A11100 TflLJblD





NATIONAL BTOBKAQ

OF STANDABDg

LIBRARY

MAY 8 1973

-urn

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS

A METRIC

AMERICA

A decision

whose time

has come

o U.S. METRIC STUDY
Public Law 90-472 An Art

To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a study to determine

advantages and disadvantages of increased use of the metric system

in the United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of

Commerce is hereby authorized to conduct a program of investigation,

research, and survey to determine the impact of increasing worldwide

use of the metric system on the United States; to appraise the desirability and practicability of increasing the use of metric weights and

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

and promoting by international use of dimensional and other engineering standards based on the customary measurement units of the

United States; and to evaluate the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action which may be feasible for the United States. Sec. 2. In carrying out the program described in the first section of

this Act, the Secretary, among other things, shall

(1) investigate and appraise the advantages and disadvantages

to the United States in international trade and commerce, and in

military and other areas of international relations, of the increased use of an internationally standardized system of weights and

measures;

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

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

the impact of such increased use upon those affected;

(3) conduct extensive comparative studies of the systems of

weights and measures used in educational, engineering, manufacturing, commercial, public, and scientific areas, and the rela- tive advantages and disadvantages, and degree of standardization

of each in its respective field; (4) investigate and appraise the possible practical difficulties which might be encountered in accomplishing the increased use

of the metric system of weights and measures generally or in

specific fields or areas in the United States;

(5) permit appropriate participation by representatives of

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

associations, in the planning and conduct of the program authorized by the first section of this Act, and in the evaluation of the

information secured under such program; and

(6) consult and cooperate with other government agencies,

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

foreign governments and international organizations.

Sec. 3. In conducting the studies and developing the recommendations required in this Act, the Secretary shall give full consideration to the advantages, disadvantages, and problems associated with possible

changes in either the system of measurement units or the related di- mensional and engineering standards currently used in the United

States, and specifically shall

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

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

necessary to realize the benefits which might result from general use of metric units of measurement in the United States;

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

units are in use in each of the fields under study and compare the

extent to such use and the utility and degree of sophistication of

such metric standards with those in use in the United States; and

(3) recommend specific means of meeting the practical diffi- culties and costs in those areas of the economy where any recom- mended change in the system of measurement units and related

dimensional and engineering standards would raise significant

practical difficulties or entail significant costs of conversion.

Sec. 4. The Secretary shall submit to the Congress such interim

reports as he deems desirable, and within three years after the date of

the enactment of this Act, a full and complete report of the findings

made under the program authorized by this Act, together with such

recommendations as he considers to be appropriate and in the best

interests of the United States. Sec. 5. From funds previously appropriated to the Department of

Commerce, the Secretary is authorized to utilize such appropriated sums as are necessary, but not to exceed $500,000, to carry out the purposes of this Act for the first year of the program.

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

final report pursuant to section 3.

Metric system.

Study.

Investigation

and appraisal

requirements.

Results of changes in measurement

system.

Report to Congress.

Funds.

Expiration

date.

Approved August 9, 1968.
SEP 7 1971

at 10 0

(V 1

, A METRIC AMERICA

A decision whose time has come

Daniel V. De Simone, Director

U.S. Metric Study

U.S. METRIC STUDY

VJ .^ National Bureau of Standards,

' *4,Special Publication 345

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Maurice H. Stans, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

Issued July 1971

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

(Order by SD Catalog No. C 13.10:345), Price $2.25. S/N 0303 0884

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Office of the Secretary

Washington, D.C. 20230

THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

THE HONORABLE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

I have the honor to transmit to you the Report on the U.S. Metric Study,

which was conducted by the National Bureau of Standards of the Department

of Commerce.

Thousands of individuals, firms and organized groups, representative of our

society, participated in the Study. After weighing the extensive evidence presented by these participants, this report concludes that the United States should

change to the metric system through a coordinated national program.

I agree with this conclusion, and therefore recommend — That the United States change to the International Metric System deliberately and carefully; — That this be done through a coordinated national program; — That the Congress assign the responsibility for guiding the change, and

anticipating the kinds of special problems described in the report, to a

central coordinating body responsive to all sectors of our society; — That within this guiding framework, detailed plans and timetables be

worked out by these sectors themselves; — That early priority be given to educating every American schoolchild

and the public at large to think in metric terms; — That immediate steps be taken by the Congress to foster U.S. participation in international standards activities; — That in order to encourage efficiency and minimize the overall costs

to society, the general rule should be that any changeover costs shall

"lie where they fall"; — That the Congress, after deciding on a plan for the nation, establish a

target date ten years ahead, by which time the U.S. will have become

predominantly, though not exclusively, metric; — That there be a firm government commitment to this goal.

The Department of Commerce stands ready to provide whatever further

assistance the Congress may require in working out a national plan and putting

it into effect.

Respectfully submitted,

SIRS:

Maurice H. Stans

Secretary of Commerce

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

The Honorable Maurice H. Stans

Secretary of Commerce

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I have the honor to transmit to you the report on the U.S. Metric Study,

undertaken by the National Bureau of Standards at your request, pursuant to

Public Law 90-472. This report embodies our analysis of the alternatives realistically open to the United States and the choice we recommend on the basis of

the evidence marshalled during the Study. I am convinced that after nearly two

hundred years of national debate on this issue, the time has come for a national

decision on a positive course of action.

The questions posed by the Congress do not lend themselves to a clear-cut

analysis in terms of dollars and cents, although we have discussed the question

of costs and benefits as objectively as we could. Neither are the questions to be

answered by evaluating the scientific merits of different measurement systems

in the abstract, even though American scientists, like those of other nations, commonly prefer the metric system for their work. Accordingly, our Metric Study

Group based their work primarily on the informed views of citizens in every walk

of life, considering not only their experiences but their apprehensions, their hopes

for the future and the realities of current problems. We have done our best to

give everyone an opportunity to express his or her views.

Just as numbers are the language of mathematics, measurement language

permits people to communicate with one another in quantitative terms. The nation's measurement system must be not only accurate and precise; it must be

useful. This perspective is reflected in the Department's goal for the National

Bureau of Standards: to strengthen the nation's science and technology and to

foster their useful application in the public interest.

From this vantage point — how the measurement system can best serve the

future needs of America as we enter our third century of progress — we have

examined the matter of metric conversion.

Sincerely,

Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

National Bureau of Standards
V I

FROM THE FIRST METRIC STUDY

Weights and Measures may be ranked among the necessaries of life to every individual of human society. They

enter into the economical arrangements and daily concerns of every family. They are necessary to every occupation of human industry; to the distribution and security

of every species of property; to every transaction of trade

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

ingenuity of the artificer; to the studies of the philosopher;

to the researches of the antiquarian; to the navigation of

the mariner, and the marches of the soldier; to all the exchanges of peace, and all the operations of war. The knowledge of them, as in established use, is among the first

elements of education, and is often learned by those who

learn nothing else, not even to read and write. This knowledge is riveted in the memory by the habitual application

of it to the employments of men throughout life.

John Quincy Adams

Report to the Congress, 1821
PREFACE

One hundred and fifty years ago John Quincy Adams wrote an

eloquent and comprehensive report for the Congress. Based on a four

year investigation, his report dealt with the metric question and the

modernization of our measurement system. It was the first U.S. Metric

Study. Although three decades earlier, Thomas Jefferson also had

written a report for the Congress on the need for modernization of

weights and measures, the metric system was no more than a conception

in his time and his report did not consider it as an alternative seriously

to be entertained by the newly founded United States of America. Inventive genius that he was, he proposed his own measurement system.

In 182 1 Adams did give serious attention to the metric system as an

alternative for adoption. Yet, although he believed it approached "the

ideal perfection of uniformity applied to weights and measures," he

rejected it because he felt that the time was not right for it. Most of

our trade was with inch-pound England, and the metric system was not

even firmly established in France, let alone the rest of the world. Better

to wait, he pointed out, until a uniform international measurement system

could be worked out.

Adams' conditions have now been met: the world has committed

itself to the metric system, and even in the United States its use is

increasing. For America, it is a decision whose time has come.

Three years ago the Congress asked for a sweeping investigation of

the metric question (see inside front cover), because it sensed that the

world trend toward metric called for a new assessment. The investigation

progressed over a dozen different avenues involving public hearings,

supplemented by surveys on international trade, business and industry,

education, national security — almost every activity in our society.

This volume evaluates and distills all of that, and also covers what

has been learned from the British, who are just past the midpoint of their

metric changeover period; the Australians, who are beginning theirs;

the Canadians, who have decided to go metric, too; the Japanese, who

finished conversion ten years ago; and the thousands of individuals who

spoke and corresponded with us during the course of the U.S. Metric

Study.

Most of us are not acquainted with the technical details and

subtleties of international trade, technology, and the many other factors

that were considered in the Study. We need not be, to understand the

issues that the Study tackled. Twelve volumes of detailed special

vii
Vlll A METRIC AMERICA

reports on the hearings and supplemental surveys are listed in Appendix

Two . Those who need to dig deeper for elaborative detail will find

the keys to it there.

My colleagues on the Study Group at the National Bureau of

Standards and elsewhere provided me with the indispensable basis for

this concluding volume. The investigations they conducted and the 12

special reports they authored, as part of the record of the U.S. Metric

Study, are described in Appendix One. I am particularly grateful for

the wide-ranging contributions of Mr. Alvin G. McNish, a guiding spirit

from the inception of the Study; Mr. George A. W. Boehm, my close

collaborator in the preparation of this volume; Dr. Robert D. Huntoon,

whose fertile mind contributed many insights and helpful suggestions;

and Mr. Louis E. Barbrow, whose perception and patient understanding

helped us to skirt many pitfalls.

We owe a great debt to the hundreds of organizations, committees,

and other groups that participated in the U.S. Metric Study. It is not

possible to name them all here, but those that were most involved —

particularly the Study's Advisory Panel, ably chaired by Mr. Louis F.

Polk — are identified in Appendix One. Dr. Francis L. LaQue served as

vice chairman of the panel; Mr. Leonard S. Hardland was its executive

secretary.

Mr. Polk, Dr. LaQue and their colleagues were a source of enlightenment and encouragement throughout the planning and conduct

of the Study. The 44 members of the Panel represented a wide variety

of opinion. It follows that their individual views are not necessarily

reflected by this report, nor are those of the diverse organizations with

which they are affiliated. This is also true of the other committees that

were consulted and are identified in Appendix One: The President's

Science Advisory Committee, the Commerce Technical Advisory

Board, and the National Inventors Council. I deeply appreciate the

constructive advice they gave on how the first draft of this report could

be improved.

During the Study a great deal was learned in consultations with

experienced individuals from other countries. I am indebted for the

discerning and practical advice given our Study by Lord Ritchie-Calder,

Chairman of the British Metrication Board, Mr. Gordon Bowen, its

Director, and other members of the Board; Mr. John D. Norgard, Chairman of the Australia's Metric Conversion Board, and Dr. Alan Harper,
PREFACE ix

its Executive Member; Dr. Sydney Wagner, General Director of the

Office of Science and Technology in Canada's Department of Industry,

Trade and Commerce, and his Director of Policy, Mr. Hugh C. Douglas;

Dr. Jose M. Alcala, Director of Standards in Mexico's Department of

Industry and Commerce; Dr. M. C. Probine, Director of the Physics

and Engineering Laboratory in New Zealand's Department of Scientific

and Industrial Research; Dr. Lai C. Verman, Industrial Consultant,

and Dr. S. K. Sen, Director General, Indian Standards Institution, both

of New Delhi, India; and Mr. Lian Peck Baey, Chairman of the Metrication Board of Singapore. My thanks to all of them.

In addition to the groups consulted both here and abroad, there were

several individuals whom I asked to comment on the first draft of the

manuscript. They helped greatly to rescue it from error and oversight.

Since they are not identified elsewhere in this report, I gratefully

acknowledge them here: Dr. Allen V. Astin, Director Emeritus of the

National Bureau of Standards; Mr. Carl A. Beck, Chairman of the

National Small Business Association; Mr. William K. Burton, Manager

of Metric Systems Development, Ford Motor Company; Dr. John H.

Dessauer, Vice Chairman of the Xerox Corporation; Dr. James Hillier,

Executive Vice President for Research and Engineering, RCA; Dr.

Harold K. Hughes, Vice President for Academic Affairs, State University of New York at Potsdam; Mr. John L. Maddux of the World

Bank; and Mr. Mark S. Massel, international consultant.

Those who were consulted in the preparation of this report are not

responsible for any imperfections that remain, only for reducing their

number. I am grateful to all of them for their help.

In the almost 200 years that the metric question has been considered

in this country, it has never been clear to most Americans what the

question entailed. This time, as many of us as possible should be given

the basis for understanding what is really involved and what the

alternatives are. That is the purpose of this report.

Daniel V. De Simone, Director

U.S. Metric Study
CONTENTS

Preface

Summary

I. Perspective

What Congress asked. A technology assessment. Scope of the

Study. Public hearings and special

investigations. The main alternatives.

II. Two Centuries of Debate

The Constitution empowers Congress

"to fix the standard of weights and

measures." From barleycorns to

inches. Thomas Jefferson's foot.

Inventing the meter. John Quincy

Adams considers the metric question.

Congressman Kasson's Committee

on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.

Metric becomes legal in the U.S.

The controversy smolders. The

Treaty of the Meter. The House

passes a bill, then buries it. The

arguments crystallize. The thirtyyear lull. Sputnik. Britain decides to go metric.

III. Measurement Systems

The many dialects of measurement.

The logic of metric. The merits

of Customary. Metric beachheads

in the U.S. Do-it-yourself systems.

The practical view.

IV. Arguments That Have

Been Made For Metric and

For Customary

Which system makes calculations

easier? Which system is personally

more convenient? Problems and

opportunities within the U.S. The

Page

vii

xv

23

35

Page

U.S. and the world. Implications

for the future. The real issue.

V. Going Metric: What Would

It Really Mean?

Not an abrupt and mandatory changeover. But a casual and cost-free

drift is not feasible. Software and

hardware. Building momentum.

Change some things rapidly, some

slowly, others never. The rule of reason to guide changes. Case

studies of the pharmaceutical and

antifriction bearing industries. An

introduction to engineering standards

and how they serve a technical society. How they are developed.

World standards making.

VI. The Metric Question in The

Context of The Future

World

Three special concerns: international standards, foreign trade, and

U.S. relations with its military allies.

Do standards help or hinder trade?

Advancing U.S. ideas. The need

for action now. The crucial bal- ance of trade. The growing power

of the multinational corporations.

The convergence of customs and

cultures. Relations with developing countries and with our neighbors,

Mexico and Canada. Promoting

cooperation in defense and space.

VII. Going Metric: The Broad

Consensus

Inviting a whole society to express

its views. Three fundamental questions: Is increased metric usage in

the best interests of the United States?

If so, should there be a coordinated

45

55

71
CONTENTS Xi

national program to change to metric?

Over how many years should the

change be made? Answers to the

questions.

VIII. Recommendation and Problems Needing Early Attention 85

The recommendation of this report.

Individual segments of society to work out their own specific timetables and programs, after a national

decision to go metric. But central

coordination is necessary. Broad

functions of a coordinating body.

Immediate attention to education and

international standards. Weights

and measures in commerce. Special concern for small businesses.

Reevaluating engineering standards.

Antitrust considerations. Cooperation with Canada. Avoiding bureaucratic waste. Technologies to

aid the change.

IX. Benefits and Costs 97

Tangible and intangible factors.

Which is more advantageous: changing to metric by national plan or without a plan? The critical analysis: the manufacturing industry.

Estimates made available by other

sectors: the Federal Government,

nonmanufacturing businesses, labor,

education.

X. Two Paths to Metric: Britain

and Japan 119

Japan's zigzag approach. Two les- sons from Japan's experience. Britain's march to metric. Industry

leads the way. Two years for

Page

planning. Formal education and

vocational training. Industry, trade,

and the consumer. Attention to small business. Solving problems

along the way. Informing the public. Britain as a pilot program.

Appendix One: How the U.S.

Metric Study was Planned

and Carried Out 13s

Responsibility for the Study assigned

to the National Bureau of Standards.

The plan. Public hearings and special investigations. Detailed methodologies. The Metric Study

Group. The Metric System Study

Advisory Panel. Other committees consulted. Groups invited

to contribute to the public hearings.

Federal agencies that participated

in the U.S. Metric Study.

Appendix Two: Bibliography 154

Record of the U.S. Metric Study:

Twelve reports on the public hearings and the special investigations.

Congressional hearings and reports

leading to Public Law 90-472. Selected official reports of foreign

countries. Other selected documents.

Appendix Three: ISO Recommendation R 1000 167

A recommendation by the International Standards Organization that

gives rules for the use of units of the

International System and for forming

and selecting decimal multiples and

submultiples of these units for application in the various fields of technology.
GREENLAN D S

ARCTIC OCEAN

7

Islands in a

Metric World

UNITED STATES

0

0

0

PACIFIC OCEAN

ATLANTIC OCEAN

V

SOUTH AMERICA

OO

I I Metric, Pre-World War II

IIj Metric or Committed

to Metric, Post World War II

Uncommitted

Barbados Jamaica Nauru Tonga

Burma Liberia Sierra Leone Trinidad

Gambia Muscat Southern Yemen United States

Ghana and Oman

i


SUMMARY

Many times in the last two centuries, the Congress

considered the merits of adopting the metric system as

America's primary language of measurement. Each time,

action was postponed, often because the metric system was

not then in use by our major trading partners abroad. Now,

with every other major nation converted to metric or committed to conversion, this obstacle has been removed.

In the light of these and other changing circumstances,

the Congress directed the Secretary of Commerce to

undertake the U.S. Metric Study. Its purpose was to

evaluate the impact on America of the metric trend and to

consider alternatives for national policy.

The U.S. Metric Study concludes that eventually the

United States will join the rest of the world in the use of

the metric system as the predominant common language of

measurement. Rather than drifting to metric with no national plan to help the sectors of our society and guide

our relationships abroad, a carefully planned transition

in which all sectors participate voluntarily is preferable.

The change will not come quickly, nor will it be without

difficulty; but Americans working cooperatively can

resolve this question once and for all.

The basis for the conclusion that the U.S. will eventually be metric lies in the findings of the Study that

America is already metric in some respects; that we are

becoming more so; and that the great majority of businessmen, educators and other informed participants in the

Study reported that increased use of the metric system is

in the best interests of America. They also believe that

it is better for the nation to move to metric by plan rather

than by no plan at all. They go beyond the question of whether or not the

United States should progressively replace its present

measurement language with metric. The question they ask

is how and when America will choose to make the change.

It is primarily a question of timing and preparation. Shall

the nation do so by plan over a comparatively brief period

of ten to fifteen years 7 Or shall it drift toward a metric

xv
XVi A METRIC AMERICA

status, over a much longer period of time, with some parts

of the society inadequately prepared for the increasing

prevalence of metric usage?

Consequently, the costs and benefits to be considered

are not so much those of changing to metric versus not

changing at all. The key comparison is between changing

by plan versus changing with no plan — with no framework

to guide the nation.

There will be real costs and difficulties in the change,

whether or not it is done by plan. The Study indicates

that such difficulties will in any event have to be faced

as metric usage reaches substantial proportions in America. Thus, without a plan the United States would experience all the difficulties of dual inventories, dual education,

dual thinking, dual sets of tools and dual production — perhaps not so soon but over a much longer period of time.

On the basis of all the factors that were considered,

the Study concludes that it would be best for the nation to

change to metric under a coordinated program that provides for flexibility and encourages the various sectors of

society to deal with their particular problems voluntarily.

Within this framework, these sectors would work out their

own timetables and programs, dovetailing them with those

of other sectors.

Developing a national program for change would re- quire a great deal of forethought and discussion. But the

Study finds that two major activities should be begun

immediately, because they would be pivotal in preparing

the nation for increased use of the metric system.

The first is education. Every schoolchild should have

the opportunity to become as conversant with the metric

system as he is with our present measurement system.

The second concerns international standards. High

quality American industrial practices should be much

more vigorously promoted in international negotiations

that are beginning to establish "engineering standards"

(see Special Terms, below) on a worldwide basis and will

increasingly affect world trade.
SUMMARY XVII

While the majority of the American people are not

well versed in the metric system, the Study shows that

those who are informed about it tend to favor it. This

demonstrates a need for public education to help all citizens to cope with the trend to metric and poses a challenge

to the Congress to point the way for all Americans.

Special Terms

Metric System: Developed in

France at the time of the French

Revolution, this measurement

system was based primarily on

the meter, a length defined as a

small fraction of the earth's circumference. Since then the system has been refined in many

ways. The up-to-date version, on

which the nations of the world

have agreed, is called Systime

International a" Unites. When this

report refers specifically to this

version of the metric system, it

will be called the International

Metric System.

International Metric System: At

this time, the whole system is founded on six base units. The

unit of length is the meter. The

unit of mass (commonly called

"weight") is the kilogram. The

unit of time is the second. The

unit of electric current is the

ampere. The unit of temperature

is the kelvin (which in common

use is translated into the degree

Celsius, formerly called centigrade). The unit of luminous

intensity is the candela. All other

units, such as those for speed and

volume, are derived from the

base units. Standard prefixes are added to give names for quantities of a particular unit that differ

by multiples of 10 — e.g., meter

(m), kilometer (1000 m), millimeter (0.001 m).

Customary System: The predominant measurement system in the

U.S. It includes such commonly

used units as inch, foot, yard,

mile, pint, quart, gallon, bushel,

ounce (fluid and avoirdupois),

pound, degree Fahrenheit — and,

like metric, the ampere, the

candela and the second.

Going Metric, Metric Conversion,

Metric Changeover: As used in

this report, these terms are synonymous. They mean a national

changeover that would result in

acceptance of metric as the preferred system of measurement

and, ultimately, thinking primarily in metric terms instead of

primarily in Customary terms.

Metrication is the term the British

apply to their own conversion

program.

Transition Period: The length of

time needed for a nation to become predominantly, though not

exclusively, metric.

Engineering Standards: Broadly

speaking, they are agreements

that specify characteristics of

things or ways to do things —

almost anything that can be measured or described. They cover an enormous range: e.g., the diameter of wire; the length and width

of typewriter paper; the purity

of aspirin; the fire resistance of

clothing; the meat content of

frankfurters; the symbols on

highway signs; the way to test for sulphur in fuel oil; the technical basis for local building

codes; the strength of a safety

belt; the wattage of light bulbs;

the weight of a nickel. Taken

together, engineering standards

serve as both a dictionary and a

recipe book for a technical

society.

CHAPTER I

Perspective

In the last 20 years the metric system has become the

dominant language of measurement in the world. Only a

few nations have not yet adopted the metric system or decided to do so. Of these, the most notable is the United

States. This is illustrated by the world map on the preceding pages.

What is the effect on the U.S. of the worldwide swing

to metric? What does it mean to our international relations

and balance of trade? How does it affect Americans in

every walk of life?

Would it be desirable for the U.S. to use the metric

system more widely than it does? Should this be done

deliberately in some coordinated way? Or should the nation take no action to promote the use of metric weights

and measures?

Or, as another possibility, should the U.S. try to persuade the rest of the world to make more use of the Customary system? What can be said about the benefits and

costs of deliberately changing to metric in comparison with

doing nothing at all?

The Metric Study Act

These are the kinds of questions that Congress wanted

answered when it passed the Metric Study Act in August

of 1968. The Act was spawned after a decade of effort

by Congressman George P. Miller and Senator Claiborne

Pell, joined in the final phase by Senator Robert P. Griffin.

The text of this Act is reproduced on the inside front cover

of this volume.

Congress directed the Secretary of Commerce to

arrange for a broad inquiry and evaluation: the U.S. Metric

Study. He assigned the task to the National Bureau of

Standards. On the basis of the findings and conclusions of

the Study, the Secretary was asked to make "such recommendations as he considers to be appropriate and in the

best interests of the United States."

A "Technology Assessment"

The questions, at first, seemed fairly straightforward.

"What does it mean to our . . . balance of trade?"

i
2 A METRIC AMERICA

Actually, the quest for answers proved extremely complex

and challenging. Technology, economics, sociology, international relations, and many other factors are involved. So

are emotions and prejudices.

The choice of a measurement system affects people in

so many different ways that the questions posed by Congress cannot be reduced to a simple issue and settled to

everybody's satisfaction. As with most major assessments,

the answers depend largely on subjective thinking and personal preference, on balancing possible future gain against

current inconvenience. There is yet no way for drawing up

a reliable national balance sheet, in dollars and cents, for

deciding complex social issues. Going metric is one of

these.

Scope of the Study

During the course of the Study, representatives of

business, labor, trade associations, consumers, educators,

and the professions answered thousands of questionnaires,

engaged in thousands of personal interviews, and participated in a series of hearings that were widely publicized
PERSPECTIVE 3

in advance. In addition, interviews with a representative

sample of American households sought to determine the

general public's knowledge of the metric system. Appendix

One (p. 138) describes in detail how the U.S. Metric Study

was carried out and who the major participating groups

were.

The primary goal in the planning of the Study was to

give every sector of society an opportunity to express its

views with respect to the questions raised by the Metric

Study Act. The plan provided for a series of seven public

hearings, called National Metric Study Conferences, supplemented by eleven special investigations.

The public hearings alone included representatives as- sociated with: manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries, organized labor, small businesses, engineering and

scientific disciplines, education at all levels, advertising,

publishing, law, medicine, public health, agriculture,

forestry, fisheries, agencies of Federal, state, county, and

local government, real estate, college athletics, finance, insurance, warehousing, transportation, construction, communications, retailers, wholesalers, chiefs of police, fraternal organizations, exporters and importers, home

economists, consumers, and other groups that could be affected by a change in the nation's system of measurement.

This list suggests the breadth and depth of the U.S.

Metric Study.

The investigations that supplemented the hearings

covered the following subjects:

(1) Manufacturing Industry

(2) Nonmanufacturing Businesses

(3) Education

(4) Consumers

(5) International Trade

(6) Engineering Standards

(7) International Standards

(8) Department of Defense

(9) Federal Civilian Agencies

(10) Commercial Weights and Measures
4 A METRIC AMERICA

" . . . to give every sector of society an

opportunity to express its views ..."
PERSPECTIVE 5

(11) History of the Metric System Controversy in the

U.S.

Each of these investigations is the subject of a volume,

published as part of the record of the U.S. Metric Study.

