Ref

COMMERCE

PUBLICATION

National Bureau of Standards

Library, E-01 Admin. Bidg.

MAT x4 1971

Reference bock not to bi

taken from the library.

U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT

INTERNATIONAL

STANDARDS

U.S. METRIC STUDY

U.S.

IC— TMENT

)0 OF

Si MERGE

3«^S.)lational

Bureau

of

nJ:jndards

BS SP 345-1

METRIC STUDY REPORT

INTERNATIONAL

STANDARDS

First of a series of reports prepared

for the Congress

U.S. METRIC STUDY

Daniel V. De Simone, Director

National Bureau of Standards

-^.Special Publication 345-1 .

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Maurice H. Stans, Secretary

U. S.NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS,

• » * Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-1, 157 pages (December 1970)

CODEN: XNBSA

Issued December 1970

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

(Order by SD Catalog No. C 13.10:345-1), Price $1.25

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

Honorable Maurice H. Stans

Secretary of Commerce

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I have the honor to transmit to you an interim report of the U.S. Metric

Study, which is being conducted at the National Bureau of Standards at your

request and in accordance with the Metric Study Act of 1968.

The Study is exploring the subjects assigned to it with great care. Numerous surveys and investigations have been launched to obtain primary

data with respect to the issues of metrication. In addition, we are holding a

series of National Metric Study Conferences that will provide an opportunity for major groups and organizations representing the various sectors of our

society to express their views with respect to these issues.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report reflect a

substantial concern about the need to strengthen the effectiveness of the

United States in international standards negotiations. Because this report

has been prepared as an offshoot of our inquiry into the issues of metrication, it does not consider specific means to achieve such increased effective- ness. Rather, it calls attention to significant events and trends that have

come to light in our Metric Study and have led us to certain basic conclusions. If you concur with these conclusions and our recommendations, you

may wish to give further attention to the possibility of Federal leadership in

encouraging greater support by U.S. industry for international standardization, the desirability of substantial Federal assistance to our private sector

standardizing institutions, and other alternatives that might emerge from a thorough review of this question with such institutions and other interested

parties.

Sincerely,

Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

National Bureau of Standards

Enclosure

FOREWORD

This is an interim report in the U.S. Metric Study. It concerns developments in the field of international standards; a subject that is little known and

even less appreciated in terms of its importance to the international transfer

of goods and technology.

Its purpose is to call attention to some preliminary findings and to recom- mend that certain actions be taken, quite apart from the ultimate issue of

what the United States should do with respect to metrication. This issue will

be embraced in the final report of this Study to the Congress, which will be

made by the Secretary of Commerce in August of 1 97 1

.

This report was prepared by a Metric Study task force, headed by Dr.

Robert D. Huntoon and including Dr. Robert D. Stiehler, Dr. A. Allan

Bates, and Mr. Myron G. Domsitz. Important contributions were made by

Mr. Richard O. Simpson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Product Standards, Dr. Allen V. Astin, Director Emeritus of the National

Bureau of Standards, and Mr. Donald L. Peyton, Managing Director of the

American National Standards Institute.

As in all aspects of the U.S. Metric Study, thoughtful assistance and counsel were given by members of the Metric Study Advisory Panel in the

preparation of this interim report. In particular, we are grateful for the contributions made by Mr. Louis F. Polk, chairman of the panel, Mr. Francis L.

LaQue, the vice chairman, and the panel's executive committee: Mr. John

Clark, Dr. Doris Hanson, Mr. Vernon Jirikowic, Mr. Richard Kropf, Mr.

Roy P. Trowbridge, and Dr. William E. Zeiter.

Daniel V. De Simone, Director

U.S. Metric Study

VII
CONTENTS

Page

Letters of Transmittal III, V

Foreword V 1

1

I. Introduction and Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations 1

II. Nature of the U.S. Metric Study 5

III. The Dynamic Environment 11

IV. Evaluation and Conclusions 21

V. Recommendations 31

Appendix 1 — U.S. Metric Study Group and the Metric Study Act 33

Appendix 2 — Charter and Membership of Advisory Panel 35

Appendix 3 -The U.S. Metric Study Plan 39

Appendix 4 — Engineering Standards 5

1

Appendix 5 — Selected Questionnaires Being Employed in the U.S.

Metric Study 65

VIII
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

OF CONCLUSIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In the two years following the enactment of the Metric Study Act,' the

"increasing worldwide use of the metric system," which was the primary concern leading to its passage, has expanded to encompass virtually the entire world. The one notable exception to this worldwide trend is the United

States.

These years have also seen an acceleration in the internationalization of

engineering standards, which use a nation's measurement language as a basis

for product quality, uniformity and compatibility. Engineering standards

have served as a keystone in our domestic industrial development, as they

have in other industrialized nations. In Europe it is now being proposed that

such standards be coupled with product certification procedures. Products

not certified as satisfying the applicable standards may effectively be barred

from the markets in question until proper certification is secured. This

proposal, if put into effect, will signal substantial influences upon "international trade, commerce and other areas of international relations," an area

of concern expressly highlighted in the Metric Study Act.

Accordingly, since these developments with respect to international stan- dards are believed important, the purpose of this interim report is to call at- tention to them. The United States may or may not emerge as a fully ac- cepted participant in this new arrangement of the world market, depending

' Public Law 90-472, which established the U.S. Metric Study in August 1968, is commonly

referred to as the "Metric Study Act." See appendix 1 for the full text of this Act.

1
2 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Upon the policies established and actions taken in response to these developments within the next two to three years. If in keeping with our general policy to work toward greater openness and harmony in world affairs, the U.S.

goal is full participation, certain actions must be taken soon in order to

achieve this end. On the other hand, if we do not seek such participation,

what the U.S. may gain or lose as a consequence should be clearly un- derstood so that a rational choice can be made. It is the purpose of this in- terim report to bring these issues up for full consideration, provide a basis for

their evaluation, and indicate some courses of action.

In the chapters that follow, attention is first focused upon the U.S. Metric

Study itself in order to explain how it comes to pass that an international

standards problem emerges from it and to put this problem in proper perspective with the rest of the Study. Proper interpretation requires an un- derstanding, not commonly found, of engineering standards — their nature,

genesis, and relation to measurement usage. In addition, the vital role they

play in the development of an industrial economy needs to be understood, as does their international role, where they may defend and propagate our

technology and engineering practices. Such an explanation is provided in

appendix 4 for the reader who is not already familiar with the subject of en- gineering standards.

Rapidly developing events and trends that have come to light in the course

of the Metric Study are portrayed in the chapter entitled "Dynamic Environment," to show how these events have moved into the present stage calling

for action. An analysis of their impact and the conclusions to be drawn

therefrom appear under the heading of "Evaluation and Conclusions."

Finally, the general nature of the action required, depending upon our national goal, is explained in the "Recommendations."

Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report reflect a

substantial concern about the need to strengthen the effectiveness of the

United States in international standards activities. In brief, these conclusions and recommendations are as follows.-

CONCLUSIONS p^g.

Conclusion 1: The international standards issue lends some support to a metric conversion in the United States, but other important issues must also be considered and weighed before an overall

judgment can be made. 25

Conclusion 2: The Metric Study cannot and should not be ex- pected to provide answers for the nonmetric issues raised by the

events and trends described in this report. 25

Conclusion 3: If the U.S. wishes to see the maximum amount of

its engineering practices and standards included in the coming international standards, it must, without delay, take steps for adequate

and effective participation in international standards negotiations. 25

- The number in the margin refers to the page in the text where the conclusion or recommendation appears.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Two points about this third conclusion require emphasis: P^s^

a. The question of the extent to which participation in international standardization is in the best interest of the United

States must be decided on the basis of considerations that are beyond the scope of the U.S. Metric Study. 25

b. This decision need not (and should not) await the outcome of

the Metric Study. 25

Conclusion 4: If the United States increases and makes more ef- fective its participation in international standards-making activities,

then the degree of incompatibility between U.S. domestic stan- dards and international recommendations would be reduced, and a U.S. metrication program would be facilitated, should we take this course. 26

Conclusion 5: Relatively modest changes in the import-export

pattern of measurement sensitive goods can have a serious impact

on the U.S. balance of payments. Hence, the relation between stan- dards, standards utilization and trade should be the subject of careful study to develop the policy basis for U.S. participation in international standards development and utilization. 26

Conclusion 6: SI usage in international standards as a language

does not of itself pose any serious complications to the U.S. 28

Conclusion 7: Product certification emerges as a primary consideration in the utilization of standards. 28

Conclusion 8: Some product certification scheme for exports

will probably be required to maintain a competitive position if European plans are successful. It can be either a plan compatible with

those now developing in Europe or a distinctively U.S. approach,

conceived to provide adequate assurance that U.S. export products

meet a set of explicitly stated standards. 28

Conclusion 9: If the U.S. elects to certify products in terms of

lEC-ISO standards, it must recognize that the critical decade of

standards development is here and take the necessary steps for participation. 28

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1 : The Department of Commerce should take

appropriate steps to determine whether the economic impact of

agreements such as the Tripartite Agreement can be expected to af- fect the U.S. balance of payments significantly or otherwise work

against the best interests of the United States. 3

1

Recommendation 2: The Department of Commerce should

devise, in concert with other interested Federal agencies and

responsible standardizing institutions, a firm U.S. policy about

participation in international standards activities, including what

role the Government should play and provisions for furthering

the public interest as well as the competitive position of U.S.

industry in world trade. 3

1
4 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Recommendation 3: If such a policy dictates increased par- Page

ticipation, appropriate steps should be taken to see that such

participation is sufficient to meet the rapidly increasing international standardization activities that have been predicted for this

decade. 32

Recommendation 4: The Department of Commerce should, in

concert with other interested Federal agencies, initiate action to

determine whether or not the United States should participate in

international product certification agreements. If adherence to such

agreements is deemed desirable, an appropriate mechanism for

certification within the U.S. should be developed. If adherence is not believed warranted, the U.S. should ensure that an appropriate

alternative strategy is devised and followed. 32

Recommendation 5: Finally, the actions indicated above

should be taken without awaiting the outcome of the U.S. Metric

Study, but drawing upon it for relevant information. 32
II. NATURE OF THE U.S. METRIC STUDY

"We seek an open world — open to ideas, open to the exchange of goods

and people — a world in which no people, great or small, will live in angry

isolation." These words from President Nixon's inaugural address, and

similar declarations by American Presidents over recent decades, provide a context for the U.S. Metric Study. American Space Technology has made

every nation aware of our global interdependence. More than ever we are acutely aware of the need to learn to live together in peace and harmony on

our spaceship Earth. Enterprise and Technology have produced wealth that

spreads beyond national boundaries. As technology continues to advance in- dustrial productivity, markets of global scales are needed to realize potential production and market efficiencies.

Unfortunately, environmental pollution, as well as wealth, spreads out

across national boundaries. National interdependence goes beyond commercial relations, cultural contact and political accommodation. We share the

same environment. We are netted together through the same communications and transportation systems. Most important of all, we live in a world in

which survival is increasingly dependent on knowledge and understanding.

And this knowledge, especially scientific and technical knowledge, being nature's truths, is every man's legacy. By harmonizing our actions on the basis

of this universal knowledge, mankind may learn to live in harmony with na- ture and with itself. As we recognize the growing interdependence of nations, we must also

realize that each individual's freedom of action is necessarily limited to some

degree by that interdependence. Yet this independence of the individual has

been the principal source of our national strength, in both spiritual and prac5
6 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

tical terms. The achievement of international harmony does not necessarily

require uniformity of customs and practices. It is essential that we identify

and preserve as much freedom of action as possible in those areas where

uniformity is not indeed necessary. Evaluation of the virtues of uniformity

must rest on a rational evaluation of the consequences of continued nonuniformity.

In this respect, the Congressional debate leading to the passage of Public

Law 90-472 represented a far more practical understanding of the nature of

the metric problem than was reflected in the turbulence of earlier Congressional debates on this subject. Many times in the last hundred years passions

have been inflamed on both sides of this issue, but rarely did the debate rise

above a purely emotional level. This time the Congress, after eleven years of

discussion, did not ask, "devise a plan for conversion to metric usage," or even, "answer the question: should the United States convert to metric

usage?" Instead, the Congress asked the Department of Commerce to

"determine the impact of increasing worldwide use of the metric system on

the United States . . . ." We were further asked to consider "the desirability

and practicability of increasing use of metric weights and measures," but

also to study "the feasibility of retaining and promoting . . . engineering

standards based on the customary measurement units. . . ." Finally, we are

to "evaluate the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action which

may be feasible for the United States."

The Congress specifically directs that in carrying out this investigation we

should examine the impact of current trends and possible U.S. courses of ac- tion on international trade and commerce, U.S. national security, our international relations, and the possible practical difficulties that might be en- countered should the metric system be increasingly used in this country.

The law requires that we give special attention to the "advantages, disadvantages and problems associated with possible changes in either the system

of measurement units or the related dimensional and engineering standards

currently in use in the United States." In this connection the law recognizes

that international harmonization of industrial practices is not a one-way

street. U.S. technology and practices are adopted in the industrial life of every nation on earth, at least to some degree. Thus, we must distinguish very carefully between changes in measurement language and requirements for industrial redesign. We must determine where U.S. self-interest

lies with respect to international harmonization of industrial standards, and

then must carefully examine the extent to which our measurement language

influences our objectives in international standards negotiations.

Thus, the Congress has asked us to attempt a thorough and rational analysis of the impact on the United States of present world trends with respect to

measurement language. Conformity with the world trend toward metrication

is not to be accepted as an inviolable postulate, nor is it to be stricken aside

as alien to our culture.

Planning and execution of the study have been assigned to the National

Bureau of Standards, an institution with extensive experience in measure- ment and its applications, large-scale involvement in the development of the

nation's voluntary engineering standards, and national acceptance as a resource for unbiased technically based studies.
NATURE OF THE U.S. METRIC STUDY

In keeping with this tradition, the National Bureau of Standards is now en- gaged in the implementation of a study plan developed in consultation with

its Advisory Panel.^ The study undertakes to provide what perhaps no other

nation has yet achieved: a rational evaluation of the nation's alternative courses of action, openly arrived at, with full participation from all sectors

of the society.

The metric system is a measurement language. To be more precise, since

there are some variations among metric systems, we use the term to mean

the International System (SI) adopted in 1960 by the General Conference of

Weights and Measures, in which the United States was a participant. This is an international treaty organization, established by the Treaty of the Meter

in 1875, to which the U.S. and forty-two other nations formally adhere. The

International System is the first essentially complete, internationally harmonized system of compatible scientific measurement units. It is based on

the meter, kilogram, and second, but of course also includes thermal, electrical, mechanical, radiometric and photometric units. All modern industrial

nations (in particular the signatories to the Treaty of the Meter) assure the

compatibility of their scientific measurement system, at the highest levels of

precision, through SI standards and their intercomparison. To this extent, the

United States has been metric for nearly a hundred years. The measurement

standards, as maintained at the National Bureau of Standards, are all SI Standards. The U.S. customary measurement standards (pound-yard-secondFahrenheit) are exactly defined by a specified numerical ratio to the fundamental SI Standards. Thus, our customary measurement standards are, in

fact, derived from SI Standards.

The United States is formally and legally bi-lingual with respect to measurement systems. Since the middle of the last century, the United States, by

act of Congress, has declared metric units legal in Commerce and in other

uses. In actual practice, of course, scientists and engineers are multi-lingual.

That is, we use many different systems of measurement units interchangeably, creating and adapting each to the needs of specialized fields of re- search. That this is so is of little public consequence. It is only important to

realize that under some circumstances it is not only possible but desirable

to permit the co-existence of more than one system of measurement

language. So long as we know the quantitative relationship between measure- ment languages — that is, so long as each measurement language is precisely

defined with respect to a formally adopted base language (SI) — we can translate exactly from one language to another. We must, however, not underrate

the importance of properly handling the question of diversity versus uniformity in our measurement language.

Moreover, technology is changing the impact of metrication. For

example, in this country a very large fraction of consumer goods are now sold in prepackaged form with weights and measures established at the

factory and printed on the package. For these products, a change to metric

language is a software change, quite different from the hardware change

required when materials are served in bulk and the measuring instrument

must be at the retail outlet. The rapid growth of numerically controlled

See appendix 2 for the membership of this advisory panel and the salient provisions of its

charter.
8 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

machine tools again brings in the possibility of mixed production of metric

and customary designed objects, fabricated on the same machine and subject

to control by properly translated programs. The Metric Study hopes to identify and document circumstances such as these which, if extrapolated

some years into the future, will give a clear picture of the environment within

which a future metric conversion might take place. Similarly, there may be

other effects, such as a very high degree of interlocking of many industries

dependent upon the same set of standardized components and materials

based on customary units, that will make conversion increasingly difficult. It

is thus essential that the Study undertake to measure not only the present

circumstances with respect to metric usage, but expected changes in the near future.

Clearly, the almost worldwide use of the metric system must be accepted

as a fact of life, and the U.S. must learn to live with it. Adjustments within

the U.S. are being made and will continue to be made in the absence of any

recommendations from our Study. Examples surround us, ranging from simple to complex. The American visitor abroad makes mental adjustments for

distance and temperature announcements, the physicist switches language

when he listens to the engineer. Manufacturers who prepackage for both

American and foreign markets, such as our neighbors in Latin America,

commonly print both English and metric weights on the package. The pharmaceutical industry is substantially converted to metric usage, and the ball

bearing industry is rapidly in the process of the same transition. Newspapers

display air pollution regulations in metric dimensions. Farmers use fertilizers

whose standards are in metric units. Swimming pools are commonly built to an integral number of meters in length in order to facilitate international

swimming competitions. And doctors write Rxs in the understandable metric

units. These are but a few examples.

The formulation of a Study plan consonant with the foregoing philosophy

and circumstances — and, in fact, the development of the philosophy it- self—has been a major undertaking of the Study. The structure of the plan

and the status of the numerous surveys and investigations that are underway

are described in appendix 3 of this report.

The essence of the plan is that courses of action that are feasible for the

U.S. must be examined for costs and benefits in all importantly relevant sec- tors of our society. Based upon this information, necessary tradeoffs should

be identified, consequences quantified, or otherwise described, and the

results injected into our legislative and executive political machinery for

resolution.

The legislative history of the Metric Study Act makes clear that the

Study should not become too narrowly focused upon the metrication

issue. The Study Group was therefore charged to see that concern for the

pros and cons of metrication would not be allowed to obscure possible findings, such as, for example, that worldwide metrication is but one aspect of a broader undertaking to compensate for some unique advantages already en- joyed by the U.S. without benefit of metrication, in which case some course

of action in addition to, or instead of, further metrication may be required.

The wisdom of this legislative precaution has already been demonstrated.
NATURE OF THE U.S. METRIC STUDY

Evidence has appeared which indicates that worldwide metrication may be

coupled to and, in part, be a manifestation of a much broader effort to develop

an integrated market, in Europe for a start, comparable to that enjoyed by the

U.S. domestically. International product quality assurance, backed by seals

of compliance, may become another basis for forging such an integrated market. International standards are being used as the basis for definition and

verification of product quality and compatibility. SI is to be the primary language for the standards, but agreements about quantitative parameters will

predominantly reflect the technology and engineering practices of the dominant participants in international standards negotiations.

The chapters that follow show the nature of these developments, their in- teresting but secondary dependence upon metrication, their rapidity of

development, and the need for the U.S. to decide upon its response to these

developments, without awaiting the outcome of the Metric Study. This need

is felt to be sufficiently urgent to warrant this interim report, which is being

submitted in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 90-472, the Metric Study Act.

III. THE DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT

A. International Trade and Metrication

The Metric Study Act directs the Secretary "to determine the impact of

increasing worldwide use of the metric system on the United States," and in

particular, to give attention to "international trade, commerce, and in military and other areas of international relations." The statute and its legislative

history make clear that this "increasing worldwide use of the metric system"

is a principal cause for concern. If the nature of this increase is such as to

have strong effects on international trade (for example, various restrictive

laws), then the basis of concern in this country may be heightened.

The Congress therefore has a strong interest in the interplay between metrication and areas of international relations, including foreign trade.

Theoretically, at least, this interplay may be manipulated to help or hinder

free trade and involves both the language of measurement and the con- sequent engineering standards that determine such things as the size of a nut or bolt. The measurement language used to describe U.S. products or to

measure them for sale abroad should be a relatively minor impediment to the

trading process:

"The metric system per se is not the real meat of the subject but,

rather, is the catalyst which is causing most of us to do some soulsearching about our national and international standards activities and

the relatively poor progress we are making in comparison with the

stepped up activities in most of the other countries. We tend to blame

our poor performance on the difference in the units of measure that are

11
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

used to describe our standards and some of this may be justified, but

units of measure are not the only reason."^

Engineering standards are involved, because U.S. products may not be

compatible with other products in the foreign market, if they are made to dif- ferent engineering standards. This can have a very direct effect upon the

two-way flow of trade and upon the engineering practices or technology of

each participating nation. Incompatibilities of this kind arise naturally out

of the standards process itself and are not necessarily an artificial restraint

on trade. However, the use of standards can be so manipulated as to become

an artificial barrier. Consequently, the U.S. Metric Study has been examining and following recent events concerning standards development in other

countries, to the extent that these events may be related to the increasing

worldwide use of the metric system.

In this chapter we piresent, without interpretation, a series of events and

trends in the dynamic environment in which the U.S. Metric Study is immersed, and which must be taken into account in any assessment of the impact of metrication on international trade. There is a sense of urgency in all of this that may not be apparent:

"I find it hard to explain just why international standards should be

important .... But the conviction is strong, nevertheless. I could

point to growing imports of materials and equipment from overseas. I could note that our overseas subsidiaries are having to develop an independent standards program because U.S. based standards aren't responsive to their needs. But these are little clouds, no bigger than a man's

hand. They can't account for my view that we in the U.S. have only a few years to develop a strengthened and expanded system of national

standards, and that these national standards must then be advanced to

the level of international standards."^

B. Events

1. In January 1970 Australia declared its intent to proceed toward metrication of its standards and commerical practices. The Prime Minister

declared ^:

"Following detailed consideration of the recommendations made by

the Senate Select Committee on the adoption of the Metric System of

Weights and Measures, the Government has decided that Australia

should convert to the Metric System as soon as possible. . . . The

Government's aim is to complete the changeover during a period of ten

years, although conversion will be completed much sooner than this in

From "The Effect of Metrication Upon U.S. Engineering Standards," a paper presented by

William K. Burton, Metric System Development Manager, Ford Motor Co., at the Standards

Engineers Society Convention, September 23, 1970. Appendix 4 shows how this can happen.

" From "Standards Management in the Process Industries," a paper presented at the Stan- dards Engineers Society Convention, September 21, 1970. by W. G. Canham, Engineering

Standards Manager for the Monsanto Co.

' P.M. No. 12/1970, 19 Jan. 1970.
THE DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT

some sectors. ... By allowing time for natural obsolescence and

depreciation of plant and machinery, the cost of conversion will be

greatly reduced. Experience in other countries such as Japan — where

conversion is complete — has shown that by forethought and good

planning these costs can be greatly reduced. . . ."

2. In January 1 970 Canada released a "White Paper" proposing a general

policy concerning metric conversion, noting that:

"The Government believes that the question of metric conversion is one on which it is no longer possible to suspend judgment. . . . The

Government believes that adoption of the metric system of measure- ment is ultimately inevitable — and desirable — for Canada. . . . The

Government accordingly accepts eventual conversion as a definite objective of Canadian policy. ... If the inevitablility of eventual change is accepted, then the need to begin the process of change as soon as possible is obvious. . . . Accumulated investments around the older system

increase with time, and opportunities for conversion are missed as obsolete assets are replaced. . . . There would need to be increased participation in international standards development if the long-run trade

advantages of conversion are to be secured. . . ."

3. In 1969 the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

published its 1000th Standard Recommendation (ISO R-1000), which

"strongly recommends" maximum use of SI units in writing ISO standards.

The International Electrotechnical Commission (lEC), the electrical affiliate

of ISO, is pursuing the same policy. The authoritative journal of the British

Standards Institute (BSI News) in its June 1969 issue, stated:

"The publication of R-1000 by ISO marks, appropriately . . . the

establishment ... of the first truly international system of units.

ISO/R-1000 provides rules for the use of the Systeme International

d' Unites (SI Units) . . . and by recommending an internationally

agreed selection of multiples of these units . . . provides a valuable guide

to avoid the danger of each country and each industry making its own

selection [of units]."

4. A Tripartite Accord among the United Kingdom, France, and West

Germany was developed between 1967 and 1970. This agreement

establishes an international system covering electronic components, which:

a. Harmonizes standards for products in international trade

based upon available lEC recommendations in SI Units, and

b. Sets up an international scheme for quality assurance and

product certification to be used in common by signatory

nations.

5. The "EXACT" organization, (International Exchange of Authenticated Component Performance Test Data), sponsored by the Swedish

Government and participated in by Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Austria, has set out to do much the same thing in the field of data exchange for

electronic components as does the Tripartite Accord described above.
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

EXACT had its birth in the OECD; following a lack of complete support

from the OECD membership, the present group decided to proceed on its own. Whether the EXACT activity will continue an independent course is uncertain. The EXACT group invited U.S. membership, but the Electronic Industries Association has refrained from endorsing such participation.

6. The Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), at a meeting in February 1970 of government officials responsible for standardization policies, en- dorsed a proposal that standards used in international trade should be harmonized on the basis of ISO-IEC recommendations. At this meeting, ECE

also endorsed in principle a proposal that quality assurance and product certification programs relating to international trade should be based on ISOIEC recommendations, as follows:

"ECE governments should encourage their national standards

bodies to harmonize as far as possible their national standards with in- ternational recommendations ... in particular, those of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International

Electrotechnical Commission (I EC). . . . The meeting discussed the

question of the technical barriers to trade which result from disparate ar- rangements for issuance of national or international certificates of con- formity with standards, specifications, or regulations. A number of

delegations emphasized the importance of this problem and noted with

satisfaction the efforts already being made to find a solution by arranging for one country to accept the certificates of another. These delegations also expressed the hope that further additional schemes for the ac- ceptance of national certificates on a multilateral basis and on conditions to be determined would be made. . . ."

7. In March 1970 the Committee for the Coordination of European Standards in the Electrical Field (CENEL) accepted responsibility for administering an international product certification program for electronic

components, as proposed in the Tripartite Accord noted in 4 above.

CENEL includes all of the nations of the European Economic Community

(EEC) and of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). It now appears that the Tripartite activity will be absorbed in the CENEL-managed

plan, and that all western European countries will participate. This group of

nations has a combined population that is approaching 300 million.

8. At the May 1970 meeting of the I EC in Washington, the United States

proposed that the lEC establish a worldwide quality-control and certification program. The U.S. hopes that this lEC activity will supersede any of the

regional operations such as EXACT and that proposed for CENEL administration, and therefore open the door for U.S. participation. Clearly, the stan- dards employed would be those of the I EC. The Committee of Action of the

I EC expects to have a report showing what needs to be done by the time of

the next lEC meeting in May 1 97 1

.

9. In June 1970 the House of Commons of Canada passed Bill C-163,

providing for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada. The purpose of the Council is to promote voluntary standardization, both domesti-
THE DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT

cally and internationally. The Council is given the power to represent

Canada in the lEC, ISO and other relevant international organizations;

to make recommendations with respect to the use of, or conversion to, the

International System of Units in Canadian industry, trade and commerce;

to accredit organizations in Canada engaged in standards formulation,

testing and certification; and to promote arrangements with similar organizations in other countries with respect to standards, testing and certification.

C. Trends

In addition to the foregoing events which are definite and specific, a number of trends worthy of attention appear to be developing. These are:

1 . A marked acceleration in the production of international standards by

the lEC and the ISO. Figure 1 shows, year by year, the standards issued (including revisions) by the I EC. Figure 2 gives similar information for the

ISO. Since the curves present an oversimplified view to stress the rate of in- crease, tables I and II have been prepared to give a more representative picture. For the I EC the table shows that more than 80% of the standards now in

effect were promulgated in the last decade. For the ISO the figure is closer

to 90%.

Crude extrapolation (factor of 3 in every 5 -year period taken from the tables)

indicates that the next ten years will provide 9 times as many standards as

are now on the books. Thus, the tenfold increase needed by the world's

economy, as described in appendix 4, could be accomplished in the next

decade.

2. As the international standards organizations (ISO and lEC) accelerate

their production of standards, there is evidence of a trend among European

1950 54 57 60 63 66 69

YEAR
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

300

FIGURE 2

RECOMMENDATIONS

ISSUED BY ISO,

1951-1969

£ 200

ffi 3

z

100

1951 54 57 60

YEAR

63 66 69

nations and in developing nations to diminish their individual production of

Standards and adopt as their national standards ISO-IEC international standards. As the drive in Europe for harmonization of electrical and electronic

standards accelerates, it appears that the standardization efforts of European

countries are shifting from the writing of national standards to the writing of

I EC standards. Already, European nations are issuing I EC documents as national documents, sometimes by reference, sometimes by placing them

under a new cover giving national identity, and sometimes by incorporating

minor editorial changes. Furthermore, as the European delegates recognize

and attach more importance to their common interests, they can be expected

to approach unanimity in their viewpoints, with the possibility of bloc voting

by the CENEL membership at lEC meetings. In the more highly industrial

nations this trend emerges in the form of a leap-frogging action. In the case of Holland, for example, the standards-setting body in certain instances now

Table \. lEC Recommendations

1906-1938

1938-1949.....

