I
1*1 0F «•»

National Bureau of Standards

Library, E-Ol Admin. Bldg.

MAY 14 1981

% 3 30825

GO00

NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION ±

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

Report of the

61st National Conference

on

Weights and Measures

1976

j
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress March 3. 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is lo strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and facilitate (heir 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 pro- mote public safety. The Bureau consists of the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, the Institute for Applied Technology, the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, the Office for Information Programs, and the

Office of Experimental Technology Incentives Program. THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the United States of a complete and consist- ent system of physical measurement; coordinates that system with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essentia] services leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce. The Institute consists of the Office of Measurement Services, and the following center and divisions:

Applied Mathematics — Electricity — Mechanics — Heat — Optical Physics — Center for Radiation Research — Laboratory Astrophysics' — Cryogenics* — Electromagnetics J — Time and Frequency*. THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement, standards, and data on the properties of well-characterized materials needed by industry, commerce, educational institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies; and develops, produces, and

distributes standard reference materials. The Institute consists of the Office of Standard Reference Materials, the Office of Air and Water Measurement, and the following divisions:

Analytical Chemistry — Polymers — Metallurgy — Inorganic Materials — Reactor Radiation — Physical Chemistry. THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services developing and promoting the use of avail- able technology; cooperates with public and private organizations in developing technological standards, codes, and test methods; and provides technical advice services, and information to Government agencies and the public. The Institute consists of

the following divisions and centers:

Standards Application and Analysis — Electronic Technology — Center for Consumer Product Technology: Product

Systems Analysis; Product Engineering — Center for Building Technology: Structures, Materials, and Safely; Building Environment; Technical Evaluation and Application — Center for Fire Research: Fire Science; Fire Safety Engineering. THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts research and provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in improving cost effectiveness in the conduct of their programs through the selection, acquisition, and effective utilization of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus wthin the executive branch for the development of Federal standards for automatic data processing equipment, techniques, and computer

languages. The Institute consist of the following divisions: Computer Services — Systems and Software — Computer Systems Engineering — Information Technology. THE OFFICE OF EXPERIMENTAL TECHNOLOGY INCENTIVES PROGRAM seeks to affect public policy and process

to facilitate technological change in the private sector by examining and experimenting with Government policies and practices in order to identify and remove Government-related barriers and to correct inherent market imperfections that impede

the innovation process. THE OFFICE FOR INFORMATION PROGRAMS promotes optimum dissemination and accessibility of scientific information generated within NBS; promotes the development of the National Standard Reference Data System and a system of in- formation analysis centers dealing with the broader aspects of the National Measurement System; provides appropriate services

to ensure that the NBS staff has optimum accessibility to the scientific information of the world. The Office consists of the following organizational units:

Office of Standard Reference Data — Office of Information Activities — Office of Technical Publications — Library —

Office of International Standards — Office of International Relations.

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

" Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302.
NATIONAL BUBisau

OF STANDARDS

LIBRARY

AUG 1 1977

Report of the >ToV

61st National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1976 ^"2

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials from the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Washington, D.C., July 12-16, 1976

Report Editor: Patricia Ann Raschella

< w ^ *< United States Department of Commerce

Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

Ernest Ambler, Acting Director

(/. Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 471, 304 pages (June 1977)

Issued (June 1977)

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 20402—Price $3.75

Stock No. 003-003-01806-6

I .f
Abstract

This is a report of the proceedings (edited) of the Sixty-First National

Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of

Standards, held in Washington, D.C., July 12-16, 1976, and attended by State,

county, and city weights and measures officials, the Federal Government,

business, industry, and consumer organizations.

Key words: Checking prepackaged commodities; computer assisted checkout

systems; consumer affairs; cordage products; drained weight; laws and regulations; metrication; national laboratory accreditation; retail meat identity standards; tolerance application; vapor recovery; weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 26-27766
CONTENTS

(Note: The reports of the standing and annual committees and the treasurer's report, which were presented on Thursday, have been arranged together,

beginning on page 160 for easier reference.)

Page

Officers of the Conference vi Standing Committees vi Annual Committees viii Open Committee Meetings, Monday and Tuesday, July 12-13, 1976 ix

MORNING SESSION—MONDAY, JULY 12, 1976

Metrication—A One-Time Opportunity, by Richard L. Thompson, Confer- ence Chairman, Chief, Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, State of Maryland 1 A Different View on Tolerance Application, by Otto K. Warnlof, Manager,

Technical Services, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of

Standards 5 Tare Weight in Computer Assisted Checkout Systems, by Henry Morris,

Manager, Point of Sales System, Giant Food Inc. 13

EPA Gasoline Vapor Recovery Programs, by Robert L. Ajax, Chief,

Emission Measurement Branch, Emission Standards and Engineering

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 17

AFTERNOON SESSION—MONDAY, JULY 12, 1976

Documentation of Interpretations and Methods of Sale, by Earl W. Johnson,

Attorney, Division of Special Statutes, Federal Trade Commission 23

What Everyone Should Know About Those Supreme Court Cases Having to do with Moisture Losses—As of the Fourth of July, 1976, by Merrill S. Thompson, Partner, Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings 24

Uniform Retail Meat Identity Standards, by H. Kenneth Johnson, Executive Director, Food Science Division, National Live Stock and Meat

Board 29

An Introduction to Weights and Measures for Cordage Products, by William

H. Hagenbuch, Chairman, Technical Committee, The Cordage Institute 44

Report and Recommendations to the National Conference on Weights and

Measures on the Measurement of Kiln Dried Hardwood Lumber, by E. Howard Gatewood, Secretary-Manager, National Hardwood Lumber

Association 49

MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1976

Metrication USA, by Malcolm E. O'Hagan, President, American National

Metric Council 53

The Metrication of Seven-Up—The Liter Leader, by Ben H. Wells, Chairman of the Board, The Seven-Up Company 63

Metric Training Seminars, by John H. Landvater and Margo Perkins,

Landvater Associates 69

iii
AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1976

Page

A Background for Understanding Sampling Plans, by Mary G. Natrella,

Mathematical Statistician, Statistical Engineering Section, Applied

Mathematics Division, Institute for Basic Standards, National Bureau

of Standards 77

National Conference of State Legislatures, by Tom Jensen, President,

National Conference of State Legislatures 84

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, by Gene A. Rowland, Chief, Standards Application and Analysis Division, Institute for

Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards 90

Consumer Affairs Forum, (introduction), by O. D. Mullinax, Director, Fuels

and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, State of Georgia 103

A New Road for Consumers, by Margaret Dana, Consumer Relations

Counsel 103

Drained Weight Regulations, by Benjamin M. Gutterman, Assistant Direc- tor for Coordination/Technology, Bureau of Foods, Food and Drug

Administration 110

What the Consumer Needs to Know About Metric, by Barbara Beizer,

Assistant Director, National Consumers Congress 120

MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1976

(held at National Bureau of Standards, Administration Building, Red Auditorium)

Opening Ceremony, by U.S. Marine Corps Ceremonial Color Guard and

Musical Unit 125

Welcome to NBS, by Dr. F. Karl Willenbrock, Director, Institute for

Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards 126

NBS and NCWM—Past, Present, and Future, by Dr. Ernest Ambler, Acting

Director, National Bureau of Standards 128

Presentation of Honor Awards 137

Presentation of Plaque Commemorating NBS' 75th Anniversary 139

Address by Honorable S. John Byington, Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 141

Address by Honorable Young D. Hance, Secretary, Maryland Department

of Agriculture 146

Address by Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science

and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce 152

NBS Film—"Standards for Excellence" 159

AFTERNOON SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1976

No General Session was scheduled; however, delegates and families were invited

to tour selected NBS laboratories and displays.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs, presented by Robert T. Williams, Chairman; Director of Pro- grams, Department of Agriculture, State of Texas 160

Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, presented by

Kendrick J. Simila, Chairman; Administrator, Weights and Measures

Division, Department of Agriculture, State of Oregon 168

iv
Page

Report of the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination, presented by Sydney D. Andrews, Chairman; Director, Division of

Standards, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, State of

Florida 202

Report of the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government,

presented by Edward H. Stadolnik, Chairman; Head Administrative

Assistant, Division of Standards, State of Massachusetts 213

Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations, presented by Charles H. Vincent, Chairman; Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, City of

Dallas, Texas 222

REPORTS OF THE ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Report of the Executive Committee, presented by Richard L. Thompson,

Chairman; Chief, Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

State of Maryland 251

Report of the Committee on Nominations, presented by John H. Lewis,

Chairman; Chief, Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

State of Washington 257

Report of the Committee on Resolutions, presented by Sam F. Hindsman,

Chairman; Director, Weights and Measures, Department of Commerce,

State of Arkansas 258

Report of the Committee on Auditing, presented by Donald F. Lynch,

Chairman; Director, Weights and Measures, Kansas City, Kansas 263

Report of the Treasurer 264

Conference Registration List . 266

V
OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

President: ERNEST AMBLER, Acting Director, National Bureau of Standards

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

National Bureau of Standards

Chairman: R. L. THOMPSON, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Department

of Agriculture, State of Maryland

Vice Chairmen:

L. A. GREDY, Director, Division of Weights and Measures, State Board of

Health, State of Indiana

E. KEELEY, Supervisor, Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

State of Delaware

P. E. NICHOLS, Director, Weights and Measures, Alameda County, California

D. I. Offner, Commissioner, Weights and Measures, City of St. Louis,

Missouri

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

Chaplain: J. H. LEWIS, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Dairy and Food

Division, Department of Agriculture, State of Washington

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Sergeants at Arms:

R. J. CORD, Chief, Weights and Measures Branch, Division of Business

Standards, Prince George's County, Maryland

R. A. THARALSON, Metrologist, Weights and Measures Division, Department

of Public Service, State of Minnesota

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

E. W. BALLENTINE G. E. Mattimoe

F. L. Brugh J. B. Rabb

H. W. Chandler W. C. Sullivan

A. W. Fenger M. Trujillo

S. F. HlNDSMAN W. J. TUSEN

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

Committee.)

(Officers and Executive Committee members elected by the 61st National

Conference to serve the 62nd National Conference on Weights and Measures will be found in the report of the Nominating Committee, page 257.)

STANDING COMMITTEES

(The remaining term of office for each committee membex, in years, is shown

in parentheses.)

EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

R. T. WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman

W. B. Harper, Birmingham, Alabama (2) W. H. KORTH, Ventura County, California (3) A. J. Ladd, Akron, Ohio (4) S. Valtri, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1)

vi
(S. Malone, State of Nebraska, was appointed for a five-year term to replace R.

T. Williams, whose term expired. Mr. Harper replaced Mr. Williams as chairman.)

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

C. H. Vincent, Dallas, Texas, Chairman (2) J. T. Bennett, Connecticut (3)

J. L. O'NEILL, Kansas (1) R. W. PROBST, Wisconsin (4) M. TRUJILLO, Puerto Rico (5)

(M. TRUJILLO, Puerto Rico, was appointed for a five-year term after having

served the remaining one year term of R. L. Thompson who had been on the

L&R Committee but stepped down to accept the chairmanship of the 61st

NCWM. Mr. Vincent was re-elected as chairman.)

LIAISON WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

E. H. STADOLNIK, Massachusetts, Chairman (2) C. G. GEHRINGER, Pennsylvania Scale Company

C. H. Greene, New Mexico (4) W. N. Seward, American Petroleum Institute

J. F. SPEER, Milk Industry Foundation (1)

(C. W. SILVER, Revere Corporation of America, was appointed for a three-year

term to replace C. G. Gehringer who retired. O. D. MULLINAX, State of Georgia, was appointed for a five-year term to replace W. N. Seward, whose term expired.

Mr. Stadolnik was re-elected as chairman.)

NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND COORDINATION

S. D. Andrews, Florida, Chairman

K. J. SIMILA, Oregon

E. H. STADOLNIK, Massachusetts

C. H. Vincent, Dallas, Texas

R. T. Williams, Texas

(The members of this committee consist of the presiding chairmen of the other

four standing committees and a fifth member, who serves as the committee

chairman, who is appointed annually from a list of former Conference chairmen

who are still active in weights and measures. Mr. Andrews was re-appointed as chairman.)

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

K. J. Simila, Oregon, Chairman

J. R. BIRD, New Jersey (3) W. E. CZAIA, Minnesota (1) M. L. KlNLAW, North Carolina (2) C. WOOTEN, Florida (4)

(G. L. Delano, State of Montana, was appointed for a five-year term to replace K. J. Smilia, whose term expired. Mr. Czaia replaced Mr. Simila as chairman.)

vii
ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Nominations: J. H. LEWIS, Washington, Chairman; S. D. ANDREWS, Florida; G. L. JOHNSON, Kentucky; J. H. JOHNSON, Louisiana; C. C. MORGAN, Gary, Indiana;

W. I. THOMPSON, Monmouth County, New Jersey; W. S. Watson, California

Resolutions: S. F. HlNDSMAN, Arkansas, Chairman; A. J. ALBANESE, New

Britain, Connecticut; L. D. DRAGHETTI, Agawam, Massachusetts; J. A. ETZKORN, South Dakota; C. E. Forester, Texas; T. E. Kirby, Georgia; S. A.

Malone, Nebraska

Auditing: D. L. LYNCH, Kansas City, Kansas, Chairman; K. R. ADCOCK, Ohio; J.

' B. HARDY, Jr., Mississippi

Associate Membership: E. E. WOLSKI, Colgate-Palmolive Company, Chairman; R. H. DOUGHERTY, National Canners Association; W. F. GERDOM, Tokheim

Corporation; R. J. LLOYD, Scale Manufacturers Association; R. W. MILLER,

Jewel Food Stores; R. SOUTHERS, American Petroleum Institute; T. M. STABLER, Toledo Scale Division/Reliance Electric Company; M. S. THOMPSON,

Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee, and Hastings; R. R. WELLS, Seraphin Test

Measure Company

REGISTRATIONS

Sandra Edgerly, Beverly Frazier, Daphne Johnson, Rita Mayeux, Deborah Neal, Patricia Raschella, Eleanor Rozsics

LADIES' ARRANGEMENTS

Mrs. H. F. Wollin

Mrs. 0. K. Warnlof

METROLOGY WORKSHOPS

There were four metrologists' workshops scheduled during Conference week. The purpose of these workshops was primarily to

train State and local metrologists in laboratory calibration procedures and techniques.

MANUFACTURERS' EQUIPMENT DISPLAY

An informal display of new equipment by manufacturers was

held on Monday afternoon from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. for the education

of the Conference delegates.

viii
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1976

and

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1976

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 preConference publicity, and in the printed Conference program.

Many delegates participated in the committee hearings. During

the hearings of the committees, presentations were given by

representatives of weights and measures, industry, government,

and consumer groups. The discussions which took place played an

important role in guiding the committees in their deliberations

and preparations of their final reports. The final reports of the

committees will be found beginning on page 160 and will reflect

the discussion that took place and the actions taken by the

Conference at the time the final reports were presented to the

delegates.

ix
Iil
REPORT OF THE SIXTY-FIRST NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

MORNING SESSION—MONDAY, JULY 12, 1976

(Richard L. Thompson, Chairman; Presiding)

MR. J. H. LEWIS, Washington, the Conference Chaplain, delivered the invocation and led the delegates in the Pledge of Allegiance.

METRICATION—A ONE-TIME OPPORTUNITY

Presented by RICHARD L. THOMPSON, Conference Chairman;

Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture

State of Maryland

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome you to the 61st annual meeting of

the National Conference on Weights and

Measures. In the preceding twelve-month

period, I have been called upon to represent

this Conference on several occasions. It is

my sincere hope that I have represented

you adequately. In pursuit of these efforts,

you should be aware that the assistance I received from members of the Office of

Weights and Measures, NBS, and other

weights and measures officials can best be

described as enthusiastic, sincere and in the best interests of this

Conference.

For a number of years now we have discussed metrication; we

have wondered about it; we have worried about it; and many of

you will remember, the Conference even formed a committee to

study it. All of this was done with the thought, "metrification is

coming"; it is no longer necessary for us to wonder when it will

arrive. The Metric Conversion Act passed by the United States

Congress, forming Public Law 94-168, and signed by the President

on December 23, 1975, clearly indicates, for you and me, that

metrication is here. At the risk of sounding trite, "the dye is cast";

there is no turning back. This, of course, is not news to any of you;

in reality the metric system has been with us for some time.

The Metric Conversion Act does, however, provide an official

impetus to initiate positive action. Further, it creates an air of

urgency which seems to suggest that we move forward regarding

1

i
this matter. Even though we will be dealing with these issues for

many years to come, it appears that we now have a sound basis to

seriously embark upon this major effect. As I indicated in my

letter of invitation to each of you, probably at no time in the entire

history of the National Conference on Weights and Measures has

there been a singular issue of greater magnitude and eventual

impact. The results of that which we accomplish here, regarding

metrication, and that which will be accomplished by other segments of our society, may be felt for many years and generations

to come. This is an effort of great importance and everyone will be

watching.

"Metrication—a one-time opportunity"; an interesting subject

for thought, to be sure. Just as you must, I have some thoughts

and some concerns dealing with this issue and I'd like to share

them with you today.

It appears that each of us is provided with a one-time opportunity to carefully and wisely plan for use of an entirely "new

measurement system" in conjunction with weighing and measuring devices. I indicate each of us because weights and measures

officials and all segments of the associate membership will be

affected by this portion of our work. I use the phrase "new

measurement system," because to the average citizen the metric

system of measurement is nothing more than something they

have heard about, not something they are accustomed to using.

Carefully and wisely is emphasized because we must make certain

that our deliberations and our accomplishments result in that

which generally best serves the needs of (a) the prospective users

of those devices and (b) the individuals affected by the quantity

determination established by those devices. The latter, of course,

most frequently being the consumer.

Perhaps we have a one-time opportunity to develop an acceptable form of that measurement system for use in the sale of bulk

commodities and indicating declarations of quantity on packaged

commodities. Let us see if we can (if not immediately, at some

future date) develop the type of quantity declarations that will

compliment the historic philosophy of this Conference—equity

through accuracy and the potential for value comparison, based on

quantity. I think this will be a difficult task, but we have been

faced with difficult tasks in the past. I trust we will enjoy a degree

of success that is consistent with that which we have experienced

over the last 60 sessions of the National Conference.

I see another opportunity; in some cases, we should strive to rid

ourselves of archaic nomenclature and measurement custom re- sulting from a long past methodology in commerce. I am encouraged, for example, by what appears to be the softwood lumber

industry's positive approach to metrication. Hopefully, we will no

2
longer have nominal or incorrectly named sizes in lumber. Where

is the logic in calling a piece of lumber a 2 x 4, when the actual

dimensions of 2" x 4" haven't been used or haven't been correct

since dressed lumber reduced the need for rough-cut lumber.

Why are we still dealing with the bushel in some areas of

agriculture when, in many cases, it really isn't needed any longer?

Much to my amazement, I have seen purchase tickets or receipts

that, instead of saying 6000 pounds of corn, display the statement

107 bu and—10 lb (a combination of volume and a rounded out

figure in weight, accomplished by dividing 56 lb into 6000 lb). The

education of those people raising our nation's food is generally

equal to that of all other segments of our society. They are businessmen; they use relatively sophisticated equipment; they

are accustomed to determining percentages of plant nutrients,

digestible protein and moisture. They are confronted with a host of

problems and they adequately deal with them, or they do not stay

in business.

Many of these people own and operate weighing equipment and

do not have a bushel measure in their possession. Why, then, do

some businesses still cling to the use of that measurement term

when quoting prices and when, in reality, they are quoting in

terms of weight? The farmer is capable of determining the approximate number of bushels, should it suit his needs, if he is provided

with the most accurate weight quantity determination possible. It

is my view that quoting volume, when one means weight, is

unnecessary and only fosters confusion. Perhaps metrication will

help do away with this type situation.

As another example, I have been told of a local, well-known

columnist and television personality whose main interest is in

education and protection of the consumer—a worthy pursuit with

which we are all familiar. It is with the kindest humor that I mention this. When asked how much a pint of berries should

weigh, that individual responded, "A pint's a pound the world

around." Armed with this information, a number of people proceeded to determine that most of the berries offered for sale were

"short weight."—If metrication brings nothing else, I sincerely

hope it results in laying that worn-out phrase to rest.

I am certain that all weights and measures officials here today

have visions of how metrication will affect them. Surely, some will see it as a problem; some will see it as an opportunity. Certainly,

we will all differ in our approach to this matter and the results of

our efforts may not be the same. It appears to me, however, that

we should make the most of this opportunity. Governmental

agencies, in my view, react to new challenges and new problems in

much the same manner as relatives do with new children. The

youngest, the one requiring the greatest care and effort, seems to

3
get most of the attention and concern. Several years later, however, when a new interest or a new child arrives on the scene,

those that have been around for awhile get less attention and,

perhaps, less concern. I believe each and every weights and

measures official would be well-advised to, immediately, acquire

the tools they will need in order to properly administer the laws

that will be affected by metrication. Do it now while interest is

high because several years down the road there will be newer,

shinier and, perhaps, more pressing problems that will be getting

the attention.

Finally, I see one other opportunity; it is not, however, necessarily related to the metrication. Since we are about to try on a

new system for size, would it not be an appropriate time for each

of us to carefully review our current programs? Perhaps we should

compare the method of administration with that which we read in

the Model Laws and Regulations or the laws and regulations of

our particular jurisdictions. If we cannot relate what we do with

what we see in those documents, is it not an appropriate time to

consider changing our approach?

Earlier, I suggested that it is time for us to move forward with

dedication and purpose; let us do just that at this Conference. We

must think of the future for, without a doubt, the next generation

will find it difficult to understand the need for, or the logic of, two

commercial measurement systems. Metric measurement and

terms will present no problem for them; today's education will

assure that.

While we are taking these positive steps toward use of the

metric system, let us exercise care to ensure that we do not,

immediately, create an unacceptable environment for those who

have known only the customary system throughout their entire

lives. Let us strive to ensure that the results of our efforts do not

tend to work an extreme hardship on small businesses.

In his report to the Secretary of State in 1821, John Quincy

Adams made this observation. "The knowledge of them (weights

and measures or measurement), as in established use, is among

the first elements of education, and is often learned by those who

learn nothing else, not even to read and write. This knowledge is

riveted in the memory by habitual application of it to the employments of men throughout life." I think this remains as the

situation found today. We must acknowledge the fact that there

remain segments of our society who will find it difficult to deal

with an immediate transition.

Thank you for your courtesy; let us work hard in all our efforts

during this Conference.

4
A DIFFERENT VIEW ON TOLERANCE APPLICATION

Presented by OTTO K. WARNLOF, Manager, Technical Services,

Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards

It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to talk with you a few minutes this

morning. There are many things I would

like to discuss since the problems confronting the National Conference on Weights

and Measures' Specifications and Tolerances Committee and, consequently, all of

you, seem to grow by the minute. These

problems stem, for the most part, from the

technological revolution taking place in

weighing and measuring systems. Today,

more than ever before, the weights and

measures enforcement official, the serviceman, the salesman, and

the design engineer must have a thorough knowledge of the

requirements of Handbook 44 and a thorough understanding of

the philosophy expressed in those requirements. The weights and

measures inspector is confronted in the field with the most

complex, sophisticated equipment he has ever experienced. In

order that his field evaluation of the appropriateness of this

equipment be adequate so that he can make a correct decision as

to the disposition of the equipment, i.e., is it performing properly; are there design or modification characteristics that facilitate the

perpetration of fraud; and most importantly, is the equipment the

right equipment for the weighing or measuring application, he

must have a complete understanding of the requirements of

Handbook 44. However, since time is always limited, I have

selected a subject which, although it may seem quite removed and

not an immediate concern, is worthy of consideration and study by

all involved in weights and measures activity.

Economic factors are always considered in weights and measures requirements and decisions.

In scale design and application, we in the United States have

recognized this fact by specifying the value of the minimum

graduated interval for certain weighing applications. For example,

on animal scales, Handbook 44 requires the value of the minimum

graduated interval to be 1 lb; on livestock scales, 5 lb; on grain

hopper scales, 10 lb. The philosophy expressed here is that as the value of the

product to be weighed increases, the value of the minimum

graduated interval decreases so that the weighing is performed to

the closest nickel rather than dime, so to speak.

5
It was established years ago that for scales of less than 50 lb

capacity used for weighing foodstuffs, the value of the minimum

graduated interval should not be greater than 1 ounce. Those of

you involved with any activity in this area know that this requirement is no longer viable, and was really meant for scales used to

weigh in predetermined amounts; that is, 3 lb of onions; 10 lb of

potatoes; 4 lb of apples, etc. We all recognize that no one is going to weigh shrimp at $6.40/lb

to the closest 1 ounce or 400 worth, or steak at $2.40/lb to the

closest 1 ounce or 150 worth.

The Conference has long been asked to specify a value for the

minimum graduated interval for scales of less than 500 lbs capacity. It has been unable to respond because there are too many

scales with too many different applications to develop a minimum

graduated interval for every application.

For example, what minimum graduated interval values should

be specified for scales used for weighing grass seed in 1-lb or 2-lb

boxes or 5-lb or 10-lb bags or 50-lb or 100-lb bags? Scales with

similar capacities could be used for weighing nails in similar

quantities; i.e., 1 or 2 lb or 5 or 10 lb or 50 or 100 lb. And then

again, other products like precious metals, grains, seed corn,

fertilizers, sand, cement, etc. Over the last several years, I have had the opportunity to meet

with representatives of many other countries and study documents developed for international recommendation through the

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML).

I believe the OIML approach is the appropriate answer to this

and other technical problems—as set forth in International Recommendation No. 3, "Metrological Regulations for Non-Automatic

Weighing Machines."

This regulation is based on the following general principles:

The accuracy of weighing of a given load is independent of the

principle of operation of the machine used, whether self-indicating, semi-self- or non-self-indicating, graduated or ungraduated,

with analogue or digital indication or printing.

The value "d" of the division of a graduated machine with

analogue indication, the value "d^" of the division of a machine

with digital indication, the value "dc

" of the conventional division of certain machines indicate the accuracy of these machines.

Thus the maximum permissible errors are of the order of

magnitude of these divisions, and are fixed in absolute values as
a number of "verification divisions e"* as a function of load,

which itself is expressed as a number of divisions.

*"e" being considered equal to "d" or "d^" or "dc" according to

the machine concerned.

A "minimum capacity Min" is specified to indicate that use of

the machine with light loads is likely to give rise to very large

relative errors.

The rules laid down apply to the weighing of loads at rest or in

slow motion, whatever the position of the loads on the load

receptor of the machines and whatever the method of equilibrium of these machines.

The ordering of the machines into accuracy classes is based on:

The number of scale divisions (representing relative accuracy);

there is therefore a specific maximum and minimum number of

scale divisions for each class, and the value of the scale interval

(representing absolute accuracy); there is therefore a minimum

value of scale interval for each class, the value decreasing with

increasing accuracy.

Now then, let us recap:

• Accuracy is a function of the value of the scale division or minimum increment.

• Accuracy classes must be established based on the number of

divisions and the value of the divisions.

• Weighing light loads results in large errors.

• These principles apply to all devices regardless of design

technology.

• These principles apply to devices indicating in SI units.

Non-automatic weighing machines are divided, according to their

properties, into four "accuracy classes" whose designations and

identification marks are as follows:

Special Accuracy = Class 1 Mark: I High Accuracy = Class 2 Mark: II Medium Accuracy = Class 3 Mark: III

Ordinary Accuracy - Class 4 Mark: IIII

7
For a machine to belong to a certain class of accuracy, the scale

interval must be equal to or greater than the minimum value

fixed for each class as follows:

Special Accuracy : Minimum scale interval = Not Fixed

High Accuracy : Minimum scale interval = 1 milligram

Medium Accuracy : Minimum scale interval = 0.1 gram

Ordinary Accuracy : Minimum scale interval = 5 gram

The determination of the accuracy class appropriate for a weighing application is specified by regulation by the individual country.

This may include the number of scale divisions within an accuracy

class. Let us apply these principles to weighing applications in the

United States.

For weighing foodstuffs—It would reasonably be specified as a

Class III or medium accuracy class device with at least 2,000

divisions. With a tolerance based on the value of the division, the

error allowable would be:

(1) one-half the value of a scale division for test loads from the

minimum capacity up to and including the first 500 divisions,

(2) one division for test loads from 500 divisions up to and

including 2,000 divisions,

(3) and IV2 divisions for test loads greater than 2,000 divisions.

It is further specified that since the error allowable is quite large

at the low end, it is unlawful to use the very low end for actual

weighing; and the low end values that cannot be used are specified

and are a function of the number of divisions.

Let us apply this philosophy or these requirements to scales used

in supermarkets in the United States—on a common device presently used—a prepackaging scale.

Scale Capacity: 25 lb x 0.01 lb = 2,500 divisions

Tolerance Application

Test Load Tolerance

Division Wt Division Wt

value value

0-500 d 0- 5 lb V2 d 0.005 lb 500-2000 d 5-20 lb 1 .01 lb 2000 d + 20-25 lb IV2 d .015 lb A comparison of OIML tolerances with U.S. tolerances is as

follows:

8
Tolerance Application

0. I. M. L. U.S.

Test load Tolerance Test load Tolerance

0- 5 lb 0.005 0- 7 lb 0.005

5-20 lb .01 7-15 lb .01 20-25 lb .015 15-25 lb .015

As you can see, the two tolerance applications are practically the

same and should be of no problem to U.S. manufacturers. However, the OIML requirements go further and state that for this

particular type of scale, you cannot weigh in the first 20 scale

divisions or 0.2 lb. Now let us apply these requirements to large capacity scales.

Sometimes because of requirements or because of competition,

large capacity scales weighing livestock on the hoof with a price of

40(2 per lb are equipped with 20,000 divisions; yet those scales used

to weigh the meat you eat, which may cost $4.00 per lb or more,

are equipped with 2,500 divisions. This seems to me an inconsistency.

When buying meat as a consumer, the uncertainty because of

the value of the scale division of 0.01 is ±V2 division or ±0.005 lb,

which is equal to 20 per sale on a 1-lb sale of $4.00 or one part in

200 or one half of 1 percent (0.5%).

When buying cattle at $40 per 100 lbs (400 per pound), as a

buyer, the uncertainty because of the value of the scale division of

5 lb, is equal to ±2V2 lb or $1.00 per sale on an average sale of

20,000 lb with a total value of $8,000 or one part in 8,000 (not one

part in 200) or 0.0125 percent.

Thus, our Scale Code requires that on an $8,000 sale, it must be

weighed to the nearest dollar; while on a $4.00 sale, the nearest 20

is adequate. Expressing both of these values as a percent, in one

instance, it is 0.5 percent and the other, 0.0125 percent or 40 times

as good.

This does seem a bit inconsistent!

Why not specify for weighing livestock, the same principles as those for weighing meat; that is, a Class III scale with 2,500

divisions. If your average draft is 20,000 lb, a 50,000-lb scale with

2,500 divisions or 20-lb graduations is used. The uncertainty on

that previous sale would then be ±10 lb or $4 on an $8,000 sale, or

0.05 percent or one part in 2,000. That's still a better deal than the

housewife got by a factor of ten (or ten times).

And this philosophy resolves other problems.

I am certain that a 5-lb division on a 100,000-lb scale is not a

good technology for ordinary commercial applications. Thus, if a

merchant needs a 100,000-lb scale for buying livestock, the minimum division would be 40 lb (2,500 divisions) and this device could

9
not be used for weighing less than 50 divisions or 2,000 lb. No need

to specify single animal, etc. Now let's discuss grain weighing.

Since the present grain market ranges from 50 to 100 per lb, it seems to me that the same principles used for livestock weighing

can also be applied to those used for grain weighing.

Which brings us to another area of discussion. Some have

suggested a reduction in the tolerances applied to scales used for

weighing grain. If we were to apply that philosophy to the

weighing of meat to consumers, it would be necessary to weigh a 3-

lb roast on a prescription balance!

I suggest that the problem with the accuracy of quantity

representations in grain is not caused by the scale errors. It is

caused by weighing errors which is far different.

In several newspaper articles, it is pointed out that certain grain

firms were fined for incorrect quantity representations. One article states that part of this error was a result of adjusting the scale

to a fraction of the tolerance limit in the grain firm's favor. There

are presently two requirements in NBS Handbook 44 that preclude this activity. They are as follows:

G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment.—All equipment in commercial service and all mechanisms and devices attached

thereto or used in connection therewith shall continuously be

maintained in proper operating conditions throughout the period of such service. Equipment in service at a single place of

business found to be in error predominately in a direction

favorable to the device user and near the tolerance limits shall

not be considered "maintained in a proper operating condition."

G-UR.4.2. Use of Adjustments.—Weighing elements and measuring elements that are adjustable shall be adjusted only to

correct those conditions that such elements are designed to

control, and shall not be adjusted to compensate for defective or abnormal installation or accessories or for badly worn or otherwise defective parts of the assembly. Any faulty installation

conditions shall be corrected, and any defective parts shall be

renewed or suitably repaired, before adjustments are undertaken. Whenever equipment is adjusted, the adjustments shall be so made as to bring performance errors as close as practicable to zero value.

Thus, it is my suggestion that more resources be allocated to

supervising grain weighing rather than reducing tolerances.

It is a false assumption that to obtain more accurate grain

weight representations, the following actions should be taken:

10
(1) reduce the tolerance on the scales used, and

(2) test the scales more often.

A logical analogy to prove this point is as follows:

The Problem: Highway Deaths

The Cause: Excessive Speed

The Solution: (1) Reduce the speed limit.

(2) Law enforcement agencies allocate re- sources to testing speedometers for accuracy to

provide for a test of all speedometers in a given

jurisdiction once every three months.

(3) Provide standards equal to two mph or four

mph and step test to 60 mph.

And what about scale design for grain weighing?

Why weigh grain on a 150,000-lb hopper scale with 5-lb divisions

(d) in 100,000-lb drafts? Why not 125,000 lb x 50-lb scale (that is,

2,500 divisions)? The OIML tolerance on a 100,000-lb test draft is 1 d or ±50 lb since 100,000 lb is equivalent to 2,000 d in this instance.

That is exactly the same tolerance application of 0.05% of the

test load or, in this instance, ±50 lb on 100,000 lb. Now isn't that remarkable! Perhaps here we might perceive the

real problem if scale inaccuracies do in fact exist. In my view, it is

weighing on hopper scales with 150,000-lb capacity that have not

been tested with a sufficient amount of standards. Let us review

the procedure for testing a scale of this type with 5,000 lb of

standards. Let us assume that substitution tests will be conducted.

Here is the process:

Steps Scale indication

without error

1 Balance Scale 0

2 5000# standards on 5,000

3 5000# standards off 0

4 5000# grain on 5,000

5 5000# standards on 10,000

6 5000# standards" off 5,000

7 5000# grain on 10,000

8 5000# standards on 15,000

9 5000# standards off 10,000

10 5000# grain on 15,000

11 5000# standards on 20,000

12 5000# standards off 15,000

13 5000# grain on 20,000

14 5000# standards on 25,000

15 5000# standards off 20,000

16 5000# grain on 25,000

17 5000# standards on 30,000

18 5000# standards off 25,000

19 5000# grain on 30,000

20 5000# standards on 35,000

21 5000# standards off 30,000

11
Now, we have completed 21 steps and have reached only 20

percent of scale capacity or only 30 percent of the average draft;

and further, I am certain that the zero reference is no longer the

same, and that those step tests with all that grain is not really

substitution!

At a very early stage in this test procedure, this became a strain

load test and there is no doubt about it. Actually, if 100,000 lb of

grain were weighed on a 200,000-lb railroad track scale with 100-lb

divisions, which has been tested with 100,000 lb of standards or a

20,000-lb hopper scale with 5-lb divisions tested with 10,000 lbs of

standards, the chances of obtaining correct results (because of

scale accuracy) are much better than weighing on a 150,000-lb

hopper scale with 5-lb divisions, step tested to 100,000 in some 60

different steps.

In conclusion, I suggest that each of you thoroughly familiarize

yourself with all of the International Recommendations of OIML

before any recommendations for change in scale requirements and

weighing applications are made or that any effort be expended in

the development of Handbook 44 Metric; further, that those of you

involved in weights and measures enforcement programs consider

the allocation of more resources toward the supervision of weighing rather than the supervision of the weighing machine—which

will result in more accurate quantity representations.

In closing, since this is the bicentennial year of our Nation, I would like to quote to you a philosophy of Thomas Jefferson as it appears engraved on a wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D. C:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and

constitutions.

But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the

progress of the Human Mind, as that becomes more developed,

more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths

discovered and manners and opinions change.

With the change of circumstances, institutions must advance

also to keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which

fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under

the regiman of their barbarous ancestors."

12
TARE WEIGHT IN COMPUTER ASSISTED CHECKOUT

SYSTEMS

Presented by HENRY MORRIS, Manager, Point of Sale Systems,

Giant Food Inc.

My name is Henry Morris. I am Manager

of the Point of Sales system for Giant Food,

a regional supermarket chain of 108 stores,

headquartered in Landover, Maryland.

I bring you greetings from Esther Peterson, Giant Food's Consumer Advisor, who

had hoped to be with you this morning. She

was invited to attend another important

meeting—the Democratic National Convention. Her decision to go was a difficult one

and she said that she hoped you would

understand the importance of her choice

and she asked me to give you her sincere apologies for not being

here.

I have been asked by the National Association of Food Chains to

talk to you this morning about two issues that concern both our

company and the retail food industry. Both issues concern the

Universal Product Code/Point of Sales (UPC-POS) checkout system. The first is the general issue of what jurisdiction State and

local weights and measures officials have over the UPC-Point of

Sales system. The second issue is what specific methods of determining tare allowances under the UPC-POS system are permissible.

It is the respectful opinion of the retail food industry that State

and local weights and measures officials now have the authority to

carry out the goals of their profession with respect to the UPCPOS system under the wording of the existing Model Law.

The statement of PURPOSE (page 2) in the Introduction to the

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44 notes:

The purpose of these technical requirements is to eliminate from

use, without prejudice to apparatus that conforms as closely as

practicable to the official standards, weights and measures and

weighing and measuring devices that are false, that are of such

construction that they are faulty (that is, that are not reasonably permanent in their adjustment or will not repeat their

indications correctly), or that facilitate the perpetration of fraud.

The statement of purpose clearly establishes guaranteeing accu- racy of measurement and prevention of fraud as the two goals of

13
weights and measures divisions. That these are indeed the goals of

the weights and measures profession is further reinforced in

Sections G-S.2. and G-S.5.1. of the General Code of Handbook 44.

Careful analysis leads to the conclusion that existing regulations

and definitions clearly give State and local weights and measures

officials the authority to determine the accuracy of the new UPCPOS scales and to guarantee that these scales do not facilitate

fraud. A section of the Model Law and a section of Handbook 44

supports this conclusion.

First, the general definition of "Weights) and (or) Measure(s)"

found in the Model Law gives weights and measures officials

jurisdiction over the UPC-POS system. This definition reads:

The term "Weight(s) and (or) Measure(s)" means all weights and

measures of every kind, instruments and devices for weighing

and measuring, and any appliance and accessories associated

with any or all such instruments and devices.

Second, the new UPC-POS scales fall into the category of scales

regulated in Section S.l.6.4. of Handbook 44. This section deals

with Point of Sale Systems and outlines requirements for "sales

information recorded by cash registers when interfaced with a

weighing element." This is an accurate and complete description of

the type of scales used in the UPC system.

Finally, we note that the Committee on Laws and Regulations

of this 61st National Conference concurred with our conclusion

that jurisdiction is established in existing regulations and definitions.

The retail food industry does, however, object to expanding the

wording of the jursidiction to cover "Universal Product Code

related devices," as recommended by the State of New Jersey, and

as being considered by this Conference. This expansion of jurisdiction is, first of all, unnecessary. But secondly, we feel that the

recommendation of this wording was made without adequate

appreciation of the implications of the term, "related devices."

UPC related devices could include such areas as the store computer; (conceivably the software as well as the hardware), the

laser beam scanner, the UPC symbol itself, UPC code label printing devices, headquarters computers connected to store computers, etc. Control over these areas would not better guarantee either the

accuracy or the honesty of the measurement. Those two goals can

be adequately guaranteed now. Merely by test purchasing and

checking the comprehensive sales receipt of the UPC system, the

weights and measures official can determine if an accurate measurement has been made by the UPC-POS system. In fact, the sales

14
receipt that lists the weight, unit price and total price of the items

weighed gives the weights and measures official the most accurate

and sophisticated empirical evidence he has ever had.

However, control over the areas implied by the term "related

devices" would give weights and measures officials authority in areas where they have never had authority. Furthermore, the

training of weights and measures personnel has not encompassed

computer technology and is unlikely to do so in the future. Broad

authority to control both the performance and design of computers

and other highly technical devices is a potential deterrent to

innovation on the part of both manufacturers and users in the

early stages of development. The use of that authority could

require costly changes in the technology, with no guarantee that

such use would be made on the basis of the most knowledgeable

analysis or in the best interest of consumers and industry. We,

therefore, respectfully urge you not to approve the expansion of

the Model State Weights and Measures Law to include "Universal

Product Code related devices."

The second issue concerning the UPC-POS system that has

caused confusion among both weights and measures officials and

industry technicians is the specific question of what method of

determining net weight is permissible. In order to comply with the

provision of Handbook 44 that scales must be set at zero (URAL)

and that all sales must be net weight (as defined in Section 1.2 of

the Model Law) products that are weighed with packaging material must allow for tare.

Companies using multiple types of packaging material currently

use tare keys on UPC-POS systems, which allow for a net weight

measurement. Another approach that would also guarantee a net

weight measurement, which we would like to see this Conference

approve for national use, is an allowance for an automatic adjustment for tare by the computer when an item is weighed. Such an

adjustment would work in this manner. Companies using only one

type of packaging—for example, plastic bags—would program

their computer so that when an item was weighed, the weight of

the packaging material would automatically be deducted from the

gross weight and the computation of price would be on the basis of

the net weight.

Everybody would benefit from such a system. First, it is the

most accurate system since the process of allowing for tare is

automatic. The possible human error of a checker either forgetting

to press the tare key or mis-keying is eliminated. Secondly,

industry would benefit. One of the major benefits of the computer

assisted cht^kout is that it increases labor productivity by eliminating checker keying of prices. Keying of tare weight be checkers

would reduce the savings in labor productivity. An automatic

15
allowance for tare would be the most efficient, least costly method

of determining net weight from the point of view of the retailer.

Finally, the consumer would benefit. Accuracy, increased efficiency and the concomitant savings all benefit the consumer.

This automatic programming of tare fulfills all the requirements

of Handbook 44 and the Model Law. It allows scales to be set at zero and for prices to be determined on the basis of net weight. It

is our belief that it is, therefore, permissible under existing

regulations.

In discussing this meeting with Esther, she told me the point

she had hoped to make with you was the need for full communication and discussion about this new technology. The technology

itself is such a major departure from past food retailing techniques

that its successful implementation will require complete understanding every step of the way from all who are dealing with it

consumers, government officials, supermarket management and

employees. She also wanted to express to you her appreciation of

your organization's help in past endeavors and her confidence that

by working closely with you, the system can be effectively utilized

to the advantage of the consumer, government and the industry.

My presentation this morning on these two questions of jurisdiction and automatic tare allowance is a further attempt to keep you

informed of the thinking of the industry. We are hopeful that you

will concur with our analysis of both these questions, and we are

appreciative of having had the opportunity to discuss these issues

with you at your National Conference and look forward to a

continued dialogue throughout the year.

16
EPA GASOLINE VAPOR RECOVERY PROGRAMS

Presented by ROBERT L. AJAX, Chief, Emission Measurement

Branch, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

On behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), I want to

thank the Specifications and Tolerances

Committee for providing us this opportunity to participate in the Conference and to

speak to you on the topic of air pollution

control in the gasoline marketing industry.

Fifteen minutes is a very short time in

which to describe to you a control program

involving new technologies and newly

emerging technical and regulatory problems possibly affecting tens of thousands of

gasoline service stations and potentially costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Because of the varied backgrounds of people in this

group and the fact that many of you have probably not been

introduced to this subject proviously, the information presented is

intentionally broad in scope. As a consequence, I will be unable to

describe technical details to the extent that some of you may

desire and for this I apologize. I do want to emphasize, however,

that it is the desire of our agency to continue to work with you as

this program moves ahead and to meet with you at the working

level as the need arises.

The major areas of interest in the Federal gasoline vapor

control program are (1) contribution of service station vapor

emissions to the atmosphere, (2) types of systems available to

control these emissions, and (3) regulatory approach being considered.

By way of background, oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons, two

primary pollutants emitted from motor vehicles, contribute to the

formation of photochemical smog. As you are well aware, increasingly restrictive measures have been imposed on motor vehicle

emissions over the past five years and even tougher controls are scheduled for the future. In spite of the stringency of the controls

on motor vehicles, further control measures must be imposed on

hydrocarbon emission sources if national air quality standards for

photochemical oxidants are to be attained.

In the formulation of Transportation Control Plans (TCP) it became evident that in many areas every available hydrocarbon

control means had to be implemented if the national ambient air

quality standard for oxidants was to be attained. This meant that

17
stationary sources—representing 25 to 35 percent of hydrocarbon

emissions in most areas—had to be controlled along with the

motor vehicle. Gasoline marketing controls were incorporated into

TCPs because the sources released significant fractions of the Air

Quality Control Region (AQCR) hydrocarbon burden and because

control technology was more cost effective than most other available strategies.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF FUEL VAPOR EMISSIONS FROM

SERVICE STATIONS

Current uncontrolled emissions from Stage II gasoline transfer

operations are about two percent of the hydrocarbon emissions in

typical affected AQCRs. These emissions are approximately equivalent to the hydrocarbons released from the tailpipes of vehicles

meeting the 1977 standards and currently represent approximately four percent of the needed hydrocarbon reduction in a

typical region. As on-the-road vehicles are replaced by newer

models, this percentage will increase.

In view of this situation, and because controls are available at

lower costs per pound of pollutant than for those for most other

hydrocarbon sources, EPA, acting under court order, promulgated

control plans in 1973 and 1974 that required a 90 percent reduction

in gasoline vapors displaced during the filling of storage tanks.

Similarly, the emissions from fueling of vehicles were also required

to be reduced by 90 percent.

SYSTEMS AVAILABLE TO CONTROL GASOLINE VAPOR

EMISSIONS

Stage I Controls

Equipment has been installed in 12 areas of the nation to

control vapors released in the storage tank filling operations at

service stations. Under the applicable regulation, the necessary

equipment was to have been in operation by May 30 of this year,

and to the best of our knowledge, most of the affected stations are now in compliance. Stage I control can be achieved with relatively

simple hardware; the principal component is a vapor return hose

from the storage tank to the delivery truck. As liquid drains from

the truck, it creates a pressure in the storage tank and a vacuum

in the truck, both of which can be applied to facilitate vapor

recovery. Efficiencies of 95 to 97 percent are common for welldesigned systems that are properly operated, and the amount of

vapor recovered through the use of Stage I controls amounts to

approximately 8 pounds per 1000 gallons of gasoline delivered.

EPA has published and distributed design criteria for Stage I control systems to the industry. The criteria are updated periodi18
cally as new information becomes available. Principal considerations are: drop-tube specifications, vapor hoses and connections,

tank-truck inspection procedures, vent-line restrictions, and devices such as dry-break connections and interlocks, which assure

that the vapor return hose is connected during tank filling. These

criteria require a leak-tight truck; however, they are not intended

(and it is not our policy) to preclude the opening of hatch covers for

inspection briefly before or after delivery.

It is our hope that gasoline distributors can effectively train

their drivers in vapor recovery procedures both for pollution

control and for safety reasons. Properly utilized Stage I systems

provide a degree of safety not heretofore possible at service

stations. Nonetheless, if operators attempt to defeat the system

for example, by jamming the dry-break connection—extremely

hazardous conditions may result. There have been instances of

this nature wherein large volumes of explosive mixtures were

released from the storage tank at ground level. To safeguard

against such hazards, marketers in some areas have adopted firm

procedures on Stage I recovery and severely penalize operators

who do not follow the procedures.

Stage II Controls

Implementation of control devices for Stage II has been impeded

by a number of factors including questions and controversies over

the new and continually evolving technology, the need for EPA to

clarify the intent of the regulation, and better definition of control

requirements.

Of the two control techniques used to control Stage II emissions

at service stations, the simpler and least expensive technology

involves what is termed the "balance system." The balance system

depends upon the displacement of air and hydrocarbon vapors as a

result of pumping gasoline into the automobile fuel tank. Pressure

in the tank created by the incoming fuel forces vapor out to the

atmosphere under current, uncontrolled conditions. The concept of

the balance system is to provide an alternative route for the

vapors—through a vapor recovery nozzle and return hose to the

underground storage tank, where it replaces the liquid gasoline

being pumped to the vehicle. Most of the vapor, which amounts to

roughly 11 pounds per 1000 gallons, is conserved and converted to

liquid product. The major problem encountered with the balance

system involves attaining a tight fit at the vehicle fill neck.

The second type of control system is called the "vacuum assist

system." The vacuum assist system adds two features to the

balance concept; namely, a blower that develops a suction at the

nozzle/fill-neck interface and a processing unit to recover or otherwise reduce hydrocarbon emissions to the atmosphere. The

19
purpose of the blower is to influence displaced vapors to enter the

vapor return line rather than leak to the atmosphere. The vacuum

assist systems involve to some degree an influx of additional air

and consequently require a processing unit—or secondary system—to control the excess hydrocarbon vapors not retained in the

strorage tank. As compared to a balance system of comparable

efficiency, the processing unit acts to reduce the net amount of

vapor conserved by roughly 30 percent. Although a number of

processing techniques have been tried, most secondary systems

now appear to be moving toward direct flame incineration, preceded in some cases by a carbon canister that serves as a holding

tank.

In spite of several years of operation and testing, controversy

still abounds as to which technology will be utilized. I am certain

many of you have read articles—which often are written with

great emotion—denouncing one or the other technologies.

EPA's technical staff believes that the balance system (possibly

with the addition of some "hybrid" components) will prove acceptable. To a certain extent, the regulation we intend to propose

(probably next month) reflects this view.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

EPA proposed a revised regulation on October 9, 1976; however,

from written comments received and in light of further advances

in technology, we now find the need to modify certain basic aspects

of the 1975 proposal. The changes are sufficiently extensive that

we intend to repropose the regulation, that is, to draft another

regulation and also solicit comments before finalizing it. The revisions being prepared represent a significantly different

approach to enforcement than that proposed in 1975. Instead of a

certification program, the revision will require in-use compliance

on a continuous basis. To minimize the technological and economic

impacts of the regulations on the industry, station ownership will

be divided into groups and the groups will be required to come into

compliance with the regulations at different times and under

different conditions.

Large companies, which have adequate technical and economic

resources, will be the first to be expected to develop and install

reliable, effective systems. At the other end of the spectrum will be

small independent owners who do not have the capability to

design or select reliable systems.

Stations dispensing more than 10,000 gallons of fuel per month

will be required to achieve 90 percent control. However, since

compliance will be phased, both within and among groups, only the

20
largest third of the stations owned by large companies will install

control equipment in the first year.

During subsequent years, remaining stations will install controls on a phased schedule. A prime advantage to this scheme is that suppliers can produce and install the necessary hardware on

a more protracted schedule. Also, experience derived from the

initial installations can be used to improve design and operation of

subsequent units. The program would allow small, independent

operators the longest lead time and thereby reduce the economic

impact on them. Similarly, this approach will place responsibility

on the larger owners who also have the technical capability to

resolve safety, reliability, and weights and measures problems. In

this regard, as you know, several problem areas have not been

fully resolved. Spillage has not been prevented even with the most

effective vapor recovery nozzles; therefore, the "no-spill" provisions in the 1973 EPA regulations have had to be relaxed to allow

up to five spills in each 100 vehicle fillings.

In recent months, the overfilling/spillage problem took a new

twist when California authorities revealed cases of vapor recovery

systems "stealing" gasoline from vehicle tanks being filled and

returning it to service station storage tanks. Surprised California

motorists sometimes found they had purchased more gasoline

than their vehicle tanks would hold. Incidents of pumping 22

gallons into a Volkswagon and 37 gallons into a standard Chevrolet received a great deal of publicity. The phenomenon was

traceable to the same cause as spillage, i.e., failure of the highlevel

liquid shutoff in the nozzle. With the vapor recovery nozzle in

place, liquid gasoline simply drains through the vapor return hose

back down to the underground tank. California authorities have

investigated the problem and determined that with proper operator attention, certain vapor recovery nozzles can be acceptable.

Nonetheless, this history points out the need for a more positive

means of preventing overfill. Better liquid-level shutoff devices

and standardization of fillpipes and vehicle tank fittings probably

could eliminate spillage and the possibility of gasoline flowing back

to the station storage tank.

Beside the liquid flowback situation, Murphy's Law also sur- faced a problem with vehicle fillpipe restrictors. As you know, most

new vehicles are equipped with catalysts and associated fillpipe

restrictors that prevent the dispensing of leaded gasoline. The

restrictors, designed to fit the smaller nozzle spouts used with

unleaded fuel, have a spring-loaded trap door to prevent filling

unless the trap door is opened. Fortunately, the restrictors have a

positive influence on vapor recovery in most instances in that they

tend to position the nozzle so that a tight' fit is obtained and

leakage at the interface is prevented. The bad news is that in a

21
few vehicles the restrictor is too far down the fillpipe to be

actuated by insertion of the vapor recovery nozzle. Thus, in

California motorists have had to improvise mechanical devices in

order to fill their tanks. Although the problem affects only a small

fraction of 1975 and 1976 models and will be rectified in newer

models, many of these cars will be with us for several years and

station operators will have to make adjustments for these vehicles

when Stage II equipment is in place.

On the positive side, we—meaning industry, vendors, control

agencies, safety officials, weights and measures authorities—know

a lot more about vapor recovery technology than we did a few

short years ago. Most of the operating difficulties and safety

problems are being resolved, and I can foresee the automobile

industry initiating necessary changes in vehicle hardware to

accommodate Stage II vapor recovery. Routine operation of Stage

I and Stage II systems has yet to be achieved in many areas of the

nation; however, we look to a continuing program of cooperation

with the industry and regulatory authorities that will make these

systems both safe and effective.

22
AFTERNOON SESSION—MONDAY, JULY 12, 1976

(PATRICK E. NICHOLS, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

DOCUMENTATION OF INTERPRETATIONS AND METHODS OF

SALE

Presented by EARL W. JOHNSON, Attorney, Division of Special

Statutes, Federal Trade Commission

It is indeed a pleasure and an honor to be

asked to help initiate the hearings before

this Committee on Laws and Regulations. I will be short because I know the agenda is

long and there are many important issues

to be discussed in a very short afternoon.

The subject I would like to address in the

next few minutes centers on the utility of

and need for more documentation of interpretations and the establishment of a method of sale chart which can serve as a

quick reference for all concerned with packaging and labeling. I think we will all agree that at the crux of this

effort is the concept of uniformity. If regulations are uniformly

interpreted, industry has reflected a greater ability to maintain

voluntary compliance, and enforcement in all areas is simplified.

The ultimate is in the benefit to the consumer who, because of

uniform statements of net quantity and uniform locations of basic

information, can make quick, reliable and beneficial value comparisons which is the established goal of Congress under the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act. As an example of this need for more

uniformity, we have recently received complaints that identical

resin compounds on the market are quantified, some in liquid and

others in weight. Likewise, some liquid adhesives are still quantified by weight in spite of a voluntary standard established by the

industry. In other instances, we have had inquiries as to the

proper elements to be used in quantifying hardware items, household plumbing supplies and cooking utensils.

In 1971, Dave Edgerly, whom many of us know, authored a book

entitled Weights and Measures Labeling Handbook. Part H of this

book contains initial interpretations of the Model Regulations

issued by the Conference. We are also all familiar with the various

efforts that have been experienced to date in developing the model

method of sale and we are about to hear a great deal more on this

subject this afternoon. Both of these efforts are the embryo for my

theme today? Both the staff at the commission and at the FDA

23
have developed some of this material as well. Working together, I am sure we can successfully knot the pieces to reflect the whole

picture. Where I believe we fall short is in failing to record the day

to day questions that arise. Although, they appear relatively

simple at the time we work out the answers, failure to make a

record of the decision leaves the way open for future errors or

conflicting decisions.

In proffering a solution, I do not for the minute suggest saddling

this very hard working committee with the entire burden. I believe the burden belongs to all of us who have questions as consumers, as operational weights and measures officials in the

market area, as regulators and perhaps most importantly, manufacturers who have the initial problem of informative uniform

labeling of their packaged products. I would hope that this committee could act as the focal point for all of this information. This

could be developed into two very informative tools available to

anyone concerned with the simplification of regulations which are designed to attain maximum uniformity of packaging information

for ease of consumers value comparison in the market.

WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THOSE SUPREME

COURT CASES HAVING TO DO WITH MOISTURE LOSSES—As

of the Fourth of July, 1976

Presented by MERRILL S. THOMPSON, Partner; Chadwell, Kayser,

Ruggles, McGee & Hastings

Thank you for the kind introduction. I hope I can be excused for saying that it is

typical of the mutual respect shared by this

National Conference on Weights and Measures and the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling (ICPL).

When your Program Chairman asked me

to provide a status report concerning the

California weights and measures cases1 now

on our Supreme Court's calendar, I ac- cepted the task subject to two conditions.

First, just as with Federal Trade Commission spokesmen like Earl Johnson, it must be understood that I am

not giving this report in behalf of the ICPL, or in behalf of any of

its members, or in behalf of any of my clients. In other words, I do

not and cannot speak on the subject in a representative capacity.

Which leads me to my second condition. You must also understand that I do not bring to this podium the unassailable vision,

24
the extraordinary enlightenment, and the peculiar infallibility

which are somehow acquired by advocates and contestants with

vested interests. Stated another more mundane way, so far as

these particular cases are concerned, no State department of

agriculture, and no food packager, has as yet paid me to think—so together we'll have to risk the possibility that some of my objectivity may be attributable to ignorance.

For those of you who have not been following these cases through the courts, a bit of history may be helpful. Back in the fall

of 1971, California officials apparently began to enforce with new

vigor certain statutes and regulations governing the weights of

foods in general—but prepackaged bacon and flour in particular. It soon became apparent that at least with respect to the hygroscopic

products bacon and flour, there were substantial differences between California weight labeling requirements and the concurrent

Federal requirements which interstate packagers deemed to be

applicable to their products. As a result, those flour and bacon

packagers believed that they were faced with the necessity of

either overfilling their packages more than they had been, or changing to moisture-proof packaging materials, or bringing suit

in a Federal court to enjoin the enforcement of the California

requirements.

The Rath Packing Company, and a small group of flour millers

which included General Mills, filed separate actions in the Federal

District Court for the Central District of California. The Rath case was tried in the fall of 1972; the General Mills case was argued in

early 1973. In both cases, the District Court Judge ruled against

the State of California, in effect favoring the supremacy of the

established Federal systems governing the package weights of

flour and bacon in interstate commerce.

There were subsequent appeals and cross appeals to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 29, 1975,

that Court of Appeals essentially affirmed and even expanded

upon the District Court's rulings in support of the Federal regulatory systems. The Court, among other things, confirmed the

District Court's ruling that the specific California statutes and

regulations in question must be nullified.

Anyone in the audience familiar with these cases will quickly

recognize that I am deliberately glossing over some very significant technical and legal differences between the meat case and the

flour case. And I am just as deliberately declining to discuss the

relative "consumer protection" merits of the California legal system and the Federal systems which were apparently in conflict

when brought to bear on bacon and flour. Such a discussion would

only invite the kind of rhetoric which is irrelevant to this status

report.

25
But to be perfectly honest, my chief reasons for sidestepping the

debate are because it is the only way I can stay within my time

limits, and because I personally suspect those original issues have

long ago been subordinated to the more central issue focusing on

Federal versus State power.

While in the beginning it might have been safe to say that the

controversy revolved around the Federal regulatory scheme which

tolerates variations from labeled weight or measure when they are unavoidable or when they are attributable to moisture gains or

losses, at this point in time I would phrase the "gut" issues as

follows:

1. Can Congress pre-empt this particular area of weights and

measures regulations and thereby diminish California's concur- rent jurisdiction?

2. If Congress can pre-empt, has Congress in fact done so?

3. And if Congress has done so, have the FDA and the USDA

properly implemented the congressional action?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has

answered "yes" to all three questions. California and more than

thirty of her sister States have understandably agreed that before

accepting this "bad news" as the gospel, they want to hear it from

our Nation's highest court.

As a result of petitions filed by California in January of this

year, the Supreme Court did two things. First, it agreed to hear

the appeals as to both Rath v. Jones and General Mills v. Jones.

Second, the Court denied California's request that the injunction

imposed by the Court of Appeals be postponed until the Supreme

Court issues its decision. Accordingly, on May 13, 1976, the District

Court issued an amended order among other things enjoining the

State of California from any further enforcement of its challenged

laws and regulations insofar as they have been held to be in

conflict with Federal requirements. California now has a new set

of interim regulations which they are enforcing while they wait.

So far as the cases before the Court are concerned, the briefing

schedule of the parties is well underway. The cases are entered on

the Court's calendar for the October term. Oral arguments will

therefore occur sometime this fall. The Court might take from two

to eight months after argument to render its decision. The Court's

recent decisions concerning abortion and the death penalty are examples of difficult moral issues which often take the most time

to decide. You and I may disagree on this, but I don't happen to

believe that the Rath and General Mills cases are in the same

category, so to me it seems reasonable to expect a decision within

three to four months after argument. This would mean that we

could have the guiding views of the highest court of our land to

work with by the time of the next interim meetings of the

26
committees of this National Conference in late January or early

February.

The Court has a number of options. It can, of course, arrive at

opposite conclusions with respect to each of the two cases. As to

either or both, the Court could affirm the lower court's decision on

the same grounds as were expressed by the lower court, or it could

affirm the lower court's decision for reasons different from those

relied upon by the lower court.

The Court could reverse the lower court and in effect affirm the

right of the State of California to enforce its laws and regulations, or the Court could reverse the lower court's decision but remand

the case for further argument and re-decision by the lower court.