The public hearings are summarized and analyzed in an additional volume. All twelve volumes are cited in Appendix

Two (p. 164), the bibliography of this report.

Courses of Action

In the Metric Study Act, Congress specifically

requested an evaluation of "the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action which may be feasible for the

United States." As the Study progressed, it became clear

that the U.S. is already increasing its use of the metric

system, albeit slowly now, and that sooner or later the U.S.

will probably become predominantly metric.

Many courses of action are conceivable, including an

abrupt and mandatory conversion to metric and a program

to promote more use of the Customary system in the world.

However, the feasible courses of action are narrowed to

two main alternatives:

Course One: The United States follows no overall plan.

Each firm or other entity pursues its own measurement policy. A target date for the nation to become

predominantly metric is not set. The government does

nothing to impede or foster the change.

Course Two: The nation goes metric according to plan,

under an overall national program with a target date

for becoming predominantly metric. Within this

framework, segments of the society work out their

own specific timetables and programs, dovetailing

them with the programs of other segments.

The analysis of this report focuses on these alternative

courses of action. The expanded table of contents (p. x)

of this volume is meant to serve as a detailed "roadmap."

It outlines what is covered in each of the chapters that

follow.

CHAPTER II

Two Centuries

of Debate

One of the powers specifically given the Congress by

the men who framed the Constitution was to fix the standard of weights and measures. It comes as one of the very

first of the responsibilities assigned to the federal legislature.

From the early days of the Republic, the United States

has repeatedly considered the question of going metric. Yet

today, on the eve of the nation's second centennial, the

question remains unsettled.

Many of the facts and opinions that have been

gathered during the U.S. Metric Study are new in the context of their times. But others have changed so little in a

century or two that a reader of history might feel as if he

were walking through a revolving door. The following

historical account casts light on why, up to now, the metric

question has not been settled.

From Barleycorns to Inches

Our Customary system of measurement is part of our

cultural heritage from the days when the thirteen Colonies

were under British rule. It started as a hodge-podge of

Anglo-Saxon, Roman and Norman-French weights and

measures. Since medieval times, commissions appointed by

various English monarchs had reduced the chaos of mea- ||

surement by setting specific standards for some of the most

important units. Early records, for instance, indicate that

an inch was defined as the length of "three barleycorns,

round and dry" when laid together; a pennyweight, or onetwentieth of a Tower ounce, was equal to 32 wheatcorns

from "the midst of the ear."

The U.S. gallon is the British wine gallon, stan- TheU

dardized at the beginning of the 1 8th century (and about 20

percent smaller than the Imperial gallon that the British

adopted in 1824 and have since used to measure most

liquids).

In short, as some of the founders of this country realized, the Customary system was a makeshift based largely

on folkways.

7
8 A METRIC AMERICA

Thomas Jefferson : America's

Universal Man

Jefferson's Foot

In his first message in 1790 President Washington re- minded Congress that it was time to set our own standards

of weights and measures. The matter was referred to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, an inventive genius, who

soon proposed two plans. Both involved adoption of a standard of length based on a natural phenomenon that was

more nearly reproducible than a barleycorn or a wheatcorn. His own preference was for a simple pendulum: a

cylindrical iron rod of such length that a swing from one

end of its arc to the other and back again would take two

seconds.

Jefferson's first plan was to use this pendulum as a

standard to "define and render uniform and stable" the

weights and measures of the English Customary system.

With length firmly established, units of area, volume,

weight, force, and other measurements could be consistently derived.

His second plan was more far-reaching. He wanted to

establish a new system of weights and measures based on

decimal ratios, which the U.S. had recently adopted for its

coins. He suggested retaining some of the old names for

frequently used units, and he felt also that the sizes of the

new units should be as close as possible to the sizes of the

old ones. His new "foot," based on the pendulum, would

be nearly as long as an old foot, but it would be divided into

ten new "inches."

Jefferson's report was accepted by Congress and

discussed by select committees on several occasions over

the next six years. But despite prodding from President

Washington in two subsequent messages, neither plan was

adopted.

Inventing the Meter

Meanwhile, a brand new measurement system, strictly

based on natural phenomena, had been born in the intellectual ferment of the French Revolution. In 1790 Talleyrand,

Bishop of Autun, got approval to proceed with formulating
TWO CENTURIES OF DEBATE 9

a new system of weights and measures. The Paris Academy of Sciences constructed a system based on the most

scientific principles of the time and radically different from

commonly used measurement systems in that it was wholly

rational, quite simple, and internally consistent. Its

keystone was the "meter," a unit of length defined as a

specific fraction of the earth's circumference.

The meter was used in the derivation of all other elements of the metric system. Larger and smaller measures

of a given unit, such as the meter, were related by decimal

ratios. Originally time and angles were divided decimally,

and for a while during the Revolution, Frenchmen lived on

a ten-day week.

Neither the design nor the implementation of the new

metric system was instantaneous. But it took hold rapidly,

considering the chaos existing then in French political and

social life. By 1795 provisional standards had been

fabricated, and laws had been passed making the system

compulsory. At the end of the century, an international

conference was held in Paris to bring other nations up to

date with what had been done and to show them the new

standards.

The metric system was not an unqualified success at

first — not even at home in France. Use was not enforced,

partly because commercial and household weights and

measures remained scarce. Acceptance came so slowly, in

fact, that in 1812, as a practical measure, Napoleon

Bonaparte issued a decree partially reinstating the old

system while retaining metric measurement standards.

Only after a hiatus of 25 years was the metric system

officially restored in France by passage of a law in 1837

making its use compulsory throughout the country after

January 1 , 1840.

After that, the metric system began to spread internationally at a rapid pace. By 1850 the Netherlands, Greece,

Spain, and parts of Italy adopted it. By 1880 seventeen

other nations — including Germany, Austria-Hungary,

The decimal watch never took

hold . . .

Nor did the decimal calendar, but

"for a while during the Revolution,

Frenchmen lived on a ten-day

week."
10 A METRIC AMERICA

John Quincy Adams wrote an eloquent report on the first U.S. Metric

Study

Norway, and most of South America— had changed to metric. And by 1900 eighteen more were added to the list.

The Adams Study

After Jefferson's early attempts, the U.S. had shown

little concern for standardizing measurement until 1816.

Then, President James Madison again reminded Congress

that the lack of provision for uniformity in weights and

measures constituted an important piece of unfinished

business. In response, the Senate the next year passed a

resolution asking the Secretary of State to reinvestigate it. The result was John Quincy Adams' Report Upon Weights

and Measures, submitted four years later in 1821.

The Adams report was the first systematic consideration of the metric system by the U.S. Government. In

eloquent language, it covered the pros and cons of both

widely used measurement systems in the context of the

time. And for many years to come it inspired participants

on both sides of the metric controversy.

Adams called attention to five features of the metric

system that could be considered distinct advantages: the

"invariable" standard of length taken from nature; the single unit for weight and the single unit for volume; the

decimal basis; the relation of weight units to French

coinage; and its uniform and precise terminology.

On the other side, he found disadvantages — notably,

that the system had not actually become popular in France.

And so, he presented Congress with a choice of four courses of action which, taken together, are not unlike the goals

the current U.S. Metric Study was charged to explore.

While extolling the virtues of the metric system, Adams

suggested the following possibilities: — "To adopt, in all its essential parts, the new French

system of weight and measures . . . — "To restore and perfect the old English system of

weights, measures, moneys, and silver coins . . . — "To devise and establish a [combined] system . . .
TWO CENTURIES OF DEBATE 11

by adaptation of parts of each system to the principles

of the other. — "To adhere, without any innovation whatever, to our

existing weights and measures, merely fixing the

standard."

Adams' Advice

Adams' own preference was a two-stage approach.

First, he would have the familiar English units standardized and approved without change. Later, he would

have the President begin negotiating with France, Britain,

and Spain to establish a uniform international measurement

system.

The recommendations were in keeping with the times.

By 1821 most states in the Union had already enacted laws

providing for weights and measures and specifying the English units. At a time when the constitutional rights of the

states were just beginning to be examined by the Supreme

Court, any attempt to upset these laws by imposing the

"The preponderance of American

trade at that time was still with

Britain ..."
12 A METRIC AMERICA

metric system might have been disturbing. Mr. Adams was

aware of this point. He was also aware that the most

pressing need was for agreement on uniform standards of

any sort.

In addition, he stressed international harmony of measurement. The preponderance of American trade at that

time was still with Britain, and the U.S. was bounded on

one side by British Canada and on the other by Spanish

possessions. He therefore deemed it wise to consult both

Britain and Spain before making any such radical change as

adopting the metric system.

The Kasson Committee

Congress took no action in response to the Adams re- I port, although in 1832 the Treasury Department did adopt

English standards to meet the needs of customs houses.

Until the metric question was reconsidered some 40

years after the Adams report, the U.S. industrial society

took form and grew large. A brief flurry of interest in the

metric system, coinciding with its rapid spread from

France to other nations, was cut short by the Civil War.

Then in 1863 the subject again came to the fore. President Lincoln had formed the National Academy of

Sciences to advise the government on all technical matters.

A committee led by Joseph Henry, an eminent physicist,

was appointed at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury to reconsider weights, measures, and coinage. After

two years of deliberation, the committee issued a report

favorable to the adoption of the metric system. This met

with the approval of Congressman John A. Kasson of

Iowa, chairman of the newly appointed House Committee

on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.

Metric Becomes Legal

In 1866 the Kasson Committee reported favorably on

three metric bills that were eventually passed by Congress.

The most important legalized the use of metric weights and

measures, and it also specified English-system equivalents
TWO CENTURIES OF DEBATE 13

of metric weights and measures. One of the other bills

directed the Postmaster General to distribute metric postal

scales to all post offices exchanging mail with foreign countries; the other directed the Secretary of the Treasury to

furnish each State with one set of metric standards.

Congressman Kasson made clear the intentions of his

committee. The metric system was not being made compulsory. Rather, Congress was to permit the use of metric,

while stimulating interest in reform. And this was to remain

the goal of metric advocates for several more decades.

The Controversy Smolders

Congressman Kasson had stressed the importance of

educating the "rising generation" to the simplicity and utility of the metric system. Appropriately, educators themselves staged the first public set-to over the question of

adopting metric. The adversaries were Professor Charles

Davies of Columbia College and the President of the College, Frederick A. P. Barnard. Davies had been asked by

the University Convocation of New York to head a committee to investigate what might be done to improve

knowledge of the metric system. His report, submitted in

1871, recommended that nothing be done. Moreover, it raised numerous objections to the system and prophesied

dire consequences to the nation if it were to be adopted.

Barnard delivered a rebuttal refuting all of Davies' objections and outlining a strategy for educating people in the

use of the metric system. He wanted it taught in the

schools, used in legislating tariffs and assessing customs

duties, and put to use in a variety of other government activities, including public surveys, military and naval

establishments, and post offices. Having advanced this

plan, Barnard created an organization to push ahead with

it: the American Metrological Society, founded in

December 1873, with Barnard himself as president.

In its early years, especially while Barnard remained

as its head, the Society attracted many influential members, among them: Congressman Kasson, a dozen other

Frederick A. P. Barnard, a metric

advocate.

Columbia College, 1871
14 A METRIC AMERICA

U.S. Representatives and Senators, and eminent scientists

and educators from the colleges and universities. In addition to its interest in advancing the metric system, the

Society was concerned with internationally uniform

coinage, standardized time zones, and several other

reforms.

So much of the Society's energy was being taken up by

other matters that it spawned a special group to promote

the metric system through education. This was the American Metric Bureau, founded in 1876 with headquarters in

Boston. Barnard was president of this organization also,

and its executive director was a young librarian, Melvil

Dewey, who later became known for his development of

the decimal system of classifying library volumes.

The American Metric Bureau remained active for only

a few years. During this time its most ambitious project

was the purchase of metric hardware — scales, rules, and

capacity measures — for resale to educational institutions

at reasonable prices. When funds ran low, and particularly

after Barnard's death in 1889, the Bureau's influence

dwindled.

Yet the American Metrological Society and the American Metric Bureau did manage to spark some interest in

measurement. Between 1877 and 1886, Congress considered several pieces of legislation dealing with increased

use of the metric system. One resolution was passed in

1877 resulting in an executive-branch investigation of the

desirability of making the system compulsory in all

Government transactions. By and large, the study showed,

the idea had little public support.

Action Begets Reaction

Another result of the early pro-metric activity was the

fostering of the first organized opposition. While many individuals and groups objected to changes in the measurement system, the first to adopt opposition to the metric

system as its main objective was the International Institute

for Preserving and Perfecting Weights and Measures. It
TWO CENTURIES OF DEBATE 15

was founded in Boston in 1879 by a Cleveland engineer,

Charles Latimer, and it made clear that the weights and

measures to be preserved and perfected were strictly

Anglo-Saxon.

The International Institute's thinking was greatly influenced by a contemporary movement known as

"pyramidology. ,, The main contention was that the Great

Pyramid at Giza, Egypt, had been constructed by the hand

of God in such a way that it contained all of His scientific

gifts to mankind. By elaborately manipulating the

pyramid's dimensions, pyramidologists "proved" that the

Anglo-Saxon race was one of the ten lost tribes of Israel

and that Anglo-Saxon weights and measures, represented

by the customary English system, were of divine origin.

The Institute was naturally opposed to any other measurement system and even wanted to "purify" the English

system by eliminating all non- Anglo-Saxon influences.

The Treaty of the Meter

One of the Institute's main targets was U.S. adherence

to the Treaty of the Meter, which had been signed by

seventeen nations after five years of meetings (1870-1875)

in Paris. The convention and the treaty that followed it ac- complished several objectives. They reformulated the metric system and refined the accuracy of its standards. They

provided for the construction of new measurement standards and distribution of accurate copies to participating

countries. They established permanent machinery for

further international action on weights and measures. And

they set up a world repository and laboratory — the International Bureau of Weights and Measures near Paris — with

land and buildings donated by the French Government.

The new measurement standards, including meter bars

and kilogram weights, were finished in 1889 and the U.S.

received its copies. Four years later the Secretary of the

Treasury, by administrative order, declared the new metric

standards to be the nation's "fundamental standards" of

length and mass. Thus the U.S. became unofficially metric
16 A METRIC AMERICA

nation. The yard, the pound, and other customary units are

defined as fractions of the standard metric units.

In the Treaty of the Meter the U.S. had joined with

every other major nation in the world in endorsing the metric system as the internationally preferred system of

weights and measures and through which measurements

are made internationally compatible at the highest level of

accuracy. Yet there was no immediate and concerted effort

to convert the nation practically to the system it had approved officially.

A Bill Wins Then Dies

An attempt to convert the nation was made in 1896,

and for a short while it appeared that it might succeed.

Representative Dennis Hurley of Brooklyn introduced a

bill providing that all Government departments should

"employ and use only the weights and measures of the

metric system" in transacting official business and that in

1899 metric would become "the only legal system . . . recognized in the United States." Ardently supported by

the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, the

bill passed the House by the bare margin of 119 to 117.

But immediately, opponents forced a reconsideration and

launched an attack stressing the difficulty of making a

change. Foreseeing defeat, the Committee chairman had

the bill sent back to his Committee, and there it died.

One contemporary report said that the Hurley bill

failed because other Congressmen had not been fully

briefed. Another claimed that too many Congressmen were

afraid of adverse reaction from farmers and tradesmen in

an election year.

The Arguments Crystallize

Over the next ten years, more than a dozen bills dealing with the metric system were proposed and many were

debated. Support for the metric system continued to come

from scientists, educators, and some government officials.
TWO CENTURIES OF DEBATE 17

And members of the Committee on Coinage, Weights and

Measures kept the subject alive in Congress.

In general the arguments, both pro and con, changed

little. It was said that the U.S. would inevitably have to go

metric and that the transition would become no easier as

time went on. Britain and Russia seemed ready to make the

changeover, thus leaving the U.S. isolated. And the intrinsic simplicity and utility of metric units and decimal

arithmetic were reiterated. Opponents continued to stress

costs and confusion.

The opposition was better organized and more effectively led than ever before. It was spearheaded by two

men: Frederick A. Halsey, a New York engineer, and

Samuel S. Dale, the editor of a Boston textile magazine.

They rallied the support of engineers, manufacturers, and

workmen and claimed to be "practical men, not closet

philosophers or theorists." They charged that the metric

system had been a practical failure in countries which had

adopted it — i.e., that English and U.S. weights and measures were still the ones most commonly used even in those

countries. Other arguments, some of which are still heard

today in one form or another, included: — Engineering standards (e.g., for nuts, bolts, and

machine tool sizes) would have to be abandoned at

great cost and inconvenience. — The alleged simplicity of the metric system was

illusory, because errors would be made through

misplacing of the decimal point. — Most of the world's commerce was being carried on in

terms of English and U.S. units. — The Government had no right to tell a man what

weights and measures to use. And in any case, such

laws would be unenforceable.

A Formidable Opposition

Most of the metric legislation proposed between 1896

and 1907 would have required the Government to adopt
18 A METRIC AMERICA

the metric system first, with the rest of the country following within a few years. At first, the pro-metric factions had

the momentum, but the tide turned about 1902, when Halsey and Dale managed to stir up such an outcry from a few

manufacturers and influential engineers that further

proposals were bottled up in Committee. They were, in

fact, so successful that advocates gave up trying and decided to await a more propitious time.

The next phase of the metric controversy, which

began before the U.S. became embroiled in World War I and

lasted until the Great Depression set in, took place mostly

outside Congress. The anti-metric forces continued to be

led by Halsey and Dale and this time they had the backing

of a formal organization, the American Institute of Weights

and Measures.

With financial and political backing from a large portion of the nation's major manufacturers and manufacturing

associations, the Institute was able to overwhelm each prometric proposal with organized protests and adverse

publicity. In addition to publishing its own journals, bulletins, and pamphlets, the Institute enjoyed the support of

some leading professional and trade journals.

The main anti-metric arguments, though not radically

changed, were embellished with inflammatory flourishes.

One series of articles in 1920 carried such titles as What

Real He-Men Think of the Compulsory Metric System,

Metric Chaos in Daily Life, and A Metric Nightmare.

Newspaper and magazine articles sympathetic to the metric system were methodically rebutted, and those refusing

to publish the Institute's replies were often charged with

suppressing the facts.

Pro-Metricists Regroup

In the face of this continuing barrage of opinion, two

newly-founded, pro-metric organizations began speaking

out. In 1916 the American Metric Association was formed

with headquarters in New York, and about a year later the

World Trade Club opened in San Francisco. Of all the
TWO CENTURIES OF DEBATE 19

combatants in the metric controversy, only the American

Metric Association has survived until today.

The Association drew most of its support from groups

that had tended to be pro-metric in the past — e.g.,

scientists, educators, and members of such closely related

professions as medicine, engineering, and pharmacy. It was

also endorsed, and to some extent supported financially by

several professional societies, notably the American

Chemical Society, the American Pharmaceutical Association, and the American Association for the Advancement

of Science. In fact, the Metric Association eventually affiliated itself with the AAAS. A few companies also were

represented in the Metric Association, including General

Electric and Goodyear Tire and Rubber, although they by

no means exerted as much influence as the industrial

representatives that virtually dominated the anti-metric

American Institute.

The Thirty-Year Lull

In the post-war, pre-depression years, only two Congressional hearings were held on the subject, although 40

bills were introduced. Then, with the onset of the prolonged financial crisis, the metric question was shoved into

the background. When times got better, the U.S. was in an

isolationist mood and not disposed to considering a change

to the metric system — although the time would come when

metric advocates would propose a crash metric changeover

as a tonic for a sluggish economy.

In fact, the metric controversy remained dormant for

almost three decades. The nation was too busy to consider

the question during World War II, and at its end, the U.S.

so dominated the world's production and exchange of

goods that there seemed to be no need for a change.

Sputnik

Then came an event that suddenly focused America's

attention on science and technology: the launching of the

Soviet Union's first Sputnik satellite. Students flocked to

Sputnik opened the space age

Students flocked to science courses
20 A METRIC AMERICA

science courses; firms and government agencies poured

money into research; and along with this resurgence of

faith and interest in things scientific, the U.S. Government

again began to consider seriously the desirability of increasing the use of the metric system, the predominant

measurement language of science.

In 1957, the year Sputnik soared, a U.S. Army regulation established the metric system as the basis for weaponSYSTEME INTERNATIONAL ry an(j related equipment. A committee of the Organization

of American States proposed that the metric system be

adopted throughout the Western Hemisphere. The following year the major nations still using the Customary

system, including the U.S. and Britain, agreed to use the

same metric equivalents to define their inch-pound units.

This dramatized the fact that the inch and the pound are

defined by the meter and the kilogram.

And two years after that, in 1960, the metric system

was itself refined by a General Conference of Weights and

Measures, in which the U.S. participated. Although the

metric system had been the common measurement language of the 43 nations that adhered to the Treaty of the

Meter, like other languages, it was spoken in various

dialects. Prior to 1960 there were subtle differences in the

use of metric; none caused confusion in everyday use, but

where the highest levels of scientific and engineering precision were required, the metric system was not really standard and there was room for misunderstanding and error. The General Conference of Weights and Measures

ironed out these differences by agreeing on a standard metric system that might be compared with "the King's

English." The result was the International Metric System,

from which today all the U.S. Customary measurement

standards are derived. International Metric, known in

technical circles as "SI" (Systeme International d'Unites),

is not an immutable measurement language. It will continue

to evolve as needs change.
TWO CENTURIES OF DEBATE 21

In May 1959, in an address to the American Physical

Society, the acting Secretary of Commerce announced

his intention to throw his Department's weight behind

an in-depth study of the costs and difficulties which might

be involved in changing the entire U.S. to metric. The

action was inevitable, he implied; the only issues were

when and how the change was to be brought about. Accordingly, he proposed that the Director of the National

Bureau of Standards establish an advanced planning

group to "assemble all available documentation and to

identify possible courses of action."

Congress Seeks a Study

Congress, however, decided that the question should

first be given Congressional attention, and three bills were

introduced to deal with it. Two specified a metric study;

the third took the form of a concurrent resolution stating

that it be the sense of Congress that the President take

steps to adopt the metric system as the nation's official

system of measurement.

None of these bills was acted upon, but the idea of

going metric or at least authorizing a metric study gained

momentum in Congress. Hearings were held, although in

the House none of the proposals ever reached the floor. A

sense of urgency was still lacking.

Britain abandons inches and pounds

Britain Decides to Change

Finally, on May 24, 1965, the President of the British

Board of Trade announced in Parliament the United Kingdom's intention to adopt the metric system over the course

of the next ten years.

Britain's action made it clear that the U.S. would soon

be one of the very few nations that still adhered to the

Customary system. After a series of efforts by Congressman George P. Miller and Senator Claiborne Pell, participated in by Senator Robert P. Griffin, an acceptable bill

was drafted. It became Public Law 90-472, which was

signed into law in 1 968.

CHAPTER III

Measurement

Systems

Americans use a rich and varied language when talking

about measurements. It is a potpourri. Men and women in

every industry, every vocation, even every sport speak

their own special dialects. The two "pure" tongues, Customary and International Metric, are often intermingled and

also enriched with such special-purpose "slang" units as:

barn, furlong, board-foot, pica, face-cord, therm, hand and

electron volt.

Generally speaking, people who must communicate

measurements with one another regularly can do so readily

enough and with a minimum of confusion. But the

proliferation of terms has indeed caused some difficulties.

In certain highly technical industries, for example, research

scientists think wholly in terms of metric, whereas product

engineers work with Customary units. Before an idea can

be reduced to application, measurements must first be

translated.

Clearly there would be less chance of confusion if

everyone agreed to talk measurement in some consistent

way — preferably in Customary, International Metric, or

some other language if it were already widely accepted. We

agree on a common alphabet; we accept the dictionary for

the spelling and meaning of words; standard nuts are manufactured to fit standard bolts; if we live in the same time

zone, we set our clocks the same. These conventions for

making life simple are now taken for granted, yet in the past

each of them was adopted in the face of strenuous objections.

Can we, and should we, seek similar harmony in the

way we measure? If so, which of the two major measurement languages is better? This is not an easy question to

answer, because each has intrinsic or practical merits.

The Logic of Metric

No other system of measurement that has been actually used can match the inherent simplicity of International Metric. It was designed deliberately to fill all of the

needs of scientists and engineers, although laymen need

" ... we accept the dictionary for

the spelling and meaning of words"

"These conventions for making life simple are now taken for granted,

yet . . . "
24 A METRIC AMERICA

only know and use a few simple parts of it. It is logically

streamlined, whereas other systems developed more or less

haphazardly. At this time there are only six base units in

the International Metric System. The unit of length is the

meter. The unit of mass is the kilogram. The unit of time is

the second. The unit of electric current is the ampere. The

unit of temperature is the kelvin (which in common use is

translated into the degree Celsius, formerly called degree

centigrade). The unit of luminous intensity is the candela.

These units are described more fully in Appendix Three.

All the other units of measurement in the International

Metric System are derived from these six base units. Area

is measured in square meters; speed in meters per second;

density in kilograms per cubic meter. The newton, the unit

of force, is a simple relationship involving meters, kilograms, and seconds; and the pascal, unit of pressure, is

defined as one newton per square meter. In some other

cases, the relationship between the derived and base units

SOME COMMON UNITS

Length Mass Volume Temperature Electric

Current

Time

METRIC

meter kilogram liter Celsius

(Centigrade)

ampere second

CUSTOMARY

inch ounce fluid ounce Fahrenheit ampere second

foot pound teaspoon

yard ton tablespoon

fathom grain cup

rod dram pint

mile quart

gallon

barrel

peck

bushel
MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS 25

must be expressed by rather more complicated formulas—which is inevitable in any measurement system, owing

to the innate complexity of some of the things we measure.

Similar relationships among mass, area, time and other

quantities in the Customary system usually require similar

formulas, made all the more complicated because they can

contain arbitrary constants. For example, one horsepower

is defined as 550 foot-pounds per second.

The third intrinsic advantage is that metric is based on

the decimal system. Multiples and submultiples of any

given unit are always related by powers of 10. For instance, there are 10 millimeters in one centimeter; 100 centimeters in one meter; and 1,000 meters in one kilometer.

