Tel. (607) 962-0444)

JOHN J. PINELL0, Director, Department of Weights and Measures, 190 Hooker Avenue, Poughkeepsie , New York

12603 (Tel. (914) 471-6322)

LOUIS P. ROMANO, Director, Monroe County Weights and Measures, 1157 Scottsville Road, Rochester, New York 14624 (Tel. (716) 436-1330) CHARLES A. GARDNER, JR., Assistant Director of Weights

and Measures, Suffolk County Consumer Affairs, County Center/North Complex, Veterans Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11787 (Tel. (516) 360-4620) NORTH CAROLINA

THOMAS W. SCOTT, Chief, Measurement Section, North

Carolina Department of Agriculture, Consumer

Standards, P. 0. Box 26056, Raleigh, North Carolina

27611 (Tel. (919) 733-3313)

N. DAVID SMITH, Director, Consumer Standards Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

26056, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (Tel. (919) 733-3313) NORTH DAKOTA

BRUCE NIEBERGALL, Director, Weights and Measures,

State Capitol, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501

(Tel. (701) 224-2413)

289
KEHHETH R. ADCOCK, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, Ohio Department of Agriculture, ODA

Laboratories - Building #5, 8995 Last Main, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 (Tel. (614) 866-6361) JAMES C. TRGEX, Metrologist, Division of Weights and Measures, Ohio Department of Agriculture, ODA

Laboratories - Building #5, 8995 Last Main, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 (Tel. (614) 866-6361)

ROBERT E. KING, Inspector Weights and Measures of Auglaize County, 9 West Auglaize Street. Wapakoneta, Ohio 45895 (Tel. (419) 738-2364) ROY K. PECK, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Clark County Auditors Office. A. B. C-raham Building,

P. 0. Box 1325, Springfield, Ohio 45501

(Tel. (513) 324-5871) JOHN W. TARGOSS, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Jefferson County Auditor, Courthouse, P. 0. Box

159, Steubenville, Ohio 43952

(Tel. (614) 283-4111 Ext. 251) HERBERT P. GOLDEN, Deputy Auditor Inspector, Lucas Countv Auditors Office, Adams and Erie Streets, Toledo, Ohio 43624 (Tel. (419) 259-8670)

AHTHOMY J. LADD, Superintendent, Office of Weights and Measures, 1420 Triplett Boulevard, Akron, Ohio 44306 (Tel. (216) 375-2878)

THOMAS PRAGAR, Supervisor of Weights and Measures,

2147 Central Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45214

(Tel. (513) 352-3135) HIV Iity Sealer. Zity of Zartor.. jhio

,

960 Ottawa Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402

(Tel. (513) 225-5304) OREG08

JAMES F. CLIFFORD, Supervisor, Metrology Lab, Weights and Measures, Agriculture Building, Salem, Oregon

97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792) KEMDRICK J. SIMILA, Administrator, State of Oregon

Weights ---- Measures Bivisiou, lepartrzeut of Agriculture. Agriculture Bui Id its. 5 a let. Iregoc 97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

25:
PENNSYLVANIA

STATE FRED A. THOMAS, Director, Pennsylvania Bureau of Weights and Measures, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110

(Tel. (717) 787-6772) COUNTY

Bucks -- PEGGY H. ADAMS, Chief Sealer, Weights and Measures, Department of Bucks County Consumer Protection, Courthouse Annex, Broad and Union Streets, Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901

(Tel. (215) 348-7442) York - JOHN R. BECKLEY, Sealer of Weights and Measures, York County Court House, York, Pennsylvania 17401

(Tel. (717) 848-3301) CITYAllentown ARNOLD L. HEILMAN, JR., Sealer of Weights and Measures, City of Allentown, 302 Gordon Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18102 (Tel. (215) 437-7770) Philadelphia SAM F. VALTRI, Chief, Philadelphia Bureau of Weights

and Measures, Room 636, 801 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (Tel. (215) 686-3475) PUERTO RICO MARIA A. MALD0NAD0, Assistant Secretary, Department

of Consumers Affairs, Box 41059, Minillas Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00927 (Tel. (809) 726-7585) JUAN A. RI0S, Metrologist, Department of Consumers

Affairs, Box 41059, Minillas Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00940 (Tel. (809) 724-5153) SOUTH CAROLINA

STATE CHARLES T. SMITH, Director, Consumer Protection

Division, South Carolina Department of Agriculture,

P. 0. Box 11280, Columbia, South Carolina 29211

(Tel. (803) 758-7478) CAROL P. FULMER, Field Specialist Supervisor, South Carolina Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

11280, Columbia, South Carolina 29211

(Tel. (803) 758-7478) SOUTH DAKOTA

STATE ALLEN L. CHRISTIE, Administrative Assistant, Department

of Commerce, Division of Commercial Inspection, Pierre, South Dakota 57501 (Tel. (605) 773-3177) TENNESSEE

STATE - - — JOHN C. SHELT0N, Supervisor of Weights and Measures,

Box 40627, Melrose Station, Nashville, Tennessee

37204 (Tel. (615) 741-1539)

291
BOB WILLIAMS, Technologist, Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, Box 40627, Melrose Station, Nashville, Tennessee 37204

(Tel. (615) 741-1539) TEXAS

HERB ESKEW, Chief Metrologist, Texas Department of Agriculture, 119 Camberland Road, Austin, Texas

78704 (Tel. (512) 475-3720) CHARLES E. FORESTER, Supervisor, Weights and Measures,

Texas Department of Agriculture, Box 12847, Austin, Texas 78711 (Tel. (512) 475-6577) JAMES C. BLACKWOOD, Assistant Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, 1500 West Mockingbird, Room A-19, Dallas, Texas 75235 (Tel. (214) 670-6414) CHARLES H. VINCENT, Director, City of Dallas Department

of Consumer Affairs, Room lf-North, City Hall, 1500 Marilla, Dallas, Texas 75201 (Tel. (214) 670-4433) DAVID WATSON, Consumer Products Supervisor, City of Fort Worth, Texas, 1800 University, Room 208, Fort Worth, Texas 76107 (Tel. (817) 870-7575) UTAH

EDISON J. STEPHENS, Supervisor, Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 5757 South, 320 West

Murray, Utah 84107 (Tel. (801) 533-5459) VERMONT

TRAFFORD F. BRINK, Director of Weights and Measures

and Retail Inspection, Vermont Department of Agriculture, 116 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont

05602 (Tel. (802) 828-2436) DOUGLAS JONES, Metrologist, Division of Weights and Measures, Vermont Department of Agriculture,

116 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602

(Tel. (802) 828-2436) VIRGINIA

OSCAR T. ALMARODE, Regional Supervisor, Virginia

Weights and Measures Section, 1 North 14th Street, Room 032, Richmond, Virginia 23219

