49th NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1964

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards is a principal focal point in the

Federal Government for assuring maximum application of the physical

and engineering sciences to the advancement of technology in industry

and commerce. Its responsibilities include development and mainte- nance of the national standards of measurement, and the provisions of means for making measurements consistent with those standards; deter- mination of physical constants and properties of materials; development of

methods for testing materials, mechanisms, and structures, and making such

tests as may be necessary, particularly for government agencies; cooperation in the establishment of standard practices for incorporation in codes

and specifications; advisory service to government agencies on scientific and technical problems; invention and development of devices to serve

special needs of the Government; assistance to industry, business, and

consumers in the development and acceptance of commercial standards

and simplified trade practice recommendations; administration of pro- grams in cooperation with United States business groups and standards

organizations for the development of international standards of practice;

and maintenance of a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination

of scientific, technical, and engineering information. The scope of the Bureau's activities is suggested in the following listing of its four Institutes

and their organizational units. Institute for Basic Standards. Electricity. Metrology. Heat. Radiation Physics. Mechanics. Applied Mathematics. Atomic Physics.

Physical Chemistry. Laboratory Astrophysics.* Radio Standards Laboratory: Radio Standards Physics; Radio Standards Engineering.**

Office of Standard Reference Data.

Institute for Materials Research. Analytical Chemistry. Polymers.

Metallurgy. Inorganic Materials. Reactor Radiations. Cryogenics.**

Office of Standard Reference Materials.

Central Radio Propagation Laboratory.** Ionosphere Research and

Propagation. Troposphere and Space Telecommunications. Radio Sys- tems. Upper Atmosphere and Space Physics.

Institute for Applied Technology. Textiles and Apparel Technology

Center. Building Research. Industrial Equipment. Information Technology. Performance Test Development. Instrumentation. Transport

Systems. Office of Technical Services. Office of Weights and Measures.

Office of Engineering Standards. Office of Industrial Services.

*NBS Group, Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics at the University of

Colorado. **Located at Boulder, Colorado.
Report of the

49th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1964

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials From the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives From U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Washington, D.C., June 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1964

Report Editor: L. J. Chisholm

United States Department of Commerce

Luther H. Hodges, Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

A. V. Astin, Director

National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication No. 263

Issued February 1, 1965

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $1.00
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 26-27766
CONTENTS

(Note: The reports of the Standing, Annual, and Executive Committees,

and the Treasurer's Report, have been arranged together, beginning on

page 159, for easier reference.) Page

Officers and Committees vi Committee Meetings vm

MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1964 Address of Conference President and Appointments to Standing Committees, by A. V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards 1 Presentation of Honor Awards 5 The Institute for Applied Technology of the National Bureau of Standards,

by D. A. Schon, Director, Institute of Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards 6 Address of Conference Chairman, by D. M. Turnbull, Director, Division of Licenses and Standards, Seattle, Washington 11 A University Curriculum in Measurement Science:

(a) The Interest of the Equipment Manufacturer, by M. Rapp, Vice

President, Detecto Scales, Inc 13

(b) The Philosophy and Plan of the University, by M. E. Van Hall,

Dean of Student Academic Programs, Alfred State Tech, Alfred,

New York 15 AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1964 The New British Weights and Measures Law—Its Development, Enactment, and Principal Features, by T. L. E. Gregory, Chief Inspector,

Weights and Measures Department, Nottingham, England 18 The National Scale Men's Association—Its Program for the Future, by

W. J. Schieser, Vice President in Charge of Product Development, Exact Weight Scale Company 32

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

National Bureau of Standards, and Executive Secretary, National Conference on Weights and Measures, and staff 37 MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1964

Activities of the U.S. Government in the Weights and Measures Field:

(1) Food and Drug Administration, by V. H. Blomquist, Assistant Chief,

Food Technology Branch, Division of Food Standards and Additives, Bureau of Scientific Standards and Evaluation, Food and

Drug Administration 60

(2) Federal Trade Commission, by C. R. Moore, Assistant Director for Deceptive Practices, Bureau of Field Operations, Federal Trade

Commission 64

(3) Internal Revenue Service, by R. O. Jolin, Chief, Basic Permit and

Trade Practice Branch, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Treasury Department 67

(4) U.S. Department of Agriculture—Packers and Stockyards Division,

by R. D. Thompson, Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch, Packers and Stockyards Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 71

(5) U.S. Department of Agriculture—Meat Inspection Division, by

C. H. Pals, Director, Meat Inspection Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 74

(6) U.S. Department of Agriculture—Poultry Division, by H. C. Kennett, Assistant Chief, Standardization and Marketing Practices Branch, Poultry Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 77

(7) U.S. Department of Agriculture—Milk Marketing Orders Division,

by H. C. Feddersen, Deputy Director, Milk Marketing Orders

Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 80

iii
(8) U.S. Department of Agriculture—Fruit and Vegetable Division, by

F. F. Hedlund, Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 84

(9) U.S. Department of Agriculture—Grain Division, by C. W. Jackson,

Deputy Director, Grain Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 87

(10; U.S. Department of Interior—Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, by

J. R. Brooker, Chief, Fishery Products Inspection and Certifica- tion Service, Branch of Technology, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U.S. Department of Interior 93 AFTERNOON—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1964 Annual Conference Luncheon

Address, by Mrs. Esther Peterson, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, The White House 98

MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1964 Weights and Measures Advisory Committees:

(1) The Advisory Committee to the National Bureau of Standards, by

C. G. Gehringer, Sales Manager, Hobart Manufacturing Company 104

(2) Ad Advisory Committee to a State Weights and Measures Agency

Made up of Representatives of Business and Industry, by J. F.

Lyles, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Regulatory Section, Division of Regulatory Service, Department of Agriculture and

Immigration, State of Virginia 106

(3) A Weights and Measures Advisory Committee to a State Department of Agriculture—Made up of Local Officials, by E. H. Black,

County Sealer of Weights and Measures, Ventura County,

California 108 The Organization and Functions of the Weights and Measures Division,

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, by J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and Measures, Board of Agriculture, State of Kansas, and Secretary, Weights and Measures Division, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 114 A Study of Packaged Aerosol Products, bv H. F. Wollin, and S. Hasko,

Engineers, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, and F. T. Reed, Division Head, "Freon" Products Laboratory,

E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company 116 AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1964 Modern Weights and Measures Technology, by W. C. Hughes, Head

Administrative Assistant, Division of Standards, Department of Labor and Industries, State of Massachusetts 129

Address, by R. H. Holton, Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce 133 MORNING SESSION—FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1964 Problems, Processes, and Procedures:

(1) Aerosol Package Demonstration, conducted by H. F. Wollin and

S. Hasko, Engineers, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards 139

(2) Piston Pipe Provers, by J. C. Halpine, President, Halmor Industries, Inc 139

(3) Testing Liquefied Petroleum Gas Vapor Meters, by W. A. Kerlin,

Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, State of California 150

(4) A Self-Training Aid, by R. N. Smith, Technical Coordinator,

Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards __ 155

(5) Open Forum—Weights and Measures Technical Problems; Forum

Leaders: M. W. Jensen, Conference Secretary, R. E. Meek,

Chairman, Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, J. H.

Lewis, Chaiiman, Committee on Laws and Regulations, J. T.

Daniell, Chairman, Committee on Education 155

iv
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS: Report of the Conference Executive Committee, presented by D. M.

Turnbull, Chairman, Director, Division of Licenses and Standards,

Seattle, Washington 159 Statement of the Incoming Conference Executive Committee, presented

by V. D. Campbell, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, State of Ohio 160 REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES: Report of the Conference Committee on Education, presented by J. E. Bowen, Chairman, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Newton,

Massachusetts 161 Report of the Conference Committee on Specifications and Tolerances,

presented by R. E. Meek, Chairman, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, Board of Health, State of Indiana 179 Report of the Conference Committee on Laws and Regulations, presented

by J. H. Lewis, Acting Chairman, Chief, Weights and Measures Section,

Department of Agriculture, State of Washington 192 REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES: Report of the Conference Committee on Nominations, presented by

C. H. Stender, Chairman, Assistant to the Commissioner, Department

of Agriculture, State of South Carolina 203

Report of the Conference Committee on Resolutions, presented by L. Barker, Chairman, Commissioner, Department of Labor, State of West

Virginia, and President, Southern Weights and Measures Association. _ 204

Report of the Conference Auditing Committee, presented by A. J. Albanese,

Chairman, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, New Britain, Connecticut 206

Report of the Conference Treasurer, presented by C. C. Morgan, City Sealer

of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana 207

Conference Registration List 208

H-44 Promulgation Map 226

v
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES

OFFICERS

(As elected by the Forty-Eighth National Conference to serve during the Forty-Ninth)

President : A. V. Asttn, Director, National Bureau of Standards. j Executive Secretary : M. W. Jensen, Chief )Ex officio Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards. Chairman : D. M. Turnbull, Director, Division of Licenses and Standards,

Seattle, Washington.

Vice Chairmen

B. S. Cichowicz, City Inspector of Weights and Measures, South Bend,

Indiana. W. E. Czata, Supervisor, Department of Weights and Measures, Railroad

and Warehouse Commission, State of Minnesota.

A. H. Ditteich, Chief Inspector, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Depart- ment of Agriculture, State of New Hampshire.

F. M. Ratmund, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, Los Angeles

County, California. Treasurer : C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana. Chaplain: R. W. Seart.es, Deputy County Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Medina County, Ohio. OFFICERS

(As elected by the Forty-Ninth National Conference to serve during the Fiftieth)

A. V. Astin, President \ w n fHoin M. W. Jensen, Executive Secretary]* °Ulcxo V. D. Campbell of Ohio, Chairman

L. Barker of West Virginia, Vice Chairman

J. E. Bowen of Massachusetts, Vice Chairman

J. H. Lewis of Washington, Vice Chairman

W. I. Thompson of New Jersey, Vice Chairman

C. C. Morgan of Indiana, Treasurer

R. W. Searles of Ohio, Chaplain

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

(Ag elected by the Forty-Ninth National Conference)

A. V. Astin

M. W. Jensin

V. D. Campbell

L. Barker

J. E. Bowen }Ex officio J. H. Lewis

W. I. Thompson

C. C. Morgan

R. W. Searles . N. Berryman of Florida.

J. M. Boucher of the District of Columbia.

R. J. Fahey of Illinois. R. H. Fernsten of California.

F. M. Gersz of Connecticut. M. Jennings of Tennessee. D. E. Konsoer of Wisconsin.

J. F. Lyles of Virginia.

E. A. Vadeltjnd of Pennsylvania.

VI
STANDING COMMITTEES

(As constituted at the conclusion of the Forty-Ninth National Conference, the personnel of each of the standing committees are as listed. The remaining term

of office for each committee member, in years, is shown in parentheses following each entry.

)

EDUCATION*

J. T. Daniell of Michigan, Chairman (2)

S. H. Cheistie, Jb. of New Jersey (3)

L. A. Geedy of Indiana (4)

A. D. Rose of California (5)

C. H. Stendee of South Carolina (1)

LAWS AND REGULATIONS*

J. L. LiTTLEFiELD of Michigan, Chairman (2)

J. H. Lewis of Washington (1)

L. Babkee of West Virginia (4)

H. L. Gofoeth of Illinois (5)

M. Jennings of Tennessee (3). SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES*

R. E. Meek of Indiana, Chairman (1)

G. L. Johnson of Kentucky (3)

J. F. McCaethy of Massachusetts (4)

H. J. MoDade of California (2)

H. D. Robinson of Maine (5) COMMITTEES ACTING ONLY DURING THE FORTY-NINTH ANNUAL

CONFERENCE

Nominations: C. H. Stendee of South Carolina, Chairman; S. H. Cheistie of New

Jersey; H. E. Ceawfoed of Florida; N. Kalechman of Connecticut; R. E. Meek of Indiana ; J. F. Teue of Kansas ; R. Williams of New York.

Resolutions: L. Baekee of West Virginia, Chairman; N. Beeeyman of Florida;

E. W. Buoklin of Maryland; F. M. Geesz of Connecticut; F. B. Jones of Ohio : J. I. Mooee of North Carolina ; F. D. Moegan of Utah.

Auditing: A. J. Albanese of Connecticut, Chairman: G. L. Delano of Montana

A. L. Little of Arkansas.

*M. W. Jensen, Executive Secretary of the Conference, ia em officio nonvoting aecretary

to each committee. Vii
COMMITTEE MEETINGS, MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1964

All day Monday was set aside for meetings, both open and executive,

of the Conference committees. Announcements of these meetings were

carried in the National Conference Announcement and in the Conference Program.

The Conference committees that met on Monday morning were the

Executive Committee and the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. The Committee on Education and Committee on Laws and

Regulations met on Monday afternoon.

All final reports of the Standing and Annual Committees can be

found beginning on page 161.

viii
REPORT OF THE FORTY-NINTH NATIONAL

CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1

MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1964

(D. M. Turnbull, Chairman, Presiding)

The invocation was delivered and the memorial service for departed

members was conducted by the Conference Chaplain, Rev. R. W.

Searles of Ohio.

Mr. J. F. True of Kansas led the delegates in the Pledge of

Allegiance.

ADDRESS OF THE CONFERENCE PRESIDENT AND APPOINTMENTS

TO STANDING COMMITTEES

by A. V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards

I am always pleased to have the opportunity

of appearing before the members of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures and re- porting to you on activities within the National

Bureau of Standards during the past year. This year's Conference is unique to me, and

I am sure to many of you, because it is the first Conference I have attended at which Mr. W. S. Bussey was not present. I am sure we all miss

him and wish him well in his retirement. His

departure leaves a big gap, but fortunately we

have had a most able understudy working with

him for a number of years, and I am pleased to report to you that Mr. M. W. Jensen, whom all of you know, took over

the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Conference early this spring.

As you can see by the way the Conference has been running in its early

stages, he has been doing an excellent iob. At the National Bureau of Standards during the past winter we put

into effect a major reorganization. Its purpose was to relate more

directly the programs and activities of the National Bureau of Standards to the responsibilities and goals of the Department of Commerce.

The Secretary of Commerce has designated the Bureau as the principal

focal point within the Federal Government for the application of

science and technology to the Nation's industrial and economic growth.

This is truly a major responsibility, and to carry it out we felt it neces- sary to subdivide the Bureau into four major units which we call institutes. These are the Institute for Basic Standards, Institute for

Materials Research, Institute for Applied Technology, and the Central

Radio Propagation Laboratory.

The Institute for Basic Standards has responsibility for the development and maintenance of the basic standards for physical measurement.

1 With the exception of formal papers and committee reports, the record of the 49th

National Conference on Weights and Measures has been edited wherever necessary to reduce the printed report to that which has reference value. 1
Through calibration services it provides extensions of these standards

to all segments of science and engineering where uniform measurement

is important.

Last year I mentioned to you that the Bureau had been given re- sponsibility for the administration of a National Standard Reference

Data System. This system is a mechanism for bringing together

critically evaluated numerical data on the properties of materials and

disseminating these data to scientists and engineers throughout the

country. Responsibility for administering the NSRDS is also within

the Institute for Basic Standards. Here efforts will be directed toward

maintaining a central national file of standardized or carefully evaluated data, developing new and more effective means of disseminating

information from this file, and initiating projects at NBS and else- where to provide inputs to the file as required to meet today's technological needs.

Heading our Institute for Basic Standards is Dr. Robert D. Huntoon,

who was formerly Deputy Director of the Bureau, a scientist and an

administrator with long experience in the field of basic measurement.

An important responsibility of the Institute for Materials Research

is the development and dissemination of standard reference materials.

These are materials whose properties or composition have been care- fully characterized. They are disseminated to industrial production

laboratories or to research laboratories, where their carefully standardized properties provide a basis for assuring uniformity of process

control or of research results based on measurement. The Institute for

Materials Research also develops standard methods for measuring

properties of materials, accumulates data on the properties of materials

to feed into the National Standard Reference Data System, and con- ducts research on the relationships between performance of materials

and their composition and structure. This Institute is headed by Dr.

Irl C. Schoonover, who also serves as Deputy Director of the National

Bureau of Standards.

We believe that as the program of the Institute for Materials Research becomes more fully developed we shall be in an excellent position to provide an extremely important and effective service to materials development in this country.

Within the Institute for Applied Technology we have brought to- gether those activities that are most closely related to the industrial

needs of the Nation. This Institute's responsibilities include the de- velopment of criteria for evaluating technological products and services, the provision of specialized information services to meet the

needs of our industrial technology, and studies on the nature of tech- nological change.

Inasmuch as the Bureau has the responsibility of providing major

assistance to the Department of Commerce in its efforts to stimulate

the Nation's commerce and industry, we must try to obtain a better

understanding of the nature of technological change and its impact

upon economic growth. We must devise new ways of studying how

technology changes our industry and our economy. At the Institute

for Applied Technology we are now working to develop models of

sectors of American industry in order to understand these processes

better. If we can do this, we can then provide vital assistance to Government in the development of policy as it affects industrial develop-
ment and technological change, and we can allocate our resources at NBS more effectively as we come to know what information problems

or criteria development problems we should give our attention to. You will hear in more detail about the Institute for Applied Technology a little later in the program, when Dr. Donald Schon, Director

of that Institute, will tell us about its plans and objectives.

The fourth institute, the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory, is located at Boulder, Colorado. This activity, which you have heard

about before, provides a radio propagation prediction service to the

military services and to the Nation's communications industry. CRPL

also conducts research on the electrical properties of the earth's atmosphere, in order to improve our ability to utilize effectively the electro- magnetic spectrum for communication purposes. The Central Radio

Propagation Laboratory is headed by Dr. C. Gordon Little. These new organizational units separate the Bureau into groups of

homogeneous activities which in turn provide data and services to homogeneous customer groups. We believe that this realinement will

permit us to fulfill our manifold responsibilities in the most efficient manner possible. And we are hopeful that with this new organization we shall be able to provide significant assistance to the Secretary

of Commerce and to the Federal Government generally in their efforts to support and stimulate commerce and industry in this Nation through

the application of science and technology.

At previous conferences I have reported to you on our progress in

relocating our activities in Gaithersburg, Maryland. This year I am

happy to say that the relocation is progressing favorably. In fact,

during the past year we actually began moving some of our activities to Gaithersburg, and I am sure you will be interested to know that the

first activity we moved was the Office of Weights and Measures, headed

by Mr. Jensen. This Office has been in operation at Gaithersburg since

last fall. It was soon followed by our Engineering Mechanics Section,

which is now housed in the new Engineering Mechanics Laboratory.

Later on in the winter these two groups were joined by a number of

staff members of the Radiation Physics Division, who are installing new and important facilities for measuring and understanding the

properties of nuclear radiation.

We expect that the Administration Building will be available to us

before the end of this year, as well as a number of the service buildings.

As the construction of these buildings is moving along well on schedule, I am sure that we will have conference facilities at Gaithersburg

next year, and if you should decide to come out and hold some meetings there on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the convening of

this Conference, we should have the facilities to entertain you.

However, most of the laboratory activities of the Bureau will not

have facilities at Gaithersburg until near the end of 1965. There are now under construction seven general-purpose laboratories, which will

house most of the technical staff of the Bureau. These laboratories

are scheduled for completion in the fall of 1965, and I expect that we

shall be spending most of the winter of 1965-66 in moving our staff, but two years from now we should be about 95 percent relocated.

There are yet to be built at our Gaithersburg site a few very-specialpurpose laboratories for which funds are not yet available. Application for these funds is now pending before the present session of the

Congress.

3
Another activity in which the National Bureau of Standards is in- volved and which is of interest to this Conference is the forthcoming

General Conference on Weights and Measures, now scheduled to be

held in Paris this October. I believe many of you know that the

General Conference on Weights and Measures is the intergovernmental

organization that provides for uniformity of measurement throughout

the world. It controls the International Bureau of Weights and Measures at Sevres, France, and provides a stable, continuing mechanism

for international agreement on all the basic units on which our meas- urement system depends.

This General Conference has been meeting every six years, but with

the rapid changes of recent years in science and technology the Executive Committee that governs the International Bureau decided that

the six-year interval was too infrequent. It has called the next Conference, which will be the 12th in the history of the organization, to convene in Paris this fall, two years ahead of the normal schedule.

Pending on the agenda for the 12th General Conference of Weights

and Measures is a request to approximately double the budget of the

International Bureau in order to help it keep pace with the growing

complexity of the scientific problems with which it must deal. Also

pending before the 12th Conference is a proposal to redefine provisionally the unit of time in terms of an atomic constant rather than an

astronomical constant. The proposal is to provide a tentative or provisional value for one of the resonance frequencies of the cesium atom

and to derive the second from this frequency.

An additional matter to be considered before the 12th General Conference is a proposal to abolish the liter as an independent unit in the

International system of Units. The term "liter" would be retained, bur

it would be defined as equivalent to the cubic decimeter, a unit derived

directly from the meter. As you know, the liter is now defined as the

volume of one kilogram of water under specified conditions, whereas

the cubic decimeter, its near equivalent, is merely a cube with sides one decimeter in length. Initially these two units were expected to be

identical, but current measurements show them to be different by 28

parts in a million, and in some fields of precision measurement this

difference has presented difficulties. We hope that this matter will

be resolved at the meeting of the 12th General Conference of Weights

and Measures.

It is now my privilege and pleasure as ex officio President of this

Conference to announce appointments to the standing committees.

Mr. J. E„ Bowen, of Newton, Massachusetts, has completed his term on the Committee on Education, and to succeed him for a five-year

term I appoint Mr. A. D. Rose, of Kern County, California.

To succeed Mr. H. M. Turrell, of Pennsylvania, whose term on the

Committee on Laws and Regulations has expired, I appoint Mr. H. L. Goforth, of Illinois, for a five-year term. To succeed Mr. A. H. Dittrich, of New Hampshire, on the Committee

on Specifications and Tolerances, I appoint Mr. H. D. Robinson, of

Maine, for a five-year term. In addition, I should inform you that Mr. T. C. Harris, of Virginia,

left the field of State weights and measures during the past year, and

this necessitated his resignation from the Committee on Specifications

and Tolerances. To fill Mr. Harris' unexpired term, which ends in

June 1965, I appointed Mr. R. E. Meek, of Indiana, during the year. 4
I have attempted to touch on a few of the highlights in the affairs of

the National Bureau of Standards which I thought might be of interest. However, none of our activities, I am sure, are of more interest to you than those of our Office of Weights and Measures and our dealings with the committees of this particular Conference. I am planning to leave the details of these matters to Mr. Jensen as he is much

j better able to tell you about them than I. However, I want to assure

the members of this Conference that our Office of Weights and Measures, which is now a part of our Institute for Applied Technology,

has the wholehearted support of the Bureau. We believe that this

j Office is one of the outstanding examples of Federal-State cooperation

in this country. In fact, we are considering the possibility of carry- ing on additional activities within our Institute for Applied Technology which would be patterned on the program of our Office of

\ Weights and Measures.

We at the Bureau are very proud of this activity as it has been

developed, since 1950 under Mr. Bussey's guidance and more recently

under Mr. Jensen. You may be assured that as the needs of the Conference members are presented to us, the Bureau will give its unqualified support to the solution of these problems through our Office of

I Weights and Measures.

Thank you very much for the opportunity of reporting to you.

Dr. Astin presented Honor Awards to 26 members of the Conference

who, by attending the 48th Conference in 1963, reached one of the

four attendance categories for which recognition is made—attendance

at 10, 15, 20, and 25 meetings.

PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

AWARD RECIPIENTS

25 Years E. M. Bodenweiser

H. E. Crawford

G. H. Leithauser

20 Years Nails Berryman

J. P. Leonard

Alfred Lirio

William Miller

15 Years K. C. Allen

E.W. Crouch

E. E. Dawson

Nathan Kalechman

W. A. Kerlin

M. J. Santimauro

J. J. Seres

R. K. Slough

J. Fred True

10 Years J. A. Bovie J. G. Gustafson

J. Ellis Bowen J. T. Harper

E. W. Bucklin

W. J. Dubsky

C. G. Gehringer

T. C. Harris, Jr. E. W. Teagarden

C.H. Wrenn

5
THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY OF THE NATIONAL

BUREAU OF STANDARDS

I by D. A. Schon, Director,

Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards

Sometimes things work so well and become

so familiar that we forget what is still new

and significant about them. This happened to the man who was delighted to discover that, all his life, he had been speaking prose. I think

it is in danger of happening, too, in connection

with this National Conference on Weights and

Measures and, in general, with the FederalState Weights and Measures activity.

As you know better than I, the Weights and

Measures function is an old function of Gov

ernment, antedating the National Bureau of

Standards itself. But to someone like myself,

j who sees it for the first time, it displays a number of unusual characteristics. What I see here is

1. State and Federal representatives working together to settle an important part of the language of commerce, and to adapt j that language to new developments in commerce and in

technology.

2. Each of the States performing this function for itself, but

coordinating it with those of the other States, and working

out new standards and criteria as the need arises.

3. The Federal Government stimulating this coordination and

providing technical support for it. The weights and measures activity of the State and Federal Governments is, in effect, a model of Federal-State cooperation in promoting commerce and technology, and promoting the welfare of those who

use the results of commerce and technology. It is no less effective for

being old. It is a model that will serve us well as we attempt to meet

the most recent demands on our society's ability to stimulate the

economic use of new technology, and to work out new means of

Federal-State and Federal-Regional cooperation in order to do so. i This is particularly true of the Institute for Applied Technology in

the National Bureau of Standards which was formed, as part of the

National Bureau of Standards' overall reorganization, in order to con- centrate and strengthen the Bureau's traditional contributions to our

national effort to put new technology to economic use. I would like to discuss with you the programs and some of the hopes

of this new organization. Before getting to these matters, however, | I would like to outline some of the recent happenings and trends that

have made the need to put new technology to economic use so much

a matter of national concern. During the last, roughly, 50 years, American industry has moved

from a stage in which production was largely a matter of "craft," to the gradual application of scientific method to production, to a stage

in which research and development has become a central activity in I its own right. Industries have moved through this cycle at different

rates, and experienced different problems in connection with new tech-
nology. Industries in the earlier stages of their cycle—like textiles and fisheries—need to learn about new technology, and about the re- search process; to develop nonrestrictive industrial standards based on performance criteria, which will help bring new products into

being. More advanced industries, like petrochemicals and electronics,

need to develop standards for consistency and compatibility of prod1 uct, and to solve the marketing and entrepreneurial problems associated with new technology.

Major technical innovations in industries in the early stages of their

cycle have tended to come through invasion by advanced industries.

As a result, companies, workers and areas of the country have been

displaced. Appalachia is an example.

We are also being confronted by a peculiar kind of technical invasion—the replacement of workers by numbers and machines, rather

than by other workers. This invasion carries with it the danger

j of a type of dislocation impervious to the building of new industry, new technology, retraining, etc. There is a need for a new kind of

social adjustment to such technical change. In the last year, we have

been confronted with a leveling off and apparent decline in the rate of national expenditure for defense. This decline has affected both

production and the development of new technology. In the immediately coming years, therefore, we will have to provide, as a nation,

for the absorption of some sizable percentage of our defense resource

into the civilian economy. This means : The threat of technological

j unemployment, possibly unparalleled in our recent history; a shift

in the nature and source of sponsorship for research and technology

;

I availability of a technical resource, developed for work on great sysi terns of war, for civilian purposes.

With all of these events, attention is being called to certain gnawing

social problems which exceed in scope any one industry, company,

or region of the country. These include

:

1. the control of air, land, and water pollution.

2. the inadequacy of our systems of land transportation (particularly in urban areas) and the unsolved problems of our

nation-wide transportation system.

3. the inadequacy of our low- and middle-income housing.

4. the well-advertised pockets of poverty in the midst of plenty.

5. the problem, for much of the population, of adjusting to the

constructive use of large quantities of leisure time.

There is concern over the regional technical development of our

country. Our technical resources are unevenly distributed over the

land. Our universities, research institutes, and technically based in- dustries tend to be concentrated in the Northeast, the far West, and

the Great Lakes region. large areas of the country—the South and

the Midwest, among others—have little in the way of technical re- source and, therefore, participate only slightly in the growth of the

economy associated with new technology. Partly in response to this

problem there is, nationwide, an awakening of the states and regions

of the country to the potentials of science and technology for regional

economic development ; to the need for building technical resources in the universities and for bringing them into direct contact with indus-

| tries of the area in order to stimulate technically based economic

; growth.

As a result of these issues and events, we are currently faced with

7
new demands to put technology to economic use—to create new

markets, to compete with foreign industry, to apply technology to our public problems, create jobs, and put our technical resources to maximum use as well as to cope effectively with the social consequences

of technical change.

These problems must be solved by the industry and the communities of the country. Since these are national problems they are

also Government problems and the Government is concerned with

them in many areas and at all levels. We at the National Bureau of Standards are concerned with them

in special ways appropriate to our resources and our traditions. They

are reflected in the program of the Institute for Applied Technology,

which consists of four principal activities, one of which is dissemination of technical information to industry and to the States and regions

of the country. The Federal Council for Science and Technology has

established within the Department of Commerce, building on the Office of Technical Services, in the Institute for Applied Technology, a Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. Its scope

includes the physical sciences, engineering, and related technology and

it is meant to serve as a central point of contact in Government for

industry and the technical community (paralleling the Library of

Agriculture and the Library of Medicine, in their fields) . Specifically,

it is to do four things

1. Make available to industry and the technical community all unclassified and unlimited Government technical reports. In this connection, it is important to note that the Office of Technical Services

has taken over, on a reimbursable basis by agreement with the Department of Defense, all technical document handling activities in the

unclassified, unlimited domain.

2. Develop a Government-wide index to scientific and technical

literature—taking leadership in setting the new interagency standards

in technical information-handling which such an index requires—and i provide prompt reference service.

3. Provide referral service to sources of technical expertise in the

Government technical community.

4. Provide information concerning Government-sponsored research

and development currently under way, in the physical sciences, engineering, and related technology.

As a part of this effort, the Clearinghouse will provide regional

dissemination of Government research and development results. It will develop "packages" of report titles, abstracts and bibliographies,

under subjects of industrial technological interest ("new means of ! metal-forming" would be an example) , and disseminate these to industry through trade associations, the technical press and intermediate

groups in the States (university-industry programs, economic development groups, Chambers of Commerce, and the like)

As I have already indicated, there is a national need to stimulate

industrial use of advanced technology—not only Governmentgenerated technology, but all technology—which is best understood and

best attacked on a local level throughout the country. For this reason, the Department of Commerce has proposed legislation for a State- Federal Technical Service program. Under this program, the Federal

Government would provide matching funds to technically based universities throughout the country on a state-by-state basis in order to 8
support programs of seminars, conferences, demonstrations, workshops, field visits, and the like aimed at bringing advanced technology

into wider industrial use. We hope this program will be approved and

presented to Congress during this session. On a far more modest

scale, the Office of Weights and Measures is currently launching a program of regional conferences to help coordinate the various local

| technical/economic efforts of the States. Performance Criteria The National Bureau of Standards has a historical role in the development of standards for industrial products as well as standards of

measurement for physical quantities. The Bureau's policy with re- spect to industrial standards is that—with the exception of relatively

few standards, mostly concerned with safety and assigned by law in the

public interest to the Department of Commerce—the Bureau will not

! set or promulgate standards. It leaves this role to the private standards-producing bodies—industrial associations and professional

societies, and groups such as ASTM and ASA. Its role is to serve as a technical resource to these private groups. It is available for expert

and objective contribution to the development of methods of test, measurement, and criteria for the performance of industrial materials,

I products, and processes which lay the technical basis for industrial

standards.

Performance criteria are here distinguished from specifications based on particular materials or on a particular product configuration. Per- formance criteria spell out, instead, in terms as quantitative as possible,

the functions a given product must perform—regardless of its matei rials or configuration. But their importance is great and varies with

the state of the technology in question. Where the technology has been

relatively constant over long periods of time—as in the case of wall

paneling or foundations, in the building industry—the function of

performance criteria, particularly performance criteria for whole

systems rather than for components, is to facilitate the introduction of new technology, to permit it to be judged by performance rather than

by tradition. The required pull-out strength of prefinished panels is usually taken to be equal to that of so many 6d or 8d nails, not because we have ascertained the forces to which such panels are subject in their

lives, but because this fastening method is traditional. The introduction of new wall, roof, foundation, and mechanical systems, to take a few well-known examples, will depend on the development of performance criteria which are not now in existence.

In fields of fast-moving technology—such as, for example, the industrial use of radiation or devices for the recognition of optical characters—the role of performance criteria may be more nearly that of

insuring compatibility and consistency of product and devices (making

sure that my characters will be suitable for your reader) in such a way

as to be based on performance requirements rather than on arbitrary

selection. In both cases, the development of sound performance criteria is essential to the introduction of new and more efficient technology.

The Institute will engage in the development of performance criteria

| in the fields of building, electronics, textiles, and information processing, among others. In all these areas, we will identify projects of high

priority through industry's concern with the problem, as expressed in

747-830 O - 65 - 2
trade associations, professional societies, and private standards bodies.

While the Institute is not concerned with standards for consumer

products per se, it is concerned with providing technical service to Government as a purchaser, and for this reason is in the process of

establishing a test development laboratory, bringing together parts of

the Bureau of Standards currently engaged in the development of tests for products and materials purchased by the Federal Government

ranging from photographic equipment to detergents. The function of

this test development laboratory will be to develop performance cri- teria and tests of performance for products purchased by the Federal

Government. It will issue no standards and will test no products,

leaving the testing to the agencies concerned, but it will do the technical

development of appropriate tests and will make these available to the

public.

Of course, standards of weights and measures are essential to all industrial and consumer product standards, since all involve in one way

or another agreement as to the language of weights and measures. The Office of Weights and Measures will continue to provide technical

service to the states in their effort to establish, promulgate, and enforce

standards for commercial weights and measures. It will extend, so far

as our resources allow, its programs aimed at providing supporting

information, and training and education concerning the importance of

the Weights and Measures function.

Many of our most serious technical and technical/economic problems

are so large as to cut across industry boundaries ; they cannot be located

wholly in one industry or wholly in another. Many of these, in turn, cut across boundaries between industry and the Federal Government

both share a concern with them. Examples are to be found in

1. urban and national transportation.

2. low-cost housing, for the military as well as for civilians.

3. man-machine systems for receiving, sorting, processing, storing,

and displaying data.

In these cases, many industries join in production and service, and

Government figures as user and purchaser as well as, on occasion,

regulator.

Because of the scope of these problems, as well as the fragmentation

of some of the industries concerned with them, they are seldom con- sidered as whole systems even though in many instances they are most

effectively considered in that way. Often, the very tools needed to treat them as systems are missing. The Bureau has traditionally

provided consultation to Government in its systems problems and in

its use of new technology. Frequently in the past—as in the case of

the early computer, SEAC—it has developed tools for systems problems of interest to Government and industry alike. The Institute for

Applied Technology will continue to fill these functions, in a few areas of special competence.

The Institute's major objective—that of stimulating the application

of science and technology to national needs—requires an understanding of the problems and obstacles that keep science and technology

from being applied to needs, and of the sort of activity that would

stimulate their application. This means

1. analysis of major problems of technical innovation, in industry

and Government alike. 10
2. analysis of the likely effects on new technology of programs

currently undertaken or planned within the Institute; e.g., in

the areas of performance criteria, technical information, or systems analysis.

As a case in point, IAT is now engaged in an analysis of the eco- nomic importance to the building and construction industry of the

development of uniform building standards based on performance

criteria. In all of its program areas—the dissemination of technical information; the development of performance criteria; the development

of tools for the analysis of large-scale problems that cut across Government-industry lines ; and analysis of problems associated with

the introduction of new technology—the Institute for Applied Technology has been guided by the major problems of new technology

affecting our economy, particularly as these become apparent on a regional and local level, and by the traditional functions and resources of the National Bureau of Standards.

In all of these efforts cooperation between Government and industry,

and Government and the states and regions of the country, is critical. We are now actively seeking industry and State and regional participation in order to

:

1. identify problems associated with new technology that affect States and regions of the country although they cannot be

resolved exclusively at the local level.

2. establish cooperative programs to formulate and solve these

problems.

As one of the criteria governing the success of our efforts, we hope

and expect to do things which are as effective in their way as this

National Conference on Weights and Measures.

ADDRESS OF THE CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN

by D. M. Turnbull, Director, Division of Licenses

and Standards, Seattle, Washington.

This, traditionally, is that part of the Conference where the Chairman's address is delivered.

It is a distinct honor and 'privilege as your

current chairman to welcome each and every one of you to this opening Conference session. The sincere hope and desire of your officers and

committees is that this may be the most rewarding and successful Conference yet held. There is no fear of contradiction when I say

that this dedicated body of people who have come here with a common purpose will achieve

much and benefit greatly by their participation

in the various programs that have been arranged.

An eminent group of speakers has been selected. Their messages on the various subjects should be most educational, interesting, and

helpful to all of us. Not only do we owe them our deepest gratitude

but also our undivided attention and regular attendance at all of the

sessions of the Conference.

11
It has been very gratifying and interesting to read the reports of

progress from the various jurisdictions throughout the past year. The

acquisition of new equipment including such items as medium- and

heavy-duty test trucks, provers for petroleum products and lowpressure gas, added personnel, and accelerated training programs.

At this time, I would like to thank all the members of the standing

committees for their invaluable work, and believe me, it is work. Also

I wish to thank our industrial friends who have done so much to help

make the weights and measures program a success. I now wish to explore the question of why the National Bureau of

Standards involves itself in sponsorship of this Conference. It was

the first director of the Bureau, Dr. Samuel W. Stratton, who helped

begin this Conference in 1905 when he sent out a general invitation to State officials to convene in Washington for the purpose of exploring means and methods whereby equity could be assured in commercial

transactions. Why did the Bureau and the State officials who

attended that first Conference feel that such a meeting was necessary ? To my mind, there is one major reason—uniformity.

You are all familiar with the "Commerce Clause" of the Federal

Constitution which, in effect, says that there shall be no barrier to commerce among the several States. Let us consider interstate commerce for a moment in its relation to weights and measures, a field that

is certainly most basic to commerce. What greater barrier to inter- state commerce could there be than if we had 50 and more individual

weights and measures jurisdictions, each originating its own weights

and measures laws, rules, and regulations and most probably, in such a

situation, with no real similarity among the several jurisdictions ? We

can all easily imagine what the result would be. I should like to direct a question to those participants in this Conference who represent nationwide industries and who therefore ship

their product into many of the 50 States. Just consider for a moment,

how conveniently would your firm be able to operate if it had to design

or package its product to suit the whims and fancies of 50 and more

varying jurisdictions? With each State having individual authority

to regulate weights and measures, such a chaotic situation is within the

realm of possibility. It is possible, that is, if it were not for the meet- ing which you are now attending.

The State and local jurisdictions can legislate beyond the Federal

statutes as long as that legislation does not conflict with those Federal

statutes. If legislation were enacted in such an independent manner,

it could very well result in great confusion, and could comprise a

definite restraint of trade. For this reason, we have this National

Conference on Weights and Measures, and this Conference has worked

very effectively to create an exceedingly smooth flow of commerce among the several States. Congress, down through the years, has left it pretty much up to the

States to handle the weights and measures authority. To fill the void,

the States, one by one, have enacted weights and measures statutes that,

in essence, make it unlawful to deliver less, or take more, than the

quantity represented in a commercial transaction. But we are a single

government, and as mentioned, our Constitution prohibits barriers to trade among the States, so there must be some form of national leadership in commercial weights and measures. This is the role and the

function of this National Conference on Weights and Measures, under

12
the sponsorship of the National Bureau of Standards and its Office of

Weights and Measures.

Thus, this National Conference provides one means through which

the States and the industries can participate in the development of

uniform codes and fulfill their obligation to nation-wide uniformity.

Perhaps this is best stated in our published organizational brochure

The National Conference on 'Weights and Measures, Its Organization

and Procedure—where, in the very first paragraph the objectives are

set forth as follows:

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 measures administration as carried on by regulatory officers of the States, Commonwealths, Territories, and Possessions of the United States, their political

subdivisions, and the District of Columbia ; (b) 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; (c) to encourage and promote uniformity of require- ments and methods among weights and measures jurisdictions ; and (d) 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. As we all participate in this, the 49th National Conference on Weights and Measures, let us keep these objectives in the forefront of our thoughts.

A University Curriculum in Measurement Science

THE INTEREST OF EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS

by Mack Rapp, Vice President, Detecto Scales, Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.

At numerous meetings over the years, the need

for a university-based technical course, con- cerned with scale technology and related areas, has been discussed again and again. Scale

manufacturers individually and collectively

have recognized the important need for such a training program at a college level. The in- dividual scale dealers and servicemen also have

endorsed such effort and it received the full support of the Scale Manufacturers Association

and the National Scale Men's Association.

Weights and measures officials also have dis- played keen interest in this type of a project.

Thus important representatives of industry, of scale users, and of

enforcement officials have given encouragement to such an undertaking.

All were in agreement. There were varied ideas on matters of

emphasis, but the need for a common source of supply for properly

trained personnel gave the necessary purpose and strength to the

project idea. The recognition of the far-reaching importance of this to all facets

of the weighing industry lent encouragement to many of us who were

constantly attempting to secure support for this program from the

field of education—the engineering schools, the colleges, the universities. 13
We were fortunate. In April 1963 the subject of a technical course

for our industry was being discussed at the annual conference of the

National Scale Men's Association at Cleveland, Ohio, and, shortly

thereafter, at a meeting of the Scale Manufacturers Association, a committee was appointed to investigate the possibilities of discussing

this project with educators.

Little did any of us realize that, at about the same time, various

Deans of the University of New York were discussing the same subject.

On June 4, 1963, we met with Paul B. Orvis, Executive Dean of State

University of New York. We discussed with him the need for a formal

training program providing appropriate education in scale technology.

We outlined for him how, with the advent of highly sophisticated

weighing systems and the increasing expansion of scale technology, the

need for a basic training program was becoming increasingly more

important.

Walter C. Hinkle, president of State University Agricultural and

Technical Institute at Alfred, New York, picked up the ball. A meet- ing was arranged with George Whitney, Chairman, Engineering Technologies Division. His report was favorable and Milo Van Hall, Dean

of Student Academic Programs, invited a committee representing our

industry to visit with the University staff at Alfred.

Kenneth C. Allen, president of the Scale Manufacturers Association,

Inc., called for volunteers to serve on an advisory committee. Ten

representatives from manufacturers, Arthur Sanders, Executive Secretary, Scale Manufacturers Association, Inc., and Malcolm Jensen,

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

accepted the task. Both groups, the industry's advisory committee and the University

staff, met at Alfred, New York, in September of 1963. In one day,

a tentative curriculum was prepared and subcommittees properly

oriented for future actions. With slight modification, the curriculum was approved early in December, with the course in Measurement

Science starting September 1964. At long last, a technical course for the weighing industry need no

longer be discussed. It is now a reality.

Scale manufacturers, and scale people throughout our country and

even in Canada, have promised full-hearted support. We will supply

equipment for the laboratory, we will assist the instructors, we will

help with text material and visual aids. We are talking of scholarships, we will provide summer jobs, and we can assure full-time em- ployment for graduates. Better trained technicians employed by industry in the scale plant

and in the field to supervise service and installation will mean better

scales, better weighing, better weights and measures ! There is always the possibility that some of these graduates trained

in Measurement Science will find their way into weights and measures

at the National Bureau of Standards, in State departments, and in

local jurisdictions.

All of us, we in manufacturing and industry and you in weights and

measures, have a proper source for personnel, technically educated for our needs.

You can help this important effort by contacting guidance counselors

in the high schools in your jurisdiction and telling them about the first Measurement Science course at State University of New York at Alfred, New York.

14
A University Curriculum in Measurement Science

THE PHILOSOPHY AND PLAN OF THE UNIVERSITY

by M. E. van Hall, Dean of Student Academic Programs,

AIfred State Tech, AIfred, New^ York

The creation of six Agricultural and Technical Institutes in the State of New York more

than half a century ago was predicated on the

need to offer training in those fields for which

there were demands for trained employees.

As our country and its peoples' work changed

during those 50 years, so these two-year colleges

have changed their curricula to meet new re- quirements in fields of work. From an agrarian

economy in the early 1900's, the 40's, 50's, and

60's have brought technology and engineering

with its ever increasingly sophisticated machines and have forced our colleges into a new

and fanciful world—a never-never land today.

The Alfred Agricultural and Technical Institute has always been aware of this change. Curriculum development has reflected a determination to keep pace with our changing society and the world of

work.

At one time we offered only study in the fields of agriculture and

domestic science. For a brief period, we were in the rural-teachertraining business. In 1937, however, we made our most dramatic giant

.1 step when we introduced industrial-technical programs in the electrical, mechanical, air conditioning and refrigeration, and diesel areas. Along with these came a full complement of business curricula in- cluding accounting, executive secretarial science, sales and marketing,

and business administration.

It is worth noting, at this juncture, I believe, that before State Uni-

! versity of New York approves the teaching of any curriculum, that

curriculum must be substantiated by documental evidence of need by

industry. In other words, the University insists on evidence by in- dustry that: (1) there is a need for trained technicians, (2) that

industry will offer responsible employment opportunities to the col- lege's graduates, (3) that it will assist in planning and developing of

curriculum content, (4) that it will supply an advisory committee to

assist the college in the operation of the curriculum, and (5) that it will

be receptive to the idea of supplying equipment and scholarship monies

: to the college so that an effective program might be offered and^so that

the best kind of student can be attracted to the program.

If these requirements appear stringent, you should realize that a multitudinous number of requests (for a great variety of curricula)

constantly come in for adoption by the college. Should we heed without thorough investigation all such requests, we would have a proliferation of impoverished curricula : too small and too poorly structured

to make a contribution to anyone. So, the State University asks in- dustry and the college to meet certain specific requirements before a

I curriculum can be approved.

If you are now confused by such terms as college, institute, and

university—for I have used all three thus far—let us pause and ex-
amine the higher educational structure within which we operate.

The State University of New York is a complex of some 50 institu- tions including university centers engaged in graduate study and

research, four-year colleges, and two-year community colleges and

agricultural and technical institutes. Alfred, one of the latter, is located in the foothills of the Alleghenies, 20 miles from the Pennsylvania border. The town of Alfred with a population of 3,000 is the

home of three colleges; a private four-year Liberal Arts College, a four-year Ceramic College, incidentally one of the most famous in the

world, and our college—the two-year technical institute. Of the three

institutions, ours has the highest enrollment.

Our 1,600 Institute students study some 25 different curricula. They

come mostly from New York State, but 10 other States and six foreign

countries are also represented on the campus. We offer the Associate

of Applied Science degree. Our curricula are certified by the New

York State Education Department. The Institute is accredited by the

Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges. Most of our Engineering Technology curricula are approved by Engineers Council

for Professional Development, familiarly known as E.C.P.D.

So much for history and background.

When we were first approached about a possible curriculum dealing

with weights and measures, I think it would be an understatement to say that we knew little or nothing about your discipline, your industry,

your problems, your hopes, and your aspirations.

Indeed, it was when dialogue had taken place nearly a year ago

between interested members of your industry and our college people

that we began to grasp the fantastic and incredible advances you have

made and the problems you faced. It became all together clear, too, that with no college or institution of higher education directing atten- tion to the training of technicians for your industry, a tremendous

challenge was presented us. So it was with enthusiastic and insistent endorsement of a nucleus of

your leaders, of Malcolm Jensen, of Arthur Sanders, that we undertook

the project. We have never started a program that enjoyed such complete support by an industry as did Measurement Science.

Our preparation included an exhaustive reading program concerned

with various phases of your industry, trips and visits to the National

Bureau of Standards, George Washington University, and to over

15 individual industries. An Advisory Committee was appointed

and approved by the Institute's Council, and this group met in April

at the Hotel Concord with Dean George Whitney, who will direct the

program on the campus. A modest brochure announcing the new

program was produced, and over 3,000 copies have been sent out to your

leaders throughout the country.

Throughout this past year, constant encouragement has been given

by the original group who came to our campus last July. Mack Kapp,

from whom you have just heard, has been particularly enthusiastic.

An added thanks should go to him for speaking to over 100 high school

guidance counselors and principals at our annual Fall Festival Edu- | cator's Luncheon on the campus in early November. He represented

you well, and we continue to receive favorable comment on his speech.

As you would imagine, the success in developing a University Measurement Science Program has hinged on the art of communication. Your

representatives found it necessary first to communicate with us as to the needs and opportunities of technically trained men for your in- 16
dustry. Next, our task is to communicate these needs and opportunities to the high school guidance counselors and high school students

|| throughout the country.

Now we ask you to accept this as a report regarding our progress. We feel somewhat like the automobile makers in Detroit unveiling a

i new model. We are unveiling a pioneer college curriculum. But,

j unlike Detroit who must please its one audience—its buying one—we

hope we are able to please two audiences. First, you—who are the

| ones we are most anxious to please. For a college effort such as this

1 would be of little value without your confidence. It is you whom we

i are asking for continued advice. It is you who, we hope, will hire our

graduates. It is you whom we will be asking for scholarship monies.

It is you we will ask for some laboratory equipment. It is you we will

ask for some summer jobs for our students in your plants. It is you we ask to carry on an active recruitment program for young men with

I promise, who we hope will come to Alfred and study with us. Secondly, we have an obligation to the Measurement Science student.

j He must be attracted to this field: one he probably knows little or nothing about, in spite of the glamour and high-pressure recruitment

devices used by hundreds of other disciplines. Next, he must feel the

course of study in Measurement Science at Alfred is worthwhile and

challenging. In fact, he must feel that he is the most fortunate boy in

the world to be a student in this program. Thirdly, of course, he will

want some sense of security from the industry itself—first, that he will

|| be financially respectable when he enters employment, that he will be

given an opportunity to grow with the company, and, lastly, that he

i will have the fringe benefits offered by other industries.

We ask you to help us find the finest type of student available. Talk

to your friends, talk to your local school officials, inform the press in

your community and, finally, may we suggest that you encourage your

employees to urge their youngsters to consider this opportunity.

Now, what should you expect from us ? You should expect a con- tinuing flow of well-trained technicians to fill the critical personnel

j needs of your industry. Let me warn you, however, of competition

from other industries. Let me illustrate. One of our Nation's largest

farm machinery manufacturers has said to us "If you ever interview

a prospective student who you think has potential to become president

of our company, wire us collect. We want to know about him."

Another company executive said to us "We are interested in your

graduates. Look around our executive offices—all men about 55 or 60." "Who," he said, "will be running our company ten years from now?"

We, at Alfred, hope that we can furnish you with technicians, but we also hope that some of them will be able to serve you in leadership

capacities.

These things can only be accomplished through a real team effort. A partnership if you will—Alfred Tech and you, the leaders of this

most important industry. I commend you for having the vision in seeing the need for better

trained people. I assure you that my college stands dedicated to doing

all it can to supply the educational needs for young men wishing to go

into weights and measures.

I appreciate the honor you have bestowed upon me by including me

in your exciting program and, on behalf of all the faculty and admmis-

| tration of my college, I extend to each and every one of you a cordial

invitation to visit us so that we may become better acquainted.

17
AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1964

(F. M. Raymund, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

(This session began with the Report of the Executive Committee, presented

by D. M. Turnbull, Conference Chairman, Director, Division of Licenses and

Standards, Seattle, Washington, which can be found beginning on page 159.) (Following the Report of the Executive Committee, the Report of the Committee on Education was presented by J. E. Bowen, Chairman, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Newton, Massachusetts, and can be found beginning on page 161.

)

THE NEW BRITISH WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW, ITS DEVELOPMENT,

ENACTMENT, AND PRINCIPAL FEATURES

by T. L. E. Gregory, Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures for

the County of Nottingham, England

On July 31, 1963 the Parliamentary Bill

which became the Weights and Measures Act

1963 received the Royal Assent and took its place among the Laws of the United Kingdom

of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

On January 31, 1964, a considerable part of

the new Act, including the administrative provisions, came into operation and the Weights

and Measures Act of 1878 which, with the

amending and supplementary Acts of 1889,

1892, 1897, 1904, 1926 and 1936, had controlled

weights and measures in Britain for 86 years was quietly and unceremoniously laid to rest. That the grand old lady and her more or less elderly daughters had

been decrepit and unsatisfactory for many years was generally

accepted, but I have a feeling that on January 31 a few of the older

inspectors shed a silent tear and wondered whether her sophisticated

but much more flexible successor would stand the ravages of time and

change quite so well. Only time will tell but personally I think it probably will. In order that no misunderstanding should arise from the use of the

word "British" in the title of this paper, it should be explained at the

outset that the generality of the provisions of the new Act are applicable to Great Britain (i.e. England, Wales and Scotland) only.

Parts of the Act, relating mainly to standards and units of measurement, apply to Northern Ireland but the generality of the provisions

do not do so. There are also procedural differences in the application

of the Act to Scotland because, under the Act of Union, Scotland

retains its own judicial system.

Development

The inadequacies, perhaps rather than the weaknesses, of the old

legislation began to be apparent long ago, at least as far back as the

first World War. Between the Wars there was sporadic agitation for

improved legislation but the political climate was never really con- ducive to a thoroughgoing revision. All that was done in this period was to patch up the old structure with supplementary legislation controlling prepacked foods, liquid fuel and lubricating oil measuring

18
instruments, and the sale and carriage by road of sand and ballast. In this period, and more particularly in the years immediately following the last War, local authorities grew impatient alike with the in- adequacies of the outdated law and disinclination of the Central Government to move in the matter. Many authorities sought and obtained

from Parliament legislation of local application (i.e., legislation enI forceable only in the territory of the particular authority) which did

something towards relating weights and measures control to the changing needs of the times but never really touched the fundamental defects

in the corpus of legislation. Local legislation also produced a lack of

I uniformity of requirement as between different areas which made

difficulties for traders operating on a national basis, or even in territory

covering several authorities' areas. This combination of adapted, but

I outdated, national legislation with varying local supplementary re- quirements produced many difficulties and sorely tried the patience of

! both inspectors and traders.

The first real move towards a revision and consolidation of weights

and measures law was made in 1943. In that year, a small subcommittee of four leading inspectors (representing the Institute of Weights

and Measures Administration, then known as the Incorporated Society

of Inspectors of Weights and Measures) discussed with officers of the

Board of Trade present as observers, the post-war reconstruction of the

weights and measures service. This subcommittee produced a Report

(which came to be known as the "Green Book") which was published

by the Incorporated Society. This Report undoubtedly led to the

appointment by the President of the Board of Trade of a Departmental Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Edward Hodgson,

! K.B.E. (previously a distinguished civil servant) with terms of ref- erence "To review the existing weights and measures legislation and

the administration thereof and to make recommendations for bringing

these into line with present-day requirements." This committee sat for two years and received evidence from no less than 187 sources, mostly nationally recognised associations. The Committee's lengthy

Report, called the "Hodgson Report," was published and presented to Parliament in 1951 (Cmd. 8219 H. M. Stationery Office, London)

and recorded what was probably the most valuable and exhaustive

study of weights and measures problems and administration ever undertaken anywhere up to that time.

By the time the Report was presented, a General Election had

changed the political complexion of the Government. The new Government, in its early life, was concerned with what they no doubt

regarded as being more fundamental issues than weights and measures. Apart from a prompt and forthright rejection of the only really

revolutionary recommendation in the Report—that Britain should

adopt the metric system—very little apparent progress was made to- wards new legislation for about nine years, although it was known that

the departments concerned had quietly undertaken considerable and

detailed consultations with various interested bodies. In the meantime, excellent as it was, the Hodgson Report had become a decade

out-of-date in important respects, particularly in relation to com- modity control and the practices and techniques of the distributive

| trades, although those responsible for the content of the contemplated

; legislation must necessarily have adjusted their ideas from time to

! time.
Enactment The difficulties and compromises necessarily involved in the production of a comprehensive weights and measures statute which, in one way or another, touches every trading and industrial interest and

indeed practically every human activity, are self-evident. Add to this

that the statute must satisfy the present and be sufficiently flexible to serve the forseeable future, it is not surprising that the first Bill introduced into the House of Lords on November 1, 1960 failed to satisfy

everybody—indeed, the subsequent debates gave the impression that

it satisfied nobody. In fact, this was far from true—the general con- cept was good and the objections at that time were mainly related to

details in which, significantly, the Bill departed from the firm and

excellent recommendations of the Hodgson Committee. In the early

debates in the House of Lords, it quickly became apparent that there was much more in weights and measures and its impact on trade and

industry and the consuming public than many people had hitherto

imagined. The result was that this First Bill was promptly dropped

after it had received a very rough handling in their Lordship? s House,

particularly by Peers representing local authority and consumer interests. In due course, a "No. 2" Bill, improved in a few minor re- spects, was introduced into the House of Commons but made no progress whatever. The Third Bill which, after many lengthy debates and

further improvements in both Houses ultimately became law, was in- troduced in the House of Commons on October 31, 1962. Numerous

amendments were tabled against this Bill in both Houses. In the

House of Commons there were so many that it is doubtful whether

anybody counted them but they certainly greatly exceeded 100. Subsequently, in the Lords, over TO amendments were debated in Committee and over 60 (including a few new ones) when the Bill was

reported to the House.

In all and particularly if the abortive No. 1 Bill is included (No. 2 was introduced but never debated) , more Parliamentary time was spent on the Weights and Measures Bill than on any other similar Bill in recent years. Indeed, in the later stages in the House of Lords, the

Bill had to be forced along by the Government by the imposition of

late sittings, which were far from popular with their Lordships, in

order that it might complete its course in time to receive the Royal

Assent before Parliament rose for the Summer recess and, for practical

purposes, the end of the Legislative Session. Much to everybody's

relief, the Bill completed its course on the day before the Summer

recess. Had it not done so, it would, in common with other uncompleted legislation, have become a nullity as was the Case with the No. 1 and No. 2 Bills. Features of the Legislation

1. General.—The Act recasted and greatly extended existing weights

and measures legislation. When in full effect it repeals nearly all ex- isting weights and measures statutory law, and these repeals extend to no less than 36 public general statutes (including the considerable subordinate legislation made under some of them) and to 155 local Acts. The Act is divided into 6 major Parts, 10 Schedules, and 65 Sections, \ running in all to 119 pages. It covers a vast field from the definition

of the pound and yard in terms of the kilogramme and metre respec- 20
tively to the control of the sale of rust remover and cosmetics and a host of things in between. In respect of many matters, the Act contains only the "headlines" and leaves it to the Board of Trade to make

regulations and orders legislating for the details, including in some

; instances the extension and restriction of the application of the provisions of the Act itself. Already the first batches of subordinate legis-

! lation have appeared and it is clear that, in bulk, this will soon exceed

that of the Act itself. The Act is evolutionary rather than revolutionary in concept. To a large extent, it follows the basic principles of the earlier legislation,

but the improvements in detail, technique, scope, and flexibility are immense. One of the many problems which faces the draftsman of

j revisory legislation affecting such an important field of human

activity and capital investment as weights and measures is to provide

for continuity—for a smooth and gradual changeover from the old to

I the new. This has been achieved mainly by the provison of periods

of allowance for existing practices during which traders, inspectors,

and enforcement authorities can, without undue inconvenience, make

j the necessary changes.

2. Units and Standards of Measurement.—Probably the most profound and concise pronouncement ever made on the basic importance

of weights and measures is to be found in the words of John Quincy

Adams, later a distinguished President of the United States, in 1821

! when he said

:

Weights and measures may be ranked among the necessaries of life to every

individual of human society. They enter into the economical arrangements and

daily concerns of every family. They are necessary to every occupation of human

industry ; to the distribution and security of every species of property ; to every

transaction of trade and commerce ; to the labors of the husbandman ; to the

ingenuity of the artificer ; to the studies of the philosopher ; to the researches of the antiquarian ; to the navigation of the mariner, and the marches of the soldier ; to all the exchanges of peace, and all the operations of war. The knowledge of them, 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 the habitual application of it to the employments

I of men throughout life. These rhetorical words of 140 years ago, when "consumer protection"

would have been regarded as an expression in doubtful taste, if not in

restraint of trade and therefore a good deal worse, in fact reiterated one of man's earliest discoveries : namely that a state-controlled system

of uniformly accurate weights and measures is a basic essential of

civilised progress. Parts I and II of the new Act bring up-to-date

provisions for this purpose which have existed in Britain, in one form

or another, for centuries.

Part I of the Act, and Schedules 1, 2, and 3, prescribe the lawful

units of measurement of length, mass, volume, capacity, and electrical energy; their bases and derivation; the status of various classes of

physical standards ; and the weights and measures denominations per- mitted for use in trade. Provision is also included for the maintenance of physical standards, for the determination and redetermination of their values, for the definition of new and additional units, and

for the setting up of a permanent expert scientific Commission to keep

these and similar matters under systematic long-term review. An

|' innovation of importance historically and in other ways is that the

fundamental units on which our system of weights and measures will

henceforth be based will be the international metre and kilogramme.
The yard is defined as being 0. 9144 metre and the pound as 0. 453 592 37

kilogramme, thus bringing the U.S. and British units of linear measure and weight into practical conformity. The gallon is denned in Sched- ! ule I (Part IV) as being "the space occupied by 10 pounds weight of

distilled water of density 0. 998 859 gramme per millilitre weighed in

air of density 0. 001 217 gramme per millilitre against weights of density 8. 136 grammes per millilitre." (Under the repealed 1878 Act, the

gallon was less precisely defined as "containing ten imperial standard

pounds weight of distilled water weighed in air against brass

weights, with the water and air at the temperature of sixty-two degrees

of Fahrenheit's thermometer and with the barometer at thirty inches.")

The British Gallon is the basis of both liquid and dry measure, al- though dry measure is little used nowadays. The Bushel is defined as i being equal to eight gallons and the Peck to two gallons, but both will cease to be lawful units after the expiry of 5 years. U.S. and British measures of capacity of similar denominations, of

course, have never represented the same quantities. The considerable

disparity in volume of these derived units, due to historical differences

in derivation and long usage in our respective Countries, clearly made j it impossible to bring our measures of capacity into conformity. Although the differences are usually well-understood by international I traders, they do very occasionally cause us a little difficulty, particularly in relation to the retailing of imported prepacked goods.

An important feature of Part I is the provision for the establishment of a Commission on Units and Standards to advise the Board of

Trade on the definition and redefinition of units of measurement : the

provision, nature, construction, and custody of the United Kingdom

Primary Standards and copies thereof and the frequency with which

their values should be redetermined ; the method by which the values

of secondary and other Board of Trade Standards should be derived i from the primary standards and the general control of standards

provided at Government establishments. The Board are empowered

to give effect to any recommendation by order or regulation which,

inter alia, may amend, extend, or repeal any provision of the Act itself, j The advantages of the flexibility of these provisions in an era of rapid

technological development, and in furthering worldwide agreement on

weights and measures, will be obvious.

I Weighing and Measuring in Trade

Part II of the Act prescribes the manner in which the control is to be exercised over weighing and measuring equipment in trade and the J manner of using such equipment, including the prescription of the j units of weight and measure lawful for use in trade. Here again, apart i from prescribing penal offenses, the Act contains (voluminous as they

are ! ) merely the headlines, leaving many details to be worked out in subordinate legislation. This legislation, in the form of regulations, <

! has already appeared in considerable quantity to enable this Part of i the Act to come into operation as scheduled on January 31, 1964. | Controls which have hitherto applied are greatly extended in scope and | application and supplemented in important respects. The application

of Part II is conditioned by a novel and ingenious definition of "use

for trade." The definition is about as all-embracing as language

permits and reflects great credit on the draftsman. For the purposes

22
of the Act, "use for trade" is use in connection with, or with a view to,

| a transaction for:

(a) the transferring or 'rendering of money or moneysworth in consideration of money or moneysworth ; or

(b) the making of a payment in respect of any toll or duty, where

:

(i) the transaction is by reference to quantity or is a trans- action for the purposes of which there is made or implied

a statement of the quantity of goods to which the trans- action relates ; and

(ii) the use is for the purpose of the determination or state- ment of that quantity.

The definition further provides that equipment made available for

public use (e.g., personal weighing machines) whether on payment or

otherwise, and machines for grading hen eggs by weight are to be

treated as being "in use for trade."

An interesting feature of this Part of the Act is that stamping (I

think you call it "sealing") is required only in the case of "prescribed"

equipment, i.e., equipment of a class or description "prescribed" for

that purpose by regulation by the Board of Trade. Any weighing or measuring equipment may of course be "prescribed" and the great

majority of the various types of such equipment commonly used in

trade have already been so-prescribed. The following are examples

I of equipment used for trade which have not, so far, been "prescribed"

i and, therefore, are not required to be "passed as fit" and stamped by

an Inspector before being put into such use : fabric and leather measuring instruments, and water meters. Inspectors are, however, em- powered to inspect any weighing or measuring equipment (whether

"prescribed" or not) found in use; and the penal provisions as to the

use or possession for use of unlawful equipment or of false or unjust

equipment, or fraud in the use of it, apply. Where weighing or measuring equipment is found in the possession of a person carrying on trade or on any premises used for trade, it is to be deemed, in law, to be in use for trade unless the contrary is proved.

Another point of interest in this Part is that, after five years, the

Bushel, Peck (dry measures), and the Pennyweight (precious stones)

will disappear from the list of lawful units of measurement for use

in Britain. Provision is also included similarly to exclude weights and

measures of the Apothecaries series (drugs) at a date, not earlier than

five years, to be appointed by the Board of Trade.

Provision is included for the Board of Trade to grant formal certifi- cations of approval to patterns of equipment and an Inspector may not

refuse to pass or stamp equipment of a pattern so approved on the

ground only that it is not suitable for use for trade. If, however, he

is of opinion that it is intended to be used for a particular purpose for

which it is not suitable he may refuse to stamp it until the matter has

been referred to the Board of Trade. The Board may, in appropriate

cases, also give conditional and/or temporary approval to a pattern,

and may also revoke any certificate of approval after consultation

with interested parties.

Penalties, recoverable on conviction before a court of justice, are

| provided for a variety of offences relating to the improper or unauthorised use of equipment. In relation to stamping (sealing), it is an offence for any unauthorised person to mark in any manner any

!
seal or plug provided for the reception of an Inspector's stamp, to forge, counterfeit, or deface (except in the case of manufacturers or

repairers destroying or obliterating a stamp in the course of adjustment or repair) any stamp, or to insert it in any other equipment, or

to make any alteration to stamped equipment so as to make it false or

unjust. In nearly all offences relating to the unlawful use or stamping

of equipment, the equipment itself is liable to seizure by an Inspector

and to forfeiture if a Court so decides.

Public Weighing or Measuring Equipment

Part III deals with weighing and measuring equipment provided or

available for use by the public (except person-weighing machines for

which other provision is made) . Weights and Measures Authorities

are empowered to provide for public use such weighing or measuring

equipment as appears to be expedient. They may also employ persons

to attend the equipment and may make such charges for the use thereof

as they think fit. This is a very useful provision as the rapid closure

of rural and intercity railway stations in Britain (and the weighbridges provided at such stations) is leaving many towns and villages

without any means of readily checking loads of roadborne goods. A

new and overdue provision is the requirement that persons attending on public weighing or measuring equipment must obtain a certificate of

qualification from a Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures. This

Part does not come into operation until July 1965.

Equipment available for public use is provided by many private

undertakers in Britain as well as by local authorities. The controls

of Part III apply generally. Persons appointed to attend to weighing

or measuring by equipment available for public use are required to do

the work on demand and to do so fairly. They are also required to give

a statement of the weight or measurement in writing, to keep records,

and to retain and make them available to any inspector during the

period of two years. Any person bringing anything for weighing or measuring must, on request, give his name and address.

Commodity Control Part IV deals in broad principle with commodity control. It prescribes the general rules which the Courts and Inspectors must observe

in dealing with commodity offences. Schedules 4 to 8 inclusive, which

are associated with this Part, prescribe in detail the requirements as to quantity control for a vast number of named commodities. These in- clude practically all foods and packeted and canned shop goods, in addition to sand, ballast, solid and liquid fuels, lubricating oils, readymixed concrete, cement mortar, inorganic fertilisers, liming materials,

wood fuel, toilet preparations, soap, detergents, paint, antifreeze, postal

stationery, intoxicating liquor, and many other items. This Part and

the associated Schedules replace in an up-to-date and greatly extended

form the excellent principles of quantity control laid down in a number of earlier statutes, including local Acts. These principles are not only extended to a vast range of consumer goods to which they previously did not apply, but power is also given to the Board of Trade

still further to extend and amend the provisions in the light of

experience.