The Supreme Court's ruling and its reasoning will both be of

great importance and guidance to us in the future as we formulate

weights and measures policy and practice. The Court's decisions in

these cases are likely to have threshold impacts upon both State

and Federal laws and regulations, as well as any National Conference model having to do with permissible discrepancies between

declared weights and measures and actual weights and measures.

We should not expect the FDA or the FTC or the USDA to make

any significant related policy changes while these cases are pending. Neither would it seem to be prudent for this National

Conference or the National Bureau of Standards to proceed with

related revisions of Handbook 67 or Section 12 of the Model State

Packaging and Labeling Regulation until we've heard what the

Supreme Court has to say.

I don't know if anyone is confidently predicting the outcome.

Some will say that in recent years the Court has favored extensions of Federal authority, so we should expect affirmation of the

lower court's decisions.

It's not my task to predict the outcome, so I won't. I will say,

however, that having attracted the attention of the Supreme

Court, we should now wait for its opinion. And as our very good

friend Harvey Hensel has so often said, whether it be by Supreme

Court decision, or by legislation, or simply through a spirit of

cooperation, let's work together to achieve a system assuring

informative labeling and fair value for the benefit of consumers in

every city and State—with uniformity.

27
' The as yet unreported opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with

respect to which certiorari has been granted bear the following captions:

THE RATH PACKING COMPANY,

a corporation,

Plaintiff, Counter-defendant and Appellant,

vs.

M. H. BECKER as Director of the County of Los Angeles Department of Weights and

Measures,

Defendant, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

C. B. CHRISTENSEN as Director of Agriculture of the State of California,

Intervenor, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

THE RATH PACKING COMPANY,

a corporation,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

vs.

JOSEPH W. JONES as Director of the County of Riverside Department of Weights and

Measures,

Defendant, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

[October 29, 1975]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

GENERAL MILLS, INC., a corporation; THE PILLSBURY COMPANY, a corporation;

SEABOARD ALLIED MILLING CORPORATION, a corporation, '

Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants-Appellants,

VS

' No. 74-1051 JOSEPH W. JONES, as Director of the County of Riverside Department of Weights and

Measures,

Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee.

GENERAL MILLS, INC. a corporation; THE PILLSBURY COMPANY, a corporation;

SEABOARD ALLIED MILLING CORPORATION, a corporation, No. 73-3583

Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants-Appellees,

vs.

JOSEPH W. JONES, as Director of the County of Riverside Department of Weights and OPINION

Measures,

Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant.

Nos. 73-2481 73-2482 73-3092

Nos. 73-2496

73-3180

OPINION

[October 29, 1975)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

28
CONFUSION AT THE MEAT COUNTER

UNIFORM RETAIL MEAT IDENTITY STANDARDS

Presented by H. Kenneth Johnson, Executive Director, Food

Science Division, National Live Stock and Meat Board

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to background you on the Uniform

Retail Meat Identity Standards program

rhowthe program got started; how it works

I and how the program has been accepted by

JM ! industry, consumers and regulatory agencies.

We live in a world of choices. And that

includes the thousands of choices the shopper faces at the supermarket where every

week she can find as many as 10,000 different items for sale. If a homemaker spends

20 minutes in a store, that averages out to about a tenth of a

second per product ... to see it, to make a decision about it, and to

but it or not buy it. Up until now, that's been true for meats, too

so many choices to make—more than a thousand names to puzzle

over, with the net result of utter . . . CONFUSION AT THE MEAT

COUNTER.

For instance, "London Broil" (fig. 1) identified as a cut of meat,

when in fact it is a menu label and way to cook beef. "Paradise

Figure 1

29
Roast" (fig. 2) probably refers to the cut's profitability, because it certainly is not a proper meat name. "Yankee Pot Roast" (fig. 3) is

another down-home restaurant menu item and recipe, rather than

a bonafide meat identification. "Chuck Wagon Cut" (fig. 4) is still another fanciful description for a cut of meat, rather than a

handy, useful identification for the American food shopper.

Figure 3

30
Figure 4

In fact, cuts of meat often had so many fanciful names that

shoppers have been totally confused. Consumer advocates sus- pected the names were some kind of cover-up. For instance, what

is now correctly called a Rib Eye Steak has in the past been

labeled by these five common names: Delmonico, Fillet, Spencer,

Beauty, Boneless Rib Eye, depending on the section of the country

or even the side of the street you were on. Government regulatory bodies a few years ago began considering laws for standardized meat labeling. In fact, a number of

states and counties actually have passed such laws. Others took

serious steps toward enacting them and the possibility existed

that the country (fig. 5) would be criss-crossed with a patchwork of

confusing, contradictory, restrictive standards that would do nothing but cause the meat industry one huge headache.

In late 1971, the National Live Stock and Meat Board took the

lead in organizing the Industrywide Cooperative Meat Identification Standards Committee, a group of industry leaders whose

purpose was to study the problem and propose a solution. The

organizations represented on that committee are:

American Meat Institute

American Meat Science Association

National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association

National Association of Food Chains

National Association of Meat Purveyors

31
National Association of Retail Grocers of the U.S., Inc.

National Independent Meat Packers Association

National Institute Locker and Freezer Provisioners

National Live Stock and Meat Board

Super Market Institute, Inc.

Western States Meat Packers Association

Council of Better Business Bureaus

White House Office for Consumer Affairs

U. S. Department of Agriculture

Livestock Division, Agricultural Marketing Service

Meat and Poultry Inspection Program

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

The objective was to prepare a standardized system of meat

labeling and then to persuade the industry to adopt it on a

voluntary basis. The program was designed to achieve two goals:

first, to improve consumer relations by providing the homemaker

with full knowledge of the meat products displayed in the meat

counter; and, second, to eliminate the need for further legislation,

which could lead to more and more costly and restrictive regulations on the meat industry.

This presentation is a brief report on what has been accomplished since the project began. The committee's work took over

two years, during which time they gathered information, examined a number of labeling systems and finally developed the one

32

Figure 5
deemed most practical by industry concensus. The result was this

manual (fig. 6), a complete guide to Uniform Retail Meat Identity

Standards.

Figure 6

The total program, including merchandising and educational

materials was introduced in late 1973 at a press conference in

Washington, D.C. and was widely featured in newspapers, magazines, radio and television. The Today Show featured a 12 minute

segment. The New York Times carried an article on page 1. Color

pages (fig. 7) were produced and distributed by the Meat Board to

newspapers all over the country. As the program generated

excitement, feature stories began to appear. The first in Good

Food magazine, another in Good Housekeeping, American Home

and in Forecast—a journal of the home economics profession.

There have been hundreds and thousands of pick-ups in the print

media (fig. 8) including the trade press (fig. 9) and the interest

continuing.

Fundamental to the entire program is meat cut nomenclature;

that is, providing the customer with uniform information on the

label that tells her the name of species or type of meat; name of

the primal cut; and name of the cut by its approved retail name, in

33

1

Figure 9

BEEF CHUCK

BLADE ROAST

TOTAL PRICE

THIS PACKAGE

0.00

Figure 10

\ 1

this case a "blade roast" (fig. 10). But if a retailer wants to, he can

continue to use the "fanciful" name on a sticker or tag (fig. 11) but

only if he first provides the basic data about type of meat, primal

cut and the approved retail name on the label.

It's a meaningful, simple, honest Meat Identity Program. So

much so that it has passed the critical scrutiny of several con35
Figure 11

sumer activists organizations. It can be modified to fit any type of

retail operation in any section of the country—all use a basic

standard. Yet, each operation maintains its own identity; continues to develop variations on the merchandising theme; modernizes

or changes its meat cutting methods and even develops new cuts.

Best of all, it clarifies meat identification for the consumer.

The introductory section of the manual gives a brief history of

the program, including a list of the thousand and more names

which were used to identify only about 300 possible meat cuts.

Chapter II is the basic core of the book (fig. 12) and includes all 315

of the agreed upon standard names, plus illustrations of all cuts.

Chapter III provides a frank and open discussion of the problems a

retailer faces in his ground meat program. And in Chapter IV it

tells an innovative retailer how his ideas can be incorporated into

the program with a simple procedure. Chapter V contains an

important section on Meat Identification to help the counterman

better understand his role as a "teacher" for customers. Chapter

VI contains many pieces of information on basic meat cookery

again, to help the counterman provide information for his cus- tomers. In chapter VII, are basic data on the two principal, most

popular systems currently used to bring pre-tendered beef to

many retail counters.

Of course, no labeling system is effective unless the consumer

understands it, so an educational program is a necessity (fig. 13).

36
Figure 13

The Meat Board has prepared a comprehensive stock of informational materials for public use, but it is primarily retailers who

must get them to the consumer. Many are already doing so, as you

can see in this newspaper ad for Jewel Foods (fig. 14). Here's

another, from Safeway (fig. 15), using its newspaper advertising to

37
Figure 14

EEF RIB STEAK

KALLEItO

iweiess C4C^9

BEEF ROUHD

RUMP ROAST

BQHElESS

BEEF wn*

lb. I

'

CHICKEH

BREASTS

GRADE "ft" TURKEYS

REGULAR

GROUHO BEEF

,69 ft It .88

lUf SAUSAGE

UmRE»»ttf

1

59- TURKHROiST

19- TURKE1 BREASTS w TURKEY WMS

4T ORtSSEOSOU

, 3, SVtWMCW»MZO

,|» SMiSW»E »j»

59« chops -

*J*

^HimSFlLLET^C

SHOULDER POT M»

BONELESS $«

ft. I

BEEF RAB STEA

LARBEERD

11

Figure 15

begin the educational process. And here's how Acme presented the

identity program to its customers (fig. 16). And yet another version

of the meat standards theme as adapted by Big Bear (fig. 17).

38
Figure 16

39
the stores; ^CK^

Figure 18
illustrate the primal and retail cuts; danglers that explain our

nomenclature for ground beef (fig. 20) and the all-important take

home booklets and leaflets that explain labeling and suggest

proper cooking methods.

Figure 20

It's a very complete program, but as we said, it's up to the

retailers to make it available to the public. Are they doing it? The

answer is a resounding yes! Major food retailers like Albertson's,

Jewel, Big Bear and Winn Dixie, Publix, Schnucks, IGA and Acme,

Safeway, Colonial, Stop & Shop, Allied, the Fleming Company, and

others have adopted the Uniform Retail Meat Identity Standards

program and are actively promoting it (fig. 21). And there are more

independents and chains getting on the bandwagon everyday.

This is strong evidence that the program works, to the benefit of

both the retailer and the consumer alike.

Here's the current picture (fig. 22). Six States and two counties

have adopted our Meat Identity Standards through the legislative

route in whole or in part. Five more States have their own labeling

regulations but are accepting ours. Nine more recognize our

Standards with a voluntary compliance. And nine more are ex- pected to join the program through pending legislation. An impressive line-up in such a short time.

41
Figure 21

i- STATES INVOLVED IN URMIS PROGRAM—

i

Figure 22

42
But is the consumer accepting the Meat Identity Program? Yes!

Every indication from the field shows a very positive response . .

particularly with the younger shoppers, aged 18-24. As newcomers

to the meat market, they really appreciate the educational service

that the Meat Identity Standards program provides. The program

also has been successful at the federal level. Two departments

Defense, which includes Army, Navy and Air Force; and Agriculture are using it in one form or another.

And that, in brief, is a summary of the activities of the Industrywide Cooperative Meat Identification Standards Committee:

... A definitive manual published

. . . All the materials for a consumer education program

. . . And an aggressive campaign that is convincing more and

more retailers every day to put the program into effect

It's been a busy period of achievements, but the work has only

begun. Much more is needed to help solve the problems of Mrs.

Homemaker of the meat industry at the retail counter.

At the Meat Board we stand ready to provide retailers with all

the assistance they can use. All that's needed is a letter or phone

call from you, and our more than 50 years of service to the meat

industry is yours for the asking—big uniform posters, danglers,

leaflets, retail meat identity standards manual, ideas, ads and

counter cards—everything it takes to put the new meat identity

program across and make more satisfied customers.

Uniform meat identity labeling is a program designed by the

industry, for the industry, and it deserves everyone's support!

I hope my comments will be helpful to you in your consideration

of adopting the Uniform Retail Meat Identity Standards program.

43
AN INTRODUCTION TO WEIGHTS AND MEASURES FOR

CORDAGE PRODUCTS

Presented by WILLIAM H. HAGENBUCH, Chairman, Technical

Committee, The Cordage Institute

For the U. S. Cordage industry I should

say "thank you" for inviting us to meet

with you today. Now I would like to extend

a reciprocal invitation to any of you to visit

the headquarters of our trade association,

the Cordage Institute, while you are here at

the Shoreham. The Cordage Institute office

is the first door you will come to if you go

out the front door of the hotel and walk east

on Calvert Street about 100 yards, or should

I say meters! Of course, we are always

happy to answer questions or discuss topics

related to rope and twine from your group or from your home

organizations.

From your program material you will note that the entire broad

range of cordage is on the agenda for next year, and that the

specific item this year involves only baler and binder twine. Before

my comments on the model regulation for baler and binder twine,

I should like to tell you a bit about our plans for metrication in the

cordage industry and give you a brief overview of the entire line of

cordage products.

With respect to metrication, the Cordage Institute recognized its

responsibility and adopted a five point metrication policy last year.

CORDAGE INSTITUTE

METRICATION POLICY

* Simplify Product Line. —Fewer Standard Sizes —"Hard" Conversion

* Discourage Haphazard, Superficial,

& Uncoordinated Conversion. —Otherwise Confusion!

*Timetable.

—1983 Complete

* Recognize Laws & Regulations.

44
—The S. I. System

Coordinate With All. —Govt. Agencies —Textile Goups —Users, Etc., Etc.

We are working toward a "hard" conversion with a simplified

product line; that is, fewer standard sizes in a rational metric

series.

And we will be doing all we can to discourage haphazard,

superficial, and uncoordinated efforts which tend to confuse and

delay a rational and orderly conversion.

Our tentative timetable contemplates completion of the

switchover to metric units in 1983. Right now, and for the next

year we will be examining the parameters and units to describe

metric rope and twine. Already there is good agreement that we

do not like the tradition of naming large size cordage rope by its

circumference. Would you guess that this rope I am holding is a 12

inch rope; that is, if you refer to circumference. We would like to

talk nominal diameter only, and of course the units would be

millimeters—in accord with the S. I. system. Thus, this would be

100 mm diameter braided nylon (about 4 inches under the present

system).

Of course we would like to use S. I. units exclusively as specified

by Federal law—and we hope that the States, and the general

public will accept S. I. units. However, some S. I. units will not be

as readily accepted as millimeters and kilograms. For example, in

the S. I. system, twine size should probably be listed in kilotex

that's a special name for grams per meter. And the S. I. unit for

force or strength is not kilogram, it is the Newton.

Certainly these exotic names bring up some questions. The final

answers to such questions will not be given by me, or the Cordage

Institute, or even the entire textile industry. The answers to these

and a thousand more questions will come after thorough coordination across the entire nation. In this major task we look forward to

the active leadersip of your organization and especially to the

National Bureau of Standards and the Office of Weights and

Measures.

To describe our products I should at least list the principal

fibers:

45
CORDAGE FIBERS

NATURAL

*Hemp = true hemp—marijuana

*Abaca = manila hemp—manila

*Jute = fine twine—burlap

* Sisal = course twine—baler

SYNTHETIC

* Nylon—high stretch

* Polyester—high price

* Polypropylene—all purpose

For centuries true hemp was the fiber for rope and twine. It grows easily in this country—but the Federal Narcotics Bureau

will take a dim view of any commercial farmers because the plant

also produces marijuana. Since 1900, superior fibers from the

tropical countries around the world have replaced hemp, and

hemp is now obsolete—but I have included it here because the

name is so commonly misapplied to these other natural fibers.

MANILA (from the Philippines), more properly called abaca is

the best of the natural fibers for rope.

JUTE (from the Indian sub-continent) is the choice for fine soft

twines. You will recognize Jute as the fiber from which burlap is

made.

SISAL is the choice for course twines, such as the baler and

binder (which is your agenda item this week) partly because of the

low cost. Baler twine is absolutely the cheapest textile product. Or

at least it had been traditionally—until the growing countries, the

developing tropical countries around the world, discovered they

could form an international cartel just like the oil producing

countries.

NYLON was the first of the synthetics, and it is still among the

strongest. Unfortunately for general purpose application it is too

stretchy. Generally, when you pull on one end of line, you want the

other end to move, you do not want the line to stretch. And I must

mention the danger from snap back of a highly elastic rope: In

case of an accidental break, the action can be analogous to

swatting flies with a rubber band.

POLYESTER, which many of you know by the trade name

"Dacron," makes superior rope and twine. However, the price is

too high for many applications, but this may be changing.

POLYPROPYLENE, the same sort of material from which

plastic bags are made, looks to be the most popular fiber for the

future for both rope and twine. The properties are excellent and

the cost is low even though it is made from petroleum (or natural

gas). Polypropylene is easily recognized by the colors—the colors

46
are incorporated in the plastic, rather than applied by a separate

dying operation on the fiber.

At this stage I should mention a technical breakthrough in the

processing of polypropylene. In the 50's it was discovered that

polypropylene fiber could be made by fibrillating a film and that

such a fibrillated film had excellent knot holding properties as opposed to the round slippery filaments which had been characteristic of all synthetic fiber. This development led to the introduction

of polypropylene baler twine—and you will see this interconnected

web of fibers in much of the synthetic baler twine and polypropylene rope. Of course, other variations on the fibrillated film and the

round filament are used successfully in polypropylene cordage.

Given these six fibers (and the special limitations on some of

them) we can make almost any size of cordage by twisting small

elements together—or a series of equivalent operations.

Obviously the first step is to twist the fibers into a yarn. At this

stage the yarn can be easily untwisted; and of course, in untwisting, it will lose all or part of its strength. Nevertheless,for some

specific applications, where untwisting is not a special problem,

this single twist yarn can be sold as the finished product, such as

baler twine. When we build the single yarn as an end product, we

call it twine to distinguish it from the yarns intended for further

processing.

For most uses, a good twine should have the twist "locked-in" by

a second twisting operation which of course results in a plyed

twine, two or more plies. All twines are intended for one time

use—the string savers among you are not popular with the

cordage manufacturers.

For repeated use a third twisting or laying operation is traditional. This third operation produces a remarkable structure—

rope—which is strong because the load is appropriately shared

among the thousands of fibers and still flexible. Other constructions such as plaited and braided ropes also have their special

uses, but the traditional three strand rope is hard to beat for all- around characteristics including knotting and splicing.

Now to get on with your agenda item. This is Item 5 on page 83

of your announcement booklet.

I was pleased to hear the final report on this item by the

chairman of your Committee on Laws and Regulations. This

report reflected several changes made in the language of the

tentative report, all of which represented positive improvements.

Several manufacturers had submitted written statements to the

committee and the Cordage Institute had indicated complete

concurrence with the most detailed of these statements—that

from International Harvester. In addition, the Executive Director

of the Institute and representatives from International Harvester

47
and Cordemex, met today with the Committee on Laws and

Regulations.

We are impressed by the process which you follow in your

committee hearings and in the proceedings of the National Conference itself. We are convinced that our experience at this Conference on baler and binder twine has laid a good foundation for our

cooperative efforts on other items of cordage.

48
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NATIONAL

CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ON THE

MEASUREMENT OF KILN DRIED HARDWOOD LUMBER

Presented by E. HOWARD GATEWOOD, Secretary- Manager,

National Hardwood Lumber Association

Since its formation in 1898, the main

purpose of the National Hardwood Lumber

Association (NHLA) has been the maintenance of the Official Rules for the inspection and grading of hardwood lumber, and

it employs a staff of 58 men throughout the

United States and Canada to perform official inspections. It maintains a school in

Memphis for the teaching of hardwood lumber grading. Its total international membership is 1,371 firms, of which 869 are manufacturers, wholesalers, yard distributors

and dry kiln operators of hardwood lumber in the United States

and 238 consumers of hardwood lumber in the United States.

Since its major objective is the maintenance of a dependable

system for the measurement and grading of hardwood lumber

which insures fairness to both buyer and seller, it has a strong

interest in the matter under discussion and is the logical organization for the National Conference to work with in such matters.

Unlike softwood lumber, hardwood lumber is a raw industrial

material which is sold in random widths and lengths, usually

unsurfaced, to manufacturers of hardwood products such as furniture, cabinets, architectural woodwork, flooring, pallets, etc. Most

hardwood lumber is sold to such larger industrial users, which are

called "consumers" in the trade since the chain of distribution

ends at that point. These customers have thoroughly understood

the past common practice of utilizing the green or air dried

footage for kiln dried hardwood lumber, even though it shrinks to

some degree in the dry kiln.

Hardwood lumber must be kiln dried before use, except some of

the lowest grades used for pallets, mine timbers, etc. Although

many large customers operate their own dry kilns and buy

hardwood lumber green or air dried, others without kilns buy it already kiln dried. Those customers with their own kilns often find

it necessary to buy kiln dried lumber and they usually insist on

green or air dried footage figures since their yield equations are based on green or air dried lumber, whether they do their own kiln

drying or buy it already in that condition.

All hardwood lumber shrinks in the kiln from 4.1 percent

(Mahogany) to 9 percent (Southern Red Oak). The practice which

49
has developed over the years has been to charge the green or air

dried price for kiln dried lumber plus the charge for kiln drying

and to also use the green or air dried footage for kiln dried lumber

rather than to reflect kiln shrinkage in the price as an element of

cost. Thus, on an order for 10,000 feet of kiln dried lumber, an

accurately measured 10,000 feet of green or air dried lumber is

placed in the kiln and the result is shipped and invoiced as 10,000

feet, even though it may have shrunk in the kiln to from 9,100 feet

to 9,600 feet. In cases where the lumber has been measured after

kiln drying, the appropriate percentage for shrinkage usually has

been added back to the measurement to arrive at the green or air

dried footage. This practice has been in the past fairly universal in

the industry and has tended to keep quotations on a standard

basis from a standpoint of quantity to be furnished.

It is understood that this trade practice of many years came to

the attention of the California Division of Measurement Standards

in connection with a small order for kiln dried lumber placed with

a wholesale distributing yard by one of the schools there. This

lumber was invoiced on a green footage basis, since that was the

way in which the yard involved had purchased it. Although this

type of business is a very small part of the total volume for

hardwood lumber it could be argued that some small customers

might not have the knowledge to understand wood shinkage, and

that hardwood lumber which is measured after kiln drying, should

be sold and invoiced on a net kiln dried footage basis, or the

percentage of shrinkage allowance clearly indicated on quotation

and invoice. If measured prior to kiln drying, this should also be

made clear on invoice and quotation.

The handling and distribution of hardwood lumber is somewhat

varied.

Some hardwood sawmills operate dry kilns, but many of these

measure and sort the lumber green as it comes from the saw, later

kiln drying individual lots for specific orders with no additional

measuring. Many such mills buy lumber to supplement their

production and this lumber is measured green as it is received and

is paid for on this basis and it is usually not remeasured after kiln

drying.

Many mills do not have kilns, but sell lumber in its green or air

dried state. If their customers require it kiln dried, these mills

utilize custom dry kilns enroute to the customer. Remeasurement

of kiln dried lumber at custom kilns is usually not possible because

space, labor and equipment are not available. Cost of such an

unnecessary operation would be uneconomical, if not prohibitive.

Hardwood lumber is often sold through the office wholesaler,

who usually purchases packages of green or air dried hardwood

lumber from various mills and, if it is not to be resold in that

50
condition, has it shipped to a custom dry kiln and stored for future

sale. As the wholesaler sells this lumber, he instructs the kiln

operator to dry it and ship it. The wholesaler depends on the green

tallies furnished him by the mill from which he purchased the

lumber and it would not be feasible to perform a second inspection

after kiln drying. Even if it were feasible or possible, the cost

would often exceed the wholesaler's profit margin. Even when

lumber is purchased kiln dried, green or air dried measurement

may be all that is available.

Unlike the office wholesaler, the wholesale distributing yard

maintains an inventory, along with yard and warehouse facilities.

It generally purchases kiln dried hardwood lumber in carload or

trailerload lots and sells it in smaller quantities to users in its area. It has facilities for measuring the lumber as it is sold.

Some hardwood lumber firms perform several of the above

functions, and utilize green or air dried measurement basis for the

sake of consistent record keeping and customer quotations.

Following Harold F. Wollin's letter and telephone call of October

1, 1975, to NHLA headquarters, the subject of kiln shrinkage

allowances has been thoroughly examined by the NHLA Board of

Managers and the general membership. There have been extensive debate and differences of opinion on all facets of this issue.

The NHLA Board action on October 13, 1975, which was presented to the Laws and Regulations Committee of the NCWM on

January 27, 1976 as an interim position, has been reconsidered and

revised because of membership suggestions regarding proposed

changes in established industry trade practices.

A recommendation to the National Conference on Weights and

Measures was unanimously approved by the NHLA Board of

Managers at its last meeting on April 5-6, 1976, which appears to

have achieved virtually complete acceptance by the membership

and promises a high degree of compliance. Since publishing this

recommendation in the NHLA Newsletter of April 15, 1976, no

letters of criticism have been received and two previously dissenting members on opposing ends of the argument have stated on the

telephone they are satisfied. Of course, in a membership as large

and diverse as that of NHLA, complete unanimity is rarely

possible, and there may still be a small percentage of the membership which does not agree with this recommendation.

More importantly from the standpoint of the National Conference, it is submitted that this recommendation would most adequately protect both large and small purchasers of kiln dried

hardwood lumber against any possibility of misunderstanding as

to the amount purchased, invoiced and received.

The recommendation of the NHLA Board of Managers, as approved April 5-6, 1976, is that the reference to the trade practice

51
regarding kiln shrinkage allowances now appearing in the NHLA

Rules Book be deleted and replaced by the following:

"In accordance with the laws, regulations and standards of the 1 various States, the National Conference on Weights and Meas- 1 ures has determined that:

1. Hardwood lumber which has been measured after kiln drying

shall be quoted and invoiced with no addition for kiln shrinkage, unless otherwise agreed between buyer and seller; in

which case the basis of measurement and the percentage

added for kiln shrinkage shall be conspicuously stated on

each quotation and invoice.

2. Hardwood lumber which has been measured prior to kiln

drying may be quoted and invoiced on green or air dried

measurement, provided that the quotations and invoices

conspicuously state that the lumber was measured prior to

kiln dryng."

Immediately on being advised that the National Conference on

Weights and Measures has approved this proposed regulation,

NHLA will proceed to print it on 30,000 gummed sheets and send

these to members throughout the world for incorporation in their

copies of the NHLA Rules Book. It will also be included in future

reprintings of the Rules Book. NHLA will also publicise this

regulation in its monthly Newsletter. These measures will insure a

high degree of compliance.

52
MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1976

(DANIEL I. OFFNER, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

METRICATION USA

Presented by MALCOLM E. O'HAGAN, President, American

National Metric Council

When on December 23, 1975, President

Ford signed the Metric Conversion Act of

1975, he brought to an affirmative conclusion one of the longest congressional debates in the history of the U.S.—the debate

on whether or not America should convert

to the metric system of weights and measures. Although use of the metric system in the

U.S. was legalized over 100 years ago, the

customary system prevailed and meters

and liters did not find popular favor—despite early optimism. Upon returning from a European tour in

1902, Dr. Stratton, the first Director of the National Bureau of

Standards, said, "It will be a close race between the United States

and Great Britain as to which shall first adopt the metric system."

It might have been more appropriate for him to talk about a race

to see who will be last to convert. The Chairman of the Congressional Committee before which Dr. Stratton was testifying said, "I

believe that the metric system is coming just as surely as the tides are going to continue to rise and fall." Little did he realize how

long it would take the metric tide to come in.

A Decision Whose Time Has Come?

But is it really coming in or are we also victims of our own

optimism? Why can we say now with greater assurance that the

U.S. finally is serious about adopting the metric system?

Although many of the same old arguments for and against the

metric system are still heard today, a changing domestic and

international environment places those arguments in a different

context. There are five major factors which have fostered a more

favorable climate for conversion:

(1) The adoption by the General Conference of Weights and

Measures of the International System of Units, SI.

(2) The emergence of multinational corporations with global

operations.

53
(3) The decision of our trading partners in the English speaking

countries to convert to SI.

(4) The increased importance of international commerce and

communications.

(5) The signing of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975.

In 1960, world interest in the metric system was revived with

the adoption by the General Conference of Weights and Measures

of a modernized version of the metric system—Le Systeme International D'Unites, SI. Adoption of SI by the General Conference of

Weights and Measures presented the world for the first time in its

history with a truly coherent system of units. And the world

responded favorably. In 1965 the British Government announced

that it would abandon the system of weights and measures it had

spawned and spread throughout the Commonwealth in favor of

the modernized metric system. South Africa initiated an SI metric

conversion program in 1967, and Australia and Canada followed

suit in 1970. A year later the European Economic Community

issued a directive requiring the use of SI units in trade and

commerce within the Common Market by 1978. The European

countries will therefore be obliged to phase out some of their

traditional metric units in favor of the modernized SI units. And

so it would seem the world is finally converging on a common

standard for weights and measures. And the United States can be

a leader in the move to SI. Remember terms like celcius, newton,

pascal and kilojoule are as new to the rest of the world, including

Europe, as they are to us. Another significant factor favoring U.S. metrication is the

growth of multinational corporations with global operations. A

common language of measurement facilitates communication and

technology transfer and is the basis for international engineering

and product standards. SI is becoming that common language and

it is not surprising therefore that it is the multinationals that are

in the vanguard of the U.S. change to metric.

Coupled with the growth in multinational operations is the

increased importance of international commerce. Fifty years ago

our exports were less than five billion dollars. Last year they were

approximately $100 billion, a twenty-fold increase. But while our

exports have been growing, our market share has been declining

in recent years. For example in 1958 the U.S. share of world

exports of manufactured goods was 28 percent. By 1973 our share

had been reduced to 18 percent, a reduction of 35 percent. In the

10 year period from 1963 to 1973 U.S. exports doubled in dollar

value while Japan experienced a five-fold increase, Italy a four-fold

54
increase and West Germany, France and Canada increased their

exports three-fold. The U.S. is still the industrial and technological

leader of the world but our economic and industrial supremacy is slowly being eroded.

Finally, we are now operating in a favorable legislative climate.

The overwhelming support in the House and the unanimous

consent by the Senate for the Metric Conversion Act of 1975

demonstrates that Congress endorses a program of planned and

coordinated conversion. Not only has Congress given its blessing,

it has also authorized the establishment of the U.S. Metric Board

"To coordinate the voluntary conversion to the metric system."

The U.S. Approach to Metrication

What is it that characterizes the U.S. approach to metrication?

There are several features of our program that I consider to be

significant. In summary these are:

(1) Private sector initiative

(2) Legislative endorsement

(3) Voluntary program

(4) No overall timetable

(5) Democratic consensus approach

The impetus for metric conversion in the U.S. has come from the

private sector, as President Ford put it, "From the people in the

business of buying and selling American products here and overseas." Where conversion is proceeding, it is doing so for sound

business reasons. The change is not being imposed by Government

nor is Government impeding the change.

And now conversion is proceeding with the blessings of Congress. The issue of metrication has been openly debated and

indeed few debates have spanned so many decades. As a result the

legislation that has emerged has broad support and represents a

fundamentally sound approach that is in the American tradition.

The experiences of other countries attest to the desirability of a

firm legislative base. The U. K. program for example has suffered

from lack of clear Government support while the Australian

program authorized by act of Parliament has proceeded successfully. Although the Canadian program has been proceeding under

Cabinet approval, full parliamentary action may be necessary to

bring the program to a timely conclusion.

In signing the metric bill President Ford stated, "It is important

to stress that the conversion contemplated in this legislation is to

55
be a completely voluntary one." Americans should welcome this.

Voluntary action is still preferred over Government mandate, and

it is encouraging and refreshing to know that we face our third

century as a nation with a continued dedication to voluntarism.

Conversion in the U.S. has been proceeding on a voluntary cost

effective basis as benefits are recognized, and there are practical

economic reasons to convert. Metrication should be allowed to

continue in this voluntary manner, and those segments of the

economy that see no advantages in changing should have the

freedom to adhere to current practices until they feel justified in

converting. The fact that the U.S. metric program is a voluntary

one, however, in no way lessens the need for proper coordination

and planning.

Related to the voluntary nature of the program is the lack of an

overall timetable. This has been an issue of particular concern and

perhaps it is worth commenting on. In the U. K. a ten-year

conversion goal was established but that goal has not been met.

The Australian Act on the other hand did not establish a target

date, yet their conversion is expected to be completed within eight

years of its initiation. So establishing an overall goal does not

guarantee results nor is it particularly meaningful. This does not

eliminate the need to establish conversion dates for specific

events; e.g., the changing of road signs, conversion of gasoline

pumps, amendment of weights and measures laws, etc. The lack of

clearly established dates and a well coordinated program in these

areas would lead to mass confusion and unnecessary difficulties.

The establishment of such dates however is not inconsistent with

a voluntary program provided the dates are determined in a consensus manner. A good example of this is the Treasury Department's directive on the sale of wine in metric size containers. The

directive was issued in response to requests from the wine industry and the effective date provides adequate time for the industry

to comply with the directive without economic disruptions.

Another example of a sound approach to metrication is that of

the Department of Defense. DOD is pursuing a policy of converting in phase with its industrial suppliers paying its fair share of

the cost. While there is a stated preference for metric specifications for new systems, DOD is not prepared to underwrite a cost

penalty and will mandate metric design only where justified. In its

policy statement DOD makes it clear that it does not want to force

the issue nor does it wish to inhibit conversion.

Perhaps the most salutary aspect of the U.S. metric program is

the desire and willingness of so many sectors to voluntarily join

together to address the issues and prepare for the change. The

American National Metric Council (ANMC) is the embodiment of

this private sector movement. A unique characteristic of ANMC is

56
that representation is not limited to special interest groups but

rather is open to all parties interested in and affected by metrication. A look at our subscribers and our Board of Directors bears

this out. Represented on ANMC's Board are small business; labor;

consumers; the professions—education, architecture, engineering,

home economics and law; and a diversity of industries—aerospace,

auto, banking, brewing, building, communications, computer, electrical goods, lumber, machinery oil, office equipment, and retailing.

Our participative management philosophy works only because of

the willingness of trade associations and technical societies to

share the administrative burden with us. For example the Motor

Vehicle Manufacturers Association, the Aerospace Industries Association, the National Forest Products Association, the Scale

Manufacturers Association, and the American Association of Publishers just to mention a few hold secretariats of and administer

the Motor Vehicle, Aerospace, Lumber & Wood, Weights and

Measures and the Educational Materials Sector Committees re- spectively. All told, over 300 Associations from the Adhesive and

Sealant Council to the Wire Association are involved in the work of

ANMC. I know of no other organization that is so broadly representative.

The structure of the U.S. Metric Board, as specified in the

Metric Act, is also designed to provide broad representation. After

all, metrication is everybody's business, and no matter where we

stand on the issue, we cannot afford to stand aside from the

program.

Progress in Industry

What progress have we been making in this more favorable

environment? There can be no denying that significant steps have

been taken in recent years in certain sectors towards adoption of

SI. This is most convincingly demonstrated through changing

attitudes in key industries. It is interesting to read a statement

made in 1959 by a leading automotive spokesman who said: "Even

if the metric system were far superior to the English system,

which it is not, and even if it were possible to enforce it by

compulsory legislation, which it is not, the enormous cost of

introducing it, the vast trouble and confusion it would cause

during the transition period for at least two generations, the

abandonment of our mechanical standards, upon which are based

our present system of interchangeability of parts of manufactured

articles, the making worthless of the greater portion of our

technical literature, make the price too great to pay for any

advantages, real or supposed, of the metric system."

By 1973 however the advantages to its global operations led to a formal commitment by GM to design all new products to metric

57
specifications. The Chevette, the first U.S. "metric automobile," is a result of that decision; and it is now generally acknowledged

that the auto industry will be predominantly metric by 1982.

The steel industry provides another example. In congressional

testimony in 1973 the American Iron & Steel Institute stated that

the steel industry was opposed to metric conversion. Yet only two

years later, in 1975 the major steel producers announced that they

were ready to accept orders to metric specifications.

There are other bellwethers of a changing attitude towards

metrication on the part of American industry. In responding to the

Department of Commerce metric study in 1970 the National Soft

Drinks Association stated that, "The Soft Drink Association has

not uncovered any industry desire for use of the metric system."

Yet five years later Coca Cola, Pepsicola and Seven-Up are

marketing their products in metric size containers.

During the past year many companies began to address the

metric issue and develop conversion strategies. Some issued public

policy statements while others treated the subject as an internal

matter.

Headlines from the Metric Reporter attest to the growing commitment:

Gereral Tire Opens Wholly Metric Plant

Coke Marketing One and Two Liter Bottles

Lockheed Company Sets Metric Policy

Dow Packaging Pellets in 24 kg Bags

New IBM Components Have Metric Preferences

Metric Issues Emerging in Aerospace

Wineries, Distillers List Metric Benefits

Boeing Going Metric with Roland Missile Project

Pattern Industry Sets "Soft" Standards for Body Measure

NCWM Schedules Metric Program for Weights and Measures

Officials

Metric Units Prevalent on Grocery Products

Metric Training for U.S. Indians

Metric Mobile Library in San Diego

58
Consumer Product Safety Commission Dual Dimensioning

Standards, Specs.

California Water Department Starting Broad Metric Program

Huntington West Virginia Papers Go Metric

March Was Metric Education Month in Minnesota

FTC Guidelines for Metric Usage in Packaging

Drafting Supplies Move Towards Metric

Minnesota Adopts Metric Units in Drivers Manual

Metric Required in Michigan Schools in 1975-1976 School Year

NBS Sets Up Metric System Speakers Bureau

While many of these items could hardly be considered of major

significance, the point is that they are concrete actions reflecting a

trend.

Federal Agency Activities

The establishment in 1975 of a Federal Interagency Metric

Committee provides focus for governmental activity. In a letter

sent to all agencies earlier this year, the Secretary of Commerce

urged them to designate a metric coordinator to work with the

Interagency Committee.

The regulations issued by the Treasury Department requiring

the sale of wine and distilled spirits in specified metric size bottles

represents the first affirmative government action mandating

conversion by an entire industry.

Another significant government action during the past year was

the issuance of an interim metric policy by the Department of

Defense. This policy, which is now in effect, reads in part "Effective immediately, the international metric system will be considered in the procurement of all supplies and services, and particularly in the design of new material."

The U.S. Office of Education recently announced the award of

over two million dollars in education grants to support metric

implementation at the State and local level.

On May 17 of this year the National Weather Service (NWS)

started providing temperatures in both Celcius and Fahrenheit to

the mass media over its weather wire service. NWS is actively

planning other steps which will lead to the gradual conversion of

all weather forecasting to metric units.

59
May was also the month in which the Federal Highway Administration issued a broad policy directive which, among other

things, calls for the establishment of a tentative timetable for the

conversion of traffic signs. The directive also calls for a one-year

review of federal highway and transportation laws and regulations to determine conversion requirements.

State Activities

Prior to the enactment of the Metric Conversion Act, some

States had initiated limited metric activities. However most States

were reluctant to take definitive action until the intent of Congress had been established. Now that this has occurred, the States are preparing to play their role in the conversion program.

Governor Carey of New York announced that he would establish a New York State Metric Conversion Council to "make recommendations on the specific ways the coordinating powers of Government may be used to ease this (metric) transition."

Governor Ray of Iowa in his capacity as Chairman of the

National Governors Conference has sent a letter to all State

governors stressing the need for interstate coordination on metrication planning and implementation. He announced the establishment by the National Governors Conference of an Interstate

Metric Committee and invited each governor to appoint a representative to this Committee.

The six New England governors have approved the idea of a Regional Council with related State Metric Boards to provide

closer coordination at the regional level. The fact that this Conference of State weights and measures officials is dedicated to a

discussion of the opportunities offered by metrication, further

attests to the positive attitude at the State level.

State action relating to education has been extensive. As early

as 1973 the Maryland State Board of Education adopted a resolution stating that "Maryland must be metric in all phases of public

education by 1980." Last year the Illinois State Board of Education announced that SI units will become the official institutional

language of measurement for public education in Illinois "not later

than 1980." During 1975, the number of States that had adopted

similar resolutions rose to 15, according to an NBS survey. All 50

States reported some level of metric activity.

Public Attitudes

No polls have been taken on the attitude of the general public to

metrication. But from letters we receive at ANMC, it is possible to

draw some not surprising conclusions. Let me quote from some of

these letters.

60
"It seems absolutely foolish to confuse a whole country of great

Americans by changing to a system this countiy doesn't need."

(Hamlet, Indiana)

"I want to ask you if you can do your best in stopping the metric

system because it is too hard for us and I don't want to switch

over." (San Jacinto, California)

"And now you men want to make cooking a more technical

culinary art. Leave we housewives alone to our own conventional

system." (West Middletown, Pa.)

"Why do we have to change to the metric system in math when

we have learned the other so well? My grandmother never heard

of it. Will she have to go to school again?" (Honey Brook, Pa.)

"A change to the metric system at this time would be an

economic boost ... I am a retired electrical engineer with an

interest in all the sciences and in my country. Age 87." (Fort

Lauderdale, Florida)

"We have the best monetary system in the world so let's keep it that way." (Clay Center, Kansas)

"My thought since first hearing about the possibility of a

changeover has been why put it off—what are people afraid of?

I'm in my 70th year. To me it's a challenge which I welcome. I'm

inclined to believe that many who oppose the changeover, including manufacturing concerns, are afraid of the challenge." (Ogden,

Utah)

"I think the whole idea of changing our system to metric

smells." (Holt, Michigan)

Resistance to change is nothing new. It is human nature. Fear

of the unknown is another human trait. Therefore to expect the

public to be enthralled about the idea of metrication is unrealistic.

Nevertheless I firmly believe that the American people will accommodate the change without great difficulty provided it is managed

correctly. ANMC is very much concerned about the impact of

metrication on the consumer and we recently established a Consumer Liaison Committee to ensure consumer involvement in

metrication planning and to study ways to assist our citizens in

making the conversion.

A One-Time Opportunity

Metrication as the title of this Conference implies is indeed a one-time opportunity. The change to metric measurements necessitates many related changes and in making these changes we

have the chance to change to something better. Significant

changes will occur in product and engineering standards and in

measurement sensitive laws and regulations. Herein lies the

opportunity. Willard F. Rockwell, Chairman of the Board of Rockwell International, recognized this when speaking for his corpora61
tion he said, "We can see considerable future advantages in the

formulation and adoption of well-thought-out standards which can

reduce the number of parts, tools, and gages required. These will

produce more efficient designs and practices. They'll offer an

excellent opportunity to 'clean house' by eliminating many nearduplicate sizes. And it is in that regard I believe overall national

conversion to the metric system could be a once-in-a-lifetime

opportunity for American industry."

Rationalization of product sizes is perhaps the single most

significant benefit that can be derived from metrication, and it is

encouraging to note that this is already being achieved. For

example, fastener sizes will be reduced from 57 to 25 sizes; wine

bottles, from 16 to 7 sizes; and distilled spirits bottles, from 10 to 6. But rationalization will not be easy to achieve in many cases. It will require industry and market-place discipline and short-term

expediency will have to give way to long-term advantages and

logic.

The rationalization opportunities that exist for products likewise

exist for laws and regulations. In the case of weights and measures legislation, there is the opportunity to achieve greater con- sistency between state laws and in so doing to improve and

simplify the law. The National Conference on Weights and Measures recognizes this opportunity and I have no doubt that you will

do a service to the Nation by making this opportunity a reality.

62
THE METRICATION OF SEVEN-UP—THE LITER LEADER

Presented by BEN H. WELLS, Chairman of the Board, The SevenUp Company

Although Congress made it legal for the

United States to go metric in 1866, and this

country signed the Treaty of the Meter, it wasn't until the National Bureau of Standards brought out its report in 1971, "A

Metric America—A Decision Whose Time

Has Come," that much was done about it. Progress toward metrication had been deterred by widespread ignorance and massive apathy on the part of business, government and the public.

Senator Russell Long was addressing a

gathering of businessmen and made the statement that the two

greatest problems of the day are ignorance and apathy. One man

in the audience turned to his neighbor and said, "Do you believe

that? Our biggest problems are ignorance and apathy?" Whereupon the other answered, "I don't know and I don't give a damn."

Your widespread efforts are increasingly resultful in the scourging of these two problems.

It was in September 1974 that we announced to our bottlers that

7UP would be the first soft drink to go metric in the United States.

Little did I dream at the time that this would result in an

invitation to tell the story to this eminent group of weighers,

measurers and standard bearers. But a lot can happen in twentytwo months, and my purpose today is to tell the story of what

resulted when 7UP metricated, or, as one headline writer put it,

"7UP Goes Metric—UNcola to UNounce."

First, some background.

7UP, the soft drink I have devoted most of my life to selling, was

created in October of 1929 ... a great vintage year for champagne,

but hardly auspicious for a new business venture. The original

name was more of a mouthful than the product. "Bib-Label

Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda" was the first monicker. Talk about

your truth in packaging . . .. But the product was a good one—a clean, clear, crisp beverage

combining the essence of the lemon, a yellow fruit about 8

centimeters long and 6 centimeters in diameter with that of the

lime, a green slightly smaller member of the citrus family.

For the next forty years 7UP did well enough. For sure, it was

the number three selling soft drink—the only "light" shining from

63
the otherwise cola-dominated dark at the top of the carbonated

stairs. But alas, people were drinking 7UP for all the wrong

reasons. It mixed well with liquor, had some mysterious analgesic

property that seemed to calm queezy stomachs and ease hangovers. Some even thought of it as a slenderizer. But there we were

on the threshold of the Great American Fast Food Revolution,

and, research showed, few thought of us as a soft drink. Coke and

Pepsi were alone and dominant in their domain.

That was just nine years ago. Things are very much different

today. A daring marketing program was created to position 7UP

directly against the cola competition. 7UP became "The Uncola"

mainly through a series of unorthodox television commercials that

were fresh, irreverent and, frankly, quite risky.

The point is that not only was 7UP reborn a soft drink ... a real

glamor issue in the beverage world . . . the spirit of "The Uncola"

crusade has had an abiding influence on just about everything the

Company has done since then.

This one rather daring marketing program got our main product

back into a growth trend, provided the impetus for some key

acquisitions and, as a company, we've been growing ever since.

1975 net sales of the corporation exceeded $213 million and profits

were $20.3 million, up from $111 million sales and $9.8 million

profits in 1970.

Impressive as these achievements may be, they afford no guarantee for future growth. Nor did they make 7UP invulnerable to

the packaging and materials cost squeeze that was the legacy of

all beverage companies during the recent "Late Unpleasantness"

otherwise known as the recession.

This led us in 1974 to a complete re-evaluation of our soft drink

packaging situation. Our objective was two-fold:

1. To reduce packaging costs and thus ease pressure on our

profit margins;

2. To project more positively the Uncola marketing image in our

packaging.

Our technical people, working with a number of glass suppliers,

developed a prototype for a new shape bottle that was not as tall as conventional glassware, contained less glass and would be less

expensive, would perform better on our bottlers' production lines,

and would better serve the consumer.

But there was a very serious question of how could a shorter

bottle compete with a bottle of the same volume by the competition, given consumers' probable tendency to associate size with

volume and thus value.

64
Up to that point, our considerations were restricted to conventional-sized vessels—sixteen-ounce, quarts and the like. It was then the UNtraditional 7UP Uncola spirit surfaced . .

and a serious problem soon became a considerable opportunity.

The question was raised:

Why wouldn't metric-sized containers—half-liter and liter bottles—solve the height and size perception problem, thus converting the difference to an advantage in the marketplace? The trick

would be convincing the consumer that he or she would actually

be getting more 7UP in a shorter bottle.

We still weren't in a position to Un-ounce, however.

On the plus side, we could see several advantages. The opportunity to be first in the soft drink industry with metric was

considerable. So was the timing—no longer was it a question of

would America go metric, but when. Finally, there was the value

concept—more product for the same money.

On the other hand, would a move to metric create more confusion than business for 7UP? Finally, and obviously not least, there

was the whole matter of the cost of converting from what to that

point was the conventional unit of measurement to another

standard. Knowing that such a move would have an impact on

bottling equipment, cartons and shells for take-home packs (as

well as glass, of course), it was projected that an immediate total

replacement of just the half-quart and quart sizes would cost The

Seven-Up Company and our bottlers approximately 60 million

dollars!

Consumer research cleared up our worries about consumer

confusion. A survey conducted in May of 1974 indicated 82 percent

of the general population was aware of metric weights and

measures.

Similarly, overwhelming numbers of those interviewed professed

belief that widespread use of the metric standard is inevitable in

the U.S. Most questioned were favorably inclined toward the

change, and an equally impressive number were familiar with the

term "liter," the fact that it loosely relates with the quart and,

happily enough, that it holds more than the quart.

We unveiled the new metric bottle in September 1974. Within

seven months, the first metric soft drink bottles in the United

States were introduced by the Minneapolis, Minnesota 7UP Developer—7UP and Sugar Free 7UP in liter bottles.

Liter bottles assured a marketing advantage, 33.8 ounces of

product for the same price as competition's 32-ounce (quart containers).

The new packaging graphics, a liberal glass incentive program

and a comprehensive marketing program combined to enable the

Uncola to lead the way for other soft drinks ... to follow the liter.

65
Interest in our initial metric announcement was overwhelming.

Long before even one crystal clear drop of the Uncola materialized

in a metric bottle, hundreds of newspaper, wire service and other

stories appeared in markets coast to coast. 7UP was an overnight

media celebrity . .

.

. . . and the headline writers had a field day:

Neater Liter: Uncola for metric but U.S. still lags

Is Seven a Metric Number?

7UP Goes Metric: Uncola Undecimated

Take Me to Your Liter

To capitalize further on the situation and, hopefully to give

added momentum to the metric movement, the Company has

made comprehensive Metric Education Kits available to teachers

throughout the U.S. Our initial order for 10,000 kits was a sellout

and now we are backordering awaiting shipment on another

10,000. These include a teacher's edition of The Metric System, a classroom wall chart, a metric converter slide chart in the form of a liter bottle, measurement paste-ups, badges for height measurement and liter stickers.

7UP and Sugar Free 7UP in liter and half-liter bottles have been

introduced in a total of 89 cities, including nearly the entire State

of Indiana.

The whopper, a two-liter non-returnable, was introduced for the

first time in February in New England and its general proliferation is not far behind.

There was one more metric milestone recently. I suppose it's

significant as much for symbolic as business reasons, but on

March 2, 7UP in metric-sized bottles was introduced in Atlanta.

Our press conference, at the new Omni Convention Center, took

place about 3 kilometers—yes, that is how the American National

Metric Council says to pronounce it—3 kilometers from the world

headquarters of the Coca-Cola Company, which announced earlier

this year that it was authorizing metric packaging. As we said in

our promotion, "Follow the Liter."

Finally, the mayor of one town that went metric last year was so delighted about it he renamed his city for one day ... to PensUncola, Florida.

Nice as the publicity and the industry leadership is, however,

the proverbial bottom line must be the ultimate determinant of

whether the move to metrics is proving worthwhile for 7UP. And I can tell you that our metric-sized bottles have exceeded the

66
projected sales that would have been achieved without the package, anywhere from four to fourteen percent. No doubt the novelty

of the package accounts for part of the success, but the added

value for the consumer is by far the main element.

Equally encouraging—and this may have implications for some

of you—the metric conversion strategy adopted did not have

nearly the price tag that was originally feared. Happily, I understand that's been the case with a number of companies, once they

decided to take the step.

Thinking metric at The Seven-UP Company has not been limited

to half-liter, liter and 2-liter efforts. Our 1975 Annual Report is, we

believe, the first metric-sized publication of its kind, 20 by 30

centimeters.

This was another first in Annual Reports because it is scented

with lemon. The Wall Street Journal ran this Business Brief: "Best

Smeller? Seven-Up Company scents the pages of its annual report

with a lemon fragance." Incidentally, this process for putting

fragance into printing ink was developed at the Warner-Jenkinson

Company—a Seven-Up subsidiary—as "Printscent," and is available in a variety of fragrances, including pizza.

Recently we learned that the trade publication, Packaging

Engineering, will give its 1976 Total Performance Package Competition Award in the "beverages" category to the 7UP half-liter,

liter and two-liter bottles. The seven requirements for total performance are:

1. Attractive, to win sales.

2. Strong, to withstand the rigors of distribution.

3. Engineered to run smoothly on the filling line.

4. Convenient, to use and dispose of.

5. Frugal in use of material.

6. Protective of product integrity.

7. Not harmful to our ecology.

The metric packages of 7UP won on all seven!

There has not been public announcement of this award. It will

come out later this month in the August issue of Package Engineering.

What's the moral of the 7UP metric scenario? First, we believe

strongly in timely conversion to metrics. Momentum for this

67
system has accelerated and just last week I learned it has the

blessing of the Catholic Church. In a general mailing to friends of

the Shrine of our Lady of the Snows in Belleville, Illinois, replies are encouraged through the offer of a metric converter ruler

which provides information similar to that included on the 7UP

metric converter you saw today.

The move to metric is on and we believe it is only fitting that a product that has achieved considerable success once by improving

the King's English—and, of course, by that I'm referring to the

term Uncola (which we coined and trademarked) that the same

company should play a role in the undoing of the King's own

measuring system.

68
METRIC TRAINING SEMINARS

Presented by JOHN H. LANDVATER, President, and

Margo Perkins, Associate, Landvater Associates

It is with a great feeling of accomplishment that we report to you today on the

completion of the first phase of metric training of weights and measures personnel.

At the 60th annual Conference on

Weights and Measures, the Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs, recognizing the rapidly . approaching need for metric training of weights and

measures personnel, directed the executive

secretary of the Conference to secure funding and develop a uniform metric training

program for the United States. That action ultimately led to the

contract which has provided the first phase of that training, and

on which we will report today.

Funding for the past year's effort was secured from the U.S.

Office of Education under Public Law 93-380. Contractors were

sought when it was determined that the National Bureau of

Standards did not have personnel available to handle the program.

Since no specifications were available for the program and, in

fact, the development of such a program could not be reduced to

specifications for competitive bidding, technical qualifications were

the basis for choosing a contractor. The Department of Commerce

advertised for qualified contractors; and after evaluating the

respondents, Landvater Associates was chosen as the contractor.

The contract was written, and I quote, "to develop and conduct

metric training seminars for high level officials in private industry

and local, State and Federal Government agencies." That contract

is now completed and it has accomplished:

1. The development of a model for metric training in the United

States for weights and measures and other government agency

personnel.

2. Testing of the model program on a sufficiently large sample of

participants to prove its effectiveness.

3. Training of a core group of instructors throughout the United

States in the use of the model program.

4. Equipping the trained instructors with basic teaching materials necessary to conduct metric training within their individual

jurisdictions.

The timeliness of this activity—(the first training seminar in

this series was conducted only a few months after the Metric

69
Conversion Act of 1975 was signed into law)—has placed weights

and measures and the National Conference on Weights and

Measures in the forefront of metric conversion activities. To

maintain that position, additional core group instructors must be

trained; second-round training by core instructors must begin in

local jurisdictions; and some additional teaching aids should be

provided to the core instructors.

Ancillary to the main thrust of the contract, it has become

apparent that a well conceived and carefully thought out plan for

metric conversion needs to be developed by the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Not only are the future training

needs complex, but other activities in metric conversion in which

the Conference is involved need to be coordinated with training in

a well ordered manner.

Our report today will give details of the model program developed, the manner in which the six training seminars were con- ducted, quantified results of the seminars, conclusions drawn from

those results, and recommendations for future action.

While the contract was issued by the Department of Commerce

and administered by the Office of Weights and Measures at the

National Bureau of Standards, the participants and beneficiaries

of the activity are the members of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures. Therefore, recommendations for future

action contained in this report are directed to the National

Conference as the logical entity to implement those recommendations.

To explain the course preparation and course content, I will turn

the program over to my associate, Margo Perkins. Margo has

participated with me in the preparation of the course content and

in the instruction of all of the seminars.

The first steps in course preparation were

(1) to identify the primary purpose of the

course, (2) to identify the sector of the

weights and measures community that

would be invited to attend seminars, and (3)

to identify secondary objectives based on

individual needs of the course participants.

Working closely with the National Conference executive secretary Harold Wollin and

his staff at the National Bureau of Standards, we determined that the primary purpose of the course was to train a selected

group of weights and measures officials who, in turn, would

provide SI metric training programs for other weights and measures personnel.

70
We recognized that seminar participants would vary widely in

their knowledge of SI metrics, in their experience in conducting

training courses, and in their access to resources needed for

training purposes.

With these factors in mind, fifteen specific course objectives

were defined. These can be summarized as follows:

Provide background information and general knowledge of SI

metrics needed by instructors.

Provide information and experience in using various instructional strategies for teaching SI metrics.

Prepare seminar participants to organize metric training programs for weights and measures personnel.

Provide information on available resources for training materials and for responses to public inquiries.

Prepare weights and measures officials to participate in the

planning process for metrication.

Organize and conduct a seminar which participants could use as a model for seminars they organize.

To meet these objectives, we developed an 18-hour course of

instruction designed to be taught over a 3-day period. The seminar

schedule is listed in the final report submitted to the National

Bureau of Standards by Landvater Associates. Copies of this

report will be available at the conclusion of this session.

Over one half of the instructional time was allotted to "hands

on" workshop activities. Using worksheets and simple measuring

equipment, participants were guided to the discovery of simple

relationships between everyday SI units used for length, area,

volume, capacity, mass, and temperature measurements. From

the first day, seminar members were encouraged to "think metric." Repeatedly, they were asked to estimate metric measurements, then measure and check their estimates. Many activities

were structured around field procedures used by the weights and

measures community.

Other portions of the course were devoted to the identification of

special metrication concerns of the weights and measures community. Members reviewed elements of classic planning processes

and then began to develop plans for the orderly implementation of

metrication within their respective jurisdictions. Throughout the

course, activities were designed to allow opportunities for members to exchange information.

71
A variety of teaching techniques and materials were used in the

seminar program. Each participant received a complete set of the

teaching materials, including clean copies of worksheets, transparency masters and selected reference sheets that can be reproduced

as needed. Style guides, measuring equipment, selected NBS

publications and extensive lists of metric resources were also

distributed. Ten to eleven boxes of materials were shipped to each

seminar site; only three remained to be shipped back at the end of a session.

In every phase of planning and conducting the seminar, efforts

were made to provide training sessions which would develop

positive attitudes toward the study of SI metrics. The responses of

seminar participants indicate that the program does indeed ac- complish this goal.

by John Landvater

Six seminars have been conducted at locations across the United

States. The locations were chosen to reduce travel as much as possible for the participants. We hoped to have at least two

persons attend from each State, but realized that travel costs

would be a problem in some cases. The locations and dates of the six seminars were:

Hopkins, Minnesota—March 3 to 5 (to coincide with the Northwest Conference)

Atlanta, Georgia—April 7 to 9

San Francisco, California—May 19 to 21

Hershey, Pennsylvania—June 2 to 4

Denver, Colorado—June 9 to 11

Indianapolis, Indiana—June 16 to 18

Attendance at each seminar was:

No. 1 Hopkins, Minnesota 24

No. 2 Atlanta, Georgia 23

No. 3 San Francisco, California 31

No. 4 Hershey, Pennsylvania 34

No. 5 Denver, Colorado 25

No. 6 Indianapolis, Indiana 26

Total 163

As was expected, the Hershey seminar had the greatest attendance because of the dense population in the North East. The Office

of Weights and Measures recognized that this could present a

problem as early registrations began to come in. We did not want

72
to turn anyone away who wanted to attend one of the seminars.

Partly to solve that potential problem, and partly to provide the

same opportunities to other government agencies, two additional

seminars have been scheduled. They will be held at the National

Bureau of Standards; one in September, and the second in November.

Attendance by the States was spotty. Some States sent a large

number of registrants; others, only one or, in some cases, none.

It is quite obvious that adequately trained core instructors now

exist in some States, but additional core training is necessary in

other geographical areas.

Results

The seminars were evaluated in two ways:

1. Each participant was asked to complete a seminar evaluation

form at the end of the seminar. In that way, the participants gave

us their evaluation of the effectiveness of the seminar in a

structured manner which could be quantified.

2. Each participant was given a pre-test at the beginning of the

seminar, and the same test [was given] as a post-test at the end of

the seminar. A comparison of the two tests gave us information on

how much new knowledge was gained by the participants in the

seminar.

The participant evaluation contained 18 questions which re- quired a numerical score and which related to the various objectives of the seminar. Each participant was asked to evaluate the

effectiveness of the seminar in meeting the objectives outlined for

the course. They used a rating scale of one, the lowest rating, to

five, the highest rating. We considered a rating of either four or

five to be an acceptable rating on any question, and tabulated the

percentage of participants who gave a rating of either four or five

on each objective as follows:

1. Provide background information on SI metrics

needed by instructors 76.5%

2. Provide information and expertise in using varied

instructional strategies for teaching SI metrics 79.7%

3. Prepare seminar participants to organize metric

training programs 75.0%

4. Provide information on available resources for

weights and measures courses and for informing the

public 90.0%

73
5. Prepare weights and measures personnel to contribute to the planning process for metrication 75.6%

6. Organize and conduct a seminar which participants

could use as a model for seminars they organize 97.0%

The pre-test and post-tests were compared and scored for gain in

number of items missed on the pre-test but answered correctly on

the post-test. Final tabulations showed that the average gain in

number of correct answers for the post-test was 10.8. Since the test

had a total of 55 items, this represents an average gain of 19.6

percent for the group.

Interpretation of Results

The very high percentage of the participants who rated a score of four or five for each of the objectives of the seminar shows this

to be a good basic "model program" for training instructors who

will be expected to run additional training seminars in their

jurisdictions.

The gain in knowledge of SI metrics indicates that the activity

worksheets and the workshop content and approach is a proven

way to teach SI metric information. The nearly 20% gain in SI

metric background information is a more dramatic gain than

might first be thought if the following factors are not considered.

Many of the participants were State metrologists, where their

pre-tests were almost perfect, showing nearly a perfect understanding of SI metrics before the seminar.