(Tel. (804) 786-2476) MARION W. CAIN, Metrologist, Virginia Weights and Measures Section, 1 North 14th Street, Room 032, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (Tel. (804) 786-2476)

292
JAMES F. LYLES, Supervisor, Virginia Weights and Measures, 1 North 14th Street, Room 032, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (Tel. (804) 786-2476)

R. H. SHELTON, Regional Supervisor, Virginia Weights

and Measures Section, 1 North 14th Street, Room

032, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (Tel. (804) 786-2476) COUNTY Fairfax -JAMES L. ELDER, Sealer, Weights and Measures, Department of Consumer Affairs, 4031 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (Tel. (703) 691-2388) DONALD C. HUGHES, Sealer, Weights and Measures, Depart- ment of Consumer Affairs, 4031 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (Tel. (703) 691-2388) CITYRichmond M. P. GLEASON, Inspector, City of Richmond, 501 North

9th Street, Room 128, Richmond, Virginia 23219

(Tel. (804) 780-4208) ANDREW B. MOODY, JR. , Senior Inspector Weights and Measures, Bureau of Weights and Measures, City of Richmond, 501 North Ninth Street, Room 128, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (Tel. (804)780-4208) WASHINGTON

JOHN H. LEWIS, Chief, Weights and Measures, Room 406, General Administration Building, Olympia, Washington

98504 (Tel. (206) 753-5059) CITY

Seattle WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN, Supervisor, Weights and Measures,

805 South Dearborn Street, Seattle, Washington 98134

(Tel. (206) 625-2717) WEST VIRGINIA

STATE VIVIAN G. KIDD, Deputy Commissioner, West Virginia Department of Labor, 1900 Washington Street East, Charleston, West Virginia 25305

(Tel. (304) 348-7890) WISCONSIN

STATE JAMES H. AKEY, Inspector, Weights and Measures,

718 Jackson Street, Wausau, Wisconsin 54401

(Tel. (715) 842-3789) ROBERT PROBST, Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade

and Consumer Protection, 801 West Badger Road, Box

8911, Madison, Wisconsin 53708

(Tel. (608) 266-7241) DONALD J. SOBERG, Administrator, Trade Division, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, 801 West

Badger Road, P. 0. Box 8911, Madison, Wisconsin

53708 (Tel. (608) 266-7220)

293
MANUFACTURERS , INDUSTRY, AND BUSINESS

ACME SCALE AND SUPPLY COMPANY RAYMOND C. CANFIELD, President, 5427 Butler Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201,

(Tel. (412) 782-1808 Ext. 1) ALLEGANY TECHNOLOGY, INC. HARRY STERN, President, 143 Offutt Street, Cumberland, Maryland 21502 (Tel. (301) 722-7330, Ext. 13) AMERICAN CAN COMPANY WILLIAM H. MARKS, Senior Quality Associate, 1915 Marathon Avenue, Neenah, Wisconsin

54956 (Tel. (414) 729-8106) AMERICAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. RODNEY E. NELSON, Chief Engineer, P. 0. Box 1237, Tacoma, Washington 98401 (Tel. (206) 627-6153 Ext. 45) AMERICAN NATIONAL METRIC COUNCIL

LAURA BROWN, Assistant Editor, Metric Reporter, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

,

Washington, D. C. 20036 (Tel. (202) 232-4545) AMERICAN NATIONAL METRIC COUNCIL

CHERYL CUMMINS, Program Manager, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W. , Washington, D. C,

20036 (Tel. (202) 232-4545) AMERICAN NATIONAL METRIC COUNCIL MARTHA DUGGAN, Program Manager, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W. , Washington, D. C.

,

20036 (Tel. (202) 232-4545) AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE ROGER B. B0GNAR, Manager, Tissue Division, 260 Madison Avenue, New York, New York

10016 (Tel. (212) 340-0618) AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

GARY I. HIRSCHL, Marketing Associate, 2101 L Street, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20037

(Tel. (202) 457-6370) AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE RICHARD SOUTHERS, Manager, Operations and Engineering, 2101 L Street, N. W. , Washington,

D. C. 20037 (Tel. (202) 457-7014) ANALOGIC CORPORATION

PAUL F. C0UGHLIN, IDS Marketing Manager, Danvers Industrial Park, Danvers, Massachusetts,

01923 (Tel. (617) 777-4500 Ext. 1019) ANALOGIC CORPORATION

GUY W. WILSON, Manager, Corporate Marketing Development, Audubon Road, Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880 (Tel. (617) 246-0300 Ext. 123) ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. CARL E. DARIG0, Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance, 721 Pestalozzi, St. Louis, Missouri 63118 (Tel. (314) 577-3966) ARBOR LABORATORIES, INC. DAVID L. TURNER, Sales Representative, 2034 Hopewood Drive, Falls Church, Virginia

22043 (Tel. (703) 241-2237) ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY

NICHOLAS D. BABIC, Coporate Metric Coordinator, 515 South Flower Street, AP 23117,

Los Angeles, California 90071 (Tel. (213) 486-2941) ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY

RICHARD J. CUNNINGHAM, Engineering, Construction and Maintenance, 515 South Flower

Street, Los Angeles, California 90071 (Tel. (213) 486-2283)

BASIC RESOURCE SERVICES, INC.

D. J. HINE, Senior Engineer, P. 0. Box 423, Williamsport, Maryland 21795 (Tel. (304) 263-8794) BASIC RESOURCE SERVICES, INC. WALLACE H. SEWARD, President and Chief Executive Officer, P. 0. Box 40594, Washington,

D. C. 20016 (Tel. (202) 387-8346) BENNETT PUMP COMPANY MITCHELL S. GODSMAN, Manager Richmond District, 1501 Santa Rosa Road, #B14, Richmond, Virginia 23228 (Tel. (804) 282-6965) BENNETT PUMP COMPANY

JOHN P. HAUET, Manager Field Service, P. 0. Box 597, Muskegon, Michigan 49443

(Tel. (616) 733-1302 Ext. 304)

294
BERGEN COUNTY MASTER CRAFTSMEN ARTHUR SARLAT, Paperhanger, 76 Roosevelt Square, Englewood, New Jersey 07631

(Tel. (201) 568-1866)

BERKEL, INC. ROGER R. THORN, Product Manager, Weighing Systems, 1 Berkel Drive, LaPorte, Indiana 46350 (Tel. (219) 326-7000) BERRYHILL, INC. ROY S. BERRYHILL, President, Route 4, Douglas Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina 28208

(Tel. (704) 588-0736) DOVER C0RP0RATI0N-BLACKMER PUMP DIVISION

GREGG W. LAD0MERSKY, Product Manager, 1809 Century Avenue, S. W. , Grand Rapids, Michigan 49509 (Tel. (616) 241-1611 Ext 287)

B L H ELECTRONICS MARTIN C. SPOOR, Vice President, Engineering, 42 Fourth Avenue, Waltham, Massachusetts