This greatly simplifies converting larger to smaller measurements. For example, in order to calculate the number

of meters in 3.794 kilometers, multiply by 1,000 (move the

decimal point three places to the right) and the answer is

3,794. For comparison, in order to find the number of

Names and Symbols for Metric Prefixes

Prefix means

tera (1012

) One trillion times

giga (109

) One billion times

mega (106

) One million times

kilo (103

) One thousand times

hecto (102 ) One hundred times

deca (10) Ten times

deci (10-i) One tenth of

centi (10-2 ) One hundredth of

milli (10-3

) One thousandth of

micro (10~6

) One millionth of

nano (10~9

) One billionth of

pico (10-i2 ) One trillionth of
26 A METRIC AMERICA

" . . . one authority is convinced the

U.S. aerospace industry alone would

save about $65 million a year in engineers' time"

inches in 3.794 miles, it is necessary to multiply first by

5,280 and then by 12.

Moreover, multiples and submultiples of all the International Metric units follow a consistent naming scheme,

which consists of attaching a prefix to the unit, whatever it may be. For example, kilo stands for 1,000: one kilometer

equals 1 ,000 meters, and one kilogram equals 1 ,000 grams.

Micro is the prefix for one millionth: one meter equals one

million micrometers, and one gram equals one million

micrograms. For the meaning of the other prefixes, see the

table on page 25.

Metric calculations are so much easier, in fact, that

one authority is convinced the U.S. aerospace industry

alone would save about $65 million a year in engineers'

time by converting entirely to metric.

The Merits of Customary

In contrast, the Customary system seems to have no

logical patterns. But on the other hand, it does have its own

practical merits, although they are somewhat more subtle.

In some ways, Customary units are still closely related to

everyday human experience and even human anatomy,

from which they were derived centuries ago. The foot is

roughly the length of a human foot; the yard is approximately the distance between a grown man's nose and the

fingertips at the end of his outstretched arm; a mile is about

2,000 paces.
MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS 27

The seeming multiplicity of Customary units is in

reality often a convenience for those who use them. Most

people find it easiest to comprehend numbers that are

between 1 and 1 ,000 — preferably between 1 and 10. By

picking from the wide assortment of Customary units, it is

usually possible to wind up with a convenient number. The

householder buys a few tons of coal for the winter. The

farmer delivers a few hundredweight of produce to the market. The grocer sells a few pounds of potatoes to a

customer. A pipe smoker buys a few ounces of tobacco.

The multiples in the Customary system are frequently

based on powers of 2 and 12. Therefore, they do not easily

lend themselves to decimal arithmetic. Nevertheless, intuition easily grasps binary fractions — i.e., halves, and halves

of halves. The number 12 also has a special practical virtue

in doing arithmetic. It is conveniently small, and it is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6 — twice the number of divisors of 10.

Even the French, fathers of the metric system, recognize

the handiness of 12. A few years ago a British building contractor, specializing in partly prefabricated construction,

decided to convert his plans to modular units of 40 inches,

on the theory that this length was close enough to one

meter (39.37 inches) so that he could bid on some school

buildings in France. He was surprised to learn later that

French schools were being designed to modular units of 1.2

meters, because these could be divided into 200, 300, 400

and 600 millimeter subunits.

The Potpourri

With both systems accepted and in use in the United

States, people in different walks of life have compromised

in different ways to take advantage of the convenience and

handiness of the Customary system and the logical simplicity of International Metric. The Customary system still

predominates, but metric is slowly gaining ground, especially in highly technical industries, in education, in pollution standards, and in international trade and relations.

In addition there remains a host of miscellaneous

"The farmer delivers a few hundredweight . . . The grocer sells a few

pounds ..."
28 A METRIC AMERICA

"Racing fans are committed to the

furlong and the hand."

units, which belong strictly to neither the Customary

system nor International Metric, but which are used by

certain groups of people almost as part of a private language. Printers still talk of picas and points. Racing fans are

committed to the furlong and the hand. It seems almost as

if every commodity were measured in a different way;

there are such oddities as cords and board-feet of wood.

The standard U.S. bushel contains 2,150.42 cubic inches,

equal in capacity to a cylinder 8 inches deep and 18 1/2

inches in diameter, interior measure; but the size of the

bushel varies in practice. There are long tons (2240

pounds), metric tons (2200 pounds), and short tons (2000

pounds).

There is obviously plenty of chance for confusion. In

the construction industry, for example, the mixing of

concrete is sometimes specified in terms of gallons of water

per bag of cement. But near our northern border misunderstandings are likely to occur, because Canadians speak

THE BUSHEL

VARIES
MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS 29

of the Imperial gallon, which is 20 percent larger than the

U.S. gallon, and they also market cement in a different

sized bag.

Even scientists and engineers speak special measurement dialects. There are, for instance, more than a dozen

units of energy, including ergs, electron volts, frigories,

horsepower-hours, joules, kilowatthours, therms, wattseconds, British Thermal Units, metric tons of TNT, and

six kinds of calories.

Whether in Customary or metric, a few things are still

measured crudely. One cannot trust a shoe to fit unless one

tries it on. A "mile down the road" may be as much as

three miles; to be told a "kilometer down the road" may be

just as vague. And cooks throughout the world add a

"pinch" of this or a "dash" of that, whether they use metric

or Customary recipes.

Metric Beachheads

The metric system is slowly advancing in our society

under its own power, albeit sporadically and in piecemeal

fashion. By and large, these changes have taken place in activities and disciplines which are more or less self-contained. The pharmaceutical industry more than a decade

ago gave up the apothecary's traditional drams, grains, and

minims and converted to milligrams, grams, and milliliters;

they had no serious interface problems with other industries (see Chapter V). Physicians, whose medical school

training in chemistry is metric, learned easily enough to

write prescriptions in metric units, and pharmacists learned

to fill them.

With few exceptions, the language and tools of U.S.

science are entirely metric. Even in work only peripherally

related to science, scientists tend to think in metric terms.

The physicist directing the building of the new National

Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois had to design

the circular ditch that would house the accelerator. This

had to be an enormous trench with a reinforced concrete

structure, requiring the labor of thousands of workmen and

"One cannot trust a shoe to fit unless one tries it on."

"Physicians . . . learned easily

enough to write prescriptions in metric units ..."
30 A METRIC AMERICA

"... some automobiles made in the

United States are being assembled

with engines, transmissions, and

other parts built to metric

specifications."

many engineers. The choice of diameter for the trench was

somewhat arbitrary; but thinking like a physicist in metric

units, the director chose one kilometer.

In mathematics and science education, throughout

most of the country the metric system is taught to some extent, even to very young children. Soldiers interviewed on

television speak naturally of "advancing 3 kilometers to

Hill 803," an unnamed hill that is 803 meters high. Their

ammunition is measured in metric. One of the largest

government agencies, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, decided last year to use International

Metric in its documents and reports.

The two systems agree on the use of the candela (the

unit for luminous intensity) and on the measurement terms

used to describe the electric current that flows into our

homes, the radio waves in the air, and other electrical

phenomena. The electrical units, such as ampere, volt,

watt, and hertz (cycles per second), are parts of the

International Metric System. But they have also long been

used in the Customary system. Thus, three of the six base

units of the International Metric System— the ampere, the

candela, and the second — are also used in the Customary

system.

Automobile mechanics have added metric tools to

their toolboxes, because foreign vehicles have metric parts.

In fact, even some automobiles made in the United States

are being assembled with engines, transmissions, and other

parts built to metric specifications. Statutory standards for

automobile emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide

and oxides of nitrogen read in "grams per mile" — another

metric infiltration.

Swimming pools for outdoor competition are being

built to metric dimensions so that our swimmers can practice for international metric-distance events. American

skis, made to standard feet and inch lengths a few years

ago, are now sold in centimeter sizes. The width of photographic film is expressed in millimeters, even though

sprocket holes are spaced six to an inch.
MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS 31
32 A METRIC AMERICA

Comparing the Commonest Measurement Units

Approximate conversions from Customary to metric and vice versa.

When you know: You can find: If you multiply by:

LENGTH inches millimeters 25

feet centimeters 30

yards meters 0.9

miles kilometers 1.6

millimeters inches 0.04

centimeters inches 0.4

meters yards 1.1

kilometers miles 0.6

AREA square inches square centimeters 6.5

square feet square meters o.oy

square yards square meters 0.8

square miles square kilometers 2.6

acres square hectometers (hectares) 0.4

square centimeters square inches 0.16

square meters square yards 1.2

square kilometers square miles 0.4

square hectometers (hectares) acres 2.5

MASS ounces grams 28

pounds kilograms 0.45

short tons meeraerams ^metric ton.O 0.9

grams ounces 0.035

kilograms pounds 2.2

megagrams (metric tons) short tons 1.1

LIQUID ounces milliliters 30

VOLUME pints liters 0.47

quarts liters 0.95

gallons liters 3.8

milliliters ounces 0.034

liters pints 2.1

liters quarts 1.06

liters gallons 0.26

TEMPER- degrees Fahrenheit degrees Celsius 5/9 (after subtractATURE ing 32)

degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit 9/5 (then add 32)
MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS 33

These examples, though far from exhaustive, do indicate that metric measurements and practices have

established many beachheads in the United States.

Do-It-Yourself Systems

Many other measurement systems have been conceived. As recounted in Chapter II, Thomas Jefferson

proposed that the length of a rod, swinging as a pendulum

with a period of two seconds, be the standard of length.

This length (about 58.7 regular inches) would be divided

into five new feet, each foot being subdivided into 10 new

inches. For the standard of mass, he proposed a cubic

inch of rain water and called this mass an ounce. Thus,

the names "inch," "foot" and "ounce" would be retained,

although their sizes would be changed considerably.

During the last 100 years, there have been many

proposals for basing measuring units on physical constants

of nature, such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, and atomic constants. Albert Einstein once proposed

that the diameter and mass of the hydrogen atom and the

speed of light be the primary units of measurement, from

which all other units could be derived. None of these

proposals has ever been adopted by any nation.

Some have argued that, no matter what base units are

used, their multiples and submultiples be related by binary

numbers: the powers of 2 and the fractions 1/2, 1/4, 1/8,

1/16, and so on.

In principle, almost any precisely defined and consistent measurement system could serve us satisfactorily.

In practice, however, it is unrealistic to consider for

general use any choice of measurement system that is alien

to our culture or to that of the rest of the world. The U.S.

therefore really has only two practical alternatives: either

to allow its measurement system, which includes some

metric units, to develop without overall design, or to elect as a society to adopt the measurement system that has virtually achieved worldwide acceptance and to work out a

policy and program for changing to it.

JEFFERSON'S PROPOSED

LENGTH STANDARD

length of pendulum rod is about

58.7 regular inches

CHAPTER IV

Arguments That Have Been

Made For Metric

and For Customary

Perhaps the longest running debate in the history of

this country is whether the United States should convert to

the metric system. In the course of almost two centuries

dozens of arguments have been advanced, attacked, and

defended with a passion inspired by a topic with implications that are both intensely practical and intellectually

stimulating.

The purpose of this chapter is to list, without disputing

or evaluating them, the arguments that are made today.

Some of these arguments have many adherents; some have

only a few. Thus, they are significant only to the extent that

they reflect the diversity of viewpoints that are possible.

The U.S. Metric Study was conducted on neutral ground.

The conclusions of this report are based, not on unsupported arguments, but on the evidence marshalled in the

surveys and public hearings described in Chapter I. Some of the arguments catalogued in this chapter are

thought-provoking, even compelling; a few may seem

completely lacking in merit. Many may seem intemperate,

reflecting, as they do, the prejudices of particular groups or

individuals.

Neither those who favor going metric nor those who

oppose it have a monopoly on pure reason — or on bias.

Not a few of the common arguments are demonstrably

false, even a bit frivolous. It is said, for instance, that the

metric system, because it has roots in science, somehow

makes measurement more accurate. But measurement

depends entirely on the accuracy of the measuring tools and

the skill of the person who uses them.

Some people argue on the other side that the U.S. has

achieved its status as an industrial power through the use

of inches and pounds. This is clearly beside the point: what

has been achieved is due to technological skill and high

standards of design and workmanship.

Serious arguments, however, have been advanced by

both pro-metric and pro-customary spokesmen. By and

large, the arguments fall into four categories:

35

Accuracy depends not on the measurement system used, but on the

tools and the skill of the person who

uses them
36 A METRIC AMERICA

The convenience, utility, or intrinsic merit of the metric

or Customary systems in everyday life as well as in

industry, commerce, and government.

The problems that a metric changeover would entail and

also the opportunities it could afford for improving

many activities of society.

The ways in which going metric might affect the United

States' relations with the rest of the world.

The implications for the future well-being of this

country.

Which System Makes Calculations Easier?

Pro-Metric:

"It's easy to compute with metric units. All you have

to do in many cases is add a zero or move a decimal point."

"There are only a few units and the relationships

among them are pretty simple. No need to remember how

many cubic inches in a gallon or whether an ounce is fluid

or avoirdupois."

"Decimal relations are intellectually more satisfying."

"The International Metric System has different terms

for mass (the kilogram) and force (the newton), eliminating

a confusion between mass and force that has perplexed

generations of students."

Pro-Customary: j

"Practically speaking, it's often easier to do simple

arithmetic in your head with Customary units, because

both the duodecimal and binary bases are handier. The

duodecimal (base 12) has more factors than the decimal

(base 10), and binary (base 2) is the natural arithmetic for

making yes-no choices or designing computers."

"If we are going to change, let's look for some combination of number bases better than either decimal or

duodecimal."

"This is an age of computers. If you have a really complicated problem, the machine can handle any units, and so

there is no reason to change to a decimal base."
ARGUMENTS PRO-METRIC AND PRO-CUSTOMARY 37

Which System Is Personally More Convenient?

Pro-Metric:

"Customary units of length suggest a close relationship to human measurements — e.g., the foot and the yard

(or pace). Actually these units are directly defined in terms

of metric measurement standards."

"The metric system has a more fundamental relationship to human anatomy. It is based on the number 10; we

have 10 fingers; and from antiquity people have learned to

count on their fingers.

Pro-Customary:

"Your foot may not be exactly one foot long, but it's

pretty close and, in general, Customary units are related to

everyday experience." (The diagram below illustrates

man as a "measuring rod.")

"Even some scientists argue that units like the candela

are artificial."
38 A METRIC AMERICA

People would have to be retrained

The intuitive feel for measurements

"The purported logic of metric unit names is violated

by the use of the kilogram as the base unit of mass. Why

not the gram?"

"In the International Metric System the derived units

with hard-to-remember names — such as the pascal, the

Siemens, the weber, and the tesla — are proliferating."

Problems and Opportunities Within the U.S.

Pro-Customary:

"Changing would cause confusion. Consumers would

not know whether they were getting their money's worth

for things sold by length, weight or volume. For a while you

might not understand what you read in the newspaper or

heard on television."

"Many companies would have to carry double inventories of spare parts during the transition period."

"People would have to be retrained. And during the

retraining period they would be deprived of invaluable experience—the intuitive feel for measurements on which

craftsmen, mechanics, and engineers depend. The result

would be a temporary loss of productivity."

"Dealing with unfamiliar quantities might result in

safety hazards due to mistakes."

"Everybody would have to pay for the changeover,

because industry would have an excuse for higher prices,

labor an excuse for higher wages, and government

bureaucracies an excuse for higher appropriations."

"A coordinated conversion program, even if largely

voluntary, would be simply another government encroachment on free choice."

"Conversion might be easy enough for big firms with

engineering staffs and foreign trade departments. But small

businesses would find it very difficult."

"During transition the nation would be part metric and

part Customary. Buyers and sellers could get badly out of

phase with one another as to the availability and demand

for parts."
ARGUMENTS PRO-METRIC AND PRO-CUSTOMARY 39

Pro-Metric:

"Experience has shown that conversions of this kind

turn out to be much easier and less costly than anticipated.

For example, the Swedes, with careful planning, managed

to change overnight from driving on the lefthand side of the

road to the righthand side — with no increase in traffic accidents. And individual British firms have found from actual experience that full productivity was regained within

a very short time after changing to metric."

"Metric is easier to learn; thus schools would have

extra time to teach some of the new subjects now being

introduced into the curricula."

"Metric is easier to use and, therefore, engineers

would save time and make fewer errors."

"The necessities of conversion would offer opportunities: During adjustment to the new measurements, there

would be a chance to clean house and eliminate many of

the superfluous varieties of nuts and bolts, and other comChanges are not always as formidable as they seem

COMPARISON OF

CALCULATIONS

CUSTOMARY VS. METRIC

EXAMPLE: CARPETING

Customary units: Calculate the amount of carpeting

to buy for wall-to-wall carpeting of a room 18 feet 4 inches long and 1

feet 8 inches wide, using carpet 12

feet wide.

Area — length X width

.24.44 square yards to buy

mmMetric units:

Calculate the amount of carpeting

to buy for wall-to-wall carpeting of a room 5.59 meters long and 3.81

meters wide, using carpet 4 meters

wide.

Area = length X width =5.59 X 4

—2236 square meters to buy
40 A METRIC AMERICA

i

mon goods. Manufacturers' inventories might actually be

reduced."

"There would be an opportunity to improve the

technical quality of building codes and other engineering

standards. And schools would have an added reason to

revamp textbooks and curricula."

"Many changes would probably go far beyond what

was utterly necessary. Faced with the task of doing things

differently, creative people would exploit the opportunity

to do things better. Conversion to metric could stimulate

invention and innovation."

"Small businesses and self-employed craftsmen would

benefit from a coordinated conversion program. As it is,

they are being left behind by some big firms that have the

expert staffs and international connections to adapt independently to the increasing worldwide demand for metric

goods."

"Speaking a common measurement language,

scientists, engineers, businessmen, educators, and govern-
ARGUMENTS PRO-METRIC AND PRO-CUSTOMARY 41

ment officials would communicate with one another more

freely and with less risk of misunderstanding.'"'

"A changeover to the metric system would be a stimulus to the economy comparable to the space program."

The U.S. and the World

Pro-Customary:

"Let's not risk our industrial success with a measurement system promoted by countries that have not done as

well technologically as the U.S."

"Going metric would open the way to imports from

countries that do not now make products to Customary

specifications."

"Our export trade is so small compared with our

Gross National Product that the advantage of manufacturWe want to have our say in setting

international standards

Speaking a common measurement

language would make things easier
42 A METRIC AMERICA

ing according to metric standards would be insignificant."

"Within our borders the Customary system works all

right. Foreign considerations do not warrant disrupting our

trillion dollar economy/'

Pro-Metric:

"We would fortify our position as a leader by joining

the rest of the world in a common measurement system.

Almost all the other English-speaking nations have converted to metric or are in the process of doing so."

"Travelers, traders, and all other U.S. citizens who

have dealings abroad are handicapped to the extent that

they are unfamiliar with the commonly accepted measurement language."

"Though small in relation to the total economy, our

exports are crucial to maintaining a favorable trade balance

in an increasingly metric world."

"Our economy today, as never before, depends on

trading raw materials, manufactured products, even

technological ideas with countries that have changed to

metric or committed themselves to do so. We put ourselves

at a competitive disadvantage by using a measurement

system different from that of the world market."

"We want to have our say in setting international standards of all sorts, especially those concerned with industrial products. Going metric would help to win acceptance for

our ideas."

"Our military allies are either metric or committed to

change to metric. Military coordination and logistics would

be simplified if we, too, converted to metric."

"We can better do our part to aid the development of

other nations if we adopt the measurement language that is

familiar to almost all of them."

"U.S. companies that want to make metric products

for sale in the U.S. or in foreign markets may find it advantageous to build the plant abroad and employ foreign

workers familiar with the metric system. Export of jobs to

metric countries is already a problem."
ARGUMENTS PRO-METRIC AND PRO-CUSTOMARY 43

Implications for the Future

Pro-Customary:

"If we decide to go metric, we are likely to pick the

wrong time. No one can guarantee what the economic conditions will be throughout the transition period. The

measurement conversion might complicate all our

problems."

"Even in good times the nation is faced with complex

problems. Why add to them a troublesome change in

measurement?"

Pro-Metric:

"The nation is already heading toward the metric

system, although slowly and in an unorganized way. It will

never cost less than it will right now. Postponing the decision to change transfers a greater burden to future generations of Americans."

"The costs and inconveniences of metric conversion

would be temporary; they would stop at the end of the transition period. The benefits would continue indefinitely."

The very fact that many of the arguments listed above

tend to contradict one another shows how easy it is to take

sides on various aspects of the metric question. But the

main issue, as was indicated in Chapter I, and will be

elaborated upon in the remainder of this report, is not so

much the contrasting merits, in the abstract, of the metric

and Customary systems. Rather, it is what the response of

the U.S. will be to an accomplished fact: the judgment by

virtually all other nations of the world that metric will be

the universal measurement language.

The next chapter describes in general terms what

would be entailed in a program that would conclude with

the nation becoming predominantly metric. The succeeding chapters are devoted to an analysis of the advantages

and disadvantages of the alternatives facing the nation.

We put ourselves at a competitive

disadvantage by using a measure- ment system different from that of

the world market

CHAPTER V

Going Metric:

What Would It

Really Mean?

The main reason going metric has been so controversial in the past is that it was never clear what the debate

was really all about. Some people assumed that it would

mean an abrupt and mandatory changeover: at some

specific date in the near future the inch and the pound

would be outlawed. People at the other extreme viewed it as a painless and casual drift toward the use of more metric

measurements at little cost or inconvenience.

We shall certainly not go metric by an abrupt and mandatory changeover. Such a crash program would dislocate

our lives in an intolerable way.

Neither can we expect that a drift to metric would be

without cost or inconvenience. Our experience since Congress legalized the metric system in 1866 suggests that if

the nation prefers to drift to metric, it would still be having

to cope with two measurement systems at the end of this

century. Since the use of the metric system in the U.S. is

increasing, throughout the prolonged period of gradual

change there would be substantial costs and inconveniences, primarily those associated with maintaining

dual inventories, training people in both measurement

systems, and printing metric and Customary dimensions on

documents and labels. Small businesses would have to tag

along as well as they could.

Soft and Hardware

When we talk about going metric, we really have to

consider two kinds of changes, "soft" and "hardware." A

soft change is simply a trade of one measurement language

for another. Example: the weather announcer who begins

reporting the temperature in degrees Celsius instead of

degrees Fahrenheit is making a soft change. Hardware

changes involve altering sizes, weights, and other dimensions of physical objects. Example: if the dairy industry

starts selling milk by the liter (1.05 quarts), the milk distributor has to modify his machinery to fill a slightly larger

container.

A hardware change is almost always preceded by a

Over 100 Years Ago

It shall be lawful throughout the

United States of America to employ the weights and measures of

the metric system; and no contract

or dealing, or pleading in any court,

shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of

the metric system. (United States Code: Act of July 1866.)

" . . . the weather announcer who

begins reporting the temperature

in degrees Celsius instead of

degrees Fahrenheit ..."

" ... if the dairy industry starts selling milk by the liter ..."
46 A METRIC AMERICA

"If a recipe calls for 250 milliliters of oil . . . "

soft change. Suppose that new cookbooks are written with

recipes in metric language — i.e., convenient fractions of

kilograms and liters. At first, the American housewife follows these recipes by making soft changes. If a recipe calls

for 250 milliliters of oil, she looks at a conversion table for

translating milliliters to liquid ounces, then measures out

slightly more than eight ounces (one cup) of oil.

So far she has made only a soft change. Suppose then,

she breaks her measuring cup. Since her cookbook reads in

metric units, it would be foolish to buy a new cup graduated

in ounces, and so she buys one marked off in milliliters.

This is a hardware change. In this case, the cost of the

hardware change is zero; she had to buy a new cup anyway. But if the use of the conversion table confuses her and

she throws away her ounce-marked cup in frustration, the

price of the new metric measure is an "extra" hardware

cost of conversion.

Metric Momentum

For industrial engineers, factory workers, carpenters,

surveyors, building inspectors, butchers, school teachers,

and people in almost every walk of life, going metric would

mean acceptance of metric as the preferred system of measurement and ultimately, thinking primarily in metric terms

instead ofprimarily in Customary terms.

The use of metric units has already made considerable

headway in the U.S., as was pointed out in Chapter III. In

a few fields — notably the physical sciences, pharmacy and

medicine — people have converted much of their thinking,

talking, and writing to metric units. Electrical units are the

same in metric and Customary. Nevertheless, our national

measurement language is still only slightly metric.

If schools were to give greater attention to metric than

to Customary, if a large number of industries were to convert to metric, if our traffic signs were to read in kilometers

instead of miles, if a man buying a shirt were shown a 40 or

41 centimeter collar instead of a 16 inch collar, if milk were

sold by the liter and meat by the kilogram, then the metric
going metric: what would it really mean? 47

system might, in not many years, become as widely used as

the Customary system.

From that point on, metric habits of speech and metric

ways of thinking would gain momentum. And after a couple of generations, "inch," "pound," and other Customary

words of measurement might sound almost as archaic as

"cubit" or "league." We would then unquestionably be a

predominantly metric nation.

Rapidly, Slowly, Never

People making the change to metric units would make

an assortment of soft and hardware changes, as necessary

either to do their jobs or to keep up with what was being

said in the newspapers and on television. In even a concerted program for going metric, some things would be

changed rapidly, some slowly, and some never. In most

cases, things would be replaced with new metric models

only when they wore out or became obsolete. This would

certainly be true, for example, of existing buildings, aircraft

carriers, railroad locomotives, power generating plants,

and even such things as hair dryers.

In many instances industry and commerce would

make metric changeovers much as the housewife did when

she broke her non-metric measuring cup. A pump in a

chemical factory, for example, might with careful maintenance last ten years before it wore out and had to be

replaced. But if a critical part failed after, say, five years,

the user might well decide to buy a new pump of improved

design and lower running cost, rather than fix the old one.

And if he were going metric and metric pumps were

available, the new pump would, of course, be one built

to metric standards.

Somewhat analogous is the problem of rewriting real

estate deeds in metric dimensions — meters instead of yards

and hectares instead of acres. There would be no good

reason to do this until the property changed hands and was

resurveyed. As a matter of fact, some deeds in New

Orleans are still written in terms of the French foot of

" . . . only when they wore out

or became obsolete."

" . . . the user might well decide to buy a new pump of improved design

and lower running cost ..."
48 A METRIC AMERICA

Our railroad tracks would stay the same

pre-Napoleonic times, and in the Far West there are still

tracts that are described not in acres but in square varas,

a holdover from the Spanish grant days.