1950-1954

1955-1959

1960-1964

1965-1969

Total 1950-1969

60 issued, 14 revised since 1950, 3 still active, the remainder superseded or

discontinued.

None issued

13 issued, 4 revised

53 issued, 16 revised

94 issued, 32 revised

272 issued, 42 revised

432 issued, 94 revised

Percent

3

13 24

59

100
THE DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT

Table II. ISO Recommendations

17

Percent 1950-1954

1955-1959

1960-1964

1965-1969

1 1 issued

126 issued

283 issued, 1 revised.. 786 issued, 36 revised

10 23

66

Total 1950-1969 1206 issued, 37 revised 100

skips the development of a national standard. In participates strongly in the

development of the international standard and then adopts the result as a national standard. In the United Kingdom and Germany a similar approach is developing.

3. In the United Kingdom the process of metrication is being used as an

occasion to "clean house" with regard to standards and related industrial

practices. Old standards of diminishing usefulness are being discarded rather

than translated into metric language (SI Units). Product lines are being

redesigned on the basis of simplified practices based on systems of metric

preferred number dimensions. Production costs will thus be reduced and

competitive commercial positions improved. As Lord Ritchie-Calder, the

Chairman of the British Metrication Board, has explained:

"There are, of course, many good reasons for going metric. I might mention the great opportunity which metrication offers to in- crease efficiency through technical innovation, modern precision, improvement in design and rationalisation. I think we here will all agree

that at the moment there is an incredible clutter, like going into a lumber

room, or even an archaeological spoil-heap, and trying to fit the past into

the future. The scope for improvement is enormous. For example, I have been told that one large company expects to reduce its range of

fasteners from 405 sizes to under 200. Another company will replace

more than 280 types of imperial size ball races with 30 types of metric

ball races. What we are talking about is the opportunity which going

metric gives to eliminate wasteful duplication in design and manufacture, and also in stock holding, because of the need to accommodate

customers still using imperial sizes. This will very quickly mean substantial, and in some cases very substantial, reductions."

As other nations go metric, similar housecleaning is likely. Metrication, of

course, does not require or insure the elimination of outmoded standards,

but it provides an incentive and an opportunity. ' •

4. The Tripartite Agreement, mentioned earlier, contemplates that a group

of nations (three to begin with) will be formed for purposes of facilitating in- ternational trade among the member nations of the group. The standards to

be used by the group shall be those of ISO or lEC, insofar as they are available. Producers in each member nation shall maintain quality assurance practices and testing methods agreed upon by all. A product may be certified by

any one member nation as having met an agreed quality practice and testing
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

by an approved method. Such a certified product will then be acceptable

without further test or question in all member nations of the group.

This seemingly complicated system for international approval of products

could actually greatly simplify and facilitate trade, especially in products of

high technological content. How far this plan will go is not ascertainable at

this time. The European Economic Community (EEC) has already proposed

over twenty major products or product areas to which applicability of the

plan will be studied. Many of these are areas in which the United States has a large export trade.

Again, it must be emphasized that the plan does not require adherence to a particular measurement system and the U.S. could probably belong, if it is willing to meet the other requirements relating to product evaluation and certification.

Examination of the dynamic environment would be incomplete without a look at the domestic scene, including some earlier unsuccessful efforts to improve U.S. participation and effectiveness in international standards.

D. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

In 1966 the USA Standards Institute, now known as ANSI, was

established. This provided an impetus for increased U.S. participation in

ISO and I EC activities, and this participation has grown to the point where

ANSI states that at the present time "The U.S. is represented in all ISO

committees where the U.S. industrial interest provides reasonable justification." Other aspects of ANSI involvement deserve attention.

1. Participation in ISO committee activities by itself is not enough; it must be effective. Effectiveness can only be determined by a complete analysis on a committee-by-committee basis.

2. Private support by member companies pays for ANSI operations, but

this support is diminishing and there appears to be a lack of understanding

among these members of the administrative costs faced by ANSI in support

of technical delegations to the ISO and lEC. Also, ANSI enjoys neither

government financial support nor the official recognition that is characteristic of its counterparts in other nations. In countries such as France, Germany, and the U.K., for example, the government provides such support and

official recognition to its standards institution.

3. Due to the financial squeeze, participation in some 25 technical committees is being reviewed to see how many can be dropped or curtailed along

with several secretariats. The United States now participates in 91 of the

131 ISO committees.**

4. ANSI is primarily responsive to the needs of its voluntary industrial

and other memberships and is not subject to government regulation or control in connection with voluntary standards, an arrangement that has the advantage of greater flexibility.

5. At the present time in the United States there is not sufficient authority

vested in the standards-making organizations or representatives of industry

who work and negotiate in international standards activities to commit the

See appendix 4.
THE DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT

nation to modify its standards constructively with ISO or lEC standards

recommendations. In many instances, U.S. participants approve ISO

standards which do not conform to U.S. domestic standards because the

U.S. participants recognize the need for an international standard for use by

other countries. In some instances, the international standard may be inferi- or to the U.S. standard. In other instances, it may have more severe requirements than are felt to be necessary in the U.S. And in still other cases the

metric aspects of the standard may not be at all applicable in the U.S. market

place. In general, there is a laissez faire attitude on the part of U.S.

participants.

E. Legislation

Serious, but unsuccessful, attempts within the Congress have been made

in the last few years to provide better support for U.S. participation in the

development of international standards.

On August 30, 1966, H.R. 17424 was introduced in the 89th Congress,

2nd Session. An identical bill, H.R. 17598, was introduced on September 8,

1966. In the Senate, S.3791 was introduced on August 31, 1966. The

declared purpose of these bills was "to promote and support adequate

representation for United States interests in voluntary international commercial standardization activities and to authorize the establishment and

support of appropriate central information clearinghouses for commercial or procurement standards and standards activities for the benefit of producers,

distributors, users, consumers, and the general public."

Hearings were held on the House bills by an ad hoc Subcommittee of the

Committee on Science and Astronautics on September 20, 2 1 , and 22, 1 966.

Dr. J. Herbert Hollomon, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and

Technology, testified in favor of this legislation on September 20, 1966 (the

transcript of his comments appears on pages 8-27 of the record of the

hearings). The Committee, however, did not report out either of the bills. Again, in 1967 bills were introduced in the 90th Congress (S.997, H.R.

1213 and H.R. 6278). No action, however, was taken on these bills. In each of the annual submissions by the National Bureau of Standards to the Department of Commerce from 1965 to 1969 on proposed legislative

items, support was voiced for passage of legislation to promote greater U.S.

involvement in international standards activities. In late 1968 the proposed

legislation was redrafted in the form of a concurrent resolution of the Congress. The resolution would express the sense of the Congress that the U.S.

should participate vigorously in international standardization activities to

promote compatibility between voluntary international standards and the

standards followed in this country, and thereby facilitate broad domestic ac- cess to international trade. To date, the proposed legislation has not been

submitted to the Congress.

IV. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Because of the stress on international trade to be found in the legislative

history of the Metric Study Act, an analysis of some pertinent statistics will

be helpful.

In 1969, the Gross National Product (GNP) of the United States was

$93 1 billion; exports were $38 billion and imports were $36 billion. U.S. ex- ports thus amount to approximately 4% of the GNP. Comparable figures for

other nations show a much larger percentage involvement in foreign trade:

Japan, 9.6%; England, 16%; W. Germany, 14.5%; France, 11.5%. In

absolute amount, however, the U.S. leads the world.

An attempt has been made to estimate the fraction of imports and exports

that could be considered measurement-standards sensitive. In terms of what

are considered reasonable criteria to the Metric Study Group, some 455

classes of manufacturing from the Standard Industrial Code (SIC) have been

identified as measurement-standards sensitive. Examination of trade

statistics shows that these 455 classes accounted for $1 1 billion of exports

and $4 billion of imports in 1969. Thus, in terms of exports and imports that are measurement-standards sensitive, there was a favorable balance of $7

billion for the U.S. in 1969. There is clearly much at stake in the export and

import of these kinds of products, although the extent to which the measurement-standards factor affects the trade balance is unknown. The U.S. Metric

Study is currently surveying a sample comprising 750 firms in these 455 SIC

categories to see how these firms in their expert judgment assess the impact

of measurements and standards in their foreign trade.

In addition to the question of international trade, certain other factors

21
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

need to be considered. These may be grouped into three related, but somewhat independent, categories, as was pointed out in chapter III.

( 1 ) Those that relate to the measurement language.

(2) Those that relate to standards development and harmonization.

(3) Those that relate to standards utilization and application.

An understanding of the relationships between these three goups is essential

to a proper interpretation of the events and trends that have occurred in the

world of measurement and standards.

INFLUENCE OF COMMON LANGUAGE ON STANDARDS

Having a common measurement language based on identical units en- courages standards harmonization but does not insure it. For example, in the

electrical field, where there has been complete international agreement on

the units to be used, differences in practice and convention continue to cause

difficulties. These would not disappear, even if the United States were to

convert to metric throughout the society, because in the electrical field the

U.S. is already metric. Thus, despite universal metric usage in the electrical

field, there are different electrical standards in the world. U.S. delegates

have had to persist in arguing against provisions in standards that would

favor the 50 hertz (cycles per second) and 220 volt electrical distribution

system commonly used in Europe, just as they have had to argue for equal

treatment of the inch and the meter. Thus, in spite of the common measure- ment language (both sides of the Atlantic use the hertz and the volt), the U.S.

emerged with a 60 hertz, 1 10 volt system. With the extensive body of practice that has built up around each, changing either would involve a whole

continent. This is a clear case where international agreement was needed

before practices became firmly established around separate national standards, and yet there was no difference in measurement language. The world

now lives with two sets of electrical standards, both based on the metric

system, and manufacturers must meet each if they wish to deal in both

markets.

Differences in such things as symbols, wire color conventions, and in- struction manuals continue to cause problems that could discriminate

against products manufactured in the United States. Sometimes these dif- ferences are not resolved. European and American color television standards are a good example. Differences in these standards were dramatically

emphasized when satellite communication became possible. Complex converters had to be introduced to allow interchange of programs. Moreover,

U.S. television programs cannot be taped here and fed directly into transmitters of European origin. One important U.S. industrial executive has as- serted that the failure of the Europeans to adopt a color television system

compatible with ours cost U.S. industry many millions of dollars.

Different attitudes toward acceptable levels of risk in safety standards

may result in such divergent points of view that the issuance of a safety standard may be long delayed, or permanently stalled. Although engineering

standards are supposedly developed by resolving purely technical questions,

in fact they are arrived at through the reconciliation of conflicting economic
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

interests, each usually committed to a particular set of engineering practices.

Thus, the strength with which an advocate argues is often affected by the

relative technological strength of the industry in his country, trade balances

and other economic factors, political matters, national pride and prestige,

and questions of national security. And as we have seen in the electrical

case, it must not be assumed that the adoption of a single system of units of

measurement will automatically bring about agreement in all areas of standardization. The electrical example shows, in fact, how harmonization of

standards can fail in the absence of timely international collaboration, even

though a common measurement language may have existed throughout the

span of technological development.

The whole purpose of harmonization is to arrive at compatible or identical

standards and to describe them in whatever language is necessary. The

above examples demonstrate that the existence of a common language of

measurement is not enough to assure harmonization. Moreover, it should be

noted that the continued existence of harmonizing bodies is evidence that

harmonization can be and is achieved in spite of measurement language dif- ferences.

UTILIZATION OF STANDARDS

In the absence of some means to insure the application and use of a standard, its mere existence is of little value. Clearly, the U.S. voluntary system

and the emerging worldwide voluntary system provide no legal sanctions or

penalties, except in those designated cases involving health and safety.

The ultimate basis for adoption and use of standards is product survival in

the market place, domestic or international. A superior product at comparable price or an equivalent product at a lower price gets wide acceptance.

Wide sale of a product gives the components or materials of which it is made

a wider share of the market and automatically brings their existing standards

into wide use. In fact, through such circumstances, the standards for the

components become de facto national or even international standards.

Many U.S. products enjoyed this kind of strong position in world markets

for some time. As a consequence, there resulted in some circles an arrogant

or at least unwise point of view, reflected in such statements as "Why should

I worry about international standards? My product is clearly superior, and

if they want it, they can accept my domestic standards." In such a situation

the good product drives the poorer from a free market. Hardware for oil ex- ploration and drilling and automobile wheel rim sizes are cases in point. The

inch-based U.S. national standards in these two cases have become accepted

worldwide, even though most countries use metric language to describe

them.

However, where products built to different standards are truly competitive (i.e., one is not clearly superior to the other or market controls do not

work against one to the advantage of the other), other mechanisms come into

play. In the case of dimensional standards, mismating in the assembly

process makes non-standardization obviously disadvantageous and market

rejection automatic. And as has already been noted, government interven-
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

tion can impose restrictions or assure compliance in cases relating to health

and safety.

In the case of standards of quality or performance (i.e., non-dimensional

standards) the lack of compliance is usually not so obvious.^ Some form of

testing or standardized evaluation of quality control procedure is required,

usually on a sampling basis. For the more sophisticated technological

products of today, product evaluation or quality control is expensive. Any

means whereby the testing procedures and costs can be reduced contributes

to the competitive advantage of the product. One obvious means to reduce

testing is to certify the products found to meet standards so they need not be

tested again. In the United States, the Underwriter Laboratory seal of approval is such a certification for certain products. In the absence of such a

seal of approval, imagine the costs if every store or distributor or consumer

had to check appliances and other products to see if they met standards.

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ISSUE DIFFERENT

FROM ISSUE OF METRICATION

The Metric Study, by virtue of the relation between metrication and standardization, must and does become involved with the larger problem (including non-metrication aspects) of standards development, harmonization and

utilization in trade. Important as this standards problem is, however, it fails

to include other important issues that must be considered in making any

decision with respect to metrication."

The two problems intertwine because they have aspects in common and

are thereby coupled. Figure 3 indicates the relationship, although not necessarily the actual extent of overlap.

Issues and problems of quality assurance and certification against a set of

international standards and their relation to U.S. industry, consumers, and

economic development are clearly outside the scope of the Metric Study.

Yet the development of a workable set of international standards that

will cause minimal inconvenience to our technology and practices and provide a proper basis for world markets does depend to a degree upon our measurement usage and falls clearly within the scope of the Study. Fortunately, however, the coupling is loose enough so that the issues and

problems associated with standards development and enforcement need not

await resolution of the central issues of the Metric Study.

METRICATION ISSUE OPEN

The facts, events, and trends highlighted in this report are not sufficient

to settle the issue of metrication in the United States. They do show, however, that metrication would tend to make standards harmonization less difficult and expensive, and they also show that it would be illusory to expect

metrication alone to lead directly to harmonized standards. Our technological standards and practices, whether metric or English-based, can be

^ See appendix 4. See appendix 4. " See appendix 3.
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Common features such as language, sizes, practices

FIGURE 3

fostered and promoted only by adequate representation and participation

in the organizations which set them and enforce them. We thus reach the

following conclusions:

Conclusion 1 : The international standards issue lends some support to a metric conversion in the United States, but other important issues must also be considered and weighed before an overall

judgment can be made.

Conclusion 2: The Metric Study cannot and should not be ex- pected to provide answers for the non-metric issues raised by the

events and trends described in this report.

CRITICAL DECADE AHEAD

From the U.S. point of view, the next decade will be the critical one in the

international standards development process. Almost all (90%) of the international standards needed for a technological world economy remain to be

established. The ISO and lEC, in spite of their past cumbersome and, to

some degree, inefficient ways, have demonstrated a remarkable increase in

output in the last 15 years — about a 2-1/2 to 3-fold increase every five years.

Continuation of this pattern of accelerated output should give a reasonably

sufficient repertoire of standards in another ten years. This leads to a third

conclusion:

Conclusion 3: If the U.S. wishes to see the maximum amount of

its engineering practices and standards included in the coming international standards, it must, without delay, take steps for adequate

and effective participation in international standards negotiations.
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Two points about this third conclusion require emphasis:

a. The question of the extent to which participation in international Standardization is in the best interest of the United

States must be decided on the basis of considerations that are beyond the scope of the U.S. Metric Study.

b. This decision need not (and should not) await the outcome of

the Metric Study.

STANDARDS COMPATIBILITY WOULD FACILITATE METRICATION

As has been stressed throughout this report, the most difficult and costly

aspect of metrication has to do with changes in the physical embodiment of

things and other features determined by engineering standards. Consequently, if the need for such changes is reduced, the cost of metrication

would be lessened, too. One way to reduce the need for such changes is to

make U.S. engineering standards more compatible with international recommendations. It follows that since increased and more effective U.S. participation in international standards-making activities would tend to reduce

the degree of incompatibility between our standards and those that are

internationally recommended, the costs of metrication in the Vl.S. — should

this course be followed here — would be reduced. A fourth conclusion may

therefore be stated:

Conclusion 4: If the United States increases and makes more ef- fective its participation in international standards-making activities,

then the degree of incompatibility between U.S. domestic standards and international recommendations would be reduced, and a U.S. metrication program would be facilitated, should we take this course.

BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

The balance of payments includes importantly, but is not limited to, the

export-import trade balance. An unfavorable export-import trade balance of

$ 1 billion for a year or more is at the present time considered serious enough

to invoke corrective actions (e.g., tourist restrictions).

Yet, as we have noted, U.S. exports estimated to be measurement-standards sensitive account annually for a $7 billion net balance against similar

imports. A fifth conclusion therefore appears warranted.

Conclusion 5: Relatively modest changes in the import-export

pattern of measurement sensitive goods can have a serious impact

on the U.S. balance of payments. Hence, the relation between stan- dards, standards utilization and trade should be the subject of careful study to develop the policy basis for U.S. participation in international standards development and utilization.

This must be done promptly to take advantage of the critical decade we

are now entering. The International Trade Survey now being conducted
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

as a part of the Metric Study should give some important information on

the subject.

PRODUCT CERTIFICATION

Perhaps the most important aspect of engineering standards is the way the

participating nations make use of them. Ideally, complete harmonization of

all national standards into a working set of international standards could

pave the way for a free and competitive world market, provided the participating nations strive for such a market. International standards provide

a means for fostering or hindering trade; in the latter case, as a non-tariff

trade barrier. Product certification, coupled with international standards

development, may be used to open or shut markets. The Tripartite Agreement and associated events indicate that the nations involved are well aware

of the possible advantages of the standards-certification scheme and are moving to utilize it. To be effective, the product certification provided by the authorized in- stitution in each nation, must be based upon a common set of standards. The

international standards produced by the ISO and the lEC form a most

obvious beginning and are the basis of the present product certification

agreement. But they are not essential. Any set agreed upon can be used.

Whether U.S. practice and standards will be compatible with the international standards will depend upon the extent and success of U.S. participation in the negotiations, //it elects to expend the additional effort.

The required certification of compliance with the applicable standards is the crucial issue for the United States. The rules of the Tripartite Agreement

require each nation to have an authorized institution for the certification

procedures. Moreover, the institution must speak for its own government,

and be acceptable to the other nations. The central benefit of membership in

this scheme is that full faith and credit is given by member countries to the

certification of any member. A certification in one is good for all. It is not yet

certain that the U.S. will be accepted for membership even if it meets the

requirements, which at present it is not undertaking to accomplish.

On the other hand, products of no«-member countries are placed at competitive disadvantage because they must be tested and certified before entry

into the market is permitted. As a beginning, the Tripartite Agreement is being tried on electronic components with I EC standards. If, however, there

are indications of success in the electronic area, some twenty other product

classes are under consideration for similar treatment using ISO standards.

This certification scheme leaves the United States with two choices if it wishes to continue exporting subject products to certification countries:

( 1 ) To enter into and fulfill the requirements of the certification agreement, or

(2) To make products clearly superior to the certification standards (as

judged by the customers and the acceptance officials) and to insure

that the export products do, in fact, meet the superior standards.

If the U.S. makes choice (1) but does not participate actively in the standards development process in lEC or ISO, it will be faced with metric-
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

based standards that must be met. However, if it does participate fully in the

development of ISO and I EC standards, it can achieve at least some compromises that are favorable to the U.S.

If it makes choice (2), it can unilaterally use its own national standards

based upon any convenient measurement system. But this requires maintenance of superior technology, superior products for international trade,

and some means to see that inferior products are not allowed to be exported

to certification countries. Meeting the first condition would be difficult

enough, for the U.S. is no longer unchallenged in the technological

arena— the easy front runner that it was, for example, in the case of

transistors and integrated circuits. Only in a fraction of cases can choice (2)

be expected to function.

Thus, there emerges an answer to a stated requirement of the Metric

Study Act to "study" the feasibility of retaining and promoting by international use dimensional and other engineering standards based upon the

customary measurement units of the U.S. The feasibility of such action turns

essentially upon negotiations to harmonize U.S. standards with those of

other nations. The international use of standards based upon U.S. customary

units will stand or fall upon (a) the success of negotiations, (b) clear product

superiority, and (c) some basis for insuring that our exports can be accepted

as conforming to clearly stated standards without the costly burden of additional testing.

Additional conclusions can now be stated:

Conclusion 6: SI usage in international standards as a language

does not of itself pose any serious complications to the U.S.

Conclusion 7: Product certification emerges as a primary consideration in the utilization of standards.

Conclusion 8: Some product certification scheme for exports

will probably be required to maintain a competitive position if European plans are successful. It can be either apian compatible with

those now developing in Europe or a distinctively U.S. approach,

conceived to provide adequate assurance that U.S. export products

meet a set of explicitly stated standards.

Conclusion 9: If the U.S. elects to certify products in terms of

I EC-ISO standards, it must recognize that the critical decade of

standards development is here and take the necessary steps for participation.

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIES

If it should emerge that the international standards situation places classes

of U.S. products at a disadvantage in foreign markets, U.S. firms can be ex- pected to develop counter-strategies. In fact, some firms are already doing

this.

The electronic components industry illustrates three points of view that

depend upon the nature of the company.'- The point of view of the U.S.-

Based upon an analysis by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Product Stan- dards.
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

based manufacturer who exports his products to Western Europe is that the

certification scheme (under the Tripartite Agreement) will adversely affect

his business. The view of the U.S. manufacturer with a subsidiary in

Western Europe (with partial manufacturing facilities) is that he is con- cerned, but his remedy is to move the balance of his manufacturing to

Western Europe. The point of view of the U.S. subsidiary having an in- tegrated manufacturing facility in Western Europe is that he is for the certification scheme and sees that it will cut his costs of doing business.

This divergence in viewpoint, if found to be characteristic of U.S. industry

generally, may well emerge as a roadblock to full U.S. participation in international standards development and a threat to the long standing free trade

policy of the U.S. Government.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The specific conclusions reached in the preceding analysis lead to one

general conclusion: The environment in which the Metric Study is enmeshed

has not been static; rather, it has been changing as a result of the events and

trends that have been identified in this interim report. These have presented an international standards problem that is broader than the issue of metrication. It is a problem that needs attention now, at the opening of a critical

decade for the development of international standards.

Possible courses of action with respect to this problem include:

(1) Increased participation by the United States in the development of

international standards.

(2) U.S. adherence to an international agreement requiring product certification procedures.

(3) A unilateral plan of standards and product certification by the

United States that is compatible with emerging international

schemes and aimed at keeping a good competitive position for the

United States in international trade.

Action is needed to develop a U.S. policy and strategies to implement it, and such action should not await the outcome of the Metric Study. Accordingly, the following recommendations are made:

1 . The Department of Commerce should take appropriate steps to determine whether the economic impact of agreements such as the Tripartite

Agreement can be expected to affect the U.S. balance of payments significantly or otherwise work against the best interests of the United States.

2. The Department of Commerce should devise, in concert with other

interested Federal agencies and responsible standardizing institutions, a

31
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

firm U.S. policy about "participation in international standards activities,

including what role the Government should play and provisions for furthering the public interest as well as the competitive position of U.S. Industry

in world trade.

3. If such a policy dictates increased participation, appropriate steps

should be taken to see that such participation is sufficient to meet the rapidly

increasing international standardization activities that have been predicted

for this decade.

4. The Department of Commerce should, in concert with other interested

Federal agencies, initiate action to determine whether or not the United

States should participate in international product certification agreements.

If adherence to such agreements is deemed desirable, an appropriate mechanism for certification within the U.S. should be developed. If adherence is not believed warranted, the U.S. should ensure that an appropriate alternative strategy is devised and followed.

5. Finally, the action indicated above should be taken without awaiting

the outcome of the U.S. Metric Study, but drawing upon it for relevant

information.
Appendix 1

U.S. METRIC STUDY GROUP*

Daniel V. De Simone, Director

Consultants

Robert D. Huntoon

Alvin G. McNish

Special Assistants

George W. Boehm

Florence M. Essers

Program Managers

Louis E. Barbrow, Manufacturing Industry

Roy E. Clark, Federal Government Operations

June R. Cornog, Nonmanufacturing Businesses

Stephen L. Hatos, Commercial Weights & Measures

Gerald F. Gordon, International Trade

Leighton S. Lomas, National Security

Jeffrey V. Odom, Conferences

Berol L. Robinson, Education

Bruce D. Rothrock, Labor and Consumers

Robert D. Stiehler, Engineering Standards

Charles F. Treat, History of Metric Debate

* The principal participating agencies are the National Bureau of Standards and the Bureau

of Domestic Commerce in the Department of Commerce, and a special study team in the Department of Defense. In addition, over 30 other independent Federal agencies and departments are participating in the U.S. Metric Study.

33
34 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Appendix I

Public Law 90-472 3in 3lCt

g^AT. 693 To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a study to determine the advantages and disadvantages of increased use of the metric system in the United

States.

Be it ertacted by the Senate and Home of Reprenentativen of the —

United State-1 of America in CongresK axKembled, That the Secretai'y of Metric system. Commerce is hereby autliorized to conduct a progrant of investigation, Study,

research, and survey to determine the impact of increasing worldwide

use of the metric system on the United States; to appraise the desir- ability and practicability of increasing the use of metric weights and

measures in the United States; to study the feasibility of retaining

and promoting by international use of dimensional and other engineering standards based on the customary measurement units of the United Stiit<;s; and to evaluate the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action which may be feasible for the United States. Sec. 2. In carrying out the program described in the first section of investigation

this Act, the Secretary, among other things, shall— and appraisal

(1) investigate and appraise the advantages and disadvantages requirements,

to the United States in international trade and commerce, and in military and other areas of international relations, of the increased use of an internationally standardized system of weights and

measures

;

(2) appraise economic and military advantages and disad- vantages of the increased use of the metric system in the United

States or of the increased use of such system in specific fields and

the impact of such increased use upon those affected

;

(3) conduct extensive comparative studies of the systems of weights and measures used in educational, engineering, manufacturing, commercial, public, and scientific areas, and the rela- tive advantages and disadvantages, and degree of standardization

of each in its respective field

;

(4) investigate and appraise the possible practical difficulties which might be encountered in accomplishing the increased use of the metric system of weights and measures generally or in

specific fields or areas in the United States;

(5) permit appropriate participation by representatives of United States industry, .science, engineering, and labor, and their associations, in the planning and conduct of the program authorized by the first section of this Act, and in the evaluation of the information secured under such program; and

(6) consult and cooperate with other government agencies,

Federal, State, and local, and, to the extent practicable, with

foreign governments and international organizations. Sec. 3. In conducting the studies and developing the recommenda- Results of tions required in this Act, the Secretary shall give full consideration to changes in the advantages, disadvantages, and problems associated with possible measurement changes in either the system of measurement units or the related di- system, mensional and engineering standards currently used in the United

States, and specifically shall

(1) investigate the extent to which substantial changes in the

size, shape, and design of important industrial products would be

necessary to realize the benefits which might result from general

use of metric units of measurement in the United States;

(2) investigate the extent to which uniform and accepted engineering standards based on the metric system of measurement

units are in \ise in each of the fields under study and compare the

extent to such use and the utility and degree of sophistication of such metric standards with those in use in the United States; and

(3) recommend sjiecific means of meeting the practical diffi- culties and costs in those areas of the economy where any recomrnended change in the system of measurement units and related dimensional and engineering standards would raise significant

practical difficulties or entail significant costs of conversion. Sec. 4. The Secretary shall submit to the Congress such interim Report to reports as he deems desirable, and within three years after the date of Congress, the enactment of this Act, a full and complete report of the findings

made under the program authorized by this Actj together with such recommendations as he considers to be appropriate and in the best interests of the United States.