02254 (Tel. (617) 890-6700 Ext. 382) BROOKS INSTRUMENT DIVISION

BARRIE L. BLOSER, Chief Engineer, Highway 301 North, Statesboro, Georgia 30458

(Tel. (912) 764-5471 Ext. 284) CARDINAL SCALE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

W. TERRY JAMES, Vice President, Engineering, 203 East Daugherty, Webb City, Missouri

64870 (Tel. (417) 673-4631 Ext. 20) CARDINAL SCALE MANUFACTURING COMPANY WILLIAM H. PERRY, President, 203 East Daugherty, Webb City, Missouri 64870

(Tel. (417) 673-4631)

CARGILL, INC. JOHN A. JOHNSTON, Manager, 3444 Dight Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406

(Tel. (612) 371-4897) CARNATION RESEARCH LABORATORY

SIDNEY J. PEARCE, Assistant Director, Quality Assurance, 8015 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California 91412 (Tel. (213) 787-7820 Ext 225) CHADBOURNE PARKE WHITESIDE

MICHAEL B. WEIR, Attorney, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10020 (Tel. (212) 541-5800 Ext. 235) CHADWELL, KAYSER, RUGGLES, ET AL. MERRILL S. THOMPSON, Vice President and Partner, 8500 Sears Tower, Chicago, Illinois 60606 (Tel. (312) 876-2163) JOHN CHATILLON AND SONS, INC ROBERT M. ZWEIG, President, 8330 Kew Gardens Road, Kew Gardens, New York 11415

(Tel. (212) 847-5000 Ext. 12) CHEVRON USA, INC. FLOYD Q. BROWN, Supervising Engineer, 575 Market Street, Room 2616, San Francisco, California 94105 (Tel. (415) 894-5557) CHESSIE SYSTEM

CHARLES L. GWINN, Senior Engineer, Materials Handling, P. O. Box 1800, Huntington, West Virginia 25718 (Tel. (304) 522-5747) COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY EDWARD E. WOLSKI, Manager, Quality Control, 300 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022

(Tel. (212) 751-1200 Ext 6131) CONRAIL

CLARENCE T. PICT0N, System Supervisor Scale Inspection, 6 Penn Center, Room 750, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 (Tel. (215) 977-7030 Ext. 9) DICKEY- JOHN CORPORATION DAVID B. FUNK, Senior Design Engineer, Box 10, Auburn, Illinois 62615

(Tel. (217) 438-6181 Ext. 367) PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT DIVISION OF DRESSER INDUSTRIES WARREN J. DUBSKY, Project Engineer, 124 West College Avenue, Salisbury, Maryland

21801 (Tel. (301) 546-6688) DUNBAR MANUFACTURING, INC. DAVID G. DUNBAR, Sales, 307 Broadway, Swanton, Ohio 43558 (Tel. (419) 244-3021) DUNBAR MANUFACTURING, INC. HARVEY M. LODGE, Vice President-Sales, 307 Broadway, Swanton, Ohio 43558 (Tel. (419) 244-3021)

295
EARNSHAW EQUIPMENT COMPANY JERALD D. EARNSHAW, Manufacturing Representative, 18100 Upper Bay Road, Houston, Texas

77058 (Tel. (713) 333-4420) ELDEC CORPORATION

DONALD E. KELSO, Staff Engineer, 20215 Cedar Valley Road, Lynnwood, Washington 98036

(Tel. (206) 775-6471 Ext. 226) ELECTROSCALE CORPORATION

JOSEPH F. GEISSER, N. E. Sales Manager, 3 Genoa Street, North Providence, Rhode Island, 02904 (Tel. (401) 728-0044)

A. H. EMERY COMPANY WALTER M. YOUNG, Vice President, P. 0. Box 608, New Canaan, Connecticut 06840

(Tel. (203) 966-4551)

ESMARK, INC. /SWIFT AND COMPANY

EARL G. SPIKER, Assistant Director of Government Relations, Suite 1200, 1634 I Street,

N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20006 (Tel. (202) 347-8708) EXXON COMPANY U. S. A. HAROLD E. HARRIS, P. 0. Box 2180, Houston, Texas 77001 (Tel. (713) 656-6170) EXXON CORPORATION RAYMOND A. HARTMANN, Advisor, 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020

(Tel. (212) 398-5179) FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIVISION

ROBERT E. CALLIHAN, Vice President of Engineering, 711 East St. Johnsbury Road,

St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 (Tel. (802) 748-5111 Ext. 220) FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIVISION OF COLT INDUSTRIES KENNETH F. HAMMER, President, St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 (Tel. (802) 748-5111

Ext. 300) FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIVISION - COLT INDUSTRIES DICK HURLEY, Advertising Manager, 711 East St. Johnsbury Road, St. Johnsbury, Vermont

05819 (Tel. (802) 748-5111 Ext. 374) FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIVISION

RICHARD L. WHIPPLE, Marketing Development Engineer, St. Johnsburg, Vermont 05819

(Tel. (802) 748-9653) FLEXIBLE PACKAGING ASSOCIATION

THOMAS J. DUNN, JR., Technical Director, 12025 Shaker Boulevard, Cleveland, Ohio

44120 (Tel. (216) 229-6373) FOREMOST-MCKESSON, INC. ALFRED E. JOHANSON, Counsel, 155 East 44th Street, New York, New York 10017

(Tel. (212) 555-0300)

H. J. FULLER AND SONS, INC. WILLIAM S. FULLER, President, 1600 Georgesville Road, Columbus, Ohio 43228

(Tel. (614) 878-4269) GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY

TIM PETITT, Projects Manager, 10955 John Jay Hopkins Drive, San Diego, California

92121 (Tel. (714) 455-3030) GENERAL MILLS, INC. DONALD R. COLPITTS, Technical Manager, Weights and Measures, 9000 Plymouth Avenue,

North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427 (Tel. (612) 540-2729) GENERAL MILLS, INC. ROBERT L. NELSON, Assistant Director, Quality Control, 9200 Wayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 (Tel. (612) 540-2489) GENERAL MILLS, INC. NEAL D. PETERSON, Attorney, 1730 M Street, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20036 (Tel. (202) 296-03601 GETTY REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY

WALTER C. GROSSHAUSER, Coordinator, Construction and Engineering, 1437 South Boulder,

P. 0. Box 1650, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 (Tel. (918) 560-6753)

GILBARCO, INC. JOHN S. GROSE, Authorities and Standards GP LDR, 7300 West Friendly Avenue, Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 (Tel. (919) 292-3011)

GILBARCO, INC. CLAUDE R. PARENT, Director-National Accounts, 1020 Aileen Street, Lafayette, California

94549 (Tel. (415) 284-1810)