The workship sessions, where SI metrics was really learned,

were deliberately kept short in order to allow time for presentation

of other materials. With more time for workshops in second-round

training, the gain in knowledge of SI metrics will be more dramatic.

A model program now exists which can be used in many ways

for future training. The model program can be taught by core group trained instructors in government; it can be the basis for

competitive bidding for instruction by professional persons under

contract; and it can be a program taught in adult education

programs such as community colleges, junior colleges, vocational

schools, and high school extension courses.

Conclusions

1. Pre-test and post-test results for all seminar participants, and

the participants' evaluations of the various aspects of the seminar

program, are very high in all areas. The program is a good "model

program" for metric training of weights and measures personnel.

2. While attendance at the seminars was predominantly from

the weights and measures community, persons from other govern74
ment agencies also attended. Their gain in SI metric knowledge

and their rating of the value of the seminar as a training tool was

equal to the rating by weights and measures personnel. Therefore,

this could also be considered a good "model program" for metric

training in other government sectors.

3. There is still a need for more core group instructor training, as some geographical areas of the United States had very few or, in some cases, no attendees at the training seminars.

4. While participants left the seminars with a complete set of

teaching aids and adequate reference material, there is a need for

some additional audio-visual material as reinforcement for the

instructors as they begin to hold second-round training programs

in their own jurisdictions.

5. During the first-round series, some of the participants needed

more time for basic decimal arithmetic and practice with the

metric prefixes than the schedule would allow. The second-round

training programs will need to spend more time on the workshop

sessions and should remain with the basics until completely

mastered by the participants.

6. The metric conversion presents a unique opportunity for

weights and measures to raise its public image. The leadership

position which has been created by the timeliness of this seminar

series will be lost if not promptly followed up with further effort.

7. Future training efforts must be coordinated with other metric activities and scheduled so that final field training will coincide

with the time when metric units will be used in the day-to-day

activities in the field. Careful planning will be required to accomplish this goal.

Recommendations

1. Affirmative action should be taken by the National Conference on Weights and Measures to endorse this "model program" as

their basic uniform metric training program.

2. A comprehensive, long-range metric conversion plan should

be developed by the National Conference on Weights and Measures to organize and schedule the many aspects of metric conversion in which the Conference is involved, training being only one of

the major activity areas. As a part of the long-range planning, provide for:

1. The additional training needed for core group instructors in

geographical areas not now well staffed,

2. The beginning of second-round training in the various jurisdictions, and

3. The additional audio-visual support materials needed by the

core group instructors.

75
I stop here with our report on the metric training seminars with

the very distinct feeling that I have only been able to expose the

tip of the iceberg. To quote the theme of this Conference, "Metrication—A One-Time Opportunity" is an opportunity for improvements in measurement, in standards, in virtually every aspect of

our lives. But at the core of that opportunity is an informed

population, and that is what we have been attempting to begin

witli the metric training programs; and because training and

education lead directly into all the many areas of concern in

metrication, I am sure many of you have other points you want to

discuss which we have not touched on here this morning. At this

time, we invite your comments or questions on points which need

further clarification by either Margo or me.

76
AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1976

(LORENZO A. GREDY, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

A BACKGROUND FOR UNDERSTANDING SAMPLING PLANS

Presented by MARY G. NATRELLA, Mathematical Statistician,

Statistical Engineering Section, Applied Mathematics Division,

Institute for Basic Standards, National Bureau of Standards

It is a pleasure to be here and to see

friends from previous July Conferences and

from the January committee meetings. This

Conference does many things right, but

there is one thing it does wrong—it always

comes to Washington at the worst time of

the year. In between the steaming Julys

and the January sleets, I work with the

people in the Office of Weights and Measures. We try to hash out the realities of

sampling inspection as they pertain to the

realities of net-weight checking. During one

of our sessions, I remarked that there are things the statisticians

know so well that they have never bothered to tell anyone else—in

particular, no one ever gives "Lesson One" in acceptance sampling. This is what they have now asked me to do.

Naturally everyone thinks they know Lesson One. If you do not,

it is because no one ever told you. People tell you about single

sampling and double sampling, and people tell you about attributes and variables, and about MIL-STD-this and that, but hardly

anyone tells you what a sampling plan is, what it is intended to do, or how it does it. Of course, we all know that a sample is intended to give us some

more-or-less good idea about a larger quantity of material. By now

you probably realize that when a statistician speaks about "a

sample," he means not just a single package, but the whole

collection of packages taken for checking. But what is a sampling

plan? The naive answer is "Take ten—or however many." In

actual fact, a sampling plan dictates more than just how many.

What Is A Sampling Plan?

A sampling plan is a set of very specific rules. Actually, there

are three kinds of rules: (1) rules for taking the sample, (2) rules

for making observations on the sample, and (3) rules for making

decisions based upon those observations.

77
1. The Rules for taking the sample:

The sampling plan tells you how and how many.

The how is important as well as the how many. In weights and

measures checking, we ordinarily want to have a random sample.

We usually gloss over this in a couple of words, leaving it to the

inspector's notion of what is a random sample, which may be more

haphazard than random.

If we provide detailed instructions for obtaining a random

sample, we may be told that the rules are physically unworkable

or too time-consuming. Maybe they're thought to be just plain

silly. Nevertheless, the how is important; and in ignoring this, we

may be taking chances with the results. A famous statistician has

said that randomization is like insurance. You may not really need

it, but you never really know whether you do or not. Also, it may

be too expensive, but make sure it's really too expensive, and not

just a nuisance. You have an obligation to try to obtain a random

sample, and you may have to prove to the courts that you tried.

How many

This is the only part of a sampling plan that some people

recognize—to them the only rule is how many. It is a very

important part of the rules. It has a big effect on how well the

sampling plan does what it is intended to do—but the decision

rules also have important effects.

By the way, I think by now you have all been told that the

important consideration is the absolute size of the sample—(how

many?)—and not the size of the sample relative to the size of the

lot (what percent?).

2. Rules for making observations on the sample

These rules tell you what to look at in each sample package. You

might simply check whether or not the package was above or below label weight (by putting the label weight on one pan of the

scale). The rules also tell you what additional things to do with

your observations. If you had simply recorded whether each

sample package was above or below label, you could be told to

count the number of underweight packages. If you have weighed

each package in the sample, you might be asked to calculate the

average weight, and perhaps perform further calculations.

3. Rules for making decisions based on the observations

The sampling plan now tells you what "decision" to make, based

on the results of the observations and calculations. I say "decision"

in quotes, because in the small sense you don't really decide

78
anything. The decision is automated—it is made for you by the

rules given in the sampling plan. If you were in a more typical

acceptance sampling situation—for example, military procurement

inspection—you would now have to either accept or reject the lot. For net weight checking, we can use the words "accept" and

"reject" in quotes because you do have some discretion. "Accept"

probably means you'll do nothing more, but "reject" could mean a

variety of actions—order off-sale, check the whole meat case, tell

your supervisor that you would like to check more of XYZ product,

etc.So, a sampling plan contains three kinds of rules, but

What Does A Sampling Plan Do?

A sampling plan does what we want it to do. I should not try to

put this in legal terms in the presence of so many lawyers, but it is

the only way I can really understand it. Essentially a sampling

plan provides evidence, trial, and sentencing for the material

being inspected.

First, we have a law (or a requirement). You have the Model

Packaging and Labeling Regulation—or your own individual state

law. In order to provide evidence that the law or requirement has

been met, we use a sampling plan. A sampling plan acts like our

whole law-and-order system. It is an automated combination of

police department, judge and jury. It obtains the evidence, it judges the evidence, it sentences the material.

Since a sampling plan is intended to provide evidence as to

whether the requirement of the law has been met, the kind of

sampling plan depends on the kind of requirement. So let's

consider some common varieties of requirements. For example, we

could have:

1. a requirement for an individual package

2. a requirement for the average of a lot

3. a requirement for average of a lot plus a requirement for an

individual package.

You will recognize that all of these have been talked about in

connection with net-weight checking, and that the last one is

exactly the kind of requirement we have in the Model Regulation.

We now talk about the kind of enforcement (the kind of sampling

plan) appropriate to each of these requirements. It is important to

recognize tnat the law and the sampling plan are necessarily

linked. So that if someone some day says to you, "Well why don't

you just use MIL-STD-105?" You just tell him, "MIL-STD-105

79
does not enforce an average requirement—nor does MIL-STD414." No requirement can be perfectly enforced by sampling. It is

no more possible to have perfect assurance about the average of

the lot than it is to have perfect assurance about individual

packages. All sampling plans have risks.

Let's talk more specifically about:

1. Requirement on an individual package.

The requirement might state that each package be at least the

label weight.

A sampling plan could be used to enforce this requirement with

certain associated risks (which we'll get to later). What kind of

sampling plan? The kind that is called "Sampling Plans for

Attributes Inspection to Control Percent Defective"—the kind of

plans that MIL-STD-105 is full of. Remember that any sampling plan has three kinds of rules and

let's look at this kind of sampling plan.

(1) Rules for taking the sample (how and how many).

Select X packages at random (X = some specified number)

(2) Rules for making observations.

Compare each package to label weight. Count how many are underweight. (We could have a variation here about counting

how many are underweight by a specified amount.)

(3) Rules for making decisions.

If more than some specified number of the X packages are underweight, "reject" the lot.

The mathematical statisticians know all about this kind of

sampling plan. It is nice and neat in theory and in computation,

and there are books full of them.

2. Requirement on the lot average

Suppose the Model Regulation were a bit simpler and required

the lot average to be at least equal to the labeled weight. Again,

remember our rules:

Rule (1)—tells us how and how many

Rule (2)—tells us what to observe and calculate

Here we would be asked to weigh each package in the sample; to

calculate the average of those weights (plus possibly some calculation of the variability among the packages).

80
Rule (3)—We would now compare our calculated value to a number given in the rules. This number could be the labelled

weight, but could be different from the labelled weight, depending on how the sampling plan was designed.

If we make certain assumptions about the packing process, this

kind of plan is also easy for the statisticians to work out. You

won't find books full of these labelled as sampling plans; you have

to dig around a bit in the statistics books. Again, note that there

are associated risks and that the requirement cannot be perfectly

enforced by the sampling plan. The fact that the sample average

exceeds the label weight does not guarantee that the lot average

exceeds the label weight.

3. Requirement on the lot average plus a requirement on an individual package.

This is the kind of requirement that is in the Model Regulation

and probably the kind most familiar to you. Since it is familiar, it

probably sounds easy. Actually, it's not. Sampling plans to enforce

this kind of requirement used to give statisticians fits because it is a tough one mathematically. Since we now have computers, it is no longer so frustrating—only expensive—to compute the properties of such plans. And, of course, this kind of requirement has a great deal of intuitive appeal—protecting the public at large on

the average, and protecting the individual buyer. These plans are being looked at in other connections—especially product safety areas—because of this kind of appeal.

A bit earlier, I said that a sampling plan does what we want it to

do. How do we define what we want a sampling plan to do? A

sampling plan cannot give us perfect assurance about a lot,

because we examine only part of the lot. If the assurance has to be

less than perfect, how good can it be? Or, how bad? In this

connection we talk about the risks associated with a sampling

plan. A particular plan can be defined by these risks. There are two opposing kinds of risk—the risk of rejecting a lot which meets

the Model Regulation (or some other), and the risk of accepting an

underweight lot. Naturally, we would like them both to be small in

fairness to both the packer and the consumer.

What we would really like is a sampling plan which gives a very

good chance of acceptance when the lot is equal to or over the

label weight and a very good chance of rejection when the lot is

even slightly underweight. Unfortunately, while this is possible, it requires large samples. So now where are we? Given that we want

to use a relatively small sample for routine checking, what can we

do or say about these risks? If we give a high chance of passing a

lot that is exactly at the legal limit, we're not doing too well on

behalf of the consumer. If we give a high chance of failing a lot

81
that is only slightly underweight, we'll be requiring too much

overpack. For this reason, many sampling plans for weight checking attempt to sort of split the difference with regard to the two

kinds of risks. Packers realize this and recognize that some

overpack is required to avoid excessive rejections. The alternative

of weighing large samples would haunt packers as well as the rest

of us with visions of opened cans spread across the land. I witnessed one inspection where the opened cans of beans were put

in the deli—but what do you do when there is no deli?

The calculation of risks for a particular sampling plan will

depend on the "how many" and on the decision rules. Many

sampling plans for weight checking require that the average of the

sample equal or exceed the labelled weight. That particular decision rule implies a particular value of risk.

What I have been trying to do here with only words can actually

be done with mathematical statistics. The results of such mathematics can be displayed using something called an Operating

Characteristic Curve which shows the operational properties of a

sampling plan. You may have seen some of these, but I won't

display any here. For one thing, this is not that kind of a talk. For

another, I don't think one should take them to seriously when

talking about inspecting occasional lots. They really apply to the

steady inspection of every lot in a continuous series of lots, and

even then they give only an idea of what to expect.

Where does the inspector come in? I have tried to show the kind

of thinking that goes into designing a sampling plan. I have said

that a sampling plan tells much more than just how many in the

sample. The rules for taking the sample and deciding whether the

lot is acceptable are also part of the sampling plan. What does that

leave for the inspector to do?

(1) How to take the sample.

If formal rules are given for obtaining a random sample, and if it

is physically impossible to follow these rules, the way the sample is actually obtained will be up to the inspector. I would urge him not

to abandom or denounce the rules lightly, but to use his ingenuity

to apply them. Where he has to abandon the rules—where it is

really impossible—the more he knows about the product, the

better. How it is packed, how it is shipped or stored, and what

inventory policies are followed, all these things determine whether

the actual sample may be "as good as" a random sample for the

purpose of weight checking.

(2) How many—he follows the sampling plan; he may have some

directed or guided choice of sampling plan.

(3) The observations on the sample and calculations on those

observations are specified by the plan, but entirely done by the

inspector.

82
(4) A decision to "accept" or "reject" is given by the sampling

plan—but "accept" and "reject" are in quotes. The inspector may

recommend more inspections or other actions.

Whatever the rules, they must be carried out properly. As Allen

Farrar said last year, "People make the difference." We can have

all kinds of lawyers writing laws, engineers writing procedures,

statisticians designing sampling plans, but it's up to the inspector

to make the system work. The most important person is the one

who is out there. We rely on you.

83
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Presented by TOM JENSEN, President, National Conference of

State Legislatures

It is a great pleasure for me to be here

today and to speak to you as the President

of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Our own annual meeting will

be held in Kansas City late next month, so I guess you are fortunate to have invited me

before my term as NCSL President expires.

Since our meeting is in Kansas City, we will

feel fortunate if there is anything left there

at the end of August, after the Republican

Convention, scheduled just two weeks before us. Bud Wollin has asked me to tell you about the organization and

objectives, and programs and services of the National Conference

of State Legislatures, and to suggest ways in which our two

organizations can work together for our mutual benefit. He has

suggested that weights and measures officials throughout the

nation have, on occasion, had difficulty getting their message

across to, and obtaining support for, their programs from some

State legislators in several of the States. I will give you some of

my ideas on how you can each approach that problem in your own

individual States, and how some of the existing mechanisms and

committee work in the National Conference of State Legislatures

might lend itself to communicating your ideas to State legislators

and their staffs.

First, a few words about the National Conference of State

Legislatures itself. It was established just a year and a half ago, in

January 1975. NCSL was created from three previously existing

legislative organizations: the National Legislative Conference, the

National Conference of State Legislative Leaders, and the National Society of State Legislators. We are affiliated with the

Council of State Governments (CSG) and cooperate with its staff,

but we have our own offices, meet independently, do independent

research focused on legislative problems, and provide our own

informational and training services. Another important difference

is that unlike CSG, we are set up to lobby for State legislatures in

Washington, D. C. The NCSL has three basic objectives: to improve the quality and effectiveness of State legislatures; to assure

States a strong, cohesive voice in the Federal decision-making

process; to further interstate communication and cooperation.

84
NCSL has two offices. Our Headquarters office in Denver,

Colorado houses our Director, Earl S. Mackey, and his administrative staff and several important line divisions. The largest is our

State Services Division, which is designed to help State legislatures continue to upgrade their ability to make effective public

policy. Members of the State Services staff make periodic visits to

all fifty State legislatures. They bring together legislative experts

to assist a particular legislature on a variety of issues. State

Services, for example, assisted in improving the bill-drafting proc- ess in Nevada and the budgetary process in Delaware. In both

cases, legislative staff personnel from other States were brought

in to provide insight and make constructive recommendations.

State Services is routinely involved in legislative information

seminars throughout the States, and staff members participate in

pre-session conferences across the nation.

In order to help avoid unnecessary duplication among States,

the staff collects, indexes, and distributes titles and descriptions of

research studies in progress among legislative research staffs.

State Services collects completed research reports from State

legislative councils and circulates abstracts of these reports. In

addition, State Services responds to requests from legislators and

staff for information concerning State activities in both legislative

procedural and substantive policy areas. State Services also provides assistance to various legislative

staff groups. The nine staff sections organized within the NCSL

include policy research staff, librarians, legal services staff, leadership staff, fiscal officers, post auditors, program evaluators, services and security, and clerks and secretaries. State Services helps

these groups plan their programs for the NCSL Annual Meeting;

it assists them in running their training sessions; and provides a

number of other services which the groups request.

NCSL's Training and Development Service provides the only

national training forum for State legislators and their staffs in the

country. Training topics for seminars are selected by members of

the State legislatures and their staffs through the NCSL Training

Committee. Fifteen to twenty training sessions each year center

on key issues such as medical malpractice, legislative oversight,

and legislative review of administrative rules. Seminars are held

for legislative leaders and for staff sections, including clerks and

secretaries, services and security, and fiscal analysis.

Special assistance is available to individual legislatures for

developing training and development activities in their own

houses. The Training staff will assist legislatures in conducting

legislative orientation programs and special seminars on key State

legislative issues, and establishing instate training services for

their legislatures.

85
NCSL's Washington Office of State-Federal Relations is the

Washington lobbyist for the nation's 7,563 State legislators. Legislative and program specialists in the office screen the thousands of

bills, regulations, proposals, and trends in Washington. Lawmakers in the nation's 50 statehouses are kept informed through

Dateline Washington, a weekly newsletter, and Washington Report,

a more detailed analysis of specific issues. Action is taken by

Washington Office specialists based on the policy positions and

strategies approved by the National Conference itself, NCSL's

Intergovernmental Relations Committee, and the Committee's

eight task forces.

The basic purpose of NCSL's Washington staff is to ensure that

the voices of State legislatures are heard and heeded throughout

the halls of Congress and within the Federal bureaucracy. Federal

officials too often act as though governors are synonymous with

State government. They give too little thought to the policymaking role accorded to the 50 State legislatures. Through NCSL,

State legislators are having a greater impact in Washington.

NCSL task forces and a State- Federal relations staff monitor

Federal legislation, assessing its effect on the States.

The officers of NCSL's Intergovernmental Relations Committee

(IRC) and the Committee's task forces provide policy directions to

the State-Federal Relations staff. The specialists on the Washington staff work closely with State legislators appointed to the IRC's

eight task forces—Community Affairs and Transportation, Criminal Justice and Consumer Affairs, Education, Energy, Food Supply and Agriculture, Government Operations, Human Resources,

and Natural Resources. At meetings throughout the year, the task

forces analyze State-Federal issues in their respective areas, assess their effects on the States, and develop policy recommendations. Once approved by both the full IRC and the national

membership at the Annual Meeting, these positions become official NCSL public policy.

Many of these positions call for congressional action, or new

directions by the President. Taking its cue from a strongly-worded

policy resolution approved at last year's Annual Meeting, for

example, the Government Operations Task Force mounted an

extensive lobbying effort to spur Congress to promptly renew all of

the general revenue sharing program. In that effort, NCSL lobbyists in Washington met with House and Senate committee members and arranged for legislators to testify on Capitol Hill. They

participated in a national coalition of the State and local government organizations which have, based on the member-approved

public policy of each organization, agreed on the substance for

more than a dozen elements of the general revenue sharing

86

1
program, as well as a strategy to see it reenacted. The House

passed that legislation on June 10.

Increasingly, NCSL's Washington office is called upon by

congressional and Federal officials, including the office of the

President, to provide information on the attitudes of State legislators toward proposed Federal legislation or regulations. At the

requests of the Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations, for example, NCSL's Washington staff assisted

in the development of the Administration's four block grant

proposals, reviewing and commenting on the initial outline of each

program and the draft language of each bill. In its liaison role between State legislatures and the Federal

executive agencies, the Washington staff also receives proposed

agency regulations for review and comment before they are

published in the Federal Register. Often, existing NCSL public

policy will enable the staff to respond immediately to a proposed

regulation. But where there is no existing Conference policy, or where the staff is in doubt, State legislators and legislative staff

throughout the country are called upon to review the proposed

regulation and provide their best advice on the impact it would

have on their State programs.

Through the Washington office, Federal officials can better

cooperate directly with State legislators. The National Institute of

Education has given NCSL a $110,000 grant to be distributed to

four State legislatures to conduct studies on their own school

finance systems, the Secretary of HEW, David Mathews, recently

contacted me for assistance in developing a Human Resources

Forum—a mechanism to elicit input from State and local officials

on major human resources policy issues.

State legislators are often invited through NCSL to accept

appointments to committees or panels advising the President,

Congress, or cabinet officers. Examples include the Advisory

Commission on Intergovernmental Relations; the House Ways and

Means Health Subcommittee's Advisory Panel on National Health

Insurance; the Attorney General's National Advisory Commission

on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals; and the Federal Energy

Administration's Advisory Committees on the Environment, on

Consumer Affairs and Special Impacts, on Electric Utilities, and

on State Regulation.

That pretty much summarizes the line operations of NCSL. I should add that, in addition to our Washington publications,

focusing on federal activities, NCSL has an excellent major publication which we call State Legislatures, providing legislators and

staff with in-depth articles on major issues facing State legislatures. We publish State Legislatures eight times annually, and it

87
has a circulation of 12,000. I hope some of you have seen that

magazine.

Let me turn now to NCSL's committee and special project

activities which I think would be particularly pertinent to problems on weights and measures.

First is our Office of Science and Technology, operated out of our

Denver Headquarters office. Recognizing that State legislatures are now facing the problem of formulating highly technical and

complex policy in areas such as land management, energy re- source development, and mass transportation, we felt that it is

important for States to have at their disposal a variety of scientific

and technical resources. The Office of Science and Technology provides: assistance to

State legislatures to develop and strengthen their own science and

technology resources; an individualized answering service and

comprehensive policy analysis of critical scientific issues facing

State governments; technical assistance to aid States in carrying

out Federally mandated programs such as the Safe Drinking Water

Act.

During the past year, the Model Interstate Scientific and Technical Information Clearinghouse (MISTIC) was initiated primarily

to assist legislators to locate outside sources of information. These

sources are usually found with Federal agencies, and also with

universities, private industry and other States. Requests to MISTIC have ranged from an Oklahoma query for information on tick

eradication programs to requests from several States on the

transportation of hazardous materials.

The Office of Science and Technology maintains direct contacts

with agencies such as the National Bureau of Standards, the

Department of Transportation, the National Science Foundation,

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to integrate State research and development needs into Federal programs. The S&T staff have also sponsored workshops on topics

including States' role in management of radioactive materials and

the impact of energy development on Western water resources. The office functions under the direction of NCSL's Committee on

Science and Technology.

The second, and really third, areas that might be of particular

interest are those two Task Forces staffed out of our Washington

Office that deal with (1) Energy, and (2) Food Supply and Agriculture. I know, for example, that Bud Wollin has expressed his

concern to our staff about the difficulty of measuring moisture in

grain and of designing devices to accurately make such measurements. I am confident that in some areas, like this, there will be

some mutual concern with the members of our Task Forces

88
dealing in areas like agriculture, which lend themselves to more

technical problems.

Finally, let me give you some suggestions for getting your

message across to State legislators in your States.

At the outset, I would ask how many of you have directly

contacted your State legislators and their staffs to tell them what

you want them to know, and to ask for their help in those areas

where you have major concerns. I am constantly amazed at

questions I get from people like corporate lobbyists, who ask

things like: "Can I just call on a State legislator and sit down and

talk with him?" Of course, they can, and you can. So I would first

ask you—Have you tried the direct approach?

Secondly, though—and this should probably come first—have

you thoroughly developed your message? What I am getting at

here is that State legislators, like you, I am sure, are very busy

people. This is particularly true during a two or three or five

month legislative session. They will be happy to see you and talk

with you about real concerns and immediate problems. But obviously it is up to you to be sure that the message is clear and

concise. If you have an immediate concern that affects the public

interest, and you approach your State legislators directly with a

clear description of the problem and the solution you are suggesting, I think you will receive the attention and support of your

State legislators.

89
NATIONAL VOLUNTARY LABORATORY ACCREDITATION

PROGRAM

Presented by Gene A. ROWLAND, Chief, Standards Application

and Analysis Division, Institute for Applied Technology, National

Bureau of Standards

Good Afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to

address this group of weights and measures

people in regard to the new Department of

Commerce's "National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program" referred to us

and others now acquainted with it, as

"NVLAP." In addressing NVLAP, it is appropriate to first acquaint you with the

Department of Commerce and the National

Bureau of Standards organizational structure from the Department to the main affected operational units: second, highlight some of the background; third, describe the basic goal and purpose (of the

program); fourth, outline the Federal Register notice and important parts; and, last, describe the present state of activity.

DOC/NBS Organization Structure

Since the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program is a Department of Commerce program, it would be worthwhile to briefly track the organizational structure from the Department to operational units of NBS. (See page 91.)

The Department is structured into organizational units primarily concerned with science and technology and with business,

commerce and economics. A knowledge and understanding of all

these areas is believed desirable for successful implementation of a

national voluntary laboratory accreditation program. Whereas,

the needs of the program will obviously impact upon the Assistant

Secretary for Science and Technology, information and analysis of

data related to business and economics will be needed to evaluate

needs and economic impacts of requested accreditation programs

(LAPs). Of the agencies reporting to the Assistant Secretary for

Science and Technology, NBS will primarily respond to the technical needs of the evolving National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program; whereas the Office of Product Standards, directed

by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Product Standards will be

the DOC focal point for all applications and administrations.

90
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

To further the Nation's industry and commerce

consistent with consumer and environmental needs

Secretary

Under Secretary

Assistant Secretary

Science & Technology

Administrator

NOAA

Assistant Secretary

for Tourism

Assistant Secretary

for Maritime Affairs

Assistant Secretary for

Economic Development

Assistant Secretary

for Economic Affairs

Assistant Secretary

for Domestic and

International Business

National Bureau

of Standards — Patent Office

Office of

Telecommunications

National Technical

Information Service

Four Institutes implement the technical programs of the National Bureau of Standards.

The Institute for Computer Science and Technology develops

standards and programs for effective use of computers, particularly for the Federal Government. The Institutes for Applied

Technology, Materials Research and Basic Standards develop

methods of measurement and test; disseminate reference materials, physical standards and reference data; assist the development of engineering standards and the needs for such information; and provide technical support to programs serving national

goals. The Institute for Applied Technology (IAT) has had the

responsibility of assisting the Department of Commerce to plan

and establish the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation

Program and is actively involved in developing criteria and meth91
odology for inspection of testing laboratories and in providing

proficiency sample programs and on-site inspections of such laboratories.

The Institute for Materials Research (I MR) and the Institute for

Basic Standards (IBS) also serve the needs of testing laboratories.

IMR services include the provision of standard reference materials, such as reference materials for clinical laboratories. IBS

provides measurement assurance programs which, through interchange of physical standards and measurement data, assists

metrology laboratories to evaluate the adequacy of their calibration activity.

The Institute for Applied Technology is structured into three

Centers, two Offices and two Divisions.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

To provide measurement and technical information services

for effective work by the Nation's scientists and engineers

DIRECTOR

Institute for

Applied Technology

Institute for Computer

Sciences and Technology

Institute for

Materials Research

Institute for

Basic Standards

INSTITUTE FOR

APPLIED

TECHNOLOGY

Center for

Building Technology

Center for

Fire Research

nservation

e of Energy ^

J

Office of Energy

Related Inventions

Electronic Technology

Division

Center for Consumer

Product Technology

Standards Application

and Analysis Division

92
It may be noted that the names of the Offices and the three

Centers relate to specific programs of national concern whereas

the Electronic Technology Division and the Standards Application

and Analysis Division concern activity that serves more general

needs. The IAT activity related to testing laboratory evaluation

and the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program is centered in the Standards Application and Analysis Division.

The Standards Application and Analysis Division has two Offices and three Sections.

STANDARDS APPLICATION

& ANALYSIS DIVISION

Standards Information

and Analysis Section

Standards Development

Services Section

Office of

Weights and

Measures

Metric Information

Office

Laboratory Evaluation

Technology Section

The two Offices serve specific national interests. The Office of

Weights and Measures assists the National Conference on Weights

and Measures in assuring that the States have physical standards

of sufficient accuracy to promote equity in trade and commerce.

Assistance, training and advice to State metrology laboratories

that calibrate inspectors' working standards is part of this assist- ance. The Metric Information Office assists the Nation's transition

to the metric system by providing related information and technical advice. The Standards Development Services Section supports

the Department of Commerce Voluntary Product Standards Program. This program assists and provides a focus for anyone who

wishes to develop and promulgate voluntary consensus standards

for products when it is not possible to develop such standards

through the usual voluntary standards writing bodies. This program is also available to assist standards writing organizations

develop standards through similar procedures.

The Laboratory Evaluation and Technology Section, as the

name suggests, developes evaluation technology and provides

operational programs involving laboratory on-site inspections and

proficiency test sample distributions. The Cement and Concrete

Reference Laboratory (CCRL) and AASHTO Materials Reference

93
Laboratories (AMRL) located in this Section provide inspections

and proficiency test sample distribution services for fees to several

hundred laboratories throughout the Nation that test in product

areas that include cement, concrete, aggregate, soils, bituminous

materials and mixtures and reinforcing rods. The CCRL is sponsored by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

and is staffed by their employees working as NBS Research

Associates. The AMRL is sponsored by the American Association

of State Highway and Transportation officials. Collaborative reference programs are also designed and conducted by the Laboratory

Evaluation and Technology Section. The programs provide uniform sample distributions for collaborative testing by participating

laboratories. The laboratories' measurement data is returned for

statistical analysis and each laboratory is advised of its results

relative to those of other participating laboratories. At the present

time, these programs serve laboratories testing in paper, paperboard, rubber, color and appearance and forensic areas. The

background of experience contained in the Laboratory Evaluation

and Technology Section will be of invaluable aid to the DOC in

providing technical assistance and examination services required

by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program.

The Standards Information and Analysis Section has facilities

that will be of assistance in the gathering and analysis of the

technical information required for assessing the need and structure of requested laboratory accreditation programs. Technical

information that may be required and can be provided by this

Section include data related to product standards and test method

usage, existing laboratory examination criteria and activities, and

the identity of potential expertise for developing criteria and

examination services. The NBS Standards Library, maintained

and used as an analysis tool by the Standards Information and

Analysis Section, will be used to retrieve necessary information.

The library contains standards, codes and specifications of both

domestic and foreign origin. This vast source of information, in

addition to other information that will be needed as the National

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program becomes operational, convinces us that a computerized information retrieval

system will be part of the technical assistance required.

Another information source maintained by the Standards Information and Analysis Section is a roster of NBS staff members'

participation in standards committees. Information on current

committee activity can be obtained directly from the NBS staff

member who can provide channels of communication with those

active in standards development and related activities. This information will update the material already written into the standards. NBS staff are members of, or participate in, more than 1,500

94
standards committees. These standards committees relate to industrial and retail products and to non-product technologies in the

proportions shown below.

TYPES OF STANDARDS

(Participant Survey)

Now let me highlight some of the background. For many years

the Department of Commerce, through its technical agency, the

National Bureau of Standards, has assisted needs for testing

laboratory evaluation. Since 1929 NBS has participated with

Federal and State agencies and private interests in establishing

evaluation criteria for testing laboratories and in providing on-site

examinations, proficiency test samples, calibrated standards and

materials. Several hundred laboratories working in areas such as

concrete, cement, asphalt, paper, fiberboard, color and appearance,

clinical and forensic testing make use of these services.

In 1969 the American Society for Testing and Materials re- quested that NBS participate with ASTM and other interests in

establishing a Testing Agency Inspection Service that would

provide testing laboratory examination service over a broad range

of product areas wherever needs developed. In the same year the

National Conference on States on Building Codes and Standards

asked NBS to develop evaluation criteria and examination methodology for determining capability of agencies that test and certify

mobile homes, then being produced at the rate of several hundred

95

r i
thousand per year. In response to the States' request, drafts of

criteria and methodology for examination were prepared and

submitted for development into consensus standards. The ASTM

proposal for a Technical Inspection Service led to an NBS study.

This supported the ASTM proposal but suggested that the developing needs of domestic and international commerce and the

public health and safety would be benefited by a means that would

also provide a public recognition of testing laboratories found

qualified on the basis of such inspections.

A conference was convened by NBS in September 1970 to

consider the idea of a national voluntary laboratory accreditation

system. An ad hoc committee, designated by the conference,

developed a concept of such a system during 1971. The concept

provided for a non-governmental or quasi-public national laboratory accreditation board. The board with assistance of advisory

committees and reference laboratories would provide on-site inspection and proficiency test sample programs to fee-paying laboratories, providing accreditation to qualified laboratories that

serve the general public or the Government. The board would

receive and approve accreditation criteria developed by appropriate external bodies and would receive legal advice and technical

aid from the Government. This concept received an informal but

rather broad distribution during 1972. In December of that year,

the concept was submitted to various Federal agencies for their

informal comments regarding their potential use. At this time, the

concept contained no plan for its implementation. Alternatives

that were being considered were: establishment by incorporation

in the private sector; establishment by legislation; establishment

by a Government agency under existing authority.

The National Business Council for Consumer Affairs issued its

report "Safety in the Marketplace" in April 1973. The report

recommended that the Secretary of Commerce initiate action to

evaluate the merits of establishing a quasi-public national laboratory accreditation board. Thereafter, the Department received

several inquiries and engaged in several discussions concerning its

plans regarding a national laboratory accreditation program. Inquiries included those from Congressional Representatives William Steiger and William Mailliard. Discussions were conducted

with trade associations, businesses and organizations such as the

U. S. Chamber of Commerce. In April 1974, the Department, in

response to a request for the Department's views regarding

laboratory accreditation, advised Senator Magnuson, Chairman of

the Senate Commerce Committee, that it was contemplating its

administrative establishment of a program that could serve the

orderly evolution of a laboratory accreditation system as national

needs develop.

96
A Federal Register notice, May 8, 1975, proposed the Department's establishment and procedures for the National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program. Over 150 respondents, including Federal and State agencies, technical societies and trade

associations, industries, testing laboratories and individuals provided oral testimony or written comments on the proposal during

the public review period that followed. On the basis of this public

review, the proposed procedures were revised and the National

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program was established by

notice in the Federal Register, February 25, 1976. Procedures of

the Program are now set out in Title 15, Part 7 of the Code of

Federal Regulations.

This briefing today will indicate that the procedures of the

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, by themselves, only provide guidelines for the functioning of the program.

As rules and regulations, the procedures primarily provide for due

process and fairness in administering the program and define the

manner in which the Department will respond to requests for

laboratory accreditation services. Each step taken under the

procedures requires the Department to provide an opportunity for

public comment, and a public hearing is mandatory, if requested.

During the public comment period regarding the proposed establishment of the program, needs for laboratory accreditation were

better identified. Most respondents indicated widespread interest

and support for the proposed program which contemplated establishment of accreditation services on the basis of classes of technology. However, industrial response from some particular product

sectors argued that there is no need for laboratory accreditation in

their areas of interest. Thus, you will note that the Department of

Commerce program is structured to serve product areas only

where a request is made and where the need for accreditation is

established.

This background leads us to a clear statement of the program

goal and purposes:

GOAL: The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program is a voluntary system for evaluating the technical

and professional competence of testing laboratories. It provides for the accreditation of testing laboratories

that meet established criteria and monitors, on a continuing basis, the performance of those laboratories that

have been accredited.

97
PURPOSE:

• identification of "nationally recognized" qualified laboratories and their respective capabilities for use by the public

and Federal sectors:

• establishment of a single, national system for voluntary

participation without multiple, costly, and time-consuming

inspections by numerous Government and non-Government

agencies:

• establishment of a means for industry (small and large) to

identify others and be recognized for operation of competent laboratory test facilities for use in environmental

controls and product quality testing and monitoring:

• establishment of a reasonable method of utilizing the expertise in measurement and measurement assurance of NBS

in the development and improvement of the Nation's laboratory capabilities:

• considerable improvement in the credibility of product certifications and opportunities for reciprocal agreements in

international and domestic markets.

As stated in the preface of my talk, the DOC/NBS organizational

structure, background and goals would be outlined followed by a

quick review of important paragraphs and sentences in the Federal Register. These are as follows:

Who can request accreditation programs?

(a) Any person may request the Secretary to find that there is a need to accredit testing laboratories which render services

regarding a specific product so that it may be ascertained

whether such product meets the requirements of applicable

standards.

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

What should a request include?

(b) Such a request shall be in writing and will include the

following:

98
(1) Identification of the product;

(2) Text of an applicable standard;

(3) Text of a test method, if not included in the applicable

standard identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;

and

(4) Basis of need for accrediting testing laboratories that

serve the product identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section. . .

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

What is meant by person?

(d) The term "person" means associations, companies, corporations, educational institutions, firms, government agencies at

the Federal, State and local levels, partnerships, and societies, as well as divisions thereof, and individuals.

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

What determines a product?

(b) The term "product" includes the plural thereof and means

a type or a category of manufactured goods, constructions,

installations and natural and processed materials or those

associated services whose characterization, classification or

functional performance determination is specified by standards.

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

What determines a testing laboratory?

(e) The term "testing laboratory" means any "person," as

defined above, whose functions include testing, analyzing, or inspecting "products" as defined above, and/or evaluating the

designs or specifications of such "products" according to the

requirements of applicable standards.

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

What testing laboratories can apply?

99
(e) In carrying out the activities authorized by this section:

(1) No action will be taken or criteria developed that would

prohibit the accreditation of a testing laboratory solely

on the basis of that laboratory's association or nonassociation with manufacturing, distributing or vending or- ganizations, or because the testing laboratory is a foreign firm;

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

Is more than a product standard needed?

(c) Whether for the specific product involved, there is in

existence a standard that is deemed by the Secretary as being

of importance to commerce, consumer well-being, or the public

health and safety;

(d) Whether there is in existence a valid testing methodology

as determined by the Secretary for ascertaining conformity to

the standard of the specific product involved; and ....

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

Will the program develop standards?

(2) No action will be taken under this program to develop a

product standard or test method standard;

(3) No action will be taken under this program to modify a product standard or a test method standard where such

a standard is in existence; ....

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

What will criteria to which laboratories be accredited include?

(1) For general criteria pertaining to testing laboratories:

(i) Organizations;

(ii) Staff;

(iii) Physical plant;

(iv) Operational processes;

(v) Control procedures;

100
(vi) Quality assurance; and

(vii) Professional and ethical business practices, as appropriate.

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

What will specific criteria consist of for accrediting laboratories?

(2) For specific criteria pertaining to testing laboratories:

(i) Personnel and equipment qualifications required of the

testing laboratory function;

(ii) Requirements applicable to proficiency sample programs;

(iii) Application requirements;

(iv) Initial and periodic examination and audit procedures; and

(v) Professional and technical qualifications of personnel

who examine testing laboratories.

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

Will the program develop all necessary criteria?

(b) The general and specific criteria developed under this

section for accrediting testing laboratories will be based upon

criteria found in existing standards where such existing criteria are deemed appropriate. . .

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

What about other existing or developing programs other than

the Department of Commerce's?

(b) The program will seek through coordination and consultation, to maximize benefits derived from other laboratory

examination and accreditation activities. . .

Title 15, CFR. Part 7

Feb. 25, 1976

In order to put these concepts, definitions and statements into a

cohesive program, it is appropriate to describe the outline of the

procedures.

101
For the purpose of this briefing and for convenience in presentation, we can consider many of the procedures as dividing into four

phases related to the establishment of a laboratory accreditation

program for a specific product. These four phases are as follows:

* Finding of Need

* Establishing Criteria Committee

* Developing Criteria

*Accreditation of Laboratories

These phases are all defined in the Federal Register notice and I will not attempt to describe them in more detail here. What needs

to be pointed out here is the impact this program can have on the

entire weights and measures field. It provides a way whereby the

Federal Government, State and local governments and the private

sector can work together toward identifying and recognizing

competent laboratories to meet growing product evaluation needs.

The questions of "reciprocity" and "nationally recognized" have

never been answered to the satisfaction of the private or government sectors. This program provides the first step toward building

a nationally acceptable system for evaluation and certification of

products as defined in the Federal Register notice.

In addition to providing technological assistance, as described to

evolving laboratory accreditation programs, NBS will continue its

existing cooperation and participation with laboratory evaluation

programs that do not need that level of national recognition to be

provided by accreditation. NBS will continue its participation with

standards groups and others in developing test methods and the

means for evaluating the performance of such methods.

In summation, there seems to be some presumption that our

Nation's laboratories are not good. That is not the basis for this

program. The problem is to identify the qualified laboratories of

our country and to assist them in meeting our Nation's ever

growing needs. "Nationally recognized," without supporting evaluation, can no longer satisfy our industrial and governmental

needs, either domestic or international.

102
CONSUMER AFFAIRS FORUM

Opening Remarks by O. D. MULLINAX, Moderator; Director, Fuels

and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, State of

Georgia

It is quite appropriate to include the Consumers Affairs Forum in the National Conference. The subjects to be discussed this

afternoon are complicated and touch the

lives of every consumer in the country. We

are fortunate to have men and women who

are specialized in their subjects and know

the value of communicating this information to all who concern themselves with

consumer problems.

A wider understanding of these problems

and an awareness of the complexities involved in reaching solutions must be pointed out in forums such as

this one.

It is indeed true that there is today a new road for consumers.

What could be more complicated and more challenging to each of us than being a part of the solution on "labeling drained weight?"

What the consumer needs to know about metric may not be a

great deal today but as each tomorrow comes and goes, the

consumer is going to need to know all about metric.

A NEW ROAD FOR CONSUMERS

Presented by Margaret Dana, Consultant; Consumer Attitudes,

Consumer Relations Council

It is a great pleasure for me to be with

you again. I think of the weights and measures people as friends, but you are not only

my friends, you are the daily protection of

consumers' pocketbooks and of honest producers and sellers and their businesses.

Sometimes I think you do not really realize

how important you are, and I know well the

American public does not yet know how

important you are to them as the very first

and most realistic consumer protection in

this country.

103
My friends, we are beginning a new era with this year of 1976. I live near Philadelphia so I have not only had literally an "ear full"

of the bicentennial for some time, but I have watched its effect on

people and since it is part of my job to see what people think, what

they do, what they want, what they need, I have been very

interested to see (not only in my contact as I go back and forth across the continent talking to consumers of all kinds, but also in

their letters to me) people are turning to a new road. This new

road is one of two that lie ahead. We are going to have to make a

choice very soon. I think it is time we stop, look, and listen because

the era is changing and is upon us. I do not have to tell you that

we have a strange public attitude situation in this country. It has

been growing for some time. You know that of public attitude—it

is made up of a lack of confidence in things, in people, in

government, in laws; it is made up of suspicion, antagonism and

distrust. You probably meet it more often in the distrust of

packaging and labeling, weights and measures. Now why? How do

we get into this curious situation in the year 1976, just two

hundred years since we started out on a good, new road of

freedom? Do you blame "Watergate" for all of this? No, "Watergate" was a result not a cause. Now I am going to try to sell you an idea this afternoon, an idea

that I hope you will welcome and that will help turn the tide in the

right direction. To get the picture of where we are and why we got

to this curious point in American history, we need to look back

quickly and get a panoramic picture of that road we have come—to

know how we got here and why. This road behind us has had

enormous changes for consumer-buyers, producer-sellers, regulations and regulators. So let me give this quick picture because I think if you grasp what is going on and the changes which have

developed through the centuries, you will make the decision as to

which is the road ahead we should be taking.

First, let me suggest you look at what must have been the very

first consumer buying. I have talked with some friends who are

archaeologists and I have talked with historians, and they believe

(and I agree) that this is the way the very first buying happened.

Back in those archaic days when people lived in little huts and

little groups, each family, each man made themselves everything

that they had to use. They made their jugs, pots, pans and

whatever clothing they were going to use; each family produced its

own. Here is what I think happened. One morning, a man in a

house looked out his back hut door, saw his neighbor making

something, maybe a pottery jug. He watched; he was seeing the

pottery jug being made (mark that work, "seeing"). He knew

exactly what materials his neighbor was using, he knew exactly

what that product was meant to do, he knew exactly what its

value was to him as well as to the maker. He also recognized that

104
this man was doing a better job than he could do himself. So he

said to his neighbor, "I'll trade you anything I have (that you

think is equal) for that pottery jug. I like that because you are doing a better job than I could do." They traded; and that was the

very first buying. The producer and the consumer met.

I would like you to imagine hanging up in this great universe of

ours, an enormous pendulum. That pendulum represents responsibility; and when that first buying occurred, it hung down in the

middle because both of those men, the producer and the user,

shared a joint responsibility and an economic partnership. So the

pendulum stopped in the middle—joint responsibility for. maker

and user. For a long time, the pendulum stayed there; but then, of

course, the distance between producer and user began to spread.

People got the idea that if they could sell or trade things in the

little village, why couldn't they find some more people and trade

somewhere else.

When I was going through some old archives in Virginia, I came

across a very interesting article about something that happened in

the 13th century in England. It seems that there were some men

who had made some meat pasties and were taking them to the

next village to sell—which was fine, except they had made those

meat pasties of a drowned cow and the cow had been drowned too

long. The villagers did not like it and they complained to the

overlord. The overlord sent his men down to the village, tied up

the guilty villagers, and banned them from town until they could

sell a good product.

For centuries after that, the pendulum swung all the way over

onto the producer-seller. He was solely responsible for what the

product was and what it did for the consumer; the buyer had no

responsibility whatever.

Then the big pendulum began its swing in the other direction. It was approximately 1534. Do you know where and when our

familiar phrase, "caveat emptor," meaning "buyer beware," first

appeared in print and was beginning to be used? I have asked this

all over the country, from top faculties of Universities to con- sumers and so forth; none knew. Well, it was in 1534. Fitz Herbert

wrote a book called, "The Book of Husbandry." In it, he warned

people to be careful when doing any horse trading. He said, "If the

horse be not ridden upon, then caveat emptor"—buyer beware.

From that time, the whole attitude of the world changed as

colonization began in this country, as this country built, as we

went West and so forth; the emphasis (and indeed, the law) put all of the responsibility on the buyer, the consumer-buyer, to know

what he was buying, what it was worth, what it would do, how it was measured, and if it was right. In fact, as late as 1892 there

occurred what I would call one of the "dirtiest" cases that ever

went into the U.S. Supreme Court. I call it the "steamboat gyp."

105
There was a man who had a business taking freight up and

down a small shallow river. He used to paddle his little boat up the

river and drop off items at the dock. Then he heard about a

steamboat, that was new in those days, and decided if he could get

a steamboat, he would not have to do all the work. Conveniently, a man approached him with a steamboat for sale. The first man

said, "This is a very shallow river; I can't have much draft on a

boat." "This boat doesn't need more than a few feet of water," said

the man with the steamboat. So the first man bought the steamboat; and on the first trip up the river, the boat grounded in five

feet of water. So the man sued the seller, and the case went from

court to court until finally it reached the U.S. Supreme Court

where the decision was in favor of the seller because the buyer

should see to it that what he gets is what he expects it to be. The

boat should have been tested in the river before it was bought.

Never trust the seller or the producer; it is up to you, the

consumer-buyer; the responsibility is yours. So you can see that

the pendulum is now way over solely on top of the buyer.

Well, the 20th century hit us not long after that. The wild

Niagara of new products, new services, new ideas, new packaging,

everything bounded out onto the American public; and frankly, I do not think very many people knew what they were making, and

I know not very many people knew what they were buying. I pity

the weights and measures men of those days. I do not think in

1915 we really had organized weights and measures as we have

today, but somebody had to do something. There were all of those

new things and no adequate substitute had been developed for

that old, old thing, "seeing" a product being made.

Today's attitude is returning to the idea of the seller and

producer being responsible. The consumer advocates are often, in

effect, saying, "You cannot trust industry, government, regulators, or inspectors; they are all trying to 'rip us off.' " What caused this

attitude? It was simply a lack of communication, lack of a substitute for "seeing" things made, and instead of people working with

people, we became a divided country. I have heard many people in

the general public talk about government money, saying, "Well, I don't want to have to pay for that; and I don't think our town

should. I think the government should pay for it." And when I say,

"Where does the government get the money; where does the

government money come from?" you would be amazed at how

many people do not know. They must think the government has a

gold mine; they forget that taxes are part of people paying for

what people get.

Now suspicion has been growing; distrust has been growing; we

are divided. Is that the road we want ahead? Is the solution to

turn everything over to government management? Look at the

106
two roads ahead of us. One of those roads is called free choice and

free enterprise; the other, dictated choice and dictated enterprise.

Well, which are we going to select in the year 1976 as our

bicentennial begins. I think we are going to choose to get back on

that road that our forefathers designed, the road of free choice and

free enterprise. But how are we going to do it? I feel that by

bringing people together as partners in our economy, by making it a joint responsibility, we will get that pendulum back to the middle

again.

I have spent literally years and years searching for the right

tool and the right mechanism to bring this about. What I have

found, all of you have helped me find. I have learned that

standards (particularly performance standards) as measuring

sticks, are the tools that can bring people together again in trust

and confidence. It is a bridge of communication that we have not

had, and we need it. We have to be careful about words. We are so

silly, thinking that people understand any word that we understand; words can produce some very strange results. I was re- minded the other day:

In 1950 one of our senators was campaigning against another

senator who was a very nice man. The first senator, in trying to be

humorous, was reported to have said in his campaign speeches

particularly through the rural area of his State where people were

not so terribly sophisticated, a little joke about the senator he was

running against. Notice the words because unless you are careful,

you are going to be caught and trapped in the same words. "Are

you good folks aware that Senator is known all over

Washington as a shameless introvert? Not only that, but this man

practices nepotism with his sister-in-law. And he has a sister who

was once a thespian in wicked New York City. Worst of all, before

his marriage, this man had literally practiced celibacy!"

Well, his audience did not understand the words he was using,

and the senator spoken of in the joke was defeated by an

enormous vote. The people said, "If he is that bad of a man, we

cannot re-elect him to the Senate!"

Another example—I keep on my desk a letter from a woman

who wrote me to say she would like a copy of a leaflet I had

mentioned in my column but she did not know if she qualifed for

one because the column stated it was for consumers, and she was

just a housewife! Words! We have to be so careful to say the right

words in the right way to bring people together.

Now, what is the solution? Let me tell you briefly about a

project I started three years ago called, "The Consumer Sounding

Boards." We know that standards are the best possible tool to

develop a good product and for consumers to use in selecting a

product. Why don't we get people together; those who use, those

107
who make, distribute, and regulate those products. Instead of just

having a group of supereducated, supersophisticated, knowledgable consumers, (we are not selling things just to that kind of

consumer) let us make it a demographically correct cross section of

consumers in every consumer sounding board. I went to the

Bureau of Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they helped

me work out a picture by levels of income, by levels of age, by

background, men and women. I think at this point I had better

interject that the only change that has come over those figures in

about the last five or six years is that more and more men are going to have to do consumer buying because more and more

families have two earners, the man and the wife. So some of the

job of buying instead of being 90 to 95 percent women, as it has

been, is going to be delegated to the men, who then may have to

learn to be intelligent consumer buyers themselves!

These consumer sounding boards were meant not to provide

expertise or technical engineering but only a cross section of

people at the grass roots, at all levels—what they thought about

the product for which the standards were being discussed, how did

they use or maybe misuse that product, what they expected it to

do, were they satisfied, did they understand the labeling. When

they would go into a grocery store and look at a package, did they

understand what the different labeling on that package meant?

For curious reasons, it must have been an idea whose time has

come because the world has jumped at the idea of consumer

sounding boards. We started out with five organizations sponsoring this project: National Bureau of Standards, the American

National Standards Institute, American Society for Testing and

Materials, Underwriters Laboratories, and the National Fire Protection Association. The Consumer Product Safety Commission

soon got onto the boat too and said this was a good way to find out

what consumers honestly think. We started out with having

seminars around the country to let the consumers know what

standards were all about—what is a standard, and how do you go

about developing one. We had hardly gotten through two or three

of these seminars, when we were deluged with demands: "We

want to get into it now, help us; we want our voice to be heard,

help us." So we began organizing the consumer sounding boards.

The first one was in the Delaware Valley under the sponsorship of

ASTM. They have been marvelous because they believe the

consumer has a place in the development of consumer product

standards, not just on the technical committees, but as a pool of

information about that product's use and value. We have worked

for three years there now, and that's the prototype. We now have

12 working consumer sounding boards in this country sponsored

by the organizations previously mentioned, sometimes with the

108
coordinated and cooperating sponsorship of a local consumer

group or a college, university, organization, even a trade group.

They are: the Delaware Valley one which covers Philadelphia and

the surrounding area; metropolitan Chicago; Long Island, outside

of New York City; Boston from the New England area; San

Francisco; Los Angeles; and Seattle; Minneapolis and St. Paul;

and four around Washington, D.C. itself (NBS is really getting

that going). But then there are troubles involved like you would

expect from any group. We need to keep people on their toes, make

them realize that this is important; they are having a part in

getting America back on the road of free choice and free enterprise. Their voice counts; they have joint responsibility; they are partners in the economic system and that has to be hammered at

them over and over again.

I would like weights and measures to join in this actively. You

could help and they could help you, and everywhere there is a

weights and measures office, I would like to see that office get into

the act. Now for instance, on August 10, there is an International

Congress on Engineering and Food to be held in Boston. I have

been asked to chair one segment. ASTM is organizing it and it is

to be on "What do consumers really need and want in the food

area; how do we do the best thing for them?"—all the way through

to producing more food, better food, better packaging, better

weights and measures, everything. Fortunately, our friend Harold

Wollin of the Office of Weights and Measures has agreed to be one

of the speakers. We will have a man who is a very important

technical director for a citrus industry group. We will have Morris

Travis who used to be at the Department of Commerce but is now

head of the Advance Engineering Institute at MIT. He is going to

come and talk. A couple of days ago, we had a telephone call from

a man who is Professor of Agriculture Engineering and Commissioner of Engineering for Israel who said he had heard about this

International Congress and would like to come and speak.

We are going to do something I believe unique in our era; we are going to bring people together—experts, top experts; but we are going to say, "You cannot really make these decisions until you

know what people want at the ultimate end of the food product."

One cannot simply say, "You must eat this; you are going to have

to do this. . . ." Bring people together and make it a partnership.

People working together should be our new era from 1976. It makes me think: Do you know the origin of the handshake? In

ancient tribes the leader would put out his hand as he met with

those who might be enemies, showing he had no weapon; and they

shook his hand to show they had no weapons; from that time, they

were together, working together.

Let us do it for the next hundred years!

109
DRAINED WEIGHT REGULATIONS

Presented by Benjamin M. Gutterman, Assistant Director for

Coordination/Technology, Bureau of Foods, Food and Drug

Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education and

Welfare

Recently an associate of mine and I were

discussing early codifications of food and

drug laws and regulations. We reached back

to a very early set of rules—Leviticus or the

Third Book of Moses. We noted a caution

that one shall not steal nor deal falsely nor

lie to one another. The Book goes on to

admonish that one shall do no wrong in

judgment in measures of length, or weight,

or quantity. Leviticus instructs us to have

just balances, just weights, a just

"EPHAH" (a little more than one bushel)

and a just "HIN" (about one gallon).

It appears to me that the mission of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures has a long and respectable history going all

the way back at least to the Third Book of Moses.

The mission of the Food and Drug Administration has the same

heritage. For example, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

states that a food shall be deemed to be misbranded if, among

other things, its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be

misleading and, for a package form, if its label does not bear an

accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of

weight, measure, or numerical count. Another law—the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act—states, "Informed consumers are

essential to the fair and efficient functioning of a free market

economy. Packages and their labels should enable consumers to

obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the contents and

should facilitate value comparisons. Therefore, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to assist consumers and

manufacturers in reaching these goals in the marketing of con- sumer goods."

For a number of years, the question of whether or not a

container of food was filled as full as practicable was often raised

along with a collateral question of whether less expensive or less

desirable ingredients were being substituted in part for the ingredient one expects for his payment.

In recent years, the Food and Drug Administration has been

slowly but surely attempting to resolve the problem. As a law

enforcement agency, the FDA must be reasonably certain that its

110
actions are legally defensible and are of such a nature that if an

action successfully withstands a challenge, it not only wins the

battle but also wins the war. Among other things a regulation to

be meaningful must be technically and legally sound. It must be

capable of evenhanded application. It not only must be in the

interest of consumers but also must be capable of being complied

with. Further, the benefit to consumers should be equal to or greater than its cost. Of course, I am speaking of regulations

concerning economic matters. Those concerning public health and

safety related matters involve other factors.

Examples of recent actions concerning economic matters as taken by the Food and Drug Administration are the establishment

of regulations for the labels of such things as seafood cocktail

which must now declare the percentage of seafood; diluted fruit

and vegetable juices which must declare the percentage of juice;

canned mixed nuts which under certain conditions must declare

the percentage of the predominant nut ingredient. There are many more. Also, for some time standards of identity or fill of

container have required minimum amounts of the principal ingredient, that is, the drained weight. For some canned foods we have

recommended that the drained weight be declared. These recommendations have been complied with.

Recently following its own study of a number of canned and

frozen foods containing a drainable liquid such as sugar or other

syrup, or water or brine or juice, the Consumers Union of the

United States, Inc., petitioned the Commissioner of Food and

Drugs to require that the containers of these foods bear on their

labels a statement of the drained weight of the solid food in the

container.

The Consumers Union argued in support of its proposal with the

following example:

TABLE A. Peach slices, yellow cling, in heavy syrup

Labeled wt. Average

drained wt. Averageprice

Cost per lb of

drained wt. A&P 16 oz. 10.6 oz. $0.29 $0.44

Del Monte 16 oz. 11.0 oz. .31 .45

Grand Union 16 oz. 9.6 oz. .25 .42

Waldbaum's 16 oz. 10.7 oz. .27 .40 Data from Consumer Reports, "Why Net Weight Spells Nonsense on Canned

Food Labels," October 1972, p. 666.

The column labeled "average price" represents the unit price

per pound of net weight, since all the containers were of the one

111
pound (16 oz.) size. Since only net weight is declared today, the

consumer would select the lowest average price to make his "value

comparison". Thus the Consumers Union argued that the con- sumer is entitled to know how much of the package contents

purchased is fruit or vegetable and how much is liquid. The

petitioner also argued that the drained weight is predictable,

controllable and, in fact, supplied to large volume purchasers in

accordance with specifications.

While reviewing the petition the Food and Drug Administration

was aware that even under good manufacturing practices the

relationship between the fill-in-weight and the drained weight is

variable. We were aware, also, that many consumers want to know

the drained weight of particular products but this information is

not currently available in most labeling, which states only the net

weight or the total contents of the container.

We gave the fullest consideration to the petition and published

the proposal as received for comment. In this essentially economic

matter we realized that a number of questions needed to be

answered.

In the publication of the proposal we asked those questions and

we asked for data documenting the answers as well as for any

other comments submitted.

We asked for information on:

How variations in form, unit size, shape, maturity, character

(firm or soft), variety, packing medium density, climatic conditions (such as rainfall, temperature), irrigation practices, cultural practices and geographic regions affect the drained

weight of the processed fruits and vegetables.

We knew that these factors did have an effect but information

was needed on the extent and controllability of that effect.

We asked for data illustrating drained weight variations from

container to container and lot to lot. We sought information on the

best way for the label declaration to be made; that is, should it be

the actual weight of each can or the average of all cans in a lot,

and if lot average is declared, what deviations should be permitted.

We also asked whether a minimum drained weight should be

established for each food for each container size.

We wished to know what effect is imposed upon packing speed in

attempts to pack to higher drained weights.

With regard to higher drained weights a very important question concerned the public health aspects of requiring more solid

food in a can which must undergo thermal processing.

A related very important question concerned the need for

adequate "head space" in canned foods.

112
In view of mixed information on consumption of packing media,

we asked for a survey to be carried out showing whether the

packing media are or are not consumed by the majority of people.

We requested data illustrating the purpose and function of a packing medium in processed fruits and vegetables.

Knowing that much of the canning industry preferred to declare

the "put-in" weight of a canned fruit or vegetable in lieu of the

drained weight, if any declaration at all is to be required we asked

for data showing the relationship between the two.

We stated our concern over the problem of manufacturers who

pack in lithographed containers and who must order their cans far

in advance of the packing season.

Finally, we asked a very important set of questions. We asked

for data illustrating costs involved in holding unlabeled containers

until the drained weight can be determined. We asked for data on

the costs of assuring compliance with drained weight declarations.

Also we asked for views on whether the drained weight information provided on the label will be worth the added cost. Essentially

we were asking for a cost benefit analysis.

Approximately 1500 to 2000 comments were received. The exact

count is difficult to determine. In some instances, more than one

letter was received from a single individual; and, in some instances, a single letter was signed by a number of individuals.

Some comments comprised a few words on a post card whereas

others were many pages long, taking particular positions and

supplying supporting data.

Following receipt of the comments, the Commissioner published,

on his own initiative, a revised proposal. He limited it to most

canned fruits and vegetables, which consist of solid food and

packing medium, and proposed that all of them carry a declaration

of drained weight. For a number of products, he proposed amending existing fill of container standards and establishing new ones

to provide for drained weight requirements.

(See table I.) We set out sample sizes that vary as lot sizes vary and provided

acceptance numbers for the different sample sizes and for different container contents weights.

(See table II which is copied in part from the published proposal.)

For the standardized foods we not only set out different minimum average drained weights for the different foods but also

proposed different minimum averages for different styles of the

foods and sometimes for count as well for different container sizes.