^ Sec. 5. From funds previously appropriated to the Department of Funds. Commerce, the Secretary is authorized to utilize such appropriated sums as are necessary, but not to exceed $500,000, to carry out the purposes of this Act for the first yenv of the program.

Sec. 6. This Act shall expire thirty days after the submission of the Expiration

final report pursuant to section 3. date. Approved August 9, 1968.
Appendix 2

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

METRIC SYSTEM STUDY ADVISORY PANEL^^

CHARTER

Preamble

Public Law 90-472 authorizes the Department of Commerce to undertake

a study of the advantages and disadvantages of increased use of the metric

system in the United States. The Secretary of Commerce has assigned

responsibility for carrying out the study to the National Bureau of Standards. Section 2 (5) of the Act states that the study should:

. . permit appropriate participation by representatives of

United States industry, science, engineering, and labor, and their

associations, in the planning and conduct of the program . . . and

in the evaluation of the information secured . . ."

The objectives of the Advisory Panel shall be to permit such participation

by representatives of all segments of the economy.

Establishment

The Metric System Study Advisory Panel is hereby established to permit

the participation of representatives of industry, science, engineering, and

labor as directed in Section 2 (5) of the Act. The Panel will serve in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the National

Bureau of Standards, and the Metric System Study Group.

* * * *

s/Rocco C. Siciliano

Date: May 16, 1969

Acting Secretary of Commerce

Informally referred to as the "National Metric Advisory Panel."

35
ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS

Louis F. Polk, Chairman,'^ P.O. Box 967,

Dayton, Ohio 45401

Francis L, LaQue, Vice Chairman,^* Claridge

House, Claridge Drive, Verona, New Jersey

07044

Leonard S. Hardland, Executive Secretary,^*

Office of Invention and Innovation, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

William M. Agee, Vice President, Shelter Group,

Boise Cascade Company, P.O. Box 200,

Boise, Idaho 83701

Harold Berryhill, 1285 McGowan Boulevard,

Marion, Iowa 53202

Philip T. Bodell, 234 Riggs Drive, Clemson,

South Carolina 2963

1

Clay Buckhout, Mt. Pleasant Farm, P.O. Box 69,

St. Michaels, Maryland 2 1 663

John Clark, President and General Manager,

Sunbeam Appliance Service Company, 5430

West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, Illinois 60650

Jackson K. Emery, President, Accumet Engineering Corporation, 25 Broad Street, Hudson,

Massachusetts 01749

Sheldon L Euler, President, Information Records

Division, IBM Corporation, P.O. Box 10, Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Member of the executive committee, which serves as the working group for the advisory panel and is convened, upon

Robert J. Friedrich, Manager, Metallurgical

Sales, Consolidation Coal Company, One

Oliver Plaza Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Gordon A. Goodrich, Director of Production Engineering, General Foods Corporation, 250

North Street, White Plains, New York 10602

James A. Graham, Vice President, Corporate

Planning & Development, Standard Pressed

Steel Company, P.O. Box 608 Benson East,

Jenkinstown, Pennsylvania 19046

W. Eugene Hamilton, American Farm Bureau

Federation, 1000 Merchandise Mart, Chicago,

Illinois 60654

Harold F. Hammond, Transportation Association

of America, 1101 17th Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20036

Thomas Hannigan, Director of Research and

Education, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 1200 15th Street NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20005

Doris Hanson,'* Executive Director, American

Home Economics Association, 1600 20th

Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20009

William J. Harris, Jr., Vice President, Association of American Railroads, 1920 "L" Street

NW., Washington, D.C. 20036

call of the Chairman, between meetings of the full panel.

The full panel meets approximately four times per year.

36
APPENDIX 2 37

George M. Hartley, President, Copper Development Association, Incorporated, 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10017

O. Dean Hubbard, 3836 Winifred Drive, Ft. Worth, Texas 76133

Richard M. Hurd, Vice President, Engineering

Department, Bethlehem Steel Corporation,

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18016

Vernon E. Jirikowic,'^ Director of Research, In- ternational Association of Machinists &

Aerospace Workers, 1300 Connecticut

Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20036

Richard T. Kropf,'^ President, Belding Heminway Company, Incorporated, 1407 Broadway,

New York, New York 10018

Ethel Langtry, 351 East 50th Street, New York,

New York 10022

Wilham A, McAdams, Manager, Industry Standards, General Electric Company, 570 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10022

Kenneth G. McKay, Vice President, American

Telephone and Telegraph Company, 195

Broadway, New York, New York 10007

Herbert B. McKean, Vice President, Research

and Development, Potlatch Forests, Incorporated, P.O. Box 600, Lewiston, Idaho 83501

Barry McNuIty, Executive Vice President, Independent Garage Owners of America, Incorporated, 624 South Michigan Avenue,

Chicago, Illinois 60605

Charles C. Neas, Union Carbide Corporation,

P.O. Box 8361, South Charleston, West Virginia 25303

Ivan A. Peters, Vice President, Title Insurance &

Trust Company, 433 South Spring Street, Los

Angeles, California 900 1

3

WiUiam D. Rinehart, Assistant General Manager,

American Newspaper Publishers Association,

Research Institute, Incorporated, 750 Third

Avenue, New York, New York 10017

Robert W. Schiessler, Manager, Long- Range

Analysis and Strategy Group, Mobil Oil Corporation, 150 East 42nd Street, New York,

New York 10017

Harold S. Sizer, Director of Design, Brown &

Sharpe Manufacturing Company, North Kingstown, Rhode Island 02852

Elton E. Staples, 1570 Waterwitch Drive, Orlando, Florida 32806

Douglas C. Strain, President, Electro Scientific

Industries, Incorporated, 13900 N.W. Science

Park Drive, Portland, Oregon 97229

Robert W. SuUivan, Executive Vice President,

The Valve Manufacturers Association, 60 East

42nd Street, New York, New York 10017

C. B. Sung, The Bendix Corporation, Executive

Offices, Bendix Center, Southfield, Michigan

48075

Roy P. Trowbridge,'^ Director, Engineering Standards Section, General Motors Technical

Center, Warren, Michigan 49080

Samuel H. Watson, Jr., Manager of Standardizing, Radio Corporation of America, Camden,

NewJerseyOSlOl

Douglas Whitlock, Partner, Reed, Smith, Shaw &

McClay, Room 1032 Shoreham Building, 806

15th Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20006

Liston A. Witherill, Chief Deputy Director, Los

Angeles County Dept. of Hospitals, 1100

North Mission Road, Los Angeles, California

90033

William E. Zeiter,'^ Partner, Morgan, Lewis &

Bockius, 2107 Fidelity Building. 129 South

Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19109

Member of the executive committee, which serves as the working group for the advisory panel and is convened, upon

call of the Chairman, between meetings of the full panel.

The full panel meets approximately four times per year.

Appendix 3

THE U.S. METRIC STUDY PLAN

The Metric Study Act proposes for investigation a set of questions having

implications in almost every aspect of our domestic life and conditioning our

external behavior in the community of nations.

A nation's measurement usage is both a part of its language and, in a

sense, a way of life. It is a special element of the parent language, mostly

technical, relating to quantitative expression of our observations of the

world around us. Like the rest of the language, it has its idioms, dialects, and

semantic problems. In common with its parent language, it finds translation a nuisance and susceptible to error. Moreover, each user believes his language is the best and wishes all others would cooperate by using it. Differences can be tolerated and adjustments made. But this sub-language of

measurement has developed, by virtue of its relative simplicity, a unique

aspect: It appears feasible for the whole world to use one common sub-language of measurement, and most of the world is gearing up to do just that.

One need not dwell upon the well-known advantages of a common language, nor upon the equally well-known problems of changing a lifetime of usage to

anew one. As a way of life, the consequences of measurement affect us in complex

and diverse ways. Measurement usage comes to determine not only the

way we communicate among ourselves, but also the sizes or other characteristics of things we make and the recipes or machines we use for making

them. On the language or communication side, we deal with thought

processes and the spoken or written expressions of them, conveniently

summed up in the modern expression, "software." In contrast is the term

"hardware," an expression of broad general scope relating to the physical

entities we make and use: things such as refrigerators, automobiles, radios,

shoes; and materials such as steel, rubber, silicon crystals, candy.

Changing software involves one class of actions, as we have seen. Changing hardware is something else, and involves, for example, changing

machines, reorganizing systems, revising engineering practices, or even

modifying the levels of safety and performance we may prescribe.

39
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Consequently, when a change in measurement usage is under consideration, it must be made clear whether the change involves software only, hardware only, or both. History is replete with highly emotional and inevitable

conflicts arising from such lack of specificity. "Conversion to the metric

system" has come to mean change to forms of hardware characteristic of the uses of metric language. Others use the term to mean software changes only

and bring upon themselves the wrath of those who fear hardware changes,

but might well tolerate a software change. Strict care in this regard is an es- sential ingredient of a study plan. The Metric Study Act avoids the sometimes inflammatory terms "conversion," and instead uses the expression,

"increase in metric usage."

Though not used in the Act, metrication is a convenient term to indicate

generally what is under consideration. It means, for purposes of our study,

any act tending to increase the use of the metric system (SI), whether it be in- creased use of metric units or engineering standards based on such units. It should be noted here, too, that the metric system of measurement, like any

other language, has its dialects. Hence, unless otherwise specified, whenever

there is reference to the "metric system" in our study, we mean the

modernized metric system known as "SI," the International System of Units

(see the attachment to this appendix for details).

In actual practice, metrication usually involves a mix of changes in language (units) and hardware (engineering standards). Thus, for example, the

mix specified for the Metric Study is given in the instructions for questions

12, 13, 14 of the Manufacturing Industry Questionnaire included in appendix 5. Immediately following passage of the Metric Study Act, implementation

of its provisions for public representation and participation began. An Advisory Panel was appointed by the Secretary of Commerce as one means

"to permit appropriate participation by representatives of United States

industry, science, engineering, and labor, and their associations, in the planning and conduct of the U.S. Metric Study and in the evaluation of the

information secured." '"^ In addition to this involvement in the study, a comprehensive series of national hearings — conferences was devised to give all relevant sectors of our society an opportunity to participate.

The blueprint for the Metric Study was forged in complete cooperation

with the Panel, beginning in September 1969 with its chairman, and continuing on through December 1969, when the final plan was endorsed by the

Panel's executive committee. It should be noted that throughout this period

there were invaluable contributions by the Panel in its joint effort with the

U.S. Metric Study Group to arrive at a workable plan that would lead to

worthwhile results. Moreover, the Panel, through its intimate contacts with

the various sectors of the society, continues to be an active partner in the

data gathering phase.

Formulation of the Study plan began with an interpretation of the general

objectives stated in the Act. This led to the construction of a more specific

set of undertakings that would yield the desired information:

'•'^ The membership of the Advisory Panel is given in appendix 2.
APPENDIX 3

(1) Identify the impacts upon the U.S. that can be attributed to metrication in the world.

(2) Evaluate these impacts in key sectors of the society.

(3) Determine what adjustments are now taking place in these sectors.

(4) On the basis of realistic assumptions, examine feasible courses of

action for the U.S., involving no national coordination on the one

hand, and a coordinated national program toward metrication on the

other.

(5) Evaluate each proposed course of action for its likely future impact

upon the relevant sectors of our society and upon our national

security and international trade.

(6) Evaluate feasible courses of action not involving metrication (such

as an effort to expand the use of U.S. inch-based standards internationally).

In this connection consider carefully

(a) Why among all the major nations of the world has not the U.S.

already found it necessary or desirable to metricate?

(b) Is U.S. action other than metrication warranted?

(7) Prepare a report indicating the alternatives considered, the various

sectors of the society that were studied, findings and evaluations;

and structure the report so that the results can be presented to the

political decision makers, executive and legislative, for final resolution.

In short, the interpretation of the Metric Study Act can be characterized

thus:

( 1 ) Identify and evaluate impacts upon the U.S. attributable to metrication in the world.

(2) Propose realistic and feasible courses of action for the U.S. to fol- low, including but not limited to those involving probable concerted

metrication on our part.

(3) Identify their probable future impacts and evaluate them similarly.

(4) In the search for impacts consider our international activities as well

as all relevant domestic sectors.

The resulting Study Plan included a preliminary phase in which likely

major impacts were identified, their target sectors designated, some relevant courses of action developed, and their likely impacts estimated. The preliminary phase permitted informed judgments to be made, upon which the main

strategy for the Study could be based. Without this basis, the Study would

rapidly have ballooned into a vast undertaking utterly impossible to

complete.

The main strategy involves:

(1) Completion of impact determinations begun in the preliminary

phase for the purpose of selecting courses of action and identifying

likely target sectors.

(2) Investigation and evaluation of costs and benefits, in these target

sectors, of the proposed courses of action.
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Practical constraints limit the alternative courses of action to a very few

and the target sectors to a small but reasonable number. This is in ac- cordance with the intent of the Congress, as expressed in the legislative history of the Metric Study Act.

THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative One is for the government to do nothing, which means in this

case, to allow events to develop with no overt formal action to alter the pattern of voluntary adjustments now emerging. As we have seen, this pattern

is leading to limited metrication and must be considered as a course of action, certainly feasible, leading to metrication.

Another possibility, but not to be entertained, is to arrange for some mandated action to reverse the trend toward metrication, in favor of a return to

more complete use of "customary" hardware and software. Since this would

be impractical, to say the least, and would further isolate the United States

from the rest of the world, it is believed neither desirable nor worthy of seri- ous attention. In fact, brief preliminary examination of this possibility

brought forth no discerning body of opinion in support of such action. At the

conclusion of the preliminary phase, therefore, it was dropped from further

consideration.

In writing the Metric Bill, the Congress was careful to avoid giving the impression that instantaneous mandatory conversion was contemplated. No

nation that has undergone a metric transition has ever accomplished it in that manner. We do not believe that instantaneous mandatory conversion is a

policy alternative that requires serious study and therefore have not included

this possibility as an alternative to be studied.

Another possibility is for the government to lead in the adoption of a national plan. Two conversion periods merit attention: 1 10 years and "opa change on a national level, i.e., to change according to a coordinated national plan. Two conversion periods merit attention: ten years and "optimum," and these lead to alternatives two and three.

Alternative Two: Consider a coordinated national program of metrication,

designed to be completed over a 10-year period. Ten years has been se- lected arbitrarily, but is the period adopted by the British and Australians

as the appropriate timetable for this process. New Zealand has opted for 7

years.

Alternative Three: Consider a coordinated national program scheduled at the "optimum" rate. Since many sectors of the economy are deeply interlocked with respect to materials, components, and software, and each may

find a different time scale to be a suboptimization of the total economy, the

determination of an "optimum" conversion period is a difficult problem to

solve. Accordingly, the study plan requires each affected sector of the

economy to try to estimate what would be the optimum time scale for it to

convert, on the assumption that other sectors of the economy have made the

necessary changes to permit orderly conversion by the sector in question.

The Study seeks quantitative cost information from selected manufac-
r

ERRATA

U. S. Metric Study

Special Publication 345-1

The fifth paragraph on page 42 of SP345— 1 which reads:

Another possibility is for the government to lead in the adoption of a national plan. Two conversion periods merit attention: 10 years and "op—

a change on a national level, i.e., to change according to a coordinated national plan. Two conversion periods merit attention: ten years and "optimum," and these lead to alternatives two and three.

should be changed to read:

Another possibility is for the government to lead in the adoption of a national policy with respect to adaptation or conversion and to coordinate such

a change on a national level, i.e., to change according to a coordinated national plan. Two conversion periods merit attention: ten years and "optimum," and these lead to alternatives two and three.

T he Foreword on page VII

Second line after the word "standard ' semicolon to be changed to a comma

APPENDIX 3

turers with respect to metrication in the two time frames indicated, with an

expectation that the data will allow some qualitative judgment about the relative merits and costs of different rates of metrication.

These three alternatives comprise the set to be used in the Study. They all involve metrication in some degree and are thus subject to the criticism of

being focused too much on metrication. The fact is, however, that this nation

has been part metric for more than 1 00 years and is steadily increasing its metric usage. In the absence of contrary overt action, indications are that it will continue to do so, although sporadically and hesitantly, in the absence

of a commitment by the rest of the society to join in the change.

The sectors of our society in which the benefits and costs of these three al- ternatives are to be assessed include, but are not limited to:

(1) Manufacturing Industry

(2) Nonmanufacturing firms

(3) Department of Defense

(4) Federal Agencies other than military

(5) International Trade

(6) Commercial Weighing and Measuring activities

(7) State and Local Governments

(8) Educational System

(9) Citizens in general and as consumers

(10) Labor

(11) Engineering Standards

Should significant facts or opinions emerge to indicate the need to incorporate other cross sections of our society, these will be incorporated if time

and other circumstances permit.

As a practical matter, the Study has been structured into fourteen major

activities, essentially related to the sectors of the society listed above, and

whose description follows, with an indication of their present status (October 1, 1970).

SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS

1 . A general survey of the manufacturing industry through a sample of al- most 4,000 firms. The questionnaire used in this general survey asks

questions with respect to the current and anticipated use of metric units and

metric based standards, advantages and disadvantages to the firm of an as- sumed program of national metrication, and the firm's positions on possible

international and domestic competition and other views regarding metrication.

2. Special cost analyses by over 1 50 manufacturing firms that have volunteered to estimate, under specified assumptions in a hypothetical program of

metrication, the net costs of metrication to them. Each of these cost analyses

will try to estimate the net costs with respect to such factors as personnel

education; engineering, research, and associated documentation; manufacturing and quality control; records and accounting; standards activities;

warehousing; and sales and services.

3. A random-sample survey by telephone interview of some 3,000 non-
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

manufacturing firms, ranging from agricultural establishments to financial institutions. The questions in this survey differ from those in the survey of

manufacturing firms because of the obvious differences in the activities of

such firms, but are nevertheless designed to elicit information with respect

to the key issues of the U.S. Metric Study.

4. An intensive study by the Department of Defense of the metric study

issues in terms of defense readiness and other national security considerations. In brief, the Department of Defense is attempting to estimate the cost

of maintaining constant mission capability during an assumed 10- year metrication period and to identify the advantages and disadvantages that may be

experienced during and after that period.

5. A survey of some 35 Federal agencies, other than the Department of

Defense, to determine the effects of alternative courses of action on the

operations of these agencies, as well as on their areas of national responsibility. This survey will try to assemble data as to which Federal agencies use

the metric system and to what extent, which of them plan to increase metric

usage voluntarily irrespective of any national decision regarding metrication,

what the effects would be on agency missions should such a decision be

made and put into effect, and what the probable effects would be on the area

of national activity (e.g., transportation) for which the agency is responsible.

6. A special study of international trade, which is being conducted by

the Bureau of Domestic Commerce of the Department of Commerce.

This inquiry will be addressed to over 750 firms that are engaged in the

international trade of manufactured products that are "measurement sen- sitive"— i.e., are more likely to be affected by differences in measurement

practices and engineering standards than are, for example, shipments of bulk

goods such as grain. Three broad classes of data will be sought. First,

questions will be asked as to the foreign operations of the firm. Next, firms

will be asked to try to rank the factors that influence international trade, such

as superior quality of product, more advanced technology, better financing,

better servicing, and to compare these factors with whatever influence a dif- ferent measurement system may have on exports and imports. Finally, the

respondents in this survey will be asked to predict the magnitude of their in- ternational trade activities in 1 975 under two different assumptions for comparison: the United States as still "customary" (inch-pound) versus the

United States as a "metric" (meter-kilogram) country.

7. An analysis of the history of metric debate in this country, which is ex- pected to provide valuable insights. This analysis will provide a historical

review (1866-1968) of the legislative activities pertaining to proposals to in- troduce the metric system into the United States, highlight the campaigns

waged by pro- and anti-metric factions during the period, and examine the

consequences of these campaigns.

8. A study of commercial weighing and measuring activities at the State

and local level and of the problems of converting devices in this field. The

purpose of this study will be to estimate the cost of adapting or replacing

commercial weighing and measuring devices to record in metric units, determine the practical difficulties that would be experienced in such a changeover, and identify ways and means by which these difficulties could be

minimized or at least substantially reduced.
APPENDIX 3

9. An analysis of the other effects that a nationwide program of metrication would have on State and local governments. This analysis will be made

by a group'^ representing State, county and city associations and con- ferences and will focus on the probable effects of a metrication program on

State and local government operations in addition to the commercial

weighing and measuring activities mentioned above.

10. A study of the consequences that a metrication program would have

on the educational system, as well as the positive role that the system would

play in such a program. This study is aimed at formal educational activities,

including elementary, secondary, higher and vocational education. It will

identify advantages and disadvantages that could be expected to accrue in a

national metrication program and will attempt to quantify the costs and

benefits.

1 1 . A survey to determine the impact of metrication on citizens in

general, particularly with respect to consumer activities. This survey will be

conducted with a sample of approximately 1 ,400 family units representative

of all family units in the continental United States. It will seek such information as the nature of problems expected to be encountered by individuals if there were a coordinated national program to change to the metric system,

what the attitudes and opinions are toward a change, the level of knowledge

of the customary system and metric system of measurement, the types of

measuring devices and activities that would be affected by a change to metric, and an estimate of the costs involved.

12. An analysis of the likely effects of metrication on labor. This analysis

is being conducted in cooperation with organized labor and will focus

primarily on worker-owned tools and employee education and retraining. In

addition, a special conference on labor will be held as part of the National

Metric Study Conferences.

13. A series of seven National Metric Study Conferences to provide an

opportunity for representatives of major trade associations, professional

societies and other groups to address themselves to the fundamental issues

of the U.S. Metric Study. These conferences have been designed to en- courage comment from all sectors of the society. Moreover, they are in- tended as a means for developing, as widely as possible, a deeper appreciation and understanding of the many economic, social, technical, international

and political factors that must be taken into account when a society as complex and diverse as ours considers the implications of changing a way of life.

14. A comparative survey of selected U.S. engineering standards and

their international counterparts and an analysis of the extent to which the na- ture of our measurement system is a significant factor in determining the ef- fectiveness of the United States in international standards negotiations. The

fields selected for investigation are ferrous metals, nonferrous metals,

plastics, rubber, pipe and tubing, antifriction bearings, threaded fasteners,

electrical and electronic equipment, and building materials and construction.

When the data from all of the above activities have been received, collated

This group is the State-County-City Service Center and represents the Council of State Governments, International City Management Association, National Association of Counties,

National Governors Conference, National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of

Mayors.
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

and analyzed, reports will be prepared on the various subjects under consideration: manufacturing, nonmanufacturing, international trade, labor,

consumers, education, national security. Federal Government, State and

local government, commercial weights and measures, historical analysis, and

the seven national conferences. These subjects are not mutually exclusive; nor are they being investigated in isolation or by means of a single source. In

the case of education, for example, information is being sought not only by

means of interviews and questionnaires, but also through expert consultants

and a Conference on Education.

The National Metric Study Conferences deserve special mention, since

they were planned to be more than just a means for gathering information. In

addition, they were conceived as a forum wherein recognized representatives of the various sectors of our society would be given an opportunity to

express their views with respect to the issues posed by the Metric Study

Act, in keeping with its call for the widest possible participation in the Study.

Moreover, these conferences offer the possibility of developing a national

consensus or understanding with regard to the subject at hand. Whatever the

ultimate decision of the Congress, such a consensus would be extremely

valuable if not indispensable.

All of the inquiries and investigations in the Metric Study will attempt to

develop quantitative estimates of the costs and benefits that would likely

result under the different assumptions that have been discussed. It needs to

be made clear, however, that at best the estimates that will be supplied to us by firms and other sources will, in the aggregate, be inflated with respect to

costs and say little about the present net worth of the benefits allegedly to be

derived in future years. Moreover, the assembly of aggregative national

figures, such as the net effect upon GNP of action or inaction with respect to

metrication, will not be possible in the study. Nor will it be feasible for the

study to assign weights to the various costs and benefits, even assuming they can be quantified — e.g., what political weights are to be assigned among the

costs and benefits associated with, say, national security, education, con- sumer interests, manufacturing inconveniences, international good will? The

assignment of weights in these instances (including the concomitant tradeoffs) is the function and prerogative of the President and the Congress. In- deed, it is possible that the ultimate findings of the U.S. Metric Study may be

susceptible to conflicting conclusions and recommendations.

Consequently, it would be illusory to expect that the Metric Study will

result in a balance sheet having a net sum of costs and benefits upon which

the decision to go or not to go metric can be made directly and with confidence. There will be no such sum. In this regard, it is instructive to consider the British view:

"It is fanciful to attempt any sort of estimate of the cost of metrication

to the economy as a whole. Partly because of the nature of the problem

and partly because any attempt to assess the cost of metrication in- volves taking a view of a very varied collection of future decisions, it is difficult to estimate what future expenditure will be incurred, even

within an individual undertaking. The costs of metrication are in many

cases inextricably intertwined with the cost of much wider changes.
APPENDIX 3

This would make it impossible, even retrospectively, to determine what

proportion of expenditure should be attributed to metrication itself and

what to other changes being made at the same time."

Nevertheless, much valuable information will be developed in the 14 sur- veys and investigations described above and the results of the U.S. Metric

Study will more than justify the effort to provide a more solid basis upon

which decisions can be made.

What the Metric Study has, in fact, been planned to do is to reduce, to the

extent possible with the resources at hand, the many uncertainties that exist

with respect to the issue of metrication and to set to rest many of the myths

and misunderstandings that are entertained because of these uncertainties.

The reports on each of the surveys and investigations identified will do

much to dispel these myths and misunderstandings. These reports are ex- pected to be completed by January 1 97 1 and, after having been reviewed by

the Commerce Department, the Study's advisory panel, the Commerce

Technical Advisory Board and others, will be synthesized to form the basis

for the final report of the Secretary of Commerce to the Congress. The

draft of this final report will undergo similar review, and, in addition, review

by the President's Science Advisory Committee, following which the

Secretary will decide upon his recommendations and submit them, together

with his report on the U.S. Metric Study, to the Congress. This submittal

will be made in August 1971.

Whatever the outcome of this study, in terms of the choice among alternatives, its fundamental strategy, calling for the widespread participation of all sectors of our society in the resolution of the issues that have been posed,

should help to build a national consensus for the ultimate decision. In short,

the entire metric study program is in keeping with the traditions of our democracy.

" Going Metric: The First Five Years, p. 70, Report of the British Metrication Board, 1970.
The Modernized Metric System

1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 1

..»1m . L

9 \ 0 C«nMm»rtr«

liiliiliiiitlitMlmilililLlllliiJiiiiliiiilinilii .i,„.l„„i..,L„ ,.,i,...i!i.!i....i....i..„i....u.i„,.i.,

inliiiiliiiiliiiiliii

-

j

l.„i,!l!i„.l,..i.„l„„i„„L„i„„l„.i.„l „.L„i.., ,„i.„i.„i„,.i.„i!i!i.j,.„i„. III l,ll,«

;

"'"T"'"l'"'"T''i'iT"'"1 31"

1 1 INCH

.1,1.1,1, l.l,lJr„l.l,l,l,l,lJ

' 4I ' 5I

1

1.1, I.I.I. id. 1.1, 1,1, hi, I.I. I.I.I llllllllllllll llllllllllllll

1

1 1 1

i

1

1 1 M 1

1

1

hi, 1,1. I.I. I.I. I.I. hi. 1,1. hi.

1 ilo

,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1

' ill

llllllllllllll

,l,l,l,l,,,l,l„,l.l,l'l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,i,l,l,l,l.,

' II2 Inchn 1I3 1 lU

1 FOOT

,l,i,l,hLhLi, 1,1, 1,1,1 l,,,l.,J,hl.,J

1I5 ' lie

hi, hi, hi, hl.i, 1,1, 1,1, 1,1,

1I7 ' lis lis

i|i|i|i|

1 1:uB c c ECl METER

also called

1 liter or

: 00( cm

1 LIQUID QUART

(approximately) 0.946 liter THE International System of

Units—officially abbreviated

SI—is a modernized version

of the metric system. It was established by international agreement to provide a logical and interconnected

framework for all measurements in

The Six Base Units of Measurement

METER-m

The meter is defined as 1 650 763.73 wavelengllis in vacuum of the orange-red line of the spectrum of krypton-86.

An interferometer is used to measure length by means of light waves.

The SI unit of area is the square meter (m-). Land

is often measured by the hectare (10 000 square

meters, or approximately 2.5 acres). The SI unit of volume is the cubic meter (m-). Fluid volume is often measured by the liter (0.001 cubic

meter).

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 304 A

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

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price i j cents

References; NBS Spec. Publ. 330, International System of Units (in press) NBS IVIisc. Publ. 247, Weights and Measures Standards of the United states, A Brief History, 40 cents NBS Misc. Publ. 286, Units of WeigM and Measure,

Definitions and Tables of Equivalents, $2.25

SECONDS

The second is defined as the duration of 9 192 631 770 cycles of the radiation associated with a specified

transition of the cesium atom. It is realized by tun- ing an oscillator to the resonance frequency of the cesium atoms as they pass through a system of magnets and a resonant cavity into a detector.