296
GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA MAHLON A. BURNETTE, III, Director Scientific Affairs, 1010 Wisconsin Avenue, Washington,

D. C. 20007 (Tel. (202) 337-9400) GUILD OF PROFESSIONAL PAPER HANGERS

SID BENJAMIN, Chairman, Wallcovering Standard Co., Box 25, Carle Place, New York 11514

(Tel. (516) 249-3358) GUILD OF PROFESSIONAL PAPER HANGERS

ISADORE GECKER, Co-Chairman Product Standard C, 223 Robina Terrace, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19116 (Tel. (215) 677-5758) HARDY SCALES EMIL J. MICONO, Market Sales Manager, 330 Harvey, Grayslake, Illinois 60030

(Tel. (312) 299-8070) HOBART CORPORATION

ROBERT C. BARROWS, Director of Engineering, Weighing, and Wrapping, 216 South Torrence,

Dayton, Ohio 45403 (Tel. (513) 254-8451 HOBART CORPORATION EDWIN E. BOSHINSKI, Director, Research and Engineering, 1555 Stanley Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 45404 (Tel. (513) 223-0452) HOBART CORPORATION

FRED H. KATTERHELNRICH, Manager, Weights and Measures, Troy, Ohio 45374 (Tel. (513) 278-9496) GEORGE A. HORMEL AND COMPANY

JAMES E. WESTRICK, Quality Control Engineer, Box 800, Austin, Minnesota 55912

(Tel. (507) 437-5754) HORNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY

JOHN HORNER, President, 400 North 14th Street, Saginaw, Michigan 48601 (Tel. (517) 755-5327) HOWE RICHARDSON SCALE COMPANY

JAMES R. SPECHT, Manager, Applied Engineering, 680 Van Houten Avenue, Clifton, New Jersey 07015 (Tel. (201) 471-3400 Ext. 417) HUNT WESSON FOODS, INC. CHIP KLOOS, Section Head, Research and Development, 1645 West Valencia, Fullerton, California 92634 (Tel. (714) 871-2100 Ext. 1098) INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE MICHAEL W. BLASGEN, Technical Advisor, 1801 K Street, N. W. , Suite 1200, Washington,

D. C. 20006 (Tel. (202) 833-7700)

IWS, INC. BILLY J. CLICK, President, 313 North Rexford, Colton, California 92324 (Tel. (714) 824-0880) JEWELL COMPANY, INC. RALPH W. MILLER, Attorney, 936 Spring Road, Elmhurst, Illinois 60160 (Tel. (312) 834-6159) KROGER COMPANY DAVID P. LEAHY, Technical Consultant, 1240 State Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45204

(Tel. (513) 244-3829) ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. JEANNE W. EAGLE, Consultant, 15 Acorn Park, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 (Tel. (617) 864-5770 Ext. 2306) LIQUID CONTROLS CORPORATION WILLIAM C. REITZ, Product Manager, P. 0. Box 101, North Chicago, Illinois 60064

(Tel. (312) 687-2400 Ext. 234) LIQUID CONTROLS CORPORATION HOWARD SIEBOLD, P. O. Box 784, Fort Bragg, California 95437 LOCKHEED ELECTRONICS COMPANY JOSEPH F. DEVITT, Service Manager, U. S. Highway #22, Plainfield, New Jersey 07061

(Tel. (201) 757-1600 Ext 2723) MARKETING

LEMUEL MC MANNESS, Manager of Marketing Engineering, 539 South Main Street, Findlay, Ohio 45840 (Tel. (419) 422-2121 Ext. 3585) MEASUREGRAPH COMPANY

ERIC ALLEN, Technical Service Engineer, 4245 Forest Park Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri

63108 (Tel. (314) 533-7800 Ext. 221)

297
MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL

DAVID C. ENGLISH, President, 580 South Lucile Street, Seattle, Washington 98108

(Tel. (206) 767-7433) MEENAN OIL COMPANY, INC. JAY L. DUGAN, General Manager, 113 Main Street, Tullytown, Pennsylvania 19007

(Tel. (215) 943-3500) MERCK SHARPE AND DOHME

GEORGE H. BUCKLEY, Weights and Measures Technician, West Point Pike, West Point, Pennsylvania 19486 (Tel. (215) 699-5311 Ext. 6263) METTLER INSTRUMENT CORPORATION WALTER HAUSHEIR, Director, Management Services, Princeton Hightstown Road, Hightstown, New Jersey 08520 (Tel. (609) 448-3000) MILK AND ICE CREAM ASSOCIATIONS

AUSTIN T. RHOADS, Administrative Assistant, 910 17th Street, N. W. , #1100, Washington

D. C. 20006 (Tel. (202) 296-4250) MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING

KENNETH S. JENSEN, Manager-Metrology, 1865 Woodlane Drive, Woodbury, Minnesota 55144

(Tel. (612) 733-2674) MISSOURI FARMERS ASSOCIATION

WILLIAM M. BAKER, Director, Weights and Measures, 3501 Berrywood, Columbia, Missouri

65201 (Tel. (314) 874-5440) MOBAY CHEMICAL CORPORATION FRANK L. STRIBLING, JR., Quality Control Coordinator, Hawthorn Road, Kansas City Missouri 64120 (Tel. (816) 242-2461) MOBIL OIL CORPORATION EDWARD A. CARTER, Instrument Technician, P. O. Box 201, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

19482 (Tel. (919) 232-2675) MOBIL OIL CORPORATION

JOSEPH A. PETRELLI, Manager Marketing Operations Engineer, 150 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017 (Tel. (212) 883-5204) JOHN MORRELL AND COMPANY VINCENT J. DEL GIUDICE, Corporate Manager, Quality Control, 208 South Lasalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604 (Tel. (312) 443-3000 Ext. 3075) MORRIS SCALE COMPANY

CLIFFORD V. MORRIS, President, 1537 S. E. Morrison Street, Portland, Oregon 97214

(Tel. (503) 232-5339) MURPHY CARDINAL SCALE COMPANY WILLIAM V. GOODPASTER, Vice President, 1610 North C Street, Sacramento, California

95814 (Tel. (916) 441-0178)

RICE UNIVERSITY

JOYCE RUBASH, NACUFS Metric Coordinator, P. 0. Box 1892, Houston, Texas 77001

(Tel. (713) 527-4957) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE

JAMES B. GRANT, Executive Secretary, 1616 H Street, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20006

(Tel. (202) 628-1566) NATIONAL SOFT DRINK ASSOCIATION

CLAUDIA LOUIS, Attorney, 101 16th Street, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20036 (Tel. (202) 463-6729) NCR CORPORATION

A. R. DANIELS, Director, Industry Standards and Relations, 1700 South Patterson

Boulevard WHQ, Dayton, Ohio 45479 (Tel. (513) 449-6655) NATIONAL CONTROLS, INC. JAMES E. DRISKO, Engineering Manager, P. 0. Box 1501, 2320 Airport Boulevard,