In parts of France to this day, after almost 200 years

of the metric system, some consumers still order une livre

de beurre (one pound of butter). They get a half-kilogram

package, to be sure, but the point is that no one has forced

them to give up an old familiar name. And manufacturers

continue to make concessions to non-metric thinking; until

recent years in Germany, butter was packaged in 125-gram

bars for people accustomed to buying it in quarter pounds.

And many Germans call the half kilogram ein pfund (one

pound).

The Rule of Reason

Some measurements and some dimensions would

never need to be changed. It would be preposterous ever to

tear up all our railroad tracks just to relate them to some

round-number metric gauge. Americans would not be likely

to translate into metric such sayings as "a miss is as good

as a mile," or to rewrite the words to the song / Love You

a Bushel and a Peck.

In sports, going metric is not likely to present much of

a problem. Soccer is internationally the most popular game

by a wide margin; however, there is no standard size

for a soccer field. Cricket is played throughout the old

" ... it would be quite unnecessary

to change the length of U.S. football

fields ..."
going metric: what would it really mean? 49

British Empire, but although most of the nations that play

it have either gone metric or are doing so, they will

presumably cling to the traditional Imperial dimensions of

the cricket pitch. Similarly, it would be quite unnecessary

to change the length of U.S. football fields, even if our kind

of football ever became an international sport. And keeping

them as they are, no sports announcer who wants to keep

his audience would ever seriously say: "The Redskins

have the ball; first down and 9.144 meters to go."

Some units that are not part of the International

Metric System may continue to be used wherever they are

believed to make communications and calculations clear and

easy. Even in metric countries meteorologists still speak of

"bars," one bar being roughly normal atmospheric pressure, and of the "millibar," which is one-thousandth of a

bar. Astronomers prefer to talk of distance in "light years,"

instead of many trillions of kilometers. Such convenient

units as these are not likely to be discarded.

Even if it were to be specified that only International

Metric units were to have full legal standing, many other

measurement terms would persist in our culture — perhaps

forever.

A Dictionary for a Technical Society

An adequate understanding of what a change to metric

entails depends on some appreciation of what engineering

standards are and the role they play in our economy.

Broadly speaking, engineering standards are agreements that specify characteristics of things or ways to do

things - almost anything that can be measured or

described. They cover an enormous range: e.g., the diameter of wire; the length and width of typewriter paper; the

purity of aspirin; the fire resistance of clothing; the meat

content of frankfurters; the symbols on highway signs; the

way to test for sulphur in fuel oil; the technical basis for

local building codes; the strength of a safety belt; the

wattage of light bulbs; the weight of a nickel.

Taken together, engineering standards serve as both

WHAT ARE ENGINEERING

STANDARDS?
Pharmaceuticals

About fifteen years ago the major U.S. drug manufacturers changed their internal operations and most

of their products to metric. They did it with dispatch,

and they found it surprisingly painless.

In their judgment, they have more than recouped

the costs of changing over. The advantages they

gained include: easier training of personnel; econo- mies in manufacturing; reduction in errors; simplified

specifications, catalogs, and records; and improved

intracompany communications. There have been no

apparent disadvantages.

Rather than divorcing themselves from the Customary environment, the pharmaceutical companies

changed only what they had to change in order to make and market products in metric units. It was

possible to limit the scope of the change because the

industry deals primarily with volumes and weights of

substances, hardly at all with lengths. Each firm

could deal independently with its own problems, and

so industry-wide coordination was not needed.

Here is how the changeover is regarded in retro- spect:

• Costs were actually low—less than anticipated.

One large company says that costs in terms of

employee time and equipment modification

came to $250,000, which was only Vz to % of

its preconversion estimate. • The same company believes it easily recovered

the costs, although it has not tried to put a dollar value on the benefits that have accumulated

since conversion.

• Retraining workers was no problem and took

less time than had been anticipated. The industry was already using metric units for a few

products; thus most workers were not confronted with something entirely new. A program

of dual labeling and marking (first Customary

with metric in parentheses, then the reverse)

helped workers become gradually familiar with

metric units. • Only scales and volume measuring devices were

modified. Most process machinery did not need

to be changed at all. Many scales were changed

simply by affixing a metric dial or indicator;

some needed new weights or beams. In all cases, needed parts were easily supplied by scale manufacturers.

• Some suppliers were originally reluctant to furnish their products in metric quantities, but

since the whole pharmaceutical industry was

changing, they soon complied with the demand.

• Users (pharmacists and physicians) presented

no problem. They had already been educated in

metric units. • An odd problem arose with alcohol. Federal

regulations require that alcohol must be stored,

sold, and taxed in Customary amounts. In this area, one of the few that demanded coordination outside the drug industry, conversion to metric has yet to be achieved. In contrast, Federal narcotics reports must be in metric units. • Each firm converted at its own pace. One of the

largest took about one year; a competitor took

twice as long. Both felt that they could have

moved faster. • Careful planning assured a smooth transition.
going metric: what would it really mean? 51

a dictionary and a recipe book for a technical society.

Without them we would have chaos, inconvenience, and

higher costs for almost everything. Mass production would

not be feasible if there were no assurance that two parts,

such as a nut and a bolt, would fit together. Automobile

brakes would be untrustworthy if all brake fluid did not

meet standard performance requirements. Electric clocks

would keep different time if all household current did not

alternate precisely 60 times a second.

Indeed, where standards have not been established, or

when two different standards exist, life is much more complicated. In Europe, for example, standard household current is 220 volts, 50 hertz (cycles per second); in the U.S.

it is 115 volts, 60 hertz. An American-made electric razor

would not work on European current. For that matter, it could not even be plugged in because the receptacles are

different.

How Standards Develop

Engineering standards are developed by many or- ganizations or groups at different levels: a single firm, a national group such as a trade association, or an international

group. A company may develop its own standards for

products it makes. A local government issues codes and

regulations for building construction, driving, highways. In

either case, their standards may not be in agreement with

those issued by other companies or other governments.

For things generally used, such as television, national

standards are essential if the system is to function. For example, a television set must be able to receive programs on

all channels, and television stations must broadcast in a

prescribed way. The development of standards for such a

complex system can be costly and time consuming; it took

10 million engineering man hours to develop national standards for color television.

The Department of Defense and the General Services

Administration have issued for government use about

40,000 procurement standards encompassing most indus-

"Mass production would not be

feasible ..."

Standards of voltage and frequency

differ around the world
A METRIC CONVERSION CASE STUDY

Anti-Friction Bearings

Metric units usually prevail in technologies that

first developed on the European continent. Customary units have the upper hand in technologies first developed in the U.S. and Great Britain. The antifriction bearing industry represents a mixture of both.

Ball bearings and parallel roller bearings, originating in Europe, are designed to metric standard sizes.

These sizes are also used in the U.S., although they

may be described in terms of inches.

Tapered roller bearings, on the other hand, originated in the U.S. and were therefore designed to Customary standard sizes. Now, many U.S. manufacturers are beginning to design their new tapered roller

bearings to metric standard sizes. These firms are concerned about expanding their overseas operations

and increasing their exports to an otherwise metric

world.

The companies involved in this changeover say

that it has been on the whole rewarding. They have

been able to produce complete lines of tapered roller

bearings with a reduction of superfluous types, and

they have improved their competitive positions in the

world market. They report no noteworthy disadvantages. Here is how they regard the changeover:

• No substantial costs can be attributed directly

to going metric. With different parts of the world

using different measurement systems, they have

to pay the costs of labeling drawings in both

Customary and metric units, but this was a cost

they paid before anyway.

Since the conversion involves design alone, only

the engineering staff has had to be retrained. At

one of the largest companies the engineers

learned what they needed to know informally.

It has not been necessary to replace or even

greatly modify a single piece of Customary

manufacturing machinery to produce to metric

standard sizes. With dual labeling and conversion charts, any worker in any plant has been

able to produce any bearing on any suitable

piece of equipment.

While going metric, one manufacturer has developed a new line of tapered roller bearings

that incorporates the best features of both Customary and metric technologies. The company

hopes that this line will win acceptance in the

U.S. and ultimately throughout the world.

Until this new line is widely accepted, there is no need for the industry to coordinate its efforts or set a conversion timetable for the entire field

of tapered roller bearings. In the meantime,

each company is applying metric to new designs

only.

Some customers still need bearings in Customary sizes, and these are being supplied. By and

large, however, U.S. industry has readily ac- cepted the new metric designs.
going metric: what would it really mean? 53

trial products, food, clothing, and other consumer goods.

This number is about twice the number of standards issued

by private groups. In the absence of a standard issued by a

private group the government's procurement standard may

be used as a national standard.

Private voluntary groups, numbering in the hundreds,

have issued about 20,000 standards. About one-fifth of

these standards are recognized as national standards by a

voluntary national coordinating body called the American

National Standards Institute, which represents the U.S. in

international groups.

International Agreement

The leading international groups are the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), in which all

major nations are represented. IEC is concerned with the

standardization of electrical and electronic equipment; ISO

is responsible for all other fields. The work is done in

technical committees, subcommittees and working groups.

U.S. participation is voluntary and is not supported

directly by the Government. The U.S. participates in all 70

IEC technical committees and 96 of the 139 ISO technical

committees; participation in subcommittees and working

groups is much less, amounting to about 50 percent. After

member countries of IEC or ISO reach a consensus, a

recommendation is published for adoption by any country

as its national standard.

U.S. participants in international standards negotiations need to be adept in the use of metric units, for the

International Metric System is the official measurement

language of both IEC and ISO.

Increasingly, countries are adopting IEC and ISO

Recommendations instead of first developing their own national standards. At the same time existing national standards can form a basis for agreement on international standards. The significance of this with respect to a metric

change will be explained in the next chapter.

"U.S. participants in international

standards negotiations need to be

adept in the use of metric units . .

.

CHAPTER VI

The Metric Question

in the Context of

the Future World

The U.S. Metric Study was prompted by the increasing worldwide use of the metric system. Congress was concerned about the effects of this world trend on the U.S.

economy, now and in the years to come. Congress asked,

particularly, for assessments in three areas: international

standards, foreign trade, and relations with our military

allies.

Two of the Study's special investigations — one on international standards, the other on world trade — provided

most of the information for these areas. The Department of

Defense study covered military relations. (All three of

these studies are covered in detail by special reports cited

in Appendix Two, p. 164.)

Many of the participants in the investigations of international standards and world trade believe that the Customary system is already becoming a burden in our international relations — a burden that is easy to bear now, but

which will become heavier with time.

The difficulty is not so much that we talk a measurement language different from that of other countries.

Rather, it is that many of our engineering standards (explained at the end of the last chapter), based on Customary

units, are incompatible with standards used elsewhere. And

this hampers the export of some U.S. products.

A potential customer in another country may prefer a

certain U.S. machine, but he may be less likely to import it

if standard parts for repair and maintenance are not readily

available in his country. As the rest of the English-speaking

world changes to metric, this will become even more of a

handicap.

This problem is already with us and is becoming more

troublesome. Imports of materials and equipment are increasing, and overseas subsidiaries of U.S. companies are

having to develop standards programs that are independent

of the parent company, because U.S. Customary standards

do not adequately meet their needs. Alluding to these complications, one participant in the U.S. Metric Study re- marked that these are now "little clouds, no bigger than a

55
56 A METRIC AMERICA

40-

o

D

U.S. Exports and Imports

of Merchandise,

1962-70

EXPORTS OF

DOMESTIC

MERCHANDISE

1962 1964 1966 1968 1970

man's hand," but they point up the urgency for the U.S. to

strengthen its position in world standards-making before

they grow much larger.

Help or Hindrance to Trade

The mere existence of international standards that

differ from U.S. national standards is not in itself the

problem. The degree to which they can impede U.S. trade

depends on how they are applied. For international standards can be a means of fostering or hindering trade.

Between 1967 and 1970, for example, Britain, France, and

West Germany agreed among themselves on comprehensive electronic standards based on metric units. The purpose was to facilitate trade among the three countries by

setting up uniform schemes of quality assurance and

product certification — analogous to an underwriter's seal

of approval. It follows that nations not party to the scheme
METRIC QUESTION IN CONTEXT OF FUTURE WORLD 57

Annual U.S. Balance of Trade

Technology— Intensive Products

'62 '64 '66 '68 '70 '72

would find it harder to sell electronic products to the three

countries.

It now appears that this agreement, initially limited to

three nations and one class of products, will be extended to

include the rest of Western Europe and to embrace other

products as well.

As was pointed out in Chapter V, the International

Metric System is the official measurement language of the

two main world standards-making bodies: the International

Standards Organization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

The measurement language that is used has a direct

bearing on the choice of dimensions for products that must

be compatible. Standard sizes tend to be expressed as small

whole numbers or simple fractions that are easy to re- member and easy to do calculations with. As an illustration, a metric-minded standards group, when setting the
Trade Balance in Machinery, Instruments,

and Other Measurement Sensitive Products

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

0 12 3 4

COUNTRY-1969

PRODUCT GROUP-1969

Lumber and Wood .063

Primary Metals 532

Fabricated Metal

Nonelectrical Machinery

Electrical Machinery

.425

Transportation Equipment

Instruments and

related products

972

463
METRIC QUESTION IN CONTEXT OF FUTURE WORLD 59

diameter of a thin wire might make it exactly 1 millimeter

(equal to 0.03937 inch). But if the standards makers were

inch-minded, they would probably pick 0.04 inch for the

diameter, and let metric users worry about the cumbersome corresponding decimal number (1.016 millimeters).

This natural preference for easy numbers leads to the

incompatibility, for example, of steel bars and rods

produced in the U.S. and in metric countries. In the U.S.

the range of sizes is usually covered in increments of 1/16

inch in the small sizes, 1/8 inch in the intermediate sizes,

and 1/4 inch in larger sizes. In metric countries the increments are usually 1 , 2, or 5 millimeters.

Advancing U.S. Ideas

It would be economically beneficial for the U.S. to

play a more vigorous role in the making of international

standards. U.S. industry is already influential in the

development of these standards. This is particularly true

where U.S. technology has taken the lead — e.g., integrated

electronic circuits, commercial aircraft, automobile wheels,

computers, oil drilling machinery, videotape.

Our opportunity to exert further influence is great. To

date, relatively few international standards have been

adopted. But in the next decade the number on the books

is expected to multiply roughly tenfold. (See bar chart on

"Trends in ISO and IEC Standards, 1960-1969.") The international standards that exist today are but a few patches

in a mosaic that an increasingly interdependent world will

need for the exchange of products, materials, and ideas.

In the give and take of international standards making,

compromises tend to result in all parties giving a little

ground and thus sharing in the cost of changes. Therefore,

if the U.S. fully participates in the making of the great

majority of international standards that remain to be

developed, it would not be the only country that would

have to adjust its national standards. All countries would

share in the costs of conforming.

This is a critical point, because most of the concern

Where U.S. technology has taken

the lead it influences international

standards
60 A METRIC AMERICA

International Standards

Now, Contrasted With

Those to Come Trends in ISO and IEC Standards — 1960-1969

I960 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

about the cost of a metric conversion in the U.S. is based

upon the assumption that it would require wholesale

revamping of our national standards in order to conform to

world metric standards.

The Need for Action Now

The urgency for the U.S. to participate more

vigorously in world standards-making was stressed in an interim report of the U.S. Metric Study. Entitled

International Standards, it was sent to the Congress in

December 1970. The most important recommendations

were:

That Federal and non-government standards organizations develop together a firm U.S. policy about effective participation in international standards activities.

That this action should be taken as soon as possible, re- gardless of any decision about the nation's going metric.
METRIC QUESTION IN CONTEXT OF FUTURE WORLD 61

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

(Based on estimates of international trading firms dealing in machinery, instruments, and other measurement sensitive products)

The Crucial Balance of Trade

In world trade, standards are important mainly in

"measurement-sensitive" products. These are products in

which dimensions are critical — e.g., tractors, clinical thermometers, vacuum pumps, typewriters, computers. In

1969 the U.S. exported about $14 billion worth of measurement-sensitive products and imported about $6 billion

worth. The difference, $8 billion, was considerably more

than the nation's favorable balance of trade in 1969, which

was only $ 1 .3 billion. (It was $2.7 billion in 1970.)

Standards-based agreements, such as the quality as- surance and product certification scheme mentioned earlier

in this chapter, could be a non-tariff barrier against our exports. And a relatively slight drop in our exports of measurement-sensitive products could mean the difference

between a favorable and an unfavorable U.S. trade balance

(see bar charts on the trade balance in measurementsensitive products, p. 58).
EXPORTS

Factors DETERRING U.S. Exports of Machinery, Instruments,

and Other Measurement Sensitive Products

(Percent of total rankings by respondents)

1 1 1 1 18.0

Prices are not competitive

! Strong local and third country competition

High tariff duties

High shipping costs

I No technological advantage of products

No quality advantage of products

Non-tariff barriers

20 25 30 35

Factors PROMOTING U.S. Exports of Machinery, Instruments,

and Other Measurement Sensitive Products

(Percent of total rankings by respondents)

I i Reputation and reliability of products

Superior technology of products

High quality of product

Competitive pricing

Maintenance and servicing is available

Growing foreign market

Vigorous company export promotion program

Measurement systems

All others

10 15 20 25 30 35
IMPORTS

Factors DETERRING U.S. Imports of Machinery, Instruments,

and Other Measurement Sensitive Products

(Percent of total rankings by respondents)

Prices are not competitive

No technological advantage of products

I I No quality advantage of products

Maintenance and servicing is not available

I

|

I No company import sales promotion program

High shipping costs

I Measurement systems

All others

i 10 15 20 25 30 35

Factors PROMOTING U.S. Imports of Machinery, Instruments,

and Other Measurement Sensitive Products

(Percent of total rankings by respondents)

Prices are competitive

Reputation and reliability of products

I High quality products

I Superior technology of products

Lack of U.S. competition

Maintenance and servicing is available

Growing U.S. market

Measurement systems

Vigorous company import sales promotk

All others

10 20 25 30 35
64 A METRIC AMERICA

20

15.6

Percent of

Total Free World Exports

1969

15

Measurement-sensitive products such

as tractors . . .

Vacuum pumps . .

and computers

UNITED WEST UNITED JAPAN FRANCE ITALY

STATES GERMANY KINGDOM

So far the effect of world standards developments

seems to be slight. The U.S. Metric Study asked exporters

of measurement-sensitive products for their views about

factors influencing their trade. Differences in measurement

systems and standards seemed relatively unimportant; they

put more emphasis on reliability, reputation, price, superior

technology, and high quality of product (see bar charts on

factors influencing exports, pp. 62 and 63).

They were also asked to estimate how much they

would expect to export in 1975 if the U.S. had gone metric

by 1970. The chart titled "Loss of Exports Through Not

Going Metric" (p. 61) shows that, in their opinion, going

metric would have increased 1975 exports by about

$600 million. (The actual economic benefit to the nation

of this marginal improvement in trade is a part of the

analysis of Chapter IX.) Importers, asked the same hypothetical question, estimated no difference in 1975 imports

of measurement-sensitive products.
METRIC QUESTION IN CONTEXT OF FUTURE WORLD 65

70

60

50

40

30

Percent of Change

in Share of Free World Exports

1962-69

Japan

69.2

France

3.4

United

States

-10.4

United

Kingdom

-20.9

1962 1969

Apparently, the metric question has hardly affected

the absolute amount of U.S. trade. The U.S. still is the

leading exporter in the free world (see bar chart on "Percent of Total Free World Exports", p. 64). But there are

indications that our share of the world market is diminishing (see chart on "Percent of Change in Share of Free

World Exports, 1 962-1969", p. 65). This is partly because

Western European nations have been steadily lowering

barriers of trade among themselves. These barriers are due

to become lower still as national differences in engineering

standards are ironed out. They regard these differences

as one of the most troublesome obstacles to trade. Understandably, since Western Europe is exclusively committed

to the metric system, the standards they agree upon will

be metric- based. This effort will further strengthen

Western Europe as a unified market and will tend to

reduce the U.S. share in its trade (see bar chart on

trade among Western European countries, p. 66).
66 A METRIC AMERICA

Multinational corporations are already assembling . . .

. . . complex products from components made in different countries

Western European Countries Are Selling More

to Each Other Than to the Rest of the World.

Trade among EEC and EFTA Countries as a per cent

of their total world trade

1956 __ H

1962

49.4

56.1

1968 57.8

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

There are a few areas in which U.S. and European engineering standards are likely to remain in conflict.

Paradoxically, these concern electricity, a field in which

Customary and metric measurement units are identical. In

view of the tremendous investments that have already been

made in power generating and distributing equipment, appliances, and machinery, it is hard to imagine either the

U.S. or Europe compromising on a common voltage and

frequency for household electric current.

The Multinational Corporations

Another factor that is tending to integrate the world

economy is the rise of giant multinational corporations,

many of them either partly or entirely owned by U.S. companies. In hearings last year before the Joint Economic

Committee of the U.S. Congress, it was brought out that

the total annual output by multinational firms of goods and

services is about $450 billion. This exceeds the total output
METRIC QUESTION IN CONTEXT OF FUTURE WORLD 67

of all the less developed countries, and it rivals that of the

Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe combined. In

fact, $450 billion is almost half the gross national product

of the U.S.

Because many of these firms are American-owned, the

U.S. plays an even larger role in world commerce than U.S.

export-import figures would indicate. The startling fact is

that U.S. businesses abroad account for roughly half of the

$450 billion output of multinational corporations. Even in

highly industrialized nations their impact is impressive. In

the United Kingdom, for example, the output of U.S. subsidiaries is about 14 percent of the total economy, and they

account for almost 25 percent of Britain's manufactured

exports.

At the rate multinational corporations appear to be

growing and proliferating, some day in the not-too-distant

future they may control most of the industrial output of the

world. In any case, they will help to bring about worldwide

uniformity of engineering standards. For they are already

assembling such complex products as automobiles, computers, and factory machinery from components made in different countries. In effect, this huge but almost invisible

segment of American industry is already going metric.

Small companies that supply them will have to go

along. Congress is already concerned about self-employed

workers and small companies that may have trouble keeping up with the change. When increased use of metric in

large companies and government activities reaches a substantial level, then workers and small companies may find

themselves at a competitive disadvantage. As will be

discussed in Chapter VIII, a national program of metric

change designed to take account of their needs could ensure that the benefits of the change were shared by all

Americans.

Converging Cultures

Customs and cultures around the world are coming to

resemble one another. More and more, people are traveling
68 A METRIC AMERICA

Satellite communication

Mexico bears the cost of dual capability

Canada is handicapped too

to foreign countries. Satellite communication has, for some,

become a form of instant travel. And the enormous outpouring of the multinational corporations is in its own

way making the world more closely knit.

Thus, our culture and customs are being exported in

many ways. But one thing the U.S. cannot expect to export

is the Customary system of measurement. Most people in

other countries are never going to use it; those that have

used it are abandoning it.

Relations with Allies and Other Countries

Whatever machinery, engineering plans, and other

measurement-sensitive goods and services we supply to

developing countries would be more effective if these

goods and services conformed to the measurement system

and practices of the users. These countries are metric almost without exception. Moreover, we are increasingly

tending toward multilateral aid programs, in which we

cooperate with other industrial countries. These are all

metric or committed to changing to the metric system.

Conflicts in measurement systems cause confusion and

reduce, to some extent, the effectiveness of these programs.

Our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, are hoping that

the U.S. will decide to change to the metric system. In a

White Paper on Metric Conversion, issued in January

1970, the Canadian Government stated that conversion to

metric is "a definite objective of Canadian policy." In outlining factors that will have to be taken into account in

making the change, the White Paper points out one that is

especially important: "Because of the close ties between

the United States and Canada in science, technology, industry and commerce, each country has a special interest

in the course likely to be followed by the other in respect of

metric conversion .... The question is a complex one

because the United States, which is Canada's main export

market, has not made a decision to convert."

Mexico is even more anxious that the U.S. decide to

convert to metric. Mexico has long been a metric nation.
METRIC QUESTION IN CONTEXT OF FUTURE WORLD 69

Yet in order to trade with the U.S., it must maintain a capability not only in metric but also in our Customary system.

The cost of maintaining this dual capability is the major

cost experienced by any nation during a transition to metric.

(This factor is part of the analysis of benefits and costs in

Chapter IX.) Thus, Mexico is forced to bear this cost as

long as the U.S. remains on the Customary system. The

same is true for other Latin American countries.

A U.S. decision to go metric would be welcomed also

by its military allies. The Department of Defense points

out in its metric study report that the compatibility and

interchangeability of equipment between the U.S. and its

allies would expedite repairs, make possible support in

areas where support is now nonexistent, simplify procurement across national boundaries, and increase communication of all data, including designs, operations, and training. A

Defense advisory committee has suggested, furthermore,

that defense budgets on both sides of the Atlantic have

been so seriously reduced that more selectivity, less duplication, and greater interdependence may be necessary in

the future. More will be said on this subject later in this re- port, mainly in Chapter IX.

Even in outer space international standards may play

a role. Nations with major programs have given thought to

cooperating with one another in order to reduce duplication

of missions and thus cut costs. In fact, the U.S. and the

U.S.S.R. have begun discussions to standardize the escape

hatches of space vehicles so that either nation can rescue

an astronaut or cosmonaut.

A metric America would seem desirable in terms of

our stake in world trade, the development of international

standards, relations with our neighbors and other countries, and national security. What the participants in the

U.S. Metric Study think about changing to metric and how

the change should be made is the subject of the next

chapter.

More selectivity, less duplication,

and greater interdependence

Even in space
SOME GROUPS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE

METRIC STUDY
CHAPTER VII

Going Metric:

The Broad Consensus

It is perhaps surprising that any general pattern of

agreement should have emerged from the U.S. Metric

Study, considering the great diversity of the participants.

Opinions came from many different cross-sections of

society. On a national scale, for example, whole industries

were asked for their collective views and estimates of costs

and benefits. At the grass roots level, individual citizens

expressed their personal thoughts in correspondence and

in the public hearings. And in between, ideas were collected from large and small firms, labor unions, professional and technical societies, and other groups with special interests.

As was noted in Chapter I, the participants included

representatives associated with: manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries, organized labor, small businesses, engineering and scientific disciplines, education at

all levels, advertising, publishing, law, medicine, public

health, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, agencies of Federal,

state, county, and local government, real estate, college

athletics, finance, insurance, warehousing, transportation,

construction, communications, retailers, wholesalers,

chiefs of police, fraternal organizations, exporters and importers, home economists, and consumers. The wide diversity of the participants in the Study required many compromises in the questions that could be asked of them. The

questions had to be geared to the capabilities of the potential respondents. Moreover, the choice and wording of

questions were cleared by panels of special interest groups

convened by the Office of Management and Budget.