Commodities are required to be sold by weight, measure, or number,

as appropriate, and the quantity is to be made known to the purchaser

24
or, in the case of prepacked goods, marked on the packet. Many kinds

of prepacked goods are required to be made up only in specified simple

quantities. Unfortunately, the Act permits many kinds of goods to be

sold by "gross" weight (i.e., with the weight of the wrapper or container included in the weight purported to be sold) if the wrapper

weight satisfies a prescribed scale. Consumer opinion in Britain generally regards sale by "gross" weight as an indefensible trading practice. It runs contrary to the firm recommendation of the Hodgson

J Committee and was a point of heated controversy during the Parliamentary passage of the Bill. One of the most important provisions of Part IV is the general

prohibition against short weight, measure, or number. This prohibi-

| tion extends to delivering to a buyer a lesser quantity than is purported

to be sold or than corresponds with the price charged, and to the making of any misrepresentation by word of mouth or otherwise as to quantity, or any other act calculated to mislead either the buyer or the

seller as to quantity.

It is not proposed to go into the detail of the statutory defences

I which run into six pages of the statute. On the whole they are to protect inadvertent offenders and appear to be reasonable despite their

complications. They will however, present inspectors and those who

must advise traders independently with considerable mental exercise

and, despite the quality of the draftsmanship, there is little doubt that

' the legal profession and the Courts will spend much time—and liti- gants much money—in determining precisely what is meant by some of

the expressions in this Part and the Schedules which are to be read with

it. The responsibilities and duties placed on Inspectors investigating

I matters which may result in legal proceedings are particularly onerous and time-consuming and there is no doubt that considerable additions

to the existing strength of the inspectorate will be necessary when the

Act is in full operation.

Local Administration

Part V prescribes the units of local administration. In England

and Wales, excluding the London Metropolitan region, these will, as a general rule, be county and county borough councils. There are, however, in the case of county areas, important exceptions to this rule which

made the subject of areas of administration one of the most highly controversial during the Parliamentary Debates. Shortly, non-county

borough or urban district councils with populations of 60,000 or more may become independent weights and measures authorities by mere

resolution. Further, the councils of boroughs or urban districts with

populations less than 60,000 or of any rural district may make repre- sentations to the Board of Trade and to the county council that they

should become independent weights and measures authorities. If the

Board are satisfied after consultation that there are "special" circum-

| stances, the Board may direct any such council to be the weights and

measures authority. In Scotland, the administrative units are to be

the county councils and the councils of large burghs as defined in the

Local Government (Scotland) Act. In the Metropolitan area of

London, the Act leaves it to the Board of Trade to direct which authorities shall have weights and measures responsibilities. It has since

been announced that these are likely to be the 32 new borough councils

set up under the London Government Act which was passing through

25

747-830 O - 65 - 3
Parliament at the same time as the Weights and Measures Bill. Many

experienced administrators would have preferred to see weights and j measures responsibilities vested in the Greater London Council so as

to provide a uniform and much more economical administration j throughout the Metropolitan area. Indeed, the permissive fragmen- j tation of the service, and the ancillary consumer-protection services i which run with it, among the smaller units of local government, both

in the Metropolitan area and in the provincial counties, is regarded

by many as a legislative blunder. These proposals were among the

most strongly contested during the Parliamentary passage of the Bill

in both Houses.

Powers of Board of Trade in Relation to Administration

Part V of the Act gives the Board power to make regulations as to the "manner" of the performance of the local authority's functions.

Otherwise, apart from local authorities being required to provide such

standards and testing equipment as the Board approve and, in the

case of standards, to keep and use them on approved premises, the

powers of the Board in relation to local weights and measures authorities are rather extraordinary. Shortly, the Act gives them power to

inspect, criticise (publicly if they so choose), persuade, and cajole, but

the power to make regulations is the ultimate control.

Inspectors of Weights and Measures Inspectors of Weights and Measures are the officials on whom the 1 effectiveness of the legislation ultimately depends, and considerable

personal responsibilities are placed upon them.

Part V of the Act requires local weights and measures authorities

to appoint a Chief Inspector and such number of other inspectors (including a Deputy Chief, if desired) necessary for the discharge of the

functions imposed by the Act on Inspectors. All Inspectors must

hold the statutory professional qualification referred to below and be

remunerated, thus excluding the appointment of unpaid honorary offi- cers. The Chief Inspector is responsible to the authority for the ' custody and maintenance of the standards and equipment and generally for the operation of the authority's arrangements to give effect

j to the Act in their area. This Part of the Act requires the Board to provide for the holding

of the qualifying examinations for Inspectors and the grant of certifi- i cates to successful candidates who are not under the age of 21. The powers, functions, duties, and responsibilities of Inspectors are

j very many and are mentioned at appropriate places throughout the I Act and the subordinate legislation made under it. I shall not attempt i to catalogue them but merely to say that throughout, in the ultimate, !j his responsibility for the proper discharge of his statutory functions is 1 to the Crown through the Courts of Justice and not to any Government

Department or other body or person. The Act itself gives him no

security of tenure of office. Indeed, it provides that he shall hold ! office during the pleasure of the appointing authority. In practice, ; however, he is protected by the law as to wrongful dismissal and the |. appeals machinery of the Conditions of Service applicable to the Local

{ Government Service in Britain. Under Part V of the Act, an In- spector who stamps any equipment in contravention of the Act or any

26
Regulation made under it, or derives any profit from or is engaged in

the making, adjusting, or selling of weighing or measuring equipment

or knowingly commits a breach of any duty or otherwise misconducts

himself in the execution of his office is himself liable to prosecution

and heavy penalty, as is any person, who, not being an Inspector, acts or purports so to act. Inspectors are required to take prescribed fees on the stamping of

equipment and to account for them to the authority.

Part V also provides that the Board of Trade may make regulations

with respect to the manner of the performance by Inspectors of their

functions. Many such regulations, relating mainly to the testing and

stamping of equipment, have already been made.

Powers of Inspection and Entry

Part VI of the Act gives an Inspector extensive powers of inspection

! and entry to premises within the area of which he is appointed.

Shortly, he is given power, at all reasonable times, to inspect and test any weighing or measuring equipment which he has reasonable cause

to believe is used for trade or in any person's possession or upon any

| premises for such a purpose ; to inspect any goods to which the Act or any subordinate legislation applies or which he has cause to believe

to be such goods; to enter any premises (except premises used solely as a dwelling house) at which he has a reasonable cause to believe there

I: are any such goods or equipment and to take with him such other per- sons and equipment as he thinks necessary. He is also given power to

seize and detain any article liable to be forfeited under the Act and any

document displayed with goods on sale which relates to prices or quanl| tity and which may be required in legal proceedings under the Act. In prescribed circumstances, the Inspector may obtain a warrant from

a Justice of the Peace authorising entry by force if that should be

necessary. For the purposes of the Act, "premises" include any place, stall, vehicle, ship, or aircraft, but the Act specifically says that it does not

authorise the inspector to stop a vehicle on a highway. A vehicle,

being "premises," the Inspector has power to enter it for the purposes

of inspection. The prohibition against stopping a vehicle was

severely critised, even ridiculed, during the Parliamentary progress

of the Bill. It is further an offence under Part VI willfully to obstruct an Inspector or, without reasonable cause, to fail to give him any assistance or information reasonably required for the performance of his functions or knowingly to give false information.

Part VI also deals with the prosecution of offences and provides

that where an offence has been committed by a corporate body with

the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect by

any director, manager, secretary, he as well as the corporate body is liable to conviction. It also prescribes maximum penalties for of- fences. In the case of specified minor offences (e.g. use of unstamped

equipment, failure to comply with conditions of approval and similar "technical" offences) the maximum penalty is £20 ($56) but for

the great majority of offences the penalty for a first offence is a fine

! not exceeding £100 ($280) and for a second or subsequent offence

I under the same provision £250 ($700) or three months imprisonment

or both.
Operation

The Act comes into operation in progressive stages on the dates

indicated

31st July, 1963: Section 61(4) permitting sale of milk in 6d. cartons from

vending machines (quantity to be declared on carton).

31st January, 1964 : Part I, Units of measurement, primary standards, local au- thority standards, and the testing of standards and

equipment. Part II Weighing and measuring equipment used in trade. Part V Administration and enforcement by local authorities and their inspectors, and the qualifications and appoint- ment of inspectors. Part VI Powers of entry and inspection, prosecutions, and miscellaneous matters. Schedules 1 to 3 Standards and lawful units, Schedule 9 (Part I), Repeals of other public general Acts or parts

j thereof, and Schedule 10 (relating to Northern Ireland).

31st July, 1965 : Part III Public weighing and measuring equipment and the ! issue of certificates to keepers thereof by Chief Inspectors. Part IV and Schedules 4 to 8 (except Par. 3 of Part VI

of Schedule 4, dealing with the sale of spirits for consumption on the premises) . Sale of commodities by weight, measure, or count. Parts II and III of Schedule 9. Repeal

of public general Statutes or parts thereof and the great ] majority of local legislation dealing with weights and ! measures.

31 st July, 1966 : Par. 3 of Part VI of Schedule 4. Requiring gin, rum, vodka

and whisky for consumption on the premises to be sold only in one of the following quantities or a multiple thereof :

| 14 gill, % gill, or y6 gill to be chosen by the seller and

declared in a notice exhibited on the premises.

Conclusion

As indicated earlier, the Act has not satisfied everybody. When the

balance is drawn, however, the consumer will enjoy immensely greater

protection in weights and measures matters than he has ever had

previously and the Inspector will no longer have to adapt to the | space age ancient legislation enacted in an era when transport literally

meant horsepower. Traders, whilst having to accept the increased

controls, will in return enjoy the advantage of certainty of requirement in quantity control, uniformly enforceable and applicable to fair

traders and competing slick operators alike. They will also have the

benefit of extended safeguards against prosecution in circumstances

of genuine inadvertence.

So far as the Act prescribes the national weights and measures

system and controls weighing and measuring equipment for use in

trade, it leaves little to be desired. As a measure of consumer protection, it goes a long way to meet modern requirements. In this

respect, however, it could so easily have been so much more effective

if more of the improvements suggested by local authority associations

j and the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration had been > accepted. Among those, which, in the opinion of experienced observers, would have been of enduring benefit to consumers are: the

abolition of sale by "gross" weight; the declaration of price-per- unit of quantity in the case of many kinds of goods sold by retail from bulk; and some control of the use of misleading containers.

' Very recently (and since the Bill became an Act), the Government

has published a Report on Meat Marketing and Distribution which,

inter alia, points out the advantages to the consumer of a price-per- i unit of quantity declaration in the case of meat. It seems probable

that public opinion will demand legislation to deal with this and

28
other consumer protection matters in the not too distant future. In

this connection, the recent Message from the President of the United

States to your House of Representatives (Document No. 220) is an

excellent and timely reminder that your Country and my own have

much in common in very many things, even in consumer protection

problems. It points the way to a solution of many of these and serves

| to emphasize the value and advantages of the exchange of ideas and

experiences between those interested in various aspects of consumer

protection in our respective Countries.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM Mr. Jennings : You have frequently mentioned the Board of Trade.

What person, groups, or agencies comprise your present Board of

Trade to which has been delegated so much authority ? Mr. Gregory : The Board of Trade is directed by a President, who

is one of the principal Ministers of the Crown ; it has vast offices and

I employs a host of officers and staff. It is indeed one of our most important Ministries of Government, but the Board itself has not met

since 1850. Like many of our institutions, it started as one thing and, over the centuries, gradually evolved into something quite different.

i It originated as a Consultative Committee set up by the Privy Council

in 1621 to advise the Government in matters relating to trade. How

I the Board evolved from this into a major government department is a long story. As to the persons, groups, and agencies comprising the

! Board, in ancient times it included the Archbishop of Canterbury and

| most of the principal officers of State. Today and for many years past

the Board's quorum has apparently been one—the President himself.

Mr. Jennings : Is your law so constructed as to eliminate the possii bility of its becoming top-heavy, that is, having more regulations provided than basic law ? Mr. Gregory: No, I don't think delegated legislation necessarily

makes the body of law top heavy. Within limits and so long as it does

not change the basic principles laid down by Parliament, I think it can

be very good and necessary in the times in which we live. You see,

| Acts of Parliament, with us at any rate, are rare. If an Act of Parliament is necessary to change some detail of law or procedure, you have

to find parliamentary time, which is in very short supply and available

only on the basis of priority. Sometimes years and years go by before

parliamentary time can be found for an Act. But if you already

have in an Act a provision enabling a Minister of the Government to make regulations varying details of the law, then it is much easier to get desirable changes made, very much easier and speedier than trying to get an amending Act through Parliament. When you get

changes in detailed requirements, as we do in the weights and measures field, which, due to rapid technological and commercial developments, is probably changing more rapidly now than ever, representations can be made to the Government, interested parties consulted, and

necessary changes in the legal requirements made comparatively

quickly. Delegated legislation provides a flexibility very desirable in

technical legislation in times of rapid changes and development.

Mr. Jennings: You mentioned consumer dissatisfaction on com- modity control. Will that action be counteracted by legislation, or

I what steps will be taken to counteract it ? Mr. Gregory: When I said there was a consumer movement for

j greater protection I had in mind, also, things outside the precise field of weights and measures. I think weights and measures is pretty well

29
looked after now in this new Act, but tljere is a strong feeling that the consumer needs a lot more protection in other fields, such as, for ex- ample, deceptive packaging, dishonest advertising, and the various

gimmicks and practices aimed at obscuring the true prices of articles. We expect that there will be further legislation to deal with these ( things in the not too distant future.

J. H. Lewis : I believe you indicated that Part III of the Act provided for public weighing services to be performed by the weights and

measures authorities. How widespread is this, and in what capacities are these weighings being provided ? Do they charge fees ? Mr. Gregory. Many of the larger cities and towns have provided

public weighing machines, for the use of which a charge is made, for

many years. Generally speaking, a local authority in Britain cannot

spend public money for any purpose, however good, unless there is statutory authority enabling him to do so. We have had enabling

powers for many years in one form or another, for local authorities to install weighbridges, but they have been restricted as to purpose and

application. The new Act gives the powers generally to weights and

measures authorities to provide weighing and measuring equipment of ; any kind and to make charges for use. The fees charged are usually

planned to cover the cost of providing, maintaining, and operating the

equipment. I have heard it said that some authorities do rather well

financially with their weighbridge, but I do not think this is generally ; the case. M. Greenspan. During your discussion you mentioned the fact that

your legislation provides for certain commodities to be packaged in

only specified quantities. How do you overcome the opposition of the

manufacturers of the containers when restricting them to these

specifics ? Mr. Gregory. There was a lot of controversy about it, of course, but we had the advantage of precedent in Britain. This precedent

goes back a long time. Towards the end of the 1914—18 War, when

prepackaging began to get going in Britain, we decided that it was a good thing to have packages made-up in well-understood, simple, specified quantities. Wlien we got rid of the emergency legislation after

the 1914r-18 War, we embodied the specified quantities provision in an Act in 1926, and we have had it for certain basic foodstuffs ever

since. The trade in Britain was, therefore, conditioned to the idea.

We have extended the application of the principle to many additional

items in the recent legislation, but there was considerable trade opposition, as you suggest, to the extension. The trade used the arguj ment that the varying densities of different products would require an 1 extravagant multiplicity of sizes of containers if specified weights

j were prescribed. In a very few cases this was probably a bona fide and

genuine difficulty, but the advantage to the shopper of being able to judge values by comparing quantity was, in our view, the overriding

consideration. F. M. Katmund. I understand that Mrs. Yates, who is traveling

with you and Mrs. Gregory, is a County Councillor. Would you tell me what Mrs. Yates' position is and what she does ? Mr. Gregory. Well, I will try to. She is a leading figure in the

public and political life of Nottinghamshire. I hope she will forgive

me, but I nearly said "a politician"—but I have to be rather careful

you know, in the terms I use. I have discovered they sometimes mean

different things over here. 30
Mrs. Yates is an elected member of the Nottinghamshire County

Council, which is the principal local governing body of Nottinghamshire. It is difficult to explain all the implications of this in a few

words because our systems of government are so different. For in- stance, there is no corresponding authority to our county council, as far as I can see, in the United States. The county council is perhaps,

in force of- numbers nearer to your State setup than to your county

I setup, although, unlike your State, it is an administrative rather than

a legislative body. It is a very much bigger body than your county

or city councils, but, like yours, it consists of elected representatives,

i For instance, there are 85 members of the Nottinghamshire County

Council. They divide into committees, and each committee has as- signed to it responsibility for a section of the County Council's serv-

| ices, e.g., education, highways, public health, public control. Mrs. Yates is Chairman of the Public Control Committee of the

County Council, which is broadly responsible for all functions of the

I County Council in the control of trading activities and includes the

administration of the Weights and Measures, Food and Drugs, Explosives, and Merchandise Marks Acts in which I am interested.

She is active in many other things besides weights and measures. She is a Governor of the University of Nottingham, the Technical

I College and of many schools in the County, and past Chairman (and

present Vice Chairman) of the County Libraries Committee, Chairman of the Nottingham Consumers Association—to mention only a

few. In short, she is a very hard-working and—I hope I spare her

blushes—a very important and worthy personality in the public life of Nottinghamshire. I am proud to have her with me on this occasion.

Mr. Raymund. I wonder if Mrs. Yates would go to the microphone

and just say a word to us. Mrs. E. A. Yates. I would like to join with Mr. Gregory and Mrs.

Gregory in thanking you all for your great kindness since we have been

to your Country. I thank Mr. Gregory for his remarks, too, and I hope you all believe some of them.

I have asked many people since we have been in your Country about

your setup as far as local government is concerned, and we can't find

anything which is quite the same in the two countries. I think we

are something between your State and your city, and possibly a little more corresponding to your State. There are 85 of us, 64 County

Councillors elected by popular vote and the others are aldermen elected

by the County Council. As Mr. Gregory said, we do divide into comI mittees, and, of course there are only two political parties on the Nottinghamshire Council, and my party is unfortunately in the minority.

I would like once again to thank you all very much for inviting us

here. R. E. Meek. Mr. Gregory, in this country we have a limited number

of States that provide for type or pattern approval. I know this is a controversial subject here, and possibly I should not raise it, but I would like to know what your feeling is in Great Britain regarding

pattern approval. Has it worked out and does it have the support

of the manufacturers of weighing devices and measuring devices ? I am assuming, of course, that you still have that in your new law.

Mr. Gregory. Yes, we still have it, and it is a very, very good thing

| indeed. I can strongly recommend it to you. We have had it for many

i years. We have had it since 1004.

31
Your Office of Weights and Measures corresponds very closely to our Standard Weights and Measures Department of the Board of

Trade. They have a very fine body of scientists and technicians, as I gather your Office of Weights and Measures has, and all new patterns

are submitted to the Department for approval. If they give a certificate of fitness for use in trade, no inspector—and this is the law

can refuse to accept equipment of that pattern for use in trade in his

area, provided it is accurate and satisfies the prescribed tests. This

saves inspectors and the trade a lot of headaches. It puts the responsibility for pattern approval on a central body, it ensures uniformity

throughout the Country, and I think it is a very good thing for both

the trade and the inspector. The trade know where they stand and

the inspector does not have to worry himself about questions of design.

It works well in practice and I strongly recommend the idea to you to consider.

Question. Would you say your specifications written by the Board

of Trade compare favorably with other patterns throughout the world,

such as we have. Would you say that in any way they are comparable ? Mr. Gregory. I am not sure of the details of your system of approvals, but traveling about the United States I have seen quite a lot of weighing and measuring machines, and many correspond closely to the types which have been approved in Britain. I am not sure of

the number offhand, but there are about 1,400 individual patterns

which have been approved by the Standard Weights and Measures

Department of the Board of Trade.

I don't know whether this is perhaps the background of the question—I may be wrong—but I would emphasize this: So far as the

Board of Trade approval is concerned, the Board and their examiners

are not concerned one iota whether a pattern is produced abroad or

at home. It gets the same impartial treatment, i.e., on its merit

and fitness for use in trade. There are in fact a considerable number

of approval patterns which are manufactured in foreign countries.

The foreign exporter to Britain needn't worry a scrap on that ground.

He will get impartial treatment and be on level terms with our own

manufacturers. I am sure the same position would obtain here if you

had a central national approval.

THE NATIONAL SCALE MEN'S ASSOCIATION—ITS PROGRAM FOR THE

FUTURE

by W. J. Schieser, Vice President in Charge of Product Development,

Exact Weight Scale Co?npany

It is an honor and a pleasure for me to have

this opportunity to talk to you about the National Scale Men's Association and its program

for the future. NSMA numbers among its ranks many weights and measures officials. In

a very real sense, they can hardly be considered

separate groups.

The National Conference was only eleven

years old when the National Scale Men's Association was born in 1916. This Conference,

many sealers' associations, and the National

Scale Men's Association have certainly come

along together and have cooperated in promot32
ing many common objectives.

Men prominent in weights and measures work, and men concerned

with the science of scale design and application, had much to do with

the forming of the National Scale Men's Association. These were

professional men who felt a need for organization and who did something about it. These were men whose daily lives were intimately

intertwined with scales and weighing.

It is essential to review the objectives and purposes of NSMA as a prelude to outlining its program for the future. Just a few years ago

the NSMA forged a code of ethics which amply describes its objectives

and purposes in addition to establishing a code under which

scale men have agreed to conduct themselves. I think the code tells a

great deal about NSMA, and for that purpose I will read it. It is set forth as follows: As a member of the National Scale Men's Association, I will, to the best of my

ability, abide by the Association Code of Ethics as it is here set forth:

I. Keep uppermost in mind the fundamental importance of the weighing

scale to our way of life. II. Endeavor to impress all the vitally significant part which scales play

in providing the most important measurement of most of the world's mediums of exchange, including real goods and moneys.

III. Diligently promote the use of scales as the most precise means of measuring mass or weight.

IV. Conduct myself according to the highest standards of professional ethics

in regard to representation of, and charges for, goods or services rendered,

and to thereby reflect credit on my Association and the scale industry.

V. Strive diligently at all times to render services in keeping with the best

policies of proper weights and measures interpretations. VI. Take an active interest in existing laws and regulations, in proposed legis- lation pertaining thereto, and to aid in procuring such laws and regulations as are in the best interests of the general public. VII. Keep abreast of new developments in weighing equipment and methods,

to encourage the procurement of, and to recommend the proper usage for, equipment which will effect greater precision and efficiency in weight measurement.

VIII. Support the National Scale Men's Association, its policies and programs, and to participate in local division activities for the mutual benefit of all

its members and the clients which it serves. IX. Endeavor to earn, and to carefully guard, a reputation of good moral

character, good citizenship and common honesty, and to support and

promote all the uplifting influences of the community.

X. Strive to raise the standards of efficiency of myself and my associates and

to elevate the professional standing of the scaleman to a position in keeping

with the responsibilities of the weighing industry.

Today, the organization is comprised of 18 divisions in the*United

States and Canada, and its membership varies between 650 and 800. It has a national headquarters with a part-time paid Secretary-Treasurer—and I might add that it has seemed more like part-time paid and

full-time work the last couple of years. I am sure a great many of you

know our Secretary-Treasurer, Sylvia Pickell, who, along with her

husband, publishes the Scale Journal.

In developing its program, NSMA looks on scalemen as a professional group, and this is a matter of great significance. As a profes33
sional scalemen's organization, NSMA can, and should, be capable of

accomplishments that no other existing organization can perform. As

all of you know there is a very fine Scale Manufacturer's Association

which provides a real service to its members and which works very

closely with this Conference. Its Executive Secretary, Arthur Sanders,

its officers and some of its committees frequently are part of your

program. However, scale manufacturers cannot speak for professional

scalemen as a group because the professional men's organization does

have a great many members in its ranks that are not directly associated

with manufacturers. In other words, there are a great many matters

which could benefit the public that could be promoted by the National

Scale Men's Association which, if promoted by the manufacturers,

might be construed as a promotion by a group with an "ax to grind."

An example of such a matter is the widespread promotion of conversion to the metric system. Can't you see the headlines "Scale Manufacturers promote equipment obsolescence!"

Another area of great public interest is in legislation pertaining to weights and measures. It has been expressed to me by some enforcement officials that even though they may feel strongly about pending

legislation, they cannot publicly take a stand for or against. They

look upon their duties strictly as enforcers of existing laws, not promoters of new laws. NSMA, however, representing as it does a cross section of all scalemen who are concerned with all facets of scales and

weighing, is in a position to make an educated and unbiased appraisal

of the facts. It can and should promote all that is in the public interest. All of you are aware, I am sure, that the offices in NSMA are elective,

and therefore the holders of those offices change each year. To insure

program continuity it has been traditional, though not mandatory, that

Executive Committee members advance each year to a new responsibility and are ultimately elected President. NSMA's program for the

future is predicated on another tradition, and that is the improvement

of the status of the professional scaleman. The present Executive

Committee of NSMA is constantly striving to implement a program

that will achieve that broad objective.

A few months ago, at the Southeastern Division meeting at Myrtle

Beach, some of you may have heard Mr. Bill Fuller, the present Chairman of the Executive Committee, define "professionalism." Bill stated

it along these lines : "Scalemen recognize that their work is important

to society and that they have a definite public responsibility. They are men dedicated to the advancement of their art, and they are always

seeking additional knowledge to improve themselves." All of us con- cerned with its management believe NSMA can and should be a most

important adjunct to such self-improvement. Every one of you in this

audience should read the copy of that speech. It is carried in the

December 1963 issue of the Scale Journal, and it reflects the thinking

of one who is helping formulate NSMA's plans for the future. I think

it goes way beyond the casual thoughts that many have about the needs

and purposes of a scalemen's organization.

NSMA's program includes strong and active divisional activities. Among these are technical meetings on scale design, service, and application, with emphasis on new techniques in the industry. These technically oriented meetings are supported by plant tours of major scale- using industries and by demonstrations of service techniques on actual

equipment. Several divisions have been particularly outstanding in

34
this regard. In essence the major portion of each program is aimed

at enhancing the scaleman's knowledge of his profession. The degree

to which this is accomplished is, of course, dependent upon the effort put into it by the individual, and upon the management of his particular division. Recently our national headquarters has provided all of the division officers with an organizational manual that contains a wealth of information of the operation of a division. The manual lists such things as program suggestions, duties and responsibilities of

officers, requirements for forming a new division, constitution and

bylaws, and many other aids to effective operation.

But then, neither time nor your interest will permit going into the

many details of division activities. Of great importance also is the social function of the divisions, and

what might be called just plain acquaintanceship. Some would

thoughtlessly belittle this activity, but I remind them that many great

men have cited and continue to cite a lack of communication as one of

the greatest obstacles to human progress. The man who is truly interested in his profession will be interested also in a closer acquaintance

with his fellow scalemen and will seek out opportunities to discuss

topics related to his work. This is a real part of NSMA's program, and

it is effectively conducted in many of the divisions and at the annual

conference.

The National Executive Committee is responsible for the welfare of

NSMA generally, and this Committee includes those important functions pertaining to membership, legislation, publicity, and the annual

conference. As with your yearly Conference on Weights and Measures

here in Washington, our annual conference is a highlight of our

activities. Some of you attended last year's conference and scale exhibit at Cleveland, Ohio, and some attended this year's conference

at the Concord Hotel in Liberty, New York. Those who did will

know that these were truly memorable events, both from educational

and enjoyment standpoints. None will say that these conferences

cannot be improved however. Scalemen's skills must be highly diversified today. They require a basic knowledge of physics, mechanics,

electronics, and particularly application knowhow. They require

salesmanship to sell not only equipment but also ideas. It will never

be possible to jam all of the information scalemen want into a three- or four-day conference.

The annual business meeting of the Association is held during the

conference, and at this time the divisions participate through their

official representatives, which gives them a definite voice and influence

in the running of its affairs. Included in NSMA's programs are some projects which are momentarily beyond our reach, but like most worthwhile objectives they start with dreams that usually cannot be achieved without great effort and

without more money than is usually available. Among these is the

publication of a technical book on scales and weighing tentatively

entitled The Scale MarCs Handbook. It would include virtually all the information on scales and weighing normally required by the professional scaleman in the execution of his everyday duties. This project is past the dream stage. A table of contents has been drawn up

following much study and discussion. Major hurdles are yet to be overcome and they comprise time and money. NSMA's primary source

of income under its present organization is membership dues, and it 35
cannot presently underwrite the book project. Other underwriting

sources are being investigated however, and, hopefully, progress can

be reported soon. The brightest star on the horizon for scalemen, insofar as improvement in their professional status and the advancement of scale technology are concerned, is the recognition of weighing as a technology

by the State University of New York and the resulting establishment

by that University of a course in measurement science. NSMA will be

a strong supporter of this course, and it has an active committee studying a means whereby we can help perpetuate this truly worthwhile and

long- overdue answer to an educational need. It would be inappropriate indeed if I did not give great credit to Mack Rapp for initial and

continuing efforts in bringing about the establishment of this course. Mack is well known to all of you for his many, many untiring efforts in every phase of weights and measures, and while Mack has many

affiliations with your National and State organizations and with the

Scale Manufacturers, he is a past president of NSMA and an extremely

active member on an everyday basis, and NSMA is mighty proud of

him and the results he has helped achieve.

Last year NSMA compiled a complete library of the weights and

measures laws in effect throughout the fifty States. This is on file at the Chicago headquarters. It required a great deal of time to compile it. and it will require time to maintain it, but according to information available to us at the time it was compiled there existed no other

single source for all that information ; perhaps the same thing can be

said today.

Greater participation in NSMA by the scale using industries is most

desirable, and is being promoted. At the Cleveland conference, a very

good scale and weighing equipment exhibit was held. It was many

times greater in scope and in attendance than any previous exhibit.

This year, a special industry brochure received wide circulation to well over 6000 process engineers. This was intended primarily to announce

the 45th conference but it also called attention to NSMA's activities. A yearbook has been printed the last two years. I am sure most of

you have received them, and you know it contains a roster of members,

advertisements covering equipment and services, and other valuable

information.

My only regret is that time does not permit giving credit to all those

who have worked so hard on these many projects. They have done so

at considerable sacrifice in time and money, and their accomplishments

stand as real tributes to their dedication to their profession.

In summary I can tell you that NSMA will continue to strive for

excellence in all that scalemen stand for. We live in a world where

the accurate measurement of goods is vital to all mankind. This

is not a new situation, but the achievement of accurate weights is often

overlooked or assumed to be an effortless fact. It is inconceivable

that those men who are responsible for quantity measurement by

weight in a great world economy, would not have a strong organization

to help them, to represent them, and to coordinate their activities. No

organization has a greater cause for being, and few have a greater

responsibility.

We are prone to think that we have progressed a long way, and truly we have, but a short exposure to the needs of automated industry today,

and to the needs of the missile age, will soon dispel any notion that we

36
can do all that needs to be done. There is a crying need for advances

in scale technology.

Through the efforts of all our associations, technology and enforcement can and will advance together to insure both equity and efficiency.

The National Scale Men's Association is pledged to the support of these

efforts. DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM R. J. Cord: Among your membership, has there been any promotional work on metric conversion and has there been any official position taken on it ? Mr. Schieser: Last year at the National Conference we went on

record as supporting the more widespread use of the metric system;

as you know, its use was allowed in the United States by the Law of

1866. Even further than that, we have made it the topic of many of our meetings and promoted it among scale buyers. We see a considerable trend toward metric specifications in scales. I am sure that

everyone here will agree that, in most areas of measurement, metric

values are far easier to work with and more readily understood.

ACTIVITIES OF THE OFFICE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, NATIONAL

BUREAU OF STANDARDS

by M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, and Staff

The Office of Weights and Measures, operating within the Institute for Applied Technology

of the National Bureau of Standards, functions in the following fields of reference:

(a) Technical services to the States and to business and industry in the area of

measurement.

(b) The design, construction, and use of

standards of weight and measure and

of instruments associated with such

standards.

(c) The development of testing equipment

and techniques.

( d ) The consideration of measurement problems.

(e) The training of State and local officials in the technical

aspects of weights and measures programs.

(f ) The collection, arrangement, and dissemination of data on

units and systems of measurement, and on standards, testing

equipment, procedures, and technical investigations.

The Office of Weights and Measures staff presently is made up, in

addition to the Chief, of four engineers, a technical coordinator, a

technical writer, an engineering aid, and five stenographers. Each

of the men will participate in this report to you.

First, a brief report on a special item. During October of 1963, we

undertook, on an experimental basis, a device manufacturers' technical

seminar. Scale manufacturers were invited to send to Washington

either their top service official or their national weights and measures

representative, or both, to participate in a 2-day seminar on weights

and measures. Approximately 40 individuals responded under the

gentle but firm prodding of Arthur Sanders, head of the Scale Manu37
facturers Association. We spent two rather vigorous days exploring

weights and measures laws, regulations, and methods of inspection.

The response to the seminar was enthusiastic, and more of the same

seems to be indicated.

Now, to look at certain specific phases of our program and to favor

you with brief presentations by other members of our staff. H. F. Wollin, Engineer

Tomorrow's Facilities for Standards and Measurement

As you drive along interstate route 70S about 25 miles northwest

from downtown Washington, D.C., through the lovely Maryland

countryside, you will notice an impressive group of buildings shaping

the skyline that once was dominated by farms and farmland. In this

setting will be located the new National Bureau of Standards. During

this presentation I shall try to convey an impression of this highly

respected scientific institution—looking at its past, present, and particularly to its future at the new site. In 1901, Congress, in response to the demands of many engineers,

manufacturers, scientists, and representatives of National and State

Governments established the National Bureau of Standards—using

the Treasury Department's Office of Weights and Measures as the

nucleus for the new Bureau. The first, and most urgent, task of the

Bureau was to create the central basis for a national system of physical

measurement. Before this time, it was common practice for Ainerican

manufacturers as well as our own Government to send abroad for

calibrated apparatus and standards which could not be obtained in this

country. Even so, our industrialists in that period of the industrial

revolution were reluctant to rely on calibration of precision measuring

instruments in foreign laboratories.

The groups to be served by the specialized services of the National

Bureau of Standards were well defined by the Congress at the time the

Bureau was founded. The Committee on Coinage, Weights, and

Measures, in recommending to the House of Representatives in May

of 1900, that a National Bureau of Standards be established, reported

It is therefore the unanimous opinion of your committee that no more essential aid could be given to manufacturing, commerce, the makers of scientific apparatus, the scientific work of the Government, of schools, colleges, and universities,

than by the establishment of the institution proposed in this bill. And so it was. The Bureau, consisting of three buildings, costing,

with equipment, approximately $700,000, was located on a 7.5 acre

tract of land about 3.5 miles from the center of the city in a northwest

suburb of Washington. According to a publication of that time, the

object in going out of the city was to secure freedom from disturbances

due to city traffic and also to be free from electrical currents common

to the modern city. Incidentally, this sounds familiar. Similar

reasons were given 60 years later—and justifiably—for the relocation

in Maryland.

Back at the turn of the century, we started out with a meter bar and

kilogram. They were our national standards and, of course, we still have them today along with literally hundreds of other standards that

have been developed. And the end is not in sight. In fact, our job

in measurement will never be finished as long as science moves forward

38
into new areas, and technology exploits the^e new areas to the benefit

of society.

As an example, years ago many production parts were manufactured

to tolerances of one thousandth of an inch. To achieve this precision,

men needed to set their calipers with gage blocks that were accurate to one ten-thousandth of an inch. As mass production pushed forward,

dimensions of interchangeable parts became increasingly critical. Today tolerances for many elements—fuel injectors, bearings, gyroscopes, transistors—are expressed in hundred-thousandths or even

millionths of an inch. Master standards must be even more precise,

since accuracy is lost at each stage of calibration. Machine tool

makers now request that NBS calibrate their master gage blocks to one

part in one million.

Our standard time and frequency broadcasts are now controlled by

an atomic clock that has a precision of one second in 3,000 years. When the Bureau first opened, there was no Government research

laboratory in the fields of physics and engineering, and so it was probably inevitable that other Government agencies would turn to NBS,

from time to time, for advice and assistance in technical problems in

these areas. This service function is actually written into our enabling

legislation, and is responsible for many of the unusual jobs we have

accepted. Our early work in testing and evaluating materials for use by other Government agencies led to a broader program of cooperation

with industrial standardization groups in giving the technical backup

for industrial standards.

In 1904 the American Chemical Society asked the Bureau to develop

standards of purity for chemical reagents. A year later the American

Foundrymen's Association turned over a project on the standardization of cast iron. From these beginnings has come the standard

reference materials program of the Bureau, which now provides almost

600 different standard samples of materials to industrial, university,

and Government laboratories. These materials include metals, ores, chemicals, spectroscopic standards, radioactivity standards— all analyzed and certified by NBS as to their composition, or with respect to some chemical or physical property. The standard materials are used

to check the accuracy of analytical methods, for example, and are

invaluable in a quality control program.

During the first two decades of its existence, the Bureau, in addition

to its basic research and measurement work, carried on a great many

industrial research activities. Typical were projects focused on lubricating oils, automotive engineering, refrigeration, electrolysis, corrosion, properties of steels, ceramics, industrial coatings, rubber, textiles,

paper, and glass. The efforts in these fields were withdrawn or greatly

reduced as industry developed its own research capabilities.

In World War I, the Bureau engaged in the actual production of

gage blocks and optical glass, because normal supply lines for the

Nation were cut off. We also tested aircraft engines in the first simulated-altitude laboratory, and developed sound-ranging equipment to locate the position of enemy artillery for purposes of counterfire direction.

The industrial problems encountered during World War I led, in the

next two decades, to greater efforts by NBS in the field of standards of

practice, standards of performance, codes, and specifications. This

39
work included a long effort devoted to screw thread standardization

j and the development of the National Electrical Safety Code. At the same time, of course, measurement work and basic research continued

to be a large part of the Bureau's activity.

World War II was a different kind of war, reflecting a greatly

advanced technology, and the Bureau's efforts were shaped accordingly. 1 I am sure some of you have heard the story of the letter Albert Einstein

wrote to President Roosevelt suggesting the possibility that the principle of atomic fission might be exploited into the development of a weapon. President Roosevelt appointed a committee of scientists to investigate and to report on the subject. The committee was chaired

by Dr. Lyman J. Briggs, the Director of the National Bureau of

Standards. This led to the establishment of the Manhattan Project.

The work of Bureau scientists in developing methods for the purification of uranium was important in the development of an atomic bomb.

Incidentally, intelligence gathered after the War indicated that one

of the primary reasons for the failure of German efforts to develop an

atomic bomb was due to their decision that materials with the required

purity simply could not be produced. What a different world we

might have been living in today had these decisions been reversed ! Other projects during World War II included the development of

the radio proximity fuze for nonrotating projectiles and the work on

the first guided missile actually used in warfare, the Navy BAT.

A most important development after the second World War involved

NBS as an institution. This was the transfer of the military research

programs to the Department of Defense, and led to a reemphasis of our oldest responsibility, providing the central basis for the Nation's

system of physical measurement. The result was a concentration of

basic research and basic measurement standards. This reorientation

of the Bureau was a wise move in helping us meet our responsibilities

of the space age, which opened so dramatically in the fall of 1957. Thus it is seen that over the 60 years of its existence the Bureau has

constantly examined itself, its mission, and its responsibilities, and

has reshaped its efforts to meet national needs as necessary and appropriate. Several years ago, such reevaluation involved the Bureau's

physical as well as its organizational structure. From the physical

standpoint, it was determined that the Bureau facilities in Washington

were too small and had grown too old for the demands of the future.

The crowded buildings, now numbering over 30, were scattered over some 70 acres in an attractive residential area—but it had become a poor location for scientific measurement. The town of Washington

had grown around the Bureau and only a few minutes now separate it from the hub of our great Capital City. For these and many other j obvious reasons, the decision to move the Bureau was made.

In 1956, 550 acres of carefully selected land were purchased, and J planning for this massive new facility started to move steadily for- ward. On June 14, 1961 ground-breaking ceremonies were held,

inaugurating Phase I of the construction contracts. Before proceeding further with details on the new physical facilities, let me pause here for a few moments and turn your attention to the organizational structure of NBS which, only a few weeks ago, underwent a major change. Under the new organization, four insti- tutes have been established. They are the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, the Institute for Applied

40
Technology, and the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory. The

new organization was created to permit more effective management,

and to identify NBS activities more closely with the specific needs of

science, industry, and commerce. A chart of the new NBS organization, showing the general programs

under each Institute, is found in figure 1. The Bureau is headed by the

Director, Dr. Allen V. Astin, with, as his Deputy Director, Dr. Irl C. Schoonover. Each Institute has its own Director and is nearly auton- omous in operation.

The Institute for Basic Standards is responsible for those longstanding programs in the field of basic measurement standards—activities which grew out of the meter bar and kilogram we started with in 1901. This Institute also includes the recently established National Standard

Reference Data Program, which is planned to provide the country's

scientists and engineers the reference data they need, when and where

they need it. The Institute for Materials Research combines our programs in

chemistry and metallurgy, aimed at developing reliable and uniform

methods of measurement for the properties of materials. Such data

are essential for improving the efficiency of production processes in

modern industrial technology.

The Central Radio Propagation Laboratory, located at Boulder,

Colorado, has a national responsibility for conducting research and

DIRECTOR

INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDAROS

OFFICE OF STANDARD

REFERENCE

DATA

1

INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

I

OFFICE OF STANDARD

REFERENCE

MATERIALS

CENTRAL RADIO PROPAGATION —

i

LABORATORY*

DIVISIONS: ELECTRICITY METROLOGY

HEAT

RADIATION PHYSICS MECHANICS

APPLIED MATHEMATICS

ATOMIC PHYSICS

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY LABORATORY ASTROPHYSICS*

RADIO STANDARDS LABORATORY*

RADIO STANDARDS PHYSICS*

RADIO STANDARDS ENGINEERING*

DIVISIONS: ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY POLYMERS METALLURGY

INORGANIC MATERIALS REACTOR RADIATIONS CRYOGENICS*

INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY

OFFICE OF TECHNICAL

SERVICES

TECHNICAL

DOCUMENTATION CENTER

DIVISIONS: IONOSPHERE RESEARCH AND PROPAGATION *

TROPOSPHERE AND SPACE TELECOMMUNICATIONS 1 RADIO SYSTEMS*

UPPER ATMOSPHERE AND

SPACE PHYSICS*

OFFICE

OF INDUSTRIAL SERVICES

OFFICE OF OFFICE WEIGHTS OF AND ENGINEERING MEASURES STANDARDS

TEXTILES AND APPAREL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

DIVISIONS: BUILDING RESEARCH

INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGY

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE TEST DEVELOPMENT

INSTRUMENTATION TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

^LOCATED AT BOULDER, COLO. Figure 1. NBS organizational chart. 41

747-830 O - 65 - 4
disseminating information on the propagation of radio waves along

the surface of earth, through the atmosphere, and in outer space. It serves the military and space programs, radio and television broadcasters, and the communications industry in general.

The Institute for Applied Technology will bring together some

previously scattered NBS activities, such as building research, instrumentation, data processing systems, and engineering standards. The

Office of Weights and Measures, that unit of the Bureau that I represent and whose activities are known to most of you, is well suited to

this Institute. To these programs are added such industry-oriented

operations, as the Civilian Technology Program in Textiles and the

Office of Technical Services, both of which have previously been administered under the Office of the Secretary of Commerce.

We remain, therefore, a scientific and technological institution, the

organization being keyed to serve science, engineering, Government,

and commerce, with interests from the supermarket scale to the struc- ture of the atomic nucleus.

Shown in figure 2 is a scale model and general layout of the new

Bureau grounds and buildings. There will be 20 major buildings having a total assignable space of 1.2 million square feet. Total cost will run about $105 million. The staff will number over 3,000 employees.

Construction of the facilities, which began in 1961, was divided into

four phases. We are well along in Phase II and if present schedules

are adhered to, we can expect completion by the latter part of 1966. Here briefly is a breakdown of each phase

Phase I—Included excavation and development of the site grounds,

and construction of the Power Plant, the Engineering Mechanics

Building, and a Nuclear Reactor. Phase II—Saw the start of the Administration Building, the Supply

and Plant Building, Instrument Shops Building, Service Building,

and the Radiation Physics Laboratory.

Figure 2. Architect's model of NBS.

42
Phase III—Will include construction of the seven General Purpose

Laboratory buildings.

Phase IV—Final construction will include several special-purpose

laboratories, identified as the Fluid Mechanics, Sound, Industrial, and

Hazard buildings.

The landscaping of the grounds has started and will be carried on

through each phase. Many trees and shrubs have been planted, seeded

lawns are growing around completed buildings, and even a small lake

is planned near the central combine of buildings. It should be a truly

attractive installation when all is done.

An architect's rendering of the Administration Building, shown in

figure 3, pictures a long, low building with extensions for an Auditorium, Cafeteria, and Library, and with an 11-story tower for offices. The Director's office and most management activities will be housed in

this building. The Office of Weights and Measures will be located on

the seventh floor of the tower. Also included will be classrooms and

lecture rooms, in addition to the main auditorium a smaller one seat- ing 300, a studio in which motion pictures will be produced and from

which television science shows can originate, a computer, a museum of

NBS contributions to science, and, of course, the vault displaying the

national standards of measurement.

Figure 4 shows a view of the General Purpose Laboratories. There

will be seven such buildings, comprising about half the total space

at the new facility. The seven buildings will have three floors above

ground, and will be joined to one another and to the Administration

and Shop Buildings by glass-enclosed connection corridors. These

modern laboratories are of a modular design, having a network of

movable metal partitions, and containing all necessary laboratory

utilities and services. The major part of the Bureau's technical program will be carried out by the divisions housed in the General Purpose Laboratories. There are a few activities of special character and

of interest to this group that I shall discuss shortly. First, let me tell you about some of the other buildings. The Supply and Plant Divisions will be located in a very large one-story building that covers about

3 acres of ground. The Supply Division is concerned with procurement and distribution of all equipment, materials, and supplies. The

Plant Division operates, maintains, and repairs the physical facilities at NBS.

" J There will be an Instrument Shops Building where machinists,

welders, instrument makers, and glassblowers, will combine their tools and skills to produce the instruments and equipment needed in the

work of every scientist. A most fascinating and important research activity will be centered

in the Radiation Physics Building, figure 5. Kadiation Physics is concerned with three main areas of work: Research with radiation

produced by high energy accelerators and sources ; research on radioactive materials; and electronic instrumentation and investigations.

A new powerful electron linear accelerator (called the LINAC) will

be installed and will produce one of the world's most intense highenergy electron beams. In a nutshell, NBS will soon be able to establish standards, develop measurement techniques, and determine shielding requirements for the high radiation dose rates that are now being

employed by industry to do such things as sterilize pharmaceuticals,

preserve food, polymerize plastics, and vulcanize rubber.

43
Figure 3. Administration building—drawing.

Figure 4. General purpose laboratories. The reactor complex, a separate installation, will include a high-flux [ research nuclear reactor that will enable the Bureau to fulfill its growing responsibilities in the many rapidly expanding fields of atomic

energy. This installation will be shared with other government

agencies in the Washington area that also do work in this field. The Engineering Mechanics Building is shown in figure 6. This is presently the temporary home of the Office of Weights and Meas44
Figure 5. Radiation physics laboratory.

Figure 6. Engineering mechanics building. ures—and is a center of activity familiar to many of you. Once

again the Office of Weights and Measures was privileged to in- augurate the beginning of a new era. We pioneered the move to the new NBS site, moving into this building shortly after it was opened

last October. Our permanent location, as mentioned earlier, will be

in the Administration Building.

Another familiar activity, located in a wing of this building is per-

! formed by the Mass and Volume Section of the Metrology Division.

; This section has the standards and equipment for precise and efficient large mass calibration up to 50,000 pounds for a single object. Three
Figure 7. Calibration of large weights for deadweight testing machine. new stainless steel standards of 10,000-pound, 20,000-pound, and

30,000-pound denominations have been procured recently. A new 50- ton capacity platform scale has been installed in the laboratory along

with several other new scales and balances. The new facilities have

increased the capabilities to handle large mass calibrations—particularly those needed by the space and aircraft industries. Plans are also being made to develop methods and equipment such that large mass

calibrations could be done by others away from NBS when desired,

with sufficient precision and accuracy to meet their own special re- quirements. Experimental work along these lines is underway with

both multiple lever scales and elastic weighing devices. With respect

to large mass, as well as small mass, increased attention is being given

to provide service that will satisfy the specific needs and requirements

of those who submit standards for calibration. These and other in- novations under consideration point up the progress that can be looked

for in mass calibrations at the new NBS.

The measuring of forces is a large part of the Mechanics Division

program. It is, in fact, a large operation in more ways than one. Force measurement work and structural research requires complex,

heavy equipment that makes special demands on the building design.

The Engineering Mechanics Building has a very large test area, which

is necessary to house some of the giant testing machines. The ceiling

is nearly 100 feet high.

A spectacular new 12-million-pound vertical testing machine will soon be installed for use in the calibration of force measuring devices

above 1 million pounds. The loads to be applied by this giant maj chine are measured by previously calibrated load cells. NBS will now ! be able to calibrate more accurately devices used to measure the thrust

of jet engines, and rocket motors, and the weighing systems of large

missile launching sites. Also, large sample parts of structures, bridge

columns, and steel beams can be tested on the machine for resistance to the forces of compression, tension, and flexure. 46
A huge horizontal testing machine will be installed near the vertical

testing machine. This machine will have a capacity of 2,300,000

pounds in compression and 1,150,000 pounds in tension. It will be

operated hydraulically and will take specimens up to 33 feet in length.

Safer buildings, bridges, and other structures and a more economical

use of materials are made possible through the tests conducted with

this type machine.

One of the most important features of the new Engineering Mechanics Building will be the installation of seven deadweight testing

machines, ranging in capacities from 10,000 pounds to 1,000,000

pounds. The largest machine the Bureau presently has in operation

in its old location has a capacity of only 111,000 pounds.

Some of the weights for the deadweight machines have been delivered and are now undergoing calibration as seen in figure 7. Incidentally, these weights are made of stainless steel and range in de-

! nominations up to 30,000 pounds each.

Deadweight t esting machines are used to test the force-measuring

devices employed as secondary standards in industrial or scientific programs throughout the Nation. Force-measuring devices, such as proving rings and load cells, are now widely applied in everything

from automatic machinery control to space exploration weighing.

Calibration of these devices and NBS services in force measurement

work has been immeasurably improved by the creation of the new

facility.

The history of measurement at the National Bureau of Standards is

! one which we at the Bureau look upon with considerable pride. The

meter bar and kilogram have taken us a long way over these past

| 60 years. But, as one chapter in its history closes, a new chapter now

begins to unfold for the National Bureau of Standards. We eagerly

await completion of the new facilities and the challenge of tomorrow's

demands for standards and measurement.

D. R. Mackay, Engineer

Odometer Investigation

In January 1962, shortly after the problem of inaccurate odometers

in rental automobiles was discussed at the interim meeting of the

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, a technical investigation was initiated by the Office of Weights and Measures. The investigation involved (1) the development and calibration of standard test- ing equipment, (2) the development of standard testing procedures,

(3) the determination of the accuracy of odometers on rental automobiles and trucks, (4) the identification of the factors that affect odometer accuracy, and (5) the development of technical requirements

for the consideration of the States. A report of this investigation was made to the National Conference last year during the Friday

morning session, along with the report of other OWM projects. Later,

a written report was published as an NBS Technical Note. The investigation was not terminated at that time but was continued

at the specific request of the automobile manufacturing industry.

This industry, speaking through the Odometer-Speedometer Committee of the Automobile Manufacturers Association, urged that efI forts be made toward developing a single vehicle speed for odometer

testing, and that further studies be conducted on tolerances. The

47
Odometer Subcommittee of this A.M.A. Committee specifically re- quested that the National Bureau of Standards : First, develop detailed

test procedures for weights and measures officials which would be

acceptable to the industry ; second, conduct further tests coordinately

with the industry so that independently derived data could be compared; and finally, work toward mutually agreeable odometer re- quirements. The last part of this request was predicated on the as- sumption that all odometer specification requirements would have to be changed in order to comply with the requirements established for

commercial vehicles.

During the course of the tests conducted by the Office of Weights

and Measures and those conducted by the industry, it was definitely

determined that there was a significant difference between the results derived from those tests conducted with the simulated-road testing

device and the results derived from the tests conducted with the fifth wheel. (It is probable that these differences were caused by the new

passenger tire designs involving two-ply tires with four-ply ratings.

These tires are currently being used by the industry to provide a "softer" ride. The "softer" tires caused a significantly smaller roll- ing radius on the simulator than on the road. ) The differences between

the results derived from the use of the two types of testing equipment were neither sufficiently patterned to allow mathematical correction nor directly relatable to tire pressure so as to permit pressure- adjustment reconcilability. Also, the use of front wheel drives for

certain automobile odometers precludes the use of the simulator for I testing these vehicles. The limitations of the simulator were described

to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee at the interim meeting

in February.

The results of the studies conducted jointly but separately by the

Office of Weights and Measures and by the automobile industry

proved : (1) that the test procedures developed by OWM were entirely

acceptable, (2) that a single speed for odometer testing was entirely

feasible, and (3) that the simulator should not be used for odometer

testing.

These results were reported to the Specifications and Tolerances

Committee along with OWM recommendations concerning the amend- , ment of the Code for Mileage-Measuring Devices.

The Office of Weights and Measures will continue to cooperate with

the automobile industry in this area of measurement and will conduct ' or participate in further tests as the need arises. Any information

resulting from such tests will be promptly reported to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee.

Latin American Situation For a number of years, the National Bureau of Standards has been

involved in a program of cooperating with Latin American countries te in developing standards and establishing standards programs in the ' ^ fields of physical measurement and properties of materials. NBS ffl has felt that such a program would promote and strengthen inter- ! 0j American cooperation in science and technology and ultimately it ! j would increase commerce between the United States and Latin | sr American countries. This program is based on the same principles | ^ as our Alliance for Progress programs of increased assistance to our

hemispheric neighbors to the South.

48
There has been considerable interest and some activity in the weights

and measures phase of this Latin American program. You may re- member that Mr. Jensen and I made a trip through five Central and

South American countries during May of 1962. The purpose of this

trip was to survey weights and measures conditions in these five countries, and we found that there certainly was a need for an asI sistance program in the weights and measures area. To date, the Bureau's contribution in the weights and measures field has been centered in three activities: Translations, standards, and

training. The translation of certain weights and measures documents

into Spanish and Portuguese was deemed to be appropriate because

of the complete lack of such publications in the various Latin American

countries. Contracts were signed in 1962 for translating the Model

Law, the Model Package Regulation, Handbooks 44, 67, and 82 and

certain other publications into both Spanish and Portuguese. These

! documents will be published soon. The Office of Weights and Measures was asked to design a set of prototype metric standards appropriate for use as national weights and

measures standards. The designs developed for the new State standards program were revised to metric denominations and modified to some further extent to incorporate improvements which evolved

through the use of the original prototypes. Purchase specifications were written and a complete set of mass, length, and capacity standards, including appropriate balances and other instruments, were

ordered. Plans are currently being considered to display these standj ards in Latin American countries.

The third area of NBS participation in this program has been in

| the training of weights and measures officials from various nations.

Programs have been developed to suit the individual needs of the

trainees. The training period has been as short as a few weeks or as long as six months, and has involved both administrative and technical

procedures.

The future of the total weights and measures program for the

Latin American nations depends on the interest of these nations in the

program, and upon the support received from our Department of State.

It is interesting to note, however, that there has been increasing interest on the part of the United States officials, both in Washington and

in the embassies abroad, in the weights and measures assistance

program.

R. N. Smith, Technical Coordinator

Technical Training

Most of the members of this Conference are aware that one of the

basic missions of the Office of Weights and Measures is providing

technical services to State and local weights and measures officials, to agencies of the Federal Government, and to others affected by, or

interested in, weights and measures standardization and control. One

of the principal means by which the Office of Weights and Measures

implements this mission is by providing technical training for State

and local officials. Since about 1954, when our formal training pro-

|l gram was started, we have consistently felt that the program should

i be expanded to enable us to reach a greater number of officials on a wider variety of subjects.

49
As weights and measures enforcement work has become more tech- nical and specialized, the need for careful selection and training of

qualified personnel has increased proportionately.

TTe realize that, with our limited staff' and facilities, we cannot begin

to handle the total training effort required, but it is our hope that,

through method improvement (such as refining content presentation

to its maximum efficiency) , we can assist all jurisdicitons in establishing and maintaining adequate training programs on a continuing

basis. Our assistance in the training effort takes many forms. During the

past year OWM staff members conducted formal training schools in

the States of California, Montana, Xorth Dakota, South Carolina,

Arkansas, Kansas, New York, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia. These schools, held at the request of the States, are directed

principally to the field inspector, and usually concentrate on field examination procedures.

Field training was conducted in a number of other States on specific

devices or on special package checking procedures. For example,

training sessions have recently been held on the testing of odometers

and slow-flow meters. At the request of the States, one of our engi- neers is sent to the jurisdiction to conduct laboratory and field training with the personnel who will be engaged in the control of the devices. This training may include advice in the purchase of, and

assistance in setting up, special test equipment before the actual test- ing is undertaken. Time allotted to a particular activity is dictated

by the needs of the individual jurisdiction.

Training on proper procedures for checking special packages is con- ducted as the need arises. In this phase of our activity, two staff members will usually arrange to spend a day or more with the officials engaged in package checking in the jurisdiction. Examples of

special packages are (1) viscous or semi-viscous products sold by

volume, such as mayonnaise, (2) products sold by count or sheets but

checked by weight, such as facial tissues or notebook paper, and (3)

products sold by net drained weight, such as olives. Visits were made to still other States to discuss informally, with

directors and staff, particular areas of their total programs. Any

existing or planned activity may be covered during such a discussion.

Possibly a new program has been started or new areas of responsibility

added to an existing program. New physical facilities may be planned

for the administrative offices or laboratory area, or both. Perhaps

it is the desire of the director to revamp job descriptions and explore

the areas of responsibility of his inspectors. He may want to have his

men specialize in certain areas and add new personnel in others. Any

and all such items are discussed in what we term our "technical visits." TVe find such visits quite helpful to us; through them, we are able to keep abreast of the activities and the needs of the weights and measures officials of the States, counties, and cities. Assistance was given to the Committee on Education in developing

a Home Study Course for weights and measures officials. Planned

study outlines were supplied with appropriate examination questions.

The widespread use of the Home Study Course by weights and measures officials has been gratifving to the Committee and the staff of

OWM.

The first technical presentation, titled "The Examination of a 50
Computing Scale," has been developed by the Office of Weights and

Measures and is available for loan or purchase. Audio and visual

instruction is given in a step by step procedure as recommended in the

Examination Procedure Outline for a Computing Scale. This will be

shown to the Conference on Friday morning. The second presentation on the "Examination of a Single Service Gasoline Pump" is under development now, and future presentations on other commercial devices

are planned. These training aids are designed to lend themselves to individual or group instruction and are designed to be used both by

weights and measures officials and industry service personnel.

The Examination Procedure Outline series has been revised and

brought up-to-date with two new outlines added. Copies of the

outlines are available without charge from the Office of Weights and

Measures.

It appears that the plans and the resources for comprehensive technical training are available. The effectiveness of such training rests with the administrator in each of the many jurisdictions. We stand

ready and willing to assist you if you will make us aware of your individual needs. The rewards for training effort are substantial : Professional confidence, public recognition, prestige, dignity, and, most

importantly, Statewide, and then nationwide, uniformity.

S. Hasko, Engineer

The Development of a Technical Investigation

The development of a technical investigation may be compared to

| being dropped off in a strange, uninhabited wilderness and told to make

your way to a described area 40 miles due north. Your objective has

been defined and now it is up to you to determine the fastest route to your rendezvous. If the terrain between you and your destination is intertwined with rivers, mountains, and dense forests, a straight line approach may be a possibility ; however, its practicality may be limited.

| One would be inclined to generally follow the path of least resistance even if a considerable amount of zigzagging were necessary. On oc- casions, when confronted with a wide, swiftly moving stream or a steep

mountain, it may be advisable to retreat and climb a hill to survey

the terrain for possible fords across the stream or passes around the

mountain. It is not unusual to find ourselves backing up to get the

entire problem in the proper perspective or to see if we have over- looked a simpler solution. However, we must first know where we

are going or what we are trying to do.

Thus, in the development of a technical investigation the first questions that should be answered before anything is done are, "What

are we trying to accomplish or prove?" and "Why are we trying to do

this?" We must have definite ideas concerning this primary objective; otherwise, we will be floundering about in a sea of confusion.

The importance of a clearly defined objective cannot be overemphasized. It is the cornerstone upon which the entire investigation is laid. With the purpose of the investigation clearly defined, a flurry of

I activity is initiated to review the history, literature, and work avail-

! able on the problem or subject. The purpose is threefold : First, it

I thoroughly familiarizes the experimenter with the subject or problem

51
(in many cases his initial knowledge may he limited) . Second, it aids

the investigator to plot wisely his course of action and avoid the repetition of good sound work by others (it is also a timesaver in that it will probably answer many questions raised in his mind) ; and finally,

in surveying the work of others, the development of new ideas and

approaches is stimulated.

Having completed the literature and work survey, it may be advantageous to visit other laboratories or plants with kindred interests

in order to gain first-hand knowledge, the latest information, and to have questions answered that have been plaguing the investigator.

These visits are frequently referred to as "brain-picking" expeditions,

for obvious reasons. A general informal get-together with the supervisor and other

qualified investigators will result in a "brain-storming" session that

will put to severe test any proposed plans. In addition, it will serve

as a source of suggestions and ideas, some of which will have considerable merit.

At this point, it is practical to establish limits, boundaries, parameters, or whatever you choose to call them. They will serve as the

ground rules for the investigation. Thus, we try to qualify, or pin

definitions onto, all specialized terms, properties, equipment, materials, etc. This will avoid any drifting tendencies that would cast a shadow of uncertainty over the investigation.

Since it is possible that no blanket method will be applicable to the

entire problem, a classification system should be considered to permit

flexibility in the solution. In addition, special problems may have

to be considered.

Wherever possible, a theoretical approach is developed and the

experimental methods are designed to remain within this theoretical

framework.

Thus far, very little actual experimental work has been performed.

Available and newly developed techniques are now evaluated. Modifications are made of some of these techniques and they are reevaluated. The overall results are now analyzed on a statistical basis for

validity (accuracy, or precision) and for pertinence (i.e., whether or not a test has measured an intended property). Other criteria are: Simplicity, specific advantages, or disadvantages. Additional modifications or techniques may be needed if the initial methods prove

unsatisfactory.

While it is axiomatic that no stone should be left unturned in an

investigation, it is good common sense to intelligently apply "screen- ing" and "leap-frogging" procedures to cover as much ground as possible in the development of experimental techniques. As stated by

B. N. McQuate in his Basic Rules for System Engineering, "A quick

good design is better than a protracted best design" ; and, "Measurement, not argument, will lead to improvement." Sir Robert WatsonWatts, developer of radar, once said, "Give them the third best to get on with; the best never comes, and the next best comes too late." Thus, one must avoid falling into the trap of spending too much time

in trying to optimize a method to a high degree in the early stages of

the investigation.

The most satisfactory method or technique is selected and the experiment is designed. Where no one method is outstanding, two or more

methods may be employed. The design of the experiment is the

52
proving ground of a technique, method, or piece of equipment. If

properly carried out, it will reveal any shortcomings.

An appropriate and representative sample selection now is made.

The known variables—such as time, temperature, humidity, pressure,

effect of operator, distribution of samples—must be carefully controlled. In many cases, the effect of some of the variables is negligible

and may be discounted. In other cases the variables may have a pro- nounced effect on the results (i.e., hygroscopic materials versus humid

atmosphere or volume expansion versus temperature). The effect of the variables may be determined by the inclusion of a controlled

limited range of any variable in the design of the experiment.

With the experimental work completed, the effect of the variables

under the same controlled conditions within each set of runs is studied.

The study is aided by the preparation of tables and graphs. The data

are carefully analyzed to extract as many significant generalizations

as possible. The possible sources of experimental error are reviewed.

Ranges of uncertainty surrounding experimental values are developed.

The investigator now is able to show how his work may or may not

provide a solution to the problem. If the latter is the case, the work

will serve as a guide for additional new or modified techniques. If a

satisfactory solution is developed for the problem, a list of recommendations is prepared.

This is one approach to the development of a technical investigation. L. J. Chisholm, Technical Writer

Tech Memo

It could very well be that the first question that occurred to many of

you on hearing a Tech Memo mentioned is, What is it? Our Tech

Memo is still a fledgling enterprise ; there have been two issues so far, one in August of last year, and another this past February.

The Tech Memo is a multilithed publication with a title design in

red, superimposed on a screened photograph of the architectural model

of the new National Bureau of Standards Gaithersburg site. In this

Tech Memo we include information of both technical and nontechnical

nature that we feel will be useful to the weights and measures official. The philosophy behind the Tech Memo, the reason for its creation, was expressed very well by Harold Wollin in his talk before the

Western Weights and Measures Association in August 1963. Although Harold was not speaking specifically of the Tech Memo, what

he said then very specifically applies to it, and to our hopes for it. In a talk that discussed cooperation and communication in the

weights and measures field, it was stated that we should give effort to forming a network of communications, and these should be of two

kinds: The first should be a network of information extending from

Federal through State to local, and back again ; the second should be one that flows between State directors.

In this latter category, there are, of course, several quite good newsletters. In the former category—information between Federal, State,

and local officials—we are publishing the Tech Memo in the hope that

it will, at least partially, fill the need for a formalized distribution of

information.

Weights and measures is concerned with uniformity; the concept

53
of uniformity is, of course, implicit in all of our work. And I think

it has also become true that now, in our generation, effective uniformity

is inseparable from effective communication. In the flow of commerce

today, innovations, alterations, and new concepts come at a fast and

furious pace, and effective communication has become indispensable

to our work.

This pinpoints the philosophy behind our Tech Memo, and our hopes for what it will become. The main subject matter that will go

into the Tech Memo is implied by its name. We will report on technical studies, investigations, and problems, usually those that are of

national scope and pertinent to the whole field. We feel that if our

technical studies can be effectively communicated to the weights and

measures officials throughout the Nation, they can perhaps provide an automatically beneficial effect to weights and measures work.

With a national information source such as the Tech Memo now

available, we can eventually form a line of communication that we hope

may save you some headaches and, in general, keep everyone informed

as to what we are doing. Items covered in the first two Tech Memos

concerned, for example, such things as our aerosol and odometer

studies, two subjects on which discussion is still very current at this

49th Conference. Also, we included a few not-so-technical items, for

instance, the historic Jefferson Report and the Adams Report. We feel that knowledge of the history of what has made weights and measures what it is today has an important effect on today's activities. Paradoxically, the effect of a historical understanding of weights and

measures cannot often easily be measured ; but a study of weights and

measures history can bring about a vivid appreciation of why many

weights and measures problems have developed into what they are now. And quite often, this historical knowledge can lead one to a more direct practical solution to a problem.

We also have been, and will continue to be, printing in the Tech

Memo interesting little stories that we may run across from time to time. We receive, in our office, several bulletins, magazines, periodicals,

publications of all kinds from other countries, and we feel that re- printing translated short articles from these sources might be interesting also. A knowledge of what other countries do about their

weights and measures problems can often provide perspective on our own.The Tech Memo has started out as a limited-circulation publication.

What this means is that the Tech Memo is sent only to State weights

and measures offices, to offices of cities and counties with populations

of 200,000 or more, and to officers and standing committee members

of this Conference. It is our sincere hope that all State offices will

duplicate each Memo for distribution to each active official, State and

local. We will, of course, do our best to make the Tech Memo a publication that is worth duplicating.