Santa Rosa, California 95402 (Tel. (707) 527-5555 Ext. 303) NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR

JOHN E. MARTIN, National Marketing Support Manager, 1120 Kifer Road, Sunnyvale, California 94086 (Tel. (408) 737-6258 Ext. 6258) NEW BRUNSWICK INTERNATIONAL

JOHN S. BAUMANN, Vice President, 5 Greek Lane, Edison, New Jersey 08817 (Tel. (2-01) 287-2288)

298
NORTHEAST PETROLEUM

JOHN G. BUCKLEY, Vice President, 100 Federal Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110

(Tel. (617) 884-7570) NORTHEAST PETROLEUM JULIA NANAY, Assistant, 100 Federal Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (Tel. (617) 884-7570)

ORMOND, INC. DAVE SILVA, Vice President and General Manager, 11969 East Rivera Road, Santa Fe

Springs, California 90670 (Tel. (213) 698-0641) PAINTING AND DECORATING CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA WARREN C. NASH, 3 Harwood Way, Coram, New York 11727 (Tel. (516) 732-7856) PEABODY COAL COMPANY - ARIZONA DIVISION

RAYMOND H. HELMICK, Manager, Weighing Systems, 1638 East Cinnabar Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85020 (Tel. (602) 943-3837) PEAVEY COMPANY

E. ROBERT KERN, Vice President, Operations, 730 South Second Street Avenue, Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 (Tel. (612) 370-7889) PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT COMPANY RICHARD P. TRASK, President, 28 Corey Street, West Roxbury, Massachusetts 02132

(Tel. (617) 325-7800) PETROLEUM METER AND PUMP COMPANY RICHARD S. ALLEN, Sales Manager, 25 Security Drive, Avon, Connecticut 06001

(Tel. (203) 677-9656) PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY

HAL M. FAULCONER, Principal Technical Representative, Seneca Building, Bartlesville

,

Oklahoma 74004 (Tel. (918) 661-6334) PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY

JOHN L. STEVENSON, Operations Coordinator, 752 AB, Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004

(Tel. (918) 661-7012) PILLSBURY COMPANY HOWARD E. BAUMAN, Vice President, Science and Technology, 311 Second Street, S. E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 (Tel. (612) 330-4676) PILLSBURY COMPANY

CARL A. TAUBERT, Director, Quality American Beauty, 608 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (Tel. (612) 330-8004) PITNEY-BOWES , INC.

S. FEINLAND, Senior Engineer, 380 Main Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut 06852 (Tel. (203) 853-7113) PITNEY-BOWES, INC. RUTHERFORD H. FENN, Director Corporate Standards, Walter Wheeler Drive, Stamford, Connecticut 06926 (Tel. (203) 853-0727) PITNEY-BOWES, INC. FRED J. STAUDINGER, Planner, P. 0. Box 6050, Norwalk, Connecticut 06852 (Tel. (203) 853-7113 Ext. 404) PRESTO PRODUCTS, INC. TONY ZELLER, Director of Packaging, Box 2399, Appleton, Wisconsin 54913 (Tel. (414) 739-9471) PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY ROBERT E. BELLIVEAU, Associate Manager, Ivorydale Technical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio

45217 (Tel. (513) 763-5203) PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY WILLIAM H. BRAUN, Packaging Section Head, 6100 Center Hill Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45224 (Tel. (513) 977-5233) PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY

GEORGE E. CARLETON, Coordinator-Metric Conversion, P. O. Box 599, Space 8C-GO, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 (Tel. (513) 562-2721) PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY

GARY HAGOPIAN , Attorney, P. 0. Box 599, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 (Tel. (513) 562-4282) PAPER PRODUCTS DIVISION OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY ROBERT STOKES, Manager, Industry, Government and Regulatory Activities, P. 0. Box 599, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 (Tel. (513) 562-2177)

299
PROCTER AND GAMBLE

J. DOUGLAS WALLACE, Ivorydale Technical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45217 (Tel. (513) 763-5172) PUREX CORPORATION

MILAGROS A. SALEM, Manager, Systems and Manufacturing Standards, 24600 South Main

Street, Carson, California 90749 (Tel. (213) 518-2350) QUAKER OATS COMPANY

TOM W. DOWDY, Quality Assurance Director, 617 West Main Street, Barrington, Illinois

60010 (Tel. (312) 381-1980 Ext. 2258) RAMSEY ENGINEERING COMPANY MAX C. CASANOVA, Manager Field Service, 1853 West County Road C, Saint Paul, Minnesota

55113 (Tel. (612) 633-5150 Ext. 264)

S. H. RASKIN CORPORATION

S. H. RASKIN, President, P. 0. Box 402426, Dallas, Texas 75240 (Tel. (214) 722-9191) REED HOLDINGS, INC. MATT KUCLAR, 2775 Broadway, Cheektowaga, N. Y. 14227 (Tel. (716) 891-8334) REVERE CORPORATION OF AMERICA

JOHN J. ELENGO, JR., Vice President-Engineering, 845 North Colony Road, Wallingford, Connecticut 06492 (Tel. (203) 269-7701) REYNOLDS ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING COMPANY

JOHN L. GRIEVES, MS 929, Quality Control Specialist, P. 0. Box 14400, Las Vegas, Nevada 89114 (Tel. (702) 986-9960) SAFEWAY STORES, INC. ROBERT L. WINSLOW, Manager, Food Technology Division, 430-A Jackson Street, Oakland, California 94660 (Tel. (415) 891-3250)

SCALE MANUFACTURER ASSOCIATION

HAL S. CHRISTENSEN, Staff Engineer, 1000 Vermont Avenue, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20005 (Tel. (202) 628-4634)

SCALE MANUFACTURER ASSOCIATION

RAYMOND J. LLOYD, Executive Director, 1000 Vermont Avenue, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20005 (Tel. (202) 628-4634)

SCALE MANUFACTURER ASSOCIATION

DARYL E . TONINI, Technical Director, 1000 Vermont Avenue, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20005 (Tel. (202) 628-4634) SERAPHIN TEST MEASURE COMPANY RAYMOND R. WELLS, Vice President, Sales, 30 Indel Avenue, Rancocas, New Jersey 08068

(Tel. (609) 267-0922) SHELL OIL COMPANY

CLOVIS E. DAVIS, Staff Loss Control Specialist, P. O. Box 2099, Houston, Texas 77001

(Tel. (713) 241-6563) SHELL OIL COMPANY

CHARLES L. VAN INWAGEN, Staff Engineer, 1100 Milam, P. 0. Box 3105, Houston, Texas

77001 (Tel. (713) 241-6973)

SINGLE SERVICE INSTITUTE JOSEPH W. BOW, Director of General Services, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