113
Table I.

Food New Amendec Food New

Peaches X Carrots X

Apricots X Leafy Greens X

Prunes X Okra X

Pears X Field Peas and BlackGrapes X Eye Peas X

Cherries X Pimentos X

Berries X Onions X

Fruit cocktail X Sweet Potatoes X

Plums X White Potatoes X

Pineapple X Tomatoes X

Figs X

Grapefruit X

Green Beans X

Corn x

Mushrooms X

Asparagus X

Lima Beans X

Beets X

TABLE II. Acceptable Quality Level 6.5

Size of Container

Lot size (primary container):

4.800 or less 4.801 to 24,000

24,001 to 48,000

48,001 to 84,000

84,001 to 144,000

144,001 to 240,000

Over 240,000

Net weight equal to or less

than 1 kg (2.2 pounds) n c 13 2 21 3

29 4

48 6

84 9

126 13

200 19

Net weight greater than 1 kg

(2.2 pounds) but not more

than 4.5 kg (10 pounds)

2.400 or less 2.401 to 15,000

15,001 to 24,000

24,001 to 42,000

42,001 to 72,000

72,001 to 120,000

Over 120,000

n c 13 2 21 3

29 4

48 6

84 9

126 13

200 19

Compliance with these fill-of-container requirements is determined in one of two ways. For those foods for which USDA had

sufficient data to establish lower limits as set out in table III,

compliance is determined by the following procedure:

The average drained weight of all units in the sample must be

equal to or greater than the average drained weight requirement in the fill of container standard, and the number of units

in the sample that are less than the lower limit drained weight

114
requirement must not exceed the acceptance number in the

sampling plan (as shown in table II).

(See table III which is copied, in part, from the published

proposal.)

Lower limits are not prescribed for all standards. The average

drained weight of the units in a sample must be equal to or greater than the drained weight requirement in the standard, half or more must be equal to or in excess of the average and those

that are not are required to be within the variability of good

manufacturing practice.

(See table IV.)

For those packers who wish to pack at a higher level, they may

do so provided they meet certain specified requirements with

regard to averages for the sample and lower limits if the standard

provides such requirements.

For those canned foods for which there are no applicable

standards for fill of container, the packer shall sample in accordance with the prescribed sampling plan shown earlier in table II,

determine the drained weight in each of the cans in the sample,

and average these drained weights. Such average shall be equal to or in excess of the declared drained weight on the label. And again

half or more of the cans shall be equal to or in excess of the

declared label average. Those which fall below shall be within the

variability of good commercial practice.

Table III. Drained Weights For Canned Pears

Halves Style

Container designation

In any syrup or other liquid

medium (ounces)

LL1

8 Z glass 4.1 4.7 8 Z tall 4.2 4.8

No. 300: 7 count or less 7.7 8.4 8 count or more 8.0 8.7

No. 2: 7 count or less 10.5 11.4 8 count or more 10.8 11.7

No. 2 1/2: 8 count or less 15.3 16.4 9 count or more 15.3 16.9

No. 10

25 count or less 60.8 62.7

26 count or more 62.2 64.1

1 LL is the lower limit drained weight for individual containers.

2 Xn is the average drained weight of all sample units in the sample.

115
TABLE IV. Drained Weight of Okra

Container Styles of

dimensions canned okra

(inches) (ounces)

Container size or Whole or designation Width Height salad Cut

8 oz. tall 2-11/16 3-4/16 4.5 5 No. 1 picnic 2-11/16 4 6.2 6.5 No. 1 tall 3-1/16 4-11/16 9.8 10.2 No. 303 3-3/16 4-6/16 10 10.5 No. 2 3-7/16 4-9/16 12 12.8 No. 2-1/2 4-1/16 4-11/16 17.8 18.8 No. 10 6-3/16 7 60 60

Minimum averages only.

No data available to establish lower limits.

There are many other specific details but I believe you have

grasped the fact that there are many complexities to the problem.

It is not, as it may appear on the surface, a simple task to require

meaningful drained weight declarations.

In the publication of the Commissioner's own proposal, just

described, we reemphasized our desire for cost benefit data and

survey data. The invitation for comments was most sincere and

extremely important in the decision making process. Based upon

the comments received, the proposal could be rejected, considerably revised, or somewhat modified, or finalized as written. The

Commissioner emphasized that concerning this purely economic

matter, our decision will be based primarily on cost benefit information.

Before I describe the comments now in hand, I wish to state,

unequivocally, that FDA is still studying the rather large mass of

comments received. Inasmuch as the study is now ongoing, it would be most premature for me to suggest any agency decisions

for none have been made. If you should infer from anything I say

that an opinion is being expressed, remember that it is only my

personal opinion and not that of the Food and Drug Administration.

Over 6000 comments have been received. Again the counting is

difficult. Once again we are seeing single communications signed

by a number of people, in some instances more than one letter

being sent by the same source, and often one signer stating that

he represented a number of people. As in the earlier set of

comments, we received results of surveys not only of consumers

but also of industry capabilities, practices, and some cost data.

The consumer comments were by far the largest number, and

the majority of them favored the label declaration of drained

weight.

116
A number of consumer studies have been received. Some were

sponsored or conducted by consumer advocates. One was sponsored by the canning industry association. They are all being

studied, in depth, by our consumer survey experts and statisticians. As most of you know, a consumer survey—its questions,

methods, presentation, and analysis—is a complex science of its

own, but we are satisfied that the significance and value of each

survey will be determined.

A number of comments have been accompanied by masses of

data. Many references are made to existing articles and reports as

well as newly developed data. Data in support of cost benefit

conclusions have been submitted.

I shall attempt to briefly describe some of the more complex

comments received.

The canned fruit and vegetable industry opposed any weight

statements on the label in addition to the present net weight

declaration. Of course there were some exceptions but they were

few. However, let me reassure you that all comments will be given

the fullest study to obtain their fullest value. The canning industry then argued that if any additional weight declarations should

be added to the label, at most it should be a fill-in-weight declaration. The fill-in-weight is that weight of the solid food before

addition of the packing medium and processing. The canners

assert that the industry can readily determine its fill-in-weight. It

is common practice, they argue, to control fill-in-weight. They also

argue that the fill-in-weight is more competitive—that it is equivalent to the label declaration of weights as used for fresh and frozen

fruits and vegetables. They argue that for many reasons, including but not limited to the predictability and lack of need for

storage time prior to testing as well as relatively non-destructive

testing, the implementation of this alternative is far less expensive

than for drained weight. They assert that the higher quality fruits

and vegetables would not be discriminated against.

It should be noted that FDA does not have the legal authority to

check the manufacturer's records which is the only way we can

determine compliance with such a requirement. However, if some

information concerning the solid weight of food in a container

must be declared, the canners association strongly proposes that

the solid weight (fill-in weight) be the choice by FDA. They propose

that a declaration of solid weight would be checked by FDA

against the manufacturer's records. If he refuses access to the

records, then he would be checked by FDA using the drained

weight compliance procedures set out in the proposal.

They argue, on the other hand, that their consumer surveys

show that, in the main, consumers are already satisfied with

simply a net weight declaration.

117
On the other hand, the consumer advocates state that, in the

main, their surveys show that consumers desire drained weight

information.

The canning industry study of increased costs for drained

weight declaration as well as the suggestions for alternatives will

be studied by our specialists knowledgeable about food industry

practices and capabilities, our economists, and statisticians. The

same teams will study all the other data of a similar nature

related to costs v. benefits. As you are aware, a number of

comments are very easy to understand. They say very simply, "I

want drained weight to appear on the label" or they say, "I am

opposed to a requirement for drained weight to be declared."

Sometimes what appears to be a very simple comment is really

quite puzzling. What is meant by the statement, "The law should

require an accurate statement of drained weight to be placed on

the label"? What is meant by "accurate"? I am sure that many of

you would give me different definitions. What about the comment,

"I want drained weight to be declared but it should cost no more"?

And so on. Let me pause for a moment and return to the industry comments. I say, without fear of contradiction, that our professional

staff consisting of food scientists knowledgeable not only about

food science but also of industry capabilities, economists, statisticians, and administrators are the finest in the country. However,

we are seeking additional help to supplement our efforts.

By contract the U.S. Department of Agriculture is supplying us

with data from several past years showing the capability of the

canned fruit and vegetable industry to meet the recommended

minimum drained weights set out by USDA.

We have contracted with the States of Maryland, Wisconsin, and

Washington to perform selected drained weight studies.

We have very recently contracted with a national consulting

service to analyze the data received from the canning industry.

Briefly we asked the consultant to independently calculate the

actual increased costs that would be involved if the industry is

required to comply with the Commissioner's proposal that drained

weight be declared. They are to review and analyze the data

obtained from literature studies, plant visits and interviews; study

the present packing practices of industry and its capability to meet

the proposed requirements; study relevant data obtained from

other sources such as State agriculture departments, universities

with food technology and food science departments and make a

full economic analysis and do a similar review of viable alternatives that may develop.

Some of the points to be studied in depth—and I do not list them

all—are such things as: What proportion of unlabeled cans are

118
presently being stored as compared to what would be required by

the Commissioner's proposal; in any estimates of cost increases,

how do they compare to the costs of the already existing requirement to determine the drained weights of such foods as fruit

cocktail, corn, green beans, and mushrooms; does the estimated

cost of implementing the proposal include the full costs of already

existing quality assurance programs that readily lend themselves

to satisfying the proposal; and is there a need for industry to test

each lot of the canned foods produced or, based upon prior

knowledge or that which is learned early during the packing

season, can it significantly reduce the need for lot by lot testing.

The recommended minimum average drained weights, the sampling plan, and the acceptance figures, as shown earlier in the

tables, were based heavily upon the USDA published recommended practices. Since publication of the proposal, that Department has commented and is taking exception to a part of it. The USDA comment criticised the drained weight labeling

compliance procedures. It stated that FDA had defined a good lot

in terms of statistical values based on the sample rather than the

lot, and since the sample size will vary with the lot size, it will be

very difficult for canners to target the fill-in weights to assure

compliance with the drained weight under all circumstances. For

instance USDA inspectors will certify entire lots in the canning

establishments, but FDA inspectors may test sublots of the same

lot in the distribution channels. The USDA will take a larger

number of units per sample and that sample will have a much

better chance of meeting the minimum drained weight than would

a smaller sample taken by FDA. To correct this situation, the

USDA proposes that the definition of a "good lot"—one that meets

the drained weight—be independent of statistical sampling procedures. Under the USDA plan, canners would pack to a constant

AQL for the lot and a good lot would be one which meets or exceeds the AQL. Sampling procedures would be developed to

accept good lots 95 percent of the time. USDA proposes that the

sample sizes range from 13 to 48 units depending on the size of the

lot and that the minimum drained weight requirements for the

sample vary with the sample size. A larger sample would be

required to meet a slightly higher drained weight than a smaller

sample. A preliminary study by our statisticians indicates that

there may be flaws in the USDA arguments.

This too shall be studied intensively. The President's Council on

Wage and Price Stability also submitted a comment stating that it favors drained weight declaration "in principle." It sets out conditions under which it is of the opinion that if the proposal is

adopted and requires only 95 percent compliance, there should be

no significant increase in cost. On the other hand, if FDA should

119
require 99 percent compliance, then we may see a $100 million

increase in cost, or about 1 cent per can. The Council also suggested means of compliance determination

which should inhibit cost increases. I assure you that these are being fully considered.

To repeat what I said earlier, the published proposal and

request for comments is simply what it is intended to be. The

proposal is not engraved in stone. Based upon the comments

received and other information available, all of which are a matter

of public record on file with the Hearing Clerk of our agency, the

proposal may be adopted, or modified as necessary, or the Commissioner may decide to reject the proposal in its entirety.

Any regulation promulgated must be both reasonable and in the

interest of consumers. It must be one that industry can comply

with. It must be one consumers desire. The benefits must be equal

to or greater than the costs. The inflationary impact, if any, must

be within prescribed limits.

All of these factors, among others, will be considered by the

Commissioner of Food and Drugs in developing his conclusions in

this matter. His reasons for each of his conclusions will be a

matter of public record. The problem, as I stated earlier, is most

complex. Actually there are many factors which I went over quite

sketchily and probably, too much so for your interests.

I will be happy to talk to you about those matters of particular

interest to you. If you should think of any questions at a later

time, Bud Wollin can contact me for you.

WHAT THE CONSUMER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT METRIC

Presented by BARBARA BEIZER, Assistant Director, National

Consumers Congress

The National Consumers Congress (NCC)

was founded in 1973 and one of its major

goals is to insure consumer input into the

economic decision making process in this

country. It is for this reason that the decision for the United States to go metric is a

most interesting one to us. Today, I have been asked to speak about

what consumers need to know about metric.

It is unclear to what extent a literal knowledge of measurements is necessary for any

individual to cope with the everyday experience of buying (or selling). Most consumers buy food, for instance,

on the basis of the number of servings they are accustomed to

120
getting from a familiar package or amount of food. People just

seem to get used to a system as long as it works for them.

The first and really the biggest problem in changing our system

of measurement will be to educate people about what the change

means and why the change is taking place. Having read about the

plans being implemented by government agencies, industries,

educational institutions and the media, I am aware that a massive

educational effort is already underway. School children are being

taught to think metric, and many resources are being prepared for

adult education. The American Association of Advertising Agencies has formed a committee to study the ways in which advertising can aid in motivating consumers to understand and use the

metric system. Surely the people who sold us on super king-size

cigarettes, potato chips that stack, cereals that crackle and brandname bananas will be able to sell a majority of the population on

modern meters, lucky liters and grams of goodness.

But, beyond a general education process are many specific areas

in which consumers may need help in understanding and using

the metric system. No amount of general information can replace

the actual experience of purchasing products which will be in

unfamiliar metric measurements. A person may have read a

manual on how to drive a car, but such theoretical knowledge can

hardly replace the reality of being behind the wheel. Whether one

is buying a new refrigerator, new carpet or curtains, patterns and

supplies for home sewing, food or any other products, the kind of

service and information at the point of purchase will be absolutely

crucial.

There are five different ingredients which can make or break

consumer acceptance of metrication at the point of sale. These are

personnel, unit pricing, item pricing, rational packaging standards

and pricing information associated with conversion costs.

All businesses, whether service or product oriented, should take

tremendous care in educating their sales or service staff to be

knowledgeable about their product, and sensitive to customer

concerns. Sales and service personnel should be ready to explain

accurately and completely any differences in a product, and how

the cost and/or use of the product might be affected.

For example, an individual who has measured some area of floor

in his or her house for carpeting may have measured the area in

customary units, and will need advice and help in converting the

measurements in metric units. Or a person may have measured in

metric units, but come up with an incorrect amount of carpeting

needed. This is the kind of problem which must be handled with

tact and knowledge, for it is at this point that customers may quite

understandably become frustrated in trying to cope with the new

system. Sales personnel should always try to be alert for ways in

121
which their business might best handle customer concerns and

problems.

It is a great responsibility for businesses to adequately train

their personnel. If sales and service people are not knowledgeable

and informative, consumer frustration could escalate unnecessarily and might even reach the point of severely hampering the

progress of metrication in this country. But, if personnel are well

trained to meet consumer needs effectively, the results will be

greater public confidence in their products and services.

Businesses providing some kind of service must be careful that

the time and expense involved in training their workers to use

metric tools and specifications is not unfairly passed on to their

customers. Labor costs for car repairs, for example, should not be

unduly exhanced by "on the job" training of mechanics.

The second area of concern at the point of sale is particularly

important in the context of the retail food store. The average

family shops at least once a week for food, and must make many

decisions about what kinds of products to buy. Conversion of food

products and packaging will undoubtedly take many different

forms, and it is conceivable that even the best of planning will not

eliminate all the problems associated with conversion of those

products.

A publication put out by the Department of Commerce in 1973

called "What About Metric?" suggests that one of the "fringe

benefits" of metric conversion is that once it is accomplished, unit

pricing will no longer be necessary. The booklet claims that

customers can accomplish comparison shopping by "multiplying

the price of the smaller of any two. consecutive sizes by 2 (which)

would readily show whether the larger of the two sizes is a 'good

buy,' and by how much." Maybe moving decimal points over a

place or two, or multiplying by 2 is not too hard for most of us to

figure out, but when I am shopping for a week's worth of groceries

wheeling my three-year-old around in the shopping cart, I for one

do not want to have to stop and compute these comparisons

between one package size and another, and/or between one brand

and another. In my opinion, unit pricing will be even more

important during conversion and for a long time to come. It is

premature, if not downright irresponsible, to forecast such "fringe

benefits" at this time.

In addition to unit pricing, item pricing will be of particular

importance. According to a recent study by the University of

Michigan, item pricing is the single most important element in

consumer awareness and retention of price information. With the

increased use of computerized checkout systems paralleling the

process of metrication in the United States, the importance of item

pricing becomes even greater. I would urge all retail food store

122
representatives to keep this in mind when launching into a

computerized checkout system.

Some $9 billion worth of goods are sold a year—a substantial

part of which are packaged goods. Rational packaging standards

absolutely must be developed, not only for food products, but for

laundry products, cleaning products, and other items of similar

import. Where clothing is concerned, standard sizes would be an

enormous help to consumers.

However the standards may be developed to govern package

sizes, and whatever changes may be made in packaging products,

consumers should be informed of any and all costs associated with

conversion to metric measurements. The Canadian government

has recommended that whenever possible package sizes should be

increased and that any price increases associated with conversion

costs should be separate in time from price hikes that may occur

for any other reasons. Industries which do divulge the reasons

behind price increases to the public will go a long way toward

eliminating any potential suspicions consumers may have regarding what they are paying for when they buy a given product.

These five areas—personnel, unit pricing, item pricing, rational

packaging sizes and pricing information—will be the most crucial

keys to opening the door to public acceptance of metrication.

On yet another level of consumer acceptance of conversion is the

need to address the questions and concerns that will come up

constantly as the public's awareness of metrication increases.

Some of these questions might be: — How will my utility bills be affected? — How will I know how much of my food dollar will pay for the

metrication of food packages? — Will I still be able to get parts for machines and appliances

made in customary measurements? — Will I need to replace any kitchen equipment? — How will metric measurements affect home furnishings or major appliances? — Will car repairs cost me a lot more? Who will pay for new

tools that must be used for these repairs?

Consumer groups might be asked to record the kinds of questions and concerns they encounter, and pass these on to relevant

businesses or government agencies.

There are many other possible ways in which consumers and/or

consumer groups might assist in smoothing the way for metrication. Many groups publish newsletters which could be used as

vehicles to educate the public, particularly in response to the kinds

of consumer concerns mentioned above. These articles might also

123
include basic conversion information as well as substantive information explaining the roles of business, government, and schools,

information and progress reports on the issues of rational standardization, conversion costs, and economic impact.

Government and industry have asked for input from consumers

and consumer groups. The American National Metric Council, for

example, sent a letter to groups around the country and received a

good number of favorable responses. Government and industry

should utilize the many resources available to them to develop and

implement more outreach to consumers. Consumer group spokespersons are motivated to understand and help promote public

education and acceptance of metrication, yet the particular methods by which this might be accomplished are somewhat obscure.

One of the most important aspects of encouraging consumer input,

is making compensation available for the research and development of independent consumer studies. Whenever such compensation is available, consumers should be fairly notified and allowed

sufficient time to respond.

All of us are aware of the tremendous benefits that will utlimately occur as a result of conversion. This is an excellent

opportunity for industry in particular to broaden communications

with consumers, and thereby establish better working relationships with the communities they serve.

124
MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1976

(held at National Bureau of Standards)

Opening ceremony by U. S. Marine Corps Ceremonial Color Guard

and Musical Unit

125
WELCOME TO THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Presented by DR. F. Karl Willenbrock, Director, Institute for

Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards

It is a distinct pleasure for me to have

been designated as the one to welcome you

officially to the National Bureau of Standards this morning. In many ways, it is

better than being an "after-dinner" speaker

and having to dilute a two-minute idea into

a two-hour speech. And to prove that I mean what I say, I'm going to make sure

that my remarks fit into the category of

"best" speeches—a good beginning and a

f& lay good ending—CLOSE TOGETHER!

This year at NBS we are having two

celebrations. First, of course, is the Nation's 200th birthday, and,

second, is the Bureau's 75th. We are very pleased to be able to

share both with an old friend and partner. Anniversary celebrations provide the opportunity to reflect on the past but, more

important, to plan for the future. Last year I had the pleasure to

keynote your Conference in San Diego. My first four words then

were, "America is going metric." These few words were given

impetus by Congress' enactment, last December, of the Metric

Conversion Act of 1975. Now you have taken up this thought as your theme for this Conference. We at NBS are aware of the role

we play in supporting the weights and measures system in the

United States. We will do our best to continue to help you serve and meet the metric needs of this system through the National

Conference.

The last time the Bureau hosted the National Conference was

back in 1967, shortly after the Bureau moved from Connecticut

Avenue to Gaithersburg. To be exact, it was Wednesday, June 28,

1967, and to show that technology isn't the rapidly changing

monster it is supposed to be, participants in today's Conference

used the same technology to get here that your colleagues used

nine years ago—a bus!

Quite a few interesting things have happened to the Bureau

since you were last here. Our trees and shrubs have grown up and

our grounds are a showplace in Gaithersburg. We now have a

Sound Building with anechoic and reverberation chambers. These

chambers are so soundproof that last spring members of the

world-famous Juilliard String Quartet came to the Bureau and

used the chambers to compare the acoustical properties of their

126
own rare 17th and 18th century instruments with a matched set of

new instruments made by a Massachusetts instrument maker.

We also have a Concreting Materials Laboratory in which we

prepare samples of concrete and cement for testing laboratories to

test their own capabilities.

We have a Nonmagnetic Laboratory which, in fancy words,

measures the magnetic fields of the earth but also calibrates such

instruments as magnetometers that hang from aircraft to locate

iron mines and other sources of iron ore. We have a townhouse fitted with solar collectors so that we can

develop standards for the solar heating and cooling systems for

homes and a three-bedroom, one-story house, fully instrumented,

so that we can measure the amount of energy used by a homemaker in preparing three meals a day for a family of four.

A fairly new addition to NBS, 1974 to be exact, is a fire research

laboratory for conducting large-scale fire experiments. Right now,

it is necessary to burn down an entire room to study the spread of

fire in most buildings. With our laboratory, in a few years, we will

be able to do it for you on a computer. We are studying the

burning of room furnishings and how the materials contribute to a

building fire. We are studying the movement of smoke and gas

through rooms and corridors. We also test structural components

such as ducts, dampers, doors, and plumbing systems in a research

test furnace. One of our recent fire projects brought us a certain

amount of notoriety. In a technical area, that's not too easy to do

on the Washington scene today because of the competition we are getting from the members of Congress. What happened was that

one of the new buses operating in the Washington, D.C., transit

system burned and the transit authority asked us to investigate it. We found that the interior furnishings of the buses were quite

flammable and we made recommendations for correcting it. Little

do the Washington bureaucrats know that when they ride the

metrobus on Capitol Hill, NBS has literally taken them off one hot

seat.

Our latest addition to the Bureau is the installation, on either

side of the road that leads to the high-rise Administration Building, of the two entrance portals and the iron gates that were

originally located on the old Bureau site on Connecticut Avenue.

This shows that although our buildings and grounds are new, our

roots are imbedded in tradition. And what better example do we

have of a traditional activity, one of which the Bureau is justifiably proud, than our relationship with the weights and measures

administration of the United States. The National Conference is a

model of an excellent example of Federal-State relationship which

other Federal agencies would do well to emulate. We have had a long and fruitful relationship in the past and in this our 75th

127
anniversary year, we promise to make every effort to ensure that

the relationship continues.

It has been my job to speak and yours to listen. I do hope we

both finished at the same time!

NBS AND NCWM—PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

Presented by DR. ERNEST AMBLER, Acting Director, National

Bureau of Standards

Good morning, I should like to join Karl

(Willenbrock) in extending the warmest welcome from the entire staff of the National

Bureau of Standards. It is especially pleasing for us to have you visit during this, our

75th Anniversary Year.

The first conference on weights and

measures was opened with these words:

"The relation between standards and

the regulation and inspection of

weights and measures used in commerce is so important that cooperation between the officials

having these matters in charge is absolutely essential to secure uniform, efficient results. It was for this purpose that

the various state custodians, inspectors, and sealers were

invited to meet with the officials of the National Bureau of

Standards. As the representative of that institution, it gives

me great pleasure to welcome you to this conference, which

cannot fail to be productive of the utmost good."

These words were spoken by Dr. Samuel Stratton, the Director

of NBS, in welcoming the first National Meeting of Weights and

Measures Officials in 1905. In this, my first address as President of

the National Conference, I chose to repeat Dr. Stratton's words

because the need for cooperative interaction is equally important

today. Furthermore, I personally feel as committed to the goals of

this organization as did Dr. Stratton in those fledgling days.

Much has transpired in the intervening years, not the least of

which are some face changes here at NBS and in the Department

of Commerce. Dr. Richard Roberts left the Bureau last summer to

accept the position of Assistant Administrator for Nuclear Energy

at the Energy Research and Development Administration

(ERDA). Recently, President Ford placed my name in nomination

to be Director of NBS. I expect to testify before the Senate

Commerce Committee within the next few weeks.

128
We also have a new Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Elliot Richardson. In the few months since his appointment, the Secretary has

shown a great deal of interest in NBS and its various activities.

During his first visit to NBS the Secretary addressed the

Bureau staff. He began by telling a story from ancient Persia. It seems that a rug merchant called to his assistant, "Haman, hand

me the measuring stick." Haman replied, "Which one, Master? The

one by which we sell or the one by which we buy?" The Secretary

said, "There was a country that needed a Bureau of Standards."

And I should like to add, there was a country that needed a

National Conference on Weights and Measures.

I repeat the story because it highlights the continuing need for

fairness in the marketplace, the need for honest communication

between buyer and seller and, most importantly, the need for a

basis of understanding between the interacting segments of a

complex society.

And, I am pleased that for 75 years NBS, in conjunction with

NCWM, has developed, maintained and disseminated a national

measurement system. This system has successfully served as the

reliable tool of communication between buyer and seller.

At this point, someone might say, "how wonderful! You have

solved the problem." And now the rug merchant will have only one

measuring stick.

The truth of the matter, as you and I both know, is that there is

no such thing as a "solution" in the absolute sense of the word.

Instead, we strive for adaptations that meet the current need,

knowing they may be modified as our environment changes. To

quote again from Mr. Richardson, this type of action might be

termed "progressive adjustment."

It is my opinion that since 1905 the actions of this Conference

have resulted in progressive adjustment to the economy of this

nation. Dr. Stratton correctly foresaw that the first Conference

would be "productive of the utmost good." I expect that this 61st

Conference will be the same.

To do so, it is important that we properly measure and understand today's environment, appropriately plan for any modifications, and begin now for tomorrow's progressive adjustment.

When we look at today's environment, we see an increasingly

complex society. It is a complexity which continues to grow

proportionately with the product of such multipliers as increased

urbanization and the many by-products of industrial production.

We see the manifestations of this complexity in the issues such as consumer concern, energy conservation, environmental protection,

and materials shortage.

All of these issues directly affect today's citizen and his activities in the marketplace. As the effort and time necessary to

129
resolve these issues increases, we find the citizen losing confidence

in institutions.

We speak of the erosion of confidence in government. The

erosion of confidence in industry. In pursuing this notion of lost

confidence, it is my fear that we may be losing confidence in

ourselves. After all, each of us works directly or indirectly for

government or industry, and collectively, we are the public. Thus

we are faced with the challenge of restoring self-confidence in each

other in a complex environment.

This is an important consideration for everyone. But for each

person here it is a specific responsibility to develop and maintain

confidence in the most basic of societal arenas: the marketplace.

In approaching this issue, I am reminded of the remark made by

the great naturalist John Burroughs, "To find new things, take

the path you took yesterday."

Thus, in the face of today's environment, and in recognition of

this Anniversary Year, it seems appropriate to review the path we

took yesterday, to examine the crossroads we stand at today, and

then to look towards tomorrow.

To review yesterday's path we might begin with the establishment of the National Bureau of Standards on March 3, 1901. In

that same year, Louis Fischer made a compilation of the State

laws relating to weights and measures. And what a hopeless

tangle was revealed! Regulations were as remarkable for their

variety as for their inadequacy. Besides the inequities and inherent lack of uniformity, there was general apathy across the nation

concerning the inadequacies of weights and measures.

Determined to remedy the problem, Dr. Stratton proposed to the

governors of each State a meeting of State sealers. The "First

Annual Meeting of the Sealers of Weights and Measures of the

United States" was held at NBS on January 16 and 17, 1905. In

addition to Stratton and Fischer from NBS, the attendees included:

State sealers from Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Iowa; the Deputy Treasurer of Michigan; a private citizen from New Hampshire; a congressman

from Kentucky; and a scale manufacturer from Vermont.

This meeting concluded with a resolution that State sealers

meet annually in Washington—and work together toward uniformity in weights and measures legislation.

In 1906 the delegates established this National Conference as a permanent organization. And as Dr. Stratton so clearly recognized

in 1910, "It is through this body that the Bureau reaches the

public, ascertains what it needs in respect to weights and meas130
ures, and what the conditions are throughout the States. The

benefit is mutual." I might add that through the years we have

received from your committees the benefits of a close contact with

the public, and we hope you receive from the Bureau support

necessary to do your job.

The NBS-NCWM partnership has been diligently dedicated to

the motto, "That equity may prevail." Our Conference now represents one of the finest partnerships between Federal and State

governments—benefiting this nation's economy and its consumers.

One of the first issues considered by the Conference was the

need for laws and regulations, and in 1907 the Conference reported

out "Suggestions for National and State Laws Adopted by the

National Conference on Weights and Measures at the Third

Annual Conference." This first version of Handbook 44 was a bold

move on the part of the delegates. It was to become the very

keystone of this organization for it made clear the intent of the

National Conference.

The thirty-four sections spelled out proposed national laws, local

laws and general regulations. It called for both uniform regulations and the means to implement them. It was eventually to

encourage and insure the economic well-being of the citizens of

our nation and the economic growth of the nation as a whole. For

while we are a nation that welcomes diverse views and opinions, in

weights and measures it is uniformity that benefits all. As a result of the widespread public demand for better law and

better inspection of trade weights and measures, first New Jersey

and then other States enacted the model law developed by this

Conference. In 1913 the State of New York estimated that annual

savings to consumers amounted to $15 million. Today, it would be

impossible to calculate the economic benefits traceable to Handbook 44.

Even the briefest resume of the accomplishments of this Conference would be remiss without a mention of State training programs. Through the years there has been strong cooperation

between individual States and NBS to assist in the training of

weights and measures officials.

In the 1950's, Mac Jensen and Bud Wollin recognized the need

for a formal training program. Currently NBS offers three categories of training: for metrologists, for inspectors, and for administrators. This formal training is an acknowledgment that equity is

in the hands of the person who uses the standards, the person who

interprets the laws and regulations, and the person who certifies

the jurisdictional standards.

I personally endorse and support the need for a uniform and

comprehensive training program at all levels. One of the goals of

the NBS Office of Weights and Measures is to provide training to

encourage uniform enforcement of weights and measures laws

131
and regulations on the one hand and to raise the competence level

of the weights and measures officials on the other.

I should like to cite the training program for metrologists. This

effort has raised and helped to maintain the quality of metrologist

services that are so essential to the individual inspectors. In

addition, this higher quality service has improved the efficiency of

industry. Formerly, individual firms often sent standards to NBS

for calibration purposes. Now, these firms send them to their

respective State Weights and Measures laboratories.

I have mentioned the partnership dedicated to equity, the

development of the model laws, and the training of the officials.

There is another element that is essential. That is the standards

and State laboratories themselves.

With funds appropriated by the Congress in 1965, NBS began a program to provide each State, the District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands with new standards of weights and

measures—both customary and metric.

Unlike the earlier distributions, the effort since 1965 is a comprehensive response to the States' needs to update and extend their

measurement competence. It includes calibrations, laboratory installation, and the training of personnel. It is also a cooperative

effort.

The Federal Government provides the actual standards weights,

volume standards, and basic instruments. Each of the States has

agreed to provide new laboratory facilities and a qualified technical staff.

As a symbol of our lasting partnership, each of the States has

given the Bureau a tree in honor of these new standards. Each

has a marker indicating the contributing State and the common

and botanical name of the tree. The aesthetic and symbolic value

of your thoughtfulness does much to beautify this Federal site.

This afternoon I hope you will take the opportunity to see the

State Tree Grove.

The presentations of the standards of weights and measures

have been special occasions both for you in the States and for

many of us on the NBS staff. Forty-seven States have now

participated, and it is our hope that the program will be completed

within the next year.

Where do we stand today? We have reliable standards, wellequipped laboratories, qualified and trained personnel, model laws

to assure uniformity, and this Conference that provides the forum

for uniformity, However, as I said at the beginning, no solutions are absolute. Rather, we strive for progressive adjustment.

Today, there are three issues which must be considered in any

plans we make for the future. These issues are metrication, the

rapid development of new technologies, and the concerns of the

consumer.

132
I applaud your selection of "Metrication: A One-Time Opportunity" as the theme for this year's conference. I know that you have

heard and will be hearing from other speakers on various facets of

this topic.

In considering metrication I should like to suggest that our

position today is not unlike that of those delegates attending the

first conference in 1905. On December 23, 1975, President Ford

signed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975. The Act calls for

"consultation by the Secretary of Commerce with the National

Conference on Weights and Measures in order to assure that State

and local weights and measures officials are appropriately involved in metric conversion activities and assisted in their efforts

to bring about timely amendments to weights and measures laws."

I stated earlier that weights and measures standards provide

the language of communication between buyer and seller. Just as the delegates to the 1905 meeting were concerned with developing

the language of customary standards; we must begin to provide

the metric language so necessary for economic communication.

Carroll Brickenkamp, a member of the NBS staff known to all of

you, has remarked that in metric conversion, "The weights and

measures person will be the first one in and the last one out."

Metric conversion will affect laws, regulations, packaging, measuring devices, test methodology, industry production and public

opinion.

The point is that our nation is now committed to voluntary

metric conversion; and as Malcolm O'Hagan (President, American

National Metric Council) has noted, the climate for conversion is

greatly improved by the European community's requirements to

use SI units in trade and commerce throughout the common

market and by the realities of international trade in a metric

world.

A primary objective of our Conference today, and in the months

to come, should be the development of basic tools for metric

communication between buyer and seller. We can help minimize

public misunderstanding about metric conversion and we can

minimize the potential for mistrust between the affected public

and the government. By doing so, I think we can help restore the

eroded confidence in both government and industry. The net

result will be increased self-confidence in our ability to govern

ourselves.

NBS will make full use of our available resources to assist in

meeting the immediate metrication demands that will fall on State

weights and measures officials. In accord with our responsibilities

under the Metric Act, our metric information facilities will be

devoted more fully to metric needs in weights and measures.

133
The Office of Weights and Measures has, with the support of the

United States Office of Education, recently conducted a series of

seminars on metric conversion for weights and measures officials across the United States. A purpose of these seminars is to

educate a core group of weights and measures officials who can

serve their own jurisdictions as instructors in metric training.

I am sure the efficient transition to metric will be aided by

explicit attention to coordination with domestic and international

standards setting institutions. I hope that the Conference through

its new Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination will give due consideration to the metric recommendations

originating in the International Organization of Legal Metrology

(OIML). When and where they have U.S. approval, the adoption of

OIML metric recommendations would provide an important advantage to our industry and commerce.

The activities of OIML are much more extensive than metrication. Since the U.S. joined OIML, NBS has attempted to assure

that OIML positions truly reflect a representative national re- sponse. Through the Advisory Committee for International Legal

Metrology, chartered in 1974, U. S. representatives include more

than a dozen governmental and private sector institutions. This

Conference has been an active representative to the Advisory

Committee, and we are grateful for your cooperation through Jim

Lyles of Virginia. I am pleased Jim will be a delegate to the OIML

International Conference of Legal Metrology in Paris next October. This input from NCWM is indispensable if we are to adopt

international positions that are in the best interests of the United

States.

I also mentioned the issue of rapidly developing technologies.

The impact of new technologies affects a broad spectrum of

weights and measures activities. The examples are numerous: —interfaces between scale, cash register and computer; —in-motion weighing of transportation vehicles; —new readout devices for fluid and time metering; —application of digital electronics to truck weighing and railroad scales.

The important point is that each of these new developments

involves a change in the functioning of our measurement system.

Each changeover poses a challenge for intergovernmental cooperation. We must work in concert with these new technologies. We

must assure the public that applications of new technologies in the

marketplace will be responsive to their needs.

This brings me to the third issue—that of consumer concerns. In

characterizing the attitude of consumers, Elliot Richardson states

134
that private citizens desire "the right to grant or withhold 'consent of the governed' not only as a voter, but as a consumer, as an

employee, as a taxpayer, as a woman, as a black . . . the right to an

informed choice at the ballot box and in the marketplace."

This is a high priority issue for both the Department of Commerce and this Administration. I believe you will be hearing more

on this subject from all of this morning's speakers.

At NBS we are engaged in a variety of consumer-related

activities. Some of these involve the development of standards and

instrumentation to ensure the health and safety of the consumer

when he uses such diverse products as bicycles, lawn mowers,

hearing aids and others. We are developing standards for home

security devices—locks and burglar alarms.

The Bureau's Center for Consumer Product Technology is en- gaged in programs to develop standards and uniform test methods

for measuring the performance and safety characteristics of con- sumer products. This work ultimately provides the consumer with

information about individual product characteristics at the point

of purchase. Closely related is our work for the Federal Energy

Administration on standards for labeling appliances with respect

to their energy consumption.

Of importance to weights and measures interests are some of

our Consumer Information series publications. For example, we

are now preparing "Automation in the Marketplace," which indicates to the consumer the impacts of electronic funds transfer, the

universal product code, and direct point of sale readouts in retailing.

A prime objective of all these efforts is to provide the consumer

with information. In turn, this helps industry by reducing the

number of needless complaints based on ignorance or poor information. It should also help weights and measures officials in their

dealings with both industry and the public by minimizing confusion.

Therefore, we have metrication, the rapid applications of new

technology and consumer concerns—three major trends that will

affect the future actions of the NBS-NCWM partnerships.

Because of the growing importance of the consumer as an

economic and political force, we at NBS are reviewing our priorities for utilizing our resources. We have identified a need to

reevaluate our own role in weights and measures. This will require

an examination of the whole system of weights and measures and

the roles of all participants. We have in this undertaking the

support of our Evaluation Panel—the National Academy of Sciences group that reviews NBS programs annually. Mr. Syd Andrews is a member of that panel, as well as a distinguished

member of this Conference.

135
I suggest that you join us in this activity through reevaluation

of your priorities in light of your available resources. It will be of

inestimable value to the Bureau to have your assistance and

guidance in delineating the priority needs of the States.

This then is our goal for the immediate future: to establish our

priorities in weights and measures for the best utilization of our

available resources. Our strength and our goals lie in anticipating society's demands

and in providing services which make a difference. I expect the

NBS-NCWM partnership to continue as an effective and responsive mechanism for providing those services.

It is my privilege, as Conference President, to announce the

appointments to the Standing Committees.

The new appointees are:

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Mr. Gary L. Delano, Administrator, Division of Weights and

Measures, State of Montana, who is appointed to replace Mr.

Ken Simila, State of Oregon, whose term is expiring.

Committee on Laws and Regulations

Mr. Maximiliano Trujillo, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Enforcement, Department of Consumer Affairs, Puerto Rico, who is reappointed to replace Mr. R. L. Thompson, State of Maryland.

Mr. Trujillo has served this year as a replacement for Mr.

Thompson who resigned from the committee last fall to devote

full time to his responsibilities as Conference chairman.

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Mr. Steven A. Malone, Administrator, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, State of Nebraska, who is

appointed to replace Mr. R. T. Williams, State of Texas, whose

term is expiring.

Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government

Mr. 0. D. Mullinax, Director, Fuel and Measures Division,

Department of Agriculture, State of Georgia, who is appointed to

replace Mr. Wallace N. Seward, American Petroleum Institute,

whose term is expiring. Mr. Charles W. Silver, President, Revere

Corporation of America, who is appointed to fill the unexpired

three-year term of Mr. C. G. Gehringer, Pennsylvania Scale

Company, who has retired.

136
Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination

Mr. Sydney D. Andrews, Director, Division of Standards, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, State of Florida, is

appointed to the Committee for the ensuing year and will serve

as its chairman.

The accomplishments of these committees are an invaluable

contribution to the success of the Conference. I would like to thank

those individuals who have provided hard work and dedicated

service over the past year. We all thank you. And to the new

members, my congratulations and best wishes on your appointments.

Dr. Ambler presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference who, by attending the 60th Conference in 1975, reached one of

the six attendance categories for which recognition is made

attendance at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 or 35 meetings.

PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

Award Recipients

35 Years

Cleo C. Morgan Gary, Indiana

30 Years

Samuel H. Christie, Jr. New Jersey (retired)

25 Years

Kenneth C. Allen

George L. Johnson

Hobart Corporation

Kentucky

20 Years

Robert J. Silcock Vigo County, Indiana

15 Years

ARMAND J. ALBANESE

Everett H. Black

Warren J. Dubsky

John H. Lewis

New Britain, Connecticut

Ventura County, California

Dresser Industries, Inc.

Washington

137
J. Lyle Littlefield

James F. Lyles

George D. Wilkinson

Gerber Products Company

Virginia

Howe Richardson Scale Company

10 Years

Trafford F. Brink

Robert L. Callahan, Jr.

Eugene H. Fishman

A. J. Francesconi

Edwin Hanish

Harvey L. Hensel

Lyman D. Holloway

Eugene Keeley

William H. Marks

T. J. McLaughlin

Earl Prideaux

Robert C. Primley

Walter D. Scott

E. I. Shelley

Edward G. Silver

H. E. Smith

Bernard Wasko

Vermont

Coca-Cola Company

J. B. Dee and Company, Inc.

Camden County, New Jersey

LaPorte County, Indiana

Swift and Company

Idaho

Delaware

American Can Company

Veeder-Root Company

Colorado

Cities Service Oil Company

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Martin Decker Company

Floyd County, Indiana

San Mateo County, California

Vol and Corporation

138
On behalf of the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

Richard L. Thompson (left), Chairman of this year's National

Conference, extends congratulations to the National Bureau of

Standards on its 75th Anniversary by presenting Dr. Ernest

Ambler, Acting Director of the Bureau, an anniversary plaque.

139
T) atlonal Conference

onWeights and JVteasares

extends Congratulations to the

National Bureau of Standards

upon, the occasion of its

Seventy - Fifth Anniversary

and in

J(^ecognitian of its outstanding leadership and accomplishments in science and technology ; its encouragement ancL

assistance in promoting standardizatiorv of measurements and instrument's*, and its achievements in. tne>

science of metrology whicli nave contributed to the

public welfare by increasing tke accuracy , dependability , and uuitcrrmity of -weighi ng and measuring

fkrougluTut the i)ation

.

^Presented, by tKe

61 st 1) at tonal Conference on"Weights and measures

on July 14,1^7GChairman

€xecivfcive Secretary

140
ADDRESS

Presented by HONORABLE S. JOHN BYINGTON, Chairman, U.S.

Consumer Product Safety Commission

It is a pleasure to meet with you today to

explore some thoughts about what may be

common problems as well as to join with

you in the celebration of the 75th Anniversary of the National Bureau of Standards.

Just think what 75 years means. That

was before the age of flight. There were no

cars, televisions or other items so commonplace today.

But the division of years has not erased

some similarities of interests. Even then,

some Americans were getting steamed up

about the Panama Canal. And let us not overlook the heated

debate about standards. At that time, the hottest issue in town

was the gold standard.

Some standards are not easy to come by. We at the Consumer

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) know that full well by

now . . . after all the criticism (some of it well-deserved) that we

have received for the delays we have encountered in preparing

standards for power mowers, architectural glass, etc. But people

forget that it took French engineers seven years to determine

what a kilometer is. Yet, even after meticulous work, there are times when all that effort does not seem to matter. A mischievious

child couldn't care less if a yardstick was 35 inches or 37 inches

when it is used as a measure of discipline.

The lack of a fixed standard doesn't always impede progress

either. At the turn of the century, there were some places in

China where it was the custom among home builders to first make

a measuring stick. This stick was then used for the purchase of

materials and for determining dimensions.

In the United States, the power to regulate weights and measures was vested in Congress. I was amused to discover that an

encyclopedia (New International) published in 1904 took note of

that authority. The author of the article added somewhat cynically

that Congress had not attempted up to then to exercise its

authority—except in regard to standards for the collection of

taxes.

Obviously, the National Bureau of Standards has brought us a

long way toward uniform standards; and obviously, your relationship with the Bureau has given substance to those standards.

141
Our relationship with the Bureau has been profitable, too. In

fact, there is an elite corps of former Bureau personnel in the

Consumer Product Safety Commission. One of that number, of

course, is Commissioner Lawrence Kushner, who was Acting

Director for the Bureau before his appointment to the CPSC.

Another member of our staff is Ross Koeser, who not only is from

NBS but also was a member of this very weights and measures

fraternity.

The Commission was created just a little more than three years

ago. Its assignment is to: —Protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products; —Assist consumers to evaluate the comparative safety of con- sumer products; —Develop uniform safety standards for consumer products; and —To promote research and investigation into the causes and

prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses and injuries.

Just as Congress established the Bureau of Standards in 1901 to

bring order out of chaos in weights and measures, The Congress

created the Consumer Product Safety Commission to help restore

consumer confidence in safety in the marketplace.

Often we at CPSC find ourselves turning to the Bureau for

advice and assistance in pursuit of our goals.

At the present time, about 15 research projects, 25 regulatory

development tasks and a number of hazard reaction studies are in

process at NBS through an interagency agreement.

The Bureau has been of significant help in regard to work

already done on flammable fabrics. It is supporting the development of various projects underway in the Commission as well as some completed tasks, including a regulation on swimming pool

slides, and another on bicycles.

Our Commission has about 10,000 products to be concerned

about. According to Commission data, more than seven-and-a-half

million injuries related to products were treated in hospital emergency rooms around the country in Fiscal Year 1975. So there is

much work to be done. Only part of it, of course, involves drafting

standards.

The government has a definite role and substantial responsibility to regulate wherever and whenever the marketplace is not

adequately protecting the interests of consumers. Therefore, the

injury data suggests that product safety is an area of legitimate

government concern. The Commission's challenge is to separate acceptable risks from

unreasonable ones.

142
When contemplating a given product safety action, the Commission must balance on the one hand the human gain in the form of

lives saved or injuries prevented and any value attached to that

gain. On the other hand, there is the adverse effect, including the

cost, usefulness or supply of the product involved.

Such a balancing test requires weighing a sophisticated set of

human values and standards requiring complex judgments about

the relative merit of alternative—sometimes competing—social

and economic goals.

Congress provided that these balancing decisions should be

made by a collegial body that would bring to bear a variety of

experience, expertise and values so that the weighing and balancing process could be as thorough, representative, and informed as

possible. I see my fundamental responsibility as Chief Executive

Officer to make that balancing process work and to assure that the

staff of the agency informs its Commissioners on all elements that

should go into that balancing process.

After this process is completed, where we find products posing

an unreasonable risk of injury, I am strongly committed to taking

an aggressive role in using the full powers of the agency to make

the marketplace safer for the consumer.

However, I want to state clearly that the "Age of Infancy" at

CPSC is over! No longer can we claim infancy as a regulatory

agency as an excuse against legitimate criticism. Three years is

long enough to "get your act together"—and that is what we are doing right now. . . "getting it together!"

We are looking at where we have been and was it worth it, and

we are looking at where we are going and why! We are not only

undertaking a critical self-examination, but we are also analyzing

our relationships with others—NBS, the States, various contractors and the like.

Last week, the Commission passed a policy guideline that not

only sets out the mechanism for establishing priorities within

CPSC, but also delineates the factors that will be used in making

these determinations. These factors include: —Frequency and Severity of Injuries; —Casualty of Injuries; —Chronic Illness and Future Injuries; —Cost and Benefit of CPSC Action; —Unforeseen Nature of the Risk; —Vulnerability of the Population at Risk; and —Probability of Exposure to Hazard.

We are new in the process of developing indepth profiles on the

» major products and product categories in line with these criteria.

We are aware that there will be data holes in the analysis. But if

143
we can make a first cut at such an effort, we will be in a much

better position to know where our data strengths and weaknesses

are. Then we can go about our responsibility building on our

strengths and working on our weaknesses.

The Commission is an enforcer, standards-setter, educator-informer and planner-researcher.

Whether we like it or not, it is the power of enforcement that

gives credibility to our rules, regulations and standards. All the

plans, standards, educational programs and research designs the

Commission may develop with Bureau help are for naught unless

the Commission has and is willing to use the strong set of

penalties built into its total program structure so as to effectively

eliminate hazards presenting an unreasonable risk of injury.

However, we are looking for innovative ways of stimulating

voluntary compliance with the Commission's standards, rules and

regulations. I would welcome from you ideas based on the experience you may have had in the compliance area. Certainly this organization has set for us a model of FederalState cooperation. Our Commission is trying to expand and improve its own Federal-State cooperative efforts. This was begun

within days of the activation of the Commission when its first

Chairman wrote to each of the Governors asking that an agency or

individual be singled out as the point of contact in the field of

product safety.

Since that time, we have developed working relationships in a few states, and in fact, I understand that we work specifically with

some weights and measures persons in a very active way. Connecticut, West Virginia and Wisconsin come to mind.

One of my top priorities is to substantially expand our relationships with the States in the field of consumer protection.

The Commission has the capacity to commission qualified State

and local employees to assist in some areas of our work. We can

accept State and local services, and we can pay for these services.

Certain efforts of Federal-State cooperation have been outstanding. About 45 States supported the Commission when it was

necessary to remove from the market banned spray adhesives.

About 32 States helped when we were campaigning against unsafe

toys. And just this year, 48 States participated in helping with the

removal and destruction of imported yarn that may have been

contaminated with anthrax.

A more formal on-going, year-round, work-sharing program has

been developed between the Commission and the State of Washington in the field of poison prevention packaging. We look forward

to more, of these types of cooperative efforts.

Just last month, the Association of Food and Drug Officials

endorsed model State legislation that parallels the Consumer

144
Product Safety Act. This, too, presents a fertile field for FederalState cooperation in consumer protection.

Ideally, the business of consumer protection is of fundamental

concern to business itself. We shall be calling on business to

encourage new technology and processes with an eye toward

safety performance. In addition, the Commission will be calling on

industry for help in the role of consumer education.

The role of consumer education in the safety area is perhaps

more critical than many originally thought. If it is true as some

seem to suggest that something less than half of the total products-associated injuries are preventable through standards making, then there is definietly a need for well-designed consumer

education strategies. And after all, business and industry know

much better than any government agency the most efficient and

most effective ways to reach the users of their products.

Businessmen might consider more prominent warnings about

the limits of safe use and dangerous misuse, greater emphasis on

safety-training programs for retailers—especially at the point of

sale—greater information about the more probable dangers and

side effects of normal use and more prominent disclosures and

publicity for methods of maintenance that reduces the chances of

accident due to malfunction.

Whatever their concerns, the Commission has an open door.

Companies, trade associations, State representatives, and individuals can and do meet with staff members to thrash out problems.

To assist in maintaining contact with CPSC, we have Area Offices

in 13 cities and resident posts in 21 other cities.

These Area Offices are in regular contact with the headquarters

in Washington. And, where there may not be an immediate

answer in the Area Office, the Area Office can pass along the

question and get assistance.

I hope all of you have developed a working relationship with our

Area Offices. And I want to assure you that I consider each of our

Area Office Directors to be my alter ego! They are now . . . and will

continue to be brought into both the policy development as well as the policy implementation process. They will know—and be a part

of what is happening in Washington—just as we will know and be

a part of what is happening around the nation. So I hope that each

of you will build upon the ties that you have already formulated

or are formulating—with our people around the country.

By this time, I hope you are convinced that I think we have a

legitimate job to do.

I also think we can do it efficiently and economically. With

improvements in Federal-State relationships, signs of progress in

145
corporate responsibility, and constructive self-criticism, I truly

believe that there is no need for consumer protection in product

safety to become a government rip-off. Product safety can and

must become one of the best "buys" in the marketplace!

ADDRESS

Presented by HONORABLE YOUNG D. HANCE, Secretary,

Maryland Department of Agriculture

I am indeed flattered to appear before

this distinguished group. In addition, I am

pleased that you would consent to spend a

few minutes with me after hearing from

such distinguished speakers this morning.

Let me begin by extending to you a very

warm welcome to this area of the country.

Hopefully, we in Maryland have provided

you with acceptable and proper weather

while you were enroute here this morning.

I'm sorry we couldn't do better as far as the

traffic is concerned, but let me extend to

you the Maryland Department of Agriculture's full cooperation. If

we can do any thing to make your visit more pleasant, please don't

hesitate to let Dick Thompson, Lacy DeGrange or any of us know.

We will be most happy to help in any way we can. I am proud of

the staff we have here in Maryland and evidently you, too, have

displayed the same confidence by selecting Dick Thompson as Chairman of the 61st National Conference on Weights and Measures.

I suppose the greatest problem that has faced us in the Maryland Department of Agriculture, and I am certain in other States

across the country, is the reduction in budget. I experience real

frustration when I think about this because my first objective is to

make our organization a good Department of Agriculture representing the interests of agriculture, the consumers and busineses

of Maryland; that is, all the citizens and the tax payers. I want to

build those programs which are beneficial to the interests which

we serve. Yet, I am also a tax payer; when I think that we have to ' have more funds, I am concerned that it may mean raising my < taxes, your taxes and everyone else's taxes. One becomes very

concerned when standing before a Senate or a House Committee ''

saying, "We need more money." I think you can see the source of ! my frustrations.

146
One thing the reduction of funds has demonstrated to me,

however, is the degree of dedication we have in Maryland's

Weights and Measures Section. These people are doing more than

that which is expected of the average government employee. They

are going above and beyond the call of duty and, based on what

Dick (Thompson) has told me about his counterparts in other

States and local governments, you are doing the same thing; I am

very proud that we are on the team together, that we have the

same objectives and that we're doing the same things.

I prefer to think of weights and measures as something more

than just a regulatory program—enforcement officers, so to

speak: "Pull over, you're driving over fifty-five; your packages are

not labeled; you're in trouble," that sort of thing. I like to think of

us as also being something of a service organization. In my life, I found that people are generally honest; they want to deal honestly

with their neighbors. I believe, by and large, that industry is

basically sincere in wanting to provide the consumer with that

which is expected in the package, or with the item they are presenting to their customers. We're not only assisting the con- sumer; we are assisting the industry in doing those things, for the

general public, which is expected and which also means fair profit

to business. Once industry loses sight of service to the community

and to the nation, their business will begin to deteriorate. There is,

however, much that we need to do and it is not solely related to

development of laws and regulations.

At present, you and I are faced with a very uncomfortable

situation. It's disheartening to realize that many people in this

country have lost confidence in their employees, both at the state

and Federal level. We must work twice as hard to overcome this

attitude and it is difficult; we are frequently reminded by some

thoughtless individuals that one cannot expect integrity and

honesty from government officials. You as weights and measures

officials and people in my position have to develop the ability to let

these comments roll off our backs. Unfortunately, many of you are probably of my disposition; I can't seem to leave my problems at

the office. This concern, however, is what makes you worthwhile

people and effective government employees, serving your towns,

your counties and your States. I am certain the citizens, for the

most part, are grateful for the job you do.

There are other uncomfortable and unfortunate situations faced

by weights and measures officials. While many may not be aware

of them, I know you sometimes face and receive abuse. It is during

these times that you are really the unsung heroes. I can visualize a situation where the device owner may have some forty or more

grain trucks ready to weigh and unload and you must say to him,

"Your scales are incorrect; you've got a problem." Certainly, many

147
of you have been called names other than your own. In defense of

the scale owner, however, I would like to believe his reaction

results from the frustration he must face in each day's activities.

There have been many mornings when I wish I had stayed in bed

and I am sure you have experienced the same feeling. This is the

professional life you have chosen, however, and knowing the

weights and measures people in Maryland, I'm certain you're the

type of individuals who do not need advertisement and publicity in

order to be motivated to excellent performance. It has been my

observation that, as long as you are personally satisfied and are recognized by your comrades, those people with whom you work

on a daily basis, and your families, that this is really the chief

motivation and the point of greatest importance. There are many

things that I could talk to you about in this vein, but time moves

along and I would like to discuss some other areas. You know, upon assuming the responsibilities of the new Maryland Department of Agriculture, I immediately became the most

frustrated bureaucrat in the State of Maryland. It appeared to me

that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was attempting

to accomplish many things without an effective or appropriate ear

directed toward the States. There are various agencies in each

State which have long had experience in some aspects of the

environmental protection field and were familiar with some of

those things EPA was attempting to accomplish, These State

government people were also aware of the frustrations that would

be experienced by Environmental Protection personnel and, in

addition, had some knowledge of the frustrations that they would

cause. For three and a half years we have worked diligently to

effect adequate communications with those people and now it appears that we can, at least, discuss their proposals and help

determine if they will work.

More recently we're talking about clean water standards; we are discussing air pollution and, among other things, noise control. It appears that standards will be developed for these areas, but they

must be developed so that they are applicable to the situation and

can be applied in a practical manner. If this is not accomplished,

this country could find, one day, that it has little of all the great

things that have made our lives so pleasant. The people working

on these items have a very important role and it's up to you and

people in my position to continue bringing the needs of your State

and mine to their attention.

Before proposals are developed, I wish they would be explored

carefully with the National Bureau of Standards. As an example, I would hope that the design and performance of fuel devices with

vapor recovery systems had been explored with all agencies

having an interest in them. Perhaps that did occur, but I sense

148
that weights and measures officials had little input in the development of vapor recovery systems and, because of that, real problems for some responsible State agencies will occur. They will

continue to occur, unless future problems will be resolved in a

manner which is workable for everyone.

More recently, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)

has appeared on the scene and the people working in this area,

regretfully, are approaching their problems in the same manner as the EPA did. Electrical standards, ladder standards and others

are being and have been developed. It's important that the federal

agencies go to the best or, at least, an appropriate source. This is

important in order to make certain that those things they will

propose are going to work well. We require proposals that the

States, their industries, their agriculture and other affected segments can work with.

I am not certain the National Bureau of Standards recognizes

that it is a unique agency, but it is. It has the ability to put many

people in the field, acting as its eyes and ears. You are those

people and you can report back to NBS and show its leaders the

needs of the citizens throughout the country. I have a strong

feeling that there are agencies in Washington which really don't

know what the people want; they don't understand about the

practical and real life. Certainly, I don't refer to the National

Bureau of Standards in that statement, because the Bureau is a

bright spot when it comes to helping develop realistic standards.

We, in State agriculture, have lawyers and other staff members

attempting to develop standards in an effort to comply with new

regulations. It is difficult to accomplish this on our own, and the

aid of NBS, in some areas of that activity, has been extremely

helpful.

If the National Bureau of Standards continues to use available

people wisely, and continues to use the resources of the States

wisely, there is a terrific potential here. In my opinion, the people

leading NBS have more of a feel for cooperation and using talent

than most of the other agencies' State departments of agriculture

deal with each day. I'd like to extend my congratulations to all the

people within the National Bureau of Standards; they have done

an immense job and they have performed an important service to

you and to all the citizens. I think it is important, however, that on

their 75th birthday, they do not rest upon their laurels. They must

recognize that there are many challenges, one right after another,

with all the new proposals that are arriving on the scene.

I believe the States can offer a great deal of help to the Bureau

of Standards through their commissioners of agriculture. It is my

observation that these individuals exercise some influence with

our legislators in Congress. There is evidence that the Congress

149

I
listens to these people and they can be a great deal of help. I think

the Bureau leaders should recognize this and give us an opportunity to assist them in needs that you and I believe should be

addressed. As an example of one such need, we have a real

problem here in Maryland. There have been no standards developed for flouride emissions and it appears that this country has

about three or four "experts," each of whom says something

different. Where does this leave the Maryland Department of

Agriculture or any other agency which has to manage a flouride

monitoring program? How does one determine a safe or permissible level of flouride emissions? This is an area in which we need

help and there are many such areas in which we will find

ourselves requiring assistance.

The adoption of standards such as Handbook 44 by the National

Conference on Weights and Measures is excellent and, based on

this, I urge you ladies and gentlemen to move forward on Handbook 67. We need an updated H-67, so please continue in your

efforts. Hopefully, the foreseeable future will produce a revised H67, enjoying the same acceptance as H-44.

In the early 1960's a significant measurement problem became

apparent to many of us. It was one which gave the agricultural

leadership of Maryland a great deal of concern. I am speaking,

now, of moisture testing in grain. There has been constant difficulty in developing a practical method for accurately determining

this moisture. Obviously, moisture meters are used in Maryland

and the Maryland Department of Agriculture has embarked upon

some methods of checking them. There are so many factors

involved, however, that we cannot be certain that our past

activities are effective or that the devices are accurate.

Thousands of dollars go into or are taken out of a farmer's

pocket because of a few points of moisture in grain. I believe that

we have never developed something that is really practical and

reliable in this area. By reliable, I mean reliable enough so that I can say to the farmers in my State, "There's an accurate moisture

meter and it's going to tell you what the moisture is in your

grain." If I can say this, we have at least solved one of the

measurement problems inherent in the marketing of this commodity. I am very grateful to Dr. Carroll Brickenkamp and to Mr.

Frank Jones, who have worked to develop new procedures which

appear to be improvements over our present ones. I am so pleased

and so impressed by what I have seen that we in Maryland are spending a considerable sum of money to buy equipment which

will enable us to utilize these new procedures. We wish to become

involved and to help improve this part of the measurement

system. My concern in this matter is great because most of

Maryland's corn, for example, is used within the State and the

150
moisture measurement will affect both the purchaser and the

seller, both of whom pay taxes which, in part, support the weights

and measures effort.

Currently, the USDA is presenting new grain standards. They

(USDA) say that moisture will not be considered as one of the

factors, but they indicate that it will be listed on the inspection or grading sheet. It has been my experience, however, that any time

you put something on an inspection/grading sheet, it is going to

become a factor in determining price. Whether the USDA consid- ers it a factor or not, it still is a very important issue. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in this area and I hope that

Dr. Ambler will lend his support to this very important effort. Just

think what a successful accomplishment along these lines will do;

not just in the State of Maryland, but in agriculture and agribusi- ness of every State.

I understand that there are many other States that are encour- aged by this effort and they are ready to support it with time and

money. We need more work in this area, because the amount of

moisture in grain affects our foreign market. The amount of

moisture, or the condition of grain, when it leaves this country will

affect its condition when it arrives in the purchasing country. I mention this in an effort to point out to you that here is one

particular item that is of great interest to me and to many people.

When we talk about moisture, we're talking about many dollars to

the grain farmers in Maryland, and you can imagine how many

more dollars we are discussing when it involves those people in

Iowa, Illinois and Ohio. An accurate test of moisture meters is

highly essential. We've scratched the surface and it appears we

are making improvements; let's not stop at this point. I urge all appropriate persons at the National Bureau of Standards to keep

striving in this study and let's improve it to such an extent that I can say to Maryland farmers, "We have an accurate test for

moisture meters. You have greater assurance that the moisture

determinations for your grain are correct."

There are many more measurement problems that lie ahead and

they must be solved. I hope that all of you, along with Maryland

Weights and Measures personnel, will continue in bringing these

items to the National Conference on Weights and Measures and

the National Bureau of Standards. We are, indeed, fortunate to

have NBS available to us. You can imagine what it would cost and

what would happen if each State tried to duplicate that which the

Bureau is now doing. Not only would we have unnecessary

duplication, but we may very well have conflicting answers bordering on chaos.

Standardization, in general, is a very desirable goal. I don't

know any other unit in Maryland's Department of Agriculture

that possesses the national uniformity of our Weights and Meas151

f
ures Section. When we perform our inspections and tests, Maryland people and businesses receive the same type of treatment and

are governed, for the most part, by the same criteria as those

citizens of California, Illinois, Texas, or wherever any of you may

be from. I am, indeed, proud of our Weights and Measures Section;

they're doing an excellent job. They are the people who are

actually out there, asking for no reward other than the satisfaction that they're doing a good job and that they are representing

the interests of all the State citizens. I have confidence that they

will still do this in the future, and may the way be known to me so that I can provide the funds and the personnel to meet their

needs.

Have a good Conference; it's been a real pleasure being with

you.

ADDRESS

Presented by DR. BETSY ANCKER-JOHNSON, Assistant Secretary

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

I am delighted that you asked me to join

you this morning. Some of you may recall

that I addressed the 59th Conference on

Weights and Measures at the Shoreham

Hotel. It was a pleasure to be with you

then, and it's even nicer to be back.

There are three things I'd like to discuss

with you this morning. The first is our

proposed program on Voluntary Consumer

Product Labeling. The second is a recently

implemented companion program for laboratory accreditation. Finally, I would like to

give you a short update on our progress in establishing the U.S.

Metric Board, the next stop in the U. S. metrication process.

It is well known, at least to me, that some years ago various

members of this group heard a lot of complaints from consumers

regarding the way that merchandise was packaged and labeled.

Further, I am told that many of you forwarded these complaints

to your respective State and Federal legislators, that you testified

in Congress regarding such practices and were, in this way, highly

instrumental in securing enactment of our Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act.

A similar kind of activity seems to be going on today in which

you and other interested groups have brought certain consumer

problems to our attention.

152
In response, we propose to establish a National Voluntary

Consumer Product Labeling Program. If, in fact, that program

comes to fruition, it will be an accomplishment for which you also

deserve a considerable amount of credit.

For example, you have told us about the need for expanding the

use of Open Dating so that consumers will have better estimates

of how long a product might be expected to last after they get it home or indeed to know that its potency is not exhausted even

before they make the purchase.

You have told us about the confusion in the marketplace

regarding the advertised capacity of many home appliances such

as washing machines, clothes dryers, dishwashers, refrigerators,

freezers, etc. If we look, for example, at two different 13.5 cu ft refrigerators, we may find that they hold very different amounts

of food. The problem, of course, is that there is no uniformly

accepted method of measuring their volume. How do you discount

the butter compartment or the ice cube trays or the egg holders?

Which holds more food, a 13.5 cu ft model or the 20,000 cu in one?

Naturally, I expect this latter sort of confusion to vanish when

we're using the nice, sensible Metric Units.

Beyond the uncertainty in measuring capacity are the multifaceted questions of performance. For example, what is the available temperature range? What is the temperature uniformity?

How much does this model cost to operate compared to some other

manufacturers unit? What is the expected mean time to the first

component-failure? How difficult or expensive is the unit to service?

You will recognize that we already have a start on some of these

problems (namely the ones dealing with energy consumption), but

we don't have enough information to calculate the life cycle cost of

my refrigerator. As a result, too many purchasing decisions are made, both by large volume purchasers like governments as well as by individual consumers, on the basis of initial cost only.

Home insulation is an area where you have indicated a need for

more information.

Is it enough to know that I have 6 inches of fiberglass in my

ceiling or 4 inches of polyurethane foam? Am I in a better energy

conservation posture if I know that my insulation has an R-Value

of 19? The latter assumes that I know the R-Value means

resistance to heat conductivity and so am able to make by own

value comparisons between competing products based on this

information.

These are just a few of the cases where product labels carrying

performance specifications would seem highly desirable, and we

are very happy that you've called them to our attention. This is

153

I
especially true not only because of the specific problems you've

mentioned but also because these requests all seem to have one

thing in common. They reveal a trend in which consumers are seeking data not only on the quantity of material that is offered

but also on the quality of the product in those cases where a

meaningful measurement can be made. People are looking for

measurements of performance that might never have existed

before, just as they are expecting standardized measures of

capacity.

These are the kinds of questions that our proposed labeling

program would address. Now, how would the program work?

Where do we stand today? And what can you do?

Let me begin with a little history. On May 25, the Department of

Commerce announced—through a notice in the Federal Register

and a press release—its intention to develop the Voluntary Consumer Product Labeling Program.

The program is to be developed in cooperation with consumers,

manufacturers, producers, distributors, retailers and other interested groups.

Its purpose is to facilitate consumer purchasing decisions by

making available, at the point of sale, comparative information on

selected product performance characteristics like the ones I mentioned a few moments ago. The program is also intended to

provide manufacturers an opportunity to convey to the public a

reliable statement about the particular advantages of their products.

Important note: The program will be implemented only if we see a clear indication of need and support.

To find out if the labeling program would fill an important need

we have conducted three public hearings and invited written

comment on the program. Since a number of groups desired

additional time to prepare a formal statement, I have extended

the deadline for written comments until August 2.

I urge you and the groups you represent to take advantage of

this opportunity to take a stand, for or against.

We are most anxious to receive comments about:

(1) the need for the program,

(2) the way it should be conducted,

(3) the kinds of products that should be included and what

pertinent characteristics should be tested,

(4) the way labels should be designed or located, or

(5) any other aspects of the program that you feel need attention.

For a full description of the Voluntary Consumer Product

154
Labeling Program and the procedures we are currently planning

to use, I refer you to the Federal Register of May 25, 1976. Some

copies are available in the back of the auditorium. Briefly, the

program would work this way:

1st Upon the request of an individual or an organization, the

Secretary may determine that a need exists for particular

information on a specific product.

2nd He publishes a notice of this preliminary finding in the

Federal Register and allows 30 days for written comment.

A hearing may be conducted if requested.

3rd Comments would be reviewed and a final statement or

notice of withdrawal published.

4th Specifications are developed for performance labeling of

the designated product.

5th Another notice is published in the Federal Register. This

one gives all details developed for the labeling specifications and invites further comments. (More hearings if

needed.)

6th The specification may then be published in final form,

developed further or withdrawn.

7th If the first option is chosen, i.e. specification published in

final form, then a schedule is developed to establish fees

for use of the Department of Commerce Label and Mark

on each product. These will be large enough to make

operation of the program, in due course, as nearly selfliquidating as possible.

8th Manufacturers desiring to participate notify the Secretary and then proceed to make the measurements needed

to collect data so they may display the label on their

products.

Finally, though it is not in the procedures, advertisers and

consumers will have to use the labels.

Now, where do we go from here? Our next step is to analyze all

of the oral testimony and comments that we have received. At the

conclusion of this analysis, the Secretary may either publish the

155

I
final procedures, publish additional proposed procedures for public

comment, or withdraw the proposed program.

The second topic I want to discuss is our recently established

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program.

I believe this program will be of interest to you because it represents a unique government and private sector venture to

provide, a much needed service. The goal of this program is to

provide, in cooperation with the private sector, a national voluntary system to examine, upon request, the technical competence of

testing laboratories that serve product evaluation and certification

needs.

Of course, both the private sector and governments can establish effective product test method standards and other elements of

certification systems to determine if a product conforms to a

designated standard. However, essential to such systems is that

laboratories participating in certification programs be accredited

by a nationally recognized institutional body competent to perform

the technical evaluation of laboratories. Our program, by utilizing

the services of the National Bureau of Standards, provides this

essential institutional body.

Here's how this program functions: Anyone may request the

Secretary of Commerce to find that there is need to accredit

testing laboratories—to say that the following laboratories are competent to test a specific product. The idea is to ascertain

whether such a product meets the requirements of a particular

standard.

If the Secretary finds that there is a need, he establishes a

National Laboratory Accreditation Criteria Committee composed

of members of government and the private sector. This Committee

will recommend to the Secretary the general and specific criteria

that a testing laboratory must meet in order to test that a specific

product conforms to a particular standard.

We view this program as providing a much needed service both

domestically and internationally.

Domestically it will have these advantages:

a. A group of manufacturers could establish a certification

system requiring that the testing of products to meet a

standard be done by a nationally accredited laboratory. This

would assure that the laboratory doing the testing was

competent.

b. The State of Pennslyvania, for example, in order to determine

that a certain product meets a particular standard could

require that it be tested by a nationally accredited laboratory. This would enable a manufacturer in New York to have

156
his product tested by a local Nationally Accredited Laboratory with the knowledge that Pennslyvania would accept

these test results.

Internationally the program will assist U.S. manufacturers to

conform with regional certification systems. For example, a group

of European countries might establish a regional system which

would require that a manufacturer have his product tested by a

nationally accredited laboratory before it can be sold. If there were

no institution in the U.S. to nationally accredit laboratories then,

our U.S. manufacturer would have to have his product tested

abroad at great expense and delay.

I have already acknowledged the assistance of weights and

measures professionals in formulating our program of Consumer

Product Labeling, but let me assure you our Laboratory Accreditation Program has also borrowed heavily upon your experience.

For example, you are all aware of the need to check back and

continually verify that a scale is functioning properly. Well, we

also plan to check back and verify that the laboratory continues to

meet the criteria established for its accreditation.

Our present status is this. We have received two specific re- quests for accreditation. One is for testing thermal insulation

materials like the ones I mentioned earlier. The second is for

inspection testing of electrical power distribution systems in buildings—a subject that is rather closely related to safety aspects of

the electrical codes. We are discussing some possible requests for

testing the efficiency of solar collectors and for calibration of

electronic devices used in the communication industry.

Now, let's switch gears to our third subject and take a look at

the metric issue. First, I want to congratulate the National

Conference on Weights and Measures for the leadership which you

have consistently exercised in preparing for change over to the

metric system. You have developed a considerable amount of

momentum. I am, of course, referring here to your plans for

updating Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances and Other

Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring

Devices," and for updating such model regulations as the "Method

of Sale of Commodities." I believe you have already made significant progress in establishing guidelines for metric labeling. These

are important activities and I applaud you for continuing such

good work.

Finally, let me give you a short update on progress in establishing the U.S. Metric Board. You recall on December 23, 1975,

President Ford signed into Law the "Metric Conversion Act of

1975." This Act provides for the President to appoint a 17 member

Board to coordinate the voluntary conversion to the metric sys157
tern. At least 12 members of the Board will be drawn from lists of

names recommended by organizations or individuals representing

10 special interest groups. These include weights and measures,

commerce, labor, engineering, etc. The President will also appoint

a Chairman and four at-large members to represent consumers

and other interests.

As you probably know, on April 5, 1976, Secretary Richardson

announced that President Ford had assigned responsibility to the

Department of Commerce for compiling the lists of names nominated in the 10 categories; and he called for representatives of

industry, labor, science, education and several trade sectors to

submit nominations to me before May 31, 1976. In addition to this

announcement, letters were sent to the six organizations specifically named under the Act, including the National Conference on

Weights and Measures, (and to 66 organizations representative of

the 10 categories) asking them to submit nominations. In response,

the Department received over 250 nominations for the 10 different

categories. The number of nominations runs from just a handful in

manufacturing to well over a hundred in education. At least 7

were received in the weights and measures category.

The lists of nominees, together with the name of the person or organization who made the nomination, have been forwarded to

Mr. Douglas P. Bennett, the Director of the Presidential Personnel

Office. We also sent along resumes and letters of nomination or endorsement. The President's choice will be a difficult one because

so many well qualified individuals have been nominated.

So there's the latest on three issues of considerable priority in

my Secretariat, which I know are of importance to you.

158
NBS FILM—"STANDARDS FOR EXCELLENCE"

For the conclusion of the Wednesday morning session, the

delegates were shown the film, "Standards for Excellence." This

NBS film was produced as part of the Bureau's overall information effort in connection with its 75th Anniversary. It is designed

to educate both young and old alike on the impact of standards

and measurements in our daily lives. The film begins at Thomas

Jefferson's home Monticello where he developed his own system of

weights and measures during colonial times. It carries the theme

of measurement into our complex modern civilization of today and

then focuses on the contributions NBS has made to furthering the

science of measurement and the development of precise standards.

The film is narrated by Actor John Astin, son of one of the

Bureau's former directors, Dr. Allen V. Astin. "Standards for

Excellence" is available for free loan from Association Films, 866

Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022; it is available for

purchase from the National Audio Visual Center, Attention: Order

Section (NAC), General Services Administration, Washington, D.C.

20409; price: $131.75.

159

.1
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Presented by R. T. WILLIAMS, Chairman; Director of Programs,

Department of Agriculture, State of Texas

(Thursday, July 15, 1976)

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs submits its

final report to the 61st National Conference

on Weights and Measures. The report consists of the tentative report as offered in the

Conference Announcement, and as

amended by the final report. The report

represents recommendations of the committee that have been formed on the basis of

written and oral comments received during

the year and oral presentations made during the open meeting of the committee.

National Weights and Measures Week

Mr. William Korth of Ventura County, California, the 1976

national chairman for the Week, is commended by the committee

for his leadership in securing materials and soliciting government

and industry cooperation for the promotion of this annual observance. The Scale Manufacturers Association is also tendered recognition for making available window stickers and an excellent kit of

promotional material including press releases, editorials, television

spot announcements, and other timely information for use by the

jurisdictions. The promotional kit is especially timely this year in

that it takes into account the signing by the President of the

Metric Conversion Act on December 23, 1975, and much metric

material is included for the weights and measures officials.

Mr. Ellis Fitzgerald of Fairbanks Weighing Division, Colt Industries, supplied 5,000 reduced size third man posters for appropriate

distribution. Mr. Korth sent letters, information, and posters to

the Grocer's Journal, National Petroleum News, American Metric

Journal, Metric News, and Weighing and Measurement Magazine

asking for their support in publicizing the Week. Similar information was also sent to Columbia Broadcasting System, National

Broadcasting Company, and Mutual Broadcasting System re160
questing that they and their affiliate stations appropriately recognize the Week in their public service announcements.

Since this is our bicentennial year and since the Metric Conversion Act has recently been enacted, our national chairman also

contacted President Gerald R. Ford requesting that he join in

observing the Week by asking the American public to recognize

the excellent services provided by weights and measures officials across the nation.

The weights and measures directors of all the States, the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands were

again contacted and asked to name a coordinator for each of their

jurisdictions. Replies were received from 35 States, Puerto Rico,

the Virgin Islands, and the City of Birmingham, Alabama. While

this is a slight improvement over the last year, the committee is

very disappointed in the fact that we could not achieve a 100

percent response during our bicentennial year.

The process of choosing a National Weights and Measures Week

chairman was discussed at length during the interim meeting. As

a result, the committee now recommends the naming of a National

Weights and Measures Week chairman during the interim committee meeting instead of making the selection at the National

Conference in mid-summer as has been done in the past. This

would give the new chairman a full year to work on the Week's

promotional efforts rather than about 7 months as has been the

practice. Accordingly, Mr. William Korth of Ventura County, California, was selected to serve as national chairman for the 1977

observance.

A resolution will be introduced this fall by Congressman Robert

Lagomarsino requesting a presidential proclamation calling on the

people of the United States to observe the period of March 1-7,

1977 as National Weights and Measures Week with appropriate

ceremonies and activities. Since this resolution will require a

majority endorsement by members of the House, delegates are urged to contact their Representatives at the time of notification

of the bill's introduction.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

Weights and Measures Promotional Activities

1. Weights and Measures Commemorative Medallion

As was reported to the 60th Conference in San Diego, the

medallion project has been a tremendous success, and the last

order of medallions was received in June 1975. At this time, the

total and final issue of the silver medallion, selling for $15 each,

161
has been completely sold out. A total of 450 bronze medallions

were struck and made available for purchase at $7.50 each.

Approximately fifty of the bronze medallions are still available for

sale.

Conference members are advised to place orders immediately for

the few remaining bronze medallions since these limited editions are already increasing in value. Orders may be directed to R. N.

Smith, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234, with checks made payable to the

National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Funds realized from this project will be used by the committee

for future educational efforts having nationwide impact.

2. National Conference Self-Adhesive Decals

An abundant supply of these attractive decals is now on hand to

fill anticipated orders with a minimum order of 30 decals priced at

$5. Other price increments are 45 decals-$7.50, 60 decals-$10, 75

decals-$ 12.50, 100 decals-$15.

Use of the decals is suggested on personal luggage, brief cases,

equipment cases, automobile bumpers, or similar areas as an

effective means for public identification with the vital area of

weights and measures control.

Orders may be directed to R. N. Smith, Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards, with checks made payable to the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

3. Household Weights and Measures Card

The Household Weights and Measures card published and distributed by the Office of Weights and Measures some 15 years ago

has been updated and revised by the National Bureau of Standards Metric Information Office and now includes much useful

household metric information.

The 8V2" x 11" card is produced in cooperation with the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, and space has been provided at the top of the card for the imprinting of State or local

jurisdiction name and address for distribution to local consumers.

These cards can be supplied on a no-charge basis by the Office of

Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards. It is

requested that individual orders be held to a reasonable minimum

number and include only the number that can be effectively

distributed in the jurisdiction.

4. Smithsonian Institution Exhibit of Weights and Measures

The committee is pleased to report that the weights and measures profession is recognized as part of a permanent exhibit in the

162
Smithsonian Institution for the Bicentennial titled, "We The

People." A separate case titled, "Standardizing Measurement" is

included in the "Government For The People" part of the total

exhibit. It contains several historical standards.

Several other exhibits contain historical weighing and measuring devices supplied by industry that will be of interest to weights

and measures officials.

Conference delegates are urged to visit the exhibit located on

the Mall in Washington, D. C, and to give it appropriate publicity

in their jurisdictions.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

Metric Education Seminars

The committee is extremely pleased to report that the Office of

Weights and Measures has completed arrangements for transfer

of funds from the U.S. Office of Education to the National Bureau

of Standards to enable the Conference to conduct phase one of a

metric training program for weights and measures officials. These

funds are being made available under Public Law 93-380.

As announced in Special Tech Memo No. 29, a subcontract to Mr.

John Landvater of Landvater Associates was issued for the

conduct of a series of six seminars throughout the United States

beginning in March and ending in June 1976. The purpose of these

seminars will be twofold: (1) to provide the jurisdiction directors

with current information to assist them in their important planning role for metric conversion and (2) to train a core group of

instructors who will then be able to run training programs in their

own jursidictions.

The committee feels that it is important for everyone to understand that the six planned seminars represent phase one of a hoped for multi-phase program. Additional money in the form of

future grants is recommended at an appropriate future date.

The original six area seminars on metric training have been

completed and a full report was presented during the committee's

open hearing by John Landvater and Margo Perkins, including

recommendations for future Conference action. The committee

concurs with the recommendations and urges the Conference to

take necessary action officially endorsing this "model program" as

its basic uniform metric training program.

In partial response to the recommended long range planning,

two additional seminars have been scheduled during September

and November 1976 at the National Bureau of Standards. Contact

Jeffrey Odom, Metric Information Office, National Bureau of

Standards, for complete details.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

163
Metric Slide and Tape Program

An excellent slide and tape program on the metric system has

been developed and produced by the Ventura County Weights and

Measures Department and Moorpark College in California. The

title of the program is "Whatta Family" and is a takeoff on the

"All in the Family" television series.

It is geai'ed to senior high school students and is not meant to

explain the metric system but to alleviate the fear a great many

people have of it being difficult. The program consists of 64 color

slides and an accompanying cassette tape. Total running time is 15

minutes and 7 seconds.

Committee member Bill Korth has made arrangements to provide copies of the program for sale under the auspices of the

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs.

The selling price for the total package is $33. The committee highly

endorses this project and urges weights and measures officials to

take advantage of this opportunity to add to their metric informational libraries.

Orders and checks should be directed to William Korth, Director

of Weights and Measures, Ventura County, 608 El Rio Drive,

Oxnard, California 93030.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

Expansion of State Weights and Measures Directory

The committee recommends the expansion by the Office of

Weights and Measures of the present State directory to include

county and city jurisdictions actively conducting weights and

measures work in the United States. The directory should list the

name, business address, and phone number of the jursidiction

director.

The committee feels that this directory would be invaluable in

expediting communications between jurisdictions providing it is

updated on a two-year basis. Jurisdiction directors are urged to

respond promptly to any OWM questionnaire which will be neces- sary to keep the information current. No such publication is

possible without 100 percent cooperation from all jurisdictions.

The new directory has been completed and distributed to

weights and measures offices. Additional copies are available from

the Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

164
Development of an Educational and Promotional Film to Include

Metric Activity

The committee feels a definite need for the production of a color

film presentation similar to the now outdated film "Assignment

Weights and Measures." The proposal is for a film not to exceed 20

minutes which can be used by all jurisdictions for training activity, public presentation, entertainment, and on television as a

public service presentation.

The film would be primarily educational and promotional of

weights and measures work but would also incorporate various

aspects of the metric system and its consumer impact. It is not

intended that the film should explain all aspects of the metric

system but rather treat it as an eventuality for which we must all prepare.

The main focus would be on the scope and importance of weights

and measures activity through all channels of trade. The incorporation of metric information will perhaps give the film good

impetus for wide use by the educational media as well as increase

its demand among consumer groups.

The committee proposes to use funds realized by the medallion

sales and other recent promotional activities.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

Availability of Metric Field Standards

The Office of Weights and Measures is requested to compile and

keep current a list of manufacturers of metric field standards

which jurisdictions may use when searching for sources for new

metric equipment. This list would not represent an endorsement of

any of the companies but would merely serve as a source document for the use of the jurisdictions.

It is also requested that, if possible, guidelines be included as to

recommended denominations of metric weighing and measuring

test equipment.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

A Question of Ethics

The California Association of Weights and Measures Officials

was recently advised of a possible conflict of interest occurring

when regulatory personnel join and actively participate in the

affairs of industrial associations whose membership is regulated

by the weights and measures officials.

165
This California incident is relayed to the Conference membership as an item of information only, and the committee at this time

does not take any position as to its nationwide validity. However,

each weights and measures official may want to review his own

situation according to the local climate in which he operates and

possibly consult with appropriate officials at home in order to

clarify his position in this matter.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

Future Surveys of Weights and Measures Jurisdictions

The committee goes on record and pledges support and cooperation for future information-gathering surveys. It is recommended,

however, that the value of, and necessity for, each such survey be

closely scrutinized and the questionnaire itself be held to an

absolute minimum in length. One page is recommended, two pages

are acceptable, three pages or more border on the burdensome and

can be a serious infringement on the time of the respondent.

A short questionnaire is forthcoming from the Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs at the request

of the National Measurement Policy and Coordination Committee.

The survey will seek data in the following areas:

1. procedure for adopting changes to Handbook 44 and the model

law and regulations,

2. device inspection fee or licensing system,

3. type of registration of servicemen.

The committee again urges the support of each jurisdiction in

promptly and accurately responding to this and future surveys.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

Funding for Metric Conversion Activities

In view of the passage of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, it is

imperative that the National Bureau of Standards, through its

Office of Weights and Measures, develop the capabilities for

assuming a leading role in assisting all weights and measures

jurisdictions in their metric conversion activities. This responsibility is set out in the metric bill. The committee calls attention to this need and strongly recommends that the executive secretary convey the committee's con166

1
cerns to the appropriate NBS officials regarding the need for

adequate funding to fulfill this obligation.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

Request for Budget Data

To implement a field request for budget justification data and

format, weights and measures jurisdictions are solicited to forward to the Office of Weights and Measures any cost benefit

analyses or other budget justification data on inspection activities

for future distribution and use by other interested jurisdictions.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

R. T. Williams, Chairman, Texas

W. B. Harper, Birmingham,

Alabama

W. H. KORTH, Ventura County,

California

A. J. LADD, Akron, Ohio

S. VALTRI, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania

R. N. SMITH, StaffAssistant, NBS

H. F. WOLLIN, Exec. Secy., 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 was adopted in its entirety by

the Conference by majority vote. The Conference also authorized the executive

secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by

the Conference.)

167
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND

TOLERANCES

Presented by KENDRICK J. SIMILA, Chairman; Administrator,

Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, State

of Oregon

(Thursday, July 15, 1976)

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances submits its final report to the 61st

National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report consists of the tentative

report as offered in the Conference Announcement and as amended by its final

report.

The report represents recommendations

of the committee that have been formed on

the basis of written and oral comments

(fc 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, Fourth Edition, "Specifications, Tolerances, and

Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and

Measuring Devices."

NOTE: In order to provide a clear understanding of the recommended amendments, all paragraphs to be amended are printed in

their present form; that which is to be deleted is shown lined out;

and that which is to be added is underlined.

1. Metric Conversion—Unmet NCWM Needs Made More Urgent

by Passage of the "Metric Conversion Act of 1975" (Public Law 94-

168).—The committee discussed at length the increasing use of the

metric system in the United States, and particularly the future of

weighing and measuring device designs in this country as a

consequence of the enactment of Public Law 94-168. The metric

era in commercial devices is not coming, but rather in a sense is

already here. The weighing and measuring systems that will be in

use in this country throughout the decade of the 1980's and

beyond are already being designed and engineered.

The 60th Conference last year in adopting the committee's

report recognized that publications such as NBS Handbook 44 and

the 105 series could not adequately provide for the total transition

to the metric system. The 60th Conference then accepted the

committee's recommendation that existing publications of these

types should remain in the U.S. customary system and that to deal

168
with metric conversion realistically a whole new set of "all metric"

device codes or handbooks be developed.

The committee feels that while an urgent need exists for the

Conference to provide guidance and direction (in the form of "all

metric" specifications, tolerances and other technical requirements for devices) to manufacturers who will be supplying new

wholly metric equipment, the Conference resources to provide

these new engineering standards in a timely manner are presently

inadequate to accomplish the task. The number and scope of the

agenda items relating to the current Handbook 44 codes at the

annual interim and July Conference meetings preclude meaningful development by the committee itself of new "all metric"

equivalents of Handbook 44 codes. The committee is responding,

however, to the near term needs for Handbook 44 codes to

recognize the capability of certain devices designed in the customary system to possess dual customary/metric indications.

In the view of the committee, development of the "all metric"

weighing and measuring device codes cannot be delayed until

after the U.S. Metric Board has begun its work. The appropriate

metric device design and performance criteria must be known well

in advance of any voluntary metric conversion timetables worked

out among the various U.S. industrial, commercial and retail trade

segments. The absence of appropriately designed metric weighing

and measuring devices at the time they are needed will not only

frustrate conversion timetables but be a burden on the whole of

commerce as well.

The committee had discussed the possibility of certain International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) International Recommendations serving as a starting point for drafting proposed

"all metric" device codes for adoption by the Conference. U.S.

participation as a treaty member of OIML now provides the

means for U.S. points of view to influence OIML International

Recommendations under development. At the present time, there

are 34 OIML International Recommendations. Additionally, there

are 11 draft recommendations to be voted on at the Fifth International Conference to be held in October 1976. There are also seven

project recommendations to be presented to the International

Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) the day preceding the

International Conference. If these are approved by the International Committee, they too will be voted on by the International

Conference. Therefore, at the conclusion of the Fifth International

Conference, there could be 52 International Recommendations.

Further, OIML has published its first International Document

No. 1 entitled "Legal Metrology Law." Of these 53 documents, 33

impact on legal metrology in the United States and, consequently,

on this organization, the National Conference on Weights and

169
Measures. It will take considerable time and resources to research

each of these 33 documents to make certain they fit the needs of

the United States.

The committee has responded to what it considers the primary

problems by making recommendations for Handbook 44 amendments directed toward certain metric equipment.

To resolve the present impasse in the development and adoption

of "all metric" device codes by the Conference, the committee

therefore strongly recommends the following stepwise approach:

STEP 1—The Conference recognize as its top three priorities for

development into "all metric" device codes or their equivalent, the provisions and requirements for devices as presently covered by the following sections of Handbook

44:

a. General Code

b. Code for Scales

c. Code for Liquid Measuring Devices

STEP 2—The Conference establish the following timetable of

"need dates" for development of the top three priority

"all metric" weighing and measuring device codes:

a. January 1978—Outlines for at least the priority

"all metric" codes (including their suggested scope,

major subject breakdowns, formats, and explanation of any new concepts to be introduced, etc.) to

be in draft form for review, markup and recommended action by the S & T Committee at the

interim meeting of the 63rd NCWM.

b. July 1978—Action by the 63rd NCWM on the "all

metric" code outlines recommended by the S & T

Committee in its tentative report to the Conference.

c. January 1979—Complete working drafts of the

priority "all metric" codes per the adopted outline

available for S & T Committee review (by 11/1/78

with markup and recommended action at the interim meetings.

d. July 1979—Action by the 64th NCWM on the S & T

Committee's report recommendations for adopting

"all metric" device codes.

170
STEP 3—The Conference request in writing under signature of its

Chairman the assistance of the Secretary of Commerce

under Section 6(7)(C)(ii) of Public Law 94-168 in providing

through the National Bureau of Standards additional

full-time professional (engineering or technical) staff

members in the Bureau's Office of Weights and Measures to accomplish STEP 2, above. In requesting the

Secretary's help in this matter, he should be advised

that:

a. the matter is of critical importance to Commerce

for the reasons stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of

this item,

b. this task is beyond the capability of State and local

weights and measures jurisdictions,

c. NBS has the authority to provide such assistance,

but apparently insufficient resources,

d. additional staff is necessary because of the need to

research extensively both existing and in-process

international metric (OIML) device standards, to

determine and evaluate the technical and philosophical differences between the U.S. and international engineering standards for commercial

weighing and measuring (legal metrology) devices,

and to synthesize and draft proposed "all metric"

standards based on the information developed.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

2. Related NBS Technical Services—Prototype Examination Program and Publication of Examination Guidelines.—The work of

the committee in proposing device specifications, tolerances, and

other technical requirements for adoption by the Conference has

been supplemented over the years by two related programs of

NBS' Office of Weights and Measures. Both the prototype examination of devices and the publication of examination guidelines

(manuals and EPO's) by OWM have materially contributed to

achieving uniformity of interpretation and application of NBS

Handbook 44 requirements among the various State and local

jurisdictions. In addition, it is recognized that the prototype

activity has been of substantial benefit to manufacturers wishing

to introduce new lines or models of equipment.

The committee believes strongly in the value of these two

related programs to the Conference members, jurisdictions and

commerce generally. With the support of the Conference, it believes these programs can and should be strengthened. With this

171
purpose in mind, the committee recommends the Conference adopt

the policy statements directed to the National Measurement

Policy and Coordination Committee regarding these outputs as

guidelines to the National Bureau of Standards in its administration of these programs.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

GENERAL CODE

1. G-A.U. Metric Equipment.—A recommendation was received

from the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) to

amend this paragraph so that all of the code amendments are

applicable to metric equipment, not just specifically equivalent

tolerances. The problem indicated by SWMA was directed toward

certain scales equipped with dual indications which indicate in

either metric or U.S. Customary units. The particular design

referenced were those devices that displayed the same digit as a

minimum increment in both systems. For example, if the least

significant digit displayed in U.S. Customary units was 1, as on a

scale with a capacity and minimum increment of 1,000 lb x 1 lb,

when switched to metric units, would provide indications with a

capacity and minimum increment as 454 kg x 1 kg. Thus, the scale,

when indicating in metric units, has a minimum increment equal

to a quantity approximately twice as large. It was the opinion of

SWMA that these devices should be designed to display minimum

increments in comparable values; that is, if the U.S. Customary

minimum increment is 1 lb, the metric minimum increment should

be 0.5 kg.

As referenced in the committee's report of last year, it is the

committee's view that every requirement of Handbook 44 cannot

apply specifically to metric equipment, that soft conversions are not appropriate, and that since the United States is an active

participant in the International Organization of Legal Metrology

and is beginning to consider the adoption of the mutually developed International Recommendations, it is necessary to develop a metric Handbook 44 which would be applicable to metric equipment only. With respect to the appropriateness of the design and

use of metric equipment, it is the committee's view that until the

publication of a metric H-44, the second sentence of this paragraph can be applied. This sentence reads as follows:

". . . The specific provisions of these requirements and the

principles upon which the requirements are based shall be applied

to metric equipment insofar as appropriate and practicable . . .".

172
It is the committee's view that it is necessary to provide specific

design criteria for equipment designed to indicate in both systems.

The committee recommends amendment to FH4 as follows:

G-S.5.3.1. Dual Indications.—On equipment designed to indicate or record in either or both U.S. Customary or metric units,

comparable values shall be indicated or recorded in each mode of

operation (i.e., 10 lb—5 kg; 0.01 lb—5 g; 0.01 gal—50 cm3

; Vg yd

0.1 m). The values indicated or recorded shall be identified with

the appropriate unit symbol, abbreviation or word. (Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1978)

Amend the Scale Code by adding the following new paragraph:

T.2.10. Minimum Tolerance Values, For Scales Indicating In

Metric Units.—The minimum tolerance shall be one half the

value of the minimum division or 0.05% of the nominal capacity

for nonautomatic-indicating scales* or reading face capacity for

automatic-indicating scales** whichever is less.

* Including scales equipped with over-and-under indicators.

**Excluding scales equipped with over-and-under indicators.

(The reading face capacity of a multi-revolution scale shall be

the total capacity of the scale.)

It is the view of the committee that this paragraph includes all of the information contained in Scale Code Table 3; and the

committee will recommend to the 62nd Conference that this new

paragraph replace Table 3.

These amendments will provide for the following:

a. For dual indicating and recording systems, it will be necessary

to indicate or print, adjacent to the quantity values, the appropriate word, symbol, or abbreviation to describe the value of the

units. On a digital instrument, for example, it will be necessary to

display, adjacent to the number values, the abbreviation "lb" or the word "pound" when in the U.S. Customary mode; and when

indicating metric values, the symbol "kg" or word "kilogram."

b. It will be necessary that the recording element print the value

of the units in the same manner as indicated.

c. Minimum tolerance values in metric units for devices indicating in metric units.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

173
2. G-S.l. Identification.—A comment was received from the

SWMA that the identification plate on some devices, although on

an exterior surface, was not visible to the inspecting official after

the installation of the device and that this paragraph should be

amended to eliminate that possibility. The committee recommends

amending this paragraph as follows:

G-S.l. Identification.—All equipment except weights shall be

clearly and permanently marked on a surface visible after

installation* for purposes of identification with the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer and with the manufacturer's designation that positively identifies the pattern or the

design of the device. All weighing and measuring devices, except

those with no moving or electronic component parts (such as

weights, liquid measures, and milk bottles), shall be clearly and

permanently marked on a surface visible after installation* with

a nonrepetitive serial number (nonretroactive as of 1968). ^nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1977)

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

3. G-UR.2.2. Installation of Indicating and Recording Elements.—A recommendation was received to amend this requirement so that the oral or visual direct communication required to

be provided in this paragraph be a representative of the owner or operator of the equipment used in determining the quantity. It was the committee's view that the philosophy expressed in this

paragraph was to make certain, in the case of a scale, a weigher

located at the indicating element has complete information con- cerning the application of the load on the load receiving element.

For example, are all axles scale borne? Is the driver on or off? It was also the view of the committee that this paragraph applies to

equipment that was not used for direct sales since paragraph GUR.3.2. Position of Equipment would then apply. Therefore, it is

the view of the committee that in direct sale applications paragraph G-UR.3.2. applies so that the customer, whether buying or

selling, has an opportunity to view the indication and the weighing

or measuring operation. Further, in nondirect sales applications, if

a weigher located at an indicating element remote from the load

receiving element was concerned as to the integrity of the individual providing the communication (for example, a truck driver

providing information as to driver on or off, or that the entire

truck or certain axles are scale borne), he could avail himself of

other technical means (for example, closed circuit television), and

no further amendment to the code is necessary.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

174
4. Equipment Not Intended for Trade.—A recommendation was

received to amend the code by adding a paragraph that would

require all weighing and measuring equipment which is designed

by the manufacturer not to meet the requirements of Handbook 44

to be marked "Not Legal For Trade." It was brought to the

attention of the committee that there are instances where devices are offered and advertised for sale for noncommercial applications

and are represented as meeting the requirements of Handbook 44.

Since these devices are not subject to inspection and in some

instances did not meet the requirements of Handbook 44, this

merchandising was considered unfair to prospective purchasers.

The committee discussed at length this problem and it was their

view that such an amendment would place an undue burden on

manufacturers of equipment, that it would be impossible to enforce and that since Handbook 44 addresses itself to commercial

equipment, it could not be amended to provide requirements for

noncommercial equipment. However, the committee wishes to

remind the manufacturers of weighing and measuring equipment

that when the equipment is designed and offered for sale and it is

not intended for commercial applications, reference to Handbook

44 or other weights and measures laws or regulations is inappropriate. It further wishes to recommend that when advertising of

this nature is found, the manufacturer should be notified and

requested to delete all such references.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

5. General Code, Reference to Commercial Equipment.—It is the

view of the committee that since the application section of the

General Code specifies the application of H-44 requirements to

commercial and law enforcement equipment, it is not necessary to

qualify equipment as commercial in the remaining paragraphs of

the code. The committee recommends the deletion of the word

"commercial" in the following paragraphs: G-S. 1., G-S. 2., G-S. 3,

and G-UR. 4. 1.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

CODE FOR SCALES

1. A.2. Wheel-Load Weighers and Axle-Load Scales.—A comment

was received that it could be construed that this paragraph is

applicable only to equipment in use by State authorities. It is the

view of the committee that the language presently in this paragraph; that is, ". . . in official use for the enforcement of . . . laws . .

by government agencies," is applicable to equipment in use by all

175

j
levels of government including city and county; and therefore

amendment to the code is not necessary.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

2. Unit Prices on Electronic Computing Scales.—Since the 60th

National Conference, the S & T Committee has received numerous

inquiries concerning the application of the amendment to the

Scale Code which was adopted by the 60th Conference which

eliminated the display of unit prices in quarter-lb and half-lb units

to the customer. The committee wishes to reconfirm its position in

its report to the 60th NCWM; that is, that selling, offering or exposing for sale commodities to be weighed from bulk in unit

prices based on quarter-lb and half-lb units:

a. makes value comparisons by consumers extremely difficult;

b. is in violation of Section 9 of the Model State Weights and

Measures Law; i.e., pricing in this manner tends to mislead;

c. is inconsistent with the philosophy expressed in Section 13 of

the Model State Weights and Measures Law which requires

the price per pound on random packages; and

d. is inconsistent with the intent of Congress in the passage of

the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act to regulate packages as

stated in Section 2, ". . . should facilitate value comparisons."

It is the committee's intent to eliminate the practice of pricing

by quarter-pound and half-pound units and to eliminate the

technology from electronic digital indicating computing scales.

As a result of a joint session with the L & R Committee at this

year's interim meeting, the committee makes the following recommendations:

Add the following new paragraph:

S.l.6.4. Unit Prices.—Computing scales equipped with digital

indicating or recording elements shall display, if equipped to

display, and record, if equipped to record, unit prices on the basis

of the price per pound and not in fractions or multiples of a pound.

Since the L & R Committee is recommending amendment to the

Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation to eliminate the practice of selling, offering or exposing for sale in units

176
other than a pound to become effective January 1, 1978, the S & T

Committee recommends that this new paragraph be nonretroactive and become retroactive January 1, 1978. This means that all equipment presently in use having the capability of pricing by

quarter-pound and half-pound units may continue to be used but

must be modified by January 1, 1978; and all equipment sold after

January 1, 1976, may not be so equipped.

Renumber existing paragraph S.l.6.4 to S.l.6.5.

Amend paragraph S. 1.6.3. by deleting the last sentence which

was added to the paragraph last year:

S. 1.6.3. Customer's Indications.—Weight indications shall be

shown on the customer's side of computing scales when these

are used for direct sales to retail customers. Computing scales

equipped on the operator's side with digital indications, such as the net weight, price per pound, or total price, shall be similarly

equipped on the customer's side (nonretroactive as of 1971). ^tfnit

-priee displays visible to the customer shall be in terms of the

price per pound and not in fractions or multiples of sc poundr

Considerable discussion and debate ensued, resulting in a motion to table this item until after the L & R Committee presented

its final report to the Conference. The motion was seconded and

passed.

After the L & R Committee presented its report, the S & T

Committee reconvened and voting proceeded on this item.

(The foregoing item was defeated by majority vote.)

3. S.l.6.4- Recorded Representations, Point of Sale Systems.—

Since the last Conference on Weights and Measures, the committee has received numerous requests for its interpretation of a

particular format for presenting the information required on the

customer's tape. Some of the questions asked are as follows:

Since the abbreviation "lb" normally requires two characters on

a print line rather than one, and since unit prices cannot be

presented for anything other than whole pound units, can the unit

price appear without being identified with the abbreviation "lb." It

is the committee's view that the key to any format used is

expressed in paragraph G-S. 5. 1., that the recorded representations are clear, definite, accurate, and easily read. It is the

committee's view that the unit price need not be associated with

"lb" when presented in this manner; for example.

1.53 lb @ 1.49 2.28

177
However, there may be certain instances where it may be

necessary to qualify the unit price with "lb." For example,

1.531b .76

31b/1.49 161

The committee was also requested to consider appropriate the

following : (Each of these items was voted upon by the Conference

as they were presented by the committee; the results of the voting

appear after each item.)

PQ p»

a. "LB" or "PR" (produce) appear as: j pl, since this methodology would allow the use of only one character unit per line.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

b. The # (double hash mark) be used as a symbol for pounds

since Webster's Dictionary does reference that symbol accordingly.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

c. Eliminate requiring the price look-up code number, as these

numbers tend to further complicate the tape.

(The foregoing item was defeated by majority vote.)

d. The symbol "/" be used for the word "for" when presenting

unit prices, as illustrated in the example above.

(The foregoing item was adopted by a majority vote.)

At this interim meeting, the committee heard presentations

from several representatives of producers of this equipment. Their

primary concern was that they were receiving varying interpretations of the format used for their ECR (electronic cash register)

tapes. They stated that to change the programs for each jurisdiction was extremely expensive and they would like to have settled

once and for all a final approval of their formats.

It was the committee's recommendation that since varying

interpretations among the jurisdictions have occurred, the best

solution to this problem is for each individual company to submit

its format to the committee; and if the committee considers it appropriate, that information should be circulated and would hope

that all jurisdictions would then accept that view.

The following is a list of examples of present formats in use

which the committee considers appropriate.

178

1
1.39 lb (g) 1.79 Z.49

1.53 j @ 0.89 1.36

183 1.50 LB

1 LB/0.99 1.49 PR

5.04 lb @ 1 lb/ .97

23 PRO 4.89

PRO .88 1.49 LB

23 @ 1 LB/.59

3 lb/1.05 00T D 1 .75 lb .26 PR

0.39/lb

2.86 lb

1.12 PR

.98 LB

@.45/l LB

.44 PRE

Note: The use of multiple unit pricing in example 6 above is in

conflict with the committee's recommendation in the previous item

and not considered appropriate.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote. *)

*However, since Scale Code Item No. 2 was defeated, multiple

pound pricing may be used for recorded representations only.

4. S.2. Design of Balance, Tare, Level, Damping, and Arresting

Mechanisms.—A recommendation was received to amend this

section to provide specific parameters for devices equipped with

automatic zero tracking mechanisms; that is, the maximum value

of weight added to the platform that would rezero rather than

indicate a weight value and the maximum number of weight

applications that could be added before the automatic zero tracking mechanism becomes inoperative.

There has been continuous discussion in recent years concern- ing the means for an automatic zero maintenance test on electronic weighing equipment. Achievement of a common technique

has been hampered by conflicting technical philosophies by different manufacturers, test methods which do not simulate actual use,

test observations affected by other scale deficiencies, and a general frustration among weights and measures officials created by

competitive disagreement among manufacturers.

179
Deliberations of the S & T Committee preparatory to and at the

61st National Conference have produced the following conclusions:

1. General Code and Scale Code provisions adopted since 1970 are

suitable and sufficient for automatic zero maintenance specification.

2. An active means of zero maintenance to improve weighing in

commercial equipment is a desirable addition to weighing technology.

3. Proper adjustment of automatic zero maintenance is an application variable.

4. Initial instructions to weights and measures officials are neces- sary to provide complete understanding and to eliminate any

doubt concerning proper operation of this feature in any particular

installation.

The S & T Committee, therefore, recommends deleting existing

paragraph S.2.1.3. of the Scale Code and replacing it with the

following new nonretroactive paragraph. Since this new paragraph is a mandatory requirement for the performance of a device

in any installation, the committee intends that this test be performed by the weights and measures official following normal

testing to avoid confusion with other equipment deficiencies,

which can be erroneously related to automatic zero maintenance

tests.

S.2.1.3. For Scales Designed with Automatic Means to Maintain

a Digital Zero Balance Indication.Scales designed with automatic means to maintain a digital zero balance indication shall

be provided with means to meet the requirements of S.l.l. Zero

Indication and S.1.4-1- Capacity Indication. However, under nor- mal operating conditions with the scale indicating zero, the

maximum load, when placed immediately on the platform, which

can be "rezeroed" without indicating a weight value shall be:

(a) For retail and livestock scales—±0.6 scale division (d^),

(b) For scales with 2500 scale divisions (n) or less—±1.0 scale

division ( dd),

(c) For scales with more than 2500 scale divisions (n)—±3.0

scale divisions (d^).

180
Add the following definitions:

Scale divisions, number of (n). Quotient of the capacity divided

Cap Cap

by the value of the scale division, n = —r~ or ——

Scale division, value of (d). The value of the scale division

expressed in units of mass is the smallest subdivision of the

scale for analog indication (d) or the difference between two

consecutively indicated or printed val

es for digital indication or printing (d^).

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

5. S.2.1.U- Zero-Load Adjustment, For Monorail Scales.—The

committee received several recommendations to amend this paragraph for clarification purposes. It was the intent of the committee

in recommending this paragraph, as adopted by the 59th National

Conference, that for digital indicating monorail scales with a

capacity of 1,000 lb with a 1 lb minimum increment to require

these scales to be equipped with means for setting small tare

values and zero closer than ±0.5 lb. Since there are monorail

scales of varying capacities and varying minimum increments, to

clarify the application of this paragraph, the committee recommends the paragraph be amended as follows:

S.2.1.4. For Monorail Scales.—On a monorail scale equipped with

a digital indicate? indications, means shall be provided for

setting the zero-load balance and any tare of less than five

percent of the scale capacity to within 0.02% of scale capacity Ovl

-the va-tue ef-the minimum operating increment. On an in-motion

system, means shall be provided to automatically maintain the

sero load ha4 anee condition and tare vatues- to within -Or-2 the

^value ef the minim-am operating increment these conditions.

The committee further recommends that T.3. Basic Tolerance

Values be amended to provide specific tolerances for monorail

scales for both dynamic and static applications. The committee

recommends amendment to the code as follows:

Add the following new paragraphs:

T.3.8. For Monorail Scales.

T.3.8.1. Weighing Statically.—The basic maintenance tolerance

shall be 1 lb per 1,000 lb of test load (0.1%). The basic acceptance

tolerance shall be Vi the basic maintenance tolerance.

181
T.3.8.2. Weighing In Motion.—The basic maintenance and ac- ceptance tolerances shall be 1 lb per 1,000 lb of test load (0.1%).

On a dynamic test of 20 or more drafts, 10 percent of the | individual test drafts may be in error not to exceed two times

the basic tolerance provided the error on the total test load of all

drafts does not exceed 0.2 percent.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

6. S4-2. Adjustable Components.—A recommendation was re- ceived from the Northwest Weights and Measures Association to

amend this paragraph to require the span adjustment on electronic indicating elements be designed to be sealed. The committee

expresses the view that to direct this requirement to a particular

technology would be inappropriate since it was not recommended

to require nose irons, pendulums, springs, etc. be designed to be

sealed; and especially so since all of these adjustable components

are required to be designed so that they cannot be adjusted from

outside the scale. However, it was also the committee's view that a

particular jurisdiction may require that the housing in which the

indicator is encased be supplied with cap screws drilled for sealing

so that, in certain instances, studies could be conducted, for

example, to determine the capability of a device to remain accurate over a specific period of time. The committee recommends no

amendment to this paragraph.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.) I

7. S.6. Marking Requirements.—A recommendation was received

to amend this paragraph to require that operating instructions be

marked on all weighing and measuring equipment. The recommendation was made on the basis that weighing and measuring

systems are becoming not only more complex and sophisticated

but that many devices are individual designs for particular applications. It was also stated that in certain instances, regular

employees of the users of this equipment were temporarily absent;

and those employees directed to operate this equipment during

this time were not always sufficiently familiar with the equipment

and errors could result. It is also a problem for customers to

determine that those devices used in direct sales are being properly operated, and for weights and measures officials when en- countering this equipment in the field for the first time. It is the

view of the committee that in most instances it would be impossible to post on the equipment complete operating instructions and

that it is the user's responsibility to fully train all operators.

However, the committee does recognize the complexity of these

systems; and it is their view that the key to the proper operation

182
of the equipment is that all operational controls associated with

this equipment should be appropriately and clearly identified and

marked.

The committee recommends that the General Code be amended

by adding the following new paragraph:

G-S.6. Marking, Operational Controls, Indications, and Features.—All operational controls, indications, and features, including switches, lights, displays, pushbuttons and other means,

shall be clearly and definitely identified.

Renumber existing paragraph G-S.6 to G-S.7.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

8. SR. Sensitivity Requirements.—A comment was received that

this section is not clearly understood and seems to require that the

sensitivity of a beam scale be precisely twice the value of the

minimum graduated interval and that there is no recognition of

supersensitive beams; that is, beams in which the sensitivity is so small a weight value that the beams do not oscillate properly

within the trig loop. To clarify these requirements, the committee

recommends that this section be amended so that the sensitivity

requirements indicated in the paragraphs are a maximum value

and that "lesser values be recognized." It is the committee's view

that the appropriate sensitivity is somewhere between 3

/4 and

twice the value of the minimum graduated interval. It is also their

view that in many instances there are advantages to the inspector

in the testing process to actually determine the sensitivity value

rather than merely tolerance testing. The sensitivity value and

the action of the weighbeam can provide valuable information

concerning the condition of the scale under test.

The committee has attempted to restructure the SR paragraphs

but could not develop requirements that would clarify completely

all of the considerations. The committee recommends this item be

tabled for further consideration by the S & T Committee of the

62nd Conference.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

9. T.3.6.3. Basic Tolerance Values, For Railway Track Scales,

Weighing Coupled In Motion.—The committee received a recommendation to provide a test tolerance for railroad track scales

weighing coupled in motion when used for unit train applications

only. This recommendation provided for a maximum permissible

error on individual cars not to exceed 1 percent and a maximum

test train error not to exceed 1 lb per 1,000 lb (0.1%). The

183
recommendation also set forth a definition for unit trains for

commercial applications. Based on the comments received, it was

the committee's view that the code not be amended.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

10. Radio Frequency Interference (RFI).—In its report to the

60th NCWM, the S & T Committee made several recommendations

with respect to the problem with electronic equipment resulting

from RFI. The committee indicated that the Scale Manufacturers

Association (SMA) had formed a subcommittee to study RFI and

that this subcommittee would make a proposal for code amendment at the next committee interim meeting. This subcommittee

did conduct this study and the following recommendations of the

committee are based on that study and recommendations of the

SMA subcommittee. It should be noted that recommendations of

the SMA subcommittee for code amendment were directed toward

the Scale Code. However, it was the committee's view that the

recommended amendments were applicable to electronic devices

other than scales; consequently, some of these amendments are recommended for inclusion in the General Code.

After careful deliberation, it was the view of the committee that

the proposed changes for H-44 represent the most reasonable and

practicable means of addressing the RFI question at the present.

To go further could result in design requirements on equipment

which would be inappropriate for field use and which would be

inconsistent with philosophy of H-44.

It must be recognized that whenever RFI conditions are en- countered, they appear to be best solved by experienced and

knowledgeable service personnel. At the present time, there is

little confidence that RFI design requirements imposed at the

component level would guarantee satisfactory performance under

field conditions.

It was the view of the committee that these changes to H-44

would provide the users with workable guidelines for consideration

and alert them to potential degradation of this equipment when

operated in an RFI environment. The committee has been advised

that the SMA Technical Committee will continue to study the

practicability of a more definitive approach to RFI.

The committee recommends adding the following new paragraphs to the General Code:

G-UR.1.2. Environment.—Equipment shall be suitable for the

environment in which it is used including but not limited to the

effects of wind, weather and radio frequency interference (RFI).

184
G-UR.3.2. Associated and Nonassociated Equipment.—A device

shall meet all performance requirements when associated or nonassociated equipment is operated in its usual and customary

manner and location.

Renumber existing paragraphs G-UR3.2. and G-UR.3.3. to GUR.3.3. and G-UR.3.4.

G-UR.4.2. Abnormal Performance.—Unstable indications or other abnormal equipment performance observed during operation, shall be corrected and, if necessary, brought to the attention of competent service personnel.

Renumber existing paragraphs G-UR.4.2., G-UR.4.3., and GUR.4.4. to G-UR.4.3., G-UR.4.4. and G-UR.4.5.

G-N.2. Testing with Nonassociated Equipment.—Tests to determine conditions, such as RFI, which may adversely affect the

performance of a device shall be conducted with equipment and

under conditions which are usual and customary with respect to

the location and use of the device.

Add the following definitions to the General Code:

Usual and Customary.—Commonly or ordinarily found in practice or in the normal course of events and in accordance with

established practices.

Radio Frequency Interference (RFI).—Radio frequency interference is a type of electrical disturbance which, when introduced

into electronic and electrical circuits, may cause deviations from

the normally expected performance.

Amend paragraph UR.2.3. in the Scale as follows:

UR.2.3. Protection Against -Wmd--and-Weath^r From Environmental -Effeefcs Factors.—The indicating elements, the lever

system or load cells, and the load receiving element of a

permanently installed scale, and the indicating elements of a

scale not intended to be permanently installed, shall be adequately protected -aga-iRst-wmd-and- -weather- -effects from environmental factors such as wind, weather, and RFI which may

adversely affect the operation or performance of the device.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

185
11. Weighing Equipment for Toll Collections.—The committee

received a request that recognition be made in H-44 for dynamic

axle load scales used for the axle weighing of trucks, the weights

of which are to be used to determine highway road or bridge tolls.

The committee was informed that devices of this type are already

in use and that, if necessary, code amendments should be made.

Since the committee did not have full information as to the design

characteristics and performance capabilities of this equipment, the

committee recommends that the Office of Weights and Measures

obtain as much information as possible so that positive recommendations can be made to the S & T Committee of the 62nd National

Conference.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

12. S.l.6.3. Customer's Indications.—The committee received a

recommendation from the SMA that this paragraph be amended

to state that in certain instances the customer's indications on

computing scales can be the same as the operator's indications. It

is the view of the committee that this interpretation can be made

with the existing terminology in the few instances where it would

be appropriate. An example of an existing application in which a

single indication is provided for both the customer and the operator is certain electronic cash registers interfaced with weighing

elements at checkout counters. It is further the committee's view

that an amendment to this paragraph could result in conflicting

interpretations for many applications; that is, there are few

instances in which a single indication would be appropriate because paragraph G-UR.3.2. Position of Equipment requires that

customers be able to view both the indications and weighing or measuring operation at the same time.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

CODE FOR LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

1. S.14.4- Money-Value Computations.—The committee received

several comments regarding the application of this paragraph to

retail petroleum dispensers which can indicate total prices to a

maximum of $9.99. It was the committee's view that these devices

do, in fact, meet the requirements of this paragraph since this

paragraph requires that total prices be indicated for every delivery within either the range of measurement of the device or range

of the computing elements, whichever is less. The committee feels

there is a need for a recommendation to the Conference since the

price of gasoline has risen to the extent that there are many sales

in excess of $10 and customers can be confused when charged

186
$12.75 with the pump indicating only $2.75. It is the committee's

interpretation that although devices with only three decades do

meet the requirements of S. 1.4.4., when sales exceed $10, these

devices do not meet the requirements of G-UR.1.1. Suitability of

Equipment since it is used to deliver product with total prices

exceeding $9.99. The committee is fully aware of the problems

confronting the petroleum industry with respect to rising prices,

vapor recovery, and metrication; and for these reasons, industry is hesitant about making modifications to equipment. It is the

committee's view, however, that retail establishments that do in

fact make individual sales in excess of $10 are in violation of GUR.1.1. and should avail themselves of equipment having the

capability of indicating the total price of each individual sale.

The committee recognizes that these modifications cannot be

accomplished overnight and recommends to weights and measures

officials that they convey this information to the affected parties

in their jurisdictions and develop a workable method for an

eventual conversion over a reasonable length of time. No amendment to the code is recommended.

Another problem confronting manufacturers caused by rapidly

increasing gasoline prices is the urging by the petroleum industries of manufacturers of retail petroleum dispensers and computing elements to respond to the need for an appropriate device

capable of computing with unit prices of more than $1.00/gallon

since existing mechanical computers have a maximum unit price

capability of $.999/gallon. Neither the petroleum industry nor

weights and measures officials want to again be confronted with

the problem of using a unit price based on the price per V2 gallon

and then multiplying the total price displayed by two, as was

necessary for approximately 200,000 gasoline pumps several years

ago. It has been estimated that there are 1.5 million retail

petroleum dispensers presently in use. The response of the S & T Committee to the petroleum industry

as a long range solution to this problem was presented in its final

report of the 59th NCWM in 1974 and that was to initiate the use

of the metric system throughout the petroleum industry. This

continues to be our recommended solution. Since the measurement unit would change from a gallon to a litre, a unit price

capability of $.999 on existing retail petroleum dispensers would

provide for a computing capability roughly equivalent to $4 per

gallon.

However, if the petroleum industry continues to sell gasoline in

U.S. Customary units, what is the recommended solution for the

design of digital computers for gasoline pumps? The present

design displays total prices in either four or five decades; the unit

price, in three decades; and the total quantity, in four decades

with the value of the smallest unit being .01 gallon.

187
How will this design criteria work with unit prices above $1/

gallon? A primary consideration for the design of this equipment is

that it meet the requirements of Handbook 44's General Code

paragraph G-S.5.5.; that is, the total price displayed must be

within ±V2 cent of the value obtained when multiplying the

measured quantity indicated by the unit price. With the existing

design criteria, there are many instances in which customers could

not purchase an even dollar's worth of product. For example, if the

quantity purchased were 4.54 gallons at $1.10/gallon, the computed

total price would be $4,994, and the displayed total price would be

$4.99. If you increased the delivery by .01 gallon to 4.55 gallons

multiplied by $1.10/gallon, the computed total price would be

$5,005, rounded off would be $5.01. Therefore, the displayed total

price would go from $4.99 to $5.01.

The solution for this problem for retail scales was relatively

simple since customers were not accustomed to buying a specific

dollar's worth of meat. If a quantity of meat is placed on the load

receiving element of a scale which weighs precisely 1.005 lb, the

scale makes a decision and presents a net weight indication of

either 1.00 lb or 1.01 lb; and if the unit price is $4/lb, the

accompanying total price displayed is either $4 or $4.04. No one

could possibly buy $4.02 worth of product at $4/lb.

Therefore, the committee wishes to recommend to the petroleum

industry once again that they immediately initiate a plan to

convert to selling gasoline in metric units; that is, litres. It further

wishes to recommend to the manufacturers of digital computing

elements for retail petroluem dispensers the following design

crtieria:

(1) The total quantity should be presented in five decades,

indicating from 00.001 gallon to 99.999 gallons;

(2) The unit price should be presented in three decades, providing a unit price capability from $.001 to $9.99. With this application, when the unit price exceeds $1, the unit price would then be

on the basis of whole cents; that is, $1.00 to $9.99;

(3) The total price should be presented in five decades, indicating

from $000.01 to $999.99.