The Tech Memo will not be issued as a periodical. It will be issued

as the need for it arises, as information of interest to you comes up. If two Tech Memos are needed in any given month, then two can be

published. We like this freedom of frequency of publication ; without

the pain and strain that comes with being required to publish a certain

number of words by a certain date, we are able to publish only those

items which will be, we hope, interesting and pertinent to weights and

measures officials. 54
Eight now would be a good time to ask you to send us any comments

or suggestions that may occur to you concerning the Tech Memo. We

can assure you that any comments mailed to us will be thoughtfully

considered. This is your Tech Memo, and we'd like to hear your ideas

about it. The Metric System in the United States I bought some gas for my car the other day and they charged me

for it by the gallon, and that is about the most pertinent thing that can presently be said about the current status of the metric system.

However, significant developments continue to occur and I'll take

a few minutes here to sum them up for you.

On the legislative front, there have been entered, in this current

session of Congress, four bills advocating a study "to determine the

practicability and desirability of the adoption by the United States of the metric system of weights and measures." Three of these proposals were House bills and one was a Senate bill ; all are fairly similar

in wording. They call for the National Bureau of Standards to con- duct extensive comparative studies of the standards of weights and

measures used in scientific, engineering, manufacturing, and commercial areas and in educational institutions; to determine the economic

advantages of a general change to the metric system ; to cooperate with

foreign governments in determining the advantages in international

trade and commerce to be derived from a universal standardized sys- tem of weights and measures; and to investigate the attitudes of the

departments and agencies of the Federal Government and of the

several States with respect to possible practical difficulties which

might be encountered in accomplishing a change.

The only bill on which any action has been taken so far is the Senate

bill, S. 1278, sponsored by Senator Claiborne Pell of Khode Island.

Hearings were held on this bill, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, the first half of the hearings being held on January 7, 1964.

At that time, witnesses who appeared before the committee were Dr.

A. V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards, Alexander H.

Flax, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (who represented the Department of Defense), Lansing Simmons from the American Geophysical Union, the President of the Metric Association, Mr. Eobert

Fischelis, and Senator Pell himself. The second half of the hearings,

to be held primarily for spokesmen who are opposed to metric adoption, was scheduled for May 19 but was cancelled for lack of witnesses.

Aside from the usual human resistance to change, per se, I don't

believe that opposition to metric adoption has as much to do with the

relative merits of the metric system as it does with fear of the great

costs involved in changing. However, I don't know if it's ever been

shown to anyone's satisfaction whether or not metric adoption would

cost as much as some of the estimates suggest, or whether it would cost a lot less. This is one issue that a nationwide study would provide

valuable help in resolving.

In other nonlegislative areas, use of the metric system continues to increase in our country, following an evolutionary progression that, to a great extent, characterizes weights and measures history in the

United States. I don't think that anyone could deny it, or even make a good case against it, if I stated that, at this point in U.S. history, there is 55
just as much a chance that the metric system will come into general

use through an evolutionary development as there is a chance of its being legislated into use. One thing supporting such a hypothesis is our relative economic

self-sufficiency. This was a matter of concern to the British Standards Institution recently. A survey conducted by them indicated that

British industry was ready to go along with metric adoption in

that country. But when the question arose as to whether a deci- sion to change should be made dependent on a parallel decision by

the United States, many of those supporting a change argued that

Britain should not await a decision from us because, due to our

relative self-sufficiency (exports account for only about 3 percent of our Gross National Product and wr e are able to domestically produce

most of our necessities) , we can afford to go much more slowly than

they can. In summary, the use of the metric system in the United States today is confined to particular areas. It is, of course, used almost

exclusively in scientific work, all the major pharmaceutical companies

have practically converted to its use, and the U.S. Army is eliminating

its inch-millimeter quotations, in favor of the metric, for weaponry

purposes. Teaching of the metric system is increasing in the schools,

particularly at the elementary level. The National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics has given emphasis and support to both

teaching of the metric system and its national adoption. The American Society for Testing and Materials has decided to publish metric

equivalents in all its publicatons, and many other publications, too numerous to list here, publish only in metric units. As a general concluding statement, it can be said that, at the

levels of most industry, commerce and trade, the U.S. "customary"

units (yard-pound-gallon) continue to enjoy exclusive use, with few

exceptions.

W. C. Bandy, Federal-State Technical Services

Federal-State Technical Services Although it is true that I am a newcomer to Mr. Jensen's office, I

actually began working for the National Bureau of Standards in

April 1960. My work, until about a month ago, was devoted to the

detailed planning of our new home near Gaithersburg, Maryland,

which Harold Wollin described so well to you a few minutes ago. For the past four years, I was Chief of the Gaithersburg Planning

Group, which is a small office of engineers and draftsmen serving

as liaison between the National Bureau of Standards and the firm of

architects and engineers who designed the functional aspects of the new buildings around the information we supplied to them. I can

honestly say that I saw those massive, complex structures develop

from the merest embryo, through the planning and design phases,

into the final construction stages now underway at Gaithersburg. I am very happy to have had a part in such a large undertaking. Without question, my previous job was a most challenging and interesting one to me as a civil engineer.

However, that part of my career is now behind me, and I believe it is only natural to look forward with even more enthusiasm to the

56
new job facing me. My immediate task will be to organize and

direct a new office which will work with and assist the States to solve

local and regional industrial problems, whenever possible, by direct

applications of recent advances in science and technology.

Perhaps some of you are aware that a Conference on State Science

and Technology was held here in Washington last February in the

i new Smithsonian Museum of History and Technology. This Conference was sponsored by the Department of Commerce and its ex- press purpose was to explore what the States and others are now

doing to stimulate technological progress in industry, to explore what

I more could be done, and to determine what the Federal Government

can properly and effectively do to support State programs that are engaged in actively promoting technological progress. The speakers who were invited to participate in the Conference were selected to present the views of some of our leading universities,

j industries, State governments, and the Federal Government. The

I State Governors gave their wholehearted support to the Conference

and delegates from 44 of the 50 States were in attendance, as were

representatives from several of our Federal agencies. The response

and enthusiasm exhibited at the Conference, as well as the many letters

1 we have since received, clearly indicate the need for an energetic program in this area. One of the official recommendations coming out of the Conference was that the Department of Commerce should establish a permanent

secretariat to serve as a central information source, thus providing

for an interchange of information about the activities within the

I different States and regions in technological matters. This office

i would also plan and conduct a National Conference on State Science

and Technology on an annual basis, and help to arrange regional

I I meetings when and where required. In accordance with this recommendation, the Department of Commerce assigned this function to the National Bureau of Standards. Our Director, Dr. Astin, rec- ognizing that distinct similarities in administrative and operational

I characteristics existed between the new program and the Office of

Weights and Measures, asked Mr. Jensen to assume this additional

responsibility. It was understood, of course, that a new office would

be required, operating under Mr. Jensen's general supervision, but

without direct relationship to the Office of Weights and Measures.

I've been in the office for slightly more than a month now, and I am

beginning to get a better feeling for the enormousness of the job to be done. First of all, personal contacts must be established in each

of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These

; contacts must be with responsible people both in the engineering

departments of State universities, and in the State governments.

The States must then be grouped into meaningful regions, acceptable

to all member States, so that regional problems can be identified,

discussed, and solved if possible, at regional conferences.

As I said in the beginning, the role of the Federal Government will

be to assist the States to solve their own problems by bringing to

their attention pertinent developments arising out of national research

and development efforts, to provide them with a technological refer-

| ence source when they need it, and otherwise to provide help and

; advice upon request. Obviously, only a few problems can be ade-

| quately considered at national conferences. Therefore, the regional

57

747-830 O - 65 - 5
conferences will be of prime importance if the Federal-State Tech- j nical Services program is to bear fruit. One of the most important things we must remember is that indus- ! trial technological progress sometimes brings about deemphasis of

certain skills and trades which can result in serious areas of unem- \ ployment, as in the coal mining industry. If we are to avoid sim- i liar problems in the future, establishment of new science-oriented

industries must be encouraged, and displaced workers must be re- trained in new skills. As you can see, there is a significant service to be performed here, 1 one of great importance to the entire country. I hope that my efforts will contribute to the success of this endeavor.

Mr. Jensen : That covers, in general terms, our program as admin- ' istered by our professional staff—all except one, the fellow who does ! most of the work and who has this afternoon handled the slide projector—John Griffith, our Engineering Aid.

As we reported to this Conference last year, we intend to pursue a vigorous publications program. We feel that an investigation or a I development is really completed only after it is available to you in a

useful form. During the year we have completed and had issued ! Miscellaneous Publication 247, Weights and Measures Standards of

the United States, and two Technical Notes—195, Report on Technical

Investigation of Odometers, and 196, Report of the Investigation of

Slow-Flow Meters for Fuel Oil Distribution Systems. We also have j prepared articles for the Scale Journal and other technical periodicals. \ At the printer now, and soon to be released, are Handbook 94, Examination of Weighing Equipment (the successor to Handbook 37), and i Handbook 98, Examination of Farm Milk Tanks.

The latter is the first of a series of small, pocket-size handbooks on i measuring devices that, in total, will succeed Handbook 45, Testing of \ su Measuring Equipment. We decided to publish these as small, indi- ( w vidual handbooks for the convenience of the official and because, at the j pr industry level, there is no true relationship between farm tanks and \ i taximeters, for example.

We have in preparation, and soon to be handed to the printer, a | w handbook on LP Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices and one on MileageMeasuring Devices.

During the coming year we expect to prepare several additional

handbooks in the measuring-device series, a publication on units and

systems of weights and measures, additional Tech Memos, and other

j publications, as the need arises. Many of you received a request from us for assistance in the lumber j area, and you responded magnificently. We were asked by the Director | to undertake an operational responsibility in determining the appropriateness and acceptability of a new standard for softwood lumber.

This turned out to be quite a job, requiring thousands of hours of staff time and tens of thousands of items of correspondence and other forms | of communication. I want to thank each of you for going to the : trouble that you obviously did in developing the information that we needed.

Finally, to maintain continuing knowledgeability and to provide

j experienced expertise in the special fields, I have assigned, as staff [ assistants to the standing committees of the Conference, individuals !
with particularly appropriate backgrounds and capabilities. Dick

Smith will serve the Committee on Education, Harold Wollin the

Committee on Laws and Regulations, and Don Mackay the Committee

on Specifications and Tolerances. I will continue as secretary to each

of the committees and, together with the assigned staff assistant, will

provide each committee all possible help.

As you already know, next year the Conference will celebrate its Golden Anniversary—50 years of service to the people of this great

Nation. We will plan a very special program and will offer the first national exhibit of weights and measures standards, testing equipment,

devices, and techniques. We earnestly and sincerely solicit your ideas

and your advice.

It seems appropriate at this very special time to take a serious look

at this National Conference of ours. Are there some changes in for- mat, in plan, in program that might make it more effective, a more useful tool to nationwide uniformity, effectiveness, and efficiency in

weights and measures supervision ? I should like to issue a challenge to the States, counties, and cities,

and to our associates in industry and business, to give us the ideas to make the National Conference exactly the meeting you want it to be. Give us your thoughts, in person or in writing. Let's not be bound

by tradition to the extent that we are sacrificing improvements.

That, then, constitutes the report of the Office of Weights and

Measures to this, the 49th National Conference. As most of you

know, ours is a double mission—on the one hand, to prosecute vigorously a program aimed at bringing the measurements throughout the

Nation into accord with the National standards of measurement; on

the other hand, to provide technical assistance to the weights and

measures officials of the States, counties, and cities, and to the busi- nesses and industries interested in or affected by weights and measures

supervision. Stated simply, our aim is to serve you. To do this best, we, of course, need your help, your requests, your identification of

problem areas. You may be confident that ours will be a diligent

effort and that together we will work for, and our efforts will result

in, uniformity, equity, and effectiveness in our field, the field of

weights and measures.

59
MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1964

(W. E. Czaia, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

ACTIVITIES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IN THE WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES FIELD

(1) Food and Drug Administration

by V. H. Blomqtjist, Assistant Chief, Food Technology Branch, Dim- \ sion of Food Standards and Additives, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

There are several provisions of the Food, | Drug, and Cosmetic Act that may- be of special

j interest to you in considering the quantity of

contents of food products. Three of these re- late to misbranding and one to adulteration.

Not all of them may apply to every food product, and the weights and measures officials should consider those that are applicable to the

particular product in question.

The first requirement is that the product shall bear "an accurate statement of quantity of the

contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count . . ." This applies to all foods and

drugs in package form. Our regulations have interpreted this as per- i mitting a statement either of average net contents or, if so indicated,

of minimum contents. In the latter instance, no variation below the

declared minimum is legally tolerated. The exception is dealt with

in Section 1.8 (j) which provides for variation below the stated weight

or measure caused by ordinary and customary exposure to conditions

which normally occur in good distribution practice and which unavoidably result in decreased weight or measure. Similarly, Section 1.8 (k)

permits variations from stated weight or measure where the statement

does not express the minimum quantity, but an average. Where the

net contents statement expresses the average of the lot, this average

shall be met, except as just stated, but variations above and below this

average may be expected in individual containers. The extent of the j variations is limited by good manufacturing practice for the particular i product. This may change somewhat over the years as packaging ma- I terials, techniques, and filling equipment improve. In any event there

should be no unreasonable variation below the declared net contents

in any container.

Regulations have dealt with the fill of containers and it might be

well to review here some of the more important parts of these regula- 1 tions. They are available in full by writing to the Food and Drug

Administration.

I wish to quote from pertinent paragraphs of the General Regula- j tions

Section 1.8(e) (1) The statement of quantity of the contents shall reveal the quantity of food in the package, exclusive of wrappers and other material j packed with such food. Section 1.8(e) (2) The statement shall be expressed in the terms of weight, measure, numerical count, or a combination of numerical count and weight or 60

f
measure, which are generally used by consumers to express quantity of such

food and which give accurate information as to the quantity thereof. But if no

general consumer usage in expressing accurate information as to the quantity

of such food exists, the statement shall be in terms of liquid measure if the food

is liquid, or in terms of weight if the food is solid, semi-solid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid; except that such statement may be in terms of dry measure if the food is a fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, or other dry commodity.

The Kegulations further state that "A statement of weight shall be

in terms of avoirdupois pound and ounce. A statement of liquid measi ure shall be in terms of the United States gallon of 231 cubic inches

and quart, pint, and fluid ounce subdivisions thereof, and, except in case of frozen food which is so consumed, shall express the volume at 68° Fahrenheit (20° Centigrade) . A statement of dry measure shall be in terms of the United States bushel of 2150.42 cubic inches and peck,

dry quart, and dry pint subdivisions thereof ..." In some cases numerical count may be adequate. In others it may be necessary to

j include, in addition, a statement of weight, measure or size of the in- dividual unit. For units of less than one-half ounce, the quantity of

contents statement may be omitted.

"Section 1.8(g) Statements shall contain only such fractions as are

generally used in expressing the quantity of the food. A common frac- tion shall be reduced to its lowest terms ; a decimal fraction shall not be

carried out to more than two places." Examples of declaring contents

are also included in the general regulation, but the short length of

time allocated to me here precludes going into detail. The industry has had little difficulty in meeting the requirements of

the Act insofar as declaring contents is concerned.

A second provision of the Act of interest to the weights and measures

I official is that which defines a food as misbranded if its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading. In interpreting this provision of the Act we are still guided by a policy that was enunciated

under the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 in Food and Inspection Decision 144, issued May 27, 1912. We expressed the opinion that "The

can in canned food products serves not only as a container, but also as

! an index of the quantity of food therein. It should be as full of food

as practicable for packing and processing without injuring the quality

or appearance of the contents." This brings us to the third provision of the Act touching upon quantity of contents. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized to promulgate reasonable standards of fill of container for

processed foods. Food is misbranded if it purports to be, or is repre- sented as, a food for which a standard of fill of container has been

prescribed when the article falls below such standard of fill, unless it bears labeling stating that fact. Several such standards have been established for fill of containers.

Examples are canned fruit cocktail, canned oysters, canned shrimp,

canned tuna, canned mushrooms, and canned tomatoes. The fourth requirement has to do with adulteration. Many canned

foods consist of a solid characterizing ingredient in a liquid packing

medium. The requirements I have touched upon so far relate to the

I total quantity of the combination. Obviously, the quantity of the

I

I more valuable solid characterizing ingredient may vary within a can which is well filled with total contents. Abuse may occur from excess packing media. The consumer may not be dealt with fairly in this

61
respect. We still need to develop objective measures of fill for the

solid portion rather than to attempt to rely on directions which are

indefinite. Those standards covering foods with a packing medium should pro- vide the maximum practicable quantity of the solid food ingredient

and no more packing medium than is necessary for proper processing.

Owing to a number of technical difficulties it has not been easy to write

such standards with meaningful requirements that can be determined

objectively. Food and Inspection Decision 144 has already been mentioned. It states

Food may require the addition of water, brine, sugar, or sirup, either to combine with the food for its proper preparation or for the purpose of sterilization

for instance, peas. In this case the can should be packed as full as practicable

with the peas and should contain only sufficient liquid to fill the interstices and

cover the product.

Canned foods, therefore, will be deemed to be adulterated if they are found to contain water, brine, sirup, sauce, or similar substances in excess of the amount

necessary for their proper preparation and sterilization. This principle was later incorporated in that provision of the 1938

Act under Sections 402(b) and defines food as adulterated " (1) If any

valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted

therefrom; or (2) if any substance has been substituted wholly or in

part therefor or . . . (4) if any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce

its quality or strength, or make it appear better or of greater value than

it is." In summary, a food for which a standard of fill of container is in

effect becomes misbranded if it contains headspace or packing media

in excess of that permitted by the standard, unless it is labeled in a

specified manner to show that it is substandard in fill. An unstandardized food may, also, be misbranded if it has excessive

headspace or may be judged adulterated if it contains an excess quantity of packing medium. This charge imposes a greater burden of

proof upon the Government than is the case in showing that the specific

terms of a standard of fill have not been met. A greater penalty falls upon the claimant since there is no provision in the law for relabeling

these goods found to be so adulterated.

In closing let me say that we are encouraged by the steps that have

been taken by the National Bureau of Standards to convert from the

English system of weights and measures to the metric system. The

Food and Drug Administration, while requiring the quantity of contents to be declared in terms of the English system, permits supplementing this with a statement in the metric system. The change would

eliminate much confusion in our scientific and enforcement activities. DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM M. Greenspan : In your first statement on food and drugs in package form, you mention that there is a permitted average of short weight

caused by ordinary and customary exposure to conditions occurring

in good distribution practice. Who is to be the judge of what is good

practice and what is ordinary and customary exposure ? Mr. Blomqtjist : We just recently conducted some surveys on several

types of foods where we actually went out to the factories where the

food was packaged. The food was packaged under commercial con- 62
ditions, and was stored along with large shipments of the same food,

properly identified in the shipment and shipped by various means to various parts of the country, and weighed at predetermined intervals over a period extending somewhat beyond the expected shelf life of

the product. This is the type of data on which we would base our

definitions of the terms "good practice" and "customary exposure."

Mr. Greenspan : You mention testing that FDA has done. Are the

data from this testing available, specifically, to us weights and

measures officials? Mr. Blomquist : I will speak for the Federal-State Relations Office

of the FDA and state that we are preparing to make some of these data

available to the State and local enforcement people as they are developed. Much of our data is very old and would not serve a very

useful purpose at this time, but we are now getting back into the eco- nomic field, which was largely curtailed in the early 1950's, and it is

I not very easy to start up quickly again. More and more of this in- formation will be made available to officials in the United States. G. L. Johnson : On labeling, would you consider a quantity state- ment of "32 ounces" as being a proper statement of quantity ? Mr. Blomquist : No.

J. F. Lyles : Does the Food and Drug Administration require the

word "liquid" to appear in the net quantity statements for quarts and

pints? For example, on a quart jar of mayonnaise do you require the

word "liquid" to appear in the quantity statement ? Mr. Blomquist: No, I don't believe that we have required that. As a matter of fact, if it is in fluid ounces the statement itself defines

the terminology, so that in the case of mayonnaise if it is a pint, it is

i 16 fluid ounces, and that is liquid measure. To answer your question a little bit more extensively, we have said

here that if it is a mixture of a liquid and a solid then it must be

declared in terms of weight.

L. W. Vezina : Isn't mayonnaise a semi-solid ? How can we measure

that as liquid?

Mr. Blomquist : There is a regulation that permits declaration ac- cording to customary usage. For terminology that has been used

through the years, we make exceptions. The regulations permit this, as in the case of cottage cheese. Here you have a product that in the

eastern part of the country is sold by weight and in the western part

of the United States is sold by volume. This is a result of customary

usage.

i

! 63
(2) Federal Trade Commission

by C. R. Moore, Assistant Director, Bureau of Field Operations,

Federal Trade Commission

It is an honor and a pleasure to again respond | to your invitation to address you briefly con- i cerning activities of the Federal Trade Commission that relate, in a general way, to weights

and measures. The Federal Trade Commission responsibili-

; ties under the laws it administers fall into two

major categories which, for convenience, are designated (1) deceptive practices and (2) re- ' straint of trade. It is in the first category that | our duties come closest to your work as weights

and measures officials. My comments will re- late to some of those deceptive practices that I thought would be of most interest to you. For the benefit of those who are not acquainted with the FTC and

the laws it administers I shall begin by briefly commenting on those

subjects.

The FTC was created by the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. ! It consists of five Commissioners and is presided over by a Chairman | who, in addition to the regular duties of a Commissioner, has primary j responsibility for administering operations of the agency. The Com- i missioners are appointed for a period of seven years and those appoint- j ments are staggered in such a way that, normally, the majority of the

j body has substantial experience in execution of the laws entrusted to the Commission. Experience is important for, in performing its i statutory duties to business and the consuming public, the Commission

has very wide jurisdiction and discretion and its holdings profoundly

affect the economy of the Nation and consumer welfare. The Commission is a quasi-judicial administrative body. Its formal remedies,

with few exceptions, are civil rather than criminal. However, in those i instances where it appears that the public interest will be adequately j served, and the alleged violator is cooperative, the agency also employs I various informal, more economical and expeditious procedures to ! effect the discontinuance of practices that appear to be illegal.

The statutes administered by the FTC are the Federal Trade Commission Act, a broad statute declaring "unfair methods of competi- j tion . . . and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce" to be I illegal; the amended Clayton Act, which prohibits certain business

practices that substantially lessen competition or tend to create a | monopoly; the Webb-Pomerene Act, which exempts export trade ! associations from some aspects of the Sherman Act ; and the so-called "Truth in Fabrics and Furs Statutes," which relates to the labeling and | advertising of textiles and furs ; the Flammable Fabrics Act, which

prohibits introduction of articles or wearing apparel and fabrics into ! commerce that do not meet specified standards of safety as to flam- ! mability ; and there are some statutes of lesser significance.

These laws have as their basic purposes the preservation and pro- i motion of our free enterprise system of economy (1) by keeping it ! open to all who wish to enter, and competitively fair and (2) by the j

t 64

!

!
protection of the consuming public from unethical business practices.

Moving to areas of FTC activity that have a relationship to subjects

of this meeting, I call attention to the fact that Section 5 of the FTC

Act, referred to above, is the weapon utilized by the Commission to prohibit a vast multitude of acts and practices which are connected

with trade in interstate commerce. As you will notice from the above

quotation from Section 5, it does not delineate specific illegal acts but

broadly prohibits "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices," and the Commission has the responsibility of

defining and prohibiting business practices that arise from time to time

which fit into those categories. In the fifty years of its existence the

Commission has built up a large volume of precedents under this statute that are of inestimable value as guides to the business community and as protection to the consuming public.

Among the practices that have been condemned under the provisions

of this statute are not only a large number of restraints of trade but a multitude of unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices,

including such practices as false disparagement of competitors and

their merchandise ; deceptive pricing practices, misrepresentation of or

failure to observe the terms of guarantees ; passing off the products of one as those of another ; use of deceptive trade or commodity names

;

promotions of fake land and housing development schemes ; skip-tracer

schemes; failure to disclose foreign origin of certain products; misrepresentation as to relationship with the Federal Government; misrepresentation of value and recognition given to correspondence school

courses ; trying to enforce payment for unordered merchandise ; failure

to deliver merchandise that has been advertised; bait advertising;

misrepresenting therapeutic value of drugs, devices and cosmetics and

the nutritional properties of foods ; slack fillings, short measurements

and other forms of deceptive packaging.

For many years the Commission has dealt with the question of slack

filling. Products that have been considered in this connection have a wide range and include fertilizer, foods, crayons, Christmas snow,

envelopes, soaps and other cleansing agents, shaving cream, dental cream, suntan cream, shoe polish, cans of gasoline, etc. Eelated matters include misrepresentations as to dimensions of

rugs, tents, awnings and sleeping bags ; the length or total number of

inches of wrapping paper, rolls of tape and yarns; packing toilet water so as to create the impression they are perfumes ; misrepresenting precious metal contents of jewelry and watch cases. There is also a large body of corrective action involving deception as

to composition or true identity of products. Some of those are dealt

with under the above-mentioned provisions of Section 5 of the FTC

Act and others by application of the textile and fur statutes. Examples

in this category include use of the word leather or terminology suggesting leather to identify imitation leather; use of term "rubber" or its phonetic equivalent to identify plastic products ; use of term "diamondite" to identify clear or white sapphires; identifying products made

of hardboard as "mahogany" and "walnut" wood ; passing off veneer

as solid wood and shellacked paper or plastic photographed to look like

wood veneer or leather as wood veneer and leather ; passing off "Philippine Mahogany" as genuine mahogany ; describing tinted pictures as

oil paintings; misrepresenting feather and down contents of pillows

and down content of arctic wearing apparel ; labeling cultured pearls

65
as natural pearls ; unqualified designation of a product as solder when | it contains no metals ; selling rebuilt TV tubes as new and second and

reject TV tubes as first grade.

Years ago a line of garments made of fabrics which very closely

resembled genuine furs was being offered under names indicating they were made from furs. Fur garments made from hundreds of scraps i of fur were sold without disclosure of this fact. Less desirable furs were being sold under names connoting the more expensive furs. These

and other deceptive practices gave rise to the Fur Products Labeling

Act, which rather strictly controls labeling and advertising of furs. The practice of misrepresenting less desirable fabrics as wool and

other higher quality fabrics gave rise to the Wool Products Labeling

and Textile Fiber Identification Acts. We yet have a substantial volume of cases under these fur and textile ' laws where composition is misrepresented. These "truth in textiles I and furs laws" not only prohibit certain practices but require affirmative disclosures of composition of the products to which they apply. ! They cover furs and practically all fabrics.

These applications of the Federal Trade Commission and the other

Acts just discussed are, in many respects, like your administration of

weights and measures laws. The Commission's laws are broader in

their coverage. Not infrequently State authorities call our attention to violations

that cannot be handled under State laws. Such cooperation is appreciated. For your information, should you wish to call such matters to the attention of the Commission, I will state briefly the conditions that

must obtain for the Commission to initiate corrective action. First, ! the act or practice involved must be condemned by a statute administered by the Commission ; second, the act or practice must generally be

in interstate commerce; and third, the act or practice must not be

de minimus in nature, i.e., it must possess sufficient public interest to justify use of public funds in giving it attention.

During the many years I have been associated with the enforcement j of that part of FTC's work that is broadly designated as deceptive

| practices, it has been my pleasant duty to work closely with officials I of many agencies of the Federal and State Governments. Many other

members of the Commission's staff have had similar experiences. We ! of the Commission's staff wish to express our appreciation for valuable

assistance given us by all government agencies, at all levels, and to assure you that we are always willing to collaborate with other Federal 1 and State Government agencies, wherever possible, especially in areas ! of common responsibility in law enforcement.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM

I. Reich : I have a question to ask about aerosol products. To what

extent does the Federal Trade Commission concern itself with net weight labeling, and to what extent is this handled by the States, and

what degree of overlap exists ? Mr. Moore : The responsibility of the Federal Trade Commission \ would rest upon this principle: If there is any deception associated

with that label, it would be FTC's responsibility to stop. it. It probably

overlaps, in a large measure, the States' responsibilities in that area,

j The only difficulty with aerosol products is determining just what does

constitute a full and meaningful disclosure to the purchaser. So far as
the law is concerned, it is clear. Our responsibility is to eliminate any

possible deception that is associated with statements made on the label or any advertisement. The factual test is, what does the prospective

customer expect to receive? That is, what are his impressions as to

j what he will get when he reads an advertisement for the product or

sees the product on a shelf ? If he receives less, he is deceived.

II (3) Internal Revenue Service by E. O. Jolin, Chief, Basic Permit and Trade Practice Branch,

AIcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Internal Revenue Service. I have been asked to appear on your program

to discuss certain Internal Revenue Service

activities in the field of labeling controls dealing

with net contents which may be of interest to State weights and measures officials. I think it safe to say that the Federal Government exercises a greater degree of control not

only over the taxation of liquor, but over the

packaging of liquor as it relates to consumer

deception than that which is applied to any

H other commodity.

Jm In the field of packaging and labeling, the

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division's statutory

authority derives from two sources : first, from the Internal Revenue

Code which, as the title indicates, is concerned with the collection of

j the revenue and its protection ; and second, from the Federal Alcohol

Administration Act which is primarily a consumer and trade regula1 tion statute. The first depends upon, and is issued under, the taxing

power conveyed to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The

second, on the other hand, depends primarily upon the Federal power

to regulate interstate commerce.

Regulations issued under authority of the revenue statute require statements of contents on labels of alcoholic beverages, articles made

from specially denatured alcohol, and tobacco products (in terms of

volume, weight, or count, as the case may be) , to facilitate verification,

by Internal Revenue audit, of the quantities produced, packaged, and

removed from the place of manufacture or packaging. These requirements, under the internal revenue laws, are designed to assure proper

I collection of the revenue and to prevent fraud on the revenue through

the removal of nontax-paid products.

In contrast, the regulations issued under authority of the Federal

Alcohol Administration Act require statements of net contents on labels of distilled spirits, wines, and malt beverages imported into the United

States or bottled therein for introduction into interstate commerce ; and

the regulations specify the manner and form of stating such contents on labels. Thus, the alcoholic beverage labeling controls were designed by

Congress to insure that the purchaser will get what he thinks he is

| getting, and that representations on labels will be honest, straightfor-

| ward, and truthful. They are, not confined to prohibitions of falsity,

but they also provide for informing the consumer of what is in the

67
bottle, and all of the important factors which are of interest to him

about what is in the bottle. Perhaps a word as to the background of this statute will serve to explain the reasons for the detailed consideration given to consumer

protection in liquor labeling and advertising. In his proclamation

declaring the repeal of Prohibition, President Roosevelt announced 1 that it would be the policy of the Federal Government to see to it that

the social and political evils that existed in the liquor field prior to the

Prohibition era should not be revived or permitted again to exist. Among the legislative measures designed to effectuate this policy is the

Federal Alcohol Administration Act. Adulteration, misbranding and

deceptive advertising had been recognized among the evils which had

existed in the liquor industry. The Act is based on congressional find- ings that protection of the consumer in the alcoholic beverage field is imperative because the tradition of past practice in the industry, the

ease with which its product can be adulterated, sophisticated, misbranded, and the relatively high value, provide extraordinary incentives to ignore legal requirements. The Congress also found that the

public could not be protected from unscrupulous advertising and from

deceptive labeling practices without the imposition of appropriate

Federal controls, including the imposition of such relatively drastic

enforcement measures as a Federal permit system.

The labeling requirements under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act are enforced at the source by means of certificates of label approval issued by the Internal Revenue Service and required to be

exhibited by the bottler or importer to the Government officer concerned

to effect the release of the goods from the bottling premises or Customs

custody, as the case may be. The regulations, with respect to standards of fill and labeling of net contents on packages, have undergone

very little change since they were first issued in 1935 and 1936. The regulations impose substantially similar labeling requirements

with respect to distilled spirits, wine, and malt beverages; all are aimed at preventing deception of the consumer with respect to the

net contents of the package, as well as the origin and identity of the

product, the kind of product in the package, and the identity of the

j producer, bottler, or importer responsible for the product.

As to net contents, the regulations provide that statements of net contents need not appear on labels if permanently marked on the

container itself. As to products not required to be bottled in standard size containers, the regulations require the net contents to be stated

(a) In the case of wine, in terms of gallons, quarts, and pints, with i fractional quantities stated in fluid ounces, except for containers, of li/>, 1, and i/2 liter capacities; and

(b) in the case of distilled spirits and malt beverages, the same

rule applies except that no recognition is given the metric

system, and net contents may, if desired, be stated in fractions

of gallons, quarts, or pints, instead of in fluid ounces. In all cases, fractions are required to be reduced to the lowest com- mon denominator.

The following standard size containers have been prescribed for

domestically bottled wines

68
2 ounces % quart

3 ounces 1 quart

4 ounces y2 gallon

% pint % gallon

y2 pint 1 gallon

% pint 3 gallons

1 pint 4.9 gallons.

Aperitif wines (such as Vermouth) may also be packaged in containers of i%6 quart.

For distilled spirits (whether imported in bottles or bottled in this

country), other than cordials, liqueurs, and prepared specialties:

Viopint % quart

Ys pint 1 quart

y2 pint y2 gallon

% pint 1 gallon.

1 pint

Brandy may also be packaged in %6-pint bottles. Standard bottles are required to bear a net contents statement conforming to the standard. As to permissible tolerances in the accuracy of the required net

contents statement, the regulations recognize discrepancies in fill occurring in filling in accordance with good commercial practice ; dis- crepancies unavoidably resulting from the difficulty in manufacturing

bottles of uniform capacity; and discrepancies due to differences in

atmospheric conditions unavoidably resulting from the exposure of

alcoholic beverages to evaporation.

However, the regulations specifically provide that containers shall be considered misleading if their actual capacity is substantially less than their apparent capacity, or if packaged in cartons so formed as

to mislead the consumer as to the size of the bottle. Some comment may perhaps be helpful as to why all alcoholic

beverages are not required to be packaged in bottles of standard sizes. As I understand it, after Repeal when these regulations were issued,

standard bottles were not prescribed for wine imported in the bottle

for the reason that any such requirement would have imposed a considerable hardship upon importers. In the wine-producing areas of

Europe, the metric system is employed exclusively. Since European

wines are commonly stored in the bottle for a year or more prior to shipment, the ultimate destination of a particular wine is unknown

when it is bottled. If this country were to impose standards of fill for such wines, they would have to be placed in special bottles for ex- port to the United States, or be rebottled prior to sale in the United

States with possible damage resulting from such rebottling.

In answer to the question as to why cordials and specialty products

have been exempted from the standard size bottle requirements, this

may have resulted from a recognition that such products have tra- ditionally been packaged in bottles of nonconventional shapes and sizes associated with a particular brand or type of product , Perhaps most

typical are the ceramic containers customary for the packaging of

Curacao ; the 2, 3, and 5 compartment bottles, in which a different type

of liqueur is contained in each compartment ; and the delicate Venetian

glass flasks, pottery vases, and figurines associated with particular oldworld liqueurs and cordials.

69
Standard sizes have not been prescribed for beer. At the time the

malt beverage labeling regulations were promulgated by the Federal

Alcohol Administration in 1936, no effort was made to prescribe standards of fill for such products. At that time, the beer can had not yet

made its appearance and beer was either available on draught or

bottled, for the most part, in 12-ounce glass containers and, in the Far

West, in 11-ounce glass containers. Imported bottled beers were packaged in containers of capacities corresponding to British or metric measure. In the late 1930's, 12-ounce cans became popular for the packaging of

beer. In the years following, particularly after World War II, additional sizes of cans and bottles were introduced in certain markets,

and it was represented that unless beer containers were standardized, consumer deception would result. Hearings were held in 1955 to consider the merits of proposals to amend the malt beverage labeling regulations for the purpose of establishing standards of fill to limit the

variety of malt beverage container sizes. The evidence of consumer deception was inconclusive in light of the

long-established and widespread consumer acceptance of many of the

odd sizes (the 6, 8, and 11-ounce containers) in various markets

throughout the country ; a fact which tended to negate any inference

that such sizes were deceptive in those markets. There were indications

that certain sizes were accepted as standard in some areas while other

sizes were regarded as standard in other areas. Therefore, no standard sizes were imposed. It was, however, concluded that possible

abuses in the marketing of so-called odd-size containers could be

avoided by stringent enforcement of the labeling provisions of the malt

beverage regulations which require conspicuous net content statements. In recent years there has been considerable discussion of "slack-fill". You may, therefore, be interested in our controls over "headspace" in

the packaging of alcoholic beverages. Under our wine labeling regulations, headspace cannot exceed 6 percent of the capacity of the bottle,

except in the case of very small containers (2/5 pint), where 10 per- cent or roughly 6/10 ounce is permitted. As to distilled spirits, a maximum headspace of 8 percent is permitted for containers of Vi pint

or larger. These provisions have been in effect since 1936 and there

is no indication that any consumer deception has occurred in this area. In the case of beer, no specific maximum headspace has been prescribed,

but we have followed, as conforming to good commercial practice, the

recommendations of the Glass Container Association, relating to toler- ances in fill. DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM E. K. Slough : I note that the Federal Alcohol Administration Act

has been in force for about 30 years, and I am questioning somewhat

the number of sizes permitted. One that I have always quarreled

with is the one labeled % of a quart, I don't know, but I doubt if anybody here ever went to a store and asked for a % quart of whiskey

or wine. They ask for fifths. Why isn't it labeled a fifth gallon?

Mr. Jolin : I believe it was thought, at the time this requirement was

adopted back in 1935, that the % terminology would be more intel- ligible to the consumer as indicating the relative size of that package

to the quart. I believe also that there are a number of people through70
out the country that have questioned the propriety of this particular

size of container, but I think this reflects a relationship to the British

system of measure. The % U.S. gallon is approximately % Imperial

j gallon which is extensively used in distilled spirits. I think this is why it was recognized in the United States, particularly in relation to

! Scotch whiskey and Canadian whiskey, and it later became more or

j less standard for the domestic product because of competitive practices.

Mr. Slough : I am also questioning the desirability of containers like

I the 1 %6 quart and % pint, and so on. Mr. Jolin : I think such sizes were desired by American wine indus-

| try in order to compete with some of the foreign brands that were not

subject to the standards of fill. Mr. Slough : We are probably one of their greatest customers. Now

maybe we should say what sizes they should be. Mr. Jolin : Perhaps so, but I think in the case of wine you have a

j little different problem than you have in the case of distilled spirits.

; Do you think it would be proper for a country to require all wines to be rebottled before they enter the country, with possible damage to the

wine?

Mr. Slough : Couldn't they make bottles for the United States trade

and other bottles for their own trade ? Mr. Jolin : Not easily. The wines are bottled and then bottle-aged

for a period of a couple of years before they are marketed. At the

j time of bottling, there is often no knowledge of the destination of the

| wine.

G. L. Johnson : Do you require the name of the packer and the ad-

! dress on all packages of tobacco ? Mr. Jolin : The identity of the packager must be disclosed on the

label ; that is, the tobacco factory number.

Mr. Johnson : But not in all cases the name of the packer ? Mr. Jolin : No. Tobacco is not subject to the same details of regulation as alcoholic beverages. We don't have the same statutory authorI ity for it. (4) USDA—Packers and Stockyards Division by R. D. Thompson, Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch, Packers and

Stockyards Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

It is again my pleasure to appear before this

National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Though I may be a stranger to some of you, I do

not feel that I am a stranger to these Conferences, for I attended my first Conference in 1941

as a representative of the State of Virginia.

I have had the opportunity to attend each

Conference held since that time, and, while

there are always many changes in the personnel

who attend, there has been no change in its basic

objective. That is, to bring together weights

and measures officials from across the nation to exchange ideas, improve our understanding of

71
each others' problems, and to explore the technical and legal aspects of

administering weights and measures laws and regulations.

Within this context, I would like to discuss with you the Packers

and Stockyards Act—its scope, objectives, and relationship to the field of weights and measures. The Packers and Stockyards Act is a Federal fair-trade practice

statute enacted in 1921. Since then, it has been amended on several

occasions, and most recently in 1958. It is administered by our Packers and Stockyards Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service. Its basic purpose is to regulate

the business practices of those engaged in interstate and foreign com- merce in the livestock, poultry, and meat packing industries.

The 1958 amendment to the Act achieved two things. First, it greatly expanded the Act's jurisdiction over livestock marketing to include virtually all stockyards and a greatly increased number of

market agencies and dealers operating in the country. Second, the

amendment established lines of responsibility between the Department

of Agriculture and the Federal Trade Commission covering each

agency's supervision over the business practices associated with live- stock, poultry, and meat marketing.

The amendment transferred to FTC jurisdiction over all products

manufactured or prepared by packers—except meat, meat food products, livestock products in unmanufactured form, and poultry or poultry products. It also gave the Commission primary jurisdiction over the retail sales of these products. In addition, FTC was granted

jurisdiction over the marketing of eggs. The Department of Agriculture, in turn, was given exclusive jurisdiction in the livestock and live poultry marketing fields. USDA also received primary jurisdiction over business practices associated with

the marketing of meat, meat food products, and poultry products on

the wholesale level by those subject to the Act. This latter provision includes jurisdiction over the procurement of

meat and poultry by food chains subject to the Act as meat packers,

but does not extend to their retail sales operations.

Congress did provide that, when either FTC or USDA needs to extend an investigation into the other agency's field, it may do so by

advising the other agency of its intentions. This "hot pursuit" clause, as it is termed, is an important tool in the effective administration of

the Packers and Stockyards Act. In general, the Packers and Stockyards Act prohibits any public

stockyard, market agency, livestock or live poultry dealer, or any meat

or poultry packer subject to the Act, from engaging in any unfair,

unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice. Through regulations

issued under the Act, the rules are set forth which govern fair business

practices and maintain free and open competition.

Xow, let us be more specific as to the activities of the Packers and

Stockyards Division as they relate to weights and measures. False weights are, of course, an unfair and deceptive practice under

the Act. We have, therefore, established certain regulations regarding the testing of livestock scales and the weighing of livestock. For

instance, those subject to the Act are required to have scales which they

own or operate tested semi-annually according to prescribed procedures. Copies of test reports must be filed with the Packers and

Stockyards Division.

72
In this connection, we are receiving excellent cooperation from many

of you in carrying out this semi-annual testing requirement. In some

States, one test is made by the State, and one by a private agency

usually a scale company or independent scale service agency. The

testing procedures prescribed are essentially those recommended by the

National Bureau of Standards. The specifications, tolerances, and

performance requirements we prescribe for livestock scales correspond

closely to the scale code in the National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44. In fact, they are cross-referenced to that publication.

Our Division has made a concerted effort to make our scale requirements reflect, as nearly as possible, those adopted by the majority of

States. We also try to keep you advised of any change in our regulations relative to weights and measures. As an example, during the past year we called your attention to a proposed amendment to our regulations, which was later adopted.

This amendment requires that all livestock scales owned by those subject to the Act be equipped, by January 1, 1965, with either a typeregistering weigh-beam or a dial with a mechanical ticket printer. It further requires that scale tickets be issued on which the weight values

are mechanically stamped or printed.

While this, of itself, will not prevent fraudulent weights, it should

eliminate numerous errors and make the altering of scale tickets more

difficult. A large percentage of livestock scales have been equipped to

issue such stamped scale tickets for many years. Those scale owners whose equipment is not presently in compliance have been advised of

this amendment to the regulations.

In addition to issuing scale testing requirements and instruction, our

Division also issues instructions for weighing livestock and conducts

weighing investigations. In 1963, investigations were conducted at over 200 markets. Thirty-three of these markets were notified by

certified mail to correct their weighing practices.

Formal legal action was undertaken and completed in three cases, resulting in the issuance of cease and desist orders by USDA's Judicial

Officer, and suspension of their registrations—up to 90 days in one

instance.

Consideration is now being given to requiring regular testing of

monorail scales on the kill floor in meat packing plants, which are used

for purchasing livestock on a dressed weight basis. We believe that

many states are now testing such scales, but others do not consider them

to be commercial scales. Our Division also has two additional responsibilities under the Act

one in the field of live poultry weights, and the other dealing with

weights of meat, meat products, and poultry, and poultry products sold on the wholesale level. Frankly, we have heretofore done little in

these fields due to a lack of personnel—a problem familiar to many of

you State officials. However, we are cognizant of our responsibilities

in these fields and are willing to cooperate with you to the extent our

facilities permit. We hope, in time, to devote more attention to this area of work and will do so as the need arises. In closing, I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity to again discuss with you the Packers and Stockyards Act and the activities of our Division. I also wish to again express our appreciation for

the excellent cooperation we have received, and hope to continue to receive from State and local weights and measures officials. 73

747-830 O - 65 - 6
DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM

J. F. True : I notice that you are requiring a type-registering beam j or a dial with a printer on livestock scales under your jurisdiction.

You notified the trade of this, and I wonder if you could give us some

figures on percent of scales that did not already meet this requirement

and thus would have to be changed ? Mr. Thompson : We think that approximately 15 percent of the

scales in the country are not so equipped. There will be something

over a thousand scales that will have to be equipped with printers.

Mr. True : Do I understand correctly that the effective date is January 1,1965?

Mr. Thompson : That is correct. Mr. Greenspan: We receive many shipments of fresh frozen poultry, packed in ice, from other States. Have you established any defij nite procedures as to the methods of draining the ice and weighing the

poultry—anything such as a specified period of drain time and

temperature ? Mr. Thompson : No, frankly we have done very little in this field. We recognize that there is a responsibility here, but we have not had

the staff to initiate this program.

(5) USDA—Meat Inspection Division by C. H. Pals, Director, Meat Inspection Division, Agricultural

Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

The Meat Inspection Division of the United

States Department of Agriculture derives its

j authority over label statements on federally in- spected or imported meat and meat food products from Paragraph 5 of the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, as amended.

Paragraph 5 of this Act provides that information on labels shall not be false or misleading.

* * This principle as applied to statements of conj tents is set forth in the Regulations Governing

\ the Meat Inspection of the United States Department of Agriculture in Paragraph 17.8 (d) . \ This paragraph specifies that statements of content shall not be false or deceptive and also sets forth other requirej ments for labels. One such requirement is that the statement of contents must represent, in terms of avoirdupois weight or liquid measure, the quantity \ of product in the package, exclusive of packing material.

If a label statement expresses a minimum weight, no variation be- low the minimum is permitted under Meat Inspection regulations. j Statements without such qualifications represent the actual quantity.

In this case, variations incident to packaging in accordance with good

commercial practices are permitted. The permitted variations have

been set out in the Manual of Inspection Procedures used by our

j inspectors. In any case, the average shall at least equal the stated net weight.
The inspection program of the Meat Inspection Division has two

unique features that assure accuracy of labeling, including, of course, the net contents statements. First, labels for use in identifying federally inspected or imported meat and meat food products must be

approved before their use and, in the case of imported products, labels must be approved before these are offered for importation. The label- approval function is administered by our Labels and Standards Office

and is a centralized function. Last year over 50,000 new labels were

approved. Because they did not fully comply with requirements, ap- proval was denied nearly 3,000 labels and sketches.

Second, approved labels are applied to products only under the

direct and continuous inspection and supervision of inspectors of the

Meat Inspection Division. The inspectors therefore assume a definite

responsibility of knowing that labels apply to the specific product and

that the consumer can rely on all features of the label being correct. The label review and approval program provides the Meat Inspection Division the opportunity of assuring that net contents statements

are plainly shown on labels and so located as not to be false or misleading. In general, the statement must be located on the principal

display panel, it must properly show net weight or net contents in type

of sufficient size and clarity as to effect prominence and the quantity

must be stated in the largest applicable weight unit. Requirements on type size in relation to label size have not been spelled out because

careful review by trained personnel before label approval offers the

best control regarding prominence, clarity, location and appropriateness of statements. The label should be capable of being read by per- sons with normal vision and under average light.

The contents statement on meat products consisting entirely of

ingredients that are nutritious and suitable for food must represent

the total contents of all ingredients. For example, the net contents of a product labeled, "Beef and Gravy," must include the total weight

of all ingredients. If, however, the product is prepared with a packing substance not customarily used for food, such as water, brine, or

agar, the stated content must represent the quantity of meat or meat

food product, exclusive of the packing material. For example, the

net weight of product labeled, "Vienna Sausage, Packed in Water,"

represents the weight of the vienna sausage, exclusive of the packing

water. Catch weights are permitted on many products. Certain products

have traditionally sold at even weights and on such products catch

weights have not been accepted. For example, sliced bacon may be

packed in one-pound or 8-ounce packages but not in a 15-ounce or 7-ounce package, unless the statement of the quantity of content is featured with the same degree of prominence as the other required features, including the name of the product. The same is true of frankfurters and pork sausage which the customer is accustomed to purchasing at even weights. Another example would be the well known

4-ounce can of vienna sausage packed in water. We found that a 3%-ounce fill in the conventional can used for 4 ounces of sausage was

a deceptive practice. Such practice also frequently resulted in the

product picking up additional water thus causing it to be in violation

for having more than 10 percent added water. The inspection authority over the application of labels and state- ments of contents is an important control. No container may be filled, 75
in whole or in part, and no labels or marks, including statements of

contents, may be applied, except under the supervision of a Meat

Inspection Division employee. The inspector makes sure that the label

is descriptive of the product, and he determines that the contents are

in compliance with Department regulations, and accurately shown

on the label. DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM

J. R. Bird : On some packages of TV dinners, there will be a picture

of quite a few slices of meat. Inside there will be only one slice. How

do you people deal with this ? Dr. Pals : Certainly the illustration on the label must portray the

product that is contained. During the past year we have had to require some corrections in this area. W. A. Scheurer: How many States have intrastate inspection

programs ? Is anything being done to increase intrastate inspection

efficiency ? Dr. Pals : Thirty-four States of the Nation do have inspection pro- grams of some type. Some have only a licensing program, which

requires packers to pay an annual fee for a license. A lot of attention has been given to this. We were asked to report

to Congress last year and did make a report on our findings and sur- vey of the entire country. In the House, Congressman Neal Smith

of Iowa, and in the Senate, Senator Neuberger of Oregon, Senator

Ellender of Louisiana, and a few others have sponsored bills concerned

with this. K. Allen : We make a scale that is used in a number of packing

plants and it is practically identical except for the name of the manufacturer. My question is this : If one label has been approved, and we

are printing another identical label except with a different manufacturer's name, Swift instead of Armour, would that label also be

approved ? Dr. Pals: Each inspector must keep a complete file of approved

labels for any given plant. Now, once you have established a certain

way of printing a label, you can feel quite sure it would be acceptable

for other packers. We do not approve each different weight range,

of course. One of the questions that I hoped to have someone ask this morning

of our friend in the Food and Drug Administration was whether or not

the decision had been made with respect to the decimal system

used on weights. It is being used rather widely in the retail level,

but I do not think there has been any wide usage in the interstate or wholesale level. Mr. Allen : We pioneered the use of the decimals—and permission

for this was set forth in the Food and Drug Act at the time ; this was

back in 1956. Where decimals are used (and it specifically mentions

decimal fractions), it does say they shall be limited to two places.

76
(6) USDA—Poultry Division by H. C. Kennett, Jr., Assistant Chief, Standardisation and Marketing Practices Branch, Poultry Division, Agricultural Marketing

Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture

I am pleased that the Poultry Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture was asked to participate in the 49th National Conference on Weights and Measures, for your organization

is held in the highest esteem by consumers and

regulatory agencies as well as the various regulated industries.

The Agricultural Marketing Service has

provided a variety of services to producers,

processors, and consumers for the past 50 years, with the object of helping to improve the benefits and efficiency of our private marketing

system for farm products. Besides inspection and grading of various

products, and providing market news reports on a great many commodities, Agricultural Marketing Service regulates marketing practices, helps expand markets, conducts research, and carries on many

other special services. Since our agency administers the Poultry Products Inspection Act,

there are certain areas of responsibility in which we share a mutual

interest—indeed, even more than a mutual interest, for it is an area in

which we must augment each other's functions if the consumer is to be truly protected.

There are four basic areas of responsibility that are assigned to us under the Poultry Products Inspection Act. One is to assure that

only wholesome poultry and poultry products prepared from healthy

flocks are shipped from an official plant. Two, we must make sure

that such poultry is processed in a sanitary manner in approved plants

having adequate facilities. Three, we must prevent the movement in

interstate or foreign commerce of products which might be adulterated. And four, we must make sure the labeling of these products

is truthful and informative to the consumer. Included in this last area of responsibility is the requirement that

each immediate container must bear the correct net weight of the

product. This, of course, is the area which I just mentioned where

our services, yours and ours, must augment each other and where we

must cooperate and communicate in every way possible if we are to

realize our common goal. You may wonder why I emphasize this. It

is because we in USDA must make sure the net weight is correct when

the product leaves the official plant, and enters commerce. You must

make sure the net weight is correct when the product is no longer

considered to be in commerce—in other words, at the retail store when

it is sold to the consumer. Immediately, some might say there is a duplication of responsibility.

Not at all ; the weights of some products are not stable and, therefore,

they are in a constant state of flux, the degree of which depends upon

many uncontrollable factors. These include such matters as method

of transportation, time between first weighing and subsequent check

77
weighing, conditions under which the product was held, such as tern- i perature and humidity—and we could list other factors. In addition, this type of product is not normally individually packaged ; therefore, only the shipping container is marked with the total net weight when it leaves the plant. The store then packages this I product for sale to the consumer. Another reason is that some items i are fabricated from inspected products in a given State for sale in

that State. Since interstate commerce is not involved, we have no

jurisdiction; certainly consumers of these products are entitled to protection. I would like to break poultry products into three distinct categories

for the purpose of discussing net weight because each has its own

problems. One category would be poultry products, the weights of

j which are not stabilized. Chilled poultry, commonly known as ice- packed poultry, is an example of this category. The* second category

would be that product, the weight of which is stable, such as frozen

poultry. The third category, one which is becoming increasingly

important, is prepared poultry products such as chicken pies, stuffed

turkeys, etc. Let us discuss chilled poultry. I will purposely keep the discussion

brief in the interest of time. We consider the weight of ice-packed

poultry to be correct if the weight marked on the label is equal to or

less than the actual weight of the product when it leaves the official plant. Chilled or ice-packed poultry, of course, weeps or loses weight | continuously from the time it is processed until it is consumed. We | make sure the weight is correct when the product leaves the plant and

enters commerce. This is all we can do. We do not know where the

product is going, when it will arrive, or any of the other factors which

affect weepage. The final responsibility for correct net weight is yours. For frozen poultry, the situation is somewhat different because the

weight is stabilized. We consider the net weight of frozen products to be correct if the marked weight corresponds to the total frozen weight

of the product minus the packaging material. Some of you may ask

why we do not thaw the bird and deduct this weight along with the

packaging material. There are sound reasons for not doing this. First, we limit the amount of moisture absorption to that which is un- avoidably absorbed in the essential processing operations of washing I and chilling. Second, we know that there is no correlation between

moisture absorption and loss in thawing. One cannot distinguish be- tween loss of absorbed moisture and natural body fluids. It is possible

to thaw birds which have not been washed or chilled and still get a 2 to 3 percent loss of body fluids. I wish we had more time to discuss

this topic because there is more that can be said that would benefit all of us. The third category is prepared poultry products which are products

containing poultry and one or more other ingredients. The net weight of poultry includes the weight of the poultry as well as any in- gredient that might be combined with such poultry. For example,

labels reading "Stuffed Turkey—10 pounds," or "Chicken Pie—

ounces," are correct and not misleading because the name of the product accurately and informatively describes the product, the weight is accurate for the product so described and the label lists the ingredients

in order of diminishing proportions.

It is no easy matter even now for an inspector to assure himself that

78
the markings are correct under the present system. Can you visualize

the weighing operation if the exact weight of the poultry, the peas, the

potatoes, the gravy, etc., had to be listed on a chicken pie or the diffi- culty in administering such a program? The cost in all probability

would be prohibitive and such a move would not serve the best interest

of the consuming public. We should continue to offer the consumer

an ample supply of safe, wholesome, truthfully labeled food of the

highest possible quality at the lowest possible cost. We can also foresee other difficulties which might arise if the weight

of each ingredient in a product had to be accurately indicated. You,

as regulatory officials, would face similar problems. I am not refer- ring only to the mechanics of weighing each ingredient. Using frozen

"Stuffed Turkey," as an example again, it would be necessary to thaw

the product completely in order to accomplish the difficult task of re- moving all of the stuffing. During thawing, the stuffing would absorb some of the weepage from the bird with a resulting change in not only

the original weight of the turkey itself but also the original weight of

the stuffing. Consequently, this weight would always be different

from the weight at time of fabrication. Which is correct ? In addition, this would either require destructive sampling, or in the event

the product were sold, could lead to disastrous results due to the danger

of bacterial contamination.

In closing, I want to again thank you for the opportunity of participating on your program. We in the Poultry Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service are vitally interested in working in close co- operation with regulatory officials like yourselves and would welcome

any information about weight problems you have encountered with

respect to Federally inspected poultry.

While we make every effort to strictly enforce all of the provisions of

the Poultry Products Inspection Act and regulations, we realize there

is always room for improvement so any "leads" from you which we

could pass on to our field supervisory staff would be of great assistance.

This interchange of information would be most helpful to the Department in discharging its responsibility in this field and would be beneficial in achieving our common goal of assuring the consuming public

of accurate weights on the poultry products they purchase.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM M. Greenspan : Recently, New York City instituted action against

packers of turkeys with stuffing. In the State law we require that

meat be sold by net weight, and we do not consider stuffing to be part of

the net weight of the turkey. Last Friday, in the Federal Court, our

contention was upheld.

During the course of this action we had been in touch with the Meat

Inspection Division concerning the labeling. We said we would be

satisfied with a label that stated the net weight of the turkey and, separately, the weight of the stuffing. The Meat Inspection Division said

that that could not be done. In view of this recent decision by the

Federal Court, do you contemplate any change in that ruling?

Mr. Kennett : I am sure when the final litigation of this problem is over that we would comply with whatever is decided.

H. E. Howard : I would like to comment on a situation we have in Florida, where chickens are named instead of graded. When this sys- 79
tern was initiated a couple of years ago, a name like "Canton's Choice,

Grade A Chicken," was registered with the State. Today, Canton's

Choice is Grade C. No one knows any more what these names mean

or what quality they indicate.

Mr. Kennett : Does not most of this labeling take place in the State of Florida ? Me. Howard : No, most of this labeling takes place in another State

at the plant source. To me, it is a big gimmick. I think there is much

Grade B chicken being unloaded in Florida.

Mr. Kennett : We will look into that. I would like more details on this problem.

F. G. Yarbrotjgh: In our area we have had considerable trouble

this year on Grade A fresh dressed fryers processed at various plants, some originating in Mississippi, some in Arkansas, some in Oklahoma,

and many of them in Texas. The weights are determined at the

plant where the chickens are packed in ice and delivered within the

City of Dallas. We have found very sizable shortages, often of as much as 4 to 5 pounds per box of 24 chickens, and we have instituted

prosecutions in quite a few cases and obtained convictions in some

of them, but the processors tell us that the USDA allows the original

weight determinations.

We have a very difficult problem here. What is the position of

your Department in this situation where on Wednesday or Thursday

of one week the chickens are weighed and then delivered in our area perhaps the following Monday or Tuesday with considerable weight

loss having occurred ? Mr. Kenxett: Of course, this is a continuing problem. Every

State has this problem, for the simple fact that the weight of this

type of product is not stable. When you weigh a product on Friday

that was packed on Thursday, the weight is going to be less. However, we don't know how long each box will be in shipment, so this

is a case where all you can do is to make sure it is right when it leaves the plant.

(7) USDA—Milk Marketing Orders Division by H. C. Feddersen- , Deputy Director, Milk Marketing Orders Division, Agricultural Marketing Service. U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Federal milk marketing orders are part of a broad program of commodity agreements and

orders authorized by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 and the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. Marketing agree- ments and orders are in effect also for various

fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts. The milk marketing orders make available

to producers the means for achieving the or- derly marketing of their products. This is ac- complished through the use of terms specified

in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act,

as further developed by public rulemaking.

The core of a Federal milk order is its provision and enforcement

80
of a classified price plan. A classified plan provides for the pricing

of milk based on the way the milk is used by the milk plant. A price

is established for Class I milk—milk used mainly for bottling purposes. This price must be sufficient to induce the production and

delivery to market of the quantity of milk needed to fill bottles

and provide the reserves the market requires. A lower price is estab- lished for Class II milk. This price applies to the reserves and that

other portion of the supply which must go into manufacturing uses, because the seasonal pattern of production and daily patterns of dis- tribution do not agree closely. This so-called Class II price is established at levels competitive wT ith milk of manufacturing quality.

The employment of a class price plan means that all handlers pay

the same price for milk which goes into the same use. A class price

plan limits the possibility of a milk dealer gaining an advantage simply because of the way he may use the milk.

The orders also provide for pooling plans which average out the

returns to producers. Thus, each producer receives the same average

price regardless of how his particular lot of milk is used.

In 1963, about one-half of all milk sold wholesale was regulated

under Federal orders. Under regulation were approximately 2,200

milk handlers receiving milk from almost 180,000 producers, and

serving about 110 million consumers. The terms of each order are carried out in the locally regulated

market by a Federal milk market administrator appointed by the

Secretary of Agriculture. The administrator may be responsible for more than one order and marketing area. The costs of operating

these offices, including salaries, are borne by the local industry rather

than by the Federal government.

Kegulated milk handlers are required to file monthly reports of

their receipts and disposition of milk in each class of use. Since the

producers' returns are determined by the class prices and the amounts

of milk used in each class, the effectiveness and benefits of the milk

marketing order depend directly upon the accuracy of these handler

reports. Verifying the accuracy of these reports, therefore, is one

of the primary responsibilities of market administrators. Verification requires an audit of handlers' books and records and a physical

check on the total volume and content of product quantities received

and disposed of by the regulated plant.

The market administrator is also responsible, and generally is pro- vided with separate funds, for checking the accuracy of weights and

butterfat tests of producers' milk where this service is not being pro- vided by a cooperative association approved by the Secretary to per- form this service. Accurate weights and tests are of concern also to handlers because of their interest that the pricing of milk among all handlers be uniform.

The accuracy of farm tank calibrations is one of the factors which

are useful to us in the development of checks to insure that honest

and accurate prices are being paid. Since producers are paid generally on the basis of dipstick measurements at the farm, several

market administrators' offices are engaged in checking the calibration

of farm tanks. These calibration checks indicate that substantial

percentages of farm tanks are not measuring within the basic toler- ance values adopted by this National Conference at its 1962 meeting.

Wherever calibrations are found which indicate inaccurate measure- 81
ment of milk, the common practice is for the market administrator

to notify the producer, the milk handler, and the weights and measures agency involved. Arrangements for recalibration are left to these interested parties. We know that there are a few instances

in which weights and measures officials are not being notified. It

is our desire, however, to achieve complete compatibility in the effec- tuation of our responsibilities with those of the local weights and

measures officials. We believe our market administrators in the few

markets where information is not now being supplied to your agency

are very willing to cooperate but for one reason or another the

information has not been requested or desired.

In some markets, the market administrators' technicians assist in recalibrating tanks. In no case, however, does the market administrator do the recalibrating if the weights and measures agency is in

a position to do so. Even in these instances, market administrators

would prefer that these recalibrations be considered as temporary

corrections for purposes of order administration, and that official recalibration be carried out by the weights and measures agency.

We believe our check-calibration programs have been worthwhile,

and have contributed to improved administration of the orders. Substantial calibration errors have been detected and adjustments have

been made to eliminate errors which would involve substantial sums

of money. In addition, in one region we have noted a sharp decrease

in the last few years in the percentage of inaccurate farm tanks indicated by our calibration checks. We believe this decrease is largely

attributable to the attention focused on the problem by the market

administrator's earlier check-calibration survey. There are other milk measurement areas of potential joint interest to both our programs. We have been keeping in close touch with the

Office of Weights and Measures regarding the status of milk meters. An acceptable milk meter could change significantly current practices of accounting for milk receipts and disposition and change our

verification techniques under the orders.

Incidentally, our Division recently completed a study of weight

conversion factors for milk and milk products. This study will help

fill a gap that has existed in basic research on differences in weight

of a given volume of milk and milk products associated with differ- ences in temperature, fat, and solids-not-fat content. We hope the

findings of this study will be helpful to the National Bureau of

Standards in evaluating and perhaps modifying and expanding its official table of weight factors. We have maintained contact with the Office of Weights and Measures on various milk measuring problems for a number of years. In

the last several months, we have developed a close working relationship with Mr. Jensen and his staff. Members of his staff have visited

market administrators' offices in Boston and Indianapolis to observe

the metering units used in checking tank calibrations.

We believe that with close cooperation our verification functions in the field of milk measurement can add to the efficiency of your operations. It is our hope, therefore, that our relationship with the Office of Weights and Measures will be matched by improved communication between your agencies and the Federal milk market administrator

in your area.
DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM

J. Marshall : Mr. Feddersen, during your talk you made mention

of the checking of farm-tank calibrations using a tank truck with a meter. Is that correct ? Mr. Feddersen : We have been doing this experimentally.

Mr. Marshall : This has caused a great deal of confusion, since no

meter has been approved for measuring milk. How can you use such

a means to check the calibration of a farm milk tank ? Mr. Feddersen : I do not think you suggest, or handlers generally

would suggest, that we must wait upon approved devices before we

develop means for doing as much as we can in the field of accuracy in measurement of milk.

Mr. Marshall: That is correct. What I would like to suggest is that instead of using an unapproved device, you use the devices that

are approved. In the first place, the farm tank has been calibrated at the factory by the manufacturer, or at the installation by the manufacturer or an employee or a calibration firm. If there is any question

regarding such calibration, would it not be more proper to call in the

appropriate State weights and measures official to do the checking of

the original calibration?

Mr. Feddersen : That is our practice; the meter operation is merely

a check.

Mr. Marshall: But when the farmer is told that the check shows

that the chart is not correct, you have caused a great deal of confusion,

and the tendency has been to blame the farm-tank manufacturer. That

is the point I wanted to make.

Mr. Feddersen : I do not think we have engendered any confusion

or any difficulty for the manufacturers of these products. I think we

have contributed a great deal, as a matter of fact, to the accurate use

of these devices.

Mr. Marshall : I hope so, but I can assure you if you would check

in the field in certain areas, you will find there is some confusion among

the producers, who have been told after a check with the meter device

that the tank is out of calibration. This has caused lawsuits and untold questions.

Mr. Feddersen : You know, we really appreciate having these facts

brought to our attention. This is completely a surprise to me. I had

not heard of it before at all. V. D. Campbell : I might add that there are at least three of these

tank-meter units in Ohio. We have refused to seal them as standards

for measuring milk. Nonetheless, we have been told that the men in

the field do inform the farmers that this is official so far as measuring

and checking the tanks is concerned. We think this should not occur. Mr. Feddersen : Such is not our purpose.

K. GrULLEDGE : In the preparation of packaged milk in cartons, the

checking at the plant is done on the basis of weight, and I understand

the Milk Market Administrators use a series of conversion figures

based on temperature. We have found that the milk is prepared at a temperature around 40-degrees. It is held at that temperature approximately until the time of retail sale to the consumer. There is some confusion as to the weight-to-volume relationship. Could you

comment on this ? Mr. Feddersen : Our purpose in checking at this point is, of course,

to assure the accuracy of the volume of milk or the weight of the milk,

83
using appropriate conversion factors, so we can establish how the milk

has been used, and in what volumes. We have done a considerable

amount of work, and we have just been through a considerable research

project in which we have developed new information that will shortly

be published with respect to the appropriate tables and the conversion

factors to be used for milk at various fat content and at various 1 temperatures.

(8) USDA—Fruit and Vegetable Division by F. F. Hedlund, Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

A number of States have laws that standardize containers. To complement the efforts of the States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture administers two Acts which prescribe a limited number of certain types of containers

used in the shipment of fresh fruits and vegetables. These are the U.S. Standard Container

Acts of 1916 and 1928 which establish standard

sizes and capacities for certain types of baskets

and hampers. The basic objective of these Acts

is to limit the containers of these types that may ! be manufactured and used to a specified number

and to prevent deception by prescribing the

cubic capacity or dimensions of those permitted. It may be noted that

these Acts apply to containers which are used for marketing fruits and

vegetables by cubic measure, whereas many or most of the nonregulated

containers are used for commodities sold by weight.