Even among industrial firms, the level of sophistication concerning measurement and engineering standards

covered a wide range. Some companies, such as those that

sell bulk materials by the lot or the carload, need seldom

worry about precision measurements or complex systems

of engineering standards. But others that deal in high-precision products — e.g., automobiles and electronics — maintain special departments that work full time on measurements, composition of materials, and other standards. One

71

"... the level of sophistication con

cerning measurement and engineering standards covered a wide range.
72 A METRIC AMERICA

Questionnaires were mailed to a

representative sample of U.S.

manufacturers

Measurement is especially critical to companies that deal in high precision products

Company spokesmen considered

many factors.

large automotive company, for instance, keeps a file of

6 1 ,000 different engineering standards that are continually

augmented and revised.

Thus the U.S. Metric Study adopted several different

approaches, some complex and some simple, all with the

hope of letting each sector of society express itself on its

own terms and on its own level of sophistication. (See the

^Methodologies" section, pp. 139 -149 of Appendix One.)

Some people filled out questionnaires; others were interviewed in person or over the telephone; still others presented and discussed their views at the public hearings.

As can be seen in the following paragraphs, there were

some differences of practice, opinion, and judgment.

But on three fundamental questions there was a clear

consensus: — Is increased metric usage in the best interests of the

United States? — If so, should there be a coordinated national program

to change to metric? — Over how many years should the change be made?

These questions are treated in this chapter. Estimates of

benefits and costs are covered separately in Chapter IX.

Manufacturing Industry

The information for this sector came from answers to

detailed questionnaires mailed to almost 4,000 firms and

followed up in some cases by personal visits or telephone

interviews. The companies were chosen to be a representative sample of some 300,000 U.S. firms that manufacture

products, and they ranged from tiny operations employing

only a handful of people to giants with payrolls of tens of

thousands.

Eleven percent of these companies reported that they

make some use of the metric system. But metric measurements and standards have pervaded U.S. manufacturing

much more widely than this figure would indicate. A disproportionately large number of the big and very big com-
going metric: the broad consensus 73

PERCENT 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100

panies use metric in at least some of their operations; firms

that said they make some use of metric actually account for

nearly 30 percent of employment in manufacturing. However, the actual extent of use is unknown.

Manufacturers who now use metric to some extent

were queried about the kinds of advantages and disadvantages that they might expect in a national changeover to

metric. They were asked about such factors as: the training

of personnel, engineering design and drafting, inventories

of parts and products, manufacturing operations, exports

and imports, domestic sales and competition, communications and records. Most were unable to explain where

greater use of the metric system would be, for themselves,

either a help or a hindrance.

Sentiment for or against going metric varied greatly

even within the same kinds of industry. Large firms

tended to be more in favor than small ones, although

some small businessmen were among the most outspoken
74 A METRIC AMERICA

MANUFACTURERS

VOTED:

INCREASING USE OF METRIC

GOOD FOR COUNTRY

Manufacturing Businesses:

If Increased Metric Usage is in "Best Interests of United

States," What Course of Action?

PERCENT

TOTAL

SAMPLE

43%

COORDINATED NATIONAL

PROGRAM (Mandatory)

7%

NO PROGRAM

advocates of a metric changeover through a national program. Companies substantially involved in international

activities tended to be more favorably disposed to metric.

The aluminum industry was, on the whole, pro-metric; the

steel industry was not.

As to whether a unilateral increase in metric use for

their products would be desirable (irrespective of what the

nation may decide), manufacturers were about evenly divided. But as to whether increasing the use of metric would

be good for the country as a whole, an overwhelming

majority voted "Yes." About 70 percent of those answering this question (representing 80 percent of the total employment) said that more use of metric would be in the best

interests of the U.S. Then the companies were asked, if it

is found that increased metric usage is in the best interests

of the U.S., what course should be followed? More than 90

percent of those who responded preferred a coordinated

national program, based on either voluntary participation
going metric: the broad consensus 75

Non-Manufacturing Businesses:

Attitude Toward Increased Metric Usage in Own Company

Without Awaiting a National Decision

PERCENT

TOTAL

SAMPLE 13"6 STRONGLY

FOR

15% PERCENT

EACH

12% SIZE CLASS

| 11%

17%

43%

1-19

EMPLOYEES

20-249

EMPLOYEES

250+ 14%

EMPLOYEES

MILDLY

FOR

14%

21%

STRONGLY

AGAINST

40%

44%

BOYS FURNISHINGS

t - fiat _ 1 <*^?~. ' 1 £ *3» rf j

The sample of Nonmanufacturing

businesses covered an enormous

range, including agriculture, retail stores, zoological gardens.

11%

or mandatory legislation. Only 7 percent favored no

national program for going metric.

Nonmanufacturing Businesses

The companies in this sector are engaged in such a

variety of activities that gross figures of metric usage would

mean little. Nevertheless, some general conclusions about

attitudes can be drawn.

Few companies saw reason to change their use of measurements unless the whole country decides to do so. But

6 percent of those interviewed said they intended to increase their own use of metric in the near future, chiefly to

enhance their prospects in world trade.

Participants in the survey were asked whether increasing use of the metric system is in the nation's best interest.

Sixty-one percent said that it is. Eighty-six percent of the

nonmanufacturing businesses were in favor of a national

conversion program. In fact, a majority held this view in
76 A METRIC AMERICA

every industry, from agriculture to utilities.

Education

Educators are nearly unanimous in their endorsement

of the metric system. A public hearing devoted to education was attended by representatives of all leading teacher

and school administration societies as well as many firms

in the educational field. They represented a total of

1,600,000 people.

Speaking for more than one million of these, one participant said in a prepared statement: "The National Education Association believes that a carefully planned effort

to convert to the metric system is essential to the future of

American industrial and technological development and to

the evolution of effective world communication." He

further urged that, starting with the upcoming school year,

all teachers should teach metric as the primary system of

weights and measures in the U.S.
going metric: the broad consensus 77

Non-Manufacturing Businesses: i-w employees

If Increased Metric Usage Is in "Best Interest of the United

States," What Course of Action?

PERCENT

TOTAL

SAMPLE

20-249 EMPLOYEES

h^^^^^^hhih^^^mm 250+ EMPLOYEES

Virtually all the individuals in the educational system

and the firms associated with it make some use of the metric system and are in favor of a planned conversion program, a finding supported by a special survey conducted as part of the U.S. Metric Study. This survey found that about

10 percent of the boys and girls in elementary and intermediate grades are taught something about metric units.

Nevertheless, like their parents, they still think primarily

in terms of inches, pounds, and degrees Fahrenheit —

inevitably, since they live in a mostly non-metric

environment.

Government

The Department of Defense expressed no view as to

whether increasing use of the metric system is in the best

interests of the nation. Nevertheless, the Department

stated in its metric study report that the armed forces could

make a changeover to metric without impairing their func-
78 A METRIC AMERICA

General John J. Pershing: "Americans were able readily to change . . . to the metric system."

NASA is switching to metric units

tions. assuming that industry would first convert through

a coordinated national program. The Department of

Defense would not take the lead by writing metric units

into its specifications, but would follow industrial practices.

As to whether conversion would be in the best interests of the military, the Defense report said: "Although

the use of a simpler system would have no outstanding military advantage, the slight advantage expected would be

amplified because of its widespread nature. The compatibility of U.S. and foreign equipment will enhance combined

military operations and simplify logistic support requirements."

This conclusion is consistent with one reached by

General John J. Pershing more than 50 years ago, shortly

after he had commanded the U.S. Army in World War I. He wrote in a letter: "The experience of the American Expeditionary Forces in France showed that Americans were

able readily to change from our existing system of weights

and measures to the metric system .... Not the least

advantage ... is the facility which that system gives to

calculations of all kinds, from the simplest to the most complex. I believe that it would be very desirable to extend the

use of the metric system in the United States to the greatest

possible extent; but I can readily see that there would be

many practical obstacles in the attempt entirely to replace

our existing system by the metric."

The views of 55 other Federal Government agencies

were collected in a separate report. The results roughly

paralleled those of the manufacturing industry survey.

More than half the agencies make some use of metric—generally in medicine, electronics, physical science,

and other fields where it is already the dominant measurement language — and one-fifth expect to use metric more

extensively regardless of national policy and trends. As

was mentioned earlier in this volume, one of the largest

agencies, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, last year began entirely on its own to convert to metric
going metric: the broad consensus 79

language. Forty of the 55 agencies estimated that long-term

advantages of going metric would outweigh disadvantages,

and almost all of these favored a coordinated national conversion program.

A survey was undertaken by the State-County-City

Service Center, which represents such groups as the

National Governors Conference and the National League

of Cities. The indication was that only a coordinated

national program would persuade state, county, or local

governments to go metric.

Nevertheless, some government agencies at these

levels are already making some use of the metric system,

especially in connection with pharmaceuticals, laboratories

and testing, and the purchase and repair of certain metrically designed equipment, such as foreign vehicles. In addition, the American Association of State Highway officials

has begun to publish recommended tests in both metric and

Customary units.

Earlier this year the Legislature of the State of Indiana

passed a joint resolution urging the U.S. Congress to adopt

the metric system.

Public Knowledge of Metric

In order to probe public information and attitudes, the

U.S. Metric Study enlisted the help of the Survey Research

Center of the University of Michigan. The staff of the

Center selected a sample of 1 ,400 families representative

of the 62 million family units in the United States and then

proceeded to interview the individuals in person.

The general public, it is apparent, knows little about

the metric system. Only 40 percent could name a single

metric unit, and only half of those were familiar with relationships among metric and Customary units.

As the chart on "Public Attitudes Toward Metric" (p.

80) indicates, the more people know about the metric system the more they favor it. Rather consistently, those with

more formal education or more experience using metric

units seemed the most confident that they could master it

Views of

Federal Civilian Agencies

Based on the 394 Responses From

55 Civilian Agencies

YES

65%

Favor Coordinated

National Program

YES

60%

Advantages Would

Outweigh Disadvantages
PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD METRIC

The More People Know About Metric The More They Like It

LIKE IT NEUTRAL

KNOWLEDGE OF METRIC

Great Deal 74 10

DON'T LIKE IT

16

Some

Little or Nothing

48

14 13

PERCENT 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50

How Much The Public Knows About The Metric System

75 100 0

44

50 75 100

ttt If*

•

Oj

1

1 LITTLE OR NOTHING SOME GREAT DEAL

. ;-:>,

ALL RESPONDENTS

, . - - 58 30 ] 2

AGE

Under 25 33 43 24

25-44 48 36 16

45 and older

BBgDaMBMfBBBS 70 23 7

EDUCATION

0-11 grades 82 15 3

12 grades IS I8i 58 35 7

borne college,

no degree mBBH 34 47 19

College degree 14 41 45

SEX OF RESPONDENT

Male 51 34 15

Female 77 19 4

PERCENT 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50

Source: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1971

75 100 0 25 50 75 100
going metric: the broad consensus 81

with little difficulty and believed that metric conversion was

in the best interest of the U.S. For these reasons the sur- veyors judged that a program of public education would be

essential to the success of a national conversion program.

Consensus for Ten Years

The clear consensus for the length of the changeover

period was ten years. At the end of this time the nation

would be predominantly (not exclusively) metric.

Some participants in the study preferred that the

change be made more quickly; a few wanted more time.

Nevertheless, all could be accommodated by a ten-year

transition period, because those who could move faster

would do so as soon as their customers and suppliers were

ready. Those who needed more time could take it, since the

nation's goal in a ten-year program would be to become

mostly (not entirely) metric.

Most manufacturing firms judged that the ten-year

period would be close to optimum for them (p. 82). Weighting manufacturers according to size (i.e., value added in

manufacturing), the Study found that 82 percent thought

the changeover period should be ten years or less. The

average of the periods chosen was 9

x/i years.

In its study the Department of Defense concluded:

"The DOD is dependent upon the National Industrial

Base, and the rate of conversion within the DOD will

be dependent on how well conversion is carried out by

industry."

Nonmanufacturing businesses, with generally much

less hardware needing conversion, were in favor of a

shorter transition period. They thought that the nation as

a whole might make the changeover in six to ten years. But

speaking for themselves, most were willing to complete the

task in five years or less. "Immediately" was the optimum

period most often cited by spokesmen for eight nonmanufacturing industries: finance, insurance, agriculture, ser- vices, real estate, forestry and fisheries, retailers, and

transportation.

" . . . a program of public education

would be essential to the success of a

national conversion program."

10 Years

to switch the roles of

metric and Customary
82 A METRIC AMERICA

Attitudes of Federal Civilian Manufacturing Industry Survey:

Agencies Regarding Choice of Optimum Period for Metric Changeover

Length of Transition Period

Based on the 394 Responses From PERCENT OF RESPONDING MANUFACTURERS

55 Federal Civilian Agencies i

1 1 1 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

In the commercial weights and measures field, the

adaptation to metric of devices now in use would take considerable time. The survey of this field points out that there

are relatively few trained personnel who can do the work.

Because of the large numbers and varieties of devices now

in use, ten years would be required to complete adaptations.

As was pointed out earlier in this chapter, the National

Education Association has urged that, starting this fall, all

children be taught metric as the primary language of

measurement. A survey conducted especially for the U.S.

Metric Study suggests, however, that school systems are not

ready to move that rapidly. The consensus was that for primary and secondary education a five-year transition period

would be a bit tight, since two or three years would be

needed for planning. But textbooks would probably present

no obstacle; one major publisher of science texts assured
going metric: the broad consensus 83

"The National Education Association has urged that ... all children

be taught metric as the primary lan- guage of measurement."

the survey team that he could convert his entire line of

books from Customary to metric units in successive

printings over three years.

The U.S. Metric Study has provided answers to three

fundamental questions posed near the beginning of this

chapter. The clear-cut consensus of the participants in the

Study is that: — Increased use of the metric system is in the best

interests of the United States. — The nation should change to the metric system

through a coordinated national program. — The transition period should be ten years, at the end of

which the nation would be predominantly metric.

CHAPTER VIII

Recommendation

and Problems Needing

Early Attention

On the basis of the evidence marshalled in the U.S.

Metric Study, this report recommends that the United States

change to the International Metric System through a coordinated national program over a period of ten years, at the

end of which the nation will be predominantly metric.

Within the broad framework of the national program,

industries, the educational system, and other segments of

society should work out their own specific timetables and

programs, dovetailing them with the programs of other segments. This can be done effectively only after there has

been a decision to go metric and after joint planning by all

groups to be affected by the change. Because of the scope

of such a program, the Federal Government would have to

firmly back it.

There will have to be a central coordinating body. It could be constituted in different ways. Congress could as- sign the coordinating function to an existing Government

agency, or it might appoint a special group, such as a national commission, to perform the task. In any case, the

coordinating body will have to be able to draw upon all segments of the society for information and advice. At the end

of the period of transition to metric, or possibly earlier, the

coordinating body will have completed its work and will

then cease to function.

The coordinating body would work with all groups in

the society that were formulating their own plans, so as to

ensure that the plans meshed. It would help to decide how

the public could best be familiarized with the metric

system. It would advise government agencies, at all levels

(state, local, and Federal), of changes in codes and regulations that would require attention. And it would have to anticipate and deal with other special problems, such as those

described later in this chapter.

Groups of industries would coordinate their efforts

with the help of trade associations and agencies of Federal,

state and local governments. State weights and measures

85
86 A METRIC AMERICA

agencies would cooperate in making the changeover

through their National Conference on Weights and Measures. Other groups, including educators, labor, standards

making bodies and consumers, would be brought in at the

start. A hierarchy of definitive plans would be developed

by all these participants for themselves. And each plan

could provide for contingencies, such as failures to meet

deadlines.

Education and International Standards

Two areas merit immediate attention, even if a national program is not adopted: education and international

standards.

ah interests should be represented It is urgent that the U.S. begin now to participate more

vigorously in world standards-making. As was discussed in

Chapter VI, international standards will increasingly influence world trade. The great majority of these standards

" ... as early as possible, all children

should be taught metric as the primary language of measurement."
RECOMMENDATION AND PROBLEMS 87

NEEDING EARLY ATTENTION

remain to be developed. Thus, the U.S. has the opportunity

to ensure that its practices and technology are taken into

account in international standards negotiations. And as the

nation changed to metric, it would be changing to metricbased international standards that it helped to set. In this

way the cost of hardware modifications in a U.S. change to

metric could be greatly reduced.

Almost all the participants in the U.S. Metric Study

stressed the importance of education in any change to metric. Citizens need to be informed of what the change would

mean in their jobs and everyday lives. Metric measurement

needs to be taught more vigorously in the schools. As was

pointed out in the previous chapter, the National Educa- J|

tion Association has urged that, as early as possible, all Vocational education

children be taught metric as the primary language of measurement. Timely government assistance may be needed

to help develop teacher training plans and materials.

YARDS METERS

TALL TALL
88 A METRIC AMERICA

Educating the public to think in metric terms

1 KILO 1 POUND

Standard weights &

measures for commerce

Children starting school this fall will be 35 years old at

the turn of the century. To fail to train them adequately in

metric will be to fail to equip them properly for the world

they will inherit.

Through newspapers, magazines, radio, television,

and other media, the British Metrication Board is informing

people about kilograms, meters, degrees Celsius, and a few

other metric units they are likely to encounter in everyday

life, trusting them to pick up on their own any more technical details they may desire to know.

A U.S. national program could presumably rely on

a similar approach to adult education. The American

Association of Museums has volunteered to display

popular exhibits on the metric system. And the Advertising

Council, which helped greatly to publicize such national

programs as the Peace Corps and the campaign against

cancer, has offered to help in a national metric changeover.

Education, formal or informal, will be buttressed by

encounters with the metric system in everyday life — hear-
RECOMMENDATION AND PROBLEMS 89

NEEDING EARLY ATTENTION

ing weather reports in degrees Celsius, buying cloth by the

meter, potatoes by the kilogram, and milk by the liter. In

this way metric habits of speech and ways of thinking will

gain momentum.

Chapter V gives an overview of how a national change

to metric should be approached. It also provides the context for the problems discussed in this chapter. In any coordinated national program, a number of special problems

would warrant special treatment. Many of them could be

anticipated in the early planning stages.

Weights and Measures

Weights and measures in commerce would play such

an important role in a metric changeover that the U.S.

Metric Study conducted a special survey of this field. Manufacturers of weighing and measuring devices foresaw no

problems in switching their production to metric devices.

But because many scales in use are worth the cost of adapting and, as was pointed out in Chapter VI, relatively few

people are trained to work on them, adapting them would

require several years.

The Post Office alone uses 240,000 scales. Most of

them are the little sixteen-ounce beam scales used to weigh

letters; it would probably be cheaper to replace these. But

35,000 larger and more expensive postal scales, the

weights and measures survey found, would have to be

modified over the course of five years. Meanwhile, each

post office would display a dual set of rates and would

begin charging postage by grams instead of by ounces, as

soon as its scales were changed.

The commercial weighing and measuring field strongly

favored a coordinated program that provided for timely

amendments in weights and measures laws in order to

minimize the side-by-side use of two measurement

systems. The program would require goods to be labeled,

at the start, in both Customary and metric units. After a

while, the Customary units could be eliminated. This plan

would not be practical, however, for marketing meat,
90 A METRIC AMERICA

METRIC WT. 248 GRAMS

NET WT. 8% oz.

Most goods are sold in prepackaged

forms

Use Of Supplementary Metric Units

On Canned Food Labels

PERCENT

1960 1965 1970

Note: figures are approximations based on the total number of items sold domestically

cheese, and other commodities sold by the piece — at least

not with scales that automatically weigh the package and

print out the price. State and local weights and measures

laws would have to provide for a transition period during

which such scales could continue to be calibrated in

Customary units until the day they were converted.

Consumers might be apprehensive about price increases linked to metric conversion. For instance, the price

of a liter of milk would have to be greater than the price of

a quart (0.946 liter). The public education program mentioned earlier would help to clarify such questions.

Small Business

Congress is already concerned — as are others, including the Small Business Administration — that small businesses are being placed at a disadvantage, even now, as the

nation increases its use of the metric system. Most large

companies have technical, financial, and managerial
RECOMMENDATION AND PROBLEMS 91

NEEDING EARLY ATTENTION

resources for planning their own metric changeover and

dealing with it over a long period. Small businesses do not

possess such resources. The small businessman is less likely to be in a position to decide when to go metric; large

companies tend to set the pace. Moreover, the small businessman is more dependent on the ready availability of

standard parts and supplies. It is for these reasons that

spokesmen for small business favor a coordinated national

program, in which no one would be left behind.

In a national program the Government would have a

special responsibility to ensure that small businesses, including self-employed craftsmen, are properly informed

and their interests adequately represented. In particular,

the metric system should be brought into all vocational and

on-the-job training programs. These and other forms of

technical assistance might warrant Government support.

Engineering Standards

One of the most important prerequisites of metric conversion would be a reevaluation of engineering standards.
92 A METRIC AMERICA

CUSTOMARY SIZES METRIC SIZES

Reducing superfluous inventories

As a matter of fact, some of these are already under scrutiny. Early this year, quite independently of the U.S. Metric Study, the Industrial Fasteners Institute issued a report

entitled: A Study to Develop an Optimum Metric Fastener

System. (This report is printed as an addendum to the U.S.

Metric Study special report on Engineering Standards,

cited in Appendix Two.) It is intended to be the first step in

the development of a complete range of threaded fasteners

which, while eliminating many superfluous items, will

satisfy stringent domestic engineering requirements.

So far, the Institute has been working on only screw

thread sizes — not on the many other requirements for a

fastener (e.g., bolt length and head shape). Even on this

limited basis, the proposed new system drastically reduces

the variety of fasteners that would have to be manufactured

and kept in stock. At the present time there are 59 Customary screw thread sizes principally used in the U.S., and

57 metric sizes are being added, making a total of 116.

Under the new system there would be only 25 screw thread

sizes, leading to a drastic reduction in the inventories suppliers and users would have to maintain. This new set of

fasteners would not only simplify design, manufacturing,

and repair, but also would be technologically superior.

Eventually, the Institute hopes, the new fastener system

will be accepted as a superior international standard.

Similar opportunities for cost savings and technological improvements exist throughout the field of engineering

standards.

Antitrust

An effective metric conversion program would require

many efforts comparable to the study now being made by

the Industrial Fasteners Institute. A principal goal in such

a program would be to recoup costs, in part by reducing

superfluous varieties of standard parts and materials. This

would involve expanded cooperation by businesses

through trade associations and standards-making bodies.

To the extent that competitors worked together antitrust
RECOMMENDATION AND PROBLEMS 93

NEEDING EARLY ATTENTION

Federal leadership would help to solve antitrust problems

considerations would arise.

Although Federal leadership in a national program

would minimize the antitrust problem, some accommodations would have to be made to permit cost-saving coordination while avoiding illegal restraints on trade. The policy of the antitrust agencies of the Federal Government is

that it is not the concerted form of the action which is the

criterion of legality, but rather the effect of the joint action

upon competition. Early in the planning for a national program to change to the metric system, antitrust questions

would have to be resolved by business and industry, on the

one hand, and the Department of Justice and the Federal

Trade Commission on the other.

Cooperation With Canada

Canada, our major trading partner, has decided as a
94 A METRIC AMERICA

Canada, our major trading partner,

has already decided to change

matter of government policy to change to the metric

system. But, as was explained in Chapter VI, the Canadians have put off starting a full scale program, largely

because of their uncertainty as to what the U.S. might do

in this regard.

In the event that the United States decides to change

to the metric system under a national program, it would be

helpful for both countries to cooperate to the fullest extent

possible.

Who Pays for Conversion?

The cost of going metric should be borne in such a way

as to minimize the overall cost to the nation and to avoid

bureaucratic waste. The British seek to attain this end by

"letting the costs lie where they fall." As a result, British

metrication is being coordinated by a small group at very

modest cost to the taxpayer. The general rule is that

everybody in the society, including government agencies,

must share in the temporary costs, as they will in the continuing benefits. The same philosophy was followed by

Japan in its conversion to the metric system.

This philosophy does not exclude the kinds of

assistance suggested earlier in this chapter for small businesses. Nor does it exclude some help during the transition

period in the form of accelerated depreciation for machinery and investment tax credits. Even under the present tax

laws, metric conversion costs would be tax deductible.

Tackling the Change

Many participants in the Study, as well as those who

have observed metric programs in other countries, suggest

that almost all machinery could be continued in use — or at

least phased out only when it wore out or became obsolescent—with careful planning and an adequate transition period.

A recent U.S. Air Force study indicated that many

machine tools can produce metric parts with little more

than the adjustment of a dial, while others require only
RECOMMENDATION AND PROBLEMS 95

NEEDING EARLY ATTENTION

minor modification. The recent redefinition of the inch as

exactly 2.54 centimeters makes possible the conversion of

some inch-based machines to metric by using gears of 254

or 127 teeth.

Many engineering drawings, handbooks, and other

costly paperwork are usually obsolete within a few years

after publication; when updated in due course, it would be

reasonably cheap to translate dimensions into metric units.

The British have found that retraining workers is unexpectedly easy; it is most efficiently done if a man is taught on

the job and told only what he needs to know to do his work.

Many participants in the U.S. Metric Study expressed

confidence that they could tackle the change to metric. A

representative of the trucking industry pointed out at one

of the public hearings that his industry has made several

drastic technical changes in recent years. He added: "No

metric conversion could approach the difficulty of doing

what is now being demanded of us for safety's sake.

,, And

a labor spokesman said: "Metric is here, so let's get on with

it."

It is often argued that the most favorable time for a

metric changeover is now, before our society gets any

bigger, more complex and, therefore, harder to change. On

the other hand, there are reasons to believe that some difficult changes have become easier and may become easier

still.

Computers have already reduced drastically much of

the drudgery that would be involved in translating one measurement language to another. Numerically controlled

machine tools, which are increasingly used in manufacturing, are guided by a kind of computer program. Guidance

to metric dimensions needs only a change in the program.

The trend to prepackaged goods in the supermarket —

already above 90 percent — has eliminated at least some of

the confusion that a metric changeover would impose on

the consumer. As similar technologies emerge, other ways

to facilitate the nation's change to metric can be expected.