,

Washington, D. C. 20036 (Tel. (202) 347-0020) SMITH METER OPERATIONS, GE0S0URCE, INC. CHRISTOPHER LAIRD, System Manager, SSE, 1602 Wagner Avenue, Erie, Pennsylvania 16512

(Tel. (814) 899-0661 Ext. 274) SMITH METER OPERATIONS

PHILIP E. SWANSON, Senior Engineer, 1602 Wagner Avenue, Erie, Pennsylvania 16512

(Tel. (814) 899-0661 Ext. 268) SOAP AND DETERGENT ASSOCIATION

MARY P. KILC0YNE, Legislative and Regulatory Information, 475 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 10016 (Tel. (212) 725-1262 Ext. 21) SOUTHWEST PUMP COMPANY FRED M. BELUE, Mechanical Engineering Department, P. 0. Drawer 280, Bonham, Texas

75418 (Tel. (214) 583-3134 Ext. 47) SUBURBAN PROPANE GAS CORPORATION MELVIN W. SCHROEDER, Regulatory and Safety Coordination, P. O. Box 206, Whippany, New Jersey 07981 (Tel. (201) 887-5300)

300
SWEDA INTERNATIONAL, INC. JANN WARREN, Senior ECR Marketing Specialist, 34 Maple Avenue P, Pinebrook, New Jersey

07058 (Tel. (201) 575-8100) THURMAN SCALE COMPANY JOSEPH R. SCHAEFFER, Vice President, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio 43209

(Tel. (614) 443-9741) TOKHEIM CORPORATION WALTER F. GERDOM, JR., Manager-Technical Services, 1602 Wabash Avenue, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801 (Tel. (219) 423-2552 Ext. 316) TOKHEIM CORPORATION

WILLIAM D. KEY, Chief Engineer, 1602 Wabash Avenue, Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46801

(Tel. (219) 423-2552 Ext. 345) TOKYO ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. THOMAS L. MORROW, Product Manager, 19250 Van Ness Avenue, Torrance, California 90501 TOLEDO SCALE THOMAS M. STABLER, Manager, Weights and Measures, P. 0. Box 1705, Columbus, Ohio 43216 (Tel. (614) 438-4548) TRINER SCALE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY

JAMES R. F. WOODS, Director Government Sales, 3857 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (Tel. (703) 691-0076) UNIDYNAMICS OF ST. LOUIS, INC. RAYMOND E. GILES, Vice President, 1326 Ashby Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63132

(Tel. (314) 991-0273) UNIDYNAMICS OF ST. LOUIS, INC. TH0M HUELLINGHORST , Engineering Manager, 1326 Ashby Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63132

(Tel. (314) 991-0240) UNION CARBIDE - H & A DIVISION WILLIAM L. JOHNSON, Manager, Quality and Specifications, 55 Haul Road, Wayne, New Jersey 07470 (Tel. (201) 694-8800 Ext. 350) UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM J. MYERS, Manager, Marketing Equipment, 1650 East Golf Road, Schaumburg,

Illinois 60196 (Tel. (312) 885-5144)

U. S. BREWERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

A. A. RUBIN, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, 1750 K Street, N. W.

,

Washington, D. C. 20006 (Tel. (202) 466-2400)

U. S. BREWERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ANNE L. VIGN0VIC, Assistant to President, 1750 K Street, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20006 (Tel. (202) 466-2400) VEEDER-ROOT

ROBERT E. NIX, Manager Customer Services, 70 Sargeant Street, Hartford, Connecticut

06102 (Tel. (203) 527-7201) WALLCOVERING MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

ROBERT E. HEBDA, Legal Counsel, Suite 900, 1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. , Washington,

D. C. 20006 (Tel. (202) 383-6999) WALLCOVERING DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION

MICHAEL RIPPEY, 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 600, Chicago, Illinois 60601 (Tel. (312) 544-6610) WILLIAM M. WILSONS SONS, INC. CHARLES J. DENNY, Manager, Customer and Technical Services, 8th and Valley Forge Roads, Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446 (Tel. (215) 855-4631 Ext. 37) WILLIAMS PETROLEUM SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT

ROBERT R. WILLIAMS, Owner, Box 382, RR 5, Bemidjl, Minnesota 56601 (Tel. (218) 586-2038)

301
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BENJAMIN F. BANKS, Industrial Specialist, FGIS USDA, 3117 Auditors Building, 201 14th Street, S. W. , Washington, D. C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447-8529) LELAND E. BARTELT, Administrator, F6 15 -USDA, South Building, Room 162B, Washington,

D. C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447-9170) HARRY K. JOHNSON, Industrial Specialist, USDA/FGIS-Weighing Division, 14th and Independence Avenue, S. W. , 3117 Auditors Building, Washington, D. C. 20250

(Tel. (202) 447-8529) GEORGE T. LIPSCOMB, Director. Weighing Division, FGIS-USDA, South Agriculture Building, Washington, D. C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447-4851) DENNIS J. MAHONEY SR., Industrial Specialist, USDA/FGIS, Weighing Division, 14th and Independence Avenue, S. W. , 3117 Auditors Building, Washington, D. C. 20250

(Tel. (202) 447-8529) CHARLES H. OAKLEY, Chief Scales and Weighing Branch, USDA Packers and Stockyards-AMS

,

14th and Independence, Washington, D. C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447-3140) RICHARD R. PFORR, Chief-Scales and Weighing Branch, USDA FGIS, 3117 Auditors Buidling,

201 14th Street, S. W. , Washington, D. C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447-8529) PHILIP M. ROWSE, USDA FGIS, Weighing Division, 3117 Auditors Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, S. W. , Washington, D. C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447-8529) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ROBERT R. HANNUM, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue,

N. W., Washington, D. C. 20580 (Tel. (202) 724-1478)

U. S. METRIC BOARD LAWRENCE J. CHISHOLM, Director, State Programs, U. S. Metric Board, 1815 North Lynn

Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (Tel. (703) 235-2583) STEPHEN A. VASTAGH, Program Manager, United States Metric Board, 1815 North Lynn

Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (Tel. (703) 235-2820) NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS DAWN ALGER, Secretary, Office of Domestic and International Measurement Standards, National Bureau of Standards, Building 221, Room A353, Washington, D. C. 20234

(Tel. (301) 921-3307) ERNEST AMBLER, Director, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234

(Tel. (301) 921-2411)

LOUIS E. BARBROW, Consultant, National Bureau of Standards, Office of Weights and Measures, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3677) SUSANNE BASFORD, Secretary, Office of the Associate Director for Measurement Services, National Bureau of Standards, Building 221, Room A363, Washington, D. C. 20234

(Tel. (301) 921-3301) CARROLL S. BRICKENKAMP, Program Manager, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401)