These two Acts were sponsored originally and have been supported

consistently by container manufacturers. For years prior to the enact- ment of these laws, so many different sizes of containers were being

manufactured that both the users and the manufacturers were confused. Moreover, manufacturers found it very expensive to maintain

large inventories of these many different types and sizes. Because of

these conditions, as well as the ever-present possibility of deception

created by the compounding of sizes, Federal legislation was sought

to limit the number of different capacity containers permitted.

Act of 1916

The Act of August 31, 1916, as amended 1—known as the U.S.

Standard Container Act of 1916—establishes standard sizes for Climax

baskets and certain other containers, principally till baskets and berry

boxes, for small fruits, berries, and vegetables. This Act applies only

to containers moving in interstate commerce. The Act provides for the examination of containers subject to regulation to determine their compliance with the law. The Secretary of

Agriculture is authorized to issue rules and regulations to enforce the

Act such as the establishment of tolerances to allow for reasonable

variations occurring in the normal manufacture of such containers.

1 15 U.S.C., Section 251-256. 84
It is a violation of the Act to manufacture for shipment, or to sell for shipment, or to ship from any State or territory of the United

States any of the containers covered by this law, filled or unfilled,

which do not conform to the provisions of the Act. A fine of not to exceed $25 is provided for willful violation of the Act.

Act of 1928

The Act of May 21, 1928, as amended 2—known as the U.S. Standard

Container Act of 1928—establishes standard sizes for hampers, round

stave baskets, and splint baskets used for fresh fruits and vegetables.

The law was enacted under the weights and measures clause of the

Constitution and, hence, applies to intrastate, as well as interstate

transactions.

The Act provides that it shall be unlawful to manufacture for sale

j or shipment, to offer for sale or shipment, or to ship any of the specified

containers, either filled or unfilled, in violation of the law.

Authorization is provided in the Act for the seizure of any containers

that fail to comply with the law's requirements. The violations of this

law need not be willful, as in the Act of 1916, and penalties up to $500

are provided for violation.

Since the enactment of the Standard Container Act of 1928, only one new container size has been added—a % bushel round stave basket or hamper—added by an amendment in 1954. At present, the Act of 1928

establishes 10 standard sizes for hampers or round stave baskets beginning with a %-bushel size and running through a 2-bushel size ; it also

provides for six standard sizes of splint baskets, beginning with a 4-quart size and running through a 32-quart size. The Act provides that the specifications of containers covered by this

law shall be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture if such containers are of the prescribed capacity and not deceptive in appearance.

This approval is given in the form of a Certificate of Approval which

bears a factory identification number which may be used by the manufacturer to identify the containers. The use of these factory identification numbers, however, is not compulsory. Nevertheless, many manufacturers stamp each container produced with this identification number to show that sample containers have been submitted to and ap- proved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Administration

Because there always has been widespread support from the manufacturers of the containers covered by the Standard Container Acts,

compliance does not constitute a major problem. Primarily, compli- ance has been achieved by working with manufacturers to prevent the

production of nonstandard containers. Container manufacturing

plants are visited from time to time. In addition, manufacturers are requested to submit samples of containers periodically for testing.

These are sent to a special laboratory in Washington where their

dimensions and capacity are measured. Similar tests are run whenever

a report is received of a possible violation.

2 15 U.S.C., Section 257-257-i. 85
As a result of these efforts, it has not been necessary to bring a formal

complaint under these Acts against any manufacturer since 1939. Since the Acts were passed, we have had only 10 formal actions under

the Act of 1928 and two formal actions under the Act of 1916. At the close of the last fiscal year, there were 129 factories producing

or equipped to produce containers covered by these Acts. These plants were producing 584 different types and sizes of containers. During the

year, 342 sample lots were submitted for checking by the Department.

Of these, 86 required correction. Certificates of Approval requested

by manufacturers were issued for 25 sample lots during the year. Changed Packaging Practices In recent months a great deal of attention has been focused on packages and packaging practices, particularly as they impinge upon con- sumers at the retail level. The packages covered by the Standard

Container Acts of 1916 and 1928 are primarily shipping containers,

and with the exception of the smaller containers, such as berry boxes

and till baskets, are not used as retail packages. This legislation was

enacted at a time when baskets and hampers were used for a large part

of the fresh frutts and vegetables shipped in containers. Since then,

packaging of fresh fruits and vegetables has changed considerably.

It is estimated that at the present time less than 10 percent of the

fresh fruits and vegetables shipped in interstate commerce are packed

in the hampers, round stave baskets, and splint baskets covered by the

Standard Container Acts. Of particular significance is the fact that many new containers not

in existence at that time have been developed and have become important factors in the handling of fresh produce. Now, the most widely

used containers are numerous different types and sizes of boxes, lugs,

crates, cartons, and bags, none of which is subject to regulation under

these Acts. Pending Amendment to Act of 1928

In view of the growing competition from types of containers not

subject to regulation as to size or capacity under Federal law, manufacturers of the containers regulated under the Standard Container

Act of 1928 have requested that the Act be amended to authorize three new sizes of hampers and round stave baskets and two new sizes of

splint baskets. A bill, H.K. 9334, incorporating these changes already

has passed the House of Representatives this session and is now before

the Senate. Also incorporated in this bill, at the suggestion of the

Department of Agriculture, is a requirement that every container

manufactured subject to this Act must be clearly stamped or marked

to show the capacity of the container in bushels or quarts. With the

increase in the number of sizes of containers which would be permitted

if the Act is amended, we believe that the differentiation of one size of

container from another through the suggested marking is both neces- sary and desirable.

Because of the marked changes in packaging practices for fresh

fruits and vegetables which have occurred since these laws were enacted, particularly the development of the many new, widely used

types of containers not subject to regulation, serious questions have

86
been raised about the need for and desirability of retaining the Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM M. Greenspan : Has the Department contemplated trying to require

mandatory quantity markings on nonstandard baskets ? Mr. Hedltjnd : No ; however, we have recommended that the markings be included in the amendment which applies to the Act of 1928.

Actually, I think we have had more questions raised as to why we need

the Acts at all. H.K. 9334 is aimed at trying to see that the consumer

gets what he pays for ; a lot of produce goes to market in these packages.

A year or two ago we had a particular case concerning berry baskets

made in a foreign country and imported here. We could not proceed

against the manufacturer, because we cannot proceed against somebody

outside the United States. We did make a point of notifying people in

this country that the Container Act of 1916 applied to the users of those

baskets. The containers then were not placed into service. However,

this Act does not apply to shipments in only intrastate commerce.

Also, the point should be made that the Act does not stipulate the fill of the container. We have had questions come up, "Well, what is the

use of a standard container if it is just half full?" The law says

nothing about how full it must be. The Food and Drug Administration may have jurisdiction here.

(9) USDA—Grain Division by C. W. Jackson, Deputy Director, Grain Division, Agricultural

Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agricultwre

I am happy to have this opportunity to meet

with you to discuss some of the marketing programs of the Grain Division, with particular

emphasis on the concern we have with weights

and measures. The Grain Division is only one of the many

units of the Agricultural Marketing Service

which are concerned with weights and measures. This Service, through its many activities, helps

the entire marketing process to flow quickly,

efficiently, and with the least waste. It provides standards, inspection and grading services, market news, and research to improve

marketing. It helps to remove temporary surpluses and increase con- sumption of foods in plentiful supply.

It helps preserve fair play in marketing through the enforcement of

such Federal laws as the Packers and Stockyards Act, the U.S. Warehouse Act, the U.S. Grain Standards Act, and the Federal Seed Act. The Grain Division is responsible for four major marketing programs for grain and related commodities. These include two of the

laws I have mentioned—the U.S. Grain Standards Act and the Federal Seed Act. Also, a grain market news service and the Agricultural

Marketing Act of 1946, as it applies to certain commodities related to grains, are included.

The work under each of these four programs involves use of weights

87
and measures, either in analytical tests used, reporting units, or packaged and trading units.

I U.S. Grain Standards Act Administration of the U.S. Grain Standards Act involves an impartial inspection service for grain in interstate and foreign com- merce ; official standards for grain ; improvement and timely revision

of the standards, methods, and procedures for the inspection, grading, and certification of grain ; and enforcement of the regulatory provisions of the Act. The regulatory provisions are designed to prevent

fraud and misrepresentation in the merchandising and inspection of

grain. The kinds of grain covered by the Act are barley, corn, flax- seed, grain sorghum, oats, rye, soybeans, wheat, and mixed grain. This

program is supported at the Federal level almost entirely from appropriated funds. The number of inspections performed under the Act

are about 3y2 million each year. These inspections are performed j by about 700 licensed grain inspectors at more than 350 inspection

points. Licensed inspectors may be employees of States, boards of

trade, grain exchanges, or chambers of commerce. A few of them

operate independently on a fee basis. At the present time there are 24 States that perform grain inspections regularly.

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946

Another of these marketing programs is the permissive inspection

work under authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The purpose of this program is to provide an impartial inspection

service for rice, hay, beans, peas, hops, seeds, grain products, and many

other items, including the inspection of cargo wheat for protein con1 tent and United States grain in Canada ; official standards and specifications or quality measurement factors for these commodities; and the

improvement and timely revision of the standards, specifications,

quality measurement factors, and inspection methods and procedures.

' A large part of the service is performed under cooperative agree- ments with States. Under the terms of most of the cooperative agree- ments, USDA supervises the work, and the other cooperator performs

the inspections, collects the fees, and remits a specified portion of the

fees to USDA to cover the cost of supervision. The program is entirely self-sustaining from fees collected for the services rendered.

Market News Service Another one of these marketing programs is the market news service,

j The purpose of this service is to provide farmers and tradesmen with

reliable and timely information on supplies, prices, and other market

conditions for grain, hay, rice, beans, hops, molasses, feedstuffs, and

related products, for their guidance in planning their production and J marketing programs and to assist in orderly marketing. It also provides livestock producers, dairymen, and poultrymen with data which I will help them locate sources of feed supplies to determine when and

where prices are most advantageous.

The program is carried out through a number of field offices, the

majority of which are Federal-State offices. Over 2% million market

88
news reports are distributed each year. The program is supported at the Federal level by appropriated funds.

Federal Seed Act Another of these marketing programs is the enforcement of the Fed-

|! eral Seed Act. This act applies to agricultural and vegetable seed. It requires truthful labeling, prevents false advertising, restricts the

dissemination of noxious-weed seeds, and establishes germination

|| standards for vegetable seeds in interstate commerce. Seed offered

for importation is required to meet certain minimum standards of quality before being admitted into the commerce of the United States for

planting purposes.

Since enactment of the Federal Seed Act in 1939, there have been in

I effect, between all the State inspection agencies and the U.S. DepartI ment of Agriculture, memoranda of understanding setting forth what

each agency should do in cooperating to enforce the interstate provisions of the Federal Seed Act. These memoranda of understanding

set forth the responsibility of each cooperator. No remuneration is made by the Federal Government to the States or by the States to the

Federal Government under these cooperative agreements. The

Federal work is supported by appropriated funds.

The Grain Division also performs other functions in connection with

carrying out programs on expansion of market outlets for food commodities under Section 32 of Public Law 320 on marketing agreements

| and orders, and on national defense activities.

The programs of the Division involve to some extent the use of

Aveights and measures. This is largely the use of given quantities of

a commodity that are tested or analyzed for specific quality characteristics, such as test weight per bushel, foreign material, protein or moisture content, purity, noxious-weed seeds, and many other factors. The

different commercial trading units for many commodities are of importance in the Division's programs, particularly those involving pro- curement and market news reporting.

The use of the hundredweight as a trading unit for many agricultural commodities including grain has been under consideration from

time to time by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and by other

organizations. As early as 1941, the National Conference on Weights

and Measures established a special committee to study the advantages

and disadvantages of the use of the hundredweight as a trading unit. In February 1956, the Grain Research and Marketing Advisory Committee and the Feed and Forage Research and Marketing Advisory

Committee of the Department of Agriculture recommended "that a study be initiated at an early date to evaluate the merits of the probI lems involved in shifting trade in grain from bushels to 100-pound

j units." Many organizations supported the recommendation, including the Grain and Feed Dealers National Association, National Grain

Other Functions

Use of Weights and Measures

Trading Unit

89

747-830 O - 65 - 7
Trade Council, American Feed Manufacturers Association, American | Farm Bureau Federation, National Grange, and other national and

State groups. The study was made by the Marketing Research Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service, and Marketing Research

Report No. 168, "Hundredweight or Bushel as a Trading Unit for | Grain," was issued in April 1957. In September 1957, the Department held a meeting in Washington,

D.C., for representatives of interested groups to discuss a suggested

shift from the bushel to the hundredweight measure in handling Commodity Credit Corporation grain under the 1958 programs. Following this meeting, the matter was also considered at a national confer- ence of State Commissioners, Directors, and Secretaries of Agriculture. The discussions at these two meetings, and letters received,

showed strong opposition from producers and the trade to making any

change at that time. The Department, therefore, decided not to ! shift from the bushel to the hundredweight measure in handling the s 1958 Commodity Credit Corporation grain operations. Furthermore,

it was decided that additional determinations should be made regarding both the advantages and the difficulties in the proposed change j before making the shift. Basic Measuring System

In December 1958, in Washington, D.C., a paper entitled "Needs for I Standardization in Agricultural Measurements," prepared by Harry

C. Trelogan and Kenneth J. McCallister of the Agricultural Marketing Service, was presented at a meeting of Section M (Engineering) of

the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper was published in 1959 as Publication No. 57 of the American Associa- j tion for the Advancement of Science under the title "Systems and

Units, National and International Aspects." The authors of this paper

pointed out many of the variations, inconsistencies, and confusion re- garding the systems of weights and measures used in the United States j for agricultural commodities including grain and suggested the uni- 1 versal adoption of a basic measuring system.

The question of shifting from the bushel to the hundredweight as a trading unit for grain, or shifting to the metric system, has been

j brought to public attention many times in recent years. Among the | latest published information on this are two syndicated articles by j Sylvia Porter. A two-article series, "How Metric System Would

Affect Us," and "Metric System—Costly Change," was published on December 24 and 26, 1963. The author appraised the advantages and

disadvantages of adopting the metric system. She stated that the

change would be very costly, but that the advantages in time would i far outweigh the cost, effort, and other disadvantages involved in

making the change.

An editorial, "Metric Merits," was published in The Evening Star,

Washington, D.C., on February 8 of this year. This editorial strongly

urged that the United States adopt the metric system of weights and

measures as a means of becoming more competitive with other countries for future world markets.

A bill was introduced in the Senate this year to pave the way for j the adoption of the metric system in the United States. On Febru- j ary 25 of this year, H.R. 10089 was introduced in the House of Representatives to provide that the National Bureau of Standards conduct

j 90
a program of investigation, research, and survey to determine the prac-

| ticability of the adoption by the United States of the metric system of

I weights and measures.

Present Practices Most farmers and grain handlers from the Eocky Mountains east- ward consider the bushel as the universal unit for measuring grain.

i However, different units of measurement are used in other parts of

the country, particularly on the west coast. The bushel originally was

, used as a measure of volume. It still is used generally by grain eleva-

, tor operators to express storage capacity, and to differentiate between

storage rates for light and heavy grain. In grain parlance, a bushel

now almost universally represents a specific number of pounds. Most

States have established standards that specify the number of pounds

in a bushel for different kinds of grain. These vary from 32 pounds

) for oats to 60 pounds for wheat.

! Although most grain dealers and handlers measure grain in pounds,

I they think and trade in terms of bushels. Grain is usually weighed in

j pounds as it is received in elevators and again as it is loaded out of ele- vators, but, in both instances, the total weight of the grain is converted

I into bushels for warehousing and merchandising purposes. The U.S.

| Department of Agriculture reports production and yields for all kinds

of grain in the bushel unit.

There are many exceptions to using the bushel as a trading unit for

: grain. Farmers and grain dealers in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas

! generally buy and sell grain sorghum on a hundredweight basis. Cash

j and futures prices; CCC price support operations, sales, and inventories; and CCC-owned stocks of grain sorghum are also usually re-

' ported in hundredweight. On the other hand, USDA reports production, yield, commercial stocks, and exports of grain sorghum in bushels.

In certain areas of Virginia, corn is traded in barrels, and each barrel

is equivalent to five bushels.

The bushel unit is not generally used for grain on the west coast.

' The hundredweight unit is generally used for grain in California.

However, grain is frequently traded in California on a ton basis. Farmers in California usually express the size of their crops and their

yields in hundredweights or tons, but the California Department of

Agriculture reports production and yields in bushels. Farmers and

grain dealers in the Pacific Northwest trade in wheat on a bushel basis

and feed grains on a short ton basis. In exporting grain from the United States, offers and contracts are made on a ton basis. The metric ton (2,204.6 pounds) is the most

common unit of measure used, but some contracts with foreign buyers

specify short tons (2,000 pounds) and others long tons (2,240 pounds)

.

Before World War II, several different trading units were used in

handling rough rice. After the war, the rice industry in cooperation

with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, agreed to shift to the

hundredweight in rice trading and reporting. Although the hundredweight basis is now used by most of the rice trade, some farmers and

dealers still use the barrel or bushel unit.

Production and prices of dry edible beans were reported by USDA

on a bushel basis until 1932. Since that time the hundredweight has

been almost the universal unit of measurement in the bean trade.

Test weight per bushel is a quality factor in all the grain standards

under the U.S. Grain Standards Act. It has been in these standards
since they were first promulgated. It is a measure in pounds of a specific volume (Winchester bushel equal to 2150.42 cubic inches) of grain.

Test weight per bushel varies over a rather wide range for each kind of

grain—for example, from about 50 to about 65 pounds for wheat, and

from about 25 to about 44 pounds for oats. The bushel measure as a trading unit is constant for each kind of grain—that is, 60 pounds for

wheat and soybeans ; 56 pounds for corn, flaxseed, grain sorghum, and

rye ; 48 pounds for barley ; and 32 pounds for oats. There is no direct

relationship between the test weight per bushel and the bushel measure

as a trading unit for grain. If a buyer purchased 1,000 bushels of

wheat with a test weight per bushel of 50 pounds, and another buyer

purchased 1,000 bushels with a test weight per bushel of 65 pounds,

each buyer would have delivered to him the same total weight of 60,000

pounds ( 1,000 X by 60, or bushels X trading unit), but not the same volume of wheat.

The following table shows a comparison between the test weight per

bushel and the trading unit for certain kinds of grain and other

commodities

Test weight per bushel for grade and trading unit for certain commodities

Commodity

Minimum test weight per bushel for grade in U.S. standards Usual trading

unit No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 Unit Weight

Barley ... . . lb 47

5649

57

34

56

56

5860

lb 45

5447

5532

54

54

57

58

lb43

52

lb40

49

lb 3646 bushel

lb 48

56

56

10032

56

60

60

60

100 100

100

100

100 100

Corn bushel - - Flaxseed. . bushel Grain sorghum 533052

52

5556

512749

49

53

54

cwt

Oats bushel Rye bushel Soybeans bushel Wheat

Hard Red Spring 50

51 bushel

All other classes.. bushel - .- Rough rice 2 cwt Brown rice. cwt. - Milled rice cwt Dry edible beans.. ... cwt

cwt

Lentils. . cwt

1 Test weight per bushel is not a factor for grade in the class Western Barley.

2 Rough rice is also traded in units of bushel (45 lb) and barrel (162 lb)

The metric system has been in use to some extent in some phases of

agriculture in the United States for many years. Agricultural scientists regularly use the metric system in their daily work when they measure materials in grams, liters, and meters. The gram as a measure

of weight is used in grading grain under the official standards of the

United States. Conclusion

There is no reason to believe that the reaction of the grain trade in

this country to a proposed shift from the bushel to the hundredweight

for CCC grain operations, or for the grain industry as a whole, would

be much different today than the significant opposition that was ex- pressed in 1957.

It now appears that the metric system of weights and measures may

be adopted in the United States within the foreseeable future. Based

upon this prospect, it seems inadvisable at this time to press for a shift

from the bushel to the hundredweight as a trading unit for all grain.

92
The metric system is currently in use in 88 countries that comprise

about 90 percent of the world's population. The adoption of the

system by the United States would influence its adoption by the other

few nations and would result in a weights and measures system that

would be truly world wide in scope. Time and experience will change the thinking of people in this regard

from pounds, bushels, barrels, short tons, and long tons, to grams,

kilograms, and metric tons as quantitative measures for grain and

other agricultural commodities.

(10) U.S. Department of Interior—Bureau of Commercial Fisheries by J. R. Brooker, Chief, Fishery Products Inspection and Certification

Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries

Introduction

The vast complexities of today's processing

and distribution of food demand that there be some acceptable document between buyer and

seller to facilitate orderly marketing. Standards are a yardstick to measure the quality of a product. They thus constitute the needed com- mon measuring device upon which buyer and

seller can base their contracts. These standards are composed of two or more

levels of product quality designated by grades

and are also composed of other related factors

such as class, style, or condition—that may

affect the economical use and the desirability of

the product. Accordingly, national quality standards tend to improve

the overall quality and uniformity of the products being standardized.

The consumer thus gains by getting better quality, and the industry in

turn gains by creating greater demand for its products.

U.S. Standards for Grades of Quality for Fish and Fishery Products help to define the level of quality of this specific food-product

category. These standards are voluntary in application and reflect the

desire of the fishing industry to improve its product quality. The

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries of the U.S. Department of the Interior has developed and promulgated U.S. Standards for Grades of

14 fishery products in the past 6 years. The standards listed below were developed with the aid of the fishing industry.

1. Frozen fried fish sticks

2. Raw breaded shrimp

3. Fish blocks

4. Haddock fillets

5. Halibut steaks

6. Cod fillets

7. Salmon steaks

8. Raw headless shrimp

9. Raw breaded fish portions

10. Ocean perch fillets 11. Fried scallops

12. Fried fish portions

13. Breaded fish sticks

14. Flounder and sole fillets 93
The standards, of course, would have no value as acceptable docu- | ments between buyer and seller unless the grading of the products | according to the standards were done by a neutral party. Since 1958 1 the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries has therefore operated a Volun- j tary Inspection Service for fishery products. This service has grown j steadily. During the past year, for example, over 215 million pounds j of fishery products were inspected and certified. This quantity of in- spected products represents approximately one-third of all the do- ! mestically produced fishery products for human consumption, exclusive

of canned fish. Proper labeling of packaged fishery products not only is required ; by law but also is essential in marketing them. As part of the inspeo

tion program, the USDI accordingly reviews labels for fishery products that are to bear the USDI shield. To show the role of weights and measures activities in the USDI ! Fishery Products Standards and Voluntary Inspection programs, we

shall therefore in the remainder of this paper consider the following

three main subjects

1. Relation of weights and measures to the development of the

Quality Standards.

2. Relation of weights and measures to the Voluntary Inspection

Service.

3. Relation of weights and measures to label approval.

Relation of Weights and Measures to Quality Standards Development

The Bureau's program of standards development goes beyond prod- | uct standardization of such aspects as quality and wholesomeness be- cause two additional important aspects are also considered. These are

(a) the packaged product with regard to size, volume, net weight,

amount delivered, or the number of units per measure and (b) the j amount of seafood ingredients contained in certain fabricated or

j processed products. In our consideration of these two aspects, we en- countered problems relating to glaze and to breading.

Problem of Glaze. Four fishery products for which U.S. standards | were developed presented a problem of ice glaze. These products were : halibut steaks, salmon steaks, sole and flounder fillets, and raw headless | shrimp.

In the usual market form, these products are protected by a surface ! glaze of ice in addition to the packaging materials in which they are j contained. To determine how much product is actually present, we j had to develop and incorporate into the standards a specific procej dure for determining the net weight. A slightly different procedure ' was required for each of the four products because of its inherent

differences.

In the standard for frozen halibut steaks, the consideration of glaze 1 is unique in that excessive glaze is treated as a factor of quality. The

maximum allowable amount of glaze to protect the product was estab- j lished at 6 percent of the net weight. Beyond this amount, it is con- I sidered to be excessive glaze, and the product is down-graded for i quality.

Problem of Breading. Another fishery-products category that

j required special consideration was breaded and precooked products. I This group includes breaded fish sticks, breaded shrimp, breaded fish 94
portions, fried fish sticks, and fried fish portions. A problem of the

"utility" of the packaged contents was encountered in developing these

standards. This problem involved two factors: loose breading and

excessive breading.

Loose breading.—During the processing of breaded and precooked

products, any loosely adhering breading is usually removed by passing

i the products over a vibrating large-mesh stainless-steel wire gelt.

I When, however, samples of these products were obtained at the dis- tribution level for evaluation during the early stages of developing

! these standards, substantial amounts of loose breading were, in some

instances, found in the package. This indicated either that good commercial practices had not been exercised in the processing of the product by eliminating the loose breading or that loose breading was being

added to meet the net-weight requirements when the weight of the

| contents were slightly under the declared net weight . This problem was resolved in the Standards for Breaded and Pre-

\. cooked Products by categorizing large amounts of loose breading

as a factor of quality. These standards deduct points, depending upon

the amount of loose breading remaining in the package. The unit of measure used for determining excessive breading is the teaspoon. Less

than y2 teaspoon of loose breading is considered to be a "small

amount" ; and over y2 teaspoon, a "large amount."

Excessive breading.—USDI Standards of Quality establish levels for the amount of fish flesh required in breaded and precooked fishery

products. The Bureau believes that it has a responsibility to the con- sumer to see that he gets a proportionately large amount of seafood

ingredient in the breaded-type products.

In establishing the level of seafood content for a given product, we

take a number of factors into consideration. The factors most fre- quently evaluated are flavor, appearance in both the raw and cooked

states, texture, and the industry's capability, evidenced by what has

been marketed in the past.

When standards are developed for breaded products, a technique

is also developed for determining the amount of the seafood ingredient

that is present. This method, incorporated into the standard, involves

the removal of the breading and a determination of the percent of

seafood ingredient by weight. The levels of seafood ingredient established in USDI Standards are given in table 1.

Table 1. Amounts of flesh required in breaded products by USDI Standards

Breaded product Relative amount of

flesh required

Fish portions Fish sticks Fried fish portions Fried fish sticks__. Fried scallops

Shrimp

Percent 75

72

656060

50 95
Relation of Weights and Measures to Voluntary Inspection Service Continuous inspection of processing operations is the major type of

inspection services performed by the United States Department of the

Interior. Under this type of service, the principal duties of the USDI

inspector include (a) inspecting for plant sanitation, (b) examining

the raw material for quality, (c) checking the processing technique,

(d) determining the quality of the end product, and (e) certifying

the product.

In the execution of all but the first of these duties, the USDI inspector is concerned with some aspect of weight or measurement. A review

of the pertinent duties (b through e) will illustrate the degree of in- volvement of the inspector in weighing or measuring.

Examining the Raio Material. If we visit the breaded shrimp in- dustry for a specific example of how the inspector examines incoming raw material, we find that the raw material usually comes to the plant

in the form of 5 -pound cartons of block-frozen raw headless shrimp.

When these shipments arrive at the processing plant and before a settlement is made, the firm is interested in the quality of the shrimp

and whether or not each 5-pound carton will actually deliver 5 pounds.

The USDI inspector samples the shipment, examines the product, and

determines the net weights of the selected packages, using the official method defined in the Quality Standard. The information he thus

obtains is then provided to the firm and is used as a basis for a decision

by the firm to accept or reject the shipment.

Checking the Processing Technique. During production of products such as fish sticks and fish portions, the inspector frequently con- ducts line checks of the weight of a specific number of raw sticks or

portions. This information is used as a guide to continuous product

control in determining whether the amount of fish flesh is adequate.

To produce, for example, a 1-pound package of fish portions containing

four 4-ounce pieces, the four unbreaded pieces of fish must weigh a minimum of 12 ounces in order for the final product to conform to the

requirement of 75 percent of fish flesh. Frequent weighing of four | random pieces provides the information that the input weight of raw

material is adequate and that the net weight will probably be adequate,

since the batter and breading can be controlled very closely.

Determining the Quality of the End Product. End-product examination for quality by the inspector includes a determination of the

amount of the product in the package. Samples for examination are drawn randomly during production in accordance with a sampling

plan so as to be representative of the lot. The net contents of each

package is determined using the method defined in the U.S. Standard

for the product being examined. The net content of each package is recorded on the inspector's work sheet along with the other pertinent

information found during the examination. An average calculated

from the net weight of the individual packages indicates whether or

not the lot complies with the net weight declared on the label. Certifying the Product. In the certification procedure for fishery

products, the pertinent information about the examined lot is recorded on an official inspection certificate. These certificates of findings are admissible in all courts of the country as prima facie evidence. Two

types of information about the contents of the packaged product are always given when fishery products are certified. These are (a) the

96
net content as declared on the label, and (b) the determined average

net content of the examined packages as observed by the inspector.

When the net contents of one or more packages are found to deviate

beyond the range of good commercial practice, such deviations are noted on the certificate for the benefit of the processor or buyer of the

lot. Relation of Weights and Measures to Label Approval

Fishery product labels that are to bear inspection marks of the USDI

must be reviewed and approved by the Bureau prior to use. The primary reason for reviewing the labels is to ensure that whatever reference is made to USDI inspection—either through a grade

shield, inspection shield, or statement of inspection—is accurate and in

accordance with USDI regulations.

The secondary reason for reviewing these labels is to ensure that

USDI inspection marks will not be affixed to a label that is in violation

of the mandatory requirements of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The presence of a statement of net contents is one of several items that we ensure ^s on the label. You should, however, not construe that the

USDI is determining that labels comply with the FDA Act. Rather,

you should consider that this thorough label review is a service to the

industry.

Although the USDI review program includes verification that the

label bears a quantity statement, we have not developed guidelines as

to the prominence and placement of it. This is a regulatory matter

and is beyond our authority. We believe, however, that this question

of prominence and placement should be nationally coordinated with the

various industry groups having an interest in it and that a single set of

guidelines or regulations should be developed and adopted at all levels of government that regulate this activity.

In the past, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries has cooperated fully

with other governmental agencies and with industrial organizations

where these common interests exist. We plan to continue this policy of

cooperation in the future. When difficulties or inconsistencies of any

nature are encountered with fishery products, we suggest that you

bring the matter to our attention. We may have the answers to your

problems, and we will do our best to help you.

97
AFTERNOON OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1964

No Business Session

CONFERENCE LUNCHEON—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1964

(B. S. Cicnowicz, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

ADDRESS

by Mrs. Esther Peterson, Special Assistant to the President

for Consumer Affairs

Today, it is my privilege to address one of the

most meaningful and honorable organizations in

the United States—an organization whose work

has not received the public recognition it deserves. The National Conference on Weights

and Measures has guarded the consumer's traditional rights, evolved over centuries, to compare

products, compare prices, and get what he pays

for.Belatedly, I think the consumer is becoming

aware that some planning has to be done about

weights and measures laws and their enforcement. You people in enforcement know the

problems that have arisen. Consumers, until the last few years, have

been content to go about their family affairs confident that the laws

our forefathers had written were, in your good hands, giving us the

police protection we needed when buying goods by weight, measure or

count. Few knew and even fewer now remember that as long ago as 1939

the National Conference on Weights and Measures blew the whistle of

alarm about the threat which prepackaging represents.

In a resolution, they called upon the Congress to take action to pre- serve the buyer's right to comparison shopping by establishing some

orderly approach to determining the quantities in which basic products might be purchased.

If your warning had been heeded then, the erosion of this basic right

which has taken place over the intervening years would never have

happened.

As Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, and as Chairman of the President's Committee on Consumer Interests, I express appreciation on behalf of the American consumer for the

service you have rendered, and ask your cooperation in working with

the Committee to carry out our Presidential mandate : "To assure that

the best practices of the great American marketplace—where free men

and women buy, sell, and produce—becomes the common practice."

Both you and I know that the period ahead is going to be lively

possibly even historic. These are times of trial for weights and measures people—with plenty of challenges and decisions to come. These

are times of change and overdue adjustments in weights and measures

laws and their enforcement.

As county and State sealers of weights and measures, you are peace

officers. You enforce a set of laws just as a sheriff or a city police

98
officer enforces a set of laws. Like the highway patrol or the FBI,

you have a responsibility to enforce the laws within your jurisdiction

however and to whomever they may apply.

These laws apply at all levels of commercial exchange. They apply

when goods are exchanged between farmers and processor, manufacturer and distributor, wholesaler and retailer, retailer and consumer. The processor, wholesaler, and retailer all expect full weight and

measure when they buy. In fact, they have very elaborate setups

with purchasing offices, receiving clerks, and little armies of calculator

operators—to insure their getting the full measure of what they contract for. Why, then, should any processor or wholesaler or retailer expect consumers to be satisfied with less ? Whatever gives them the idea that consumers ARE satisfied with

less ! I suggest it is more likely that consumers in their trusting

bewilderment have not known—and would not have believed—that

they may be getting less. Now the situation is this, it seems to me : Changes in our economy

and the public's scant understanding—and bewilderment—have thrust

upon you the major responsibility of formulating new laws and regulations at the consumer level. Now you must not only enforce the law

but you also have the unexpected and unasked-for job of formulating new and revised laws to meet new circumstances—of formulating new

and revised regulations by which old established principles can be

applied to new situations.

Do you know of any other law enforcement officers who are required

to carry this double burden ? I feel I should apologize to you on behalf of consumers for heaping

on your shoulders this undue responsibility for our weights and measures laws.

Yet, you have it, and as a spokesman for consumers I want to put

before you some considerations which consumers need to have you bear

in mind when you must serve as law formulators and take positions on

proposals made by others and when you make proposals in your own

organization.

President George Washington, in one of his messages to the Congress, emphasized the importance of establishing uniformity in weights

and measures. He stated : "A standard . . . must be no less honorable

to the public councils than conducive to the public convenience."

Conducive to the public convenience. ... I believe that the American housewife of today—she who shops almost daily in the Nation's

supermarkets and grocery stores—would like to see this advice of her

Nation's first President implemented. I can remember the days when

almost everything was measured or weighed before the consumer's eyes on scales that were checked by you. I can remember the days when

gaudy packages and bottles of various shapes and hues were not

dreamed up by the psychologists and motivational experts to distract

the consumer from comparative and discriminating shopping. I can remember the days when the consumer, not the manufacturer, dictated

the quantity of a purchase.

Recently, one of my staff members was visiting a friend in New York.

At the breakfast table, while he was discussing the consumer program,

he decided to check the breakfast food packages that were on the table. 99
There was one large package that sold for 290 and one small package

that sold for 32$. Both contained the same net weight. One of his

breakfast companions, a 10-year-old boy, was fascinated by this. "You mean," the boy said, "the big package costs less than the small

package !" "That's right," he was assured.

The boy was incredulous. "Isn't there a law against that !" he said. "Nope," there w^as no law, he was told. "Shouldn't someone tell the Government about this!" he said. Well, the boy just couldn't believe it. How could a big package cost

less than a small package? As he went out the door for school, he

advised his mother to get more of the BIG package.

Change has been wrought in the marketplace by the growth of pre- packaged foods, and by the thousands of products which the efficiency

of our productive system has placed in today's markets. As a result,

during recent years—especially since World War II—the confusion

which characterized the commercial interests during the 19th century,

now applies somewhat to the individual consumer.

Little boys are not the only ones fooled by today's packaging and

labeling practices. I am sure many of you are acquainted with the

test conducted by California Governor Brown's extremely capable

Consumer Counsel, Mrs. Helen Nelson. Mrs. Nelson recruited anonymously five housewives, all with 2 years or more of college training.

Each was given $10 and sent to a Sacramento supermarket to pick 14

common items—things like soap, rice, peanut butter and pancake

mix—from the shelves. Their only instructions were to record the

time they went into the store and the time they reached the check stand

and make their selections solely on the basis of the largest quantity at the lowest cost. How did they make out ? They spent on the average twice as long

as the average shopper spends selecting the same items, and flunked

badly in attempting to pick the 14 cheapest items from a staggering

total of 246 brand offerings. With only one of the 14 products did all five shoppers succeed in comparing prices. That product was cheddar

cheese. With two of the products—rice and toilet soap—every one of

the women was baffled. Altogether, they bought 70 items among them. Looking for the

lowest price, they succeeded 36 times and failed 34. If this can happen to housewives with college training—and three of

the women were college graduates—how can we expect less educated

women to succeed, even with a slide rule, in finding the best buys ? Mrs. Nelson's experiment is illustrative of the frustrations faced by

many housewives in today's marketplace. And, don't think the ladies are not aware of the problem. Several weeks ago I addressed a State

women's organization, and when I approached the subject of packaging and labeling, I began to hear the kind of comment former President Truman used to hear when he spoke: "Give 'em h , Esther!"

Of the many subjects covered in the thousands of letters I have re- ceived since being appointed to my present position, no subject has been

mentioned more than packaging and labeling.

So, the sleeping consumer is beginning to stir. Lulled by pretty

colors, odd shapes and sizes, flattering advertising (which makes the

housewife out to be some sort of earth-Goddess), and a whole gamut

of arguments as to why she should prefer products packaged and

100
labeled the way the manufacturers dictate, she is now beginning to snap out of her lethargy and look around.

And, she isn't particularly impressed with what she sees. Of course, she is aware of the abundance of goods available to her,

and is appreciative of the attractiveness, and, in many instances, con- venience of present-day packaging. She does not want to turn back

the clock to the cracker barrel grocery store. But—and this is a big

but—she is also aware that it is becoming increasingly more difficult for her to shop comparatively. Her letters have a touch of anger in

their tone. For example, a lady from Oregon writes

:

It takes a slide rule, common sense, some education (to know how to divide ounces into pennies), pencil, paper, and a lot of time and patience to keep from

I getting hooked, and in a way, being made a fool of, by the manufacturers. And from Pennsylvania comes this letter

:

My chief concern is trying to buy good meats—not camouflaged in the packaging. So often, there is a "cover up" such as placing the price tag over the extra

large bone or some other such defect. Sometimes there is an extra piece of fat tucked under the meat, just adding weight . . . I am informed that 20 States have adopted a provision of the Model

State Law on Weights and Measures approved by the National Conference. This provision states

:

. . . any commodity in random package form . . . shall bear on the outside of the package a plain and conspicuous declaration of the price per single unit of

| weight, measure, or count. If all 50 States had such a declaration my mail would be sharply

! curtailed. The time has come when the voice of the housewife had

better be heeded. It is an angry voice and it is becoming more and more forceful. If it is ignored, the housewife's only legitimate recourse

will be to turn to the Federal Government for protection. The housewife who says "There ought to be a law" is only expressing her right

as a citizen to such protection.

In solving the problems presented by prepackaging, we must work

together. Here are some practices of the modern market that demand

a good deal of attention by both State and local officials

:

1. The use of odd package sizes: Too often, the "larger" package

contains less than the "smaller" package.

2. Hide-and-seek : Perhaps, we could put up with the odd size containers if the net weight or quantity was displayed prominently on all packages. The fact is, however, that the consumer often

must play "hide-and-seek" with the manufacturer in order to find

the statement of quantity.

3. Fractional weights: In some cases, fractional weights may be

necessary, for example, in cake mixes which are designed to fit standard size pans. Nevertheless, there are many legitimate complaints. For example, macaroni has been found in 45 different

sizes—ALL LESS THAN ONE POUND

!

4. Luring labels: The appeal of a picture cannot be denied. But

sometimes, the picture leads you to believe—erroneously—that

the stew is laden with beef, the nuts are mainly huge cashews, or

the pie is filed with cherries. If we are going to use pictures, let us make certain that the pictures are a faithful representation of

the product.

101
5. Cents off : Cents off what ? If manufacturers are going to advertise "cents off" on their labels, then let them make clear exactly the

comparison.

6. Slack fill: Everyone realizes that many products settle in handling and storage. On the other hand, it doesn't take much

searching to find examples of the hollow bottom jar, misleading

shapes in cardboard cartons and liners, and excessive slack in

products where settling isn't a major problem.

To correct these deficiencies in modern packaging the Administration has urged passage of Truth-in-Packaging legislation along the

lines of the bill introduced by Senator Hart. I consider the Hart Bill a mid-20th century version of truth in weights and measures—long

overdue—designed ultimately for the consumer. It is inevitable that

this bill become the law of the land.

The consumer can no longer AFFORD to be deceived in the marketplace, and even if he could afford deception, he is not about to be "used," or become a "patsy," for everybody out to make a buck in the modern

marketplace. Consumers are demanding that our economy be not just

consumption oriented, but consumer oriented as well. The provisions of the Hart Bill are relatively simple. They merely

provide that the ingredients of food and other products be labeled

clearly; that the contents be expressed in terms which will facilitate

efficient buying; and that some kind of understanding of terms be

arrived at so that a customer may KNOW what constitutes, for ex- ample, a "serving," or so that the customer is not deceived by the

arbitrary use of fractional weights and odd size containers. I have noted that your Committee on Laws and Regulations, in its report to this Conference, is recommending certain principles on

quantity declaration. It seems, however, that during the process of

deliberation, there has been some "retreat" on readability and size. No

minimum has been recommended for certain size packages and the

height has been lowered for others. I agree that the size of type used

in quantity statements is not the only determining factor in readability

and welcome the recommendations with regard to color contrast and

the amount of clear space surrounding the quantity declaration.

Speaking to you as a representative of American consumers, however, I believe that the original recommendations made by your Committee on Laws and Regulations in 1963 should be adopted as part of

the Model Law.

I think it is appalling that industry claims it to be too expensive to provide for American consumers, the same service they are required

by law to provide for Canadian consumers. Let's take, for example,

these two packages—one produced for the Canadian market ; one for

the U.S. market. On the Canadian package, the net weight is dis- played prominently on the main display panel. On the U.S. package,

the net weight is hidden on top of the package.

It seems to me that we in the Uhited States should, at least, be pro- vided with the same services our Canadian neighbors enjoy.

In closing, let me state that consumers have a real responsibility to help law enforcement officers make rules for solving enforcement problems. Without such cooperation, I know that it is difficult for you to operate efficiently. For that reason, I want to assure you that the

facilities of the President's Committee—and my office—will be always

102
open to you for whatever services along this line we may be able to render.

Let us keep in mind, as ve join forces to protect the consumer's right

to compare products and prices—a right that is fundamental to a free,

competitive economy—the Old Testament injunction : You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or

quantity.

You shall have just balances, just weights . . . (Lev. 19 v. 35-37)

.

Or, the more direct warning

:

A deceptive scale disgusts the Lord, But he delights in an honest weight.

103
MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1964

(B. S. Cichowicz, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ADVISORY COMMITTEES

(1) The Weights and Measures Advisory Committee to the National Bureau

of Standards

presented by C. G. Gehringer, Sales Manager, Hobart

Manufacturing Company, Troy, Ohio

The Weights and Measures Advisory Com- i mittee to the National Bureau of Standards is ! one of a number of such committees established

j in 1954 to provide liaison between the Director

of the Bureau of Standards and those segments \ of scientific, engineering, educational, industrial, and local government communities that

are served by the National Bureau of Standards.

The Committee has directed its efforts to the

role of the Bureau in commercial weights and

measures. Presently, the Committee is made ; up of Mrs. Genevieve Blatt, Secretary, Departj ment of Internal Affairs, State of Pennsylvania; Mr. R. E. Meek, Director, Division of Weights and Measures,

State of Indiana ; Mr. D. M. Turnbull, Director, Division of Licenses

and Standards, Seattle, Washington; Mr. J. H. Chaloud, Associate

Director, Procter and Gamble Company, Cincinnati, Ohio; Professor A. W. Troelstrup, Consumer Education Department, Stephens

j College, Columbia, Missouri; and myself, representing the Hobart , Manufacturing Company. Mr. M. W. Jensen serves as Chairman of

the Committee, and Mr. G. E. Auman of the National Bureau of Standards staff as Secretary of the Committee.

The Advisory Committee normally meets in Washington during the

winter and again just prior to the National Conference. Because of

extenuating circumstances, no winter meeting was held this year. This was unfortunate, because the very limited time thus available

for Committee deliberations was inadequate for proper discharge of

its duties.

While in session on Sunday, June 15, the Committee heard reports ! on NBS Advisory Committees by Mr. Auman, a discussion of the

Institute of Applied Technology by Dr. Schon, and a presentation of

the weights and measures program and plans by Mr. Jensen. The total role of advisory committees presently is being studied by I the National Bureau of Standards, with the probability of the recon- i stitution or elimination of one or more existing committees. The

Weights and Measures Advisory Committee feels that there is a great | advantage in the intercommunication afforded by these committees and

[ strongly recommends that the Weights and Measures Advisory Committee be continued.

Other matters considered by the Committee are represented by our recommendations and comments as follows:

1. The Weights and Measures Advisory Committee recommends that

every effort be expended to bring about a study by the National

m

104
Bureau of Standards as to the practicability and advisability of

the adoption of the metric system of measurements by the United

States.

2. The Weights and Measures Advisory Committee recommends

that the Government of the United States go forward without

delay in the furnishing of new State standards and associated

apparatus to the States, according to need.

3. The Committee has been informed that considerable delays are being encountered in the calibration of State standards by the

National Bureau of Standards. The Committee recommends that

necessary steps be taken to eliminate such delays.

4. Because of the greatly increased demands on the time of the

weights and measures officials and the improbability that field inspection forces will be substantially increased, the Weights and

Measures Advisory Committee recommends that the Office of

Weights and Measures continue its plan of guiding the several

jurisdictions in the sample testing of packages.

5. The Committee finds highly encouraging the acceptance by the

National Bureau of Standards of its recommendation of 1963 that

a laboratory metrologist be employed and trained to travel to the

State weights and measures laboratories for the purposes of standards and apparatus examination and laboratory training.

The Weights and Measures Advisory Committee wishes to commend

the National Bureau of Standards and its Office of Weights and Measures for the excellence of the technical program and staff. This is a unique operation in Federal Government and one that well could serve

as an example to many others. Gentlemen, this constitutes our report. However, I would like to add a few things. I want to urge all of you to do everything possible

through your State governments and your representatives to the National Government to help bring about the study by the Bureau of the

use of the metric system in the United States, and I also urge you to contact them on the furnishing of the new standards and apparatus

by the Bureau to the States. The Bureau has been given the authority

to do this by Congress. Many years ago this was given. They do not,

however, have the money to do it with. If our representatives are aware of the importance of these standards to the administration of

good weights and measures enforcement, I am sure they will heed our

request for help in obtaining these. DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM Mr. Sanders : I had the opportunity and the privilege of endorsing

the establishment of this Committee at the beginning. I believe it probably has been the most effective advisory committee to the Director

of the National Bureau of Standards, and has been of great service to

this Conference. I suggest that somebody take some action to endorse

officially the continuation of the Weights and Measures Advisory

Committee.

Mr. Gehringer : As you know, the Advisory Committee is appointed

by the Bureau. As I understand it, we are only on a temporary basis. The authority for this Committee expires as of June 30. This is all I know about it. Mr. Sanders : It certainly could do no harm for this Conference to endorse the continuation on a permanent basis. I think the Advisory

105

747-830 O - 65 - 8
Committee is one of the most effective means of operation of this

Conference.

Mr. Jensen : Very briefly, this is the situation : The existence of

advisory committees to agencies of the National Government has been

established by administrative order from the White House. These

orders expire every two years, and the expiration of the present order

is June 30, 1964. (2) An Advisory Committee to a State Weights and Measures Agency Made

Up of Representatives of Business and Industry

by J. F. Lyles, Supervisor of Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture, State of Virginia

The Virginia Department of Agriculture has

found advisory committees to be excellent means

for implementing helpful exchanges of information between the regulatory agencies of the

Department and the businesses and industries

regulated. Such advisory committees serve the

Department in bringing to it the needs and desires of the industry, and serve the industry rep- resentatives by informing them of existing or proposed laws, regulations, and enforcement

practices.

These advisory committees resulted from a

sincere desire on the part of Department management to establish a flexible and informative relationship between

the Department and the industries concerned.

The Department Policy Manual defines the objectives of advisory

committees as follows

1. Determining needs in regulatory and service programs.

2. Considering problems related to Department activity in the industry of

agriculture.

3. Gaining industry support of Department activities in service to the Commonwealth and to the industry of agriculture.

In less formal language, the advisory committees have shown that

they can provide a mutually helpful Aoav of information, can create an

atmosphere where honest differences can be discussed, and, perhaps

most important, can result in the enactment of laws that are fair to all concerned. Advisory committees accomplish this by providing a much-needed liaison between industry, the public, and the Department.

The actual formulation of an advisory committee begins in the office of the Commissioner of Agriculture when he recognizes that a need

exists in a particular section. The section supervisor is requested to suggest to his division head individuals for membership. The division head, in turn, requests the Commissioner to formalize the appoint- ments. A committee will usually be composed of not less than seven nor more than nine members, and due care is exercised to assure that all segments of the industry concerned are represented. At least one

division head serves on each committee.

A committee must meet at least once each year, and may be convened

as often as necessary. About one-third of the members of a committee

are appointed annually, to serve for a term that will last three years. 106
The membership of our own Weights and Measures Advisory Committee consists of one home economist, who is also a member of the

press, the executive directors of retail grocers and food dealers' organizations, plus representatives from the major food store chains and

independent grocers. From time to time, the membership is reevaluated and, if necessary, revised.

In addition to the Weights and Measures Advisory Committee, the

Department also has advisory committees with other segments of in- dustry. Some of these committees are with the canning, baking, feed,

fertilizer, and seed industries. I also meet with these committees to discuss weights and measures problems.

The Weights and Measures Committee, as well as others, has shown

that it can play a particularly vital role in gaining voluntary compli- ance from business and industry. By being able to sit down with their

representatives, we can discover what their problems are, and they can

gain a complete understanding of the spirit and letter of pertinent

laws and regulations.

It may already be clear at this point, but I should like to emphasize

that these advisory committees are just that: They are advisory.

When committees are created, there is complete understanding that the

Department has its responsibilities and the obligation to implement

them. The setting up of any particular advisory committee is simply an attempt to insure that these responsibilities will be carried out with

as complete an understanding as possible of all the problems involved.

For instance, in the forming of new laws, the committee discussions

often develop into objective views that can guide the Department in

its attempt to reach a fair and effective legislative proposal.

In the Weights and Measures Section in Virginia, we have ironed out numerous problems as a result of meetings with our advisory committee. Problems seem to have shrunk once they were discussed and

industry could understand our approach and how the law would have

to be administered.

To cite an example, several years ago our package-weighing pro- gram was increasing in momentum and new and varied problems were

developing. New methods and procedures had to be quickly devised

and adopted, and many of them were misunderstood by industry.

Through our Advisory Committee, these new procedures were introduced and explained, and benefits accrued to both industry and the

Department.

For industry, the discussions resulted in their being able to do a

better job of weighing prepackaged commodities, because they were

informed as to our method of checking such items.

For us, it was felt that our position was stronger because, through

communication and resultant understanding, our position was backed

by industry.

When Handbook 67, Checking Prepackaged Commodities, was published, it was presented to our Weights and Measures Advisory Committee and upon their recommendation, was adopted by the Board of

Agriculture as our procedure to follow in checkweighing prepackaged

items.

One of our more recent contacts with our Advisory Committee was

related to our new and comprehensive Weights and Measures Law

and Regulations. Many months before our proposed bill was introduced into the 1962 General Assembly we found ourselves discussing

107
and explaining the proposed weights and measures bill with our Advisory Committee. These discussions proved most valuable when our

bill was introduced into the General Assembly. The bill was passed

by both houses without a single dissenting vote. This, to us, was rather dramatic proof of the usefulness of a weights

and measures advisory committee in developing active and helpful

communications between us and the people we serve. (3) A Weights and Measures Advisory Committee to a State Department of

Agriculture Made Up of Local Officials by E. H. Black, County /Sealer of Weights and Measures, Ventura

County, California

So you will better understand some of the

problems we will discuss later, I think it would

be well for me to take just a minute to explain

the following charts to you.

First, you will note on the organization chart

(Fig. 1) that, at the State level, the total weights

and measures program is under the Department

of Agriculture; the Bureau of Weights and

Measures is responsible to the Division of Compliance, which is responsible to the Director of

the Department of Agriculture. By State law,

it is the individual county's legal and financial

responsibility to adequately enforce the State

weights and measures laws so at the county level the work is carried on under the direction of the individual county sealer. All county

sealers and their deputies are certified through State examination, and

their jurisdiction is within the individual county's boundaries.

Immediately below the State organization is the new organization

chart of the California Association of Weights and Measures Officials (Fig. 2), a voluntary association recognized by State law, in which

sealers, their deputies, and State department personnel take an active

part. The Association's officers, committees, area chairmen, and sec- retaries are all county sealers. The general purpose of the Association

is to work with the Bureau on studies of local or statewide problems

that have to do with enforcement.

The Association may also work as a separate organization, for ex- ample, on legislation that the State department could not sponsor

because of infringement on local rights.

Figure 2 is simply a map of the State showing how the 58 counties are grouped into six geographical areas. With this brief explanation, we will proceed. I like to remember, when I first started in weights and measures, the

"Old Country Store." In some areas there are still a few, I feel sure. Every customer, salesman, and local official was known personally by

the store owner and his wife. When you stopped for your annual

inspection, your car loaded down with tools, extra parts, and standards,

it was a big local event. There were no problems and no rush. If the

visible pump's glass bowl was so dirty you couldn't see the markers

simply routine. A bottle of vinegar, a short stepladder, your kit of

tools, and about 2 hours' labor on your part, and everything was in

shape for testing (if you were lucky). When that job was finished,

108
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

DIRECTOR

CHIEF DEPUTY

3 REGIONAL COORDINATORS 1 I

DIVISION CHIEF COMPLIANCE

BUREAU CHIEF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION

NORTHERN AREA

9 COUNTIES CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY ELECTED

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AREA

16 COUNTIES CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY ELECTED

CENTRAL COAST AREA

9 COUNTIES

CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY ELECTED

OF - -UEXECUTIVE STAFF

ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO DIRECTOR

ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

6 MEMBERS -' 1 FROM EACH AREA

EACH APPOINTED FOR J> YEARS

THOSE LISTED WORK

DIRECTLY WITH COMMITTEE

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES OFFICIALS

NORTH COAST AREA

6 COUNTIES

CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY

ELECTED

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AREA

6 -COUNTIES CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY ELECTED

SOUTHERN AREA

10 COUNTIES

CHAIRMAN ± SECRETARY ELECTED n

PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT

SECRETARY-TREASURER

SPECIAL COMMITTEES UNIFORMITY

SPEC. & TOLERANCES AUDITING

RESOLUTIONS

APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT

L J EXECUTIVE-LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

12 MEMBERS = 2 EACH AREA (1-1 YEAR), (1-2 YEAR) APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT ORGANIZATION COMMUNICATION Figure 1. Organization chart, California Department of Agriculture.

109
Figure 2. Map of California, showing grouping of 58 counties into six geographical areas. the owner complained a little if you hadn't remembered to do the meat

department first, because the odor of mixed vinegar and lead on your

hands and clothes didn't do too much for his meat display.

When you finished the repair and testing of all devices, both the owner and his wife bid you goodby for another year, or would it be

two?

During that period, the State Department of Agriculture, of which we are a small part, had its own special problems—an expanding agriculture program, a rapid increase in imported pests and resultant new

developments in pest control methods and materials, and, as an added

problem, the hoof and mouth disease in cattle that was so bad about

that time. These were all urgent problems that could give the department trouble, not only in the field but in the legislature, if something

wasn't done immediately.

110
During that same period, when the Chief of the State Bureau of

Weights and Measures made a personnel and budget request, he was

either refused or else cut to the bone, principally, I feel, because there were no spectacular problems and the Bureau was considered as just

another of the smaller offices that would get along anyway. They must

have been getting along, because the department seldom heard from the

sealers as a group, and only on rare occasions as individuals.

The Association of Weights and Measures Officials met once a year

at the Annual Conference, had a real fine time, conducted a little business, and carried over what was left until the following convention.

During the year, some areas had occasional meetings and rehashed old

problems and discussed new ones that had often been discussed in an- other area with the Bureau months, and sometimes years, before. The

only communication sent was the occasional "California Sealers'

News" for which we were all very grateful.

In that atmosphere, I feel most of our present weights and measures problems were beginning to develop.

All branches of industry were not only increasing at a very rapid

rate, but making terrific advancements in every phase of production

and marketing procedures. This progress made demands on the local county sealers that, in most counties, could not be adequately handled,

simply because they had neither the equipment nor technical knowledge; and there was no sign of help from a budget- and personneldepleted Bureau.

To add to the problem, there were no well-developed working lines

of communication. This helped to bring about a general, statewide

feeling of frustration which led to intercounty and county-State bickering. There were many misinterpretations and misunderstandings

that developed from secondhand information.

Approximately five years ago, the Director of Agriculture and the

Chief of the Bureau, both very fine men with many years of dedicated

service behind them, arrived at retirement age at about the same time.

Soon after their retirements, a new Director and Bureau Chief were

appointed.

One of the first actions of the new Bureau Chief was to request that an "Advisory Committee," composed of county sealers, be appointed.

I had the honor of being appointed as a member of that first committee.

In looking back it is extremely pleasing to see how far we have come in the overall upgrading of the statewide weights and measures program

;

and all in a relatively short 4-year period.

The Sealers' Advisory Committee to the Director is composed of one

sealer from each of the six geographical areas of the State. Each is appointed by the Director for a 3-year term. Two replacements are appointed each year by the Director, thus leaving four experienced

members on the Committee at all times. A chairman and secretary are

elected by the Committee.

The Committee advises the Department of Agriculture and Bureau

of Weights and Measures on : 1. New trends that may be evident to those at the enforcement level and that may require legislation.

2. New problems in enforcement requiring increased departmental

or Bureau assistance.

3. Bequests for development of new programs.

Ill
4. Requests for new or additional services.

5. Any other related problems or suggestions.

Committee meetings are called by the Director (generally when a request is made to the Director by the Committee Chairman) . Originally, it was planned to have one 2-day meeting a year, with interim

communications by letter correspondence, but, very early, it was

found that two and sometimes three meetings a year were necessary. Expenses for Committee members' travel and subsistence are paid

by the Department. The meetings are always held at the State

Capitol, principally because the Director's staff, Division and Bureau

Headquarters, and technical advice that may be needed, are readily

available there. Meetings start at 10:30 in the morning on the first day, continue

after dinner in the evening, and usually end in the early afternoon

of the second day. This arrangement allows time for travel to and

from meetings on the day of the meeting, resulting in less time lost in

the local jurisdiction.

All recommendations by the Committee are sent directly to the Director by the Committee Chairman. The Director personally takes

action on each recommendation and all releases on recommendations

are made by the Director. Under no condition is there any discussion

outside of meetings by either the State or county personnel in at- tendance, unless first approved by the Director.

I would like to emphasize that, when the Committee was first appointed, there was a feeling by many, and not just the sealers, that

this was just another prestige committee. But after the first immediate problems tackled by the Committee had been given immediate

approval and put into effect, with the personal backing of the Director,

and others were put into effect by the Bureau with the Director's

approval, the sealers as individuals and as an Association saw that

hard work was expected of this Committee and that, through the

Committee, they had the "ear" of the Director in a direct line of

communication.

Gradually, a change could be seen taking place throughout the

State. Constructive reorganization efforts took the place of dis- organized resentment, distrust, and insecurity. Sure, we had problems as a Committee, and we made some false starts, until there was

definite understanding as to where we fit into the overall organization

gicture of Director to Division to Bureau to County Sealers and

ealers' Association.

One of the biggest problems the Committee faced, especially with

the older sealers, was distrust and fear of new ideas, or any changes

that might upset the status quo. We had started programs under

direction before, and had them fall flat, because of no followthrough

at the proper level. We didn't want to be left again with no one to

fall back on. We wanted to be shown.

There was also a feeling by some that this might be a step toward

a totally State-operated weights and measures program with resulting

loss of local control and enforcement. To reassure those sealers, the

Director of Agriculture, on several occasions, made public statements

to the effect that the Bureau was not going to operate at the local level and that, according to State law, it was the individual county's legal

and financial responsibiliy to adequately enforce the State weights

and measures laws at the local level. 112
I am sure you realize that many of the items I have talked about were discussed in the first meetings of the Committee.

Some other items on the agenda are

:

1. The development of an overall statewide "upgrading" of weights

and measures activity—this to be accomplished by placing more

emphasis on uniformity and cooperation—county to State and

State to Nation—in our Laws, Rules, and Regulations, and in

the various fields of training at both the State and county leveL

In regard to training, a rather extensive program has been developed through the cooperative efforts of the Department of

Agriculture, the State Bureau of Weights and Measures, and

the Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of

Standards.

First, Mr. Kerlin, Chief of the State Bureau of Weights and

Measures, and Mr. Jensen, Chief of the Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards, made arrangements

that made it possible for Mr. Jensen to conduct an introductory

type of school in Sacramento at the Annual Business Meeting

of County Sealers and most State Bureau personnel.

At a later date, Mr. Wollin, Engineer, Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards, conducted training

sessions for the State Bureau personnel at Sacramento and again

at Los Angeles.

Next, key personnel from the State Bureau were given a number

of courses in training by specialists of the State Department of

Agriculture.

The following very fine classes are presently conducted by the

Bureau personnel in which Handbook 44- and the Examination

Procedure Outlines are used as guides

:

Train the Trainer.

Weighing Devices.

Measuring Devices.

Public Weighmaster.

Rules of Evidence and Court Procedure.

Petroleum General.

Electric Meter.

Liquid and Vapor (LPG) Meters. These classes are from one-half day to three and one-half days

each, and are set up as a continuing program. I understand

others are in the process of development. The procedure for

presentation is as follows

:

a. At an area meeting, the sealers are given, in four hours,

the recommended procedures and other information that

will be covered in the classes with their supervisors and

field inspectors.

b. Supervisors are given the "Train the Trainer" class.

c. Field inspectors and immediate supervisors are given the

classes on a scheduled basis. Whenever it is possible, arrangements are made with neighboring

counties to hold joint classes.

2. The upgrading of the requirements for all weights and measures

personnel at the county level. (These new requirements, I have

been told, should go into effect by July of this year.)

113
3. The study of the weights and measures laws and procedures of

the State of Wisconsin.

4. Revision, updating, and standardization of some of the forms

that are used statewide. (Under our present organization, this

item would be handled by a committee of the Association.)

Now, with Association committees handling problems that rightfully come within their field, the Advisory Committee will be able

to study other questions such as : What does the future have in store for weights and measures 5, 10, 20, or 50 years from now, and what

groundwork can we lay now in preparation for that future ? In summary, I would personally attribute the success of the Director's Advisory Committee to the following

1. The sincere interest and participation by the Director, Deputy

Director, Staff, Regional Coordinators, Division and Bureau

Chiefs.

2. A communications line reorganized through the cooperation of

the State Bureau and Sealers' Association, actively and accurately used by all agencies, but especially so used by the Sealers'

Association and the State Bureau. (The agenda for all area meetings is sent to the Bureau by the area secretary. The Bureau

then sends the appropriate State personnel to the area meetings.

The area minutes are then sent by the area secretary to the Bureau. The Bureau reproduces the minutes as received and sends

a copy to each sealer in the next weekly mail envelope.)

3. The straightforward and aboveboard approach by all agencies

involved in recognizing a problem, and then meeting across the

conference table and arriving at possible solutions.

4. A revitalized, reorganized, and working association of weights

and measures officials.

5. Generally, to be able to keep our problems and possible solutions

within our own weights and measures structure. THE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE WEIGHTS AND MEAS- I URES DIVISION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS

OF AGRICULTURE

by J. Fred True, State Sealer, Kansas Division of Weights and

Measures, and Secretary, Weights and Measures Division, National

Association of State Departments of Agriculture

During the National Conference on Weights

and Measures in 1962, George Mclntyre, Director of Agriculture of the State of Michigan

and President of the National Association of

State Departments of Agriculture, called a meeting of heads of State weights and measures

activities that organizationally are in State Deparements of Agriculture. Twenty-four offi- cials attended.

After considerable discussion, it was unanimously agreed by the group that steps should

be taken to form a Weights and Measures Division of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and to name as temporary officers of this Di114
vision, Claire Jackson of Wisconsin, President, Lyle Littlefield of

Michigan, Vice President, and J. Fred True or Kansas, SecretaryTreasurer. The officers were directed to draw up preliminary plans

for the organization.

These officers met in August of 1962 and developed a plan for pres- entation to the Weights and Measures Committee of NASDA during

their annual meeting at Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1962. Subsequently, at that same meeting, this plan was adopted by the parent

organization.

The second meeting of State weights and measures heads was called

at the time of the National Conference on Weights and Measures in

June 1963. At this meeting, the temporary officers were elected for

another year, and a committee was appointed to study the requirements for membership in the association.

The United States was divided into four areas : The Western Area

to meet with the Western Weights and Measures Association in August, the Southern Area to meet at the time of the Southern Conference in October, and the North Central Area to meet in Wisconsin

in October. A Northeastern Area was formed, but no specific meeting

arrangements were completed.

At the 1963 meeting of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, a resolution was submitted by the Weights and

Measures Committee and agreed to by the Association. The resolu- tion approved the following plan for the organization of the Weights

and Measures Division

:

PROPOSED PLAN

for ORGANIZATION OF A WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DIVISION

of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE

1. Name.—The name of this organization shall be the Weights and Measures

Division of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.

2. Purposes and Objectives.—The principal purpose of this organization shall be to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and uniformity of administration of weights and measures laws and regulation in the United States.

3. Membership.—All State departments having responsibility for enforce- ment of weights and measures laws shall be eligible for membership.

The Department shall be represented by the person or persons directly

responsible for State weights and measures programs or such other person or persons appointed by the head of the State Department of Agriculture or other

State agency having weights and measures enforcement responsibility.

Each State shall have one vote.

4. Officers.—The officers of this organization shall be President, Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer. Only those persons representing State Departments

of Agriculture membership shall be eligible to serve as officers. The officers shall be elected annually.

5. Annual Meeting.—The membership of this Division shall meet annually

at the time and place of the meeting of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

It is to be noted that item two of the proposed plan sets forth the

purposes and objectives in a very brief statement. It is our plan to be

of service to all State weights and measures agencies, whether they are

in the State Department of Agriculture or in some other department of

State government. We feel that all can improve in service and grow

in stature in their own States. All State departments should cooperate

100 percent in the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

This will bring about uniformity among States in all of the phases of

115
weights and measures laws and enforcement.

We feel that we can be of service to our parent organization, the

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, by keeping

them informed of new demands, up-to-date procedures, and new and

better services that can be offered to the general public and to business

and industry.

The National Bureau of Standards and the Office of Weights and

Measures look to the State offices for their continuing cooperation, and we recommend that all States cooperate fully and utilize the services

of the Office of Weights and Measures and the National Bureau of

Standards.

A STUDY OF PACKAGED AEROSOL PRODUCTS

(1) A Progress Report on Aerosol Packaged Products

by H. F. Wollin and S. Hasko, Engineers, Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards

The Office of Weights and Measures has deI voted considerable time and effort during the

I past year to the measurement of packaged aero- B | sol products. Increasingly, weights and measI ures officials, representatives of the aerosol in- jJ^Hn dustry, and others, have expressed the need for ^^fl JB mm a solution to the problems that relate to the HHm41BKk_!l determination of net contents. ft^S The aerosol industry has mushroomed from HdI I its beginning during World War II to the pro- jH^HH I duel ion of more than 1 billion containers in 1963,

EhHHHHHI 9 and with this growth have come several problems with respect to official control over the

quantity of commodity of aerosols, namely, the need for ( 1 ) regulatory

requirements and procedural guidelines, (2) standards of measure- ment and uniform test methods for regulatory officials and for the j industry, and (3) coordination among the States. At the present time, neither the Model Law on Weights and Measures nor State laws have provisions pertaining specifically to aerosol I products. A number of States have promulgated the Model Package

Regulation which specifies only that, if a commodity is packaged in an

aerosol container, the quantity declaration shall be in terms of weight,

including the propellant.

Many weights and measures jurisdictions have been reluctant to include aerosol products in their package control programs for lack of

regulatory and procedural guidelines. In fact, in the interest of national uniformity, deliberate effort has been made by the States to await the development of sound and proven test methods. The jurisdictions that have followed a test program based on methods developed

tentatively, have reported many cases of shortweight aerosol packages

when checked on either the dry or wet tare basis. The National Conference on Weights and Measures first gave atten- tion to the aerosol situation when Mr. H. E. Peterson, representing the

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, was invited to appear on the Conference program in 1960. His informative presentation was

focused on products, processes, propellants, and problems in packaging. Mr. Peterson emphasized that it was the practice of the industry

116
to label aerosol products by weight rather than by volume. Prior to

this Conference, many enforcement officials were of the firm opinion

that the net content statement should represent only the commodity

delivered and should not include the weight of the propellant. The

separation of the commodity from the propellant, once these have been

dispensed is, of course, a unique technical problem.