Conversion tools

Computers and computer-controlled

machinery will make the change

easier

CHAPTER IX

Benefits and Costs

This report has deferred until now a dollars-and-cents

evaluation of why going metric by a coordinated national

plan would be more advantageous than going metric

without such a plan.

What kinds of costs were considered? They included

out-of-pocket payments for physical changes in things: for

example, modifying scales or buying new ones, altering

gasoline pumps, adjusting or replacing machinery, repainting highway signs, rewriting plans and specifications. They

also involved intangibles, such as having to learn new

words and how to use them, having to work more slowly

for a while in order to avoid mistakes, having to do

arithmetic in order to understand an item in the newspaper.

Putting price tags on benefits is even more problematic. Some metric calculations are easier; indeed, educators say schoolchildren learn the metric system more

quickly, and time could be saved for other topics. Compatibility and interchangeability of military equipment used by

the U.S. and its allies would facilitate repairs and maintenance.

Another category of benefits is not only intangible but

also indirect. They are in the nature of by-products. People, while making the metric change, would have opportunities to do other worthwhile things that are not directly re- lated to any measurement system. Translating textbooks

into metric terms would provide opportunities for curriculum improvements. In thinking out new metric standards,

engineers would have an opportunity to weed out superfluous sizes and varieties of parts and materials, and even

to incorporate superior technologies. International

standards activities would be facilitated.

Taking advantage of these opportunities would, in effect, be benefits and would therefore help to recoup the

costs of going metric. In Britain, for example, major attention is being given to reducing unnecessary varieties during

the change to metric. As an illustration, one manufacturing

firm is well on its way to reducing its stock of fasteners

(e.g., nuts, bolts, rivets) from 405 sizes to fewer than 200,

97

Gasoline pumps would eventually be

modified

Greater compatibility with our allies would reduce costs
98 A METRIC AMERICA

THE income and retained earnings statements

Freight In .

.

Drllvorod coit Laia: Purshna.

10,000 S 60.0M)

45I0OD

>, W Slj.OOO appliTip

l'<,rrMll^.^n|.rMiir.,.| [vr ur.yr

atnlnnu.nr ,!,l, |.r.. ,

J

ln«fnC ln«*a P |.l,< r^^MluN::.^

El,«TM dfgaloa and other tncwa.TM over ln-«n and

O-lnclnalTf loenmn Stal, A profit and loss statement is nei- ther feasible nor necessary

and another is replacing 280 sizes of ball bearings with only

30 types made to metric standards.

The U.S. Metric Study sought estimates of benefits

and costs from trade associations, labor unions, business

firms, government agencies, educators, importers and exporters, and others in a position to have firsthand

knowledge of their fields. The "Methodologies" section of

Appendix One describes how these data were solicited.

Profit and Loss

The ideal outcome of this procedure would have been

a simple aggregate figure — like the bottom line of a profitand-loss statement — representing the net benefit (or cost)

to the nation of going metric under a coordinated national

plan. The figure would have resulted from adding estimates

of all aggregated benefits and all aggregated costs and finding the difference between the two totals.

This conceptually simple approach was not feasible.

First, few of the groups from whom benefit and cost data

were solicited were able to furnish them. Second, the

benefits and costs are not directly comparable, inasmuch

as they would occur at different times. Virtually all the

costs would be incurred during the transition period, at a

time when benefits were just beginning. Most of the

benefits would come after the transition. Third, the majority of benefit and cost items are basically elusive — perhaps

even unknowable in dollar terms. As was pointed out

above, some are intangible; others cannot be attributed

purely to a metric change.

The main objective, however, is not to arrive at absolute figures for benefits and costs. Rather, it is to determine which is more advantageous to the nation: deliberately

going metric by plan, or eventually going metric without

a plan. This requires a comparative analysis showing a

clearcut differential between two aggregates whose values

can be stated only in relative terms.
BENEFITS AND COSTS 99

Manufacturing Industry Survey:

Allocation of Estimated Costs of Going Metric

PERCENT

11

22

44

Personnel Education

Engineering and Research

Records and Accounting

2 Standards Assn

10

Activity

Warehousing

Sales and Service

1 2! Other

Manufacturing and

Quality Control

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

The data obtained in the manufac

uring survey permit a comparative

analysis.

The responses in the surveys of the manufacturing industry and of international trade permit such a comparative

analysis. The manufacturing survey itemizes costs in such

a form that it is possible to derive what the costs would be

if the change were made without a plan. Moreover, the data

provide a way of deriving benefits from estimates of the

time required to recoup costs. In addition, exporters and

importers in the international trade survey estimate a

modest but favorable increase in the nation's trade balance

following conversion to metric, and this can be translated

in terms of an economic benefit. These derived economic

benefits are applied in the analysis to both the changeover

by plan and the changeover without a plan.

The diagrams on the next two pages illustrate the advantages to the manufacturing industry of changing to

metric through a coordinated national program rather than

changing without one.
The Economic Advantage of Going

Metric by Plan—Manufacturing Sector

90

80 -

70

60

50

40

ASSUMED

CASE A

Cumulative

Net Benefit

- A

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

30

40

50

60

70

NATIONAL

PROGRAM

Cost

Recouped\^

U.S. is Metric

Cost

Recouped

NO

PROGRAM U.S. is Metric

: v

80|_J_

Cumulative

Net Cost

_L

The Continuing

Advantage of

Having Changed

By Plan

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Years

These three diagrams illustrate the advantage to the manufacturing

industry of a change to metric under a coordinated national program.

The basic data and the assumptions used to construct the diagrams

are explained on the following pages.

Case A assumes a total "Base" cost of $10 billion; Case B, $25 billion; and Case C, $40 billion. Lower and higher costs can also be

assumed; but no matter what figure is used, there is a clear-cut

advantage (the length of the colored arrows) in changing to metric

by plan rather than drifting without one.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Years Years

Assumed Average Annual Costs (Billions of Dollars)

Case A j Case B Case C

Program

No

Program Program

No

Program Program

No

Program

"Base" Cost 1.0 0.2 2.5 0.5 4.0 0.8

Dual Capability Cost 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Combined Cost 1.5 0.7 3.0 1.0 4.5 1.3

Annually averaged benefits and costs were used in order to simplify the diagrams by making

all lines straight. But a more complex model would not change the relative advantages and disadvantages illustrated in the three cases shown above.
102 A METRIC AMERICA

Basic Data and

Assumptions used

in Constructing the

Benefit-Cost

Diagrams on the

Two Preceding Pages

Information about benefits and costs comes from two

of the special investigations conducted in connection with

the U.S. Metric Study: the surveys of manufacturing industry and of international trade. Certain of the data that were

collected have been augmented by a limited number of conservative assumptions in order to construct the illustrative

model discussed below. It identifies benefits and costs, cumulative with time, that might be expected by the manufacturing segment of society during a changeover to metric,

carried out according to a national plan, and it compares

them with corresponding benefits and costs during a metric

changeover proceeding without plan.

There are two assumptions as to time. The period of

transition to metric under a planned changeover is taken as

10 years, a period that most participants in the manufacturing survey found close to optimum for their own firms. The

transition period for changeover without plan is taken as 50

years. This is an arbitrary choice, but at the rate that the

use of the metric system is now increasing, it may be said

to be roughly the time that will elapse before the nation

becomes predominantly metric without any concerted program. The actual period might be longer or shorter; there

is no way of knowing. The important point, however, is

that the assumption of the 50-year period is not critical to

the outcome of the analysis. As the reader can discover by

redrawing the diagrams, using any other period greater

than 10 years, the sign (positive or negative) of the benefitcost differentials between plan and no plan will not be

changed and the advantage of plan over no plan will still

hold.

Benefit-Cost Assumptions

The assumptions as to benefits and costs were made

on a "worst-case" basis. That is to say, when a choice was

possible, it was made so that the no-plan mode of

changeover was put in the best light.

The manufacturing survey identified two kinds of

costs for a planned changeover: the average annual cost of
BENEFITS AND COSTS 103

maintaining dual capability for the manufacture of standard

parts and materials (i.e., about $0.5 billion per year); and

the total cost for all other manufacturing. Any value can be

assumed for the second kind of cost, which in this analysis

(and in the diagrams) is called the "Base" cost (p. 101).

For the purpose of this comparative analysis between

plan and no-plan, it is assumed that the average annual cost

of maintaining dual capability for the manufacture of standard parts and materials is the same in both cases. Yet an

important reason for having a planned program is to reduce

the period during which such duality would be necessary.

Consequently, it would be reasonable to assume a higher

average annual cost for duality under a no-plan approach.

The assumption that this cost would not be higher is an element in the worst-case approach.

It is also assumed that as to all other manufacturing

the "Base" cost under the no-plan mode would be the same

as that under a planned program. Yet the main purpose for

having a planned program is to minimize breakdowns in

cooperation and coordination during a changeover, so that

metric parts are available when needed, metric products

are in demand when they are made, new employees have

been appropriately trained by the educational system. The

assumption that costs due to mismatches would be no

higher in the no-plan mode is another element in the worstcase approach.

In the manufacturing survey, among the questions

asked in the case studies of costs were two that provide a

basis for estimating benefits. The first was whether tangible

savings would result from a change to metric. The second

was how long it would take for these savings to compensate

for the costs of going metric.

About one-fourth of the companies said that tangible

savings would result and that these savings would compensate for costs over a period of 12 to 15 years. For the purposes of the analysis, the period of recoupment of costs is

assumed to be 15 years. Moreover, since only one-fourth

of the companies anticipated recoupment, the annual rate

An important reason for having a planned program is to reduce the

period of having to cope with two

systems
104 A METRIC AMERICA

Changing patterns of World Trade

of recoupment through tangible savings was divided by

four. For example, in Case A (p. 101) the "Base" cost is

assumed to be $10 billion; the total anticipated tangible

savings over the fifteen-year recoupment period would be

V4 of $10 billion, or $2.5 billion.

The international trade survey concluded with a projection that after transition to metric the U.S. balance of

trade would benefit to the extent of $600 million a year.

The companies who contributed to this estimate based

their judgments on the export and import of measurementsensitive manufactured products; thus any costs in the

redesign of these products to metric are already accounted

for in the above cost figures from the manufacturing sur- vey. The benefit to the economy of a marginal improvement in the trade balance can be calculated by using a multiplier of between 2 and 3 (see, for example, Paul A.

Samuelson's basic text, Economics). Thus, the benefit to

the economy of a $600 million favorable increment in the

trade balance would be between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion. But for the analysis the benefit is assumed to be only

$1 billion per year.

In addition to the benefits identified as tangible in the

manufacturing survey report, it was indicated that "less

tangible savings not covered by this estimate might be a

more important factor." Therefore, these intangible

savings could be taken as at least equal to the tangible

savings; but for purposes of this analysis they are disregarded altogether.

The final assumption regarding benefits is that once

metric predominance is achieved, the benefits to be derived

after 50 years under the no-plan approach will be the same

as those to be derived after 10 years of a planned program.

Although a planned program would deliberately seek to exploit opportunities for recouping costs, and rapidly changing patterns of world trade and other relations suggest that

a prolonged transition would result in foregoing some advantages, these considerations are disregarded in the

worst-case analysis.
BENEFITS AND COSTS 105

How the Diagrams Were Drawn

The key data and assumptions used to construct the

diagrams on pages 100 and 101 have now been explained.

The diagram labeled Case A can serve to show how this

was done and how similar diagrams can be drawn using

other assumptions as to the cost of a metric changeover

under a planned national program. In Case A the "Base"

cost of a planned metric changeover (colored line) is taken

as $10 billion over the ten-year transition period ($1 billion

per year), plus $5 billion ($0.5 billion per year) for maintaining dual capability for the manufacture of standard

parts and materials. Thus the descending portion slopes

downward at the rate of $1.5 billion per year. The ascending portion slopes upward at the rate of $7 billion every six

years; this upward slope is a combination of tangible

savings of $2.5 billion every 15 years and the $1 billion

benefit per year from the enhancement of the balance of

trade (explained above).

The black line in Case A represents a changeover

without a national plan. The descending portion slopes

downward at the rate of $7 billion every 10 years. This

consists of $0.5 billion per year for the maintenance of dual

capability plus $0.2 billion per year (the $10 billion "Base"

cost of a metric changeover distributed over a period of 50

years). The ascending portion of the black line has the

same slope as the ascending portion of the colored line,

because both have identical components under the assumption that the benefits will be the same once metric status is

achieved.

The Manufacturing Data

Estimates of benefits and costs were supplied by 126

manufacturing firms. This was by no means a random or

representative sample of all U.S. manufacturing activities.

Many companies, mainly manufacturers of measurementsensitive products, were asked if they would make benefitcost case studies of their own operations. Because of the

considerable cost and effort required for such studies, in-




110 A METRIC AMERICA

To project the estimates of

measurement-sensitive firms to cover all manufacturing would

result in an overestimate

formation was obtained from only 126 firms who were

willing to participate in this phase of the Study. (See

"Methodologies" section of Appendix One for details.)

By one method of extrapolation, which projected the

cost estimates of these firms so as to represent the entire

manufacturing industry, the total overall "Base" cost of

going metric was calculated to be about $25 billion. This

tentative aggregate cost for American manufacturing was

subjected to further analysis, for two reasons. Experts on

the manufacturing survey team judged that some of the re- ported cost estimates appeared unrealistically high, particularly in view of much lower estimates by companies

making similar products (see the four preceding pages).

Also, the firms who were asked to make the cost estimates

were selected because they are engaged in the kind of

manufacturing that would experience unusually high costs.

It seemed to the experts that to project these costs without

modification to cover the entire manufacturing industry

would result in an overestimate.

The manufacturing survey team chose, therefore, to

aggregate the estimated costs in the following manner. For

each company, instead of gross costs, they considered cost

as a percentage of value added in manufacture. Then they

assembled the companies in groups that have common

problems. Next, they assumed that in each group: (1) 1/4

of the companies overestimated costs and 3/4 of them underestimated, or (2) 1/2 overestimated and 1/2 underestimated, or (3) 3/4 overestimated and 1/4 underestimated.

These groupings and assumptions provided three

possible cost aggregates for the manufacturing industry: (1)

$32.6 billion, or (2) $ 14.3 billion, or (3) $6.2 billion. In their

detailed analysis (published in a U.S. Metric Study special

report: The Manufacturing Industry) the survey team concluded that the highest figure is excessive and that the actual figure probably lies somewhere between $6.2 billion

and $14.3 billion. In the final analysis, however, the

important point is that it will be less costly and the benefits

will come sooner, if the nation changes to metric by plan
BENEFITS AND COSTS 1 1 1

rather than leaving the change to chance.

Cost Estimates From Other Sectors:

Federal Government

Estimates for some other segments of society were

provided in various ways (see "Methodologies" section of

Appendix One, p. 139).

Estimates of metric conversion costs were made in

two surveys of the Federal Government: one concerning

the Department of Defense alone, the other concerning 55

other agencies. Similar estimates were sought from state

and local government representatives. For the most part

these representatives found it not feasible to make estimates, but some of their major costs are reflected in the

surveys on education and on commercial weights and

measures.

The 55 Federal civilian agencies contributed information that indicated costs attributable to extra efforts during

a metric change in a national program would be about $60

million annually over a ten year period. There was no information as to the probable annual cost of changing to metric

gradually, without a national program.

The Department of Defense Metric Study estimated

conversion costs on the basis of maintaining national

defense at a constant level during a conversion period as- sumed to begin in July 1972 and to be effectively

completed ten years later. The cost items included in the

estimate were based on a number of factors identified by

the Defense study team. They foresaw extensive change

orders in weapons systems already in the development

stage. Men would have to be taken off the job and

retrained. More lead time would be required for new

weapons and for maintenance. Industry would suffer temporarily from a decrease in efficiency and the Defense Department would have to pay more for its purchases.

Manuals, regulations, orders, and other documents would

need rewriting in metric language. And the Armed Services

would need more warehouse space for dual inventories.
112 A METRIC AMERICA

For all these changes the Defense study team estimated that appropriations for the Department of Defense

over a 30-year conversion period would have to be increased by a total of $ 1 8 billion, most of it (about 75%) during the first 10 years. The British military agencies, in contrast, intend to absorb the added costs of a metric

changeover within their normal budgets.

The Department of Defense report also listed a

number of long-term advantages. Going metric would contribute to a worldwide harmonization of measurements,

and this would save the time now spent in converting from

one system to the other. The compatibility and interchangeability of equipment between the U.S. and its allies would expedite repairs, make possible support in areas

where support is now nonexistent, simplify procurement

across national boundaries, and increase the communication of all data, including design, operations, and training.

Use of the metric system would reduce the total training

time of mechanics, engineers, and others. It would also

reduce the chance for error in computations. Conversion

would encourage a "general modernization and updating of

individual plant equipment, ground equipment, and shop

hand tools." And the need for fewer conversions and difficult programming would reduce computer time.

The Department of Defense estimated the cost of

going metric as part of a national program. It did not estimate the cost of having to change to metric without a national program. A comparative analysis similar to that

made for the manufacturing industry was not possible,

because the Department of Defense data are not organized

in such a way that permits derivations of the kind made

earlier in this chapter.

However, the analysis of the manufacturing industry

suggests that in the absence of a national program the Department of Defense could expect to incur greater costs

than it would incur during a national program. Indeed, one

conclusion of the Defense study is: "It is imperative that

close coordination be maintained between DOD and in-
BENEFITS AND COSTS 113

dustry. Lack of such coordination will extend the conversion process and greatly increase the costs ofconversion.''''

Nonmanufacturing Businesses

Nonmanufacturing businesses were asked to judge

their costs on a different basis from that used by the manufacturing industry, because the problems of metric conversion are not the same. For nonmanufacturing businesses,

metric conversion would in general require considerably

fewer changes in machinery, tools, and other physical

things, although they might translate Customary dimensions into metric dimensions. They would also incur costs

in retraining employees, maintaining dual inventories, and

modifying or replacing scales, gasoline pumps and other

weighing and measuring devices.

Nonmanufacturing companies were asked to indicate

how greatly a metric change would affect their annual cost

of doing business. They did not conduct formal benefit-cost

studies like those in the manufacturing survey. Instead,

representatives of nonmanufacturing businesses expressed

their opinions in telephone interviews. Most of them

foresaw no significant change in their annual costs. Of the

minority who anticipated a change, about one-half expected an increase, and the remainder expected a decrease

or could not say one way or the other. On the basis of these

responses it was not possible to derive a firm estimate of

benefits and costs for the nation's nonmanufacturing businesses. Nor was it possible to make a comparative analysis

between a planned metric changeover and one without a

plan, in terms of benefits and costs.

The costs of adapting or replacing weighing and measuring devices is treated in a U.S. Metric Study special report. Commercial Weights and Measures, which is cited in

Appendix Two of this volume. The total cost, which would

be borne largely by nonmanufacturing businesses, is estimated at about $340 million.

Almost 75 percent of the manufacturers of these

devices and many weights and measures officials said there

Nonmanufacturing businesses were

surveyed by telephone

Thinking in metric while shopping.
114 A METRIC AMERICA

So many meters high

would be benefits in using the metric system, chiefly

because the metric system is more easily understood and

thus, would help reduce time spent by employees in making

calculations. The special report points out that "such a

benefit, even if substantial, is difficult to express in quantitative terms, and no interviewee offered any analysis

showing this benefit in dollars and cents."

Labor

Labor unions are concerned about possible costs to

their members for new tools and also for retraining. They

suggested that these expenses should be borne by employers. Employers did, indeed, view retraining and tool

replacement as major cost items in their own estimates. On

the other hand, some craftsmen are self-employed and

might have to spend up to several hundred dollars for new

SIMPLIFIED METRIC EQUATION
BENEFITS AND COSTS 115

tools as the nation changes to metric — regardless of

whether there is a national program.

Some labor leaders are more deeply concerned about

a more subtle cost, which can be termed "loss of experience." Take the automobile mechanic who, after years

on the job, instinctively reaches for the right wrench to

loosen a bolt. When working for the first time, or even the

tenth time, on a metric engine, he cannot rely on his instinct. (This problem has already arisen owing to the increasing use of metric.) The mechanic unfamiliar with metric tools works slightly more slowly, less surely, and is

therefore not quite so productive for a while. If he is a

senior craftsman, he may even be at some disadvantage

with respect to a metrically trained newcomer. Such examples are easy to envision for many other crafts and industries. No dollar estimate was given for this "loss of exThe problem is already with us

47.38

379040

7476

_236?Q

Z5O/66.40

J2

60033 Z. 80

2SOJ6640

300/776 20

CUSTOMARY U.S. EQUATION
116 A METRIC AMERICA

U.S. Grade School

Mathematics Textbooks

Using Some Metric

80

60

0

100%

54%

33%

1960 1965 1970

penance." In any case, however, it would be important to

ensure that this problem is dealt with equitably in the

design of a national plan.

Education

Educators and the firms that work with them see substantial benefits more than compensating for the costs of a

metric changeover. The education survey, conducted as

part of the U.S. Metric Study, indicated that changing textbooks and equipment would cost about $1 billion spread

over three to five years. If they were changed for no other

reason than going metric, the cost could be attributed to a

metric changeover. In fact, however, most textbooks are

replaced anyway after a few years ofuse and, thus, most of

the $ 1 billion could be completely absorbed and would not

appear as an extra item in school budgets. Indeed, new

science curricula based on the metric system are already

planned for schools.

Training teachers who are still not familiar with the

metric system would represent another expense. But since

most teachers these days pursue programs of continuing

education, the cost would probably be inconsequential and

could be absorbed if the conversion were made over a

period of several years. It was suggested during the public

hearings that much teacher instruction in metric could be

done through programs on educational television.

The intangible benefits of going metric might well be

substantial. Some teachers pointed out, for example, that

it is very difficult for small children to learn to interpret the

graduations on a Customary ruler; centimeters and millimeters are conceptually much simpler than small fractions of an inch.

Citing a study it had sponsored, the American Association for the Advancement of Science mentioned an

additional intangible benefit. It has been found that slower

children learn metric more readily than they do the

Customary system — a factor that could not possibly be

expressed in monetary terms.
BENEFITS AND COSTS 117

Much more important, though, is the time that could

be saved if students did not have to be drilled in the fractions necessary to cope with the Customary system. Estimates varied, but mathematics teachers said that in elementary school they spend from 15 to 25 percent of their

class time driving home the details of adding, subtracting,

multiplying, and dividing common fractions. They believe

much of this is unnecessary. If the metric system, with its

simpler decimal relationships, were taught, they could

rapidly give their pupils the basic principles of fractions

and then move on to other useful aspects of mathematics.

The Australian metric study (see Appendix Two) ar- rived at an almost identical conclusion: "There seems no

question that considerable time would become available for

valuable new work if metric units were taught in place of

the Imperial. The arithmetical procedures required for use

with the metric system would be no different from those of

ordinary decimal work and money sums, which would give

a unity to this phase of mathematical education . . . Various estimates have been made of the actual saving in time

which would result from the adoption of the metric system.

The British Association for the Advancement of Science

and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce

estimated in 1960 that there would be a saving of 20 percent in the teaching of arithmetic or 5 percent in the total

school time for children between seven and eleven years."

:f: ;fc sfc

The cost and inconvenience of a change to metric will

be substantial, even if it is done carefully by plan. But the

analysis of benefits and costs made in this chapter confirms

the intuitive judgment of U.S. business and industry that

increasing the use of the metric system is in the best interests of the country and that this should be done through

a coordinated national program. There will be less cost and

more reward than if the change is unplanned and occurs

over a much longer period of time.

Extra time to teach and learn is an economic cost; time saved is an economic benefit

CHAPTER X

Two Paths to Metric:

Britain and Japan

Of the countries that have changed to the metric

system since World War II, or are now well under way,

Japan and Britain are the largest industrial nations. Each

approached conversion in its own way. Although neither

program would serve as an exact model for the U.S., there

are lessons to be learned from both in the event that this

country decides to change to metric by plan, as recommended by this report.

Japan's Zigzag Approach

Japan began the approach to the metric system years

before it had emerged as an industrial power. Interrupted

first by the depression and then by the war, the program

proceeded so haltingly that the goal was not reached for

fully 40 years.

In 1921 Japan had three officially recognized measurement systems: metric, English, and a traditional system

based on the shaku (11.930 inches) and the kan (8.267

pounds). In that year the use of the metric system was extended by law, at the expense of both other systems, and

introduced into primary schooling. Plans were made for

public utilities, government agencies, and a few industries

to convert to metric over a ten- year period. Other sectors

of the economy were allowed twenty years to make the

change. But conversion progressed slowly and the periods

were lengthened by 50 percent.

In 1939 a new law restored the shaku-kan system to

equal footing with metric and also postponed final conversion to metric until 1958. Then at the end of the war, during

the occupation, U.S. measurement units came into wide

use. Finally, in 195 1 still another law affirmed the 1958 target date for total metric conversion, and although the

schedule was not met, the changeover was essentially

completed in the early 1960's.

The Japanese made the metric system compulsory by

edict of the Diet in the Measurement Law of 1951. Much

of the final planning was directed by a Metric System

119

"The educational effort . . . greatly

facilitated the changeover. However, . . . educating just the children was not enough."
120 A METRIC AMERICA

Parliament almost adopted metric in

1871

"Do you expect the British Workingman to . . . ask for .56825 litre of

beer?"

In the 1950s India led the Commonwealth in the change to metric

Promotion Committee, a quasi-public agency, which

worked closely with the Ministry of International Trade

and Industry.

Two Lessons

If the U.S. decides to go metric by plan, what can be

learned from Japan's experience? The educational effort

begun in the schools more than a generation earlier greatly

facilitated the final changeover. However, Japan's zigzag

course to metric was largely due to the lack of a strong

promotional effort in the initial stages; educating just the

children was not enough. As Dr. Mitsuo Tamano, Director

of Japan's National Research Laboratory of Metrology,

said about the last stage of the changeover: "From the

earlier bitter experiences, we felt the need of a strong campaign for the promotion of the metric system, lest we

should repeat the same failure as before" — i.e., the

repeated stalling of the program.

Britain's March to Metric

The British took much longer to make up their minds,

but once they decided to go metric, they moved steadily

forward. Oddly enough, a century ago Britain very nearly

became one of the early metric nations. In 1871, Parliament considered making the metric system compulsory for

all purposes after a two-year crash conversion program;

the motion was defeated by only five votes.