The next question that arises is what information is necessary

to be presented on a console in the kiosk intended for the

operator's use only in a post-pay system? It is the view of the

committee that if the information is to be used for handwritten

sales slips, it would not be necessary to provide quantity indications to .001 gallon, and that .01 gallon would be sufficient. The

philosophy for this decision is expressed in Handbook 44's General

Code paragraph G-S.5.5., the second sentence, which states: "This

does not apply to auxiliary digital indications intended for the

operator's use only when these indications are obtained from

188
existing analog customer indications which meet this requirement." However, if the information is going to be printed by a

recording element, it will be necessary to provide 0.001 gallon

divisions so that mathematical agreement is provided the cus- tomer.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

2. UR.2.5. Product Storage Identification.—The committee re- ceived comments that this new paragraph, adopted by the 60th

NCWM, which included the term "visibly labeled," seemed to

preclude color coding identification means. It is the committee's

view that color coding is an appropriate means for product storage

identification if the key to that code is conspicuously displayed at

the service station. The committee recommends that UR.2.5. be

amended as follows:

UR.2.5. Product Storage Identification.—The fill connection for

any petroleum product storage tank or vessel supplying motor

fuel devices shall be permanently, plainly, and visibly labeled

marked as to product contained. When the device is marked by

means of a color code, the code key shall be conspicuously

di splayed at the place of business.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

3. Performance Survey for Retail Petroleum Dispensers.—The

SWMA had recommended that a study be conducted to determine

the performance capabilities of retail petroleum dispensers now in

use and that this study be coordinated by the Office of Weights

and Measures. Unfortunately, the resources available at OWM

were not adequate to accomplish the task, and the Office of

Weights and Measures recommended to the S & T Committee that

the committee develop parameters and methodology for the future

conduct of this survey. It is the view of the committee that,

although this is an important issue, there are more items of a

higher priority to be considered at this time; and the committee

recommends to weights and measures officials that there are

several paragraphs of which are useful enforcement tools for

equity in measurement. The second sentence of Paragraph GUR.4. Maintenance Requirements reads, "Equipment in service at a single place of business found to be in error predominantly in a

direction favorable to the device user and near the tolerance limits

shall not be considered 'maintained in a proper operating condition.' " Paragraph G-UR.4.2. Use of Adjustments states that whenever equipment is adjusted, the adjustments shall be so made as

to bring performance errors as close as practicable to zero value.

189
The committee recommends that these paragraphs, when applied,

should bring about equitable measurement practices and will not ! necessitate a reduction in tolerances. j

! p (The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.) v

I

'

4. Vapor Recovery Systems.—The committee discussed at length

the problems which will be confronting weights and measures

officials during the next few years because of the requirements of i , the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning vapor

recovery installations at both retail and wholesale levels. At its 1 interim meeting, the committee was privileged to have in attend- 1 ance the following three representatives of the EPA: Mr. J. Haines, Mr. P. Principe, and Mr. R. Ajax. Representatives of the i American Petroleum Institute, device manufacturers, and nozzle < manufacturers were also present. These representatives presented

valuable input during this meeting. The committee also received

comments from the State of California.

( The committee concluded that the major concerns of the weights

and measures officials can be summed up as follows: i

I. On systems equipped with vapor recovery capabilities:

a. the diversion of liquid flow, and

b. the accuracy effect on the measuring system;

II. Adequate proving equipment;

III. Uniform and appropriate test procedures; and

IV. Violation of EPA requirements by weights and measures

officials.

The following material copied from comments submitted to the

EPA on December 29, 1975 by Standard Oil Company of California

presents valuable information in two of the above areas.

9.4 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES CONSIDERATIONS

The main vapor recovery concern of weights and measures would appear to be

the possible diversion of the liquid flow after it has been metered.

In general, this problem is not the fault of the nozzle, rather, the design of the

vehicle fill neck. Figure 9.1 shows a fill neck configuration that presents the

major problem with overfill. As shown, the initial portion of the fill neck is horizontal with a turn in the pipe located such that the end of the nozzle spout

points at this elbow. This configuration allows the flow of product to splash back

j 190

i

i
and cover the high level sense port. This causes the nozzle to shut off. The

general procedure, then, is to dispense the product at a lower flow rate. Reducing the flow rate prevents the splash from covering the sense port. The

problem now is that the flow is slow enough to be diverted back through the

vapor passage and hose without covering the high level sense port after the tank

is full. It is interesting to note that this same failure to shut off can happen with a standard nozzle. When it did, though, the overflowing product would run on the

ground. That is, it was much more noticeable before the vapor recovery nozzle was installed.

It is important to note that the diversion of flow takes place within the

vehicle's fill neck, and not within the nozzle. The vapor recovery nozzle simply

provides an effective path for capturing the liquid that would have otherwise

spilled on the ground.

The short-term solution is to train the service station attendant to recognize

the types of vehicle fill necks that are going to give him problems. This can be

done as we gain experience in identifying the problems. Bulletins, similar to service bulletins issued when new automobiles come on the market, could be

distributed to service stations having vapor recovery.

The long-range solution is to incorporate in fill neck standards those criteria

that will eliminate the problem. For example, one of the recommendations of the

Fill Pipe Compatibility Task Force in the Society of Automotive Engineers'

(SAE) Fuel Supply Systems Committee5 is that:

"The recommended straight length of fill pipe measured from the face should

be at least 3 inches (7.62cm). The straight length of the fill pipe should not be

less than 30° measured from the horizontal with 45° being the preferred

angle."

This type of provision would produce a fill neck similar to that shown in figure

9.2. It is obvious that the high level sense port will be covered thereby

automatically shutting the nozzle off before product reaches a point that would

cause liquid to flow into the vapor passages, hose and return piping.

A second concern of weights and measures is the effect on the accuracy of the

dispensing system. That is, when the meter is checked for accuracy, is the vapor

recovery system going to affect the amount of product dispensed into the

sealer's test container?

It is important that a customer receive the same amount of product wherever

he may choose to make his purchase. This would be true at any station having

the balance type of vapor recovery system. This is not the case with vacuum

assist systems.

The variability of design among vacuum assist systems, and even to a certain

degree from one system to another of the same manufacturer, would preclude assurance that a customer would receive the same amount of fuel at every

station. Some vacuum assist systems are designed to return vapor to liquid (V/L)

ratios very near 1:1. Others are designed to have V/L ratios as high as 3:1. With

vacuum assist systems having large V/L ratios, there is the potential to evaporate gasoline that would not otherwise have evaporated. With no control over the vacuum and/or the V/L ratios, the customer could receive somewhat

different amounts of product depending on the station he chooses.

The balance system, on the other hand, does not have this problem of

evaporating gasoline. Since the balance system relies on natural forces as its driving force to move the vapors, there is no potential for evaporating gasoline

by exposing it to large quantities of air as there is with the vacuum assist

systems.

191

\
HIGH LEVEL SENSE POINT

Figure 9.2.

For further information, the committee recommends that

weights and measures officials obtain the Federal Register of

Thursday, October 9, 1975, Part III, Environmental Protection

Agency, Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery, Proposed Decision,

Amendments, and Test Procedure.

At this time, the committee is not prepared to make recommendations for code changes on this subject, but will continue to study

the problems of vapor return of petroleum vapors. The committee

does recommend, however, that when a weights and measures

official is called upon to test a system utilizing vapor return

capabilities, the tests be conducted in the manner in which the

meter and system is being used. To do otherwise would result in

an error being adjusted into the system.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

192

1
5. N.l. Test Liquid.—The committee was informed of a topical error in the amendment of paragraph N.l. Test Liquid at the 60th

NCWM. The committee wishes to correct this oversight in N.l. so that the seal or tag requirement correctly applies as intended only

to wholesale devices.

Amend the second sentence in paragraph N.l. to read:

"... A seal or tag should be attached to wholesale devices by the

weights and measures official following a satisfactory examination indicating the product used during the test."

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

6. Code for Liquid Measuring Devices.—During the last year, the

Office of Weights and Measures has been conducting a study on

milk meters used as receiving meters in dairy plants. As a result of

the study, the Office of Weights and Measures will submit proposed language for this application to the S & T Committee of the

62nd National Conference.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

CODE FOR CRYOGENIC LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

1. Code for Cryogenic Liquid Measuring Devices.—The committee recommends the code be removed from tentative status and

made final. The committee further recommends amendment to the

code as follows:

Add the following new paragraph:

UR.2.7. Pressure of Tanks With Volumetric Metering Systems

Without Temperature Compensation.—When the saturation

pressure of the product in the vendor's tank exceeds 35 psia, a

correction shall be applied to the written invoice or printed

ticket using the appropriate tables provided in NBS Technical

Note 361, Revised; or the saturation pressure shall be reduced to

30 psia (if this can be safely accomplished) prior to making a

delivery.

The committee also recommends amending the paragraphs

throughout this code so that all refences to metric units units are

spelled according to the recommendation of the NCWM; that is,

specifically, "re" instead of "er" for the words "metre" and "litre"

and their derivatives.

Change the title of paragraph T.l. to read: "Basic Tolerance

Values."

193

!
Add the following new paragraph:

T.2. To Tests Using Transfer Standards.—To the basic tolerance

values that would otherwise be applied, there shall be added an

amount equal to two times the standard deviation of the applicable transfer standard when compared to a basic reference

standard.

Add the following sentence to the end of paragraph N.3.2.:

"Testing uncompensated volumetric meters in a continuous

recycle mode, appropriate corrections shall be applied if product

conditions are abnormally affected by this test mode."

Amend paragraph UR.2.3. to read as follows:

UR.2.3. Vapor Return Line.—A vapor return line shall not be

used during a metered delivery.

Amend paragraph UR.2.4. by adding the following to the beginning of the paragraph:

"On a dry hose system. . . ."

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

CODE FOR VEHICLE TANKS USED AS MEASURES

1. Code for Vehicle Tanks Used as Measures.—The committee

received comments and recommendations from the State of Maryland as follows:

ITEM I.

Problem: In the past year or so retailers of liquid fuel have steadily increased

their complaints and concern relative to what they feel are inaccurate deliveries

from the loading terminal to the service station. Many factors, to be sure, can

attribute to this situation and obviously not all will be mentioned here.

We have observed that the topography at the point of delivery does not always

permit appropriate use of indicators in compartments used as measures. Further, it appears that most of the major firms in the Maryland area are utilizing

the wholesale meters at the terminal for determining the quantity and, in addition, for billing. In addition, we are told that some "air quality" agencies are now preventing

the opening of "domes" on fuel transports. Other like agencies may follow this

pattern. Certainly, for some vapor recovery systems to be effective, the receiver

of the fuel will not be able to observe the interior of any compartment after it has been emptied.

194
Considering that (1) those transporting fuel do not wish to increase their

vehicle weight by adding vehicle tank meters (several meters will be required for accuracy of measurement with various types of fuel and in order to preclude

contamination); (2) many firms are now utilizing the wholesale meter at the

terminal; (3) that the measured compartment indicator is, in reality, nothing more than a means of checking; and (4) that vapor recovery systems may

eventually result in measured compartments becoming antiquated; we believe

that some security means should be provided.

Proposed Solution: The suggested solution will not guarantee accurate delivery in all cases. This is particularly true when deliveries are made after normal

business hours. It will, however, provide weights and measures officials with an

additional tool (through surveillance) to help ensure accurate deliveries without

making it necessary to place vehicle tank meters on the transporting vehicles.

We propose the addition of a User Requirement in the Vehicle Tanks Used as Measures Code.

UR.1.3. Securing Outlets.—All outlet valves and fill openings, or any opening

of a compartment, from which commodity can be removed or diverted, shall be

closed and shall have security seals affixed in a manner to prevent them from

being opened without destroying or mutilating the seal. Security-type seals

will be affixed at the time of loading or when the quantity is determined and

will remain intact until the commodity is delivered to the designated purchaser or receiver. Those security-type seals used for this purpose will be

prominently and definitely identified for each using firm and loading point.

They shall be safeguarded and maintained under the control of a specific

individual at the point of loading and none except those affixed as indicated,

herein, shall accompany the delivering vehicle.

Add a paragraph requiring the use of a "visigage" or similar equipment in the line of each vehicle tank meter to provide a means for the purchaser to determine the total product represented in the delivery was actually delivered.

The committee recommends no amendment to the code for the

following reasons:

a. Representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency

indicated that service station operators could open the hatch

before and after delivery without violating regulations;

b. Since most loading operations are conducted by the driver of

the equipment and he can apply a seal at any time prior to the

delivery, the seal would have no significance since the driver, after

completing the loading operation, could deliver some product at

any location of his choice and then apply the seals before the

ordered delivery was made.

ITEM II.

Problem: Occasionally we receive indications that "split deliveries" of an amount of commodity for more than one purchaser is carried, simultaneously, in one measured compartment. We do not believe that this is a widespread

problem, but there is no specific language prohibiting it. To be sure, the Weights

and Measures official can state that a compartment used as a measure is

195
inappropriate for use with split deliveries, but we feel that obvious and specific

language would be a deterrent. Obviously, "split deliveries" do not provide

accurate measurement.

Proposed Solution: We suggest that a new section be added to the User

Requirements of Vehicle Tanks Used As Measures Code.

UR.1.4. Multiple Deliveries.—Each compartment shall be used only for single

deliveries, and shall not simultaneously contain amount of commodity for more than one purchaser or receiver.

The committee recognizes this problem and recommends paragraph UR.1.2. be amended as follows:

UR.1.2. Delivering.—During a delivery, a vehicle shall be so positioned as to assure complete emptying of a compartment.

Each compartment shall be used for an individual delivery only;

that is, an individual delivery shall consist of the entire contents

of a compartment or compartments.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote. CODE FOR FARM MILK TANKS

1. S.3.2. Gage Rod.—The committee received a recommendation

that this paragraph be amended to require the gage rod be located

within six inches of the center of the tank, especially for tanks

installed partially within the milk house. Sufficient information

was not presented to the committee to make any recommendations for code amendment. The committee will obtain further

information and be prepared to make a recommendation following

its next interim meeting. The committee is also aware that farm

milk tanks are rapidly increasing in size and that exterior gages

and graduation plates are being used rather than gage rods. The

committee will prepare recommendations for amendment to the

code based on the design principles set forth for sight gages on

provers for action by the 62nd National Conference.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

CODE FOR LUBRICATING OIL BOTTLES

1. UR.l. Drainage.—The committee received a recommendation

that this paragraph be deleted as it is not practical. It is the

committee's view that this is a user's requirement and should not

be deleted but rather amended as follows:

UR.l. Drainage.—Lubricating-oil bottles shall be permitted to

drain into the oil-fill pipe for such period of time as is necessary

to provide for the eem-piete accurate delivery.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

196
CODE FOR TAXIMETERS

1. Definitions.—The committee received a recommendation that

a definition be provided for the word "hired" as used in the code.

The committee agrees with this recommendation and recommends

amendment to the code by adding the following definition:

Hired. A taximeter is "hired" when it is operative with respect

to all applicable indications of fare or extras. The indications of

fare include time and distance where applicable unless qualified

by another indication of "Time Not Recording" or an equivalent

expression.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

CODE FOR ODOMETERS

1. S.1.3. Value of Minimum Indication.—The committee received

a comment from Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. that when the Conference adopted the change to the Code for Odometers which increased the application of the code to vehicles with a gross vehicle

weight of from 10,000 lb to 20,000 lb, most vehicles in that weight

range were equipped with odometers with six significant decades,

the least significant decade of which indicates in miles; that is, the

odometer could be described as 999,999 miles x 1 mile rather than

99,999.9 miles x 0.01 mile.

Ryder Truck Rental stated that with trucks in this weight

range, it is necessary to maintain records for mileage traveled up

to 1,000,000 miles rather than 100,000 miles and, consequently,

could not provide 0.1 mile indications; further, in the rental of all

vehicles regardless of weight, the customer is charged on the basis

of miles traveled—never to the nearest Vio mile. The primary

reason for requiring an odometer to indicate in Vio-mile units is for

testing purposes and not, as is true with other codes, to require

customers to be charged to the nearest Vio mile. Ryder Truck

Rental, who incidentally cooperated with the Office of Weights and

Measures in the initial study for the development of an odometer

code, offered an alternative test procedure that could be used to

determine the accuracy of these odometers indicating in one-mile

increments. Neither the committee nor OWM had time to evaluate

this test procedure prior to the issuance of this tentative report.

The committee agrees that requiring odometers to indicate in

Vio-mile increments is not necessary provided this alternative test

procedure is feasible.

Since sufficient information is not available at this time for

positive action by the 61st Conference, the committee recommends

deferring this item for action pending further study.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

197

I
CODE FOR TIMING DEVICES

1. S.2.1. Marking Requirements, Operating Instructions.—The

committee received comments from SWMA that some devices

included in this code, especially laundry driers, had the capability

of accepting more than one coin for dispensing services and, in

some cases, would accept more coins than service cycles could be

rendered. The committee recommends amendment to the code as

follows:

Amend paragraph UR.l. as follows:

UR.l. Statement of Rates.—The price in terms of money per

unit or units of time for the service dispensed and the number of

coins the device will accept and be activated by at one time, shall

be clearly prominently, and conspicuously displayed.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

2. S.l.1.6. Discontinuous Indicating Parking Meters.—The committee received comment that the cost of designing equipment to

meet this requirement far exceeded the value rendered. The

parking meters referenced are those that, when activated by the

insertion of a particular coin for a specified amount of time,

indicate with an indicator and graduation the total time purchased; but after a short interval, the indicator "disappears."

When the time purchased expires, the "Time Expired" flag appears.

The committee received many comments from users of this

equipment that this technology should be recognized. After serious consideration the committee recommends the following

amendment to paragraph S.l.1.6.:

S.l.1.6. Discontinuous Indicating Parking Meters.—For parking

meters with a capacity of 2 hours or less, an indication of the

time purchased shall be provided for a minimum of one minute

for times less than one hour and a minimum of two minutes for

times of one hour or more at the time the meter is activated. For

parking meters with a capacity of more than two hours, convenient means shall be provided to indicate to the purchaser the

unexpired time.

During discussion which ensued on this item, a motion was

iade, seconded and passed to change the amendment to pararaph S.l.1.6. so that the paragraph would read:

S.l.1.6. Discontinuous Indicating Parking Meters.

An indication of the time purchased shall be provided for a minimum of

198

i
one minute for times less than one hour and a minimum of two

minutes for times of one hour or more at the time the meter is

activated. Convenient means shall be provided to indicate to the

purchaser the unexpired time.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by majority vote.)

CODE FOR DRY MEASURES

1. Code for Dry Measures.—Comment was received that the

application section of this code should be amended to indicate that

berry boxes are not included. The committee recommends that the

application section be amended as follows:

A.3. This code does not apply to berry baskets and boxes (for

which, see Code for Berry Baskets and Boxes).

Renumber existing paragraph A.3. to A.4.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

CODE FOR BERRY BASKETS AND BOXES

1. Tolerances.—The committee received a recommendation that

the code be amended by deleting the tolerances in deficiency. The

committee recommends that the code be amended by eliminating

the tolerances in deficiency.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

2. Capacity Marking.—The committee received a recommendation that the code be amended by requiring the capacity be

marked on the basket or box. It is the committee's view that

although consumers today do not recognize the quantities of these

boxes when displayed for sale, requiring the capacity to be marked

would not be a sufficient aid to the consumer. It is their view that

the problem is in the merchandising of these measures since, in

most instances, the sign posted on the display of these measures

simply indicates a price per "box." The committee has recommended to the L & R Committee that they recommend amendment to the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation that would require merchandisers to conspicuously post on

the display the price of the item and the quantity when offering or exposing for sale small fruits in these measures; for example,

strawberries—dry pint—390; or cherry tomatoes—590 per dry pint.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

199
3. Two-Quart Size, Berry Baskets and Boxes.—The committee

received a recommendation that this code be amended to include a

two-dry-quart berry basket or box, especially for the retail sale of

grapes. It is the committee's view that no amendment be made to

the code and that packaged berries and small fruits in quantities

other than one-half dry pint, one dry pint, and one dry quart be

sold only by weight.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

OTHER ITEMS

1. Handbook UU Replacement Sheets.—The committee discussed

the problem concerning the timely printing and distribution of

these replacement sheets and referred its recommendations to the

Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination.

2. International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML).—The

committee discussed the participation of the United States in

OIML and the implementation of the International Recommendations into U.S. regulations (Handbook 44 especially). The recommendations of the committee appear in part in Item 1 at the

beginning of this report, and the committee further recommends

that the Office of Weights and Measures disseminate as widely as

possible to NCWM members all information concerning OIML

activities, International Recommendations, and the philosophies

expressed therein.

3. Weighing Systems Performance Criteria.—The committee re- ceived several recommendations from the State of California on

the following subjects:

a. Providing values for the maximum deviation between the

results of indicated values for loads applied to individual

sections on vehicle, livestock, and railroad track scales;

b. Repeatability of zero indications;

c. The application of acceptance or maintenance tolerances.

Time was not available to the committee to discuss fully all of

these recommendations and, consequently, the committee cannot

make any positive recommendations for code amendment. However, the committee will include these items for future study and

would appreciate receiving any comments from interested parties.

(The foregoing items were adopted by majority vote.)

200
4. Other Future Items.—The committee received comments or suggestions on several other items; however, time was not available to make any recommendations on these subjects. Since the

committee was requested to indicate in its reports those items

which it is considering for future study so that interested parties

may make recommendations, we have listed the following:

a. A code for kilowatt hour meters.

b. Vapor recovery systems.

c. Scale Code requirements for postal and parcel post scales.

d. Liquid feed meters.

e. Examination procedure outline for counting scales.

The committee urges Conference members to make additional

recommendations to the committee for other items for future

study either prior to the Conference or at its open meeting during

the Conference.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

5. U.S. Postal Service.—As a result of recommendations made by

members of the Liaison Committee and the S & T Committee, the

Postal Service has prepared a final maintenance bulletin setting

forth test procedures for scales. The committee wishes to commend

the Postal Service for their efforts to develop a program which

should result in better weighing devices and maintenance of

weighing equipment in post offices. If anyone desires a copy of this

bulletin, he may contact the Office of Weights and Measures.

Discussion ensued on this item, resulting in a motion being

made, seconded and passed, to amend this item to read:

U.S. Postal Service Maintenance Bulletin No. MMO-31-76.—

This Maintenance Bulletin shall be referred to the incoming S & T

Committee for proper review and consideration at the 1977

NCWM.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by majority vote.)

The committee expresses its appreciation to all who have con- tributed to and participated in the committee deliberations. The

committee urges all weights and measures officials and other

201

f
affected parties to promptly communicate with the committee on

all matters of concern. It is only in this manner that the committee can consider all problems and fully evaluate all situations prior

to issuing its reports.

K. J. SlMlLA, Chairman, Oregon

J. R. Bird, New Jersey

W. E. CZAIA, Minnesota

M. L. KlNLAW, North Carolina

C. WOOTEN, Florida

0. K. Warnlof, Staff Assistant,

NBS

H. F. WOLLIN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Specifications

and Tolerances

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by

majority vote. 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.)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL

MEASUREMENT POLICY AND COORDINATION

Presented by S. D. ANDREWS, Chairman; Director of Division of

Standards, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,

Tallahassee, Florida

(Thursday, July 15, 1976)

The Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination submits its

final report to the 61st 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.

The formation of the new Committee on National Measurement

Policy and Coordination (P & C Committee) was initiated during

the 1975 NCWM at the recommendation of the special Committee

202
on Metric Planning whose tenure expired with the close of the

60th Conference. It was proposed that the new committee will

assume the responsibilities and objectives of the Metric Committee

which had been established to deal with initial planning for metric

conversion in the field of weights and measures in the United

States. In addition, the P & C Committee is to serve as a policymaking and coordinating body of activities within the NCWM on

matters of national and international significance; such matters to

include (a) metrication, (b) International Organization of Legal

Metrology (OIML), and (c) other standards organizations—American National Standards Institute (ANSI), International Standards

Organization (ISO), American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM), National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Another objective will be to delegate the organization of work

groups to meet the responsibility of the Conference toward standardization organizations such as the establishment of the Weights

and Measures Practices Sector Committee for the American National Metric Council. In keeping with the function of the new

committee, the NCWM representative to the U. S. Advisory Committee for International Legal Metrology (OIML), J. F. Lyles,

presented a report on his participation in the activities of OIML.

The report is shown below.

A further responsibility of the P & C Committee will be to plan

and coordinate matters of policy and activity among the other

standing committees of the NCWM—Specifications and Tolerances, Laws and Regulations, Education, and Liaison.

Report of the NCWM Representative to the Advisory Committee on

International Legal Metrology

on the

International Organization of Legal Metrology

There has been a great deal of activity within the International Organization

of Legal Metrology (OIML) of interest to the weights and measures community

since our last National Conference. Perhaps the most important action taken by

OIML over the past year has been a considerable expansion of its technical

program. As you know, International Recommendations produced by OIML are the products of various technical study committees (called Reporting Secretariats). These committees are composed of representatives from Member Nations of

OIML and each committee is chaired by a single representative of the nation

charged by the International Committee of Legal Metrology, the technical

program arm of OIML, to direct the committee's work. During this past year 100

new technical study committees were created by the International Committee to pursue the development of International Recommendations within the next five years. Of particular interest to us are these study areas:

1. development of accuracy classes for length measuring devices (Responsible

nation—USSR);

2. development of LNG fluids and materials property data and LNG instrumentation and measurement methodology (Responsible nation—USA);

203

I
3. development of the chain of calibration for gas measuring devices and

general principles for establishing device errors (Responsible nation—USA);

4. development of verification methods for domestic and industrial gas meters

in service (Responsible nation—USA);

5. development of metrological and technical specifications for standards used

in verifying in-service weighing devices (Responsible nation—USA);

6. development of in-service examination procedures for weighing devices

(Responsible nation—USA);

7. development of metrological specifications for laboratory mass standards

(Responsible nation—USA);

8. development of principles upon which prototype (pattern) evaluation will be

conducted (Responsible nation—USA);

9. development of principles for the initial and subsequent calibration of

weighing and measuring devices (Responsible nation—USA).

As you can see, all but one of these new committees are to be directed by the

United States, which means that weights and measures officials, either individually, or through the Standing Committees of the National Conference, will be

brought into this work. These are important and challenging opportunities for

the National Conference in that they will lend recognition to the weights and measures expertise that exists within the United States and will allow us to meet and prosper from relationships with our weights and measures counterparts from other nations. From an important practical standpoint, the technical

decisions made within these international committees will offer our industry

much needed guidance on conversion to the metric system in that recommended

technical requirements will all be given in units of the International System

(SI).

I would also like to report on major efforts by the United States to revise

OIML International Recommendation #3 on "Non-Automatic Weighing Devices" and on participation in an important technical meeting in London dealing

with liquid measurement systems. With respect to International Recommendation #3, the Office of Weights and Measures' and the Scale Manufacturers

Association exerted a great deal of effort during the past year in cooperation

with France and Germany to propose revisions to this basic scale code that will pave the way for its acceptance by our industry and by the National Conference.

Basically, the Recommendation contains a different view on tolerance application that will prove beneficial to industry and the weights and measures sector

alike. Otto Warnlof of OWM will offer a presentation on this subject during the

S & T Committee Report. I wish only at this time to recognize the important

contributions made by the Scale Manufacturers Association and OWM in this

endeavor.

With respect to United States efforts on the draft International Recommendation dealing with liquid measurement systems, I would like to relate some

background on this particular OIML effort because it clearly demonstrates the

importance of United States participation in OIML and the need for involvement from American industry and the weights and measures community. In June 1975, France and Germany circulated a draft OIML International Recommendation to member nations and scheduled a technical level meeting on the

draft for December 1975, in London. The draft dealt with requirements for all

204
types of liquid measuring systems for petroleum and other liquids (except

water). Such measuring systems included: retail gasoline pumps found in service

stations; systems for offloading crude and refined petroleum products from

ships, barges, and rail tankers into terminal areas; systems fitted into oil pipelines for transportation of products from terminals or from production areas, and other similar devices. OWM and the American Petroleum Institute evaluated the draft Recommendation and found a number of technical shortcomings.

The most notable involved differences in measurement practices between Europe and the United States concerning permissible measurement errors in

handling petroleum products and differences in opinion over the design and

operation of equipment used to remove air or gas entrapped in petroleum before

measurement of the liquid occurs. From an economic standpoint, these differ- ences were quite important. For example, international adoption of the German/

French proposal that measurement systems be allowed a maximum uncertainty

of ±0.50 percent, as compared to U.S. practice of ±0.12 percent, could cost the

U.S. up to $31 million a year in petroleum import overcharges. Similarly,

international adoption of the German/French design for air or gas separation

equipment would place $25 million worth of U.S. exports of such equipment in

immediate jeopardy.

METRICATION

1. On October 10, 1975, Richard L. Thompson, NCWM Chairman

(Maryland), and Sydney D. Andrews, P & C Committee Chairman

(Florida), appeared before the Senate Committee on Commerce for

the purpose of presenting testimony on behalf of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures in support of metric conversion legislation. Passage by Congress of the Metric Conversion Act

of 1975 and the signing of the Act by President Ford on December

23, were events of great significance in the field of weights and

measures.

The Act>declared a national policy of coordinating the increasing use of the metric system in the U.S. and specified the establishment of a United States Metric Board to coordinate the voluntary

conversion to the metric system. Also, NCWM was specifically

referred to in the Act which called for:

(a) nominations to the U.S. Metric Board as recommended by

the National Conference on Weights and Measures, and

(b) consultation by the Secretary of Commerce with the National Conference on Weights and Measures in order to

assure that State and local weights and measures officials are

(i) appropriately involved in metric conversion activities,

and

205

1
(ii) assisted in their efforts to bring about timely amendments to weights and measures laws.

With respect to nominations by NCWM for the U.S. Metric

Board, the P & C Committee, together with members of other

standing committees and Conference officials who attended the

interim meetings, worked out the following method for the selection of candidates should they be called for prior to the annual

meeting of the Conference in July. These procedures are as

follows:

(a) Three names and an alternate are to be submitted by each

of the standing committees for screening by the P & C

Committee.

(b) The P & C Committee will then recommend its list of

selected qualified candidates to the Executive Committee.

(c) The Executive Committee will make the final selection and

submit the names of three individuals to the appropriate

authorities (as yet undetermined) who will have responsibility for the creation of the U.S. Metric Board.

If the Executive Committee is required to submit its nominees

prior to the next annual Conference, it will present its decision to

the Conference for ratification. On the other hand, if the deadline

for nominations falls after the next Conference, this matter will be

acted upon during the Conference.

A letter was sent to President Gerald R. Ford on March 17 by

Chairman Richard L. Thompson pointing out that weights and

measures officials throughout the nation have actively supported

the move to metric and are now most anxious to provide their

measurement expertise and assistance to help plan, coordinate,

and implement the voluntary conversion to the SI metric system,

particularly as it involves the everyday measurements in the

marketplace. The President was advised that naming a weights

and measures official to the U.S. Metric Board was essential to the

maintenance of a sound and uniform weights and measures

system in the nation. Instructions for the submission of nominations to the Metric Board were also requested.

In keeping with the procedure adopted, nominations were re- ceived from the standing committees and a recommendation was

made to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee

approved the recommendation and offered to the President the

following nominations to the U.S. Metric Board: Sydney D. An206
drews, Director, Division of Standards, Florida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services; Alternates: Kendrick J. Simila, Administrator, Weights and Measures Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture; C. G. Gehringer, Vice President, Operations, Pennsylvania Scale Company (retired); George E. Mattimoe,

Deputy Director, Division of Weights and Measures, Hawaii Department of Agriculture; and M. W. Jensen, President, Can Manufacturing Institute (retired).

The committee will follow developments with respect to the

Metric Conversion Act and will report its recommendations to the

Executive Committee and to the delegates of the 61st NCWM.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

2. An organizational meeting of the Weights and Measures

Sector Committee of the American National Metric Council

(ANMC) was held on November 6, 1975, at the ANMC headquarters in Washington, D.C. Mr. Sydney D. Andrews, immediate past

chairman of the NCWM, was elected Chairman of the Sector

Committee at the meeting. Mr. Daryl Tonini, Technical Director,

Scale Manufacturers Association, has assumed the secretariat.

The committee defined its purpose as an advisory body to

NCWM, as a focal point for information compilation, and as an

interface within ANMC not available to the NCWM. Assignments

were made for the study and drafting of metric provisions for

Handbook 44 in the areas of scales and petroleum measuring

devices. The committee also called upon other device manufacturers and the packaging industry to initiate metric activity in their

respective organizations and associations.

The Weights and Measures Sector Committee held a meeting on

April 4, 1976, in conjunction with the second annual conference

and exposition of the ANMC in Washington, D.C. Another meeting

of that committee was held at the National Bureau of Standards

on July 14 in conjunction with the 61st NCWM.

3. At the recommendation of the P & C Committee, NCWM

Chairman Richard L. Thompson wrote to Elliot L. Richardson,

Secretary of Commerce, on March 8, concerning the Conference

position on the spelling of the terms "metre" and "litre." Excerpts

of the letter follow.

At the present time there exists a difference concerning a fundamental

issue between a resolution adopted by the National Conference on Weights

and Measures and public statements emanating from your Department on

the subject of the proper spelling of the words "metre" (er) and "litre" (er).

207
The National Conference on Weights and Measures is dedicated to the

promotion of uniformity in matters pertaining to weights and measures

nationwide. In order to secure this desirable uniformity, the National Confer- ence on Weights and Measures, at its 60th annual meeting held in 1975,

passed a resolution strongly advocating the spelling of the basic unit of length

"metre" and the unit of volume "litre," both with the "re" ending.

This resolution was adopted for several reasons, one of which was to reduce

the confusion caused by the "er" spelling of the basic unit of measurement

(meter) and the measuring device (meter), as well as the act of measuring

something with such a device (meter). This differentiation in spelling will make clearer the fundamental technology in laws, regulations, specifications,

tolerances, technical publications, and many other applications. The fact that

the Metric Conversion Act refers to amendments to weights and measures

laws would indicate the need for an expression of national uniformity on such

a basic issue, and we hope you share our desire to accomplish this. An even broader consideration, and perhaps an even more compelling one

for adopting the "re" spelling for these units of measure (metre and litre), is that they have been approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Organization of Legal Metrology

(OIML), a treaty organization to which the United States belongs. . .

.

. . . The National Conference on Weights and Measures strongly urges you

to resolve this spelling difference in favor of the "re" ending for the two

measurement units, metre and litre, in the interest of uniformity within our own country and with the other English-speaking countries around the world

(and some non-English-speaking countries) which have adopted the "re"

spelling.

A response to Chairman Thompson's letter to Secretary of

Commerce Richardson was received indicating that while uniformity had been established within the U.S. Department of Commerce

by adopting the "er" spelling for metre and litre, they recognized

the "re" spelling as acceptable on an equal basis. He further

indicated that this matter would probably be submitted to the U.S.

Metric Board for resolution and the Department of Commerce

would abide by its decision.

(The foregoing items were adopted by majority vote.)

POLICY

In discussion of its role in the setting of Conference policy, the

committee considered several suggestions for the plan, development, and dissemination of NCWM policy statements. Initially, it

is the plan of the P & C Committee to identify, review, and report

on policy statements that were adopted by previous Conferences,

to prepare new statements of policy as deemed advisable for

NCWM action, and to issue such statements through an appropriate means to all delegates and interested parties.

In the development of policy statements, the P & C Committee

would be glad to receive and recognize statements of policy by

208
other NCWM committees or as recommended by individual members. The committee is aware of the potential problem that could

be caused by statements and recommendations of NCWM committees and members which may be of a "policy" nature or could be so construed even though that is not the intent. Thus, to avoid

confusion and an excessive number of statements, only those that

are specifically and clearly identified as "statements of policy" and

are adopted by the Conference shall be regarded as NCWM

policies.

All statements of policy that have been appropriately developed

and adopted by NCWM would then be printed and distributed

following the annual meeting. Although the form of printing and

distribution is yet undecided, it has been suggested that policy

statements be issued with the Conference Summary Report that

is sent to all delegates shortly after the Conference. The statements could be of a set format and be prepared on separate sheets

so as to be suitable for insertion in a notebook or for filing.

As a beginning, the committee recommends consideration of the

following items regarding matters of policy:

1. Example

An example of the type of Policy Statement which will be

prepared and distributed with the Conference Summary was

handed out and discussed at the Open Meeting of the committee.

Suggestions were offered on the style and format as well as amendments to some of the previous policy statements presented

on the example. All suggestions will be considered by the committee during the coming year.

2. Committee Reports

The committee considered several suggestions for improving the

presentation and voting procedures of committee reports during

the Conference. The committee agrees with the suggestion to

devote more time on the program for the consideration and action

of committee reports and has requested the executive secretary to

schedule the program accordingly. Several other suggestions relating to the presentation of reports will also be implemented.

The suggestion on improving voting procedures is deemed to be

of such importance as to warrant being covered by a statement of

policy as follows:

Voting Procedure

The National Conference on Weights and Measures has estab209

1
lished voting procedures that are specified in the Conference

Organization and Procedure as follows:

"8. Voting

All questions before a meeting of the Conference are decided by

majority vote of those active members present and voting."

To further facilitate the efficient and orderly taking of votes

during a meeting of the Conference, all voting shall be by either a

show of hands or a standing count of voting delegates.

3. Conference Printed Material

The committee heard a report on the growing problem that NBS

has had with receiving satisfactory printing services of NCWM

material. Since some of this material is of a legal nature, notably

NBS Handbook 44 and the various model State laws and regulations, and becomes legally effective on a given date, dependable

completion and distribution of NCWM material is essential to both

the States and industry. Therefore, the committee recommends

adoption of the following statement of policy:

NCWM Printed Material

All amendments and changes to NBS Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices," resulting from actions of

the National Conference on Weights and Measures during its

annual meeting shall be edited and made available on request in

draft form 45 days after the Conference annual meeting. Printed

replacement sheets of such amendments and changes to Handbook 44 shall be distributed within 105 days of the Conference.

New or amended model state laws and regulations shall be

edited, printed, and distributed in accordance with the preceding

schedule for Handbook 44.

The NCWM requests that the National Bureau of Standards,

Department of Commerce, and U.S. Government Printing Office

give their full cooperation and assistance in the expeditious processing of all Conference printing orders because of the importance

of this material to State and local weights and measures agencies,

businesses, and industries throughout the U.S.

4. NBS Technical Services

The work of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances in

proposing device specifications, tolerances, and other technical

210
requirements for adoption by the Conference has been supplemented over the years by two related programs of the NBS Office

of Weights and Measures (OWM). Both the prototype examination

of devices and the publication of examination guidelines (manuals

and Examination Procedure Outlines) by OWM have materially

contributed to achieving uniformity of interpretation and application of NBS Handbook 44 requirements among the various State

and local jurisdictions. In addition, it is recognized that the

prototype activity has been of substantial benefit to manufacturers wishing to introduce new lines of models of equipment.

The committee believes strongly in the value of these two

related programs to the Conference member jurisdictions and

commerce generally. With the support of the Conference, it believes these programs can and should be strengthened. With this

purpose in mind, the committee recommends the Conference adopt

the following policy statements as guidelines to the National

Bureau of Standards in its administration of these programs.

NBS Prototype Examination Program

The National Conference on Weights and Measures recognizes

and encourages this NBS program as an activity essential to State

and local weights and measures jurisdictions and device and

equipment manufacturers. The examination service should be

available to all manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, of

metrological equipment on an equal and timely basis. Reports of

devices examined which meet applicable requirements should be

prepared and sent to the device submitter and each State and

other primary jurisdiction within 60 days following completion of

the examination. The submitter of a non-conforming device may

be granted reasonable time for correcting noncomplying conditions.

NBS Examination Procedure Outlines

The National Conference on Weights and Measures strongly

endorses the publication by NBS of both "Examination Procedure

Outlines" (a series in Handbook 112) and individual "Examination

Manuals" (Handbooks 98, 99, 117, etc.) as valued assistance to

State and local weights and measures officials in conducting

correct and uniform examinations of weighing and measuring

devices.

Such manuals or procedure outlines as appropriate should be

initially developed concurrently with the drafting of any new

Handbook 44 (or equivalent) device code. Publication of a new

Examination Procedure Outline or manual should then coincide

211
with the first issuance of a new device code following adoption by

the Conference. Examination manuals and procedure outlines

should be revised and updated as necessary and particularly

whenever significant changes occur in either the basic device

code(s) or in the technology of the regulatory standards and

equipment used by the weights and measures official.

5. Communications

Although the committee has not had sufficient time to develop

its recommendations and policy statements for improving communications in NCWM, particularly with respect to input to the

Conference committees, it requests all weights and measures

officials and industry representatives to make special effort to

improve their communications on NCWM matters whenever possible. Incomplete and delayed correspondence, data, and reports

may lead to inadequate and perhaps even improper handling of

Conference workload and decision making. This item will continue

to be carried on the committee's agenda. Comments and suggestions are solicited.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

COORDINATION

During its deliberations at NBS in January, the committee

initiated the coordination of and participated in discussion on

several matters that were of interest to more than one of the other

standing committees. These matters are covered in detail in the

tentative reports of other committees and include:

(a) Unit Prices on Electronic Computing Scales and Delicatessen Practices of Sale by the lU, V2, or Other Fractions of

Weight. (S & T and L & R Committees)

(b) NCWM Support for State of California Petition in the

Supreme Court of the United States for Issuance of a Writ

of Certiorari for Review of the Decisions of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Rath v. Becker and General Mills v. Jones. (All committees)

(c) Report on Status of Activity by U.S. Authorities in the

Work of the International Organization of Legal Metrology. (All committees)

212
SUMMARY

As in any new undertaking, this committee recognizes that

there will need to be changes and additions in its scope and

operations to deal most effectively with its assigned responsibilities. This will be done as circumstances require. However, the

members of this tentative committee are in complete support with

the official establishment of a Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination. We know that it has already been of

valuable assistance in the overall workings of the standing committees; and we trust that you will see the benefit of its activity

during the Conference.

Many comments and suggestions have been received and all will

be considered. We solicit others that would be helpful in the

committee's deliberations to improve communications.

S. D. ANDREWS, Chairman

R. L. Thompson, NCWM Chairman

K. J. SIMILA, Chairman, S & T

Committee

C. H. Vincent, Chairman, L & R

Committee

E. H. Stadolnik, Chairman,

Liaison Committee

R. T. Williams, Chairm?n,

Education Committee

J. F. LYLES, Representative, OIML

H. F. WOLLIN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on National

Measurement Policy and

Coordination

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on

National Measurement Policy and Coordination was adopted in its entirety by

the Conference by majority vote. The Conference also authorized the executive

secretary to make any editorial changes in the language adopted by the

Conference.)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON WITH THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Presented by E. H. STADOLNIK, Chairman, Head Administrative

Assistant for Division of Standards, Executive Office of Consumer

Affairs, Boston, Mass.

(Thursday, July 15, 1976)

213

I
The Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government submits its report to the

61st National Conference on Weights and

Measures. The report consists of the tentative report as offered in the Conference

Announcement and as amended by the fi- nal report.

The report represents recommendations

of the committee formed on the basis of

careful analysis of the interim meeting discussion and on the basis of written comments received during the year and oral

presentations made during the open meeting of the committee.

The committee intends to expand its communications with the

Federal Government and to advocate the NCWM's interests.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PROGRAMS IN FEDERAL ESTABLISHMENTS

1. Military Installation Commissaries

Requests have been made by some of the States for an improved

procedure for reporting violations at military installation commissaries. The main complaint was that in some cases no action was

being taken by the commissary managers or base commanders.

The weights and measures members of the committee and Mr.

James Lyles (Virginia) met with Lt. Colonel Sanford Hertz, Office

of the Assistant Secretary for Defense, Manpower and Reserve

Affairs (M&RA), and the current program was reviewed and the

pitfalls and problems of that program explored. Colonel Hertz

outlined to the committee members the reorganization of military

commissaries management that will be taking place this year in

the Department of Defense (DOD). The reorganization will provide

for a centralized management system which will provide clearer

lines of responsibility with regard to weights and measures activities at commissary installations. Regional offices will have operational control and a national headquarters office will have overall

control of the entire system.

The Army expects to have its reorganization completed by the

end of October and will supply the committee with a complete

address list of regional offices and headquarters offices to be

contacted in the violation reporting procedure as discussed later in

this report. The Air Force also expects to have its reorganization

completed by the end of October of this year. The Navy has its

Commissary Program organized along lines similar to the new

Army and Air Force programs, except that the regions are smaller

and there are many more of them. The Marine Corps has only 13

214
commissaries, and they are all under the direction of a headquarters office. Commissary organization plans of the various services

will be published in the Tech Memo as they become available.

The DOD again indicated that it welcomed the presence of

weights and measures officials at its military installations for the

purpose of monitoring the accuracy of weighing and measuring

devices and the inspection of prepackaged commodities. They

indicated not only that these inspections provide essential protection to all buyers of commodities, but also that such inspections

were of great value to the efficient operation of these commissary

systems. Information will be recirculated by Colonel Hertz to all

military services regarding the cooperative program on weights

and measures inspections. Colonel Hertz suggested the following

approach be used by weights and measures officials to extend

package and device inspections to military commissaries.

(1) Contact base commander and commissary manager and

offer the service (as per 1970 and 1971 Reports of Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government).

(2) Agree with base commander and commissary manager on

the scope of weights and measures activity to be con- ducted. Refer to military regulations and directives from

Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense if necessary to

encourage cooperation. If any weights and measures official encounters problems of entry into a military installation, he should direct a communication to Lt. Colonel Hertz

[Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (M&RA)

Room 2B 279, Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301] and any

required clearance will be provided.

(3) Colonel Hertz emphasized that the services do not like the

use of the phrase "Ordered Off Sale" since this raises the

issue of jurisdictional conflict with military officials. The

committee suggests that the phraseology "requested or rec- ommended removal from sale" be substituted in lieu of this

expression.

The following procedure should be followed with military commissaries in which the reorganization plans have not as yet been

consummated. (1) Report violations to commissary manager and

send a letter with the report of violations to the base commander

with a copy to Colonel Hertz. (2) If the violations are not corrected

or are repeated, send a letter of complaint along with the report of

215
violations to Colonel Hertz with a copy to the base commander and

the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) (Attn: Military Inspection, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234).

The procedure to be followed where a reorganization plan has

been put into effect (such as the naval commissary program) is as

follows: (1) Send a report of the violation to the regional commissary office. (2) If the violations are not corrected or are repeated,

send a report of violation to the headquarters office with a copy to

the regional commissary office. (3) If violations persist, send a

letter of complaint and report of all violations to Colonel Hertz

with copies to OWM, the headquarters office, and the regional

commissary office. In either case, do not send reports with "no"

violations since this only clouds the issue and generates a lot of

unnecessary paperwork.

The DOD indicated that it was most anxious to resume training

efforts that are offered by the OWM to be used as a fundamental

tool in the management of its commissary stores. Contacts for

training programs with the various services were provided to

OWM. Therefore, the Liaison Committee recommends the development of cooperative training activities with the various commissary programs in cooperation with weights and measures jurisdictions and OWM. Colonel Hertz also said that he would investigate

the possibility of DOD financing weights and measures assistance

in commissary training programs.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

2. U.S. Post Offices

Discussions were held with U.S. Postal Service representatives

Messrs. Richard Thompson, Raymond Kennedy, and William

Schoonover concerning the activities of the U.S. Postal Service in

weights and measures inspection. The officials recognized the

necessity of providing accurate weight determinations to the

consuming public as well as the necessity of accurate weight in the

Postal Service accounting and operations. They stated that they

have developed a tentative draft of a proposed manual on inspection, testing and servicing that includes portions of Handbook 44.

The Liaison Committee, at the request of the Postal Service

representatives, agreed to review the draft of the proposed handbook. However, review of the handbook has been turned over to

the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances which has the

216
responsibility in this area. It has been working with Postal Service

representatives on the proposed handbook and other training

material and will report on the status of these activities. The

Postal Service representatives also stated that they depend upon

the weights and measures jurisdictions for the calibration of their

field standards and test equipment.

An interest was expressed in having State and local weights and

measures officials check Postal Service weighing and measuring

devices. However, the committee felt this was dependent on the

priorities and budgetary limitations of the individual jurisdictions.

It was suggested that post offices which needed assistance in

checking their equipment contact the appropriate weights and

measures jurisdictions to determine if they could be of some

assistance. The postal representatives stated that a summary of

inspection results in jurisdictions where testing is being done

would be of value to them.

The committee feels that in view of budgetary constraints

within State and local weights and measures jurisdictions and the

large number of postal scales in use throughout the country

(100,000 estimated), it would be more logical to help the Postal

Service help itself. The Postal Service now has a program of

internal maintenance and repair of its scales. As a result of the

interim meeting, a clear decision was made by the Postal Service

that the program in testing, sealing, and maintaining postal scales

should be conducted entirely in-house. However, the Postal Service

officials welcomed, and the Liaison Committee endorsed, assistance from OWM and weights and measures jurisdictions in training the inspectors, the service people, and other designated Postal

Service personnel in testing and operation of weighing devices as

specified in Handbook 44. The committee encouraged them to

make use of the OWM prototype examination program, particularly with respect to new weighing devices.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

UNIFORM PACKAGING REGULATIONS

Representatives of Federal regulatory agencies participated in a

discussion with the committee concerning the development of

uniformity in packaging regulations among the Federal, State and

local agencies. Participating in this discussion were Mr. John

McKelvey and Dr. William Dubbert of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS),

217
Mr. Earl Johnson of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Mr.

Steve Butler of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It was

felt that uniformity in the following regulations would eliminate

some of the problems that have been encountered in court decisions:

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation

12.1.1. Variations from Declared Net Quantity.—Variations from the declared net weight, measure, or count shall be permitted when caused by

unavoidable deviations in weighing, measuring, or counting the contents of

individual packages that occur in good packaging practice, but such variations

shall not be permitted to such extent that the average of the quantities in the

packages of a particular commodity, or a lot of the commodity that is kept,

offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, is below the quantity stated, and no unreasonable shortage in any package shall be permitted, even though

overages in other packages in the same shipment, delivery, or lot compensate

for such, shortage. Variations above the declared quantity shall not be

unreasonably large.

12.1.2. Variations Resulting from Exposure.—Variations from the declared

weight or measure shall be permitted when caused by ordinary and customary

exposure to conditions that normally occur in good distribution practice and

that unavoidably result in change of weight or measure, but only after the

commodity is introduced into intrastate commerce: Provided, That the phrase

"introduced into intrastate commerce" as used in this paragraph shall be

construed to define the time and the place at which the first sale and delivery

of a package is made within the state, the delivery being either

(a) directly to the purchaser or to his agent, or

(b) to a common carrier for shipment to the purchaser, and this paragraph

shall be construed as requiring that, so long as a shipment, delivery, or

lot of packages of a particular commodity remains in the possession or under the control of the packager or the person who introduces the

package into intrastate commerce, exposure variations shall not be

permitted.

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Title 21 CFR

Chapter 1, Section 1.8b Paragraph g (Aerosols)

(g) The declaration shall accurately reveal the quantity of food in the

package exclusive of wrappers and other material packed therewith; provided

that in the case of foods packed in containers designed to deliver the food

under pressure, the declaration shall state the net quantity of the contents

that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container

are followed. The propellant is included in the net quantity declaration.

218
Paragraph q (Foods)

(q) The declaration of net quantity of contents shall express an accurate

statement of the quantity of contents of the package. Reasonable variations

caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution

practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice will be

recognized. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall not be unreasonably large.

Section 1.102c Paragraph g (Drugs)

(g) The declaration of net quantity of contents shall express an accurate

statement of the quantity of contents of the package. Reasonable variations

caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution

practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice will be

recognized. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall not be unreasonably large. In the case of a liquid drug in ampules or vials, intended for

injection, the declaration shall be considered to express the minimum quantity

and the variation above the stated measure shall comply with the excess volume prescribed by the National Formulary or the U.S. Pharmacopeia for

filling of ampules. In the case of a solid drug in ampules or vials, the

declaration shall be considered to express the accurate net weight. Variations

shall comply with the limitations provided in the U.S. Pharmacopeia or the

National Formulary.

Section 701.13 Paragraph s (Cosmetics)

(s) The declaration of net quantity of contents shall express an accurate

statement of the quantity of contents of the package. Reasonable variations

caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution

practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice will be

recognized. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall not be unreasonably large.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND

PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICES

Title 9 CFR

Chapter 3, Section 317.2. Paragraph h

(h)(1) The statement of net quantity of contents shall appear on the principal

display panel of all containers to be sold at retail intact, in conspicuous and

easily legible boldface print or type in distinct contrast to other matter on the

package and shall be declared in accordance with the provisions of subparagraphs (2) through (10) this paragraph.

(2) The statement as it is shown on a label shall not be false or misleading

and shall express an accurate statement of the quantity of contents of the

container exclusive of wrappers and packing substances. Reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution

practices or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice will be

219
recognized. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall not be unreasonably large.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Title 16 CFR

Chapter 1, Section 500.22

Net Quantity, Average Quantity

Permitted Variations

(a) The statement of net quantity of contents shall accurately reveal the

quantity of the commodity in the container exclusive of wrappers and other

material packed therewith: Provided, That in the case of a commodity packed

in a container designed to deliver the commodity under pressure, the state- ment shall declare the net quantity of the contents that will be expelled when

the instructions for use are followed. The propellant is included in the net

quantity statement.

(b) Variations from the stated weight or measure shall be permitted when

caused by ordinary and customary exposure, after the commodity is introduced into interstate commerce, to conditions which normally occur in good

distribution practice and which unavoidably result in change of weight or measure.

(c) Variations from the stated weight, measure or numerical count shall be

permitted when caused by unavoidable deviations in weighing, measuring, or counting the contents of individual packages which occur in good packaging

practice: Provided, That such variations shall not be permitted to such extent

that the average of the quantities in the packages comprising a shipment or other delivery of the commodity is below the quantity stated, and no unreasonable shortage in any package will be permitted, even though overages in other packages in the same shipment or delivery compensate for such short- age. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall not be unreasonably

large.

It should be noted that the FDA and USDA regulations do not

include specific reference to sampling or averaging the results of

the test on a sample.

USDA representatives indicated that the agency plans to prepare new net weight regulations which will provide for sampling

and averaging. An important feature to be included is a requirement for net weight at point of inspection.

While FDA regulations do not specify actual procedures used by

their inspectors, these procedures actually include lot sampling

and sample averaging. Variations are permitted which allow the

sample average to fall as much as 1 percent below the labeled

weight.

The FTC representative indicated their regulations and procedures are in conformity with the Model Packaging and Labeling

Regulation.

220
A Net Weight Policy Committee composed of representatives of

the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), FDA, FTC, and USDA

has been conducting negotiations to develop uniformity in net

weight policies among the Federal agencies. It is recommended

that the NBS representatives on this committee receive full

endorsement and support from the Conference. The Liaison Committee also requests the Conference secretary to prepare letters to

USDA-APHIS and FDA requesting support of the Net Weight

Policy Committee negotiations and the decisions of that committee

and that these agencies refrain from any unilateral action.

Handbook 67 (Revised) was discussed in several committees

during the interim meetings. The Liaison Committee wishes to

congratulate OWM and NBS personnel (especially Dr. Carroll

Brickenkamp) for undertaking and carrying forward this momentous and monumental effort.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

REEVALUATION OF COMMITTEE MISSION

The following recommendations are made as a result of a

reevaluation of the mission of the committee.

1. The committee believes that its name should be changed to

the Committee on Liaison to reflect areas of interest that extend

beyond interaction with the Federal Government. It is recommended that the Executive Committee approve this change and

offer it as a proposal to amend the Conference Organization and

Procedures.

2. The Committee on Liaison will continue to function in its role

of coordination with all Federal agencies in matters relating to

weights and measures activities.

3. The Committee on Liaison shall also act to formulate and

recommend policy options for implementation to the National

Measurement Policy and Coordinating Committee (P&C) relative

to future appointments and administrative actions in coordination

with the International Organization of Legal Metrology, the U.S.

Metric Conversion Board, the American National Metric Council,

the American National Standards Institute and others as appropriate.

4. The Committee on Liaison shall receive and take under

consideration input data, requests, or other types of information

on matters that may not be directly related to other standing

committees.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

221
E. H. STADOLNIK, Chairman,

Massachusetts

C. G. GEHRINGER, Pennsylvania

Scale Company

C. H. Greene, New Mexico

W. N. SEWARD, American

Petroleum Institute

J. F. SPEER, Milk Industry

Foundation

S. Hasko, StaffAssistant, NBS

H. F. WOLUN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Liaison with the

Federal Government

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on Liaison

with the Federal Government was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by

majority vote. The Conference also authorized the executive secretary to make

any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference.)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Presented by C. H. Vincent, Chairman; Director, Department of

Consumer Affairs, City of Dallas, Texas

(Thursday, July 15, 1976)

The Committee on Laws and Regulations

submits its final report to the 61st 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.

METRIC CONVERSION

1. NCWM Metric Guidelines and Interpretations

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officials suggested that a

compilation of the method of sale of commodities not under

222
Federal jurisdiction is badly needed and they also felt that major

NCWM labeling interpretations should be listed for reference. The

State of Colorado stated that we will always have trouble spelling

out what is sold by weight, sold by measure, and sold by count

until we have the impossible—specific methods of sale of all 1700

various types of commodities.

These needs have not gone unnoticed by either the Committee

on Laws and Regulations or the OWM staff. However, the committee believes that with metric conversion upon us, we must take

advantage of the opportunity presented by metric conversion and

begin to document, collect, and periodically revise the NCWM

metric method of sale and labeling interpretations.

The committee does not believe that customary system interpretations should be catalogued. Resources should be concentrated

on providing guidelines for the present and for the future. The

committee also recognizes, of course, that many interpretations

that could be listed are really independent of either measurement

system. For example, sales by count and questions of tare.

In its discussions, the committee recognized that most interpretations do not require a regulation since there is no controversy.

Generally, all interested parties can agree on one uniform method

and the voluntary system would be as effective as a mandatory

system without the problems and constraints associated with the

latter. Where established guidelines are not followed, NCWM will

make necessary revisions to the Model State Method of Sale of

Commodities Regulation.

The committee recognized that several items which were before

NCWM this year are in this category and should become part of

the suggested forthcoming publication.

The committee believes that methods of sale for the following

items should be listed therein:

Onion sets and other types of garden bulbs shall be sold by count

when packaged and may be sold by count or weight when not in

package form.

Sea shells shall be sold by count and weight for packages of 50

sea shells or less and by volume and weight for packages containing more than 50 sea shells. Units of the metric system shall be

used exclusively.

Tire tread rubber products shall be sold by net weight. The

polyethylene film protective backing shall be part of the product

and included in the net weight. The core is part of the tare and

must be deducted from the gross weight to determine the net

weight.

223
After lengthy discussion, the committee decided to table the

guidelines for onion sets for further consideration at the 1977

Conference and to drop the last sentence of the sea shell guideline.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by majority vote)

HANDBOOK 67 CHECKING PREPACKAGED COMMODITIES

1. Handbook 67 (Revised)

The executive secretary asked the Committee on Laws and

Regulations to conduct hearings and receive testimony from interested persons as to a number of issues directly and indirectly

related to the Office of Weights and Measures' effort to revise

Handbook 67 (draft copies may be obtained by writing to OWM). It was felt that certain unresolved issues could become barriers to

further progress and that an open forum should be provided for

those who sought to present explanations and data to support

their objections to, what they perceived to be, the direction that

the task force to revise Handbook 67 was taking. The following

issues suggested by the Handbook 67 task force were discussed in

an open session:

Lot Averaging

Inspection Lots

Sampling Plans

Tare

Model Law Enabling Provisions (Section 5.13.)

Package and Labeling Enabling Provisions (Section 12.)

Moisture Variations

Maximum Allowable Variations

Information concerning these issues was received by the task

force and is being given full consideration. The committee, however, reviewed those comments which relate to the last four issues.

The Committee on Laws and Regulations considered the following proposal to amend the Model Law:

5.13. Weigh, measure, or inspect packaged commodities kept,

offered, or exposed for sale, sold, or in the process of delivery, to

determine whether they contain the amounts represented and

whether they are kept, offered, or exposed for sale in accordance

with this Act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. In

carrying out the provisions of this section, the director shall

employ recognized sampling procedures, as approved by the

National Conference on Weights and Measures and published in

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 67, and supplements

thereto or revisions thereof

224
The Committee on Laws and Regulations agrees with the

suggested revision to the Model Law since the final determination

of any State weights and measures regulations should be, as is

done with Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other

Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring

Devices," under the control of the State weights and measures

officials. The committee recommends, however, that this change

be tabled until such time as OWM is able to present to NCWM in

final form a draft of Handbook 67 (Revised).

Again this year, the committee was asked to consider the

elimination of Section 12.1.2. of the Model State Packaging and

Labeling Regulation or to consider combining Sections 12.1.1. and

12.1.2. so as to correct the enforcement problems associated with

permitting variations from the declared weight or measure when

caused by ordinary and customary exposure to conditions that

normally occur in good distribution practice. After careful consideration, the Committee on Laws and Regulations made the following findings as amended by the Conference.

The committee recognizes the complexity of the many issues

involved in processing, packaging and merchandising of hygroscopic commodities. However, since these issues, especially as they

relate to net weight enforcement, are not now resolved, the

committee recommends against revision of 12.1.1. and 12.1.2. at

this time.

The committee also recommends that Section 12.2. be revised as

follows:

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 contained in the procedures and

tables of Handbook 67.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

2. Rath v. Becker and General Mills v. Jones

The following letter spells out the action that was taken by the

Conference Chairman with the approval of the Executive Committee and is presented here for ratification by the 61st NCWM.

MEMORANDUM FOR State Weights and Measures Officials

From: Richard L. Thompson

Chairman, National Conference on Weights and Measures

Subject: Rath v. Becker and General Mills v. Jones

The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) requests and

encourages your state to support California's petition in the Supreme Court of

the United States for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for review of the

225
decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in Rath

v. Becker and General Mills v. Jones). This request is made because NCWM

believes that the Ninth Circuit decisions could have an adverse affect on the

marketplace rights of consumers in your state and that important questions

remain unanswered.

We ask that you urge your Attorney General to take the following action

before February 12, 1976.

1. Join with California in General Mills v. Jones by phoning Allan J. Goodman, Assistant Attorney General (213-620-3864) and indicating that your

state wishes to become a party in their amicus curiae in support of their

petition, —and

2. (a) Join with Michigan in Rath v. Becker by phoning Edwin M. Bladen,

Assistant Attorney General (517-373-1152) —or

(b) Join with Nebraska in Rath v. Becker by phoning Ralph Gillan,

Assistant Attorney General (402-471-2682) and indicating that your state wishes to become a party.

This action was initiated by weights and measures officials, attending the

Interim Meetings held the week of January 26 to January 30, at the request of

California officials. Walter Watson, Chief, Division of Measurement Standards

and Herbert L. Cohen, Administrative Adviser, Department of Food and

Agriculture, sought to enlist the support of NCWM in California's efforts to encourage all states to consider (1) joining California in their amicus brief in General Mills, and (2) joining with Michigan or Nebraska in their amicus

curiae brief in the Rath Case. They further stated that "your participation in

this manner will materially assist in our effort to re-establish the authority of

the states to enact and enforce laws."

A strong consensus developed among officials present that NCWM should

lend its support. Even though the Ninth Circuit decisions dealt with California

regulations, some felt that basic Handbook 67 principles such as the "average

concept" are in jeopardy; and California indicated that every state with

sampling procedures or reasonable variations tables has an interest. NCWM,

therefore, believes that this controversy is of significant national importance

and should be reviewed by the highest court in the land. Based on this

consensus, the NCWM itself will join with California and Michigan in their

amici curiae briefs.

I have contacted members of the NCWM Executive Committee and, subject

to the committee's authority to act for the conference in emergency situations

in the interval between successive meetings of the conference, obtained the

committee's approval to take this action. Additionally, I will request that this

action be ratified by the 61st National Conference on Weights and Measures

this coming July.

cc: Allan J. Goodman

Edwin M. Bladen

Ralph Gillan

NCWM Executive Committee

(The foregoing action was adopted by majority vote)

226
MODEL STATE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

1. In-Plant Inspection

The Western States Weights and Measures Association

(WSW&MA) has discussed in-plant inspection of nonhygroscopic

products for net content compliance on several occasions. It has

been suggested that if these commodities were adequately sur- veyed within the originating jurisdiction, such inspections could

eliminate the need for all jurisdictions to continuously monitor at

point of sale certain commodities. The benefits could include

reduced costs of inspection with no loss in consumer protection

and the released time could be reallocated to other areas of need

within the receiving jurisdiction. If all jurisdictions could participate in such a program, the benefits would be mutual and

commonly shared.

There are obvious problems in implementing a program of inplant inspections so that accurate net content is assured in all

receiving jurisdictions while not imposing unreasonable burdens

in manpower requirements on originating jurisdictions. There is

some feeling that these problems can be overcome, and it was

recommended that the Western State Weights and Measures

Association take steps to initiate such a program and encourage

all member jurisdictions to develop in-plant inspections of nonhygroscopic commodities.

To help foster the implementation of in-plant inspection programs, it was requested that at least five members volunteer to

participate in the next 12 months. (The jurisdictions which have

volunteered are Hawaii, New Mexico, California, Arizona, and

Colorado.) These jurisdictions would be expected to select a limited

number of products manufactured and packaged within their

jurisdictional boundaries, initiate an in-plant inspection program,

and report the results to other participating jurisdictions. A

summary of the results of this program will be expected at the

next annual meeting of the Association.

Industry representatives and the Committee on Laws and

Regulations feel that this experiment should be given priority and

ask NCWM and OWM to lend its support. It is recommended that

progress reports be made available to the Conference on an

annual basis each January.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

2. Organization of State Weights and Measures Functions

The Western States Weights and Measures Association noted

that there have been extensive revisions of the Model Weights and

227
Measures Law in recent years, resulting in substantial improvement in language and applicability within the various jurisdictions. The WSW&MA commends NCWM and OWM on this effort;

however WSW&MA stated that as a result of the revisions, there

is no longer a section in the Model Law which specifically deals

with the organization of the agency, bureau, division, or department responsible for weights and measures enforcement within a

jurisdiction. WSW&MA feels this lack is detrimental to the status

of State weights and measures offices and, therefore, recommended that such a section be included in the Model Law. Section

6 in the 1970 version formerly served this purpose.

The Committee on Laws and Regulations of NCWM recommends for consideration and adoption the following new section

and appropriate renumbering of existing sections:

SECTION X. STATES WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DIVISION; FUNCTIONS; PERSONNEL.—There shall be a State

Division of Weights and Measures located for administrative

purposes within the Department of (agency, etc) . The Division is

charged with, but not limited to, performing the following

functions on behalf of the citizens of the State:

(1) Assuring that weights and measures in commercial service

within the State are suitable for their intended use, properly

installed, accurate and are so maintained by their owner or user.

(2) Preventing unfair or deceptive dealing by weight or

measure in any commodity or service advertised, packaged, sold or purchased within this State.

(3) Making available to all users of physical standards or

weighing and measuring equipment the precision calibration and

related metrological certification capabilities of the weights and

measures facilities of the Division.

(4) Promoting uniformity, to the extent such conformance is

practicable and desirable, between weights and measures requirements of this State and those of other States and Federal

agencies.

(5) Encouraging desirable economic growth while protecting the

consumer through the adoption by rule of weights and measures

requirements as necessary to ensure equity among buyers and

sellers.

There shall be a State director of Weights and Measures who

shall administer the activities of the Division. The Division shall

be comprised of such supervisory, technical (including inspectors

and specialists), and clerical personnel as necessary to accomplish

its assigned responsibilities. The director shall be allowed for

salaries for himself and Division supervisory, technical and

228
clerical personnel, for necessary facilities, standards, equipment

and supplies, and for traveling and contingent expenses, such

sums as shall be appropriated by the legislature.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

3. Item Pricing on Packages

In keeping with the administrations interest in securing greater

consumer involvement and because of the committee's responsibility to analyze consumer protection bills within the weights and

measures area, the Committee on Laws and Regulations discussed

item pricing on packages along with several other consumer

issues. These issues stem from proposed legislation plus the

numerous submissions received this year from many sources. A

positive effort has been made to bring to the attention of private

consumer agencies those issues which the committee believes are

appropriate.

Consumer organizations are generally in support of the suggestion that they provide consumer input and otherwise assist the

committee to modify the model regulations. However they need

funds to support their involvement, including funds for studies,

reports, and travel to our meetings. This year they expressed

interest in only two items. The National Consumers Congress

expressed its interest in supporting our efforts to metricate the

model regulations, and the Consumer Federation of America

(CFA) asked that NCWM join in the effort to keep item prices on

packages.

CFA stated that price information is the most basic and essential consumer information; consumers are unwilling to forsake this

important information. They set forth the following reasons why

price marking of individual items is so vital to the consumers of

this country:

1. Visible pricing contributes to price consciousness and awareness which has a dampening effect on inflation.

2. It is an important instrument of comparison shopping.

3. It provides a defense against instantaneous price changes.

4. There is no insurance that the shelf tag will be accurate or that it will correspond to the intended product.

5. It is a tool to verify the accuracy of the prices you pay.

229
6. It is easily used by consumers and provides them with readily

available information during the shopping trip, at the checkout counter, and when they are home budgeting and meal

planning.

National Association of Food Chains officials have argued that

there is no concerted move to eliminate prices from packages. The

practice is currently in a test stage, and it would be premature and

probably unnecessary for weights and measures officials to attempt to regulate in this area at the present time.

The committee believes that changes to the model regulations

would be premature but recommends that the Conference take a strong stand against any practice which would diminish in any

way the consumers right to pricing information.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

MODEL STATE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES REGULATION

1. Renumbering of Nonfood Products and General Sections

To accommodate this year's changes as well as future changes

to the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation, the

committee believes that all sections under Nonfood Products

(Section 9-13) and General (Sections 14-21) should be renumbered

so both of these categories will begin with a numbering system

identical to that in Food Products. The committee therefore

recommends that full discretion be granted to the executive

secretary in the renumbering of this model.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

Food

1. Delicatessen Practices of Sale by the xk lb or 1k lb

Last year the 60th National Conference on Weights and Measures decided to amend Section S. 1.6.3. of Handbook 44 to prohibit

the capability of certain computing scales to compute, display and

record unit prices on any basis other than per the whole pound.

This year the State of Maryland, reacting to numerous inquiries

from weights and measures officials, submitted to the Committee

on Laws and Regulations a proposal to clarify the Model State

Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation in order to avoid

confusion in the marketplace, provide for the orderly changeover

230
to the use of metric units, and to make its interpretation coherent

with the action taken by the 60th National Conference.

The committee's recommendation as amended by the Conference is to amend the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities

by adding a new section to read as follows:

SECTION X. PRICING OF BULK FOOD COMMODITIES.—

Bulk food commodities or food commodities not in package form

and sold by weight shall be priced in terms of whole units of

weight and not in common or decimal fractions.

This change shall be effective on January 1, 1978. Additionally,

the committee recommends that a change to the metric system

of units be effectuated as soon as possible in the sale of bulk

commodities.

After discussion in the final session, an amendment was made to

change the effective date from January 1, 1978 to January 1, 1977.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by majority vote)

2. Cottage Cheese Sizes

The Committee on Laws and Regulations was asked to respond

to inquiries as to its intent in drafting the "single serving" clause

of Section 7. Other Milk Products which reads: "And Provided

further, that multipack or single serving sizes of 6 ounces or less

shall be sold only in even ounce increments." Two interpretations

are possible. One would permit only sizes of 2, 4, or 6 ounces; the

second would permit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 ounce packages.

The committee believes the latter to be reasonable and, to avoid

any ambiguity, recommends for consideration and adoption the

following amendment to the above statement from Section 7. Other Milk Products:

And Provided further, that multipack or single serving sizes of

6 ounces or less shall be sold only in whole ounce increments.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

3. Generic Terms for Meat Cuts

The State of Maryland petitioned NCWM to lend its support to

the establishment of a uniform national method of sale of commodity regulation which will require uniformity in names of meat cuts

and eliminate the many fanciful names used in the labeling of

231
meat cuts. The committee agrees that generic terms should be

used and believes that the Uniform Retail Meat Identity Standards developed by the Industrywide Cooperative Meat Identifica- I

tion Standards Committee, published and distributed by Department of Merchandising, National Live Stock and Meat Board,

should be the basis for this effort. The Industrywide Cooperative

Meat Identification Standards Committee made the following

points in their introduction to the Uniform Retail Meat Identity

Standards.

A uniform identification code is needed—one that industry can

follow and consumers will understand. The consumer confusion

now existing stems from the abundance and variety of meat cuts

and the inconsistency of label identification. It is estimated that

more than a thousand names are used to identify approximately

300 fresh cuts of beef, pork, lamb, and veal that are offered for

sale.

Labeling with fanciful names also adds to consumer confusion.

Fanciful names are just descriptive terms and are not helpful in

the identification of meat cuts. Although this type of identification

is not recommended, there are some exceptions. Correct identification would still appear on the regular price-cut label.

Laws and ordinances aimed to correct the situation have done

little to develop a system of meat identification. The objective of

the Uniform Retail Meat Identity Standards is to reduce and, if possible, to eliminate consumer confusion. Also the Uniform Retail

Meat Identity Standards would be adaptable to the oncoming

Universal Product Code.

The committee agrees and recommends for consideration and

adoption the following addition to the Model State Method of Sale

of Commodities Regulation:

SECTION X.—A declaration of identity for meat cuts shall be

limited to generic terms, such as those listed in the Uniform

Retail Meat Identity Standards.

The following abbreviations may be used:

BARB Q

BI

BNLS

DBLE

LGE

N.Y. (NY)

PK

Barbecue

Bone In

Boneless

Double

Large

New York

Pork

POT-RST Pot-Roast

RND

RST

Round

Roast

SHLDR Shoulder

SQ

STK

TRMD

Square

Steak

Trimmed

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

232
I

4. Instant/Concentrated Products

The County of Ventura, California, stated their belief that the

main purpose of quantity statements is to facilitate value comparisons. After surveying packages at a local supermarket, they found

that some commodities have quantity statements which do not

perform this function adequately. They stated that for certain

products, such as instant coffee, tea, and cocoa, weight alone is not

sufficient. A dual statement is needed. The declaration should

state the weight and it should state the size and number of cups

(e.g., makes 10 six-oz cups) that can be made from the contents.

The obvious objection to this reform would center around the

strength of the cup of coffee. But no manufacturer is going to give

directions that will result in an extremely weak cup of product and

stay in business.

The National Coffee Association of U.S.A., Inc. offered the

following issues which it believes are responsive to this request:

1. The number of servings of instant coffee will depend upon the

size of the cup involved and the taste of the individual

consumer.

2. The size of a cup will vary widely, ranging from a small

"demitasse" cup to a large coffee mug.

3. The taste of the individual consumer defies definition because

it will vary as widely as the number of individuals considered.

Market research shows many like it "strong and black" and

others prefer it "mild and thin."

4. Any statement placed on a container of instant coffee which

represents that the consumer will be able to obtain a specified

number of servings would be arbitrary, confusing and, in a

very real sense, deceptive.

5. In view of the foregoing, any such requirement that the

number of servings be listed on a container of instant coffee

would expose the manufacturer to complaints from con- sumers that it was engaging in an unfair and deceptive

practice—a type of unwarranted exposure not in the public

interest.

233
The committee believes that quantity declarations for instant/

concentrated products would be more meaningful if the volume

yield of total product quantity (when directions are followed) is

included in the statement and shown on the principal display

panel. The committee, however, has not had ample opportunity to

hear from all industry representatives and, therefore, recommends

that this issue be deferred until 1977.

(The foregoing item was passed by majority vote)

Nonfood

1. Actual Metric Sizes for Softwood Lumber

The New Jersey Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association, Inc. recommended that the states give consideration to the

type of Lumber Law currently in effect in New Jersey. Additionally, the State of Maryland and others suggested that the move to

metric would provide a real opportunity to completely eliminate

use of nominal sizes, such as the 2 x 4 or the 1x8. The dimensions

of these items are actually IV2 x 3V2 and ZU x 7V4 inches. The

committee has been asked to strive to ensure that actual metric

sizes will be used in quantity declarations when the industry goes

metric.

The National Forest Products Association stated that the wood

products industries have not yet undertaken to convert to the

metric system; however, coordinated planning is underway in

most segments of the industry. The Association also indicated that

although they are still in the early stages of detailed planning and

do not yet have comprehensive recommendations, they are pleased

to report that the softwood lumber industry is in accord with the

expressed sentiment to combine metric conversion with a change

from the nominal size system to one based on net sizes. Additionally, their American National Metric Council committees—representative of manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, builders, car- penters, and government agencies—are unanimous in desiring

such a change.

The National Forest Products Association, therefore, urges that

the Conference not take premature action at this time relative to

metric sizes for softwood lumber. Mutual objectives can best be

served by operating through existing channels which provide for

careful study of the subject, leading to a comprehensive program

for consideration by the Conference at a later date.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

234
2. Combination Quantity Commodities

Last year, the committee's recommendations submitted to the

National Conference on Weights and Measures to establish allowable differences for various combination quantity commodities were

not approved. Many weights and measures officials had questions

as to the need for, what they considered to be, such a wide range

of tolerances and others felt that minus tolerances should not be

established for any combination commodities.

Meetings were held during the year with committee members

and industry representatives. Additionally, the Office of Weights

and Measures Tech Memo No. 28, October 1975, questioned the

current NCWM policy and sought the guidance of weights and

measures officials as to the best course of action.

The committee found that the present policy of establishing

allowable differences tolerances does not have sufficient support of

NCWM membership. Proposed changes would create unnecessary

economic loss. Metric conversion would have an additional and

significant impact on the industries involved and could also provide an opportunity to establish appropriate rules for combination

quantity declaration during the changeover.

The committee recommends that the current effort be abandoned and that NCWM work toward establishing a new policy

which will eliminate minus tolerances on metric combination

quantity commodities and permit industry to make their products

without any limitation as to plus tolerances. This would mean, for

example, that a one-litre bowl must contain one litre with no

minus tolerance. It would also mean that there would be no limit

on how large the item could be and still be labeled one litre.

Shortly after the interim meetings the Single Service Institute,

on behalf of their member companies, stated that their proposal

should be presented before the voting body of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures. The committee agrees and,

therefore, recommends for consideration and adoption of the

following change to Section 16.5.:

16.5. Paper and Plastic Cups.—The allowable difference between actual and declared capacity shall be:

(a) Plus or minus x k ounce for items of 5 ounce capacity or less;

(b) Plus or minus 5 percent of the stated capacity for items

over 5 ounce capacity.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

235
3. Artificial Burning Logs

Last year at the 60th NCWM, a regulation was developed to

require that all fireplace and stovewood be sold by volume.

The Federal Trade Commission still prefers, however, that

compressed fireplace logs be sold by weight since a volume declaration might entice some manufacturers to market a less substantial product. Although, the committee noted with interest that one

company recently complained to State weights and measures

officials that their tests indicate that several brands sold in

grocery, drug, discount, and other related outlets had a significant

percentage of underweight logs.

The committee believes that uniformity between Federal guidelines and State regulations is necessary to avoid unnecessary

complications for packagers and consumers and, therefore, recommends that the following sentence be added to Section 18.3.

Quantity:

A single log shall be sold by weight, and packages of such

individual logs containing less than 4 cubic feet (V32 cord) may be

sold by net weight plus count.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

4. Antifreeze

The Texas Department of Agriculture petitioned NCWM to draft

a model antifreeze regulation which would address the problems of

registration, testing, and uniform labeling. A copy of the Texas

regulation was submitted to the committee to provide ideas. The

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) also submitted a model antifreeze regulation for the committee's consideration.

The committee learned that approximately 23 States now have

antifreeze regulations, but that most States have not delegated

enforcement responsibility to their weights and measures departments.

Additionally, the committee felt that this request was outside

the scope of normal weights and measures measurement problems. The committee, therefore, suggested to CSMA and Texas

officials that NCWM should not attempt to assist in securing a uniform solution to this problem.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

236
5. Baler Twine and Other Cordage Commodities

Last year, several States expressed their interest in a uniform

method of sale for baler and binder twine. The committee agreed

to pursue this effort and believes that its contacts with State

officials and representatives from many cordage companies have

provided sufficient data to permit the Conference to resolve this

issue. The committee was also asked to consider developing a

regulation to cover all cordage commodities; however, the committee will not recommend any action as to other cordage commodities this year.

Additionally, the Cordage Institute stated that, "In the matter

of development of weights and measures regulations for cordage,

there are many difficult problems. Consideration must be given to

whether the cordage is of natural fiber or of synthetic. We would

be glad to work with you on matters of weights and measures

pertaining to cordage, but urge that advice and guidance be

sought from the industry broadly and not from a few companies."

The committee welcomes additional advice and guidance, appreciates that the Cordage Institute wishes to cooperate in every way,

and hopes to move forward with a baler and binder twine provision this year and to address other cordage commodities next year.

In addition to the quantity declarations, many other issues were

discussed. These included classification as a consumer package,

standard sizes, the need for tolerances, and appropriate methods

for compliance testing.

The committee does not believe that it is necessary to determine

whether or not baler and binder twine is a consumer commodity,

but generally prefers that the declaration of quantity appear on

the lower 30 percent of the principal display panel as is required

for consumer packages. The committee does feel that the model

provision as drafted should set forth all packaging and labeling

requirements, such as statements of responsibility, county of

origin, and insect repellent usage.

Several companies indicated that they could support a reduction

in the number of sizes and felt that a simplified set of allowable

quantities could be beneficial to the industry. No action will be

recommended this year on standard sizes; however, the committee

hopes to secure agreement on tolerances for two quantities (length

and knot strength) which are important in the trade. Test methods

for compliance will not be spelled out in the committee's recommendation.

After considering many quantity declarations suggested by

various sources, the committee felt that length, net weight, and

knot strength were the key quantities and should appear in the

lower 30 percent of the principal display panel in metric units

237
(which of course may be followed by customary equivalents). All

other quantities that should or are required to appear should be

included in a table on the outside of the package.

The committee, therefore, recommends for consideration and

adoption the following new section:

SECTION X. BALER AND BINDER TWINE.—Baler and

binder twine shall be sold on the basis of length in metres or feet,

net weight in kilograms or pounds, and knot strength in newtons

or pounds. This declaration shall appear in a prominent location

on the outside of the package (for a consumer package, the lower

30 percent of the principal display panel).

The allowable difference between declared and actual length

shall be minus 5 percent of the declared length. The allowable

difference for knot strength shall be determined on the basis of

test methods recognized by NBS. The effective date of this

regulation for domestic and imported twine shall be September 1,

1977.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

6. Carpets and Carpet Padding Materials

The Western Weights and Measures Association recommended

that the Committee on Laws and Regulations favorably consider

amending the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation as

follows: "Carpets and carpet padding materials shall be labeled

and advertised to state the weight per unit of measure and to

accurately identify the product."

This problem and the proposed amendment to resolve it were

previously recommended by the Western States Association. The

committee felt there was inadequate documentation and justification for the proposed change. The Western Weights and Measures

Association requested such data from its members and transmitted the following findings to the Committee on Laws and Regulations for consideration at the 1976 interim meeting:

A summary of responses indicates:

a. There was unanimous support for the amendment.

b. No opposition appeared.

c. Consumer organizations appear to be very concerned and

support the amendment.

238
d. There has been some Federal study (Federal Trade Commission) in addition to consideration by the California

Legislature.

e. Retail dealers, as well as individual consumers, need the

protection supplied by the regulation. (They show samples

of carpets in their stores. After sale, they send order to the

supply warehouse, (separate from retailer), the carpet

layers pick up the carpet and in many cases, the carpet

layed is not the weight and texture of the sample. Many

times this is not known until many months after the carpet

is installed. Need to have samples labeled weight per

square yard and the rug labeled same as sample. In many

instances, the retailer is at the mercy of the warehouse

firm.)

f. One jurisdiction suggested: "Backing of jute or rubber can

be single or double layered. Weight can be added to the

square by additional latex making it heavier and seemingly of better quality. Accurate identity information

should require the type of backing and the type of fiber

(continuous filament or stapled)."

The Carpet and Rug Institute informed the committee of the

activities currently taking place which involve other Federal

agencies. These agencies include the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and General Services Administration (GSA). Of particular note, it was suggested, it would be the determination by GSA of the value to consumers of a

declaration of the weight per square measure of carpets. It was

not anticipated, however, that this information would be available

this year. Additionally, the Carpet and Rug Institute felt that the

major problem was one of misinformation and pointed out efforts

were being made to provide educational information for con- sumers. One example they cited showed two carpets with different

weight per square yard and different pile contents. They stated

that if their example items were priced the same, the lighter

weight one would have been the better buy.

As a result of this testimony, the committee felt that not enough

was known at the time of the hearings to make a definite

recommendation. Nevertheless, the committee believes a position

should be taken and now recommends for consideration and

adoption the following new section:

SECTION X. CARPET AND CARPET PADDING MATERIAL.—Carpet and carpet padding material shall be sold by the

239
square yard. The declaration of net quantity shall also include the

weight in ounces per square yard. The identity statement shall

positively identify the fiber content.

After considerable discussion by all sides, a motion was made

and seconded to table this item.

(The foregoing item was tabled by majority vote)

7. Insulation

A citizen's complaint registered with the Bureau of Consumer

Protection and Environmental Health, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

about the amount of pouring insulation received in a purchase was

forwarded to NCWM by Wisconsin weights and measures officials.

These officials made a thorough investigation and learned that

there is no uniform trade practice as to the method of sale for

pouring insulation. Some of the quantity declarations found include the following:

10 pound average weight

4 cubic feet when properly applied

Net weight—Not less than 12 pounds

3 cubic feet

Compression packed to 3 cubic feet

3 cubic feet, approximately 10 pounds net

23V2 pounds net

Approximately 4 cubic feet

5 cubic feet when packed

20 pounds net

Also listed in the survey results were packages with no quantity

declaration and one package with no identity or quantity declaration.

The petition to NCWM concluded that there was a need for

establishing a method of sale for pouring insulation. It was further

stated that since there has been a great deal of activity in the

promotion and sale of insulating materials to combat the energy

crisis, we feel that the consumer who buys these products should

be able to do so on a fair and equitable basis.

Industry representatives from various segments of the pouring

insulation industry discussed with the committee the various

types of pouring insulation, the existing standards, and the information needs of the consumer.

The National Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association

stated that their industry generally endorses nationally recog240
nized standards in a given product area. The proposed Federal

Specification HH-I-515 C requires that the package shall be

marked with the minimum weight of insulation per bag and also

shows the coverage of the insulation.

The Association believes that coverage tables should be predominantly incorporated on the container. Thermal insulation is purchased to fulfill these characteristics and such terminology is

commonly accepted in the field.

The requirement also exists in the proposed specification that

the minimum weight shall be shown on the container. This can

only lead the purchaser to the conclusion that the weight of the

bag is of primary importance in the purchase of thermal insulation, a misleading concept.

Because of this, they strongly recommend that "R" values and

coverage of the material be made the dominant marking on the

bag for the guidance of the consumer and that the minimum

weight of the insulation be made a subordinate item for the

guidance of a field inspector. The Association, therefore, urges

that NCWM move to rectify this matter.

The committee finds that this issue should be broadened to

include insulation in forms other than pouring types and broadened so as to provide weights and measures protection for con- sumers who have insulation installed by contractors. Therefore,

the committee will continue to study this issue and plans to make

a recommendation next year.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

8. Hardwood Lumber

The Western States Weights and Measures Association

(WSW&MA) asked NCWM to adopt a resolution in support of its

position concerning trade practices in the hardwood lumber industry.

It further recommended that the executive secretary of NCWM

or a standing committee of NCWM contact the National Hardwood

Lumber Association (NHLA) to secure that organization's support

and assistance in changing industry trade practices.

The following statement was based on information provided to

the WSW&MA by the State of California and the Southern

California Hardwood Lumber Association:

Hardwood lumber is sawn in standard thicknesses and ran- dom widths and lengths. It is sold at the wholesale level either

green or kiln dried, and at retail as kiln dried. Basis for trading

is board feet net tally. While not universal, it is a common

241
practice in some areas selling hardwood lumber kiln dried to add

back to the net tally the shrinkage loss from drying. As a result,

the actual price per unit is understated, and the actual quantity

delivered is overstated. This practice should be eliminated so ! that sales invoices reflect actual quantities delivered and so that

j price representations are correct. If all weights and measures

jurisdictions enforce existing laws and regulations, the practice I can be controlled

The executive secretary of the NCWM contacted the National

Hardwood Lumber Association as requested and responded to the

FTC after they had been asked to inquire into the matter. It was

generally felt at the time that a reasonable and acceptable

solution was achievable and could be set forth by this committee in

this report. The Committee on Laws and Regulations must now

report that this feeling may be somewhat optimistic.

After the interim meetings, NHLA presented the following

suggestion (which contains revisions discussed with the committee

at the Conference) for the sale of hardwood lumber.

a. Hardwood lumber which has been measured after kiln

drying shall be quoted and invoiced with no measurement

addition for kiln shrinkage, unless otherwise agreed in a

prior written negotiated contract between buyer and

seller; in which case the basis of measurement and the

percentage added for kiln shrinkage shall be conspicuously

stated on each quotation and invoice.

b. Hardwood lumber which has been measured prior to kiln

drying may be quoted and invoiced on green or air dried

measurement, provided that the quotations and invoices

conspicuously state that the lumber was measured prior to

kiln drying.

After careful consideration of the position taken by NHLA and

all other information received during the closed and open hearings, the majority of the committee believes that other suggestions

are more consistent with basic weights and measures principles

and recommends that the Conference take the position that the

hardwood lumber industry convert to the net measurement system.

Therefore, the committee recommends for consideration the

following new section:

SECTION X. HARDWOOD LUMBER.—All sales of hardwood

lumber whether green or dry, shall be made on the basis of net

board footage as delivered to the purchaser.

242
The effective date for this regulation shall be September 1, 1977.

After lengthy discussion, a motion was made and seconded to

table the Hardwood Lumber issue for further consideration at the

1977 Conference.

(The foregoing item was tabled by majority vote)

9. Sod and Turf

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended

that a method of sale be developed for sod and turf. The committee

agrees and recommends for consideration the following new section:

SECTION X. SOD AND TURF.

(a) Application. For the purpose of this regulation this section

shall apply to all sod, including turf sod, turf plugs and

turf sprigs.

(b) Definitions.

(1) Sod shall mean "turf sod," "turf plugs," or "turf

sprigs" of a single kind or variety or a mixture of

kinds and varieties.

(2) Turf shall mean a live population of one or more

kinds of grasses, legumes or other plant species

used for lawns, recreational use, soil erosion control or other such purposes.

(3) Turf plug shall mean a small section cut from live

turf of those kinds of turf normally vegetatively

propagated (such as zoysia grass), which when

severed contain sufficient plant material to remain

intact.

(4) Turf sod shall mean a strip or section of live turf

which when severed contains sufficient plant material to remain intact.

(5) Turf sprig shall mean a live plant, stolon, crown or

section cut from stolonifera plants used as turf.

(c) Quantity. Sod shall be advertised, offered for sale and sold

243
by measure or by a combination of count and measure as I prescribed by this subsection. i

(1) Turf sod. Turf sod shall be advertised for sale and

sold in terms of square metre, square feet or square

yards, as appropriate.

(2) Turf plugs. Turf plugs shall be advertised for sale

j and sold in terms of count, combined with a statement of the average plug diameter.

(3) Turf sprigs. Turf sprigs shall be advertised for sale

and sold in terms of the litre or the bushel.

When the American Sod Producers Association learned of this

consideration, they indicated that standardizing would be very

difficult because of various consumer demands and needs in

various areas. They, therefore, respectfully request that any

guidelines be delayed for at least a year to allow time for adequate

study, research and analysis of the industry and its various

elements of marketing. Nevertheless, the committee believes that

a solution to this problem can be agreed to this year and requests

the cooperation of all concerned to ensure that this new section

will be effective.

After discussion, a motion was passed to delete the word "average" from (c)(2) Turf plugs.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by majority vote)

General

1. Vending Machines

Last year the Western States Weights and Measures Association submitted a proposal that Section 15 of the Model State

Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation be amended to read as

follows:

SECTION 15. MACHINE VENDED COMMODITIES.—All vending machines dispensing commodities shall indicate:

(a) Product identity.

(b) Net quantity.

(c) Name, address and telephone number of responsible party. <

244
The requirements for net quantity delivered and product identity

shall be met by information posted on the outside of the machine;

except that when the commodity delivered is contained in a consumer package, such requirements may be met by display of

the package, providing the package conforms with the Model

State Packaging and Labeling Regulation.

The Committee on Laws and Regulations sought to table this

item until this year in order to study the issue.

The National Automatic Merchandising Association stated that

by adding net quantity statements to present selectors on beverage vending machines, it would require severe reduction of the

type sizes used plus added written material. This would result in

consumer confusion and difficulty in making the proper product

selection.

Many technical ramifications must be considered in a cup

volume discussion such as: lime deposits in valves which necessitate regular setting and resetting; requests from locations to

change the machine "throws" to reduce spillage; different cup

levels occasioned by the temperature of products and their heat

retention characteristics; and others. Because of these technicalities, the Association feels that the preprinted net quantity statements must be prepared by operators or suppliers of vending

machines rather than by machine manufacturers. The Association, therefore, fails to see in the present proposal any evidence of

consumer benefit or demand.

The committee believes that commercial measuring and dispensing devices are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances and, therefore, will seek its guidance

before making a decision. The Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances will consider this item at the 62nd Conference.

(The foregoing item was passed by majority vote)

2. Drained Weight Enforcement

Recent changes to weights and measures laws and proposed

rules from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on drained

weight labeling have generated some concern that enforcement of

drained weight by weights and measures officials will pose many

problems. For example, the State of New Mexico is on record as being opposed to drained weight requirements as they do not

believe that they are able to adequately check for drained weight

and do not believe that the FDA proposal adequately takes care of

the various exceptions which are going to occur in the use of

material liquids plus solids contained in a container.

245
The committee hereby requests that this matter be referred

through the NCWM Resolutions Committee to Congress for appropriate action. The Committee on Laws and Regulations suggests

that the Resolutions Committee point out that weights and measures officials will need training, equipment and other assistance

and that the FDA (or OWM) budget must earmark sufficient funds

to meet these needs and support the additional responsibilities

which weights and measures officials will have to assume.

(The foregoing item was passed by majority vote)

3. Posting of Load Capacities on Trucks

The Southern Weights and Measures Association proposed the

promulgation of a regulation on quantity labeling for commercially

used dump trucks. The committee opposes adoption this year and

recommends for further study the following proposed addition to

the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation:

SECTION X. THE POSTING OF LOAD CAPACITIES ON

TRUCKS AND OTHER EARTH-HAULING CONVEYANCES.

(a) The following words or terms shall have the meaning set

forth herein when used in these rules and regulations.

(1) "Dump truck" is a term used to describe a motor

vehicle (truck) used as a measure and a transport

conveyance to move or haul soil, fill dirt and/or

crushed stone from one location to another, to be

discharged (unloaded) either in one location or to be

scattered over an area.

(2) "Tailgate" is a term used to denote a hinged or movable upright rear section of the body which can

be released to facilitate dumping or unloading of its

cargo on the ground.

(3) "Side panel section" is a term used to identify a

portion of the upright side wall of the dump body.

(b) Application. These rules and regulations shall apply to all

dump trucks used for hire or used to calculate load for

which pay, or other remuneration, is received or as a

service provided as a part of a barter arrangement. These

rules and regulations shall not apply to single draft

246
motorized earth-moving equipment used in the process of

grading, leveling or landscaping within a given site.

(c) The load capacity of commercial dump trucks shall be

lettered, stenciled or painted in contrasting colors on the

front left panel (driver's side) of the dump truck, and on

left panel of the tailgate.

(1) Volume (capacity) will be determined using inside

measurements of the side from front to rear, the

width from side to side, and height from the floor of

the body to an average height of the sides and ends

of the body.

(2) Posted capacity shall be in terms of the nearest tenth

of a cubic yard (cu yd), i.e., "Capacity: 7.6 cu yd" or in

terms of the nearest tenth of a cubic meter (m3

), i.e.,

"Capacity: 5.8 m3 ."

(3) The lettering of the capacity shall be composed of

letters and numbers of at least 20 cm high by 7 cm

wide.

(The foregoing item was passed by majority vote)

MODEL STATE PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

1. Responsibility Statement to Require Address of Central Office of

Manufacturer

A consumer advocate put forth the proposition that every item

sold in interstate commerce at the retail level must have the name

and address of the manufacturer of said item. Section 5. Declaration of Responsibility: Consumer and Nonconsumer Packages, of

course, does not cover nonpackaged items and it does not appear

that authority under weights and measures laws is broad enough

to permit any such regulation nor does the committee believe that

traditional weights and measures jurisdiction extends to every

retail item.

Declaration of responsibility regulations have been construed to

permit any person in the distribution chain to be specified in a

declaration of responsibility. In many instances the manufacturer

may not be the most appropriate agency for consumers, who are seeking to resolve problems, to contact. Therefore, the committee

concludes that it should not present to the Conference a recommendation for change in this area.

(The foregoing item was passed by majority vote)

247
2. Aerosol Packages

The Department of Commerce through the Office of Weights and '] Measures of the National Bureau of Standards, under its statu-

|

tory responsibility for "cooperation with the States in securing

uniformity in weights and measures laws and methods of inspec-

|

tion," developed Section 10.3.:

SECTION 10.3. AEROSOLS AND SIMILAR PRESSURIZED

CONTAINERS.—The declaration of quantity on an aerosol

package, and on a similar pressurized package, shall disclose the

net quantity of the commodity (including propellant), in terms of

weights, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container are followed.

Several States, which are among the 32 that have adopted the

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation, indicated that

pressurized cans were currently being marked by volume rather

than by weight as required above. Industry representatives indicated that according to the Food and Drug Administration, they

are permitted to mark this type of container by volume and that

for competitive purposes they will continue to do so. The NCWM

was asked to contact FDA and inform them that a declaration of

volume on pressurized containers is not acceptable to the States

since it cannot be verified.

A meeting was requested to express NBS/NCWM's concern over

the FDA position on quantity of contents declarations on aerosols,

which is found in the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA)

Manual Guide FDA 7563.7. This Guide states that in the past,

FDA has not objected to the use of units of volume to declare the

net contents of aerosol preparations that would be liquid if not

combined with the propellant and a net weight statement in

avoirdupois units for products that would be solids if not combined

with a propellant. FDA was asked to modify its position to provide

that existing State regulations (concerning aerosol quantity of

contents declarations) are not superseded by FDA guidelines. FDA

officials stated that FDA would consider the request, but it did not

appear at the time of the interim meetings that FDA would make

any statement to modify its position without following each administrative procedure and permitting interested parties to exhaust

every element of due process.

One industry representative stated that there has been a good

deal of concern that fluorocarbon propellants may in the long run

cause the partial destruction of the ozone layer in the upper

atmosphere surrounding the earth, and that the diminution of the

ozone layer would have adverse effects on human health. There248
fore, they have converted to new formulations which eliminate

fluorocarbon propellants. As a result of this conversion to a nonfluorocarbon propellant system, which uses a propellant with a much lower density than that of the usual fluorocarbon propellants, continued use of weight measure would be highly misleading

to the consumer.

Therefore, some spray labels have been changed so as to denote

the contents in terms of fluid measure rather than in terms of

weight measure.

They stated that if manufacturers were to be required to use

weight measure, consumers would be deceived into buying products, such as hair spray, with a large amount of fluorocarbon

which vaporizes before it reaches the hair rather than products

with a large amount of base which is what the consumer wants.

They further indicated that they wished to avoid a confrontation

with the States over this issue and believe that the matter can

readily be resolved without the need for litigation. Although the use of fluid measure on the principal panel will give consumers the

most helpful information at the point of purchase, the industry

would have no objection to putting the net weight on the back of

the label.

The committee wishes to commend FDA for their interest in this

matter and the manufacturers who seek to improve their product

and its labeling information. The committee is also encouraged to

work with all interested parties to resolve this issue. The committee does not believe, however, that mere guidelines can preempt a uniform national regulation developed under the technical authority of the Federal agency delegated that authority by Congress

and adopted by the States through its representatives, no matter

how broad the preemptive clause of an act might be. Additionally,

the committee cannot countenance open and notorious violations

of uniform State regulations where those violations occurred prior

to bringing the issue before the Conference.

The committee, therefore, believes that NCWM should support a

firm stand by the States that their regulations must be respected.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

3. Entertainment Value Film

Last year the Conference agreed to follow FTC guidelines in

requiring lineal measure for the sale of movie films. During the

year, discussions continued with FTC, the State of New Jersey,

and industry representatives.

Industry representatives proposed a declaration as to the run- ning time of the film, rather than the actual footage of the film, in

249
the belief that such a disclosure as to running time is the only

declaration that would be meaningful to the average purchaser.

The committee agrees and, therefore, recommends for consideration the following addition to Section 11.22:

(b) The net quantity of contents on packages of exposed movie

film is expressed in terms of the running time of the exposed

film for that portion of film which is of entertainment value.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote)

C. H. Vincent, Chairman, Dallas,

Texas

J. T. Bennett, Connecticut

J. L. O'Neill, Kansas

R. W. Probst, Wisconsin

M. TRUJILLO, Puerto Rico

T. N. TROY, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. WOLLIN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Laws and

Regulations

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on Laws

and Regulations was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by majority vote. The Conference also authorized the executive secretary to make any appropri- ate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, provided that

the requirements thus adopted are strictly adhered to.)

250
REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Presented by RICHARD L. THOMPSON, Chairman; Chief, Weights

and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture, State of

Maryland

(Thursday, July 15, 1976)

The Executive Committee submits its fi- nal report to the 61st 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.

NEW COMMITTEE

The 60th National Conference on Weights

and Measures during its annual meeting last July in San Diego,

California, adopted a proposal to establish a new standing committee of the Conference. The new committee will be named the

"Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination"

and will have responsibility for the establishment of policy and

coordination of activities within the NCWM on matters of national

and international significance.

In accordance with the Organization and Procedure of NCWM,

formal action on proposed organization changes is taken by the

Conference at its next annual meeting following acceptance of

such proposals. Therefore, to implement the establishment of the

new committee, the Executive Committee recommends adoption of

the following changes to the Conference Organization and Procedure.

1. Page 2: Objectives

Amend this section by amending (a), adding a new (b), and

relettering as follows:

"1. Objectives

The objectives of the National Conference on Weights and Measures are (a) to provide a national forum for the discussion of all questions related to weights and

251
measures administration as carried on by officials of the Federal Government and

regulatory officers of the States, Commonwealths, Territories, and Possessions of

the United States, their political subdivisions, and the District of Columbia; (b) to provide a mechanism to establish policy and coordinate activities within the

Conference on matters of national and international significance; (c) to develop a consensus on model weights and measures laws and regulations, specifications

and tolerances for commercially-used weighing and measuring devices, and

testing, enforcement, and administrative procedures; (d) to encourage and

promote uniformity of requirements and methods among weights and measures

jurisdictions; and (e) to foster cooperation among weights and measures officers

themselves and between them and all of the many manufacturing, industrial,

business, and consumer interests affected by their official activities."

2. Page 5: Committees

Standing Committees.—Amend this section to read as follows:

"5. Committees

Standing Committees.—The standing committees are the Committee on National

Measurement Policy and Coordination, the Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances, the Committee on Laws and Regulations, the Committee on Education, Administration and Consumer Affairs, and the Committee on Liaison with

the Federal Government. The membership of the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination shall be comprised of the committee chairmen of

the other four standing committees and a fifth member who shall be appointed

annually by the Conference president from the list of former Conference

chairmen who are still active in weights and measures regulatory service. This

fifth member shall also serve as committee chairman and may be reappointed

annually for a total term of office not to exceed five years. The membership of the remaining standing committees shall have a normal

complement of five members appointed by the president from the active

membership (except that the members of the Committee on Liaison with the

Federal Government may be appointed from the active or the associate membership) on a rotating basis for five-year terms (one new member being appointed,

and one old member retiring, each year). When it is necessary to make an

appointment to any of the five standing committees to fill a vacancy caused by the

death, resignation, or retirement from active service of a committee member, the

appointment shall be for the unexpired portion of such member's term. Except as

noted, each standing committee annually selects one of its members to serve as its chairman. At his option, the president may designate one or more advisory or

associate members as consultants to a standing committee."

3. Page 8: Following the paragraph on "Executive Committee" add

the following:

Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination.—The Committee

on National Measurement Policy and Coordination annually presents a report to the Conference on its activities. Its policies and coordinating efforts are subject to Conference ratification. The objective of this committee is to serve as a policymaking and coordinating body in matters of national and international

significance which may include such areas as metrication, International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), American National Standards Institute (ANSI),

International Standards Organization (ISO), American Society for Testing and

252
Materials (ASTM), National Conference on Standards Laboratories (NCSL), and

such internal matters as may be required.

To avoid unnecessary delay in the important work of the

Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination

(referred to as P & C Committee), the Executive Committee

authorized the formation of the committee on a tentative basis

following the Conference last year. The Conference president

appointed Mr. Sydney D. Andrews, State of Florida, to serve as chairman of the committee.

A comment was received from the floor regarding the composition of the Committee on National Measurement Policy and

Coordination, but this comment was not received in sufficient time

to be given adequate consideration by the current Executive

Committee. This issue will be referred to the incoming Executive

Committee for its consideration.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

VOTING PROCEDURE

The Executive Committee wishes to acknowledge the recommendation it has received from the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination to eliminate voice voting procedures in all actions taken by the NCWM. The Executive

Committee strongly endorses this recommendation and will instruct all officers, committeemen, and presiding officials for the

61st NCWM to call for either a show of hands or a standing count

of voting delegates on all matters that come before the Conference

which require voting procedures.

The advantages of this recommendation to create a more positive and systematic voting procedure in the NCWM will far

outweigh the small amount of added time that these procedures

will require.

A comment was received from the floor for additional modification of the voting procedure; however, this proposal was not

received in sufficient time for adequate study and will be referred

to the incoming Executive Committee.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

NOMINATIONS TO THE U.S. METRIC BOARD

On April 23, 1976, a letter was received from the Honorable E. L.

Richardson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, re- questing the National Conference on Weights and Measures to

submit a list of nominees for the U.S. Metric Board by May 31. A

253
list of nominees was generated by the standing committees at the

interim meetings in January 1976. The names of Sydney D.

Andrews, Florida, as the Conference nominee, and Kendrick J. Simila, Oregon; C. G. Gehringer, (retired) Pennsylvania Scale

Company; George E. Mattimoe, Hawaii; and M. W. Jensen, (retired) Can Manufacturers Institute, as alternates, were submitted

to the U.S. Department of Commerce on May 12, 1976, after final

approval by the Executive Committee.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

PLANS FOR THE 62ND NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES

The plan and general arrangements for the 62nd National

Conference on Weights and Measures were reviewed and included

the following:

Site: Dallas, Texas

Hotel: Sheraton-Dallas

Dates: July 17-22, 1977

Rates: Single $26.50, Double $33.50

Registration Fee: $50

All persons who wish to comment for committee consideration

on the tentative reports must do so in writing. These communications must be received by the Executive Secretary no later than

June 15.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

NCWM FINANCES

The Executive Committee recommends that up to $2,000 be

appropriated each year to cover International Organization of

Legal Metrology (OIML) expenses by NCWM representatives for

actual and necessary expenses in international work and committee meetings in the United States.

The Committee recommends the approval of expenditures not to

exceed $1,000 per year, including the 1976 Conference, to cover

staff out-of-pocket expenses which are not reimbursed by the

Federal Government or Office of Weights and Measures budgets.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

254
NCWM INTERIM MEETINGS

All NCWM standing committees will meet to consider and

develop tentative reports on all matters carried over from the

previous Conference, new proposals, and problems that the committees feel require attention.

Site: National Bureau of Standards

Dates: January 24-28, 1977

Attendance: Government officials, industry representatives, and

consumers may attend the interim meetings to appear before a committee on a matter of concern to them. Such appearance is scheduled on the basis of a written request to the Executive

Secretary.

Communications: All persons who wish to communicate proposals,

suggestions, or other items for committee consideration must

do so in writing. These communications must be received by the

Executive Secretary no later than January 1.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

REPORT OF THE ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

Ed Wolski, chairman of the Associate Membership Committee,

reported to the delegates that the associate membership is not

fully aware of the intended purpose and mission of the committee.

The Associate Membership Committee suggests that in the coming years the members of industry let their problems be known to

the committee and the committee be used as a clearinghouse for

matters of general importance to industry. Also, the Associate

Membership Committee requests the standing committees of the

Conference to utilize the committee as a source of industry input

for consideration in matters under study.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

SUGGESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERSHIP

The committee would like to encourage active members of the

Conference to send in their suggestions as to program speakers,

topics, schedules, activities, and other related matters to the

executive secretary so that such suggestions may be considered by

the Executive Committee in the development of the program for

next year.

(The foregoing item was adopted by majority vote.)

255
R. L. Thompson, Chairman,

Maryland

L. A. GREDY, Indiana

E. Keeley, Delaware

P. E. Nichols, Alameda County,

California

D. I. OFFNER, St. Louis, Missouri

C. C. MORGAN, Gary, Indiana

J. H. Lewis, Washington

E. W. BALLENTINE, South Carolina

F. L. BRUGH, Indianapolis, Indiana

H. W. Chandler, Yolo County,

California

A. W. FENGER, Minnesota

S. F. HlNDSMAN, Arkansas

G. E. Mattimoe, Hawaii

J. B. Rabb, Alabama

W. C. Sullivan, Seattle,

Washington

M. TRUJILLO, Puerto Rico

W. TUSEN, New Hampshire

H. F. WOLLlN.tfxec. Secy., NCWM

Executive Committee

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Executive Committee was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by majority vote. The Conference

also authorized the executive secretary to make any editorial changes in the

language adopted by the Conference.)

256
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS

Presented by JOHN H. LEWIS, Chairman; Chief, Weights and

Measures Section, State of Washington

(Thursday, July 15, 1976)

The Committee on Nominations met on

Tuesday, July 13, 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 attendance

records, geographical distribution, Conference participation, and other factors

deemed by the committee to be important.

The Committee on Nominations submits

the following names in nomination for office

to serve during the ensuing year and at the 62nd National

Conference on Weights and Measures:

Chairman: Earl Prideaux, Colorado

Vice Chairmen: Trafford F. Brink, Vermont; George E. Mattimoe, Hawaii; Kendrick J. Simila, Oregon; Robert T. Williams,

Texas

Treasurer: James H. Akey, Wausau, Wisconsin

Chaplain: John H. Lewis, Washington

Executive Committee: Herbert W. Chandler, Yolo County, California; John M. Chohamin, Middlesex County, New Jersey;

Stan J. Darsey, Florida; Louis D. Draghetti, Agawam, Massachusetts; Ronald C. Egnew, Kentucky; Lyman D. Holloway,

Idaho; Vernon L. Lowe, Kern County, California; Donald L.

Lynch, Kansas City, Kansas; Charles W. Moore, Madison

County, Indiana; Harlon D. Robinson, Maine

J. H. LEWIS, Chairman, Washington

S. D. Andrews, Florida

G. L. Johnson, Kentucky

J. H. JOHNSON, Louisiana

C. C. MORGAN, Gary, Indiana

r
W. I. THOMPSON, Monmouth

County, NJ.

W. S. Watson, California

Committee on Nominations

(There being no further nominations from the floor, nominations were declared closed, and the officers nominated by the committee were elected unanimously.)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS

Presented by THOMAS E. KlRBY, Acting Chairman; Director,

Weights and Measures Laboratory, State of Georgia

(Thursday, July 15, 1976)

The Committee on Resolutions wishes to

express the appreciation of the 61st National Conference on Weights and Measures

to all who contributed in any way toward

the conduct of a successful meeting. A special note of thanks is extended to the following:

1. To Dr. Ernest Ambler, Acting Director

of the National Bureau of Standards, for his

excellent address.

2. To the Honorable Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science and

Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, for her address and

timely highlights on three important issues.

3. To the Honorable S. John Byington, Chairman, Consumer

Product Safety Commission, for his participation on the program

and his informative description of the Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

4. To the Honorable Young D. Hance, Secretary, Maryland

Department of Agriculture, for his address, interests, and efforts

in promoting weights and measures activities.

5. To Dr. F. K. Willenbrock, Director of the Institute for Applied

Technology, National Bureau of Standards, for his words of welcome and descriptive scenario of National Bureau of Standards

activities.

6. To all speakers of the Conference for their immeasurable

contributions to the program.

7. To all officers and appointed officials of the 61st National

Conference on Weights and Measures for their valuable service

258
and contribution to the functioning of an orderly and successful

Conference program.

8. To all committee members for having given generously of

their time and efforts during the year and in the preparation and

presentation of their reports.

9. To the governing officials of all State and local jurisdictions

for their manifest interest in the progress of weights and measures administration in the United States.

10. To the Shoreham-Americana Hotel for their fine facilities

and many courtesies which contributed to the enjoyment and

comfort of the delegates.

11. To representatives of business and industry for their liberal

cooperation and hospitality.

12. To the consumer representatives who have taken interest in

the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

13. To the National Bureau of Standards, and in particular the

staff of the Office of Weights and Measures, for planning and

administering the many details involved in the work and program

of the National Conference.

The following resolutions are presented in their entirety for

consideration of the members of the Conference:

A Resolution of Appreciation

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS:

Cleo C. Morgan, City Sealer of Gary, Indiana has

made an outstanding contribution to the progress of

weights and measures by his long and faithful

service, and;

Cleo has attended 36 consecutive National Conferences on Weights and Measures beginning with the

26th in 1941, and;

Cleo served as a member of the National Conference on Weights and Measures Executive Committee during the 31st Conference in 1946 and the 37th

Conference in 1952, and;

Cleo served as Vice Chairman of the 33rd National

Conference in 1948, and;

Cleo served as Chairman of the 53rd National Conference in 1968, and;

Cleo was a member of Conference committees of the

32nd, 37th, 42nd, and 54th through 61st National

Conferences on Weights and Measures, and;

259
WHEREAS: Cleo served as Treasurer of the 43rd through the

54th National Conferences on Weights and Measures, and;

WHEREAS: Cleo C. Morgan has accepted further calls to service again as Treasurer of the 54th through the 61st

National Conferences on Weights and Measures.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

That the 61st National Conference on Weights

and Measures by this resolution offers our thanks

to Cleo C. Morgan for his unselfish, dedicated, and

invaluable service. We express our sincere appreciation for a job well done, and wish our dear

friend good luck and God speed.

Resolution to Formulate Metric Coordinating Committees at the

State Level

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS:

The need to establish Metric Coordinating Committees on the State and Commonwealth levels is

recognized by the delegates attending the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, July 12

through July 16, 1976, in Washington, D.C., and;

Conversion from the customary system of weights

and measures to the metric system is of great

concern to each delegate to the National Conference

on Weights and Measures, and;

Each State and Commonwealth has a major role in

helping to motivate and assist its citizens and industries in adapting to the metric system, and;

Each State and Commonwealth has the responsibility for coordinating its efforts for the training of its

employees and the educating and informing of its

citizens with regard to the metric system, and;

State agencies in the use of their manpower and

expertise can play a vital leadership role in establishing a framework which will facilitate conversion

to the metric system.

260
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

That the 61st National Conference on Weights and

Measures recommends and urges the Governor of

each State and Commonwealth to cause to be

formed a Metric Coordinating Committee whose

duties would include the development of State policy with regard to metric conversion; that it be

charged with the responsibility for coordinating the

voluntary transition to full use of the metric system

within an appropriate time frame for State departments and other branches of government, for all

segments of industry; and that it develop programs

to provide information and education which the

Committee deems to be in the best interest of its

citizenry.

Resolution on Drained Weight

WHEREAS: The Food and Drug Administration has proposed

rules that would require drained weight to be labeled, and;

WHEREAS: State and local weights and measures officials must

assume the responsibility for checking packaged

commodities, and;

WHEREAS: The Food and Drug Administration does not have

the personnel and equipment needed to enforce the

drained weight declarations and that task will be

performed by the State and local weights and measures officials, and;

WHEREAS: The State and local weights and measures officials

do not have, at present, enough equipment and

training resources to adequately perform the task

that will be imposed on them by the Food and Drug

Administration's Proposed Rules on Drained

Weight Labeling.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

That the National Conference on Weights and

Measures request the Office of Weights and Measures of the National Bureau of Standards to explore

the possibility of securing adequate funds from the

261
Food and Drug Administration to provide for a

training program, a checking procedure, and such

auxilliary equipment as will be necessary to adequately enforce drained weight declarations.

S. F. HlNDSMAN, Chairman,

Arkansas

A. J. ALBANESE, New Britain,

Connecticut

L. D. DRAGHETTI, Agawam,

Massachusetts

J. A. ETZKORN, South Dakota

C. E. FORESTER, Texas

T. E. KlRBY, Georgia

S. A. Malone, Nebraska

Committee on Nominations

(On motion of the acting committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the

report of the Committee on Resolutions was adopted by majority vote.)

262
REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Presented by DONALD L. LYNCH, Chairman; Director, Weights

and Measures, Kansas City, Kansas

(Thursday, July 15, 1976)

The Auditing Committee met on Thursday morning, July 15, for the purpose of

reviewing the financial records of the Conference treasurer, Mr. C. C. Morgan. The

committee finds these records to be in ac- cordance with Conference procedure and

correct.

D. L. LYNCH, Chairman,

Kansas City, Kansas

K. R. ADCOCK, Ohio

J. B. Hardy, Mississippi

Committee on Auditing

(On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the report of

the Auditing Committee was adopted by majority vote.)

1

263
REPORT OF THE TREASURER

Presented by C. C. MORGAN, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Gary, Indiana

(Thursday, July 15, 1976)

Balance on hand July 1, 1975 $ 3,510.12

RECEIPTS:

Registration (417 @ $30.00) $12,510.00

Refund from Pacific Telephone Co 2.73

Refund from Mr. Wollin, Misc. Expenses 35.90

12,548.63

$16,058.75

DISBURSEMENTS:

Steve Miller, Conference Reception $ 100.05

Print Graphic 79.50

Harold Wollin, Misc. Expenses 250.00

Crown Booking (Dance Band) 625.00

Sheraton-Harbor Island Hotel, Master

Account 2,288.07

Sheraton-Harbor Island Hotel, Flowers 26.50

Neyenesch Printers, Inc. 702.78

San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau 422.60

Pacific Telephone Company 10.92

Franklin Press, Letterheads 26.50

S. D. Andrews, Senate Commerce Committee 190.00

264
Harold Wollin, Interim Meeting Expense 179.20

R. L. Thompson, Chairman, Expense __ 142.00

S & T Committee 1,627.17

L & R Committee 1,753.58

Education Committee 1,545.61

Liaison Committee 935.13

P & C Committee 513.10

Gunston Hall, Deposit 25.00

Franklin Press 78.90

Stamps 13.00

Bank Charge 5.72

11,540.33

Balance on hand July 1, 1976 $ 4,518.42

Medallion Balance July 1, 1975 $ 6,566.13

Income 1,950.00

$ 8,516.13

DISBURSEMENTS:

Franklin Mint $ 1,806.00

Franklin Mint 98.00

Franklin Mint 61.26

Franklin Mint 61.26

2,026.52

Medallion Balance $ 6,489.61

Conference Balance 4,518.42

Balance $11,008.03

Bank Balance $11,003.03

Cash on hand 5.00

Balance $11,008.03

Depository: Bank of Indiana

(Signed) C. C. MORGAN, Treasurer

(On motion of the treasurer, seconded from the floor, the Report of the

Treasurer was adopted by the Conference.)

265

1
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

State, City, and County Weights and Measures Officials

ALABAMA

State JOHN B. Rabb, Metrologist, Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture and Industries, P. O. Box 3336, Montgomery 36109 (Tel.

205:832-6766)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Birmingham 35203 W. B. HARPER, Chief, Weights and Measures

Division, Room 207, City Hall (Tel. 205:254-

2246)

ALASKA

State James E. Bruce, Acting Chief, Weights and

Measures Section, 2263 Spenard Road, Anchorage 99503 (Tel. 907:279-0508)

CHARLES L. CORINTH, Civil Engineering Assistant III

ARIZONA

State Richard F. Harris, Assistant Director, Department of Administration, Weights and Measures Division, 10202 North 19th Avenue, Phoenix 85021 (Tel. 602:271-5211)

Raymond H. Helmick, Chief, Weights and

Measures Division and Arizona Consumers

Council

ARKANSAS

State SAM F. HlNDSMAN, Director, Weights and Measures, 4608 West 61st Street, Little Rock 72209

(Tel. 501:371-1759)

CALIFORNIA

State E. F. DELFINO, Chief, Division of Measurement

Standards, Department of Food and Agriculture, 8500 Fruitridge Rd., Sacramento 95826

(Tel. 916:445-7001)

Walter S. Watson, Special Assistant

County Weights and Measures Officials: Alameda PATRICK E. Nichols, Director, Weights and

Measures, 333 Fifth Street, Oakland 94607

(Tel. 415:874-6736)

266
Kern VERNON L. LOWE, Director, Weights and Measures, 1116 East California Avenue, Bakersfield

93307 (Tel. 805:861-2418)

Riverside Joseph W. JONES, Director, Weights and Measures, 2950 Washington, Riverside 92504 (Tel.

714:787-2620)

San Bernardino H. E. Sandel, Director, Weights and Measures

and Consumer Affairs, 160 East Sixth Street,

San Bernardino 92415 (Tel. 714:383-1411)

San Mateo H. Eugene Smith, Director, Weights and Measures, 702 Chestnut Street, Redwood City 94063

(Tel. 415:364-5600, ext. 2227)

Ventura William H. Korth, Director, Weights and

Measures, 608 El Rio Drive, Oxnard 93030

(Tel. 805:487-7711, ext. 4378)

Yolo Herbert W. Chandler, Director, Weights and

Measures, P. O. Box 175, Woodland 95695 (Tel.

916:666-8261)

COLORADO

State Earl PRIDEAUX, Chief, Weights and Measures

Section, Department of Agriculture, 3125

Wyandot, Denver 80211 (Tel. 303:892-2845)

Milton D. Schneider, Chief, Oil Inspection

Section, Division of Labor, 888 East Iliff, Denver 80210 (Tel. 303:892-2096)

CONNECTICUT

State JOHN T. Bennett, Chief, Weights and Measures

Division, Department of Consumer Protection,

State Office Bldg., Room G-17, Hartford 06115

(Tel. 203:566-1778)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Derby 06418 JOHN T. NICOSIA, President, Connecticut

Weights and Measures Association, 173 Park

Avenue (Tel. 203:734-6213)

Middletown 06457 GUY J. TOMMASI, Sealer, Weights and Measures,

Town Hall (Tel. 203:347-4671)

DELAWARE

State EUGENE KEELEY, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Drawer

D, Dover 19901 (Tel. 302:678-4824)

267
FLORIDA

State, SYDNEY D. ANDREWS, Director, Division of

Standards, Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, Mayo Building, Lab Complex, Tallahassee 32304 (Tel. 904:488-0645)

COUNCIL Wooten, Chief, Bureau of Weights

and Measures (Tel. 904:488-9140)

STAN J. DARSEY, Assistant Chief

County Weights and Measures Officials: Dade JOHN C. MAYS, Director, Consumer Protection

Division, 140 West Flagler Street, 16th Floor,

Miami 33130 (Tel. 305:579-4222)

GEORGIA

State O. D. MULLINAX, Director, Fuels and Measures

Division, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Building, Capitol Square, Atlanta 30334

' (Tel. 404:656-3605)

THOMAS E. KlRBY, Director, Weights and Measures Laboratory, Atlanta Farmers Market,

Forest Park 30050 (Tel. 404:363-7611)

HAWAII

State GEORGE E. Mattimoe, Deputy Director,

Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 1428 South King Street, Honolulu

96814 (Tel. 808:941-3071, ext. 173)

CHARLES G. BOCKUS, Metrologist, Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, P. 0.

Box 226, Captain Cook 96704 (Tel. 808:323-

2608)

IDAHO

State LYMAN D. HOLLOWAY, Chief, Bureau of

Weights and Measures, 2126 Warm Springs

Avenue, Boise 83702 (Tel. 208:384-2345)

ILLINOIS

State MURVIL D. HARPSTER, Chief, Bureau of Product

Inspections and Standards, Department of Agriculture, State Fairgrounds, Springfield

62706 (Tel. 217:782-3817)

Sidney Colbrook, Quantity Standards Technician

INDIANA

State LORENZO A. GREDY, Director, Division of

Weights and Measures, State Board of Health,

268
1330 West Michigan Str., Indianapolis 46206

(Tel. 317:633-6860)

JOHN E. Basham, Chief, Sanitary Bedding Section

County Weights and Measures Officials: Clark Robert W. Walker, Inspector, Weights and

Measures, City-County Bldg., Room 314, Jef- fersonville 47130 (Tel. 812:283-4451)

Gibson W. R. Sevier, Inspector, Weights and Measures,

Courthouse Annex, Princeton 47683 (Tel.