As a result of the industry view, as expressed by Mr. Peterson, and

discussion during the Conference that year, there developed a general

agreement that (1) aerosols must be labeled to show average net

weight, and (2) that labeled weight should include the propellant.

This w

T as provided for in the Model Package Regulation as adopted

by the Conference the following year.

It appears that the major problem now facing both enforcement

officials and aerosol packagers is "wet tare" versus "dry tare." Simply

stated, the wet tare method recognizes the net quantity of product to be that which can be delivered by the aerosol container following the

packagers labeled instructions. Dry tare means the net quantity of

product contained in a dispenser.

The basic philosophy in support of the view of enforcement officials for wet tare is that, since the consumer purchases a system and not

merely a commodity, he expects nothing less than the delivery of the

labeled net weight. This viewpoint seems to be universal among the

States, even though it is recognized that such requirements will differ from those of almost any other type of package.

The view of officials seems to have been strengthened by the state- ments on aerosol packages that warn against puncturing the container.

Unfortunately, there apparently are segments of the aerosol packaging industry that were, and perhaps still are, reluctant to package

according to the wet tare principle—their contention being that they

are responsible only for the net quantity contained.

To help resolve some of the differences of opinion and technical

problems associated with the enforcement and marketing of aerosol

products, M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures,

National Bureau of Standards, accepted an invitation to address the

50th Annual Meeting of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers

Association, Aerosol Division, last December. In his presentation

before this large gathering of the Nation's leading aerosol packagers,

and during informal discussion with CSMA officials, Mr. Jensen thoroughly explored the weights and measures situation, and from this

meeting there developed a spirit of cooperation between the Office of

Weights and Measures and the several committees of CSMA that were

assigned to weights and measures matters. It was recommended that

immediate action be taken to bring about an acceptable solution to the problems confronting both the industry and State regulatory

officials. Less than a month later, a meeting of the CSMA Aerosol Net Weight

Committee and several members of the OWM staff was held in Washington, D.C. Discussion centered on test methods and data that had

been compiled by various groups, and plans for future activity were

developed. This was the beginning of the present study by the Office

of Weights and Measures. The study is not yet complete, and it is expected to continue for some time.

The specific aim of this study was to find an acceptable means by

which the average net delivered weight of a sample of aerosol packages

117
could be accurately and simply determined by weights and measures

inspectors during routine field inspection. With this in mind, the

study was based upon several important principles, among which

were:

(1) The insistence of State weights and measures officials for the

wet tare principle of measurement preclude the investigation of a dry

tare method.

(2) The inspection procedures for aerosols, as with all packaged

commodities, should be in conformance with the basic concepts and

recommended guidelines for checking prepackaged commodities as set forth in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 67. (3) Test methods should involve a minimum of time and test equipment.

(4) An aerosol test should reproduce as nearly as possible, and by

practical means, results similar to actual consumer usage.

(5) Because of the possible variation in test procedures according

to product characteristics, a general classification of aerosol products was necessary.

(6) Variation of test procedures should be held to a practical

minimum.

(7) Standard test conditions, such as temperature, and the operation of dispensers were to be established and controlled, and

(8) The development of procedures and methods would be done

cooperatively with representatives of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association who were conducting similar studies. At an early stage in our investigation, we accepted an invitation

to visit the laboratory of a leading producer of aerosol propellants

and the plant of a high-speed contract filler. Our visit to these firms was most informative and helped considerably to broaden our knowledge of aerosol products and production.

Shortly thereafter, the study became one of experimentation and

testing. An agreement had been reached with CSMA that our studies

would be devoted initially to foam-type products, primarily shaving

creams. It was the feeling that foam products, which are easily identifiable, offered the most difficult problems and, when these special

problems were solved, other products would fall nicely in line. At

this time, it was decided tentatively to classify aerosol products into

three brood categories: (1) Foams (shaving creams), (2) Space

(room deodorants), and (3) Kesidual—of low (colognes), medium

(paints), and high (ointments) viscosities. Thanks to our associates in the industry we received a sizable quantity of foam products from many of the major manufacturers. The

Office of Weights and Measures provided the necessary test equipment,

the major purchase being a new temperature-humidity control chamber. Incidentally, it should be emphasized that the work involved in

this study is not indicative of what lies ahead for each weights and

measures jurisdiction. We hope that because of the studies being

made, enforcement officials need only to be concerned with the implementation of the specific procedures and test methods to be developed.

The delivery methods that were known to be in use at the start of

the investigation were the CSMA "Canadian" method and the so- called "Jensen" method. The later being so designated by the industry

as it originated in the Office of Weights and Measures about a year

ago as an experimental method. These methods and modifications

118
thereof were the methods on which most of our experimental work

has been based.

The Canadian Method is believed to have been developed by the

Canadian counterpart of CSMA and recommended to Canadian offi- cials for use in their aerosol control program. No detailed description

of this method is presented herewith. However, it would seem advisable to mention that the test of a single container covers a time interval

of approximately 192 hours, or 8 days, from start to completion. Although data compiled by the industry indicate satisfactory results following the Canadian Method, such a prolonged test method could

hardly be suitable for use in the field by enforcement officials in this

country. It is not known what use Canadian officials have made of

the method, if any.

Recognizing the need for a simplified test method, initial effort was

devoted to the evaluation of the tentative OWM method and the design

of new methods for experimentation. Three basic methods were

developed and studied. Tests were performed by two persons, operating independently. Test temperatures were controlled at 75° F,

plus or minus 5°. In addition, actual consumer use tests were estab- lished and evaluated. A brief summary of the various methods and

tests follows:

1. The Continuous Delivery Method

A sample container was first accurately weighed (to the nearest 1/10 gram) to determine gross weight. If instructions on a container

specified shaking, it was shaken vigorously with a wrist-twisting

motion for 15 seconds. The container was then exhausted by holding

the valve open by hand until the bulk of product had been expelled.

The container was then placed in a test stand, with the valve clamped

in an open position, and allowed to sit until no more product or propellant came out. The external surfaces of the completely exhausted

container were then rinsed, air dried, and the can reweighed. By fol- lowing these steps, the delivered weight of product from a container was determined. To test for the effect of propellant regeneration,

and the settling of product to the bottom of the container, each aerosol was allowed to rest overnight (usually a period of 16 hours or more)

then placed back in the test stand with the valve clamped down and

held until it was completely exhausted. Again, the container was

rinsed, dried, and weighed. The additional delivered weight due to regeneration and settling was thus determined.

2. The Vibrator Method

This method was similar in all respects to the one just described,

with the exception that a barbershop-type vibrator was attached to the operator's hand and the container was vibrated while the product was being expelled.

3. The Accelerated Use Method

The step-by-step procedures of this method were also similar to those in the Continuous Delivery Method, the only difference being

that the container was exhausted by depressing the valve intermittently to deliver a small amount of foam product (about the size of a golf ball) each time the valve was depressed. The container was given

three quick shakes before each small delivery until it was exhausted.

119
4. The OWM Tentative Method

The three methods for rapid delivery just described were modifications of the OWM Tentative Method, The steps in this method were

1. Weigh container for gross weight.

2. If instructions on can specify shaking, shake vigorously with

wrist twisting motion for 20 seconds.

3. Exhaust container by

(a) Holding valve open for 3 seconds

(b) Closing valve for 5 seconds

(c) Shaking can for 10 seconds after every third cycle.

4. When container appears exhausted, apply clamp to hold valve in

open position until nothing more comes out.

5. Remove clamp and allow container to rest overnight, then replace

clamp to see if additional product can be expelled.

6. Rinse surface, air dry, and reweigh.

7. The delivered content is the difference between the gross weight

and the weight of the completely expelled container.

5. The Consumer Use Test Each of a number of selected individuals was given a can of aerosol

shaving cream to use at home. Each container was first carefully

weighed for gross weight and marked with an identification number.

Instructions to each person were to use the product as he normally

would, paying attention to instructions labeled on the container, and

to return the container when he was satisfied that no more usable

product was available. As the used containers were returned, they were cleaned and rinsed, air dried, and reweighed to determine the

weight of product used by the consumer. These cans were also tested

for regeneration in the laboratory.

I 6. The Consumer Retention Test It seemed significant to try to determine the amount of product that

would on the average, be retained in a container that was used and

discarded by a large cross section of consumers. The first attempt to obtain such containers from the city refuse plants failed. Our next

j attempt was more successful. A request was put out to friends, neighbors, and the several thousand National Bureau of Standards employees in the Washington area to bring their empty aerosol

containers to us. The response was excellent and at the rate they keep

coming in, we may find it profitable to go into the used aerosol

container business.

So far we have tested only foam-product containers. Any contain- j er that was obviously damaged or inoperative was omitted from the I tests. Those tested were first cleaned and rinsed, air dried, and

weighed. Since these containers had more than ample time to regenerate from the time they were collected, no additional regeneration

period was considered necessary. The next step was to see if we

could get more out of the containers by placing them in test stands and

clamping the valve open. When we were satisfied all product had

been expelled, the container was again rinsed, dried, and reweighed.

Following this operation, the containers were opened by can opener,

j thoroughly cleaned and dried, inside and out, and then weighed for

the third time. This procedure enabled us to determine (1) the

120
retention following average consumer usage and, (2) the retention of

a consumer used package allowing for a final regeneration and ex- haustion. The results obtained thus far show the retention of the

former (1) to be 13.4 weight percent and of the latter (2) to be 3.5 weight percent.

Table 1. Evaluation of experimental methods 1

Order of Order of Method 2 minimum reproducibility retention

Continuous delivery 2 1 Vibrator . 1 2 Accelerated use__ 3 OWM tentative 4 }

1 The experimental methods were evaluated on the basis of one regeneration.

2 The average retention based upon labeled weight ranged from a low of 2.1 weight percent for the vibrator method to 5.6 weight percent for the OWM

tentative method.

Evaluation of the data from this preliminary experimental work

(table 1) indicated that both the Continuous Delivery Method and

the Vibrator Method were good methods. The Continuous Delivery

Method was selected for additional testing because it was simpler, more reproducible, and the results more closely approximated data

I that were being obtained from the consumer retention tests. A test run was prepared using 140 samples of aerosol foam prodi ucts. Included were 10 samples each of a cosmetic foam, a foam

shampoo, a foam hand cream, and 11 different kinds of shaving- creams. Temperatures of TO, 75, and 80 °F plus or minus y2 °F were

selected for the tests to determine how sensitive the method was to minor differences in temperature. The tests were conducted by two

experienced operators to determine the effect of operational variations on the test method. A proportion of the samples was set aside after

the initial tests for additional regeneration tests. A separate run was made at 75 °F on 26 samples of foam products using the CSMACanadian Method for comparison purposes. Included in the test were two samples each of all products previously mentioned (with the ex- ception of one shaving cream, of which we lacked sufficient samples).

The test was conducted by the same two operators.

Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in the amount

expelled from the aerosol containers for the two operators. This is very important since a test method to be acceptable must yield repro- ducible results when properly conducted by regulatory officials and

I others. The analysis also showed no significant difference in the

amount expelled at the temperatures of 70, 75, and 80 °F. This also

is important since it is not expected that the inspector in the field will have precise control over sample temperature.

The retentions of aerosol foam products evaluated by the continuous

j delivery method are tabulated in table 2. Values are given for the

method with no regeneration and with one regeneration. Also in- cluded are the standard deviations (expressed in weight percent).

747-830 O - 65 -
Table 2. Retention of aerosol foam products 1

Retention (amount left in container) Continuous Delivery Method Retention (amount

left in Product 2 No regeneration One regeneration container) Overfill 3 CSMACanadian

Quantity 3 Standard Quantity 3 Standard Method 5 dev.4 dev.4 Wt% wt% wt% Wt% Wt % Wt %

A 4. 6 0. 84 3.

0. 69 2.4 3.0 B 4.0 0. 93 2.2 0. 70 1. 7 4.6 Q 3. 7 0. 82 2. 7 0. 32 4. 5 1.

D 5. 2 0.80 3. 7 0. 51 6A 3. 7 E 5.0 0.69 4.5 0.46 2.9 5.4 F 5.9 1.08 4.3 0.50 2.4 5.3 G 4.0 0.81 3.4 1. 16 3.0 H 2.4 0. 47 1.6 0. 54 2. 2 1. 6

I 1.2 0.21 1.0 0.23 1.4 0.3 J 4.

0. 75 3.0. 69 2. 7 1. 2

XT 2.3 0. 52 1.6 0. 31 1 K n 7 u. / L 1 3 0. 41 1 3 0. 39 i a 1. o —A O U. i M 4^3 0^72 2! 9 0^63 1.4 0.2 N 6.2 1.08 3.9 0.68 2. 2 4.9 Average all foam products 3.9

3.9

2.9 2.6 2.5 Average all shave creams . . 2.9 2.8 2.7 Average other foam products- 3.9 2.7 1.8 1.6 Average small containers (4, 6, 6>ioz.) 4.2 3.1 3.0 2.8 Average large container (10, 11 oz.) 3.4 2.6 1.9 0.5

1 Percent retention and overfill is based upon the labeled weight.

2 Foam products other than shave creams (products L, M, and N). Small containers (products A, B,

C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and N). Large containers (products J, K, L, and M).

3 Average of 10 samples.

4 Of an individual can within the sample of 10.

8 Average of 2 samples. The standard deviation is an estimate of the dispersion of the variables

around the mean (i.e., the average variability of the results) . Statistical theory indicated that about 65 percent of the values will fall within the limits of ± one standard deviation and that about 95 per- cent of the values will fall within the limits of ± two times the standard deviation. Other values of interest given in table 2 are the overfill and the retention and overfill averages for (a) all foam products, (b)

all shave creams, (c) other foam products, (d) products in small containers (4, 6, and 6*4 oz.), and (e) products in large containers (10

and 11 oz.). It may be noted that the average differences between

the one regeneration and no regeneration values will vary from 0.8 to

1.2 weight percent depending on container size and product (shave cream or other) with an overall average for all aerosols of 1.0 weight

percent. The average retention of all foam products with the con- tinuous delivery method and no regeneration was 3.9 weight percent.

With one regeneration the average retention was 2.9 weight percent. | Additional regenerations reduced the retention by 0.1 weight percent.

The variation between these averages and the averages of all shave

creams, other foam products, products in small containers, or products

in large containers did not exceed 0.5 weight percent.

The retentions of aerosol foam products evaluated by the Chemical

Specialties Manufacturers Association-Canadian method also are tabulated in table 2. The standard deviations for these packages are not included, since only two samples of each product were examined

by this method. Other values given in column 6 of the table are the , retention averages for the same classifications of products as listed in columns 2 and 4. 122
Another variable in addition to product consistency, namely, container design, and particularly the type of valve employed, appeared

to have an effect upon the results (i.e., retentions and standard deviations). Since such are the packagers prerogatives no evaluations were made.

Serious consideration is presently being given to the establishment

of a factor that will correct for the difference in the wet tare as determined by test and the wet tare that would be found following normal

consumer use. Several means and formulas for determining an acceptable correc- tion factor for foam products have been discussed with CSMA representatives. However, no agreement has yet been reached due to lack of time to study the various proposals. How many factors will

eventually be needed for all aerosols has not been established. We

believe it is reasonable to expect that a single factor can be developed

for an entire general class of products.

The factor development of one experimental test method employing

a retention factor is outlined in the following manner

:

Net weight = Gross weight — Tare weight

Wet tare

t \ Net delivered weight = Gross weight—(Dry tare-)- [Ret. FactorX Label Weight])

*

, —

Retention

r> . t,

", Amount retained in can after test by an accepted procedure

Retention Factor= T , . r-r^ Label weight

The retention factor is a factor that would be determined by the Office

of Weights and Measures working in cooperation with the Chemical

Specialties Manufacturers Association and would be supplied to weights and measures officials. The factor devleopment of another experimental test method employing a regeneration factor is as follows

:

Net weight = Gross weight — Tare weight

T corrected wet tare

t \ Net Delivered weight = Gross weight—(Wet Tare—[Reg. FactorX Label weight])

' *

' Regeneration allowance Wet Tare—Wet Tare (after regeneration) Regeneration Factor= T , .—V-rr - Label weight

The regeneration factor is a factor that would be determined by OWM working in cooperation^with CSMA and would be supplied to

officials for use in the field. In this method it would not be necessary

to open the containers. It should be stressed at this time that these

123
are still experimental methods and they are presented here merely as

a progress report.

We are optimistic that an agreement will be reached with CSMA in

the very near future on a simplified test procedure for foam products.

Notification and details of the agreed upon procedure will be dis- tributed to weights and measures officials through the Office of Weights 1 and Measures Tech Memo. Procedures for other types of aerosol

products will be distributed as they are developed.

It is our firm conviction that a most difficult problem can be solved

by industry's cooperation in the development of a relatively simple

and practical procedure—a procedure that both the enforcement offi- cial and the packager can adopt and easily perform. A procedure that

is in conformance with the basic philosophy of regulatory officials and

with the aim of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

(2) Net Weight in Aerosol Packages

by F. T. Keed, Chairman, Scientific Committee, Aerosol Division,

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association

H^^^B ^ne aeros°l industry appreciates this oppor- I tunity to address the National Conference on vl I Weights and Measures and discuss the net

I weight of aerosol packages. In speaking for our t flSFV mdustry, I hope to convince you of our sincerity

Jm ¥ fl in working with your technical associates in m KJj trymf? t0 arrive at workable test procedures & ' « I wni cn allow the States to set up intelligent

I % I regulations that will not be a burden to the I marketers of aerosol packages.

Dealing with regulatory agencies is by no HJ 1 means new to our aerosol industry, even though we are relatively young in the field of consumer

products. Some of our past dealings with these agencies have been

difficult, but I want to take this opportunity to say that working with

Mr. Jensen and his staff at the Bureau of Standards has been pleasant.

We have experienced technical difficulties and differences of opinion

but have been able to resolve these without serious harm to our ultimate

objective. I am sure we can expect new problems to arise as our work

proceeds due to the complexities of aerosol products, but I am confident

that none will pose a serious block to continued cooperation.

Let me outline to you briefly what our industry has done to date in an

effort to resolve the problem of how our aerosol package will be labeled

as to net weight. As you know, some of the States have been using a procedure to verify the net contents of an aerosol container in terms

of the amount of material which a consumer can obtain from the container by following the directions stated thereon rather than by deter- mining the amount of material in the container. Because of a variety

of difficulties in interpreting and applying these procedures, some

aerosol packages have been picked up by inspectors here and there. This action made it quite apparent to us as an industry that some

uniformity of application should be developed promptly in fairness to both the industry and State officials. Fortunately, you have also recognized this, and through Mr. Jensen's group at the National

Bureau of Standards, initiated action to study the problem to see if 124
suitable procedures could be developed and recommended to the States. We in CSMA have been working on the problem for approximately

a year. Close cooperation with Mr. Jensen started approximately six

months ago when it was indicated that the industry's desire for a drytare method for calculating the net contents of an aerosol container

might not be acceptable to State agencies. This, I believe, was unfortunate because there are many who sincerely believe that it will be

quite difficult to develop an inspection procedure if the net contents is based on what consumers with varying habits of use can discharge from

the container. However, as a responsible industry we recognize that

evidence of good faith and cooperation should be demonstrated regardless of our convictions of the merits of the dry-tare method. Therefore, we have directed our technical committees to examine methods

which are aimed at satisfying the so-called "wet-tare" requirement.

In cooperation with the Bureau of Standards we have now examined

five methods of field testing aerosol products. Two of these methods

are based on investigations by Mr. Jensen's group, two are based on

procedures which our industry has developed, and one is based on a development by the Canadian Manufacturers of Chemical Specialties

Association. Except for one, all of these methods have been an attempt

to approximate consumer usage without being so literal as to duplicate

the time the product might be in the consumer's hands.

Our studies to date have been confined to aerosol foam products,

primarily shaving lather. Selection of this particular type of product was intentional because both groups recognized it as a difficult product

to discharge completely. Equally pertinent was the fact that shaving

lathers were the first products picked up by State inspectors for

alleged short weight. As a result of our joint studies which include

tests by many laboratories on hundreds of foam-type aerosols, we may

be close to a method which will allow your inspectors to examine

aerosol shaving lathers in a reasonably short period of time. Because

of the nature of the product, one cannot remove the entire contents of an aerosol shave lather; however, when properly used, most aerosols can be discharged to the extent of 97 to 99 percent of the contents. Thus, the last few percent of the stated label weight which cannot be

removed can be compensated for by overfilling.

Our aim is to demonstrate that an aerosol package such as shaving

lather can be generalized for all brands and a given factor established

for a particular product. This will permit an initial screening procedure and provide some indication as to whether the container is short

weight. This factor will be some numerical percentage or fraction of

overfill based on the stated label contents. By following a prescribed

procedure for emptying the containers, it is hoped that a State inspector will be able to quickly empty the contents of an aerosol shaving

lather, apply the stated factor to the difference in weight between the

full and emptied container, and arrive at a figure which can be checked

against the stated label contents. In many ways it is discouraging to realize at this point that it has

taken us at least six months of working in cooperation with the Bureau

of Standards to even come close to a method for one single aerosol

product. This would not be of great concern if it were not for the fact

that the number of different types of aerosol products exceeds three

hundred. Obviously, we cannot treat each of these products as we

have shaving lathers. Fortunately, many aerosol products are suffici- 125
ently similar that one method will probably apply to a great number

of them. For example, many of the spray products based on formulations of relatively low viscosity will probably all adapt themselves to the same procedure. Perhaps such large-volume products as hair

sprays, room deodorants, colognes and insecticides will fit this cate- gory. The problem facing our industry, however, is that first we must I develop a procedure which will be acceptable to the States and fair to the marketers of all these products. Each marketer will certainly wish

to check his own product against any method, and I am almost certain

that because of packaging or formulation uniqueness, some marketers

are going to find that the particular method selected will exert an

unusual hardship on them. This invariably seems to be the case, and

here is where the Aerosol Division of CSMA, in attempting to serve the technical needs of its many members and their multitude of products, finds itself many times m an extremely difficult position. It is virtually impossible to find methods which will not be unfair to even

a small segment of marketers. Even a compromise does not always

solve the problem, but perhaps State regulations will be made flexible enough to permit a marketer with a unique package to comply or obtain an exemption without having recourse to the courts to prove

that his package, when used as directed, will deliver the stated weight. . To cite another example of a difficulty I feel we are facing, let me

say a few words about aerosol paints. Incidentally, you might be

interested in knowing that 113 million cans of aerosol paint were pro- duced in 1963. The total for all types of aerosol products was over a

billion. Considerable technical effort goes into the formulation of a good aerosol paint. Many factors are involved which do not arise in conventional brush-on paints. The result is that each aerosol surfacecoating product, be it paint, lacquer, or enamel, is likely to be a unique

formulation. The amount which can be delivered from a specific

container under prescribed conditions of use will not be the same as another formulation in exactly the same package. Without elaborating

further, we believe that if some sort of overfill factor is to be used for

paints, the factor at best might be limited only to a specific color within

a given class of surface coatings. It is obvious that neither the States nor the aerosol industry could live with a set of factors for every color

of lacquer, every color of enamel, and every color of paint.

Recognizing that aerosol paint may be a more difficult product for

which to develop an equitable test procedure, we have a committee

actively working on the problem. I believe the group at the Bureau

has also initiated effort in this direction. Hopefully, our joint efforts will lead us to a satisfactory solution as I believe the study on shave

lather is rapidly approaching. Much of the knowledge we gain in the

study of one product can be applied to the next. Thus, as our studies progress, we should find the task increasingly less difficult. Many members of our industry believe that it is a mistake not to base

labeled contents on a dry-tare method. I am perfectly aware that this

statement raises a red flag, but I believe it only fair that I be allowed

to state the majority opinion of our industry members on this subject.

Our conferences and discussions with many of you have convinced us, however, that we must seek a compromise. Mr. Jensen has been most

helpful in explaining the States' position and problems to us. A

cooperative effort is the only solution, and the leaders in our industry

are behind this effort. 126
We recognize that we must live with problems which you have.

Therefore, the Aerosol Division of CSMA is most anxious to be a part

of the work which your technical people are doing to develop methods to be used by State inspectors and we are appreciative of the

opportunity. As a responsible industry of many segments, we do not

want procedures forced upon our members with no opportunity to offer our own recommendations. The cooperation we have had with the

Bureau in the few months that this study has been in progress has

indeed been refreshing and given us the opportunity to work out the answers to the problem. We want to make every effort to see that it continues, and I am convinced that ultimately we can develop test procedures which will be acceptable to both industry and Government

for the billion or more aerosols produced in this country. It is suggested that whatever testing procedure is finally adopted for aerosol

shave lather should be adopted on a tentative basis for one year. This

would give both the States and the industry the chance to work out

any "bugs" that may result from applying that testing method in the

field. In the meantime, we and the Bureau can work along together on field testing methods for other products. Having been close to the

problem, I am aware of the many difficulties that face us ; and I plead

for your patience in allowing us to carry this investigation through

to an intelligent conclusion.

Gentlemen, this concludes the prepared paper which I have. However, I would like to make a few more pertinent remarks.

Only this morning we learned with considerable surprise and dis- may that the Final Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations

provides a recommendation that Section 3.1. of the Model Regulation

contain the following proviso : That the declaration of quantity of an

aerosol package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity, in- cluding propellant, that will be expelled when the instructions for

use as shown on the container are followed.

To enact this proviso at this time when there are no acceptable test methods, as both the Bureau and our industry reports today have

indicated, would be to create a condition of chaos. Each State could

act on its own without uniformity, with the result that neither your

State inspectors nor the industry would know what to do or how to do it. We can only plead again that this proviso not be enacted at this

session and held in abeyance until our cooperative work with Mr.

Jensen's staff is concluded.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM K. Gullege : How soon can we expect aerosol products to be uniformly labeled on the basis of weight? That includes so-called dairy

products.

Dr. Reed : As far as I know, all products should now be uniformly

marked on the basis of weight. Presumably those who are now marketing products and not marking them on the basis of weight simply

are not complying with the existing regulations.

Mr. Gulledge : Do you have a suggestion as to what the local man

should do when these packages are labeled by a liquid volume and the

State law does not specify it ? Dr. Reed : All I can say is that, as Mr. Peterson pointed out here

four years ago, the aerosol industry desires that products be marketed

127
on the basis of weight. We have so stated our position, and many

States have accepted this position, and passed regulations to that

effect and, frankly, it is hard for us as an association to be particularly

sympathetic to those who do not want to go along with this. However,

you must remember that, as an association, we have no legal arm of any

sort that can force people to mark a container the way the majority of

the association feels the container should be marked, but I feel that, as a regulatory agency, you have the privilege of doing whatever you

see fit to make them comply with what existing regulations you have.

(Following the discussion of packaged aerosol products, the Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances was presented by R. E. Meek,

Chairman, Director, Division of Weights and Measures, Indianapolis, Indiana,

and can be found beginning on page 179.)

128
AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1964

(D. M. Turnbull, Chairman, Presiding)

MODERN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES TECHNOLOGY

by W. C. Hughes, Chief Administrative Assistant, Division of Standards, Department of Labor and Industries, State of Massachusetts

Modern, accelerated technological advancement in all facets of human endeavor is reflected

all about us. Even in the simplest accomplishment, the pattern of automation is present. In

our own chosen field, the mechanical phase governing the manufacture and use of weighing

and measuring devices has not benefited from

technological advancement as rapidly as has

other segments of industry. We who have been

closely associated with weights and measures

for a period of more than thirty years administered through a period when technological

changes in the fabrication of weighing and

measuring devices were virtually nonexistent.

The first notable advancement in this field was in volumetric measuring devices, where we witnessed the evolution from the 1- and 5- gallon bucket to the 1-gallon, 5-gallon, and 10-gallon piston pumps,

thence the installation of the nutating disk-type meter with the visible

register, the conversion of hand-operated pumps to operation by air

and electric motor, thence the substitution of the meter and register as the measuring and recording mediums. These earlier automatic sys- tems, indeed, left much to be desired in the permanency of accurate measurement. However, they did represent the initial movement in

the progressive advancement to the present-day highly accurate volumetric-measuring devices used in dispensing petroleum products ac- curately at rates of flow ranging from 0.05 gallon to several thousand

gallons per minute.

The present-day trend, particularly in the dispensing of petroleum

products at wholesale, is toward complete automation, with the in- volvement of electronic technological principles as the basis for all determinations and recordings.

The dispensers of motor fuels at retail level do not reflect any mechanical revolutionary change in the past decade. However, the lack

of visible indication of further progress in this regard cannot be in- terpreted as a static attitude on the part of industry. We who have

attended annual conferences some years ago had the opportunity to

see proposed methods of dispensing at retail for the future. We know

that the petroleum industry does not regard present-day methods of

dispensing gasoline in filling stations as either desirable or adequate.

The cumbersome pumps and islands contribute to unnecessary delays

and accidents. They appreciate the fact that there is room for considerable improvement ; likewise, manufacturers of dispensing equipment

unquestionably have had on their drawing boards and in their experimental laboratories technological possibilities which will revolutionize

methods of dispensing motor fuels at retail. The technological advancement in scale design and construction

lagged considerably behind the advancements accomplished in the disi
pensing of liquid products, and it is only now that the real surge in the I application of modern technology in the fabrication of weighing de- vices becomes evident and to some degree exciting.

Automatic prepackaging scales involving electromagnetic, electronic

tube, and transistor principles have come into use during the past

decade.

We, too, are witnessing the employment of load cells to replace

lever systems in scales. There is also the growing use of the lever and

load cell combination.

Of course, our reference here relates only to the more conventional

devices but represents a welcome step in progress. These devices have

presented some problems. Certain weaknesses in the components

used in the fabrication of the assembly have become evident in the

field, resulting in serious errors and creating situations which might

have resulted in the prosecution of innocent people.

We will not deal with names, for such would be unfair and contrib- ute nothing to evaluation of the subject matter. However, I do

believe that it is interesting to cite incidents to substantiate statements made in the course of this address.

There was an instance involving a large chain store where a particular meat item bore a total price considerably in excess of the correct

price. It was evident that there had been a deficiency in the mechanics

of the scale as the weight and price per pound were correct. Yet,

upon test, we could not again get the same determinations by repeated

tests. The scale continued in use and some two weeks later, the store I manager contacted us to advise that the scale had again computed

wrongly. Investigation provided information that the error was at only one price per pound and did not always occur but at certain periods would compute each and every package at that price per pound

in excess of the correct price by a considerable amount. When a very

cooperative manufacturer was contacted by a long-distance phone

call, he just could not conceive of such a condition occurring and

requested that we mail him for perusal some of the price tags. As

a result, an expert from the factory was dispatched to the store where I it was discovered that there was a failure of one of the components

in the assembly which resulted in the intermittent inaccuracy.

We had another case where an inspector submitted a report where

a great many instances of serious errors were present. This was a

different situation. Computations were right at the price per pound

for the weights indicated, but represented overpricing because the

weight was inaccurate. This situation was, indeed, disturbing.

The inspector, in addition to filing his written report, phoned to

state that he had checked this particular outlet many times, and it was difficult for him to believe that they were operating; in other

words, that it was intentional. In reviewing the report we could not

reconcile our feelings with his. We, therefore, scheduled a hearing to determine reasons for the errors. Bear in mind, our inspector had

spent considerable time testing this scale at all points and found it accurate within prescribed tolerance. The hearing was held, the store manager appeared and could give no plausible excuse for conditions

found by our inspector. He stated that the scale mechanic made tests and that there was no evidence of mechanical difficulty which would j account for the errors. In conversation with the manager, he impressed us by his candor, yet we had a record of gross errors before

130
us to adjudicate. Before the hearing was concluded, we called the

scale company in question and talked to the service manager who

frankly stated that there was nothing that could go wrong with the

scale which woulc^ cause such a condition; that rather, had it been

a failure or a weakness in one of the electronic tubes, the inclination

would be underregistration as the impulses would be fewer. The

manager was apprised of our phone conversation and we suggested

that he contact the utility company and have them check the voltage

in his store. He called back the next day stating that this had been

accomplished and that the voltage was adequate and constant. Our inspector went back and made further inspections and found

things in good condition and the assembly apparently performing ac- curately. In the meantime, the matter of prosecution was held in

abeyance, for which we are now most thankful.

Some ten days later the manager called our office to state that the

scale was again wrong and that he had discontinued use immediately

so that observation could be made by scale mechanics. This time they

did find the trouble, and from top echelon of the company we were

advised that this condition had never evidenced itself before and that

they just could not conceive of such resulting in overregistration rather

than underregistration.

More recently, we have had another condition where, again by a considerable lesser amount, we found disturbing variances where a package on successive weighings would vary by as much as 0.03 pound

plus or minus from the true weight on successive weighings. Again

servicemen said that they could find no trouble with this scale but

replaced it because of our findings. Later we were notified that they

did find the trouble and again it was failure of one of the assembly's

components.

We had another instance in relation to a large-capacity scale employing load cells. The scale had been purchased by a municipality

and installed in the yard at their electric generating plant for the purpose of checkweighing fuels. We were called upon to make accuracy

tests of this scale and these tests were continued periodically over a period of three years before the scale could be sealed. Adjustment

would be made to the load cells and to the recorder but would not hold

for more than a 24 hour period. The scale mechanic was a good mechanic but not an electrical engineer, nor had he too much experience

in the field of electronics. He was given a handful of resistors and

a soldering iron to replace the hammer and wrench. I do not wish

to be critical of the company that made the installation as they were

most cooperative, and I am sure that they must have lost a considerable sum of money before the scale could be finally accepted and paid for. Various theories were advanced by different engineers who were

called from various sections of the country. Some contended that

sharing a common ground with an aluminum company resulted in

fluctuating errors. Others attributed the condition to the proximity

of the installation to the generating plant. Finally one engineer

apparently found the trouble which was diagnosed as intermittent

voltage fluctuation in the cables. It was alleged that the cables themselves were faulty.

We experienced a somewmat similar situation in the installation of

another manufacturer using similar electronic principles. Tests of

this particular installation were over a period of many months, and

131
I am told the fluctuations were the result of damage which occurred

by flooding as the result of an unusual high tide. Whether or not

this was the cause, we do not know. We do know that after many

hours of work by the company's mechanics and at great cost in manhours to the city involved and the Commonwealth, correction was

accomplished.

These instances cited do not represent the involvement of the many

unusual weighing and measuring devices used in industry.

We recently received a call from a manufacturer in this Commonwealth who manufactures automatic pneumatic weighing and measuring devices. He was concerned because his products were so specialized that few, if any, of the principles in the conventional weighing

and measuring devices were involved and therefore H44, by way of

specifications, etc., could not offer much of a guide; and yet, he ex- pected to be confronted with type-approval requests in several jurisdictions. We were unable to assist this manufacturer so referred

him to Mr. Jensen at the Bureau for advice and possible relief. Unquestionably, many of you present have experienced similar sit- uations which might well raise the question as to whether or not the

present method of providing a code for weighing and measuring

devices is sufficient to keep abreast of the rapid technological changes we are witnessing. It would appear that there is need for revision

of present methods of providing specifications, regulations, etc., governing the manufacture, sale, testing, and use of weighing and measuring apparatus. Present requirements do not provide for standards

of quality for components which constitute many assemblies.

Likewise, there is need for greater study and facilities to perform

adequate inspection and tests of the various components used in the

fabrication of a device. These determinations should be made only on the basis of sound engineering principles with recommendations

for correcting inadequacies.

It is probable that segments of industry as well as governmental

agencies would benefit greatly by a revision of the present methods

of establishing codes, as there would be fewer delays in providing

added requirements when necessary. We are of the opinion that the present technological advancement

in the fabrication of weighing and measuring devices is to be ac- celerated, and are frank to admit that presently we are not equipped

to evaluate the merits of some of the devices which will be submitted

to us for consideration, nor are there adequate codes established to guide us in making such decisions. We recognize the fact that the

demands of industry for trained technologists are such that we cannot

compete for their services either on full- or part-time basis as they can demand and receive remuneration more attractive than provided

for in municipal or State budgets. There too is a question as to whether or not it would be sound economics for States and municipalities to spend moneys for duplication of effort, in providing for needed

facilities and personnel, to properly cope with the challenge of progress in this technical field. Could we not place with the National Bureau of Standards the task

of establishing codes after consultation with the technologists of the

particular industry engaged in the manufacture of the devices under

consideration? Would not such a procedure add strength to the

132
administration of weights and measures at State and municipal levels,

rather than detract from present status ? It probably will be argued that such would be the initial step towT ard

national pattern approval. I think that it might well be and, as a representative of an approval State, feel that such might be acceptable

if it provided for constructive progress rather than a mere substitution of authority.

None of us is so naive that we cannot foresee a distinct advantage

in accepting a weighing or measuring device for accuracy determination on the basis of its having been evaluated and approved by the

National Bureau of Standards ; or conversely, in refusing to accept a device which has been rejected by the Bureau.

Unquestionably, many of us have felt that it was our duty jealously

to guard and keep all the prerogatives of the States in the administration of weights and measures. This is the natural instinct of intelli- gent men. However, if by acquiescence to a change, our position is strengthened, that too is an intelligent act, not retreat. I vividly recall a speech made by the great statesman, Winston

Churchill, in 1942 in which he said : "I have not become the King's

First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British

Empire." I am sure that at that time Mr. Churchill had no inclination that His Majesty's Empire would be so soon and completely

liquidated and that, had he been of that mind, the Old Master would

have exercised his usual intelligent and fearless approach to the problem which would have savored more of compromise and diplomacy

rather than defiance.

With the opening of the Bureau's complex at Gaithersburg in 1965,

would this not be the time to consider progressive changes in formulating the weights and measures code and to provide for the elimination of undue delays and the establishment of regulations entirely on

the basis of good engineering procedure and practicability?

The thoughts as expressed here do not represent an unequivocal

endorsement of any specific change in the administrative weights and

measures setup but rather a sincere belief that if we are to progress, we must recognize the need for changes to keep abreast of the times.

ADDRESS

by R. H. Holton, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic

Affairs

I would like, if I may, to take a few minutes

to discuss with you the President's Consumer

Affairs Program and how it affects the business

community and how the business community

might possibly respond to this increased con- cern about consumer problems. It is a concern with which the people across the country who

are involved in the general area of weights and

measures obviously need to be deeply interested.

Someone suggested that it might be worthwhile for me to spend just a few minutes

indicating what sort of a role I play in the

Department of Commerce, and why it is that

the Department of Commerce has anyone involved in the Consumer

133
Affairs Program in the first place. So let me say very briefly what

my role is in the Department.

In 1962, when I first talked with Secretary Hodges about the role of economic affairs in the Department of Commerce, it was pointed

out to me that when he came in with the Kennedy Administration

in January of 1961 he was quite impressed with the fact that the

Bureau of the Census and the Office of Business Economics in the

Department of Commerce generate a very high proportion of the eco- nomic data used by the Council of Economic Advisers and others in

the Administration concerned with the formulation of economic policy.

He found, nevertheless, that in the past, for some reason or other,

the Department of Commerce had never really been a full-fledged participant in many major policy discussions.

The Secretary thought that it was important for the Department

to have a professional economist at a high level so. that he would have

a better liaison between the Department of Commerce and the Council

of Economic Advisers, and economic policy staffs in other agencies.

We hope now that we do have a means of making the Department

of Commerce more effective in the discussions of general economic

policy problems in the Administration. I am the Secretary's backup

man, so to speak, on such things as the Cabinet Committee on Balance

of Payments, which consists of a number of the Cabinet officers. In

addition, we are working on such things as the economic impact of

defense and disarmament, on the Labor-Management Advisory Committee, and in many areas of general economic policy in which the

Department of Commerce can now be, I hope, more effectively repre- sented than was the case in the past.

When President Johnson appointed Esther Peterson as his Special

Assistant for Consumer Affairs, he also set up his Committee on Con- sumer Interests, with Mrs. Peterson as chairman. He asked Secretary

Hodges for an appointee to this committee at the Assistant Secretary

level, and the Secretary asked me to serve in this capacity. I found this assignment to be particularly interesting as well as time-consuming, I hasten to add. There is clearly a wide variety of

problems that we have to face in the consumer area, and I must confess that it is not yet clear how we can best cope with some of the

major difficulties that now face consumers in the United States. One of our basic principles has always been that we are obviously

best off operating our economy under the free enterprise system.

However, when one asks just what is meant by "freedom," a number

of problems arise. Clearly, freedom for one man can mean a restric- tion of freedom for another man. For example, a traffic light restricts the freedom of the motorist, but it gives the pedestrian a freedom

from undue danger as he tries to get across the street. In other areas

as well one finds that governmental restrictions of various sorts, when

examined carefully, are, by and large, restrictions on freedom insti- tuted in order to provide a greater degree of freedom or to assure freedom for others in the market place. I am thinking, for example, of the antitrust laws. There, the free- dom of the businessman to collude on price fixing or to establish a monopoly is restricted. Why ? Because we want to have freedom for

all businessmen to enter the market. We want to maintain this kind

of freedom, so that we can continue to have a dynamic economy.

134
Competition, which is our basic guideline in the United States, cer- tainly needs a fair number of rules of the game. Rules concerned

with weights and measures are some of the basic and perhaps oldest

of these rules of the game. These rules of the game are established

not only at the Federal level but at the State and local levels as well. Perhaps in any complete compendium of legislation that affects business, one would find that State and local laws may be at least as important as Federal laws.

Businessmen, economists and political scientists, and others interested in public regulation of business generally seem to emphasize one

or the other of two points of view. By "public regulation" here I mean to include the antitrust laws, labeling laws, the proposed re- quirement that the annual interest rate be indicated in all installment

credit buying, and legislation regarding weights and measures. The

one point of view is concerned about the efficiency with which the

market works at any one point in time. The other group is fearful

that regulation will inhibit initiative and the development of new

products and processes over time.

The presumption on the part of the people who promulgate additional regulation is that the additional regulation is necessary to improve the efficiency of the marketplace. For example, the Douglas

Bill, referred to as the "truth in lending" bill, calls for a clear indication of the annual rate of interest on installment contracts. The

people who favor this bill feel that in order to maintain competition

in the market for money you must have some indication of the cost of borrowing the money. The people who back the Douglas Bill believe that a person buying an automobile on credit, for example, ought

to be able to see what the annual rate of interest is if he finances the

installment contract with the automobile dealer. He needs this information so that he can see whether it is costing him more to borrow

money from the dealer than it would cost to borrow money from the

bank and then pay cash to the dealer. Of course, there are other

lending organizations as well with whom the buyer might want to check—the credit union, a finance company, etc. The people who would argue that the "truth in lending" bill is an important bill, needed for improved efficiency of the economy, would

argue that if you are going to have full-fledged competition in the

credit market you need to have something like the Douglas Bill, which

would insist that borrowers know what the alternative interest rates

are, what the price of money is, so to speak, from the various firms

that are competing to lend the consumer money.

The opposing point of view is held by those who argue that Douglas

"truth in lending" bill and other measures for the regulation of busi- ness are generally likely to discourage some of the technological change

or changes in marketing and distribution practices which have

been responsible for continuously raising the standard of living

of the American people—especially if the regulations would lead to standardization.

It is quite impressive that just since 1929, which after all wasn't so long ago, personal income per capita in the United States, after cor- recting for price changes, has doubled. Along about January of this year, personal income per capita reached this mark. We are now just

twice as well off as we were in 1929. 135
We don't want to do anything to disturb the kinds of changes that

have made it possible to bring the people of the United States to the

point where we are today.

There are these questions then about whether or not additional

regulation of business in the United States would kill off or retard this rate of technological change.

One of the difficulties we all face as citizens in trying to assess the true impact of regulation is in trying to evaluate the arguments offered

by businessmen when they question certain proposals for additional

regulation. I heard just today of a wonderful quotation involving

Harold Ickes. During the war he was faced with substantial opposition from the oil and gas industry to some regulations he wished to

establish, which were intended to assure the armed forces of getting

enough gasoline. Ickes in testifying said to the industry, "You are draped in the cloak of righteousness, but you are clothed in the undergarments of self interest. The Army's tanks and trucks cannot run on your crocodile tears." One must always consider in public debate to what extent the arguments that are offered by the interested parties—and which are always

offered, of course, as being arguments why the public interest would

be damaged if the alternative route were taken—one always has to look behind this curtain to ascertain just what the impact of self- interest is here. This general question, the extent to which regulation—and I am

talking about regulation in virtually any field one can think of—would

improve the efficiency of the marketplace more than it would inhibit

technological change and the improvement of business methods generally is a very difficult one. As we consider any extension of regulation we have to do a particularly careful job of determining just where

the public interest lies. In the Consumer Affairs Program, I feel that the business com- munity has a very, very deep interest. They should not be concerned,

I feel, about any extension of Federal regulation involving consumer

affairs. It seems to me, after participating now in two regional con- I ferences on consumer affairs, that the principal problems involving consumers are not necessarily problems which can be handled very

well by further extension of Federal regulation.

It is rather impressive, it seems to me, that the most common complaints which consumers now have fall in three or four areas : First of

all, in the area of home repair and improvement services, where they

feel that the firms that come in and offer to put on a new roof or put j in a new driveway too many times are quite unreliable.

The second most common kind of consumer complaint, I am told,

has to do with appliance repairs. I am sure you are all familiar with

this problem.

A third common kind of problem has to do with insurance—medical

insurance, life insurance, etc. I think it is rather curious that these are really services. They are not packaged products where weights and measures are necessarily a problem, but rather fields in which it may be very difficult indeed for even State and local governments, to say nothing of the Federal Government, to exercise any kind of policing to solve these problems.

Some communities, I am told, have instituted plans under which

appliance repairmen are licensed by the community. Perhaps this is 136
one way to solve this particular problem. But what do you do about

the case—and I heard this in a small midwestern town I visited ten days or so ago—where a salesman hits town with a new life insurance

contract, a misleading one, written by a company no one has heard of. He sweeps through town and sells I don't know how many policies.

Obviously he has bilked the consumers. How do we get on top of that

particular problem ? This is a very real challenge, it seems to me. Even when we go back to physical commodities, as distinct from the

services, I think we have a problem.

I have been asking myself what might be the distinguishing features

of the goods for which the consumer can be an intelligent buyer, and

what are the distinguishing features of the goods for which intelligent

buying is most difficult. I think that, in general, it may be accurate

to say that for those items which the consumer buys frequently and

for which the quality characteristics are quite apparent to him, he can

be a reasonably intelligent buyer because he can do a reasonable job

of testing for himself over a fairly short period of time. At the other

end of the spectrum, however, are commodities which are bought in- frequently, which have quality characteristics that are not apparent

to the buyer, and for these commodities the consumer may have a great

deal of trouble being an intelligent buyer.

At that end of the spectrum, I am thinking of automobile tires as being a case in point. Suppose you want to be a really intelligent

buyer of automobile tires. How do you go about it ? You can't tell whether the tire is good or bad by looking at it. It is all wrapped up

in that paper anyway, and even if you could get a good look at it what

could you tell about it ? The fact that you can't tell much about it, I

think, is indicated by the testing that was done a few years ago by one

of the consumer magazines. They found that the cost per 10,000 miles

of tread wear—and they bought these tires not just at list price but at the lowest price at which dealers could offer them—ran from about

$7.70 to $19.80. Here is an area where the consumer may be in a

real jungle. I wish I had some nice pat solution to offer as to what we might do

in this particular area where we may well need additional standards.

I think it is rather interesting that the National Tire Dealers and

Retreaders Association has presented before Congress a bill which

would call for Federal standards in the automobile tire field, in recognition of the fact that it is so very difficult in this particular area to educate the consumer in understanding the quality of the goods he

might buy.

With appliances as well, one can ask just how much can the con- sumer know about the quality of the goods which he might buy.

Certainly he has advertisements, but the advertisements, after all, tell him presumably only about the more attractive features of the

product. They don't tell him about some of the less attractive features

of the product vis-a-vis the competition. The advertisements, furthermore, don't give any indication as to the durability of the item relative

to the competition. Here again the consumer knows relatively little about these products.

I think what we need here is to have manufacturers and retailers

re-examine everything they are doing in the way of making con- sumers into intelligent buyers. As I have indicated, I am not sure

that the remaining consumer problems in the United States can 137

747-830 O - 65 - 10
necessarily be solved very satisfactorily by Federal regulation beyond

that already proposed in Congress. Instead, I think it is more a matter for the trade associations, for the better business bureaus, for

improved enforcement of State and local regulation, and for improved enforcement of Federal regulation. But this whole array of

efforts, I think, is needed in order to ascertain precisely how we might

proceed with this-general problem of improving the efficiency of the

market. This really calls for improving the information and in- creasing the amount of information which consumers have when they

go about making their purchasing decisions. If we can improve

that information—and certainly the kinds of refinements that are suggested in the "truth in packaging" bill, for example, the Hart

Bill, with which many of you are familiar—this kind of thing I think

may be necessary if we are to have the market for consumer goods

operate with the kind of efficiency which assures the people of the

United States a continually rising standard of living.

( The Report of the Committee on Nominations was presented by C. H. Stendek,

Chairman, Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Columbia,

South Carolina, and can be found beginning on page 203.) (The Report of the Committee on Resolutions was presented by L. Barker,

Chairman, Commissioner, Department of Labor, Charleston, West Virginia, and

can be found beginning on page 204.

)

(The Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations was presented by

J. H. Lewis, Acting Chairman, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Departj ment of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington, and can be found beginning on page

192.) I

I

138
MORNING SESSION—FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1964

(D. M. TuRNBUiiL, Chairman, Presiding)

PROBLEMS, PROCESSES, AND PROCEDURES

(1) Aerosol Package Demonstration

presented by H. F. Wollin and S. Hasko, Engineers, Office of

Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards

(Mr. Wollin and Mr. Hasko explained and illustrated two experimental

procedures that have been developed for the checking of foam-type aerosol

products. Both procedures were developed on the basis of package-checking

methods described in NBS Handbook 67, Checking Prepackaged Commodities,

and were reported to the Conference as a progress report in the development of aerosol package-checking methods.)

(2) Mechanical Displacement Meter Prover Systems

by J. C. Halpine, President, Halmor Industries, Inc.,

Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Each day, throughout our Nation, millions

upon millions of gallons of gasoline and oil are moved through an invisible system of pipelines

that is as intricate as our national and State

highway systems.

Men force elusive raw oil from the ground at great expense, collect it, store it, process it, only

to put it back in the ground in hidden pipelines

which may carry the oil to the next county or

across the entire continent.

At its destination the oil is again brought

from the ground, stored, and processed. The

refined oil is then sold to an ultimate consumer,

I John Q. Citizen, who buys a few gallons of gasoline, a quart of

lubricating oil, or a pint of hydraulic fluid for his automobile, tractor, or boat. Or the consumer may be a large industrial concern buying

thousands of gallons of gasolines and fuel oils for powering fleets of aircraft, trucks, or ocean-going vessels. Wherever transfers of custody of the gasolines or oils occur, some means of measurement is employed to determine what quantity of the

fluid is being received by the buyer and delivered by the seller. Some

of these measurements are included in the scope of this Conference,

and therefore it is my purpose briefly to describe the history, operation,

and application of a recent development by the petroleum industry for

making test checks on liquid-measuring devices utilized by the petroleum and other industries.

This development, the high-speed positive displacement meter

prover, provides a rapid, economical, and practical means of determining accuracy and performance characteristics of liquid-flow meters

now commonplace in the petroleum industry, the milk industry, the

brewery industry, the liquid fertilizer industry, and the chemical

| industries.

Only a few decades ago, when a farmer could strike oil while

| digging fence post holes, and when oil storage tanks looked like the
country store cracker barrel, fluid measurements were made with a

J notched dipstick. Today the raw crude oil is not as readily accessible

and markets are more competitive. Therefore, all concerned keep a

close watch on the volumes of gasoline and oil during transfers of

custody. After the notched-stick method of measurement came the

gage line, which resembled a plumb line with graduated increments. 1 Before a shipment of gasoline or oil was made from a tank, a gage

line was lowered into the tank manually, then pulled out, and the

level on the gage line was read. This procedure was repeated after

the shipment was made. Thus, was it determined how much fluid had been transferred from the tank.

This method was more satisfactory but also introduced a source of

human error into the measurement and, as petroleum operations grew

to vast proportions, the number of field personnel required to per- form all the gaging operations became uneconomically large.

The most satisfactory means yet devised, for both accuracy and

economy, has been the introduction of the liquid-flow meter. The flow meter is designed to provide, by mechanical means, a cumulative reading of the amount of fluid passing through it. These

meters are commonplace in service stations, bulk loading terminals,

and on truck transports across the country. They are also widely

used in refinery and pipeline operations.

A flow meter is installed in a piping arrangement so it becomes a part of the pipe or tubing and, if any liquid flows, it will be forced

through the meter and registered. Flow meters provide reasonably ! accurate measurement and also eliminate the necessity of repeated, ; time-consnming hand measurements.

Most flow meters are simple, efficient, and reliable, but they are

nevertheless manmade devices and therefore not 100 percent accurate. The most frequent cause of loss of accuracy can be attributed to mechanical wear of the meter parts, particularly those parts which

contact the fluid. After tests and in-service experience, it was concluded by users in

the petroleum industry that some means must be devised to determine

the degree to which meters are inaccurate.

The first device and, until a few years ago, the most common device

used, was the volumetric prover. This particular name was chosen

because one of the definitions of the word "prove" means to "establish or ascertain by experiment." This is exactly what the prover was

designed to do—ascertain the accuracy of the flow meter. The volumetric prover was used, with variations, in this manner:

Fluid was passed through the flow meter and then into the prover. When the prover was full, the level of liquid was read. The volume | in the prover was compared with the volume registered by the meter. This comparison made it possible to determine the accuracy of the

j meter reading.

Accuracy obtainable with the volumetric prover was greater than by

any previous method, but, in almost all areas of the petroleum industry, companies are preferentially changing to the use of the positive

displacement meter provers. From all indications, the most obvious reasons for the growing ac- ceptance of the positive displacement meter prover can be found in i its very principle of operation. This type prover makes rapid testing

of a meter possible while the meter continues its normal measurement

j 140
function. The prover method is slower because it requires that the

prover be filled, the meter started, the meter stopped, the prover and

meter volumes read, and then the prover must be drained and the

procedure repeated until satisfactory and adequate data are gathered.

Because the piston pipe prover was developed by petroleum industry pipeline personnel with pipeline equipment, it would be well at this

point to offer a few explanatory notes on the background and terminology of the equipment which comprises piston pipe provers. After months and years of use, the internal walls of pipe can become

coated with foreign matter and scale. With certain fluids, this buildup

can increase to the point that only a trickle of fluid can flow through

the pipe.

Pipeline personnel devised a simple but effective device to remove

this scale periodically from the inner walls of their pipelines. This

device, called a piston, consists of a cylindrical metal body, fitted with

wire brushes or rubber scraping cups. The piston was launched into

the pipeline at one point, carried along inside the pipe by the fluid

| stream, and then was removed from the pipe somewhere downstream

of the launching point.

As the fluid carries the piston along, the brushes or scraper cups

scrape the inner walls and loosen the scale. The scale is then carried

along and removed from the fluid in filtering systems or settling tanks.

Development of a heavy-duty, thick-walled, inflatable spheroid provided another type of piston for this application, and also played a major role in the development of the piston pipe prover. The spheroid

could be inflated to a diameter larger than the inside diameter of the

pipe and, when forced down a pipeline, would scrape the walls clean

J of foreign matter. Another useful purpose which the cylindrical and spherical pistons

served was to separate batches of different fluids in shipments in the

pipeline systems. The placement of pistons at the end of each batch

of fluid minimized the amount of intermingling of two dissimilar

fluids. The First Piston Provers The first type of piston prover, developed about 12 years ago, utilized one of the pistons just described. The prover consisted of a section of

pipeline, sometimes one mile long, through which a piston was sent. Two mechanically actuated electrical switches were installed on the

pipe in such a manner that the passage of the piston inside the pipe

would actuate the switch mechanism. These switches were in turn

wired to a start-stop device on the counting register of a flow meter

in the pipeline.

The volume of the pipe between these two switches was determined as accurately as possible. This section of the pipeline, between the two

switches, was known as the calibrated section. This rudimentary

prover system was used in this manner. A piston was launched into

the pipeline downstream of the flow meter but upstream of the cali- brated section. When the piston inside the pipe carried by the stream

encountered the first detector switch, an electrical mechanism was

triggered which initiated registration of the flow by the flow meter

| counter. The meter registered the quantity of fluid passing through

! it until the second detector "switch was actuated by the piston. This

switch stopped the meter counter. 141
The calibrated volume of the pipe was then compared to the quantity

indicated by the meter. The relationship between two volumes, the

"metered volume" and the "calibrated volume," represented the ac- curacy of the meter. This mathematical ratio of volume to volume

enabled the calculation of a "meter factor" which could then be used

as a multiplier or correction coefficient for future shipments through

that meter. Perhaps an example would best illustrate the application of the

meter factor as a multiplier.

Assume the volume of the calibrated section of pipe was known to be 10,000 gallons. During a typical proving operation as just described, the meter counter indicated that 9,950 gallons passed through

the meter. The relationship of these two volumes indicates that only

99.50 percent of the true quantity of the fluid passing through the

meter was measured.

Therefore, with this meter, under conditions as they were at the

time the meter was proven, any quantity of fluid indicated by the meter

would have to be increased to the true quantity by use of a multiplier

larger than 1.0000; in this example, by a multiplier of 1.0050. Advantages of the Piston Prover

It can be seen from the preceding example that the meter to be

tested continues its normal measurement function without interruption, under the normal operating conditions of temperature, pressure, and flow rate. Similar provings can then be made periodically to trace the meter's performance.

However, it can also be seen that there were inherent disadvantages

of this early type prover system. The improper adjustment of the

electrical switches could introduce error into the measurement. Also,

the operator had to launch the piston manually, retrieve it downstream

at a point sometimes a mile away, then return to the launch site and

repeat the operation.

Later developments in the design of the type of prover just described made it possible to use curved sections of pipe and a spheroid

which meant the piston could be launched and retrieved at the same

site.But the error due to the maladjustment of the switches remained.

In practical terms, this meant that the calibrated volume could be

altered by a change in the switch position or adjustment.

Development of the Bidirectional Prover At this point the high-speed bidirectional meter prover was developed. Through means to be discussed later, this prover system made

it possible to reverse the direction of travel of the liquid inside the

prover system. Thus the piston could be forced through the calibrated

section, in either direction at will. Control of the piston in this manner

successfully eliminated the problem of the detector switch error, be- cause if there were any error or discrepancy in the action of detector

switches in the first pass of the prover piston, the return trip of the

piston, in the opposite direction, permitted the switches to commit the

j same error, but in reverse sequence, thus averaging or cancelling out

any significant error. 142
Advantage of the Bidirectional Meter Prover Now, before beginning a technical discussion of the operation and

application of the meter-prover system, it would be well to list, in

collective form, the advantages of the bidirectional meter prover,

I which are responsible for the already widespread and growing accepti ance of this system by the petroleum and other industries.

A flow meter may be tested under its actual operation conditions of

flow rate, pressure, and temperature without interruption to the nor- mal measurement function of the flow meter or disruption to the

metered stream, in a shorter period of time than by any other method,

, and with a degree of accuracy heretofore unobtainable.

Discussion of Flow Meters Any discussion of flow meter calibration devices should include at

least a brief mention of the flow meters themselves. The two most

i commonly used by the petroleum industry are the positive displacement flow meter and the turbine flow meter. Both types have one common characteristic that differentiates them

! from any other flow-measurement method. They both are mechanical

devices that achieve rotary motion that is proportional to the rate of

flow through them. These meters not only indicate revolutions, and

thus flow rate, but also indicate totalized now for any period of time

by the number of revolutions of the meter rotor as shown on the

meter's counting register.

The Positive Displacement Meter The positive displacement meter is a device installed in piping by

| which flowing fluid is constantly divided into segments of known vol- ume. These segments are counted as they are displaced, and their

accumulated total is continuously indicated in desired units of volume

by the meter register.

The principle of operation of the positive displacement meter can

best be understood by remembering that it is basically a displacement

pump, driven by the hydraulic energy of the stream. As in all mechanical devices, displacement meters have clearance spaces between moving parts and the inner walls of the measuring chambers. The most

common source of meter error, slippage, is caused by the escape of some of the liquid from the measuring chambers between the moving

parts and the inner walls of the measuring chambers.

The Turbine Meter The turbine meter utilizes the kinetic energy of the moving stream

to actuate a rotor. If the rotating speed of the rotor can be made

proportional to the liquid velocity of the stream through the measuring chamber of the meter, the speed of rotation will be a correct index

of the rate of flow. In its basic form, the turbine meter consists of a propellor located

in tubing or in a circular conduit housing. This rotor is driven by

the moving liquid stream, and it in turn drives a totalizing register

by electrical or mechanical means. In varying degrees, positive displacement and turbine meters are

sensitive to changes in flow rate, viscosity, and lubricity of the

metered liquid.
Description of the High-Speed Bidirectional Meter Prover Having now touched briefly on the types of meters used to measure

fluids, the wide range of applications of these meters, and the variables

which affect the performance of the meters, perhaps the need for the

bidirectional prover, and how aptly this system has satisfied that need, can now be appreciated.

The basic principle of operation of the high-speed meter prover is this: ". . . the accurate and repetitive displacement of a precalibrated and known volume of liquid between two signaling detectors

from a cylindrical container with a mechanical sealing displacing

device driven through the container by the fluid energy from the

stream being metered. Simultaneously, the corresponding metered

volume is indicated. A ratio is determined between the known volume

displaced and the meter registration to determine the meter fac- tor" [1].

The prover consists of either a straight or a U-shaped section of pipe

(called the prover barrel) , a piston, two detector switches, and a valve

manifold to divert the flow of the stream into the prover barrel. Also

part of the prover system, but not physically located on the prover,

are a meter-pulse generator, electronic-pulse counter and, of course, the meter. The meter-pulse generator is an electrical device installed on the

flow meter to provide higher resolution, or many more increments of

quantity, than a mechanical counter on the meter can provide. Use of

this high-frequency pulser permits the prover to be of more practical

size and length. The pulse output is fed into the electronic counter

which is called the proving counter or register.

The two detector switches on the prover barrel are also linked to the

electronic counter. When the meter is measuring, the electrical pulser

is being driven and is thus generating pulses which are not registered

by the electronic counter until the first detector switch is actuated by

the passage of the piston. The counter receives and totalizes pulses

from the pulse generator until the second detector switch is actuated.

Since the number of pulses generated per gallon is a known figure,

the pulses totalized by the electronic proving counter can be converted

to volume. Thus, the prover volume and the metered volume (pulses) can be compared to determine meter accuracy. As discussed earlier, the bidirectional piston prover permits travel

in two directions through the barrel. Therefore, the calibrated volume

is equal to the volume displaced by two trips of the piston through

the barrel, one in each direction.

Bidirectional provers are readily adaptable for either permanent

mounting at a meter installation or for portable use at any of a number

of installations. To facilitate use of the portable prover at more than

one meter setting, the system may be mounted on a trailer or truck.

In some instances, it is more economical to utilize a portable prover

at many locations than to install a stationary unit at each site. The pipe which constitutes the prover barrel will be fabricated in

either a straight or U configuration. The internal walls of the pipe

will be sandblasted and covered with a protective coating to prevent

corrosion. This treatment will also provide a smoother surface and

prolong the life of the piston.

Pistons. The piston in the prover system serves two purposes.

First, it serves as the displacing sealing device and, second, it provides

144
145
a means of actuation of switches to start and stop a counting device.

One type of displacing device commonly used in mechanical provers

is the elastomer spheroid which is hydrostatically filled with water, or

glycol and water, under pressure and expanded so that its minimum

diameter is slightly larger than the inside diameter of the prover

section. Expansion to between 1 and 2 percent greater than the

inside diameter of the pipe is considered satisfactory for the operating

diameter of the spheroid. This allows the spheroid to act as a "squeegee" that leaves only a minute yet consistent film on the wall

of the prover section. Greater expansion of the spheroid will not

improve sealing ability and will generally cause it to wear more rapidly. The elastomer must be relatively impervious to the operating

liquids.

A second type of sealing device is the cylindrical mechanical piston

with cups. This is made so that standard pipeline scraper cups can

be fastened to each end in such a way that the lips of the cups are facing away from the piston. This forces the lips of the cups out

against the inside wall of the pipe when a pressure differential is exerted across the cups. The cups also act as a squeegee and leave only

a minute, consistent film on the inside wall of the prover [2].

Detector switches. For any given direction of the displacer, detec- tion devices and switches are necessary to detect the position of the

displacer, within close tolerance, each time it passes the detector. They must initiate a signal to properly start and stop the proving

register, and they must be actuated only by the passage of the displacer.

Displacers composed entirely of an elastomer normally employ, or

require, mechanically actuated switch-type detectors. For displacers

composed of both steel and elastomer materials, detectors may be of the

mechanical, the electrical proximity, or the induction pickup type[3].

One type of mechanical detector switch consists of a roller cam which

protrudes slightly through the wall of the prover section. As the dis- placer passes under the detector, the displacer forces the roller cam

upward which mechanically triggers an electrical momentary contact- closure switch. The switch closure starts or stops the electronic counter. An integral component of the prover system is the valve manifold,

which may consist of one valve or four valves. The primary function

of the manifold is to divert the metered stream into the prover system

in the chosen direction. In earlier portions of this discussion, repeated

mention was made of operating the prover system bidirectionally by

reversing the direction of flow of the stream. This does not mean that

the entire stream is reversed, but only that portion of the stream that is integral with the prover system.

This reversing is done by means of the valve manifold. These valves

are arranged in such a manner that the flow is at no time obstructed

but is merely guided into the prover system, through the barrel, and

out again into the pipeline.

All valves used in mechanical prover systems that can provide, or

contribute to, a bypass of liquid around the prover must be bubbletight when subjected to low differential pressure tests. It is mandatory

to provide a method for checking valve leakage in the system. In

bidirectional provers, the flow-directing valves should be arranged by

linkage or other means to prevent hydraulic shock caused by any

incorrect operations sequence[4].

146
It is also mandatory that a prover system be designed so that full positioning of the flow-directing valves must be completed before

the first detection device is reached by the piston. This design feature

is necessary to prevent bypass of fluid while the piston is between the

detector switches.

Meter pulse generators. A meter should be equipped with a pulsing

device which will generate electrical pulses of satisfactory characteristics for the type of proving register employed. The device should

generate a sufficient number of pulses per unit volume to provide the

required resolution. For positive displacement meters, a pulse-generating device is mounted on, and driven by, the meter. Many turbine

meters self-produce electrical pulses[5].

Three main types of pulse generating devices are available: the

reluctance type, the inductance type, and the photoelectric type.

Uniformity of rotation of the pulse-generating device, with respect

to flow rate, is mandatory. As the pulse generating device usually

delivers a relatively large number of pulses per revolution, the angular

travel of the pulse-generating wheel for one pulse, is extremely small.

For this reason, extreme care must be exercised in the design of the

pulse generator driving systems to prevent loping, jumping, or other

erratic action of the wheel. Wear on gears, backlash in gears, torsion

in driveshafting of mechanical accumulating systems and other

mechanical faults must be eliminated. Where a meter calibrator,

adjuster, or temperature compensator is used, the type employing a continuous integrating mechanism is preferable to, and will usually

provide greater accuracy than, the cyclic-integrating or cyclic-rotation-boosting type[6].

Meter pulse registers. Usually, an electric pulse counter is employed as the meter-proving register because of the ease and the

accuracy with which it can count high-frequency pulses and because

it can effectively transmit its count to remote locations. These may

be simple pulse-counting devices and may be equipped with a built-in

start-stop electronic switching circuit operated from the prover sec- tion detectors. Solid state counters are rugged and adaptable for field use. Such counters can be easily read in bright light, and may display

the count by nixie tubes, decimal counting units, decade counting tubes,

and other methods. Care must be taken to insure that electronic counters do not pick up transient pulses [7].