DIRECTION OF

MAGNETIC FIELD DIRECTION OF

MAGNETIC FIELD

DEFLECTING MAGNET DEFLECTING MAGNET

FROM OSCILLATOR

A schematic of an atomic beam spectrometer. The trajectories are drawn for those atoms whose magnetic moments are

"flipped" in the transition region.

The number of periods or cycles per second is called frequency. The SI unit for frequency is the

hertz (Hz). One hertz equals one cycle per second. Standard frequencies and correct time are broadcast from NBS stations WWV, WWVB, WWVH, and WWVL, and stations of the U.S. Navy. Many shortwave receivers pick up WWV on fre- quencies of 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 megahertz. The standard radio broadcast band extends from 535 to 1605 kilohertz. Dividing distance by time gives speed. The SI, unit for speed is the meter per second (m/s)

.

Rate of change in speed is called acceleration. The SI unit for acceleration is the mater per second

per second {m/s=).

KILOGRAM-kg

The standard for the unit of mass, the kilogram, is a' cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy kept by the Inter- national Bureau of Weights and Measures at Paris. A duplicate in the custody of the National Bureau of Standards serves as the mass standard for the United

States. This is the only base unit still defined by an

artifact.

0.8. PROTOTYPE KILOGRAM

NO. 20

Closely allied to the concept of mass is that of force. The SI unit of force is the newton (N). A force

of 1 newton, when applied for 1 second, will give to a 1 kilogram mass a speed of 1 meter per second

(an acceleration of 1 meter per second per second).

ACCEURATION OF Im/s'

IN _ 1kg • Im

ls= One newton equals approximately two tenths of a pound of force. The weight of an object is the force exerted on it by gravity. Gravity gives a mass a downward acceleration of about 9.8m/s-. The SI unit for work and energy of any kind is the joule (J). lJ = lN»lm

The SI unit for power of any kind is the watt (W). 11

Is 1W=
The International System of Units (SI) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

0

1 I ilJiiiiliiiilm MET

„J ,J Lj„„L„ 1, ,i!l!L„l,aJ „„l.„.u.l,„i„

llllllllllllillllJll lr.,il„nl.>„lM„lIl,ml.,J>i.lm „„i„„l L„i,J,„iiiiLiiiiiiliii „„l„iJ„„,!i!i..,i„„lj„„iiiliiilliiiiliimliiiil

2lO '

lllllllllllll

i,iii,Li,i>i

,,|,|,|,m,||.,|,|,|,|,|,,.| Y A R

1, III. Iilihlilil, hl.nl, Id

'•{•' I'i'i'i'i I'l'i'i'

' 2I4 Inchn 2I5 D 2 FEET ,

„l,„!,„l I,„l„,l,„!,„

2l6 217 ' as

,hLi,L..i,ML,.KhLhi i,l,„i„J,„i,iJ.,

liiiliiilii ,„l,„Lhl,>J,Ml„J,hln, .„l,„l„,l,,,

science, industry, and commerce. SI

is built upon a foundation of base

units and their definitions, which appear on this chart. All other SI units are derived from these base units.

Multiples and submultiples are ex- pressed in a decimal system. Use of

metric weights and measures was le- galized in the United States in 1866,

and our customary units of weights

and measures are defined in terms of

the meter and the kilogram. The only

legal units for electricity and illumination in the United States are SI units.

The comparative dimeneions of the meter and the yard, the liter and the quart, and

the kilogram and the pound are shown.

1 KILOGRAM

1 pound=c0.453 592 37 kg

definitions, abbreviations,

and some SI units derived from them

KELVIN-K AMPEREA

CANDELA-cd

he thermodynamic or Kelvin scale of temperature used in SI has its origin or zero point at absolute zero and has a fixed point at the triple point of water defined as 273.16 Kelvins. The Celsius scale is derived from the Kelvin scale. The triple point is defined as

O.OI °C on the Celsius scale, which is approximately 32.02 'F on the Fahrenheit scale. The relationship of the Kelvin, Celsius, and Fahrenheit temperaturev

scales is shown below. THERMOMETER WATER— 3".16 _100

(ELECTRICAL BOILS RESISTANCE TYPE)

BODY _ 3J0.1S TEMPERATURE i

1 WATER VAPORWATER ^273 15 FREEZES

REENTRANT

WELL KELVIN CELSIUS FAHRENHEIT

REFRIGERATING BATH

Temp F+«)==1.8(Temp C+40) Temp F=1.8(TempC)+32 Temp C=(Temp F—32)/1.8 Temp K=Tenip C+273. J5 TRIPLE POINT CELL The triple point cell, an evacuated glass cylinder

filled with pure water, is used to define a known fixed temperature. When the cell is cooled until a mantle

of ice forms around the reentrant well, the temperature at the interface of solid, liquid, and vapor is 0.01 °C. Thermometers to be calibrated are placed

in the reentrant well.

The ampere is defined as the magnitude of the cur- rent that, when flowing through each of two long

parallel wires separated by one meter in free space,

results in a force between the two wires (due to their magnetic fields) of 2x10 ' newton for each meter of

length. lA.

t I t I

i Im FORCE = 2 X lO-'N I i I M ^ ^

|«—Im-jj

e SI unit of voltage is the vojt (V).

lA The SI unit of electrical resistance is the ohm (n). IV in =

The candela is defined as the luminous intensity of 1/600 000 of a square meter of a radiating cavity

at the temperature of freezing platinum (2042 K). UGHT EMITTEO HERE

The SI unit of light flux is the lumen (Im). A source

having an intensity of 1 candela in all directions

radiates a light flux of 4it lumens.

A lOO-watt light bulb ftmHs atHHit 1700 lumens

lA

COMMON EQUIVALENTS AND CONVERSIONS

Appraiimite Cemmon Eqaivilenti CaanniBtti AumU to Piflc Per Mllllti

1 inti)

1 toot

1 nnj

1 mile

1 sqsirc inch

1 sqiura loot

1 squire yard

1 acre

I eobic iDdi

I cubic ffict 1 cubic yard

I quart oq>

1 itnoB

1 met (arip)

I pouni] (avdp)

1 borsepDwcr

T millifnetef

1 mster

1 mster

1 kilometer

— ;s nltliaelers 7^0.3 flietef -ZS meter

=;1.E kitometers —6.S Jtt cenisneters = i].09 iqnare meter -0.8 moare neler

r;0.4 heclaref

16 CB CEatimeten ^0.03 cubic meter

T- Q.B CQbic meter

l titer t

--^D.0D4 tabic ffetet grams zi-Mi kilogram

:z.-.0.7S kilDWatt

3.3 leet

1,1 yards S.6 a\k

1 sq CEiitimeter:::0.1G sitcare tfith

1 Hjuare meter susire feet

1 square meter =1 J miar? yanb

1 Iwclare f r-1.5 acres

1 CO ceatimtler— Q.QE ctihtc iocti

f cubic meter r:r.2i CBbic feel —1.3 coble yards .-1 quart (1(1 ^250 galfoRs -.0.035 dbiue: [avilp) =il.2 fmit Uvdpt

--J.3 honejMiwer

t cubic Rieter

I liter

1 cubic meter

1 gram

1 kilDEram

t hilDwatl t cansum tern nt Kti ia SI

tBcfces « 2W

teet X DJaU*

pnfs I 05144*

miles 1 lies 34

sqnare Itches x S.451B' squrt feet t &.D92 9D3 0

jtpure yirds 1 0J36 Ml

acres i 0.104 $8G

cable (Bdiei 1 1GJS71

cobtc leet i D.DZi 31B S

coble yards x 8.7G4 S55

qearis (fq)i 0.346 351

galloni I am m 4t SBBtes (anip) t «J4SS

poBRds (n<]p)i9.453 HI

tiorsepower i S.745 TOD

millimelert i Le39 370 1 meters x 3.90 H

meten 1 1^3 61

kilsmetert t Sill 311 iq centimeters I 0.135 tItM sqaire meter) 1 1B.75J9

sqiiart mitefs i t.US 98

rteclins ( un OS

ce ceotimeten i LBfil ni 7 eebic aeten i 35.3147

cflbic meters i i.W 35

liters 1 1.B56 65

cebic meters i J64.172

Itrams i 0J3S 774 0 VilofnM 1 2.194 62

liilewitti 1 1.34102

* tact

=mi!tl«eten

=ffleters rraelefs —kilMielen

cenlimetera ^rsqaire meten

=:sqBire meters =leetares

~cfl ceotlrotterj tabic raters

;=cBblc meters

::rtitef3 =c«6ic ettten

zrkiimtts

=:iBelies -ftti

=:prfls =«flei —sqesre iacbes =:iqDare feet -vimt yaruj =acrci

stable laches -CBhie fiei —eidiie yirts -qaim Itq) =;6al!eai —euBcei (jrip)

=:liDainis (n^) —fiarsepewfr

THESE PREFIXES MAY BE APPLIED TO ALL SI UNITS

0, 0.000

Miritiptes ami Submultiples

1 000 000 000 000

1 000 000 000

1 000 000

1000

100

10

0.1 0.01 0.001 0.000 001

0.000 000 001

0.000 000 000 001 000 000 000 000 001 000 000 000 000 001

10>"-

10» 10«

10»

10= 10

10-' 10 =

io-» 10-'

io-« io-«

10-" io-»

Prefixes Symbols

tera (ter'a) T

giga O^'ga) G

mega (meg a) M ••

kilo(kiro) k«

hecto (hek 'to) h

deka (dek'a) da

deci (des'f) d

centi (sen'ti) c

•

milli (mil'i) m •

micro (mi 'kro) 1^' nana (nan'o) n

pico (pe'ko) P

femto((em'«4) f

atto(al'fo) a

•Most commonly used

Appendix 4

ENGINEERING STANDARDS

A. Background

The intimate relationship between units of measurement and engineering

standards is recognized in Public Law 90-472, which states that "the Secretary shall give full consideration to the advantages, disadvantages, and

problems associated with possible changes in either the system of measure- ment units or the related dimensional and engineering standards currently

used in the United States." Further, PL 90-472 authorizes the Secretary of

Commerce "to study the feasibility of retaining and promoting by international use of dimensional and engineering standards based on the customary

measurement units of the United States." In the survey of engineering stan- dards, the study has revealed that the measurement system is only one factor

involved in the promotion of our national standards for international use. A

factor that appears to be at least equally important is participation in committees, subcommittees, and working groups of international standardizing or- ganizations. Currently, U.S. participation in such committees ranges from

none to very high, depending on the industry concerned.

An understanding of the standards setting process throughout the world is helpful to an appreciation of the significance of the dynamic environment of

today.

Wherever a multiplicity of practices is both possible and likely to occur,

group cooperation for the achievement of some desirable social goal may

require the acceptance, by the members of the group, of some joint decision

to use one or a limited number of the possible alternatives. When the activities involved relate to social behavior the agreements (standards) are called

laws. When related to religious behavior they are canons. And when related

to manufacturing, testing, measurement practices and conventions, properties and performance of materials, or to the performance or characteristics of

things, they are variously called standards of practice, code regulations, or conventions. All of these latter are commonly lumped together under the

term "engineering standards."

51
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

The essential ingredients for arriving at such standards are:

(1) A set of alternatives,

(2) A method for agreeing upon a selection to be used,

(3) A group which agrees to abide by the selection, and

(4) Means for insuring compliance.

History is replete with chronicles of struggles to impose standards upon a

reluctant society (e.g., crusades) or to unify a disparate set (e.g., conflicts of

law). Engineering standards are no exception. Once set and embodied in our

technology, products and applications, they may be difficult to change. The

controversies over metrication in times past have revolved mostly around

the standards issue, although often disguised as a language problem.

To return from this historical digression, the number of alternatives in any

specific situation may range from a minimum of two (e.g., right or left handed

screw threads, or right or left side of road for driving) to an unlimited number

ranging over all the products and conventions in which our society is in- volved—for example, all possible sizes for shoes, hats, clothes, electrical

outlets and plugs, doors, windows, bricks, tires, wires, drills, screws. The cooperating group may extend from a buyer and a seller, to a company, to an industry, to a nation or even to the whole world, which is the

matter of immediate concern. This group also generally involves competing

interests whose desires and goals for choices among alternatives may differ, as they do between producers, assemblers, consumers, or buyers and sellers.

It may also include those who actually had no effective voice in the selection or agreement and may or may not feel bound to it, and some who do not

choose to follow the agreement for selfish or unselfish reasons. The decisions reached about the alternatives to be selected may be legally

binding (i.e., mandatory) or voluntary, to be used at the will of the participants. Likewise, in this country as well as in others, the decisions (standards)

may at times be propagated by one subgroup (such as producers or assemblers) and presented as an accomplished fact to another subgroup, such as consumers. Within the United States, standardization has been permissive

and voluntary, with a few exceptions relating to standards based upon

specific Federal, state or local legislation and concerned with health, safety or fraud. Other exceptions are regulations promulgated by the regulatory

agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration, Food and Drug Administration, or Federal Trade Commission.

The pattern of standards development has evolved into two main classes.

At the industry level, standards are developed by materials and parts producers and device assemblers and presented to the ultimate consumer in the

market place. Alternatively, the standards may be promulgated as procurement specifications by a buyer that is sufficiently large and important to have

the standards met — for example, the Federal Government. In this connection it should be noted that when products are made to meet Federal

Government specifications, others may also buy them and the specifications

may become de facto national or even international standards through

producer and consumer usage. A large fraction of these specifications has

achieved this status. In fact, military and other federal specifications include

more standards for consumer goods than those issued by all private or-
APPENDIX 4

ganizations combined. Clearly, the two methods of arriving at standards-one initiated by the supplier and the other by the buyer- will often

yield different decisions, with differing sets of advantages and disadvantages. A third class, where the ultimate consumer would set standards,

has not emerged, probably because of lack of organization and competence

among the body of consumers. Where small groups which have developed standards seek to get together

to form a larger aggregate of cooperation, they must resolve the differences

in standards to arrive at a new set for the enlarged group. This process is called coordination or harmonization of standards. If the standard is established, first off, for the enlarged group, the costly waste motions of stan- dard setting followed by later change and readjustment within the groups is eliminated. At the international level, Holland and other countries are now

following this principle, as was noted in chapter III. Let us consider now how the need for standards arises, i.e., why such decisions need to be made. Consider first the simplest kind of transaction. An in- novator develops a product and puts it on the market. If it sells and business

grows, he is required to produce more and more of the same. If he is to continue to expand his operation, he must not degrade the product quality or performance in the interest of greater production. He needs some bench

marks or standards against which to assess his product for continued conformity. As others move into the manufacturing scene, they may make use

of the same reference bench marks. Thus, standards of a single company can become national standards.

With expansion, the purchase of components and materials spreads.

These intermediates also are more acceptable if they meet standards

established for them. Moreover, those who manufacture them can achieve

economies of large volume if all purchasers buy in terms of a common set of

standards. This process ultimately works to a whole market standard or set of standards to which all parts suppliers work and from which purchasers

purchase and around which their products are designed.

Improvements in the product require similar standards and these, in turn,

reflect down the line as new standards for the "intermediates" or parts.

Where there is a large market for a product, standards provide an essential

ingredient for the economies of scale which allow either reductions in cost or improvements at no increase in cost. Where the market is fragmented as it might have been, but is not, among

the 50 states so that products must differ for each market, a vast multiplicity

of standards of local value only emerge. Standards for intermediates thus

differ, too, and production on a large or industrial scale becomes difficult or

impossible.

A clear example of fragmentation of standards within the U.S. is displayed

by the construction industry with its 6,000-odd local jurisdictions, each with

its own building code. A building code is essentially an assembly of stan- dards relating to parts, materials and finished structures unique to the local area. Standards for materials and parts common to all codes can be manufactured on a national scale. The rest must be manufactured on small scale lo- cally or more expensively fabricated on site by hand labor.
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

As a result, housing costs price a multitude of families out of the housing

market. Unification, coordination, and development of common standards

could provide economies of scale resulting in reduced cost and more and

better, though not necessarily distinctive, homes. However, this loss of

uniqueness can be compensated for by combinations of options from among

a list of broadly based standardized assemblies, as is done in the auto

industry.

Where a purchaser is large, such as a national or state government, it can

issue specifications, which must be met by the products it desires to buy. If

the buyer is large enough, these specifications can be so determining in the

setting of industrial standards that they become de facto standards. The U.S.

Department of Defense is one such large buyer. Their purchases in terms of

military specifications ("mil-specs") have assumed this position for many

foreign and domestic producers. It should be noted, however, that in the

U.S. many civilian standards are included in the "mil-specs" where usable.

Where the buyer alone sets the standards, he can choose whatever quality

level he wishes to pay for, even going so far as to push the producers to in- novations beyond the current state of the art. Where the producer is entirely in control of the process, his standards tend

to become those which give greater economies in manufacturing within performance parameters he chooses. While the goals of the manufacturer and

user are not necessarily opposed to each other, they may often require mutual adjustments.

B. Nature of Engineering Standards

An engineering standard is a technological practice described in a document to assure dimensional compatibility, quality and performance,

uniformity of evaluation procedure, or uniformity of engineering language.

Typical examples are documents prescribing screw thread dimensions,

clothing sizes, chemical composition and mechanical properties of steel,

methods of test for sulfur in oil, and codes for highway signs. The same stan- dard may have requirements both for dimensions and quality or performance, and prescribe the methods of test. Generally, separate standards

are issued for dimensional specifications, quality specifications, methods of

test, and descriptive practices. The role of measurement units varies for

these different groups. Therefore, they are discussed separately in this re- port, even though dimensional specifications, quality specifications,

methods of test, and descriptive practices may appear as provisions in a

single standard.

Dimensional Speciflcations

Standards of this type are essential either for the product or system to

function or for interchangeability of parts. For example, the distance

between rails (gage) and between wheels in a railroad must conform to a standard in order to have the railroad function. On the other hand, standards

aimed toward interchangeability of parts may be applicable to production of an entire industry or of a single company. For instance, automobile tires are
APPENDIX 4

interchangeable on an industry-wide level; whereas, the wheels on which

they are mounted are generally interchangeable only on vehicles produced

by a single company since the number and spacing of the bolt holes in the

wheels have not been standardized for the industry.

The most important point to be made here is that sizes in dimensional

specifications are usually simple multiples or submultiples of the measure- ment unit employed by the society. As a consequence, the system of units is very important in such standards.

Quality and Performance Speciflcations

The purpose of these standards is to assure (1) a quality level adequate for

the required service, and (2) uniformity in quality from one item to another.

Quality level is a dominant factor in safety standards — for example, seat belt

standards and specifications for steel forgings for pressure vessel shells. In

specifications relating to quality and performance, measurement units serve simply as a language and, hence, are not critical. However, standards ex- pressed in different systems of units create problems of understanding

analogous to those presented by expressions in different national tongues.

Also, minor incompatibilities due to measurement units can result from the

rounding off of requirements in the system of units used.

Methods of Test

These standards provide a common basis for evaluating materials and

products. They establish standardized procedures for determining critical

dimensions or product quality, and are essential for determining compliance

of a product with a specification. A typical method is mechanical testing of

steel products. Methods of test can generally be based on any measurement

units, and the results of test can be transformed from one system of units to

another. Thus, basic units of measurement in methods of test, as in quality or performance specifications, serve simply as a language and do not compound differences, as they do in the case of dimensional standards.

Descriptive Standards

These standards include codes, symbols, sampling and other statistical

practices, terminology, format for engineering drawings, and other descripvtive engineering practices. Typical examples are sample size to estimate the

average quality of a lot or process, color coding of electronic components,

codes for highway signs, identification colors for pipes conveying gases and

liquids, international codes for the abbreviation of titles of periodicals, and

the nuclear energy glossary. Although measurement units are not involved,

descriptive standards may be as incompatible as dimensional specifications.

For example, the practice of keeping to the left side of the road in some

countries and to the right side in others is not amenable to a compromise; it has to be one way or the other.

Compatibility of Standards

Two standards are compatible when the same engineering practice is prescribed. It is not necessary that the same measuring units and written
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

words be used. For example, certain pipe standards in many countries are compatible even though each country uses its customary units and written

language in the standard. On the other hand, standards for pipe thread in

England and the United States are not compatible, even though both are expressed in the same measurement unit and written language.

Thus, it is the engineering practice rather than the measurement units that

determines compatibility or incompatibility of standards. The importance of

measurement units is their role in developing the engineering practice.

In the past, most products made in a series of sizes conformed to whole

numbers, multiples of binary fractions, or simple decimals in the system of

units used. For example, steel bar and rod are usually made in the United

States in increments of 1/16 inch in the small sizes, 1/8 inch in the intermediate sizes, and 1/4 inch in the larger sizes. In metric countries, the increments are 1 , 2, or 5 millimeters. As a consequence, the two standards are not

compatible. In order to resolve this problem and to select sizes on a rational

basis, the tendency today is to use a system proposed by Charles Renard in

1879. This system, known as preferred numbers, is based on a geometrical

(rather than arithmetical) progression for selecting sizes. For applications

requiring an arithmetical progression for sizes (for example, in building construction) the modular system is being used in standards. Whether perferred

numbers or modules are used for determining sizes, a choice must be made

for the base size. A base module of 100 millimeters is not sufficiently compatible with one of 4 inches (101.6mm). Likewise, a preferred number series

based on U.S. customary units is not compatible with one based on SI units,

unless the difference of 1.6% can be tolerated. In a few instances, worldwide

agreement exists on sizes, based on either U.S. customary or metric units.

For most products, however, agreement does not exist and the practice in

one or both standards must be changed to achieve compatibility.

Extent of Use and Significance

It is difficult to determine the number of engineering standards in the four

categories described above: dimensional specifications, quality specifications, method of test, and descriptive practices. However, an examination of

1200 ISO (International Organization for Standardization) recommendations issued to date, shows that dimensional specifications comprise about

25% of the total number, quality specifications about 15%, methods of test about 45%, and descriptive pracfices about 15%. Thus, in 75% of these cases the international adoption of a U.S. standard is not likely to be

governed by measurement units. Even among the 25% that are dimensional

specifications, measurement units are not at issue where sizes are already

agreed upon internationally. For the other dimensional specifications that are now incompatible there may be an opportunity to adopt a more rational

series of sizes.

The introduction of SI units into engineering standards is only one facet of

metrication. It is a step now being taken by national standardizing organizations and is not dependent on the entire country changing its measurement

units. It appears to be a wise step in fostering the use of U.S. standards internafionally. Critical problems arise mainly in dimensional specifications
APPENDIX 4

where there is incompatibility between U.S. and metric sizes. Even the conflict in these standards can be resolved within the framework of present measurement units, as evidence by the current use in the United States of

products whose sizes are based on metric units and in metric countries of

products whose sizes are based on inch units.

This illustrates again the basic point that the sizes (or values) are paramount and the measurement language in which they are described is secondary. The U.S. should be willing to accept ISO-IEC standards in what- ever language they are written, provided they have sufficient merit, and

focus its negotiation efforts to arrive at standards in accord with our

practices.

C. Development Process for Engineering Standards

Engineering standards are developed and promulgated at three levels: by

single firms or entities, by national bodies, and by international organizations. The degree of required coordination increases as a standard

progresses from the single to the national to the international organization.

Standards Issued by a Single Organization

These standards, which are issued by a local government or a single company (either a producer or consumer), are generally poorly coordinated.

They include local building codes, company purchase specifications, and

producer's specifications for the products he sells or uses in his manufacturing process. The objective of these standards is to assure interchangeability

of parts, maintain product quality levels, or both. Codes issued by local

governments prescribe minimum quality levels for building construction and

repair. Insofar as they are incompatible with other standards for the same

product, they restrict trade and are frequently used to foster proprietary

interests.

National Standards

Standards used throughout a country and issued by an organization within

the country are national standards. In the United States they emerge in dif- ferent ways. Some are recognized by a national coordinating body, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Some become adopted

by industry-wide use, without any formal adoption process. In either case they are called national standards if their scope is national.

In Russia and a few other countries, they are issued by the government

and are mandatory. In the U.S. and in most other countries, only regulatory

standards are mandatory. Most engineering standards are voluntary. Unlike

most countries, many organizations in the United States issue standards that are recognized nationally. They include the government; organizations of

government officials, such as the American Association of State Highway

Officials and the Association of Official Analytical Chemists; and private or- ganizations, such as ANSI, the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Institute of

Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), Society of Automotive En-
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

gineers (SAE), industrial trade associations, and other groups. The degree of

coordination depends on the organization issuing the standard. Standards is- sued by ANSI probably represent the greatest degree of voluntary standards

coordination and are recognized internationally as our national standards.

Most of these standards are developed by member organizations of ANSI,

ANSI's role being to ensure maximum coordination. National standards

may restrict trade, but they tend to be less restrictive than standards issued

by a single organization. To the extent that national standards incorporate

sizes characteristic of the nation's measurement language, they may result in

trade restrictions in international commerce.

International Standards

The International Electrotechnical Commission (lEC) and International

Organization for Standardization (ISO) have become the worldwide leaders

in international standardization. There are also regional organizations. The

Pan American Standards Commission (COPANT) operates in the Western

Hemisphere. The International Commission on Rules for the Approval of

Electrical Equipment (CEE), the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE),

and the Committee for the Coordination of European Standards in the Electrical Field (CENEL) are concerned with standardization in Europe. The

USA is represented in I EC, ISO and COPANT by the American National

Standards Institute. Because of the worldwide representation in I EC and

ISO, their recommendations with respect to standards reflect the greatest

degree of coordination. Although member bodies of lEC and ISO are not

required to use the international standards and recommendations, many

countries are adopting them as their national standards. I EC and ISO recom- mendations reflect the engineering practices of the nations that participate in

drafting them. As a consequence, a nation which does not participate at the

drafting stage may later find its standards and practices different and suffer a consequent disadvantage in international trade unless it changes its standards to conform with ISO and I EC recommendations. Some of the existing

lEC and ISO recommendations include two systems of units and two series

of sizes based on the inch and meter, respectively. However, the present

trend is to give preference to SI units.

In the future, national standards which do not include SI are not likely to

receive due consideration in the development of international standards, and

the nations concerned will be at a disadvantage in future dealings with na- tions using SI. This trend was recognized by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) when it issued the ASTM Metric Practice Guide

in 1964. ANSI policy as adopted in 1969, "supports and encourages use of

SI Units in addition to other units in all standards submitted to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and their use, in addition to

other units, in all ISO Recommendations." ASME, SAE and other standardization organizations have taken similar action.

When there has been active participation by the United States in an ISO

or lEC Committee, U.S. engineering practices have usually been considered

favorably in drafting the international recommendation, and in many cases

reflected in the final output. For example, the ISO recommendations for
APPENDIX 4

both the metric and inch screw threads are based on the cross-section shape

as specified in our U.S. national standard. On the other hand, as a result of our indifference and lack of participation, our practices have not been considered in many committees. In sum, active participation on the drafting

committees is believed essential if we are to have our practices reflected in

international recommendations. Our delegates on I EC and ISO committees

must be competent and must serve for extended periods of time to be

effective.

D. Magnitude of the Undertaking

Except for the few regulatory standards issued by some government agencies, the use of engineering standards in the United States is voluntary. Their

effectiveness depends on the extent to which the voluntary standards are in- cluded in procurement contracts. Even though voluntary, the need for standards has long been recognized, at both the national and international level.

Yet, there has never been a single organization in the United States covering

the entire gamut of engineering standards. However, ANSI and its predecessors have often expressed a willingness to consider favorably such a role,

and have initiated unsuccessful efforts to be awarded a national charter for

this purpose.

Standardization activities have grown without coordination and have been

fragmented among about 400 organizations, many of which are older than

ANSI. Indeed, only a small portion of our national standards are developed

directly by the ANSI. Over 40 other organizations in the United States issue

standards that may be adopted by ANSI as American National Standards.

In addition, there are national standards for biological materials, drugs, and

foods which are not included in the scope of ANSI's activities or those of its member organizations.

Fragmentation and lack of central responsibility have led to duplication of

effort and confusion. For example, standards for steel pipe are issued by

three Federal agencies and five private organizations. Some of these stan- dards are essentially duplicates, others differ to some extent.

The development of multiple standards, where one could easily suffice,

not only complicates and multiplies the effort in the standards process, it runs contrary to the basic principles upon which good and useful standards

are based. The manufacture and distribution of moderately different, but

nominally identical, products is equivalent to producing for a fragmented

market. Costs increase, reflecting manufacturing modifications and distribution complications. If carried far enough, standards duplication can lead

producers to frustration and to rejection of the whole idea of costly participation in the standards process. The increased costs can also lead buyers to al- ternative products and sources of supply, where the standards process has

been used more effectively.

Most standards pertain to industrial materials, intermediate parts, assemblies or products used by large companies or government agencies. For ex- ample, the Department of Defense has issued almost 35,000 specifications

and standards in addition to some 5,000 Federal specifications it has found

useful. This number greatly exceeds the combined total of standards issued
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

by all voluntary standards organizations in the United States, a total that is estimated to be slightly over 20,000. Since the number of standards issued

by standards-making organizations is not complete, many federal and military specifications (whatever their origin) have through use become de facto

national standards. Because the number of standards extant in the U.S. is only a rough estimate, the rate of increase cannot be determined. All of the

existing standards are not needed and the number of redundant standards

cannot be estimated accurately. We know, however, that the number is in- creasing, since, as a consequence of economic growth and need, the number

issued always exceeds the number discontinued.