302
DAVID E. EDGERLY, Chief, Office of Domestic and International Measurement Standards, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3307) ELMER H. EISENHOWER, Chief, Office of Radiation Measurement, National Bureau of Standards, Building 245, Room C229, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2551) STEPHEN HASKO, Engineer, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) ANN P. HEFFERNAN, Conference Coordinator, National Conference on Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3677) JOE KIM, Engineer, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3677) ARTHUR 0. MCCOUBREY, Associate Director for Measurement Services, National Bureau of Standards, Building 221, Room A363, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3301) BARBARA MEIGS, Standards Specialist, Office of Domestic and International Measurement

Standards, National Bureau of Standards, Building 221, Room A353, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3307) HENRY V. 0PPERMANN, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401)

H. STEFEN PEISER, 638 Blossom Drive, Rockville, Maryland 20850 (Tel. (301) 762-6860) RICHARD N. SMITH, Technical Coordinator, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3677) EVELYN TALLERICO, Secretary, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Building 221, Room A363, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) ALBERT D. THOLEN, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) ERIC A. VADELUND, Manager, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (513) 278-9496) OTTO K. WARNLOF, Manager, Technical Services, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) VICKIE WEEDON, Secretary, Office of the Associate Director for Measurement Services, National Bureau of Standards, Building 221, Room B366, Washington, D. C. 20234

(Tel. (301) 921-2805) HAROLD F. WOLLIN, Executive Secretary, National Conference on Weights and Measure, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3677) JAMES M. WYCKOFF, Liaison Officer, State and Local, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3814)

S. OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

CHARLES R. CAVAGNAR0, Associate Director, Consumer Programs, U. S. Office of Consumer

Affairs, Reporters Building, #623, Washington, D. C. 20201 (Tel. (202) 755-8880)

303
U. S. POSTAL SERVICE JOHN DEROSA, Program Specialist, U. S. Postal Service, 475 1' Enfant Plaza, Washington,

D. C. 20260 (Tel. (202) 245-5774) THOMAS LANYI, Program Manager, U. S. Postal Service Research Lab, 11711 Parklam

Drive, Rockville, Maryland 20852 (Tel. (301) 443-6216) EDGAR A. MICHAELSON, Senior General Engineer, USPS, Maintenance Technical Support,

111 Chesapeake Street, P. 0. Box 1600, Norman, Oklahoma 73070

(Tel. (405) 329-8920 Ext 235) UNIVERSITIES

BRYCE JORDAN, President, University of Texas-Dallas, P. 0. Box 688, Richardson, Texas

75080 (Tel. (214) 690-2201) LEE J. PHILLIPS, Assistant Director Engineering, Engineering Extension Service, Texas A&M University, F E Drawer K, College Station, Texas 77801 (Tel. (713) 845-7621) WILLIAM J. PIERCE, Professor, University of Michigan Law School, 330 Hutchins Hall, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 (Tel. (313) 764-9336; CONSUMER AND STATE ORGANIZATIONS

LOUIS S. MEYER, Chairman Steering Committee, Conference of Consumer Organizations,

R. D. #2, Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania 16403 (Tel. (814) 732-2451) WILLIAM J. PAGE, JR., Executive Director, Council of State Governments, P. 0. Box

11910 Iron Works Pike, Lexington, Kentucky 40578 (Tel. (606) 252-2291) MARSHALL W. PARROTT, Chairman CRCPD, Oregon Health Division 1400 S. W. 5th Avenue,

Portland, Oregon 97201 (Tel. (503) 229-5797)

ARGENTINA

RAFAEL STEINBERG, Presidente Sistema, Interamericano de Metrologia, SIM-INTI CC157

1650 San Martin BA, Argentina AUSTRALIA

THOMAS JOSEPH PETRY, Executive Director, National Standards Commission, P. 0. Box 262, North Ryde, 2113 NSW, Australia BELGIUM

MADAME M. L. HENRION, Ingenieur en Chef, Directeur, Service Beige de la Metrologie,

1795 Chausse de Haecht, B 1130 Bruxelles, Belgium

CANADAJOHN ARMSTRONG, Acting Chief E&G, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Tunneys Pasture,

Ottowa, Ontario K1A0C9, Canada CHINA

LI SHENAN, Engineer, Post Office Box 2112, Beijing, China

E. REPSTORFF HOLTVEG, Directeur, Justervaesenet, Amager Boulevard 115, DK 2300, Copenhagen, Denmark

lxsiav:

G. F. HODSMAN, Director, Avery Research Admin. Ltd., Alan Pond Hse. 366 Soho Road, Birmingham, B219QL, England

304
FRANCE

B. AFEICHE, Engineer, Bureau Internationale Metrologie Legale, 11 Rue Turgot, Paris

75009 France

BERNARD ATHANE, Director, Bureau Internationale Metrologie Legale, 11 Rue Turgot, Paris

75009 France

ANTOINE B. CHAMBORD, Standards Attache, French Embassy, 2020 K Street, N. W. , Suite 840, Washington, D. C. 20006 (Tel. (202)223-6710 Ext. 54)

Z. REFEROWSKI, Assistant Director, Bureau International Metrologie Legale, 11 Rue Turgot, Paris 75009 France

A. THULIN, Assistant Director, Bureau Internationale Metrologie Legale, 11 Rue Turgot, Paris 75009 France

GERMANYWOLFHARD GOGGE, Director of Weights and Measures, State Rhinelant-Palatinate , Steinkout 3 D-6550 Bad, Kreuznach, Germany WALTER MUHE, Professor Dr. Ing. , Physikalisch-Tech Bundesanstant, Pstfach 3345 3300 Braunschweig, Bundesallee 100 Germany

E. SEILER, Physikalisch-Tech Bundesanstalt , Pstfach 3345 3300 Braunschweig, Bundesallee

100 Germany MARTIN ZIEFLE, Ingeneer, Bizerba, 746 Balingen, West Germany

IRELAND

J. E. CUNNINGHAM, Principal Officer, Metrology Service Department, 1C&T, South Frederick Street, Dublin 2, Ireland CONOR P. O'TOOLE, Head of Metrology, Institute for Industrial R & S, Ballymun Road, Dublin 9, Ireland JAMAICA

OVAN C. JULAL, Senior Standards Officer, Jamaican Bureau of Standards, P. 0. Box 113/6 Winchester Road, Kingston 10, Jamaica NETHERLANDS

A. C. BIJLOO, Dutch Service of Metrology, Schoemakerstraat, 97 PB 654, 2600 AR Delft, Netherlands JOHN J. NIEUWLAND, Chief Legislation and International Relations Division, Dutch Metrology Service, 97 Schoemakerstraat, P. 0. Box 654, 2600 AR Delft, Netherlands

A. J. VAN MALE, Chief Director, Dutch Service of Metrology, 93 Schoemakerstraat, P. 0. Box 654, 2600 AR Delft, Netherlands NORWAY