Design of the Bidirectional Meter Prover A reasonable guide to follow in the design of a system would be

that the volume between the detector switches be approximately 0.5 percent of the maximum flow rate per hour through the prover system

A prover system designed so that it contains a calibrated volume of

0.5 percent of the maximum hourly flow rate through the system will

reasonably assure that tolerances dependent on the repeatability of the

prover system, resolution of the detector switches, and the resolution

of the meter prover counter will be adhered to. However, volumes less than the recommended 0.5 percent have been

used with excellent results. Truck-mounted and trailer-mounted portable prover systems particularly have shown that lesser volumes are

entirely satisfactory. Portable units, of necessity, must be compact

and, therefore, cannot always contain the recommended volume. Some

147
portable units are operating successfully with calibrated volumes of I approximately 0.1 percent. Meter Prover Calibration Before a prover system is permitted to be used as a measurement

reference, its volume must be accurately determined. Determination 1 of the volume of the pipe between the two piston detection devices is the object of the prover calibration and this volume can be ascertained

by one of two methods—the water-draw method or the master-meter j method. The accuracy required for either method is 0.02 percent.

The water-draw method consists of packing the prover system with

water, and, by means of a pump and fluid reservoir tank, moving the , piston back and forth in the barrel, thus displacing the water from

between the detector switches into calibrated test measures. Two j consecutive "round-trip" volumes are considered necessary to determine

the calibrated volume of the prover system. Calibration of the bidirectional prover system by the master-meter method consists of using a previously calibrated meter prover and a flow meter in series with the

prover to be calibrated. The first prover is used to obtain a meter

factor on the master meter. Since a factor was obtained on the master

meter previously, the process of deriving the meter factor is reversed,

and the volume of the prover can be determined.

Volume Corrections for Prover Calibrations

I The standard method of calibrating a mechanical displacement

prover involves a determination of the volume which will be displaced

from it, at reference conditions of 60° F and approximately atmospheric pressure, regardless of whether the calibration is made by the

water-draw procedure or the master-meter procedure. This will per- | mit utilization of such a prover under subsequent variable conditions \ of temperature and pressure by the use of properly tabulated correction factors. In the water-draw calibration procedure, the volume observed as the sum of the test measure volumes for each trip of the displacer must

first be corrected for any temperature difference in the water between

the time the withdrawal is begun and the time the final temperature

is averaged in the test measures. This is performed in accordance

with the procedure described in Par. 2123 through Par. 2125, and

Table I, Appendix B, of the American Petroleum Institute Standard

1101 [9].

In all likelihood, while the water was being drawn from the prover

j into the test measures, the water in the prover system was under higher

pressure than the water being measured in the test containers. Therefore, to determine the amount of water which would be displaced at atmospheric pressure, it is necessary to correct for the compressibility

of the water. This correction coefficient is listed as 0.000 003 2 per

pound per square inch, in Par. 2122 of API Standard 1101 [10].

Another correction which must be made involves the expanded vol- ume of the prover barrel due to the internal pressure on the steel, i Internal pressure will cause the steel to expand and the prover will

then hold more liquid than at atmospheric pressure. This correction

j coefficient may be determined by use of Table 2, Appendix B of API

Standard 2531.

148
Operation of the Bidirectional Prover The operation of the meter-prover system, to obtain a meter factor,

varies with each installation, but the basic operation consists in

manually or automatically reversing the flow diverting valve (s) to drive the piston alternately in opposite directions through the prover

barrel. The operation also includes the recording of temperatures,

pressures, flow rate, and totalized pulses at the end of each "half trip."

! At the end of each "round trip" of the piston, the electronic counter

is read and reset. Sufficient runs are made to determine the repeatability of the meter

and prover systems. Subsequent to the proving operation, a meter- proving report is completed. This report requires the correcting of

the volume of the prover for temperature and pressure effects, and

1 the conversion of the totalized pulses from the pulse generator to

j liquid volume. The corrected prover volume and the metered

volume are mathematically compared to obtain a meter factor, or volumetric correction coefficient, to be applied to the meter

registration.

Applications of Bidirectional Meter Provers Improvement in the techniques of meter proving has progressed to the extent that mechanical displacement provers reduce the expense

and difficulty of proving meters of large capacity and makes more

practical the application of such meters in large pipeline, tanker, and

barge-loading operations. Yet these techniques apply equally well

to smaller size meters, for example, those being used in lease automatic

j custody transfer operations [11].

The high-speed meter prover is readily adaptable and practical for use in almost any situation in the petroleum industry. More than 150

bidirectional prover systems have been manufactured by my company

alone. The total number of provers manufactured for service in this

country could safely be estimated to be 600. Some of the larger petroleum companies have as many as 40 provers in their systems. Some

of these provers are used to test one meter; some test dozens of meters

! per month.

Bidirectional provers are compact enough to be trailer or truck

mounted for portable use at more than one site. Some meter operators are now using high-speed provers for testing loading-rack meters.

It has been mentioned earlier that the chief advantage of this prover

system is that it permits testing of a flow meter while the meter per- forms its normal measurement function, under normal conditions,

without interruption of the metered stream. Meters on truck trans- ports and at bulk loading terminals can be proved during loading and

unloading operations.

References

[1] Mechanical displacement Meter Provers, American Petroleum Institute,

API Standard 2531, 1st ed., December 1963, Page 5. American Petro- leum Institute, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York 20, N.Y.

I [2] Ibid., page 7. [3] Ibid., page 8. [4] Ibid., page 8. [5] Ibid., page 8. [6] Ibid., page 8.

| [7] Ibid., page 9.

j [8] Ibid., page 11. 149
[9] IMd., page 14. [10] Measurement of petroleum liquid hydrocarbons by positive displacement

meter, American Petroleum Institute, API Standard 1101, 1st ed., August

1960, Pages 19-20. American Petroleum Institute, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York 20, N.Y.

[11] Mechanical displacement meter provers, American Petroleum Institute, API Standard 2531, 1st ed., December 1963, Page 5. American Petro- leum Institute, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York 20, N.Y.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM C. H. Stender : What is the size of these provers ? Mr. Halpine : For a 2-inch meter you could calibrate with about a 6-inch prover. On the portable units, this is a pipe about 8 feet long,

6 inches inside diameter, totaling about 2 feet wide. It is equipped

with 2-inch valves. (3) Testing Liquefied Petroleum Gas Vapor Meters by W. A. Kerlin, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures. California

Department of Agriculture

I have been asked to discuss with you, in quite

general terms, some of the problems having to do with the testing of vapor meters—to present some of the technical requirements, some of the

standards and equipment necessary, and to describe briefly the meters, their operation, and

their test. In California, our code requires that all meters not coming under the jurisdiction of the

Public Utilities Commission (this includes LP

gas dealers and trailer court installations) be

tested at least once every 10 years. We feel that

this test is very necessary and should be quite

complete. It should include open and check-rate tests, slow-flow tests, and leak tests. We feel further that all meters not in first-class condition should be overhauled or reconditioned, since it could be 10 years

before they would be tested again. A complete test should also be

made each time a meter is reinstalled in a new location.

The heart of the vapor meter test program is the History Card

System. Our code requires that

3102.1. RECORDS. A record shall be kept of each individual meter owned

or used by the liquefied petroleum gas dealer, or any other person engaged in the

sale or resale of hydrocarbon gas, indicating its type, meter numbers, size and

date purchased, together with the dates and location of each installation, the date and result of each test, and the date and character of all repairs made. These

records shall be preserved for a period of one year after the meter is sold, dismantled or destroyed. It is important that the information on these cards be kept up-todate. This information enables the weights and measures official to keep abreast of the testing requirements of these meters. The majority of devices covered by this service are of the small

diaphragm-type displacement meter, with a capacity of approximately

150 cubic feet per hour. There are a few larger meters in use where

there is a large heating load, which are also of the displacement type,

with a capacity of approximately 250 cubic feet per hour. We also have a number of larger meters in resorts, schools, canneries, etc., with

150
a capacity of up to 5,000 cubic feet per hour. It is recommended that

these larger industrial-type meters be checked more frequently than

once every 10 years, and that, where a meter receives very heavy use, it should be tested annually. There is an urgent need for uniform

standards of measurement to be promulgated on a national basis. In addition to the diaphragm-type displacement meters, we also have

a small number of rotary meters. The diaphragm-type meter, as its name implies, consists of two synthetic diaphragm bellows, which

constitute the measuring chamber. These are connected to a drive

mechanism with a system of inlet and outlet valves, causing the gas to flow alternately through the bellows and thus to produce a rotary

motion through a driving mechanism, which, in turn, is passed on to a

recording mechanism. The usual meter of this type has an adjustment

to slow down or speed up the drive at both high and low speeds.

The rotary meter consists of a rotating displacement device which is

j driven by the pressure of the gas and, in turn, drives an index-recordj ing device. Attachments are available for both the displacement meter

and the rotary meter to compensate automatically for temperature

changes or pressure changes, or a combination of these. Some of these

devices record, as well as make, the actual change in the meter reading.

We have required that meters for use in this State indicate values in

cubic feet only and that due consideration be given to altitude and

temperature-compensating devices. Whenever any departure is made

from so-called domestic cubic feet, altitude, pressure, and temperature

multipliers should be used for altitude zones in which the meters are

installed. For example, it is quite possible to have as much correction

as 33 percent in favor of the dealer at 10,000 feet elevation, or, by the same token, it is possible for the dealer to suffer a loss if no correction

is made for pressure. In other words, we recommend that Boyle's

and Charles' Laws relating to the behavior of gases be recognized.

The American Gas Association is continuously striving to develop

better techniques and to improve methods of gas measurements. It is our opinion that it would be very advantageous to all of us to make

j use of AGA techniques by adopting these into our code whenever they

S are applicable.

Now let us talk briefly about the equipment necessary for an adequate proving room. First, the room itself should be large enough for

the equipment and for appropriate working space. This room must

be well insulated and preferably have no outside walls or windows.

The ceiling should be at least 10 feet high, and the room should be

provided with complete air conditioning, permitting a temperature

control within 1 degree at any temperature in a range of 50 to 80

degrees. Ventilation should be provided to exhaust noxious fumes

which may be encountered when used meters are tested. The room

should be equipped with fluorescent lighting, compressed air, and a

sink with running water. Ventilated racks for storage of meters for

I acclimation should be provided.

A leak-testing device, such as a hydropneumatic leak tester, or a 50- gallon metal container is required. Air at pressure of 4.5 pounds per

square inch must be available near this apparatus.

A slow-flow tester is required. This consists of an electric timer

controlling a solenoid valve, which, in turn, cuts off or on an air supply

I at iy2 inches water-column pressure. This air is piped into a manifold

j with a number of outlets, each outlet having a separate shutoff valve.

A rubber hose is connected to each outlet, and a spud containing a 151
small orifice is placed in the hose line. This hose is, in turn, connected I to the meter to be tested. A flow of approximately y2 cubic foot per

hour is passed through the meter. At the end of the manifold, a manometer is installed, so that any orifice may be checked to be sure it is not

plugged and also to indicate the pressure at all times.

We recommend a 5-cubic-foot prover as the most useful size, al- though a 2-cubic-foot prover may be used if more readily available.

We suggest that this prover be equipped with a blower, a solenoid

valve assembly, and electric switches to facilitate filling. Equipment

for this prover should include necessary connections for the various

types and sizes of meters and a differential gage registering 1 inch j water column in hundredths. The takeoffs for this gage should be

carefully made according to the recommendations of the American

Gas Association.

In general, these meter-connection tubes with pressure taps consist

of a brass nipple which is 8 diameters long, the diameter being the size of the inlet of the meter. The taps are %-inch pipe outlets flush on

the inside of the nipple and 2% diameters from the end to the center. A 1-cubic-foot standard bottle certified by the National Bureau of

Standards must be available to test the prover from time to time. This

device may be obtained in the Stillman bottle or the immerision type

of standard cubic foot bottle. The following procedure is used in the testing of small and medium

vapor meters

I 1. The prover room and the prover and all necessary equipment

should be approved and in good condition, and the bell prover

should be tested with the standard and sealed. The meters under

test should be examined and tested for leaks by passing air

through them at 4% pounds pressure and submerging them in ! water while the meter is running. Leaks are determined by 1 watching for bubbles. In the case of meters using the speedo- I meter-type indicator, the indicator should be removed, cleaned,

oiled, and, after the leak test, replaced on the meter.

t 2. All meters to be tested should be stored at least 12 hours in the | prover room on suitable shelves or racks, with all obstructions

removed from the inlet and outlets. The prover room air, the

sealing oil in the prover tank, and the meters to be tested must be I brought to the same temperature. The temperature of the liquid

in the prover tank must be kept within 1 degree of the temperature of the room. Precautions should be taken to prevent any

sudden change of air temperature in the prover room or any draft

of air hitting the prover at any time. Meters to be tested should

not be subjected to any sudden change in temperature or any

other influence that might alter the temperature in the immediate

vicinity of the provers. Meter testing may be performed with the same relative degree of

j accuracy at any permissible working temperature, but it is essential that the meter, the air in the prover, and the liquid in the

prover be maintained at the same temperature throughout a test. Separate thermometers should be used for determining the ternj perature of the air and of the liquid seal. These thermometers

should be tested to insure their accuracy.
3. All provers used by weights and measures officials must be adjusted to supply air at 1% inches water column when tested with

a cubic foot standard. After a meter is examined for leaks, it is subjected to a slow-flow (low flame) test. During this test, the

meter is operated for a period of 1 hour at the slow-flame rate recommended by the manufacturer.

4. The inlet of the meter to be tested is attached to the prover hose

by means of a suitable connection, which is, in turn, equipped with

takeoff tees for the differential gage. This differential should never be permitted to be greater than y2 inch water column at any rate of flow. The prover is first filled with air, the valve at the prover connection is opened, and the palm of the hand is placed over the meter

outlet. The valve then is closed. If a pressure drop occurs in

the U-gage mounted to the prover connection, this is an indication

of a leak in the connections or in the meter. If the leak is in the

connections it should be located and corrected before the test. If the leak is in the meter, it should be rejected.

5. When preparing to make any test, air from the prover should be

passed through the meter before testing. This purging of ac- cumulated gas in the meter should be approximately 5 cubic feet for small meters and 10 cubic feet for medium size meters. Purging should stop while the test hand of the meter is on the up

movement, at a division on the proving circle which should be

marked with a suitable pencil or crayon.

6.* Determine, by the prover, if a volume corresponding to that

marked on the proving circle passes through the meter for one

revolution of the test hand. If the readings do not correspond,

the indicating element should be removed and examined. If the

indicator is faulty, the test should be stopped and the meter

rejected.

Meters being tested on request, or for an alleged overcharge, should

be tested in the same condition as received from the customer's premises and as soon after being removed as possible. Due attention must

be given to securing temperature uniformity, but the index should not

be removed, nor should any other mechanical change be made. Since

subsequent tests may not agree with the first tests, it is recommended

that only the first test be used for the basis of settlement of any claims.

These first tests, especially the first check-rate test, should be accepted

as the official proof of the meter. » A meter which fails to register

must be rejected. Each meter must be adjusted to register with an

error not greater than plus or minus 2 percent of the indicated volume

when air is passed through the meter at a rate which will cause a pressure drop in the meter not to exceed % inch water column on the

differential gage. Meters are tested at a so-called open rate as recom- mended by the manufacturer, and again at a check rate which is also recommended by the manufacturer. The check rate is usually 20

percent of the open rate. Meters which are slightly out of tolerance

! may be brought back within tolerance by adjustment.

Meters which will not meet tolerances or that are mechanically dej fective are rejected and returned to the owner for repair or replace747-830 O - 65 - 11
ment. Defective removable indexes are easily renewed if supplied

at the time of the testing by the owner. A supply of hand hole and

index gaskets should be available.

The Bureau of Weights and Measures of the State of California has

recently completed construction of a mobile field testing unit. This

unit consists of a medium size step van truck which is equipped with an air compressor, a leak-testing tank, a slow-flow test unit, and a test meter with the necessary differential gage. Pressure regulators to supply air at 11 inches water column were installed. The truck is also equipped with air conditioning to maintain a constant temperature

when the unit is in use. The truck also is equipped with a low flow

prover, complete with a packard blower, necessary manometers, thermometers, and a selection of orifices. This device is used for proving

the larger meters up to approximately 3 inches in size. We also have

manometers for checking pressure regulators and gages. Other equipment includes a gage tester capable of testing gages up to 5,000-pound

capacity. We have a Stillman Standard cubic foot bottle for checking

the test meters and for testing county proving equipment. This mobile

field testing unit should be very helpful in the checking of meters in

remote locations. We expect to keep it in constant use. In addition to the State-owned test equipment herein described, by

the close of the year 12 counties will be equipped to test vapor meters. This equipment should enable us to test at least once every 10 years

all vapor meters now in use in California.

We want to thank you for the opportunity of explaining to you

the liquefied petroleum gas vapor meter program in California and

offer the cooperation of our Bureau to the Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards, and to any of the States, in

supplying copies of our code, testing procedures, or any technical

information which may be desired. Our Liquified Petroleum Gas

Technician, Mr. Daniel Perkins, is a recognized authority in this field and his knowledge and experience will be made available to you upon

request.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM Question : What is the cost of the room ? Mr. Kerlin : The cost of the entire room is approximately $15,000.

Question: Do the meters have to be taken to the laboratory for

testing?

Mr. Kerlin : Not necessarily. But you cannot test these meters on

the line. You take them off the line and attach them to your portable

unit.

Question : What is the price of one of the portable units ? Mr. Kerlin : Ten thousand dollars. Question : Including the truck ? Mr. Kerlin : Including the truck, yes. Question : Do you have to shut the man's heating system off when

testing ? Mr. Kerlin : This is one thing that you have to do, but all of our

dealers have spare meters which they can place on the line for temporary use. Question: What is the percentage of allowable error on these

meters?

Mr. Kerlin : It is plus or minus 2 percent.

J. F. Ltles : What percentage of these meters have you found to be inaccurate?

154
Mr. Kerlin : When we started there were over 33 percent of them

short or in error. Now it is nowhere near that. (4) A Self-Training Aid

presented by R. N. Smith, Technical Coordinator, Office of Weights

and Measures, National Bureau of Standards

(Mr. Smith described and demonstrated "The Examination of a Computing

Scale," which is the first in a planned series of technical presentations designed

to provide self-training for the weights and measures official and for industry

personnel engaged in testing weights and measures devices.

)

(5) Open Forum—Weights and Measures Technical Problems

Forum Leaders: M. W. Jensen, Conference Secretary; R. E. Meek,

Chairman, Committee on Specifications and Tolerances; J. H. Lewis,

Chairman, Committee on Laws and Regulations; J. T. Daniell,

Chairman, Committee on Education

Chairman Turnbull: I would like to direct a question to Mr.

Jensen : From what did the term "sealer" originate ? Mr. Jensen: In England thev^ still mark practically every device

i with what represents their official seal. Of course, in the United

States we use the applied approval seal, with or without a security

seal. The term simply describes what the inspector did in his official capacity. He sealed the device or sealed the weight and thus became

known as a "sealer." C. H. Wrenn : I would like to ask Mr. Jensen, in the testing of

blending pumps, it is obvious that individual meters operate at very

I low flow at times. What should be the minimum test flow on each

i individual meter?

Mr. Jensen: According to Examination Procedure Outline No.

21-B, which is concerned with "Retail Gasoline Dispensers—Blended

Product," the two individual metering units, that is, maximum octane

and minimum octane, are tested at 5 gallons per minute.

J. R. Bird : I direct a question to Mr. Jensen. How many States,

I and to what extent, are doing calibration work for industry ? Mr. Jensen : As far as I know, the only officially authorized program of regular calibration and testing work for industry—this is noncommercial testing—is carried on in the State of California where

statutory authority was given to make these tests and to make a charge

for them.

W. A. Kerlin : Authority was given bv the 1961 session of the legislature to any county to test noncommercial devices and make a charge

for this. The law specifies that the sealer shall develop a schedule of

charges for this purpose. But this is only for noncommercial devices.

Mr. Jensen : Undoubtedly every State does some noncommercial

testing. I think, if we are going to move forward in the weights and

measures field, it is going to be necessary for a State to become the

center of measurement for the entire jurisdictional area, to provide

laboratory facilities and capabilities so that anyone in the State

commercial, educational, scientific, industrial—can have a center to which to go for calibration, for testing, and for technical advice. I think this is imperative. What we need is 50 branches like the Naj tional Bureau of Standards.

J. E. Hampton : Our Chief Deputy asked me to get an opinion on

a couple of questions. He wanted to know the intention of Hand155

I
book 44, regulation paragraph R. 19, "Single-Draft Vehicle Weighing," in its applicability to highway construction, regarding a double

draft and single draft combination construction unit. We have a double problem on highway construction scales, and we have a re- quirement in the handbook that single drafting is the only thing

permitted.

R. E. Meek : We interpret regulation paragraph R. 19 in Indiana

as permitting only single draft weighing. We do not permit the

coupled or multiple-draft weighing of vehicles. This is for commercial purposes, of course. Mr. Hampton : Well, in view of the State Highway Department

and Federal Bureau of Roads contract in building State-Federal roads, , it is a commercial operation in most of the States. Mr. Jensen : It is the view of many weights and measures officials , that, since the highway aggregate, concrete or asphalt, is sold on the

basis of cubic yards, these weighings, whether they are done in a cement

batching scale or portable vehicle scale moving along the road, are noncommercial. The weights and measures official tests such scales as a matter of service to their highway agency. But I do not know

how multiple-draft weighing can be approved if regulation paragraph

R. 19 is effective in your State. Mr. Hampton : That gets down to the problem then that the Bureau

of Federal Roads puts out specifications that these combination units are loose coupled, the emergency brakes are off, approaches are level,

and they will accept this weighing. But now we know that the couplings are not loose ; the emergency brakes are not off. We found the

way you set your brakes on a truck will create a pressure. Mr. Jensen: That's exactly the reason for regulation paragraph

R. 19. Mr. Hampton : The other question I had was, throughout the Nation, how do you weigh railroad cars on railroad scales? Are they

coupled or are they separated when they are weighed ? Mr. Jensen : Since the National Bureau of Standards has an extensive railway track scale testing program, I can give you some information on that. First, I think very few States really attempt to oversee the weighing of railway cars. Three States that I know of

Washington and Oregon jointly and the State of Minnesota—have

quite active programs in this area. Railway cars are weighed variously, stopped single-draft, stopped axle by axle, and in motion.

C. H. Stender : This week there is being mailed to the petroleum

industry in South Carolina a new regulation designed to prohibit a

practice that we think is deceptive. This regulation will cover advertisements, particularly concerning such terms as "100 plus," where we aren't told what "100 plus" means. Have you had any discussions

in the Committee on that ? J. H. Lewis : Mr. Stender, we appreciate very much your views on

this. I am sure all of us are interested in consumer protection. However, this basically is a quality factor, and I think, in most instances,

is not covered by weights and measures law. It may very well be

covered in your State and other States that are in quality control. F. F. Thompson : In Louisiana if an individual station owner puts on his pump, or places an ad near his station, that this gasoline is 100 octane plus, when it is brought to our laboratory and it is not 100

octane plus, he is considered to be guilty of false advertising. My

156
question is this: How many of our States have either stationary or

! portable quality control laboratories ? Mr. Jensen : I believe the States of Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, Florida, California and perhaps others have such equipment.

Mr. Thompson : Why is it so important for our sealers to go and

calibrate a gasoline pump and not know anything about what is being

j metered through that pump ? Mr. Jensen : Mr. Thompson, I think that is an excellent question.

Perhaps it could be directed to the legislatures of the States. As

you know, the enforcement officer operates in the area in which the

| statute permits him to operate. There are relatively few quality

control statutes covering petroleum products in the States. N. Kalechman : I would like to get an opinion from the group on

a little technical question of law and regulations. We have in our

J H-44 code a paragraph about interlocks. Now, this is a question

i that came up m Connecticut. Which way should we cite a violator?

Should we cite him under the statute, or should we cite him under

| the regulation ? What do you think ? Mr. Meek : I would interpret that as a simple violation of the code

for which you. could make charges against him.

Mr. Kalechman: We have a statute in Connecticut that says if you have in your possession any faulty or fraudulent device, you are in

violation. Should we cite a violator under that statute ? Mr. Meek : I think you could very well do that. Mr. Jensen : For the information of those in the room, the State

of Connecticut just recently has officially promulgated Handbook 44,

and this is why this sort of question comes up. My experience has been that prosecuting attorneys usually prefer to go into a case under the terms of the statute, and they explain or ex- pand on the terms of the statute through the use of the regulations.

So the violation would be the use of an illegal device or false device

as explained in paragraph S. 10.2 of the officially promulgated code.

D. I. Offner : Yesterday, the Conference voted in favor of the issu-

! ance of an Administrative Ruling. The conversation leading up to that implied that this was for perhaps a year's trial period. There was nothing, as I recall, officially said in the proceedings of the or- ganization that related to a trial period. I am wondering if we can

expect this question to be raised again next year automatically ? Mr. Lewis : I am sure that most of you will recall that the idea of

a one-year trial period came from industry. There was no consideration by the Committee that there would be a time limit on this. However, I think beyond doubt if we find what has been proposed is impractical, after its having been tested by application, the Committee

will entertain, at any time, reasonable recommendations to amend our proposed administrative ruling.

Mr. Offner : My reason for asking the question is because it seems

to me that an administrative ruling, by its nature, is justified only on

the basis of its being a temporary measure. Mr. Lewis : I believe that a more proper word would be "experimental" rather than "temporary." I would be the first to admit that

this is not perfect. I would like to refer to Mr. Hasko's gem of

philosophy. He indicated it is better to get second or third best than

wait too long to try to have the perfect presentation. So this is the

basis of our approach, and it is subject to change if found necessary.

!
Mr. Offner : I would like to throw out a particularly vexing problem question for any reaction I can get. I suppose that throughout

the country you are having the same experience that we are in St. Louis 1 area, and that is this question of selling sides of beef. To cite a specific

example that came up just last week, we got a complaint concerning I a side of beef. Our inspector, along with an inspector from the ad- i joining jurisdiction, weighed it package by package, item by item.

There was a resonable percentage of such cuts as sirloin steak, T-bone

steak, and so forth, but this particular shipment had, as I recall, 4

pounds of ribs, 18 pounds of short ribs—an unreasonable proportion.

How is this being handled ? It is our feeling that, if there is anything other than an identifiable side of beef, this actually is selling a prepackaged commodity. I know that in practice a man may order

j a side of beef, and I am quite sure he is delivered a selection of packages

previously prepared.

I would like some comment on this. This is becoming a tremendous

problem in the St. Louis area. Mr. Lewis: We have approached this problem in the State of

Washington and, although it hasn't been solved, it has been alleviated

somewhat in that the meat cutters are educated now to require that the

buyer come in by appointment and watch the cutting of his side of

beef. He is standing there while it is cut and wrapped. He hauls it away, the leftovers if he wants them, bones and scraps, and then he

has no argument.

Now, we have had several complaints, but never yet have we been j able to actually intercept a shipment which was short. Shrinkage is a real problem, and they are allowed certain reasonable shrinkage.

T. M. Stabler : The Packers and Stockyards Division has investigated, in our State, practices similar to this. This is under their

direct jurisdiction.

R. H. Fernsten : I am not clear as to the definition of a slow-flow

meter. Was any consideration given to establishing a rate of flow by

gallons per minute?

Mr. Meek: The definition appears in paragraph D.6: "SLOWFLOW METER—A retail device designed for the measurement,

at very slow rates, of liquid fuels at individual domestic installations."

Mr. Fernsten: The Committee felt that this was sufficient definition?

Mr. Jensen: Yes, identification is principally through the use of ! the device. Slow-flow meters, as defined, may deliver from a tenth j of a gallon up to about 10 gallons an hour.

(The statement of the Incoming Executive Committee was presented by

V. D. Campbell, Incoming Conference Chairman, Chief, Division of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg, Ohio, and can be found

beginning on page 160.) (The Report of the Committee on Auditing was presented by A. J. Albanese,

Chairman, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, New Britain, Connecticut, and

the Report of the Treasurer was presented by C. C. Morgan, Treasurer, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana. These reports can be found

beginning on page 206.

)

(At the conclusion of the Treasurer's Report, Chairman Turnbull presented

the gavel to the incoming 50th National Conference Chairman, V. D. Campbell of Ohio. The benediction was then delivered by the Conference Chaplain, Rev.

R. W. Searles. Thereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the 49th National Conference on Weights and Measures was adjourned sine die.

)

158
REPORTS OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

presented by D. M. Turnbull, Director, Division of Licenses and

Standards, Seattle, Washington

(Tuesday, June 16, 1964, 1:50 p.m.)

The Executive Committee of the 49th National Conference on Weights and Measures held the first session on Monday, June 15, 1964,

at 8 :30 a.m. Conference activities, program format, social activities, hotel ar- rangements, and locality for future Conferences were among items

reviewed and discussed. During the discussion on possible Conference sites outside of Washington, the Executive Secretary pledged the

support of the Office of Weights and Measures, but explained that,

due to budget limitations, it would be impractical for the entire staff to participate to the degree they presently do if the Conference were

to be held away from Washington. He expressed the hope that this

matter might be brought to the floor of the Conference for an

expression of its entire membership.

Mr. C. D. Baucom of North Carolina expressed his view that the

six-day Conference was too lengthy for many delegates and his hope

that a three- or four-day Conference could be planned. No further

discussion on this point was forthcoming.

The Committee Chairman reported that a qualified parliamentarian

had been retained to serve during the presentation of the reports of

the Committees on Specifications and Tolerances and on Laws and

Regulations. It is thus hoped that any controversy concerning parliamentary procedure can be avoided.

A member of the Southern Weights and Measures Association re- ported that Dr. G. M. Cairns of the University of Maryland, representing the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture,

has been invited to appear before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the United States Senate in the near future regarding the new State standards program. All State delegates are urged

to contact Dr. Cairns in support of this important program.

It seems appropriate to point out that neither this nor past open

meetings of the Executive Committee have been well attended and

that relatively few suggestions or recommendations as to the Conference were put forth. The Committee reminds the delegates that they

have a very real responsibility in voicing their views as to Conference

affairs and Conference plans. It is sincerely urged that communications on this important subject be directed to the Executive Committee.

D. M. Turnbull, Chairman W. C. Hughes

B. S. Cichowicz C. L. Jackson

F. M. Kaymund J. F. Madden

A. H. Dittrich F. D. Morgan

W. E. Czaia M. J. Santimauro

E. W. Ballentine G. P. Smith

C. D. Baucom J. G. Williams

H. L. Goforth M. W. Jensen, Secretary

(On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the report

of the Executive Committee was adopted by voice vote.

)

159
REPORT OF THE INCOMING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

presented by V. D. Campbell, Chairman, Chief, Division of Weights

and Measures, Reynoldsburg, Ohio

(Friday, June 19, 1964, 9:54 a.m.)

The Executive Committee for the 50th National Conference met for breakfast at 7:30

a.m. on Friday, June 19, to consider matters

falling appropriately within its authority.

Decisions were reached as follows: i 1. A very special Golden Anniversary Con- I ference will be scheduled to celebrate the 50th

j Conference in 1965. There will be included

a national weights and measures exhibit

(standards, testing equipment, weighing and

measuring devices, State and local governments, weights and measures associations, and

weighing and measuring processes such as packages and packaging.)

2. The Conference is to be held at the Sheraton-Park Hotel, Washington, D.C., the week of June 20.

3. Registration fee will remain at $15.00.

4. The Secretary was delegated authority to plan the program.

5. Other nations will be urged to send delegates to the Conference.

6. The Conference will open with committee meetings on Monday

morning and will close Friday noon, with appropriate free time for , visits to the exhibits.

7. The Chairman and Secretary were authorized to appoint subcommittees of the Executive Committee to work on the details of the

Conference.

8. The Secretary was authorized to arrange for an appropriate pro- gram, if practicable, including a visit to the new National Bureau of

j Standards site at Gaithersburg for the ladies. Other decisions reached by the Executive Committee include

1. The Chairman and Secretary were authorized to appoint a subcommittee to explore the possibility of holding the 51st Conference in

1966 in Denver, Colorado.

2. The Secretary was directed to maintain close liaison with Canada | and to invite greater participation of the Canadian authorities in the I affairs of the Conference.

3. An allocation of $400 was authorized for use by the Committee

on Education for promotion of National Weights and Measures Week

and to cover other official expenses of the Committee as approved by

j the Committee Chairman and the Conference Secretary.

The Executive Committee looks forward with great anticipation to the Golden Anniversary Conference and urges that all weights and

measures officials and all associates of business and industry plan

now to attend and participate in the affairs of the Conference and, if possible, to be a part of the national weights and measures exhibit.

160
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

presented by J. E. Bowen, Chairman, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Newton, Massachusetts

(Tuesday, June 16, 1964, 1:55 p.m.)

1. Introduction

The official statement of the Organization

and Procedure of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, including its constitu- ent committees, delegates to the Committee on

Education consideration of matters embracing

the technical training of weights and measures

officials, the education of the general public

with relation to weights and measures matters,

and the education of users of weighing and

measuring devices.

The Committee on Education has been active,

during the past year, on a number of projects

that are of interest and concern to every weights

and measures official. The Committee met in Washington during the final days of the

48th National Conference in 1963. Throughout the year there has

been much Committee business transacted by correspondence, and some by long distance telephone communication among its members,

and between its Chairman and the Office of Weights and Measures

of the National Bureau of Standards. The Committee Chairman and

the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Weights and Measures

Week were able to confer in person during attendance of both at the

New York State Weights and Measures Association Conference in

Utica, New York, in July. All Committee members, except two, to- gether with the Committee's Secretary, were present at a meeting

called by the Committee Chairman in Biloxi, Mississippi, in October,

when these members attended the Conference of the Southern Weights

and Measures Association.

2. Home Study Technical Training Course Shortly after the start of the Conference year, the Committe sent out a questionnaire to State weights and measures, officials to determine the probable usefulness and effectiveness of the Committeesponsored Home Study Course. Following the favorable responses

received, the Committee on Education, with the assistance of the Office

of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, has acti- vated a Home Study Course for weights and measures officials. In response to a letter addressed to the weights and measures administrative heads of each of our fifty States, offering such a Course, to be channeled through such administrative heads, your Committee was

pleased that 36, or 72 percent, of our fifty States, plus two additional

jurisdictions, expressed enthusiasm for this project and requested the

Course material. Actual formulation and drafting of the Course was

undertaken and most capably accomplished by Richard N. Smith,

Technical Coordinator of the Office of Weights and Measures and

staff assistant to the Committee.

The material was organized as a 12-lesson outline of systematic

161
study of standard text material included in National Bureau of

Standards Handbooks 82, 44, 67, and Circular 593. Periodic examination questions also were included. The Course was supplied, upon

request of State officials, so that they might, in view of jurisdictional

variations of laws and regulations, edit and tailor the material as necessary or desirable so as to make it compatible with individual

programs. State officials were requested to duplicate and circulate

revised Course Material within their respective jurisdictions. The

Committee on Education recommended the issuance of certificates to students upon satisfactory completion of the Course.

In answer to Committee questionnaires mailed to participating

States, the Committee has received responses and is able to report

that 826 students have either completed or are currently participating

in the study course. The majority of States using the course have responded with enthusiastic comments. In 16 jurisdictions certificates have been, or will be,

issued to those students seriously pursuing and satisfactorily completing the Course.

Our questionnaires elicited an expressed desire upon the part of 14

States favoring* the development of additional Home Study Course

material. A variety of suggestions concerning material for future

courses was received. Consideration of future course material is re- ferred to our successor Committee.

3. Scale Technology Course Established

The Committee on Education has followed with interest and en- couragement the Scale Manufacturers Association announcement of

the establishment, by Alfred State Technical School, the Agricultural

and Technical Institute of the State University of New York, of a "Measurement Science Course." As the Conference was informed this

morning, the course will be a two-year, college-level scale technology

course. Alfred Tech is fully accredited by the Middle States Association of

Colleges and Secondary Schools and is authorized by the Division of

Higher Education of New York State to award the degree of "Associate in Applied Science."

Literature describing the "Measurement Science" Course may be

obtained upon request from Alfred Tech, Alfred, New York.

Weights and measures officials are urged to give thought to the

recruiting of high school students who appear to possess aptitude for

this Measurement Science Course.

Graduates of ths course will have opportunities to assume good positions in the scale industry, in positions of weighing responsibility in other industries, and in Government.

The Committee on Education wishes to heartily commend and con- gratulate the Scale Manufacturers Association, Alfred Tech, and all others involved, for this forward step in technical education, and rec- ommends that this 49th National Conference on Weights and Measures

also be so recorded. This two-year technical, college-grade course for

training qualified high school graduates in scale technology promises

to be of great beneficial value to all concerned with accurate weighing.

4. Technical Training Schools for Weights and Measures Officials The Office of Weights and Measures has continued its established

\
program of conducting technical training schools for weights and measures officials in the several States. These schools are of from one to four days' duration and cover both general and specific topics, depending on the participating jurisdiction's needs and desires. Since the last Conference, technical schools have been conducted by

Office of Weights and Measures personnel in the States of California,

Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kansas, New

York, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia. In addition, the

Office of Weights and Measures has participated in training confer- ences in seven States and conducted field training on special equipment

in six other States. The Committee on Education commends the National Bureau of

Standards on this activity and highly recommends widespread

acceptance by the States of this opportunity.

The Office of Weights and Measures increased its visits to State

offices and laboratories during the past year. This, in the view of the

Committee, is a most effective vehicle in the effort toward nationwide

uniformity of weights and measures laws, regulations, and methods

of inspection. It seems appropriate to the Committee that the Office

of Weights and Measures attempt to provide staff visits to each State

office not less frequently than once every other year. The Committee notes the recommendation to Dr. Astin of the

Weights and Measures Advisory Committee that qualified personnel

to inspect and train laboratory technicians and to intercompare standards and test laboratory apparatus in State and other laboratories be

added to the Office of Weights and Measures staff. Since this seems

to be an area in which the Office of Weights and Measures could provide an outstanding contribution, the Committee on Education heartily

endorses this proposal of the Advisory Committee.

5. Office of Weights and Measures—Audio-Visual Technical Presentation

The Office of Weights and Measures has announced the availability

of the first of a series of self-training aids on the complete examination

of the basic commercial weighing and measuring devices. This first technical presentation, "The Examination of a Computing Scale," consists of 58 35-mm colored slides and a taped narration. The total run- ning time is 20 minutes. Audio and visual instruction is given in a

step-by-step procedure as recommended by the Office of Weights and

Measures in the Examination Procedure Outline for a Computing

Scale. The presentation may be used for individual or group instruction. This presentation is part of an overall plan of the Office of

Weights and Measures to help the officials help themselves. The training series, if used, will provide an excellent tool for the promotion of

uniformity in testing procedures. Loan copies of the presentation are

available for short term loans, or the series may be purchased for the

permanent use of a jurisdiction. The delegates of this Conference

will have an opportunity on Friday morning to see and hear this

audio-visual technical presentation on the examination of a computing

scale.

6. Public Education in Weights and Measures The Committee is aware of numerous and various year-round promotions through personal appearances of officials addressing local groups

and numerous and varied news releases published in local news media,

and has submitted material relating to this subject to the Scale Journal

163
and many News Letters. We heartily endorse such public education

efforts. The Committee considered a suggestion that this Conference sponsor

and support an exhibit at the New York World's Fair. The Committee is in unanimous agreement that such enterprise would have been

desirable. However, upon study of Conference financial ability and ' manpower problems, such a project appeared to be far beyond the

limited means of this Conference. The Committee, after much

deliberation was therefore unable to recommend affirmative action on

this matter.

7. Communication With British Institute Your Committee has, during the past year, established a closer

liaison with our colleagues in England with a view to an increasing

exchange of ideas and information pertaining to matters of weights

and measures education. Our British counterpart has written to the

Chairman of your Committee on Education, "As mentioned in my last

letter, I reported to the Educational Services Committee of the Institute the liaison which has now been established with you, and later to the full Council itself. Everyone was extremely pleased at this turn

of events and we trust that this marks the beginning of a mutually

valuable era of cooperation." The British Institute has already for- warded material of interest to us, and we, in turn, have sent them I considerable material related to our procedures, and have sent ex- amples of our various educational promotions in this country. This I communication appears to have great potential value to weights and

measures officials of both countries.

8. National Weights and Measures Week 1964

The entire Committee on Education again functioned as a whole for

the promotion of National Weights and Measures Week 1964. However, this nationwide activity was directed by Mr. Samuel H. Christie,

Jr., Deputy State Superintendent of the State of New Jersey, who

served as Chairman of National Weights and Measures Week. Every

weights and measures official is indebted to Mr. Christie for his devoted

leadership and skillful direction of this nationwide project. It will

now be our pleasure to have Mr. Christie present the part of this report

bearing on National Weights and Measures Week 1964. The 1964 "Week" promotional activities were assumed by the Committee on Education as a whole as has been done during past years. Each member of the Committee served as regional co-ordinator with

the State Chairman responsible for promotional operations within his

own State. The 1964 "Week" saw greater activity on the part of

weights and measures associations. Again "grass roots" operations by

interested and experienced people paid dividends.

The shield emblem slogan of the National Conference That Equity

May Prevail was the theme of the "Week." It has been gratifying to note the favorable reactions of representatives of industry. This has

been brought about by the realization of the general public that the

promotion of the "Week" is for the mutual benefit of agriculture,

commerce, industry, and the consuming public. Interest in the "Week" is increasing in some areas and decreasing I in others. One jurisdiction suggested that commemoration of the ! "Week" be spaced at three- to five-year intervals.

164
At the open Committee hearing enthusiastic support was given for

the continuation of the "Week" on an annual basis. Use is being made of the entire list of available aids. "Grass roots" thinking has diversified their application. More official proclamations

have been obtained and wider publication and distribution made.

Literature is not only being distributed at exhibits, lectures, or movies,

but is also being placed on the windshields of cars parked in the

parking lots of shopping centers. More displays have been set up in

the lobbies of official buildings, in the windows of stores, pharmacies,

and service agencies such as banks and savings and loan associations.

Numerous officials have initiated programs of delivering lectures

and showing films to school children. This was proven to be a valuable

contact and the interest of the youngsters is tremendous. The activity

has been extended to the colleges and the resulting support of and

participation in the "Week" by student publications is gratifying and

has become an exciting field to explore to greater depths. Students are

of utmost importance now and will in a relatively short time be the

actual consumers and business people who will benefit from our services. They will be in a position to see that such services are continued

and properly supported.

"History of Measurement" posters, a new series for 1964, demonstrated that historical items can be very effective. "Mystery" can also be successfully exploited, witness the success of

the "Third Man" poster. Cute and provocative with just enough

mystery to compel the average person to complete the reading of the

message.

For several years stamps, seals, mail plates, and rubber stamp shield

imprints were utilized as a means of telling one another what we were

doing. Such practice has now been extended through the imprint of

mailings by commerce and industry. In such manner the symbol of our profession is receiving wider distribution.

Considerable attention by radio and television networks has been

given to Senator Hart and his Committee for their work on proper

package labeling. This may account for the increase of radio and

television time made available to weights and measures officials during

the past year. The Committee requests your fullest cooperation in a matter which

has been instituted in anticipation of National Weights and Measures

Week 1966. A request has been forwarded to U.S. Postmaster General

John R. Gronouski regarding the issuance of a commemorative stamp

for the 100th anniversary of the recognition by Congress of the legality

of the metric system in this country. Several Senators and Congressmen have been contacted in an effort to solicit their support for this

project. We urge everyone's support in contacting their legislators in

order to obtain additional consideration for this important project.

This report cannot be brought to a conclusion without taking the

opportunity to express grateful and most sincere thanks to all the

members of this Conference, both the weights and measures officials and associates, in attendance together with those remaining at their

posts of duty, who through their enthusiasm and many hours of time

consuming and tedious labor are actually responsible for the success of this project.

165
9. Second National Survey of State Weights and Measures Legislation,

Administration, and Enforcement by Dr. Leiand J. Gordon

Between the months of February and September 1963 Dr. Leland J. Gordon, Director, Weights and Measures Research Center, Denison

University, completed his second national survey of State weights

and measures legislation, administration, and enforcement. Dr.

Gordon has become, without a doubt, the outstanding unaffiliated

authority in this field and has been extremely helpful to this Conference and its members.

The results of Dr. Gordon's survey are both interesting and enlightening. Unfortunately, Dr. Gordon is on a professional assignment

in Japan and is unable to be here to present his report to this Conference. He has made the report available to the Conference Committee

on Education and has authorized the inclusion of the report in the

printed proceedings of this Conference.

The Committee commends this report for careful study by all offi- cials and records its gratitude to Dr. Gordon for his interest and his

careful, professional workmanship.

SECOND NATIONAL SURVEY OF STATE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

LEGISLATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT By Dr. Leland J. Gordon, Director, Weights and Measures Research Center, Denison University, Granville, Ohio

I The Second National Survey of State Weights and Measures Legislation,

Administration, and Enforcement, financed by a grant from Consumers Union, was conducted from February to September 1963.1 In that eight-month period

I traveled to 45 State capitals, where I spent from 1 to 10 hours with the responsible State weights and measures officials, recording answers to 175 questions.

The scheduling of interviews presented a problem, but Iowa was the only State

in which it was impossible to arrange a mutually satisfactory date. The opportunity to respond by mail was offered to Iowa, but was not accepted, so Iowa

is not included in the following report. Nor are Hawaii or Mississippi included

no general State law is in effect in either of those States. It would have been

impractical to travel to Alaska, so the weights and measures official in that State responded by mail. No response was received from Puerto Rico to a mailed

questionnaire. The Model Law was enacted in Arkansas after I had already

been in that area. It was not possible to return to Little Rock, but the newly

appointed official did respond to my questionnaire by mail. In summary then, the following report reflects personal interviews with 45 States and the District of Columbia, plus two mail responses.

II As my research progressed, additional questions were suggested by several

officials. The first of these was, "Do you test Post Office scales in your jurisdic- tion?" Of course, the postal system is a Federal operation, but, in most of the

Nation, official responses revealed that there is no Federal testing. State testing

is done upon request only, and requests are rare; 30 States test upon request, while 18 never test. Here is an area involving hundreds of millions of dollars

in which large numbers of antiquated, obsolete, and inaccurate scales are being

used. The detailed findings and comments on this question alone would make

a very lengthy report. The situation is especially bad in rural areas. In one

jurisdiction, for example, 11 out of 13 scales were found to be inaccurate. On

July 16 a letter was addressed to the Postmaster General asking for the official policy of the Post Office Department regarding the periodic testing of the accu1 Results of the First National Survey were reported to the 42d National Conference on Weights and Measures in 1957 (NBS Misc. Pub. 222, pp. 60-71)'. 166
racy of weighing devices used in United States post offices. No reply had been

received by August 31, so a second letter was dispatched. On October 7 the Director of the Maintenance Division responded as follows

:

The Post Office Department instructions to its employees for the checking and testing of post office scales is in Part 331.6 of the Postal Manual which requires, in effect, that all counter and lobby scales be

checked daily to be certain that they are in balance at zero, and that

scales at offices having test weights be checked by means of such weights

not less frequently than twice each year. The Department has recently ordered a large number of test weights and is to make them available at nearly all of the larger offices. Arrangements will also be made for use of these sets of test weights at other offices throughout the country.

Adequate procedures for use of the sets of test weights are being

developed with the assistance of the National Bureau of Standards, and

will be published for guidance of field personnel performing the testing.

Responses to my question by State officials indicate that Federal instructions to employees are ignored. The contents of the rest of the letter are hopeful. It suggests the possibility of a collaborative effort by State and Federal

inspectors, to be worked out by the Post Office Department and the National

Bureau of Standards. My conversations convince me that all State officials would welcome such a joint effort, and that much duplication of effort could be avoided if State inspectors inspected post office scales in rural areas. The second supplemental question dealing with a Federal-State area was

this : "Do you test weighing and measuring devices on military installations in your State, including post exchanges and commissaries?" For scales, the re- sponses were: Yes, 12; No, 22; upon request, 14. For prepackaged items, the responses were: Yes, 4; No, 32; upon request, 7. The comments were mostly

negative. For example : "We test if we can get on the Base. In general, conditions are bad. Packages are weighed gross, or worse. Servicemen are being taken for a ride. Scales and pumps are in fair condition, but food packages are

pretty miserable." On July 16, a letter was addressed to the Secretary of Defense asking this question : "What is the official policy of the Department

with reference to periodic testing of the accuracy of weighing and measuring

devices used in Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine commissaries and post ex- changes? Are prepackaged items tested for accuracy of fill? If so, by whom

and how frequently ?" Here is the reply, dated July 30. The Department of Defense does not have a published policy per- taining to the periodic testing of the accuracy of weighing and measuring devices used in Armed Forces Commissaries and Exchanges. This

function is the responsibility of the individual Military Departments.

Informal information received from the Military Departments indi- cates that in general the accuracy of weighing and measuring devices used at military installations are [sic] periodically checked by the State

officials or by contract in accordance with the State requirements or standards. Normally only national brand prepackaged items are car- ried in the Armed Forces Commissaries and Exchanges and are checked

for accuracy of fill only upon receipt of a complaint.

If more detailed information is desired, it is suggested that you

contact the individual Military Departments.

My conversations indicate strongly that the "informal information received from the Military Departments" is inaccurate. The interests of some millions of service personnel are involved. Remedial action is needed. Perhaps the National Conference on Weights and Measures could develop a collaborative plan with the Defense Department under which State inspectors would have free access to military establishments, as they do to all other commercial establish- ments, for complete and periodic testing of all weighing and measuring devices and prepackaged items. The third supplemental question dealing with a Federal-State area con- cerned national parks and monuments. State officials were asked : "Do you

test weighing and measuring devices used by concessionaires in national parks?"

Only 12 States do test, and that is only upon request. There is no testing in 28 States. This means that such tourist areas as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and

Skyline Drive are not checked. Two-thirds of the land area of New Mexico

167
is under Federal control, but there is no weights and measures control. On

August 24, a letter was written to the Secretary of the Interior asking for official policy. On September 11 the Assistant Director of the National Park Service

replied

As of the present time, the Department has no set policy with

respect to the periodic testing of the accuracy of weighing and measuring devices used by concessioners in the National Park System. However, this is a very important matter and, with the view of establishing

one, we have contacted our field offices and asked them to advise us how

the testing of these devices is now handled in each of their areas and

for their comments on the establishment of such a policy.

When their comments have been received and summarized, we will write you further in this regard.2 This is a positive and encouraging attitude. But here again, Federal-State

collaboration is indicated. I recommend that the National Conference on Weights and Measures move toward informal conversations with the National

Park Service with a view to establishing a joint program of testing and

inspection. Before leaving this topic, let it be recorded that, among States having con- cessionaire operations in State parks, 19 test weighing and measuring devices

regularly, 6 do so upon request, and 13 do no testing. Information supplied by some officials concrening inaccuracies suggests the need for regular testing by

all States.

Ill Let us turn now to four supplemental questions concerning the testing of prescription scales, odometers on rental automobiles, taximeters, and scales used by airlines to weigh travelers' luggage.

Among 44 responses, 20 States regularly test drug prescription scales, 4 do

so upon request, and 20 do not test. Inaugurating its testing program in April

1963, Michigan reported condemnation of 50 percent of all scales checked in a four-month period. One official reported finding a hearing-aid battery and a paper clip being used as weights. Florida found only 55 percent in compliance, but 89 percent in tolerance. Even though prescription scales may not be used

as much as formerly, such inaccuracies present a health hazard, and the indica- tion is that all States should test such scales periodically.

This Conference has given much program time to consideration of the problems involved in testing odometers. The need for testing has been documented. For example, investigation in one State showed individual odometers as much

as 20 percent fast. How much testing is being done? Not much. Among 47

jurisdictions, only Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina have any kind of a testing program in operation. Forty-three States do not test, although 5 expressed a hope "to start a program soon." There must be many thousands of taximeters in use the accuracy of which

is an unknown factor, since they are tested in only 9 States. When asked, "Do

you test taximeters?" the answer was a flat "No" in 34 States. In 5 States, it was reported that some large cities test taximeters. Apparently this is another

neglected area. Airlines charge heavily for transporting passengers' excess luggage. How

accurate are their scales? According to my responses, airline scales are generally well maintained and accurate. Forty States inspect airline scales regularly ; only 8 reported no checking of such scales. IV

In Part I of my questionnaire there were 71 questions seeking to compare

the provisions of State laws with the recommended provisions of the Model

Law, as amended through June 1962. It would be tedious and time-consuming

to report the responses to each question, and it would probably be unnecessary.

Parenthetically, I might say that in many interviews there was an exchange of information and judgments which many officials said was helpful to them. This was particularly true in the interviews with recently appointed and

2 As of April 1964 there has been no further response. 168
younger officials, some of whom made notes to do what they are not doing and

to seek legislation to strengthen gaps and ambiguities in their laws. It should be reported also that, since 1957, eleven States 3 have virtually enacted the Model

Law and Wisconsin has enacted basic changes which bring its law into close conformity to the Model Law. Almost all States have added amendments which

have strengthened and clarified their laws. As of 1964 there are not many

States whose laws are not strong enough to provide good consumer protection.

Where programs are weak the reasons are more likely to be political interference and lack of money. One new development since 1957 has been the increased use in some States, notably South Carolina and West Virginia, of the power to order off sale packages which do not contain the amounts represented, instead of court action. This has been reported in the Southern Weights and Measures Newsletter, so

it need not be detailed here. Use of this legal power is faster and more effective as a corrective measure than court action. Oklahoma adopted an amendment

in 1959 which empowers the director to paste a copy of a stop-sale violation on

the main entrance of a violative store in case of a second violation. This has

been used three times and has stopped three chronic offenders. Since 1957, prepackaging abuses have multiplied. How many States have

statutory power to prevent the use of such terms as "when packed," "jumbo,"

"giant," "full," or do so by regulation? The words "when packed," are illegal in 28 States, legal in 20. The other three qualifying terms are illegal in 15

States, legal in 28. Many officials commented on the conflict with the United

States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration

practice, citing this as an area where greater cooperation is needed.

Several good provisions of the Model Law are found in only a minority of State laws, and are not always enforced. For example, only 16 States have

the requirement in Section 27 of the Model Law of a conspicuous declaration

of price per single unit of weight, measure, or count for random-packed items. Section 31 of the Model Law forbids misrepresentation of price, and 23 States have such a provision. Section 31 also requires that, when prices include a

fraction of a cent, the fraction shall be at least one-half the height and width

of the numerals representing the whole cents, but only 11 States have such a

provision.

The laws of 26 States follow the requirement in Section 39 of the Model

Law that textile products in bolt, roll, or otherwise packaged must show net measure in yards or net weight. But several officials admitted to no enforce- ment of this provision. In 1957, only 7 States were supervising the sale of liquefied petroleum gas. By 1963, 32 States had added this service, but with varying degrees of

effectiveness. V

In Part II of my questionnaire there were 14 questions dealing with ad- ministration. The first one concerned job security. Table I shows that weights

and measures personnel in 24 jurisdictions have civil service status, either under the weights and measures law or under a general statute. Five States

protect personnel against removal, discharge, reduction in pay or position except

for just cause, after written notice and a hearing. But employees in 16 States have no protection against arbitrary discharge. Some of the comments raise doubts as to the effectiveness of civil service. Certainly it is no panacea. In some States, civil service is meaningless because it is not enforced, while in other States weights and measures personnel have had long tenure even though

they do not have formal, legal job security. In some jurisdictions, staff members have tenure, but directors do not. In reading the figures in column 2 of table I, which shows the total number

of employees, it must be remembered that 22 States have Form 1 laws, which

provide control throughout the State by State officials only. If county and city

employees in Form 2 States were included in the tabulation, such States would

appear to have many more employees. And perhaps more States would have

one inspector for every 50,000 citizens. Many times I raised a question as to the validity of the 50,000 figure. No one seems to know its origin, and some

doubt its validity. But most officials consider this to be a useful goal.

The salary figures for directors are disheartening. They speak for themselves. Too many are too low. The range is from $5,700 to $14,000. Only 9 are

3 Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, New Mexico, Tennessee,

Virginia, Washington.

169

747-830 O - 65 - 12
over $10,000. The salary figures for inspectors are even more disheartening.

There are only three jurisdictions which start inspectors at $6,000, and only one

in which an inspector may ever hope to make $10,000 ; in fact, there are only 7

in which he can rise to $7,000, no matter how many years he works. These

figures tell a critical story for the future of weights and measures work. The

National Conference is well aware of the problem and has had a committee

working on it, so I shall not analyze or comment further. What income can a weights and measures man look forward to when he must retire? Some do not know. For them, and for others who do know, the future looks bleak. A minimum desirable goal for retirement is 50 percent of retirement salary. But, if retirement salary is small, retirement income will be

small, too small. The figures seem to show that, the higher the salaries, the higher the percentage of retirement income. Those who have now will continue

to have in the future. There have been 28 personnel changes since the first national survey took

place just seven years ago. Only 13 directors have been in their present positions more than 10 years. In 7 States, the newly appointed director had no previous

experience in weights and measures work. Twelve directors are college graduates, with two of them having earned the degree of Master of Science. Seven have had one or more years of college study, and three have attended business

colleges. In response to this question, "In order to achieve minimum uniformity in weights and measures legislation and enforcement, would you favor in principle a Federal grant to States which enact the Model Law and establish a minimum

enforcement program, "there were 22 affirmative responses and 24 negative

replies. Among the many comments, two pretty well summarize the opposing

points of view. On the affirmative side, one director said : "Of course this is debatable, but we get Federal money for other purposes, such as public health and road building, so why not for weights and measures? This seems to be the

trend, so we should get our share. I am not afraid of Federal control. Uni- formity is so important that I am ready to risk it." Those who reject the proposal

usually refer to themselves as "States' righters" and are fearful of Federal control. In the words of one man, "I never saw such a program yet under which

the Feds didn't take over." In my first report I stressed the need for, and importance of, a regular public

information program. Directors' responses show only 12 States having such a program. But these figures reflect subjective judgments. In my judgment, some

directors who said they do not have such programs have better programs than some who claim they do have a regular public information program. There are very few jurisdictions in which consumers are adequately aware of the weights

and measures work being done in their behalf. If they were better informed,

it seems reasonable to assume that they would support requests for more financial support of the important work you do.VI

Table II presents responses to 14 questions concerning enforcement. Each

director was asked how many prosecutions and how many convictions he had in

1962. Roughly, the responses divide directors into two schools of thought con- cerning enforcement—those who believe that "persuasion and cooperation" are more effective than prosecution, and those who believe that chronic offenders can be curbed only by legal action. Since my first survey, a significant number

of directors, frustrated and impatient with the delays and favoritism in local courts, have turned to the use of the off-sale order as an enforcement weapon. They contend that it is swift and effective. It will be seen in column 1 that there were no prosecutions in 23 States, not counting Arkansas, which had no program

in 1962. In some States, this means that there was really no enforcement pro- gram. I heard too many stories of collusion, and of interference by higher

political officeholders. Some directors are discouraged, and some are cynical.

One generalization emerges : whether as a result of "persuasion and cooperation"

or prosecution, compliance is better in metropolitan centers among large firms. Columns 3, 4, 5, and 6 in table II report budgets in toto and per capita. In analyzing these figures, it must be remembered that they represent under- statements for Form 2 States. In Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, to mention

only three of the larger States, counties and cities spend large additional sums

for weights and measures administration and enforcement, but the total figures for such States are not known. The expenditures per capita range from a low of %o of a cent in Ohio to 20 cents in North Dakota. Some officials say 6 cents per capita is the minimum necessary for a good program ; a few say that figure

170
is too low. Yet all but 11 States spend less than that amount: Florida, New

Hampshire, and South Carolina spend 6 cents, Connecticut 7 cents, Oregon, 8

cents, Kentucky and Minnesota 9 cents, South Dakota 10 cents, Vermont 11 cents, West Virginia 12 cents, and North Dakota 20 cents. North Carolina spends 12

cents for its combined programs. Among these 12 States, 9 have Form 1 laws. Notice that West Virginia is the only State in this group which considers its budget adequate, while Arkansas, California, Illinois, Nebraska, and Oklahoma

consider their budgets adequate even though the budgets amount to less than 6

cents per capita. One might well ask, "What is an adequate budget?" On the

basis of my studies I must say that, in my judgment, some States whose budgets

are less than 6 cents per capita have stronger programs than some whose budgets

are 6 cents or more. However, there remains a strong presumption that a State with a Form 1 law and a budget of 6 cents or more per capita will have a strong

weights and measures program. "Does your law provide for, or permit, the use of fees?" Directors in 22

States responded affirmatively to this question. "Do you think it is a good

idea to charge inspection fees to finance, or help to finance, enforcement of the law?" A minority of 10 directors answered "Yes." A typical comment was

that, when testing is done at the request of the owner of the device or when

testing requires special equipment, a fee is justified. On the other hand, when

the testing is for public benefit, the service should be performed without a fee, as police and fire protection are provided. The use of fees tends to cause resent- ment. Inspectors are accused of testing just to collect their fees. To avoid

this problem, Oklahoma tried billing from the office, but that was unsatisfactory.

It is significant that 12 of the 22 directors in States which use fees would like to abolish them, while only 3 officials whose laws do not permit fees would like

to install a fee system.

Of the 47 States, plus the District of Columbia, included in the survey, 42 have officially adopted Handbook 44, while 3 States follow it unofficially.4 This

represents a long step toward uniformity among the States. Responses to the next two questions may be discussed jointly. Only 18

State directors think their equipment is adequate to do the job they would

like to do, and only 14 report adequate laboratory facilities. The basic essentials

to a good weights and measures program are personnel and equipment, while an adequate budget is essential for both. The disparity among the States in equipment and personnel is much too great. In some jurisdictions equipment

is, in effect, purchased with money which should go for salaries. As prices con- tinue to rise year by year, the low-budget States fall farther and farther behind

in salaries and equipment. At the same time, population continues to grow.

This is why a formula relating budgets to cents per capita is important. The

6-cents-per-capita formula is no longer valid. Perhaps a Conference committee

should study this problem and provide a new formula. Something in the order

of a 50-percent increase (9 cents per capita) seems appropriate as a beginning

for discussion. "Would you favor, in principle, having the National Bureau of Standards

test and approve all new equipment as a prerequisite for sale in your State?" The overwhelming affirmative response to this question is impressive. Out of 46 replies, 37 do favor NBS-type approval. If the compulsory feature were

eliminated, two more officials would have answered affirmatively. This is an

80-percent affirmative vote. This issue has been discussed and debated more

than once in this Conference. In addition, it has been discussed in regional

conferences. Having listened to some of those discussions, I had gotten the impression that there was more opposition to the plan than my survey shows. Answers to the two preceding questions emphasize the inability of most States

to test new equipment adequately. Now some States depend on the National Bureau of Standards and small-budget States depend on large-budget States. In the words of one official, "This is not a States'-rights issue." Rather it is an issue involving equity and uniformity in testing greatly increasing numbers

of complicated weighing and measuring devices. Another policy issue was presented in this question : "Do you think it is feasible to do more checking of package weights in processing plants?" This

question was suggested by an incident related to me in the first survey. In Form 1 State X, an inspector found all one-pound cans of Y brand coffee short weight 4 ounces. A subsequent statewide inspection found 100,000 cans of Y

brand coffee each short weight 4 ounces. All cans were condemned and re-

* This number includes those States that have taken official action subsequent to the

survey. 171
turned to the packer. All of this Inspecting required many man hours, which

could have been saved if one man had sample-checked the weights in the packing plant. Subsequent disclosures before the Hart Committee during the hear- ings on S. 387 seemed to stress the importance of quantity control at the source.

Finally, the publicly announced Wisconsin policy of shifting emphasis from

100-percent testing of retail devices to selective testing of such devices and to emphasis on at-the-source package checking gave this question added significance.

The preponderance of affirmative responses indicates an imminent basic change

in State enforcement programs. Out of 46 replies, 38 (83 percent) were af- firmative. There were surprisingly few comments. One concerned the problem

of moisture loss for certain commodities. Another expressed the view that quantity control is the packer's responsibility. Obviously, quantity control is also a responsibility of the retailer, yet weights and measures officials traditionally inspect not only devices but also packages in retail stores. Combined with

a similar cooperative program for packaging plants, inspection can be strengthened in the 38 States whose officials favor more plant inspection.

The last question in Part III also was suggested by comments in response

to a question in the first survey. When asked what consumer-buyers could do to help themselves, a substantial number of directors said : "Tell them to be

alert; to watch the weighing and measuring process; and to report anything

which they think should be checked by an official inspector.'" These replies led me to visualize an "unofficial inspector" program in which a director would

enlist the interest and support of an organization like the League of Women

Shoppers. The weights and measures program would be described to the women, who would then "be alert" and report anything to the director which they thought

should be investigated. These "unofficial inspectors" obviously would add a

considerable number to the staff of inspectors and thereby make the inspectors'

work more effective. Of those interviewed, 28 ( 60 percent) favor such a plan. In fact, the plan is already in operation in Connecticut. VII

This brings us to the general concluding questions in Part IV of the questionnaire. Seven years ago, more directors made estimates of the annual dollar

loss to consumer-buyers as a result of short weights, short measures, and short counts in their States. A typical response was : "I don't know. I couldn't even

guess. But I am sure it would be enormous." In one State which has a good

program and whose director is an experienced official, the estimate was $150 per

person, which would amount to $900 million annually in that one State. Other

directors insisted that the loss is negligible. Perhaps this question should be

left with the generalization in quotation marks above. "Are checkout practices a problem?" Table III shows that directors in 15 States think they are ; most of the others do not think so. Hardly any State laws give administrative officials authority over checkout practices. This is not a weights and measures problem. But whose problem is it? Likewise, with

shortchanging. Seven directors think shortchanging is common enough to be a

problem. But whose problem is it? Should inspectors in each jurisdiction

periodically investigate checkout practices and the accuracy of change? Per- haps this is a task on which "unofficial inspectors" could be used. Only 7 officials would hazard an estimate as to the number of consumerbuyers who try to take advantage of retail sellers by such dishonest tricks as

shifting price labels, pilfering from packages, and so on. Not all consumers

are honest, nor are all sellers dishonest. Yet the presumption seems to prevail that consumers are the innocent victims in the market who must alway be protected. Obviously, this is not a weights and measures problem, but it is one to the solution of which weights and measures officials might make a contribution. What about the other side of the counter? Sellers have the advantage if they wish to short weight and short measure. Drawing on their experience,

directors were asked what percentage of the retail sellers in their States seem

to be deliberate shorters. Twenty-five did not venture an estimate, but did make such comments as these : "It's being done." "Very small ; have some." "Any answer would be an indictment of an industry." "Very few, mostly corner

groceries." "Almost all are careless." "Deliberate shorting exceeds careless shorting. Big stores are O.K. Little stores are the offenders." "More shorters in gas stations than in stores." Column 4 shows 20 responses with estimated per- centages ranging from 1 to 25, with 5 being the most frequently mentioned figure. One respondent said, "I managed a store 8 years. Managers are under the 172
pressure of incentive plans and are eager beavers." Another director said, "Most butchers are crooked, according to a chainstore supervisor." And another, "Meat and produce are the worst areas." Out of the wisdom of many years, one director said, "Sixty-five percent are real honest ; 25 percent are as honest

as you make them be ; 10 percent are never honest." What percentage of retail merchants are shorters, not because they intend

to be, but because of carelessness? Out of 21 estimates, table III, column 5 shows percentage figures ranging from % to 30, with 10 being mentioned six times, 15 five times, and 5 three times. The next two questions dealt with most common methods of shorting and

suggestions for consumer-buyers to help them protect themselves. Responses to similar questions in the first survey were reported in Wattch Your Weights and

Measures, published by the Council on Consumer Information, Greeley, Colorado,

1957. In that pamphlet, 45 methods of shorting were described and antidotes

prescribed. This survey shows most of the old shorting methods still in use, plus a few new tricks. The evidence suggests that eternal vigilance is necessary. State officials were asked whether they bave any special problems, other than

lack of money and personnel. Seventeen responded negatively, and 23 said yes. The farm milk tank is still a problem in 8 States. In 6 of the large western States, the sparse population and long distances to travel present an obvious problem.