There are relatively few national standards for products used in industry

(e.g., tractors, machine tools) and fewer still for products used by the con- suming public. In the 1970 ANSI catalog only 125 standards are Hsted for

consumer goods. Many of these are for home construction items such as

electrical, gas, and oil burning equipment, and aluminum windows and construction materials. This small number does not necessarily reflect the total

number of standards which benefit the consumer. The standards for intermediates in the complex of mass production operations indirectly affect him.

The economies resulting from the use of standard nuts, bolts, wires, sheet

steel, fasteners, T.V. wire forms, vacuum tubes, transistors, and the like are

reflected in consumer products. Play of the market place identifies the sur- vivors.

The use of standards on the part of the consumer in purchasing is a newly

emerging phenomenon associated with products of increased sophistication

and technological content. Its success requires some means for financing, on

behalf of the consumer, his participation in the expensive and highly technical standards development process. The government injects the public interest by sponsoring and aiding the development of mandatory standards to

protect health and safety. And ANSI procedures allow public review and

comment on all standards proposed for approval as an American National

Standard. Nevertheless, there appears to be a growing public demand for in- creased participation of the consumer, through his government representatives or otherwise, in the standards development process, which affects him

in important ways.

E. U.S. Participation in International Standards

Participation by the United States in international standardization has

fluctuated over the years. At the end of the 19th century, there were many

members of the International Association for Testing Materials (lATM) in

the U.S. In 1898, these members formed the American Section of I ATM,

which was incorporated four years later under the name of American

Society for Testing Materials (ASTM).

At the 1904 meeting of the International Electrical Congress held in St. Louis, a resolution was passed leading to the formation of the International

'** For example, the development of color television signal format standards, a complex

technical problem with great impact upon the consumer, required millions of engineering man

hours.
APPENDIX 4

Electrotechnical Commission (I EC) in 1906 and the USA National Committee for I EC in 1907. Interest in international standardization reached a peak

at the beginning of World War I. At that time. 623 of the 2849 members of

lATM (more than 20%), were in the U.S. Germany was second with 446

members. To promote the international use of ASTM standards, twenty

specifications for steel products were published in the English, French. German, and Spanish languages by ASTM in 1913. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Commerce translated ASTM standards having an important

bearing on the export trade and distributed them to consular offices

throughout the world.

U.S. interest in international standardization continued during and after

World War I, but decreased markedly after I ATM ceased to function in

1915. The five principal societies issuing standards in the U.S. began discussions in 1916 on ways and means of achieving cooperation in the issuance of

engineering standards and formed in 1918, with three government departments, the American Engineering Standards Committee. This Committee

maintained informal communication with other national standardizing or- ganizations and in 1926 helped to organize the International Standards Association (ISA), a federation of 18 national standardizing bodies. The Committee was superseded in 1928 by the American Standards Association

(ASA), an expanded organization whose members were 40 national technical societies, trade associations, and Government departments. ASA

represented the United States on ISA, but ISA and the new lATM (also

formed in 1926) did not revive the interest in international standardization

that existed prior to World War I. Both the new lATM and ISA ceased to

function when World War II started.

The need for international standardization was recognized by the Allied

Nations. In 1944, they formed the United Nations Standards CoordinaUng

Committee. The need for continuing the work of the committee after the war

led to the establishment of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 1946. I EC, which was able to survive both World War I and II,

affiliated with ISO in 1947, but retained its organizational autonomy. These

two organizations have become predominant in international standardization. ASA has represented the U.S. in lEC since 1931 through the U.S. National Committee for lEC and in ISO since it was founded in 1946. In a reor- ganizafion of ASA in 1 966, the name was changed to United States of America Standards Institute. The name was again changed in 1969 to American

National Standards Institute. In order to harmonize national standards

based on customary inch units, the American-British-Canadian Conference

on the Unificafion of Engineering Standards was organized in 1945 and con- tinued until England formally began its change to the metric system.

Interest in international standardization within the U.S. has grown greatly

since World War II. Participation of the U.S. National Committee in lEC

has increased. In some ISO technical committees the U.S. has become very

active, including nine of the twelve most active committees, and the U.S. is secretariat of one of the three most active committees. Some of these committees represent industries particularly sensitive to the base measurement

units; for example, aircraft and space vehicles, and textile machinery. Other
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

countries have developed similar interest. Germany and Japan are now

translating many of their standards into foreign langugages, just as the U.S.

did between 1913 and 1930. Japan's success since 1945 in establishing stan- dards for high-quality products, implemented by quality control and certification programs, is the forerunner of similar programs now being developed

among European countries. These programs are discussed in chapter III of

this report.

In order to obtain perspective on the number of standards required for in- ternational commerce, it is necessary to ascertain the number of standards

used nationally. Private organizations in the United States have issued over 20,000 standards, but many of them are duplications. On the other hand,

many additional standards are needed, particularly for consumer goods.

Thus, 20,000 standards appears to be a lower limit. An estimate of the upper

limit is 40,000, since the Department of Defense utilizes nearly this number

in the form of federal and military specifications and standards. This number

includes standards for most industrial products, food, clothing, and other

consumer goods used in the civilian economy, as well as for items utilized

exclusively by the Department of Defense.

These numbers are appreciably higher than the numbers issued by standardization organizations in other countries, as can be seen in the following

tabulation:

Association Francais de Normalization 7,000

British Standards Institution 5,500

Deutschen Normenausschuss 1 1 ,000

Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazone 6,000

Gosudarstvenny j Komitet Standartov, USSR 1 3,000

Indian Standards Institution 5,000

Japanese Standards Association 7,000

Nonetheless, the number of standards is increasing rapidly in other countries. India, a developing nation, expects to have over 10,000 standards at the completion of the Fourth Plan. Considering the number of standards in

the U.S. and in other countries, an estimate of 20,000 standards seems

reasonable for the number of lEC and ISO recommendations or standards

required. Since these two international bodies have issued less than 1700

from their founding through 1969, an increase by a factor of 10 or more appears necessary to meet the needs of a technological world economy. To put

it another way, more than 90% of the expected requirements for international standards remain to be considered.

Part of the disparity between the repertoire of international standards

needed and those in existence must be charged to the problems associated

with any attempt at coordination or adjustment of views among nations. In

this respect the international standards process is no exception. Five years

or more are required in the development of an I EC or ISO recommendation.

Even so, a rough review of the accomplishments of these standardizing

bodies raises questions regarding the slowness and inefficiency of some of

Does not include standards for food, drugs, and other biological materials.
APPENDIX 4 63

the technical committees that develop the recommendations (standards).

The productivity of the lEC and ISO committees established before 1965

and of those with the U.S. as Secretariat is as follows:

Recommendations issued

Number of committees

All committees U.S. Secretariat

Number lEC ISO lEC ISO

0 3 23 0

1

3

1 4 17 2 2 9 1

1

-) 1

3 5 5 3 1 4-15 26 28 0

1

0

16-30 7 14 3 over 30 2 12 0 1

Total 56 1 10 7 1

1

These data show that a few committees have been very active and that

many have been almost inactive. The performance of committees with the

U.S. as secretariat is no better than that of other committees. Admittedly,

counting standards is a poor basis for evaluation of committee performance,

but the numbers indicate that the less active committees do have the potential ability to double the rate of development of international standards.

Another factor in the disparity is indifference. U.S. participation is illus- trative. A rough estimate of 50% participation can be made on the basis of

the following information for ISO:

Organizational unit

Participation by U.S.

Number Percent

131 Technical committees 91 69

209 Subcommittees 138 66

593 Working groups 251 42

933 Organizational units 480 51

Participation in I EC cannot be readily ascertained since each national

committee is automatically included as a participating member of each

technical committee and subcommittee. Information on participation at the

working group level is not available, but members of the U.S. National Committee have made rough estimates of 50%.
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Effective representation is probably less than indicated by the above

figures, since U.S. delegates do not attend many lEC and ISO meetings of

groups on which there is nominal participation. It is at lEC and ISO

meetings, particularly at the working group level, that the international

recommendations are developed and the practices of countries represented

are naturally given greatest consideration.

Counting memberships is at best a hazardous means for assessing the effectiveness of U.S. participation. The alternative of subjective assessment,

committee by committee and member by member, would be very difficult.

Quantitative evaluations do not exist. A part of the apparent indifference

may be an inability to foresee the effect that lEC and ISO recommendations

will have on national standards and international trade. In the past, the effect

has been very small, primarily because of the few recommendations issued.

However, this situation should change rapidly during the next 10 years.

The cost of sending delegates overseas to meetings is an important deterrent to participation in many international committees. The travel expenses

of a delegate to an overseas meeting average about $800. Thus, to send two

delegates to each of the estimated 1 100 meetings of committees, subcommittees, and working groups of lEC and ISO each year would cost nearly

$2,000,000. This cost does not include salaries of delegates for time spent at meetings and committee activities between meetings; nor does it include

costs of administration. The American National Standards Institute estimates the cost of administering U.S. participation in an international stan- dards committee at $5000 per year. Supporting a committee secretariat adds

sizable additional expenses, bringing the cost, according to ANSI estimates,

to about $15,000.

In contrast, the travel costs of participation for European nations are obviously much less. In any case whether travel cost or indifference is the reason

for the relatively low level of participation by the United States, the fact is that the U.S. supports only 50 secretariats of technical committees and subcommittees of ISO and I EC, compared with about 100 each for England and

France.
Appendix 5

SELECTED QUESTIONNAIRES BEING EMPLOYED

IN THE U.S. METRIC STUDY

(1) Manufacturing Industry Survey • Information and Instructions • General Data (Part A) • Cost Data (Part B)

(2) International Trade Survey • Impact of Metrication on U.S. Imports • Impact of Metrication on U.S. Exports

(3) Federal Government Survey • Areas of National Responsibility • International Operations

(4) Survey of Nonmanufacturing Firms • Initial Contact Interview • Second Interview (Part A) • Second Interview (Part B) • Existing Measurement System • Future Measurement System

65
66 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

U. S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

BoB # 41-S70016

Approval expires June 30, 1971

U.S. METRIC STUDY

(under Public Law 90-472, August 9, 1968)

MANUFACTURING

INDUSTRY SURVEY

Information and Instructions

Additional information or copies of the questionnaire may be obtained from:

Manufacturing Survey Team

U. S. Metric Study

National Bureau of Standards

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Washington, D. C. 20234

Phone: (301) 921-2658
APPENDIX 5 67

U.S. METRIC STUDY- MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

INTRODUCTION

Public Law 90-472, August 9, 1968, copy at- tached, authorizes the Secretary of Commerce

to conduct a program of investigation, research,

and survey "to determine the impact of increasing worldwide use of the metric system on the

United States" and to "appraise economic . . . advantages and disadvantages of the increased use of the metric system in specific fields and

the impact of such increased use on those affected".

By the time of the enactment of the Law

practically all of the countries of the world had

adopted the metric system of measurement,

with the British Government, in 1965, announcing their intention of converting all manufacturing and other sectors of their economy to the

metric system with a planned completion data

of 1975 and with the South African Government in 1967 deciding to follow suit.

In 1969 the New Zealand Government an- nounced their intention of making the metric

system their national system of weights and

measures and in January 1970, the Australian

and the Canadian Governments announced the

same intention.

The data collected in this survey will be presented in the Department of Commerce Report

to Congress on an industry-wide basis and

in such form that individual company data can- not be isolated.

SCOPE AND PURPOSE

The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information that will assist in determining

what course of action with respect to metrication the United States should follow.

This questionnaire is on a Company-wide*

basis for one 4-digit product group regardless

of how many establishments of your company

participate in the manufacture of that product

group. It has two parts: Part A, which pertains to general facets of metric usage, and

Part B, which deals with the subject of "added

costs" that would be attributable to increased

use of the metric system. Much of the information requested in Pai't A is conjectural rather

• For purposes of this survey "Company" is defined to include the parent firm and all domestic subsidiaries it owns or controls.

than factual, while the data requested in Part

B requires an extensive in-depth and relatively

expensive internal study by the respondent.

All recipients are requested to complete Part A;

the completion of Part B is optional. If you

plan to respond to Part B please communicate

with the Manufacturing Survey Team (address

and phone number on front cover page) for

further background.

Your replies will be of great value in enabling the Secretary of Commerce to propose an

appropriate course of action for consideration

by the United States. However, the questions

and assumptions do not imply what course of

action may be recommended by the Secretary

in his report to the Congress.

This questionnaire is based on the 4-digit

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) as defined in the Bureau of the Budget SIC Classification Manual. A separate form should be used

for the group of products constituting each 4-

digit SIC to be reported. If you require information regarding the products classified within

each SIC industry, please consult with your

Comptroller or your nearest Department of

Commerce Field Ofiice, or the U.S. Metric Study

Manufacturing Survey Team (address on front cover page).

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are applicable to

Parts A and B:

(1) Domestic production: your production

in the United States, including Puerto Rico.

(2) Customary system: the system of meas- urement units (yard, pound, second, degree

Fahrenheit, and units derived from these) most

commonly used in the United States. Synonyms "English system", "U.S. system". These

are not to be confused with "Imperial system",

which describes a related but not completely

identical system currently in use in the United

Kingdom and other English-speaking countries.

(3) Metric system: the measurement system based generally on the meter as a unit of

length, the kilogram as a unit of mass, the

second as a unit of time, the kelvin or the degree Celsius (formerly degree Centigrade) as a unit of temperature and units derived from

these. This system has evolved over the years
68 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

and the modernized version today is identified as the "International System of Units" (SI).

The above units and other SI units are listed

in the Annex of ISO Recommendation R 1000.

(4) Metrication: any act tending to increase

the use of the metric system.

(5) Engineering standard: a practice established by authority or mutual agreement and

described in a document to assure dimensional

compatibility, quality of product, uniformity of

evaluation procedure, or uniformity of engineering language. Examples are documents prescribing screw thread dimensions, chemical

composition and mechanical properties of steel,

dress sizes, safety standards for motor vehicles,

methods of test for sulphur in oil, and codes

for highway signs. Engineering standards may

be designated in terms of the level of coordination by which they were established (e.g.,

company standards, industry standards, national standards).

(6) Shop drawings: drawings or prints with

dimensions, tolerances, and other specifications

from which parts are fabricated.

(7) Research & development: laboratory

activity directed toward development of new

kinds of products and processes but not immediately associated with production.
APPENDIX 5 69

U.S. METRIC STUDY- MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

PART A—GENERAL DATA

(SEE YELLOW QUESTIONNAIRE)

The purpose of this Part is to obtain information as to the present impact within the

United States of the increasing worldwide and

domestic use of the metric system and as to the probable future advantages and disadvantages of this increasing metric usage under two

assumed courses of action: (1) no coordinated

action on a national scale with regard to metrication; i.e., a continuation of the present practice of using the metric system or retaining

the customary system when either appears to be economically and technically preferable to the other as a matter of individual company

policy, or (2) a coordinated national program

of metrication based on voluntary participation involving most sectors of the economy including education.

GUIDELINES

Your attention is directed to the document

titled "Orientation for Company Metric

Studies" (attached hereto) prepared by the

Metric Advisory Committee of the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI). This

document can serve as a source guide to supply

you with background information and should

prove of value in answering some of the questions in this Questionnaire. Other guidelines

pertaining to specific questions have been included in the Instructions to those questions.

Other background materials are also attached

for your information and reference. These include "ASTM Standard Metric Practice Guide",

ISO Recommendation RIOOO", "Measuring Systems and Standards Organizations", and "The

Modernized Metric System" (NBS Special Publication 304A).

Although many of the questions ask for information that is conjectural rather than factual, the acquisition of this information is necessary for the study. Furthermore, it is evident that this information as obtained from

individual companies will be more reliable than

if obtained from other sources. Accordingly,

your best estimates are earnestly solicited.

Since precise answers to many of the questions may be difficult to develop, considered

estimates will suffice in those cases.

INSTRUCTIONS

IMPORTANT. Please note that except for

question 1, which solicits information as to the

number of employees in your Company* in the

United States, and questions 18, 19, and 21,

which solicit general comments, all other questions ask for company data applicable ONLY

to the 4-digit SIC product group covered by

this questionnaire. If a question or a segment

of a question is not applicable (NA) to your

type of business indicate that fact by the notation NA, but please be careful to differentiate

between the use of NA and zero. We may wish to communicate with your

company regarding some item in this report.

Accordingly, please designate at the end of the

questionnaire the person you wish us to

contact.

• For purposes of this survey "Company" is defioefl to include the parent firm and all domestic subsidiaries it owns or controls.
70 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

U.S. METRIC STUDY- MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

PART B—COST

(SEE BLUE QUESTIONNAIRE)

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Part is to obtain information as to the costs and savings that would

accrue to the manufacturing industry if the

country were to follow a coordinated national

program of metrication based on voluntary

participation involving most sectors of the

economy, including education.

The data collected in this survey will be presented in the Department of Commerce Report

to Congress on an industry-wide basis and in

such form that individual company data cannot

be isolated.

THIS COST QUESTIONNAIRE APPLIES TO

YOUR DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ONLY

The attention of respondents is directed to "Orientation for Company Metric Studies"

(attached hereto) prepared by the Metric Advisory Committee of the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) to establish a

basis for estimating added costs on an optimum

schedule.

Other background materials are also attached

for your information and reference. These include "ASTM Standard Metric Practice Guide",

"ISO Recommendation RIOOO", "Measuring

Systems and Standards Organizations", and

"The Modernized Metric System" (NBS Special

Publication 304A).

Please note that this Part of the Manufacturing Industry questionnaire is designed to re- port your in-house added cost only on a com- pany basis.

DEFINITIONS

"Added cost" due to increased use of the

metric system in a new or redesigned product

is the increment of cost directly attributable to the use of the metric system over and above what the cost would have been had

the new or redesigned product been designed

and manufactured by using customary units.

"Net added cost" of metrication is added cost as defined above decreased by the savings dui'-

ing the transition period that accrue as a result

of the use of the metric system rather than the

customary system.

"Value of sales" represents net selling values,

F.O.B. plant, after discounts and allowances

and excluding freight charges and excise taxes.

"Value of materials" as used in this questionnaire includes cost of purchased materials and

parts, including standard parts and standard

materials incorporated in the finished product

(whether purchased or produced in-house) , supplies, fuel, and electrical energy.

"Standard parts" are parts for which standards have been established on a national basis.

These parts are interchangeable and normally can be purchased "off-the-shelf"; such as nuts,

bolts, tires, sparkplugs, lamps, vacuum tubes,

electric motors, and bearings.

"Standard materials" are sheet, plate, wire,

bar stock, etc. manufactured to specified thicknesses, cross-sections, and shapes established on a national basis. These materials can nor- mally be purchased "off-the-shelf".

"Optimum period" is that period of time in

which the transition of the product from cus- tomary units to metric units can be accomplished at minimum cost to your company; it is normally the period during which the product

is substantially redesigned.

ASSUMPTIONS

The assumptions stated herein are for the

purpose of estimating "added cost" during the

transition period for converting to metric production under a coordinated national program

of metrication based on voluntary participation.

They do not imply what course of action may be

recommended or what course of action the

country may follow after completion of the

study.

Assume that:

1. The use of metric units and metric engineering standards will be increased only for

new or redesigned products or new or redesigned parts of the product. Unless there are

distinct advantages in changing, the production

of an existing item will remain unchanged un-
APPENDIX 5 71

til the normal design life cycle of that product is completed and a new metric-designed product

replaces it.

2. In-house designed products or components

will be designed in metric units on a schedule

that is compatible with normal obsolescence of

tooling or with economically feasible conversion

of tooling from customary to metric units.

Existing items of production equipment will be

used until their normal life cycles are completed. The only changes or conversion to metric units will be in dials, gages, some feedrate controls and indicating devices. Such

changes will be made on an economic basis,

(i.e. when the demand for metric designed

parts or products requires a change).

3. Out-of-house production materials and

components based on metric engineering standards will become available during the transition

period at no substantial increase in cost.

4. Costs resulting from mating metric components with carry-over existing customary

components at their interface are added costs.

5. The transition period will be the "optimum period" for most companies. However, for

companies that produce product groups that

are standard parts and/or standard materials,

the transition period is not an "optimum

period" but is a period that is dictated by the

demands of the customers.

6. The metric system will be taught in all U. S. schools during the transition period and

the general public will concurrently be gaining

familiarity with this system of measurement.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

All elements of your manufacturing process,

for the SIC product group reported on, should

be investigated and any identifiable added costs

associated with each element resulting from

adoption of metric usage instead of customary

usage should be noted.

There are two alternative Part B (blue)

questionnaires. The one headed "Section 1" is for use by most companies. However, if this

response covers a product group that comprises

standard parts and/or standard materials, use

the one headed "Section 2".

The list of areas of investigation that follows

is identical with the list in item g. of both

Sections of the questionnaire. Respondents are

requested to consolidate the added costs determined for all elements into the applicable listed areas of investigation of item g. In some of the areas such as "Engineering &

Research" or "Records & Accounting," there

may be savings of a continuing nature that

would start to be realized during the transition

period. To the extent practicable, any such sav- ings during the transition period should be

computed and a net cost determined. In some

cases, such net costs may be negative (i.e. where

savings exceed costs).

The areas to be studied include:

1. Personnel Education

2. Engineering & Research & Associated

Documentation

3. Manufacturing & Quality Control

4. Records & Accounting

5. Standards Association Activity

6. Warehousing

7. Sales & Services

8. Other

Guidelines for those areas of study follow:

1. Only those workers who will be affected by

the introduction of metric units will need training. In some cases, a short briefing or orientation is all that is necessary; in others, more

detailed and formal instructions may be re- quired.

2. a. What changes in engineering drawings

over and above normal redesign changes, if any, will be necessary. What are the associated

costs? What about new metric rulers, tables,

handbooks, etc?

b. In your research department, determine

what equipment will need new dials or changed

indicators; what new test equipment, such as gage blocks and other metric standard devices,

will need to be purchased, etc?

3. a. What existing production equipment

needs new or modified dials, verniers, indicators, and the like, to read out in metric units ? Will any production equipment actually need

replacement of feed-screws and what are the

costs of replacement? In the latter case it may prove more economical to modify the feed- screw indicator to metric readings. Which precision machine tools will need optical position

indicators in metric and which will need metric

digital readout? Machines on which the feed

rate is dependent on the pitch of the feed-screw,

such as milling machines, require special in-
72 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

vestigation. In some cases, the lead-screw drive

arrangement may need to be changed. _ It is as- sumed that when a modification is expensive,

it would be applied only in machines whose life

before obsolescence is long.

b. What calipers, micrometers, and other

tools that are furnished by your company will

need to be replaced?

c. A review of the equipment used in

quality control and the testing of the finished

product should be made. Any added costs in

changing dials, gages, etc., or even the replacement of certain equipment that cannot be

changed to metric readout should be noted.

4. Included in this category are records,

bookkeeping, billing, and other associated

paperwork.

5. Added costs resulting from increased activity on standards organizations should be

included. However, the added costs for the

development of company standards will be cov- ered in whichever department has that responsibility (e.g. Engineering or Design).

6. Added costs may accrue because of the

necessity of additional inventories. These should

be determined for the transition period.

7. Added costs in connection with sales, such

as sales catalogues, service and replacement

parts, advertising, and the like should be estimated.

8. Other elements peculiar to your operations will occur to you during your investigations. These should be noted and any added

costs determined.

A diflferent form should be used for each 4-

digit SIC Product Group that you report. For

small companies thig will be the principal SIC

product group only but other SIC product

groups may be included with it if it is not

practicable to sever them. Added costs should

be evaluated as the total dollar added costs oc- curring over the transition period, based on

1969 dollars, for the SIC product group produced by your company. Since the task of calculating added costs for all products in this

SIC Product group by your company may be

great, it may be expedient and possible to use a representative sample consisting of one or more typical items or products selected from

the group of products being reported to serve

as a basis for estimating the cost for the entire

SIC product group of the company. However,

with the exception of question e. in Section 1 or question f in Section 2, the information re- quested is for the total of all items in the 4-digit

SIC product group produced by your company.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECTION 1:

a. State the SIC 4-digit product group cov- ered by this questionnaire. It should be the

same as that shown to the left of your company

name and address in Part A.

b. Check the box that includes the value of

sales for all products produced by your company in the stated 4-digit SIC product group.

c. Note that a percentage is requested, the

ratio of value of materials to your total value

of sales of this 4-digit SIC product group produced by you, multiplied by 100.

d. A percentage is requested, the ratio of

total "in-house net added cost" of metrication

to your total value of sales of this 4-digit SIC

product group produced by you, multiplied by

100. In the determination of total in-house net

added cost it should be remembered that (1)

any added cost of standard parts and standard

materials are to be excluded and (2) savings are to be subtracted from added costs thus re- sulting in a total in-house net added cost of

metrication. In cases in which this net added

cost is negative, the percentage reported will be

negative and should be prominently so marked.

f. Enter the number of years that you have

determined is the optimum period of transition

for this SIC product group produced by your

company.

g. If the net added cost (added cost minus

savings) is negative for any item or area of

investigation, the percentage reported will be

negative and should be prominently so marked.

However, the sum of 1 through 8 should total

100 (or minus 100 if the percentage value in

d_is negative).

h. Because of the interrelationships, or interlocking, of various industries we would like to determine what the cost impact would be if your company converted this product to metric

measurement during a coordinated national

program of metrication of 10-year duration

based on voluntary participation. Your con- sidered estimate will be appreciated.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECTION 2:

a. State the SIC 4-digit product group cov-
APPENDIX 5 73

ered by this questionnaire. It should be the

same as that shown to the left of your company

name and address in Part A.

b. Check the box that includes the value of

sales for all products produced by your com- pany in the stated 4-digit SIC product group.

c. Note that a percentage is requested, the

ratio of value of materials to your total value

of sales of this 4-digit SIC product group produced by you, multiplied by 100.

d. A percentage is requested, the ratio of the

total in-house net added cost for development of

capability to supply standard parts and/or

standard materials to both customary standards

and metric standards as metric standards are developed to your total value of sales of this

4-digit SIC product group produced by you,

multiplied by 100. In the determination of

total in-house net added cost it should be re- membered that (1) any added cost of standard

parts and standard materials other than the

product group reported is to be excluded and

(2) savings are to be subtracted from added

costs thus resulting in a total in-house net

added cost of metrication. In cases in which

this net added cost is negative, the percentage

reported will be negative and should be prominently so marked.

e. A percentage is requested, the ratio of the

annual in-house net added cost for maintaining

capability to supply standard parts and/or

standard materials to both customary standards

and metric standards to your total value of sales

of this 4-digit SIC product group produced by

you, multiplied by 100.

g. If the net added cost (added cost minus

savings) is negative for any item or area of

investigation, the percentage reported will be

negative and should be prominently so marked.

However, the sum of 1 through 8 should total

100 (or minus 100 if the percentage value in

d^ or e is negative).

We may wish to communicate with your

company regarding some item in this report.

Accordingly, please designate at the end of the

questionnaire the person you wish us to contact.
74 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

FORM NBS510

U-VO) U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U. S. METRIC STUDY

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

PART A.-GENERAL DATA

Budget Bureau Approval No.

41-S70016

Approval Expires June 30, 1971

A, SIC Product Group

(CC 1-4) C, Company name and address

B. Control No. (CC 5-8)

D. Is this Company owned or controlled by another company ?

Yes No

E. If yes, give name and address of that company

1. Number of employees in your company in the United States. (Check appropriate box)

(CC 10)

2. Total 1969 value of sales for this SIC product group. (Check appropriate box). (CC 11)

a. 1 to 49

b. 50 to 249

c. 250 to 499

d. 500 to 999

e. 1,000 to 2,499

f. 2,500 to 10,000

g. Over 10,000

[~| a. Up to $1 million

I I b. Over $lm to $5m

I I c. Over $5m to $10m

d. Over $10m to $25m

I I e. Over S25m to $50m

f. Over $50m to SlOOm

g. Over SlOOm to $250m

h. Over $250m to $500m

I I i. Over $500m to $1 billion

j. Over $1 billion

3. Are you also completing Part B for this SIC Group? (CC 12) a. Yes Q b. No

4. Identify specific product or products included in this group:

5. Are you now using metric measurement units and/or metric engineering standards

in your domestic operations in any of categories listed in question 5a? (See top

of next page for categories.) ( NOTE : If answer is No, proceed to question 6).

a. If answer is yes , estimate the approximate percentage of metric usage for each type of activity for the indicated years (percent related to total of indicated category). Enter NA for any activities not applicable to your

operations. (Please differentiate between NA and zero.) Please make

an entry in all blocks. NOTE : When both customary and metric dimensions are employed concurrently, such as on labels, the percentage desired is that portion of the category with the metric notation related to the total amount in that category;

e.g., in 5a_(5), if 65% of the canned product of a cannery has both metric and customary weights (ounces and grams) on the label, 15% has metric weights

only (grams), and 20% has customary units only (ounces), the stated per- centage should be 80; similarly for 5^ (2). Include all domestic activity or production in the statistics even though the end item or product is not for domestic use. Item 5^ (5) relates primarily to companies that package their product (e.g., paint, canning, pharmaceutical, refining, and milling).

Card Col.

13

YES

(a) NO

(b)
APPENDIX 5 75

5.

a.

ACTIVITY

Card

Cols.

5 yrs. ago

(1965)

Current

(1970)

Future

(1975)

(1) Design, Engineering, Shop Drawings

(% related to total man-hours in this activity) 14-22

(2) Catalogues

(% related to total number of catalogues) 23-31

(^) Research and Development

(% related to total man-hours in this activity) 32-40

(4) Manufacturing process, including tooling and test equipment

(% related to total man-hours in this activity) 41-49

(5) Labeling

(% related to total product packaged) 50-58

(6) Other (specify) 59-67

b- If you are presently using metric measurement units in any of your shop drawings:

Card.

Cols. YES(a) NO

(b)

(1) Do you use metric dimensions exclusively? 68

(2) Do you use dual dimensions? 69

(3) Do you use both metric and customary drawings? 70 .

c. If your use of metric measurement units and/or metric engineering standards have you experienced advantages in the following areas: (Check applicable boxes)

Cols,

I Co

(a) NO

(b) DON'T KNOW

(c)

(1) framing personnel

(2) Economy in engineering design and drafting 1

1

(3) Fewer sales items to coinprise complete lines (e.g., fewer

sizes of bearings or machine screws m standard line, etc.) 1 z

(4) Fewer production items in inventory (e.g., fewer sizes of taps to match fewer sizes of machine screws, etc.) 13

(5) Economies in the manufacturing process 14

(6) Expanded exports 15

(7) Decrease of competitive imports 16

(8) Improved competitive position 17

(9) Increase of domestic sales 18

(10) Simplified specifications, cataloguing and records 19

(11) Improved Intra-company liaison and records 20

(12) Other advantages (list) 21

I- In your use of metric measurement units and/or metric engineering

standards, have you experienced disadvantages in the following

areas: (Check applicable boxes) Card

Cols. YES

(a) NO

(b) DON'T KNOW

(c)

(1) Training personnel 22

(2) Dual dimensioning or duplication of drawings 23

(3) More sales items to comprise complete lines (e.g., more sizes

of bearings or machine screws in standard line, etc.) 24

(4) More production items in inventory (e.g., more sizes of bearings or machine screws etc.) 25

(^) Increased waste in the manufacturing process 26

(6) Difficulty in obtaining metric sized parts and tools 27

(7) Increase of competitive imports 28

(8) Impaired competitive position 29

(9) Decrease of domestic sales 30

(10) Conflict with existing statutes 31

(11) Impaired Intra-company liaison and records 32

(12) Other disadvantages (list) 33
76 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

5.

e. In your opinion how do advantages and disadvantages relate to each other? (CC 34)

I I (1) advantages outweigh disadvantages Q (3) No significant difference

I I (2) disadvantages outweigh advantages Q (4) Don't know

( NOTE : If you answered "yes" to 5, proceed to question 7.)

6. Are you currently planning to introduce the use of metric measurement units and/or metric engineering standards in your domestic operations by the end of 1975 regardless of any action that the nation as a whole might take? QYes QNo (CC 35)

a. If yes, indicate the approximate percentage of metric usage for each type of activity by the end of 1975 (% related to

total of category). Enter NA for any activities not applicable to your operations. (Please differentiate between NA and

zero.) NOTE: When both customary and metric dimensions are employed concurrently, such as on labels, the percentage

desired is that portion of the category with the metric notation, related to the total amount in that category; e.g., in 6a (5),

if 65% of the canned product of a cannery has both metric and customary weights (ounces and grams) on the label, 15%

has metric weights only (grams), and 20% has customary units only (ounces), the stated percentage should be 80; similarly for 6a (2). Include all domestic activity or production in the statistics even though the end item or product is not

for domestic use. Item 6a (5) relates primarily to companies that package their product (e.g., paint, canning, pharmaceutical, refining, and milling).

ACTIVITY Card Col. Percent

(1) Design, Engineering, Shop Drawings

(% related to total man-hours in this activity) 36-38 %

(2) Catalogues

(% related to total number of catalogues) 39-41 %

(3) Research and Development

(% related to total man-hours in this activity) 42-44 %

(4) _ Manufacturing process including tooling and test equipment

(% related to total man-hours in this activity) 45-47 %

(5) Labeling

(% related to total product packaged) 48-50 %

(6) Other (list) 51-53 %

( NOTE : If you answered "no" to both 5 and 6, proceed to question 8.)

7. If you are using or plan to use metric measurement units and/or metric engineering standards in your domestic operations,

what factors were instrumental in your decision to take this course of action (Check 1 or more):

INSTRUMENTAL FACTORS

Card Col. YES

(a) NO

(b)

(1) Economies resulting from simplification due to the use of metric units 54

(2) Expectation of increased export market 55

(3) Economy of importation of standard metric components 56

(4) Advantages resulting from having one basic system of measurement in your worldwide production 57

(5) Mating with standard metric design components 58

(6) Other factors (specify) 59

8. If you are using any materials or components designed to metric engineering standards

in your domestic operations, do these standards cover the items listed below?

NOTE : Bear in mind that even though the product you manufacture may be described in customary units, some materials or components may be based, in whole or in part, on metric engineering standards; e.§., spark pl^g-s, certain types of bearings,

fasteners, or sheet metal, especially if they are imported. ( Check appropriate box)

ITEMS Card. Col. YES NO DON'T KNOW

(1) Fasteners (nuts, bolts, etc.) 60

(2) Electrical connectors and fuses 61

(3) Pipe and pipe fittings 62

(4) Metric sizes of sheet, barstock, etc. 63

(5) Bearings 64

(6) Other areas (specify) 65
APPENDIX 5 77

9. Are any of your U.S. -made products in this SIC product group exported?

Card. Col.

66

YES

(a) NO

(b)

a. If yes, what percent is exported (related to total value of sales)? (CC 67) Less than 5% 5% to 25% More than 25%

If your product is exported, does this export necessitate changes or modifications in the following categories?

NOTE : Item b (1) refers to metric notations of weight, size or volume on the label or package; e.g., on candy bars,

packaged flour, or canned vegetables. Item b (6) on the other hand refers to the container itself. If you have to package

paint in liter can sizes (1.057 U.S. quarts) for export you would check "Yes" for b (6) as well as for b (1). If you

export paint in quart sizes and have the notation .946 liter on the can, you would check "No" for b (6), but at the same

time you would check "Yes" for b (1).

CATEGORY

Card Col. YES

(a) NO(b)

(1) Metric measurement units in labeling 68

(2) Metric measurement units in instructions 69

(3) Metric measurement units in descriptions 70

(4) Metric measurement units on your dials, gages, etc. 71

(5) Design of product to metric modules 72

(6) Metric size containers 73

(7) Metric engineering standards 74

(8) Other modifications (specify) 75

10. Do you have manufacturing agreements or operations in foreign countries? 76

a. If yes, does this manufacture involve metric units and/or metric engineering

standards ? 77

n. If you manufacture in the United States under an agreement with a foreign

company is the product or process described in metric measurement units? 78

a. If yes, are the metric units translated into customary units in your operations?

NOTE: In your answers to questions 5 to 11 inclusive you supplied information regarding your current and anticipated use of the

metric system and the current and expected impact of this usage. The nature of those questions is such that they elicited infor- mation based on the existing environment of no coordinated action on a national scale with regard to metrication and a continuation of the present practice of using the metric system or retaining the customary system when either appears to be economically

and technically preferable to the other as a matter of individual company policy.

The following three questions (12, 13, and 14) are to be answered based on the assumption by you, solely for the purpose of answering these three questions, that there will be a coordinated national program of metrication based on voluntary participation

in accord with which:

1. The use of metric units and metric engineering standards will be increased only for new or redesigned products or new or redesigned parts of the product. Unless there are distinct advantages in changing, the production of an existing item will remain unchanged until the normal design life cycle of that product is completed and a new metric-designed product

replaces it.

2. In-house designed products or components will be designed in metric units on a schedule that is compatible with normal obsolescence of tooling or with economically feasible conversion of tooling from customary to metric units. Existing items

of production equipment will be used until their normal life cycles are completed; the only changes or conversion to metric

units will be in dials, gages, some feed-rate controls, and indicating devices. Such changes will be made on an economic

basis (i.e., when the demand for metric designed parts or products requires a change).

3. Out-of-house production materials and components based on metric engineering standards will become available during

the transition period at no substantial increase in cost.

4. The transition period for your product group will be the time in which the transition of the product from customary units and customary engineering standards to metric units and metric engineering standards where appropriate can be accomplished

at minimum cost to your company.

5. The metric system will be taught in all U.S. schools during the transition period and the general public will concurrently be gaining familiarity with this system of measurement.
78 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

IZ What advantages or disadvantages do you foresee from the standpoint of the domestic operations of your company if a

coordinated national program of metrication based on voluntary participation is followed in most sectors of the economy.

With respect to advantages:

Card Col. YES

(a) NO

(b) DON'T KNOW

(1) Training personnel 10

(2) Economy in engineering design and drafting 11

(3) Fewer sales items to comprise complete lines (e.g., fewer sizes of bearings or machine screws in standard

line, etc.) 12

(4) Fewer production items in inventory (e.g., fewer sizes

of taps to match fewer sizes of machine screws, etc.) 13

(5) Economies in the manufacturing process 14

(6) Expanded exports 15

(7) Decrease of competitive impotts 16

(8) Improved competitive position 17

(9) Increase of domestic sales 18

(10) Simplified specifications, cataloguing and records 19

(11) Improved Intra-company liaison and records 20

(12) Other advantages (list) 21

With respect to disadvantages:

(1) Training personnel 22

(2) Dual dimensioning or duplication of drawings 23

(3) More sales items to comprise complete lines (e.g., more

sizes of bearings or machine screws in standard line,

etc.) 24

(4) More production items in inventory (e.g., more sizes of bearings or machine screws, etc.) 25

(5) Increased waste in the manufacturing process 26

(6) Difficulty in obtaining metric sized parts and tools 27

(7) Increase of competitive imports 28

(8) Impaired competitive position 29

(9) Decrease of domestic sales 30

(10) Conflict with existing statutes 31

(11) Impaired Intra-company liaison and records 32

(12) Other disadvantages (list) 33

c. In your opinion how do advantages and disadvantages relate to each other? (CC 34)

I I (1) advantages outweigh disadvantages (3) No significant difference

I I (2) disadvantages outweigh advantages |^ (4) Don't know

NOTE : Answering question 13 is optional for suppliers of standard materials and standard parts.

13, What is your estimate of the number of years necessary to achieve your maximum increased metric usage with minimum cost and disruptions to your company under a coordinated national program of metrication based on voluntary participation

covering essentially all sectors of the economy? (CC 35-36) years

14. If your company were to substantially convert to metric measurement units and/or metric engineering standards under a coordinated national program of metrication based on voluntary participation covering essentially all sectors of the economy,

do you anticipate that this would have any effect on your sales because of importation of metric products (assume year 1980

but base your answer on 1969 dollars)? (Check one) (CC 37)

I I (a) No effect |^ (b) Loss of sales Q (c) Don't know

g. If "loss of sales" is checked, what, in your opinion, would this loss be in 1980 as percent of your current domestic

sales based on 1969 dollars? (Check one) (CC 38)

(a) Up to 5% (c) 10-20% (e) Don't know

(b) 5-10% (d) Over 20%
APPENDIX 5 79

15. If your product is not now exported would you expect to export it if your company substantially converts to metric measurement units and/or metric engineering standards (assume year 1980)? (CC39) (a) Yes (b) No

16. If your product is now exported, do you anticipate that if your company were to substantially convert to metric measurement

units and/or metric engineering standards this would have any effect on your export sales (assume year 1980 but base your answer on 1969 dollars)? (Check one) (CC 40)

I I (a) No effect (c) Decrease in export sales

(b) Increase in export sales (d) Don't know

a. If "Increase in export sales" is checked, what, in your opinion, would this increase be in 1980 as % of your current export sales based on 1969 dollars? (Check one) (CC 41)

(a) Up to 10% (c) 25-50% (e) Don't know

(b) 10-25% (d) Over 50%

b. If "Decrease in export sales" is checked, what, in your opinion, would this decrease be in 1980 as % of your current export sales based on 1969 dollars? (Check one) (CC 42)

(a) Up to 10% (c) 25-50% (e) Don't know

(b) 10-25% (d) Over 50%

17. Please check block that most closely indicates the current attitude of your company toward increased metric usage regarding

this SIC product group: (CC 43)

I I (a) Strongly for Q (c) Neutral Q (e) Strongly against

(b) Mildly for [ (d) Mildly against

18. Do you believe that increased metric usage is in the best interests of the United States? (CC 44)

(a) Yes (b) No

19. If it is found that increased metric usage is in the best interests of the United States, which of the following courses of

action, in your opinion, is preferable? (CC 45)

I I (a) No national program of Q (b) A coordinated national Q (c) A mandatory program based

metrication program based on on legislation

voluntary participation

20. If it is found that increased metric usage is in the best interests of the United States, in your opinion, should any

engineering standards based on the customary system of measurement units and applicable to this SIC No. be retained and promoted for international use? (CC 46)

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Don't know

a. If yes, please list the one or two most important standards applicable to this SIC No.

21, General comment, if any, on the subject of metric usage in your company. Comments should be made on a separate

attachment.

(It is not necessary to answer this question, but any opinion on the general subject of metrication will be

appreciated. For example, are there any problems peculiar to your company not covered in this questionnaire? Other questions or comments regarding metrication may occur to you.)

Reported by (Signature, name, address)

Person whom we should contact if needed:

Date reported Phone:
80 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

FORM NBS-510

(4-70) U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U. S. METRIC STUDY

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

PART B.-COST - SECTION 1 For companies reporting on product groups other than standard parts and/or standard materials

Bureau Budget No. 41-S70016

Approval Expires June 30, 1971

Company name:

a. Product group covered (4-digit SIC # )

b. Total value of sales by your company of this SIC product group for the year 1969 (Check appropriate box)

I I a. Up to $1 million

I I b. Over $lm to $5ni

I I c. Over $5m to SlOm

I I d. Over SlOm to $25m

I I e. Over $25m to $50 m

I I f. Over $50m to $100m

g. Over $100m to S250m

h. Over $250m to J500m

i. Over $500m to $1 billion

I I j. Over II billion

c. Total value of materials (see definition) as a percent of your total value of sales for the year 1969 for this product

group %

d. Estimated total in-house net added cost of metrication for this product group over the optimum period as a percent of the

total value of yoiu- 1969 sales for this product group %

e. If you used a sample product for making this evaluation, what percent of the total value of sales indicated in b. did this sample represent? %

f. What is your optimum period for this product group? yrs.

g. Percent of item (d) attributed to the following (total = ± 100%)

1. Personnel Education %

2. Engineering and Research and Associated Documentation %

3. Manufacturing and Quality Control %

4. Records and Accounting %

5. Standards Association Activity _%

6. Warehousing %

7. Sales and Service %

8. Other %

Total ±100%

h. If your company converted this product to metric measurement during a coordinated national program of metrication of 10-year

duration based on voluntary participation, what would be the estimated total in-house net added cost of metrication for this product group over this 10-year period as a percent of the total value of your 1969 sales for this product group %

i. Do you believe that significant tangible savings by your company would eventually result from a transition to the metric system of this product group? [Z] CD

If yes, how many years do you believe it would take these tangible savings to equal the net added cost that would be

incurred by your company during your optimum transition period to the metric system for this product group? yrs.

Reported by (Signature, name, address)

Person whom we should contact if needed:

Date of Report Phone:
APPENDIX 5 81

FORM NBS-S10

(4.70) U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U. S. METRIC STUDY

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

PART B. -COST-SECTION 2 For companies reporiing on product groups that ore standard parts and/or standard material s.

Bureau Budget No. 41-S70016

Approval Expires June 30, 1971

Company name:

a. Product group covered (4-digit SIC tt )

b. Total value of sales of this SIC product group for the year 1969 (Check appropriate box)

I I a. Up to SI million

I I b. Over $lm to 5m

I I c. Over $5m to $10m

I I d. Over SlOm to $25m

I I e. Over $25 to $50m

I I f. Over $50m to $100m

g. Over SlOOm to $250m

h. Over $250m to $500m

i. Over 3500m to $1 billion

I I j. Over $1 billion

c. Total value of materials (see definition) as a percent of your total value of sales for the year 1969 for this product

group %

d. Estimated tota l in-house net added cost for development of capability to supply standard parts and/or standard materials

to both customary standards and metric standards as metric standards are developed expressed as percent of the total value of your 1969 sales for this product group %

e. Estimated annual in-house net added cost for maintaining capability to supply standard parts and/or standard materials to both customary standards and metric standards expressed as percent of the total value of your 1969 sales for this product group %

f. If you used a sample product for making this evaluation, what percent of the total value of sales indicated in b. did this sample represent? %

g. Percent of items (d) and (e) attributed to the following (total = ± 100%)

(d) (e)

1. Personnel Education % %

2. Engineering and Research and Associated Documentation % %

3- Manufacturing and Quality Contro' % %

4. Records and Accounting % %

5. Standards Association Activity %, %

6. Warehousing %_ %

7. Sales and Service % %

8. Other % %

Total ±100 % ± 100 %

h. Do you believe that significant tangible savings by your company would eventually result from a transition to the metric system of this product group? Yes \^ No

If yes, how many years do you believe it would take these tangible savings to equal the net added cost that would be

incurred by your company during your transition to the metric system for this product group? yrs„

Reported by (Signature, name, address)

Person whom we should contact if needed:

Date of Report Phone:
82 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Budget Bureau No. 41-S70044; Approval Expires December 31, 1970

Na.Tic and address of company (Principal olttce) (street, Cllr, Sipto and Zip Code)

FORM BDSAF-871B

(7-7-70) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUSINESS AND DEFENSE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

IMPACT OF METRICATION

ON

U.S. IMPORTS OF

PRODUCT CLASS

Return to; U.S. Department oi Commerce

Woshington, D.C. 20230

Attention: Business and Defense Services

Administration, OAAIA -510 RETURN NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 1970

INSTRUCTIONS

General - Neatly all countries of the world have adopted

the metric system of measurement. The United Kingdom

in 1965 announced its intention of converting all manuufacturing and other sectors of its economy to the metric system by 1975. In 1967, South Africa decided to follow.

In 1969. the New Zealand Government announced its intention of making the metric system its national system

of weights and measures, and in 1970, both Australia and Canada announced the same intention.

Public Law 90-472, August 9, 1968, authorized the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a program of investigation,

research, and survey to determine the impact of increasing

worldwide use of the metric system on the United States.

As part of this study, BDSA has been asked to conduct a survey to evaluate the potential impact that metrication

in the United States may have on U.S. foreign trade.

Mailing - Prepare and return one copy of this report to the Business and Defense Services Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, no later than September 1, 1970.

Coverage " A complete report should be filed for your company for product class

In all sections, except Section I, report data only for this product class. In Section I include all products shipped.

Please complete all sections. If data are not available for any single item, report not available (NA). If your company

does not maintain central records for all of your sub>5idiaries

or divisions, you may elect to report for a single subsidiary or division. If you choose to report on this basis,

select that subsidiary, department, or division whose

products are most representative of the subject product

class. Also indicate in the space below the name of the subsidiary, department or division

Estimates - If exact data are not available, reasonable

estimates arc acceptable. Report all value figures in terms of thousands of dollars, rounded to the neatest

$1 thousand.

Confidentiality - The individual company information

reported on this form is for statistical purposes only.

The unauthorized publication or disclosure of individual company information by Government personnel is pro- hibited by law, and such personnel having access thereto

are subject to fine and imprisonment for unauthorized

disclosure.

Definitions

Value of Imports - The market value in the foreign country, excluding U.S. import duties, freight charges, and insur- ance, for goods coming into the U.S. customs area (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerro Rico) without regard to whether the importation involved a commercial transaction. This is the same value information required on import entries in accordance with Sections 402 and 402(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Foreign Subsidiaries or Affiliates - Any foreign incorpo- rated company in which the U.S. parent company holds 2 5 percent or more of the voting stock.

U.S. Customary System - The system of measurement

units (yard, pound, second, degree Fahrenheit, and units derived from these) most commonly used in the United

States. Synonyms: "English system," "U.S. system."

Metric System - The measurement system based generally on the meter as a unit of length, the kilogram as a unit of mass, the second as a unit of time, the degree Celsius as

a unit of temperature and units derived from these. This

system has evolved over the years and the modernized

version today is identified as the "International System

of Units" (SI).

Engineering Standards - A practice established by authority

or mutual agreement and described in a document to assure dimensional conpatibility, quality of product, uniformity

of evaluation procedure, or uniformity of engineering

language. Examples are documents prescribing screw

thread dimensions, chemical composition and mechanical

properties of steel, clothing sizes, performance standards, sizes and ratings, methods of testing for materials, and

codes for highway signs. Engineering standards may be designated in terms of the level of coordination by which

they were established (e.g., company standards, industry

standards, national standards) in terms of the "language"

or units upon which they are based (e.g., metric standards).

Metrication - Any act tending to increase the use of the metric system (SI), whether it be increased use of metric

units or engineering standards that are based on such units.

USCOMM-DC 37014-P7t
APPENDIX 5 83

Icem Value (tOOO)

Section I - 1969 TOTAL IMPORTS

Section II - PRODUCT CLASS IMPORTS

Item

1. Total impons of product class by supplier, total

a. From foreign affiliates

1. For further processing or assembly

2. For resale without further manufacturing

3. Other

b. From other foreign sources

1. For further processing or assembly

2. For resale without further manufacturing

3. Other

2. Imports by system of measurement, total (estimates are acceptable)

a. Value of imports designed, assembled, manufactured, and described

in U>S* customary units and engineering standards

b. Value of imports designed and manufactured in metric units and engineering standards

but described in labels, packages, engineering drawings, or catalogues in U.S. customary units. Descriptions in dual dimensions would be included

c. Value of imports designed and manufactured in metric units and engineering standards

but which have been substantially modified or changed to include standard parts, components, or subassemblies designed and manufactured in U.S. customary units and

engineering standards

d. Value of imports designed, assembled, manufactured, and described in metric units and engineering standards

Value (tOOO) 1967 1968 1969

Section III - MAJOR FACTORS CURRENTLY INFLUENCING IMPORTS OF SUBJECT PRODUCT CLASS, BY FOREIGN SUP- PLIER (COUNTRY) - The purpose of this section is to determine the most important factors affecting your current

trade in the subject product class by major country, particularly the relative importance of the measurement sys- tem (U.S. customary or metric) to all other factors.

A. For those countries from which you ore currently importing, rank by number (1, 2, 3, etc.) the five most favorable factors influencing your sales.

Factors promoting your imports

Canada United

Kingdom West

Germany

France

Italy

Netherlands

LuxBe

Igium

]

apan Mexico

6. Vigorous company sales promotion program . .

8. Products designed and manufactured in metric

9. Products are designed and manufactured in

U.S. customary units and/or engineering

11. Product maintenance and servicing is available

13.
84 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Section III B. For those countries listed below from which you are not now importing, rank by number (1, 2, 3, etc.) the five most important

factors which are deterrents to your importing.

Factors deterring your imports

U

E

&0 a

8.

9.

10.

11

12,

1314

No technological advantage of products. . . Prices are not competitive . No quality advantage of product

Stagnant U.S. market No company sales promotion program High shipping costs Products designed and manufactured in U.S. customary units and/or engineering standards High U.S. tariff duties Strong U.S. competition Products designed and manufactured in

metric units and/or engineering standards.

, Product maintenance and servicing not available Other (Specify)

Section IV - IMPORT POTENTIAL AND METRICATION IMPACT

Report in Part A and B your company's estimated percentage change in imports of subject product class in 1975 as compared with 1970 under the following assumptions:

(1) The 8 percent annual growth rate in Free World international trade for the last six years will continue for the period 1970-75.

(2) United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have substantially completed conversion to the metric measurement

system by 1970.

(3) Base estimate on current 1970 dollars.

A. If the United States and your company continue to use current customary measurement units and/or engineering standards, by what percentage would your 1975 imports increase or decrease over 1970? (This assumes that among all major industrialized countries only the U.S. will not have converted.)

Increase No change Decrease %

B. If the United States and your company had converted to metric measurement units and engineering standards by 1970, by what

percentage wpuld your 1975 imports increase or decrease over 1970? (This assumes there would be no changes in U.S. man- ufactures cost of producing the subject product in metric units and/or standards.)

Increase No change Decrease

C. Under the assun?>tion as in Part B, would your in^jorts of subject product class:

1. From your foreign affiliates, if any, increase, decrease, or remain at the current level (Pl»aae chtck lh» appropriate box)

2. From other foreign suppliers (other than foreign affiliates) to the United States increase, decrease,

(Plaaaa check the appropriate box) Qor remain at the current level

3. a. And from what foreign suppliers (countries) if any, would your company expect your imports to increase?

1. And from what foreign suppliers (countries) if any, would your company expect your imports to decrease?

FORM BDSAF-e7IB (7-7-70) USCOMM-OC 970141P7I
APPENDIX 5

Saclion V - REMARKS. Additional comments which would help us evaluate this report.

85

Name of person who should be contacted if questions arise regarding diis report Area Code and Telephone No.

Reported by (Slinmtute, Naaiv, and Addreaa) Date reported

FORM BOSAF'S7|B (7-7-70) USCOMM-OC 370I4-P7I
86 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Budget Bureau No. 41-S70044; Approval Expires December 31, I'^VO Name and address of company (principal oltice) (Street, City, State and Zip Code)

General - Nearly all countries of the world have a

the metric system of measurement. The United Kingdom

in 1 965 announced its in tent ion of converting all manufacturing and other sectors of its economy to the metric system by 1975. In 1967, South Africa decided to follow.

In 1969, the New Zealand Government announced its intention of making the metric system its national system

of weights and measures, and in 1970, both Australia and Canada announced the same intention.

Public Law 90-472, August 9, 1968, authorized the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a program of investigation,

research, and surveys to determine the impact of increasing

worldwide use of the metric system on the United States.

As part of this study, BDSA has been asked to conduct

a survey to evaluate the potential impact that metrication

in the United States may have on U.S. foreign trade.

Mailing - Prepare and return one copy of this report to the Business and Defense Services Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, no later than September 1, 1970.

Coverage - A complete report should be filed for your company for product class

In all sections, except

Section I, report data only for this product class. In Section I include all products shipped. Please complete all sections. If data are not available for any single item,

report not available (NA). If your company does not maintain central records for all of your subsidiaries or

divisions', you may elect to report for a single subsidiary

or division. If you choose to report on this basis, select

that subsidiary, department, or division whose products

are most representative of the subject product class. Also

indicate in the space below the name of the subsidiary,

department, or division.

Estimates - If exact data are not available, reasonable

estimates are acceptable. Report all value figures in terms of thousands of dollars, rounded to the nearest

$1 thousand.

Conf iden- :a( ity - The individual company information

reported on this form is for statistical purposes only.

The unauthorized publication or disclosure of individua' company information by Government personnel is prohibited

by law, and such personnel having access thereto are subject to fine and imprisonment for unauthorized disc losure.

FORM BDSAF-871A

(7-7-70)

Value of Shipments - The received or receivable net selling

values, f.o.b. plant (exclusive of freight and taxes), of products shipped, include installation where applicable. This is the same definition used by the Bureau of the Census.

Export Shipments - Value of shipments from the U.S. Customs area (including the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) to foreign countries at the

seaport, border point, or airport of exportation. It is based on the selling price (or cost if not sold) and

includes inland freight, insurance and other charges to the

port of exportation. This is the same definition used to prepare the Shipper's Export Declaration, Commerce

Form 752 5-V, which is filed with the U.S. Bureau of Customs.

Foreign Subsidiaries or Affiliates - Any foreign incor- porated company in which the U.S. parent company holds 25 percent or more of the voting stock.

U.S. Customary System - The system of measurement units

(yard, pound, second, degree Fahrenheit, and units de- rived from these) most commonly used in the United

States. Synonyms: "English system/' ''U-S. system."

Metric System - The measurement system based generally on the meter as a unit of length, the kilogram as a unit of mass, the second as a unit of time, the degree Celsius as

a unit of temperature and units derived from these. This

system has evolved over the years and the modernized

version today is identified as the "International System

of Units'* (SI).

Engineering Standards - A practice established by authority

or mutual agreement and described in a document to assure

dimensional compatibility, quality of product, uniformity

of evaluation procedure, or uniformity of engineering lan- guage. Examples are documents prescribing screw thread dimensions, chemical composition and mechanical

properties of steel, clothing sizes, performance standards,

sizes and ratings, methods of testing for materials, and

codes for highway signs. Engineering standards may be designated in terms of the level of coordination by which

they were established (e.g., company standards, industry

standards, national standards) or in terms of the "lan- guage" or units upon which they are based (e.g., metric standard s).

Metrication - Any act tending to increase the use of the metric system (SI), whether it he increased use of metric

units or engineering standards that are based on such units.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUSINESS AND DEFENSE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

IMPACT OF METRICATION

ON

U.S. EXPORTS OF

PRODUCT CLASS

Return to: U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20230

Attention: Business and Defense Services Ad ministration, OAAIA -510 RETURN NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 1970

INSTRUCTIONS

dopted Def ini tions

OSCOMM-DC 370i5-P71
APPENDIX 5 87

Section I - 1969 TOTAL SHIPMENTS - DOMESTIC AND FOR EXPORT

Item

Total Shipments, all products

1. Do .lestic shipments

2. Export shipments

Section II - PRODUCT CLASS SHIPMENTS - DOMESTIC AND FOR EXPORT

V'alue ($000)

Item

rotal shipments, product class

1. Domestic shipments

2. Export shipments by customer, total

a. To foreign affiliates

1. For further processing or assembly

2. For resale without further manufacturing

3. Other

b. To other foreign customers

3. Export shipments by system of measurement, total (estimates are acceptable):

a. Value of exports designed, assembled, manufactured, and described in U.S. customary

units and engineering standards

b. Value of exports designed and manufactured in U.S. customary units and engineering standards but described in labels, packages, engineering drawings or catalogues in metric units. Descriptions in dual dimensions would be included

c. Value of exports designed and manufactured in U.S. customary units and engineering standards but which have been substantially modified or changed to include standard

parts, compone nts , or subassemblies designed and manufactured in metric units and

engineering standards

d. Value of exports designed, assembled, manufactured, and described in metric units and engineering standards

Value ($000) 1967 1968 1969

Section III - MAJOR FACTORS CURRENTLY INFLUENCING EXPORT SHIPMENTS OF SUBJECT PRODUCT CLASS, BY FOREIGN MARKET - The purpose of this section is to determine the most important factors affecting your current trade in the subject product class by major country, particularly the relative importance of the measurement system (U.S. customary or metric) to all other factors.

A. For those countries to which you are currently exporting, rank by number (1, 2, 3, etc.) the five most favorable factors in- fluencing your sales.

Factors promoting your exports

Canada United

Kingdom

West

Germany

France Italy

Netherlands

LuxBelgium J

apan Mexico

[

4. Reputation and reliability of product i

6. Vigorous company export promotion program .

8. Products designed or manufactured in U.S. customary units and/or engineering standards

11. Lack of local and third country competition..

12. Products designed and manufactured in metric

14. Product maintenance and servicing is

15. Others (specify)

16.

17.
88 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Section III -

B. For those countries listed below to which you are not now exporting, rank by number (1, 2, 3, etc.) the five most important

factors which are deterrents to your exporting.

Factors deterring your exports

Canada United

Kingdom

West

Germany

France Italy

Netherlands

LuxBelgium

Japan

Mexico

1. No technological advantage of products ....

7. Products designed and manufactured in U.S. customary units and/or engineering standards

10, strong local and third country competition . .

11. Products designed or manufactured in metric

13. Product maintenance and servicing difficult.

14. Others (specify)

15.

16.

17.

Section IV - EFFECT OF METRICATION ON EXPORT ACTIVITIES

1. Does your company design and manufacture the same products falling within the subject product class in both U.S. customary measurement units and/or engineering standards and metric units and/or engineering standards for export sales?

I I Yes No (H Yes, proceed to Question 2,)

o. Has your company because it does not design or manufacture the subject product class in metric units and/or engineering standards found this a hindrance in exporting?

I I Yes No

1. If so, please list those countries to which you are not able to export:

2. Does your company or any of its domestic subsidiaries, divisions, or similar organizations of your company actively

solicit export orders for subject product class specifying they be produced in substantially metric units and/or

engineering standards?

Yes QNo

3. In the last three years, has your company ever turned down an export order for any product falling within the subject

product class solely because it could not meet the specifications that the goods be produced in metric units and/or engineering standards?

I

I Yes No

4. Because the United Kingdom is converting to the metric system, will this adversely affect your export sales if your company does not convert its production to metric units and/or engineering standards?

I I Yes No Do not know

FORM BDSAF-e71A (7-7-70) USCOMM-DC 3701 6-P71
" APPENDIX 5 89

Section V - EXPORT POTENTIAL AND METRICATION IMPACT

Report in Part A and B your company's estimated percentage change in export shipments of subject product class in 1975 as compared with 1970 under the following assumptions:

(1) The 8 percent annual growth rate in Free World international trade for the last six years will continue for the period 1970-75.

(2) United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have substantially completed conversion to the metric measurement

system by 1970,

(3) Base estimate on current 1970 dollars.

A. If the United States and your company continue to use current customary measurement units and/or engineering standards by what percentage would your 1975 export shipments to all countries increase or decrease over 1970? (This assumes that amone all maior industrialized countries only the U.S. will not have converted ) among

Increase No change Decrease

B. If the United States and your company had con>'erted to the metric measurement units and/or engineering standards by 1970, by what percentage would your 1975 export shipments to all countries increase or decrease over 1970? (This also assumes

there would be no changes in the cost of producing the subject product in metric units and/or engineering standards. Consideration should also be given to potential new markets where you may not be currently exporting because your products were not manufactured in metric measurements or engineering standards but which would open up, assuming your company

had converted to the metric system.)

Increase No change Decrease

C. Under the assumption as in Part B, would your export shipments of subject product class:

1. From the United States to your foreign affiliates, if any, [ | increase, [ J decrease, or | | remain at the current (Check the appropriate box) level?

2. From the United States to other foreign customers (other than foreign affiliates) [

" J increase, [

'

'

\ decrease, or (Check the appropriate box) \ \ remain at the current level?

3. From your foreign affiliates, if any, to the United States | | increase, | | decrease, or |

1 remain the same? (Check the appropriate box)

4. a. And in what foreign markets (countries) if any, would your company expect its exports from the United States to increase?

b. And in what foreign markets (countries) if any, would your company expect its exports from the United States to decrease?

Section VI - REMARKS: Additional comments which would help us evaluate this report, (Use addi tional sheet if necessary)

Name of person who should be contacted if questions aiise regarding this report Area Code and Telephone No,

Reported by (Signature, Name, and Address)

FORM BDSAF-871A (7-7-70)

Date reported

USCOMM-DC 37015-P7I
90 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

"FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY

Areas of National Responsibility"

This Questionnaire seeks Agency Head estimates of the effect

of metrication on:

a. National areas* in which their agencies have

responsibility (e.g., transportation, communications

etc .

)

b. Ability of federal agencies to perform their missions

with respect to those areas of responsibility.

This Questionnaire should be completed and returned to the

National Bureau of Standards at the same time as the Federal

Government Survey (Internal Operations) Questionnaires.

The "Federal Government Survey: Internal Operations"**

Questionnaire and the 't'ederal Government Survey: Area(s)

of National Responsibility" Questionnaire should be reviewed

in the preparation of your agency overall statement on the

effects of increased worldwide and domestic usage of the metric

system.

If more space is needed, please use additional sheets of paper.

*By "areas of national responsibility" we mean a "complex"

or "system" such as transportation, food and fibre and

international affairs. This "system" is for the most part within

the private sector of the U. S. economy. In this questionnaire,

we seek estimates of the impact of metrication on the ability of

the transportation system (for example) to function. We prefer

that the opinions expressed be those of the Agency rather than

those of the Agency's constituents. The U. S. Metric Study has

other Surveys designed to obtain estimates from these constituents.

**The "Federal Survey: Internal Operations" questionnaire, which

is being distributed to key personnel within your Agency, is

concerned with metrication's effects on your Agency, itself. The

two questionnaires complement each other.
APPENDIX 5

Questionnaire for Agency Heads

91

"FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY:

Areas of National Responsibility"

Agency

Re spondent

Name

Assisted by:

Name Title

Name Title

Name Title

Title

e

AREA OF NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY:
2 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

1. To what extent is the metric system used in your area

of responsibility (e.g., transportation system) in the

United States?

75 - 100% l_/

26 - 74% /_/

0 - 2 5% /~7

2. Do you discern any trends in metric usage in your area of

responsibility?

/ /Yes / /No / /DK

2a. If yes, please explain.

3. What has been the impact on your area of responsibility of

the increasing worldwide and domestic use of the metric

system to the present time? Please estimate the impact

according to the scale.*

Negligible / / Substantial / /

Trivial / / Severe / /

Moderate / /

*See attachment "Classification of Intensities of Impact"
APPENDIX 5 93

3a. Please explain, as concretely as possible.

What would be the likely effects on your area of responsibility

(advantages, disadvantages, costs, benefits, practical

difficulties) of the increasing worldwide and domestic use

of the metric system, assuming no action by the federal

government .

Would adoption of metric measurement units (and/or standards)

improve or impair your effectiveness within your area of

responsibility in the U. S. (e.g., the transportation system)

Improve / /

Impair / /

DK Z7

If so, how, and to what extent?
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

What would be the effects on your area of responsibility

(advantages, disadvantages, costs, benefits, practical

difficulties, etc.) of a nationally planned program to

increase the use of the metric system?

The above question should be answered on the basis of two

alternative schedules for metrication:

1. Ten year period

2. Optimum period (not to exceed 20 years)

Are there any numerical indicators which could be used as

measures of the impact of metrication on your area of

responsibility (e.g., balance of payments).
APPENDIX 5 95

9. What is the impact of increasing worldwide and domestic use

of the metric system on the ability of your agency to perform

its mission with respect to its area of responsibility?

9a. Please estimate the impact according to the scale.

Negligible / / Substantial / /

Trivial / / Severe / /

Moderate / /

10. From the standpoint of your agency, what action, if any

should the United States take with respect to the increasing

worldwide and domestic use of the metric system?

COMMENTS
96 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Classification of Intensities of Impact

1. Negligible

a. Need only to convert bulk produce quantities from pounds

to kilograms, gallons to liters, etc.

b. Already converted

c. Need to do nothing - measured size of objects not important

2. Trivial

a. Need to re-label, double label, or redescribe package

goods and products.

b. Need to make simple adjustments on machines or products

to nominal metric sizes.

c. Need to replace simple measuring devices such as rulers,

thermometers

.

d. Need to change dials on scales and guages.

e. Most problems can be solved by conversion charts.

3. Moderate

a. Need to replace complex measuring devices.

b. Need to maintain dual inventories.

c. Changes in containers necessary.

d. Parts of tools must be replaced such as rollers and dies.

^. Substantial

a. Screw cutting and gear cutting machines must be modified.

b. Major readjustments must be made in machines or products

to convert to a metric system.

c. Extensive changes in engineering dravd.ngs must be made.

d. Stock sizes must be changed.

e. Decisions must be made on fasteners.

f . Complex and expensive metric measuring equipment will have

to be acquired; less complex equipment will have to be provided at all work stations or machines, etc.

5. Severe

a. Of such impact as to make change disastrous or inadvisable.

b. Non-metric practice practically world-wide.

USCOMM-NBS-DC
APPENDIX 5 97

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY

(INTERNAL OPERATIONS)

U. S. Metric Study

Authorized by

PL 90-47 2, 9-8-68

INTRODUCTION

Background

Public Law 90-472, requires the Department of Commerce to study

"the increasing worldwide use of the metric system" in order to

determine what action, if any, should be taken in the United States

Government regarding metrication to further "the best interests of

the United States". This task has been delegated by the Secretary

of Commerce to the National Bureau of Standards.

This Survey of Federal Government agencies is one of the major

components of the Study. Its purpose is to determine:

1. VJhich federal agencies use the metric system* and to

what extent

.

2. Which federal agencies plan to increase metric usage

voluntarily (i.e., without any nationally planned

program to increase metric usage)

.

3. VJhat might federal agencies do to hasten metrication**

should there be a nationally planned program to increase

metric usage.

4. Which federal agencies would be affected, and to what

degree, by changes in metric usage external to the agency.

5. To what extent would such changes (i.e., both #3 and #4)

improve or impair agency effectiveness.

*The measurement system based on the meter as a unit of length,

the kilogram as a unit of mass, the second as a unit of time, the

degree Celsius as a unit of temperature, and units derived therefrom.

The modernized version is known as "The International System of Units" (SI]

**Metrication is defined as any act tending to increase the use of

the metric system.
98 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Synopsis of Questionnaire

This Questionnaire is divided into two parts. Part I deals

with the present and asks in what ways, if any, the subdivisions

of your agency use the metric measurement units and metric

engineering standards* for products, containers, components,

materials, equipment or processes, etc.

Part II deals with the future and asks you (1) to state what

changes in measurement units and engineering standards you would

like to see with regard to your subdivision (Section IIA) and

(2) to predict the effects on your subdivision that would probably

occur under three different assumptions:

Assumption 1 No concerted national program to increase

the use of the metric measurement units

and/or metric engineering standards in a

world of increasing metric usage (Section IIB)

.

Assumption 2 A nationally planned program to increase the use

of SI metric measurement units (language only)

.

After a ten year period of transition, SI metric

measurement units will be used throughout the U.S.

in all new and revised documents except for describing existing customary hardware, replacement

parts therefor, and interfaces therewith. (Section

lie of Questionnaire)

Engineering standards differ from measurement units (metric

measurement units are listed in the first footnote at bottom of

page i) . Engineering standards consist of practices established

by authority or mutual agreement and described in a document to

assure dimensional compatibility, quality of product, uniformity

of evaluation procedure, or uniformity of engineering language.

Examples are documents describing screw thread dimensions,

chemical composition and mechanical properties of steel, method

of test for sulphur in oil, and codes for highway signs.

Engineering standards may be designated in various classes

depending upon the level of coordination by which they were

established; such as, company standards, industry standards,

national standards, etc. The use of metric measurement units must

normally accompany the use of metric engineering standards.
APPENDIX 5 99

Assumption 3 A nationally planned program to increase the

use of metric measurement units and metric

engineering standards . Metric engineering

standards, as well as metric measurement

units, will be used for all new and redesigned

products after a ten year period of transition.

(Section IIC of Questionnaire)

Section IID asks whether you believe that there should be concerted

action to bring about changes toward metrication.

Also worth noting is that in several of the sections you do not

have to answer the remaining questions in the section if you

answer "No" or "Don't Know" ("DK") to the first question.

Costs are to exclude all added or reduced procurement and

contracting costs except "specialized hardware" which is designed

to the buyer's specification and is not available off the shelf.

Costs are to be based on 1970 dollars and are to be net

(e.g., added expenses minus savings).

Another inquiry, complementary to this, will be aimed at searching

out the estimated effects of metrication on large scale national

systems (e.g., transportation, communication) and on the ability

of federal agencies to fulfill their responsibilities in regard

to these systems.

INSTRUCTIONS

This questionnaire is designed to elicit your best estimates.

Please submit any available data along with your estimates.

Please feel free to use separate sheets of paper on which to

put additional information.

Each department (and independent agency) is asked to submit

a consolidated response using information derived from the

questionnaires which their constituent subdivisions have completed.

Responses should be returned to the department or agency liaison

within thirty days from the date of receipt of this questionnaire.

Please look over the questionnaire carefully before beginning

to answer the questions.
100 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Form NBS- 511 (5-70)

Questionnaire Number Bureau of the Budget

No. 41570015

METRIC STUDY SURVEY

Approval Expires

FEDERAL AGENCIES June, 1971

Agency Name Respondent Subdivision

Date Questionnaire Received Date Questionnaire Completed

Please Give a Brief Description of Mission of Your Subdivision

Respondent s Name

PART I (Questions Relating to Existing Measurement Systems.)

1. Are metric measurement units and metric engineering standards used in any of

your activities?

- Metric measurement units Yes ^ No '-'Don't Know (DK)

- Metric engineering standards* Yes No DK

If both are No or DK, go to Section IIA. Otherwise, please answer questions below.

2. In which activities are your now using the metric system?

Metric measurement units:

Metric engineering standards:

3. Please check the advantages of your present use of metric instead of customary.

Advantages Metric Units Metric Engineering Standards

a. Cost Savings

b. Operational Improvement

c. Legal Requirements

d. International Cooperation

e. Scientific Activities Use SI

f. Other (Please specify below)

4

Please again note that the use of metric measurement units must normally accompany the

use of metric engineering standards.
APPENDIX 5 •101

4. Are there disadvantages to your agency in your present use of equipment, components

processes, etc. described in metric units and/or metric engineering staivaards?

- Metric measurement units Yes 3, No DK'

- Metric engineering standards Yes Q No ' DK

If both are No or DK, go to Section IIA. Otherwise, please answer questions below.

a. Please explain the disadvantages of your present use of the metric system.

Disadvantages of Present Use Metric Units Metric Enqineerinq Standards

a. Increased Costs

b. LacK of Familiarization

c

.

Legal Requirements

d. Operational Impairment

e

.

Engineering and/or Industry

Prefers Customary

f

.

Other

b. Do advantages of your present use of the metric system outweigh the disadvantages?

- Metric measurement units O yes Q No DK

- Metric engineering standards Yes No DK

COMMENTS :

PART II (Questions Relating to Future Measurement Systems.)

Section A

1. Are there any changes which your subdivision would like to see made in measurement

units and/or engineering standards?

- Metric measurement units Yes No DDK

- Metric engineering standards CD Yes ^ No O DK

If both are No or DK, go on to Section IIB. Otherwise, please answer questions

below.

2. Vfhat changes would your subdivision like to see?

Metric measurement units:

Metric engineering standards:
102 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

3. Why would you like to see these changes in your subdivision?

Metric measurement units:

Metric engineering standards:

4. What problems or obstacles for your subdivision do you see in making these changes?

Metric measurement units:

Metric engineering standards:

COMMENTS
APPENDIX 5

SECTION IIB: ASSUMPTION 1

We would now like you to forecast or predict

probable changes in measurement units and/or

engineering standards for your agency, under

the assumption that there is no concerted

action to increase the use of the metric system

in a world of increasing metric usage.
104 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

IIB. Under Assumption 1, please answer the following:

1. Do you antic ipate that your agency will make changes toward metrication in

measurement units and/or engineering standards?

- Metric measurement units Yes No DK

- Metric engineering standards Yes No DK

If both are No or DK, go directly to Question IIB2. Otherwise, please answer

questions below.

a. Please describe the changes you foresee and the probable date of changes.

Metric Measurement Units

Date Change

Metric Engineering Standards

Date Change

b. Please check the reasons why you think these changes will occur.

1. To improve quality or performance

2. Suppliers may force the change

3. Increasing worldwide usage of the metric system

4. Increasing domestic usage of the metric system

'-' 5. Time and/or cost savings ^ 6. Other (Please specify)

c. What percentage change in your subdivision's annual internal costs* (either

added costs or savings in 1970 dollars) might result from these changes?

Please check the most likely percentage change.

Type of Change 0 - .99% 1.00 - 4.99% 5.00 - 9.99% 10.00% or over

Added Cost

Savings

*Costs are to exclude all added or reduced procurement and contracting costs except

"specialized hardware" which is designed to the buyer's specification and is not available

off the shelf.

Costs are to be based on 1970 dollars and are to be net (e.g., added expenses minus savings).
APPENDIX 5 105

Part II Section B continued

d. Please explain why you expect these cost changes.

e. What legal problems (for example, changes in laws or codes) would you

anticipate if your agency makes these changes?

f. If your agency makes changes, what difficulties do you foresee in addition

to the costs and the legal problems?

g. What change in mission capability do you expect from these changes? Percentage

change in your subdivision's mission capability.

Plus Minus

Please explain why you expect these changes in mission capability.

i. Would the advantages of such changes in mission capability outweigh the

disadvantages?

1 Yes No

j. If yes, please explain.

DK

Under this assumption, if you do not anticipate that your agency will make changes

in measurement units or engineering standards, please check the problem areas you

foresee for your subdivision.

a. Train ing f

.

Increased Conversion

b. Dual Dimensioning g- Increased Interfacing

c

.

Waste h. Legal (changes in codes

d. Increased Inventory for example)

i

.

Other (Please specify)

e

.

International Cooperation

3. Should any customary engineering standards which you may now use be retained in

your activities?

Yes 3 No

a. If yes, which ones?_

DK

b. Should any of these standards be promoted for international usel

Yes NO DK

c. Please explain. .

COMMENTS
106 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

SECTION IIC: ASSUMPTIONS 2 AND 3

Within Section IIC, both Assumptions 2 and

3 are considered for each of the ten questions.

Assumption 2 - Metric Measurement Units

Assume a nationally planned program to increase the use of metric

measurement units (language only) in the United States. After a

ten year period of transition — July 1, 1972 to July 1, 1982 —

SI metric measurement units will be used throughout the U. S. in

all new and revised documents except for describing existing

customary hardware, replacement parts therefor, and interfaces

therewith. Please assume change in language only ; do not assume

changes toward metric based engineering standards under the

Assumption 2 part of Section IIC.

Assume that these language changes will be made on printed

material (e.g., catalogues, deeds, labels) only as it is being

revised unless there is a need or advantage to do so earlier.

Assume that industry will use the same period of transition

so that by July 1, 1982, all products will be described in

SI units.

Assume further that SI will be taught throughout the U. S.

school system and that the general public will have gained

familiarity with SI.

Assume that all countries except the U. S. and Canada will be

metric at the outset of the transition period.

Assume that ample time will be available for planning changes.
Assumption 3

APPENDIX 5

- Metric Engineering Standards

107

Assume a nationally planned program to increase the use of metric

measurement units and metric engineering standards.* Metric

engineering standards, as well as metric measurement units, will

be used for all new and redesigned products after a ten year

period of transition — July 1, 1972 to July 1, 1982. Implicit

in this assumption are the following:

Only new or redesigned parts and products will be changed to

comply to engineering standards based on the metric system,

unless there are distinct advantages in changing existing items..

During the transition period the government, by and large,

will use the optimum mix of metric and customary specifications

for satisfactory performance and minimum price on initial purchases

of new products and that optimum specifications will proceed at

a uniform rate from virtually all customary standards in 1972

to virtually all metric standards in 1982.

Based on an orderly program of metrication, industry will be

capable of supplying to the government replacement parts

requirements in SI or customary standards until existing

customary equipment has completed its useful life.

The level or numbers and types of systems and equipment as of

FY 197 0, will be constant for the purposes of the study, with

metric systems and equipment replacing customary systems and

equipment as the latter end their useful lives.

Metrication will not disturb the normal cycle of retirement,

or modification of existing systems, equipment, and related software.

Assume that all countries except the U.S. and Canada will be

metric at the outset of the transition period.

Assume that ample time will be available for planning changes.

*The use of metric measurement units must normally accompany

the use of metric engineering standards.
108 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

lie Under these assumptions please answer the following:

1. Would there be any internal savings or added costs for your subdivision in 1970

dollars resulting from either of these two assumptions:

- Metric units only (Assumption 2) Yes D No ^ DK

- Metric engineering standards (Assumption 3) DYes No DK

If both are No or DK, go directly to IIC5. Otherwise, please answer questions

below.

2. what percentage change in your annual internal savings or added costs

(in 1970 dollars) during the transition period (1972-1982) might result from this

changeover? Please check the most likely percentage change.

Metric Measurement Units

(Assumption 2)

Type of Change 0 - .99% 1.00 - 4.99% 5.00 - 9.99% 10.00% or over

Added Costs

Savings

Metric Engineering Standards

(Assumption 3)

Type of Change 0 - .99% 1.00 - 4.99% 5.00 - 9.99% 10.00% or over

Added Costs

Savings

3. What percentage change in your annual internal savings or added costs

(in 1970 dollars) during the post transition period (after 1982) might result from

this changeover?

Metric Measurement Unitf

(Assumption 2)

Type of Change 0 - .99% 1.00 - 4.99% 5.00 - 9.99% 10.00% or over

Added Costs

Savings

Metric Engineering Standards

(Assumption 3)

Type of Change 0 - .99% 1.00 - 4.99% 5.00 - 9.99% 10.00% or over

Added Costs

Savings
APPENDIX 5 109

4. What is your estimate in dollars for average annual savings or costs for your

activities for the following periods?

Metric Measurement Units (Assumption 2)

ACTIVITIES Transition Period (1972-1982) Post Transition Period (after 1982)

Sav ings Costs Savings Costs

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

COMMENTS

Metric Engineering Standards (Assumption 3)

ACTIVITIES Transition Period (1972-1982) Post Transition Period (after 1982)

Savings Costs Savings Costs

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

COMMENTS

5. Following the transition period, please check the long term advantages and

disadvantages you foresee for your subdivision.

Advantage

s

/d i s adVant age

s

Metric Measurement Units

Only

Metric Engineering

Standards

a. Cost Increase

b. Cost Decrease

c. Operational Improvement

d. Operational Impairment

e. Promotion of U.S. standards

Internationally

f. International Communication

Improved

g. Other (Please specify)

1

1
110 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

6. In your opinion, would the advantages of the changeover outweigh the

disadvantages?

- Metric measurement units Q yes No D DK

- Metric engineering standards DYes No DK

Please explain:

Metric measurement units:

Metric engineering standards:

7. What would your agency have to do to implement the changeover?

Metric measurement units:

Metric engineering standards:

8. What legal problems (for example, changes in laws or codes) do you foresee for

your agency as a result of the transition?

Metric measurement units:

Metric engineering standards:

During the assumed ten year transition period, do you foresee any problems for

your subdivision in changing completely to the metric system (aside from cost or legal problems)?

- Metric measurement units Yes No DK

- Metric engineering standards Q Yes No D DK

a. If yes, please check the problem areas.

Problem Area Metric Measurement Units Metric Engineering Standards

Operat ional

Maintenance and

Equipment

Education and

Train ing

Other (Please specify)
APPENDIX 5 111

b. Please explain:

Metric measurement units:

Metric engineering standards:

10. Would a longer or shorter period than ten years be preferable (a more advantageous

period in terms of minimum cost and disruption) to your subdivision for such a transition?

- Metric measurement units QYes No O DK

- Metric engineering standards O Yes D no ^ DK

a. Please explain:

Metric measurement units:

Metric engineering standards:

b. What would be a more appropriate transition period?

Metric measurement units: years

Metric engineering standards: years

c. To what extent would costs and disruption be minimized in your suggested

transition period as compared to the ten year period?

Metric measurement units:

Metric engineering standards:

COMMENTS
112 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

PART IID: CONCLUSION

1. Do you think there should be concerted action in the United States to bring about

changes toward metrication in measurement units ?

Yes No DK

a. If yes, what concerted action should be taken?

2. Do you think there should also be concerted action in the United States to bring

about changes toward metrication in engineering standards ?

Yes No DK

a. If yes, what concerted action should be taken?

GENERAL COMMENTS:

USCOMM—NBS—DC Thank you
' APPENDIX 5

NONMANUFACTURING SURVEY

RESPONDeJT NUMBER

0MB NO. 4l-S7003^

INITIAL CONTACT INTERVIEW

CLASSIFICATION DATA

SIC 4-Dlgit Code:

Name of SIC Industrial Group:

(RECORD NAME AND NUMBER OP 4-DIGIT GROUP IN THE

APPROPRIATE SPACE AT THE END OF SECTION I.

)

Name of Respondent :

Title of Respondent : AName of Organization:

City, State, ZIP CODE: ATelephone (Area Code & Number):

Date Initial Contact Interview Conpleted:

Date Information Mailed:

Date Second Interview Completed:

(DO NOT READ ANSWERS TO RESPONDENT, UNLESS SPECIFIED IN

THE INSTRUCTIONS. THE RESPONSE CATEGORIES WHICH ARE

SUPPLIED ARE ONLY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE IN RECORDING.

QUESTIONS WHICH ARE PRECEDED BY * SHOULD BE ASKED OF

ALL RESPONDENTS .

)

I^]TRODUCTION

This is of the firm of Bickert, Brown, and

Coddington. We're conducting a survey for the National Bureau of

Standards as part of the U.S. Metric Study. I believe you received

a letter recently from the Department of Commerce explaining the

study. The purpose of the survey is to try to determine how much

the Metric System Is being used by industry. We also need to know

whether companies foresee any increased use of the Metric System In

the future.

The information we collect from this official call is very

l-nportant, since the survey results will be reported to the Secretary

of Commerce and the Congress. Therefore, we need to talk to the

highest ranking company spokesman who is available.
114 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

The interview will be conducted entirely by telephone and has

two phases. The first phase, which I would like to complete today

if possible, generally lasts 3 to 5 minutes. The second interviev;

should take about 20 to 30 minutes, depending on the scope and

nature of your company's activities. This second phase will take

place during a separate phone call a week to 10 days from now.

I'd like to ask you the few questions of Phase 1 now, if I may.

SECTION I. ATTITUDES AND LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE

1. Maybe you've heard talk going around lately that the United

States might adopt the metric system of measurement. Have

you heard anything about this?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know A-9

IF YES TO Q. 1 :

2. What have you heard?

READ "SOMETHING"

HEARD "SOMETHING"

READ ABOUT IT IN BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS A-10,11

READ ABOUT IT IN NEWSPAPER

HEARD OR READ SOMETHING SPECIFIC (SPECIFY:) A-12,13

OTHER (SPECIFY:)

*3. If one of your friends asked you what the metric system is,

what would you tell him? A-l'^

A-15,l6

A-17,l8

(IF RESPONDENT CAN GIVE NO ANSWER, OR ASKS FOR A DEFINITION, SAY:)

We will be sending you more information about the Metric

System before my next call. Briefly, though, the Metric System

is a measurement system based generally on the meter as the unit

of length, the kilogram as the unit of mass, the second as the

unit of time, the degree Celsius as the unit of temperature,

and units derived from these. It is the measurement system

used in many parts of the world.
APPENDIX 5

^^\. Have you ever used the metric Gystem yourself?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. ^ :

5. In what way did you use It?

1. SCHOOL

2. WORK

3 . ARMED SERVICES

^ . FOREIGN TRAVEL

5. HOBBY

6. OTHER: (SPECIFY)

Does the metric system have any advantages or disadvantages

that you know of?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 6 :

6a. What are they?

ADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES

115

A-19

A-20

A-21

A-2?

A-23,2'4

A-25,26

A-27,28

A-29,30
146 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

(IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED "DON'T KNOW" WHEN ASKED TO DEFim THE

METRIC SYSTEM IN Q. 3, DO NOT ASK Q. 7.)

7. Hov; do you think It would affect your company if the

United States decided to adopt the metric system?

(ONLY A BRIEF, GENERAL ANSWER IS WANTED. IF RESPONDENT

GIVES A LONG, DETAILED ANSWER, TACTFULLY INTERRUPT.

)

1. NOT AT ALL

2. JUST WOULD TAKE TIME TO GET USED TO IT

3. SOME SPECIFIC ADVERSE EFFECTS

4. SOME SPECIFIC BENEFICIAL EFFECTS

5. OTHER (SPECIFY:)

9. DON'T KNOW

That's all I really need to know today. In my next call,

(Mr.) (Mrs.) , we will be particularly interested in

some detailed information on metric usage in your company.

Am I correct in recording your primary standard industrial

classification as

NAME OF SIC CATEGORY:

4-DIGIT SIC NUMBER:

(IF CLASSIFICATION IS INCORRECT, DETERMINE RESPONDENT'S

CORRECT PRIMARY SIC CLASSIFICATION AND RECORD IT ON THE

FRONT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE.)

Before I contact you again in a week or so, I will mail you

some supplementary information about the metric system. The

information is fairly brief, and it should help you to answer the

second phase of questions. I would appreciate your reading through

it before I call back.

When would be a convenient day and time for me to call you to

conduct the second interview? If you'd prefer, it might be easier

to conduct the next interview after business hours. I could call

you at home some evening next week or even on Saturday, If that

would be more convenient.
APPENDIX 5

(IF HOME APPOIIWENT IS MADE:

HOME TELEPHONE rWBER: )

DATE OF SECOND APPOINTMT

DAY:

DATE:

TIME:

Thank you again, (Mr.) (Mrs.) . I'll plan on talking

to you again on at o'clock.

USCOMM-NBS-DC
118 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

OMB No, 41-S70034

Expiration Date 12/31/70

RESPONDENT NUMBER

SECOND INTERVIEW

(II A)

(USE WITH THE FOLLOWING SIC CATEGORIES)!

4-DIGIT NUMBER

0...

10,, thru Ik.,

15.. thru 179.

50..

52.. thru 59..

SIC CATEGORY

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHERIES

MINING

CONSTRUCTION

UTILITIES

WHOLESALE

RETAIL TRADE

INTRODUCTION

(Mr.) (Mrs.) ? This is (INTERVIEWER) of

Bickert, Browne & Coddington and the U.S. Metric Study. I'm calling

to complete the second phase of your interview. Have you had a chance to review the materials we sent you?

IF NO: Would it be possible to reschedule the second interview

to give you more time to review that information?

When do you think that would be?

DATE:

TIME:

IF YES: Will you be able to complete the interview at this time?

(IF YES, CONTINUE WITH INTERVIEW)

(IF NO, RECORD NEW APPOINTMENT)

DATE:

TIME:

For this phase of questions, would you please answer the

questions from your company's point of view, keeping in mind the

pr^incipal industry group you are representing: (NAME OF ^-DIGIT

SIC FROM PAGE 1 OF CONTACT INTSRVIE'V: . I'd like you to answer for your U.S. operations, unless foreign

operations are specifically asked for in the question.
APPENDIX 5 119

SECTION II. EXISTING MEASUREMENT SYSTEM: OUTPUT

•1, Could you please give me a brief min-dovm of your company's

major activities?

C-1,2 ___

C-5,6

(PROBE FOR PRINCIPAL CLASS OF PRODUCTS)

*2. Do you quote any prices based on measurements such as length,

area, or volxune?

1. Yes 2, No 5. Don't know C-7

*3. How about quoting prices based on other measurements such as

weight, temperature, or thermal content?

1, Yes 2, No 3. Don't know C-8

•'f, I'm going to read some measurement dimensions. Could you tell

me which measurement system - that is, U.S. or metric - you use

to describe each dimension when your product(s) (is) (are)

sold?

(READ DIMENSION TO RESPONDENT AND RECORD IN THE APPROPRIATE

BOX BELOW. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS "BOTH", ASK:

For what percent would you estimate the metric system is

used to describe your product (s)?

PERCENT

DIMENSION U.S.

LENGTH OR AREA

VOLUME

WEIGHT

TEMPERATURE

METRIC BOTH METRIC

C-9

C-10

C-11

C-12
120 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

•5. Are there any engineering or size stamdards which you use in

selling your product (s)?

1. Yes 2. No J>, Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 3. ASK Q. 5a & 5b ;

5a, Could you name those stajidards?

5b, What measurement system (are those) (is that)

standard (s) based on?

C-13

C-14,15

C-16,17

1, U.S. 2. Metric 5. Other 4, D.K. C-I8

'6, Could you discuss for a moment the reasons why your company uses

the measurement units or standards you just mentioned?

(CHECK ONE OR KORE REASONS BELOW.)

TRADITION (ORIGIN UNKNOWN)

CUSTOMERS DEMAND IT

INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

TO MEET FOREIGN COMPETITION

TO IMPROVE QUALITY OR PERFORMANCE

OTHER (EXPLAIN)

OTHER (EXPLAIN)

DON'T KNOW

SUPPLIERS DETERMINE IT

LAW REQUIRES IT

TO MEET DOMESTIC COMPETION

C-19,20

C-21,22

C-23,2it

•7. Do you ever package any goods or products?

1. Yes 2, No 3» Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 7 ;

7a, What measurement units are used to describe the

container or package? First of all, for length

or area? And volume? And weight?

1 U.S. METRIC DON'T KNOW

LENGTH OR AREA

VOLUME

WEIGHT —

c-25

c-26

C-27

C-28
APPENDIX 5

•8, Does your organization ever export any U.S. products to

foreign countries?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know C-29

IF YES TO Q. 8. ASK Q. 9 - 12 .

IF NO TO Q. 8. SKIP TO Q. 13«

9. When you export products, do you describe those products

with the same measurement units you use for U.S. sales?

1, Yes 2. No 3. Sometimes k, D.K. C-50

IF "NO" OR "SOMETIMES" TO Q. 9 ;

9a, Does this change present any problems?

C-51

C-32

10, How about engineering standards, are they the same as for

U.S. sales?

1. Yes 2, No 3. Sometimes h, D.K. C-33

IF "NO" OR "SOMETIMES" TO Q. 10 ;

lOa, Is there ever a problem for you?

C-3^
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Do you feel that the volume of your export sales ever depends on the measurement units you use?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know C-36

IF YES TO Q. 11 ;

11a. To what extent?

C-37

C-38

12. How about engineering standards, do you feel that the

volume of your export sales ever depends on the engineering

standards you use?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know C-39

IF YES TO Q. 12 ;

12a » To what extent? ________________________________

^"'^'^

C-hl

122

11.
APPENDIX 5 223

*13» Does your organization have any licensee or subsidiary

operations in foreign countries?

1, Yes 2. No 3. Don't know C-^2

IF YES TO Q. 13, ASK Q. ik - l6 .

IF NO TO Q. 13. SKIP TO Q. 17.

ik. What measurement system is used in yoxir foreign operations?

1. U.S. 2, Metric 3. Both k, D.K. C-h3

15* Why is that system used?

C-if5

16, Did measurement systems influence your decision to operate a foreign licensee or subsidiary?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 16 :

l6a. How did measurement considerations influence

your decision?

C-k7

C-h8
124 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

• 17. To your knowledge, are the products that you sell in the U.S.

also imported to this country by foreign firms?

1. ____ Yes 2. No 3. Don't know C-kS

IF YES TO Q. 17 ;

17a. Are the measurement units or standards for these

foreign products different from the ones used in

your U.S. sales?

1, Yes 2, ____ No 5. Sometimes 'f. DK C-50

*l8. In general, do you think the measurement tmits or standards

used for foreign goods have affected the sales of these goods

in the U.S?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know C-51
APPENDIX 5

RESPONDENT NUMBER

SECOND INTERVIEW

(II B)

(USE WITH THE FOLLOWING SIC CATEGORIES):

^-DIGIT NUMBER SIC CATEGORY

^fO.. thru 4?.. TRANSPORTATION

k8,, COMMUNICATIONS

60., thru 62.. & 67.. FINANCE

7... thru 8... SERVICES

63.. INSURANCE

6^+.. thru 66.. REAL ESTATE

INTRODUCTION

(Mr.) (Mrs.) ? This is (INTERVIEWER) of

Bickert, Browne & Coddington and the U.S. Metric Study. I'm calling

to complete the second phase of your interview. Have you had a chance to review the materials we sent you?

IF NO ; Would it be possible to reschedule the second interview

to give you more time to review that information?

When do you think that would be?

DATE:

TIME:

IF YES ; Will you be able to complete the interview at this time?

(IF YES, CONTINUE WITH INTERVIE?//)

(IF NO, RECORD NE'V APPOINTMENT)

DATE:

'

TIME:

For this phase of questions, would you please answer the

questions from your company's point of view, keeping in mind the

principal industry group you are representing: (NAME OF 4-DIGIT

SIC FROM PAGE 1 OF CONTACT INTERVIEW: . I'd like you to answer for your U.S. operations, unless foreign

operations are specifically asked for in the question.
126 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

SECTION II. EXISTING MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ; OUTPUT

•1. Could you please give me a brief run-dovm of your company's

major activities?

B-1,2

B-5,6

*2. Do you quote any prices based on measurements such as length,

area, or volume?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know B-7

*3. How about quoting prices based on other measurements such as weight, temperature, or thermal content?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know B-8

IF YES TO EITHER 0. 2 OR 3. ASK Q. k-6

IF NO TO BOTH Q. 2 & 3. SKIP TO Q. 7.
APPENDIX 5

I'm going to read various measurement dimensions. Would you

please tell me which measurement system - that is, U.S. or metric - you use to quote prices for each of these dimensions?

(READ DIMENSIONS TO RESPONDENT AND RECORD IN THE APPROPRIATE

BOX BELOW. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS "BOTH", ASK:

For what percent would you estimate the metric system is

used in quoting prices?

DIMENSION U.S. METRIC BOTH

PERCENT

METRIC

LENGTH OR AREA B-9

VOLUME B-10

WEIGHT B-11

TEMPERATURE B-12

Are there siny engineering or size standards which you use in

selling your services?

1, Yes 2, No 5. Don't know B-13

IF YES TO Q. 5. ASK Q. 3a & gb ;

5a. Could you name those standards?

B-l4,15

B-l6,17

5b. What measurement system (are those) (is that)

standard(s) based on?

1. U.S. 2. Metric 3. Other k. ^D.K. B-l8

Could you discuss for a moment the

the measurement units or standards

(CHECK ONE OR MORE REASONS BELOW.)

TRADITION (ORIGIN UNKNOWN)

CUSTOMERS DEMAND IT

INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

TO MEET FOREIGN COMPETITION

OTHER (EXPLAIN)

OTHER (EXPLAIN)

DON'T KNOW

reasons why your company uses

you just mentioned?

SUPPLIERS DETERMINE IT B-19,20

LAW REQUIRES IT B-21,22

TO MEET DOMESTIC COMPETITION ^"23, 2^
128 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

7. Do you ever package any goods or products?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know B-25

IF YES TO Q. 7 ;

7a. What measurement units are used to describe the

container or package? First of all, for length

or area? And volume? And weight?

U.S> METRIC DON'T KNOW

LENGTH OR AREA B-26

VOLUME B-27

WEIGHT B-28

*8, Does your organization have any licensee or subsidiary

operations in foreign countries?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know B-29

IF YES TO Q. 8, ASK Q. 9 - 11 .

IF NO TO Q. 8. SKIP TO Q. 12 .
APPENDIX 5 129

9. What measurement system is used in your foreign operations?

1. U.S. 2. Metric 3. Both k. D.K. B-30

10. Why is that system used'

11a, How did measurement considerations influence

your decision?

*12a. 'ilhy is that'

B-31,32

B-33,3'+

11, Did measurement considerations influence your decision

to operate a foreign licensee or subsidiary?

1, Yes 2. ^No 3. ^Don't know B-35

IF YES TO Q. 11 ;

B-36,37 _

B-38,39

*12, In general, do you think the measurement units or standards

used for foreign goods have affected the sales of these goods

in the U.S.?

1. Yes 2. No 3, Don't know B-'+O
130 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

RESPONDENT NUMBER

SECTION III. EXISTING MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; INPUT

•1. Does yotir organization make any significant use of equipment,

supplies, components or tools which are described in metric

units?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know D-1

IF YES , ASK Q. la - Id ;

la, Cain you list for me those articles which are described

in metric units?

(RECORD EACH GENERAL CATEGORY OF METRIC ARTICLE IN

COLUMN A BELOW.)

A. METRIC ARTICLES B. % METRIC C. DUAL

1. D-2,3

2. 6,7

5. 10,11

4. 1^^,15

5. 18,19

6. 22,23

(FOR EACH GE^JERAL CATEGORY OF "METRIC ARTICLE"

RECORDED IN Q. la, ASK Q. lb - Id.)

lb. About what percent of your total (METRIC ARTICLES)

are described in metric units?

(RECORD IN COLUMN B ABOVE.)

Ic, Are those (supplies) (components) (equipment)

(tools) you mentioned described in metric tinits

only, or is there dual dimensioning?

1, Metric only 2, Dual 5, Don't know

Id, Which of them have dual dimensioning?

(RECORD IN COLUMN C OF CHART ABOVE)
APPENDIX 5 131

•2. Now I'd like to ask about engineering standards. Does your

organization make any significant use of equipment, supplies,

components or tools which are designed to metric engineering

standards?

1. Yes 2. No 3.

IF YES TO Q. 2. ASK Q. 2a - 2d ;

Don't know

2a. Which articles are designed to metric engineering

standards?

(RECORD EACH GENERAL CATEGORY OF ARTICLE IN COLUMN A

BELOW.)

D-26

1.

2.

3.

k.

5.

6.

A. METRIC ARTICLES B. % METRIC C. DUAL

D-27,28

31,52 _

35,36 _

39,^0 _ k3^k _

. 29

33 _

37 _

'^l _

^^5 _

^^9

. 50_

k2_

k6_

50

(FOR EACH GENERAL CATEGORY OF "METRIC ARTICLE"

RECORDED IN Q. 2a, ASK Q. 2b - 2d.)

2b. About what percent of your total (METRIC ARTICLE) are designed to metric standards?

(RECOIU) IN COLUMN B ABOVE.)

2c. Are those (supplies) (components) (equipment) (tools)

which you mentioned designed to strictly metric

stajidards, or is there dual dimensioning?

1. Metric only 2. Dual 3.

2d. Which of them has dual dimensioning?

(RECORD IN COLUm C OF CHART ABOVE.)

Don't know

IF "YES" TO EITHER Q. 1 OR 2, ASK Q. 3 - 5.

IF "NO" TO BOTH Q. AND 2, SKIP TO Q. 6.
U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Were the metric articles you mentioned manufactured in the

U.S. or in a foreign country?

1. U.S. 2. Foreign 3. Both h. D.K. D-51

IF "BOTH" TO Q. 3 :

3a. Could you please estimate what percent were manufactured in a foreign country?

PERCENT FOREIGN MADE: D-52

Has your company found any particular advantages in using

metric goods or equipment?

ADVANTAGES :

D-55,56 __ D-57t58

How about any disadvantages or problems associated with

such metric goods or equipment?

DISADVANTAGES:

D-59,60

D-6l,62
APPENDIX 5 133

•6, Which of the following phrases best describes how important

measurements and measurement calculations are to your overall

company operations? (READ CHOICES TO RESPONDENT.)

1. VERY IMPORTANT

2. MODERATELY IMPORTANT

D-65

3. RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT

4. NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT

•7. If you think of the total man-hours in your organization that are devoted to making measurements or measurement calculations,

about what percent of this total would you estimate is spent

using the metric measurement system?

PERCENT METRIC D-66
134 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

RESPONDIMT NUMBER

SECTION IV. FUTURE MEASUREMENT

In the next group of questions I'd like your opinions about your

possible future use of the metric system in this country. Some of

the questions will ask for predictions, and I realize that some of your answers can only be rough estimates. But please try to estimate as

accurately as you can. Again, I'd like you to answer for your

company in the United States, unless foreign operations are specifically mentioned.

In the first set of questions, consider only the trends in your

(company's) (organization's) operations as they now exist. We want

to know what you think will happen to the use of measixrement systems

in this coxmtry, if the existing trends are allowed to follow their

natural course. In other words, what will happen if there is no

national program to adopt the metric system, and each company is

allowed to use whichever measurement system is best for its purposes.

*1, Do you think that your organization will ever use or increase

its use of metric measurements on its own?

1, Yes 2, No 3. Not unless whole U,S, does 4, DK E-1

la. Why is that? (CHECK ONE OR MORE RESPONSES BELOW.)

(IF "YES") (IF "NO" OR CONDITIONAL)

TO FACILITATE INTERNATIONAL

COMMERCE

TO IMPROVE QUALITY OR

PERFORMANCE

INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

TO MEET FOREIGN COMPETITION

OTHER:

OTHER:

NO NEED

TOO EXPENSIVE

INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

NO CUSTOMER DEMAND

NO FOREIGN COMMERCE

SUPPLIERS DETERMINE IT

LAW REQUIRES U.S.

SYSTEM

INTEGRATED; CANNOT

CHANGE ALONE

OTHER:

E-2,3

E-if,5

E-6,7

DON'T KNOW

DON'T KNOW
APPENDIX 5

IF YES TO Q. 1. ASK q. 2 - k :

IF NO TO q. 1, SKIP TO Q. 5.

135

2. 'rfhen do you think you might begin to make changes in your

present measurement system on your own?

NUMBER OF YEARS: DON'T KNOW E-8

3. What do you suppose will be some of the advantages of

increasing metric usage?

E-9

E-10

k. How about disadvantages?

E-11

E-12

*5« Let's suppose that the finns from which you buy supplies,

equipment, tools, or components increased their use of metric measures or standards on their own. What effect would that

have on your (company) (organization)?

E-13
136 LI S- METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

*6, Do you think your company would face any inventory problems if

some industries went metric on their own while others continued

to use the U.S. system?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know E-15

IF YES TO Q. 6 ;

6a. What would be the nature and extent of those inventory

problems?

E-16

E-17

E-18

Do you think that the government should take any action to

bring about changes in the use of metric units or standards

in this country?

1, Yes 2. No 3. Don't know E-19

IF YES TO Q. 7 :

7a, What sort of action should be taken to bring about

these changes?

_A COORDINATED, VOLUNTARY NATIONAL PROGRAM

A COORDINATED NATIONAL PROGRAM WITH CERTAIN

CHANGES MANDATORY

A NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM E-20

OTHER (SPECIFY):

E-21

OTHER (SPECIFY):

DON'T KNOW
APPENDIX 5

While you are answering the next questions I'd like you to think

in terms of a nationally planned program to increase the use of the

metric system in this country. We've set up a list of hypothetical

characteristics of such a national program, so that each respondent

can auiswer in terms of the same plan.

Since our last conversation, you've received some materials from

us which include a list of those hypothetical program characteristics.

I'd like to review those characteristics with you now. Do you have

that list handy,

(READ ALL EIGHT CHARACTERISTICS TO THE RESPONDENT,

EVEN IF HE STATES THAT HE HAS READ THE LIST.)

CHARACTERISTICS

1, All major countries except the U.S. are now metric,

2, There would be a nationally planned program in the

United States to increase the use of the metric

measurement system in this country,

3, The changeover to the metric system would be completed

by the end of a designated time period,

4, Within the designated time period, all changes to

metric language for printed materials such as signs,

catalogues, deeds, and labels would be made only when

such materials needed to be revised; and all changes

to metric sizes or engineering standards would be

made only for new or redesigned parts or products.

5, Existing equipment would be used until the end of

its normal life cycle; the only changes to metric

units would be in dials, gauges, and indicating

devices,

6, You could establish your own schedule for conversion

to metric language or standards, as long as these

changes were accomplished within the designated time

period.

7, All goods and services normally used by your

organization would be available in metric terms as needed and at no extra cost to you,

8, The metric system would be taught in all U.S. schools

during the transition period and the general public

would be gaining familiarity with the metric

measurement system at the same time.
138 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

We've adopted those characteristics to find out how a nationally

planned program might affect you. Let me emphasize that no prograun

of this type actually exists. It's purely hypothetical.

Before we continue, do you have ajiy questions about the

characteristics?

*8, Suppose that you were going to help develop a national plan

for adopting the metric system in this country. What kind of

time period do you think would be reasonable for making the

changeover?

NEVER

IMMEDIATELY E-22

NUMBER OF YEARS

DON'T KNOW

(KEEP THIS NUMBER OF YEARS IN MIND IN OBTAINING

ANSiVERS TO Q. 10 - 12a.)

*9« How about a plan for a changeover for your own industry; what

time period do you think would be reasonable?

NEVER

IMMEDIATELY E-25

NUMBER OF YEARS

DON'T KNOW

•10, Suppose a national plan were developed so that the whole United

States would be metric by the end of a (NO. OF YEARS IN Q. 8)

year time period. What would be the biggest advantage to your

organization of this planned (NO. OF YEARS) - year changeover?

E-2't

E-25

E-26
APPENDIX 5

What would be the biggest disadvantages?

E-29

*12. How about your competition? Would this planned (NO. OF YEARS)-

year metric changeover have any effect on your competitive

position among your chief U.S. competitors?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know E-30

IF YES TO Q. 12 ;

12a, What effect would it have?

E-31

E-32

(IF TIME PERIOD MENTIONED IN Q. 8 WAS EXACTLY

TEN YEARS, SKIP TO Q. 17.)

15. What if the national plan for changeover were a lO-year

period? If you use the same characteristics on your list,

would it change amy of the answers you gave to the

(NO. OF YEARS GIVEN TO Q. 8) - year period?

1. Yes 2. No (PROBE)

139

E-27

E-28

IF YES TO Q. 13, ASK Q. 1^ - l6 .

IF NO TO Q. 13, SKIP TO Q. 1? .
140 U METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

ik. What would be the biggest advantage to your organization

of this 10-year planned changeover?

E-33

E-3k

15. And what would be the biggest disadvantages ?

. E-35

E-56

16, Would this 10-year planned metric changeover have any effect

on your competitive position with your chief U.S.

competitors?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know E-37

IF YES TO Q. 16 ;

16a, What effect would it have?

E-38

E-39
APPENDIX 5 141

*17. Keeping in mind the eight program characteristics, do you

think that a national 10-year planned changeover would

influence your annual dollar sales?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know E-kO

IF YES TO Q. 17. ASK Q. 17a & 17b ;

IF NO TO Q. l8. SKIP TO Q. l8 .

17a. 'j^at do you think the percent change in your annual U.S.

dollar sales might be?

(BE SURE THAT THE RESPONDENT INDICATES THE DIRECTION

OF CHANGE; i.e., POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.)

1. + % 2. - % 3, Don't know E-kl

17b, How about the percent change in your annual dollar

export sales?

1. + % 2. ____ - % 3, Don't know E-k2

*l8. Let's talk about costs now. Do you think a nationally plsuined

10-year changeover would have any effect on yoxir anmial dollar

costs?

1, Yes 2. No 3. Don't know E-'f3

IF YES TO Q. 18. ASK Q. l8a - iBc

/ IF NO TO Q. l8. SKIP TO Q. 19 .
142 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

l8a. Could you estimate the percent change in terms of your

annual costs?

1. + 5^ 2. - % 3. Don't know E-^f^f

l8b. About how long would you expect this change in costs

to affect yotir operation?

YEARS MONTHS DON'T KNOW Y^W^

l8c. Which of the following would you estimate to be the

most important factor in your (increase) (decrease)

in costs?

(READ CHOICES TO RESPONDENT.)

LABOR

EQUIPMENT

COMPONSrJTS

INVENTORY E-46

OTHER (ASK FOR EXPLANATION)

DON'T KNOW

*19« Would such a changeover affect your selling price?

1, Yes 2, No 3. Don't know E-^f?

(IF RESPONDENT ASKS OR EXPRESSES CONFUSION, EXPLAIN:

What we need to know here are changes in the actual costs

to your customers, not simple changes in cost because

£in article is sold in larger or smaller units.)

IF YES TO Q. 19 ;

19a. About what percent increase or decrease in xmit price

might you expect?

1. + ^ 2. - ^ 3. Don't know E-^fS
APPENDIX 5

*20, Would any of your employees have to be retrained if the United

States were to go metric?

1. Yes 2. No 5. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 20. ASK Q. 21 - 23a ,

IF NO TO Q. 20. SKIP TO Q. 2k ,

21, About what percent Would have to be retrained?

% Don't know E-50

22, What do you think it might cost your company on the average

to retrain an employee?

8 Don't know E-51

25, How does this compare with the costs for originally

training an employee?

E-52

(TRY TO OBTAIN APPROXIMATE COSTS FOB

ORIGINAL TRAINING.) E-53

IF THE ANSWERS TO Q. 22 & 23 ARE OF EQUAL SIZE ;

23a, Then you think that it would require

just as long to retrain your personnel

in the new system of measurement as it

took to teach them their job skills in

the beginning?

1, Yes 2. No 3. Don't know E-54

143

E^k9
144 U.S. METRIC STUDY REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

We need to know the answers to the next two questions, so that we may get the most up-to-date information about the size of your

organization. This information will be kept completely confidential.

*2k. How many persons are employed in your organization on the

average?

01 Less than 10 06 250 to if99

02 10 to 19 07 500 to 999

03 20 to kS 08 1,000 to 2,if99

Ok 50 to 99 09 2,500 to 10,000

05 100 to 2^9 10 Over 10,000

E-55,56

*25» What were your approximate gross sales or gross dollar volume

for the 1969 business year?

I

(IF RESPONDKNT HESITATES, READ THE EXAMPLES OF DOLLAR RANGES

LISTED BELOW WHICH YOU FEEL ARE NEAR TO HIS ACTUAL DOLLAR

RANGE.)

01 Up to S50 thousand 08 Over 325M to S50M

02 Over »50T to SlOOT 09 Over S50M to SlOOM

05 Over SlOOT to $500T 10 Over SlOOM to 3250M

Oif Over S5OOT to SI M 11 Over $250M to $500M

05 Over SIM to S5M 12 Over $500M to ttlB

06 Over 35M to SIOM 13 Over SI billion

07 Over SlOM to 325M

E-57,58
APPENDIX 5 145

Finally, I'd like to ask just three more broad questions about

your company's overall feeling regarding the use of the metric system

in this country. They may appear to be repetitive, but we need your

candid opinion.

•26. Which of the following choices most closely indicates the

current attitude of your company toward increased metric

usage in your operations?

(READ CHOICES TO RESPONDENT.)

1. STRONGLY FOR

2. MILDLY FOR

3. NEUTRAL

k. MILDLY AGAINST

5. STRONGLY AGAINST

E-59

•27» Do you believe that increased metric usage is in the best

interests of the United States?

1. Yes 2, No 3. Don't know E-60

•28, If it is found that metric usage is in the best interests of

the United States, which of the following courses of action,

in your opinion, is preferable?

(READ CHOICES TO RESPONDENT.)

1. A MANDATORY PROGRAM BASED ON LEGISLATION

2. A COORDINATED NATIONAL PROGRAM BASED ON

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION

3. NO NATIONAL PLANNED PROGRAM; PARTICIPATION

WOULD BE TOTALLY VOLUNTARY

if. DON'T KNOW

Thank you very much. We appreciate the time you have given

in helping us with this study.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 O-410-642