There were a number of debates in Parliament

between 1871 and 1907. In 1897 it was made lawful to use

metric measurements for most purposes. In 1907 there was

another effort to make the use of the metric system compulsory but this was defeated, and Mr. Lloyd George, then

President of the Board of Trade, dismissed the proposal

facetiously by commenting, "Do you expect the British

workingman to go into a public house and ask for .56825

litre of beer?" Going metric or, as the British say, "metrication," was not seriously considered again until the middle of this century.
TWO PATHS TO METRIC: BRITAIN AND JAPAN 121

Renewed interest in metrication dates from a 1950

report of a departmental committee on weights and

measures. After detailed study, the committee arrived

unanimously at a number of conclusions. The metric

system was inherently better than the Imperial system then

in use. A change for all trade purposes was sooner or later

inevitable. Meanwhile the dual use of both systems would

in the long run cause extra inconvenience. The long-term

advantages of an organized conversion would far outweigh

the inconveniences of making the change. Besides, the

committee made two important provisos: that change

should be made in concert with the United States and

British Commonwealth countries, and that prior to metrication British currency should be put on a decimal basis.

The report had little immediate impact. At that time

British industry and commerce were against making a

change while the U.S. and most of the Commonwealth,

which were then Britain's main trading partners, still adhered to inches and pounds. Ten years later a committee of

the British Association for the Advancement of Science

and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce re- ported that a majority of industry still considered the time

not ripe to make the change.

Industry Leads the Way

Then as more and more countries, including several

members of the Commonwealth, shifted to the metric

system and as the proportion of trade with metric countries

increased, the balance of opinion shifted rapidly. In 1963

the British Standards Institution published a broad survey

of industrial opinion which found a large majority of British

firms in favor of starting metrication immediately, without

waiting for the U.S. and the rest of the Commonwealth.

British industry itself took the initiative. In 1965 the

president of the Federation of British Industries (roughly

equivalent to our National Association of Manufacturers)

informed the Government that a majority of firms favored

adoption of the metric system as the primary and, ultimately,

UNITED KINGDOM

10 YEAR PROGRAM

AUSTRALIA

10 YEAR PROGRAM

NEW ZEALAND

7 YEAR PROGRAM

JAPAN

40 YEAR PROGRAM

(Interrupted)
122 A METRIC AMERICA

Symbol for British Metrication.

the only method of measurement to be used. The

Federation asked the Government to support the principle

and to aid the scheduling of conversion.

The Government's reply to this proposal was prompt

and favorable, although it left most of the initiative with industry. It said in part: ". . . the Government considers it desirable that British industries on a broadening front

should adopt metric units, sector by sector, until that

system can become in time the primary system of weights

and measures for the country as a whole .... We shall

also encourage the change to the metric system as and

when this becomes practicable for particular industries, by

seeking to arrange that tenders for procurement by the

Government and other public authorities shall be in terms

of metric specifications."

Britain had chosen the road to metrication, although

more than two years of study were required before the program could be launched. In the summer of 1968 the

Minister of Technology again reported on the subject. He

made three major points: that manufacturing industry can

make the change efficiently and economically only if the

economy as a whole moves in the same direction on a

broadly similar time-scale, and in an orderly way; that a

Metrication Board should be established to guide, stimulate, and coordinate the planning for the transition; and that

any legal barrier to the use of the metric system — e.g., tariff

and other regulations written in Customary — should be

removed. Every sector of the economy need not move at

the same pace, he said, but central machinery — the Metrication Board — was needed to coordinate the change.

Thus, the stage was set for metric conversion. The

Metrication Board was made a purely advisory body with

representation reflecting the interests of industry, distributors and retailers, education, and the general public. No

compulsory powers were sought or granted. As for the expense of conversion, the Minister stated: 'There can be no
TWO PATHS TO METRIC: BRITAIN AND JAPAN 123

question of compensation; the costs of adopting metric

must lie where they fall." Finally he confirmed 1975 as a

target date for conversion, with the possiblity that some

sectors of the economy might aim at somewhat earlier or

later dates.

The policy of the current (Conservative) Government

toward metrication was expressed by the Minister for Industry, in the House of Commons in late 1970, when he

said: "British industry has been moving steadily toward

the adoption of the metric system. The previous Government indicated in 1965 that the process would be largely

completed in ten years. That still seems to be the generally

accepted view, and the Government acknowledges that it is

a realistic forecast of the date by which the greater part of

British industry will have adopted metric weights and measures." A White Paper detailing Britain's current policy

toward metrication is expected to be issued soon.

As this report of the U.S. Metric Study goes to press,

the British Metrication program is one year past the halfway point. Almost all the planning has been done, and in

some sectors conversion is nearing completion. The chart

on page 1 24 shows in some detail the scheduling for most of

the major British industries. The remainder of this chapter

summarizes accomplishments and problems in certain crucial areas.

Education

From the start the British have counted heavily on the

educational system to make metrication smoother and lasting. The children now entering primary schools are learning to think in metric terms, as naturally as their mothers

and fathers thought in terms of inches and pounds. Those

in higher education are breaking the habit of thinking in

terms of the old units.

Teachers in primary schools are satisfied that the metric system will save time and effort. They will not have to

spend valuable hours on the intricacies of the Imperial

system, which generally makes arithmetic harder. British

"From the start the British have

counted heavily on the educational

system ..."
BRITISH TIMETABLE FOR

Industrial metrication programmes

General programmes 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

Construction industry

Electrical industry

Marine industry

Metric standards

Metric products

& materials

Engineering industries

Legend

Build up

A planned changeover period during which both current imperial and new

metric sizes/ quantities should be available.

Subsequently, only metric sizes/quantities will be available as standard.

A changeover period has been recommended but the precise timing and

duration will be decided by individual companies.

The industry is planning to go metric on a particular date and no

prolonged changeover period is foreseen.
Announced programmes for products and materials

Commodity |i969 1970 1971 1972 i Commodity 1969 1970 1971 1972

Adhesives Paper: manilla

Aluminum: castings Paper: printing and writing

Aluminum: foil Paper: specialty coated

Aluminum: wrought Paper: waterproof

Asphalt Paper: wrapping

Ball and roller bearings Paving flags WITT

Blockboard Pesticides

Board: insulating Pharmaceutical

Board: paper Photographic equipment

Board: pasted display and

showcard Photographic materials

Board: printing Pitch fibre pipes

Boxes: crates etc. Plaster

Boxes: metal Plaster-board

Bricks Plywood: home produced

Building blocks Plywood: imported

Cables Polythene: film

Cellulose film Polypropylene; film

Cement PVC: calendered rigid

Chemicals general: in all trade in the U.K.

PVC: extruded film

Chemicals general: in trade

between member firms

Clay

Concrete pipes

Ready-mixed concrete

Roofing felt Sand and gravel

Copper and copper alloy:

wire rod, sheet, strip etc.

Scientific and industrial

instruments

Expanded polystyrene board Slag

Fasteners

Steel bars and mesh for

concrete reinforcement

Fibre board packing cases Stone and chalk

Glass: flat Synthetic rubber

Hides and skins: unprocessed

Textile fibres for

commercial users: wool,

cotton, jute, synthetic

Paint

Paper: blotting

Paper: book printing

Paper: cover

Paper: machine glazed for

envelopes and posters

Timber: home grown

Timber: imported

Windows: aluminum

Windows: steel

Wire: insulated

Wood pulp

t
126 A METRIC AMERICA

Firms are finding that retraining for

metrication is easier than was feared

schools are more independent in their choice of curricula

than are U.S. schools. But regional and national examinations will by 1973 require the use of metric terminology.

Headmasters who want their pupils to do well will train

them in metric.

Publishers and makers of educational equipment are

already well ahead in the production of texts and apparatus

that conform to the metric system.

Future teachers now enrolled in colleges and schools

of education are already being trained to teach in the metric

system and should be familiar with it by the time they take

their first jobs.

Vocational Training and Retraining

Here again, in this special area of education, the

emphasis has been on teaching people to "think metric" on

their own, rather than to rely on converting measurements

from the more familiar inches and pounds. For the majority,

the amount of new knowledge and reeducation needed has

proved slight and easy to acquire on the job in a short time.

Firms are finding that retraining for metrication is not the

formidable obstacle it was feared to be at the outset of the

program.

Vocational schools and technical institutes design

their curricula to the needs of specific industries, and they

are generally pacing their change to metric training according to the industries' metrication plans. The Councillor

Technical Examining Bodies, for example, has already

published proposals for "metricating" examinations for

trainees and workers in the leading industries: construction, industrial materials, engineering, mining, forestry,

paper and printing, and shipbuilding.

The Industrial Training Boards have been active in

preparing guidance for their industries on training needs.

The Construction Industry Training Board, which has led

the way in metric retraining, found itself with an exceptional problem. This stemmed partly from the decision of

the industry to press forward with dimensional coordina-
TWO PATHS TO METRIC: BRITAIN AND JAPAN 127

tion and partly from the nature of the industry itself, with

its large proportion of small firms.

For the most part, individual firms were not prepared

to handle the necessary retraining as larger firms have

generally been doing. Accordingly the Construction Industry Training Board has taken on a major role in providing

training aids. In most other industries, the training boards

are playing a more modest role in connection with metrication, and some have adapted to their own needs the training

aids prepared for the construction industry.

The Government Training Centers, a central government agency for retraining unemployed workers, planned

for half the machine tools used in their programs to be metric by mid- 1970. They also began revising documents to

metric terms for trainees in bricklaying, carpentry, woodworking, plastering, and machine operating. All construction trades get some knowledge of metrication.

Construction

British metrication got off to an auspicious start when

construction, one of the most complicated industries to

change, led the way. Its activities are closely interlocked

with those of a host of manufacturing industries — e.g.,

steel, glass, plastics, and timber. It employs a wide variety

of skilled and professional people, including architects,

civil engineers, electricians, steamfitters, and experts in

heating and ventilation, and building maintenance. The

conversion to metric materials and components, begun in

January 1970, is expected to be substantially completed by

December 1972. All the major materials manufacturers

have now arranged their own metrication programs and

these mesh with that of construction.

The construction industry decided from the outset to

combine metrication with the adoption of a series of standardizing dimensions and thus to create new opportunities

for modular design and building. Almost paradoxically, in

rationalizing sizes the British construction industry has

tended to favor a module of 300 millimeters. This is a

Coordination of Sizes

in British Construction

Customary

Metric Equivalent

12 inches

304.8 mm

300 mm

Metric Co-ordination

Component

Location --—H-

_

I

Dimensional Framework Related

to Component and Location
128 A METRIC AMERICA

Railroads will have to become accus- tomed to new operating manuals

seemingly peculiar number, but it happens to be very close

to the familiar length of one foot.

It was decided not to delay the metric design of

buildings until new metric dimensions have been decided

for all components. For a limited time some components

made to Imperial standards will still be fitted into the new

designs, in much the same ways that up to now most new

buildings have had to make do with what was available.

Old buildings have always been repaired with the materials

available at the time.

By the end of 1972 the transition period will be virtually over, and Britain should be industrially capable of

designing and constructing completely metric buildings.

Meanwhile, most small private contractors have stuck to

the old methods, except when they have found some cost

advantage in changing or where their clients or their consultants require metric design. On the other hand, larger

"systems" builders are having little difficulty in switching

to metric, and their customers are benefiting from the

advances in standardization.

Transportation and Communications

These industries, which affect the lives of almost

everyone, are less commonly in private ownership than

they are in the U.S. The British Government, for example,

owns the electric power industry, the railroads, the major

airlines, and, through the Post Office, the telephone and

telegraph service. Whether publicly or privately controlled,

most of these industries have had to face much the same

problems, but each of them has had to work out its own

timetable within the framework of the general target date

of 1975.

Tariffs for delivering goods, people, and messages are

generally based on combinations of weight, bulk, and

distance. Thus, with little effort old tables can be converted

to new ones that are almost exactly equivalent. The change

will hardly affect the individual citizen.

Many people, however, will have to adjust their think-
TWO PATHS TO METRIC: BRITAIN AND JAPAN 129

ing to revised traffic regulations, notably speed limits,

when they are introduced. The Minister of Transport Industries decided against posting speed limits in both miles

per hour and kilometers per hour during a transition period.

In the interests of safety they recommended an abrupt

switch. The timing of this change has not yet been decided,

although there has been a good deal of preparatory work by

the authorities.

So far as the traveler is concerned, metrication of the

railroads will mean little, except that timetables including

distances will be revised at some convenient time for

reprinting. But the people who run the railroads will have

to become accustomed to new operating manuals with

speeds, distances, weights, pressures, and other dimensions expressed in metric terms when the change is made.

Metrication of shipping and navigation is primarily a

matter of rewriting in new units various acts, rules, and

regulations. This process is well advanced, as is the provision of metric training for mariners. However, the knot and

the nautical mile are internationally recognized units and

will continue in use. Revised metric charts for British

waters will be available in 1972; the Navy Department will

then begin issuing tide tables in metric units; and the port

authorities will convert their tide gauges accordingly.

The airlines have long dealt with a mixture of metric

and customary units and will continue to do so until there

is a comprehensive international agreement to change.

Since they already weigh freight and baggage in kilograms,

conversion of customs and other regulations to metric will

be an added convenience.

There is unlikely to be any early change in air navigation practices, particularly in units used for air-to-ground

communications in traffic control or for the calibration of

flight instruments. International civil aviation uses two different sets of standards; both include the knot and nautical

mile, but one set measures speed and vertical distances in

kilometers per hour and meters, the other in miles per hour

and feet.

f+r connection* btw«i> New York tnd Europe, tm* able 1, pmf 3

"The airlines have long dealt with a mixture of metric and customary

units ..."
130 A METRIC AMERICA

In the transportation and communications industries,

metrication seems to have assumed a definite pattern: only

those things that need changing will be changed, and then

only when the change becomes necessary.

Engineering

In no other group of industries does metrication

represent so profound a change. Precise measurement is a

basic activity of engineering firms, and the use of new units

of measurement affects every aspect of the firm's business.

To change in an orderly and efficient way, the British engineering industries have relied greatly on a metrication

program and guide published in the summer of 1968 by the

British Standards Institution — one of the first programs to

be agreed upon.

For many products of the engineering industries the

availability of metric standards has been an essential

prerequisite of the changeover. These standards, prepared

by the British Standards Institution, go far beyond a mere

arithmetic translation from Imperial to metric dimensions.

They have also eliminated unnecessary varieties of

products and components and brought production into line

with international standards where these exist. The task

was imposing, but essential standards were made available

in metric terms by the end of 1970.

While considering the changes dictated by metrication,

engineering companies also linked these to still other and

more far-reaching changes. According to the 1970 report

of the Metrication Board: "All firms will, because of the

metric change, be called upon sooner or later to review the

design of their products. They have to consider whether it

is timely to change the whole design or to change individual

components of it. All this should be done in ways which

will make possible the most economical use of materials to

metric specifications and the incorporation of metric

fasteners .... A firm's review of its activities should also

cover purchasing policies for materials and components,

the organization of production, stocking policy and control,
TWO PATHS TO METRIC: BRITAIN AND JAPAN 131

and, not least, a critical examination of marketing policies."

In short, metrication gives such companies an

unprecedented impetus to clean house.

The effect of metrication on the engineering industries

has been heightened by their customers who must themselves rely on engineering to further their own metrication.

The Defence Department, in particular, has taken the lead

in discussing the problems of metric change with its suppliers. In 1969 the Ministries of Defence and Technology

jointly prepared an outline target program for the introduction of the metric system throughout the military procurement field, envisaging that all new designs should be metric. The completion of the changeover will depend, however, on the retirement of existing designs, some of which

still have a long life.

Various segments of the engineering industries have

responded to metrication in different ways. Aircraft manufacturers, for example, agreed to make every effort to

comply with the Defence Ministry's program. But they

pointed out that unless the U.S., the world's largest manufacturer and operator of civil aircraft, changes over to metric, two sets of units are likely to be current for some time

to come.

"The Defence Department . . . has

taken the lead in discussing the

problems of metric change with its suppliers."

"... Britain is, like us, an advanced

industrial nation and one with which we share many common traditions."
132 A METRIC AMERICA

"Most machines can be readily converted ..."

"Consumer trade and industry embrace such a wide variety of disparate

products and problems ..."

In the earliest days of metrication the Council of

Machine Tool Trades Association accepted a recommendation that its members consider the metric system for new

designs. This would not only familiarize designers and

machine shop workers with the new units but would start

a gradual decrease in the manufacture of strictly inch-based

machine tools, thus reducing servicing problems when conversion was completed.

The British Bolt, Nut, Screw and Rivet Federation

confirmed that it can meet the basic program of the British

Standards Institution and began last year to produce

preferred sizes of metric fasteners.

The automotive industry, on the other hand, while

welcoming metrication in principle, has announced there

will be no immediate and comprehensive change in the industry as a whole. Its plan is to continue conversion

gradually as parts, components and new models are

redesigned to metric specifications, a process which is now

well advanced.

Many British engineering firms, especially those who

export to the rest of Europe, are accustomed to producing

to metric standards. Metrication has hardly taxed their

technical ability, but it has challenged their planning skills.

In fact, a number of the purely technical problems have

proved less troublesome than had been anticipated.

The Metrication Board's 1970 report points out:

"Although most inch-based machine tools can be used

without modification to produce metricated components,

some users will be faced with the need to convert their

machines to a dual role or to metric working, and in some

instances to replace them. Most machines can be readily

converted, and conversion kits are now generally available .... Most firms will not be involved in major expenditures for reequipment and adaptation."

Industry, Trade, and the Consumer

Consumer trade and industry embrace such a wide

variety of disparate products and problems that they have
TWO PATHS TO METRIC: BRITAIN AND JAPAN 133

not been incorporated in any comprehensive plan or

timetable for metrication. Nevertheless, some fragments of

this sector have already worked out their programs, and in

the pharmaceutical field British law now stipulates that all

prescriptions be dispensed in metric units. Cosmetics,

toothpaste, and similar drugstore items have followed suit.

In general, manufacturers in this area have the same

metrication problems. Although they need not make

elaborate technical changes in their production processes,

they have to make timely adjustments in packaging,

weighing, and labeling without disrupting their businesses.

Throughout Britain many thousands of weighing machines

will have to be converted and in some cases replaced. This

alone is a complicated task, both for technical reasons and

because the work cannot be done all at once.

As long as they are going metric, food manufacturers

are considering changing the weights of the contents of

packaged foods so as to provide a sensible series of quantities that will soon be familiar to the consumer, e.g., 125

grams as a close approximation of 1/4 pound; 250 grams

for 1/2 pound; 500 grams for 1 pound; and 1 kilogram for

2 pounds.

For the most part, standardizing in ways such as this

requires only that containers and filling machines be

slightly modified. The cost is proving slight. The consumer

will not have to contend with so many odd-sized packages

and this, combined with Britain's new decimal currency,

will make the calculation of unit prices much easier, the

Metrication Board points out.

Other consumer-related industries, however, will have

to make more sweeping technical production changes.

Some carpet looms, for example, will require rebuilding,

although there is no problem in supplying metric widths

even now. The bedding industry also intends to become

thoroughly metric this year, and to eliminate odd sizes. The

single mattress has been standardized at 100 x 200 centimeters, and the double mattress at 150 x 200 centimeters.

In scheduling this change, the mattress makers were helped
134 A METRIC AMERICA

**»mmmmmm*am*mu>»m The confusion of clothing sizes

A strong argument for a coordinated

national program is to ensure that

small businesses are not left behind

by the fact that existing sheets, blankets, and quilt sizes will

fit the new beds.

The British clothing industry also intends to clear up

the long-standing confusion of sizes and to join other metric nations in international standardization based on the

centimeter. An international scheme for the metric sizing

of footwear has been agreed upon in principle.

In its dealing with these parts of trade and industry,

the general public is being progressively confronted with

the reality of metrication. To be sure, much retail trade involves measurement only incidentally. Many goods are

sold by number or are pre-packed in familiar containers.

Although packages generally are marked with metric as

well as Imperial volumes or weights, few consumers

habitually read quantities on the labels.

Still, the British anticipate complaints from customers

who do not think they are getting their money's worth

when, for example, they pay slightly more for 500 grams of

butter than they did forgone pound, which is only 454

grams. The problem would be simplified if retailers could

convert for all commodities overnight, but this will be impossible since suppliers will change over at different times.

Small Business

The mixed situation that is likely to prevail for a time

at the retail level points up in general the problems of small

businessmen, many of whom are also retailers. Most large

companies have adequate technical, financial, and

managerial resources for planning their own metrication

and dealing with it over a long period. Also, they purchase

in such quantity that they can bring pressure on suppliers

to meet their schedules.

The British Metrication Board has been studying companies that lack these resources and leverage, and it has expressed concern on two grounds. The small businessman

is seldom in control over the decision of when to go metric;

large companies tend to set the pace. Moreover, during the
TWO PATHS TO METRIC! BRITAIN AND JAPAN 135

transition period some suppliers are reluctant to maintain

full stocks of both metric and non-metric items, and if the

small businessman runs short of some item his suppliers

are unlikely to produce a special order of the limited quantity he may require; large companies are more likely to be

able to get whatever they order.

These problems are of continuing concern. Nevertheless, they are not a burden peculiar to metrication; rather,

they are the usual problems of most small businesses confronted by market and technical changes of any kind.

Still seeking for a workable solution, the Metrication

Board states in its 1970 report: "Our present view is that

a constructive attitude toward these problems by large

firms is the main way of helping. Major producers and

users can greatly ease the position by making their intentions widely known to those affected in good time." And

this is a strong argument for carrying out metrication ac- cording to schedules carefully drawn up well in advance,

with the government providing assurance that everyone

gets a fair opportunity to participate.

Solving Problems

One of the most interesting aspects of the British metrication program is the ingenuity with which a number of

minor but bothersome technical problems have been

solved.

Even before metrication was well under way, the

gasoline industry realized it was soon going to encounter a

two-pronged problem: service stations were going to have

to dispense gasoline by the liter and price it in the new

decimal currency, which was due to be adopted in February

1971. They anticipated both difficulties by having

designed a price-computing pump with an important new

feature: a convertible head that could be easily adjusted for

changes in both money and measurement. All gasoline

pumps installed since October 1968 have been of this kind.

When pharmacy went metric there was some reason

to worry about medicine to be taken in liquid doses. Few

NEW BRITISH MONEYWhat it's worth
136 A METRIC AMERICA

Posters are widely used

consumers at that time had anything but the vaguest notion

of the size of a milliliter. To avoid possibly disastrous confusion, drug manufacturers supplied pharmacists with

quantities of cheap plastic spoons having a capacity of exactly five milliliters, one to be given away with each bottle

of medicine.

Not all the knotty little problems of metrication have

yet been solved. The dairy industry is still worried about

the size of the metric milk bottle. The British householder

is accustomed to having his milk delivered at the door

every morning in one-pint bottles, and if milk is sold in the

comparable metric size — 500 milliliters — he is not likely to

change the number of bottles he orders. Unfortunately, 500

milliliters is about 10 percent less than a British pint. Milk

companies have reason to fear that consumption would

slump, because this did in fact happen in Kenya, where the

500-milliliter milk bottle was adopted.

Fortunately, if the U.S. were to go metric, this would

be no problem for our dairy industry, because the U.S.

quart is about 5 percent smaller than one liter. Thus, if the

same psychology were to apply, milk consumption would

rise by roughly 5 percent should Americans begin buying

their milk in liters.

Informing the Public

Throughout the metrication program a main goal has

been to persuade the British people to "think metric,"

rather than to go through the tedious process of converting

inches and pounds through arithmetic calculations. In addition to encouraging education and formal training, the Metrication Board has enlisted the cooperation of journalists

and broadcasters to reach the general public. Posters, exhibitions, advertising campaigns, local meetings and study

groups have also been encouraged.

How well has this extensive program worked?

Generally, at this stage the British people have a pretty

clear notion of metric lengths, a less clear one of weights

and volumes.
TWO PATHS TO METRIC: BRITAIN AND JAPAN 137

The Board has no intention of trying to teach all the intricacies of the modern metric system to everyone. As one

member has stated: "I would begin by crying halt to those

enthusiasts who would wish every man, woman, and child

drilled in all theory and detail." For most people it is

enough to become accustomed to the gram, the kilogram,

the meter, the liter and a few other units they need for

everyday use. Repeated surveys have indicated that the British

public is becoming increasingly aware of metrication and

more favorably disposed to it. The British decimal currency change has provided encouraging evidence of the

readiness of people to accept such a change when the need

arises.

According to a public survey completed early this

year, public education has already been fairly successful.

About 3/4 of the people questioned knew that a kilometer

measures distance, and 2/3 of these knew it is less than a

mile. Two-thirds knew that a liter is a measure of volume,

and 2/3 of these knew that it is larger than a pint. About 2/3

knew that a kilogram is a measure of weight, but only 2/5

of these knew that it was more than a pound. More than 70

percent thought that metrication would be easy or fairly

easy.

The Pilot Program

If the U.S. decides to go metric in a coordinated program, as the British are doing, what lessons can be gleaned

from their progress? It is unrealistic to attempt fully to

translate British experience directly to U.S. problems. The

British economy is smaller and less complex. Moreover,

we do not have under consideration joining a regional

economic union such as the Common Market, which is

wholly metric, although we do value trading with it. On the other hand, Britain is, like us, an advanced industrial nation and one with which we share many common

traditions. At least to this extent, their metrication effort

serves as our pilot program.

Weigh in

kilogrammes

CfunwrvrtNght MkMktwwqht WWk^i UghtwwoM Fwitw^^ght BantvmwQ TM*b n kg 06 kg , ftlhjj 5Tkg 531.;, Think metric

CITB

How much is a kilogram?

100 millimeters?

Stamp

100 mm

on your mind

Think mi:
APPENDIX ONE:

How the U.S. Metric Study

was Planned

and Carried Out

Congress authorized the U.S. Metric Study in

August of 1 968 by the enactment of Public Law 90-

472. This Act directed the Secretary of Commerce

to provide for a broad inquiry and evaluation concerning the use of the metric system of measurement. Specifically, the Study was to:

— Determine the impact on the U.S. of the increasing worldwide use of the metric system. — Consider both the desirability and the practicability of increasing the use of metric weights

and measures in this country. — Study the feasibility of international use of

standards based on the Customary system. — Examine the implications of the metric trend

for international trade, national security, and

other areas of foreign relations. — Identify the practical difficulties that might be

encountered should the metric system be used

more widely in the U.S., and evaluate the costs

and benefits of courses of action which the

U.S. might realistically take.