Parenthetically, it should be reported, as it was 7 years ago, that there is strong

sentiment west of the Mississippi River to alternate National Conference meetings between Washington and, perhaps, Boulder, Colorado. The present im- balance in the Conference between nearby States and distant States calls for

correction. Other special problems mentioned concerned LP Gas enforcement,

slow-flow meters, large fuel-oil meters, and the calibration of plastic liquidfertilizer tanks. Table III, column 6, shows only 13 States have promulgated the Model

State Regulation Pertaining to Packages, adopted by the National Conference

in 1960 and amended in 1961. Five State directors reported that they follow

the Model in essence. Among the 33 negative responses, one official said he

had never heard of the Model regulation, and I suspect there were others who

were unaware of it. Responses to the next question, shown in column 7 of table III, are much

more affirmative. Thirty-three States follow Handbook 67 when checking pre- packaged commodities, and two more follow it in essence. One disquieting fact which emerged is that too many of the negative-response States are not doing

any packaging checking. The usual apology was lack of money and personnel. Not shown in the table are the 35 States which favor required registration of scale servicemen with the department of weights and measures. Several

States now require registration, and some others have it under consideration. A major development since the first survey has been the introduction in Congress of S. 387 by Senator Philip A. Hart, who has addressed this Conference on two occasions. In his second appearance here, the Senator presented a pre- view of the bill, upon which hearings were subsequently held. Five State direc- tors had not studied the bill up to the time of our interview, but two of them

expressed opinions nonetheless. As column 8 shows, 35 of the respondents favor

the bill and 8 oppose it. This is an impressive 81-percent vote for the bill. Here

are some negative comments : "It grants unlimited authority to Federal agencies,

and present laws are adequate; what we need is stronger enforcement." "The

bill is O.K., but I don't like F&D and FTC administering it." "It is too extreme and unreasonable ; it would increase cost to consumers." "Federal authority

would be divided still more among FDA, FTC, USDA, and Treasury, creating more confusion." "We are States' righters : the purpose of the bill is good, but we should do the job." The last comment came from a Great Lakes area State. A contrasting view in support of the bill comes from a southern State in these words: "I am not fearful of States' rights." Another from a border State:

"I have no qualms about the Feds. It can't be done any other way. States can't do it." "It would strengthen our hand," says one New Englander. Another

said, "It deserves the support of every official. We can see improvement in attitudes after the hearings." A similar view from a western State: "The

publicity so far has helped. This bill would save the States a lot of duplication

of effort and would cure a lot of ills." In 1962, and again in 1963, the Weights and Measures Advisory Committee

strongly recommended that the United States change to the metric system of weights and measures "in order to continue to operate most effectively in world

commerce." Thirty-five out of 44 responding directors (80 percent) agree with

the Committee. In one midwestern State, the director and his staff believe the 173
Table I

State 8* fas 2 *a "S 8 8

10

SI

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona Arkansas

California Colorado

Connecticut Delaware

District of Columbia.

Florida Georgia Idaho

Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky

Louisiana Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri Montana

Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York

North Carolina North Dakota

Ohio Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota

Tennessee Texas Utah

Vermont

Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

6,000

10, 020

9, 600 N.A.

13,992

8, 727 8,900

7,000

13, 340

12, 042

7, 020

5, 820

10,800

8, 400

9, 456

7,800 «7,800

6, 240

(

7 ) 9, 035

(

s

) 7, 850

5, 700 6,400 7,200

9,444

5, 474 11,000

(

7 ) 10, 950

10, 608 6,000

8, 640

6, 600

7, 860

13, 308

6, 400

8, 250 5,940

8, 220

7,008 7,196

7, 982

8, 890 7,860

7, 300

(

7 ) 7, 320

3, 540 N.A.

6,000 N.A.

5,280

6, 840

4, 760 5,000 6,090

3,620

2,628

5, 400 4,380

5, 700

3, 708

3, 516

4, 560

4, 914

4, 540

6, 825

5, 500

4, 620

3, 300 4,500

4,200

4, 584

4, 764 3,063

4, 800 5,200 3,600

4, 800 3,168

3, 960

5, 760

3, 900 3,380 4,000

«5, 400 3,960

4, 320

5, 392

4, 212 4,300

5,098

4, 770 5,220

4,800

4,560 N.A.

6,000 N.A.

11, 520 6,840

7, 640 6,000

7,935 6,000

3,900

5, 940 6,000 7,200

5, 232

4, 740

5, 280

4, 914

5, 677

6, 825 7,000

7,104 4,200

6,300

4,800

5, 568

4, 764

6, 482

6, 300

6, 600 5,000

4, 800

4, 800 4,440

5, 760 N.A.

5, 200

5,000

5,400 3,960

5, 580 7,188

5,746

5, 400

6, 048

4, 770

9, 240

6, 300

70 N.A.

70

'~~70

70

(?

(?) N.A.

N.A.

7550

50 842

80

8 70

(?)

8 3350

8 50

565050

8 5080

50

50

70

70

65

70

(10)65

50

50

60

50 N.A.

(10)40

(»)50

(?)7540

(10)7550

(12)34

8 40

60

50

75

43 "Y" indicates "Yes." "N" indicates "No." "N.A." indicates "No answer."

Question mark (?) indicates "Does not know."

1 Counting local officials.

2 Do have 1 to 50,000 for all but congested areas.

3 Counting 49 local inspectors.

4 Expects to go to $9,600; two raises behind.

5 No one official is responsible for weights and measures only. If there were such an official, his salary would probably be $10,500 to $11,600.

6 Salaries to be increased in 1963.

7 Confidential.

8 Plus Social Security.

9 No weights and measures work until 1945.

10 No State plan, but are under Social Security.

11 Retirement plan expected this session.

12 Retirement plan enacted two years ago; includes Social Security.

174
Table II

1 2 3 4

e

•J 0 7 g 9* 10 11 19 13 1 K

State i

S5

to S3 V,

equate? |

jquate? |

S3a t

scales? B

CO "3

utions

1!

ctions

19 1

a

SJ

per

capi

ate? ey

neede

09 ve

fees?

.dopted? ment

ad

itory

adi

NBS

ty

oval? store

tes CDbd

03 Mo

a e~

"unoffic

?ctors"? ©m

•d3

CO 3a

1 9© o 00 a co k a uo m a

O co o

l_ 1o PQ sCD

<d a

1 '3TM " > gC3 w

>

03 * % > a

pL| Q Q < w

Alabama - - 0 0 67 ooo 2 —

N 100,000 N Y Y —N —

N Y Y Y Y

Alaska N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Arizona 0 0 70 785 5 140,000 Y N N 8 N N Y Y Y Y

Arkansas,. . o o 72, 000 4 Y N Y Y N N N A Y N.A. N

California 144 133 650, 418 4 Y N.A. N N' Y Y Y Y Y? Y Y

Colorado 2 2 89, 024 5 N 154, 087 Y N Y N N Y N Y N

Connecticut o o 174, 000 N Y Y Y Y Y IN v Y i Delaware 5 5 66, 100 1 N 84,000 N N Y N N Y Y 7 N N

District of Columbia... 49 49 1 N i? B N N Y Y y N N N N

Florida 0 0 325, 000 6 N 650,000 N N Y 8 Y N N Y (?) N

Georgia . 0 0

i N.J5.B. N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y

Idaho... . 0 o 64, 275 I N Y (

2) Y N N Y v Y V"i

Illinois .. o Q 192. 000 2 Y Y Y Y Y N Y I Y XTIN Indiana . . o o IN. SB. N N Y N N Y N Y ? Kansas 1 79, 127 4 N 104, 127 N N Y N N Y N N Y

Kentucky 7 7 265, 000 9 N 331,000 N N Y N N Y Y Y Y

Louisiana... o o 151, 000 N N N Y N N Y IN Y vx Maine.. . o o 38, 000 4 N 100 000 Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y

Maryland 1 o iN.S.B. N N.A. N N N

«

Y N N N N Y

Massachusetts . 32 32 140, 691 3 N 150,000 Y Y Y N N Y N Y N

Michigan 145 145 150, 000 2 N 300,000 N N Y N N Y N N N

Minnesota.- g 8 290, 684 9 N N.A. Y Y 3 N N N Y Y Y Y

Missouri . 0 0 87, 280 2 N 214, 120 N N Y N N Y Y N Y

Montana 8 8 93, 995 1 N 188,000 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y

Nebraska o o 30, 000 2 Y Y D 4 N Y Y Y N Y N

Nevada ... 0 0 123, 000 4 N 400,000 Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y

New Hampshire 0 0 38, 354 6 N 75,000 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y

New Jersey 800 770 320, 000 5 N 425,000 N N Y N N N N Y Y

New Mexico o 0 62, 000 5 x 124 000 Y N Y N \ Y N Y Y

New York.. 85, 000 1/2 N 170^000 N N Y N Y N Y Y Y

North Carolina 133, 257 3

12 10 398, 355 9 N N.A. N N Y» Y Y N N N N

North Dakota. . _ . 3 3 123, 953 20 N 150,000 Y N Y N N Y Y Y N

Ohio 0 0 57, 802 6/10 N 65,000 N N Y • N Y Y N Y N

Oklahoma. . . 4 0 100, 000 4 Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y

Oregon.. 1 1 133, 922 8 N 230,000 Y N Y Y X Y N Y N

Pennsylvania N.A. N.A. 276, 000 2 N 552,000 N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y

Rhode Island 0 0 30, 039 3 N N.A. Y N N» N X N Y Y Y

South Carolina. .. 0 0 135, 000 6 N 200,000 N N Y N N Y Y Y N

South Dakota 0 0 65, 000 10 N 100,000 8 Y Y Y io Y Y Y Y Y N

Tennessee 0 0 65, 000 2 X 195,000 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Texas N.A. N.A. 'N.S.B. Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N

Utah 0 0

i N.S.B.

590 N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N

Vermont... 0 0 45, ~U~ N 65,000 N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y

Virginia 16 14 265, 000 4 N 325,000 Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y

Washington. . . . 5 4 132, 621 5 N 264,000 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y

West Virginia 25 25

6

224, 000 12 Y N N Y N N Y N N N

Wisconsin. __ 16 215, 000 5 N 300,000 N N Y N Y N N Y Y

Wyoming _. 0 0 IN.S.B. N 56,000 N N Y Y N Y Y Y N

"Y" indicates "Yes." "N" indicates "No." "N.A." indicates "No answer." Question mark (?) indicates "Not sure."

1 "N.S.B." indicates "No separate budget."

2 Mixed reactions. "No" for food and gas pumps, but "yes" when public is not using. For example, farm milk tanks.

3 When at owner's request, or when special equipment or lab work is required.

4 Debatable.

8 Only on heavy-duty scales.

8 Follow unofficially.

7 No in prepackage stores, because of tare problem. Delaware says tare problem can be handled by tare

chart.

8 Follow 98 percent.

• Minor alterations.

i° Partially adopted. •This column has been updated as of June 1, 1964.

175
Table III

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

e- <u tom

® e-M

a l- 25

del

Packa p- o

FTC

OK?

oblem? a

proble

ers

disho

ers

delib

Hers

ca

metric?

metric? fda

o:

USDA IRS

OK

s

a

pr sbo f

buy* 1

ON ?

§>

02*

pport with with with with *-a

tout |

od

ntont ted l

t w 02 0

2

3

o

ions ions ions ions

stioi

heel or»

erce erce sho erce sho OllO'

avoi 3

o

r)

ubli elat elat elat elat VM

bo3 O CO Ph Ph Ph < Gh Ph go Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph m

(?) Y N.A. N.A. N.A. Y Y Y Y N.A. Y Y N.E. N.E. Y N N (

2

) N.A. N.A. N N Y -N N Y Y N.E. Y N

N.A. (?) (?) (?) (?) Y Y N.A. Y N Y Y Y Y N

N N (

2

) 5 N 4 N Y Y Y Y N N.E. N.E. Y N N (

2

) 2 10-12 N N 5 Y N N Y Y Y Y N

Y N 1 1 5 N N Y Y N Y Y N.E. Y N

N N N.A. 25 N.A. Y Y Y Y N Y N.E. N.E. N.E. N

vrIN N 5 10 N vrJN vrIN Y vi vrIN Y N.E. N.E. Y Y N (

2

) N.A. N.A. N 4 N 4 N Y N N.E. N N.E. N.E. Y N N (

2

) 2 2 N 4 Y Y Y Y Y Y N.E. N N

N N (

2

) (

2

) (

2

) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N.E. N.E. Y

(?) (?) N.A. N.A. N.A. Y Y Y • Y Y N N.E. N.E. N N

N N N.A. 5 10 N 8 Y Y Y N Y Y N.E. N.E. Y Y Y vr a JN .A. 5 30 Y vX Y Y vrJN Y Y N.E. N.E. Y v N XT A JN .A. 5 15 Y Vi vX Y V ft vrIN N N.E. N Y Y 0) 1-3 5 15 Y Y Y N vrJN Y Y Y Y N

N N vr a JN .A. (

2

) N vi vX Y vrJN XTIN N.E. N.E. N.E. Y XT

JN N vr a IN .A. vr a IN .A. vr a IN .A. N 4 X X 0 Y vr a IN .A. VX Y N.E. Y N

N N (

2

) vr a JN .A. vr a JN .A. N vrJN Y Y vrJN Y Y Y Y N

Y N (') vr a IN . A

vr a IN .A. N vrIN Y /9\ X 7 Y 7 Y 7 N Y N N N.A. (

2

) (

2

) N Y Y Y YX Y 7 N.E. N.E. N.E. N

Y Y 5 3-4 5 Y vi vX Y vrJN vX Y N.E. N.E. Y vi N 0 15 N VX Y Y vrJN VX vX vr t? JN .Hi. N.E. Y N N (?) (2

) (

2

) N N N.A. Y N Y Y N.E. N.E. N

N N N.A. N.A. N.A. N Y Y N.A. Y « Y Y Y N.E. Y Y N (2

) (

2

) H N Y Y« Y N Y Y N.E. N.E. Y N N 2-5 2-3 15 N N 4 Y (?) (?) Y 6 Y N N.E. Y Y Y (?) 4 10 N Y N Y N N.E. Y N.E. N.E. Y N N (») N.A. N.A. Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N.E. Y N N N.A. (a

) (

2 ) N N N N N N N N N Y N N (?) (?) (?) N.A. N Y (?) (?) Y Y N.E. N.E. N

N.A. N A N.A. N.A. N.A. N Y N N 6 N Y Y N.E. N.E. Y

N N

* (?) (?) (?) N N Y Y N Y N.E. N.E. N.E. N

N N N.A. (?) (?) N Y Y Y Y Y Y N.E. N.E. N

N N (?) (?) (?) N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (?) (

2

) (

2

) N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N

N N.A. N.A. 10 N.A. Y Y Y Y N« Y Y N.E. N N

Y N (2

) N.A. (?) N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N

N N 15 10 25 Y Y Y 6 Y N Y Y N.E. N.E. N

N N N.A. N.A. N.A. N N N.A. N N Y Y N.E. N.E. N

Y N (?) N.A. N.A. N Y N.A. Y Y Y Y N.E. N.E. N

N N (?) 10 25 N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y

s? N 5 7 10 Y Y N Y N N N N.E. N Y N (

2

) 5 10 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N.A. (

2

) (

2

) N 4 Y N N N N.E. Y N.E. N.E. N

Y Y N.A. 1 3-4 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (?) (?) (?) N Y Y Y« Y« Y Y N.E. N.E. Y

Question mark (?) indicates "Do not know.' "Y" indicates "Yes." "N" indicates "No."

"N.A." indicates "No answer." "N.E." indicates "No experience."

1 In some places.

2 Small; no problem.

3 No answers to any Part IV questions.

4 But do it much the same.

5 Hope to adopt soon.

6 Qualified answer.

7 Limited experience.

176
change is coming and, when buying new equipment, they anticipate the need

for metric measurements. There were not many comments by those who favor

the change, but here are four negative views. "If they want our goods, they will buy. Changeover to the decimal system has slowed down the clamor for metric." "Let Europe conform to us. We are furnishing the money ; we favor the decimal

j system, which is legal in our State. " "What would consumers gain?" "We have

I done pretty well with our system. Let the other guys do the changing. I bet

ij the scale manufacturers would like to see this change go through." "In working on mutual weights and measures problems with the Food and

Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Federal Trade

I Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service, has your experience been satis-

; factory?" For FDA, 38 directors answered affirmatively, 6 negatively, and 3

j reported no experience with that agency. Responses concerning USDA were

almost identical, 37, 5, 5. Thirty-two States have not had any experience with

FTC. Among the 15 which have had contacts, 13 reported satisfaction, and only 2 were dissatisfied. Responses concerning IRS were quite similar, 27, 13, 7, Because of the small number of unsatisfactory experiences reported for all of these Federal agencies and because this report is already too long, I have

decided to omit the comments made to me. I think they have all been expressed

! in the National Conference or in regional conferences. The interviews ended with this question : "Do you have any suggestions

| for improving Federal-State cooperation in weights and measures?" In this case a "No," of which there are 22, indicates complete satisfaction with the work of the Office of Weights and Measures. Among the 25 who offered suggesj tions, they were preponderantly favorable and constructive. Repeatedly I re- corded responses like these: "OWM has been wonderful. Their attitude is good. I hope ours has been as good and that NBS will continue to assist us." "Of all Federal agencies, I am most happy with NBS. Somehow NBS works more closely with the States." "NBS is doing an outstanding job on the State Training Program, especially considering the limited personnel." "Bussey, Jensen, Wollin are topnotch men." "OWM doing a splendid job." "OWM cooperation is marvelous. I don't know how it could be improved." "The technical training program has done me more good than anything else. People should

be waiting in line." "We need their help, but they need more money."

Many of the interviews concluded with discussions of the National Confer- ence organization and programs. Many State officials are satisfied with things as they are, but there are many who would like to see some changes. For

emphasis, I repeat the prevalence of dissatisfaction among States west of the

Mississippi River with the practice of convening the National Conference in Washington every year. Far-away officials feel that they are discriminated

against. Because of small budgets, they cannot travel so far, nor can their

| staff members. Travel time is a factor also. As a result, the larger delegations from nearby States dominate the Conference. In the words of one west- ern director, "They can vote in or vote down whatever they wish." A director

in a southern State suggested that this problem be met by unit voting and a roll call by States. Another said : "We are a long way from Washington. They

don't get here, so why should we go there? I send all my inspectors to the Western Conference and thereby get more for our money than by sending one man to Washington." Still another complained that, "although I have

been asked to serve on Conference committees, the invitation was tied to the

condition that I attend the Conference every year, which I cannot do." Still another said, "I am a little guy from a little State and I get squashed ; so why

go?" Thirteen men said, in effect, "It would be to our advantage to have the National Conference meet in Boulder every other year."

There were many comments concerning the Conference program, ranging

from complete approval to trenchant criticism. Some think it is too long.

It is so tight that one does not have time to talk with Federal officials or with

fellow State officials. Some like speakers from other countries, but others think

the time could better be spent on State problems. There is a substantial body of opinion that industry representatives exercise disproportionate influence on

Conference deliberations. As one director expressed it : "I sometimes feel more

time is spent on industry problems than on our problems." "Why let them

in our plenary sessions? All they do is lobby." Also the practice of voice vot- ing "makes it possible for them to vote." There are mixed reactions to the

trade party—positive, neutral, and negative. The absence of a body of consumer

representatives was noted. The annual meeting has become a semisocial convention more than a conference, in the opinion of some respondents. "Why not have

| evening meetings?"

177
The strength of a democratic organization lies in its capacity to accept

and act upon criticism. On the basis of my survey, it is my considered judgment

that, in the years 1964 and 1965, the new leaders of the National Conference have an opportunity to pause, take stock, and evaluate Conference organization, pro- cedures, and program. Even if no changes were made, the process of free, open,

honest, critical self examination could have a salutary effect. The National

Conference on Weights and Measures is a unique and excellent organization. It serves its purposes, its members, and the public well. But, like all organizations,

it must guard against becoming institutionalized. Traditions are valuable and

venerable, but they should not impede adjustment to rapid technological changes.

As this Conference looks to the future, under new leaders, let us all join in the hope that it will serve the States and the people as effectively as it has in the

past. 10. Summary

In conclusion, this Committee wishes to acknowledge its great indebtedness to William S. Bussey, recently retired as Secretary of the

National Conference, for his always well-considered advice and cooperation in the accomplishment of Committee business, and wishes to express its appreciation for the identical qualities proven so apparent

in his successor Secretary, Malcolm W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights

and Measures, and Richard N. Smith, Technical Coordinator, Office of

Weights and Measures of the National Bureau of Standards. Mr.

Jensen, and Mr. Smith as staff assistant assigned to the Committee,

through inspirational assistance have both proven possessed of an

understanding of Committee problems and procedures, and this wholehearted cooperation in the furthering of Committee projects is indispensable to the successful functioning of this Committee.

The Committee also wishes to offer grateful thanks for the many

suggestions that have been received and for the excellent cooperation

of weights and measures officials, weights and measures associations,

business organizations, representatives of industry, and others, and

takes this opportunity to register officially its sincere appreciation.

J. E. Bowen, Chairman

C. H. STENDER

J. T. Daniell

S. H. Christie

L. A. Gredt

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the Report of the Committee on Education was adopted by voice vote.

)

178
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

presented by R. E. Meek, Chairman, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, State Board of Health, State of Indiana

(Thursday, June 18, 1964, 11:08 a.m.)

The Committee on Specifications and Toler- ances submits its report to the 49th National

Conference on Weights and Measures, the re- port being comprised of the Tentative Report

as amended by this Final Report.

1. SCALE CODE

For several years the Committee has been

studying the Scale Code to determine the feasi- bility of a complete revision directed toward

simplification, clarification, and adjustment of

tolerances. Such revision has been recommended by certain State and

regional weights and measures associations and by the Scale Manufacturers Association. The 48th National Conference in 1963 adopted a recommendation of the Committee that this item be continued on the

agenda for further study. Because of the pressure of other matters

and the magnitude of this particular project, the Committee has not

been able to devote to it sufficient time to develop firm recommendai tions. Additionally, it is the view of the Committee that, if a total revision of the Scale Code is to be undertaken, consideration should be

given to similar revisions to other codes. Accordingly, the Committee

makes no recommendation as to a Scale Code general revision at this

time.

j 1.2. Crane Scale The Scale Code was amended in 1960 by adding, among other

things, a regulation paragraph (R. 4.6) requiring that the value of

the minimum graduated interval on a crane scale be not greater than

0.2 percent of the nominal capacity of the scale; whereas for other

large-capacity scales (except certain of these for which specific values

for minimum graduated intervals are stipulated), the value of the

minimum graduated interval is permitted to be not greater than 0.1 percent of the nominal capacity of the scale or y^ pound, whichever

is greater, and in any case not greater than 50 pounds (R. 4.7.) . During discussions in the Committee and on the Conference floor in 1960,

the term "crane" scale was used in its generic sense as a machine for

raising and lowering heavy weights and, while holding them sus- pended, transporting them a limited lateral distance. Recently, from

several sources, there has come to the attention of the Committee the

question as to whether this larger minimum graduated interval should

be permitted for any scale that, in effect, suspends a load.

It is the opinion of the Committee that the special requirements for

j crane scales should be applied only to those devices that truly are crane scales as the generic definition is interpreted severely.

179
(Item 1, Scale Code, was adopted by voice vote.)

2. CODE FOR LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

2.1. Specification Paragraph S.3.3, ADVANCEMENT AND RETURN TO ZERO. A local weights and measures official has raised a question as to whether the requirements of specification paragraph S. 3.3 should be

expanded to provide that, when a device is cleared by reversing the

indicating elements to zero position, such reversal, once started, could

not be interrupted or the indications be automatically obscured until

the elements reach zero position. This question evolved from the

installation of a new retail motor-fuel dispenser that is so designed

that the indicating elements are returned to zero by reverse direction,

and this return can be interrupted, thus providing an indication lower

than the quantity actually delivered.

The Committee has studied this matter as it affects the total philosophy of weights and measures supervision. The design specifications of Handbook 44 generally are so written as to provide equity in commerce and generally so as to prevent any design that would tend

to perpetrate fraud or to cause inaccuracy on the part of the equipment operator. The Committee believes that this is a sound philosophy and that the operator of a device is quite competent to look

out for his own interests, whereas the customer normally has no control over the device.

The Committee recommends no action on this matter.

2.2. Slow-Flow Meters The introduction to commercial service of so-called slow-flow meters

for the purpose of measuring liquid fuel as this is delivered from a

central storage facility and consumed at individual installations was

discussed in the report of the Committee to the 48th National Conference on Weights and Measures. At the recommendation of the Committee, the Conference adopted a tentative table of tolerances for such

meters for the purpose of exploration by enforcement officials of the

technical requirements for such meters. With the great increase in the installation of slow-flow meters and

with the additional experience gained, the Committee now recom- mends that the Code for Liquid-Measuring Devices be amended to include all appropriate requirements for these devices.

The Committee received, during its open meeting, from the Meter

Manufacturers Subcommittee for Slow-Flow Meters certain recom- mendations with respect to the Tentative Report. After full study

of the matters, the Specifications and Tolerances Committee is of the

view that the Liquid-Measuring Device Code amendments presented

in its Tentative Report stand, except for notes paragraph N.2.3. NORMAL TESTS which, it is now recommended, be made to read

as found in this final report.

Accordingly, the Committee recommends amendments to the Code

for Liquid-Measuring Devices (1) to cover specifically slow-flow

meters and (2) to realign the entire Notes section, the entire Toler- ances section, and two Regulations paragraphs—all for the purpose

of simplifying the clarifying existing requirements.

Renumber present definition paragraphs D.6. through D.13. to become D.7. through D.14., and insert a new definition paragraph D.6.

180
D.6. SLOW-FLOW METER.—A retail device designed for the measurement, at very slow rates, of liquid fuels at individual domesticinstallations. Amend specification paragraph S.5.2. to read

:

S. 5.2. LIMITATION OF USE.—If a device is intended to measure

accurately only products having particular properties, or to measure

accurately only under specific installation or operating conditions, or

to measure accurately only when used in conjunction with specific accessory equipment, these limitations shall be clearly and permanently

stated on the device. Add after the center title between specification paragraph S. 5.2. and S. 10., page 86, the words

(BUT NOT TO SLOW-FLOW METERS)

Keplace the present "N" Section with the following:

N. NOTES.

N.l. TEST LIQUID.—A liquid-measuring device shall be tested with

liquid of the same general physical characteristics as the liquid to be commercially measured.

N.2. TESTING PROCEDURES.

N.2.1. TEST DRAFTS.

N.2.1.1. FOR RETAIL PISTON-TYPE AND VISIBLE-TYPE DEVICES.—The full capacity delivery and each intermediate delivery for which the device is designed shall be tested.

N.2.1.2. FOR SLOW-FLOW METERS.—Test drafts shall be equal to

at least four times the minimum volume that can be measured by the

device and indicated through either a visible indication or an audible

signal.

N.2.1.3. FOR LUBRICANT DEVICES.—Tests shall include drafts of

1 quart and of 4 or 6 quarts.

N.2.1.4. FOR OTHER RETAIL DEVICES.—Tests shall include

drafts of 1 or more amounts, including drafts of at least 5 gallons.

N.2.1.5. FOR WHOLESALE DEVICES.—Test drafts should be equal

to at least the amount delivered by the device in one minute at its maximum discharge rate, and shall in no case be less than 50 gallons.

N.2.2. EVAPORATION AND VOLUME CHANGE OF TEST LIQ- UID.—Care shall be exercised to reduce to a minimum, evaporation

losses and volume changes resulting from changes in temperature of the

test liquid.

N.2.3. NORMAL TESTS.—The "normal" test of a meter or meter- type device shall be made at the maximum discharge rate that may be

anticipated under the conditions of installation.

N.2.4. SPECIAL TESTS.—Special tests, to develop the operating

characteristics of liquid-measuring devices, shall be made as circumstances require.

N.2.4.1. FOR SLOW-FLOW METERS.—A slow-flow meter shall be

tested at a flow rate at least as small as twice the minimum flow rate, and not smaller than the minimum flow rate, to which the meter is subjected according to the particular installation.

N.2.4.2. FOR RETAIL MOTOR-FUEL DEVICES.—A retail motorfuel device shall be tested at a minimum discharge rate of (a) 5 gallons per minute or (b) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device,

whichever is less. N.2.4.3. FOR OTHER RETAIL DEVICES.—These shall be tested at a minimum discharge rate of (a) 50 percent of the maximum discharge

rate developed under the conditions of installation or (b) the minimum

discharge rate marked on the device, whichever is less. N.2.4.4. FOR WHOLESALE DEVICES.—A wholesale device with a rated maximum discharge rate of less than 75 gallons per minute shall be tested at a minimum discharge rate of (a) 15 gallons per minute or

(b) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device, whichever is181
less. A wholesale device with a rated maximum discharge rate of 75 gallons per minute or more shall be tested at (a) 20 percent of the marked maximum discharge rate or (b) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device, whichever is less. N.2.5. ELAPSED-TIME TESTS.

N.2.5.1. DURATION.—The duration of an elapsed-time test on a

liquid-measuring device shall in no case exceed 24 hours.

N.2.5.2. TEMPERATURE CORRECTION. In an elapsed-time test, the observed error on the delivery made after the device has stood unused shall be "corrected," if necessary, by allowing for the unavoidable volume change of the liquid in the device (approximately iy2 gal- lons in a retail meter-type device, and varying volumes in a wholesale

device, depending on the installation) resulting from changes in tem- perature occurring during the period of nonuse of the device. In the case of motor fuels this temperature-volume change may be computed

at 0.6 percent per 10° F, and 1.1 percent per 10° C, change of

Replace

temperature.

*******

the present "T" section with the following

T. TOLERANCES. ( See also G-T.5. and G-T.6.

)

T.l. APPLICATION.

T.l.l. TO UNDERREGISTRATION AND TO OVERREGISTRATION.—The tolerances hereinafter prescribed shall be applied to errors

of underregistration and errors of overregistration. (See G-D.15.)

(The error of a liquid-measuring device—to which the tolerance is applied—is the difference between the indication of the device and the amount of liquid actually delivered by the device.

)

T.2. FOR RETAIL DEVICES EXCEPT SLOW-FLOW

METERS.—Maintenance tolerances and acceptance tolerances, except on elapsed-time tests, shall be as shown in table 1. Table 1.—Tolerances for retail devices, except slow-flow meters and except on elapsed-time tests

Indication

Maintenance tolerance Acceptance tolerance

(On normal and on

special tests) (On normal and onspecial tests)

Gallons Cubic inches Cubic inches

}{ or less... 2 1

1 3

2 4 2

3 5 2}i 4 6 3

5 7 Over 5_ Add 1 cubic inch per Add }{ cubic inch per

indicated gallon indicated gallon

182
T.3. FOR SLOW-FLOW METERS —Maintenance tolerances and

acceptance tolerances shall be as shown in table 2. Table 2.

Tolerances for slow-flow meters

Indication

On normal tests On special tests

Maintenance

tolerances Acceptance

tolerances Maintenance and

acceptance

tolerances

1 gill 0.05 gallon ^ pint

0.10 gallon

1 pint

0.20 gallon

1 quart. . \i gallon

1 gallon and

over. _

Percent (Minims)

1. 00 (20)

1. 00 (30)

1. 00 (40)

1. 00 (60) 1.00 (75) 1.00 (120)

(Fl. drams)

1. 00 (2tf

)

0. 75 (4)

0. 75 (8 per

gallon)

Percent (Minims)

0.75 (15)

0. 75 (25)

0. 75 (30)

0. 75 (45)

0. 75 (60)

0. 75 (90)

(Fl. drams)

0. 75 (2)

0. 60 (3)

0. 60 (6 per

gallon)

Percent (Minims)

1. 25 (25)

1. 25 (40)

1. 25 (50) 1.25 (75)

1. 25 (95) 1.25 (155)

(Fl. drams)

1. 25 (3) 1.00 (5) 1.00 (10 per

gallon)

T. 4. FOR WHOLESALE DEVICES.—Maintenance tolerances and

acceptance tolerances, except on elapsed-time tests, shall be as shown in table 3. Table 3.

Tolerances for wholesale devices, except on elapsed-time tests On normal tests On special tests Indication Maintenance

tolerance Acceptance

tolerance Maintenanceand acceptance

tolerances

Gallons 50 Over 50Cubic inches 50 Add }i cubic inch per indi- cated gallonCubic inches 25 Add }i cubic inch per indi- cated gallonCubic inches 50 Add 1 cubic inch per indi- cated gallon

183
T.5. ON ELAPSED-TIME TESTS.—Maintenance tolerances on

elapsed-time tests of liquid-measuring devices shall be as follows: For

a retail device, 2 cubic inches on a test extending over a period of 1 hour

or less, plus an additional % cubic inch for each hour or fractional part

thereof beyond the first hour, but in no case more than 6 cubic inches. For a wholesale device, 5 cubic inches per hour. Acceptance tolerances

shall be one-half the maintenance tolerances. (The error to which these

tolerances are applied is the leakage error (see D. 14.).) (See also D.

13., N. 2.5.1., and N.2.5.2.) Amend regulation paragraph R.2. to read

R.2. LENGTH OF DISCHARGE HOSE.—The length of the dis- charge hose on a retail motor-fuel device shall not exceed 15 feet, meas- ured from the outside of the housing of the device to the inlet of the discharge nozzle (on a hose that is coiled or otherwise retained or connected inside the housing, the measurement shall be made with the hose fully extended), unless it can be demonstrated that a longer hose

is essential to permit deliveries to be made to receiving vehicles or

vessels. Unncessarily remote location of a device shall not be accepted

as justification for an abnormally long hose. Amend regulation paragraph R.3. to read

R.3. RETURN OF INDICATING ELEMENT TO ZERO.—On any

device used in making individual retail deliveries to individual con- sumers, the primary indicating element shall be returned to zero before each such delivery.

( Item 2, Code for Liquid-Measuring Devices, was adopted by voice vote.

)

3. CODE FOR LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

3.1. Specification Paragraph S.11.2. VISIBILITY. In 1962, the 47th National Conference voted to delete from the

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code specification paragraph S.11.3 per- taining to the visibility of retail devices. For the reasons set forth in the report of that Conference, the Committee recommends that the

paragraph in this code containing the same language as the deleted

paragraph in the LMD Code now be deleted also.

3.2. General Note. When the Code for Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring

Devices was adopted by the National Conference in 1957, the Committee made very clear its view that the use of a vapor-return line during any metered delivery of liquefied petroleum gas was in direct opposition to good commercial practices and to accuracy in measurement.

In order to avoid unreasonable hardship on the industry, the Committee added a general note at the end of the code which recorded its conviction that such vapor-return lines should, in the future, be

specifically prohibited.

A questionnaire was sent out by the Committee Secretary during

the fall of 1963 in an attempt to develop a consensus among those offi- cials who have had experience in the testing of LP Gras liquid meters. Responses to this questionnaire and further committee investigation

have led to the recommendation that there be now added to this code

a regulation paragraph

Representatives of the liquefled-petroleum gas industry, by letter communication and by oral presentation during the open meeting of the Committee, rec- ommended that there be included in the proposed regulation paragraph R.5. a 184
temperature (80°F.) above which the use of a vapor-return line would be

permitted if necessary to permit safe, normal, metered delivery.

The Committee has studied this matter thoroughly and has consulted with weights and measures officials w

T ith experience. The

Committee now feels that definite progress has been made and must

continue to be made in the commercial delivery of the liquefied petroleum gas without the use of the so-called vapor-return line. The

Committee is convinced, however, that there may be technical problems that at present are insurmountable with respect to even new

containers installed on the property of LP Gas customers. To pro- vide for continuing progress, to avoid the possibility of complicating

factors, and to cover a point of terminology raised by Mr. Kerlin of

California, the Committee recommends that regulation paragraph K.5. VAPOK-RETURN LINE be amended to read

:

R.5. VAPOR-RETURN LINE.—During any metered delivery of liquefied petroleum gas from a supplier's tank to a receiving container, there

shall be no vapor-return line from the receiving container to the

supplier's tank

:

(a) In the case of any receiving container to which normal deliveries can be made without the use of such vapor-return line. (b) In the case of any new receiving container when the ambient

temperature is below 90°F. (Item 3, Code for Liquefied-Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices, was

adopted by voice vote.)

4. CODE FOR VEHICLE TANKS

4.1. Specification Paragraph S.20.3. DELIVERY HOSE. The Weights and Measures Subcommittee of the American Petro- leum Institute Committee on Operations and Engineering has pointed

out that for many years it has been a common practice in many areas to equip pump-discharge vehicle-tank meters with both a w

T et delivery

hose and a dry delivery hose, in order to facilitate both normal deliveries at some distance from the vehicle and very rapid deliveries to purchasers of large quantities where the vehicle can be located immediately adjacent to the receiving vessel. Since this seems to be a firmly established practice, it is the opinion of the Committee that

Specification paragraph S.20.3 should be amended to provide for it and also to stipulate certain restrictions. During the open meeting of the Committee, technical questions with

respect to the accuracy of pump-discharge vehicle-tank meters

equipped with both a wet delivery hose and a dry delivery hose were

raised by the delegates from the State of California and from the City

of Detroit, Michigan. It is the view of the Committee that this matter

should have a thorough exploration and that said exploration should

be conducted by the staff of the Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards. Accordingly, the Committee withdraws

its recommendation that specification paragraph S.20.3 be amended

and recommends that the technical investigation be conducted in time

for consideration of the results by the Committee during its antici- pated interim meeting early in 1965.

4.2. Specification Paragraph S.21.1.4. MOVEMENT AND RETURN TO ZERO. It has been brought to the attention of the Committee from several sources that there have been incorporated in vehicle-tank meters de185

747-830 O - 65 - 13
vices that, by their design, seem to facilitate inaccurate meter reading

and product billing. Meters incorporating such devices are so designed

as to permit the return to zero of both the visual primary indicating

element and a primary recording element. However, it is possible to return the visual primary indicating element to zero without auto- matically returning the primary recording element to a zero position.

The weights and measures officials of the City of Dayton, Ohio, the

State of Ohio, and the City of Danville, Virginia, are to be commended

for their official concern and for their reference of this matter to the

Committee. There appears to be no doubt about the mechanical feasibility of automatic synchronization of the visible indicating elements

and the recording elements of a meter with respect to the return-to- zero operation. Nonetheless, it is the opinion of the Committee that

(1) it would be unjustifiable to require such mechanical synchronization when this code specifically provides for a zero-start visible indicator on a device equipped with a cumulative recording element, and

(2) adequate enforcement authority for the protection of customers is provided in Regulation paragraph R.3. RETURN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS TO ZERO.

The Committee recommends no action on this matter.

(Item 4, Code for Vehicle Tank, was adopted by voice vote.)

5. CODE FOR MEASURE CONTAINERS AND

CODE FOR MILK BOTTLES The Southern Weights and Measures Association has recommended

that the Committee review the tolerance requirements for measure j containers and milk bottles, in light of the fact that tolerances in both

excess and deficiency are provided for such devices. Thus, it would be

possible for the average of the quantity of contents of a lot of particular containers to be less than the labeled quantity—seemingly in direct

conflict with the philosophy set forth in the Model Regulation Pertaining to Packages. The Committee has studied this matter and is of the

opinion that, although the thesis presented by the Southern Weights

and Measures Association is quite accurate, no changes are advisable

in these codes. Measure containers and milk bottles are considered to be commercial measuring devices, similar in many respects to other devices for

which codes are presented in Handbook 44. It is a basic philosophy of

weights and measures supervision that errors in overregistration and

in underregistration or errors in excess and in deficiency, as the case may be, are permitted for devices, and normally these errors are

equally distributable above and below. In the case of measure containers and milk bottles definite design specifications and fixed standard sizes are provided as a point of protection for consumers. If measure containers or milk bottles are found in a particular jurisdiction within tolerance but invariably with errors in deficiency, the

Committee recommends that the authority set forth in general specification G-S. 2. FACILITATION OF FRAUD be imposed and that

the manufacturer of such devices be required to initiate corrective measures so as to bring about reasonable equality in excess and

deficiency.

186
The Committee recommends no action on this matter.

(Item 5, Code for Measure Containers and Code for Milk Bottles, was adopted

by voice vote.)

6. CODE FOR MILEAGE-MEASURING DEVICES Since the 47th National Conference, the Committee has devoted a considerable amount of time to the subject of odometers on rental

vehicles. Two speakers discussed odometer accuracy before the Conference in 1962, but because of inconclusive information the Committee

did not make firm recommendations with respect to code amendments

at that time. The Office of Weights and Measures of the National

Bureau of Standards conducted a detailed technical study of odometer

accuracy, testing equipment, and testing procedures between the 47th

and 48th Conferences and made available to the Committee the results of that study, including definite recommendations as to amendments

to the Code for Mileage-Measuring Devices.

Investigation by the Office of Weights and Measures has continued

since the 48th Conference at the specific request of the automobile

manufacturing industry. This industry, represented by the OdometerSpeedometer Committee of the Automobile Manufacturers Association, urged that efforts be made toward the development of a single

vehicle speed for odometer testing and that further studies be con- ducted with respect to tolerances. During negotiations with industry

representatives, it was agreed that the studies of the Office of Weights

and Measures should be made coordinately with similar studies con- ducted by automobile manufacturers in order that independently derived data could be compared.

The Committee has received a report developed jointly by the Office

of Weights and Measures of the National Bureau of Standards and

by the Odometer Subcommittee of the Automobile Manufacturers

Association covering their investigation of odometer accuracy. The

report included certain recommendations concerning odometer require- ments. The Committee has studied this material and believes that

it should be included in this Final Report.

Report Submitted to the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, 49th National Conference on Weights and Measures Introduction.—Subsequent to the 48th National Conference, engineering

personnel of the Office of Weights and Measures and of automobile manufacturers have conducted an extensive testing program to determine the accuracy

capabilities of automobile odometers. Tests conducted by the Office of Weights

and Measures included both new and nearly new vehicles; tests conducted by

the industry committee were on new vehicles. Test Procedure.—In order that test data accumulated by both groups might

be treated similarly from the satistical standpoint, a test procedure such as could be recommended to weights and measures officials was agreed upon, and

the fifth-wheel test was established as the "standard" test, as follows

:

1. Attach calibrated fifth wheel to rear bumper of vehicle under test.

2. Inflate tires to test pressure and drive test vehicle approximately 5 miles at approximately 35 mph to stabilize tire pressures. Stop vehicle with the top edge of either the 5/10 or the 7/10 mile indication on the odometer precisely at the top of the instrument frame opening.

3. Readjust rear tire pressures (front tire pressures for front-wheel driven odometers) to test pressure, readjust fifth-wheel tire pressure, if necessary, to calibration pressure, and zero fifth-wheel mileage counter.

4. Slowly accelerate to desired test speed, drive approximately 1.8 miles,

and slowly bring the vehicle to a stop with the 5/10 or 7/10 mile odometer

187
indication at precisely the same position- in the frame opening as at the

start of the test. Vehicles are tested (1) to correlate results between the fifth wheel and

a measured road test and between the fifth wheel and the simulated road testing

device, (2) to determine the effect of vehicle speed on test results, and (3) to determine the effect of tire pressure variations. Analysis of Test Results.—More than 200 vehicles of all manufacturers were tested, and the results analyzed by statisticians of both the National Bureau

of Standards and the industry. The statistical analysis of the test data indi- cated that the variation of odometer errors on fifth-wheel tests, as measured

by the standard deviation, was 1.74 percent. (The standard deviation is de- fined as an estimate of the dispersion of the variables around the mean, or the average variability of the results.) Since all of the tests reported were conducted by highly qualified personnel

and test conditions were very carefully controlled, an estimate of test variability

under enforcement conditions in magnitude of 1 percent seems realistic. Treating these two values statistically, a standard deviation of 1.88 percent is ar- rived at. Statistical theory establishes, with calculated confidence, that 95 percent

of a population will fall within the limits of ±2 times the standard deviation. Thus, a tolerance of 2X1.88, or 3.76, rounded to ±3.75 percent, appears to be a

realistic and justifiable tolerance for odometers, and this value is recommended

to the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances.

Official Test Details.—(1) Distance. An official test of 2 runs each of 2

miles duration is recommended. (2) Speed. Many advantages can be seen from a single test speed rather than the dual-speed tests now provided for, and

the experimental tests prove that a single speed test is completely appropriate.

Although no actual records are available, it is estimated that a large majority

of the commercial miles recorded in vehicles rented by the mile is highway

mileage : thus, a test speed of approximately 45 miles per hour is recommended.

(3) Tire pressure. To provide a single "test pressure" for all vehicles that

is representative of an "average" pressure recommended for the various vehicles available for rent on a mileage basis, a "hot" pressure (pressure after approximately 5 miles of driving) of 28 psi is recommended. (The 28 psi "hot" pressure

is approximately equivalent to a 24 psi "cold" pressure.) (4) Test load. A

test load of two persons in the front seat is recommended.

Effective Date.—Because certain design changes will be necessary, prompt

action by the industry, immediately following the 49th National Conference on Weights and Measures, can, at best, bring about delivery of new automobiles

with "specification" odometers by January 1, 1965. Serial numbers of auto- mobiles manufactured after January 1, 1965, will be made available to the Office of Weights and Measures and passed on to the States, counties, and cities through the OWM Tech Memo. It is recommended that the Code for MileageMeasuring Devices be amended by the 49th National Conference and that enforce- ment of the accuracy provisions be made effective with respect to automobiles

provided with "specification" odometers.

Testing Equipment.—The soft, 2-ply tires presently used on the large

majority of new passenger vehicles create undisciplined and unanticipatable measurement characteristics when the odometer accuracy is checked on the simulated road testing device. Beginning with the 1965 automobiles, new

"low-profile" tires will be standard equipment, and experimental runs with such

tires seem to indicate that even greater problems will be encountered with the

"simulator." Although the simulated road testing device seems to be appropriate for taximeter testing, the proving of simulated road testing results against a measured road course or with the fifth wheel is strongly recommended. Addi- , tionally, certain passenger vehicles drive the odometer from a front wheel. Obviously the simulated road testing device is not adaptable to such vehicles.

It is further recommended that only the road test or the fifth-wheel test be used

for odometer testing.

Continuing Investigation.—The Office of Weights and Measures and the Odometer Subcommittee of the Automobile Manufacturers Association will pur- sue a continuing program of odometer testing and will report further develop- ments to the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. 188
DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM K. A. Pittman : Mr. Meek, Members of the Committee, and Gentlemen, my name is Ray Pittman. I'm Chairman of the Automobile

Manufacturers Technical Odometer Committee. I would like to com- ment that for the past year, we have spent hundreds of test hours on the

track and have worked with the Ollice of Weights and Measures to develop the test procedures and tolerance recommendations which you

have just read. I'd like to comment, Mr. Meek, to you, to the Committee, and to those in assembly here, that we think you are very

fortunate to have such people as Mr. Jensen and his technical staff working with you. We found their cooperation outstanding and their

technical integrity excellent. As you have reported, Mr. Meek, this is a combined report of the

Office of Weights and Measures, and the Automobile Manufacturers

Technical Odometer Committee. As of January 1, 1965, cars furnished to the rental fleets will fall within the recommended tolerance range. I would like to further add that with the changes that we are introducing into production between now and January 1, 1965, we

expect that 50 to 60 percent of the total population of new cars—not

just those going to rental fleets—will fall within this range. After

the 1966 model change, we expect the percentage of cars falling within

the recommended tolerance range to increase further. I can't give you

an exact figure of this at this time because we're still in the process of

testing and evaluating the systems for reliability.

Thank you, Mr. Meek.

Mr. Meek: The Committee recommends the following changes in the Code for Mileage-Measuring Devices

:

Amend definition paragraph D.15. to read

:

D.15. SIMULATED ROAD TEST.—A mileage test appropriate for taximeters only, similar to a road test except that the vehicle wheel or wheels that actuate the mechanism rest in a cradle formed by rollers, one of which is a mileage-measuring element. The vehicle remains at

rest during this test. Amend notes paragraph N.1.2. to read :

X.1.2. FOR ODOMETERS. The mileage test of an odometer, whether

a road test or a fifth-wheel test, shall be preceded by a run of at least 5 miles for the purpose of stabilizing tire temperatures and shall include

at least 2 runs of at least 2 miles each at a speed of approximately 45

miles per hour. Amend notes paragraph N.4. to read

:

N.4. VEHICLE LADING.—During a road test, a simulated road test, or a fifth-wheel test, the vehicle shall carry two persons. Amend notes paragraph N.5. to read

:

X.5. TIRE PRESSURE.—At the beginning of each test run, the tires on the vehicle under test shall be adjusted to 28 pounds per square inch

at stabilized tire temperatures (see N. 1. 2.)

.

189
Amend tolerance paragraph T.2. to read

T.2. FOR ODOMETERS.—Maintenance and acceptance tolerances, on

overregistration and on underregistration, shall be 3.75 percent of the

interval under test ( ±396 feet on a 2-mile test run)

(The error of the odometer—to which the tolerance is applied—is the

difference between the mileage indication of the odometer for the interval under test and the corresponding mileage actually traveled or indicated.

)

(Item 6, Code for Mileage-Measuring Devices, was adopted by voice vote.)

7. OTHER ITEMS The Committee received, during its open hearing, three recommendations from Mr. C. D. Baucom of North Carolina

(1) Kecommended Specifications for Liquid Fertilizer Meters.—It was recommended that specific requirements be

inserted in the handbook to cover liquid-measuring devices

used in the commercial measurement of liquid fertilizer, particularly to provide for the fabrication of elements that come in contact with the commodity to be of such nature as to be resistant to corrosive effects. The Committee points out that general specification paragraph GS.3. PERMANENCE was designed to provide the type protection

anticipated here. Nonetheless, the Committee will keep itself in- formed on the developments in the liquid fertilizer business in order

that it can anticipate the need for specific code requirements.

(2) Standardization of the Gallon for LP Gas.—The dele- gate from North Carolina recommended that there be estab- lished by the Committee a "standard" gallon for LP Gas to be

defined as "231 cubic inches at equilibrium pressure (the va- por pressure at a given temperature expressed in pounds per

square inch)."

The Committee is of the opinion that it has invariably been the

official view of this Conference that the United States gallon in com- merce must be the 231 cubic-inch gallon at time of delivery, regardless

of temperature. The Committee, therefore, makes no recommendation on this point.

(3) Specifications for LP Gas Vapor Meters.—Mr. Bau- com recommends that the Committee consider at the earliest possible time the development of a code for vapor meters in

LP Gas Service.

The Committee is sympathetic with this recommendation and is hopeful that such a code can be developed for consideration by the

50th National Conference.

(Item 7 was adopted by voice vote.)

8. GENERAL The Committee desires to state formally its appreciation to all who

have participated in its deliberations since the 48th National Conference, either through correspondence, or in person during the interim

190
meeting or during the open Committee meeting held on Monday of

this week.

The Committee needs and appreciates the full cooperation of weights

and measures officials and representatives of business and commercial

interests. Further, the Committee recognizes that, as weights and

measures technology becomes more complicated and sophisticated, true progress will result only from the complete cooperation of all concerned.

It is the desire of the Committee in this Report to record its sin- cere appreciation for the technical assistance and general leadership

provided by its retiring Secretary, W. S. Bussey, who has been instrumental in the progress made during the past thirteen years. R. E. Meek, Chairman

G. L. Johnson

H. J. McDade

J. F. McCarthy

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the Conference,

by voice vote, adopted the Report of the Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances.

)

191
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

presented by J. H. Lewis, Acting Chairman, Chief, Weights and

Measures Section, Department of Agriculture, State of Washington

(Thursday, June 18, 1964, 2 :37 p.m.)

The Committee on Laws and Regulations of

the 49th National Conference on Weights and

Measures is grateful for the many constructive

suggestions received by mail and during its in- terim and open Conference meetings.

The Committee held two meetings since the

48th National Conference. The first meeting,

a special session called by the Committee Chairman, was held in Washington, D.C., at the National Bureau of Standards on December 16,

1963, for the purpose of initiating a study in

the area of "Prominence and Placement of

Quantity Statement on Packages." The regular interim meeting was held in Washington, D.C., on February 17

and 18, 1964. The afternoon of February 17 was devoted to an open

session on package labeling. Private hearings and executive sessions were held throughout the remainder of the two-day period.

1. STANDARDIZATION OF PACKAGE SIZES As reported to the 48th National Conference, the Committee recom- mended that this item be retained on the agenda for the ensuing year. Committee activity in the area of package standardization has, however, been limited due to the pressure of other matters. The Committee Avishes to acknowledge the favorable results which

have been achieved by those segments of the packaging industry that

have taken steps toward standardizing package sizes. Such voluntary effort on behalf of the industry is to be commended and encouraged.

The Committee plans to continue interest in this matter and solicits the cooperation of business and industry in the effort for continued

progress in standardization of package sizes.

( Item 1 was adopted by voice vote.

)

2. THE USE OF QUALIFYING TERMS

Sections 26 and 29 of the Model Law and Section 3.9 of the Model Regulation Pertaining to Packages. Some misunderstanding exists among weights and measures officials and certain segments of the packaging industry regarding the use of

qualifying terms. The Model Law and Model Package Regulation

clearly prohibit the use of such terms as "jumbo," "giant," "full," and

the like in connection with the required quantity declarations on packages ( for example, "giant quart" or "full pound")

The use of similar terms for other purposes, such as designating

the size of a package, is not prohibited. Such use is not considered a weights and measures problem for it has no direct relationship to 192
quantity. The Committee suggests, however, that, when such terms

are used to designate a particular size package (or for other reasons)

,

I the statement should either include the term "size" (such as "Giant

j Size") or be so located as not to appear to be a qualification of the

I quantity declaration.

(After some discussion, and by a standing vote of 87 to 23, item 2 was adopted.)

3. THE USE OF SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENTS OF QUANTITY

Section 26 of the Model Lave and Section 3.5 of the Model Regulation Pertaining to Packages A question was raised during the interim meeting of the Committee

as to the permissibility of the use of supplementary statements of

quantity on packages—for example, supplementary statements of "16

fluid ounces" or "one-half quart fluid" on a package where the required

statement is "1 pint fluid." It is the opinion of the Committee that

neither the Model Law nor the Model Package Kegulation prohibits

such supplementary declarations so long as (1) the required quantity

declaration appears prominently and conspicuously on the principal

display panel, (2) any supplementary statement is accurate, (3) any

supplementary statement is displayed neither in larger size type nor more prominently than the required statement, and (4) any supplementary statement is not so located on the label as to confuse or mislead as to the precise meaning of the required statement. The Committee does, nonetheless, urge all packagers to review the real advisability of supplementary quantity statements.

( Subsequent to the issuance in the Tentative Report of the statement

above, the Committee received a communication from a State weights

and measures official who registered his disagreement with the opinion

of the Committee and recommended that action by this Conference

be delayed pending further consideration. The Committee acknowledges that the use of unnecessary supplementary statements of quantity are to be discouraged, but, at the same time, it feels it has no

justification to change its opinion.)

(Item 3 was adopted by voice vote.)

4. MODEL STATE LAW ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

(1) Two recommendations were received by the Committee with

respect to amendments to the Model Law, one pertaining to item 1 of

Section 26 (the identification of a packaged commodity) , and the other

to Section 38 (the possible distinction between oil used for cooking

and oil used in cooking). The Committee is sympathetic to both

recommendations, but feels that it must guard zealously the dignity

and permanence of the Model Law and that amendments to it should

await proven and almost drastic need. The Committee will record on its agenda these two recommendations and, whenever an amendment is deemed necessary, these will be studied seriously.

(2) The Committee received two resolutions from Mr. C. D. Baucom,

Superintendent, Weights and Measures Division, North Carolina, both

relating to the meter sale of liquefied petroleum gas. In one resolution Mr. Baucom recommends that the Model Law be amended so as

to acknowledge and provide guidelines for handling the compressibility and expandability of LP Gas ; in the other he recommends that

the Model Law be amended to provide specific technical guidance in

the correction of metered volume to a standard temperature.

193
The Committee records its gratitude to Mr. Baucom for bringing ! these matters to its attention and respectfully refers them to the Office of Weights and Measures of the National Bureau of Standards for

further study. It is deemed necessary, however, to point out that the

National Conference on Weights and Measures has never acknowledged the propriety or the legality of the retail sale of any products on a temperature-adjusted basis—it being the apparent consensus of

weights and measures officials that the U.S. gallon in commerce must

be 231 cubic inches at the time of delivery. The Committee will continue to watch developments in this area. (Item 4 was adopted by voice vote.)

5. MODEL STATE REGULATION PERTAINING TO PACKAGES SECTION 3.1.—The Conference has expressed itself informally,

j and weights and measures officials appear to be united in the view,

that the declarations of quantity on packaged aerosol products must

be representative of the amount of the product that will be delivered

by the aerosol package. To formalize this view and to state it clearly

in regulatory language, the Committee recommends that Section 3.1. of the Model Regulation be amended to read as follows

3.1. NET QUANTITY.—The declaration of quantity shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity—that is, the quantity of commodity in the package exclusive of wrappers and any other material packed with

such commodity: Provided, That the declaration of quantity on an

aerosol package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (in- cluding propellant) that will be expelled when the instructions for use

as shown on the container are followed, and that such net quantity be determined in accordance with methods established by the Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards. During discussion on this item, the point was made that technical i procedures are not normally included in regulatory language. The

motion of the Committee Chairman to adopt Section 3.1. of the Report was amended by a motion made by Mr. John Mahoney, seconded

from the floor, to delete from the proposed Section 3.1. the language

uand that such net quantity be determined in accordance with methods

established by the Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau

of Standards." This motion to amend was adopted by voice vote, thus

making the Committee recommendation as amended read

3.1. NET QUANTITY.—The declaration- of quantity shall disclose the

net quantity of the commodity—that is, the quantity of commodity in the package exclusive of wrappers and any other material packed with

such commodity : Provided, That the declaration of quantity on an aerosol package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including

propellant) that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown

on the container are followed. SECTION 3.4.—At the strong recommendation of many segments

of the packaging industry, the Committee has explored the real justification for the present requirement in this section with respect to the j need for the discrimination in the required declaration of quantity on

a package between the fluid and the dry pints and quarts. It is the

Committee's view that, since dry pints and quarts are used relatively

infrequently and then only for specific berries and small fruits, there no longer exists a justifiable need for qualification on packages labeled

in terms of fluid pints or quarts. Accordingly, the Committee recom- mends that Section 3.4. of the Model Package Regulation be amended

194
to read as follows, and that a similar interpretation of its requirements

be issued by the Food and Drug Administration

:

3.4. UNITS WITH TWO OR MORE MEANINGS.—When the term

"ounce" is employed in a declaration of quantity, the declaration shall identify the particular meaning of the term by either of the qualifiers

"avoirdupois" or "fluid" ; however, such distinction may be omitted

when, by association of terms (as in "1 pound 4 ounces," "weight 6

ounces," or "1 pint 4 ounces"), the proper meaning is obvious. The term

"pint" or the term "quart" may be employed in the declaration of quantity without qualification when it is employed to indicate the fluid pint or the fluid quart, as the case may be ; whenever the declaration of quantity is in terms of the dry pint or the dry quart, the declaration

shall include the word "dry."

In connection with this presentation of this recommendation with

respect to units with two or more meanings, the Committee finds it necessary to issue, in rather strong terms, its interpretation of the

intended meaning of this section as it appeared in the Model Package

Regulation in effect as of the beginning of this Conference and also in the Model Package Regulation that was the predecessor to the cur- rent regulation. At least one jurisdiction has ruled that the word

"avoirdupois'' must be used in connection with quantity statements on

packages when these are in terms of weight, even though, through the

use of such terms as "pound," "weight," or the like, it is explicitly

clear to the prospective purchaser that the statement is, in fact, in

terms of weight.

The Committee regrets that lack of precision in regulatory language

might have brought about such an interpretation, and it regrets even more this break in the enthusiastic effort among all weights and

measures officials toward nationwide uniformity in package labeling

requirements. It is urged, with all sincerity, that any jurisdiction

that encounters such a legal interpretation of its regulatory requirements take immediate steps to issue clarifications that preclude such

interpretations.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM W. I. Thompson : Should not mention be made of the possible use

of the term "troy" which might conceivably be used in place of the

term "avoirdupois"?

M. W. Jensen: The Model Regulation, Section 3.3. UNITSWEIGHT, MEASURE, states: "A declaration of quantity in units

of weight shall be in terms of the avoirdupois pound or ounce." So

troy, which is used only for precious metals, is not acceptable as a system of weight for packages.

SECTION 3.8.—The Committee received a suggestion from a weights and measures official that there be considered the elimination

of the presently permitted labeling of packages in terms of "minimum"

quantity. Since such labeling is specifically permitted in the regulations promulgated under the Federal Food and Drug Law, the Committee deemed it inadvisable to consider this matter before discussing it with appropriate Federal officials. Accordingly, the Committee

Chairman and Secretary were authorized to enter into discussions

with officials of the Federal Food and Drug Administration and then

to report back to the Committee.

The Committee Secretary communicated with Mr. George P. Larrick, Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in inquiry as to the currency of

and need for the "minimum quantity" qualification. Under date of

April 24, 1964, Commissioner Larrick replied as follows

:

195
Although we have made no comprehensive survey concerning the

extent to which the quantity of contents is presently declared in terms

of minimum quantity, we know that this manner of declaration is still being used on a significant proportion of food labels. There may be some circumstances under which this would be the best means for in- forming consumers of the quantity of contents. We know of no reason why we should amend our regulations to withdraw authorization for use of quantity of contents statement in terms of minimum contents. The Committee recommends no action on this matter.

(Item 5, as amended, was adopted by voice vote of the Conference ; thus, Sections

3.1. and 3.4. of the Model State Regulation Pertaining to Packages were

amended.)

6. MODEL REGULATION FOR PAPER PRODUCTS

(1) Mr. Charles Carey, Executive Secretary of the Gift Wrappings

and Tyings Association, advised the Committee that, increasingly,

the industry is changing the packaging of gift wrapping papers from

folded sheets to rolls. To cover gift wrappings specifically, the Committee recommends that the Model Regulation for Paper Products be

amended by inserting after paragraph 4 a new paragraph 5 and by

renumbering Sections 5, 6, and 7 to become Sections 6, 7, and 8.

5. GIFT WRAPPING PAPER—The declaration of quantity on a package of gift wrapping paper, whether packaged as individual sheets

or in roll form, shall indicate the numerical count and the dimensions

of the individual sheets. Effective January 1, 1965, any linear dimension in excess of 48 inches shall be expressed in terms of feet. (2) Communication was received from the Tissue Association, Inc., in which it was pointed out that packs of paper products are now

being packaged in multiple units and in which a recommendation as to an amendment to this regulation is proposed. On this basis, the Committee recommends that the Model Regulation for Paper Products be

amended by inserting a new Section 9 to read as follows, and by

renumbering current Section 8 to become Section 10.

9. MULTIPLE PACKS.—Multiple packs of paper products shall bear

on the outside wrapper, clearly and conspicuously, a quantity declaration

indicating the number of individual rolls or packages and the usable unit count and sheet size for each individual roll or package, unless such

individual rolls or packages are so labeled that the content of each is clearly visible through the outer wrapper. (Item 6 was adopted by voice vote.)

7. MODEL STATE REGULATION PERTAINING TO PACKAGES SECTION 6. PROMINENCE AND PLACEMENT

The 48th National Conference adopted a recommendation of this

Committee that a broad technical study be conducted leading to firm

recommendations as to the prominence and placement of the required

quantity statement on packages of commodities.

To get the study underway, the Committee Chairman issued invitations to more than 200 trade association executives (plus a few selected representatives of packagers who long have demonstrated their interest in the National Conference and its programs) to meet in Washington

196
on December 16, 1963, for the purpose of discussing the problem and

initiating efforts toward its solution.

Almost 100 individuals responded to that invitation and met with

the Committee Chairman, Secretary, and two other members. During

the meeting, the packaging industry was urged to seek a reasonable

solution to the two main problems : (1) A definition of the "principal"

panel on packages and (2) minimum type sizes as a function of the

area of the principal panel. The Chairman noted that at least two

trade organizations—The Cereal Institute and The Tissue Association—already had agreed to and published standards for their

members.

Before the December meeting adjourned, it was suggested by a trade

association executive that the packaging industry form an ad hoe committee, representative of the industry, to study the problem and to attempt to develop recommendations prior to the regular interim meeting of the Committee on Laws and Regulations. Such an ad hoc

committee subsequently was formed, and its members elected as offi- cers Mr. Frank T. Dierson, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc., Chairman, Mr. James W. Bell, National Canners Association, Vice

Chairman, and Mr. John F. Speer, International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers, Secretary.

At the time of the interim meeting of the Laws and Regulations

Committee in February, the Industry Ad Hoc Committee reported

definite recommendations.

Principles Recommended by the Ad Hoc Industry Committee on Quantity

Declaration to the National Conference on Weights and Measures

1. The quantity statement should appear on the principal display panel, except

:

(a) where the principal display panel is less than four (4) square inches

in size, or

(b) in the case of packages whose principal display panel is not likely to be presented, displayed, or examined under customary conditions of purchase, such as industrial-type packages.

2. "Principal display panel," as used in these sections, means that part of a label most likely to be presented, displayed, or examined under customary conditions of purchase.

3. (a) In view of existing statutory and regulatory provisions, rules governing

type size are not necessary, but to insure that any guidelines established

for type size are uniform, industry should continue to cooperate with the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

(b) Rules relating to the size of type used in quantity statements should be

advisory and not mandatory.

(c) Advisory rules as to type size should be stated in terms of linear measure-

(d) Such rules should relate the size of the quantity statement to the area

of the principal display panel.

(e) A satisfactory type size, to be used as a guideline only, is as follows

:

4. All information required to appear on a package shall be prominent, definite, and plain, and shall be conspicuous as to size and style of letters and numbers and as to color of letters and numbers in contrast to color of background.

Any required information that is either in hand lettering or hand script shall be entirely clear and equal to printing in legibility.

5. [The Industry Committee suggested that] the type size and placement proviment.

Area of Principal

Display Panel Not more than 25 square inches More than 25 but not more than 120 square inches.. More than 120 but not more than 400 square inches More than 400 square inches

Recommended Height of Quantity Statement

Vie inch y8 inch

i/4 inch V2 inch

197
sions be applicable to : ( a ) all labels redesigned thereafter

fb) all labels prepared from plates, dies, cylinders, etc., made thereafter; and

(c) All other labels two (2) years thereafter; except that these provisions

shall not apply to labels on single-use or reusable containers originally

filled within said two (2) year period.

6. Industry requests that the National Conference remain open to consideration

of further amendments to its Model Regulation upon a showing by industry

representatives of a need for changes or exceptions to the principles set forth

Specific recommendations were submitted also by the National Association of Frozen Food Packers. With respect to type size of the

quantity declaration, the Frozen Food Packers recommended as fol- lows :

This association also suggested language as to the determination

of the "declaratory area" of the principal display panel, namely:

. . that facing of the package which is presented to the consumer

under customary purchase conditions/' In the case of a rectangular

box, this is the square-inch area obtained by multiplying the length by

the width; for cylindrical containers, the area is determined by multiplying the height of the cylinder by one-third its circumference;

and, for polybagged frozen foods, the area is the printed area of the

flat, empty bag, or one-third the area of the flat bag, whichever is greater.

As the result of the report made to the Committee by the Ad Hoc

Industry Committee and of study by committee members, tentative

recommendations were included in the Committee's Tentative Report.

Subsequent to the issuance of that report, many communications were

received from those interested in or affected by package labeling, and

many persuasive and helpful suggestions were made during the open

meeting of the Committee. The Committee is sincerely grateful for

this outpouring of interest and information. Based on these and on

further study, the Committee now submits for Conference consideration and adoption the following: (It is to be noted that under subsection 2.3. of Section 2, EXEMPTIONS, there is stated in the proposed

administrative ruling a specific exemption for packages of alcoholic

beverages. The Committee includes this exemption in its proposal

only in recognition of the situation as it actually exists and certainly not in recognition of any real need of the alcoholic beverage industry

for exemption to requirements on prominence and placement of quantity declarations on packages. The Committee urges that the Alcohol

and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service revise its regulations so as to require that the quantity statement on a package

of alcoholic beverage be prominently and conspicuously displayed on

the principal panel of the package label and that the blown-in declaration in the bottle be no longer acceptable; the Committee further

requests that its Secretary communicate with Internal Revenue Servabove.