KNUT BIRKELAND, Director Justerdirektoratet, Postbox 6832 St. Olavs Plass, Oslo, Norway

PANAMAESMERALDA HERNANDEZ, Industrial Engineer, Ministerio de Comercio East Indies, Apartado

9658, Zona 4, Panama, Republic de Panama

305
5-;:;iria-C HANS EIGENMANN, Technical Sales, Mettler Instrumente AG, Box 71, CH-8606 Greifensee, Switzerland

A. PERLSTAIN, Directeur, Office Fed. de Metrologie, 3084 Vabern/BE, Switzerland TANZANIA

M. KABALO , Inspector of Weights and Measures, P. 0. Box 313, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

C. A. M. MAUNGO, Senior Metrologist, Ministry of Commerce, P. 0. Box 9524, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania USSR

V. IRMAKIV. ?r::ess:r. :is:::u:s :; Metrology Service. Moscow, USSR

L. ISSAEV, Chief of Metrology, Department of Gosstandart, Leninskv Pr. 9, Moscow, DSSB
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PUBLICATIONS

The following publications may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D. C. 20402. Remittance must accompany order.

NBS Handbook 44, 1980 Edition-Specifications, Tolerances,

and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing

and Measuring Devices - SN003-003-02230-6 $5.50

NBS Handbook 130-Model State Laws and Regulations,

1980 Edition - SN003-003-02240-3 4.50

NBS Handbook 117-Examination of Vapor-Measuring

Devices for Liquefied Petroleum Gas - SN003-003-01563-6 75

NBS Special Publication 304-Metric Chart

SN003-003-01072-3 65

NBS Special Publication 304A-Brief History of

Measurement Systems - SN003-003-1713-2 50

NBS Special Publication 330-The International System

of Units (SI), 1977 Edition - SN003-003-01784-1 . . 1.60

NBS Special Publication 345-A Metric AmericaA Decision Whose Time Has Come - SN003-003-

00884-2 2.70

NBS Special Publication 447-Weights and Measures

Standards of the United States, A Brief History

SN003-003-01654-3 1.00

NBS Handbook 105-3-Specif ications and Tolerances

for Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field

Standards SN003-003-02044-3 1.20

REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

NBS Special Publication 377-Index to the Reports of

the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(1905-1971) - SN003-003-01107-0 85

NBS Special Publication 391-Report of the 58th Conference (1973) - SN003-003-01260-2 2.50

NBS Special Publication 407-Report of the 59th

Conference (1974) - SN003-003-01379-0 3.75

NBS Special Publication 442-Report of the 60th

Conference (1975) - SN003-003-01614-4 3.30

NBS Special Publication 471-Report of the 61st

Conference (1976) - SN003-003-01806-6 3.75

NBS Special Publication 517-Report of the 62nd

Conference (1977) - SN003-003-01966-1 4.25

NBS Special Publication 532-Report of the 63rd

Conference (1978) - SN003-003-02045-1 4.25

NBS Special Publication 566-Report of the 64th

Conference (1979) - SN003-003-02147-4 7.00

307
The following publications may be obtained from the

National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Remittance must

accompany order. The prices listed are for paper copies.

NBS Handbook 94-The Examination of Weighing Equipment

(COM. No. 73-10635) $16.00

NBS Handbook 98-The Examination of Farm Milk Tanks

(COM. No. 72-10619) 6.00

NBS Circular 593-The Federal Basis for Weights and

Measures (COM. No. 75-10234) 5.00

NBS Handbook 99-The Examination of Liquefied

Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices 6.00

NBS Handbook 105-1-Specifications and Tolerances for

Field Standard Weights - (COM. No. 72-50707; 5.00

NBS Handbook 105 -2-Specif ications and Tolerances for

Field Measuring Flasks - (COM. No. 71-50065) 5.00

NBS Handbook 112-Examination Procedure Outlines for

Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices

(COM. No. 73-50836) 8.00

The following publications may be obtained from the Office

of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D. C. 20234, at no charge.

o Mission of the Office of Weights and Measures

o National Conference on Weights and Measures-Its Organization and Procedure - Membership Plan and Application

Form

o Directory of State, Commonwealth, District, and Local

Weights and Measures Offices of the United States

o NBS Special Publication 430-Household Weights and

Measures Card

o NBS Circular 1035 -Units and Systems of Weights and

Measures-Their Origin, Development, and Present Status

: NBS Iircular 1056-Guidelines for "Use of the Metric

System

o NBS Circular 1071-Factors for High Precision Conversion

o NBS Circular 1078-The Metric System of Measurement (SI)-

Federal Register Notice of October 26, 1977

308

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 9981 325-486/7D75
NBS-114A (rev. 2-«c> U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No, 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA REPORT NO. SHEET (See instructions) NBS SP 599 January 1981

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Report of the 65th National Conference on Weights and Measures 1980

5. AUTHOR(S) Harold F. Wollin. Louis E. Barbrow, Ann P. Heffernan

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE S. Type of Report & Period Covered WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City, Stole. ZIP)

Same as Item 6

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 26-27766

I | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here) This is the proceedings of the 65th National Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, held in Washington, D. C,

June 22-27, 1980, and attended by State, county, and city weights and measures

officials, and representatives of the Federal Government, business, industry, and consumer organizations. The publication includes papers presented by Conference

officials and other top authorities from Government and industry in the United

States and several foreign countries. Reports by the several standing and annual committees of the Conference are also included. Major issues discussed at the National Conference included measurement science

education, enforcement uniformity, national type approval, computers and microelectronics, new design and performance requirements for weighing and measuring

technology, radiation measurements, metric conversion of retail gasoline dispensers,

and weights and measures program evaluation.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons) Domestic standards; education programs -.electronic devices; international recommendations;legal metrology; measurement assurance; metrication; model laws and regulations; packaging and label ing;specifications and tolerances ; technology transfer;weights

13. AVAILABILITY

| X| Unlimited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS and measures.

PiT] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

fJH Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

319

USCOMM-DC 6043-PSO

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's, technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic

$13: foreign $16.25. Single copy. S3 domestic: $3.75 foreign. NOTE: The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical

Sciences." DIMENSIONS/NBS—This monthly magazine is published to in- form scientists, engineers, business and industry leaders, teachers, students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and

technology, with primary emphasis on work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution abatement,

health and safety, and consumer product performance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs in measurement

standards and techniques, properties of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and

automatic data processing. Annual subscription: domestic $11; foreign $13.75. NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and

studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-3%).

NOTE: The principal publication outlet for the foregoing data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1 155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems. Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies. Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10. Title 15, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's tech- nological marketplace. Order the above S'BS publications from: Superintendent of Documents. Government Printing Office. Washington. DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from

the National Technical Information Services. Springfield. VA 22161

.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended.

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Ex

ecutive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. DC 20234 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM-215

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK