i

I REPORT OF THE

i3d NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

HEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1968

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

SPECIAL PUBLICATION 311

4

Report of the

53d National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1968

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials From the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives From U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Washington, B.C., June 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 1968

Report Editor: L. Koeser

National Bureau of Standards

A, V, Astin, Director

United States Department of Commerce

Maurice H. Stans, Secretary

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication No. 311

Issued March 1969

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.25
Abstract

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

Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, held in Washington, D.G., June 17-21, 1968 and attended by State, county, and city weights and measures officials and representatives of the Federal Government, business, industry, railroads, and associations. Key words : Conference, weights and measures—laws, weights and measures

regulations, weights and measures—technical requirements, weights and measures—history, weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 26-27766
CONTENTS

(Note: Reports of the Standing, Annual, and Executive Committees, and the

Treasurer's Report, have been arranged together, beginning on page 103, for

easier reference.) Page

Officers and Committees v Committee Meetings vii MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1968

Address, by L. C. McQuade, Assistant Secretary for Domestic and International Business, U.S. Department of Commerce 1 Address of Conference President, by A. V. Astin, Director, National Bureau

of Standards 7 Appointments to Standing Committees, by Dr. Astin 14

Presentation of Honor Awards, by Dr. Astin, President, National Conference on Weights and Measures 15 Address, by D. J. Wickham, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture and

Markets, Albany, New York, and First Vice President, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 16 Address, by C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary,

Indiana, and Chairman, National Conference on Weights and Measures- 19 AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1968

Maximum Effectiveness with Limited Resources, by M. H. Becker, County

Sealer of Weights and Measures, Los Angeles County, California 22

Activities of the Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, by M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, and Staff. . 26

Address, by Kamal Saad, Deputy Project Director, Saudi Arabia 43 Weights and Measures in Ceylon, by H. Goonetilleke, Deputy Warden

of the Standards, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Commerce, Park Road, Colombo, Ceylon 44 Open Forum: Cooperation—Communication—Compliance, Moderator,

M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards 47 Remarks of Margaret Dana 48

MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1968

Two-Way Dividends from Industry-Government Collaboration, by D. S. Ring, General Counsel, National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association,

Inc., Washington, D.C 50 Packaging Standards for Fluid Milk Products, by G. W. Spotts, Supervisor

of Technical Service Department, Shell Chemical Company, Woodbury,

New Jersey 54 The Production of Package Labels under the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act, by F. R. Cawley, Executive Director, Label Manufacturers National

Association, Inc., Washington, D.C 61 Progress Through Cooperation, by H. J. Sheerin, Vice President and Director,

Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Neenah, Wisconsin 66 The Emphasis is on "With," by F. McLaughlin, Director, ProducerMarketing Relations, President's Committee on Consumer Interests, Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C 72

iii
AFTERNOON SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1968

Page

The Annual Conference Luncheon

Guest Speaker: Hon. J. T. Myers, Congressman, State of Indiana

"THE METRIC SYSTEM AND YOU" 79 MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1968

Meeting the Challenge, by R. C. Primley, Operations Manager, Thiesen

Clemens Company, St. Joseph, Michigan 90

Little Omissions Can Lead to Serious Errors, by A. Sanders, Executive

Secretary, Scale Manufacturers Association, Inc., Washington, D.C 92 The Development of a State Measurement Center, by M. Jennings, Director,

Division of Marketing, Department of Agriculture, Nashville, Tennessee. _ 97 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Report of the Conference Executive Committee 103 Statement of the Incoming Conference Executive Committee 105 REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES:

Report of the Conference Committee on Liaison with the National Government, presented by J. H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures Section,

Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington 106 Report of the Conference Committee on Education, presented by W. I. Thompson, County Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Monmouth County, New Jersey 108 Report of the Conference Committee on Specifications and Tolerances,

presented by H. D. Robinson, Deputy State Sealer, Bureau of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Augusta, Maine 111 Report of the Conference Committee on Laws and Regulations, presented

by W. A. Kerlin, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department

of Agriculture, Sacramento, CaUfornia 124 REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES:

Report of the Conference Committee on Nominations, presented by R. E. Meek, Consultant, Division of Weights and Measures, State Board of Health, Indianapolis, Indiana 149 Report of the Conference Committee on Resolutions, presented by M. L. Kinlaw, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, North Carolina 150 Report of the Conference Auditing Committee, presented by L. H. DeGrange,

Field Supervisor of Weights and Measures, Department of Markets,

State Board of Agriculture, College Park, Maryland 152 Report of the Conference Treasurer, presented by J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and Measures, State Office Building, Topeka, Kansas. 154 Conference Registration List 156 H-44 Promulgation Map 175

iv
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES

OFFICERS

(As elected by the Fifty-second National Conference

to serve during the Fifty-third)

President : A. V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards.

"

Executive Secretary : M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Ex offto^o Measures Chairman : C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana.

Vice Chairmen

:

N. Berhyman, Director, Division of Standards, Department of Agriculture,

Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. Williams, Director, Consumer Service Division, Department of Agriculture, Austin, Texas.

J. T. Daniell, Deputy Sealer, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Detroit,

Michigan.

D. E. KoNSOER, Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Food Division,

Department of Agriculture, Madison, Wisconsin. Treasurer: J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and Measures, State Board of Agriculture, Topeka, Kansas.

Chaplain: R. W. Seaeles, County Inspector of Weights and Measures, Medina

County, Ohio. (As elected by the Fifty-third National Conference

to serve during the Fifty-fourth)

A. V. AsTiN, President 1 M. W. Jensen, Executive Secretary

S. H. Christie of New Jersey, Chairman

W. C. Hughes of Massachusetts, Vice Chairman

J. F. Lyles of Virginia, Vice Chairman

R. L. Sharp of Texas, Vice Chairman

C. B. Whigham of New Mexico, Vice Chairmun

O. C. Morgan of Indiana, Treasurer

R. W. Seart.es of Ohio, Chaplain

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

(As elected by the Fifty-third National Conference)

A. V. ASTIN

M. W. Jensen

S. H. Christie

W. C. Hughes

J. F. Lyles

R. L. Sharp

C. B. Whigham

C. C. Morgan

R. W. Sbarles

L. A. Gredy

W. H. Naudain

M. H. Becker

F. D. Morgan

Ex officio L. B. Frank

P. Grassi

J. C. Boyd

H. K. Sharp

J. A. Hughes

K. G. Hayden

V
STANDING COMMITTEES

(As constituted at the conclusion of the Fifty-third National Conference,

the personnel of each of the standing committees are as listed. The remaining term of office for each committee member, in years, is shown in parentheses

following each entry.)

EDUCATION*

J. I. MooRE of North Carolina, Chairman (3) A. D. Rose of California (1) W. I. Thompson of New Jersey (2) B. A. Pettit of District of Columbia (4) G. E. Mattimoe of Hawaii (5) LAWS AND REGULATIONS*

W. A. Kerlin of California, Chairman (3)

J. H. Wilson of Missouri (1)

J. F. Lyles of Virginia (2) G. L. Delano of Montana (4) R. W. Richards of Pennsylvania (5) SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES*

H. D. Robinson of Maine, Chairman (1) R. L. Thompson of Maryland (2) R. Rebuffo of Nevada (3) D. E. KoNSOER of Wisconsin (4)

J. C. Mays of Florida (5) COMMITTEE ON LIAISON WITH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT*

J. H. Lewis of Washington, Chairman (2) K. C. Allen of Ohio (1) R. 0. Primley of Michigan (3) E. E. WoLSKi of New York (4) R. W. Brevoort of New York (5) ANNUAL COMMITTEES ACTING ONLY DURING THE

FIFTY-THIRD CONFERENCE

Nominations: R. E. Meek of Indiana, Chairman; J. E. Bovten of Massachusetts;

V. D. Campbell of Ohio ; S. H. Christie of New Jersey ; H. E. Craweoed of Florida ; J. H. Lewis of Washington ; J. F. True of Kansas.

Resolutions: M. L. Kinlaw of North Carolina, Chairman; M. H. Becker of California; W. E. Czaia of Minnesota; E. T. Hunter of New York; D. I. Offner of Missouri; R. W. Richards of Pennsylvania; R. L. Sharp of Oklahoma.

Auditing Committee: L. H. DeGrange of Maryland, Chairman; L. D. Hoijx)WAy

of Idaho ; H. E. Smith of California. *M, W. Jensen, Executive Secretary of the Conference, is ew officio nonvoting secretary

to each committee. vi
COMMITTEE MEETINGS, MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1968

All day Monday was set aside for meetings of the Conference committees. Announcements of these meetings were carried in the National

Conference Announcement and in the Conference Program.

The Conference committees that met on Monday morning were

the Executive Committee, the Committee on Education, and the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. The Committee on Liaison

with the National Government and the Committee on Laws and Eegulations met Monday afternoon.

All jfinal reports of the Standing and Annual Committees can be

found beginning on page 103.

vii

REPORT OF THE FIFTY-THIRD NATIONAL

CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1968

(C. C. Morgan, Chairman^ Presiding)

The invocation was delivered and the memorial service for departed

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

Searles of Ohio.

Rev. Searles led the delegates in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ADDRESS

by L. C. McQuADE, Assistant Secretary for Domestic and Inter- national Business^ U.S. Department of Commerce

I would like to discuss with you today a few

things which are going on in Government in the area of economics and social policy, and which

I think might be interesting to you.

The main topic of interest to all of us is : Just

where is this great national economy that provides us with our goods, services, and jobs

going?

Inflation.

In this respect, I think the key problem which

troubles everybody here in Washington and elsewhere in the nation is that of inflation. We face the fact that in the first quarter of the year

our gross national product rose by 20 billion dollars—a growth rate, on an annual basis, of almost 10 percent. For the huge economy of the

United States, that is a fantastic growth rate indeed. In fact, the 20

billion dollars is more than the gross national product of a good number of major countries in the world. Keep in mind, that is just one- quarter of a year's increase in the gross national product of the United

States. Of this increase which occurred in the first quarter of this year, about 4 percent would be attributable to price rises, so that the real

1
rate of growth is less than the apparent rate of growth because of

inflation. It is the assumption of most economists that once we start growing at a rate over 14 or 15 billion dollars a quarter, a portion of

the growth will come out of our pockets in the form of inflationary

price rises. Therefore, the most difficult problem that faces our country today is what should we do about inflation.

Basically, the consumer is confronted with the fact that, even though

from time to time he gets pay increases, prices for the items he buys

also go up. (The consumer price index rose by 1.1 percent for the

first quarter of 1968 ; and the wholesale price index for the same quarter was the highest since mid-1965). When prices rise as fast as or

faster than pay increases, the consumer ends up in a neutral or worse

position than he was before receiving his pay increases. Consequently,

the strong, full-employment economy we now enjoy has the tendency

to undercut the full benefit of our prosperity through inflation. There are two ways you can fight inflation successfully. Firsts by

fiscal policy—taxes and budgetary controls set by governments; sec- ond^ by monetary policy. I think all of you are fully aware that we

have a very tight monetary policy at the moment. The Federal Eeserve

Board and the willing borrowers have pushed interest rates up to fantastic levels compared to what we are used to in this country. It appears that if there is no action taken on the fiscal side soon, monetary

policy might get even tighter, with even more difficult consequences

for the nation as a whole.

If interest rates go up, mortgage rates get to be very severe and

the availability of credit for mortgages becomes very tight. The housing industry thus tends to feel the brunt of heavy monetary policy

first. This affects every one of us because housing is an important

factor in every community.

So, the President has put forward fiscal measures to the Congress

with the objective of lowering the great pressures on the economy

which come from high levels of spending.

To cut down this high level of spending by consumers, the President has proposed a tax increase. I might add that this tax increase is nowhere near the size of the 1964 tax reduction. The main purpose of

a tax increase would be to take dollars out of the spending stream

which goes mainly through consumer and industry hands. As a complement to the tax increase, Congress is asking for a cut in the

level of Federal Government spending. The level of cut asked by the

Congress is six billion dollars. This issue will be decided when voted

upon later this week.* This will be a critical moment in helping to determine what course the economy is going to take during the rest of the year.

Editor's Note : The tax increase and spending cut referred to have been enacted into law after the date Mr. McQuade's remarks were delivered. 2
Let me briefly condense the main reasons why I think that the vote

later this week will be of great importance to all of us in the economy.

First, if we raise taxes and cut Federal spending, we will ease the

rate of inflation, slow down the upward price spiral, and achieve a

fairly healthy rate of growth without price inflation. Second, we can ease the credit squeeze which is now being imposed

by the Federal Reserve Board, and lower interest rates. Third, we can slow down the pace at which imports are coming into

the country and ease the Nation's balance of payments problem.

Labor-Management Relations. I would next like to discuss the problems we face in labor-management relations. The Full Employment Act of 1946 required the Federal Government to seek to maintain full employment in the economy.

When the nation has close to total full employment—^three and a half percent is the national unemployment average today—it faces

the problem that the balance of power in the wage-setting relationship

tends to shift, and there is a high likelihood that wage costs will tend

to rise faster than productivity. This increases the likelihood of price

rises, with the attendant detriments to the national economy. For

: example, during the airline strike of a year and a half ago, the engiI neers who were out on strike could get comparable or better wages

by moonlighting on other jobs. There were that many jobs around.

They could afford to wait pretty much forever before they would find

it economically desirable to go back to work at anything other than

the wage increase which they sought. Management, on the other

hand, was losing revenue every day, and the public was seriously

inconvenienced.

I am not saying what the equities might have been, but from a

national economic point of view it is clear we got a wage rate which

exceeded increases in productivity. And if that occurs over time, it makes the United States, as a national economy, less efficient and fosters "cost-push-inflation." Management, in an effort to cover its rise in cost, will tend to push its prices up with the only deterrent being

competition. But competition is not the case when you have industrywide bargaining pushing up the cost factor, and therefore prices.

The Administration tried to adopt wage-price guidelines to bring

home to management and labor the fact that there is a futility in

having costs rise faster than productivity. Both sides were asked to

exercise restraint. As some economists ungraciously put it, they turned

out to be goal-posts, rather than guideposts, in the sense that they

became the target, the goal, the floor, for a wage negotiation, rather

than the upper limit of a wage negotiation. That policy—dramatically

illustrated in the airlines case—was not effective in holding the line on wage increases under the conditions of a fully employed economy

with lots of inflationary pressures. 3
Looking at 1968 in real terms, we just saw a labor-management

settlement in the aluminum industry which resulted in a seven percent

increase in the cost of labor, more or less, depending upon your statistics. We also face the prospects of steel negotiations later this fall. High domestic steel prices have already resulted in extraordinarily

high imports of steel with adverse effects on our balance of payments

and a degree of trepidation for the economy as a whole. It is important that we get through the current negotiations without a strike

and without having a round of wage increases (1) tending further to price steel out of the international market and (2) boosting the

economy as a whole on a continued upward spiral.

Finally, a labor problem arises with respect to public employees.

The right to strike, of course, is a classic part of the American tradition. Any attempt to attack it brings on a loud protest.

On the other hand, we are all acutely conscious of the importance

to the community of some of the services performed by public employees. Health and safety are maybe the foremost and almost incontestable examples. The garbage strike in New York really put the

question of health to us in a very direct way. Yet forbidding strikes

could cause other problems. How can equity be achieved for teachers, nurses, and others if they do not have an effective way to express

themselves—some way to exert pressure upon the relevant public

employer to recognize their claims ? I do not know of a really effective answer to this. Legal prohibition against striking, in many instances, has been so severe as to be unenforceable. The Condon-Wadlin Act of New York

is an example. Also, the added ingredients of emotion and political

power have kept the nation from figuring out how equity can be

achieved while at the same time public services are maintained in a reasonable way.

The nation as a whole will see some significant changes in the area of labor-management negotiations and the techniques for setting

wage rates and conditions of employment over the next decade. If will

be very difficult to do politically, but intrinsic forces will compel us

to make some changes in the rules of the game. Therefore, I would

say, this is an area where a lot of hard thinking has been and should

continue to be undertaken.

Hard-Oore Unemployed,

Let's turn to the very pressing problem of hard-core unemployment.

It is crystal clear that unemployment should be kept low on the

whole. But, when we say we have a three-and-a-half percent unemployment rate in the nation, this is not very interesting news for the many;

people we call the hard-core unemployed. They come close to being

unemployable. Even more dramatic is the fact that if there is a slump,

4
which would no doubt cause a fall-off in the employment rate, the

people who get hit worst are those people with low skills, such as the

Negroes, women, and generally people with limited educations. These

are the people who feel the gyrations in the economy most. Even at the

highest employment rates for the nation as a whole, these people still flounder in their special pools of unemployment, as much as 14 and

15 percent or more. Should we take the jobs to the workers, or should we take the workers

to the jobs ? America has become a great migrant society. Almost 500,000

people a year move from rural areas to metropolitan areas. At the same time, about 62 percent of all new plants built in this country have

been built outside the central cities. What should we do about it ? By

1975, if the present pattern of migration exists, the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the country, outside California, will be short 3 million

jobs for such migrants. In short, jobs are being created outside of the

metropolitan areas while the people who have most difficulty getting

employment are moving into the metropolitan areas. This complicates the basic problem of getting people who have

fallen out of high school, and who have not developed appropriate

skills, into the employable work force. In this area, I think, important new experiments in the relationship between the Federal Government

and local communities may come to the rescue. For instance, the Job

Corps trains people. The Commerce Department's regional economic

development programs promote local economies in which growth has

lagged behind that of the rest of the comitry, and thereby create jobs

in. areas outside of the central cities. We hope that by creating jobs

where people now live, they will wish to stay in those areas instead of

seeking opportunities in Chicago and New York and other cities. These

are but a few of the recent techniques which constitute institutional

experiments seeking to bring the benefits of the Federal Government

to local areas and also achieve the maximum useful involvement of the

local people in determining what will occur. It is imperative that good

working relationships exist between Federal and local officials if success is to be achieved. Out of these experiments I expect some

valuable progress toward the new "creative Federalism" which President Johnson has been seeking.

Such experimentation has not, however, been confined to Federal,

State, and local Governments, but is proceeding with the private

sector as well. One creative effort to use private enterprise in dealing

with the nation's problems is the National Alliance of Businessmen.

This effort, conceived and born in the Commerce Department, is now

run by a group of distinguished businessmen headed by Henry

Ford II. They have adopted 50 cities in the United States and have

sought to create, in the first year, something on the order of 300,000 new jobs for the hard-core unemployed. This is putting the responsi5
bility where it belongs—with the employers—^to work out ways to create jobs and train the hard-core unemployed so they can take and

hold them.

The program is set up so that, in each of the major cities involved,

business organizations working with the local government will get

the benefit of the manpower development and training funds of the

Department of Labor, and other assistance from the Federal Government. But the show is the businessmen's. Through their effort, we

expect that many people who might otherwise be unproductive citizens or welfare recipients or breeders of negative drags upon the economy

in the forms of riots and crimes will become useful working citizens

with a better life. Consumerism.

The last thing I would like to mention today is a problem with

which you are closely associated : protecting the consumer. The basic

premise of the United States, of course, is that the private sector ought

to decide on the allocation and production of goods and services

through the competitive price system and there ought to be a minimum interference in that process by the Government. However, there are three basic areas in which it may not be possible to achieve acceptable standards without some involvement by governments.

1. Establishing rules of the game, such as the anti-trust laws or weights and measures regulations. This creates a medium for people

to operate in.

2. Issuing health and safety regulations to protect people, for example, against impure food or highly flammable garments.

3. Preventing fraud and deceit, such as the Securities and Exchange

Commission seeks to do in the sale of securities. But, I see a risk that this emphasis on "consumerism" can become

direct interference on the marketplace—^telling people what to do,

instead of setting rules for the game within which they may function.

If this should happen, there would be some damage to the effective- ness, efficiency, creativity, and bountifulness created by the competitive

enterprise system which has characterized the United States and

helped to make ours such a successful economy.

Gonclusion,

To conclude: First, I believe that the "mix" between the Federal

Government, local governments, and the private sector in dealing

with the problems of our society and economy will be affected importantly by the ingenuity and effectiveness with which private and

local forces are effective in meeting these grave problems on their own. To the extent that they fall short of the mark, the likelihood of a Federal role increases.

6
Second, I think the United States has been experimenting in the

last few years to find new ways to use the Government, both Federal

and local, and the private sector, to deal with a whole variety of

important national problems. We are in a stage of experimentation.

President Johnson calls it "creative Federalism." No one can define

precisely what that means; but I envision that, after this period of

experimenting, we will end up with several useful techniques for

dealing with national problems in a way which will allow us to have

our cake and eat it too—^that is, to benefit from the Federal Government's involvement and at the same time to avoid many of the negatives which can go with such involvement.

Third, I see the need for some adjustments in the "system" so that we can equitably divide the output of the nation between labor and

management without pricing the United States out of the world

market and without choking off that great cornucopia, the American

economy.

Finally, the basic strength of the national economy is the key to our

ability as a nation to meet our national problems and aspirations.

We must be very careful, in the course of trying to achieve our other

national objectives, that we do not undercut our economic strength.

Among the difficult problems that face us is the need to learn how

to maintain a full employment economy without serious inflation. ADDRESS OF CONFERENCE PRESIDENT

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

I find it a great pleasure to be back with you

again at the 63d National Conference. I was out

of the country a year ago and had to miss the

52d one, the first Conference I have missed since I became the Director of NBS and the Conference President.

It is my privilege and custom at these meetings to report to you on the general status of

activities within the National Bureau of Standards. This year I should like to describe the

current activities within the National Bureau

of Standards in terms of the national perspective.

The NBS has a twofold mission. The first and oldest is to provide

the national leadership for the measurement system. Here the function

is to provide the national basis for uniform, compatible, reliable,

physical measurement. Such measurement is essential, as you know, to

I the orderly exchange of goods and services in commerce ; it is essential

to the efficient functioning of our mass production industry, particularly the interchangeable parts aspect ; it is essential to the effective

7
communication among scientists with quantitative information; and

it is necessary to have this central basis if we are to apply effectively

the results of science and technology to achieve the national goals.

Our second general responsibility is concerned with facilitating application of technology to the achievement of various national goals.

Here our work is primarily with other agencies of the Federal Government. We have a unique statutory responsibility to provide scientific and technical advice to other Government agencies and, in fact, over 40 percent of our budget comes to us from other Government

agencies for services we render them.

Here we seek to help other agencies make the maximum use of new

developments in technology, and to facilitate the transfer of this technology to the economy. In this connection we operate the Clearinghouse

for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, accumulating in one place report literature and then making these reports readily

available to the American public.

In another aspect, we have a responsibility to assist other Government agencies in the most effective utilization of modern electronic

data-processing systems and to develop standards for these systems

to improve their efficiency and compatibility. This responsibility was

given to us by law approximately three years ago. To carry out these responsibilities, we have a staff of about 4,000

people, 3600 of whom are full-time, permanent employees, and about

1400 of these are professional scientists and engineers.

We have an overall operating budget this year of about $60 million,

with between $32 and $33 million coming to us directly from the

Congress as appropriations, about $20 million coming to us as transfers

from other Government agencies, and the balance in fees we collect from the public for services rendered, such as calibration of instruments, sale of documents, and sale of standard reference materials.

We carry out our activities in four locations, the principal one being

at Gaithersburg, Maryland. We still have a small group at our old

site on Connecticut Avenue here in the District of Columbia. Our

Clearinghouse is located in Springfield, Virginia, and our radio standards and cryogenic engineering work is carried out in Boulder,

Colorado.

Last year you visited our new facilities at Gaithersburg. We began

the planning of the new site more than 12 years ago, began construction

in 1961, and began occupying the buildings in 1963. We planned construction in four phases, and are now in the fourth and final phase.

Three special purpose laboratories—the acoustic laboratories, chemical

engineering laboratories, and concrete materials laboratories—will be

occupied this summer, and the fourth and final laboratory, the fluid

dynamics laboratory, will be finished about a year from now.

8
Turning now to our overall fiscal situation, I have given you the

general figures. We have been operating under a very tight budgetary

situation over the past several years. I think this is understandable

in view of the problems outlined to us by Assistant Secretary McQuade,

but it has made it necessary for us in the Bureau to do a considerable

amount of belt tightening, careful selecting of priorities, and weeding

out some of our less important programs. We feel that everything we

do contributes in some way to the national economy but, in general,

there are more urgent programs and less urgent programs; we have

been trying to put our focus on the more urgent.

In this process, it has been necessary for us to eliminate over the

past years some 65 positions in order that we can focus our available resources more effectively upon those things we consider the more

pressing and those things which we think will provide the greatest

stimulant for our economy.

We have made a number of studies to help us develop guidelines

for determining optimum program structures. These studies have been

quite revealing. They have demonstrated, in some of the things we have

selected to observe, that most of the activities of NBS returned benefits

to the nation worth ten to more than a hundred times the cost of providing the service. This return can be expressed in the form of efficien- cies in our industrial sector, in the form of increases to our gross

national product, or in the form of increased revenues to the Treasury.

But the return which we have been able to identify convinces us that

the programs of the National Bureau of Standards are of great importance to the continuing growth and vigor of our nation and are investments which will pay off handsomely in the future.

Over the past year we have been given additional responsibilities

which we are just now implementing. The first of these is the Flammable Fabrics Act, which considerably enlarges the responsibility

given to us in 1953, to include not only all articles of clothing, but

household furnishings that are potential fire hazards.

Here, our initial responsibility arose because of national concern

over tragic deaths due to so-called "torch" sweaters and "explosive"

garments. These types of articles of clothing were prohibited by the

law of 1953, and this prohibition has been effective in reducing deaths.

However, we found that there were still many tragic deaths due to flammability of articles of clothing not covered by the original standard. This indicated clearly that the previous standard had to be

improved and so the Flammable Fabrics Act resulted.

It is our earnest desire to move ahead rapidly on this. The new law

requires us to develop evidence and demonstrate in a convincing way

that a hazard exists. We soon will publish the procedures for determination of hazardous areas and then develop procedures also for the

issuance of standards after the hazard is identified.

330^514-^9 2 9
The second new responsibility concerns the Fire Research and

Safety Act of 1968. The NBS has had, for many years, a small program

on the fire-resistant properties of building materials. But this, we felt, had been inadequate to deal with the nation's total fire problem.

I can summarize very briefly one of the major concerns leading to the passage of the Act and this is the appalling loss of life due to

fire in this country. We lose, in addition to about two billion dollars

worth of property, approximately 12,000 lives a year. This rate of

loss, per capita, is more than twice that of any other technologically

advanced nation in the world. For example, our per capita loss due

to fire is approximately four times that of Japan. Most other countries

in the world, those with the smaller per capita loss rate, have national

fire programs. This is the only technologically advanced country in

the world that has not had a national fire program. We have one now. In addition to sponsoring research on the nature, origin, prevention,

and control of fire, the new program has five other aspects. There

will be (1) a data-gathering program to investigate fires, determine

their causes, and find means of prevention; (2) a data analysis and

dissemination program so that people who need data on fire losses will

have it in a more effective form than they have at present; (3) a public

education program to try to cut down the losses due to fire; (4)

training programs for firefighters and fire prevention engineers ; and

(5) demonstration programs for fire services throughout the country

so that the best techniques that are developed for preventing, controlling, and extinguishing fire will be made available for fire services

throughout the nation in an effective way.

I would now like to take a few minutes to discuss some of the

recent program developments that have occurred at the Bureau during

the past year. A recent added responsibility is the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act, which has shown excellent progress under the leadership of your

competent Executive Secretary, Mac Jensen. During the past year, we have taken the tack that the best way to achieve a rapid reduction

of proliferation in the marketplace is to secure the cooperation of the

industrial sector. With your help, the help of many of the weights and measures

officials around the nation, we have collected data on the degree of

proliferation. We referred these data to the manufacturers and have

gotten most of them, that is, those responsible for more than half of the

dollar volume of packaged commodities in the marketplace, to agree

voluntarily to take some action without going through the formal

legal procedures of declaring undue proliferation.

I think you are to be congratulated for your cooperation with the

Office of Weights and Measures in this program. And Mr. Jensen is to be congratulated for the initiative and leadership he has demonstrated.

10
As I think most of you know, the programs of the National Bureau

of Standards are carried out by three Institutes. Here we have had

during the past year significant changes in the leadership of our

Institutes, having appointed new directors this spring in each of the

three. Dr. Lawrence M. Kushner is now the Director of our Institute for

Applied Technology, where our Office of Weights and Measures is located; Dr. John D. Hoffman has been named the Director of our

Institute for Materials Kesearch; and Dr. Ernest Ambler has been

named the Director of our Institute for Basic Standards. All of these

individuals have been career scientists with NBS and we are most

pleased that we were able to develop within our organization leaders

capable of carrying out the important responsibilities of our Institutes.

Within the Institute for Applied Technology, I am pleased to report

that there has been good progress in all areas. I would like to mention

just a few of these. In our Building Kesearch Division, we are developing important cooperative programs with the Department of

Housing and Urban Development, and making significant studies for

the use of performance standards in building materials and systems.

In another area, we are helping HUD on some of the technical

construction problems on the rebuilding of parts of Detroit that were

destroyed in a riot of a year or so ago. In yet another area, our Building Research people were able to make

a most important contribution to the cleanup of the disastrous damage

associated with the ravishing floods in Alaska late last summer. Here

there were problems of how to dry out the buildings and how to replace

damaged installations before the early freezing of winter set in. Our

people made a very simple suggestion that ultimately proved successful. It has been estimated that this suggestion saved Alaskan citizens

many millions of dollars through the simple device of warming up

their houses in the summertime to about 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Tliis

drove the moisture out of the walls and avoided having to tear the

walls down and replace the insulation.

Our Center for Computer Science and Technology, which I referred

to earlier in my remarks, has made excellent progress during the year, and the first three standards it proposed were issued by the President

about three months ago, with the requirement that these become

mandatory for use within Government by July 1969.

These standards deal with the alphabet which will be used by all automatic data processing systems. These have to do with converting

letters and numbers and symbols to the alphabet of the machine, and

with the standards for paper tapes and magnetic tapes which are used to convey this alphabet.

11
In our Institute for Materials Eesearch we have been very busy in

developing new standard reference materials.

For example, in the medical field we issued a standard reference

material for cholesterol. Cholesterol tests are extremely important in

medical diagnosis, but the lack of uniformity of cholesterol test results

destroys much of the usefulness of such tests. We have developed a standard cholesterol sample which is available to hospitals and doctors

to be used by them to calibrate their measurement process and thus put

this whole process on a more reliable basis.

Similarly, we have issued standard reference materials for carbon

dioxide and sulfur dioxide in air as an aid to pollution control measures. It is impractical to issue standards for pollution control unless

there is a reliable basis for measurement that is acceptable to all concerned. The way to do this is to have standard reference materials.

Our Institute for Materials Research is very much involved in providing such materials.

Our Institute for Materials Eesearch also is moving vigorously

into the field of failure analysis, in order to try to develop better

analytical measurement techniques that can measure reliability or predict failure and can identify failed materials in order to develop

techniques to prevent their recurrence. Here we have been identifying

the causes of the failure of the Silver Bridge on the Ohio River and

working with local officials there to take steps to prevent a similar oc- curence in a sister bridge on the river.

Our Institute for Materials Research has made important contributions also to our disarmament program, in coming up with a foolproof

technique to permit the identification of missiles. If there is to be

any effective international armament control, there must be a reliable

way of identifying the materials of missiles, and our people have

provided the disarmament agency with this technique.

Moving next to our Institute for Basic Standards, I think the most

significant development of the past year arising out of the work of

that Institute—^at least in part—is the redefinition of the second.

The thirteenth General Conference on Weights and Measures—^the organization arising from the Treaty of the Meter—met in Paris last October, and redefined the second in terms of an atomic standard.

For centuries we have defined the second in terms of astronomical

characteristics, first in terms of the rotation of the earth about its axis and, more recently, in terms of the rotation of the earth about

the sun. Neither of these methods is sufficiently reliable or stable to meet

modem scientific requirements, and work done in studying atomic

transition showed that methods were available to measure time a thousand to ten thousand times more relably and accurately than it could be done by astronomical means.

12
So the second, since October 1967, is now defined as the duration of

9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition

between the two hyper-fine levels of the fundamental state of the atom

cesium 133. Our Institute for Basic Standards is actively involved in a variety

of investigations associated with lasers. Lasers are of great importance

in improving our ability to measure length. They are of great importance in surgery and other medical applications. Here, however, it is important that one have a reliable means of measuring the power out- put of lasers. We are now in the process of developing a reliable

calibration technique for the power output of lasers. In addition, we are finding that lasers have significance in identifying small traces of materials in liquids and for studying in detail

surface defects of certain materials.

There has been one development at the National Bureau of Standards over the past year that I think would be of great interest to

this Conference. It is one which I think is essentially flattery by

imitation.

A high degree of uniformity in weights and measures activities, en- forcement techniques, inspection procedures, model laws, and so on, has been brought about among the 50 States in this country through

the work of this Conference. There is great need to achieve a similar

degree of uniformity in the area of building codes. Many of the

problems associated with the introduction of new technology which

would reduce costs and increase effectiveness in buildings, particularly

low-cost housing, are hampered by the great variety of building codes

that are in existence throughout this country.

We have worked with a few States to see if the effective pattern of

the National Conference on Weights and Measures would have a

parallel in the building codes field. As a result of this, early in May

of this year there was called the First National Conference of State

Building Code Officials in Washington. Approximately 30 States

participated in this Conference. I think it is too early to say whether

it will match the success of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, but at least it is making a start. Whether this Building Code Conference will be able to deal with

the problem involved we do not know. At any rate, the National

Bureau of Standards is interested in working with them to see if we

can make progress in reducing the proliferation of building codes by

providing a mechanism for State building code officials to work

together and with us. In the national weights and measures field, I am pleased to report

steady progress in the distribution of standards to the States. Nine

of the first 10 sets of new State standards have been delivered. The next

10 are nearing delivery.

13
I have also had the privilege of attending the presentation cere- monies in seven of these first nine ; I vould like to be able to go to all of them and I will as far as I can, but I have been most pleased by

the energy and the talent that the States are putting into building new

laboratories to house the equipment and to permit the effective

utilization of these new standards. I have been impressed by the dedication of the staff associated

with this program and I am sure that, from what I have seen in the seven States I have visited, this new program of better State standards

is a worthwhile activity and will do much in promoting uniformity

and reliability of measurements throughout the countr3\

In working with you in the Conference, I am continually impressed

by the fact that the work of this Conference could not succeed at all unless each of you were active XDarticipants in the work of the Conference—through the committees, through applying Conference rec- ommendations in your own States when you get back, through bringing

to our attention problems which need to be solved, and then working

with us in developing techniques for the solution of problems.

Much of your work is done in committees. It is my pleasure at this

time to amiounce the appointment of four new members to the four

standing committees of the Conference. All of these appointments are for five-year terms.

First, the Committee on Education. I am appointing ]\Ir. George E.

Mattimoe of the State of Hawaii to succeed ]Mr. L. A. Gredy of

Indiana.

On the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. I am appointing

Mr. Jolm C. Mays of the City of Miami, Florida, to succeed Mr.

John L. McCarthy of Boston.

On the Committee on Laws and Eegulations, I am naming Mr.

Eichard W. Eichards of the State of Pemisylvania to succeed Mr.

Lawrence Barker of West Virginia.

Finally, on the Committee on Liaison with the National Government, I am naming ^Lr. Eichard W. Brevoort of the City of New York

to succeed Mr. E. J. Faliey of Chicago.

In making these appointments, I would like to extend my sincere

appreciation to the individuals they are replacing. Your work on these

committees has been of great value to the Conference and should be an example to your successors. Finally, I would like to renew my offer of continued cooperation and

support from the Xational Bureau of Standards for the work of this

Conference. It is our conviction that our work in weights and measures

is purely academic unless it bears fruit in the work of all of the weights

and measures officials on the firing Ime. Xew developments by us, better standards by us, are of no consequence unless we have a proce14
duv^ so that yon can nse these new techniques and new instruments in

the field. So, you bring to us your problems, we will do all we can to work

with you in solving them, and together I am sure that we can make

the weights and measures movement of this country one of the achievements of our time.

Dr. Astin presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference

who by attending the 52d Conference in 1967, reached one of the four

attendance categories for which recognition is made—attendance at

10, 15, 20, and 25 meetmgs.

PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

AWARD RECIPIENTS

20 Years

J. T. Kennedy (Formerly District of Columbia)

15 Years

A. V. Astin

B. S. CiCHOWicz

P. DeVbies

S. J. DiMASE

C. E. Joyce

J. Mabshat.t.

G. C. Reixey

W. I. Thompson

E. F. Wehmann

D. H. WnxiAMS

National Bureau of Standards

South Bend, Indiana

Passaic, N.J. Yonkers, N.Y.

Pillsbury Company

Natl. Assn. of Dairy Equipment Mfrs. Aero-Chatillon Corp.

Monmouth County, N.J. Neptune Meter Co. Dairy and Food Industries Supply Assn.

10 Years

H. E. Almee

J. R. Bied

M. E. Bone

C. R. Branch

G, E. Connolly

R. J. Coed

L. L. Elliott

D. F. Hummel

E. C. Kaep

F. W. Love

L. B. MOETON

B. A. Petttt

H. D. Robinson

D. R. Smith

F. L. Wall

G. D. Wilkinson

H. H. Weight

National Bureau of Standards

State of New Jersey

Hobart 'Mfg. Co. Petersburg, Va. Warren County, N.J. Prince George's County, Md.

Everett, Mass.

Burlington County, N.J. Sanitary Scale Co. Wayne Pump Co. Montgomery County, Md.

District of Columbia

State of Maine

Republic Steel Corp.

Measuregraph Co. Howe-Richardson Scale Co. Wayne County, N.Y, 15
ADDRESS

By D. J. WiCKHAM, CommissioneT^ New York State Department

Agriculture and Markets

A couple of fortunate circumstances have

given me the privilege of joining you this morning for the first Conference session. The first of

those fortunate circumstances occurred at the

beginning of 1959 when Governor Rockefeller

asked me if I would take the job of Commissioner of Agriculture in New York and I said

"yes."

That led to the second circumstance. As Commissioner, I was almost automatically affiliated with the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and then—a short time ago—NASDA said,

"This fellow hasn't been working hard enough," and so they made me

a vice president.

And as vice president of NASDA I get the privilege to come here

today and tell you we like the things you are doing.

That isn't all a vice president has to do. It's just one of the good points

about the job.

Your Weights and Measures Division of NASDA is five years old now. In those five years, you have made some remarkable strides in

approaching your objective: Improved efficiency, effectiveness, and

uniformity of administration of weights and measures laws and

regulations. I don't believe anyone can seriously challenge by belief that compliance with these laws and regulations is at an all-time high. This is so because you who are directly charged with responsibility for enforcement are doing the best job that has ever been done in this sharply

specialized field. High compliance comes about in several ways : Improved communication and understanding between the enforcing officer and the special

segment of the public he must deal with. Greater respect for the ability

and authority of the trained weights and measures man. Recognition

that honesty and carefulness are steps to consumer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is good business and spells bigger profits.

What about the public ? The public, becoming increasingly conscious

of its collective power as the consumer body, is insistent on getting

what it pays for. Tliis can be translated as proving that the more you

do, the better you do it, the more the public appreciates you, your work,

and what is being accomplished in correct weights and measures. 16
Of course you are working in the interest of what we call "the

people" and for that other part we call "business," although the two

are so interwoven and interminably mingled that we can barely separate

them except for individual transactions.

That brings me to an observation which I am sure is not unique but

merely points up a fact that must be recognized, namely that along

with many other aspects of agriculture in the generalized sense, we

are right up to our chins in consumer services. Call them consumer

protection if you will, but "services" seems to describe these activities more accurately.

The production and distribution of food is agriculture. Agriculture

takes in more than that, too, just as weights and measures involves more than food. But food is the item we are all concerned with and I

rather suspect that was an influencing factor in assigning weights and

measures to departments of agriculture in so many States. I am aware that there apparently is a trend in some States to separate consumer services from the departments of agriculture and set them up

in units of their own. Whenever and wherever this becomes a fact

accomplished, I suppose weights and measures leaves the agricultural

agency and goes into the consumer bureau, by whatever name it may

be designated. I see nothing but waste in moves of this nature. Waste in experience.

Waste in money. Waste in time and duplication of effort. In my own State there have been ripples or undercurrents of talk

in this direction. The truth is we simply don't want or need another

department to do a lot of the things we are already doing effectively.

This is probably as true in your State as it is in mine.

At least 80 percent of our work is of direct consumer benefit. True, we are losing farmers at a pretty furious raite, but those who remain

are among our biggest consumers. They spend three-quarters of their

income immediately for input materials.

We are the principal consumer service agency in our State. With

all the consumer services we perform, we neither conflict with, nor

overlap, the Consumer Fraud Bureau in the Attorney General's office. The consumer functions of the two agencies are completely different.

Our work has evolved over the years into a large measure of con- sumer helps and we are ready to put our experience on the line and

contend that we are the logical folks to continue doing what needs to be done to assure the consumers of happy healthful lives with a minimum fear of adulteration, contamination, or cheating on what they

put intb^heir stomachs.

The importance of consumer service by Government increases in

direct proportion to the number of articles on the supermarket shelf. IT
Experts tell us that the 8,000 items on supermarket shelves at the

close of last year will increase to 14,000 in the next 12 years. I'm no

expert, but I think the increase may be faster than that. Almost eyery one of these items will continue to demand our at- tention. The housewife is becoming more aware of confusing markings

every times she goes to market. Legislation—and you—^are coming

to her aid. There is such a close relationship between the State departments of

agriculture and the weights and measures functions that no just and

sufficient reason exists to take them apart, one from the other. Just

as there is no good logical reason to remove consumer services from the

food division and try to establish them in areas by themselves. I suppose I have had many predecessors harping on this same theme,

but if that is so, I don't mind. The more frogs in the pond, the more

noise we can make.

Furthermore, I see unity of purpose in suggesting that weights and

measures, and consumer services, belong in departments of agriculture.

It is all to the good to seek uniformity in our State weights and measures laws, but isn't it equally good common sense to work for operational uniformity ? I think so. Under our federal system of a National Government and State

Governments there have, of course, been changes—many of them

since the days of our founding fathers. Some of the States have even voiced fears that the National Government is encroaching on too many

of their prerogatives.

You are aware of some instances of pre-emption in the field of

weights and measures. But aside from legislation, it seems to me that

we enjoy a happy working relationship between Washington and the

various States. This harmony is duly noted, "^^^lerever there is good

liaison and cooperation, complements are deserved.

Moreover, I know that your interest in the National Association of

State Departments of Agriculture, and in turn, the Association's in- terest in you, are healthy signs of interdependence and interrelationship. NASDA has only four committees other than those on auditing,

resolutions, and nominations, and one of those four is concerned with

marketing, transportation, and weights and measures. This should insure that weights and measures problems get due consideration by the national convention of NASDA.

This 53d National Conference, under the sponsorsliip of the National Bureau of Standards of the United States Department of Commerce, is off to an auspicious start. The program is excellent. It was

good to have been with you for a few minutes and to have been able

to let you know that we in agriculture hold you and your work in the

highest regard.

18
ADDRESS

by C. C. Morgan, Conference Chairman

^it^ij§K^KKKltf^y Chairman of the National Conference on 9^^ J Weights and Measures, it is my privilege to ^^^^^^^^^^ extend to each of you a cordial greeting. On beV jfci half of your Officers and Committees, I welcome

^l^^^P^^^B each and every one of you, to this, our 63d NaI 5 iX^^H ^^^^^^ Conference on Weights and Measures,

t- ''^'^^j^^mi My desire and hope is that this will be another ^\ , '^Jt^^m ; outstanding and rewarding meeting.

MR^I^^TtoB After looking over this large assembly of men

HH^^^^hBSI ^i^cl women, dedicated to the course of honest

^^^B B^^ weights and measures, I am reminded of an- other meeting, smaller in number, but similar in character. This was

the 26th National Conference on Weights and Measures held here in

1936. While there were fewer in attendance, there was the same interest

and enthusiasm that exists today. It made a deep impression on me, a young neophyte from Indiana, who was there for the first time.

Another new arrival at the 1936 National Conference was W. S. Bussey. Chief of Weights and Measures for the State of Texas. Mr. Bussey came well escorted and displayed real showmanship, when, on behalf

of the Governor of Texas, he presented Dr. Briggs, Director of the National Bureau of Standards, and President of the Conference, with a commission as an Honorary Texas Eanger. As badge of this office, Dr.

Briggs was given a ranger's "ten gallon" hat. Today I would like to leave a few thoughts with you. Having served

as your vice-chairman, ten years as your treasurer, and on the executive

committee, it is surprising to me that some delegates, in their first participation with the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

are prone to making snap judgments. Certainly, we have all been guilty

of this at one time or another, but such opinions can be most embarrassing. When more complete information is obtained, the speaker often

realizes that his first opinion, which he so vigorously set forth or defended, was entirely wrong. During this 53d National Conference of

Weights and Measures, I believe we should take our time and study

both sides of the question, obtaining the necessary information to make

correct judgments.

The National Conference on Weights and Measures, while being an

organization with no authority to enforce its recommendations, has

been able to accomplish so much in the field of commercial quantity

determina/tions. The Conference is dedicated to the promotion of the

principles of fairness, impartiality, uniformity, and equity in all matters pertaining to weights and measures administration.

19
Training schools held in many State jurisdictions have become in- valuable. These schools are conducted by the Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards, and cover principally a re- view of Handbook 44 and testing procedures for weighing and measuring. Inspectors who attend these classes become better informed officials, resulting in the upgrading of this highly specialized service. It rightfully may be concluded that the responsibilities of the Office

of Weights and Measures, of the National Bureau of Standards, are interwoven with the activities and aims of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The program is planned by the Executive

Secretary with the assistance of the personnel of the Office of Weights

and Measures. The basic relationship between the National Bureau of

Standards and the National Conference is sponsorship by the National

Bureau of Standards of a means for the promotion of uniformity

among the States in the complex laws, regulations, methods, and test- ing equipment that comprise regulatory control by the States of

commercial weighing and measuring.

Specifications and tolerances are not new. They are as old as trade

itself. Even in primitive barter, elementary concepts of specifications,

tolerances, and standards were essential. As trade grew beyond the

barter system and became more complex, the need for standardized un- derstanding between buyer and seller increased. Many present-day

standards are no more formal than common trade practice, while some

have been internationally codified by formal agreements between

governments.

Even though commercial buying and selling have long been largely

based on mutual knowledge of items in commerce, it was not until the

principle of caveat emptor^ or "buyer beware," was generally replaced

by a more intelligent atitude toward the consumer, that commerce or business attempted to give specific information. The transition from

simple, bulk merchandise, which would be examined and fairly well

judged by the consumer, to complex goods in packages emphasized the

importance of consumer information. With self-service the established

method of buying, the label becomes the spokesman for the product

and its manufacturer. We hope the "Fair Packaging and Labeling Act"

will be a big step toward enlightening the buying consumer. The net quantity of contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count,

shall be separately and accurately stated in a uniform location upon

the principal display panel.

It's great to have a feeling of confidence in others. This confidence is confirmed by the excellent work of our many committees. Mr. William

Thompson, Chairman of the National Conference Committee on Education, deserves special mention for his effort on National Weights

and Measures Week. It was the tenth observance of the "Week." The

primary purpose of the "Week" is to inform the public of the in- 20
portance of weights and measures and to give recognition and appreciation to those who valiantly serve the public interests in weights and

measures quantity control efforts. This year again, the Scale Manufacturers Association, Scale Jov/mal^ and others, were very cooperative

in furnishing pamphlets, posters, window stickers, and display materials. An active and hard-hitting promotion of the week creates much

satisfaction, both officially and personally. It has been demonstrated

in many communities that a cultivated public support of weights and

measures can provide the stepping stone for a community to meet its full responsibilities. When that is done, every official in the department,

as well as each citizen, benefits. National Weights and Measures Week

provides a golden opportunity for every State, county, and city to participate and receive proper recognition.

During my term as chairman, I have been privileged to attend other

weights and measures conferences, including the annual meeting of the

22d Southern Weights and Measures Association, held in Miami Beach.

Over 250 people attended this meeting, representing 28 states and the

District of Columbia. Highlights of the conference included the annual

trade party on Tuesday evening, and the poolside luau on Wednesday

evening.

In conclusion, may I say that this is your Conference, and therefore

you should give it every effort, to continue the success which it has

achieved by the contributions of so many good public servants in

weights and measures, who have freely given their time and talents over the years. I want to express my sincere appreciation for the cooperation I have received from the officers and members of the National

Conference while serving as your Chairman during this year. In particular, I want to acknowledge the untiring efforts of your Executive

Secretary, Mr. Jensen, and his staff, in looking after the interests of the

Conference throughout the year, and handling the countless details

connected with this meeting. We are beginning this morning the proceedings of this, our 53d Conference. With your attendance and participation, it will be a success for all of us.

21
AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1968

(J. T. Daniell, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

MAXIMUM EFFECTIVENESS WITH LIMITED RESOURCES

by M. H. Becker, Director, Los Angeles County ^yeights and Measures, Los Angeles, California I hope that my presentation this afternoon

will not qualify me as a crackpot with a panacea

for all the problems in weights and measures

enforcement.

I sincerely hope that what I have to say will

stimulate individual though and analysis in re- ducing or holding the line on the ever-increasing

costs of providing weights and measures

protection.

Before I begin, I would like to state that the

material which I am about to discuss is not in- tended to be critical or derogatory to any individual sealer's policies on weights and measures or the laws and regulations under which his

jurisdiction may operate.

The world that we are living in is changing at a rapid pace, perhaps

too fast. Nevertheless, if we as weights and measures officials are to keep pace with these changes, we must force ourselves to review present

weights and measures enforcement patterns in light of today's and,

in particular, tomorrow's challenges.

The question we should be constantly asking ourselves is, "How can

I as a weights and measures official achieve maximum effectiveness

with minimum resources?"

My jurisdiction, like many other jurisdictions throughout the country, is experiencing continued population and business growth, but

with the costs of local government increasing at a faster rate than

revenue. As a consequence, continued austerity budgets for many

jurisdictions have resulted in work loads far exceeding the capacity

of both personnel and equipment operating under traditional weights

and measures enforcement patterns.

Our primary function is to see to it that equity prevails in all commercial transactions involving determinations of quantity. The de22
livery of full weight and measure and the elimination of fraud and

misrepresentation have been objectives in commercial transactions

from the beginning of quantity determination. And to this end our

efforts should be directed.

To successfully achieve our primary function, I believe we should

all be astutely cognizant of the increasing costs of providing weights

and measures protection. Toward the goal of providing maximum ef- fectiveness in weights and measures enforcement I direct the balance

of my presentation.

Since we are all familiar with the traditional and accepted methods

of weights and measures enforcement, let us explore the possibilities

of breaking away from traditional enforcement policies in the interest

of increasing our effectiveness without commensurate cost increases. I am sure that many of you have heard or seen the television show,

One Step Beyond. Well, I am going to live dangerously this afternoon.

I would like to present for your thought and consideration a program

consisting of seven steps beyond, which if implemented would increase

the general effectivenes of a weights and measures enforcement program, and upgrades weights and measures enforcement in general.

1. The first step suggests that the practice of placing a paper or

plastic-impregnated seal, on a device be discontinued. There are a number of good arguments supporting the use of the visible seal. It has

been said the seal gives evidence of approval by the weights and measures official, in that the requirements of the law have been met, and

that for the consumer, the seal inspires confidence in the devices used

to determine the quantity of his purchase.

The presence of a seal, however, may lead to the incorrect conclusion that a device upon which a seal is found is guaranteed by the

jurisdiction to be found fully accurate at all times. And we all know

that this is not always the case.

2. My second step suggests that we take a hard look at the various

devices we are presently inspecting, and the use to which these devices

are being put.

j Consider for a moment the kind of devices we are inspecting and

their significance to our primary function, "That equity prevails in

all commercial transactions involving determination of quantity."

Is an actual sale taking place at the time the device is used ? Is the

device used only to estimate an approximate quantity or to measure

several quantities which constitute a mixture sold as a mixture ? Perhaps the device is used to determine weight or measure as part of a packaging or filling operation for container or packaged type sales of

commodities.

Our concern should be with accurate quantity at the time of the sale.

A.t what point is the actual charge based on the quantity determination

23
made ? In the case of a postal scale used by an office or business concern,

final determination as to correct postage remains the prerogative of

the Post Office. In the case of a produce customer weighing his or her

selections on a hanging scale in the produce section of the market, the

customer is only estimating the weights of his or her selections. Final

determination and charge will be made on the checkstand scale. With

respect to packaged meat, cheese, com flakes, detergent, etc., accuracy

of these weights or quantity statements will be determined by a statistical sampling technique such as Handbook 67 or other comparable

checking procedures.

What I am saying is, that if it is necessary, we can increase our

effectiveness by eliminating the inspection of devices on which final determinations of quantity are not predicated. This includes prepackaging scales, postal scales, and customer convenience scales in the

produce section of markets.

3. My third step suggests that State, county, city, and local regulations requiring periodic inspections of devices be eliminated. This

requirement can be replaced with the provision that each weights and

measures official inspect each device as often as he deems necessary. This would place responsibility of inspection frequency on the person

who is best informed to the needs in his jurisdiction.

Unnecessary mandatory periodic inspections on some devices could

be eliminated and increased inspections on others could be effected. Frequency of examination should be based on local experience and will

certainly vary from device to device.

4. My fourth step constitutes the application of a statistical sampling technique for the inspection of all devices. In most situations this

procedure would permit a shift of inspection personnel to the ever- increasing field of packaged commodities.

Statistical sampling techniques have been used by industry for

years for product quality and quantity control and, since 1962, in the

Wisconsin Weights and Measures selective testing program.

5. My fifth step, in conjunction with the previous one, would require a change in our present administrative practice with respect to strict liability of those who engage in business involving commercial weighing and measuring. Although our present laws clearly hold the merchant liable for the accuracy of the measurement processes and meas- urement representations, little punitive action, if any, is taken against

those guilty of using inaccurate equipment or selling short weight or short measure commodities.

We are all aware of the owner or user who does little or nothing in

the way of maintenance or accuracy determination of his device until,

the device is tagged out of order by his local weights and measures

official. 1

24
I am suggesting that we administratively get the monkey off our

backs, and put it on the back of its rightful and legal owner, the owner and user of the device.

6. My sixth step is coordinated with steps four and five. I am suggesting a Statewide voluntary registration of weights and measures

devices service and repairmen. Provisions for revocation of registration should be provided when poor workmanship, etc., were in evidence.

Registered service and repairmen in good standing would be permitted to repair and remove out-of-order tags. Tags would be mailed by

the repairman to the weights and measures official along with the date

of repair, repairman's name, and registration number. The weights and

measures official could then reinspect the device at his convenience

or whenever he deemed necessary. Unregistered repairmen, or those not in good standing, would not

be permitted to remove out-of-order tags, and inspection of their work

would be necessary before the device could be used commercially.

This suggestion would result in both the upgrading of the servicemen, as well as allowing the weights and measures official more discretion in the administration of his office.

T. My seventh and last step is concerned with increasing the police

powers of the weights and measures official and his inspectors.

To make any enforcement program successful, some simple and ex- peditious method of admonishing recurrent or flagrant violators is necessary. I am suggesting that the police powers be enlarged to permit

weights and measures officials, under certain controlled conditions, to

issue citations for false weight, false measure, or the use or possession of a false or inaccurate device. Such citation, like that of a traffic ticket, would require payment of a fine and/or appearance before a Municipal Court Judge.

Other, more serious violations requiring prosecution would be

handled in the same manner we now handle prosecutions.

Many local city or county jurisdictions may already have such

powers in their basic authority. In most cases, action by their local

council or Boards of Supervisors is all that is required to authorize

their issuing citations. I believe that the time has come for some of us and fast approaching for others, as responsible administrators of weights and measures

programs, to accept the realities of restricted fiscal resources and the

consequent demand for greater precision in program planning and

management.

I It is incumbent upon all of us to perform our primary function in

] a manner which is both efficient and economical. To accomplish this

objective, we must achieve the maximum effectiveness from our in- dividual jurisdictional fiscal resources.

330-514—09 3 25
ACTIVITIES OF THE OFFICE OF WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

H.F.WOLLIN

Assistant Chiefs Office of IVeights and Measures

As in years past, the staff of the Office of

Weights and Measures appreciates having the

opportunity to report on its activities to this

Conference. Normally, Mr. Jensen would open

discussion and introduce other staff members,

who would present a portion of the OWM re- port. However, he received a call this morning

to attend a meeting with members of the Congress this afternoon. Hopefully, he will return

in time to participate in a portion of this after- noon's program.

Following my review of some developments during the past year, you will hear from other members of the staff who will report on

activities in their area of responsibility.

The OWM laboratory has been kept busy with a fairly heavy workload of calibrations of mass, length, and volume standards that have

been submitted by the States and other governmental and industrial

organizations. Laboratory personnel have also devoted considerable

time to work associated with the new State standards project. During

recent months the laboratory has been used as a training center for

persons who have been invited to participate in our training program

for State laboratory technologists. Such training will continue to expand and will be offered at both the National Bureau of Standards

and in the various State laboratories.

Another important phase of our overall training effort involves the

training schools and courses that we conduct for State and local weights and measures officials. Over 25 schools were held in the States

during the past 12 months. From all indications, such training has

been highly successful and of considerable value to those who have

participated. Last May we also held a weeklong training training course at NBS for State and local weights and measures officials who

have supervisory responsibilities. We are pleased that 44 persons,

representing 33 jurisdictions, were able to attend this course. Our plan

is to hold similar courses next year, and at least one will probably be

held in a western city.

We are convinced that training in all forms is a vital necessity to those who work in the field of weights and measures—what with new

developments and constant changes in technology, laws and regula26
tions, and procedures—and we intend to step up our training effort to meet the needs of the future.

A significant change in our program of testing railway track scales has been finalized which should provide new and increased service to the railroads. The new plan will involve working out schedules and more overall cooperation with the American Association of Eailroads on matters concerning this important activity. The ultimate aim is to have both NBS railway test cars operating throughout the United

States on a continuous schedule. Annual tests will be made of the IT master track scales that are located throughout the country and operated by the railroads. There is no charge for the tests of these master

track scales. In addition, the railroads and industrial firms may, for a

fee, arrange with the American Association of Railroads to have the

National Bureau of Standards conduct tests of other railway track

scales when the NBS test car is in their area. We will try to keep

weights and measures officials advised as to the movement of the test car in their jurisdictions and of the testing schedule we plan to follow.

Last year we reported on the initiation of a new project that we call "the examination of prototype weighing and measuring devices." This

project has developed steadily, and the response from manufacturers

has been good. Some of the equipment that was submitted for examination by manufacturers under a voluntary arrangement was found to conform to Handbook 44 requirements, and reports of such examinations were transmitted to the States for their information and guidance. However, it is noteworthy to point out that more than a few

devices submitted for examination failed to pass our examination and

were returned to the manufacturers. Some of these were corrected or modified and have since been found acceptable. On the basis of the

results of such effort to date, we feel that this is a most worthy undertaking and profitable not only to manufacturers, but to weights and

measures jurisdictions as well. As usual, the two giants of our organization and operations—communications and information dissemination—splayed a large role in the

daily lives of the OWM staff. There is not time to go into details

concerning these activities, except to say that we are mindful of our

obligation to assist promptly and effectively those who call on us for

advice, assistance, or some other form of service. We would appreciate

hearing from anyone who might wish to suggest how we can serve you

better. We should apologize for the lateness in getting out the Conference

report of last year. However, as frequently happens, some government

publications get unduly delayed due to the voluminous workload

placed upon the printers, and there is very little that can be done to27
expedite such matters. "We have hopes that this year's report will

reach you sooner. While on this general subject of publications and information dis- semination, I should mention that we have recently hired a young

man who is a very capable illustrator to help us dress up our information output. His talents should enable us to communicate and present , information more interestingly and effectively through the use of ; graphic arts, visual aids, pictures, and the like. We feel there is considerable need for more of this in the field of weights and measures, and the problem facing us now is where to start. We obviously will

expand our use of graphic arts and other forms of illustration in our

training program and publications. I cannot promise that Handbook

44 will some day be full of illustrations and pictures, as some may like

it, but we no doubt will explore the possibility.

To conclude this general summary, the OWM staff has devoted many

long and arduous hours during the year to matters associated with

the implementation of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Coupled

with such activities has been the many miles traveled by the staff to attend and participate in conferences and meetings held throughout

the country. Our travels have extended from Hawaii to Saudi Arabia,

the latter involving a trip by Mr. Jensen and myself that was made at the request and expense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to assist their

government in developing a modern weights and measures program. In

looking back, it has been truly a very busy, exciting, and challenging

year for OWM, and there is promise of more of the same in the months

ahead.

Tom Stabler

Laboratory Metrologist^ Office of Weights and Measures

It is a pleasure to speak before this group and

discuss what is unquestionably one of the most

significant programs in the history of weights

and measures in this country. I am referring to the New State Standards Program.

Since I met with you last year and discussed

the new standards, my coworkers (Harry Johnson, Blayne Keysar) and I have visited 24 States for the purpose of installing new standards,

training of laboratory technologists, and planning of new laboratory facilities. Also, we have

visited State laboratories for the purpose of making final inspections

prior to the approval of facilities to house the new State standards.

Ten States have qualified as recipients of the third set of standards.

They include : Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, North

28
This is Idaho's new State weights and measures Moratory.

Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Yermont, and Wyoming. New State standards and instruments will arrive at these laboratories beginning in

the fall. At the time all States are equipped with new standards, the primary

function of the OYfM laboratory will be to serve as a training center. This year five State laboratory technologists have received training

at NBS.

At NBS and at State laboratories, a total of 16 technologists have

completed the basic training course in laboratory procedures, calibrations, and tests. Twelve courses—of two weeks duration each—have

been conducted at the State laboratories. The First Regional Seminar,

for advanced technologists, was held May 27 to 31, 1968, at the Wisconsin laJboratory in Madison.

At this time, 35 States have completed laboratory facilities, have

laboratories under construction, or are in the planning process for new

laboratories. Fifteen States have no plans whatsoever.

It should be pointed out that the appropriations for the fourth and

fifth year's new State standards are not "automatic." It is necessary to request funds each year and justify the annual appropriation of

$400,000 to purchase new standards and instruments. If the remaining

States make no effort to qualify in this program—^to meet the requirements for an adequate laboratory facility and technical personnel—it

is doubtful that the funds will be forthcoming.

This is an important program for State weights and measures ; we

offer you our assistance in making the initial drive for State support.

We will meet with weights and measures officials, budget officials, governors, or anyone else in your jurisdictions to discuss your participation

in the New State Standards Program,

29

E. N. Smith

Technical Coordinator^ Office of Weights and Measfwres

\ It is a sincere personal pleasure for me to have

^^im^ \i opportunity to come before the Conference

M^^K^ once again and leave some thoughts with you

a^PP concerning the philosophy of our Technical

^^f^ Training Program.

I^H^k ^

It was refreshing to me to hear the remarks

^^^H Maynard Becker made concerning the manageH^^L ment of today's modern weights and measures ^^^^^k ^^to^l program. I certainly agree wholeheartedly with

^^^^^^^^^^H Maynard's remarks, and found his philosophy to be very similar to the philosophy we have been

teaching in our training effort throughout the country.

I think we would all agree that today a vital part of any weights

and measures program must be a strong training program. It certainly

is a vital part of our program at the Office of Weights and Measures.

As devices and merchandising become more sophisticated, training

becomes more essential. We no longer have today what I would refer to as strictly a "nuts

and bolts" operation in weights and measures. Today we are dealing

with results of systems and with end products, much more so than

devices themselves. Obviously, this creates some problems and in- creases the need for training.

The emphasis in our program has changed and will continue to change. We have to realine our program from year to year, sometimes

month to month, in order to change the emphasis from one area to another as needed. Activities must be based on needs and results, more

so than on the calendar or on some legal requirement. We think this is the way the program should work.

Certainly, a neglected area has been the area of public education.

Many weights and measures laws are not complied with, simply because

the public is unaware of the requirements contained in the law. It is hard to comply with something that we do not understand, or are not aware of. I think there is a great need to make this education a very

vital part of any program today. I am referring to public education,

education to the users of devices, and to the people that are buyiag

products weighed on the devices, or measured through a device.

Another area of neglect is the lack of cooperation with industry

service personnel. We are certainly both trying to arrive at the same

end results, and w© should have this cooperation. In fact, I think

it is absolutely essential for a good program.

In the Office of Weights and Measures traitiiag program, we are trying to gradually change in an effort to meet new challenges. I would

31
like to review with you a few of the things that we either have done ol

are in the process of doing in our program. We are continuing to hold

State training schools on request. All that is necessary is a request

channeled through your State office. We try to fit the school to the

particular need of the requesting jurisdiction.

We conducted 25 such schools last year. It is possible for large county

and city jurisdictions to also take part in this training and we urge

the counties and cities to participate.

We will continue to have basic, or general, types of schools. This

school is used in jurisdictions that we are going in for the first time, or that have a complete new staff. This basic type of school takes in the

general field of weights and measures. We talk about laws, regulations.

Handbook 44, package control techniques, and things of this kind.

In repeat schools, we try to give a little more refinement, and more

specific emphasis on programs, again based on the need of the

jurisdiction.

In all schools, we try to keep the students abreast of any new techniques, or new areas of operation that may have developed during the

past year or since we have been in the jurisdiction. Certainly, this

past year we have been very concerned with the labeling requirements in all our schools. As you are all well aware, there has been a lot of confusion in this area, and we are just getting started. There is going to be a great need for training in the packaging and labeling area in the future.

Another thing that we have tried to do during the past year is to arrange regional schools. This past year a school was held in New

England, and included the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, and

Maine. We are planning to do the same thing in the West, this coming

year. We have committed ourselves recently to holding an annual supervisor's school. Last month, the most recent supervisor's school was

held at our facilities at Gaithersburg. This school was different from

the previous three schools from several standpoints. Normally, in

these schools, we have held attendance to between 13 and 15 State

Supervisors. This time we threw the supervisor's school open to any

State, county, or city official, that had supervisory responsibilities.

And, as Harold pointed out in his report, we ended up with 44 people.

We were happy with the school and we think it was a good one. We dealt more with the philosophy involved in weights and measures

control. Members of our own staff handled the topics in their various

areas of endeavor; very successfully, I think. We had four guest

speakers, from the National Bureau of Standards, discussing the four

subjects of personnel management, budget, supervisory responsibilities,

!

and public relations.

Weare going to continue the annual supervisor's school arrangement,

32
and I think it is fairly safe for you to plan on being notified of such

schools in the future.

Our training program involves other areas. Tom Stabler and his

group handle the training in the laboratory and calibration procedures. Training in the package labeling area is handled by the packaging section headed by Eric Yadelund. As Steve Hasko will report

to you, the Engineering section is involved many times in field training on special test equipment in areas like liquefied petroleum gas

meters, odometers, and slow-flow meters. Our training program is a broad program and we intend to continue to expand it. The advanced planning and scheduling of our training schools has

been rather haphazard in the past. It has been necessary in a few

cases to turn down a request for a school, simply because we already

had one school scheduled for that particular week. We will attempt

to plan our schools at least a year in advance, and in this way avoid this

problem in the future.

As Harold reported to you, we are making greater use of visual

materials, now that we have our graphic arts illustrator on board.

You may have seen evidence of his handy work during the Conference. Certain paragraphs in the Handbook that are hard to interpret

could be handled better with the use of visuals.

We are going to continue to ask for more participation by the key

officials in the various jurisdictions. We think for any school to be

truly successful, the people in the jurisdiction should be participating

to a great extent in the conduct of the school. In closing, I would like to leave you with one thought—please keep

us informed of what your needs are in the training areas. This will

help us to provide you with meaningful assistance. We must know

your needs before we can serve these needs.

Remember, a written request, channeled through the State office, is normally all that it takes to get a training school set-up.

Stephen Hasko

Engineer^ Office of Weights and Measures

The mission of our group at the Office of

Weights and Measures is to provide engineering

and technical backup for the Office of Weights

and Measures program. Our sphere of activity

may be generally divided intp two broad

categories: (1) measurement studies and special problems, and (2) technical assistance. We

are very competently assisted in this work by

Charles Schreyer, Jim Little, and Bill Creek

and, during the summer, Jon De Buchananne.

I will first review our activities in the area33
of measurement studies and special problems, then dwell briefly on

technical assistance, and finally wind up with a new area of activity

which will tie in to all our work.

We are currently winding up evaluation of wire and cordage measuring devices as well as problems connected with the measurement of

wire and cordage. We have conducted studies with 11 devices and

the traditional "yardstick" method on 32 materials and a steel tape

with three different operators.

We have programmed all data for computer analysis both statis- tically and mathematically, our objective being to evaluate the present

tolerance structure and propose modifications, if needed.

We have conducted studies on the effect of temperature, speed, tire pressure (vehicle and fifth wheel), road surfaces, and length of

calibration course to determine the effect of these on fifth wheel cali- bration and an odometer and taximeter testing. They were designed to answer questions such as follows

:

1. Can a calibration at 80 °F be used at 20 °F ? 2. What is the best calibration speed ? If the wheel is calibrated at, say, 36 mph, will its errors at 15, 25, and 45 mph be negligible?

3. What about road surfaces. If the wheel is calibrated on macadam,

how will it perform on concrete or blacktop ? 4. What effect will road surfaces have on odometer and taximeter

testing ? 5. How many test runs are necessary during calibration to obtain a reliable calibration value ? The main concern appeared to be temperature sensitivity of the

wheel. We have noted a change of as much as one-thousandth of a mile per mile per 20 °F change from the calibration temperature.

This sounds like peanuts—only 0.1 percent; however, a wheel cali- brated at 80 °F may be off by %ooo of a mile at 20 °F. Thus, cali- bration at more frequent temperature intervals (30 °F intervals) are recommended, and the appropriate calibration employed during the

test.With respect to calibration and test procedures, the various report

forms have been revised and auxiliary procedures prepared. The re- mainder is in the process of preparation.

A master pressure gage will soon be available for master gage

calibration.

A program has been initiated with respect to the development of a road simulator for testing rental vehicle odometers and taximeters.

We are approaching this problem from two directions. The first method is a modification of the wheel test utilizing precision revolution counters. This would have the flexibility of being used as a sta- tionary garage-type test or could be used away from a fixed location

34
as a road test. The second method is concerned with the evaluation

of a late-model twin roll simulator, along with the development of any

special procedures or modifications if necessary to achieve the precision required.

Work on the use of a bell prover for testing LPG vapor meters

has been concluded and the data, after a preliminary evaluation to ascertain their validity, are being programmed for computer analysis.

Occasionally we have run into little complications that tend to confuse

the issue. One such complication was cleared up recently when we

finally concluded that one of the vapor meters that was labeled at the factory as being temperature-compensated was not, whereas one

that was not labeled at the factory as being temperature-compensated

actually was. Work in progress, which should be concluded in the near future, is concerned with the use of a reference meter with low

flame tests and for testing LPG vapor meters. The basic foundation

of a proposed LPG vapor meter code has been developed.

It appears that there will be more activity in the near future with

respect to the metering of milk. Two meter companies are planning

on coming out with new milk metering systems shortly. Another is conducting tests at Springfield, Massachusetts.

It seems unfortunate that at the temperatures where there is no ban against the use of a vapor return line in LPG liquid metering,

the consumer losses through this line are the greatest. Theoretical

calculations indicate that losses to the customer through the vapor

return line increase as the temperature increases and in the temperature range of 90 to 110 °F will range as high as 4.6 to 6.0 percent,

respectively. A brief study will be made to confirm these calculations.

We are working with the National Paint, Varnish, and Lacquer

Association toward the development of a simple, nondestructive test for determining the contents of gallon paint cans. We also participate in providing technical assistance and training

for the States in specialized areas of weights and measures, such as LPG liquid meter proving and odometer and taximeter testing. We

have always found these to be as beneficial and educational for us

as we hope they are for you.

We are fortunate in having acquired the services of Jim Little

and Bill Creek, who have fit into our program very nicely. Jim,

among his other duties, has taken on the job of programming the

data from our various studies for computer calculation and statistical analysis. (He will be assisted in this by Bill Creek.) This provides

us with a fast, direct route to the use of the computer rather than a

slower, indirect route which encouraged us to use the slower methods

of calculation and data evaluation.

35
Some of the other benefits are as follows : (a) We will achieve better

experimental design, since we will be able to plug through trial runs

to check progress toward our goals, (b) Being more familiar with the

computer operation, we will be in a better position to know exactly

what we need and how to go about getting it. (c) We will have our

data punched out on cards, and thus extracting any additional information as needs develop will be a simple operation.

Eric A. Vadelund

Weights and Measures Coordinator^ Office of Weights and Measures

My chore here this afternoon is to tell you

a little bit about the progress we have made

since the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

became effective, slightly less than a year ago. As you may know, the FPLA assigns essentially two duties to the Department of Commerce which, in turn have been delegated to the National Bureau of Standards and the

Office of Weights and Measures.

Probably the one with which you are most

intimately concerned is Section 9. This section

presents the mandate for uniformity. We have been fulfilling our

responsibility under Section 9 by transmitting regulations, proposals,

comments, and the like, to all of the States. We have also been re- viewing legislation at the request of States to see what is necessary

to bring their legislation and their regulations into conformity with

the FPLA.

Last, but not least, we have been deeply involved in the deliberations concerning changes to the Model Law and Model Regulation.

This activity you are pretty well aware of. The other major section which assigns duties to the Department of

Commerce, is Section 5, the so-called "undue proliferation" section.

This part of the statute mandates that the Secretary of Commerce

identify undue proliferation, document this, and attempt to reduce

it. Li fulfilling our obligations, we have taken a critical look at approximately 135 different types of packaged consumer commodities.

These commodities cover the whole range of consumer goods, including both food and nonfood items, household supplies, toiletries,

automotive supplies, hardware items, and proprietary medicines. Generally, you name it, we have looked at it. If you can name it and we

have not looked at it, we would like to hear from you. ; I would like, here and now, to acknowledge publicly the tremendous response we have received from the States in gathering data for

36
this program. Without the help of the States, this program's effec- tiveness would be nowhere near its present successful level. Of these 135 commodities, we have found about 20 that do not present a problem. They are packaged in reasonably comparable quantities and therefore do not inhibit the ability of a consumer to make

a value comparison. Or they are such that the end product is a

standard, rather than the quantity contained in the package. On this

latter point, we are thinking of things like cake mixes, in which the

end product is standardized, in that the formulation will deliver a

cake that fits a standard cake pan.

Additionally, we have obtained commitments from 31 major industries to reduce the number of quantities in which their particular

packaged commodities are offered for sale at retail. And these commitments include some from those industries identified as being particular problems in the course of the legislative testimony on the bill. Of the 31, about half have not only made a commitment to reduce

the number of quantities, but they have also developed specific quantity sizes in which they will pack. The remainder, of course, are working to that end.

For example, we have commitments from manufacturers of adhesive bandages. We have a commitment from the cereal industry, which

has agreed voluntarily to eliminate all fractional ounce packaging in

packaged breakfast cereals, with the exception of single-serving packages. This will result in a reduction of quantities from approximately

33 to approximately 16. The cheese industry is working on a proposal to reduce quantities

in which nine or ten of the most popular packaged cheeses are offered

for sale. The cookie and cracker people have agreed that they will work to reduce the quantities in which their products are offered for sale. Dry detergents of normal density in the one- to eight-pound range

the industry has agreed to package in six sizes. The macaroni people

are currently at work on developing a proposal for that industry.

The paper towel industry has not only made a commitment, but has

specified the quantities in which they will package roJl-type paper

towels. This has resulted in a reduction from probably somewhere in

the neighborhood of 30 to approximately 8. These, by the way, will

be packaged and sold on a square-footage basis, one readily comparable with the other.

The mouthwash people are currently at work. The peanut-butter

people, to put on those crackers I mentioned a little while ago—we

' have just received their proposal this week. The pickle people, syrup

people, toothpaste people, and, until yesterday, we thought the peat moss people, are also at work.

37
Additionally, industry committees have been established and are ! currently at work developing proposals to reduce proliferation in

approximately 70 other different types of packaged consumer '\ commodities.

To put a dollar figure on all of that activity, we came up with some

estimates. For example, the annual consumer expenditures for all products that will receive consideration under our program is about

30 billion dollars. Consumer expenditures for those products cur- rently under consideration or for which commitments have been made ; are approximately $19 billion. As Dr. Astin pointed out this morning, this is somewhat in excess of 50 percent the first year. We think this a pretty good track record for less than one year

of this program. And with the continued support and cooperation

of the weights and measures officials and of industry, we hope to improve upon that record.

E. A. ViGNONE

Attorney Adviser^ Office of Weights and Measures

It is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity

to address you at this 53d National Conferencp* on Weights and Measures.

Many multi-pack cartons of soda, as they are presently labeled, for all intents and purposes

meet the Federal labeling requirements as established by the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act as they regard net content disclosure. The

question that we must determine is whether, as

labeled, they agree with the Model State Packaging and Labeling Kegulation as recommended

to this National Conference by its Committee on Laws and Eegulations.

By its terms, the Model Eegulation would require the manufacturer

to imprint on the six-pack container the total number of fluid ounces

contained in all six bottles. In other words, compliance with the Model

Kegulation would require the manufacturer to imprint on each six-pack

container the following legend "6 10-oz. bottles; 60 fluid oz. total." Many manufacturers are presently using this method for labeling their

containers in this rapidly growing area of merchandising.

While it may appear at first that the question of noncompliance with

the Model Kegulation may easily be resolved against the manufacturer, an interesting legal argument has been raised to which we must address

ourselves. Let us assume, for example, that a manufacturer claims that

,

he is not required to adhere to regulations promulgated by the States

which differ from the information requirements imposed by Federal

38
regulations issued under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. As

authority for this proposition he cites section 12 of the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act which reads as follows

:

Effect Upon State Law

Section 12. It is hereby declared that it is the express intent of Congress to supersede any and all laws of the States or political subdivisions thereof insofar as they may now or hereafter provide for the labeling

of the net quantity of contents of the package of any consumer com- modity covered by this Act which are less stringent than or require

information different from the requirements of Section 4 of this Act

or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. In short, this section states that the Congress intended to render

null and void those State and local requirements, relating to net quantity of content statements, which

:

1. are less stringent than the Federal regulations

2. require information different from the Federal regulations.

In light of the Congressional intent as expressed in section 12 of the

Act, one is led to wonder whether, by extending the preemption from

State laws that are "less stringent" than Federal regulations to State

statutes having information requirements that are "different from"

Federal regulations, it was intended that all State laws regarding net quantity of content statements would be excluded from further consideration by virtue of the Federal preemption if such laws, in fact,

in any way imposed different information requirements from the

Federal regulations. If such a result was the intent of Congress, why

then would the Congress create a special preemption for the "less stringent" State requirements? The situation is roughly similar to a

case wherein the Congress might say that a certain rule should apply

in any State of the United States and also in Texas. Why mention

Texas specifically when it is already included as one of the States

in the United States ? Legal enactments are not generally prone to such

superfluous statements. Our inquiry, therefore, must center on whether

the inclusion of "less stringent" State requirements is indeed superfluous, or whether the words "different from" are intended to have

a meaning somewhat at variance from their usual conversational

implication.

Wliere an ambiguity appears to exist in the words of a statute, re- course must be had to legislative history in order to determine the

precise meaning which Congress intended. We are fortunate that in

this case the true intent of the Congress may be arrived at from the

Report of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

and from the Eeport of the House and Senate conferees which immediately preceded final passage of the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act. 39
For those of you who may not be familiar with the history of the

Truth-in-Packaging or Fair Packaging and Labeling legislation, it should be mentioned that the Senate, rather than the House of Kepresentatives, played the leading role in the development of this law.

Successive bills were introduced in the Senate and many hearings were held during the period 1961 through 1965. These efforts culminated in the passage of S. 985 by the Senate on June 9, 1966. This bill which was subsequently referred to the House for consideration would

have preempted all State laws and regvlations dealing with net content statements^ regardless of whether such State regulations might

he different from^ less stringent than^ or more stringent than the Federal regulations. Following Senate passage of the bill, hearings were

held before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. This Committee reported to the House a bill which differed

in several respects from the one passed by the Senate. One of these differences involved the section relating to the preemption of State law.

In its report commenting on this section the House Committee stated

as follows:

''Effect upon State laws and cooperation with State authorities. The bill provides that its provisions and the regulations promulgated

in accordance with it shall preempt labeling requirements with regard

to net quantities of State laws or State regulations to the extent that such State laws or State regulations with respect to the labeling of net quantity of contents" of packages impose inconsistent or less strin- gent requirements than are imposed under section 4 of this legislation."

After passage by the House of its own packaging and labeling

measure, a conference was arranged to settle the differences between

the House and Senate versions. The conference committee settled upon

the House version of the preemption section and specifically referred

to the House Report as the authority for the interpretation of this

language. The House language therefore ultimately became what is now section 12 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. A review

of the legislative history therefore would seem to indicate that the

words "different from" as these words appear in section 12 of the Act

are intended to have the same meaning as the words "inconsistent

with." This interpretation, it should be noted, resolves the ambiguity

surrounding the inclusion of the language "less stringent than." It is possible, of course, that a State regulation might be both "less stringent than" and "inconsistent with" a Federal regulation. However,

a State regulation could be "less stringent than" a Federal regulation

without necessarily being "inconsistent with" the such Federal regulation. It was necessary, therefore, for the Congress to spell out two

categories of preempted State regulations if it meant to encompass

all such regulations falling into either category.

Using the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the meaning

of the words "different from," we may now turn to section 12 of the

40
Act and read such phrase as though it said "inconsistent with/' Havijig

navigated this legislative path, we return to the problem of the six- pack container and the defense raised by the manufacturer; namely,

that he is not obliged to conform with the Model Eegulation because

it is "different from" the Federal regulation insofar as it purports

to require a total net content statement for the entire six-bottle container. This defense must now be revised by striking the words "different from" and substituting in place thereof the words "inconsistent

with." If thus rephrased, the defense would read as follows : "I am

not obliged to conform with the Model State Eegulation because it is inconsistent with the Federal regulation insofar as it purports

to require a total net content statement for the entire six-bottle

container."

The weakness of this defense now becomes apparent. There is no

inconsistency insofar as the requirements imposed under the State and

Federal regulations are concerned. The State regulation is more stringent than the Federal regulation; yet, and this is the crucial point,

the information requirement imposed under the State regulation is not violative of the Federal requirement. By adhering to the State

requirement, the manufacturer has satisfied his legal obligation under

the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. We recognize that the outcome of any court case involving a refusal

of a manufacturer to adhere to a State law regarding net quantity

of content statements, whose defense in support of such refusal is based on the grounds discussed earlier, must await a formal judicial

ruling. However, it is felt that the opinion expressed herein as to

the likely result of such a case, if litigated, is in keeping with the

full spirit of the FPLA in that it encourages the labeler to present

full information needed in order for a consumer to make a value

comparison.

M. W. Jensen

Chiefs Office of Weights and Meamres;

Manager^ Engineering Standards

As many of you know, the weights and measures activity and the National Bureau of Standards Office of Engineering Standards Services were wed a couple of years ago. In many re- spects, though, they are both my responsibilities ; they are engaged entirely in separate types

of programs. In some areas, particularly those

areas of responsibility resulting from FPLA,

they act coordinately.

In the engineering standards field, we have

the responsibility of developing and publish330-514—60 1 41
ing voluntary product standards; we operate what we consider to be

a very fine engineering standards library. This program, I think, is making excellent progress. It is headed by Don McKay, who many

of you know used to be on our weights and measures staff and is a

fine young man. We have strengthened the Office of Weights and Measures staff during the past year because of the beginning of the implementation

of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, and because of what appeared to us to be a need for additional capability.

As some of you know, Harold WoUin and I had a very special and

very interesting and exciting assignment last fall that has led us to new friendships, new experiences and, we hope, new intelligence. Our

assignment was to develop a measurement system, and a measurement

control system, for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

This brought about a need for considerable study here and a trip to Saudi Arabia for two weeks. In Saudi Arabia, a nation that to me is unique in the world, we learned about the people, the business, and

the developing industry, and prepared a report that has been submitted to the Kingdom through the Deputy Minister of Commerce

and Industry.

All of this was brought about through the basic knowledge of an

individual who honors us today by his presence, a young man by the

name of Kamal Saad. He is the director of an industrial development

program for the Kingdom, under a continuing project organized by

the Arthur D. Little Company of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Mr. Saad has consistently maintained that, if you wish to develop a

country's industry, you had better know something about measurement. As a result of this, he visited the Bureau and a working

agreement was entered into—an agreement, incidentally, which was

totally funded by the Kingdom. We have submitted our report and

Mr. Saad, Mr. WoUin, and I are optimistic about the possibility that our service to Saudi Arabia will result in the development in the

Kingdom of a measurement program that will provide a solid foundation for Arabian industrial growth.

It is my pleasure to introduce to you the new members who joined our staff since the Conference last met.

The Fair Packaging and Labeling group was fortunate to receive

three fine young men. They are Dave Edgerly, Karl Newell, and

Steve Hatos. Carolyn Kingsolver has been working part-time with the

FPLA awaiting a full time position in her special field. We bolstered our capability in engineering technology by acquiring the services of Bill Creek, Jim Little, and Jim Chittams.

We are extremely happy to have our newly acquired illustrator on

board, Phil Carr.

42
ADDRESS

by Kamal N. Saad, Deputy Project Director for SaudA

Arabian Affairs^ Arthmr D, Little^ Inc. I am delighted to be here today and honored

to be asked to say a few words to you about our program in Saudi Arabia. Our firm, Arthur D.

Little, Inc., has been retained by the Ministry

of Commerce and Industry as Economic and

Industrial Development Advisors, and we are formulating and assisting with implementation

of a broad-ranging industrial development

program.

In addition to undertaking surveys of industry sectors to identify opportunities for new

industries and to carry out in-depth feasibility studies of specific in- dustrial projects, we are concentrating on building a sound basis for

industrial development. This work covers

:

1. The formulation of national policy to guide idustrial development, including such concerns as private versus public industrialization, foreign investment policy, industrial licensing and incentives,

tariffs, and, on the institutional side, the design and implementation

of an Industrial Development Corporation and Industrial Development Bank.

2. On the commercial side, our work covers study of trade problems

and practices with a view to improving Government commercial

policies and relationships with the business community.

3. In the area of standards, we have formulated a standards policy

and program for the Kingdom covering industrial and engineering

standards and the establishment of a Saudi Arabian Standards Association. The British Standards Institution has kindly accepted to assist the Government with the implementation of this program.

4. In the related and most important and basic area of weights and

measures, we were most pleased to have been instrumental in bringing

the Saudi Government together with the National Bureau of Standards. The Bureau has formulated comprehensive and far-ranging

recommendations covering:

a. Objectives

b. Organization

c. Staffing and training, and

d. Physical back-up facilities.

6. All of these activities have implication of an organizational

and staffing nature and we are thus also assisting with Ministry

reorganization.

43
Sound policies provide the favorable climate and national institutions the practical framework needed for the development of human

resources, without which no country can achieve sustained growth.

Saudi Arabia enjoys substantial revenues from its petroleum resources and its government is devoting the larger part of these revenues to development. Its most critical need is to develop its manpower capability.

This is why our progam of assistance is strongly oriented towards as- sistance with implementation, and this is why we were delighted to see that the National Bureau of Standards not only emphasized the

importance of personnel development in establishing an effective

weights and measures system, but also expressed its readiness to assist the government of Saudi Arabia in realizing this objective.

This pattern of cooperation, between established institutions in the

advanced countries such as the National Bureau of Standards and

the new institutions of the developing world, is in our opinion one

of the most effective ways for the transfer of technology. This is in

fact why, when the Saudi Government faced the need to reevaluate

and redesign its approach to weights and measures, it turned to the

Bureau for help.

We are indeed proud to have had even a small hand in it.

by H. GooNETiLLEKE, Deputy Warden of the Standards^ Weights and

Measures Division^ Department of Commerce^ Ceylon

JsTational Bureau of Standards, who was till a short time ago Chief of

the Metrology Division, and is at present head of the Metric Study

Group, who suggested that I make a study of legal metrology in the

United States, in addition to what I was doing. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity to make two acknowledgments, one to Mr.

McNish for making the suggestion ; and the other to Mr. Jensen of the

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES IN CEYLON

Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen, it is a great honor for me to have been invited to address the 53d National Conference on Weights

and Measures. In fact, my presence here at this

Conference is quite fortuitous. My visit to the

United States is not concerned quite directly

with weights and measures, although I am

deeply concerned with it back home. My main

purpose here is to study what may be called, to

differentiate it from legal metrology, "scientific metrology." It was Mr. A. G. McMsh of the

44
Office of Weights and Measures, and his staff, who unfailingly proI vided me with the opportunities to do so. The system of weights and measures used in Ceylon is the English

system, an inheritance of a Colonial past common to both our countries.

There is, however, one major difference. The English system of weights

I and measures (and that means that we have a cwt of 112 pounds and

the Imperial gallon) is the legal system of weights and measures. In

the United States, the meter and the kilogram are the legal units of

length and mass, but in commerce the Customary Units, namely, the

decimal pound as the unit of weight, and the Winchester gallon as the

unit of volume, are used. There is another significant difference which

arises from the different political structures of the two countries.

Ceylon is a single political unit. Therefore, any law is effective throughout the Island, and hence, the differences inherent in a Federal State

I do not exist. The Weights and Measures Ordinance, as it is titled, is basically similar to weights and measures law in the Coromonwealth

countries. Using American terminology, its "philosophy" is similar.

Therefore, a greater emphasis is placed on the control of weighing and

measuring appliances used in trade and, at present, the emphasis is solely on this aspect.

I have said earlier that the Weights and Measures Ordinance establishes the legal units of weight and measure for Ceylon. In fact, it goes further. It specifies the multiples and submultiples of the primary

units in its schedules, and these are termed "authorized denominations

of weight and measure." From this stems an important consideration.

One cannot have a standard which does not correspond to an authorized denomination, nor can any weight or measure be used in trade, or stamped by an inspector of weights and measures, which does not

correspond to an authorized denomination. As in the United States,

the ordinance applies to commercial transactions of all kinds and this

is covered by what appears to be a fairly comprehensive definition of

"trade." Two other points of difference exist between the Model Law

of the United States and the Weights and Measures Ordinance of

Ceylon, the first being a requirement that all weighing and measuring

appliances be stamped by an inspector of weights and measures before

they are sold, and secondly a requirement that all sellers, repairers, and

manufacturers of weights and measures be licensed.

The Ordinance applies to all forms of trade. However, when it was

put into force thirteen years ago, supplanting much older legislation

which was obeyed more in the breach, and not enforced with any

purpose or uniformity, it was decided by the Government to first confine its implementation to that area of commerce which affects the

45
total population, that is, to the general trade. In gradual stages, the

areas were extended to all trades using the avoirdupois system of

weight. All trades using linear measures, and all trades using measures

of capacity were covered. It was also planned that when this was

achieved, measuring instruments—jewelers and apothecaries—were

to be covered. At that time, the country was in the middle of an acute shortage of foreign exchange, which meant that the money for the

purchase of equipment and additional staff was not available. The

shortage of exchange has not abated and, therefore, we are very much

in the same position today.

The administration is, to a great extent, centralized, with the au- thority being vested in the Department of Commerce. The director of

the Department of Commerce is also the Warden of the Standards.

The Weights and Measures Division has the custody of the primary

standards of weight and measure for the Island and is housed in its own separate building. The division is responsible for the maintenance

of the standards of weight and measure as well as the administration

of the Ordinance. The primary standards, at present, are reference

standards, traceable to the standards in Britain. In addition, secondary

standards are maintained, and finally there are standards used by in- spectors which are verified periodically by this division. The actual

administration of the law is a dual system, by the Central Government

and by local authorities. Twenty-four local authorities (municipal

councils and urban councils) have been authorized, and the rest of

the Island—^this is by far the larger area—is administered by the

Central Government. Inspectors are stationed at the district offices of the Central Government. There are twenty-two such district offices in various parts of the Island. While the overall planning is centralized, there is considerable flexibility in the day-to-day arrangement

of an inspector's work. The inspector works directly under the head

of the district office, who is, in addition to his other duties, a Superintendent of Weights and Measures for his district. Local Authorities

operate independently, having their own equipment and inspectors,

although the Central Government has supervisory powers.

This is a thumbnail sketch of the extent to which weights and measures laws are operative in Ceylon, and I propose now to touch briefly on the lines on which it is hoped to proceed in the future. It is here

that my study of legal metrology in the U.S. has been most useful and

significant. With this in mind I requested for arrangements to be made

by the Office of Weights and Measures for me to see the actual operation of certain aspects of weights and measures practice. I should also

thank Mr. K. L. Thompson of the Maryland Weights and Measures

46
Office, and his staff, for so kindly making the necessary arrangements

whenever they were requested for. I was particularly interested in the

testing of flow meters for the dispensing of petroleum, testing of large

vehicle scales, and the checking of prepackaged commodities. I cer- tainly envy the facilities you have here for testing large vehicle scales. What I saw, although not considered to be the latest type in use, were

certainly much better than what we have, which consisted of 56-pound

weights placed on the scale by hand.

But what really are the directions in which weights and measures

administration in Ceylon will go in the next few years ? The "presence"

that leans over the shoulder of every weights and measures official in

countries which use the English system of measurement these days is the Metric system, and this, to some extent, influenced the delay in

implementing the application of the law to apothecaries and jewelers.

In the medical circles in Ceylon, there is a very strong move to change

completely over to the Metric system, and this would have taken place

in the last few years except for the problems of foreign exchange.

The jewelers presently use a motley system and it seems logical to make the change there too, because in the long run it would be cheaper.

And what of measuring instruments, which, in a country like Ceylon, means only flow meters for dispensing petroleum products. Should one

take them in one fell swoop, as it were, into the Metric camp ? These,

of course, are really mattters of policy, to be decided by the government of the day, but what advice does one give ? I mentioned in the beginning that the Weights and Measures Ordi- nance is directed specifically to control the use of weighing and measuring appliances used in trade ; little emphasis being given to the sale of goods by weight or measure. However, this will be changed. There

is, at present—has been for some time—a draft bill extending the law

to cover this activity and includes specifically, a requirement that

goods which are sold in a container or pack carry a statement of the measure of its contents by weight, volume, or length. But that is as

far as it goes. After discussion of this with the staff of the Weights

and Measures Office, and sixty different sizes of toothpaste later, one wonders about effectiveness of such general requirement and one re- members an old adage, "It is easier, and certainly cheaper and less troublesome, to dam a river at its source that at its mouth."

(Following Mr. G^oonetilleke's remarks, an open forum entitled "Cooperation—Communication—Compliance," moderated by Mr. M. W.

Jensen, was held. The floor was open to all Conference attendees tO' discuss any administrative or teclmical problems the busy Conference

Program might have precluded.)

47
OPEN FORUM: COOPERATION—COMMUNICATIONCOMPLIANCE

Moderated by M. W. Jensen, Chiefs Office of Weights and Measwres^

National Bureau of Standards

REMARKS DURING THE OPEN FORUM

by Margaret Dana, Consumer Relations Counsel and author of the

syndicated colunm '^Before You Buy'''' I would like to start out by saying thank you

for letting me come and listen to your 53d National Conference. I have learned a lot. One of

the things I have learned is how much you don't

know. You really don't know very much about

consumers, do you ? Now, I know industry does not know very

much aJbout consumers. I've spent my life trying to translate to them, but I was a little sur- prised to discover that you, who are my best

friends in this marketing world, really don't

know an awful lot about the daily experiences of consumers. Let me

explain what I mean. Regarding the discussion that has been going on about the weights

and measures approval seals, I am sorry to disillusion you, but I doubt

if one in one million consumers knows that there is such a seal on a

scale, looks for it, would understand it, or have any idea why you put

it there. The reason I say this is because I get from 5,000 to 15,000 letters a month from consumers, and when, a few months ago, I discussed the

theory of weights and measures, what the weights and measures in- spectors do, and what the Office of Weights and Measures of the

National Bureau of Standards is, I received an avalanche of letters saying, "What do you mean ? You mean somebody comes around and

inspects scales? You mean that some officials check gas pumps? We

never knew it." Did you know that most consumers do not know what you do ? Now look, you are probably the most important group of people

in this country at this period in our history, charged with the responsibility of keeping consumers satisfied and happy. I do not think you

begin to understand your importance. I am trying to tell people about

you, but do you know what I run into ? I run into the damdest complications because names for what you do, and your official titles, vary

so greatly even within the same State. When I tried to explain to my

readers to take their problems to their weights and measures inspec48
tors, the immediate reaction I received back was, "Wlio is he? Where

is he? What is he called? How do I find out about him?"

They ask these questions because you have so many different names

and so many different departments. In modem parlance, you gentlemen have developed no public image, no identification. It is all so con- fused in the minds of the consumer, and you cannot find anything

about it in the telephone directory. People don't know who you are. In writing my column, I am talking to the whole country, the whole

nation. Do you think it is asking too much, for the sake of the con- sumers, that there should be some kind of amalgamation of the terms

so that wherever people live, whether it is a farm, a small town, a city,

east, west, north or south, you can say, "Here is what you look for

when you need to talk to your weights and measures inspectors." Do

you think that is an unreasonable request ? To the consumer, you are the new fair packaging law. You are going

to become even more important as more attention is placed on weights

and measures. A few weeks ago I said in my column, "Why don't you

make a point for the next three weeks or so to weigh and measure

everything you buy. See if it agrees with the label." I am still getting an avalanche of letters on that subject and you

would be surprised how keen both men and women are with the idea

that they get a part to play in this. They end their letter by saying, "To

whom do I report this?" And I am telling you, it is a difficult thing to try to tell everybody in this country where to report. I quite often get letters from people who say, "Well, I did speak up

as you told me to, and I did go to our county inspector of weights and

measures but, you see, I live across the line in another county, although

I shop in his county. When I described to the inspector what goes on

at some of the stores where I shop, he just got mad at me and said,

'Oh, go on, get out of here, you don't even live in this county.' " May I ask you to watch your public image a little bit more ? I like

to have consumers feel that you are their friends. You are not just some machine stuck away somewhere. You are people; you are the

friends that they need. I have one final point I would like to discuss with you. Will you

think about the idea that the National Conference on Weights and

INIeasures put together a leaflet, which would describe in clear, simple

words, what you are all about, what you do, why you are here, why you

are a service organization, how you work, and how to reach you ? I have requests every day in the year for that kind of information.

I probably need to send out 20,000 to 30,000 leaflets right now.

Will you think about it ? Maybe we could bridge this communication

gap and people will begin to give you what you deserve : understanding

of the great service you are performing.

Thank you for letting me talk to you.

49
MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1968

(E. T. Williams, Vice Chairman^ Presiding)

TWO-WAY DIVIDENDS FROM INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT

COLLABORATION

by D. S. Ring, General Counsel. National Painty

Varnish <& Lacquer Association

In discussing the benefits from industry-government collaboration there is need for calm

deliberation and logical consideration of downto-earth facts, rather than histrionics or oratory. I will try to keep this discussion factual

and logical, to the best of my ability. I will,

therefore, recite some of the experiences I have

had personally and some which I have observed

with respect to this topic. It seems to me that outstanding guideposts on the road leading from the proposition advanced to the conclusion reached, must be established in the light of

the fact that in these days the preponderance of industry is organized

to act and speak on public matters through business leagues and trade

associations. In referring hereafter to industry, I am referring to the

associations representing particular industries with respect to public

and community relations, as well as with respect to relations between

industry and the Government. Just as the Government has its agencies

and bureaus acting to represent the people as a whole in enforcing the

laws which legislative representatives of the people have put on the

statute books, the multifarious trade associations occupy a similar

representative position for the various industries involved. I give you these guideposts

:

1. A government agency at the federal. State, or municipal level generally can, through one instrumentality, reach virtually all of the in- dividual members of any given industry by dealing with the busine^

league or trade association representing that industry.

2. The course to be taken is one of voluntary cooperation. This is a two-way street based upon the reasonable assumption that it is best

for both Government and industry in the long run to work hand in

50
hand in securing compliance with the laws of our country rather than

taking the route of forcing compulsory compliance through invocation

of the administrative or judicial process on a case-by-case basis, which

in the long run multiplies, in any given industry, a thousandfold the

work of enforcement and expenditure of funds.

3. Both industry and Government must deal with one another on a common ground of good faith, which rarely fails to produce mutual

respect and tolerance on the part of each party for the position or viewpoint of the other.

4. Voluntary coperation programming and procedure is economical

for both Government and industry, Reliance upon compulsory compliance on a case-by-case basis is needlessly extravagant and wasteful.

Let me give some illustrations to support my first premise as to the

benfits of voluntary cooperation between government and industry.

During World War I the shipbuilding industry was faced with a turnover in personnel which was extravagant and unnecessary in the

various shipyards. When the Maritime Commission, foreseeing the

need for ship construction in World War II in 1939 and 1940, decided

to embark upon a vast shipbuilding program, one of the first things

that Admiral Emory S. Land, the Chairman, took up was some method

of preventing a repetition of such matters. After long consideration and study, it was decided that the working

force in shipyards could not be stabilized by Government ukase and

that the only answer was voluntary cooperation between industry as represented by both management (the American Shipbuilders Council) , labor (the AFL and its trade unions in the metal working areas, and the CIO, then independent, through its industrial union of shipyard workers), and the Government as the third party.

Throughout the war, this tripartite group functioned with less labor

turnover and less spiraling costs than even the most optimistic ever

anticipated. Decisions were made on the basis of consent by aU three

parties. Cooperation was voluntary in the true sense of the word.

The Nation was divided into four areas where standard rates and

working conditions, which included high safety and hygiene requirements, were promulgated. These areas were the Great Lakes, the

Atlantic Coast, the Gulf Coast, and the Pacific Coast, in each of which

basic conditions were the same. Once standard conditions were put into effect, there was a marked

deceleration of attempts to pirate labor on the part of employers and

to seek new positions in other yards by workers.

Let us look at another illustration. When the Hazardous Substances

Labeling Act was made law in 1960, industry slowly but vigorously

presented its views concerning regulations to the Food and Drug

Administration in a way which within two years produced standardized labeling for virtually all products covered by the Act, This

51
standardized labeling, which has been hailed as highly satisfactory by

Government and industry alike, resulted from voluntary cooperation.

The Food and Drug Administration has recognized the value of

voluntary cooperation by industry and Government to the point

where a very important and special division has been established there

under the direction of Gen. Fred J. Delmore. Only recently a highly

successful Labeling Seminar was conducted under the sponsorship of

General Delmore's division with the cooperation of the National

Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association and the Chemical Specialties

Manufacturers Association. It was so successful that it has been determined to present similar programs in various cities of the United

States in the furtherance of voluntary cooperation.

This is not the only instance of a major breakthrough for voluntary

cooperation. Since Earl Kintner was Chairman of the Federal Trade

Commission, that body has been moving vigorously to employ the good

offices of trade associations in securing voluntary compliance with

laws involving fair competition and pricing. Advisory bulletins are now being issued from time to time by the FTC when problems con- fronting a member of industry arise so as to permit the industryassociation involved to make all of its members aware of the dividing

line between legality and illegality. Even codes of ethics for industries

have been reviewed by the FTC and through Advisory Opinions the

industry has been given the guideposts to legality and the warnings

against procedures which might be illegal.

In another instance the representatives of various industries under

the Chairmanship of Frank Dierson, and with the encouragement of

many of your members, have set up an overall industry committee

representing various groups affected by weights and measures. The re- visions in the Model Law and Model Eegulations recently promulgated by the National Conference on Weights and Measures received

support and approval by this committee (which was in reality a federation of trade associations) so that states desiring to enact such

legislation could feel certain of industry support of regulations and

laws that followed such models. These results of voluntary cooperation

have been hailed alike by both government and industry.

The Secretary of the National Conference, M. W. Jensen, now has

only to pick up a phone and call Frank Dierson with respect to any

existing problem and be assured of real and careful consideration

being given by all industries coming under weights and measures

regulations in all the states. Frank Dierson on the other hand merely

has to pick up a phone and call Mac Jensen to make sure that any

problem facing industry will be brought to the attention of, and, when

necessary, be started on the road to solution by, members of the

National Council from one coast to the other.

52
Wliat I have just said I submit amply justifies the conclusion that

my first and second guidepost propositions are and you know as well

as I do they have been justified in actual practice.

My third proposition involves mutual good faith on the part of the

representatives of Government and industry. Among reasonable men,

I believe, familiarity far from breeding contempt, actually creates a friendly and cooperative climate productive of mutual benefits to both parties.

Industry has found a lack of horns, hooves, or pointed tails in the

physical and figurative makeup of Government representatives. From

time to time Government representative have been surprised at the

support they received from industry in overcoming opposition by a minority of recalcitrant members whenever reasonable proposals have

been made.

There was a time when the first job an industry representative

needed to do in dealing with a Government official when proposals were being made was to dissipate a fear that someone was trying to "put across" something. Today, as each group has gotten to know the

other, the attitude of suspicion has been reduced to a minimum and

acceptance of the sincerity of one party by the other in complete good

faith has thrived.

Among weights and measures officials, none lasts long unless he is fair, reasonable, and dedicated to proper and efficient enforcement of

the law. On the other hand, industry cannot afford to keep connivers,

corner-cutters, or shysters in any representative capacity.

The experience of each of you, therefore, must reflect the truth

of the proposition that there have been vast benefits flowing from the

good faith which has resulted in the close association in voluntary

cooperation between Government and industry.

And now, for the last and concluding proposition, the dividends

which flow from such collaboration. It is so obvious as to be axiomatic

that when one Government agency charged with the enforcement of a

particular piece of legislation wishes to secure compliance, there is no better way to secure it than through the association representing

the industry involved.

Of course, without guidance of the business league or trade association, individual industry members might prove resistive and unresponsive. In such cases it becomes necessary to proceed on a course of

litigation which is obviously highly expensive on a case-by-case basis.

In conclusion, I want to say that of far more value than the money

that is saved to both industry and Government through such voluntary

cooperation as I have been speaking of and the vast voluntarily

cooperative projects which you know of, but which I have not mentioned, it is the satisfaction of all of us that we are providing

inmeasurably greater benefits for the public, the boss of both of us, in

53
the long run through voluntary cooperation than otherwise and that we are discharging our responsibilities with integrity. In a true democracy such as ours, a prime product of our freedom is the satisfaction which comes from having both Government and industry enjoying two-way voluntary compliance in the national interest. Those are the dividends that arise from industry-Government

collaboration.

PACKAGING STANDARDS FOR FLUID MILK PRODUCTS

G. W. Spotts

Sufpervisor Technical Service Department^ Shell Chemical Company^

Woodhury. New Jersey

The dairy packaging industry is one of the

most complex systems in this country. The

packaging of fluid milk and fluid milk products

is an enormous activity which at some time or

other affects each and every one of the 200 million people in these United States. The vast and highly important dairy industry

has subscribed to various packaging standards

for many years. Many benefits have been

realized as a result of the following standard

packaging practices.

One primary benefit resulting from standardization is economy. The

present price of milk at approximately $1 per gallon could only be

possible through mass production of standard containers and handling

equipment. Since milk products play such an important role in the diet

of all of our people, the economic benefit of standardization cannot be

overemphasized.

Another benefit resulting from standardization of fluid milk packaging is consumer protection. The present-day consumers can be rea- sonably certain that when they purchase fluid milk products, they

will receive the specified quantity and quality. Deceptive packaging

is virtually unheard of in the dairy industry.

Ajiother benefit of standardization and certain restrictions for milk

products is protection for the dairyman. If there were no standards

or restrictions on milk products, producers of top quality products

would suffer economic penalties at the hands of poor quality producers.

If no standards existed, the dairy industry, as any other industry,

would probably result in chaos.

The fluid milk packaging industry has witnessed many changes j during the past six years. In the area of small size containers (less

than one gallon), paperboard containers have replaced many of the

54
traditional glass bottles. The original wax-coated paperboard container

has been almost completely replaced by plastic (polyethylene) coated

paperboard. More recently, since 1962, all-plastic containers have re- placed many paperboard and glass containers, especially in the gallon

and half-gallon sizes. At the present time, there are four types of containers for fluid milk products commonly found in both retail and

wholesale markets as follows

:

1. Glass

2. Plastic-coated paperboard

3. Semi-rigid all plastic

4. Plastic bag in paperboard box.

One of the packaging standards of major concern to all of us is the

volume standards. It is the responsibility of all of those who manufacture and/or fill containers (packages) for fluid milk products to comply with the volume standards set up by the Office of Weights and

Measures of the National Bureau of Standards. It must be the goal of

all individuals involved in fluid milk packaging to deliver, as near as

possible, the stated quantity of product to the consumer. Suppliers of raw materials to producers of packages for fluid milk products have

a responsibility to aid these producers in the design and fabrication

of packages that achieve this goal.

Packages must be designed to accommodate two types of filling

equipment used in the dairy industry today. One type of filling machine

is designed to fill containers to a predetermined level. The volume

of the container in this instance determines the volume of product delivered. Another type of milk filler is designed to deliver a predetermined quantity. This may be accomplished by a pre-set filling

j time or by volumetric displacement or by weight. Thus, the adjustment

' to the filling machine determines the actual quantity of product

delivered.

For guidance on reasonable volume tolerances, we refer to NBS

Handbook No. 44 for containers such as glass bottles which are considered measuring devices which control the quantity of product

delivered. For guidance on reasonable volume tolerances for other

types of packages such as paperboard, semi-rigid plastic, and plastic

bags, we refer to NBS Handbook No. 67. The volume tolerances specified by these two publications are the result of a statistical analysis

of a vast number of samples and cooperative effort between several in- dustry trade associations and the Office of Weights and Measures.

Regardless of the type of package used or how it is filled, it has been

established that unreasonable shortage in any individual container is not acceptable; and unreasonable averages and shortages cannot be

considered compensatory. The importance of conforming to the specified volume tolerance should again be emphasized.

55
Another area where standardization of dairy packaging has re- sulted in economies is the standardization of equipment. Dairy packaging equipment must be fabricated from rather expensive alloy steels in order to prevent corrosion and to meet Public Health Service sanitary requirements. If it were not for reasonably standard container

sizes, the cost of milk filling machines would be prohibitive.

In addition to the expensive filling equipment, it has been possible

to standardize capping equipment, but to a somewhat lesser extent. Also, carrying cases and handling equipment have been standardized.

At the present time, there is some concern in the milk packaging

industry over the nonproliferation aspects of the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Law. Fluid milk products have for many years been packaged for retail and wholesale in six different sizes as follows : % pint, Ys quart, 1 pint, 1 quart, half-gallon, and gallon. More recently, three

additional sizes of containers have appeared as follows: ly^ gallon,

2 gallon, and gallon. Small quantities of specialty items have also

appeared in 10 ounce, % ounce, and % ounce sizes. While the larger

containers were introduced, none of the smaller sizes have disappeared.

According to a recent USDA survey, over one-half of the sales of

whole and skim milk products are in half-gallon containers. Sales of

mixtures were predominantly in smaller containers, with quarts and

pints representing 88 percent of total sales in this group. Forty-three

percent of cream sales were in half-pint containers. Sales in containers

larger than one gallon represented only 6 percent of total fluid milk

sales, ranging from 2.5 percent in mixture to 6.5 percent in whole

milk items. The majority of sales in larger than one-gallon containers

are wholesale, in sizes greater than 2i/2 gallon with li/^, 2, and 2%

gallon containers used for home delivery.

The size of the container is ultimately determined by consumer demands. Consumer demands are influenced by: (1) The existing eco- nomic structure. (2) By certain sociological aspects. For instance,

the gallon container was introduced as an economy move. The gallon

container was also designed to satisfy consumer demands following

the rural to urban movement. Further, economy packages were very

popular during recent years when children from the post-World War

II population boom were in their early teens. The changing pattern in milk container sizes in the four-year period

from 1962 to 1966 is shown below

:

8k!e of C(mtamers: {percent of total product)

Gal Half Gal Qt Pt Ft Other >1 Gal 1962 13 51 17 3 11 5 1966 17 52 11 2 11 1 6 If we go back a few years beyond the above chart, we see a definite

trend in the sales of fluid milk products. There has been a steady in56
crease in the proportion of fluid milk sales made through wholesale

outlets. In the three-year period from 1963 to 1966, the wholesale

market increased from 70 to 75 percent. This trend affects not only

the type of container, but the size of the container as well. Another trend in sales of fluid milk has been from small to larger

size containers. The quart, once the most important container for

fluid milk, has decreased in importance until it now represents loss than 12 percent of total fluid milk sales. The shift away from the

quart container has been to the gallon container in wholesale and to half-gallon containers for home delivery. Sales in larger than gallon

containers represent only about 6 percent of total fluid milk sales. The larger plastic containers are relatively new and are replacing

metal cans on wholesale routes and some are being used for home

delivery.

The big question is whether or not the trend in larger size containers

is going to continue

prohably not. If we analyze the trend in milk consumption and trends in population deployment, we may arrive at some interesting speculations.

The trend in total domestic milk consumption is downward, as shown in figure 1. During the same period of time, our population has been steadily

increasing. In 1960, the population was approximately 183 million.

By 1967, our population has increased to approximately 200 million.

Thus, the average consumption of fluid milk products per person

in the United States had dropped during recent years, as figure 2

illustrates. There are several reasons for the reduction in consumption of fluid

milk products. One of the obvious reasons is the competition from soft

poMfcr/c coA/^c/MPrm

iill I I.I

m3 1964- /9^5' /9U /967

FiGUBE 1

330-7514—60 ^5 57
FiGXJBE 2

drinks and fruit juices. Far more money is spent on advertising of

fruit juices and soft drinks than is spent on advertising milk products.

The main, but not so obvious, reason for the decline in the average

consumption of fluid dairy products is the deployment of our population.

The single factor which has the most influence upon the size of milk

containers is the size of the average household. The size of the average

household has been reduced in recent years. Family and Household Sizes

Average Family Average Household

1940/3.76 3.67

1965/3.71 3.31 The reduction in the size of the average household is the result of

longer life expectancy, more independent home owners, and lower

birth rates. The average life expectancy has increased approximately

15 years from 1920 to 1950. Most of the senior citizens live in their own

homes and do not consume very much milk. The birth rate has recently

dropped to an all-time low (lower than the birth rate during the

depression of the '30's). The total number of babies born each year

is increasing, yet the birth rate per capita is decreasing; thus, there

are more and smaller families. Actually, the decline in birth rate has

been going on for 30 or 40 years. The post-war increase was only a temporary deviation.

58
There are many factors which influence the deployment of our

I population, but nonetheless, the smaller households demand smaller

fluid milk packages. It then appears that there will be very little demand for fluid milk packages larger than one gallon in size. Another factor which affects the demand for certain size milk

packages is the availability of convenience stores. The increase in the

number of convenience stores during the past few years has contributed

to the decline in sales of home delivered milk. Where convenience

stores are prevalent, there seems to be little demand for larger than

one-gallon fluid milk packages.

To conclude the discussion on fluid milk container size trends : The

consumer will determine the size of package used by the supplier.

With the decline in milk consumption and the reduction in the size of

the average household and the availability of convenience-type stores,

it appears that the wholesale and home delivery market for fluid milk

packages larger than one gallon will decline.

The previous comments pertain to milk containers of all four of the

common types. With the rapid increase in the growth of all plastic

milk containers, it seems timely to review this subject briefly.

The growth of all plastic containers for fluid milk products has been

as follows

:

U.S. Dairies Using All-Plastic Milk Containers

January 1964 12

January 1965 90

January 1966 380

January 1967 TOO

January 1968 965

At the present time, there are approximately 38 custom blow molders

producing all-plastic containers for milk. In addition, there are approximately 23 dairies with in-plant blow molding operations. The

consumption of all-plastic containers for milk now exceeds 13 million

containers per month, mostly in the gallon and half-gallon sizes. Approximately 3 percent of the total fluid milk sales are in semi-rigid

all-plastic containers.

Standardization is highly important to producers (blow molders)

of lightweight semi-rigid all-plastic containers for milk. Blow molders

were quick to realize the importance of conforming to volume standards. Most all-plastic containers are filled on filling equipment that was designed to fill rigid glass containers. These filling machines are designed to fill the containers under vacuum and to a specific level. These fillers do not aUow for any lack of uniformity in the container.

59
Developing an all-plastic container that meets all standards and also

meets consmner demands has not been an easy task. The Plastic

Industry Trade Association (The Society of Plastics Industry, SPI)

formed a special committee to conduct an extensive program designed

to aid molders and dairymen in producing containers that meet all requirements. The special committee represented the Plastic Bottle

Division at the SPI, which encompasses over 35 plastic bottle molders

and material suppliers, many of which are major U.S. corporations.

(All divisions of the SPI encompass over 1300 raw materials manufacturers, processors, fabricators, and machinery manufacturers) . This

special SPI committee greatly appreciates the splendid cooperation

they received from the Office of Weights and Measures. As a result of

the program and the cooperation of the Office of Weights and Measures and with the aid of filling equipment manufacturers, a reasonable solution to the volume problem was obtained.

Dimensional standards is another area where standardization is important to the plastic milk container industry. Most plastic milk

containers are sealed with conventional closures that require a substantial force for installation. Milk bottle closures are manufactured

by approximately seven major suppliers. Each supplier had previously established certain dimensional standards that deviated a slight

amount from each other. These slight deviations in certain critical dimensions made it impractical for molders to produce a universally

acceptable container. The dimensions of the container finish and the

closure must be uniform and based upon the same nominal size if they

are to be compatible. A cooperative program between the National

Association of Sanitary Milk Bottle Closure Manufacturers and the

SPI was formed to resolve the problem. This cooperative effort has

resulted in a reasonable solution to the capping problem.

Many advantages of standardization have been mentioned. However, disadvantages should also be considered. The basic disadvantage

to package standardization is the restrictions placed upon design.

Novel and varied designs m.ay be an effective tool which can help to increase the per capita consumption of fluid milk, a goal which is highly desirable to all of us. (Approximately 60 percent of our population has below-standard diets due to inadequate consumption of

fluid milk products.) Fortunately, plastic materials offer a high degree

of design freedom. Therefore, we believe that it is possible to design

novel and attractive containers for fluid milk products with presentday materials that will satisfy all of the existing standards.

In Conclusion: The present standards for fluid milk packaging,

as illustrated in figure 3, appear to offer adequate protection for both

the consumer and the producer without overly restricting the design

of the container.

60
2 PPOPC/eSP PPOT£Cr/C?A/

3 £COA/OM/e^

FiGUEE 3

LABEL MANUFACTURING UNDER THE FAIR

PACKAGING AND LABELING ACT

by Francis R. Cawley, Executive Director^ Label Manufacturers

National Association^ Inc.^ Washington^ B.C.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, ladies,

and gentlemen. Perhaps some of you here today

can still remember, along with me, the preoccupation of the average family with food requirements still common after the close of World

WarL

At least, in a representative midwestern city,

you may recall it was customary that, long

before the fading days of fall gave way to winter, the average household had several

bushels of potatoes and apples in the storeroom,

a side of pork on the back porch, and mother's pride of prides

some two or three hundred quart jars of home-canned fruits, vegetables, and juices—on the basement shelves. And of course in those

days, the pets got the scraps. You may also agree that much of this absorption with the winter's

food supply has diminished today because of

:

1. The miracle of modern production and mass distribution.

2. The reduction of food costs in the market place to less than

18 percent of the average family's disposable income.

3. The statistical fact that more than 140 million Americans

seven out of every ten—are now crowded on just 2 percent of our

land.

4. The convenience of home freezing.

61
6. The advent of the supermarket with its built-in maid service

for many modern day consumer products.

Families in more than half the world are still greatly preoccupied

with obtaining food that is far from adequate. In the United States our lessening concern for basic requirements has given rise to a greater

demand for a vast host of other consumer items outside the food

category, and this is rapidly expanding. Nonfood consumer items

rose by approximately 21 percent in 1966, and added another gain

of 16 percent in 1966.

Under Secretary of Commerce, Howard J. Samuels, recently stated

that, "We spend as much for chewing gum as for model cities. We

spend as much on hair dye as for grants to urban mass transit. We

spend as much on pet food as on food stamps for the poor. We spend more on tobacco than Government at all levels spends on higher education. We spend $300 million for costume jewelry . . . ." The con- sumer sparks the demand ; we make the labels. This drastic change in consumer buying habits, occasioned by

ample supplies and personal convenience, has resulted in the greatest consumer pipeline the world has ever seen. It doesn't take too much

stretch of the imagination to place an estimate on the number of

containers (cans, bottles, packages, and wrappers) used in a single

year for consumer products, at a toted of two hundred 'billion items.

As I have developed this figure and reviewed it over the past several

days, I am now convinced that it is very conservative.

Two hundred billion containers ! This means that each man, woman,

and child in the United States requires at least one thousand containers

throughout the course of any one year. A nervous executive, who con- sumes three packs of cigarettes per day, would account for his quota

without any additional allowance for eating, drinking, or digestive

aids. An infant, whose diet has reached the stage of strained food,

would account for his quota of containers, if he consumes the contents of three small jars per day. And before long, he will be rushing out

into the street for popsicles and ice cream, thus increasing his annual

quota. Finally, there is the office secretary who munches mints and

cracks gum, and who probably accounts for at least one thousand

packages with her in-between meal snacking alone. It is not difficult to envision one thousand packages per person per

year under circumstances outlined above. There are always excesses, or extremes, which will make up for any low individual use, whether

a person is addicted to bleach, booze, or tobacco. You, as individuals, are undoubtedly responsible for far more than one thousand packages or containers per year. All of these require identification and

sales promotional statements. In short, billions of labels. I cite these figures to dramatize the critical situation of Label Manufacturers who are being called upon to continue the supply of labels 62
and at the stime time, revise and standardize container identifications, or labels, for the billions of items that flow through the consumer

pipeline annually. At the moment, our customers operate under complex and varying sets of rules. With this great volume of work facing it, the Label Manufacturing

Industry and its customers in recent months have been in no small way

like the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's famous story, when she complained—"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run

at least twice as fast as that !

If we had more trained personnel for preparatory work and could

keep our presses fully occupied, we probably could meet the demands

of the new Law in a much shorter time. However, since it has always

been necessary for our customers to anticipate by many months the

flow of goods in the consumer pipeline, the added complexity of ef- fecting revisions under the new Law, as Federal Regulations are promulgated, may result in large inventories that will not fully measure up

to all the new requirements. However, I don't believe the Congress

ever intended that we halt the flow of consumer goods to the marketplace, or resort to a lot of patchwork pending the issuance of regulations imder this Law.

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (Public Law 89-755) was

approved on November 3, 1966, and it was almost a year before the first final rule under this Law became effective. Other proposed Rules are currently in one stage of consideration or another. I most certainly

am not complaining because it speaks well of the democratic processes

envisioned by the Law, but it has created a hiatus during which manufacturers of consumer goods have been in a quandary as to what future

identification requirements would be, posing problems that I feel will

affect the market place for several years to come. As early as January, 1967, we assembled over one hundred representatives of our industry at a meeting in Chicago, for the purpose of

anticipating what would be required in compliance with the new Packaging Law. On advice from various Federal agencies we were able to

establish the fact that weight declarations would emphasize the ounce

content, that type sizes would approach a uniformity similar to the

then existing requirements of the Model State Code, and we achieved some understanding on uniform location with respect to weight

declarations.

Since that time, with the continued help of the various Federal agencies, we have kept our members apprised daily of attitudes and rul- ings under the Law, and in every way attempted to anticipate the

requirements that would eventually take concrete form in Federal

Regulations. One example will serve to illustrate the problem: The

control of hazardous substances is split between two agencies, the Food

63
and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. Until

the final rule on nonfood products was issued recently by the Federal

Trade Commission, manufacturers of hazardous substances had little alternative but to follow the old rules and regulations, if they wished to keep their products in the market place, or introduce new products.

Another aspect of the Label Manufacturers' problem, which I believe is not fully understood, has to do with the legal requirements con- cerning label statements. For many years it has been the trade custom

of the label industry that legal responsibility for statements on labels

rests with the customers and not the label manufacturer.

Despite this fact^ we opposed the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

on behalf of our customers because we sincerely believed that the Law

was u/nnecessary.

Despite this fact^ the label industry provides its members with more

than JfipOO copies of rulings arid regulations each year so that they can

msist customers. Despite this fact^ we have done everything in our power to effect voluntary compliance with the new Packaging Law.

At the same time, we anticipate that regulations will be issued under

this Law from now until at least 1970, because in my conversations

with many representatives of agencies, who regulate products not

covered by Fair Packaging, I am convinced that even though exempted,

the labeling requirements for these products will eventually be brought

in line to conform with the final rule on food approved under the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Law. This is a good direction.

Label manufacturers and their customers welcome this approach on

the part of the entire Federal Executive Branch, as it will eventually

give us a fairly common blueprint with which to standardize our label

and package requirements at the Federal level. If I had a single appeal to make to representatives of the State

Weights and Measures agencies assembled here today, I would urge

you to keep your Model Requirements as identical to those of the

Federal Government as possible. If we can standardize the requirements for labels on goods moving in both intra and interstate traffic,

it will help us reach a higher degree of compliance in a shorter period

of time.

According to the firm of Ernst & Ernst, who conducted a survey

among nineteen major labelmakers, it was found that necessary modification of 167,000 active plates would require a minimum of three

years, assuming the employees devoted full time to this task. However, since much of their time is required for manufacturing labels for new products, and maintaining the supply of existing labels, the

full task of compliance might require as much as five years. I would again remind some of my friends in the Federal agencies,

and perhaps a few representatives of the State agencies, that labels

64
are not manufactured one at a time. The very nature of this remark

may shock you, but on occasion I have had to explain that our label-

; printing presses are capable of dropping up to five thousand 43'' x 60"

sheets, four color and varnished, per hour. On certain can labels, this means that at full speed, offset presses can produce approximately

200,000 labels per hour. Our concern, under these circumstances, is that new labels or revisions, intended for use this year and next,

are as accurate as possible before we push the button. The tremendous

; investment in high-speed capacity is futile if its use is impeded because

i of changes or uncertainties in label requirements of either Federal or

I State Laws.

Prior to January 1st of this year, we have met our customers' re- quirements, often on short notice and, in many instances, used existing

I plates because of technical personnel shortages and customer need.

I There is no doubt in my mind the production of labels under these cir- cumstances has resulted in inventories for which extensions are now

being granted by the Federal Government, and on which I am advised

the several States will be notified. Many of our customers were able to anticipate their requirements sufficiently in advance to effect label

modifications on reorders and new labels prior to January 1st. Under

the circumstances, we believe we have discharged our responsibility

to our customers, to the best of our technical capacity.

Our customers report that there are existing conflicts between

I State and Federal Laws and, of course, complain about the time and

! cost factors involved in manufacturing different sets of labels for local use than are required on the national level. I sincerely believe the enormity of the consumer product industry of

America demands that we standardize and simplify label requirements

for identification and weight. I believe this can be accomplished and

I still give our citizens the most wholesome food and other products at the

lowest cost of any nation in the world. We can make the new Law

work, if given time.

Goods must continue to move in the pipeline. We have gained unsurpassed supremacy with our great skills of mass production. Every

effort should now be made to speed up and assist the process of mass

distribution. The Federal Government leaned heavily on the State Governments in adapting their regulations under this new Law. Keciprocity on the part of State Governments now would make a substantial

contribution to further improvement in the economics of our mass

distribution.

Gentlemen, without uniformity of label disclosures, we could nullify

the basic purpose of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act which was

to eliminate the confusion to consumers in the marketplace. If the

65
consumer is "king," the "king" will demand such uniformity that canr only be accomplished by complete Federal pre-emption. I do not; believe this was intended, or is necessary. I mentioned earlier that currently more than 200 billion items of

consumer products are being used by the people of this nation. Who can

foretell the additional billions which will be distributed in 1970, or*: ten years hence? The progress we have made must not be retarded. Wev

all must share in the grave responsibility of managing our abundance i in a greatly expanding economy.

PROGRESS THROUGH COOPERATION

by H. J. Sheerin, Vice President and Director^ Kimberly-Clark

Corporation^ Neenah^ Wisconsin

Cooperation is the very cornerstone of a suc- cessful venture, wherever people are involved—

be it a marriage, an athletic team, a company, or ' a nation. Many other virtues and abilities help to

.

make a venture successful, but of all these, co- operation is the most important.

It is an honor for me to be in Washington

today to review with you what we in the paper

industry believe is an enviable record of cooperation and constructive accomplishment on behalf

of the American consumer.

It's a progressive record ; one of which this Conference, as well as members of our industry, can be proud. And in the midst of the current

tidal wave of interest in consumer protection, it's a record that should

be dusted off and reopened, both as a reminder of what Government

and business can accomplish in meaningful consumer service through

communication, understanding of our respective objectives, and teamwork as a guideline for the future.

Just as one hand can't applaud, neither can Government or industry

succeed alone in this business of sticking up for the consumer. For those of you who do recall some of the early work of the National

Conference with the paper industry, I should mention that the Tissue

Division (until 1967 known as the Tissue Association) is now a part of

the American Paper Institute, the national trade association of the

pulp and paper industry. Our Division represents some 60 manufacturers of consumer paper products, including facial tissues, bathroom

tissue, paper towels, and napkins. It is responsible for more than 85

percent of the production of these products in the United States, and

is the only paper industry group within API that goes directly to the consumer with its products.

66
As a consumer products industry, we in the sanitary tissue business

have the dual objective of satisfying consumer wants and managing a

successful business. To accomplish both objectives, we must be continually aware of three factors in the development, production, and

marketing of our products. First, and most important, are the utili- tarian values of the product. Does it meet a real consumer need ? Second,

are the subjective or aesthetic values such as color, size, shape, and

I packaging. And finally, there are the economic realities of manufacturing and distribution.

We have a business philosophy in the Consumer Products Division of

Kimberly-Clark that comes close to being a guideline followed in our

industry—^and in most consumer products industries. Simply stated, we believe in: (1) Using foresighted and farsighted research to find

I the real needs of consumers. (2) We are dedicated to improving existing products and developing new products to fill these needs. (3) It

is our goal to make our products available to Mrs. Consumer where she

wants to buy them, when she wants to buy them, in the form which is acceptable to her, at a price which she considers a good value, and at

a reasonable profit.

We are certain that this formula of full and fair service to our cusI tomers is essential to our business livelihood ; we also know that achieving a proper balance between product value and the economic realities of production and distribution is a matter of judgment with each indi-

: vidual company. Inevitably there are going to be differences in how

each company chooses to design, produce, and market its products. And

I these differences are the substance of our competitive and growing

economy.

While we are firmly dedicated to preserving a system of independent

I action in the marketplace that will foster innovation, new product

j development, and a wide choice for the consumer public, all responsible

businesses believe that the products they decide to market should be

honestly and informatively packaged and labeled.

Recognizing that this is an area where some rules of the game must

be maintained, our industry has worked with the National Conference

on Weights and Measures for many years. To provide a complete pic- ture of just how long and how effective this relationship has been. I've had to turn to two former associates whose knowledge of the Tissue

Division's work with these Conferences predates my own career in the

paper industry.

j The two are Bemie Hopper, who served Kimberly-Clark as government sales manager for more than two decades, and Ross Fife, former

executive secretary of the Tissue Association. Both of these gentlemen,

now enjoying retirement, send their very best wishes to old friends

here today. And both recall the highly responsible and helpful assist- ance this group has given to the tissue industry over the years. 67
It's witli the good assistance of Eoss and Bemie that I'm able to trace for you what we in the sanitary products industry believe is a meaningful record of accomplishment on behalf of consumers. Cooperation isn't just a chapter in that relationship, it's been the

whole book for nearly four decades. And our industry believes this

productive association is in large part responsible for our confidence

that there will be continued progress in paper products packaging

and labeling procedures, now that there is increased federal concern and involvement.

The paper industry has been one of the leaders in recognizing the

need for standards and guidelines to prevent abuses in labeling and

packaging. We have always been willing to work toward standardization of size and count for our products when the consumer could be the

beneficiary. We have been as cooperative as we could, and we think

the results have been constructive.

As early as 1941, agreement was reached with the "Methods of Sales

Committee" of this organization on a number of packaging and

labeling principles for tissue products that still stand today, with

necessary modifications. One was a standard form of complete quantity

declaration for facial tissues and bathroom tissue which included

prominent statement of sheet size and unit count. Your cooperation and understanding, then as now, has been important to us because the idea of standardization of products is not

completely an unmixed blessing from the viewpoint of production,

product management, and product development. Many factors, in- cluding the dimension of the base stock, size and capabilities of

converting equipment, waste, and packaging have an effect on standardization of tissue products. All contribute to the economics of our

business, and have an impact on the acceptability of a standards

change or a new standard, for several reasons

:

1. Because we know that if a standard doesn't fit manufacturing

equipment, we're in trouble.

2. If it doesn't fit the changing needs of the consumer, we're in

trouble.

3. If it doesn't fit a new product, we're in deep trouble.

But if the standard can really help Mrs. Consumer, we also know

we must work toward implementing it, and we have.

We found years ago that your organization has, in considering our

industry's products, always focused on avenues of fact finding; that

you have been conscious of the manfacturing and marketing prohlems

of our industry ; and that you have had an open mind and a disposition

to be reasonable and fair in considering items of debate or areas we

considered to be problems.

68
An example of this willingness on your part to work for fair and

reasonable standards recommendations for tissue products is detailed in the reports of this Conference in the late 194:0's. As long ago

as the 33d National Conference in 1947, a recommendation was adopted

relating to slack fill of facial tissue packages. It was the strong feeling

of your committee that inside height tolerances should be specified

for these cartons. After discussions with our industry representatives

through the office of the Tissue Association, it was clear that our members felt that the tendency of facial tissues to expand in the package

made the tolerances suggested too restrictive. Consequently, five members of your conunittee, with the cooperation of the Tissue Association

executive secretary, surveyed a number of tissue mills in July 1948.

As a result of this study and the data obtained, the 34th Conference

in 1949 accepted the industry tolerance reconunendations, and we as an industry were able to comply.

Our industry was also able to work with this conference on preparation of the first model regulations and model laws for paper products,

which subsequently were adopted by many of the States. These regulations were established in a spirit that kept essential

utilitarian and aesthetic values of tissue products, as well as the

economic realities of manufacturing and distribution in mind.

Throughout our work together we have seen many modifications of

the standards labeling procedures as our products have changed. We

I have submitted labeling and packaging recommendations for new con- sumer disposables as they have been developed and moved onto retail shelves. We have said what we can do from a practical standpoint, to

I eliminate possible misleading statements of quantity, and we have

done it. As the standards for paper products have evolved, we have worked

with Weights and Measures people on local, State, and Federal levels

to help assure that our members were fully informed. Our industry's

trade association has published for its members a series of continuously

updated booklets on the labeling of sanitary paper products. These

booklets have included all pertinent portions of model State laws

and regulations as well as the recommendations of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, applicable to our products.

Additionally, for more than 20 years we have had an effective and

workable procedure of cooperating with weights and measures people

by bringing complaints to the attention of our members, whether these

complaints were received by the Association directly from the con- sumer or from your offices. The complaint forms have changed fre- quently, but their purpose remains the same today : To alert sanitary

products producers to possible valid deviations from established

standards recorrwrbendations and regulations^ and to provide an opportunity for vohmtary correction.

69
We have found nearly 100 percent cooperation of our membersliip,

and we have determined that these oases of mislabeling brought to our attention have occurred in most cases through a change of per- sonnel responsible for labeling and packaging, or because copywriters

have been ill-informed on the standards procedures, rather than by any

intent to mislead or confuse.

We also have maintained a working relationship with weights and

measures officials through a standing industry committee on standards

of packaging and labeling.

So much for our industry's historical involvement in the packaging

and labeling area. What about our activity now that Congress has decided that supervising packaging and labeling of consumer products

is a responsibility of the Federal Government ? The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966 represents top level recognition on the part of the Federal Government of our joint ef- forts in the past. The very concept of some sections of that law is a direct result of the work of these Conferences.

As you know, industry generally was not 100 percent convinced

of the need for this legislation, in part because we see duplication and

conflict in many areas with model laws already in force and apparently

fully effective. But our industry has been and is willing to work

with the Federal Trade Commission and the Commerce Department

as we have in the past, when our joint action will lead to purposeful

help for the consumer. We wholeheartedly endorse the voluntary procedures permitted by the new law, but we are guided in our relationships and ability to comply by the effect new standards will have on the

value and appeal of our products to the consumer, and our ability to produce and distribute them economically.

In the past year, members of our packaging and labeling committee

have met frequently with representatives of the Commerce Department

and the Federal Trade Commission to obtain clarification and interpretation of regulations developed to implement the new Law. Most

of the questions we have raised have been answered by clarification

of the originally proposed regulations by Mr. Charles Sweeny and

his associates. In those few instances where there still is a question,

we are working to resolve them.

One area in which we immediately sought clarification involved the

impact of the new regulations on decorative packaging of facial tissues. This is one of only a few products bought in the store and used and

displayed in the home in the same container. These packages aren't hidden in the kitchen cabinet or in the bathroom medicine cabinet

like cereals or toothpaste. They must shout, "Here I am" in the store and still fit inoffensively and attractively into the home when dis- played openly in the same package.

70
Most manufacturers in recent years have tried to make the facial

i tissue package more decorative so that it can effectively handle its dual role to the satisfaction of the homemaker. But it isn't easy to provide an attractive package and still comply with a regulation that

calls for reserving 30 percent of the principal display panel for a

full description of contents. There are ways of solving this problem, of course. One is to put

required contents information on a removable polyethylene overwrap,

I leaving the carton design free of printed matter. Some product is now

: being offered in this type of package. But dual packaging is far

' more costly, and our industry felt there had to be a more economical

way of complying with both consumer wants and the new regulations.

But once again, through mutual cooperation, we now have the agreement of the FTC, that permits putting the quantity declaration on

the tear out panel of facial tissue packages. With this permissible modification, labeling information essential to the consumer for making

buying decisions and value comparisons in the store, pops off as the

package is opened, leaving an attractive package to display in the

home.

Another major achievement in the past few months has been the

development of standard package sizes for roll paper products.

As you are aware, the Office of Weights and Measures of the National

Bureau of Standards has identified a number of products which it considers suspect under the "undue" proliferation provisions of the

Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. In our industry, paper towels was

one of these products.

As soon as the Tissue Division was notified, I appointed an ad hoc

committee to consider the question of package proliferation as it relates

to towels.

We included marketing people in this group, as well as members of

the packaging and labeling committee, because any decisions affecting

how our members package and sell their products are decisions made

at a top marketing level. After several fruitful discussions with Mr. Malcolm Jensen and his

associates in the Bureau of Standards, the ad hoc committee came up

with the recommendation that all paper roll towel producers will list the contents on their retail packages in square feet for ease of con- sumer comparison, and will also reduce the actual number of sizes offered. Both the Bureau of Standards and the FTC have concurred with

our plan, and it is our member companies' intention to put it into

effect before December 31, 1968.

j; And to further demonstrate our desire to cooperate, we will keep this

liconmiittee active for the purpose of reviewing the other major tissue

71
products categories, to be sure that they comply with the new

legislation.

Throughout our efforts in the past year to bring sanitary paper products labeling practices into line with current Federal regulations, the

tissue industry has benefited immeasurably from our many years of

experience in voluntary standards making with the committees of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures.

We look forward to working jointly with you in the future on solu- tions to any packaging and labeling problem which will benefit the

consumer, and to a continuation of the outstanding and constructive

relationship we have had with all weights and measures people and

with this Conference in the past.

THE EMPHASIS IS ON 'WITH"

by Frank McLaughlin, Director^ Producer/Marketing Relations^

President's Committee on Consumer Interests My appearance here today represents a modest

"batting streak." (In Washington we regard a hot batting streak as any time one of our Senators puts two consecutive hits together out at D.C. Stadium.)

For the second consecutive year your Executive Secretary has accorded me the privilege of

being able to speak to the Conference ; a privilege for which I and my boss, Betty Furness, are

sincerely appreciative. On reflecting over Mac

Jensen's second invitation I have not been able to decide whether Mac liked what I said last year, or thought that I needed another opportunity to get the message across. It makes no

difference if the message is timely and I think that it is. The marked increase in Congressional absorption with consumer

legislation in the past few years has stimulated considerable discussion

and comment on how governments, industry, and consumers interact

in the process of recognizing and solving consumer problems. Many

of the comments are highly critical. I have no doubt that critical comments can be heard during the deliberations of this Conference.

IN'or do I doubt that they will be heard for months and years to come,

for the problem raised is not susceptible to a quick and easy solution.

The man in the street complains if Federal programs do not reflect his views and needs. The representative of industry attacks what he

regards as "interference with the free enterprise system." The home

town lawyer and doctor warn in their professional journals against

"the dangers of growing regulatory power" being exercised by administrative agencies of government. Some State officials resentfully declare

72
that Federal officials are unwilling to give the States a share in the decision-making required by old problems and new programs. Giving

unity to this chorus is the theme of impatience with one of the forms,

mechanisms, or institutions of our Democracy ; an impatience that is so great as to inhibit civil dialogue, preclude meaningful collaboration^

and inevitably engender animosity. Recently, Eric Sevareid of CBS

News described the attitude of some vocal minorities as an impatience

with representative democracy and a cry for more participatory democracy. If this is an important trend, an especially significant thread

in the fabric of our society, it seems worthwhile to trace a few aspects

of the interaction between Federal and State Governments, between

Government and industry, and between Government and ordinary citi- zen-consumer. Because of the work of this Conference, and because

of the restrictions imposed by a paper of relatively short length, I

would like to deal with some specifics of Federal-State relations and

talk in general terms of current interaction between Government and

industry and between Government and citizen in meeting consumer

needs.

This morning we have heard much about the benefits to all con- cerned to be gained from smooth articulation between Government

and industry in working for the citizen-consumer. The Congress of the

United States has advocated progress through cooperative efforts of

Government, industry, and citizens in numerous pieces of recent legislation. Congress has directed Federal officials to work "with" State

authorities in implementing Federal laws. Congress has created special

Commissions where representatives of consumers, industry, and Government are to work "with" each other in translating words into con- sumer protection programs. The President too has created Commissions

representative of various segments of our socity, to study the problems

of this time and this place and to work towards their solution. He

has also directed agencies of the Government to work with industry

in bettering the conditions of the citizen-consumer. Consumers are currently being told of the tremendous political and economic benefits to be gained by uniting their voices and efforts and by working "with"

government and industry. Yet, while Government, industry, and con- sumer spokesmen recognize the need for working together, while there

is so much emphasis on "with," there are discordant voices. There is impatience with the functioning or malfunctioning of the systems of

interaction among Governments, consumers, and industry. What are some of the obstacles to better interaction ? In several sections of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA)

Congress directed Federal agencies to work with the States in implementing the law. Mr. Cawley has told us how the same law has required

close coordination of industry's efforts with the Federal authorities.

330-514—69 Q 73
I would like to review for you what I have seen of State-Federal interaction under this law to see whether there are any lessons to be learned

from this interaction.

One year ago I stood before you in the auditorium of the National

Bureau of Standards at Gaithersburg, Maryland, as a representative

of Commissioner Goddard and the Food and Drug Administration.

I extended Commissioner Goddard's invitation to your Committee on Laws and Regulations to meet with him and discuss the content of the

initial regulations under FPLA. Up to that point in time the chances

of a cooperative Federal-State approach to implementation of the law

did not appear to be good.

The law was, and is, primarily a labeling Act rather than a packaging law, and its pre-emption provision cut deeply into an area of reg- ulation (weights and measures labeling) that had traditionally been

largely the concern and province of State police power. These factors

alone were bound to produce irritation at the State level, and some less enlightened industry representatives contributed to the irritation by

telling State officials that the Congress and the Federal agencies had

turned their backs on the States ; an ironic statement when one reflects that industry has most to gain from uniformity of regulation imposed

by the new law. Then too, the initial proposed regulations under FPLA

had elicited almost no response from the States. Finally, it is in the

nature of humans to follow the path of least resistance, and to seek

out the comments and opinions of others, is frankly, to court complications. It was therefore with some uncertainty that I approached Dr.

Goddard with the proposal that he meet with your Laws and

Regulations Committee.

The uncertainty was wasted. Your Committee met with the Commissioner of FDA. The meeting in fact took place on the day of the

invitation. The members by themselves and through their Chairman,

Bill Kerlin of California, presented their views on the initial regulations to be promulgated. The Commissioner's staff recommended that

he accept the views of your Committee. The initial FDA regulations

under FPLA reflect to a great extent the fact that the Commissioner

did follow the advice and recommendations of your Committee. The

Commissioner of FDA also sought out the views of other State officials before issuing the final regulations implementing section 4 of FPLA.

In short, an effort was made to put meaning into, and to give effect

to, the Congressional direction to work "with" the States. A similar pattern was followed by the Federal Trade Commission,

the other Federal agency sharing the regulatory authority with FDA

under FPLA. I do not rely on hearsay with regard to the FTC action

under FPLA. In midsummer of last year, I transferred to the FTC

and was given the responsibility of drafting regulations under FPLA.

74
Again the record revealed little apparent State interest in the initial proposed regulations issued by the Federal agency, but in late August

of 1967, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Paul Rand

Dixon, received a letter from Bill Kerlin and other members of your

L & R Committee offering the Commission the advice and assistance

of the States in the promulgation and enforcement of the regulations

under FPLA. The Commission does not have a long history of co- operative relations with State regulatory agencies, but the Chairman

was so impressed with the sincerity and constructive attitude of the

members of your Committee that he immediately began a dialogue

with the States concerning the enforcement of packaging and labeling

laws in general, and particularly with regard to implementing the

FPLA. Out of this dialogue there developed the appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee of State officials to work directly with the Commissioners of FTC in matters pertaining to the implementation of

FPLA. The regional meetings with State officials now being sponsored

and carried out by the FDA and the FTC also grew out of this dialogue. By an odd coincidence. Bill Kerlin and Larry Barker of your

L & R Committee turned up as members of the Ad Hoc Committee

working with the Commission. Sam Christie of New Jersey and Mr.

Moore of North Carolina were other members of the Conference working on the Committee. In mid-March of this year, the Committee of

State officials met with the five Commissioners of the FTC just before

the Commission issued its initial final regulations under section 4 of

FPLA. Here again State officials presented their views and recom- mendations persuasively and the Commission followed every recom- mendation of the Committee. In case you are not familiar with the

stinging minority opinions frequently coming from the Commissioners

of the FTC, let me just say that it represented no small feat for the

Committee of State officials to produce complete agreement among the

Commissioners. One Commissioner told the State officials that the

meeting had been the most productive session held by the Commission

within his memory. Having taken part in that meeting I can tell you

that the degree of uniformity between the regulations of the FDA and

those of the FTC under section 4 of FPLA was due to a considerable

extent to the efforts of State officials who made the effort to register

their views in person, by mail, or by both means. Now I am not about to suggest that the initial cooperation and ar- ticulation between State and Federal authorities in implementing

FPLA is the general rule. It is not. I think it has been an exception to the general rule. The general rule is that Federal agencies publish

proposed rules, regulations, and policies implementing programs that

are of interest to State agencies, and the affected State agency is fre- quently unaware of the Federal Register announcement, or hears

about the announcement too late to take any action on it. The general

75
rule is that the view or views of the States are not adequately carried to the Federal agencies charged with the job of carrying out the programs

mandated by Congressional action. The general rule is that communication and cooperation between State administrators and Federal field

officials are not what they should be, and almost nonexistent between

State administrators and Federal administrators in Washington. The

general rule is that many State officials feel slighted by the actions of

Federal officials. I am aware that, even in the case of implementation

of FPLA, there have been and there will be legitimate complaints by

State officials that their opinions are not being solicited. With due respect for the efforts of Congress, I submit that it takes more than words on a piece of legislation to get all parties affected by a

legislative program to work together, to put the emphasis on "with."

^Vhat does it take ? It certainly requires a showing of interest on the part of the State

agencies. I dare say that in the case of FPLA neither FDA nor FTC

were aware of the desire of the States to be heard on the matter of

implementing the Act until the States came forward and exhibited an interest. (For completeness of the record, I must add that a fellow

named Mac Jensen did a little nudging of some State officials at the

right moment.) The number of comments filed with the two agencies in

response to the initial proposed regulations was certainly no indicator

of State interest. In my judgment the scarcity of comments is rather an indication of the shortcomings of the communications system which

should provide quick and timely notice of proposed actions by Federal

agencies to all those intimately affected by the program. If there is to be true cooperative effort in putting legislative programs into effect,

something must be done to improve this communications system.

It is apparent that State administrators, faced with their busy schedules, do not have the time to scan, research, and interpret each daily

Federal Eegister issue for proposed Federal actions that may affect their Bureaus, Departments, and programs. Experience would also

indicate that it is equally unrealistic to expect Federal administrators,

charged with the responsibility for implementing programs, to make

a practice of holding important issues until State opinion is canvassed.

I am not suggesting the solution to this problem. I am suggesting that

both sides should devote more time to the problem's solution. The problem is not so great as to defy efforts towards its solution.

Placing the emphasis on "with" also requires recognition of the fact

that the delegation of program responsibility by Congress to a Federal

agency presupposes that interested and affected parties will avail themselves of the opportunity to help shape the program through com- ments on proposals or objections to actions taken. In addition to the

responsibility of helping to assist in the shaping of a "National Rule,"

76
States must be concerned with the possible effect of Federal proposals on existing State programs. For the State official to ignore the effects of Federal legislation on State programs and practices is to avoid his

responsibility on two counts. Eather than adopting a "you passed it now you implement" attitude,

State officials should routinely deluge Federal administrators with

their views on Federal proposals affecting the States. The experience

under FPLA suggests that Federal agencies will listen to and be

guided by State opinion and views. Not incidentally, in my view we

end up with better programs, policies, and regulations when the States

do participate. I would like to see more of it. It is of course easier to

sit back and criticize the system rather than work towards its improvement.

In my experience industry does not suffer from a poor communications system or from lack of exposure when it comes to working with

the Government. Almost literally while the ink on a Federal Register

announcement is still drying, the affected industry through its technical experts, house counsels, trade associations, Washington offices, trade

papers and magazines, Washington counsels, and through other organs

of information has already taken an accurate reading on the new Government proposal and has adopted a stance in relation thereto. Batteries of industry technical experts and lawyers then descend upon the

agency originating the proposal for "further clarification" and for the

purpose of gauging the firmness of the Government's position on the

proposal. When the sessions are concluded there is little doubt in the

minds of the Federal officials as to the industry position. However,

this excellent communications system is for the most part used merely

as an "early warning system," like a telephone marked "Use only in

cases of emergency." Often the above-enumerated organs of information do double duty, also serving as insulation between the industry

policy maker and the Government administrator, preventing informal

discussions of current problems, and thereby creating another issue for

Federal Register publication. Whether this insulation is actually desired by industry policy makers or is based on an erroneous assumption

that it is desired, it frequently has the effect of making industry appear ultra-conservative, even negativistic. Until industry is ready to adopt a more candid and less defensive attitude towards discussing existing problems with Government before they reach a stage requiring

regulation, I am afraid that Government-industry collaboration will

continue to consist primarily of arguing over the details of regulations.

In short, there will be frequent usage of, but little meaning in, the

term "with."

Unlike the State official, consumers do not have the problem of trying to decipher the Federal Register for actions of the Federal Gov77
emment of interest to and affecting consumers. For, despite the general

practice of Congress to delegate the job of "fiUing-in" the legislative

outlines to Federal agencies through Federal Kegister announcements,

most consumers have probably never heard of the Federal Register or

the Code of Federal Regulations. Standards are created, rates are set, policies made and unmade, and the average consumer is blissfully un- aware of the burning issues that make the practice of administrative

law a lucrative field in this town. It is ironic indeed that Government

programs, having their genesis in consumer complaints and problems,

should be proposed, shaped, and implemented in the absence of con- sumer awareness and participation. To my mind, this irony continues

to be one of the major obstacles preventing consumers from participating "with" Government in the act of governing.

Again, I would like to thank you for allowing me to spend some time

with you this morning and hopefully shed a bit of light on some

current problems.

78
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON—JUNE 19, 1968

CONFERENCE LUNCHEON

Guest Speaker : Honorable J. T. Myers, Congressman^ State of

Indiana

THE METRIC SYSTEM AND YOU

Writers have had a great deal of fim with

the metric system—"I Love You a Hectoliter

and a Decaliter . . .," "I wouldn't touch it with a 3.048 meter pole . . ."—^but the possibility of conversion to the metric system is a deeply

serious matter to all of us who are concerned

with the art and science of measurement.

The fact that you have reserved this time during your 53d National Conference on Weights

and Measures to think about "The Metric System and You" underscores your concern about

possible conversion. You weights and measures officials of Federal,

States, and local governments, and you representatives of equipment

manufacturers, industry, business, and consumers, represent an impressive cross-section of our national life that would be touched by

metric conversion. As a member of Congress, I realize that conversion

to the metric system is an important, often controversial, matter

among the sectors you represent, and I welcome the opportunity to talk to you on this timely topic today.

The English inch-pound-gallon system, a measuring system built

upon the length of barley grains and royal thumbs, is no longer English. On May 24, 1965, the British Board of Trade declared to the

House of Commons that the United Kingdom would adopt the metric

system section by section until it becomes the primary system of

weights and measures for that country as a whole. The Board set 1975

as the target date for its accomplishment. Britain's Canadian cousins

followed that move by calling for a full study of the effects of a similar

adoption. In April 196T, the Australian Senate created a select committee to investigate the desirability of adopting the metric system.

With 90 percent of the world's population now using the metric

system, there are those who say that the United States shares the

79
position of a little character in a cartoon a few years ago. He was shown dashing excitedly off scene, crying, "I must hurry, for there

go my people, and I am their leader !" Our position may not be this

extreme. We know that the United States is a leader in science and

technology, as a recent space meeting at Athens demonstrated. Virtually the entire meeting was conducted in English, and while trans- lation into Eussian and French was available, English was clearly the

language of science and technology. When Wernher von Braun lec- tured there on the Apollo moon project, he studiously converted all English units of quantity—360 feet high, 7.5 million pounds of thrust,

200,000 gallons, 17,500 miles per hour—into their metric equivalents.

Necessary, for France made the meter compulsory in 1840; Kussia

went metric in 1927. Indeed, as we survey the list of more recent converts—Israel, Jordan, Sudan, Greece, Nationalist China, India, and

Japan—we recall the song about the World War I mothers watching a parade of doughboys in which one mother says, "Look! Everyone's

out of step but my Jim !" Our Jim may be out of step despite the fact that in 1866 the Congress

did legalize the metric system in the United States as an optional

alternative to a perplexing potpourri of rods, perches, poles, gills,

miners' inches, Gunter's chains, milk gallons, wine gallons, dry gallons,

minims, skeins, cords, pipes, tuns, hogsheads, bushels, pecks, long tons,

short tons, and California lugs that was inevitable in our polyglot

culture. We have some 80 units of weight and measure, as compared

with three basic units—^the gram, the liter, and the meter—of the

metric system.

Actually, efforts to standardize and simplify the cumbersome cus-' tomary system began with the birth of the Nation. In their grant of

powers to the Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation

specified the fixing of standards of weights and measures throughout

the United States. Later, when the Constitution became effective in

1789, Section 8, Article 1 reiterated that "the Congress shall have the

powers to fix the standard of weights and measures." In his first message to the Congress, George Washington said: "Uniformity in

the currency, weights and measures of the United States is an object

of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to." But in 1961 Senator Maurine Neuberger spoke up on the Senate floor to say that though there was no mention of it on the Senate Calendar,

there was some unfinished business before the Congress ; the proposal

urged upon the Continental Congress by the Articles of Confederation

and upon succeeding Congresses by the Constitution to fix the standard of weights and measures throughout the United States had yet

to be acted upon when she spoke in 1961.

President Washington's remarks did result in a report and what

a familiar sound that has. This report by Thomas Jefferson, then

80
Secretary of State, was influenced to some extent by material published in contemporary British and French studies of establishing

uniform weights and measures. The Sage of Monticello proposed two

alternate plans. One suggested retaining the basic English system

then current, but making the measures invariant. The second plan

suggested adoption of the metric system initially conceived by a French abbot and then being strongly advocated in France as the

now universal system for the world. "There should be reduced," Jeff- erson wrote, "every branch to the same decimal ratio already established in coins and thus bringing the calculation of the principal

affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply

and divide plain numbers." Neither proposal was acted upon and

a Senate select committee, appointed in 1791, recommended that no

changes be made in the system of weights and measures. There was

not, however, a national uniform system of weights and measure- ments then in use. A pound in New York was not the same as a pound

in Virginia. The problems affecting trade are obvious.

More committees in each House made studies; more bills came before the Senate—but no legislation was passed. Even John Quincy

Adams' scholarly report in 1821—some 250 pages discussing the theory

of weights and measures and its importance in the conduct of everyday

affairs—^spurred no action. It is interesting to note that as early as 1821, in rejecting proposals

to change to the metric system. Congress concluded that it was impractical to make the change because of the cost and complexity. Consider the relatively simple and primitive economy then. Compared

to today's complex economy, it would have been an easy job.

Finally, in 1836, the national uncertainty regarding standards of

weights and measures ended with the Joint Eesolution on June 14

of that year. This resolution provided for a complete set of all weights

and measures adopted as standards to be delivered to the governor

of each State in the Union. On July 28, 1866, a law was passed

which made legal throughout the United States the employment of

weights and measures of the metric system.

Events and actions during the next twenty years were to have a profound and lasting effect upon the weights and measures situation

in the United States. By a combination of adherence to a treaty and

administrative action within the Treasury Department, the United

States succeeded in correlating its system of weights and measures

with those of other nations, and resolved the issue of its own fundamental standards. This period saw the receipt of official meters and

kilograms from the International Bureau, and culminated with the

Treasury Department's approval of the Mendenhall Order. At the

recommendation of T. C. Mendenhall, Superintendent of the Office of

Weights and Measures, the Treasury Department stated that the

81
yard and the pomid within the United States would be based on the

meter and the kilogram. And at the International Conference of

Weights and Measures in Paris in 1889, the U.S. representative ac- cepted Meter N"o. 27 and Kilogram 'No. 20. These were carefully

transported to the United States, accepted at a White House cere- mony, and then deposited in a vault at the National Bureau of

Standards. There, though hidden from the public view, they affected

public affairs by providing fundamental standards for trade and

commerce, science, and engineering.

During the years that followed, use of the Metric System in the

United States remained confined to well defined areas. Today it is almost universally used in the scientific and medical professions. Almost all of the firms of the pharmaceutical industry have changed

to the use of the Metric System. Other industries that are at least partially on the Metric System are the chemical industry, electric

power industry, photography, optometry, electronics, and many

others.

Of the many bills introduced in the House of Representatives and

the Senate in recent years calling for adoption of the metric system, or for a study by the Department of Commerce of such an adoption,

only one has reached the floor of either Chamber. This was S.7T4,

introduced in 1965 during the 89th Congress. It called for a study of

the feasibility of adoption of the metric system. At the suggestion

of the Department of Commerce, the bill was revised to provide that

the study of the practicability of increasing the use of the metric sys- tem in this country. S.774, as amended, was reported favorably to the

Senate by the Committee on Commerce, and passed the Senate. It was referred to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics

and reported favorably by that Committee to the House. But parliamentary procedure in the House requires a resolution by the Rules

Committee before it can be considered by the entire House of Representatives, and S.774 died in the House Rules Committee for lack of

such a resolution in the closing days of the session.

In the present 90th Congress, the House Science and Astronautics

Committee acted early in 1967 to provide time for action on a metric

bill by both Houses. In House Report No. 33, dated March 6, 1967,

the Committee approved H.R. 3136,* introduced by Committee Chairman George P. Miller of California. Representative Miller appeared

before the House Rules Committee and requested that the bill be made

a "privileged matter." This time the powerful Rules Committee agreed

that the proposed legislation had merit and passed House Resolution

1148, authorizing consideration of H.R. 3136.

Editor's note : This bill passed the House June 24, 1968 ; the Senate July 30, 1968 and was signed by President Johnson Aug. 9, 1968. 82
This bill would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to conduct

a three-year investigation, research, and survey to determine the impact of the increasing worldwide use of metric weights and measures

in the United States, and to appraise the desirability and practicability

of increasing the use of metric weights and measures in the United

States. The investigation would likewise evaluate the cost and benefits

of alternative action which may be feasible. In more detail, to accomplish the purposes of the Miller bill, the

Secretary of Commerce would conduct studies in educational, en- gineering, manufacturing, commercial, scientific, and public areas to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of metric use. Also, the degree of standardization of weights and measures in each

of these areas would be studied. The study would likewise appraise

economic advantages of the use of the metric system in international

trade and commerce, and investigate the difficulties that might be

encountered in such increased use of the metric system. And in ac- complishing all this, the Miller bill directs the Secretary to consult

with representatives of industry, science, engineering, labor, and their

associations in the program.

As members of House Science and Astronautics Committee see it, there are two significant points incorporated in this bill, points which

developed during earlier hearings.

First, since considerations of conversion may vary considerably

depending on the sector of society using weights and measures, to be

most effective the study must analyze each use and aspect. As proposed,

the study would be an across-the-board analysis of all areas of the

systems of measurement, recognizing, as the Committee report put

it, "the hard problems as well as the easy ones and determining and

studying the relative advantages and disadvantages in each area." Second, the bill recognizes the necessity of having major segments

of the American economy participate in all phases of the study—^in the planning, in the study itself, and in its evaluation. The Committee

feels that participation by segments of our economy which would be

directly affected, such as those you represent, will assure that all aspects of the matters under study are fully developed and will

encourage broad acceptance of the study.

While it has approved H.E. 3136, the Committee has not prejudged

the conclusions of the proposed study. Its members do contend that a

study is a prime requirement before recommendations for action on

the metric system can be accepted.

What are some alternatives? The recommendations might call for

compulsory adoption of the metric system. They might urge voluntary

conversion by extending metric usage to industries other than those

currently using the gram, liter, and meter. Or they might point to a

83
regulated partial conversion in various industrial areas over an

extended period of time.

Similar metric study legislation has been proposed in the Senate.

The Senate Commerce Committee held hearings last November on two bills, S. 4A1 and S. 2356. S. 441 is identical to the House bill, and

S. 2356 differs primarily in that it would include in the study "any

existing or proposed system of weights and measures," and "the ex- tent to which the United States should retain and promote international use of the system of weights and measures, and various

standards used in connection therewith, currently in use in this

country."

Several witnesses before the Commerce Committee deemed S. 441,

twin of the House bill, a more direct attack on the basic problem—^that of proposed full use of the metric system in the United States. They

noted further that the study under S. 441 of "alternative courses of

action" by a competent group would include consideration of the additional ideas embodied in S. 2356. Department of Commerce spokesmen

were among those expressing a "distinct preference for the language

of S. 441." So far, there has been no further action on either of the

Senate bills. The estimated cost of the study proposed by these bills is $2.5

million. The identical House and Senate bills authorize an appropriation of not more than $500,000 for the first year of the program. In

hearings in 1966, then Assistant Secretary of Commerce J. Herbert

HoUomon commented on this price tag: "With the various nations

of the world and much of our economy concerned with the measure- ment system we use in the design of products and manufacturing, with

the increasing growth of the European market, and with the increasing number of countries that either are contemplating or have con- verted to the metric system, I think it extremely important that this

study, which is really quite modest from the standpoint of its cost, should get underway as promptly as possible."

As a matter of fact, I might observe that this estimated study cost of $2.5 million would demand slightly more than one cent per American

taxpayer. Every time a pharmacist changes from ounces to grams to make out a prescription, he spends far more than one cent in terms of

salary time. Many feel that the loss to the economy in not going ahead

with the change is much greater than the cost of the study.

Discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of actual con- version have filled many columns in the daily press, scientific journals,

and trade publications, and have occupied many symposia hours at

scientific and technical meetings.

Why then have we had recent interest in the proposition for a* change, after nearly three decades of little activity ? Why has renewed

attention been focused on a system whose bases lie in a standards vault

84
at the National Bureau of Standards? The reasons are far better

known to you than to me. But let me recount them as they appear to one Member of Congress.

The industry of this scientific age demands greater and greater

precision of measurement. When the magazine Industrial Research

recently polled nearly 3,800 scientists, engineers, and technical managers, it found that 93 percent of them, more than nine-tenths, favorod

total or partial conversion to metric units in the United States. Important segments of the scientific community recognize the need for

a uniform system.

Developing nations need commonly accepted standards for their

internal and external commerce. In this connection, I was interested in a report by a member of our Indiana delegation, Representative J. Edward Roush, who attended the Tri-Annual Meeting of the Inter- national Organization for Standardization held in Moscow last summer. In his report on the international conclave, my Hoosier State

colleague noted that U.S. participation in ISO work in previous years

has not been extensive. He emphasized that the attendance of National

Bureau of Standards Director A. Y. Astin and USASI head Donald

Peyton showed national willingness to promote international standards, but said that the United States is weak in its representation on

ISO's technical committees. Mr. Roush cited ISO's concerted efforts to induce the participation of underdeveloped countries in its activities, and urged that the United States actively participate in international standard setting. This is not do-gooder or altruistic. We must

participate in international standards setting, to protect and assure our access to growing world markets.

Which brings me to the third, and biggest, single factor behind

the renewed interest in a move toward the metric system—^the defense

of the U.S. foreign trade position. Columnist Sylvia Porter has esti- mated that we lose $10 billion a year in trade with metric countries. A

recent statement on the Senate floor went her some $15 billion better,

estimating an annual loss of $25 billion. The Department of Commerce has contested both estimates, saying that the combined genius

at Commerce has been unable to determine our foreign trade loss. But Commerce's statistics on international trade show that U.S.

exports to 16 metric countries did decline 2 percent between 1957 and

1963. If we are to sustain our prosperity and find a permanent solution

to the deficit in our balance of payments, metric proponents say we

cannot afford to remain out of cadence with a metric world. If we

are to take full advantage of the favorable trade climate created

by the Kennedy round discussions last year, we must get in step.

Many U.S. products made to English measurements simply cannot be

used in metric countries, they say, even though the U.S. products may

85
be superior. And there are delays, costly ones, when American designs

licensed to firms in metric countries have to be converted.

This may explain the recently declared support for a change from

a surprising source, the Ford Motor Company. Ford stated that

"their studies of future, potential world markets have developed the

clear conclusion that if they are going to be a worldwide company,

they should not hang on to a measuring system that they have gotten

by default."

The pro-metric arguments of Ford Engineers and other international trade enthusiasts are countered by the opposition with two

arguments. One is that only about 4 percent of this country's GNP

is exported, and the other is that the Nation's competitive worries are mostly about labor costs. Metric opponents scoff at the notion that our highways are dotted with Yolkswagons simply because they are built

with components produced to metric standards. On the other hand,

the Japanese auto industry, which is expanding very rapidly into

foreign trade, is a metric industry.

The strongest argument against metric adoption stems, of course from the incalculable cost of conversion. Good figures are not available

but this would be an important goal of any study. According to General Motors Corporation, conversion to the metric system would be so

costly that it is unthinkable for the present. They estimate that the

change would cost U.S. industry anywhere from $60 billion to $100

billion. A Ford Motor Company spokeman has told a group of

standards officials that the cost of conversion could conceivably be

one-sixth to one-fifth of his company's capital worth. General Electric

estimates $200 million for its changeover, including $80 million for

the modification or replacement of equipment, $44 million for redocumentation, $23 million for modification or replacement of testing and

measuring equipment, $21 million for training personnel, and $19

million for the operation of dual production facilities. While much of the cost of conversion for a heavy manufacturer is m retooling, even more subtle costs can add up. For example, a director

of design for a machine tool builder has pointed out the straight con- version of engineering drawings from inch to metric measurements

This cost would equal about one-third the cost of making the original

drawings.

There are some two million hand micrometers in use in the United

States. At $15 apiece, replacing them adds up to about $30 million.

Who would shoulder responsibility for these immense costs ? The indidividual industries ? The United States Government ? It is argued, of course, that in the process of normal replacement of

old and wornout parts and of weights and measures themselves, metric

parts and weights could be introduced. In her conversion, India found

that the normal lifespan of a commercial weight or measure is about

86
five years. Every year about 20 percent of the weights and measures

in circulation are, therefore, replaced. In a period of three years 60

percent would be replaced in the normal course. Individual industries are already converting, it is argued, as trad©

and circumstances dictate. Whole industries—drugs and pharmaceuticals, plastics, chemicals, electric power, ball bearings, spark plugs as well as practitioners in photography and oceanology—have adopted

the metric system partially or completely. Why rush the process and

risk throwing the Nation's economy out of whack?

And so the debate continues. Common industrial standards in inch

sizes have been established by all the English-speaking countries. For

example, the American Unified Thread is used for almost all engineering purposes except in heavy industry. No similar standards have been

established among the metric countries. The switch would prematurely

outdate appliances and equipment through a growing scarcity of

replacement parts; textbooks would have to be changed, mileage

markers along the highways, milk bottles, gasoline pumps, and workmen's wrenches.

Having discussed the reasons as I see them behind the renewed and

recent interest in metric conversion, and touching now on objections to

this conversion, may I note two final arguments against metric usage.

Opponents of conversion contend that American manufacturers

would have more to lose than to gain if we switched because they

would be faced with foreign competition from manufacturers abroad

who have lower labor costs. Adoption of the metric system would

enable foreign industry to increase its competition right here in our home markets. Without the protection of feet and pounds, some American firms fear they would find it hard to compete with these foreign

countries in the domestic market without lowering our standard of

living. Finally, metric opponents argue that achieving greater precision in weights and measures is not necessarily dependent on the metric

units.

Now to the benefits. One benefit is the educational by-product cited

by the Chicago Teachers' College math department chairman. He says

that as much as two full years of elementary school arithmetic would

be dropped if the inch-pound system were replaced. Others claim the

metric system can be learned by a schoolchild in one hour. If kilograms,

liters, and meters replace pounds and feet, the time it takes to learn

math could be cut by 26 percent, they estimate. The American Geophysical Union has urged that "such monstrosities as proper fractions,

denominators, greatest common divisors, and mixed numbers be laid

to rest with the celluloid collar and the oxcart."

' Another benefit would be the removal of the communications barrier

• between scientists and engineers, to overcome the confusion of Babel,

both nationally and internationally. Big savings would be realized in

87
the ability to purchase parts and equipment at lower costs because they

would be made for both U.S. and foreign markets. The greater number

of units per setup, the lower the cost per machine.

Of course metric conversion would present problems. Dr. Astin of

the National Bureau of Standards summarized these during the Senate

hearings last year. He divided the problems into two broad classes

those of software and those of hardware.

Software problems are essentially language problems whose solutions, he said, involve paperwork and training of people, such as re- tabulation of data and learning to think and work in terms of a differ- ent measurement system. There would be, you see, a category of

products not changed significantly by conversion. The largest quantity

would be bulk materials including agricultural products, construction

materials such as cement, sand, gravel, plaster, chemicals, and ferti- lizers ; and fuels including oil, coal, and gas. Conversion to metric units

for these products would present software headaches; accountants

would have to change records of inventories and business transactions.

Prepackaged commodities, such as loaves of bread or bottles of milk

that are required by law to be sold in round units such as one pound

or one quart, would have to be changed. Many other prepackaged quantities, however, that are now sold in a wide range of quantities and

sizes that are not expressed in round numbers would simply need to be

remarked in metric units.

Then there are the hardware problems Dr. Astin cited—those whole

solutions require changes in existing physical entities, such as machines,

instruments, tools, jigs, fixtures, stock sizes, standard modules and the

like. Here much more would be involved than a mere change of nomenclature. The most acute problem would be with machine tools—especially those such as lathes and thread grinders, and other precisely

dimensioned items. There would be special problems for numerically

controlled machine tools. Consider how the metric system would change our lives : Your 132

pound wife would thrill to her new kilogram weight—60. The morning

sports page would reveal that N'otre Dame held Army on the 3-meter

line ; Willie Mays unloaded a 155-meter home run. Hot rodders could

boast that they reached 155 kilometers per hour in 55 seconds. The

Memorial Day classic in my native State would be the Indiana 800

!

Shopping for clothes would be a new experience. There would be no

change in glove and stocking sizes, but a size 14 dress might now be

called a size 40. And a typical Miss America would boast 91-58-91

vital statistics. At the Government level, laws, statutes, and codes would have to take,

the new system into account. Federal statutes setting standards and

dimensions would have to be reworked.

88
State laws relating to things like brick sizes, the length of thread on

spools, and the size of butter cartons would have to be altered. Local building, electrical, and plumbing codes would need updating.

Engineering specifications for highways and bridges would have to be changed. Water and gas meters would have to be rescaled. The Post Office, which figures postage rates on pounds and ounces, would have to be changed. Government crop controls and price supports would have to be rewritten. Farmers would find their acreage

allotments expressed in hectares.

Fake bargains might be easier to spot, as price comparisons become

easier to make.

In view of these changes and the problems they would entail, a practical consideration for any Congressman voting on a metric bill, either

to study a change or make one, must be, quite frankly, the reaction of

his constituents. As Abraham Lincoln said : "Public opinion is everything. Without it nothing can succeed; with it nothing can fail." Probably the overwhelming majority of the people, who have meas- ured their lives in pounds and feet and acres, would much prefer to con- tinue speaking the language they inherited. Custom and tradition are formidable barriers. We know that a study such as that suggested by

H.K. 3136 and S. 441 would help our people more realistically view the

possibility of conversion.

It may be that the study's findings—if there is one—will eventually

lead to a nationwide conversion to the metric system. There may come

the day that a child will no longer look up from his homework and

demand to know how many pecks in a bushel. That would be an antiquated fact of a bygone day, when his country tried to lead the world

and still cling to a measuring system built upon the length of barley

grains and royal thumbs.

330-514—69 7 89
MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1968

(N, Berrtman, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

MEETING THE CHALLENGE

by E. C. Primley, Theisen- Clemens, St. Joseph, Michigan

In June 1965, at the 50th National Conference on Weights and Measure, one minor event and

one major event happened,

f The minor event was a major one in my life. I had the rare privilege of attending my first

^ National Conference. This occasion will never

be forgotten, as it was here that a neophyte in

' weights and measures for the first time met the

professionals.

Il The major event was that the petroleum in- ^ dustry, one of the largest industries in the

United States, was challenged by the National Conference of Weights

and Measures to show just cause why meter tolerances should not be

lowered.

It seems as though for some time, the subject had been discussed, but

nothing in a positive way had been done about it. Finally, the hour of

decision had arrived. I am happy to say that the petroleum industry picked up the challenge and as I look back on the event, it appears that this was exactly

what the weights and measures officials expected. It could have been

their method of motivation, as we have learned there are some ex- tremely keen minds directing the National Conference's efforts. It is from this challenge, and the events of the past three years, that

we report to you today.

Through the American Petroleum Institute's Marketing Division,

Operation and Engineering Committee, some interesting things have

happened.

First, after many meetings reviewing the history of our approach

to the subject of tolerances and our attitudes and practices, we found

that we, in some cases, had been very wrong. These attitudes and practices were discussed with the entire petroleum industry, and many

changes were made, both in operating procedures, and in attitude.

Second, it was found that there had been a "breakdown" in commu90
nication between our own industry, associated industries, the National

Conference, and the National Bureau of Standard's Office of Weights

• and Measure.

The most important thing in life—understanding—was lost. The Subcommittee on Weights and Measures of the Marketing Operation Committee then created a Technical Task Force. This Task Force

is made up of technical engineers and operation people coming from

many companies within our own industry and from within the meter

manufactures group.

It was found, after careful study, that our first and foremost task was to reestablish proper communication with the weights and measures officials of the National Conference. After many meetings, with

much dialogue, I hiunbly believe that there have never been created

I better lines of understanding and purpose than those which exist today.

' You have been very cooperative and understanding, and we thank you.

With this understanding established, we have moved ahead. There

have been some rough spots , but I know that we now have complete

confidence in each other. In fact, I will say to you as I have said to the

. people of our industry, that there are few men whom I hold in more re- gard than I do Mac Jensen for his dedication as a public servant, his

integrity of purpose, and his ideals regarding life. So with confidence and integrity we move down the road together.

Under the direction of our Technical Task Force, some of the best

minds in the area of measuring petroleum products and building pe-

: troleum meters have been brought to bear on the subject of tolerances.

! From their thinking, some tremendous things have come about.

As most of you know, the petroleum industry has been conducting a

: series of meter calibration studies from Maine to Minnesota, from

! north to the deep south and in between.

These studies have brought forth some interesting questions. Please

note, I said questions, not answers, for we have learned that sometimes

it takes a great deal of study to find a beginning point, and that is exactly where we are, at a point of beginning.

We must begin with the volumetric prover tank.

This Prover Tank must be constructed and tested to as nearly perfect

specifications as can be developed.

1. Design and construction must be evaluated. Proper drainage and

clingage factor must be considered. An advanced leveling device must

be developed.

2. Various types of metal must be considered.

3. Methods of recording temperature during testing period must be

developed.

\ 4. The effect of temperature on metals and the products being used

: in test must be known.

5. Evaporation loss during testing period must be monitored.

91
These are only some of the areas that must be carefully researched.

Many more will develop as the studies progress. I am happy to report that other divisions of the petroleum industry

are now setting up committees to make in-depth studies of petroleum

product meter provers. I feel sure the present API standards will be revised.

Our Marketing Division will develop a bulletin to be used by field personnel and maintenance men spelling out the proper techniques in

proving meters. This bulletin will define the term tolerance and exactly

how it is to be applied to the calibration of meters. This bulletin will

be developed with the weights and measures officials' help and

suggestions.

Our Weights and Measures Subcommittee has asked for a sufficient budget to further the necessary studies.

Our Subcommittee Technical Task Force has outlined to our

industry the plans for the immediate future.

So we move, industry and weights and measures officials, shoulder

to shoulder, with complete confidence in each other, to build a greater

industry, a greater government, and a greater democracy.

For this purpose we were born.

LITTLE OMISSIONS CAN LEAD TO SERIOUS ERRORS

by Arthur Sanders, Executive Secretary^ Scale Manufacturers

Association^ Inc.^ Washington^ D.C.

The National Conference on Weights and

L Measures is dedicated to providing assistance

' to the States in the matter of reasonable laws

» and regulations on weights and measures and

to uniformity among the States. Scale manufacturers strongly support these objectives and

I am convinced the industry is generally helpful

to these ends.

Today, with the entry of the Federal GovvjB ernment into the field of weights and measures

'SHI through the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

of 1966 we have another area of Government control. Since that act expressly supersedes any State or local law less stringent than the

Federal law, the Federal law and regulations certainly must be recog- nized as an important factor and possible complication.

Handbook Jt4 Specifications Create Standards.

Scale manufacturers have long used the specifications and tolerances

of the H-44 scale code as the criteria for designing and producing

scales. H-44 has provided a most useful standard for commercial

92
scales and we have found in general that a scale designed to meet

H-44 is acceptable throughout the nation. When provisions are adopted in H-44 they have been very carefully studied and considered

in advance, not only by your Specifications and Tolerances Committee,

the National Bureau of Standards and the National Conference, but

by the scale industry as \Yell. I'm sure the same situation holds true

for measuring devices.

I'm not here to review the details of your system of developing

and promulgating your model laws and model regulations. You are

entirely familiar with the procedures for getting good weights and

measures requirements on the books. We find the procedures most

acceptable.

Alertness Can Avoid Conflicts.

My purpose today is to focus attention on laws and regulations,

Federal, State, and local, which conflict with the National Conference model laws and regulations, and which can destroy the useful- ness of well designed scales meeting all the requirements of the present

excellent laws and regulations.

With the advent of "consumer legislation" in the past several years, we now find ourselves faced with a race am.ong legislators and high

Federal, State, and local officials to enact legislation they feel will protect the interests of consumer-purchasers. More often than not these

people are not familiar with weighing and measuring devices used in

quantity determination, or with the model laws and regulations of the

National Conference, or with the State requirements. This is understandable because weights and measures laws and regulations are very

complex to the uninitiated. Usually their purpose in proposing legislation is not to improve weights and measures but to create greater con- sumer protection. Unless we are all careful, irreparable damage can be

done to our sixty-year effort toward nationwide uniform w^eights and

measures requirements and to sophisticated devices produced under

present requirements.

The proposals for improved consumer protection and the model

laws and regulations are not incompatible. However, the uninitiated

legislators and government officials who propose these laws will

need some guidance, advice, and assistance from the outset, to avoid

overriding conflicts which might cause serious damage to our present

excellent system of weights and measures. State and local officials should be alert to the details of proposed consumer legislation, should

study them in relation to existing weights and measures requirements,

should seek to present appropriate arguments against those proposals

which would disrupt your requirements, and should keep the National

Bureau of Standards advised from the beginning about proposed con- sumer legislation. It may well be that diplomatic approaches to the

93
proponents of such legislation, at an early stage, can get the proposition pointed in the right direction.

I have a copy of the letter from my good friend, Peter Dorn, Secre- tary of the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, which I would

like to read.

It is concerned with the problems of politics and what legislators

have to put up with. It deals with a controversial subject, but one I think you will find interesting.

Dear Friend

:

I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particu- lar time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun a controversy.

On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless

of how fraught with controversy it may be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. Here is how I stand on this question.

If, when you say whiskey you mean the Devil's brew, the poison

scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty—yes, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children, if you mean the evil drink that

topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacles of righteous,

gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation and despair, shame

and helplessness, then certainly I am against it with all of my power.

But, if when you say whiskey, you mean the oil of conversation, the

philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get

together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips and

the warm glow of contentment in their eyes ; if you mean Christmas

cheer ; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentlemen's step on a frosty morning ; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our

deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm, to build highways, hospitals,

and schools, then certainly I am in favor of it. This is my stand, and I will not compromise.

(signed) Jubilation T. Cornpone

Senatob

Examples of Impracticahle Proposals.

To cite examples of what could have been unreasonable legislation

which might have seriously affected a very important scale, we mention the proposals of the last two years in regard to package labels and

the serious effect that could have resulted in limiting the usefulness of an outstanding scale development of the past twelve years—^the auto- matic computing and labeling scale so widely used for prepackaging

in modem retail food stores. Most of you are familiar with these sophisticated scales. They print

the name of the commodity, the price-per-pound, the net weight, and

the total value on labels of 4 to 5 square inches. They are the heart and

brains of the prepackaging operations of volume food stores. There are some 25,000 to 30,000 such scales in use for which the stores paid about

$5,000 each, representing original cost of $125 to $150 millions.

94
Two years ago, at the Denver National Conference, we discovered

that the Senate had passed a bill, which, in effect, would have stopped

the full use of these scales. That bill would have required that package

weights of less than four pounds would have to be labeled in ounces, whereas the scale labels are in pounds and decimal fractions and the

price is stated by the pound. This in itself, regardless of other provisions of the bill or the FDA regulations to follow, was sufficient to cancel the full use of the finest automatic weighing, pricing, and label- ing scales ever developed.

At the Denver Conference you passed a resolution opposing this particular provision of the Senate bill and Commissioner Lawrence

Barker of West Virginia and Malcolm Jensen of NBS testified to this

effect before the House Commerce Committee. The Scale Manufacturers Association prepared a written brief and testified orally before

the same committee.

Fortunately, the House Committee realized the practical nature of our testimony and revised the bill to exempt random weight package

labels from the stringent requirements of ounce labeling. We had the

feeling that the members of both the House and Senate Committees

and their staffs were most reasonable. We felt they realized from the

testimony that the labels produced by automatic computing and label- ing scales were quite excellent, actually providing more very readable

information for the consumer than would be required by the bill,

although in some respects not conforming to the proposed requirements

of the original bill. The ultimate result was that the exemption for

random weight packages was contained in the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act of 1966, thus permitting the continued use of automatic

computing and labeling scales for these packages.

That was not the end. The act authorized the Food and Drug Administration to issue regulations covering details not practical for

inclusion in the Act itself. In March 1967, FDA published its proposed

regulations and we found that these would rule out the full use of

automatic computing and labeling scales for reasons of type size and

label size (related to size of principal display panel of package) , placement position on label of net quantity statement, etc. Again the Scale

Manufacturers Association and its affected members went into action

and filed an extensive brief with FDA. Again we had the support of

Malcolm Jensen and we successfully arranged for an exemption for

the labels of these automatic scales from the "type size, dual declaration, and placement requirements" of the regulations.

More recently, in the last few months we have found that some State

weights and measures departments have reached the conclusion that

the FDA regulations require that the labels of these automatic scales bear the zip code as well as the name of the packager. FDA officials have pointed out to us that an amended regulation published on Sep95
tember 20, 1967 requires the zip code only on labels "developed or

revised after the effective date" of the requirement—namely after

July 21, 1967. Malcolm Jensen has issued a clarifying memorandum

to State weights and measures directors and we now think zip codes

will not be required until new labels are designed and printed.

But this is not the end of the dilemma. Consumer legislation has

been proposed in one locality which would prohibit labels on fresh or frozen meats where the label exceeds ten percent of the labeled side

of the package. We learned that about half the meat packages have

a principal display panel of less than fifty square inches. Thus the

labels of the automatic scales would not be usable on about half the

meat packages of that jurisdiction. We prepared a brief on this matter

and again with the support of Malcolm Jensen we expect to avoid the

imposition of this impractical consumer legislation. We imderstand an amendment has been drafted to exempt labels of five square inches or less. Obviously, the purpose of the proposal was good—to avoid

covering large portions of the see-through package. However, the

proponents of the measure were not cognizant of the circumstances.

They would have required hand printing on some very small labels

which, in addition to being unreadable from a practical standpoint,

actually confict with the type printing requirements under the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act. The Lesson To Be Learned.

From these examples, we can all learn that many years of experience

in developing our excellent model laws and regulations, and designing

many modern weighing and measuring devices can be lost to modern

commerce and industry, and to our improved weights and measures enforcement if we don't have good, fast intelligence about proposed

Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. For the most part the

proponents of such consumer legislation are reasonable and practical

people who will adjust their propositions to fit the circumstances, if they have proper guidance in the early stages.

This is a challenge to us all to be alert to developments in legislative

bodies and among other agencies of Grovernment. And, we must all be

prepared to be of guiding assistance in the early stages of the development of legislation. If you need help, I'm sure it can be arranged for

through your State weights and measures department and the National

Bureau of Standards. If it concerns scales and weighing, we at the

Scale Manufacturers Association will try to be of assistance when

we can. The main thing concerning these problems which may face us for a long time ahead is to get on top of the situation early and do everything that can be done to avoid impractical requirements affecting

weights and measures. 96
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE MEASUREMENT

CENTER

by Matt Jennings, Director^ Division of Marketing^ Tennessee

Department of Agi'iculture

It was, indeed, a surprise to me to be selected

by the program committee of this Conference

to present a discussion on the subject, "The Development of a State Measurement Center."

Possibly it was because we, in Tennessee, had to begin from scratch and had to scratch for what we now have. Many other States, no doubt, have

been more fortunate.

Our weights and measures laboratory was

developed under the most adverse circumstances,

yet it is now meets the requirements of the new

State Standards Program as authorized by Congress. We were not in

position to award a contract of $70,000.00 or more to construct a specially designed building. It is my wish to congratulate the States who

have been or are in that position. We are, certainly, proud of our

weights and measures laboratory and, constructionwise by area and

finish, you may have or plan to have facilities much more elaborate

than we now have. But, we are confident we can provide the accuracy

of information required on the calibration certificate. In laboratory

work, it is the end results that count.

It was necessary that we begin with an existing building. It was

originally a twenty by thiry-foot farm blacksmith shop with a ten- foot porch. Fortunately, this blacksmith shop was ideally located

separate and apart from other remodeled or newly constructed State

office buildings and free from the vibration of heavy traffic. The shop was remodeled by redesigning the interior construction, removing

all resemblance of a blacksmith shop.

This was four years prior to the adoption of the new State Standards Program. We purchased a Russell balance and other balances

of smaller capacity and were equipped to calibrate certain denominations of mass standards. We also closed in the porch, converting this area into needed office space. We transferred all weights and measures

work, including office records and supervision of the program, to this

building. The combined space met the minimum requirements under

t]i^ new State Standards Program but it was our desire to exceed the

minimum and have more adequate facilities. Therefore, this building

W3,s completely remodeled, enlarged to double in size and redesigned

as to floor plan to afford more convenience of operation. In the process

of rebuilding, we solicited technical assistance from the Office of

97
Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, and received

most excellent counsel and guidance in the development of our

laboratory.

As you may know, we were included among the first ten States to receive new standards and equipment under the new State Standards

Program. Our laboratory is now complete with new standards received,

new instruments installed, and basic training received in their use. It is not my desire or intention to infer that our new laboratory or its operation should receive recognition as a model, because we know

that we must keep struggling in order to keep pace with some of our

colleagues. However, our experiences in developing a State measure- ment center and in operating it to date may be of some benefit to those

States who have developed such facilities and should be of benefit to those States who have yet to qualify.

It is difficult to include, within the time allotted for this presentation,

all the phases which led to the establishment of our laboratory. But, I

will try to be concise. In presenting this subject, it seems appropriate

to consider the phases of "How," "Wlio," and "Why"—how it was

developed ; who supported the movement ; and why it was established.

Our laboratory, as it stands today, is the result of a long-range plan

(figure 1). We have been engaged in weights and measures activity

only twenty years. In 1948, it was my recommendation to our Commissioner of Agriculture to activate our Weights and Measures Law

of 1913. As Shakespeare once said, "The law hath not been dead,

thought it hath slept." New activity was inaugurated, but limited at that time to the testing of large scales. In 1958, after ten years of at- tending the weights and measures school of experience, it was my

recommendation to Commissioner Ellington and Assistant Commissioner Moss that efforts be made to enact the Model Law. I am mentioning the Model Law because it played such an important part in formulating plans for our laboratory and in its later development.

Shortly thereafter. Commissioner Ellington was elected Governor

and Assistant Commissioner Moss was appointed Commissioner of

Agriculture. After inauguration of the Governor, another conference was held with the Governor and Commissioner during which we dis- cussed the necessity of enacting the Model Law. It was deemed advisable to delay for two years our attempt to enact the Law for two

reasons: (1) We needed a general assembly more favorable and receptive to the need for this legislation, and (2) we needed to step up our

weights and measures activity and expand our program in order

to present and prove the necessity of its enactment. The result—the

Model Law was enacted in 1961 without a dissenting vote. Weights and

measures activity, as we know it today, really began in Tennessee in

1961, when the Model Law was enacted. It serves as the basis for our

activities and program.

98
Figure 1

Hydraulic crane. With an overhead track in the laboratory, the weight can

only de carried in the direction of the track. With this crane, the weight can

he carried anywhere there is floor space.

99
Two Mettle?^ balances. Two balances of 100 gram and 1000 gram capacities, on

a vibrationless table.

100
As our program expanded, the need for establishing a laboratory

became more apparent. Our activity was becoming more recognized

which directed more requests from the public for additional services.

This was in line with the expansion of the Department of Agriculture's

activities and facilities. Governor Ellington visualized the potential of a certain 207-acre

tract of land, known as "Brentwood Hall Farm," on which the resi- dence was a replica of the Hermitage. This farm was obtained by the

State and developed into the Ellington Agricultural Center, the

present home of the Department of Agriculture.

Governor Ellington and Commissioner Moss have maintained an

intense interest in the weights and measures program, recognized its importance and have watched its progress in Tennessee and elsewhere,

step by step. It was their continued interest and financial support that

made it possible for our laboratory to be built. We have been most

fortunate in Tennessee to have leaders like Governor Ellington and

Commissioner Moss to support the vveights and measures program.

A good weights and measures program and laboratory go hand in

hand. But the development of a laboratory should be preceded by a well-administered program. As you know, it takes money to build a laboratory. In your plans for developing a laboratory or measure- ment center, may I offer this suggestion—do not start at the tail end

by saying we need so much money for a laboratory because we want to do something. It is essential first to develop the proper program and

administer the program in such effective manner as to present its value

convincingly to the proper authorities within your State; then the

money will become available. Availability of finance is more certain

if we have a sound program in need of funds for operation and expansion than if we merely request funds with no program. The wells of

finance can continue to flow only when properly fed with a needed

purpose or proven needs.

Why is a modern weights and measures laboratory needed in a

State? The laboratory and weights and measures program complement each other. The effectiveness of each is limited or restricted to the degree of benefit afforded by the other. A State has the statutory

obligation to regulate the measurement of goods and services bought

and sold within the State. Since measurement control is essential in

all trade, buyers, sellr.rs, producers, and manufacturers of commodities

must know that their products meet certain measurement requirements.

Therefore, the State has the fundamental obligation to supply to this

group certain specific quantitative and measurement information. The

fulfillment of these two obligations requires excellence in the administration and enforcement program, reference standards and laboratory

facilities. XOl
In the development of a State measurement center, there is another

important phase and certainly a problem. After the construction of

the laboratory building has been completed, new instruments installed,

and new standards received, all of which is required in the modern

laboratory, it really remains incomplete. The value of the laboratory

to the program, State, and public, and the success of its operation are enhanced by the employment of qualified laboratory personnel. In my

opinion, the person in charge should, at least, have the following five qualifications: (1) Suitable educational background ; (2) clear understanding of requirements ; (3) accuracy in performance; (4) dedication to the job; and (5) ability to speak the weights and measures

language.

We will continue to strive for improvement as our program and

laboratory provide the foundation for our future in the weights and

measures field of service to our public.

(Follawing Mr. Jenning's address were the reports of tlae Conference

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, Nomination Committee,

Committee on Laws and Regulations, Auditing Committee, and Treasurer. At the conclusion of the committee reports. Chairman Morgan pre- sented the gavel to the incoming 54th National Conference Chairman,

S. H. Christie, Jr., of New Jersey. The benediction was then delivered by

the Conference Chaplain, Rev. R. W. Searles. Thereupon, the 53d National

Conference on Weights and Measures was adjourned, sine die. )

102
AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1968

(D. E. KoNSOER, Vice Chairman^ Presiding)

(Thursday's afternoon session was devoted to reports of the Conference

committees, which can be found beginning below.

)

REPORTS OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Presented by C. C. Morgan, Chairman^ City Sealer of Weights and

Measures^ Gary^ Indiana

(Tuesday, June 18, 1968)

The Executive Committee of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures met in open session on Monday, June 17, 1968, at

8 :30 a.m. Conference dates and locations were reviewed and discussed. The

Committee was reminded that there was a conflict this year with the

annual meeting of the Association of Food and Drug Officials of the

United States and that future Conferences should be so scheduled as

to avoid such conflicts. (The Executive Secretary has been informed

by AFDOUS officers that that organization will hold to a regular

schedule of meeting during the third full week in June.)

A discussion ensued concerning the program schedule for future

Conferences. It was the consensus that the meetings and events as scheduled for this year's Conference were to be recommended.

A discussion of the possibility of including in future Conferences

formal exhibits such as were presented during the 50th Anniversary

Conference brought out the view that exhibits at some future date were

to be recommended but that regular annual exhibits could not be

contemplated because of the obviously high expense to exhibitors.

The question was brought up as to the advisability of planning

Conferences outside of Washington on a regular or irregular schedule.

Although the delegates who voiced their views during the open session

seemed to agree that an occasional Conference outside Washington

provided advantages, no consensus developed as to an appropriate

frequency for such scheduling.

103
After considerable discussion regarding means and methods by

which associate members of the Conference might participate more

vigorously in the business affairs of the Conference, it was recom- mended that the Organization and Procedure of the Conference be

amended so as to provide for a Standing Committee on Associate

Member Coordination. (Section 10 of the Organization and Procedure

reads "Proposals for changes in organization or procedure of the

Conference are not acted upon until the meeting of the Conference

following the meeting at which such proposal is made.")

The Executive Committee, therefore, proposes that the Organization

and Procedure be amended by including under the subsection titled

Standing committees^ of Section 5, appropriate reference to a Committee on Associate Member Coordination, and by inserting at the

end of Section 7 the following language

:

Committee on Associate Member Coordination.—The Committee on Associate Member Coordination annually presents

a report for Conference action. Its mission is to provide

coordination and participation of associate members in all affairs of the Conference, including the development, where

appropriate, of associate member recommendations and associate member consensus with respect to matters before the

Conference, associate member participation in business and

social affairs, and the promotion of associate member attend- ance at Conferences.

It is the view of the Executive Committee that the Conference

would benefit from a larger attendance and a more active participation on the part of the delegates at the Open Meeting of the Executive

Committee. This is the only opportunity of the delegates, including

both members and associate members, to present and discuss their

views on the planning of all details of future Conferences.

C. C. Morgan, Chairman M. K. Dettler

IST. Berryman K. G. Hayden

J. To Daniell N. Kalechman"

D. E, KoNSOER J. B. McGee

E. T. Williams G\ E. Mattimoe

J. F. True J.C.Mats

R. W. Searles D. I. Offner

L. H. DeGrange a. W. Weidner, Jr. G. L. Delano M. W. Jensen, Secretary

Executive Committee

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the Report

of the Executive Committee was adopted by voice vote.) 104
STATEMENT OF THE INCOMING CONFERENCE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Presented by S. H. Christie, Jr., Chairman^ Deputy State Superintendent^ Division of Weights and Measures^ New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety

(Friday, June 21, 1968)

The Executive Committee for the 64th National Conference, including the newly elected

officers, past chairmen of the Conference, and

chairmen of standing committees, held its breakfast meeting on Friday morning for the

purpose of considering plans for the Conference in 1969 and other matters that fall within

its authority. A summary of matters that were

discussed and those decisions that were reached

follow

:

1. The dates of June 8 through 13, 1969, were

voted for the Sith National Conference.

2. The Sheraton-Park Hotel, Washington, D. C, was again selected

as the site for the Conference.

3. Considerable discussion was devoted to the possibility of holding the 55th Conference in 1970 in some city other than Washington,

D. C. The Executive Secretary was requested to explore this matter

further and be prepared to make recommendations to the Committee

during the 1969 Conference. The Committee agreed that a city in

the western half of the Nation should receive preferential

consideration.

4. The Committee voted its approval for the discontinuance of the

Friday general meeting session. The Executive Secretary was dele- gated the responsibility of planning the program for the 54th Conference, following the usual format of time, events, speakers, and

the like.

5. The registration fee remains unchanged.

6. An allocation of $300 was voted for the Committee on Education

for expenses associated with National Weights and Measures Week

and other committee expenses.

7. The Executive Secretary was authorized to establish an informal

associate membership coordinating committee to study and make

recommendations concerning the needs and interests of the associate

membership of the Conference. It was suggested that a study on the

feasibility of having exhibits at the Conference by the trade and

industry would be an appropriate item for the committee to consider

initially.

330-514—69 8 105
8. Other discussions centered on a variety of items involving the

program and arrangements for the 54th National Conference. Many

helpful suggestions were offered for program topics, speakers and

social events. The Committee expressed its desire to have the Executive Secretary solicit further suggestions from other Conference members to aid in planning details for the Conference in 1969.

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON

LIAISON WITH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Presented by J. H. Lewis, Chiefs Weights and Measures Section^

Department of Agriculture^ Olympia^ Washington

(Tuesday, June 18, 1968)

The mission of the Committee is to represent

the Conference to the Xational Covernment, and

to consider and make recommendations on matters before the Conference, and on matters con- cerning relationships of Conference members

and associate members with the National Govermnent and particularly with the National

Bureau of Standards.

The Committee's attention has been focused on

the relationship of the Conference membership

and the agencies of the Federal Government

responsible for implementation of the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act. The Committee feels that the Conference should take firm action

in this area to make its voice heard.

It is a matter of record that the Federal regulatory agencies, FDA

and FTC, are looking to the States for the enforcement of FPLA.

Repeated assurances have been made to this effect. Despite these assurances, no guidelines have been forthcoming from the agencies concerned, and the States have had little or no voice in the promulgation

of regulations under FPLA, even though the Federal regulatory agencies were invited to participate in the 52 d Conference, at which time

the Model Law was amended to bring it into harmony with FPLA.

Additionally, the Committee has learned that the USDA has

established an Advisory Committee to assist that agency in the implementation of the new Meat Inspection Act. This advisory group has

packaging and labeling requirements under consideration, but to our knowledge has no weights and measures representation, nor has there

been any consultation with weights and measures officials. The Committee recommends that the Office of Weights and Measures

should review all proposed regulations prior to transmission to the

106
States. AH comments regarding such proposals should then be reviewed

by the Committee on Liaison with the National Government and trans- mitted to the appropriate Federal agency so as to insure that the voice

of the Conference receives adequate consideration.

It is the view of the Committee that the Conference's long record of

responsible activity and success in attaining uniformity in the promulgation and implementation of equitable, workable, and enforceable

packaging and labeling requirements should not be ignored. Further,

the Conference affords a convenient mechanism made up of uniquely

qualified individuals to bring about the uniformity mandated by Congress and clearly expressed in Section 9 of the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act. In view of these developments, it is proposed that the Liaison Committee take all necessary steps to inform the several Federal agencies

of the need to work with the National Conference through the Liaison

Committee in order to insure that regulations will be in harmony with

weights and measures principles and thus enforceable by weights and

measures officials. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously adopted that the

Committee request the Resolutions Committee to draft a strongly

worded resolution calling upon the appropriate Federal agencies to consult with the Liaison Committee in promulgating and implementing

any regulations pertaining to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

for the purpose of utilizing the knowledge and experience of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The request has been

made.

A recommendation was received from the floor that such a resolution

receive wide distribution, including appropriate Congressional

committees.

The Committee was asked from the floor to endorse the active participation by the Government of the United States in the International

Organization of Legal Metrology and to communicate this endorsement

to the Department of State. The Committee does endorse such participation and will appropriately pursue the matter upon adoption of this

Report by the Conference.

J. H. Lewis, Chairman

K. C. Allen

R. J. Fahey

E.E.WOLSKI

R. C. Primlet

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

E. A. Yadeltjnd, Staff Assistant

Committee on Liaison with the

National Government

107
(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from tlie floor,

the report of the Committee on Liaison with the National Government was unanimously accepted by voice vote.)

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON

EDUCATION

Presented by W. I. Thootsoj^, County Swperintendent of Weights

and Measures^ Monmouth County^ New Jersey

(Thursday, June 20, 1968)

1. INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Education continues to encourage a multiplicity of interests in the broad

field of weights and measures education. The

Committee is committed to a program of en- couraging the technical training of weights and

measures officials, the education of the general

public on weights and measures matters, developing information for aiding and instructing

the users of weighing and measuring devices,

and assisting with the development of public

relations programs for weights and measures

officials and organizations.

2. FORMAL TECHNICAL EDUCATION

It is very gratifying to note the continued expansion and success now enjoyed by the Measurement Science Course offered by Alfred

State Technical College in N'ew York. The demand for measurement

technicians far exceeds the supply. To remain competitive in the

recruitment of students, some form of financial support for desirable

students must be provided. A Measurement Science Course Scholarship Fund has been established by members of industry and was originally chaired by the energetic Mr. Mack Rapp of Detecto Scale Company. The Conunittee quotes from a recent report from Mr. Rapp

regarding the Fund : "At the ^^'ational Scale Men's Association Annual Technical Conference in St. Louis, an assortment of activities,

spontaneously started, raised about $1,700, the bulk of which was for

the Measurement Science Scholarship Fund. Although we are still a distance from the goal of $100,000, there is no doubt that we are making

excellent progress and there is no question but this sum will be reached."

108
The Conunittee wishes to commend Mr. Rapp, Mr. Gene Fishman,

who has succeeded to the chair, and all other industry officials for

their untiring efforts in raising money for the Scholarship Fund, and

hopes that weights and measures officials and appropriate organizations will give full support to this important and worthwhile project.

3. TECHNICAL TRAINING SCHOOLS

The Committee acknowledges with thanks the outstanding contributions being made by the Office of Weights and Measures, National

Bureau of Standards, evidenced by their continued field training and

technical training schools. Twenty-five individual State technical

training schools were held during the past year, and it is the plan of

the Bureau to continue to offer this important program of training

to any State requesting the service. It is gratifying to note the resumption of the Supervisor Training Schools at the National Bureau of

Standards and to learn that such schools will be offered on an annual

basis in the future. This is indeed a worthwhile project as evidenced by

the fact that 44 State, county, and city supervisors participated in

the most recent school for supervisors held May 6-10, 1968, at the

Bureau's facilities in Gaithersburg.

We hope it is the plan of the Office of Weights and Measures to expand the present Home Study Course to include additional subject

matter pertinent to weights and measures activity. We believe uniformity can be greatly increased through the use of such material.

4. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES HANDBOOK

Your Committee on Education believes that a general information

handbook, for use by weights and measures officials, would be desirable.

Such a handbook could contain among other items: (a) suggestions

for a Home Study Course, (b) an outline of public education techniques, and (c) suggested presentations such as talks and other programs for use in the dissemination of information relating to our work.

The Scale Manufacturer's Association consistently makes available

quantities of excellent public relation material and suggestions which

have been offered for use in such a handbook.

5. NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

Mr. B. A. Pettit, Chief, Weights, Measures and Markets, Washington, D.C., graciously volunteered to chair the Sub-Committee for

the week and acted as the coordinator of nationwide activity.

109
The number of reports received from the participating jurisdictions

has been very disappointing, but judging from those reports received

the "Week" was a success. However, during the Committee's open

meeting, many fine suggestions were offered for consideration by the

subcommittee in its effort to improve the planning, conduct, and re- porting of the Week's activity.

Weights and Measures Week had the complete support and backing

of the National Conference and received immeasurable help from various industries, organizations, and individual business concerns and

particularly the scale industry, who once again made available to the

weights and measures officials large amounts of promotional material.

6. GENERAL INFORMATION BROCHURE

The Conference has been approached by Mrs. Margaret Dana, syndicated columnist, with the suggestion that an appropriate brochure or

leaflet be prepared containing information outlining the purposes and

activities of weights and measures officials and directions as to how

and where to register consumer complaints. This material would be

used by Mrs. Dana and others in answering the many letters received

regarding weights and measures activity. The Committee endorses this

suggestion and the interest in weights and measures activity evidenced

by Mrs. Dana. The Committee will accept an assignment to undertake

the preparation of a meaningful and informative brochure on the

subject of weights and measures enforcement.

The Committee wishes to publicly register its appreciation for the

attendance at and participation in Monday's open meeting and to offer our sincere thanks to all who have cooperated and assisted throughout

the year, particularly during National Weights and Measures Week.

W. I. Thompson, Chairman

L. A. Gkedt

J. I. MoORE

A. D. KosE

B. A. Petttt

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

K. N. Smith, Staff Assistant

Committee on Education

(On motion of the Conunittee Chairman, seconded from the floor,

the Eeport of the Committee on Education was adopted by voice vote.)

110
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Presented by H. D. Robinson, Chairman^ Deputy State Sealer^

Bureau of Weights and Measures^ State of Maine

(Thursday, June 20, 1968)

The Committee on Specifications and Toler- ances submits its report to the 53d National

Conference on Weights and Measures. The

report consists of the Tentative Report,

transmitted during early May as part of the

Conference Announcement, as amended by the

Final Report.

The report represents recommendations of

the Committee that have been formed on the

basis of written and oral comments received

during the year and oral representations made

during the open meeting of the Committee. All recommended "amendments" are to appropriate provisions of the codes of National Bureau

of Standards Handbook 44—3d Edition, Specifications^ Tolerances^

and Other Technical Requirements for Gommercial Weighing and

Measuri/ng Devices,

1. GENERAL CODE

General Application paragraph G-A.l. GOMMERCIAL AND

LAW-ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT.—The Gormnittee recom- mends that subsection (c) of this paragraph he amended hy adding

at the end "or for the collection of statistical information by

government agencies", tJms making the subsection read:

(c) To weighing and measuring equipment in official use for the

enforcement of law or for the collection of statistical information

by government agencies.

For an explanation of this recommendation, see the Scale Code.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) General Specifications paragraph G-SJ. IDENTIFICATION.—

The Southern Weights and Measures Association has recommended

that this paragraph be amended by adding a nonretroactive requirement to the effect that each weighing and measuring device be marked

with a serial number in order that weights and measures officials may

be able officially to identify a particular device. The Committee feels

111
this is a worthwhile suggestion and feels further that no hardship

would result to equipment manufacturers.

The Committee recommends that General SpecifiGations paragraph

G-jSJ. he amended hy adding at the end the following nonretroactive

sentence

:

Each commercial weighing and measuring device, except those

with no moving or electronic component parts (such as weights,

liquid measures, and milk bottles), shall be clearly and permanently marked on an exterior surface with a nonrepetitive serial

number,

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) General User Requirements paragraph G-TJRM.l. INSTALLATION.—A recommendation has been received from the Western

Weights and Measures Association to the effect that this paragraph

be so amended as to require that a device be installed according to in- structions marked on the device instead of, as presently is required,

being installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions,

including any instructions marked on the device. The justification for

the recommendation is that a weights and measures official does not

always have available to him information on the manufacturer's

instructions.

The Committee is of the view that the requirement as presently composed is stronger, and that, since this is a requirement directed to the

user of the device, availability of the manufacturer's instructions is the

responsibility of the user. If the official deems such instructions neces- sary, he can demand that the user obtain these from the manufacturer.

Surely, it is inconceivable that full installation instructions could be

marked on any device. It is the opinion of the Committee tlmt no amendment to the code

is required,

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) General User Requirement paragraph G-UR.2.2. INSTALLATION OF INDICATING OR RECORDING ELEMENT.— 52d

National Conference added to the General Code a User Requirement

as follows

:

G-UR.2.2. INSTALLATION OF INDICATING OR RECOB0^

ING ELEMENT.—A device shall be so installed that an indicating

or recording element is reasonably adjacent to the weighing or measur-- ing element ; otherwise, there shall be means for direct and convenient

communication (oral or visual) between the primary indicating or recording element and the weighing or measuring element.

112
Mr. Lewis of Washington pointed out that it is entirely possible

for an indicating or recording element to be located reasonably adjacent to the weighing or measuring element and yet to be separated

therefrom by an obstruction, even a floor-to-ceiling wall. In order to eliminate any difficulty in interpretation^ the Committee recommends

that this paragraph he amended as follows:

G-UR.2.2. INSTALLATION OF INDICATING OR RECORDING ELEMENT.—A device shall be so installed that there is no

obstruction between a primary indicating or recording element

and the weighing or measuring element ; otherwise, there shall be

convenient means for direct communication, oral or visual, between an individual located at a primary indicating or recording

element and an individual located at the weighing or measuring

element.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. SCALE CODE

General.—The Western Weights and Measures Association recom- mended that a requirement be added to the Scale Code stipulating, for

vehicle and livestock scales, a minimum pit depth of 48 inches. This

matter has been discussed in the Committee and by the Conference

many times. The opinion has prevailed that any minimum pit depth

would be unnecessarily restrictive and would, in certain instances,

prohibit the installation of a desirable scale. The Committee has been informed that the Scale Manufacturers

Association is working on a standard for the installation of vehicle

and livestock scales and that consideration will be given by that

association to the processing of such a standard through the voluntary

product standards program of the National Bureau of Standards.

The Committee commends manufacturers for pursuing this course of

action.

The Committee feels that pit depths according to manufacturer

recommendations are adequate to assure appropriate performance of

large scales and^ thus^ reconwnends no action.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) Application paragraph A.2. WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHEBS AND

AXLE-LOAD /SCALES and User Requirements paragraph UR.3.6,

FOR WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHERS 6>i\^Zr.—Discussions between

officials of the Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Committee Secretary have led to a recommendation

that General Application paragraph G-A.l., Scale Code Application

paragraph A.I., and User Requirements paragraph UR.3.5. be

amended so as to (1) bring under the provisions of the Handbook

113
those wheel-load weighers that are being used by the States for the

purpose of collecting necessary statistical data and (2) require that

vehicles with elements being weighed on wheel-load weighers be in a reasonably level condition at the time of such weighing.

Tlie Committee is convinced that the reasoning for these changes

is sounds and^ accordingly^ recommends that Application paragraph

A.2, he amended to read:

A.2. WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHERS AND AXLE-LOAD

SCALES.—The requirements for wheel-load weighers and axleload scales apply only to such scales in official use for the enforcement of traffic and highway laws or for the collection of statistical information by government agencies.

and that User Requirements paragraph UR.3.6. he amended to read'. UR.3.5. FOR WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHERS ONLY.

UR.3.5.1 USE IN PAIRS.—When wheel-load weighers are to be

regularly used in pairs, both weighers of each such pair shall be

appropriately marked to identify them as weighers intended to be used in combination.

UR.3.5.2. LEVEL CONDITION.—A vehicle, for which either an

axle-load determination or a gross-load determination is being

made utilizing wheel-load weighers, shall be in a reasonably level

position at the time of such determination.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) Specifications paragraph S.2.1.2. BALANCE BALL.—Through

amendment by the 52d National Conference, notification was given

that this specification paragraph would become retroactive as of

July 1, 1975. Thus, this paragraph was amended to read as follows:

S.2.1.2. BALANCE BALL.

Except on cream-test^ moisture-test^

jewelers^ prescription^ prepackaging.^ and checkweighing scales^ a

halance hall or similar device shall not itself he rotatahle unless the

halancing device is automatic in operation or it is enclosed in a cabinet,

[1956] {This specification will hecome retroactive as of July i, 1975,)

The Committee received a communication from the Chairman of the

Scale Subcommittee of Committee No. 14, American Eailway Engineering Association, which claimed that such a deadline, in the

case of scales operated by the railroad industry, would be without

justification in relation to the necessary fiinancial investment. The

Committee does not agree with this position. It feels that the rotatable

114
balance ball does introduce definite possibilities of inaccurate balance

condition and, further, does lend itself to the perpetration of fraud.

Eight years surely is adequate for scale modification that does not re- quire a large investment. The Committee^ therefore^ recommends no amendment with regard to the retroactive date of July i, 1975.

However^ on the hasis of further discussion during the open meeting^ the Committee feels that this paragraph should he clarified^ and

accordingly recommends that paragraph S.2.1.2. he amended to read as follows

:

S.2.1.2. BALANCE BALL.—Except on cream-test, moisture-test,

jewelers, prescription, prepackaging, and checkweighing scales, a

balance "ball" shall not itself be rotatable unless the balancing

device is automatic in operation or it is enclosed in a cabinet. (This

specification will become retroactive as of July 1, 1975.)

(Tlae foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) Scales with Multiple Load-Receiving Elements.—The Toledo Scale

Company, a manufacturer of scales with single indicating elements

coupled to two or more load-receiving elements, suggested the advisability of adding a specification paragraph to the code to require an

interlock that would assure that only one load-receiving element could

be coupled to the indicating element, except when the sum of the loads on all load-receiving elements is desired. The Committee believed this to be a progressive and responsible suggestion and, accordingly, rec- ommended the addition of specifications paragraph S.4.3., reading

as follows:

8.4.3. MULTIPLE LOAD-EECEIVING ELEMENTS.—On a

device with a single indicating element, a single recording element, or

a combination indicating-recording element equipped with two or more load-receiving elements, means shall be provided to prohibit the

activation of more than one load-receiving element except when the

indicating or recording of the sum of the loads on all load-receiving

elements is necessary, and automatic means shall be provided to show

which single load-receiving element is active and in service or that

all load-receiving elements are active and in service.

The Committee received requests from several scale manufacturers

during the open meeting to hold this item in abeyance. On further consideration^ the Committee agrees that action hy this Conference might

well he premature. The Committee has been assured by the manufacturers that they will, without delay, address themselves to the problem

and to such engineering modification as a requirement of this type

might entail. Further, the Committee wishes to express its conviction

that scales that have a single indicating or recording element and that

115
are equipped with more than one load-receiving element located re- motely one from the other do offer the distinct possibility of both

inaccurate results and deliberate misuse.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) Sensitivity Requirements paragraph SR.5. [SENSITIVITY REQUIREMENTS'] FOR CLASS A PRESCRIPTION SCALES

AND JEWELERS SCALES.—Once again recommendations have

been received for the modification of this paragraph by doubling the

SE requirement from 0.1 grain to 0.2 grain. The position is taken that

many knife-edge prescription scales cannot meet the 0.1-grain SRi

requirement.

In its report to the 52d National Conference, the Committee recom- mended that its Secretary undertake a study of this matter and report

to it. A study indicated definitely that certain knife-edge balances can- not meet the present requirement and also that prescription scales are infrequently used today, with such use normally bemg quite

critical. Smce there is an adequate supply of prescription scales that

will meet this requirement, the Committee sees no justification for

additional leniency.

No amendment is recommended,

(Ttie foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) User Requirements paragraph UR.M, PROTECTION AGAINST

WIND AND WEATHER EFFECTS.—Mr. John Daniell, the City

of Detroit, has expressed the view that the limitation of this paragraph

to application only to permanently installed scales is not consistent

with the demand for accurate commercial weighing and has recom- mended that the paragraph be amended so as to require that the indicating elements, the lever system or load cells, and the under side of the

load-receiving elements of all scales be adequately protected against

wind and weather effects. This appeared to be a sound suggestion, and

the Committee accordingly recommended that user requirements paragraph UE.2.3. be amended to read as follows

:

UR.2.3. PROTECTION AGAINST WIND AND WEATHER

EFFECTS.—The indicating elements, the lever system or load cells, and the under side of the load-receiving element of a scale shall be

adequately protected against wind and weather effects. Several weights and measures officials and a number of representatives of scale manufacturers, appearing before the Committee during ; its open meeting, opposed the adoption of this requirement. To provide

116
such protection as seems at this time to be appropriate, the Committee

recommends an amendment to this user requirement and records the

expressed willingness of scale manufacturers to participate in a technical study to determine what further modifications might be desirable.

The Committee^ accordingly^ noio recommends that UR.2.S. he amended

to read as follows

:

UR.2.3. PROTECTION AGAINST WIND AND WEATHER

EFFECTS.—The indicating elements, the lever system or load

cells, and the under side of the load-receiving element of a permanently installed scale, and the indicating elements of a scale not

intended to be permanently installed, shall be adequately protected against wind and weather effects. (The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) User Requirements paragraph UR.2.5. ACCESS TO PIT.—The

Committee has noted what appears to be a technical error in the

language of this paragraph which requires that adequate provision be

made for ready access to a pit of a vehicle, livestock, or animal scale. It seems obvious that such requirement should pertain only to per- manently installed scales. The Committee recommends that the paragraph he amended to read

as follows

:

UR.2.5. ACCESS TO PIT.—Adequate provision shall be made

for ready access to the pit of a permanently installed vehicle, live- stock, or animal scale for purposes of inspection and maintenance.

( The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.

)

TENTATIVE CODE FOR BELT-CONVEYOR SCALES

It is the conviction of the Committee that weights and measures officials and equipment manufacturers and installers have had insufficient experience with this tentative code to recommend either amendments

or its removal from tentative status. Officials should definitely examine

belt-conveyor scales in commercial used and transmit to the Committee

Secretary information on design, installation, use, and performance

in order that this tentative code can be given the type consideration it deserves.

In the meantime^ the Committee recommends that the code remain a

tentative code.

Acknowledgment should be noted of efforts by the Instrument

Society of America and by a group of manufacturers on the West

117
Coast, both of wMch have been devoting time to the development or

perfection of code requirements for belt-conveyor scales. (The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) CODE FOR LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

Commercial use of Totalizer on Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers.—

In its report to the 52d National Conference, the Committee noted its condemnation of the practice of certain petroleum marketers to sell liquid motor fuel as tabulated by the totalizer on a retail motor-fuel

dispenser—a "counter" that was not designed for commercial measure- ment purposes and does not meet the requirements for commercial

liquid-measuring devices.

The Secretary of the Committee has been in consultation with the

Weights and Measures Committee of the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association and, subsequently, has demonstrated to the S&T

Committee a modified totalizer that does meet the requirements for an indicating element of a "wholesale device."

The Committee has been assured that this modified totalizer soon

will be installed on all new retail motor-fuel devices and, as time permits, will replace the existing totalizers on devices in service on which

the totalizer is being used for commercial measurement. This is deemed

to be satisfactory and is evidence of the willingness of the industry to cooperate in the solution a troublesome problem.

The Committee notes specifically that the requirements pertaining

to indicating elements included in the Code for Liquid-Measuring

Devices that are applicable to the totalizers in commercial service are only those that are appropriate for a wholesale device, even though the

totalizer is installed in a "retail device."

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) CODES FOR LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES AND VEHICLE-TANK

METERS

Tolerances.—The petroleum and metering industries reported to the National Conference last year on a comprehensive survey that had

been initiated in an effort to determine meter measurement capability

with respect to currently used testing equipment and testing procedures.

That survey has continued and has identified certain specific issues

that will require substantial further exploration. These include a

specific identification of "tolerances" as these relate to meter testing

together with identification of factors that affect tolerances; a dis- crimination of the several tolerances appropriate for metering systems

118
and a determination as to the application of each ; the design, calibration, and maintenance of meter provers ; and the effect of both product

and ambient temperatures on meter proving.

The Committee is of the view that it is to the advantage of meter

users and their customers that this study continue. It has been assured

that staff members of the Office of Weights and Measures will participate as appropriate and that the Committee members will be kept

fully informed.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.

)

PROPOSED CODE FOR LIQUID-FERTILIZER LIQUID-MEASURING

DEVICES

The communication received by the Committee from the Southern

Weights and Measures Association included a recommendation that a code should be added to the Handbook to cover "the various types of

meters and applicator tanks used in the sale of liquid-fertilizer."

As has been reported to the Conference on numerous occasions, the

Office of Weights and Measures developed a number of years ago a

special prover designed for the testing of liquid-fertilizer meters. The States have been made aware of the existence of this prover and of

the desire of the staff of the Office of Weights and Measures to locate

fertilizer meters in commercial service in order that experience may be

obtained in the use of the equipment, techniques may be refined, and

requirements for a code may be identified. To date practically no re- quests from the States have been received.

A survey was made as to statutory requirements among the States. This survey identified many State laws that required the sale of

fertilizer by weight and thus prohibit accurate use of liquid meters

in commercial sale of the product. (The introduction of conversion

factors based on unknown densities surely should be discouraged by

weights and measures officials.)

The Gorrumittee wishes to make it quite clear that its recommendation is that fertilizer im, dry form should he sold hy weight and that^ when fertilizer in liquid form is sold in terms of liquid measure^

accurate liquid-metering systems should he used. Liquid meters should

not indicate "values in terms of weight u/nits, and values in terms of

liquid v/nits should not he converted to weight umits on the hasis of a

''^reported^'' conversion factor.

When the legal and appropriate use of liquid-measuring devices in

the sale of liquid-fertilizer has reached sufficient magnitude to warrant

the development of a code, the Committee will give such development

its full attention.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.

)

119
CODE FOR VEHICLE TANKS USED AS MEASURES

Specifications paragraph 8.S. DESIGN OF COMPAETMENT

DISCHAEGE MANIFOLD.—This nonretroactive paragraph,

adopted in 1960, reads as follows

:

S.3. DESIGN OF COMPAETMENT DISCHAEGE MANIFOLD.

When two or more compartments discharge through a com- mon manifold or other single outlet^ effective means shall he provided

to insure

(a) that liqudd can flow through the delivery line leading from only one compartment at one time and cannot flow from one com- partment into another compartment^ or

' (&) that all compartments will discharge simultaneously.

If the discharge valves from two or mx)re compartments are automatically so controlled that they can only he operated together^ thus effec- tively connecting these compartments each to the other^ such compartments shall^ for purposes of this paragraph^ he construed to he one compartment. [1960]

The Southern Weights and Measures Association has recommended

that when liquid is being delivered from a single compartment, flow

of liquid from one compartment to another is automatically prevented.

After a thorough discussion on this matter, the Committee feels that

such a requirement is worthy of serious consideration by the

Conference.

The Committee recommends that Speciflcations paragraph S.3. he

amended to read as follows:

S.3. DESIGN OF COMPARTMENT DISCHARGE MANIFOLD.

When two or more compartments discharge through a common manifold or other single outlet, effective means shall he

provided to insure

(a) that liquid can flow through the delivery line leading from

only one compartment at one time and that flow of liquid

from one compartment to another is automatically prevented, or

(b) that all compartments will discharge simultaneously.

If the discharge valves from two or more compartments are automatically so controlled that they can only he operated together,

thus effectively connecting these compartments each to the other,

such compartments shall, for purposes of this paragraph, he con- strued to he one compartment, [1960]

["Automatic provision" in (a) adopted 1968.J

• (The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) 120
CODE FOR MEASURE-CONTAINERS

SpecifiGmtions paragraph 84-2, [MAKKING] GAPAOITY

STATEMENT.—It is probable that specifications paragraphs S.4.2,,

S.4.2.I., and S.4.2.2. will require amendment to assure full compatibility with the regulations issued under the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act of 1966. This matter is being explored with appropriate Federal

agencies by the Committee, and the Committee has no recommendations to make at this time.

( The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.

)

CODE FOR GRADUATES

In its report to the 52d National Conference, the Committee noted

(1) the plan of the Conference that each existing nonretroactive re- quirement be rechecked after it has been effective for 10 years to determine the appropriateness of changing this requirement to a retroactive

status and (2) that there are 5 specifications paragraphs in the Code

for Graduates with effective dates of 1956. The Committee Secretary

has studied this matter and is of the opinion that all of these paragraphs should become retroactive as of July 1, 1970.

Accordingly^ the Committee recommends that Specifications paragraphs S.l. UNITS, S£. INITIAL INTERVAL, S.3. SHAPE,

S.7.2. ON A SINGLE-SCALE GRADUATE, and S.8. BASIS OF

GRADUATION he amended hy adding at the end of each paragraph

"(This specification will become retroactive as of July 1, 1970.)"

( Thie foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.

)

CODE FOR FABRIC-MEASURING DEVICES

Specifications paragraph S2.1.3. CLEAR INTERVAL BETWEEN GRADUATIONS,—St2.fi members of the Office of Weights

and Measures have been working with the principal manufacturer of

fabric-measuring devices during the past year in an effort to facilitate

the production of more useful and more versatile machinery. During

this work, it became apparent that the requirement in this paragraph

for at least 11/16-inch clear interval between 1/8-yard graduations is unnecessary and unrealistic. In no other code is there a requirement

for such a clear interval. (History seems to indicate that this dimension originated from a dimension of an early model of a faJbric-measuring device.)

The Committee recommends that Specifications paragraph S.2.1,3,

be amended to read

330-514—«9 9 121
S^.1.3. CLEAR INTERVAL BETWEEN GRADUATIONS.—

The clear interval between graduations shall be at least Yi inch

for l^-yard graduations, and Vs inch for 1-inch graduations.

( The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.

)

CODE FOR CORDAGE-MEASURING DEVICES

A manufacturer of wire and cordage-measuring devices has sug- gested that the Code for Cordage-Measuring Devices needs revision in

at least three particulars: (1) The code should require that a wire or cordage-measuring device have marked clearly thereon limitations as

to its use, particularly with respect to the types of cordage, rope, wire, or cable that can be accurately measured with it, (2) the code should

stipulate that a device be tested with the materials it sets itself forth

as being capable of measuring accurately and not be tested with a

steel tape, and (3) the tolerances set forth in the code are unreasonably

small.

As a result of this recommendation, the Office of Weights and Measures has initiated a study of cordage-measuring devices. Eight wire

and/or cordage-measuring devices submitted by three suppliers are being used in the study. None of the devices complies fully with the

Cordage-Measuring Device Code requirements as presented in Handbook 44. The most serious violation in all devices examined was in

relation to Specifications paragraph S.2.3., which reads:

S.2.3. RETUEN TO ZERO,—Primary indicating elements shall be readily returnable to a definite zero indication. Means shall be provided to prevent the return of the indicating elements beyond their correct zero position.

Requirements covering graduations and indicators were also not

fully complied with by these devices.

Another meter just recently has been received that the manufacturer claims meets the requirements of S.2.3. This will be evaluated.

A group of 16 materials (12 wire or cable and 4 cordage), in addition to a steel tape (%-inch wide, 100 feet intaglio figures and graduations) , are being used to evaluate the devices. It has been noted that a meter that does not have a feed-in guide

or tube several inches removed from the rollers but in the same horizontal plane can be made to over-register if the wire or cordage is held

above the plane or under-register if held below the plane.

The Committee recommends no action with respect to this code at

this time and will await the final outcome of the investigation hy the

122
1 Offhce of Weights and Measures hefore analyzing the code for needed

revision,

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) CODE FOR ODOMETERS

The Committee is aware that under Application paragraph A.2.

of this code, cargo vehicles (trucks) are not covered and that the

Conference has been kept aware of any progress in development of

requirements for such vehicles. The Committee Secretary has asked

the manufacturers of trucks for a report on efforts in the field of truck

vehicle accuracy and for a schedule as to when the study now going on will be completed. Since the Committee has received no concrete information, it has no recommendation to make at this time.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) Once again the Committee is impressed and gratified by the willing- ness of weights and measures officials and representatives of business

and industry to give of their time in matters under consideration by

the Committee.

Mr. McCarthy of Boston was able to attend the interim meeting of

the Committee in Washington and contributed greatly through letter communications. He unfortunately was unable to attend and participate in this 53d National Conference. It is exceedingly important that

members of standing committees of the Conference be at the Conference and provide the benefit that their attendance and counsel brings

to weights and measures administration generally.

H. D. Robinson, Chairman

J. F. McCarthy

R. Rebuito

D. E. KONSOER

R. L. Thompson

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

H. F. WoLLiN, Staff Assistant

Committee on Specifications

and Tolerances

(Mr. Robinson moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the Report of the Conference Committee on Specifications and Tolerances was

adopted by the Conference by voice vote.

)

(On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the Confer- ence by voice vote authorized the National Bureau of Standards to make any ap- propriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, so long as

the principles thus adopted are strictly adhered to.

)

123
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Presented by W. A. Kerlin, Chiefs Bureau of Weights and Measures^

Department of Agriculture^ State of California

(Thursday, June 20, 1968)

The Conimittee on Laws and Regulations

submits its report to the 53d National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report consists of the Tentative Report as amended by

the Final Report and as further amended from

the floor during presentation of the Final

Report to the Conference.

The Conference Committee on Laws and

Regulations feels that this Report deals with some of the most complicated and most important issues ever presented by it to the National Conference and, therefore, urges all weights and measures

officials to study its contents carefully.

1. THE MODEL REGULATION PERTAINING TO PACKAGES

SEG, 1. MEANINGS OF TERMS (P) .—Subsection 9 of Section

1 of the Model Law defines "consumer package" or "package of con- sumer commodity" in terms that are found in the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act of 1966. This definition includes, as its last clause,

"and which usually is consumed or expended in the course of such

consumption or use." The Committee can forsee many delicate interpretations of this language and sees no advantage in retaining it in

the Model Law, since a consumer package or package of consumer commodity obviously is one that is sold through retail sales agencies,

etc. Accordingly, the Committee recommiends the deletion of the la^t clause of this definition^ which deletion will make subsection 9 of

Section 1 of the Model Law read

:

(9) A "consumer package," or "package of consumer commodity," shall be construed to mean a commodity in package form

that is customarily produced or distributed for sale through retail

sales agencies or instrumentalities for consumption by individuals, or use by individuals for the purposes of personal care or in

the performance of services ordinarily rendered in or about the

household or in connection with personal possessions.

(The foregoing amendment was adopted unanimously by voice vote.) 124
SEC, 2. SYSTEMS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—The

Committee is concerned that the present language of this section,

which reads in part, "The system of weights and measures in cus- tomary use in the United States and the metric system of weights and

measures are jointly recognized, and one or the other of these systems

shall be used for all commercial purposes . . .", might be interpreted

as implying exclusivity; whereas the labeling of packages in both

systems is to be encouraged. The Committee, therefore, recommends

that the first sentence of Section 2 he amended to read:

SEC. 2. SYSTEMS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—The

system of weights and measures in customary use in the United

States and the metric system of weights and measures are jointly

recognized, and either one or both of these systems shall be used

for all commercial purposes in the State of . (The foregoing amendment was adopted unanimously by voice vote.) SEC. 29. [METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES'] : ADVERTISING PACKAGES FOR SALE.—The regulations issued by the

Food and Drug Administration and by the Federal Trade Commission

pursuant to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, as well as the Model

Eegulation Pertaining to Packages recommended later in this tentative report, require that certain packages of consumer commodities be

labeled in terms of two units of weight or measure (for example, packages of one pound or more and less than four pounds and labeled in

weight units must have their contents declared both in ounces and in

pounds) . It is the opinion of the Committee that such dual declarations of quantity are unnecessary in advertisements. Accordingly, the

Committee recommends that Section 29 of the Model Lam he amended

to read:

SEC. 29. [METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES] : ADVERTISING PACKAGES FOR SALE.—Whenever a commodity in

package form is advertised in any manner and the retail price of

the package is stated in the advertisement, there shall be closely

and conspicuously associated with such statement of price a declaration of the basic quantity of contents of the package as is re- quired by law or regulation to appear on the package : Provided,

That where the law or regulation requires a dual declaration of net

quantity to appear on the package, only the declaration that sets forth the quantity in terms of the smaller unit of weight or measure (the declaration that is required to appear first and without parentheses on the package) need appear in the advertisement

:

And provided further. That there shall not be included as part

125
of the declaration required under this section such qualifying

terms as "when packed," "minimum," "not less than," or any other

terms of similar import, nor any term qualifying a unit of weight,

measure, or count (for example, "jumbo," "giant," "full," and the

like) that tends to exaggerate the amount of commodity in the

package.

(The foregoing amendment was adopted unanimously by voice vote.) SEC. 35, FLUID DAIRY PRODUCTS.—Th& Committee has

been urged by producers of a 10-quart plastic dispenser for milk to amend this section of the Model Law so as to permit the sale of a 10-

quart unit. Two specific and persuasive points have been made : (1) The

10-quart dispenser has found acceptance in approximately 40 States,

and (2) the 10-quart dispenser is so designed as to make full and

efficient use of existing milk bottle cases. The Committee is seriously concerned that so many State jurisdictions either have brought about amendments in conflict with the Model

Law or have permitted the sale of an item in conflict with law. It is the

firm conviction of the Committee that weights and measures officials throughout the United States should guard zealously against en- croachment on standard sizes and that industry representatives should

bring to the Conference, and not to the individual States, their re- quests with respect to additional sizes. Additional representations were made to the Committee subsequent

to the issuance of the Tentative Eeport and during its open meeting

as to the need and justification for the inclusion of a 6-quart container

for fluid dairy products. The Committee cannot recommend such an

inclusion. As was declared in its report to the 52d Conference and in its Tentative Report to this Conference, the Committee takes the position

that further extension of the quantities in which fluid dairy products

are sold would be in direct contradiction to the will of the Congress

and of this Conference with respect to proliferation of quantities in

which this product is offered for sale. Accordingly, the Committee reccmumends that Section S5 he amended

to read:

SEC. 35. FLUID DAIRY PRODUCTS.—All fluid dairy products,

including but not limited to whole milk, skimmed milk, cultured milk,

sweet cream, sour cream, and buttermilk, shall be packaged for retail sale only in units of 1 gill, % liquid pint, 10 fluid ounces, 1 liquid

pint, 1 liquid quart, 14 gallon, 1 gallon, 2 gallons, 2% gallons, or multiples of 1 gallon : Provided^ That packages in units of less than

1 gill shall be permitted.

126
DISCUSSION ON SECTION 35 Mr. Meek, Indiana : I would like to make a motion to further amend

Section 35 so as to include, in addition to a 10-quart, or 2i^-gallon,

' size, a 6-quart, or 1%-gallon, size. (Mr. Meek's motion was seconded after some discussion supporting the motion

;

a voice vote was called for. The voice vote favored the motion to include a 6-quart

: container as one of the prescribed units in Section 35.

)

Vice Chairman Konsoer: Section 35 is now proposed as follows:

SEC. 35. FLUID DAIRY PRODUCTS.—All fluid dairy products,

including but not limited to whole milk, skimmed milk, cultured

milk, sweet cream, sour cream, and buttermilk, shall be packaged

for retail sale only in units of 1 gill, Vi liquid pint, 10 fluid ounces,

1 liquid pint, 1 liquid quart, Vi gallon, 1 gallon, V/i gallons, 2 gallons, 2 J/2 gallons, or multiples of 1 gallon: Provided, That packages in units of less than 1 gill shall be permitted.

j (Section 35, as further amended, was adopted by voice vote,.)

I 8EG. 36. FLO VR, CORN MEAL, AND HOMINY GRITS.—Th^

Committee has been aware that the smallest prescribed unit listed in

j this section (3 pounds) actually is no longer produced, while a two-

' pound size is standard. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that

Section 36 of the Model Law he amended to read as follows:

SEC. 36. FLOUR, CORN MEAL, AND HOMINY GRITS.—

When in package form, and when packed, kept, offered, or exposed

for sale or sold, wheat flour, whole wheat flour, graham flour, self- rising wheat flour, phosphated wheat flour, bromated flour, en- riched flour, enriched self-rising flour, enriched bromated flour, corn flour, corn meal, and hominy grits shall be packaged only in

units of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100 pounds, avoirdupois weight: Provided,

That packages in units of less than 2 pounds or more than 100

pounds shall be permitted.

( Section 36, as amended, was adopted unanimously by voice vote.

)

SEC. 37. GOAL, GORE, AND GHARGOAL.—T\i^ Southern

Weights and Measures Association has urged the Committee to extend

and expand the coverage of this section to all bulk commodities

delivered by vehicle, since coal, coke, and charcoal represent only a

small proportion of such bulk vehicle deliveries. The Committee is in

agreement with this recommendation and, accordingly, recommends

that Section 37 of the Model Law he amended to read:

SEC. 37. BULK DELIVERIES SOLD IN TERMS OF WEIGHT

AND DELIVERED BY VEHICLE.—When a vehicle delivers to an individlual purchaser a commodity in bulk, and the commodity

H 127
is sold in terms of weight units, the delivery shall be accompanied

by a duplicate delivery ticket with the following information

clearly stated, in ink or other indelible marking equipment and,

in clarity, equal to type or printing : (1) The name and address of

the vendor, (2) the name and address of the purchaser, and (3)

the net weight of the delivery expressed in pounds, and, if the net

weight is derived from determination of gross and tare weights,

such gross and tare weights also shall be stated in terms of

pounds. One of these tickets shall be retained by the vendor, and

the other shall be delivered to the purchaser at the time of delivery

of the commodity, or shall be surrendered, on demand, to the

director, or the deputy director or the inspector, or the sealer or deputy sealer, who, if he desires to retain it as evidence, shall issue a weight slip in lieu thereof for delivery to the purchaser: Provided, That, if the purchaser, himself, carries away his purchase,

the vendor shall be required only to give to the purchaser at the

time of sale a delivery ticket stating the number of pounds of

commodity delivered to him.

( Section 37, as amended, was adopted unanimously by voice vote.

)

SEC. 39, TEXTILE PRODUCTS.—BQ(iVi2,^Q a number of the

requirements in this section, wliich specifies the method of sale of

textile products in package form, are in conflict with the new re- quirements under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, and because

all textile products in package form are now covered by the regulation issued by the Federal Trade Commission (and the Model Package

Eegulation proposed in this Eeport) , the Committee recommends the

deletion of Section 39 of the Model Law and the appropriate renumbering of all succeeding sections.

(The deletion of Section 39 from the Model Law was approved unanimously

by voice vote.

)

2. MODEL REGULATION FOR PEAT AND PEAT MOSS

The Committee now recommends adoption of a Model Eegulation

for Peat and Peat Moss.

MODEL STATE REGULATION FOR PEAT AND PEAT

MOSS

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as set forth in Section

of Chapter of the

statutes of the State of

[cite sections authorizing promulgation of general regulation and

special commodity sections], I,

, State Director

128
of Weights and Measures, hereby adopt and promulgate the fol- lowing regulation

:

j 1. APPLICATION,—This regulation shall apply to packages of

"peat" and "peat moss " which terms shall be used only with

respect to organic matter of geological origin, excluding coal and

lignite, originating principally from dead vegetative remains

through the agency of water in the absence of air and occurring

in a bog, swampland, or marsh, and containing an ash content not

exceeding 25 percent on a dry-weight basis (dried in an oven at

105° C. (221° F.) until no further weight loss can be determined).

2. DECLARATION OF IDENTITY.—The declaration of identity shall positively identify the commodity in the package as peat or peat moss.

3. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY.—The declaration of

quantity shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity; that

is, the quantity in the package exclusive of wrappers and any

other material packaged with such commodity.

4. TERMS: WEIGHT OR CUBIC MEASURE.—The declaration of quantity of peat and peat moss shall be expressed in

weight units or in cubic-measure units.

4.1. WEIGHT UNITS.—Effectiye January 1, 1969, peat and

peat moss sold in terms of weight shall be offered and exposed

for sale only in units of 100 pounds, 70 pounds, 50 pounds, 25

pounds, 10 pounds, or 3 pounds.

4.2. CUBIC-MEASURE UNITS.—Ef£ectiye January 1, 1969,

peat and peat moss sold in terms of cubic measure shall be

offered and exposed for sale only in units of 6, 5.5, 4, 2, 1, 0.7,

0.5, 0.3, or 0.2 cubic feet. If the commodity is labeled in terms of

compressed cubic measurement, the quantity declaration shall

represent the quantity in the compressed state and the quantity

from which the final product was compressed (the latter declaration not exceeding the actual amount of material that can be

recovered).

5. This regulation shall supersede any and all regulations pertaining to the method of sale of peat and peat moss and packages

of peat and peat moss.EFFECTIVE DATE

This regulation shall become effective on . . Given under my hand and the seal of my office in the City of

.

. , , on this —, day of

, A.D. 19

Signed

129
It has become obvious througbout this Conference, as discussion bas

occurred on tbis subject, tbat tbe views of tbe industry are so diverse

tbat tbe Committee and tbe Conference must act only on information

available to it and cannot act in response to a unified industry position.

Tbe recommendation made bere witb respect to mandatory quantities

includes botb tbe 5.5 and 6 cubic feet quantities—^tbe principal poiat

of controversy among industry spokesmen. Tbe Committee desires to place tbe industry on notice tbat unless it can come to tbe Committee

Secretary by January 15, 1969, witb its recommendation between tbese

two quantities, tbis Committee will be forced to make a selection without further counsel from representatives of producers.

DISCUSSION ON ITEM 2 Mr. Copeland, Indiana : I would like to ask tbis Conference bow I, or bow any weights and measures official, can test tbese various sizes in the field on the basis of cubic content. Mr. Kerlin : Mr. Copeland, I think this is a case where, as is true witb other commodities, a test procedure must be worked out by tbe

Office of Weights and Measures.

There are, of course, some commodities that are simply not amenable

to field testing. Tbis is true, for instance, in the case of aerosols, where

quantity checking should be done in tbe laboratory.

{The Model Regulation for Peat and Peat Moss was adopted by voice vote.)

3. METHOD OF SALE OF CALKING COMPOUND, GLAZING COMPOUND,

AND PUTTY

In its report to the 52d National Conference, the Committee recom- mended tbe adoption of a statement tbat represented an interpretation

of tbe Model Package Eegulation. This interpretation would require

that calking compound, glazing compound, and putty be sold iu terms

of weight units. Tbe Committee continued its consideration of this

matter following the Conference, studied a carefully prepared brief

submitted by the National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association,

and heard oral presentations by industry representatives during the

interim meeting. It now becomes quite clear that there exists no panacea

for tbe problem of consumer understanding of these commodities. The

Committee is informed, for example, that, in almost every case, the

lighter the sealant tbe higher tbe quality and the higher the price.

There does not even seem to be sufficient consumer information on

quality levels for particular applications for purposes of sound con- sumer market judgment.

Tbe Committee is convinced that if packages of calking compound,

glazing compound, and putty are required to be labeled in terms of

130
weight, one tendency will be to lead consumers to believe that the

heavier the weight the higher the quality. This, as stated above, is quite

the opposite from the actual situation.

In order to remove this one possible source of consumer confusion

and to facilitate the standardization of packages of these commodities,

the Committee now recommends that calking compoimd^ glazing compound, and putty he sold in terms of units of liquid measure and tliat paxikages of such commodities he labeled in terms of liquid measure. The Committee has been assured by industry representatives that

the industry will now move forward with the development, promotion,

and use of a modern voluntary standard, under the Procedures of the

U.S. Department of Commerce. The standard will include specific

quantities for the various packages; with good distribution between

quantities. The Committee is assured further that the present non- standard cartridges of these sealants will also be standardized with

respect to liquid measure and that the industry will undertake a broad consumer educational program so that consumers may indeed be

sufficiently knowledgeable to exercise purchase judgment.

(After considerable discussion wihich evidenced no unanimity of thought among

those who wished sale of the subject products by weight and those who preferred

other methods, Mr. Greenspan of New York City moved that the matter be

referred back to the Committee on Laws and Regulations for further study.

The motion was seconded and adopted by voice vote.)

4. LIQUID FERTILIZERS

The subject of the metering of liquid fertilizers has received some

attention in past Conferences. The Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, in responding to a request of the Conference, has developed and had fabricated a special device for proving

liquid meters in liquid fertilizer service. The Committee has received

information to the effect that the dispensing of liquid fertilizers through meters is on the definite increase, yet there remain many State

statutory requirements stipulating that all fertilizers be sold on the

weight basis. The practice of measuring liquids through approved liquid metering

systems is to be promoted and supported. The practice of converting

liquid units into weight units must be discouraged because of the gross

inaccuracies that become possible through using arbitrary conversion

factors. The Committee urges State weights and measures officidLs to study

theifp statutes and^ wliere necessary^ to provide leadership in bringing

about amendments that will permit the sale of liquid fertilizers in

terms of umdts of liquid Tneasure. (The foregoing item was adopted unanimously by voice vote.) 131
5. MODEL REGULATION PERTAINING TO PACKAGES

Perhaps nothing has faced the National Conference on Weights and

Measures during recent years that is as controversial or that affects the basic philosophy of weights and measures supervision by the States

and their political subdivisions that is equivalent to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the regulations issued pursuant thereto, and

enforcement of the statute and its regulations. There are those who

take the position that Section 12 of the Act (quoted in the Tentative Report) totally preempts the authority of States, counties, and

cities who differ in any way in their requirements from the requirements issued by the Federal agencies. There are those who take almost an equally strong position in the other direction. The facts are that

Congress seems obviously to have intended that the Federal Government provide the foundation for comprehensive package labeling re- quirements and that the States, under their universally acknowledged

police powers, cannot require less, nor can they institute a requirement

that would create, through compliance with it, violation of Federal

requirements.

The Committee has received strong and well-developed recommendations from the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, which

has provided superb cooperation through recent years, and from

others that the Conference select either one of two courses: (1) the

adoption of a "tentative" regulation or (2) the inclusion in a "final"

regulation of a clause that would automatically adopt exemptions

issued by either of the Federal regulatory agencies. In support of its position, the industry committee pointed out the obvious fact that the

Federal regulations currently are fluid and that the Model Regulation

should remain sufficiently flexible as to respond to changes in the Federal regulation as these are developed.

It is the conviction of the Conference Committee on Laws and Regulations that it cannot avoid the fact that the enactment of the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act with its clearly worded Section 12 has,

in effect, made obsolete the package marking regulation of every

State in the Union. The Committee cannot shirk its responsibility to

this Conference and to the States, counties, and cities represented

here—^the responsibility of recommending a package regulation.

In its Organization and Procedure, the National Conference assigns

to its Executive Committee the responsibility of acting "for the Conference in all routine or emergency situations that may arise." The

proposed regulations, proposed amendments, and proposed exemptions can be transmitted by the Committee Secretary to the members of the

Committee on Laws and Regulations ; a Comimittee consensus can be

developed and recommended to the Conference Executive Committee.

The Executive Committee then can respond in the name of the Conference without delay, and the Executive Secretary can inform aU

X32
States of an Executive Committee recommendation. Thus, in recom- mending for Conference adoption the Model State Packaging and

Labeling Regulation of 1968, the Committee assures the Conference of

its intention to avoid any untoward delays in developing Conference

action in this critical area. The Committee recommends the adoption of the following Model

State Packaging and Labeling Regulation of 1968

:

MODEL STATE PACKAGING AND LABELING

REGULATION OF 1968

1. APPLICATION.—This regulation shall apply to commodities

in package form except those

(a) in inner wrappings not intended to be individually sold to the

consumer,

(b) in auxiliary containers not intended to be sold to the consumer

intact, bearing no printed matter pertaining to any commodity,

and enclosing packages that are individually marked in con- formance with the requirements of this regulation,

(c) in containers used for retail tray pack displays when the

container is not intended to be sold, or

(d) commodities put up in variable weights or sizes for sale intact

and intended to be either weighed or measured at the time

of sale.

2. DEFINITIONS,

2.1. COMMODITY IN PACKAGE FORM.—Th& term "commodity in package form" shall be construed to mean a commodity put up

or packaged in any manner in advance of sale in units suitable for

either wholesale or retail sale. An individual item or lot of any com- modity not in package form as defined in this section, but on which

there is marked a selling price based on an established price per unit

of weight or of measure, shall be construed to be a commodity in

package form.

2.2. CONSUMER PACKAGE; PACKAGE OF CONSUMER

COMMODITY.— "consumer package" or "package of consumer commodity" shall be construed to mean a commodity in package form

that is customarily produced or distributed for sale through retail sales agencies or instrumentalities for consumption by individuals, or

use by individuals for the purposes of personal care or in the per- formance of services ordinarily rendered in or about the household or

in connection with personal possessions.

2.3. NONCONSUMER PACKAGE; PACKAGE OF NONCONSUMER COMMODITY.—A "nonconsumer package" or "package

of nonconsumer commodity" shall be construed to mean any com- modity in package form other than a consumer package, and particu133
larly a package intended solely for industrial or institutional use j, or for wholesale distribution only.

2.4. PACKAGE,—The term "package" shall be construed to mean

any container or wrapper in which any commodity is enclosed for use

in the delivery or display for sale of that commodity, but does not

include shipping containers or wrappings used solely for the trans- portation of any such commodity in bulk or in quantity to manufacturers, processors, or distributors.

2.5. RANDOMPACKAGE,—Th^b term ''random package" shall be

construed to mean a package that is one of a lot^ shipment, or delivery

of packages of the same consumer commodity with varying weights or measures, that is, packages of the same consumer commodity with no

fixed pattern of weight or measure: Provided^ That for purposes of

this regulation^ any package upon which is stated on the principal

display panels in addition to the required quantity declaration^ the

price per vmit of weighty measure^ or cownt^ and the total price of the

pacJeage^ should he deemed to he a ''random pachageP

2.6. LABEL.—^The term "label" shall be construed to mean any written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to, applied to, attached to, blown

into, formed, molded into, embossed on, or appearing upon or adjacent

to a consumer commodity or a package containing any consumer commodity, for purposes of branding, identifying, or giving any information with respect to the commodity or to the contents of the package.

2.7. PERSON.—The term "person" shall be construed to mean both

singular and plural, and shall include any individual, partnership,

firm, company, corporation, association, and society.

2.8. PRINCIPAL DISPLAY PANEL OR PANELS.—The term

"principal display panel or panels" shall be construed to mean that

part, or those parts, of a label that is, or are, so designed as to most

likely be displayed, presented, shown, or examined under normal and

customary conditions of display and purchase. Wherever a principal

display panel appears more than once on a package, all requirements

pertaining to the "principal display panel" shall pertain to all such

"principal display panels."

3. DECLARATION OF IDENTITY.—A declaration of identity

shall appear on the principal display panel and shall positively identify the commodity in the package by its common or usual name, description, generic term, or the like.

4. DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBILITY.—Any package

kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, at any place other than on

the premises where packed shall specify conspicuously on the label of

the package the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or

distributor. The name shall be the actual corporate name, or, when not

incorporated, the name under which the business is conducted. The ad134
dress shall include street address, city, state, and ZIP Code ; however,

the street address may be omitted if this is shown in a current city

directory or telephone directory. The requirement for inclusion of the

ZIP Code shall apply only to labels that have been developed or re- vised after July 1, 1968.

If a person manufactures, packs, or distributes a commodity at a

place other than his principal place of business, the label may state the

principal place of business in lieu of the actual place where the com- modity was manufactured or packed or is to be distributed, unless such

statement would be misleading. Where the commodity is not manufactured by the person whose name appears on the label, the name shall

be qualified by a phrase that reveals the connection such person has

with such commodity, such as "Manufactured for and packed by

"Distributed by _,"

or any other wording of similar import that expresses the facts.

6. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY.

5.1. LARGEST WHOLE Z7y\^/r.—Where this regulation requires

that the quantity declaration be in terms of the largest whole unit,

the declaration shall, with respect to a particular package, be in terms

of the largest whole unit of weight or measure, with any remainder

expressed in

(a) common or decimal fractions of such largest whole unit, or in

(b) the next smaller whole unit, or units, with any further

remainder in terms of common or decimal fractions of the

smallest unit present in the quantity declaration.

5.2. NET QUANTITY.—T\i^ principal display panel of a package

shall bear a declaration of the net quantity of the commodity in the

package exclusive of wrappers and any other material packed with

such commodity : Provided^ That the declaration of quantity on an

aerosol package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity

(including propellant) that will be expelled when the instructions for

use as shown on the container are followed: And provided further^

That the term "net weight" shall be used when stating the net quantity

of contents in terms of weight : And provided further^ That a quantity

declaration may appear on more than one line of print or type.

5.3. TERMS—WEIGHT, LIQUID MEASURE, OR COUNT.—

The declaration of the quantity of a particular coromodity shall be

expressed in such terms of weight, measure, or count, or a combination

of count and weight, measure, or size, as have been firmly established

in general consumer usage and trade custom and as gives accurate and

adequate information as to the quantity of the commodity : Provided^

That if there exists no firmly established general consumer usage and

trade custom with respect to the terms used in expressing such declaration of quantity, the declaration shall be in terms of liquid measure if 135
the commodity is liquid, or in terms of weight if the commodity is solid, semisolid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid : And provided

fv/rther^ That if the commodity is packaged in an aerosol container,

the declaration shall be in terms of weight (including the propellant).

5.3.1. COMBINATION DECLARATION; WEIGHT OR

MEASURE,—A declaration of quantity in terms of weight or measure shall be supplemented by a declaration of the count or size of the

individual units of the commodity, unless a declaration of weight or measure alone is fully informative to the consumer.

5.3.2. COMBINATION DECLARATION; COUNT.—K declaration of quantity in terms of count shall be supplemented by a

declaration of the weight, measure, or size of the individual units of

the commodity, or of the total weight or measure of the commodity,

unless a declaration of count alone is fully informative to the consumer.

5.3.3. MULTI-UNIT PACKAGES.—Any package containing more than one individually packaged unit of the same commodity

shall bear on the outside of the package a declaration of

(a) the number of individual units,

(b) the quantity of each individual unit, and

(c) the total quantity of the contents of the multi-unit package:

Provided.) That the requirement for a declaration of the total quantity of contents of a multi-unit package shall be effective

(1) with respect to those labels revised after the effective date

of this regulation, or (2) as of January 1, 1970, whichever

occurs first. DISCUSSION ON SECTION 5.3.3. Mr. Baker : Mr. Chairman, my name is Tom Baker of the National

Soft Drink Association. We took the position initially that we were

opposed to 5.3.3. 1 think we are still opposed to 5.3.3. However, we have said in discussions with the Committee Chairman

and Mr. Jensen that if we were to be given sufficient lead time, we felt we could come into compliance with 5.3.3. The fact that we can comply does not change our basic objection to

this : we much prefer that all of these areas be ironed out between the

different agencies before you come to this position. But if that is not

practical or possible, then with sufficient lead time, we believe we can

live with it. Mr. Moss : Mr. Chairman, I am Tom Moss of the Gerber Product

Company. We are a manufacturer of infant formulas. I have here

a label for nursing bottles filled with formula which indicates the

container would have within it 11 nursing bottles of 4 fluid ounces

each.

136
Although we do not think there is really a need that the mother

know that the 11 nursing bottles of 4 ounces each have a total of M

ounces in them, your January 1, 1970, provision giving us additional

time to comply, certainly goes in the right direction.

Mr. Speer: Gentlemen, my name is Mr. John Speer of the Intl. Assn. of Ice Cream Mfrs. I would like to put on my popsicle hat for

a minute. Each year are sold approximately 12 to 15 million gallons of

ice cream and related products in the form of novelties. Historically, our industry has sold these on a count-quantity basis, for example:

"eight 3% ounce ice cream sandwiches"—without the inclusion of a

total quantity statement. The reason that we feel that a total quantity statement is not re- quired is that the molds used in manufacturing these items are standardized, and have been standardized on the basis of a long ago

agreement with this Conference. It is our feeling that through this

standardization, price comparison is facilitated.

5.3.4. COMBINATION OR VARIETY PACKAGES.—Any

package containing individual units of dissimilar commodities shall

bear on the label of the package a quantity declaration for each unit

:

Provided^ That a combination package that traditionally has been

sold as an individual unit or that contains a commodity that, as en- closed in the package, has been so mixed or joined as to form a smgle

commodity of distinguishable individual identity, shall be exempt

from the requirements of this subsection (5.3.4), and may be labeled

in terms of the net quantity of the entire package.

5.4. UNITS—WEIGHT, MEASURE.—A. declaration of quantity

(a) in units of weight shall be in terms of the avoirdupois pound

or ounce

;

(b) in units of liquid measure shall be in terms of the United States

gallon of 231 cubic inches or liquid-quart, liquid-pint, or fluid- ounce subdivisions of the gallon, and shaU express the volume

at 68° F. (20° C), except in the case of petroleum products,

for which the declaration shall express the volume at 60° F.

(15.6° C), and except also in the case of a commodity that is normally sold and consumed while frozen, for which the declaration shall express the volume at the frozen temperature,

and except also in the case of a commodity that is normally sold

in the refrigerated state, for which the declaration shall express

the volume at 40° F. (4° C.)

;

(c) in units of linear measure shall be in terms of the yard, foot, or inch

;

(d) in units of area measure, shall be in terms of the square yard,

square foot, or square inch;

a3O-514--60 ^10
(e) in Tuiits of dry measure shall be in terms of the United States

bushel of 2,150.42 cubic inches, or peck, dry-quart, and dry-pint

subdivisions of the bushel

;

(f) in units of cubic measure shall be in terms of the cubic yard,

cubic foot, or cubic inch

:

Provided^ That in the case of drugs, in lieu of any requirement to the

contrary, the declaration of quantity may be in terms of a unit of the

metric system of weight or measure : And provided further^ That in

the case of a commodity packed for export shipment, the declaration

of quantity may be in terms of a system of weight or measure in com- mon use in the country to which such shipment is to be exported.

5.4.1. ABBREVIATIONS.—Aiiij of the following abbreviations,

and none other, may be employed in the quantity statement on a commodity or package of commodity

:

avoirdupois avdp quart qt

cubic cu square sq

feet or foot ft weight wt

fluid fl yard yd

gallon gal cubic centimeter cc inch in gram

liquid liq kilogram kg

ounce oz microgram meg

pint pt milligram mg or mgm

pound lb milliliter ml

(There normally are no periods following, nor plural forms of, these

abbreviations. For example, the abbreviation is "oz" for both "ounce"

and "ounces.")

5.5 UNITS WITH TWO OR MORE MEANINGS.—Wk^n the

term "ounce" is employed in a declaration of liquid quantity, the

declaration shall identify the particular meaning of the term by the use of the term "fluid"; however, such distraction may be omitted

when, by association of terms (for example, as in "1 pint 4 ounces"),

the proper meaning is obvious. Whenever the declaration of quantity

is in terms of the dry pint or dry quart, the declaration shall include

the word "dry."

5.6 PRESCRIBED UNITS.

5.6.1. LESS THAN ONE FOOT, ONE SQUARE FOOT, ONE

POUND, OR ONE PINT.—The declaration of quantity shall be

expressed in terms of

(a) in the case of length measure of less than one foot, inches and

fractions of inches

;

(b) in the case of area measure of less than one square foot, square

inches and fractions of square inches

;

(c) in the case of weight or fluid measure of less than one pound or one pint, ounces and fractions of ounces

:

138
Promded^ That the quantity declaration appearing on a random package may be expressed in terms of decimal fractions of the largest appropriate unit, the fraction being carried out to not more than two

decimal places.

5.6.2. FOUR FEET, FOUR SQUARE FEET, FOUR POUNDS,

ONE GALLON, OR MORE.—In the case of

(a) length measure of four feet or more,

(b) area measure of four square feet or more, and

(c) weight or fluid measure of four pounds or more, or one gallon or more,

the declaration of quantity shall be expressed in terms of the largest

whole unit.

5.6.3. WEIGHT OR FLUID MEASURE; DUAL QUANTITY

DECLARATION.—On packages containing one pound or more but

less than four pounds, or one pint or more but less than one gallon,

the declaration shall be expressed in ounces and, in addition, shall be

followed by a declaration, presented in parentheses, in terms of the

largest whole unit : Provided, That the quantity declaration appearing on a random package may be expressed in terms of pounds and decimal fractions of the pound carried out to not more than two decimal

places.

5.6.4. LENGTH MEASURE; DUAL QUANTITY DECLARATION.—On packages containing one foot or more but less than four

feet, the declaration shall be expressed in inches and, in addition, shall

be followed in parentheses by a declaration expressed in terms of the

largest whole unit : Provided, That the quantity declaration appearing on a random package may be expressed in terms of feet and decimal

fractions of the foot carried out to not more than two decimal places.

5.6.5. AREA MEASURE; DUAL QUANTITY DECLARATION.—On packages containing one square foot or more but less than

four square feet, the declaration shall be expressed in square inches

and, in addition, shall be followed in parentheses by a declaration

expressed in terms of the largest whole unit : Provided, That the quantity declaration appearing on a random package may be expressed in

terms of square feet and decimal fractions of the square foot carried

out to not more than two decimal places.

5.6.6. BIDIMENSIGNAL COMMODITIES.—Fov bidimensional

commodities (including roll-type commodities) the quantity declaration shall be expressed,

(a) if less than one square foot, in terms of linear inches and fractions of linear inches

;

(b) if at least one square foot but less than four square feet, in terms

of square inches followed in parentheses by a declaration of both

the length and width, each being in terms of the largest whole

unit : Provided, That

139
(1) no square inch declaration is required for a bidimensional

conunodity of four inches width or less, and

(2) a dimension of less than two feet may be stated in inches

within the parenthetical, and

(3) commodities consisting of usable individual units (except

roll-type commodities with individual usable units created

by perforations, for which see Section 5.6.7. COUNT;

PLY) require a declaration of unit area but not a declaration of total area of all such units

;

(c) if four square feet or more, in terms of square feet followed in

parentheses by a declaration of the length and width in terms

of the largest whole units : Provided^ That

(1) no declaration in square feet is required for a bidimensional commodity with a width of four inches or less, (2) a dimension of less than two feet may be stated in inches

within the parenthetical, and

(3) no declaration in square feet is required for commodities

for which the length and width measurements are critical in terms of end use (such as tablecloths or bedsheets) if such commodities clearly present the length and width

measurements on the label.

5.6.7. COUNT; PLY.—If the commodity is in individually usable

units of one or more components or ply, the quantity declaration shall,

in addition to complying with other applicable quantity declaration

requirements of this regulation, include the number of ply and the

total number of usable units.

Roll-type commodities, when perforated so as to identify individual

usable units, shall not be deemed to be made up of usable units ; however, such roll-type commodities shall be labeled in terms of

(a) total areas measurement and

(b) number of ply,

(c) count of usable units, and

( d) dimensions of a single usable unit.

5.7. EEDUOTION OF FRACTIONS.—Frsictions employed in

declarations of quantity may be either common fractions or decimal

fractions. A common fraction shall be in terms of halves, quarters,

eighths, sixteenths, or thirty-seconds, and shall be reduced to its lowest

terms. A decimal fraction shall not be carried out to more than two

places: Provided, That if there exists, with respect to a particular

commodity, a firmly established general consumer usage and trade

custom contrary to the requirement pertaining to common fractions, as set forth above, for the reduction of a common fraction to its lowest

terms, the declaration may be made in accordance with such usage and

custom: And provided further, That in the case of drugs, a decimal

fraction may be carried out to three places.

140
5.8. SUPPLEMENTARY DECLARATIONS.

5.8.1. SUPPLEMENTARY QUANTITY DECLARATIONS.—

The required quantity declaration may be supplemented by one or more declarations of weight, measure, or count; Provided^ That any

such supplementary declaration shall be accurate ; shall be neither in

larger size type nor more prominently displayed than the required

quantity declaration; shall not be so located as to detract from, or confuse or mislead as to the precise meaning of the required quantity

declaration and any such supplementary statement shall appear at a

location other than on the principal display panel: And ^provided

further^ That a declaration of quantity as set forth in Section 5.3.1. COMBINATION DECLARATION; WEIGHT OR MEASURE

and Section 5.3.2. COMBINATION DECLARATION; COUNT is not regarded as a supplementary statement: And provided fv/rther^

That when additional quantity information is deemed to be of vital concern to the consumer (such as, for example, the number of slices in a package of sliced cheese, dilution directions of a concentrate),

such information may appear on the principal display panel but not

in larger size type than the required quantity declaration.

5.8.2. METRIC SYSTEM DECLARATIONS.—K separate state- ment of the net quantity of contents in terms of the metric system is not regarded as a supplemental statement, and a statement of quantity

in terms of the metric system of weight or measure may also appear on the principal display panel or on other panels.

5.9. CHARACTER OF DECLARATION; AVERAGE.—The av- erage quantity of contents in the packages of a particular lot, shipment, or delivery shall at least equal the declared quantity.

5.10. QUALIFICATION OF DECLARATION PROHIBITED.—In no case shall any declaration of quantity be qualified by

the addition of the words "when packed," "minimum" or "not less than," or any words of similar import, nor shall any unit of weight, measure, or count be qualified by any term (such as "jumbo," "giant,"

"full," or the like) that tends to exaggerate the amount of commodity.

6. PROMINENCE AND PLACEMENT.

6.1. GENERAL.—^All information required to appear on a package

.shall be prominent, definite, and plain, and shall be conspicuous as

to size and style of letters and numbers and as to color of letters and

numbers in contrast to color of background. Any required information

that is either in hand lettering or hand script shall be entirely clear

and equal to printing in legibility. All information required to appear on a package shall also appear on any outside container or wrapper

that is used, unless such container or wrapper is transparent and the

information on the package is easily legible through such outside

container or wrapper (except see Section 1. APPLICATION).

6.1.1. LOCATION.—The declaration or declarations of quantity of

141
the contents of a package shall appear in the bottom 30 percent of

the principal display panel, or panels if there is more than one, and

shall be presented in such a manner as to be generally parallel to the

base on which the package rests as it is designed to be displayed:

Provided^ That on

(a) a principal display panel of five square inches or less, or on

(b) individual units (not intended to be sold separately) of a

multi-unit retail package,

the declaration of quantity need not appear in the bottom 30 percent

of the principal display panel if that declaration satisfies the other

requirements of this regulation: And provided further^ That in the

case of cylindrical containers, the required declarations of identity

and of quality shall appear within that 40 percent of the circumference

which is most likely to be displayed, presented, shown, or examined

under customary conditions of sale : And provided furtJier^ That the

principal display panel of a cosmetic marketed in a "boudoir-type"

container including decorative cosmetic containers of the "cartridge,"

"pill box," "compact," or "pencil" variety, and those with a capacity

of one-fourth ounce or less, may be a tear-away tag or tape affixed to the decorative container and bearing the mandatory label information as required by this regulation.

6.1.2. STYLE OF TYPE OR LETTERING.—TYi^ declaration or

declarations of quantity shall be in such a style of type or lettering as to be boldly, clearly, and conspicuously presented with respect to other type, lettering, or graphic material on the package, except that a declaration of net quantity blown, formed, or molded on a glass or

plastic surface is permissible when all label information is blown,

formed, or molded on the surface.

6.1.3 COLOR CONTRAST.—The declaration or declarations of

quantity shall be in a color that contrasts conspicuously with its background, except that a declaration of net quantity blown, formed, or molded on a glass or plastic surface shall not be required to be presented in a contrasting color if no required label information is on

the surface in a contrasting color.

6.1.4. FREE AREA.—The area surrounding the quantity declaration shall be free of printed information

(a) above and below, by a space equal to at least the height of the

lettering in the declaration, and

(b) to the left and right, by a space equal to twice the width of the

letter "N" of the style and size of type used in the declaration.

6.2 CALCULATION OF AREA OF PRINCIPAL DISPLAY

PANEL OR PANELS FOR PURPOSES OF TYPE SIZE.—The

square-inch area of the principal display panel shall be

(a) in the case of a rectangular container, one or more entire side or sides of which properly can be considered to be the principal

142
di^lay panel or panels, the product of the height times the

width of that side or those sides

;

(b) in the case of a cylindrical or nearly cylindrical container, 40

percent of the product of the height of the container times the

circumference; or

(c) in the case of any other shaped container, 40 percent of the

total surface of the container, unless such container presents an obvious principal display panel (e.g., the top of a triangular or circular package of cheese, or the top of a can of shoe polish)

,

the area shall consist of the entire such surface : Pro'vided^ That

determination of the principal display panel shall exclude tops,

bottoms, flanges at tops and bottoms of cans, and shoulders

and necks of bottles or jars : And provided further^ That for an

individual package affixed to a display card, or for a commodity

and display card together comprising a package, the type size

of the quantity declaration is governed by the dimensions of

the display card.

6.2.1. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF NUMBERS AND LETTERS.—

The height of any letter or number in the required quantity declaration shall be not less than that shown in Table 1 with respect to the

square-inch area of the panel: Provided^ That the height of each

number of a common fraction shall meet one-half the minimum

height standards: And provided further^ That no number or letter shall be more than three times as high as it is wide.

Table 1.

Minimum Height of Numbers and Letters

Square-inch area of principal display panel Minimum height of numbers and letters Minimum height: label information blown,

formed, or molded

into smrface of container

Inch Inch 5 square inches and less Greater than 5 square inches and not greater

than 25 square inches % ri6 Greater than 25 square inches and not

greater than 100 square inches Greater than 100 square inches and not

greater than 400 square inches __ __ __ Greater than 400 square inches __ _ %6

7. EXEMPTIONS.

7.1. NONOONSUMER PACKAGES.—mnconsum^Y packages are exempt from the requirements in this regulation for prominence and

placement, dual quantity declaration, and type size. 143
DISCUSSION ON EXEMPTIONS

Mr. Bennett (Connecticut) : I would like to move that we amend

Section 7 to include an additional exemption. I will read my proposed

amendment.

"Consumer packages are exempt from the requirements of this regulation that have been granted exemptions, under the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act, by those Federal agencies authorized to grant

exemptions."

This language may be inadequate or inaccurate—I leave it to the

Committee's discretion—what I am trying to say is that our final Model

Package Eegulation should contain a clause which would automatically

recognize exemptions issued by Federal agencies. I agree with the Committee's position, that we should have final regulations ; regulations which we want to adopt in Connecticut. But

we do not want to be troubled with exemptions coming up all of the

time.

We feel that States should automatically accept exemptions granted

by the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade

Commission.

Mr. Dunkleberger : Mr. Chairman, my name is Ed Dunkleberger,

Counsel for the National Can Association.

You have heard industry's position regarding automatic adoption of

exemptions, in some detail, both at Monday's Open Meeting and again

today. Our general feeling is, if this automatic adoption approach can be taken, at least it would put the National Conference on record for

saying it believes in uniformity with respect to exemptions, and if there are some States that have a statutory problem in this regard, then

those States can adopt Federal exemptions singularly as they come up. We would hope that the Conference would feel that the ideal step

would be to have Federal exemptions adopted in an automatic manner

in those States where such a thing is permissible.

Mr. Kjerlin : Gentlemen, believe me, the Committee has considered

this long and hard. We discussed it at great length only yesterday. I would just like to point out one thing. By using the procedure that we

have described in the preface to this Model Eegulation, we will be

doing much the same thing as we have been doing for many many,

years in regard to Handbook 44. The procedure is not new; we are simply using a tried and true procedure for a new purpose.

Mr. Jensen : As many State officials here are aware any State can, and many States do, include in their statutes provisions for automatic

adoption of H44 modifications and revisions as they are proposed by

the National Bureau of Standards. If any State is concerned about the

time consumed by administrative action, legal review, or public hear144
ings, such a clause could easily be included in the statute or in a regulation, adopting by citation. This would mean that no further

administrative procedures, beyond the original promulgation, would

be necessary and, most importantly, the control of these matters would

remain in State hands and not in the hands of Federal agencies.

Mr. Offner (St Louis) : While a few of these States have an ex- tremely cumbersome procedure to go through, this is not true in most

States, and I think that most States can live with just exactly what the

Committee proposed. I would suggest, therefore, that the Conference

might adopt the proposal of the Committee and then let those States that have a difficult procedure work it out as will suit their own

situation.

Mr. Bennett: Our General Assembly in Connecticut gave us this

prerogative in our statute, adopting by citation, when they passed

enabling legislation for us to adopt Handbook 44. I would like to see it set up that way for the Model Package Eegulation, but it would be difficult, I think, to get it through the General

Assembly in Connecticut.

Mr. Jensen : I suspect that half of the States in the Union have

adopted H44 amendments, supplements, and revisions through administrative action. It obviously can be done because it already has been

done.

(At this point a standing vote was called for by tlie Chairman, and the pro- posed amendment to automatically adopt Federal exemptions was defeated.

)

7.2. RANDOM PACKAGES.—A. random package bearing a label

conspicuously declaring

( 1

) the net weight, measure, or count

;

(2) the price per pound, per unit of measure, or per count ; and

(3) the total price

shall be exempt from the type size, dual declaration, placement and

free area requirements of this regulation. In the case of a random package of food packed at one place for subsequent sale at another, neither

the price per unit of weight, measure, or count, nor the total selling

price need appear on the package provided the package label includes

both such prices at the time it is offered or exposed for sale at retail. If a random package is labeled with the total selling price, it must also be labeled in terms of the price per unit of weight, measure, or coimt.

7.3. ''PENNY GANDTy—^When individually wrapped pieces of

"penny candy" or individually wrapped pieces of candy of less than

1/^ ounce net weight are shipped or delivered in containers that con- form to the labeling requirements of this regulation, such individual

pieces shall be exempt from such labeling requirements.

145
7.4. INDIVIDUAL /^^i?7/i\^6^/S'.—Individual-serving-size packages of foods containing less than ounce or less than ^2 A^i^i ounce

for use in restaurants, institutions, and passenger carriers, and not

intended for sale at retail, shall be exempt from the required declaration of net quantity of contents specified in this regulation.

7.5. CUTS, PLUGS, AND TWISTS OF TOBACCO AND

CIGARS.—^When individual cuts, plugs, and twists of tobacco and

individual cigars are shipped or delivered in containers that conform

to the labeling requirements of this regulation, such individual cuts, plugs, and twists of tobacco and cigars shall be exempt from such

labeling requirements.

7.6. REUSABLE {RETURNABLE) GLASS CONTAINERS.—

Nothing in this regulation shall be deemed to preclude the continued

use of reusable (returnable) glass containers: Provided, That such

glass containers ordered after the effective date of this regulation shall conform to all requirements of this regulation.

7.7. CONTAINERS STANDARDIZED BY DEVICE REGULATION.—Containers such as milk bottles, lubricating-oil bottles,

and measure-containers, for which standards are established and specifications are set forth in National Bureau of Standards Handbook

44, SpecifiGations, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for

Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices, shall be exempt from

the requirements as set forth in Section 6 of this regulation.

7.8. PACKAGED COMMODITIES WITH LABELING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN FEDERAL Z^TF.—Packages of

meat and meat products, poultry and poultry products, tobacco and

tobacco products, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, prescription

drugs, distilled spirits, and seeds shall be exempt from the requirements set forth in Section 5. DECLAEATION OF QUANTITY, and

Section 6. PEOMINENCE AND PLACEMENT: Provided, That

quantity labeling requirements for such products are specified in

Federal law or regulations issued pursuant to Federal law, so as to follow reasonably sound principles of providing consumer

information.

7.9. FLUID DAIRY PRODUCTS, ICE CREAM, AND SIMILAR FROZEN DESSERTS.—When packages of fluid dairy products and packages of ice cream and similar frozen desserts are standardized by law or regulation of the State of , , such packages shall be exempt from the requirements in this

regulation for

(a) LOCATION (Subsection 6.1.1.) and

(b) DUAL QUANTITY DECLAEATION (Subsection 5.6.3.).

146
8. VARIATIONS TO BE ALLOWED.

8.1 PACKAGING VARIATIONS.

8.1.1. VARIATIONS FROM DECLARED NET QUANTITY,—

Variations from the declared net weight, measure, or count shall be

permitted when caused by unavoidable deviations in weighing,

measuring, or counting the contents of individual packages that occur

in good packaging practice, but such variations shall not be permitted

to such extent that the average of the quantities in the packages of a

particular commodity comprising either a shipment or other delivery

of the commodity, or a lot of the commodity that is kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, is below the quantity stated, and no unreasonable shortage in any package shall be permitted, even though over- ages in other packages in the same shipment, delivery, or lot compensate for such shortage. Variations above the declared quantity

shall not be unreasonably large.

8.1.2 VARIATIONS RESULTING FROM EXPOSURE.—Vd^vi- ations from the declared weight or measure shall be permitted when

caused by ordinary and customary erposure to conditions that nor- mally occur in good distribution practice and that unavoidably result

in change of weight or measure, but only after the commodity is in- troduced into intrastate commerce : Provided^ That the phrase "introduced into intrastate commerce" as used in this paragraph shall be

construed to define the time and the place at which the first sale and

delivery of a package is made within the State, the delivery being

either

(a) directly to the purchaser or to his agent, or

(b) to a conmion carrier for shipment to the purchaser, and this

paragraph shall be constinied as requiring that, so long as a shipment, delivery, or lot of packages of a particular com- modity remains in the posession or under the control of the

packager or the person who introduces the package into

intrastate commerce, exposure variations shall not be

permitted.

8.2 MAGNITUDE OF PERMITTED VARIATIONS.—TYi^

magnitude of variations permitted under paragraphs 8, 8.1, 8.1.1, and

8.1.2. of this regulation shall, in the case of any shipment, delivery, or lot, be determined by the facts in the individual case.

9. REVOCATION OF CONFLICTING REGULATIONS.—A\\

provisions of all orders and regulations heretofore issued on this same

subject that are contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of

this regulation, and specifically ,

. , ^ , are hereby revoked.

147
EFFECTIVE DATE

This regulation shall become effective on __.

Given under my hand and the seal of my office in the City of

. 5 on this , day of , A.D. 19, Signed .

(After having considered, and having adopted by voice vote, Section by Section, the Model Packaging and Labeling Regulation of 1968, the Committee

Chairman moved for adoption of the entire report. The move was seconded, and

the entire report was adopted unanimously by voice vote.

)

In submitting this Export, the Committee on Laws and Regulations acknowledges, with sincere gratitude, the significant contributions made to it throughout its deliberations. It is the Committee's

view that, with a rapid response on the part of the individual States,

the will of the Congress as expressed in the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act of 1966 will be implemented and the interest of the

public—producers, distributors, and consumers—will be fully, effec- tively, and efficiently served.

The Committee assures the weights and measures officials, the industry and business representatives, and the consumers who together make

up the National Conference on Weights and Measures that proposed

modifications and proposed exemptions issued by the Federal agencies

pursuant to their responsibilities under the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act will be given full and expeditious consideration and

that this planned case-by-case consideration is, in its studied view, the

very best approach.

W. A. Kerlin, Ohairmcm

L. Barker

J. H. Wilson

J. F. Lti.ES

G. L. Delano

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

L. J. Chisholm, Staff Assista/nt

E. A. ViGNONE, Attomey-Adviser

Committee on Laws and Regulations

148
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON

NOMINATIONS

Presented by R. E. Meek, Chairman^ Division of Weights and

Measures^ State of Indiana

(Thursday, June 20, 1968)

In line with the requirements of the Organization and Procedure of the Conference, Dr. A. V.

Astin, the Director of the National Bureau of

Standards, is the President of the Conference

and is authorized to designate the Executive

Secretary. All other officers are to be elected by

the vote of the Conference.

We are indebted to the Executive Secretary

for furnishing a list of those who have attended

past Conferences and the number of years each

has served on various committees.

Due consideration was given by this Committee to attendance rec- ords, geographical distribution, and the Conference participation and

interest shown in promoting weights and measures administration of

the various officials. Your Committee nominates for office for the 54th National Conference on Weights and Measures, the following

:

Chairman : S. H. Christie, New Jersey.

Vice Chairmen : W. C. Hughes, Massachusetts ; J. F. Lyles, Virginia

;

K. L. Sharp, Fort Worth, Texas; C. B. Whigham, New Mexico.

Treasurer : C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana.

Chaplain : K. W. Searles, Medina County, Ohio.

Executive Committee : L. A. Gredy, Indiana ; W. H. Naudain, Dela- ware; M. H. Becker, Los Angeles County, California; F. D.

Morgan, Utah; L. B. Frank, Cincinnati, Ohio; P. Grassi, Middletown, Connecticut; J. C. Boyd, Iowa; H. K. Sharp, Oklahoma;

J. A. Hughes, Dearborn, Michigan; K. G. Hayden, District of

Columbia.

R. E. Meek, Chairmam,

V. D. Campbell

S. H. Christie

S.F.Trtje

J. H. Lewis

H. E. Crawtord

Committee on Nominations.

(There being no further nominations from the floor, nominations were declared

closed and the officers nominated by the Committee were elected unanimously by

voice vote.) 149
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON

RESOLUTIONS

Presented by M. L. Kii^law, Chairman^ Supervisor^ Weights and

Measures Division^ State of North Carolvna

(Thursday, June 20, 1968)

Tlie Committee on Resolutions, having met

and considered resolutions submitted to it by

members of this 53d National Conference on Weights and Measures and other resolutions

that originated with members of the Committee,

now submits to this Conference for its consideration and action the following resolutions

that have received the unanimous endorsement

of the Committee.

There are included a number of individual

resolutions which express appreciation for the

arrangements for, conduct of, and participation in the National Conference. In order to expedite the handling of this phase of the Conference program, I request permission of the Chair simply to indicate

those to whom appreciation is to be officially expressed:

1. To Lawrence 0. McQuade, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Domestic and International Business, for Ms constructive contribution to the 53d National Conference on Weights and Measures.

2. To Congressman J. T. Myers for his excellent and enlightening

address to the 53d National Conference Luncheon.

3. To Margaret Dana, Consumer Relations Counsel and author of the syndicated column "Before You Buy," for her attendance at the 53d

National Conference on Weights and Measures and for her excellent spontaneous observations during the Open Forum.

4. To the Director and staff of the National Bureau of Standards for

their tireless efforts to insure a successful Conference in planning and

administering the program and other details so essential to an interesting, educational meeting.

5. To all program speakers and standing committees for their excel- lent presentations and contributions to the success of the Conference.

6. To all State and local governing agencies that have arranged for or made possible the attendance at this meeting of one or more repre- sentatives of their organizations to participate in the deliberations directed toward the betterment of weights and measures controls throughout the Nation.

7. To business and industry for cooperating with the Conference, for attending and participating in the Conference, and for contributing to the success of the Conference through their participation and their gra- cious hospitality.

150
8. To the Management of tlie Sheraton-Park Hotel, who, through the

facilities and courtesies of its staff, has materially assisted in the con- duct of the Conference. The following resolutions are being read in their entirety in order

that they might receive the consideration of the members of this

Conference

:

RESOLUTION URGING GREATER FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION IN

THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO PACKAGES

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures has, since

1905, unified the efforts of the States and their political subdivisions and has provided the leadership, expertise, and the enforcement authority in the fields of package labeling and package quantity accuracy

since the first Model State Law on weights and measures was published

in 1911 ; and

Whereas, the Federal agencies concerned with mandatory package

labeling activities have evidenced neither the resources nor the strong

inclination to exercise full regulatory responsibility over package labeling, as stipulated in Federal law ; and

Whereas, neither have the aforementioned Federal agencies thus far demonstrated a desire to take advantage of the readily available knowledge and experience of weights and measures officials in developing

meaningful, equitable, and enforceable package regulations ; and

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures is a

broadly recognized, well organized organization of proven competence

and long experience in this area and is available, and has the means,

to coordinate the aims of experience weights and measures officials

;

Therefore, be it resolved that the 53d National Conference on Weights

and Measures, assembled in Washington on this 20th day of June, 1968, inform appropriate Federal agencies of the great need for Federal-State cooperation in the development of meaningful, equitable, and enforceable

regulations pertaining to packages, and urge said Federal agencies to

utilize the facilities of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

in the development of regulations, modification of regulations, and ex- emption from regulations relating to package labeling and accuracy;

and be it further Resolved that the Chairman of the National Conference transmit

copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, to those members of Congress who have been involved with passage of the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act, and to the head of each appropriate Federal agency. RESOLUTION ON NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE

Whereas the National Consumers League has vigorously striven for adequate and meaningful consumer protection programs at both state and national levels; and

Whereas the National Conference on Weights and Measures since 1905 has worked diligently to secure honesty and fair play in the fields of weights and measures, packaging, labeling, and advertising; and

Whereas, because of the mutual concern of both organizations over common problems affecting the well being and smooth functioning of our society; and

151
Whereas both organizations are currently meeting in Washington,

D.C. : Be it therefore Resolved that the 53d National Conference on Weights and Measures

extend its sincere best wishes to the National Consumers League for a

highly successful and constructive conference ; and be it further Resolved that the National Conference on Weights and Measures

urge the National Consumers League and its geographical components

to use to the optimum the services and capabilities of local and state weights and measures agencies to further the interests of the consuming

public ; and be it further Resolved that a copy of this adopted resolution be immediately dis- patched to the National Consumers League Conference for its information and consideration. M. L. KmLAAv, Chairman

M. H. Becker

W. E. CZAIA

E. T. Hunter

D. I. Offner

E. W. Richards

E,. L. Sharp

Committee on Resolutions

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the Report

of the Committee on Resolutions was adopted by voice vote.) REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Presented by L. H. DeGrange, Field Supervisor of Weights and

Measures^ Department of Markets^ State Board of Agriculture^

College Park^ Maryland

(Thursday, June 20, 1968)

The Auditing Committee met on the morning of June 20 and inspected the financial state- ments of the Conference Treasurer, Mr. J. F.

True. We found them to be complete and

accurate. L. H. DeGrange, Chairman

L. D. HOLLOWAY

H. E. Smcth

(The report of the Auditing Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

152
153

330-514 O - 69 - 11
REPORT OF THE TREASURER

Presented by J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and

Measures, State Office Building, Topeka, Kansas

(Thursday, June 20, 1968)

Balance on hand June 1, 1967 $7, 294. 80

Receipts:

444 Registrations at $15.00 $6, 660. 00

Extra Tickets, Hotel Luncheon 85. 00

Extra Tickets, N.B.S. Luncheon 64. 00

Trade Party 1, 555. 00

Refund from Ellis Bowen 15. 00

Bank Interest Accrued 136. 02

Sub Total 8, 515. 02

Total 15, 809. 82

Disbursements: (Mr. Morgan)

D. E. Brieghner, Lettering $40. 50

Franklin Press, Printing 91. 30

Harold K. Gleet & Bros., Convention

Supplies 14. 98

Ellis Bowen, Chairman Expense 93. 04

Sheraton Hotel, Executive Breakfast,

Luncheon, Cotillion Room Party,

Flowers, Hanging Banners, Xerox

Copies, Audio Charges & Headquarters Expense 4, 243. 70

154
Disbursements—Continued

Franklin Press, Tickets $26. 80

Stephen Lisieure, Music, Luncheon and

Dance 590. 00

National Detective Agency 54. 00

Government Service Inc., N.B.S. Luncheon 729. 75

D. C. Transit System, Inc., to N.B.S___ 90. 00

Sheraton Park Hotel 25. 38

Women's Luncheon (Cash) 50. 90

Registration Desk Expense (Cash) 122. 00

Numbering Machine (Cash) 18. 50

Bank Charges 2. 00

Sub Total $6, 192. 85

Balance on hand September 8, 1967 9, 616. 97

Received from Mr. Morgan September 8, 1967 9, 616. 97

Interest accrued 175. 00

Sub Total 9, 791. 97

Disbursements: (Mr. True)

Franklin Press, letterheads and envelopes $58. 60

Specifications and Tolerances Committee Expense 795. 35

The American Lectrotype, Mats 82. 75

G. G. Tauber Company, Inc 95. 23

L and R Committee expense 263. 25

Sheraton-Park Hotel 128. 14

Franklin Press, Tickets & cards (o.s.)__ 98. 55

Ernest Bell, lettering (o.s.) 58. 00

Crestline Company, Inc. carrying cases

(o.s.) 410.00

Sub Total 1, 989. 87

Balance on hand June 12, 1968 7, 802. 10

Outstanding checks #117, 118, 119 566. 55

(Signed) J. F. True, Treasurer

(On motion of the Treasurer, seconded from the floor, the Report of the Treasurer was adopted by the Conference.)

155
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

Delegates—State, City, and County Officials

ARKANSAS

state E. HoLiMAN, Senior Inspector, Weights and Measures

Division, State Plant Board, 4213^ W. Capitol, Little Rock 72703

CALIFORNIA

State W. A. Keklin, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures,

Department of Agriculture, 1220 N St., Sacramento

95814

County Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

Alameda R. H. Febnsten, 333 5th St., Oakland 94607 Kern A. D. Rose, 1116 E. California Ave., Bakersfield 93307 Los Angeles M. H. Becker, 3200 N. Main St., Los Angeles 90031 San Diego S. R. Miller, P. O. Box 588, San Diego 92112 San Mateo H. E. Smith, 702 Chestnut St., Redwood City 94063 COLORADO

State E. Pbideaux, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Section,

Division of Inspection and Consumer Services, De- partment of Agriculture, State Services Bldg., 1525 Sherman St., Denver 80203 H. H. Houston, Director, Oil Inspection Department,

1024 Speer Blvd., Denver 80304 CONNECTICUT

State J. Bennett, Chief, Weights and Measures Division,

Department of Consumer Protection, State Office Bldg., Hartford 06115 W. B. Kelley, Senior Inspector

C^ty Sealer of Weights and Measures

:

Hartford 06103 N. Kalechman, City Hall

Middletown 06457_ P. Grassi, Box 223

Nev6^ Britain 06151- A. J. Albanese, City Hall

DELAWARE

State W. H. Nattdain, Director, Department of Weights and

Measures, State Board of Agriculture, Dover 19901

Inspectors: W. O. Baumgaet

R. O. Davidson

F. D. Donovan

W. D. Hudson

J. W. Kane

E. Keeolejy R. R. Smith

156
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

State B. A. iPETTiT, CMef, Weights, Measures, and Markets

Branch, Department of Licenses, District Bldg., 1350 B St. NW., Washington 20004 K. Gr. Hayden, Assistant Chief

D. K. FoEBES, Supervisor

I. L. Wagnee, Supervisor

Inspectors

:

J. T. Bennick

J. M. Bxjeke

H. J. Douglas

F. O. Haeboue

G. P. KosMos

M. L. Matthews

W. A. Matthews

E. E. Maxwell

F. J. MUEEAY

W. W. Wells

FLORIDA

State N. Beeeyman, Director, Division of Standards, De- partment of Agriculture, Nathan Mayo Bldg., Rm.,

107, Tallahassee 32304

O. Wooten, Chief, Weights and Measures Section W. Ball, Inspector

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

Jacksonville 32202_. H. E. Ceawfoed, Room 203 City Hall

Miami 33133 J. C. Mays, 3319 Pan American Drive

GEORGIA

State J. B. McfGEE, Director, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Bldg.,

Rm. 328, Capitol Square, Atlanta 30334 HAWAII

State O. E. Mattimoe, Chief, Weights and Measures Branch,

Department of Agriculture, 1428 South King St., P. O. Box 5425, Honolulu 90814

IDAHO

State L. D. Holloway, Inspector, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Departanent of Agriculture, P. O. Box 790, Boise 83701 ILLINOIS

State J. StA LEY, Je., Superintendent, Division of Feeds,

Fertilizers, and Standards, Department of Agriculture, State Fairground, 531 E. Sangamon Ave., Springfield 62706

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

Chicago 60610 Mrs. J. Byene, Commissioner, Consumer Sales, Weights

and Measures, 320 N. Clark St., Rm. 302

Chicago 60605 L. Pebndeegast, Public Vehicle License Commission,

Rm. 105, 111 S. State St. 157
INDIANA

State L. A. GtBedy, Director, Division of WeigMs and Measures, State Board of Health, 1330 W. Michigan St., Indianapolis 46206

B. B. Meesk, Consultant

Oounty Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

dark R. W. Walker, Court House Annex, JefCersonville 47130

Floyd E. G. Silvee, P. O. Box 362, Rm. 325 City-County Bldg.,

New Albany 4T150

Gibson W. R. Sbviee, Court House Annex, Princeton 47570

Grant H. Oline, P. O. Box 421, Marion 46592 Howard I. R. Frazeb, 318 W. Mulberry, Kokomo 46901 Knox W. D. LiDDiL, Court House, Vincennes 47591 Lake N. Buoub, 524 Roosevelt St., Gary 46404 LaPorte E. Hanish, 2702 Franklin St., Michigan City 46360

Madison C. W. Moore, Box 84, Lapel 46051 Marion E. H. Maxweej., 2001 Northwestern Ave., Indianapolis 46202

Porter R. H. Olaussen, Rm. 11 Court House, Valparaiso 46383

St. Joseph C. S. Zmudzinski, Rm. 14-A Court House, South Bend

46601 Tippecanoe W. McMuery, P. O. Box 444, Lafayette 47902 Vanderburgh L. L. Lehe, 10 S. Lafayette St., Evansville 47714 Vigo R. J. SrLCOCK, Rm. 5 Court House, Terre Haute 47801

City Sealers of Weights and Measures: Anderson 46011 E. Gadbeeey, City Hall, P.O. Box 2100

Gary 46402 C. C. Morgan, City Hall

Hammond 46325 D. Bbahos, City Hall

Indianapolis 46204_ W. R. Copeland, Room G-6, City-County Bldg.

South Bend 46621__ B. S. Cichowicz, Central Services Facility, West Wing,

701 W. Sample St. Terre Haute 47801- J. T. Habpee, City Hall

IOWA

State J. C. Boyd, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Division,

Consumer Protection Services, Department of Agriculture, Capitol Bldg., Des Moines 50319 KANSAS

State J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and

Measures, State Board of Agriculture, State Ofllce Bldg., Topeka 66612

LOUISIANA

State . J. H. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 44292

Capitol Station, Baton Rouge 70804

F. F. Thompson, Chief Chemist, Petroleum Products

Tax Division, P.O. Box 18374 University Station,

Baton Rouge 70821 158
MAINE

State H. D. Robinson, Deputy State Sealer, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

Capitol Bldg., Augusta 04330 MARYLAND

State J. E. Mahoney, State Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Department of Markets, State Board of

Agriculture, University of Maryland, College Park

20742

R. L. Thompson, Assistant State Superintendent

L. H. DeGrange, Field Supervisor

Inspectors

:

L. B. Cirina

W. Gaever

R. Glendenning

R. L. Halley

D. E. Helms

D. R. Stockman

County Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Prince George's R. J. Cord, County Service Bldg., Rm. 101, Hyattsville 20788 Deputies

:

L. S. Grasso

D. M. Green

D. F. Savage

W. P. Wiseman

MASSACHUSETTS

State W. C. Hughes, Head Administrative Assistant, Division

of Standards, Department of Labor and Industries, State House, Boston 02133

City Sealers of Weights and Measures: Cambridge 02139 A. T. Anderson, City Hall

Everett 02149 L. L. Elliott, City Hall, Room 2

Fall River 02722 P. P. Sullivan, City Hall

Fitchburg 01420 W. T. Deloge, 42 Elm St. Somerville 02145 E. L. Mallard, Public Works Bldg., Franey Rd.

MICHIGAN

State R. M. Leach, Assistant Chief, Food Inspection Division,

Department of Agriculture, Lewis Cass Bldg., Lansing 48913

C. O. CoTTOM, Supervisor, Weights and Measures

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

Dearborn 48126 J. J. Hubbard, Councilman, 9680 Eagle, City Hall

J. A. Hughes, 13030 Hemlock

Detroit 48207 J. T. Daniell, 1445 Adelaide St. Lansing 48933 B. Rebuffo, Chief Deputy State Sealer, Bureau of Livonia 48154 R. C. Baumgartner, 15050 Farmington Rd.

159
MINNESOTA

State W. E. Czaia, Supervisor, Department of Weights and

Measures, Railroad and Warehouse Commission, One

Flour Exchange, Minneapolis 55415

Inspectors

:

A. W. Fenger

R. A. THARALSON

City Inspector of Weights and Measures:

Minneapolis 55415__ J. G. Gustafson, 101-A City Hall

MISSOURI

State J. H. Wilson, Director, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Jefferson City 65102 County Sealer of Weights and Measures

:

St. Louis L. A. Rick, 8008 Oarondelet, Room 414, Clayton 63105

City Sealer of Weights and Measures

:

St Louis 63103 D. I. Offner, City Hall, Room 414 MONTANA

State G. L. Delano, Chief Sealer, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Capitol Bldg.,

Helena 59601 NEVADA

St^te R. Rebuffo, Chief Deputy State Sealer, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

350 Capitol Hill Ave., P. O. Box 1209, Reno 89504 NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stat6 W. J. Tusen, Chief Inspector, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Division of Markets and Standards, De- partment of Agriculture, State Office Bldg., Concord

03301

NEW JERSEY

State J. M. Katz, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, State House Annex, Trenton

08625

W. J. Wolfe, Sr., State Superintendent, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Law and

Public Safety, 187 W. Hanover St., Trenton 08625

S. H. Christie, Jr., Deputy State Superintendent

J. R. Bird, Supervisor, Technical Services

C. P. Conrad, Jr., Weights and Measures Assistant

County Superintendents of Weights and Measures

:

Bergen J. A. Pollock, 66 Zabriskie St., Hackensack 07601 Burlington D. F. Hummel, County Office Bldg., 49 Waters St., Mount Holly 08060 Camden A. J. Francesconi, Room 403, City Hall, Camden 08101 Cumberland G. S. Franks, 1142 Landis Ave., Vineland 08360

N. Di Marco, Assistant, Court House, Bridgeton 08302 Hudson R. J. Bahtjn, 595 Nevrark Ave., Jersey City 07306 Mercer R. M. Bodenweiseb, Court House, Trenton 08607 160
Monmoutli W. I. Thompson, P. O. Box 74, Allenliurst 07711

J. A. J. BovEE, Jr., Assistant Superintendent, 82 W.

Wall St., Neptune City 07753 W. G. Dox, Assistant Superintendent, 216 Maple Ave., Red Bank 07701 Salem R. B. Jones, P. O. Box 24, Salem 08079 Somerset J. A. Kbiney, Administration Bldg., Somerville 08876 Warren G. E. Connolly, Court House, Belvidere 07823

J. P. Burns, Assistant Superintendent

Municipal Superintendents of Weights and Measures

:

Jersey City 07302___ P. A. Wermert, City Hall

Kearney 07031 J. Pollock, Town Hall

Passaic 07055 P. DeVries, City Hall Trenton 08608 R. J. Boney, City Hall Annex, 324 E. State St. NEW MEXICO

State G. B. Whigham. Chief, Division of Markets, Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box

170, University Park 88070 NEW YORK

State D. J. WiCKHAM, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture and Markets, State Campus, Albany 12226

F. J. Fallon, Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Laboratory Bldg., 1220 Washington Ave., Al- bany 12226 H. L. Dillon, Inspector

County Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

Nassau J. A. Occhiogrosso, 1035 Stewart Ave., Garden

City 11530

A. W. Weidner, Assistant Sealer

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

Glen Cove 11542 E. T. Hunter, City Hall

Ithaca 14850 E. P. Nedrow, City Hall, 108 E. Green St. Lackawanna 14218— J. J. Seres, 84 Rosary Ave. New York 10013 R. W. Brevoort, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Markets, 137 Centre St. M. Greenspan, Chief Inspector, Division of Con- sumer Law Enforcement

Yonkers 10701 S. J. DiMase, City Hall

NORTH CAROLINA

State J. I. Moore, Superintendent, Weights and Measures

Division, Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 2281,

Raleigh 27602 M. L. Kinlaw, Supervisor

Inspectors

:

W. D. Taylor

J. P. Whitftfj.o

161
OfflO

state F. P. Gallo, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures,

Department of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg 43068

V. D. Campbell, (Mailing Address: P. O. Box 41, Pataskala 43062)

County Inspectors of Weights and Measures

:

Ashtabula F. Felch, Deputy Inspector, Court House, Jefferson 44074

Auglaize F. Wellman, R. R. #1, New KnoxviUe 45871 Greene A. Gellenbeck, Auditor's Office, Court House, Xenia

45385

Medina R. W. Seables, Board of Education Bldg., 137 W.

Friendship, Medina 44256

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

Akron 44304 R. K. Slough, 69 N. Union St. Cincinnati 45214 L. B. Frank, 2147 Central Ave. Dayton 45402 K. Gulledge, 960 Ottavs^a St. OKLAHOMA

State H. K. Shaep, Assistant Director, Marketing Division, State Board of Agriculture, Capitol Bldg., Okla- homa City 73105

R. L. Smith, Assistant Director, Oklahoma State Bureau of Standards, 1808 Newton Dr., Norman 73069 PENNSYLVANIA

State R. W. Richaeds, Director, Bureau of Standard Weights

and Measures, Room B-39 Highway and Safety Bldg.,

Harrisburg 17120

County Inspectors of Weights and Measures

:

Allegheny W. D. Scott, Rm. #4, Court House, Pittsburgh 15219 Beaver W. Panek, Court House, Beaver 15009

City Inspectors of Weights and Measures

:

Philadelphia 19107- S. F. Valtri, Chief, 622 City Hall Annex

Field Inspectors:

C. E. McHuGH

J. A. Sabo, Jr. RHODE ISLAND

State E. R. Fisher, State Sealer of Weights and Meaisxu*es, Department of Labor, Capitol Industrial Center Bldg.,

235 Promenade St., Providence 02908 SOUTH CAROLINA

State J. V. Pugh, Director, Bureau of Inspection, Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 12080, Colmnbia 29211

R. F. Burton, Inspector

TENNESSEE

State M. Jennings, Director, Division of Marketing, Department of Agriculture, Melrose Station, Box 9039, NashviUe 37204 162
TEXAS

State R. T. Williams, Chief, Consumer Service Division,

Department of Agriculture, P. O. Drawer BB—John

Reagan Bldg., Austin 78711

C. H. Vincent, Assistant Chief M. M. Liberty, Inspector

City Sealer of Weights and Measures

:

Fort Worth 76107— R. L. Sharp, Department of Public Health and Welfare,

Public Health Center, 1800 University Dr. UTAH

State F. D. Morgan, Supervisor, Weights and Measures, De- partment of Agriculture, Agriculture Laboratory

Bldg., 34 E. 400 N., Salt Lake City 84114 VERMONT

State T. F. Brink, Director, Division of Standards, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Bldg., Monpelier

05602 VIRGINIA

State J. F. Lyles, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Regulatory Section, Division of Regulatory Services, De- partment of Agriculture and Commerce, 1436 E. Main

St., Room 302, Richmond 23219

J. O. Stewart, Assistant Supervisor

F. W. Saunders, Field Supervisor

Inspectors

:

E. W. Hudson

G. E. Porter

R. N. Trenaey

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

Alexandria 22313. L. W. Vezina, Cameron & Royal St., Box 178 Norfolk 23501 W. C. Snell, City Hall Bldg., Room 803 Richmond 23219 A. B. Moody, Jr., 501 N. Ninth St. E. C. Rager, Inspector

Roanoke 24001 L. R. Thomas, 32 E. Campbell Ave. WASHINGTON

State J. H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, De- partment of Agriculture, Box 120, Olympia 98501

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

Seattle 98104 M. R. Dettler, Assistant Director, Division of Licenses

and Standards, 104 Seattle Municipal Bldg., 600 Fourth Ave. Tacoma 98402 D. H. McLennan, Director, Department of Tax &

License, Room 236, County-City Bldg.

163
WEST VIRGINIA

State L. Barker, Commissioner, Department of Labor, 1800 E. Washington St., Oliarleston 25305 W. H. Holt, Administrative Assistant to Commissioner

B. R. ELA.UGHT, Director, Division of Consumer Protection Chief Inspectors

:

R. B. COUGHENOUE

J. FlNI^Y

F. J. Thomas

Inspectors

:

R. G. Jabvis

R. D. Williams

WISCONSIN

State D. E. Konsoer, Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Food Division, Department of Agriculture, Hill Farms State Office Bldg., Madison 53702

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

:

Green Bay 54301 N. Tilleman, City Hall

Manitowoc 54220 P. E. Krainik, City Hall

Racine 53403 R. J. Zierten, City Hall

Sheboygan 53081 R. K. Lorenz, City Hall

West AUis 53214 A. E. LaBoda, City Hall

Advisary Members

Department of Commerce

:

L. C. McQuADE, Assistant Secretary of Commerce.

Business and Defense Services Administration

:

Saul Padwo. Director, Scientific Photographic and Business Equipment

Div. National Bureau of Standards : Office of the Director (Div. 100) : A. V. AsTiN, Director. A. J. Faerar, Legal Advisor.

Office of Public Information (Div. 102) : J. F. Reilly, Writer-Editor.

Office of Associate Director for Technical Support

:

Office of Technical Information and Publications (141) : W. R. TiLLEY, Chief. Institute for Basic Standards (200) : Metrology Division (212) : Mass and Volume Section (212.31) : H. E. Almer, Physical Science Technician.

J. F. HousER, Physical Science Technician. R. M. ScHOONOVEB, Physical Science Technician.

Institute for Materials Research (300) : Inorganic Materials Division (313) : Crystal Chemistry Section (Div. 313.04) : H. S. Peisee, Chief. 164
Department of Commerce—Continued

National Bureau of Standards—Continued

Institute for Applied Technology (400) : B. M. Levin, Special Assistant to the Director. Manager, Engineering Standards (Div. 402) : M. W. Jensen, Chief. R. A. ViGNONE, Attorney-Adviser.

L. J. Chisholm, Weights and Measures Coordinator. Mrs. D. J. Snydee, Secretary. Mrs. J. C. CocHEAN, Secretary.

Miss J. E. Adams, Secretary.

Office of Engineering Standards Services (Div. 403) : D. R. Mackay, Chief. H. A. Philo, Technical Standards Coordinator.

C. B. Phucas, Standards Coordinator.

Office of Weights and Measures (404) : H. F. WoLLiN, Assistant Chief. R. N. Smith, Technical Coordinator.

E. A. Vadeltjnd, Weights and Measures Coordinator.

O. K. Waenlof, Weights and Measures Coordinator.

S. Hasko, Engineer.

C. H. Schreyer, Engineer.

T. M. Stabler, Laboratory Metrologist. H. K. Johnson, Engineering Technician.

B. C. Keysar, Engineering Technician.

R. L. KoESER, Weights and Measures Coordinator. D. E. Edgerly, Weights and Measures Coordinator.

P. H. Carr, Graphic Arts Aid.

J. W. Little, Physicist

Miss O. A. KiNGSOLVER, Physicist.

S. L. Hatos, Economist. K. G. Newell, Economist.

W. C. Creek, Engineering Aid. Mrs. F. C. Bell, Administrative Assistant. Mrs. E. M. BuRNETTE, Secretary.

Miss S. L. Beall, Secretary.

Miss E. A. Van Fossen, Secretary. Mrs. J. A. DoNivAN, Secretary.

J. L. Chittams, Laborer.

J. 0. DeBuchananne, Summer Working Aid. Department of Agriculture

:

Packers and Stockyards Administration

:

Scales and Weighing Branch

:

R. D. Thompson, Chief.

0. H. Oakley, Assistant Chief.

T. O. Harris, Jr., Scales and Weighing Specialist. M. W. Stephens, Scales and Weighing Specialist. B. D. Baird, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Room 831 Federal Bldg.,

Memphis, Tenn. 38103. Federal Trade Commission

:

F. Cassidy, Scientist. W. C. Gross, Attorney.

Anita Morse, Attorney. D. Peeey, Attorney.

165
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

:

Food and Drug Administration

:

R. B. Dickinson, Food and Drug Officer, Office of Legislative and Govern- mental Services. Associate Members—Manufacturers, Industry, Business

Acme Markets, Inc.

:

M. R. Blodgett, Director, Quality Ck)ntrol, 124 N. 15tli St., PMladelphia, Pennsylvania 191Q2

American Bakers Association

:

J. M. Cbeed, General Counsel, 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washmgton, D. 0. 20006

American Can Company

:

W. H. Marks, Supervisor, Specifications Department, 333 N. Commercial St., Neenali, Wisconsin 54956

P. F. CuNDY, Administrator, Regulatory Compliance

American Meter Controls, Inc.

:

T. J. Smith, Product Manager, 13500 Philmont Ave., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19116

American OH Company

:

K. C. Jacob, Assistant Regional Engineer, 1 North Charles St., Baltimore^

Maryland 21201 American Paper Institute

:

C. J. Oabey, Executive Secretary, 260 Madison Ave., New York, New York

10016

American Petroleum Institute

:

R. SouTHEBS, Operations and Engineering Coordinator, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020

American Sugar Company

:

B. P. LoEFANPANT, Attomey, 120 Wall St., New York, New York 10005 Arkstrom Industries : A. Feanzblau, President, 415 Avon Ave., Newark, New Jersey 07108

Armour & Company

:

C. Y. Thompson, Production Control Manager, P. O. Box 9222, Chicago, Illinois 60690

Associated Tobacco Mfrs., Inc.

:

C. J. MouHTOUEis, Executive Vice President, 910 17th St., NW., Washington

D. O. 20006

Atkins & Durbrow, Inc.

:

J. O. Fletchee, Sales Manager, Box 146, Niagara Square, Buffalo, New York

14202

Atlantic Richfield Company

:

R. E. Hunt, Service Station Manager, 260 S. Broad St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

W. A. Lindsay, Manager, Automotive Engineering

Avis Rent-a-car System, Inc.

:

D. I. Schafees, Corporate Counsel, 900 Old Country Road, Garden City, New

York 11530

Badger Meter Mfg. Company

:

O. B. Kohl, Industrial Sales Manager, 4545 W. Brown Deer Rd., Milwaukee,

Wisconsin 53223

166
Bennett Pump Division, John Wood Company

:

H. A. ExNEB, 31 Allegnany Ave., Towson, Maryland 21204 M. S. GoDSMAN, Service Manager, Broadway & Wood Sts., Muskegon, Michigan

Borden, Inc.

:

W. E. FoETE, Attorney, 350 Madison Ave., New York, New York 10017 Bowser, Inc.

:

H. B. RiTTENHOUSE, Chief Engineer, P. O. Box 250, Greeneville, Tennessee

37743 Can Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

:

S. J. Baboa, Staff Assistant to the President, 821 15th St., NW., Washington,

D. C. 20005

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company

:

W. H. Peeey, President, Box 151, Webb City, Missouri 64870 Carnation Company

:

R. F. Daily, Attorney, 5045 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, OaUfomia 90036

G. T. Jefe^bs, Attorney, 1155 15th St., NW., Suite 312, Washington, D. C. 20005

Chatillon, John, & Sons (Division of Aero-Chatillon Corporation) : N. Lavenda, Office Sales Manager, 83-30 Kew Gardens Rd., Kew Gardens, New

York 11415

G. 0. Reiley, Vice President

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Inc.

:

R. L. AcKEBLY, Counsel, Sellers, Conner & Cuneo, 1625 K St., NW., Washington,

D. C. 20006

A. A. MuixiKEN, Secretary, 50 E. 41st St., New York, New York 10017 Ooca-Cola Company:

R. L. Callahan, Attorney, 310 North Ave. (P.O. Drawer 1734), Atlanta,

Georgia 30301

O. R. Gillespie, Staff Representative, Public Affairs Department

Colgate-Palmolive Company

:

R. R. Phillips, Associate Counsel, 300 Park Ave., New York, New York 10O22

E. E. Wolski, Manager of Quality Control

Colt Industries

:

W. T. Humphbeys, Washington Representative, 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, D. C. 200O6

Continental Can Company

:

L. B. Bbacken, Manager Quality Control, Bondware Division, 614 Fourth St., Three Rivers, Michigan 49093

T. P. MoGlynn, Manager, New Product & Market Development, 633 Third

Ave., New York, New York 10017 CoviQgton & Burling

:

E. Dunkelbeegeb, 701 Union Trust Bldg., Washington, D. O. 20005

P. M. Pett.ltpes

Dairy & I'ood Industries Supply Association

:

W. A. Dean, Associate Technical Director, 1145 19th St., NW., Washington,

D. C. 20036

Mrs. S. W. G'SHWEND, Marketing Librarian D. H. Williams, Technical Director

Dee, J. B., & Company, Inc.

:

G. FiSHMAN, General Manager, 1722 W. 16th St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46207

Detecto Scales Inc.

:

M. Rapp, Vice President, 540 Park Ave., Brooklyn, New York 11205

167
Distilled Spirits Institute

;

A. P. Bbyan, Executive Assistant, 1132 Pennsylvania Bldg., Wasiiington, D. C. 200(M

DuPont de Nemours, E. I. & Company

:

F. D. Spaere, 6054 DuPont Bldg., Wilmington, Delaware 19898 Engler Instrument Company

:

J. F. Bennett, Representative, 3907 Underwood St., Olievy Case, Maryland

20015 W. T. Heydt, Sales Manager, 250 Culver Ave., Jersey City, New Jersey 07305

Ex-Cell-0 Corporation

:

D. J. Crawfobd, Director of Pure-Pak Laboratories, 850 Ladd Rd., Walled

Lake, Michigan 48088

A. DoEBECK, Supervisor, Pure-Pak Division, P. O. Box 386, Detroit, Michigan

48232

C. Taylob, Supervisor, Technical Center

Fafard, Conrad, Inc.

:

H. H. Fafaed, Vice President, Springfield, Massachusetts 01101 Fairbanks Morse, Inc.

:

P. J. Rozema, Marketing Manager, 34 Western Ave,, St. Johnsbury, Vermont

05819

Federal-State Reports

:

Mrs. J. Wilson, Editor, 910 17th St. NW., Washington, D.C. 20006 Food Chemical News

:

Miss N. J. Paegas, Reporter, 601 Warner Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20004

L. Rothschild, Je., Editor and publisher

Fuller, H. J., & Sons, Inc.

:

W. S. FuLLEB, Vice President, General Manager, 1212 Chesapeake Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43212

Gasoline Pump Manufacturing Association

:

F. D. LooMEE, Association Staff, 331 Madison Ave., New York, New York 10017 General Foods Corporation

:

R. H. Peatt, Director, Special Projects, 250 North St., White Plains, New

York 10602

J. A. RiEGEL, General Solicitor General Mills, Inc.

:

D. B. Colpitts, Technical Manager, Weights and Measures, 1081 21st Ave. SE., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414

O. A. OuDAL (Home Address: 1411 E. 99th St., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420)

Gerber Products Company

:

T. N. Moss, Attorney, 445 State Street, Fremont, Michigan 49412

Gilbarco, Inc.

:

R. E. Nix, Assistant to Manager of Engineering, Greensboro, North Carolina

27420

Glass Container Corporation

:

H. P. Bauee, Products Manager, Dairy & Soda Division, Fullerton, California 92634

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

:

E. J. Mentz, Assistant Director, Technical Services, 330 Madison Ave., New

York, New York 10017

O. E. Wagnee, Director of Technical Services Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc.

:

F. T. DiEBSON, General Counsel, 205 E. 42d St, New York, New York 10017 168
Gulf Oil Corporation

:

J. O. Habicht, Superintendent, Marketing Equipment, P. O. Box 8056, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Haakon, Inc.

:

J. L. McKeen, Assistant Director of Sales, 1406 W. Winona Ave., Warsaw,

Indiana 46580

E. C. Wenger, Manager, New Product Development, 11-05 44th Dr., Long

Island City, New York 11101 Hertz Corporation

:

L. B. Mewhinney, Associate Corporation Counsel, 660 Madison Ave., New

York, New York 10021 Hobart Manufacturing Company

:

K. C. Allen, Vice President, Scale Operations, 448 Huffman Ave., Dayton,

Ohio 45403 M. E. Bone

C. G. Gehbingek, Sales Manager, 711 Pennsylvania Ave., Troy, Ohio 45373 Howe Richardson Scale Company

:

R. P. Closson, Assistant National Service Manager, 2830 S. 19th Ave., Broadview, Illinois 60153

E. L. Ervin, Marketing Manager, 680 Van Houten Ave., Clifton, New Jersey 07013

R. G. Harris, Assistant National Service Manager

G. D. Wilkinson, National Service Manager

Humble Oil & Refining Company

:

H. A. Clark, Stock Loss Coordinator, 5 Raymond Ave., Spring Valley, New

York 10977

S. M. Paxson, Quantity and Quality Control Specialist, 7720 York Rd., Balti- more, Maryland 21203 Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.

:

R. E. McKennan, Manager, Quality Assurance, 1645 W. Valencia Dr. Fullerton, California 92635

International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers

:

J. F. Speeb, Executive Assistant, 1105 Barr Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20006 Jewel Companies, Inc.

:

R. W. Miller, Jr., General Attorney, 1955 W. North Ave., Melrose Park,

Illinois 60160 Johnson & Johnson

:

G. E. Heinze, Chief Control Chemist, Rt. #1, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 Kimberly-Clark Corporation

:

H. J. Sheerin, Vice President and Director, Neenah, Wisconsin 54956 W. W. Whitlingeb, Director, Quality Assurance

King, J. A., & Company

:

J. A. King, Sr., President, 2620 High Point Rd., P. O. Box 21225, Greensboro,

North Carolina 27420

Kiplinger Washington Letter

:

P. Hencke, Associate Editor, 1729 H St. NW., Washington, D.C. 20006

Kraft Foods

:

N. E. Toft, Director, Marketing Services, 500 Peshtigo Court, Chicago, Illinois 60611 Kroger Company

:

R. N. Johnson, Supervisor, Regulatory Compliance, 1240 State Ave., Cincinnati,

Ohio 45204 330-514—69 12 169
Label Manufacturers National Association, Inc.

:

F. R. Cawley, Executive Director, Room 1015 Shoreham Bldg., 15tli & H Sts. NW., Washington, D.C. 20005 Laboratory Equipment Corporation

:

H. T. LiTTERAL, Sales Manager, 156 E. Harrison St., MooresviUe, Indiana 46158 Langley Peat Ltd.

:

J. T. Bell, President, 496 West 40, Vancouver, BO, Canada

Lehn & Fink Products Corporation

:

F. Taylob, Group Leader Aerosols, 225 Summit Ave., Montvale, New Jersey

07645 Lever Brothers Company

:

L. H. Bloom, Vice President & General Counsel, 390 Park Ave., New York, New

York 10022 W. L. Button, Jb., Plant Operations Manager

Liberty Glass Company

:

E. K. Mills, Technical Director, P.O. Box 520, Sapulpa, Oklahoma 74066 Liqui-Box Corporation

:

W. J. ScHiESER, Vice President, Product Development, 6950 Worthington

Galena Rd., Worthington, Ohio 43085

J. B. Smith, Manager, Marketing Services Liquid Controls Corporation

:

H. SiEBOLD, Vice President, Engineering, P.O. Box 101, North Chicago, Illinois 60064 Lockheed Electronics

:

J. F. Devitt, Service Manager, U.S. Highway #1, Metuchen, New Jersey 07605 Martin-Decker Corporation

:

E. I. Shellet, Assistant Manager, Industrial Sales, 1928 S. Grand Ave., Santa Ana, CaUfomia 92705

Merrick Scale Manufacturing Company

:

L. J. Walker, Product Manager, 180 Autumn St., Passaic, New Jersey 07055

Miller, Byron, & Associates

:

B. D. Milleb, Owner, 7712 Georgia Ave., NW., Washington, D.C. 20012

Mobile Oil Corporation

:

W. J. Mabtin, Project Engineer, #4 Penn Center, Plaza, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19108 Murphy, L. R., Scale Clompany

:

L. R. MuBPHT, President, 1610-12 North "C" St., Sacramento, California 95814 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

:

S. T. Payne, Writer, 400 National Press Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20004

National Association of Dairy Equipment Manufacturers

:

J. Marshall, Executive Vice President, 1012 14th St., NW., Washington, D.C. 20005

National Association of Frozen Food Packers

:

L. S. Fbnn, Director of Technical Services, 919 18th St., NW., Washington,

D.C. 20006

F. G. Williams, Administrative Assistant

National Association of Margarine Manufacturers

:

R. J. Lbiohton, Assistant to the President, 545 Munsey Bldg., Washington,

D.C. 20004

National Canners Association

:

R. B. Heiney, Director, Government-Industry Relations Division, 1133 20th St,

NW., Washington, D.C. 20086

170
National Paint, Varnisii and Lacquer Associatioii

:

D. P. Lynott, Associate General Oounsel, 1500 Rhode Island Ave., NW.,

WasMngton, D.0. 20005

J. W. M. MoNTGOMEEY, Director, Government-Industry Relations D. S. Ring, General Counsel

National Soft Drink Association

:

T. F. Bakeb, Executive Vice President, 1128 Sixteentli St., NW., WasMngton,

D.C. 200S6

T. A. Daly, LfCgal Qounsel

Neptune Meter Company

:

J. O. Haet, Assistant General Sales Manager, Liquid Meter Division, 47-t25 34th St., Long Island City, New York 11101

E. F. Wehmann, Assistant Chief Engineer, Petroleum & Industrial H. A. Lentz, Sales Engineer, 7 Bala Ave., Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce

:

P. DoBN, Secretary, 54 Park Place, Newark, New Jersey 07102

Owens-Illinois, Inc.

:

W. A. Recknagel, Specifications Supervisor, 14th & Adams Sts., Toledo, Ohio

43601 Paper Stationery & Tablet Manufacturers Association

:

F. Cowan, Jr., Executive Secretary, 444 Madison Ave., Suite 2301, New York,

New York 10022 Peat Producers Association of the U. S., Inc.

:

D. Dennison, General Counsel, 813 Union Savings & Trust Bldg., Warren,

Ohio 44481

J. A. Haetman, Director, 410 Greenwich Ave., Greenwich, Connecticut 06830

Pepsi-Cola Company

:

S. P. PoERAzzo, Packaging Manager, 500 Park Ave., New York, New York 10022

Phillips Petroleum Company

:

J. W. Hale, Technical Representative, 8 A2 Phillips Bldg., BartlesviUe,

Oklahoma 74003

Pillsbury Company

:

C. E. Joyce, General Claims Manager, Pillsbury Bldg., 608 Second Ave., South,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Plate, Cup & Container Institute

:

D. H. Carleton, Administrative Manager, 250 Park Ave., New York, New York

10017

R. W. Foster, Executive Director

L. J. Moreman, Manager, General Services Premier Peat Moss Corporation

:

E. R. Bernay, Officer, 25 W. 45th St., New York, New York 10036

A. J. Zemel, Vice President M. S. Fisher, Counsel, 122 E. 122d St., New York, N.Y. 10017

Procter & Gamble Company

:

Dr. J. S. Brod, Associate Director, Product Development Division, Ivorydale Technical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45217

J. E. Stevenot, Associate Director, PS & DD Technical Service Dept Factory

and Buying

L. Thboharotjs, Associate Director, Soap Product Development

D. R. Byeely, Associate Director, Research and Development, W.H.T.O.,

Oincimiati, Ohio 45224

W. J. Hein, Attorney, 301 E. 6th St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

G. Hopper, Attorney

D. W. RosENFBLDT, Sectlon Head, 6000 Center Hill Road, Oincimiati, Ohio 45224

171
Republic Steel Corporation

:

D. R. Smith, Corporation Weighing Supervisor, 410 Oberlin Rd., SW., Massillon,

Ohio 44646 Revere Corporation of America

:

R. O. Beach, Vice President & General Manager, N. Colony Rd., Wallingford,

Connecticut 06492

C. W. Silver, Chief Engineer

Rockwell Manufacturing Company

:

A. J. KoMiCH, Product Manager, Box 450, Statesboro, Georgia 30458

Safier, S., Inc.

:

R. Olsen, Plant Manager, 314 Mercer St., Jersey City, New Jersey 07302

Sanitary Scale Company

:

E. C. Kaep, Vice President, Manufacturing and Engineering, 910 E. Lincoln

Ave., Belvidere, Illinois 61008

Scale Journal Publishing Company

:

Mrs. S. T. Pickell, Secretary-Treasurer, 176 W. Adams St., Chicago, Illinois 60603

Scale Manufacturers Association

;

A. Sanders, Executive Secretary, No. 1 Thomas Circle, N.W., Room 304, Washington, D. C. 20005

Sealright Company, Inc.

:

R. S. Weeks, Manager, Marketing Services, 605 W. 47th St., Kansas City,

Missouri 64112

Sears, Roebuck and Company

:

J. E. Lehrer, Attorney, Department 766, 925 S. Homan Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60607 Seraphin Test Measure Company : L. C. ScHLODER, General Manager, 1314 N. 7th St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19122

Shell Chemical Company

:

G. W. Spotts, Supervisor, Technical Service Department, P. O. Box 700, Woodbury, New Jersey 08096

F. A. Weber, Manager, Market Development, Plastics, 113 W. 52d St., New

York, New York 10019

Shell Oil Company

:

W. B. Waterman, Senior Engineer, 50 W. 50th St., New York, New York 10020

Smith, A. O., Inc.

:

P. E. Swanson, 1602 Wagner Ave., Erie, Pennsylvania 16511 Soap and Detergent Association

:

E. S. Pattison, President 485 Madison Ave., New York, New York 10022 Anne M. Faixon, Legislative Assistant to the President

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

:

T. M. Oarty, Secretary, Plastic Bottle Division, 250 Park Ave., New York,

New York 10017 Spinks Scale Company;

D. F. Laird, President, 836 Stewart Ave., Atlanta, Georgia 30310 Swift and Company

:

H. L. Hensel, Attorney, 115 W. Jackson, Chicago, Illinois 60604

E. G. Spiker, Manager, 711-14th St., NW., Washington, D. C. 20005

Texaco, Inc.: R. H. ToLSON, Assistant Superiutendent, Construction & Et[uipment Division,

135 m 42d St, New York, New York 10017

172
Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company

:

R. E. Chapman, Manager, Mold and Product Design, 1901 Grand Central Ave., Blmira, New York 14901 Theisen Clemens Company

:

R. C. Primley, Operation Manager, 1207 Broad St., St. Joseph, Michigan 49085 Thread Institute, Inc.

:

W. F. Operer, Executive Director, 15 E. 40th St., New York, New York 10016 Thurman Scale Company

:

J. R. ScHAEFFEB, Vice President, 1939 Refugee Rd., Columbus, Ohio 43207

Tobacco Institute, Inc.

:

F. J. Welch, Vice President, 1735 K St., NW., Washington, D.C. 20006 Tokheim Corporation

:

W. E. LouTHAN, Service Manager, 1602 Wabash Ave., Fort Wayne, Indiana

46801 Toledo Scale Company

:

W. E. Jenkins, Vice President, Sales, 5225 Telegraph Rd., Toledo, Ohio 43612

D. B. Kendall, Manager, Custom Engineering

R. V. MnjLEE, Manager, Weights and Measures Union Carbide Corporation

:

W. M. Sawees, Manager, Special Services, 800 Wyatt Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20005 Veeder-Root Company

:

H. W. Barnes, Sales Manager, Petroleum Products Division, 70 Sargeant St., Hartford, Connecticut 06102

T. J. McLaughlin, Product Sales Manager

Voland Corporation

:

B. Wasko, Vice President, Engineering, 27 Centre Ave., New Rochelle, New

York 10802 Wayne Pump Company

:

F. W. Love, Administrative Assistant, 124 E. College Ave., Salisbury, Maryland

21801 Western Peat Moss, Ltd.

:

A. D. Trott, Vice President, 401 Sharpstown State Bank Bldg., Houston, Texas 77036

J. DuNFiELD, President, Box 399, New Westminister, B.C., Canada

Winslow Government Standard Scale Works, Inc.

:

C. E. Ehrenhardt, President, P.O. Box 1523, Terre Haute, Indiana 47808

OTHER GUESTS

Dr. Elmer F. Baumer, Assistant Dean and Professor, Ohio State University, 164 E. 19th Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43206. Mrs. Margaret Dana, Consumer Relations Counsel, Consumer's Question Bos,

Research Center, R.D. #3, Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901. Speridiao Gabinio de Oarvalho, Jr., Director, Instituto Nacional de Pesos e Medidas, Rua Padre Nobrega 539, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Hugh Goonetilleke, Deputy Warden of the Standards, Weights and Measures

Division, Department of Commerce, Park Road, Colombo 5, Ceylon. Dr. L. J. Gordon, Director, Weights and Measures Research Center, Denison

University, 117 Locust Place, Granville, Ohio 43023.

F. B. McLaughlin, Director, Producer-Marketing Relations, President's Committee on Consumer Interests, Room 103 Executive Office Bldg., Washington,

D.C. 20506. 173
Honorable John T. Myers, Congressman, State of Indiana, House of Representatives, 1238 House Office Bldg., Washington, D.O. 20515. MoAciE Reis, Vice Director, Instituto Nacional de Pesos e Medidas, Praea Maua

7, 9° andar, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. W. A. ScHETJEEE, 2146 Elgin Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221. H. H. Wbight, 30 Catherine Street, Lyons, New York 14489.

174
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 O—330-514
I

1
SELECTED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PUBLICATIONS OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBS Handbook 44 Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 1965 (Replace- Requirements for Commercial Weighing and

ment Sheets issued Measuring Devices. Looseleaf (binder not

annually) included) $2. 00 NBS Handbook 67 Checking Prepackaged Commodities 0. 35 NBS Handbook 82 Weights and Measures Administration 1. 75 NBS Handbook 94 Examination of Weighing Equipment 3. 00 NBS Handbook 98 Examination of Farm Milk Tanks . 35 NBS Handbook 99 Examination of Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Liquid-Measuring Devices . 35

NBS Circular 540 Weights and Measures Case Reference Book 1. 25 NBS Circular 593 Federal Basis for Weights and Measures . 30

NBS Miscellaneous Weights and Measures Standards of the Publication 247 United States—a brief history . 35 NBS Miscellaneous Units of Weight and Measure

Publication 286 Definitions and Tables of Equivalents 1. 50 NBS Technical Report of the Investigation of Slow-Flow

Note 196 Meters for Fuel Oil Distribution Systems . 20 REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1963 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 254 . 75 1964 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 263 1. 00

1966 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 290 1. 00

1967 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 297 1. 25 Index to the Reports of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures from the First to the Forty-fifth, 1905 to 1960

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 243 . 40

ORDER ALL PUBLICATIONS, WITH REMITTANCE, FROM THE

SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, U.S. GOVERNMENT

PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402.
a a o




WERT BOOKBNDNC

MIDDUTOWN, PA MARCH 83