812:795-2532)

Lake Albert M. Mysogland, Inspector, Weights

and Measures, 2293 North Main Street, Crown

Point 46307 (Tel. 219:663-2896)

Laporte EDWIN HANISH, Inspector, Weights and Measures, 2702 Franklin Street, Michigan City

46360 (Tel. 219:879-9486)

Madison CHARLES W. MOORE, Inspector, Weights and

Measures, County Government Center, Anderson 46011 (Tel. 317:646-9359)

Porter RICHARD CLAUSSEN, Inspector, Weights and

Measures, 157 Franklin Street, Valparaiso

46383 (Tel. 219:464-1722)

St. Joseph Chester S. Zmudzinski, Inspector, Weights

and Measures, 227 West Jefferson Boulevard,

County-City Bldg., South Bend 46601 (Tel.

219:284-9751)

Tippecanoe WEBSTER McMURRAY, Inspector, Weights and

Measures, County Courthouse, P. O. Box 444,

LaFayette 47902 (Tel. 317:447-3230)

Vigo ROBERT J. SlLCOCK, Inspector, Weights and

Measures, Court House, Room 5, Terre Haute

47802 (Tel. 812:232-5746)

Wayne FRANCIS Daniels, Inspector, Weights and

Measures, 1018 Parry Street, Richmond 47374

(Tel. 317:935-1813)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Anderson 46011 EARL GADBERRY, Inspector, Weights and Measures, P. O. Box 2100 (Tel. 317:646-5814)

East Chicago 46312 Thad A. BoGUSZ, Sealer, Weights and Measures, 4713 Northcote Avenue (Tel. 219:397-

0073)

Gary 46402 C. C. MORGAN, Sealer, Weights and Measures,

1100 Massachusetts (Tel. 219:944-6566)

269
Hammond 46320 DEAN BRAHOS, Sealer, Weights and Measures,

Room 315, 5925 Calumet Avenue (Tel. 219:853-

6377)

Indianapolis 46204 FRANK L. BRUGH, Administrator, Weights and

Measures, City-County Bldg., Room G6 (Tel.

317:633-3733)

GUS PAPPAS, Deputy Inspector

Harry Richards, Deputy Inspector

Mishawaka 46544 GEORGE Staffeldt, Inspector, Weights and

Measures, City Hall (Tel. 219:255-2281)

New Albany 47150 James M. MoREILLON, Deputy Inspector,

Weights and Measures, City-County Bldg.,

Room 325 (Tel. 812:945-5357)

South Bend 46621 BERT S. ClCHOWlCZ, Sealer, Weights and Measures, Municipal Facility, 701 West Sample

Street (Tel. 219:284-9273)

IOWA

State J. CLAIR Boyd, Supervisor, Standards Control,

Weights and Measures Division, Department

of Agriculture, State Capitol, Des Moines

50319 (Tel. 515:281-5716)

Curt McNeil, Technician II

KANSAS

State John L. O'NEILL, State Sealer, Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, State

Office Bldg., Topeka 66612 (Tel. 913:296-3846)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Kansas City 66101 Donald L. LYNCH, Director, Weights and Measures, 701 North Seventh Street (Tel. 913:371-

2000, ext. 440)

Topeka 66603 DONALD J. WEICK, Chief Inspector, Weights and

Measures, City Building, Room 353, Seventh

and Quincy (Tel. 913:235-9261, ext. 205)

KENTUCKY

State George L. Johnson, Director, Division of

Weights and Measures, 106 West Second

Street, Frankfort 40601 (Tel. 502:564-4870)

RONALD C. EGNEW, Laboratory Supervisor

LOUISIANA

State CHARLES S. JOHNSON, Technical Administrator,

Division of Weights and Measures, Depart270
ment of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 44292, Capitol

Station, Baton Rouge 70804 (Tel. 504:389-7087)

MAINE

State Harlon D. ROBINSON, Deputy State Sealer,

Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Division of Inspections, State Office

Building, Augusta 04333 (Tel. 207:289-3841)

Gaylon M. Kennedy, Metrologist (Tel. 207:289-

2752)

MARYLAND

State YOUNG D. Hance, Secretary, Department of

Agriculture, Parole Plaza Office Building, Annapolis 21401 (Tel. 301:267-1161)

Richard L. Thompson, Chief, Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Symons Hall, Room 3205, College Park 20742

(Tel. 301:454-3551)

LACY H. DeGrange, Field Supervisor

Charles R. Stockman, Metrologist

County Weights and Measures Officials: Prince George's ROBERT J. CORD, Chief, Weights and Measures

Branch, Division of Business Standards, 9133

Central Avenue, Capitol Heights 20027 (Tel.

301:350-5802)

DONALD F. Savage, Deputy Sealer II

City Weights and Measures Officials: Baltimore 21202 Thomas A. Considine, Chief, Division of Tests,

1103 Municipal Building (Tel. 301:396-3457)

MASSACHUSETTS

State EDWARD H. STADOLNIK, Head Administrative

Assistant, Division of Standards, Executive

Office of Consumer Affairs, Room 1115, One

Ashburton Place, Boston 02108 (Tel. 617:727-

3480)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Agawam 01001 LOUIS D. DRAGHETTI, Inspector, Weights and

Measures, 36 Main Street (Tel. 413:786-0400,

ext. 51)

Cambridge 02139 ROBERT K. LAFFIN, Sealer, Weights and Measures, City Hall, Room 202 (Tel. 617:876-6800,

ext. 251)

Plymouth 02360 DAVID A. MONTANARI, Sealer, Weights and

Measures, 35 Davis Street (Tel. 617:747-1620)

271
West Springfield 01089 PAUL T. Gamelli, Inspector, Weights and Measures, 26 Central Street (Tel. 413:781-7550)

MICHIGAN

State FRANK C. Nagele, Weights and Measures Specialist, Department of Agriculture, Food In- spection Division, Fifth Floor, Lewis Cass

Building, Lansing 48913 (Tel. 517:373-1060)

G. CULHAM, Inspector, Weights and Measures,

672 Bungo Lake Road, Harrison 48625 (Tel.

517:588-2295)

Lawrence M. Goldin. Inspector, Weights and

Measures, 42210 Parkside Circle, Apt. 210,

Sterling Hts. 48078 (Tel. 313:739-2136)

MINNESOTA

State WARREN E. Czaia, Director, Weights and Measures Division, 1015 Currie Avenue, Minneapolis 55403 (Tel. 612:333-3249)

NORMAN BORCHARDT, Inspector

ARVID W. FENGER, Senior Inspector

Ray A. Tharalson, Metrologist

City Weights and Measures Officials: Minneapolis 55415 RICHARD SCULLY, Inspector, Department of Li- censes and Consumer Services, City Hall,

Room 101-A (Tel. 612:348-2080)

MISSISSIPPI

State J. B. HARDY, JR, Director, Consumer Protection

Division, Department of Agriculture and Commerce, State Office Building, P. O. Box 1609,

Jackson 39205 (Tel. 601:354-6258)

MISSOURI

State Robert D. Wittenberger, Program Supervisor, Weights and Measures, Department of

Agriculture, P. O. Box 630, Jefferson City

65101 (Tel. 314:751^992)

City Weights and Measures Officials:

St. Louis 63104 Daniel I. Offner, Commissioner, Weights and

Measures, 1220 Carr Lane Avenue, Room 145

(Tel. 314:453-3251)

MONTANA

State Gary L. Delano, Administrator, Weights and

Measures Division, Department of Business

Regulation, 805 North Main, Helena 59601

(Tel. 406:449-3163)

272
NEBRASKA

State Steve Malone, Administrator, Weights and

Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, 1420 P Street, Third Floor, P. O. Box

94757, Lincoln 68509 (Tel. 402:471-2875)

NEW HAMPSHIRE

State WALTER J. TUSEN, Chief Inspector, Bureau of

Weights and Measures, State House Annex,

Room 201, Concord 03301 (Tel. 603:271-3700)

NEW JERSEY

State James R. Bird, Deputy State Superintendent,

Weights and Measures, 187 West Hanover

Street, Trenton 08625 (Tel. 609:292-^615)

Bernie D. Arckivy, Metrologist

Carl P. Conrad, Jr, Supervisor of Licensing

County Weights and Measures Officials: Bergen James A. POLLOCK, Superintendent, Weights

and Measures Department, 355 Main Street,

Hackensack 07601 (Tel. 201:646-2729)

Burlington EARL D. GASKILL, Superintendent, Weights and

Measures, 54 Grant Street, Mount Holly 08505

(Tel. 609:267-3300, ext. 210)

Camden A. J. FRANCESCONI, Superintendent, Weights

and Measures, County Courthouse, Room 306,

Camden 08101 (Tel. 609:757-8196)

Cape May A. David Gidding, Superintendent, Weights and

Measures, 6807 Seaview Avenue, Wildwood

Crest 08260 (Tel. 609:522-4861)

Cumberland GEORGE S. Franks, Superintendent, Weights

and Measures and Consumer Protection, 800

East Commerce Street, Bridgeton 08302 (Tel.

609:451-8000, ext. 296)

NICHOLAS DiMarco, Deputy Superintendent

(Tel. 609:451-0118)

Gloucester ROBERT J. MORRIS, Superintendent, Weights

and Measures, County Building, 49 Wood

Street, Woodbury 08096 (Tel. 609:845-1600, ext. 252)

JOSEPH SlLVESTRO, Assistant County Superintendent

Mercer Ralph M. Bodenweiser, Superintendent,

Weights and Measures, County Administration Bldg., 640 South Broad Street, Trenton

08607 (Tel. 609:989-6579)

273
Middlesex JOHN M. CHOHAMIN, Superintendent, Weights

and Measures, 841 Georges Road, North

Brunswick 08902 (Tel. 201:246-6298)

Monmouth WILLIAM I. Thompson, Superintendent,

Weights and Measures, Hall of Records, Room

300, Freehold 07728 (Tel. 201:431-7363)

Salem ROBERT B. JONES, Superintendent, Weights and

Measures, P. O. Box 24, Salem 08079 (Tel.

609:935-3152)

Warren GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Superintendent, Weights

and Measures, Court House, Belvidere 07823

(Tel. 201:475-5087)

NEW MEXICO

State CHARLES H. GREENE, Chief, Division of Markets, Weights and Measures, Department of

Agriculture, Box 3170, Las Cruces 88003 (Tel.

505:646-1616)

NEW YORK

State JOHN J. BARTFAI, Director, Bureau of Weights

and Measures, Building 7-A, State Campus,

1220 Washington Avenue, Albany 12235 (Tel.

518:457-3452)

Stewart Simon, Assistant to the Director

County Weights and Measures Officials: Monroe LOUIS P. ROMANO, Sealer, Weights and Measures, 1157 Scottsville Road, Rochester 14625

(Tel. 716:436-1330)

City Weights and Measures Officials: New York City 10013 JAMES J. White, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Consumer Affairs, 80 Lafayette Street

(Tel. 212:566-5007)

NORTH CAROLINA

State Marion L. Kinlaw, Director, Consumer Standards Division, Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 26056, Raleigh 27611 (Tel. 919:829-3313)

TOM SCOTT, Chief, Measurement Standards Section

GORDEN S. YOUNG, Metrologist, P. O. Box 25065

(Tel. 919:829-3246)

OHIO

State KENNETH R. ADCOCK, Chief, Division of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

Reynoldsburg 43068 (Tel. 614:866-6361)

274
County Weights and Measures Officials: Auglaize FERD WELLMAN, Inspector, Weights and Measures, 309 South Main, New Knoxville 45871

(Tel. 419:753-2021)

Clark JAMES S. POWERS, SR., Inspector, Weights and

Measures, County Bldg., P. O. Box 1325,

Springfield 45502 (Tel. 513:324-5871)

Cuyahoga FRANK KOSITS, JR., Supervisor, Weights and

Measures, 1464 West 117th Street, Lakewood

44107 (Tel. 216:226-7045)

Huron W. DALE Ebinger, Deputy Sealer, Weights and

Measures, One East Main Street, Court

House, County Auditor's Office, Norwalk 44857

(Tel. 419:668-8643)

Logan Harold K. Turner, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures, Court House, Bellefontaine 43311

(Tel. 513:585-4681)

Montgomery ROBERT J. HECKMAN, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures, West Third at St. Mary's Street,

County Administration Building, Dayton

45401 (Tel. 513:225-4315)

ROBERT W. Omlor, Inspector

ROBERT L. RODERER, Auditor (Tel. 513:225-

4333)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Akron 44304 ANTHONY J. LADD, Superintendent, Weights

and Measures and Consumer Protection, 69

North Union Street (Tel. 216:375-2612)

Cincinnati 45214 Leonard B. Frank, Superintendent, Markets,

Weights and Measures, 2147 Central Avenue

(Tel. 513:352-3135)

Dayton 45402 CLIFFORD W. ROBERTS, Inspector, Weights and

Measures, 960 Ottawa Street, (Tel. 513:225-

5304)

OREGON

State KENDRICK J. SIMILA, Administrator, Weights

and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Bldg., Salem 97310 (Tel.

503:378-3792)

PENNSYLVANIA

State Walter F. JUNKINS, Director, Bureau of Standard Weights and Measures, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg 17120 (Tel. 717:787-

6772)

275
County Weights and Measures Officials: Bucks PEGGY H. Adams, Chief Sealer, Weights and

Measures, Court House Annex, Broad and

Union Streets, Doylestown 18901 (Tel. 215:348-

2911, ext. 496)

Chester ROBERT N. TAYLOR, Director, Weights and

Measures and Consumer Affairs, County

Court House, West Chester 19380 (Tel.

215:431-6150)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Allentown 18102 ARNOLD L. HEILMAN, Jr., Sealer, Weights and

Measures, 302 Gordon Street (Tel. 215:437-

7770)

PUERTO RICO

State MAXIMILIANO TRUJILLO, Assistant Secretary,

Bureau of Enforcement, Department of Con- sumer Affairs, P. O. Box 41059, Santurce 00940

(Tel. 809:726-7585)

RHODE ISLAND

State EDWARD R. FlSHER, Administrator, Department of Labor/Mercantile Division, 470 Aliens

Avenue, Providence 02905 (Tel. 401:277-2758)

SOUTH CAROLINA

State E. W. Ballentine, Director, Consumer Services, Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box

11280, Columbia 29211 (Tel. 803:758-2426)

C. T. SMITH, Director, Consumer Protection Division

JOHN V. PUGH, Director, Metrology Division

(Tel. 803:758-2130)

SOUTH DAKOTA

State JAMES A. ETZKORN, Supervisor, Heavy Scales

Division, Department of Commerce & Con sumer Affairs, Division of Consumer Protection, State Capitol Building, Pierre 57501 (Tel.

605:224-3170)

TENNESSEE

State EUGENE H. HoLEMAN, Deputy Director,

Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Box 40627 Melrose Station, Nashville

37204 (Tel. 615:741-1411)

JOHN C. SHELTON, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures (Tel. 615:741-1539)

ROBERT G. WILLIAMS, Laboratory Technologist

276
TEXAS

State R. T. WILLIAMS, Director of Programs, Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 12847, Austin

78711 (Tel. 512:473-3140)

Ed Whitesides, Director, Consumer Services

Division (Tel. 512:474-4304)

CHARLES E. FORESTER, Supervisor, Weights

and Measures (Tel. 512:475-6577)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Dallas 75201 Charles H. Vincent, Director, Department of

Consumer Affairs, 2014 Main Street, Room 108

(Tel. 214:744-1133)

F. G. Yarbrough, Assistant Director (Tel.

214:748-9711, ext. 1218)

JAMES C. BLACKWOOD, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures Division, 1500 West Mockingbird,

Room 408, Dallas 75235 (Tel. 214:630-1111, ext. 421)

VERMONT

State TRAFFORD F. BRINK, Director, Division of

Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 116 State Street, Montpelier 05602

(Tel. 802:828-2436)

Douglas L. Jones, Metrologist

VIRGIN ISLANDS

State Leslie L. Payton, Esq., Assistant Attorney

General, P. O. Box 599, St. Thomas (Tel.

809:774-3130)

VIRGINIA

State JAMES F. LYLES, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Section, One North 14th Street, Room

032, Richmond 23219 (Tel. 804:786-2476)

M. W. Cain, Metrologist

R. H. SHELTON, Field Supervisor

G. W. DlGGS, Inspector

City Weights and Measures Officials: Alexandria 22313 LOUIS W. Vezina, Sealer, Weights and Measures, City Hall, Box 178 (Tel. 703:836-0864)

Norfolk 23501 ROBERT H. BRITT, JR., Sealer, Weights and

Measures, City Hall, Room 804 (Tel. 804:441-

2409)

Richmond 23219 ANDREW B. MOODY, JR., Senior Inspector, Bu- reau of Weights and Measures, 501 North

Ninth Street, Rm. 128 (Tel. 804:780-4208)

Roger L. Conrad, Inspector

277

r
WASHINGTON

State JOHN H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures,

General Administration Bldg., Room 406,

Olympia 98504 (Tel. 206:753-5042)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Seattle 98104 WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures, 102 Seattle Municipal Bldg. (Tel.

206:625-2712)

WEST VIRGINIA

State DAVID L. GRIFFITH, Director, Consumer Protec- tion Division, Department of Labor, 1900

Washington Street, East, Charleston 25305

(Tel. 304:348-7890)

Mack H. Combs, Assistant Director

WISCONSIN

State ROBERT W. PROBST, Director, Bureau of Standards, Department of Agriculture, 801 West

Badger Road, Madison 53713 (Tel. 608:266-

7241)

WILLIAM E. BURKHARDT, Laboratory Supervisor (Tel. 608:266-2761)

Henry V. Oppermann, Inspector (Tel. 608-266-

0608)

City Weights and Measures Officials: Sheboygan 53081 ROLAND K. LORENZ, Sealer, Weights and Measures, 1208 South Eighth Street (Tel. 414:457-

5011, ext. 47)

Wausau 54401 JAMES H. Akey, Sealer, Weights and Measures,

400 Myron Street (Tel. 715:842-3413)

West Allis 53214 John A. LUPO, Weights and Measures Specialist, 7220 West National Avenue (Tel. 414:476-

3770, ext. 69)

MANUFACTURERS, INDUSTRY, AND BUSINESS

Accurate Metering Systems, Inc. Clarence DREIER, President, 1731 Carmen Drive, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007

(Tel. 312:640-0670)

Acme Scale and Supply Company

RAYMOND C. Canfield, President, 5427 Butler Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15201

(Tel. 412:782-1808)

American Can Company

FREDERICK J. VERMILLION, Director, Quality Control, Greenwich, CT 06830

(Tel. 203:552-2374)

William H. MARKS, Supervisor, Specifications, 333 North Commercial Street,

Neenah, WI 54956 (Tel. 414:722-4211, ext. 5509)

278
American Glassware Association

Robert H. Wacke, Director, Marketing Libbey Glass, P. 0. Box 919, Toledo,

OH 43693 (Tel. 419:242-6543)

American Meat Institute

CHESTER ADAMS, Vice President and General Counsel, P. O. Box 3556,

Washington, D. C. .20007 (Tel. 703:841-1030)

American National Metric Council

DR. Malcolm E. O'Hagan, Executive Director, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D. C. 20036 (Tel. 202:232^545)

Michael F. Thompson, Program Administrator

PAUL D. MANGAN, Editor, Metric Reportor

DONNA FlSCUS, Assistant Editor

American Paper Institute

W. V. DRISCOLL, Manager, Tissue Division, 260 Madison Avenue, New York,

New York 10016 (Tel. 212:883-8018)

William H. BRAUN, Section Head, Technical Packaging, 6100 Center Hill Rd.,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45224 (Tel. 513:977-8233)

American Petroleum Institute

WALLACE N. SEWARD, Assistant to Senior Vice President, Industry Affairs,

2101 L Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (Tel. 202:457-7055)

R. SOUTHERS, Manager, Operations and Engineering (Tel. 202:457-7014)

J. K. WALTERS, Assistant Coordinator, Petroleum Measurement (Tel. 202:457-

7058)

W. A. Kerlin, Consultant (Tel. 202:457-7018)

American Railway Engineering Association

EARL W. HODGKINS, Executive Director, 59 E. Van Buren St., Chicago, IL

60605 (Tel. 312: 939-0780)

American Seed Trade Association

ROBERT J. FALASCA, Assistant to the Executive Vice President, Suite 964,

1030 15th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202:223-4080)

Amoco Oil Company

JAMES e. St. Germain, Manager, Engineering and Maintenance, One N.

Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21201 (Tel. 301:727-6700, ext. 245)

Amstar Corporation

Walter Zielnicki, Scale & Weight Coordinator, 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020 (Tel. 212:489-9000)

Analogic Corporation

GUY W. WILSON, Product Sales Manager, Auduban Road, Wakefield, Mass.

01880 (Tel. 617:246-0300)

ARCO/Polymers, Inc. JAMES P. MCGARVEY, Technical Director, Product Development Section,

Frankfort Road, Monaca, PA 15061 (Tel. 412: 774-1000, ext. 496)

Associated Retail Bakers of America

HENRY A. FISCHER, Chairman, Committee on Weights and Measures, 380

Bloomfield Avenue, Caldwell, NJ 07006 (Tel. 201:226-1589)

Atlantic Richfield Company

T. J. MACWlLLIAMS, Construction & Maintenance Engineer, 515 South Flower

St., Room 1875, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (Tel. 213:486-1247)

Bennett Pump Company

MITCH GODSMAN, Richmond District Manager, 1501 Santa Rosa Road, Suite

B-14, Richmond, VA 23288 (Tel. 804:282-6965)

JOHN P. HAUET, Manager, Field Service, P.O. Box 597, Muskegon, MI 49443

(Tel. 616:733-1302)

279
Berkel Incorporated

W. N. Shannon, Vice President, One Berkel Drive, LaPorte, Indiana 46350

(Tel. 219:362-3165)

Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Company

JAMES E. FOREMAN, Jr, Manager, Facilities and Structures, P.O. Box 471,

Greenville, Pennsylvania 16125 (Tel. 412:588-5700, ext. 321)

Best Foods Division—CPC International

FRANK L. Bender, Jr., Director of Packaging, International Plaza, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 (Tel. 201:894-2481)

ROBERT A. ETHIER, Director, Quality Assurance, Quality Control (Tel.

201:894-2707)

Brooks Instrument Division

Barrie L. BLOSER, Manager, Product Development, P. O. Box 450, Statesboro,

Georgia 30458 (Tel. 912:764-5471)

JAMES W. Williams, JR., Manager, Application Engineering

Burroughs

RONALD T. RADICE, Product Manager, Columbia, Maryland 21043 (Tel.

301:461-1000)

California Film Extruders and Converters Association

Carl L. TlMMONS, Sales Manager, 4203 North Baldwin Avenue, El Monte,

California 91734 (Tel. 213:443-3173)

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company

W. TERRY JAMES, Vice President, Engineering, 203 East Daugherty, Webb

City, Missouri 64870 (Tel. 417:673^631)

Carpet And Rug Institute

BARRY TORRENCE, P. O. Box 2048, Dalton, Georgia 30720 (Tel. 404:278-3176)

Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings

Merrill S. Thompson, Attorney, 135 South LaSalle Street, Room 2360,

Chicago, Illinois 60603 (Tel. 312:726-2545)

Chessie System

GEORGE R. BURGESS, Chief Structure Inspector, 801 Madison Avenue, Huntington, West Virginia 25704 (Tel. 304:525-0341, ext. 5657)

Chocolate Manufacturers Association

JOHN B. Minnick, Counsel, 7900 Westpark Drive, Suite 514, McLean, Va. 22101

(Tel. 703:790-5011)

The Coca-Cola Company

MARSHALL J. Barrash, Packaging Manager, Market Development, P. O. Drawer 1734, Atlanta, Georgia 30301 (Tel. 404:897-3154)

ROBERT L. CALLAHAN, Jr., Senior Group Counsel (Tel. 404:897-2506)

ROBERT A. LESTER, Attorney (Tel. 404:897-2530)

Marvin Q. Wheeler, Assistant to Vice President, Engineering (Tel. 404:897-

3579)

Colgate-Palmolive Company

E. E. WOLSKl, Manager, Quality Control, 300 Park Avenue, New York, NY

10022 (Tel. 212:751-1200)

Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Dr. Shirley B. Bitterlich, Assistant Vice President, Quail Hill, San Rafael,

CA 94903 (Tel. 415:472-3100)

Con Rail

RONALD E. Park, System Supervisor, Scale Inspection, Room 750, 6 Penn

Center, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (Tel. 215:696-6340)

C. THOMAS PiCTON, Scale Inspector, Gen. Supt., Rdg. Shops, 6th & Perry

Streets, Reading, PA 19601 (Tel. 215:376-9711, ext. 282)

280
The Continental Group, Inc. W. M. STRICKLAND, Division Manager, Quality Control, 800 East Northwest

Highway, Palatine, IL 60067 (Tel. 312:359-7400, ext. 184)

The Cordage Institute

EUGENE J. QUINDLEN, Executive Director, 2300 Calvert St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20008 (Tel. 202:265-1342)

William H. HaGENBUCH, Chairman, Technical Committee, do The Hooven

and Allison Company, P. O. Box 340, Xenia, Ohio 45385 (Tel. 513:372-4421)

Cordemex

JOSE A. Palomeque, Sales Manager, Apartado Postal #1, Merida, Yucatan,

Mexico

JORGE C. LOPEZ-MUNOZ., General Counsel, P. O. Box 1, Kilometro 8V2 Carretera Progreso, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico (Tel. 2-57-10)

Francisco X. Lopez, Assistant Counsel

CPC International, Inc. ALFRED E. JOHANSON, Regulatory Counsel, International Plaza, Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 (Tel. 201:894-2383)

Crown Zellerbach Corporation

F. C. Chace, Manager, Planning and Control, Converted Products, One Bush,

San Francisco, California 94119 (Tel. 415:823-5568)

Dairy and Food Industries Supply Association

WILLIAM A. Dean, Jr, Associate Technical Director, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (Tel. 301:652-4420)

Data Terminal Systems

EDWARD H. SONN, Vice President, Product Development, 124 Acton St., Maynard, MA 01754 (Tel. 617:897-3221)

Dee, J. B., & Company, Inc. EUGENE H. FISHMAN, President, 1722 W. 16th St., Indianapolis, IN 46202 (Tel.

317:635-5548)

Miles D. Fishman, Vice President

Diamond International Corporation

KENNETH BlXLER, Vice President and Director, Marketing Services and

Planning Department, 733 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017 (Tel.

212:697-1700)

H. E. CORWIN, Vice President and Technical Director

ROBERT H. CROWE, Vice President, Eastern Area

Ray DUBROWIN, Vice President, Public Affairs

ROBERT LONGLEY, Vice President and General Sales Manager

Richard Reifers, Group Vice President

MRS. Liane Waite, Director of Home Economics (Tel. 212:697-2177)

Doric Scientific Corporation

D. James STEIN, Product Manager, 3883 Ruffin Road, San Diego, Calif. 92123

(Tel. 714:565-4415)

Dover Corporation/OPW Division

ROBERT C. Carl, Vice President, Engineering, 9393 Princeton-Glendale Road,

P. O. Box 40240, Cincinnati, Ohio 45240 (Tel. 513:870-3208)

DuBois Chemicals

V. J. Del GlUDlCE, Technical Consultant, 6620 N. Waukesha Avenue, Chicago,

IL 60646 (Tel. 312:792-3563)

Dunbar Manufacturing, Inc. GLENN G. DUNBAR, President, 307 Broadway, Swanton, OH 43558 (Tel.

419:244-3021)

Harvey M. Lodge, Vice President-Sales

281
Duncan Industries—Division of Qonaar Corporation

Ralph B. ELSNER, Vice President, Sales, 751 Pratt Blvd., Elk Grove Village,

IL 60007 (Tel. 312:437-0710)

Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller

MICHAEL B. WEIR, Attorney, 161 East 42nd St., New York, NY 10021 (Tel.

212:682-8811)

Eaton Corporation

Thomas Edmonds, Sales Engineer, 191 East North Avenue, Carol Stream,

Illinois 60187 (Tel. 312:682-8051)

Martin W. Hamilton, Engineering Manager (Tel. 312:682-8364)

Electronic Scales International

Jim Corzine, Sales Manager, 12358 Barringer, South El Monte, Calif. 91733

(Tel. 213:579-3323)

Electroscale Corporation

Peter H. Stanton, President, 15 Third Street, Santa Rosa, California 95401

(Tel. 707:546-6785)

Ellisco, Inc. Clifford E. Sifton, Jr., Secretary, American and Luzerne Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140 (Tel. 215:223-3405)

Emery Company, The A. H.

Chester D. Bradley, Chief Engineer, P. O. Box 608, New Canaan, Conn.

06840 (Tel. 203:966-4551)

Exact Weight Scale Company (Canada) Ltd.

R. LUTLEY, Manager, 1191 Crestlawn Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

(Tel. 416:625-6620)

Exxon Company, U.S.A.

H. E. Harris, Engineering Coordinator, P. O. Box 2180, Houston, Texas 77001

(Tel. 713:656-6170)

R. A. HARTMANN, Chairman of API Committee on Petroleum Measurement,

1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020 (Tel. 212:974-3764)

Fairbanks Weighing Division of Colt Industries

KENNETH F. HAMMER, President, 711 East St. Johnsbury Road, St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 (Tel. 802:748-5111)

HARRY Van Kirk, Vice President, Engineering

ROBERT E. Callihan, Vice President, Manufacturing

John Daniels, Manager, Product and Application Engineering

ELLIS Fitzgerald, Manager, Engineering Services

Fisher Scientific Company

JOSEPH G. CREMONESE, Vice President, Corporate Planning, 711 Forbes

Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 (Tel. 412:562-8469)

Fluid Measurement Systems, Inc. D. J. HlNE, Manager, Eastern Operations, Route 2, Box 143, Martinsburg,

West Virginia 25401 (Tel. 304:263-6520)

Franklin Electric/Packaging-Weighing Division

JOHN YOUNG, Distribution/Product Manager, P. O. Box 666, Levittown, Pennsylvania 19058 (Tel. 215:949-2400)

Fuller, H. J., and Sons

William A. SCHEURER, Public Relations, 1212 Chesapeake Avenue, Columbus,

Ohio 43212 (Tel. 614:486-2921)

Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association

ROBERT M. Byrne, Technical Director, 331 Madison Avenue, New York, NY

10017 (Tel. 212:661-2050)

282
General Foods Corporation

CHARLES P. ORR, Quality Assurance Consultant, 250 North Street, White

Plains, NY 10625 (Tel. 914:683-4073)

General Mills, Inc. DONALD B. COLPITTS, Technical Manager, Weights & Measures, 9000 Plymouth Avenue, No., Minneapolis, MN 55427 (Tel. 612:540-2729)

NEAL D. PETERSON, Attorney, 1730 M St., N.W., Suite 907, Washington, D.C.

20036 (Tel. 202:296-0360)

Georgia-Pacific Corporation

NORMAN H. DOYLE, Quality Control, 800 Summer St., Stamford, CT 06902 (Tel.

203:327-1100)

Gerber Products Company

LYLE LlTTLEFIELD, Government Relations Manager, 445 State Street, Fre- mont, MI 49412 (Tel. 616:928-2264)

Getty Oil Company (Eastern Operations), Inc. JOSEPH C. Gassert, Engineering Manager, 660 Madison Avenue, New York,

NY 10021 (Tel. 212: 832-7800)

Giant Food Inc. PAUL S. FORBES, Executive Assistant to the President, P. O. Box 1804,

Washington, D. C. 20013 (Tel. 202:341-4758)

Henry MORRIS, Manager, Point of Sale Systems

Bernadette Zaucha

Gilbarco, Inc. JOHN N. HASTINGS, Chief, Experimental Engineering, 7300 West Friendly

Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 (Tel. 919:292-3011)

GEORGE D. Robinson, JR, Manager, Engineering

Glass Container Manufacturing Institute

GEORGE A. TEITELBAUM, Director, Glass Technology and Design, 1800 K

Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202:872-1280)

Gulf Oil Company, U.S.A.

GEORGE R. DAVIS, Manager, Supply and Distribution, P.O. Box 1519, Houston,

Texas 77001 (Tel. 713:226-3923)

Heinz, H. J., Company

JOHN S. ELLIOTT, Senior Manager, Government Regulations, P. O. Box 57,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 (Tel. 412:237-5862)

Hish Associates, Andy

ANDY HISH, 5401 Burnet, Van Nuys, California 91401 (Tel. 213:997-1332)

Hobart Corporation

EDWIN E. BOSHINSKI, Director of Research, 555 Stanley Avenue, Dayton, Ohio

45404 (Tel. 513:223-0452)

GERALD B. HOLLINS, Engineer, World Headquarters, Troy, Ohio 45374 (Tel.

513:335-7171)

FRED KATTERHEINRICH, Manager, Weights and Measures

JOHN H. NIELSEN, Weights and Measures Representative, 325 Phelan Avenue,

San Jose, California 95112 (Tel. 408:293-6333)

KENNETH C. ALLEN, Consultant, P. O. Box 1690, 216 South Torrence Street,

Dayton, Ohio 45401 (Tel. 513:254-8451)

Hormel, George A., and Company

Byron M. CRIPPIN, Jr., General Counsel, P. O. Box 800, Austin, Minnesota

55912 (Tel. 507:437-5671)

Howard Lumber and Kiln Company

JAMES W. Howard, President, P. O. Box 39007, Atlanta, Georgia 30318 (Tel.

404:799-8305)

283
Howe Richardson Scale Company

GEORGE D. Wilkinson, Vice President, National Service, 680 Van Houten

Avenue, Clifton, New Jersey 07015 (Tel. 201:471-3400)

JAMES R. Specht, Manager, Engineering

HENRY S. Dalecki, Regional Service Manager, 91-31 121st Street, Richmond

Hill, New York 11418 (Tel. 212:847-7995)

IBM Corporation

BRENTON W. SMITH, Adivsory Planner, Department G-57, P. O. Box 12275,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 (Tel. 919:755-3092)

International Harvester Company

WILLIAM H. QUINA, Manager, Product Quality, 201 Dufossat Street, New

Orleans, Louisiana 70115 (Tel. 504:899-5651)

ITRMG

W. H. KING, Attorney, 1400 Ross Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (Tel.

804:644-4131)

RALPH M. SNOW, Jr., P. O. Drawer 1827, Athens, Georgia 30601 (Tel. 404:546-

0220)

Jewel Food Stores

RALPH W. Miller, Jr., Vice President, Regulatory Research and Planning,

1955 West North Avenue, Melrose Park, Illinois 60160 (Tel. 312:531-6103)

The Jim Dandy Company

LLOYD BOWERMAN, Director, Quality Control, P. O. Box 10687, Birmingham,

Alabama 35202 (Tel. 205:251-2113)

Johnson and Johnson

GEORGE E. HEINZE, Director, Scientific Information and Regulatory Affairs,

501 George Street, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 (Tel. 201:524-5151)

Kimberly-Clark Corporation

C. RAYMOND DURKEE, Director, Product Performance, 2100 Winchester Road,

Neenah, Wisconsin 54956 (Tel. 414:729-5372)

King, J. A., and Company, Inc. CHARLES G. McGee, Treasurer, P. 0. Box 21225, Greensboro, N. C. 27420 (Tel.

919:292-0511)

Koch Chemical Company

LOUIS P. MASSARI, General Manager, Auto Sales and Distribution, 1000

Capital National Bank Building, Houston, Texas 77002 (Tel. 713:228-0741)

Kraft Foods

Charles E. White, Statistical Control Manager, 500 Peshtigo Court, Chicago,

Illinois 60690 (Tel. 312:222-2861)

Kraftco Corporation

DONALD W. Carlin, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Kraftco

Court, Glenview, Illinois 60025 (Tel. 312:998-2488)

The Kroger Company

DAVID P. LEAHY, Technical Consultant, 1240 State Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio

45204 (Tel. 513:921-5300, ext. 461)

Lamaur, Inc. GEORGE F. McGunnigle, JR., 1200 National City Bank, Minneapolis, Minn

55402 (Tel. 612:339-1200)

Landvater Associates

John H. Landvater, President, 95 Summit Avenue, Summit, New Jersey

07901 (Tel. 201:273-8757)

284
Lever Brothers Company

H. R. MacDonald, Plant Operations Manager, 390 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10022 (Tel. 212:688-6000, ext. 8343)

Lily Division/Owens-Illinois, Inc. GEORGE L. Wilson, Manager, Product Development, P. O. Box 1035, Toledo,

Ohio 43666 (Tel. 419:242-6543, ext. 88-377;

Lipton, Thomas J., Inc. JACK Smith, Quality Assurance Manager, 800 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 (Tel. 201:567-8000, ext. 441)

Liquid Controls Corporation

Howard SlEBOLD, Vice President, Technical Services, P.O. Box 784, Fort

Bragg, California 95437 (Tel. 707:964-4171)

Lockheed Electronics Company, Inc. JOSEPH F. DEVITT, Service Manager, U.S. Highway 22, Plainfield, N. J. 07061

(Tel. 201:757-1600)

Martin Decker Company

ROBERT E. Campbell, Eastern District Manager, 4260 Morris Road, Hatboro,

Pennsylvania 19040 (Tel. 215:674-2680)

W. H. GARNER, Industrial Sales Manager, 1928 South Grand Avenue, Santa

Ana, California 92705 (Tel. 714:540-9220)

E. I. SHELLEY, Regional Sales Manager

The Measuregraph Company

ERIC Allen, Technical Service Engineer, 4245 Forest Park Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63108 (Tel. 314:533-7800)

Metro Equipment Corporation

Phillip W. Land, Branch Manager, 1235 Reamwood Avenue, Sunnyvale,

California 94086 (Tel. 408:734-5400)

Metrodyne Corporation

SAL BARBERA, Vice President, 20 Acosta Street, Stamford, Connecticut 06902

(Tel. 203:348-9255)

Mettler Instrument Corporation

DON MILLER, Product Manager, Balances, P. O. Bos 100, Princton, N. J. 08540

(Tel. 609:448-3000)

Midwest Cordage Company, Inc. VICTOR M. BARREDO, General Manager, Highway 5, P. O. Box 89, Fayette,

Missouri 65248 (Tel. 816:248-3377)

Milk Industry Foundation

JOHN F. Speer, JR., Executive Assistant, 910 17th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202:296^250)

AUSTIN T. Rhoads, Administrative Assistant

Millers' National Federation

JOHN J. SHERLOCK, Vice President, 1776 F Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006 (Tel. 202:452-0900)

Mobil Chemical Company

ROBERT WISEMAN, Quality Assurance, Technical Center, Macedon, New York

14502 (Tel. 315:986-2711)

Mobil Oil Corporation

J. A. PETRELLI, Manager, Marketing Operations Engineering, 150 East 42nd

Street, New York, New York 10017 (Tel. 212:883-5204)

Morris Scale Company

CLIFFORD V. MORRIS, President, 1537 Southeast Morrison Street, Portland,

Oregon 97214 (Tel. 513:232-5339)

Murphy-Cardinal Scale Company

William V. GOODPASTER, Vice President, 1610 North C Street, Sacramento,

California 95814 (Tel. 916:441-0178)

285
National Association of Food Chains

THOMAS K. ZAUCHA, Director of Public Affairs, 1725 I Sti Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202:331-7822)

Karen H. BROWN, Assistant Director of Public Affairs

National Association of Retail Grocers

THOMAS F. WENNING, Counsel, 1625 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2Q006

(Tel. 202:347-9868)

National Canners Association

Richard H. DOUGHERTY, Assistant to Executive Vice President, 1133 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202:331-5925)

National Cash Register Corporation

A. RAYMOND DANIELS, Manager, Industry and Government Relations, Main

and K Streets, Dayton, Ohio 45479 (Tel. 513:449-2454)

National Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association

L. A. Barron, Managing Director, 45 Partridge Hill, Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey 07458 (Tel. 201:825-2414)

National Controls, Inc. WALLACE M. EVANS, Vice President, Marketing, P. O. Box 1501, Santa Rosa,

California 95402 (Tel. 707:527-5555)

ERIC A. GARD, Regional Sales Manager

National Grain and Feed Association

JAMES E. MANESS, Director, Technical Services, P. O. Box 28328, Washington,

D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202:783-2024)

National Hardwood Lumber Association

E. H. GATEWOOD, Secretary-Manager, 332 South Michigan Avenue, Suite

1450, Chicago, Illinois 60604 (Tel. 312:427-2810)

National Live Stock and Meat Board

H. Kenneth JOHNSON, Executive Director, Food Science Division, 444 North

Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611 (Tel. 312:467-5520)

National LP-Gas Association

Walter H. Johnson, Vice President, Technical Services, 1301 West 22nd

Street, Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 (Tel. 312:986-4818)

National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association

Richard D. Snyder, Executive Vice President, 1990 M Street, N.W., Suite 350,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202:872-8860)

National Milk Producers Federation

JOHN B. ADAMS, Director, Environmental and Consumer Affairs, 30 F Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (Tel. 202:393-8151)

National Mineral Wool Insulation Association

Sheldon H. Cady, Executive Vice President, 382 Springfield Avenue, Summit, New Jersey 07901 (Tel. 201:277-1550)

National Paint and Coatings Association, Inc. BRUCE Hamill, Counsel, 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20005 (Tel. 202:462-6272)

National Scale Men's Association

Sylvia T. Pickell, Executive Secretary, 214 lh South Washington Street,

Naperville, Illinois 60540 (Tel. 312:355^788)

National Semiconductor Corporation

Michael O'CALLAGHAN, Director, Sales, 1130 Kifer Road, Sunnyvale, Calif. 94086 (Tel. 408:737-6054)

National Soft Drink Association

WlLBERT A. DOBBS, Laboratory Manager, 1101 16th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202:833-2450, ext. 59)

DREW M. DAVIS, Assistant to the Legal Counsel

286
Neptune Measurement Company

EMMETT F. WEHMANN, Assistant Chief Engineer, Emerald Road, Greenwood,

South Carolina 29646 (Tel. 803:223-1212)

The Nestle Company, Inc. BRUCE A. LISTER, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, 100 Bloomingdale Road,

White Plains, New York 10605 (Tel. 914:946-6400)

New Brunswick International, Inc. LOUIS BONAPACE, President, Five Greek Lane, Edison, New Jersey 08817 (Tel.

201:287-2288)

NORMAN WOLFF, Vice President (Tel. 201:287-^1466)

Northeast Metric Resource Center

Evan V. Johnston, Director, University of Massachusetts, 108 Montague

House, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 (Tel. 413:545-0560)

Pan-Nova, Inc. PAUL Samsing, Retail Manager, 10750 South Painter Avenue, Santa Fe

Springs, California 90670 (Tel. 213:944-9888)

Paxton, Frank, Lumber Company

FRANK Paxton, Jr., President, 6311 St. John Avenue, Kansas City, Mo. 64123

(Tel. 816:483-7000)

EDWARD B. CROSLAND, JR., Attorney (Hill, Christopher & Phillips), 1900 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (Tel. 202:452-7068)

RICHARD M. PHILLIPS, Attorney (Hill, Christopher & Phillips) (Tel. 202:452-

7040)

Phillips Petroleum Company

ROLAND S. BAHLMANN, Technical Representative, 511 TRW Building, Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004 (Tel. 918:661-4943)

Pierson-Hollowell Company, Inc. ROBERT E. HOLLOWELL, President, 630 North College Avenue, Indianapolis,

Ind. 46204 (Tel. 317:632-5537)

The Pillsbury Company

C. A. TAUBERT, Safety and Compliance, 608 Second Avenue, South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (Tel. 612:330-4332)

Pitney Bowes

RUTHERFORD H. FENN, Director, Corporate Standards, Walnut and Pacific

Streets, Stamford, Connecticut 06904 (Tel. 203:356-6148)

Presto Products, Inc. FRANK H. Heckrodt, Executive Vice President and General Manager, P.O. Box 1233, Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 (Tel. 414:739-9471)

TONY Zeller, Director, Packaging, Box 2399

The Procter and Gamble Company

JOHN Siegfried, Counsel, P. O. Box 599, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 (Tel. 503:562-

4400)

J. W. SCHUETTE, Section Head, Ivorydale Technical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio

45217 (Tel. 513:562-5040)

TERRY N. Thomas, Ivorydale Technical Center, Room 4N36 (Tel. 513:562-5183)

J. D. WALLACE (Tel. 513:562-5172)

The Quaker Oats Company

DR. FRED A. DOBBINS, Director, Quality Assurance—Compliance, 617 West

Main Street, Barrington, Illinois 60010 (Tel. 312:381-1980, ext. 248)

Revere Corporation of America

C. W. SILVER, President and General Manager, 845 North Colony Road,

Wallingford, Connecticut 06492 (Tel. 203:269-7701)

JOHN J. ELENGO, JR., Director, Engineering

287
Rubinstein, Helena/Colgate Palmolive

HERBERT E. SCHNEIDER, Director, Quality Control, Northern Boulevard,

Greenvale, New York 11548 (Tel. 516:484-5400)

Safeway Stores, Inc. HARRY N. COUDEN, Manager, Food Technology Division, Fourth and Jackson

Strs., Oakland, California 94660 (Tel. 415:891-3253)

Robert L. WlNSLOW, Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance Dept. (Tel.

415:891-3250)

San Giorgio Macaroni Company, Inc. CHARLES G. ZERBE, Manager, Quality Assurance and Sanitation, 749 Guilford

Str., Lebanon, Pennsylvania 17042 (Tel. 717:273-7641)

Sandia Laboratories

JACK L. WILSON, Supervisor, Livermore, California 94550 (Tel. 415:455-2681)

Sanitary Scale Company

EDWARD C. KARP, Vice President, 910 East Lincoln Avenue, Belvidere, 111. 61008 (Tel. 815:544-2181)

JOHN FARWELL, IV, General Sales Manager

Sartorius Balance Division/Brinkmann Instruments, Inc. DIETER F. SCHLUTER, Vice President, Cantiague Road, Westbury, New York

11590 (Tel. 516:334-7500)

Scale Manufacturers Association

RAYMOND J. LLOYD, Executive Director, 1000 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202:628-4634)

DARYL E. TONINI, Technical Director

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

N. A. WILSON, Supervisor, Scales and Weighing, 500 Water Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (Tel. 940:353-2011)

Seraphin Test Measure Company

RAYMOND R. WELLS, Sales Manager, 30 Indel Avenue, Rancocas, New Jersey

08073 (Tel. 609:267-0922)

Robert Hopkins, Office Manager

The Seven-Up Company

BEN H. Wells, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, 121 South

Meramec, St. Louis, Missouri 63105 (Tel. 314:863-7777, ext. 203)

S. LEE LARKIN, Director of Public Relations

Shell Oil Company

C. L. Van INWAGEN, Staff Engineer, One Shell Plaza, P. O. Box 2105, Houston,

Texas 77001 (Tel. 713:220-6973)

Shell Pipe Line Corporation

C. G. FARRINGTON, JR., Engineer, P. O. Box 2648, Two Shell Plaza, Rm. 1368,

Houston, Texas 77001 (Tel. 713:220-3693)

Single Service Institute

ROBERT W. FOSTER, Executive Vice President, 250 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10017 (Tel. 212:697-4545)

THOMAS W. La CASCIA, Director, General Services

Skelly Oil Company

W. C. GROSSHAUSER, Coordinator, Construction and Engineering, 1437 South

Boulder, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 (Tel. 918:584-2311)

Smith Meter Systems

Philip E. Swanson, Engineering Supervisor, 1602 Wagner Avenue, Erie, Pa. 16511 (Tel. 814:899-0661)

The Soap and Detergent Association

MARY P. Kilcoyne, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Information, 475

Park Avenue, South, New York, New York 10016 (Tel. 212:725-1262)

288
Southern Railway Company

H. E. Buchanan, Superintendent, Scales and Highway Equipment, 99 Spring

Str., S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (Tel. 404:688-0800, ext. 2520)

Southern Weighing and Inspection Bureau

C. E. Pike, Manager, 151 Ellis Street, N.E., Suite 306, Atlanta, Ga. 30303 (Tel.

404:659-6266, ext. 266)

M. R. GRUBER, Jr., Supervisor of Weights

Streeter Amet

JIM Teasdale, Engineering Manager, Slusser and Wicks Streets, Grayslake,

Illinois 60030 (Tel. 312:223^801)

Sweda International

PAUL S. Wu, Manager, One Park Avenue, Morristown, New Jersey 07960 (Tel.

201:540-0500)

Warren Gross, Applications Specialist

Tenneco Oil Company

JOE N. MULLEN, Manager, Construction Planning and Design, P. O. Box 2511,

Houston, Texas 77001 (Tel. 713:229-2651)

Thermtron Products Inc. BRIAN C. BERBYSHIRE, Manager, Technical Services, P. O. Box 9146 Baer

Field, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46809 (Tel. 219:747-9183)

Thurman Scale Company

JOSEPH R. Schaeffer, Vice President, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio

43217 (Tel. 614:443-9741)

Tokheim Corporation

WALTER GerDOM, Manager, Customer Service, 1600 Wabash Avenue, Fort

Wayne, Indiana 46801 (Tel. 219:423-2552)

William D. Key, Chief Engineer

Toledo Scale Division/Reliance Electric Company

J. D. Zelazny, General Sales Manager, 5225 Telegraph Road, Toledo, Ohio

43612 (Tel. 419:470-6625)

BEN DILLON, Marketing Manager (Tel. 419:470-6682)

J. L. BUELL, Region Manager, P. O. Box 80605, Atlanta, Georgia 30341 (Tel.

404:451-5369)

T. M. Stabler, Manager, Weights and Measures, 350 West Wilson Bridge Rd.,

Worthington, Ohio 43085 (Tel. 614:438^548)

James T. HOYLE, Account Executive, 5300 Kilmer Place, Hyattsville, Md

20781 (Tel. 301:779-1717)

Transducers, Inc. HOWARD Nielsen, Vice President, Marketing, 12140 East Rivera Road,

Whittier, California 90606 (Tel. 213:945-3741)

Triner Scale and Manufacturing Company

THEODORE T. Jansey, President, 2714 West 21st Street, Chicago, Illinois 60608

(Tel. 312:376-9100)

ROGER W. Sladek, Vice President

Troemner, Henry, Inc. WlLBERT D. Abele, Vice President and General Manager, 6825 Greenway

Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142 (Tel. 215:724-0800)

Union Oil Company

W. J. MYERS, Manager, Marketing Equipment, 200 East Golf Road, Palatine,

Illinois 60067 (Tel. 312:885-5144)

Union Pacific Railroad

VERNON L. LOWERY, General Scale Inspector, P. O. Box B, Laramie, Wyo.

82070 (Tel. 307:634-4421, ext. 20)

289
Union Railroad

DONALD E. Keefer, General Supervisor, Buildings and Bridges, 666 Linden

Ave., East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15112 (Tel. 412:823-5000)

Universal Cooperatives, Inc. ORVILLE PASKE, Director, 111 Glamorgan Street, Alliance, Ohio 44601 (Tel.

216:821-5770)

ARTHUR M. James, Procurement Manager, Twine and Fiber

Veeder-Root Company

THOMAS J. MCLAUGHLIN, Manager, OEM Sales, 70 Sargeant Street, Hartford,

Connecticut 06102 (Tel. 203:527-7201)

Victor Comptometer Corporation

RICHARD A. BERK, Senior Analyst, Planning and Development, 3900 North

Rockwell Street, Chicago, Illinois 60618 (Tel. 312:539-8200)

Western Electric Company, Inc. WILLIAM E. Andrews, Corporate Engineering—Metric, 222 Broadway, New

York, New York 10038 (Tel. 212:571-5138)

Wilson's, William M., Sons, Inc. CHARLES J. Denny, Manager, Customer and Technical Services, Eighth and

Valley Forge Road, Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446 (Tel. 215:855-4631)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Department of Agriculture

CHARLES H. OAKLEY, Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch, Packers and

Stockyards Administration, 14th and Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250 (Tel. 202:447-3140)

MORGAN W. Stephens, Assistant Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch (Tel.

202:447-5841)

Paul L. PETERSON, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Packers and Stockyards

Admin., 1621 North Kent Street, Room 601B, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (Tel.

703:235-8662)

David A. Patton, Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetables, Agricultural Marketing Services Division, Room 2077, South Building, Washington, D.C. 22050

(Tel. 202:447-7081)

Robert S. Elder, Mathematical Statistician, 14th and Independence Ave.,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250 (Tel. 202:447-7365)

William J. Franks, JR., Mathematical Statistician (Tel. 202:447-7318)

Dr. William H. Dubbert (Tel. 202:447-3840)

Department of the Army

Jimmy E. McCowan, Analyst, Box 700, Warrenton, Virginia 22186 (Tel.

703:347-8491)

LOUIS J. DURAY, Warrenton Training Center, Warrenton, Virginia 22186 (Tel.

703:347-8511)

Department of Commerce

DR. BETSY Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. 20230 (Tel. 202:377-3111)

HELEN D. Grayson, International Economist, Office of the Assistant Secre- tary for Policy and Research, Bureau of International Economic Policy and

Research, Room 2036, Main Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230 (Tel.

202:377-4581)

Donald S. Abelson, International Economist (Tel. 202:377-2828)

290
Consumer Product Safety Commission

S. JOHN ByingTON, Chairman, 1750 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20207

(Tel. 202:634-7740)

Energy Research and Development Administration

IRWIN E. Jackson, Jr., Nuclear Plant Engineer, Washington, D.C. 20545 (Tel.

202:353-5535)

Federal Power Commission

WALTER S. LUSBY, Metric Coordinator, Washington, D.C. 20426 (Tel. 202:275-

4822)

Federal Trade Commission

ROBERT R. Hannum, Attorney, Sixth and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580 (Tel. 202:724-1143)

Earl W. Johnson, Attorney

Food and Drug Administration

Benjamin M. Gutterman, Assistant Director for Coordination/Technology,

200 C Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20204 (Tel. 202:245-1231)

JOHN C. WERREN, Food Technologist (Tel. 202:245-8496)

General Accounting Office

J. Kevin Donohue, Assistant Director, 441 G Street, N.W., Room 3852,

Washington, D.C. 20548 (Tel. 202:275-5146)

General Services Administration

RICHARD Hays, Program Specialist, Federal Supply Service—Standards Control and Support Division, Washington, D.C. 20406 (Tel. 703:557-5321)

Government Printing Office

GEORGE D. SCULLEN, Jr., North Capitol and H Streets, Washington, D.C.

20401 (Tel. 202:275-2400)

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Office of Education

DR. FLOYD A. DAVIS, Program Manager, Metric Education Program, ROB 3, Room 5640, Washington, D.C. 20202 (Tel. 202:245-3352)

Sharon H. Berard, Specialist

Linda S. Collins, Specialist

William T. McCoy, Specialist

International Trade Commission

RUBEN A. MOLLER, Commodity Analyst, 701 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20436 (Tel. 202:523-0444)

Department of Justice

CHERYL REMME, Metrication Coordination Staff, Main Justice Bldg., Room

6101, Washington, D.C. 20530 (Tel. 202:739^536)

MICHAEL H. STEIN, Trial Attorney (Tel. 202:739-4795)

Department of Labor

BRUCE H. Millen, Social Science Advisor, Office of Policy Development, 200

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210 (Tel. 202:523-6049)

291
Navajo Tribe

Melvin N. BlGTHUMB, Weights and Measures Inspector, Commerce Department, Window Rock, Arizona 86515 (Tel. 602:871-4955, ext. 743)

ALBERT S. TSOSIE, JR., Weights and Measures Inspector (Tel. 602:871-4955,

ext. 474)

Postal Service

RICHARD A. THOMPSON, Manager, Facilities and Equipment Branch, 475

L'Enfant Plaza West, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20260 (Tel. 202:245-5774)

WILLIAM SCHOONOVER, Senior Equipment Program Officer

Department of the Treasury

DR. GEORGE HUNTER, Chief, Assay Laboratories, Bureau of the Mint, Washington, D.C. 20220 (Tel. 202:964-2911)

Veterans Administration

MICHAEL BURCHICK, Policy and Interagency Staff, 810 Vermont Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20420 (Tel. 202:389-3245)

National Bureau of Standards

DR. ERNEST AMBLER, Acting Director

DR. F. KARL WlLLENBROCK, Director, Institute for Applied Technology (IAT)

WILLIAM E. Andrus, Chief, Office of International Standards, Office of the

Associate Director for Information Programs

DAVID E. EDGERLY, Special Assistant for International Standards Programs,

Office of International Standards

H. MARREL FOUSHEE, Coordination of State and Local Governmental Affairs,

Office of the Associate Director for Programs

FRANK E. JONES, Physicist, Institute for Basic Standards (IBS)

Rita MAYEUX, Secretary, Standards Application and Analysis Division, IAT

FRED McGehan, Public Information Specialist, Office of Information Activities, Office of the Associate Director for Information Programs

Richard A. Mitchell, Research Structural Engineer, Mechanics Division,

IBS

MARY G. NATRELLA, Mathematical Statistician, Statistical Engineering Section, Applied Mathematics Division, IBS

Jeffrey V. Odom, Chief, Metric Information Office

CHARLES B. PHUCAS, Deputy to Program Manager, Office of International

Standards

Gene A. Rowland, Chief, Standards Application and Analysis Division, IAT

ELEANOR F. ROZSICS, Secretary, Standards Application and Analysis Division, IAT

JOHN TASCHER, Metric Information Office

JOE THORPE, Administrative Officer, Standards Application and Analysis

Division

JAMES M. WYCKOFF, Liaison Officer, State and Local Governmental Affairs,

Office of the Associate Director for Programs

Office of Weights and Measures:

HAROLD F. Wollin, Chief and Executive Secretary of the National Confer- ence on Weights and Measures

OTTO K. Warnlof, Program Manager, Technical Services

Carroll S. BRICKENKAMP, Program Manager, Research and Development

TERRANCE N. TROY, Program Manager, Consumer Laws and Regulations

Richard N. Smith, Technical Coordinator

292
Stephen Hasko, Engineer

BENJAMIN F. BANKS, Engineering Technician

Allen E. Banks, Engineering Technician

HARRY K. Johnson, Engineering Technician

Blayne C. Keysar, Engineering Technician

JOANNE Hall, Program Coordinator, Consumer Laws and Regulations

Sandra Edgerly, Secretary

Pat Raschella, Secretary

Daphne Johnson, Secretary

Deborah Neal, Secretary

Beverly Frazier, Secretary

NBS—Boulder

DR. Raymond C. Sangster, Program Manager for Strategic Planning, Insti- tute for Basic Standards

OTHER GUESTS

JACQUELINE Bailey, Editor, Dairy Industry Newsletter, Federal-State Reports,

Inc. P. 0. Box 986, Courthouse Station, Arlington, Virginia 22216 (Tel. 703:525-

4950)

EVERETT H. Black, Advisory Member, former Director of Weights and Measures for Ventura County, California, P.O. Box W, Ventura, California 93001

(Tel. 805:648-6666)

J. D. BUCHANAN, Acting Chief, Weights and Measures, Department of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs, Standards Building, Tunney's Pasture, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C9 (Tel. 613:992^1895)

MARGARET Dana, Consultant, Consumer Attitudes, 216 King Road, Chalfont,

Pa. 18914 (Tel. 215:249-9374)

PAULA N. ECKLUND, Editor, "U.S. Oil Week," 1054 31st Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007 (Tel. 202:337-8130)

C. G. GEHRINGER, Advisory Member, retired, 4480 Overlook Drive, N.E., St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 (Tel 813:526-8002)

RICHARD L. GORDON, Associate Editor, Advertising Age Magazine, 1253 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (Tel. 202:638-5300)

LEWIS P. JONES, Reporter, WMAL Radio, 4400 Jenifer Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20015 (Tel. 202:686-3020)

Dan McCURRY, Regional Director, National Consumers Congress, 64 East Lake

Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601 (Tel. 312:269-8101)

Harold V. SEMLING, Jr., Washington Consultant, Chain Store Age, P. O. Box

674, Washington, D.C. 20044 (Tel. 703:521-2157)

Jane S. Wilson, Editor, Federal-State Reports, 2201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22201 (Tel. 703:525^950)

293
NBS-1 1.4 A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBS SP-4712. Gov't Accession No.

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Report of the 61st National Conference on Weights

and Measures 1976

5. Publication Date July 1977

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S) Patricia A. Raschella (Editor)

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complere Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Same as 9 above.

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 26-27766

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary oi most significant information, ft document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

This is a report of the proceedings (edited) of the Sixty-first National

Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau

of Standards, held in Washington, D.C, July 12-16, 1976 and attended

by State, county, and city weights and measures officials, the Federal

Government, business, industry, and consumer organizations.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons) Checking prepackaged commodities; computer assisted checkout systems; consumer affairs; cordage products; drained weight; laws and

regulations; metrication; national laboratory accreditation; retail meat identity

standards; tolerance application; vapor recovery; weights and measures

18. AVAILABILITY [^Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NT1S UNCLASSIFIED 304

| X 1 Otder From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government

~" Washington. D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. C13

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

I Order From National Technical Information

Springfield, Virginia 22151

Service (NTIS) UNCLASSIFIED

$3. 75

USCOMM.OC 29042-P74 ^ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1977—0-238-545
SELECTED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PUBLICATIONS OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBS HANDBOOK 44 Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical

1971 (Replacement Requirements for Commercial Weighing and

Sheets issued an- Measuring Devices. Looseleaf (binder not in- nually) eluded). 7.90 NBS HANDBOOK 112 Examination Procedure Outlines for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices 1.70

REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1970 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 342 1.75 1971 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 358 1.50 1972 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 379 1.85 1973 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 391 2.50

1974 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 407 3.75

1975 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 442 3.30

Order above publications, with remittance, from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Other publications available, at no charge, from the Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234.

Organization and Procedure of the National Conference on Weights and Measures Mission of the Office of Weights and Measures

Model State Weights and Measures Law

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation

Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation

Model State Unit Pricing Regulation

Model State Weighmaster Law

Model State Registration of Servicemen and Service Agencies Regulation

Model State Open Dating Regulation

Model City Ordinance
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use. $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM-215

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

BOOK