Area of Principal

Display Panel

Less than 20 square inches. 20 to 39 square inches 40 to 79 square inches

80 or more square inches__

Minimum Height of Quantity Statement

Vig inch

3/32 inch

Vs inch

*4 inch

198
ice in an effort to bring about the implementation of the recommendation expressed herein.)

Committee Recommendation.—Unless there is a compelling reason

to the contrary, the Committee recommends that there be no amendment to law or regulation at this time. The Committee recommends

that the States give serious consideration to the issuance of an administrative ruling substantially as follows

:

ADMINISTRATIVE RULING—PROMINENCE AND PLACEMENT

OF QUANTITY STATEMENTS ON PACKAGE LABELS

1. APPLICATION.—This ruling shall apply to any commodity in package form, except as exempted by law or regulation or by section 2

below, and the compliance or noncompliance with the stipulations of law

and regulation of the declaration, or declarations, of quantity on a pack- age shall be determined on the basis of the standards set forth herein.

2. EXEMPTIONS.

2.1. Industrial-Type Packages.—A so-called "industrial" type or "nonconsumer" type package (one that is not intended to be displayed on

a retail shelf or to be sold for home consumption) shall be exempt from

the specific type sizes hereinafter set forth, and the conformance or non- conformance of the labeling of such a package shall be determined by the

facts of the case

2.2. Containers Standardized by Device Regulation.—Containers,

such as milk bottles and lubricating-oil bottles, for which standards are

established and specifications are set forth in National Bureau of Stand- ards Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Regulations for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices, shall be exempt from the re- quirements hereinafter set forth.

2.3. Packages of Alcoholic Beverages.—Packages of alcoholic beverages, for which the labeling requirements are specified in Federal law,

shall be exempt from the requirements hereinafter set forth.

3. DEFINITIONS.

3.1. Label.—The term "label" shall be construed to mean a display of

written, printed, or graphic matter applied or attached to a package for the purposes of branding, identifying, and giving other information on

the contents of the package.

3.2. Principal Display Panel or Panels.—The term "principal display

panel or panels" shall be construed to mean that part, or those parts, of a label that is, or are, so designed as to be most likely to be displayed,

presented, shown, or examined under normal customary conditions of display and purchase.

3.3 Area of Principal Display Panel or Panels.—Barring evidence to the contrary, the square inch area of the principal display panel, or of each of the principal display panels if there be more than one, shall be

(1) in the case of a rectangular container, one or more entire side or

sides of which properly can be considered to be the principal display

panel or panels, the product of the height times the width of that side or those sides ; (2) in the case of a cylindrical or nearly cylindrical con- tainer where the label covers the entire cylindrical or nearly cylindrical

surface, 40 percent of the product of the height times the circumference

;

(3) in the case of a cylindrical or nearly cylindrical container where the

label does not cover the entire cylindrical surface, the total actual area

of the label or 40 percent of the product of the height time the circumference, whichever is less ; (4) in the case of a sack or bag, or other flat container, the total printed area or one-third the total flat area, whichever is greater; and (5) in the case of a container with a distinctly

identifiable label or label area, the total actual area of the label or label space : Provided, That this section shall not apply to permanently labeled reusable glass containers, for which see 8. below. 199
4. EFFECTIVE DATE.—This ruling shall be effective with respect

to those labels that are (a) redesigned after January 1, 1965, (b) pre- pared from plates, dies, cylinders, and the like made after January 1, 1965. and (c) all labels as of July 1. 1966: Provided, That this section

shall not apply to permanently labeled reusable glass containers, for which see 8. below.

5. QUANTITY DECLARATION.

5.1. Location.—The declaration, or declarations, of quantity of the contents of a package which appears on the principal display panel, or panels if there are more than one. shall be presented in such a manner

as to be generally parallel to the base on which the package rests as it

is designed to be displayed.

5.2. Style of Type of Lettering.—The declaration, or declarations, of quantity shall be in such a style or type or lettering as to be boldly presented, clearly and conspicuously, with respect to other type or lettering or graphic material on the panel or panels.

5.3. Color Contrast.—The declaration, or declarations, of quantity

shall be in a color that contrasts definitely with its background

Provided. That this section shall not apply to permanently labeled re- usable glass containers, for which see 8. below.

6. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF XUMBERS AXD LETTERS.—The height

of any letter or number in the required quantity statement shall be not

less than those shown in Table 1. with respect to the square inch area

set forth in section 3.3 above : Provided. That the height of the numbers

of a common fraction shall be not less than one-half the dimensions

>hown : And Provided further. That this section shall not apply to per- manently labeled reusable glass containers, for which see 8. below.

Greater than 4 square inches and not greater than 25 H6 inch, square inches. Greater than 25 square inches and not greater than 120 % inch, square inches. Greater than 120 square inches and not greater than 400 *4 inch, square inches. Greater than 400 square inches % inch.

7. FREE AREA.—The declaration, or declarations, of quantity shall be presented in an area sufficiently free from other printing, lettering, or marking, to make said declaration, or declarations, stand out definitely

with respect to the surrounding printing, lettering or marking.

8. PERMANENTLY LABELED REUSABLE GLASS COXTAIXERS.

8.1. Label Information Blown into Surface.—When all label infor- mation is blown into the glass surface, the required declaration, or declarations, of quantity may also be blown into the surface: Provided,

That in such cases said declaration or declarations shall appear in close proximity to the trade or brand name and the height of any letter or number shall be not less than •* inch for containers of one pint or less capacity and not less than & inch for containers of greater than one

pint capacity.

8.2. Label Information Applied to Surface of Containers.—When any

label information is applied to the surface of a reusable glass container

in white or in any color, the required declaration, or declarations, of quantity shall also be applied to the surface and shall be. in size, not

less than % inch for containers of one pint or less capacity and not less than to inch for containers of greater than one pint capacity.

8.3. Label Information on Cap or Crown of Containers.—When all label information is displayed on the cap or crown of a reusable glass

container, the required declaration of quantity may also be displayed on the cap or crown and shall be displayed prominently, conspicuously,

and in color contrasting with the background.

8.4. Effective Date.—The requirements set forth in sections 8., 8.1.. 8.2., and 8.3. shall be effective with respect to orders placed after July 1, 1966: Provided, That all containers that are manufactured to conform

Table 1.

Minimum height of numbers and letters Square Inch Area

of Principal Panel Minimum Height of Xumbers and Letters 4 square inches and le: ._ Xo minimum.

200
to these requirements shall be permanently marked with the letter "S"

followed by the final two digits of the year in which the order was

placed : And Provided further, That permanently labeled reusable glass containers in service as of July 1, 1966, may remain in service. (The Administrative Kuling recommended by the Committee was

voted on section by section. Following the presentation of Section 6, Minimum Height of Numbers and Letters, Mr. W. A. Kerlin, State

of California, made a motion to amend Table 1 of Section 6 as listed below.)

Square Inch Area Minimum Height

of Principal Panel of Numbers and Letters Less than 20 square inches tf inch 20 square inches to less than 40 square inches % inch 40 square inches to less than 100 square inches ^4 inch 100 square inches to less than 400 square inches % inch 400 square inches and over V2 inch Discussion on the motion to amend Table 1 was entered into by the

following delegates: Mr. Lewis, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Goforth (State of

Illinois), Miss Newman (National Consumers League), Mr. Hensel

(Swift and Company), Mr. Lynch (Nestle Company, Inc.), Mr. McGee (State of Georgia), Mr. King (National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association), Mr. Mahoney (State of Maryland), Mr. Campbell

(State of Ohio) , and Mr. Lyles ( State of Virginia)

.

(The amendment was defeated by a standing vote of the delegates 46-54.)

(Item 7, including all sections of the Administrative Ruling as presented, was

adopted by voice vote.

)

8. GENERAL The Laws and Regulations Committee desires to record its sincere

commendation and appreciation to all representatives of the packaging

industry who, by attending the committee meetings, serving on the

Industry Committee, or otherwise participating, evidenced a high degree of public consciousness in this diligent effort to solve a difficult problem of considerable duration.

The Committee also wishes to express its appreciation to those officials of Government, consumer organizations, and others who provided enthusiastic assistance and cooperation in the studies that were made and in the development of this Report.

Communications have been received from Mrs. Esther Peterson,

Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, transmitting

a copy of a resolution adopted by the Consumer Advisory Council

and from Reverend Robert J. McEwen, Chairman, Consumer Council, Executive Department. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

and Mr. George Brunn, Chairman, Program Advisory Committee to the Consumer Counsel to the Governor of California, transmitting a similar resolution adopted unanimously by that Council. These resolutions, which urge weights and measures officials to adopt minimum

height of letters of quantity declarations on consumer-type packages no smaller than those presented in the 1963 Tentative Report of this

Committee, are appreciated, as are the interest and support of these

three dedicated organizations.

The Committee also is grateful to Miss Aileen Newman of Greenbelt

Consumers Services, Inc., Beltsville, Maryland, for her interest in the

201

747-830 O - 65 - 14
matters before the Committee and for the data on her very interesting

survey on package labeling.

The Committee by formal action notes its grateful acknowledgment

for the many years of outstanding service to the Committee and to the

Conference by its former Secretary, W. S. Bussey, and extends its best wishes to Mr. and Mrs. Bussey for many, many years of healthy,

happy retirement.

The Committee would also like to acknowledge sincerely the efforts of our Executive Secretary, Mr. Jensen, and of Mr. Harold Wollin

in their assistance to the Committee in the preparation of this Final

Keport.

With respect to this Report, it has been presented by your Committee respectfully. We appreciate your vigorous assistance in con- sidering this Report. I have a very warm feeling that this action

has been the action of the Committee, and more strongly so the action

of the Conference. We appreciate your participation. This is what

makes the Conference what it is—the privilege to express, the privilege

to be heard, and the privilege to take an action in a unified manner.

J. L. Littlefield, Chairman

L. Baker

M. Jennings

J. H. Lewis

H. M. Turrell

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

(On motion of Mr. Lewis, seconded from the floor, the Conference by voice vote adopted the Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations, comprising

the Tentative Report as amended by the Final Report.

)

Mr. Lewis : Mr. Chairman, I have one additional motion to make.

I wish to move that the Conference Executive Secretary be given au- thority to make any appropriate editorial changes in the Report you

have just adopted without changing the intended meaning, including

any necessary renumbering of paragraphs, in the preparation of the

manuscript for printing.

(The foregoing motion, seconded from the floor, was adopted by voice vote.)

202
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS AND ELECTION OF

OFFICERS

' presented by C. H. Stender, Chairman, Assistant to Commissioner,

Department of Agriculture, State of South Carolina

(Thursday, June 18, 1964, 2:07 p.m.)

As provided in the organization and procedure of the Conference, the Director of the

National Bureau of Standards, Dr. A. V. Astin,

is the President of the Conference, and is au- thorized to designate the Executive Secretary.

All other officers are to be elected by vote of

the Conference with the exception that vacancies occurring during the Conference year may

be filled by the Executive Committee.

In selecting active members of the Conference to nominate for elective officers as pre- sented in this report, consideration was given

by the committee to several factors, such as attendance records, geographical distribution, conference participation, and interest shown in promoting weights and measures

administration.

The Nominating Committee submits the following report, nominating for office for the National Conference on Weights and Measures

and to serve during the ensuing year or until their successors might be

elected, the following

:

Chairman : Verne D. Campbell, Ohio

Vice Chairmen : John H. Lewis, Washington ; J. Ellis Bowen, Massachusetts; Lawrence Barker, West Virginia; W. I. Thompson,

New Jersey.

Treasurer : C. C. Morgan, Indiana

Chaplain : R. W. Searles, Ohio

Executive Committee: N. Berryman, Florida; R. M. Bodenweiser,

New Jersey ; J. M. Boucher, District of Columbia ; R. J. Fahey,

Illinois; R. H. Fernsten, California; Frank Gersz, Connecticut;

M. Jennings, Tennessee; D. E. Konsoer, Wisconsin; J. F. Lyles,

Virginia ; E. A. Vadelund, Pennsylvania.

C. H. Stender, Chairman

S. H. Christie R. E. Meek

H. E. Crawford J. F. True

N. Kalechman R. Williams

(There being no further nominations from the floor, nominations were declared

closed and the officers nominated by the Committee were elected unanimously

by voice vote.)

203
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS

presented by L. Barker, Chairman, Commissioner, Department of

Labor. State of West Virginia.

(Thursday, June 18, 1964, 2:12 p.m.)

Resolutions of appreciation Avere adopted as follows

1. To Dr. Richard H. Holton, Assistant Secretary

of Commerce for Economic Affairs, for his constructive contribution to the program of this 49th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

2. To Mrs. Esther Peterson, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, for her constructive presentation.

3. To Mr. T. L. E. Gregory, Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures for Nottinghamshire, England,

for his splendid address and for contribution to the success of the Committee hearings by participating in the deliberations.

4. To all program speakers.

5. To business and industry for cooperating with the Conference, for attend- ing and participating in the Conference, and for contributing to the success of the Conference through their participation and their gracious hospitality.

6. To all State and local governing agencies that have arranged or have

made possible the attendance at this meeting of one or more representatives of

their organizations, to participate in the deliberations directed toward the better- ment of weights and measures controls throughout the Nation.

7. To the Director and staff of the National Bureau of Standards for their

tireless efforts to insure a successful Conference and planning and administering

the program and other details so essential to an interesting and educational

meeting. RESOLUTION ON W. S. BUSSEY

Resolved, That the 49th National Conference on Weights and Measures

assembled in the City of Washington on the 18th day of June, A.D. 1964, does hereby express to Mr. W. S. Bussey its gratitude for faithful and dedicated

service and its best wishes for a long and happy retirement ; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary forward a copy of this resolution to Mr. Bussey,

to be read by him while reclining in his new reclining chair as he enjoys his new

television set. RESOLUTION ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Whereas, the Weights and Measures Advisory Committee of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures to the National Bureau

of Standards, since its inception, has proved to be of extreme value

to all affiliated groups of the Conference, acting as liaison between

field and laboratory ; and

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures has

been advised of the possible termination of this advisory group effec- tive June 30, 1964 : Therefore, be it Resolved, That the National Conference on Weights and Measures

in session assembled this 18th day of June, 1964, at Washington, D.C.,

does hereby urge that this Advisory Committee be continued and

directs the Executive Secretary of this Conference to present this rec- ommendation to all appropriate authorities concerned with the

continuance of the Weights and Measures Advisory Council.

204
DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM C. H. Stender : I would like to add one sentence to the resolution,

as an amendment. As I listened to it, the thought came to my mind

that in 1954 we took a position here on the Conference, and I feel that

the Conference should reaffirm its position and that copies of this reso- lution should be sent to the Secretary of Commerce and to the Director

of the National Bureau of Standards as an indication of our reaffirmation that there be a continuance of the Advisory Committee. That

is the kind of sentence I think should be added, and I ask that this

be accepted.

E. E. Meek: Mr. Chairman, I take the microphone for the sole purpose of endorsing this resolution. I possibly have been accorded

the privilege of serving longer as a member of the Advisory Committee than any other member of this Conference or of industry. I am

well aware of its accomplishments. To me it has proven a two-way

street. One way we have taken the message of this Conference, the

feelings of weights and measures officials and of industry, directly to the National Bureau of Standards, to Dr. Astin and others of his

staff. In turn, we have carried back to this Conference their messages

and decisions. I think it has been a wonderful help to weights and

measures officials and to this Conference, and I heartily endorse the

continuation of the Committee.

(Opinions similar to those of Mr. Stender and Mr. Meek were voiced by Mr. Jen- nings of Tennessee, Mr. Sanders of the Scale Manufacturers Association, Mr. Slough of Akron, Ohio, Mr. Johnson of Kentucky, Mr. Williams of Nassau

County, New York, and several others in attendance.)

Chairman Turnbull: Mr. Committee Chairman, will you please

re-read the resolution as amended.

RESOLUTION ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Whereas, the Weights and Measures Advisory Committee of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to the National Bureau of Standards, since

its inception, has proved to be of extreme value to all affiliated groups of the Conference, acting as liaison body between the field and laboratory ; and

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures has been advised

of the possible termination of this advisory group effective June 30, 1964 : Therefore, be it Resolved, That this Conference reaffirm its position taken in 1954 with respect

to the many advantages to be derived from the Weights and Measures Advisory

Committee ; and be it further

Resolved, That the National Conference on Weights and Measures in session assembled this 18th day of June, 1964, at Washington, D.C., does hereby urge

that this Advisory Committee be continued, and directs the Executive Secretary

of this Conference to present this recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce

and Director of the National Bureau of Standards, who are concerned with the continuance of the Weights and Measures Advisory Committee. L. Barker, Chairman

N. Berryman

E. W. Bucklin

F. M. Gersz

F. B. Jones

J. I. Moore

F. D. Morgan

(On motion of the Conference Chairman, seconded from the floor, the report of the Committee on Resolutions was adopted by voice vote.) 205
REPORT OF AUDITING COMMITTEE

presented by A. J. Albaxese, Chairman, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, New Britain, Connecticut

(Friday, June 19, 1964, 11:57 a.m. ) IPM On June 16, 1964, the Auditing Committee

*ajpS$J* met with the Conference Treasurer and examined his books and records.

They were found to be in good order. A. J. Albaxese, Chairman

G. L. Delaxo

A. L. Little

(The report of the Auditing Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

206
REPORT OF THE TREASURER

presented by C. C. Morgan, Treasurer, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Gary, Indiana

(Friday, June 19, 1964, 11:59 a.m.)

Balance on hand June 1, 1963 $2, 953. 66 Receipts:

Registration fees—328 at $15.00 $4, 920. 00 Refund from Education Committee 20. 00

Sale of Luncheon Tickets 96. 00 Mr. Wells, 250 Mats 8. 75 Bank Interest Accrued 162. 02

Subtotal 5, 206. 77 5, 206. 77

Total 8, 160. 43 Disbursements:

W. S. Bussey, Flowers 10. 30

Geo. W. Allen Co., Inc., Luncheon Tickets 13. 39 D.C. Transit System, Inc., Ladies' Tour 123. 20 Sheraton-Park Hotel, Audio Charges 30. 00 The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co 13. 39

J. Ellis Bowen, Education Committee Postage 25. 00 American Electrotype Co., Inc., 2,000 Mats 72. 58 American Electrotype Co., Inc., 500 Mats 19. 04 S & T Committee 1, 218. 66 L & R Committee 872. 07 M. W. Jensen, Stamps 14. 00 Deposit on Account of Mr. Gray and Mr. Gotz 125. 00

Cash Book 2. 25

Miscellaneous expenses (duplicating, printing, tele- phone, telegraph, postage, messenger, porter, maid, reporting, recording, photographs, taxi, drayage, hotel meeting and committee room service, badges, registration desk, press, flowers, cards,

prizes, hotel for luncheon, etc.) 1, 900. 64 Bank charges 8. 00

Subtotal 4, 447. 52 4, 447. 52 Total balance on May 1, 1964 3, 712. 91 Depository:

Bank of Indiana, Gary, Indiana.

First Federal Savings and Loan Association, Gary, Indiana.

(Signed) C. C. Morgan.

(On motion of the chairman, seconded from the floor, the report of the Treasurer was adopted by the Conference.)

207
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

Delegates—State, City, and County Officials ALABAMA

State D. P. Widemire, State Inspector, Division of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, State

Office Building, Montgomery 36104. ARIZONA

State D. E. AVheeler, Deputy Inspector, Department of Weights and Measures, Capitol Building, Room 139, Phoenix.ARKANSAS

State A. L. Little, Head, Weights and Measures Division, State Plant Board, 421% W. Capitol, P.O. Box 1069,

Little Rock 72203. CALIFORNIA

State W. A. Kerlin, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 1220 N Street, Sacramento 95814. Mrs. H. E. Nelson, Consumer Counsel, Governor's

Office, State Capitol, Sacramento 95814.

V. V. Mackenzie, Administrative Advisor to Con- sumer Counsel, State Capitol, Room 1030, Sacra- mento 95814. County

Alameda R. H. Fernsten, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 333 Fifth Street, Oakland. Kern A. D. Rose, County Sealer of Weights and Measures,

1116 East California Avenue, Bakersfield. Los Angeles F. M. Raymund, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 3200 North Main Street, Los Angeles 90031. San Bernardino H. E. Sandel, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 160 East 6th Street, San Bernardino. San Diego H. J. McDade, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 1480 F Street, San Diego. Santa Cruz G. S. Anderson, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 1010 Fair Avenue, Santa Cruz. Ventura E. H. Black, County Director of Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 1610, Ventura 93002. COLORADO

State H. N. Duff, State Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Section, Department of Agriculture, State Services

Building. 1525 Sherman Street, Denver 80203. H. H. Houston, Director, Oil Inspection Department,

1024 Speer Boulevard, Denver 80204. CONNECTICUT

State F. M. Gersz, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Consumer Protection, State Office Building, Hartford 06115. City

Hartford Nathan Kalechman, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 550 Main Street. 208
Middletown Peter Grassi, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

P.O. Box 223, City Hall. New Britain A. J. Albanese, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. DELAWARE

State W. H. Naudain. Director, Department of Weights

and Measures, State Board of Agriculture, Dover

19901.

F. C. Colamaio, State Inspector.

F. D. Donovan, State Inspector.

Kendall Gibbs, State Inspector.

Eugene Keeley, State Inspector. R. R. Smith, State Inspector. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Weights, Measures, and Markets Branch, Department of Licenses and Inspections, Room 227 Esso Building, 261 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

D.C., 20001.

District J. T. Kennedy, Chief.

J. M. Boucher, Supervisor.

J. T. Bennick, Inspector and Investigator. R. E. Bradley, Inspector and Investigator.

J. M. Burke, Inspector and Investigator.

W. R. Cornelius, Inspector and Investigator. D. K. Forbes, Inspector and Investigator.

F. C. Harbour, Inspector and Investigator.

Kenneth Hayden, Inspector and Investigator. H. P. Hutchinson, Inspector and Investigator. G. P. Kosmos, Inspector and Investigator.

E. E. Maxwell, Inspector and Investigator.

I. L. Wagner, Jr., Inspector and Investigator.

W. W. Wells, Inspector and Investigator. FLORIDA

State Nalls Berryman, Director, Division of Standards,

Department of Agriculture, Nathan Mayo Building,

Room 107, Tallahassee 32304. City:Jacksonville H. E. Crawford, Inspector of Weights and Measures,

( 32202 ) . City Hall, Room 203. Miami (33133) H. E. Howard, Supervisor, Division of Trade Standards, Coconut Grove Station, P.O. Box 708. GEORGIA

State J. B. McGee, Director, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Building, Capitol Square, Atlanta 30303. R. M. Buchanan, Field Supervisor, Weights and

Measures Division, 19 Hunter Street, S.W., Atlanta

30303.

J. W. D. Harvey, State Oil Chemist, Department of Revenue, 264 Capitol Place, Atlanta.

ILLINOIS State H. L. Goforth, Superintendent, Division of Feeds,

Fertilizers, and Standards, Department of Agriculture, 531 East Sangamon Avenue, Springfield 62706. 209
City:

Chicago (60610)

Oak Park (60302) __

State

County

Delaware

Gibson Grant Howard

Lake

Madison

Marion

St. Joseph

Vigo

City

Gary

Hammond

Indianapolis

South Bend

Terre Haute

(47801).

State

State

State

R. J. Fahey, Acting City Sealer, Department of Weights and Measures, Central Office Building,

Room 302, 320 North Clark Street. Luke Prendergast, Chief Taximeter Inspector, Public Vehicle License Commission, 1111 S. State Street, Room 105. H. E. Rentner, Deputy Inspector, Weights and Measures Department, 655 Lake Street. INDIANA

R. E. Meek, Director, Division of Weights and Measures, State Board of Health, 1330 West Michigan

Street, Indianapolis 46207.

L. A. Gredy, State Inspector.

J. P. Janney, County Inspector of Weights and Measures, Patterson Building, Room 9, Muncie.

W. R. Sevier, County Inspector of Weights and Measures, 112 East Emerson Street, Princeton. Harvey Cline, County Inspector of Weights and Measures, Court House, Marion.

I. R. Frazer, County Inspector of Weights and Measures, 113 North Washington Street, Kokomo.

Nicholas Bucur, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Lake County Building, 4th and Broad- way, Gary.

C. W. Moore, County Inspector of Weights and Measures, Court House, Anderson.

E. H. Maxwell, County Inspector, City-County Building, Room G—4, Indianapolis.

C. S. Zmudzinski, County Inspector, Division of Weights and Measures, Court House, Room 11, South Bend.

R. J. Silcock, County Inspector of Weights and Measures, Court House, Room 5, Terre Haute.

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

City Hall. Dean Brahos, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

5925 Calumet Avenue. W. R. Copeland, Director, Department of Weights and

Measures, City-County Building, Room G-6.

B. S. Cichowicz, City Inspector of Weights and Measures, City Hall.

J. T. Harper, City Inspector of Weights and Measures,

City Hall.IOWA

J. C. Boyd, Chief State Field Supervisor, Weights and

Measures Division, Consumer Protection Services,

Department of Agriculture, Capitol Building, Des

Moines 50319. KANSAS

J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and

Measures, State Board of Agriculture, State Office Building, Topeka 66612. KENTUCKY

G. L. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Capitol Annex, Frankfort 40601. 210
LOUISIANA

State J. H. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture and Immigration, Box 4292, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge

70804. H. T. Boogaerts, Field Supervisor, 510 Wyandotte

Street, Shreveport 71101.

F. F. Thompson, Chief Chemist, Petroleum Products

Division, P.O. Box 8374, University Station, Baton Rouge 70821. MAINE

State H. D. Robinson, Deputy State Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, State House,

Augusta 04330. City

:

Portland C. J. Wlls, Jr., City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

389 Congress Street. MARYLAND

State J. E. Mahoney, State Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Department of Markets, State Board of Agriculture, University of Maryland, College Park

20742.

T. M. Stabler, Assistant Superintendent.

L. H. DeGrange, State Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Route 2, Frederick.

R. W. Glendenning, State Inspector of Weights and

Measures, P.O. Box 356, Chestertown.

C. R. Stockman, State Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Route 5, Box 251, Cumberland.

County:

Montgomery E. W. Bucklin, Director, Department of Inspections

and Licenses, County Office Building, Rockville. M. S« Soward, Chief, Division of Permits and Licenses,

County Office Building, Rockville.

G. L. Fuller, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures.

L. B. Morton, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures.

J. P. Soltysiak, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures.

Prince Georges R. J. Cord, Chief Sealer of Weights and Measures, Court House, Upper Marlboro,

L. S. Grasso, Deputy Sealer of Weights and Measures.

D. G. Trask, Deputy Sealer of Weights and Measures.

City

:

Baltimore G. H. Leithauser, Chief Inspector, Division of Weights and Measures, Municipal Building, Room

1106.MASSACHUSETTS

State W. C. Hughes, Head Administrative Assistant, Divi- sion of Standards, Department of Labor and Industries, State House, Boston 02133.

F. J. Hannabury, Inspector.

City

:

Boston J. F. McCarthy, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall Annex, Room 105. Cambridge (02139)— A. T. Anderson, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall, Room 202. Everett L. L. Elliott, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. Fitchburg W. T. Deloge, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall Annex. 211
Newton J. E. Bowen, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall, Newton Centre. Somerville F. C. Gbavelle, Deputy Sealer of Weights and Measures, Public Works Building. MICHIGAN

State J. L. Ljttlefiexd, Chief, Division of Foods and Standards, Department of Agriculture, Lewis Cass Building, Lansing 48913.

C. O. Cottom, Supervising Inspector. City:

Dearborn J. A. Hughes, Director, Licenses, Weights and Measures, City Hall. Detroit ( 48216) J. T. Daxiell, Deputy Sealer, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, 2693 Eighteenth Street. Grand Rapids L. W. Stoll, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, 301 Market Avenue, S.W.

Livonia (48154 ) R. C. Baumgartxer. City Sealer of Weights and Measures. 15050 Farmington Road.

Pontiac Fred Stormer. City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

110 E. Pike Street. MINNESOTA

State W. E. Czaia, Supervisor, Department of Weights and

Measures, Railroad and Warehouse Commission,

One Flour Exchange, Minneapolis 55415. Ed. Skluzacek, State Inspector, 325 South 3rd Street, Minneapolis.

City:

Minneapolis J. G. Gustafsox, Chief Inspector, Department of Licenses, Weights, and Measures, City Hall, Room

101A.

MISSISSIPPI State W. G. Sellers, State Inspector of Weights and Measures, Route 1, Laurel. MISSOURI

City:

St. Louis, (63103) D. I. Offxer, Commissioner of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. Room 12. MONTANA

State G. L. Delano, Chief Sealer, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Capitol

Building, Helena 59601. NEVADA

State J. E. Hampton, Acting Chief Deputy State Sealer, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Drawer 1209, Reno 89504. NEW HAMPSHIRE

State W. J. Tusext

, State Inspector of Weights and Measures, 232 Lawrence Road, Salem.

City:Keene R. M. Seaver, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

72 Pine Avenue. 212
NEW JERSEY

State S. H. Christie, Jr., Deputy State Superintendent, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Law and Public Safety, 187 West Hanover Street, Trenton 08625. A. T. Smith, Supervisor of Licensing.

J. R. Bird, Supervisor of Technical Services.

L. E. Lefkowitz, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Weights and Measures, State House Annex,

Trenton. County

:

Bergen M. J. Santimauro, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 66 Zabriskie Street, Hackensack.

E. E. Dawson, Assistant County Superintendent of Weights and Measures. Camden A. C. Becker, County Superintendent of Weights and

Measures. City Hall, Camden.

Cumberland G. A. Franks, County Superintendent, Department of Weights and Measures, Court House, Bridgeton.

Nicholas DiMarco, Assistant County Superintendent. Essex W. H. Schneidewind, County Superintendent of Weights and Measures, 278 New Street, Newark.

Monmouth W. I. Thompson, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, P.O. Box 74, Allenhurst 07711.

J. A. J. Bovie, Assistant County Superintendent of Weights and Measures, 82 West Wall Street, Neptune City 07753. W. G. Dox, Assistant County Superintendent of Weights and Measures, 40 Waverly Place, Red

Bank 07701.

E. H. Camoosa, County Inspector, 1106 Jeffrey Street, Asbury Park 07712. Passaic William Miller, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 317 Pennsylvania Avenue, Paterson

07503. Sussex J. M. Heater, County Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, 18 Church Street, Newton. Jack Prout, Jr., Lab. Warren G. E. Connolly, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Court House, Belvidere.

City

:

Jersey City H. J. Myers, Municipal Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, City Hall. Kearny James Pollock, Municipal Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 402 Kearny Avenue. Linden L. T. Reagan, Municipal Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Room 206, City Hall. Passaic Paul DeVries, Municipal Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, City Hall. Joseph Shaw, Assistant Municipal Superintendent. Paterson (07505) J. P. Leonard, Municipal Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 115 Van Houten Street. Trenton R. J. Boney, Municipal Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 324 East State Street, City Hall Annex.NEW MEXICO

State C. B. Whigham, Chief, Division of Markets, Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Box 457, University Park 88070. 213
NEW YORK

State J. F. Madden, Director, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture and Markets,

Laboratory Building, 1220 Washington Avenue,

Albany 12226. County

Cayuga Vernon Parmenter, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, King Ferry. Monroe R. J. Veness, County Sealer of Weights and Measures,

1400 South Avenue, Rochester.

L. P. Romano, Deputy County Sealer. Nassau Robert Williams, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 1035 Stewart Avenue, Garden City 11533. A. W. Weidner, Jr., Assistant County Sealer. Wayne H. H. Wright, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 30 Catherine Street, Lyons.

City : Auburn E. M. Marco, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Memorial City Hall. Binghamton E. X. Volkay, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City

Hall. Glen Cove (11542) E. T. Hunter, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. Ithaca E. P. Nedrow, Citv Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. Lackawanna J. J. Seres. City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

84 Rosary Avenue. New York Moe Greenspan, Supervising Inspector, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Public Markets, 137 Centre Street. Syracuse J. M. Byrne, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

109 North State Street. White Plains T. E. Latimore, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Department of Public Safety, 279 Hamilton Avenue. Yonkers S. J. DiMase, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. NORTH CAROLINA

State C. D. Baucom, Superintendent, Weights and Measures

Division, Department of Agriculture, 415 Agricul- ture Building, Raleigh.

J. I. Moore, Field Supervisor. M. L. Kinlaw, State Inspector. OHIO

State V. D. Campbell, Chief, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg

43068. County

Coshocton W. B. Graham, Deputy County Sealer of Weights and

Measures. County Court House, Coshocton 42812. Medina R. W. Searles, Deputy County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 137 West Friendship, Medina.

Summit W. K. Commerson, Deputy County Sealer of Weights

and Measures. Court House, Akron.

City

Akron (44304) R. K. Slough, Superintendent of Weights and Measures, 69 N. Union Street. Cincinnati (45202) L. B. Frank. Supervising Inspector, Markets, Weights

and Measures, 316 George Street. Dayton (45402) Kart

. Gulledge City Sealer of Weights and Measures.

960 Ottawa Street. 214
Youngstown F. B. Jones, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Building.

OKLAHOMA

State H. K. Sharp, Assistant Director, Marketing Division, State Board of Agriculture, 122 Capitol Building,

Oklahoma City 73105. City:

Tulsa J. L. Smith, City Inspector of Weights and Measures,

City Hall, 4th and Cincinnati. PENNSYLVANIA

State H. M. Turrell, Director, Bureau of Standard Weights

and Measures, Department of Internal Affairs, Capitol Building, Harrisburg 17120. E. A. Vadelund, Assistant Director.

J. P. Nairn, State Inspector.

E. J. Delaney, State Inspector, 3662 West 14th Street, Erie. R. P. DeWald, State Inspector of Weights and Measures, RD#3, Muncy.

N. P. Sweeny, State Inspector of Weights and Measures, 912 Baldwin Street, Pittsburgh.

County

:

Philadelphia Charles Wadowsky, Chief Supervisor, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Room 306, City Hall, Phila- delphia 19107.

S. F. Valtri, Field Inspection Supervisor.

PUERTO RICO Commonwealth H. L. Schmidt, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, Economic Stabilization Administration, P.O. Box 4183, San Juan 00905. RHODE ISLAND

State E. R. Fisher, State Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Department of Labor, Veterans Memorial Building, 83 Park Street, Providence 02903. SOUTH CAROLINA

State C. H. Stender, Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 1080, Columbia 29202.

E. W. Ballentine, Director, Bureau of Inspection.

SOUTH DAKOTA

State L. G. Bies, Heavy Scale Inspector, Public Utilities Commission, State House, Pierre 57501.

J. A. Etzkorn, State Scale Inspector. D. C. Hanna, State Scale Inspector, Spencer. TENNESSEE

State Matt Jennings, Director, Division of Marketing, De- partment of Agriculture, Melrose Station, Box 9039, Nashville 37204. Douglas Lewis, State Inspector, Route #3 Charlotte. G. A. Sensing, State Inspector, Box 93, Charlotte. TEXAS

State R. T. Williams, Chief, Marketing Division, John Rea- gan Building, Austin. 215
F. G. Yarbrough, Chief Deputy Sealer, Weights, Measures, and Markets, City Hall, Room 303.

C. W. Buxton, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Department of Public Health and Welfare, 1800

University Drive. VIRGINIA

S. M. Carbaugh, Assistant Director, Division Regulatory Services, Department of Agriculture, 203 N. Governor Street, Richmond 23219.

J. F. Lyles, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Regulatory Section.

J. C. Stewart, Assistant Supervisor.

G. T. Copenhaver, State Inspector, Box 318, Rural

Retreat. John Haux, State Inspector, 234 W. Frederick Street, P.O. Box 363, Staunton.

R. N. Trenary, State Inspector, Box 342, Middleburg.

C. E. Whitman, Supervisor, Weighing Operations, De- partment of Highways, Richmond.

G. D. Taylor, County Inspector, 1400 N. Court House

Road, Arlington.

L. W. Vezina, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall.

C. H. Wrenn, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Curb Market Building, Spring Street. W. F. Bradley, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, 416 E. Plume Street.

J. M. Hudgins, Chief, Weights and Measures, City

Market Building.

E. L. Whitehurst, Supervisor of Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 6175, Princess Anne Street. WASHINGTON

State J. H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures Section,

Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 120, Olympia

98501. City

Seattle D. M. Turnbull, Director, Division of Licenses and

Standards, Office of the Comptroller, 101 Seattle Municipal Building.

WEST VIRGINIA

State Lawrence Barker, Commissioner, Department of Labor, State Office Building, Room 643, Charleston

25305. W. H. Holt, Administrative Assistant to Commissioner. Robert Coughenour, Chief Inspector.

F. J. Thomas, Chief Inspector. R. D. Williams, State Inspector.

V. S. Matson, State Inspector. Haskel Schilansky, State Inspector.

C. W. Freeland, State Inspector, Middlebourne.

J. C. Spinks, State Inspector, Craigsville. WISCONSIN

State C. L. Jackson, Chief, Division of Dairy, Food, and

Trade, Department of Agriculture, 209B Hill Farms State Office Building, Madison, Wisconsin

53702.

City:Dallas

Ft. Worth.

State

County

Arlington

City:

Alexandria

Danville Norfolk Roanoke

Virginia Beach.

216
Donald Konsoer, Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Section. City:

Appleton (54912) R. G. LaBerge, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. Green Bay N. P. Tilleman, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Marshfleld A. A. Frank, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. Sheboygan R. K. Lorenz, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. Advisory Members

U.S. Department of Commerce:

Richard H. Holton, Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs. National Bureau of Standards:

Office of the Director (Division 100) : A. V, Astin, Director.

I. C. Schoonover, Deputy Director.

Office of Public Information (Division 102) : J. F. Reilly, Public Information Officer. Technical Support

:

Technical Publications (Division 141) : Mrs. Sharon Harrison, Information Section.

L. W. Furlow, Photographer, Photographic Services Section. Institute for Basic Standards:

Applied Mathematics (Division 205) : B. L. Joiner, Mathematical Statistician, Statistical Engineering

Section. Metrology (Division 212) : H. L. Badger, Physicist, Mass and Volume Section. B. C. Keysar, Physical Science Technician, Mass and Volume

Section. R. W. Crouch, Technologist, Photometry and Colorimetry

Section. Institute for Applied Technology (Division 400) : D. A. Schon, Director.

J. P. Eberhard, Deputy Director.

Office of Weights and Measures (Division 404) : M. W. Jensen, Chief. D. R. Mackay, Engineer. H. F. Wollin, Engineer.

Stephen Hasko, Engineer.

R. N. Smith, Technical Coordinator. W. C. Bandy, Coordinator, Federal-State Technical

Services.

L. J. Chisholm, Technical Writer.

J. H. Griffith, Jr., General Laboratory Mechanic.

Mrs. F. C. Bell, Administrative Assistant. Mrs. M. M. Brodmerkel, Secretary. Mrs. E. M. Burnette, Secretary. Mrs. B. B. Watkins, Secretary. Mrs. D. J. Snyder, Secretary.

Office of Engineering Standards (Division 405) : A. T. McPherson, Acting Chief. Business and Defense Services Administration, Containers and Packaging

Division

:

C. H. Felton, Chief, Containerization Branch.

W. T. Jones, Consumer Packaging.

U.S. Department of Agriculture:

Agricultural Marketing Service: Fruit and Vegetable Division : F. F. Hedlund, Director. Grain Division : C. W. Jackson, Deputy Director. Milk Marketing Orders Division

:

H. C. Feddersen, Deputy Director. Fred Stein, Marketing Specialist.

217

747-830 O - 65 - 15
Packers and Stockyards Division, Scales and Weighing Branch

R. D. Thompson, Chief, Washington, D.C.

C. H. Oakley, Assistant Chief, Washington, D.C.

T. C. Harris, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Washington, D.C.

J. L. Alcorn, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Denver, Colo. M. W. Stephens, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Atlanta, Ga. Poultry Division: H. C. Kennett, Jr., Assistant Chief, Standardization and Marketing

Practices Branch.

Agricultural Research Service : Meat Inspection Division, C. H. Pals,

Director. Federal Trade Commission: Bureau of Deceptive Practices, Division of General Practices:

S. J. Fellman, Attorney. D. T. Puckett, Trial Attorney.

Leona Yurdin, Special Assistant. Bureau of Field Operations

C. R. Moore, Assistant Director for Deceptive Practices.

C. H. Freas, Jr., Attorney.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare:

Food and Drug Administration

Division of Federal-State Relations

J. C. Pearson, Director.

O. H. McKagen, Food and Drug Officer. C. P. Orr, Food and Drug Officer. Division of Food Standards and Additives:

V. H. Blomquist, Assistant Chief, Food Technology Branch.

U.S. Department of the Interior: Bureau of Commercial Fisheries

J. R. Brooker, Chief, Fishery Products Inspection and Certification Service. U.S. Department of Labor

Mrs. Esther Peterson, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer

Affairs. U.S. Treasury Department: Bureau of Customs

E. W. Teagarden, Engineer, Division of Technical Services. Internal Revenue Service:

R. O. Jolin, Chief, Basic Permit and Trade Practice Branch.

R. W. Smith, Honorary Member of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures ( Retired )

Alfred Lirio (Retired). Associate Members—Manufacturers of Weighing and Measuring Devices

Ainsworth, Wm, & Sons Inc.

Fritz Bauer, Director of Research, 2151 Lawrence St., Denver, Colo. 80205. American Can Co.

E. H. Ruyle, Technical Service Representative, 11th Ave. and St. Charles Rd.. Maywood, 111. American Meter Co.

R. R. Douglas, Senior Engineer, 13500 Philmont Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 19116.

T. J. Smith, Petroleum Product Manager of Amercon Division. D. C. Wiley, Vice President, Research. Badger Meter Mfg. Co.

M. E. Hartz, Director, Research and Engineering, 4545 W. Brown Deer Rd.. Milwaukee 23, Wis. Bennett Pump Division, John Wood Co.

L. G. Close, District Manager, 2127 N. Charles St., Baltimore 18, Md.

M. S. Godsman, Service Manager, Muskegon, Mich. Bowser Inc.

W. J, Quinlan, Service Manager, Pump and Meter Division, Greeneville, Tenn. Brooks Instrument Co.

H. C. Webster, Sales Manager, 407 W. Vine St., Hartfield, Pa. Cardinal Scale Mfg. Co.

H. A. Harwood, Regional Manager, 98-25 64th Rd., Forest Hills 74, N.Y. 218
Continental Can Co.

:

S. Kurtz, Manager, Price and Product Administration, 633 3rd Ave., New

York, N.Y. DeLaval Separator Co.

:

R. J. Rutgerson, Sales Engineer, 25 Columbia St., Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Detecto Scales, Inc.

:

Mack Rapp, Vice President, 540 Park Ave., Brooklyn 5, N.Y. Dixie Cup Division, American Can Co.

:

C. G. McBride, Assistant to Vice President and General Manager, 24th and

Dixie Ave., Easton, Pa. W. S. Woodside, Assistant to Vice President and General Manager.

Engler Instrument Co.

:

H. G. Engler, President, 250 Culver Ave., Jersey City, N.J. Exact Weight Scale Co.

:

W. A. Scheurer, President, 538 East Town St., Columbus, Ohio, 43215. W. J. Schieser, Vice President in Charge of Product Development, 944 W.

Fifth Ave., Columbus Ohio. Bruce Taylor, General Manager.

Ex-Cell-0 Corp.

:

Vincent Arslanian, Assistant Laboratory Director, Technical Center, Walled

Lake, Mich. Arnold Dorbeck, Supervisor, 1200 Oakman Blvd., Detroit 32, Mich.

Fairbanks, Morse & Co.

:

R. P. Lofquist, Product Manager, 19-01 Route 208, Fair Lawn, N.J.

J. L. Trebilcock, Manager, Government Business.

Fuller, H. J. & Sons, Inc.

:

W. S. Fuller, Vice President, 1212 Chesapeake Ave., Columbus 12, Ohio. Garsite Products, Inc.

:

J. O. Lavery, Sales Manager, 10 E. Grand Blvd., Deer Park, N.Y. General Motors Corp.

:

B. G. Booth, Legal Staff, General Motors Bldg., Detroit 2, Mich.

F. J. Kalvelage, Legal Staff, 3044 W. Grand Blvd., Detroit, Mich.

Gilbert & Barker Mfg. Co.

:

R. E. Nix, Manager, Sales Engineering, West Springfield, Mass.

Gurley, W. & L. E.

:

F. G. Williams, Washington Representative, 5514 Nevada Ave., N.W., Washington 15, D.C. Halmor Industries, Inc.

:

J. C. Halpine, President, 1120 N. Boston, P.O. Box 6145, Tulsa 6, Okla.

C. G. Shannon, Salesman.

Hobart Mfg. Co.

:

K. C. Allen, Vice President, Scale Operations, 448 Huffman Ave., Dayton,

Ohio 45403. M. E. Bone, Weights and Measures Representative.

C. G. Gehringer, Sales Manager, Heavy-Capacity Scales, Penn Ave. at Simpson St., Troy, Ohio. Howe-Richard -on Scale Co.

:

I. H. Richardson, Chairman, 668 Van Houten Ave., Clifton, N.J. G. D. Wilkinson, National Service Manager.

Lilly, Eli, & CO.

:

W. T. Patterson, Representative, Quality Control, 740 S. Alabama St., Indi- anapolis, Ind. 46206. Lily-Tulip Cup Corp.

:

C. S. Hinkle, Assistant to Vice President, 122 E. 42nd St., New York 17, N.Y. Martin-Decker Corp.

:

C. L. Howard, General Sales Manager, 3431 Cherry Ave., Long Beach, Calif. 90807. D. A. Yeo, Eastern Division Manager, N. S. Freeway at Rt. 41, Almonesson,

N.J. Mclntyre, J. J., Son : F. L. McIntyre, President, 514 Knorr St., Philadelphia 11, Pa. Measuregraph Co.

:

F. L. Wall, Regional Manager, 1634 Hickory Hill Rd., Falls Church, Va. Mettler Instrument Corp. : L. B. Macurdy, Staff Metrologist, 20 Nassau St., Princeton, N.J.

Miller, Byron, & Associates

:

B. D. Miller, Owner, 7712 Georgia Ave., N.W., Washington 12, D.C. 219
Murphy, L. R., Scale Co.

L. R. Murphy, President, 1610 North C St., Sacramento, Calif. 95814. Neptune Meter Co.

J. C. Hart, Assistant Sales Manager, 47-25 34th St., Long Island City, N.Y W. A. Medford, Engineer.

E. F. Wehmann, Assistant Chief Engineer.

Power Plus Corp.

L. D. Harbour, Salesman, 4141 S. 60th St., Milwaukee 20, Wis. Revere Corporation of America : C. W. Silver, Manager, Research and Engineering, Wallingford, Conn. H. L. Zupp, Regional Manager, 3525 Guilford Ave., N.W., Canton, Ohio 44718. Rockwell Mfg. Co.

A. J. Komich, Product Manager, Box 450, Statesboro. Ga. H. E. Siebold, Sales Engineer, Brodie Division, Rm. 3508 Empire State Bldg.,

New York, N.Y. 10001. Sanitary Scale Co.

E. C. Karp, Vice President, Belvidere, 111. Sealright-Oswego Falls Corp.

C. E. Foster, Jr., Manager, Quality Control, Fulton, N.Y. Seraphin Test Measure Co.

L. C. Schloder, President, 1314 N. 7th St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19122. Service Recorder Co.

K. A. Cool, President, 1765 E. 18th St., Cleveland 14, Ohio.

J. E. Sackett, Sales Manager.

Smith, A. O., Corp.

W. T. Schultze, Eastern Manager, Meter and Service Station Equipment Division, 605 Third Ave., New York 16, N.Y. Spinks Scale Co.

D. F. Laird, President, 836 Stewart Ave., S.W., Atlanta, Ga. 30310. Streeter-Amet

V. C. Kennedy, President, Grayslake, 111. V. C. Kennedy, Jr., Executive Vice President.

E. J. Micono, Service Manager.

Sun Oil Co.

W. A. Pierson, Marketing Operations Dept., 1600 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. Swab Wagon Co., Inc.

W. P. Lehman, Secretary, 21 S. Callowhill St., Elizabethville, Pa. Thurman Scale Co.

J. R. Schaeffer, Vice President, P.O. Box 2179, 1939 Refugee Rd., Columbus.

Ohio 43216. Thwing-Albert Instrument Co.

R. D. Hannan, Marketing Manager, Sentronic Division, Penn St. and Pulaski

Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. Tokheim Corp.

W. E. Louthan, Service Manager, 1600 Wabash Ave., Fort Wayne 1, Ind. Toledo Scale

D. B. Kendall, Manager, Product Engineering, 5225 Telegraph Rd., Toledo,

Ohio 43612. R. V. Miller, Manager. Weights and Measures. Troemner, Henry, Inc.

C. F. Rosica, Sales Manager, 22nd and Master Sts., Philadelphia 21, Pa. Veeder-Root, Inc.

H. W. Barnes, Sales Manager, Petroleum Division, Sargeant St., Hartford, Conn.

R. P. Huckman, Administrative Assistant, Petroleum Products.

R. E. Reeder, Marketing Engineer.

Wayne Pump Co.

W. J. Dubsky, Chief Engineer, Salisbury, Md.

W. O. Howland, Manager, Technical Services. F. W. Love, Administrative Assistant. Associate Members—Associations, Business, and Industry

Abbott Laboratories

R. W. Kasperson, Attorney, 14th & Sheridan Road, N. Chicago, 111. Acme Markets, Inc. W. A. Callen, Grocery Personnel Manager, Personnel Department, 124 N. 15th

St.. Philadelphia, Pa. 220
H. W. Johns, Quality Control. American Bottlers Carbonated Beverages : D. R. Thompson, Counsel, 6103 85th PL, Hyattsville, Md.

American Butter Institute and National Cheese Institute, Inc.

:

E. W. Gaumnitz, Executive Secretary, R. 620, 110 N. Franklin St., Chicago,

111. 60606. American Oil Company

:

Eugene Runes, Project Manager, Box 431, Whiting, Ind. American Petroleum Institute : H. S. Mount, (Weights and Measures Subcommittee) Assistant Manager,

General Marketing Operations, Sun Oil Co., 1608 Walnut St., Philadelphia,

Pa.

R. H. Tolson, Assistant Superintendent, Construction & Equipment Division,

Texaco, Inc., 135 E. 42d St., New York, N.Y. American Standards Association

:

A. C. HuTTON, Guest Worker, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. Automobile Manufacturers Association

:

R. M. Parsons, Attorney, 320 New Center Building, Detroit, Mich. 48202. R. A. Pittman, Executive Engineer.

J. H. Venema, Engineering Standards.

Avis, Inc.

:

W. C. McPike. General Counsel. P.O. Box 201, Garden City, N.Y. Avon Products, Inc.

:

Vassilios Milcos, Aerosol Chemist, Division St., Suffern, N.Y. Booth Fisheries

:

Rodger Mitchell, Purchasing Agent, 2 N. Riverside Plaza, Chicago, 111. 60606. Borden Co.

:

D. M. Dent, Law Department, 350 Madison Ave., New York 17, N.Y. Boyle Midway Company—Division of American Products Corp.

:

F. L. Steckhahn, Research Group Leader, South Ave., and Hale Street, Cranford, N.J. D. H. Terry, Director of Research and Development. Bureau of National Affairs : Jerome Shoenfeld, Editor, 1231 24th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. Campbell Soup Co.

:

J. H. Bunting, Manager, Quality Control Regulatory Services, 375 Memorial

Ave., Camden, N.J. 08101. Car and Truck Renting and Leasing Association : H. R. Smith, Executive Secretary, 209 S. LaSalle St., Chicago, 111. Carter Products Co.

:

Irving Reich, Director of Proprietary Research, Cranbury, N.J. Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association : R. L. Ackerly, Attorney, 1625 K St., N.W., Washington 6, D.C.

C. S. Dees, Counsel.

A. A. Mulliken, Secretary, 50 E. 41st St., New York 17, N.Y.

F. G. Taylor, (Chairman, Net Weights Aerosols) Lehn and Fink Products

Corp., 192 Bloomfield Ave., Bloomfield, N.J.

J. J. Tomlinson, (Chairman, Aerosol Division) Allied Chemical Corp., 40

Rector St., New York 6, N.Y.

Cleo Wrap Corp.

:

E. B. Tenney, Vice President, Operations, 4025 Viscount, Memphis, Tenn.

38118. Coca-Cola Co.

:

R. F. Atwood, Attorney, 310 North Ave., N.W., Atlanta, Ga. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

:

E. S. Wilkins, Attorney, 300 Park Ave., New York, N.Y. 10022.

E. E. Wolski, Manager of Quality Control. Corn Products Co.

:

W. S. Adams, Vice President—General Counsel, 717 5th Ave., New York, N.Y. W. F. Cody, Attorney. K. M. Pearson, Packaging Engineer.

Virginia McCarthy, Statistician, Best Foods Division, 99 Ave., A, Bayonne,

N.J. Dairy and Food Industries Supply Association : W. H. Criss, Technical Assistant, 1145 19th St., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20036. D. H. Williams, Technical Director. 221
Dairy Industry Newsletter

:

A. Olivia Nicoll, Editor, 457 Miinsey Building, Washington, D.C.

Distilled Spirits Institute

:

A. P. Bryan, Assistant Director, Division of Press & Public Relations, 1132 Pennsylvania Building, Washington, D.C. 20004. Dixie Pipeline Co.

:

R. P. Dougherty, Vice President, 3376 Peachtree St., Atlanta, Ga. H. C. Williams, Chief Engineer.

DuPont, E. I., de Nemours & Co.

:

M. B. Lore, P.O. Box 406, Wilmington, Del. 19898.

F. T. Reed, Division Head, Freon Products Laboratory.

F. D. Sparre, Legal Department.

Economics Laboratory, Inc.

:

J. E. Magistad, Corporate Counsel, Guardian Building, St. Paul, Minn.

Faultless Starch Company

:

D. O. Smart, Technical Director, 1025 W. 8th St., Kansas City, Mo. 64101. Flo Time Ticket Printer, Inc.

:

Sidney Sherman, President, 1046 N. Arlington Ave., Baltimore, Md. 21217. Folding Paper Box Association of America : G. L. Nordstrom, Executive Director, 222 W. Adams St., Chicago 6, 111. Food Chemical News

:

Ray Galant, Assistant to the Editor, 602 Warner Building, Washington, D.C.

Frito-Lay, Inc.

:

J. W. Gee, Packaging Manager, P.O. Box 35034, Exchange Bank Building,

Dallas, Tex. General Foods Corp.

:

J. J. Halsey, Special Projects Manager, 250 North Street, White Plains, N.Y.

J. A. Riegel, Attorney.

General Mills, Inc.

:

D. B. Colpitts, 1081 21st Ave., S.E., Minneapolis 14, Minn.

O. A. Oudal, Director of Central Quality Control Laboratory.

Gerber Products Co.

:

R. C. Frodey, Director of New Products, Fremont, Mich.

Gillette Co.

:

C. F. Woodard, General Counsel, Gillette Park, Boston, Mass.

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

:

C. E. Wagner, Development Engineer, 99 Park Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc.

:

Mary A. Newman, Director of the Board, 10501 Rhode Island Ave., Beltsville, Md.

Dorothy Wheeler, Vice Chairman, Fairlington Delegation.

Greeting Card Association

:

S. Q. Shannon, Executive Director, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10020. Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc.

:

F. T. Dierson, General Counsel, 205 E. 42d St., New York, N.Y. 10017. Heinz, H. J., Co.

:

D. W. Leeper, Manager, Food Regulation Administration, Progress St., Pittsburgh 30, Pa. Hertz Corp.

:

L. B. Mewhinney, Associate Corporation Counsel, 660 Madison Ave., New

York 21, N.Y.

F. J. Waters, Attorney, 727 N. 7th St., Los Angeles 17, Calif. Hudson Pulp & Paper Corp.

:

Robert Karpeles, Product Manager. 477 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y.

J. H. Maass, Assistant Secretary.

Humble Oil & Refining Co.

:

R. A. Hartman. Oil Loss Prevention Coordinator, 60 W. 49th St., New York

19, N.Y.

L. E. Kielman, Construction & Maintenance Manager, P.O. Box 1288, Baltimore. Md. 21203. International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers & Milk Industry

Foundation

:

J. F. Speer, Executive Assistant, 1105 Barr Building, Washington, D.C. 20006. International Packers, Ltd.

:

A. F. Gollnick, Director of Operations, 135 South La Salle St., Chicago 3. 111. Kelling Nut Co. and Peanut & Nut Salters Association : C. E. Johnson. Senior Vice President. 2800 W. Belmont Ave., Chicago, 111. 60618 222
Kraft Foods

G. M. Burditt, Attorney, Chadwell, Keck, Kayser, Ruggles & McLaren, 135 South LaSalle Street, Chicago 3, 111. J. B. Stine, National Production Manager, 500 Peshtigo Ct, Ghicago, 111. C. E. White, Production Technician. Label Manufacturers National Association, Inc.

Betty Horn, Administrative Assistant, Shoreham Building, 15th & H Streets, N.W., Washington 6, D.C. Lever Brothers Co.

W. L. Button, Jr., Plant Operations Manager, 390 Park Ave., New York, N. Y. A. P. Driggs, Lawyer.

Markel & Hill

M. F. Markel, Owner, Law Firm, Munsey Building, Washington 4, D.C. McCormick & Co., Inc.

R. E. Bradshaw, Specifications Engineer, 414 Light St., Baltimore 2, Md.

R. J. George, Associate Counsel. McGraw-Hill Publications

J. B. Nicholson, Reporter, 1189 National Press Building, Washington, D.C.

I Millers' National Federation : F. H. Mewhinney, Washington Representative, 752 National Press Building,

Washington 4, D.C. Modern Packaging

Seth Paine, Correspondent, 770 Lexington Ave., New York 21, N.Y. Lloyd Stouffer, Editor. Moore, Benjamin, & Co.

R. H. Higgons, Assistant to Technical Director, 548 5th Ave., New York 36, N.Y.

I National Association of Dairy Equipment Manufacturers : John Marshall, Executive Vice President, 1012 14th St., N.W., Washington

D.C. 20005.

I National Association of Frozen Food Packers : L. S. Fenn, 919 18th St., N.W., Washington 6, D.C. National Association of Margarine Manufacturers : R. R. Stone, Assistant to the President, Suite 545 Munsey Building, Washington,

D.C. 20004. National Canners Association

J. W. Bell, Assistant to the Executive Vice President, 1133 20th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036. H. E. Dunkelberger, Jr., Counsel, Union Trust Building, Washington, D.C. National Confectioners Association

E. H. Hoffman, Director of Special Services, 36 S. Wabash Ave., Chicago, 111. 60603. National Consumers League

Sarah H. Newman, Executive Secretary, 1029 Vermont Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. National Fisheries Institute

H, W. Magnusson, Technology Director, 1614 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20009. National Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association

A. C. Kretjtzer, Vice President & Counsel, 11 S. LaSalle St., Chicago, 111. 60603. National Paint, Varnish, & Lacquer Association : D. S. Ring, General Counsel, 1500 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Nestle Company, Inc.

D. O. Lynch, Assistant Secretary, 100 Bloomingdale Road, White Plains, N.Y.

B. Murray, Manager, Quality Control. Pace, Inc.

R. D. Harwick, Secretary-Treasurer, P.O. Box 206, Wilmington, Del. 19899. Package Engineering

R. A. Laubhan, Associate Editor, 185 N. Wabash Ave., Chicago, 111. Packaging Institute

J. W. Field, Managing Director, 342 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. Paper Cup and Container Institute : R. W. Foster, Executive Manager, 250 Park Ave., New York, N.Y. W. V. Hickey, Field Service Representative. D. H. Carleton, Administrative Manager.

L. J. Moremen, Manager, General Services. Paper Stationery & Tablet Manufacturers Association, Inc.

R. L. Bullington, Eastern Regional Manager, Westab, Inc., Richmond, Va.

E. P. Eaton, Executive Secretary, Suite 2301, 444 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y.

10022. 223
Pargas, Inc.

:

W. A. Schuette, President, Box 67, Waldorf, Md.

Pepperidge Farm, Inc.

:

C. H. Brown, Manager, Product Development Services, Westport Ave., Norwalk, Conn.

Pepsi-Cola Company

:

A. H. England, Packaging Manager, 46-00 Fifth St., Long Island City 1, N.Y. Pet Milk Co.

:

Eunice C. Cox, Attorney, P.O. Box 392, Main Post Office, St. Louis, Mo. 63166.

L. R. Hopkins, Special Representative, Whitman Division, P.O. Box 688

Philadelphia 5, Pa.

Phillips Petroleum Co.

:

J. W. Hale, Technical Consultant, 8A1 Phillips Building, Bartlesville, Okla. Pillsbury Co.

:

C. E. Joyce, General Claim Manager, 608 Second Ave., South, Pillsbury Building,

Minneapolis, Minn. 55402. Plasti-Kote Co.

:

F. J. Cachat, Technical Director, 1000 Lake Rd., Medina, Ohio, Procter and Gamble Co.

:

D. R. Byerly, Associate Director, Product Development, Winton Hill Technical Center, Cincinnati 24, Ohio.

J. H. Chaloud, Associate Director, Ivorydale Technical Center, Cincinnati 17, Ohio.

G. O. Charrier, Section Head.

O. J. Hausknecht, Head. Factory Service, Soap Products Weights and

Measures. George Hopper, Attorney, Legal Division. P.O. Box 599, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201

C. R. Test, Company Counsel. Produce Packaging Association, Inc.

:

R. B. Hunte, Administrative Assistant, P.O. Box 29, Newark, Del. Pure Food Co.

:

Alan Alpert, Chemist, Mamaroneck, N.Y. Purex Corp., Ltd.

:

L. O. Leenerts. Technical Assistant, Corporate Legal Office, 5101 Clark Ave., Lakewood, Calif. Quaker Oats Co.

:

F. A. Dobbins. Quality Control Manager, 345 Merchandise Mart, Chicago, 111. 60654. Renuzit Home Products Co.

:

Kenneth Klausner. Product Manager, 3018 Market St., Philadelphia, Pa. Republic Steel Corp.

:

D. R. Smith, Corporation Weighing Supervisor, 410 Oberlin Rd., S.W., Massillon, Ohio. Riegel Paper Corp

:

R. M. Holmes, Director of Structural Development, 5800 Peachtree Rd.. Chamblee, Ga.

Scale Journal Publishing Co.

:

Sylvia T. Pickell. Business Manager, 176 W. Adams St., Chicago 3, 111. Scale Manufacturers Association, Inc.

:

Arthur Sanders, Executive Secretary, No. 1 Thomas Circle. Room 304. Washington 5, D.C.

Scott, O. M., & Sons : _R. T. Bangs, Agronomist, Marysville, Ohio.

Scott Paper Co.

:

S. A. Armstrong, Assistant Secretary, Philadelphia, Pa. Seaboard Manufacturing Laboratories, Inc.

:

Morris Weiss, President. (Petroleum Packaging Committee), N.W. Cor. 5th and Callowhill Streets, Philadelphia 23, Pa. Sears Roebuck & Company : J. E. Lehrer, Attorney, Department 766, 925 S. Homan Ave., Chicago. 111. 60607. Seven-Up Co.

:

K. J. Beeby, Attorney, 1300 Delmar Boulevard, St. Louis, Mo.

Sherwin-Williams Co.

:

Bruce Homer, Attorney, 101 Prospect Ave., Cleveland 1, Ohio.

Skelly Oil Co.

:

B. R. Wellington. Assistant Chief Engineer, P.O. Box 436, Kansas City, Mo. 224
Soap and Detergent Association : Anne M. Fallon, Staff Member, 295 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017. Sprayon Products, Inc.

:

J. W. Marchbank, Technical Director, 26300 Fargo Ave, Bedford Heights,

Ohio.

Staley, A. E., Manufacturing Co.

:

J. F. Coedes, Industrial Engineer, 2200 Eldorado, Decatur, 111. R. F. Daily, Legal Counsel. D. P. Langlois, Director, Market Development Services. Standard Packaging Corp.

:

A. S. Thanhauser, Director of Sales, Cup Division, 200 E. 42d St., New York

17, N.Y. Suburban Propane Gas Corp.

:

W. S. Bigelow, Secretary, P.O. Box 206, Whippany, N.J. D. R. Jones, District Manager, Gainesville, Va. Sunshine Biscuits

:

A. W. DeBirny, Counsel, Long Island City 1, N.Y. Swift & Co.

:

W. J. Condon, Attorney, 19 W. 44th St., New York 36. N.Y. H. L. Hensel, Attorney, 115 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago. 111. Texaco, Inc.

:

J. W. Apgar, Assistant Superintendent, Construction, 135 E. 42d St., New

York, N.Y. Thread Institute, Inc.

:

W. F. Operer, Executive Director, 15 E. 40th St., New York, N.Y. 10016. Tissue Association : C. J. Carey, Executive Secretary, 122 E. 42d St., New York, N.Y., 10017. Toilet Goods Association

:

Fuller Holloway, Counsel, 888 17th St., Washington 6, D.C.

Tuttle Press Co.

:

H. W. Bailey, President, 802 N. Union, Appleton, Wis.

Union Carbide Corp.

:

W. M. Sawers, Manager, Special Services, Food Products Division, 777 14th

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. United Press International

:

J. T. R. Pierson, Reporter, 1302 Main Treasury Building, Washington, D.C. Welch Grape Juice Co., Inc.

:

J. D. Riley, Legal-Tax-Insurance Manager, Welch Block, Westfield, N.Y. Western Weighing & Inspection Bureau : C. G. Johnson, General Supervisor, Grain Door-Weighing Services, Room 450 Union Station, Chicago, 111. 60606. Other Guests

Alfred State Tech, Agricultural and Technical Institute, Alfred, N.Y.

:

M. E. Van Hall. Dean of Student Academic Programs.

G. S. Whitney, Dean of Engineering Technologies. H. W. Koch, Scholarship Fund Director. Canada

:

R. W. MacLean, Director, Standards Branch, Department of Trade and

Commerce, Ottawa. England

:

T. L. E. Gregory, Chief Inspector, Weights and Measures Department,

Nottingham.

Mrs. E. A. Yates, County Councillor (Chairman of the Nottinghamshire Public Control Committee), Ripon House, 42 Seymour Rd., West Bridgford.

Nottingham.

Retired

:

Charles Bauer, 328 W. Ridge Rd.. Gary. Ind. W. M. Hoxie, 2365 Memorial Dr., North Muskegon, Mich.

O. H. Watson, 232 Millbridge Rd., Riverside, 111. Staff Guest

:

G. H. Borders.

225



SELECTED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PUBLICATIONS OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBS Handbook 44,

1961 (Replacement Sheets

issued annually)

NBS Handbook 67

NBS Handbook 82

NBS Handbook 98

NBS Circular 501

NBS Circular 540

NBS Circular 593

NBS Miscellaneous Publication 233

NBS Miscellaneous Publication 247

NBS Technical

Note 195

NBS Technical

Note 196

Specifications, Tolerances, and Regulations for Commercial Weighing

and Measuring Devices. Looseleaf

(binder not included) $1. 25

Checking Prepackaged Commodities . 35

Weights and Measures Administration 1. 75

Examination of Farm Milk Tanks . 35

Federal and State Weights and

Measures Laws 6. 50

Weights and Measures Case Reference

Book 1.25

Federal Basis for Weights and Measures . 30

Units of Weight and Measure—Definitions and Tables of Equivalents . 40

Weights and Measures Standards of the United States—a brief history . 35

Report on Technical Investigation of Odometers . 25

Report of the Investigation of SlowFlow Meters for Fuel Oil Distribution Systems . 20

REPORTS OF THE

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1963 Miscellaneous Publication 254 75^

Index to the Reports of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures from the First to the Fortyfifth, 1905 to 1960 Miscellaneous Publication 243 40^

ORDER ALL PUBLICATIONS, WITH REMITTANCE, FROM THE

SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., 20402.