On the basis of the findings and conclusions of

the Study, the Secretary of Commerce was asked to

make "such recommendations as he considers to be

appropriate and in the best interests of the United

States."

National Bureau of Standards

The Secretary delegated responsibility for the

conduct of the Study to the National Bureau of

Standards. The Bureau's report on the Study along

with the Secretary's recommendations were to be

presented to Congress in August of 1 97 1

.

The primary goal of the planning was to give

every sector of society an opportunity to respond to

the questions raised by Public Law 90-472 and to

consult and cooperate with other government agencies, foreign governments, and international or- ganizations.

Advisory Panel

As one means of furthering widespread participation, the Secretary of Commerce appointed a Metric System Study Advisory Panel. It consisted of almost 50 members from organizations representing

a wide spectrum of interests. The chairman of the

panel was Mr. Louis F. Polk, and its vice-chairman

was Dr. Francis L. LaQue. The full membership of

the panel is listed later in this appendix. The function of the Panel was to participate in the planning

and conduct of the Study and to help ensure that an

opportunity was provided for all sectors of the

society to be heard.

The Plan

The blueprint for the Study was worked out by

the National Bureau of Standards in close cooperation with the Panel and was completed in December

of 1969. The plan provided for a series of hearings,

called National Metric Study Conferences, supplemented by a number of special investigations. All of

these were to be completed during 1970 so that the

results could be evaluated and summarized early in

1971. Interim reports covering the special investigations and the results of the hearings were to

be sent to the Congress. The National Bureau of

Standards' comprehensive report of the entire U.S.

Metric Study would lay the groundwork for the

Secretary's recommendations to Congress in August of 1971.

The Hearings

Seven hearings were held during the late summer

and fall of 1970 — six of them in the Washington

area. They were divided into separate categories as follows:

(1) Labor

(2) Consumer Affairs

(3) Education

(4) Construction

(5) Engineering-Oriented industry

(6) Consumer-Related Industry

(7) Small Business, State & Local Government, Natural Resources, Health, Transportation, and other services.

The categories were chosen so that there would be

some overlapping of interests in order to ensure that

all who wanted to participate could be heard.

138
APPENDIX ONE 139

The U.S. Metric Study invited contributions

from more than 700 major groups, including labor

unions, trade associations, professional societies,

educational associations, consumer-related or- ganizations, and others. The hearings were widely

publicized in advance. Thus, in addition to those

specifically invited to participate, there were many

contributions from groups who submitted papers or took part in discussions.

The way in which the hearings were carried out

is described in greater detail under "Methodologies" below.The groups invited to submit contributions are listed at the end of this appendix. The

U.S. Metric Study interim report. Testimony of

Nationally Representative Groups, which summarizes all the contributions, is cited in Appendix Two, page 1 64.

Supplementary Investigations

The investigations that supplemented the

hearings covered the following subjects:

1. Manufacturing Industry

2. Nonmanufacturing Businesses

3. Education

4. Consumers

5. International Trade

6. Engineering Standards

7. International Standards

8. Department of Defense

9. Federal Civilian Agencies

10. Commercial Weights and Measures

1 1. History of the Metric System Controversy

in the U.S.

The ways in which these investigations were con- ducted are described below under "Methodologies." The U.S. Metric Study reports covering

these topics are cited in Appendix Two. In all,

twelve reports, covering special topics in detail,

have been published as part of the U.S. Metric

Study record.

Methodologies

The Public Hearings

Section 2(5) of the Metric Study Act states, in

part, that the Study should "permit appropriate participation by representatives of United States in- dustry, science, engineering and labor and their

associations . . . ." The purpose of the National

Metric Study Conferences was to provide an opportunity for as many of such groups as possible to ex- press the views of their constituent members, and

to have those views heard and discussed in a public

forum.

Contributions were sought from groups

representing every sector of the society, and were

obtained in several ways. More than 700 groups

were invited by the Department of Commerce to

participate in the Conferences or submit written

views. Members of the Metric System Study Advisory Panel helped in the selection of the invitees.

The Conferences were widely publicized in ad- vance. The meetings were, in effect, hearings. Any interested person could attend and participate in the

discussions. A series of press releases was used to

advertise the Conferences. Brochures announcing

both the entire series and details of each individual

conference were mailed to many thousands of

potentially interested parties.

In order that the spokesmen invited could address themselves to the specific questions posed by

the Metric Study Act, they were given guidelines

and pertinent background material. Each

spokesman was asked for a brief description of the

nature of his organization, including a description

of its membership, and an indication of the extent to

which the membership was consulted in the

preparation of the testimony.

Members of the Metric System Study Advisory

Panel and other individuals participated in discussion panels, which commented on the presentations. They also asked questions to elicit further information.

There were 20 full days of hearings, in all, spread

out over the latter half of 1970. These meetings

were held in the Washington, D.C. area, with the

exception of one set of hearings which was held at the Deerfield Academy in Massachusetts. Altogether, some 200 presentations were heard, and

they were interspersed with extensive discussions.

The organizations that were invited to contribute to
140 A METRIC AMERICA

the record of the hearings are listed at the end of

this appendix.

Labor.— Questions concerning employees were

answered by employers in the Manufacturing In- dustry Survey and the Survey of Nonmanufacturing

Business. The Labor Conference was intended to

give the labor unions an opportunity to speak

directly for their members.

The Metric Study Group consulted with

representatives of the AFL-CIO, and invited them

to participate in the planning and conduct of the

Labor Conference. For the conference, labor

unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO were grouped

as follows: — Chemical, Oil, Mining, Pharmaceutical — Construction — Textile, Garment — Transportation, Maritime — Arts, Communications, Printing — Metals — Service — Glass, Ceramic and Other.

Special guidelines were prepared for the labor

participants. These were oriented to the particular

relationship of workers to measurement usage, including questions related to prior experience in

adapting to increased metric use: effects with re- gard to worker-owned tools; training programs offered and their effectiveness; and significant effects

on the nature of jobs. Some AFL-CIO unions

declined to participate because they believed their

members would not be affected by increasing metric usage.

In addition to inviting AFL-CIO affiliates, the

Metric Study sent letters to all independent unions

inviting them to submit written views. Any independent union that wanted to give an oral summary at the Labor Conference was given the opportunity.

Consumer Affairs. — A Conference devoted to the

effects of growing metric usage on the activities of

the consumer was organized in cooperation with the

American Home Economics Association. (The

findings of the Consumer Conference were supplemented by a survey of the public's knowledge of

metric, described later in this appendix under Supplementary Investigations.) Representatives of

some 20 consumer organizations and college and

university home economics departments presented

reports in sessions concerned with: clothing, food

and food services, the home, and transportation ser- vices (i.e., automobile purchase, use, and repair).

The Conference also heard and discussed reports

on consumer attitudes toward the metric system, as well as a report by a staff member of the Consumer

Council of Great Britain concerning consumer ex- periences under that nation's metric conversion effort.

Education. — At the Education Conference,

papers were presented by representatives of 30 or- ganizations concerned with: elementary and secondary education, higher education, vocational and

technical education, curriculum development, and

support activities. (These contributions to the Education Conference were complemented by a special

study, described later in this appendix.) For the invitees to this conference, the Metric Study modified

the National Conference Guidelines to relate them

to the particular effects of increasing metric use on

teaching and educational support activities. These

guidelines sought information as to effects on classroom activities and on items directly involved in the

educational process (e.g., textbooks, instructional

materials and teaching aids, shop and laboratory

equipment).

Construction.— This Conference assessed the

special benefits and problems of increasing metric

usage on all aspects of the construction industry.

Spokesmen presented reports in sessions devoted

to: building design, building codes and standards,

building materials production and sales, general

contractors and subcontractors, building core (basic

structure and utilities) construction, home builders

and home manufacturers, and land services and

heavy construction.

Engineering-Oriented Industries. — This Conference was cosponsored by the Engineering Foundation and was held at the Deerfield Academy,

Deerfield, Massachusetts. Although the industries

represented were covered at the company level by

the Manufacturing Industry Survey, the Conference provided an opportunity for consideration

and discussion at the industry association and

professional society level of the opportunities and
APPENDIX ONE 141

problems which increasing metric usage brings

to industries heavily dependent on engineering

activities.

Eight sessions were devoted to various industry

groupings, and participants heard reports from 30

industry association representatives and 10

spokesmen for professional societies. One additional session considered broad national engineering and standards problems and another was

devoted to the effects on consulting and professional engineers. Two European authorities re- ported on activities of the International Standards

Organization with regard to the incorporation of

metric units into engineering practice, and the

degree of acceptance of metric units by European

industry as a basis for current and future engineering standards and practices.

Consumer-Related Industry.— This Conference,

again overlapping several of the Supplementary In- vestigations, covered those industries which

produce primarily for or provide services primarily

to the private consumer. Some 35 trade association

representatives presented reports in sessions con- cerned with: wholesale and general retail trade, au- tomatic merchandising, appliance sales and service,

toy manufacturing, printing and publishing, book

manufacturing, quality control, food processing,

food sales, scale manufacturing, paper manufacturing, amusements, motels, textile mill products, apparel manufacturing, automobile sales and service,

and car and truck renting. Also, a special foreign

trade report was presented by the Commerce and

Industry Association of New York.

General.— The final conference covered services,

agriculture and natural resources, small business,

and state and local government. Twenty-three trade

association and professional representatives spoke

on metric usage as it affects legal services, communications, finance, transportation and related ser- vices, accounting, and medical services. Eight as- sociation spokesmen discussed the metric questions

as they relate to farming, forestry, fisheries, and

mining. The two major associations of small businessmen presented reports.

The State-County-City Service Center reported

on its study of the present and potential effects of

metric usage on the activities of governments at the

state and local level. (The Center was established

to improve coordination among the Council of State

Governments, the National Governors Conference, the National Association of Counties, the

International City Management Association, the

National League of Cities, and the United States

Conference of Mayors.)

The Metric Study Act directed that the Study

"consult and cooperate with other government

agencies, Federal, state, and local" in carrying out

its investigation. The Metric Study Team contracted with the Service Center to survey a sample

of states, counties and cities. Two states (California

and Kentucky), two counties (New Castle,

Delaware and San Mateo, California) and five cities

(Bangor, Maine; Grand Prairie, Texas; Kansas

City, Missouri; San Jose, California; and Savannah,

Georgia) were selected by the Center, and their

measurement-related activities were studied in

depth. The particular opportunities and problems of

state and local governments in the area of commercial weights and measures activities were treated in a Supplementary Investigation, described later in

this appendix.

Finally, this Conference heard a report by the

Director of the British Metrication Board,

Mr. Gordon Bowen, on the experience of the

United Kingdom in going metric.

Supplementary Investigations

Manufacturing Industry. — The Manufacturing

Survey obtained information in three areas: —The present impact within United States

manufacturing industry of increasing worldwide use of the metric system. — This impact in the future, assuming that use

of the metric system continues as at present, with no coordination among the

various sectors of the society. — Alternatively, the effects of a coordinated

national program to increase metric usage.

The survey team determined that the best way to

obtain this information was to conduct, by mailed

questionnaires, a survey of two parts. Part A was

designed to solicit from manufacturing companies

general information concerning metric usage and at-
142 A METRIC AMERICA

titudes toward the metric system. Part B was con- cerned with more difficult issues dealing with the

benefits, costs and timing of metric conversion

within the companies. A significant response to

Part B could be obtained only if companies were

willing to make an intensive study with qualified

staff and at considerable cost to the company.

For Part A, the Manufacturing Survey team decided to direct the questionnaire to a representative

sample of the 267,000 individual manufacturing

firms which existed in the United States according

to the 1967 Census of Manufactures. The most

complete available file of companies from which to

select the sample was a Dun and Bradstreet magnetic tape file of companies engaged primarily in

manufacturing. The file included information on the

principal SIC (Standard Industrial Classification,

used by Census Bureau) product code and on

number of employees for most of the companies in

the file. The sample was stratified in two ways: — by number of employees — by measurement sensitivity of products.

(There were three measurement sensitivity categories: Category I — industries whose products are most measurement sensitive, such as machinery

and appliances; Category II — industries whose

products are moderately measurement sensitive,

such as metal cans and lumber; and Category

III — industries whose products are least measure- ment sensitive, such as jewelry and cutlery.)

The universe of manufacturing companies sampled by Part A of the Manufacturing Survey consisted of all manufacturing companies with 50 or more employees (as classified by the Dun and Bradstreet file) plus those companies in the measurement sensitivity Category I with fewer than 50

employees.

About 80 percent of the manufacturing companies in the United States are companies in Categories II and III with fewer than 50 employees. These

companies, however, account for only about 1 5 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing output. It was

reasonable to assume, also, that most of them would

not be as greatly affected as Category I companies,

and would not have much information on the implications of a metric conversion program. Consequently, for the 1-49 size class a decision was

made to exclude companies in Categories II and III from the Survey and to compensate for this exclusion by increasing the sample size of Category I. For the purpose of this Survey, this procedure was

better than taking a strictly random sample of all manufacturing firms.

The employee size classes used in the sampling

stratification were 1-49, 50-499, 500-2499, and

2,500 and over. Thus there was a total of 10

Category/size classifications. The original intent

was to have a sample size of approximately 300 for

each employee size class within each measurement

sensitivity Category. It was found, however, that

for the larger companies (2,500 employees and

over) the number of companies in each Category/

size class was less than 300 and, therefore, for

these classes all companies were included in the

sample. The sample for the 1-49 employee size

class (limited to Category I) was larger than the

other samples because a lower initial response rate

was expected from small companies.

A first mailing to the 3,838 companies in the sample was followed by a second mailing to those who

had not responded to the first mailing. A total

response of 1,859 companies was received, leaving a total of 1 ,979 initial nonrespondents after the two

requests by mail. A subsample of approximately

350 companies was drawn from the 1,979 initial

nonrespondents for intensive follow-up by certified

letter and telephone. On the basis of the initial

responses and the intensive follow-up of the subsample respondents, an effective response coverage

of 84 percent of the universe was obtained by the

Survey.

While the sample for Part A could be very

broadly based, the Part B sample had to be confined

to those companies with enough interest in metric

conversion to be willing to do the background work

necessary to provide adequate responses to the

benefit-cost questions. Thus, responses were solicited only from those companies which had agreed

to carry out the necessary studies at their own considerable expense. The Part B sample included

companies that have been opposed to a change in
APPENDIX ONE 143

our measurement system, as well as companies that

have been neutral or favorable toward increased

U.S. metric usage.

Based on the returns of the Part B questionnaire, an estimate was made of the total cost of introducing the metric system for the manufacturing sector,

under a program that assumes each company will

adopt its optimum period for accomplishing metric

conversion. Some of the companies also made observations on benefits to be expected.

Nonmanufacturing Businesses. — The Survey of

Nonmanufacturing Businesses complements the

Manufacturing Survey; similar information was

sought in both of these surveys.

According to U.S. Internal Revenue Service

figures, there are about 1 1 million nonmanufacturing businesses in the nation, of which some 9 million are sole proprietorships. The firms included in

this total account for about 65 percent of total U.S.

employment.

Nonmanufacturing industries represent a wide

variety of economic activities. Many of them sell only services, some just sell goods, and many sell both. The original sampling plan identified 98 types

of nonmanufacturing firms at the two- or three-digit

SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) level.

These firms were in the following major industry

groups: — Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries — Mining — Construction — Transportation and Utilities (Communication, Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services) — Wholesale and Retail Trade — Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Services — Business and Personal Services.

By combining similar categories, the original 98

types of firms were reduced to 87 sample groups.

An equal number of firms was to be surveyed

within each sample group and within each of three

size categories: — 1-19 employees — 20-249 employees — 250 or more employees.

Although a sample of 1,500 firms would have

been sufficient to represent nonmanufacturing industry in the U.S., a much larger number was

chosen to insure adequate representation in all 87

sample groups. In 84 of the sample groups a total of

30 firms was to be surveyed, 10 in each size category. The three exceptions were: Agricultural

Production, in which 90 interviews were to be obtained; Building, in which there were to be 45 firms;

and Electric and Gas Utilities, which was to sample

60 firms. Thus the total hypothetical sample consisted of 2,7 1 5 companies.

The master sample was drawn by the Social

Security Administration (SSA) from its file of Social Security reporting units in the U.S. The SSA

maintains on file all establishments that employ one

person or more. This file was the most complete list of nonmanufacturers available to the Survey. However, the SSA file does not include railroads.

A primary, stratified sample of 2,738 firms was

randomly selected from the master file. To this list were added 90 farms and 40 railroads, for a total

primary sample of 2,868 units. In addition, a secon- dary sample of 2,258 firms was randomly selected as a source of replacements for refusals, firms

which had gone out of business, and other nonrespondents. In the case of multiple-unit organizations, a representative in the central office of the

firm was asked to supply the information for the

entire firm.

The wide variation in the types of business activities covered made the use of a standard mailed

questionnaire format inadvisable. It was decided to

obtain the information through telephone interviews, guided by questionnaires. The actual

telephoning was conducted under contract by a

private research organization. Each company was

interviewed twice: an initial contact, to determine

willingness to participate in the Survey and to obtain offhand background information as to

knowledge of the metric system and experience

with its use, followed by mailing of guideline-type

information and questionnaires, and a final, detailed

telephone interview, with a designated spokesman,

to elicit the desired information. In many cases the

person interviewed was the president of the firm; in

other cases technical specialists were selected by

the company to respond for it.
144 A METRIC AMERICA

Contacts were attempted with 3,559 firms. The

final number of full interviews obtained represented

90 percent of the primary sample of 2,868 firms. In

each of the 87 Standard Industrial Classification

groups, at least 57 percent of the sample responded;

and in 72 of the 87 groups, more than 80 percent

representation was obtained.

Education. — A contract was made with the Education Development Center for a study of the effects of metric usage on U.S. education. Located in

Newton, Massachusetts, the Center has available

for consulting purposes the staff and facilities of the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University.

The contract called for a broad analysis and study

of the total education system, including elementary

and secondary, college and university, vocational,

and adult education. Specifically, the aims of the

study were: (1) to assess the educational advantages and disadvantages of both the metric and

Customary systems of units, (2) to determine the

current usage of metric measures in U.S. schools

and trends in that usage, (3) to find the ways in

which education would have to change as the U.S.

accommodates to increased worldwide use of the

metric system, under a planned or unplanned approach, and estimate the benefits and costs of the

changes, and (4) to make recommendations of ways

in which to take best advantage of the changes. The

study also discusses and suggests ways of achieving

curriculum changes needed in view of increasing

metric usage.

Consumers. — A contract was arranged with the

Survey Research Center (SRC) at the University of

Michigan to measure consumers' knowledge of the

metric system and attitudes toward its use. For

some 20 years the Center has been studying con- sumers' level of knowledge and attitudes in many

areas. Professor George Katona of SRC afforded

the opportunity for a metric survey to be conducted

subsidiary to SRC's on-going, quarterly consumer

economic survey.

This personal interview survey used a sample of

approximately 1 ,400 family units representative of

all family units living in private dwellings in the continental United States. Twenty-two questions,

about one quarter of the total survey, were devoted

to the metric issues. They explored the respondent's level of knowledge of the Customary system

and the metric system and familiarity with relationships between units in the two systems. Respondents indicating that they had used another measuring system, while living or traveling abroad, were

queried concerning their experience.

Six questions asked opinions concerning the

respondents' ability to adjust to metric units. Then

they were asked whether it would be a good or a bad idea for the United States to change to the metric system, and why. Finally, respondents were

asked to agree or disagree with six statements

presented as arguments either in favor of or opposed to conversion.

International Trade. — The International Trade

Survey was designed to evaluate the potential effects that U.S. conversion to metric measurements

and standards may have on U.S. foreign trade. The

National Bureau of Standards engaged the Business

and Defense Services Administration (now called

the Bureau of Domestic Commerce, or BDC) in the

U.S. Department of Commerce to undertake this

part of the Metric Study.

Accordingly, BDC conducted a survey of exporters and importers of commodities which would be

affected by a conversion to the metric system.

Questionnaires were sent to 510 U.S. exporting and

importing firms in order to collect three broad

classes of information: — General information about the firms' foreign

trade operations. — Information about those factors which affect

the respondents' trade. — Projections of the respondents' trade to

1975.

The firms were asked to specify the magnitude of

their foreign trade for the years 1967-69 and to estimate the amount of trade in Customary units and

engineering standards and the amount in metric

units and engineering standards.

Each respondent was asked to rank the five most

important factors (out of a list of factors) either

promoting or deterring foreign trade with the nine
APPENDIX ONE 145

countries which are the most important U.S. trading

partners. One factor was the measurement system

used in order to determine how important the meas- urement factor is regarded in relation to other factors affecting the respondent's trade.

The third category of information collected was

the respondent's estimate of the percentage change

in his 1975 exports or imports over 1970 based on

two assumptions: (1) the U.S. and his firm maintained the Customary measurement system, and (2)

the U.S. and his firm had converted to the metric

system. The net difference between the two estimates would provide data as to how the Nation's

trade surplus would be affected by the general use

of the metric system vis-a-vis continued use of our Customary system.

The Survey was restricted to those (five-digit

Standard Industrial Classification) product classes

which were identified as being measurement sensitive. These are classes covering products in which

physical changes would most likely occur because

of changes to metric measurements and engineering

standards.

Product classes which had trade volumes of less

than $10 million were not surveyed. Out of the

1,166 five-digit SIC product classes, 188 were

selected for export products and 155 for import

products.

The American Industrial Trader's Index (AITI)

was used to select firms. The AITI is a computerized compilation of U.S. exporting and importing

firms registered with the Department of Commerce.

The list provides names and addresses as well as a

substantial amount of other information on each

firm, including product classes each firm exports

and imports.

The group of firms selected for the Survey was

not a scientific or probability sample of the total

trade in each product class identified as being meas- urement sensitive. Although the AITI identifies

product classes in which many firms export and import, it does not provide information on a firm's

trade volume in each product class, and this would

be necessary for an analysis based on a random

sample survey. Instead, the number of respondents

selected for each product class was based on the

total trade volume of the product class. The larger

the trade volume in the product class, the larger the

number of firms selected. For each product class

having a trade volume of $10 million to $49.9 million, five firms were drawn; for product classes with

trade volume of $50.0 million to $99.9 million, seven firms were drawn; and for product classes

with a trade volume of $100.0 million and over, 10

firms were chosen. Thus, the sample, while not ran- dom, would reflect the effects of metric change on

foreign trade.

Most of the 510 firms involved in the Survey

were asked to report for more than one product

class. Nearly 74 percent of the firms canvassed

responded. About 45 percent of the total 1969 ex- port volume of the product classes identified as measurement sensitive was covered in the Survey.

For imports, the percentage was nearly 37.

Engineering Standards.— The Engineering Standards Survey was designed to provide answers to

the following questions: — To what extent are U.S. standards incompatible with international standards

because of the differences in measurement

units? — Is it feasible to retain and promote U.S. standards internationally without a change in our measurement units? — Is the nature of our measurement units a significant factor influencing U.S. effective- ness in international standards negotiations?

In order to obtain useful answers to these

questions, the first task was to determine the role of

measurement units in engineering standards. Next

it was necessary to determine the compatibility of

U.S. standards with corresponding international

standards and the extent to which differences in

measurement units contribute to the incompatibilities.The international standards compared in the Survey were the international recommendations issued

by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical

Commission (I EC), the two standardization or- ganizations that have worldwide membership.
146 A METRIC AMERICA

These recommendations are indicators of current

trends toward harmonization of national standards.

The Survey made a comparison of the ISO and IEC

recommendations for the following industrial

materials and products, which were selected to be

representative of the status of international standardization and the role of measurement units in

such standardization:

— Steel (70 Recommendations) — Non-Ferrous Metals (61 Recommendations) — Plastics (69 Recommendations) — Rubber (35 Recommendations) — Pipe and Tubing (25 Recommendations) — Antifriction Bearings (30 Recommendations)

—Threaded Fasteners (9 Recommendations) — Electrical and Electronic Components and

Equipment (158 Recommendations) — Building Construction and Materials (60

Recommendations).

The Survey consisted of a comparison of ISO

and IEC Recommendations with corresponding national standards of the U.S. and six other countries:

France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy,

India and Japan.

International Standards. — Early in the course of

the U.S. Metric Study it was recognized that the nation was faced with increasingly important issues in

international agreements on engineering standards—issues which strongly interact with the

questions regarding metric usage. Consequently, an

interim report was forwarded to the Congress in

December of 1 970 in order to:

Call attention to the development in Europe of

international product certification schemes.

Urge early attention to this and other problems

concerning international standards, without

awaiting the outcome of the U.S. Metric

Study.

Report on the status of the Study at that time.

Department of Defense. —The purpose of the Department of Defense Study was to determine and

evaluate the impact on operational capability, the

advantages and disadvantages, and the benefits and

costs of adopting the metric system for use in the

Department of Defense.

The Air Force was assigned the leadership in un- dertaking the metric study within the Department

of Defense. Representatives of the other Services

and Defense agencies participated with the Air

Force in developing guidelines for the conduct of

the Study. These guidelines were to provide a consistent basis for estimating impact on each Defense

agency.

More than 125 elements of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Supply

Agency, National Security Agency, Defense Communications Agency, Defense Atomic Support

Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency participated in the Defense study. About 50 representatives of various Defense organizations were

brought together into nine subcommittees: Operations, Logistics (Production and Procurement,

Supply Support, and Technical Data), Research

and Development, Construction, Personnel and

Training, Legal, and Financial. These subcommittees prepared study assumptions and guidelines.

The Department of Defense Steering Committee,

with representation from the various Defense

activities, monitored the effort and evaluated all inputs to the study.

Information was sought in the following areas: — Extent of present metric usage. — Percentage increase in resources necessary

to maintain constant mission capability

based on a 10-year transition period for

metric changeover. — Practical difficulties expected from increasing metric usage and what should be done

about meeting these difficulties. — Contingency plans for metric conversion. — Long-term advantages and disadvantages

after the 1 0-year transition.

In addition to providing data according to the

guidelines, narrative comments regarding the effect

of metric transition upon command mission capability were invited.

The Department promulgated a policy, in connection with this Study, of not taking a position

either for or against adoption of the metric system.
APPENDIX ONE 147

Federal Civilian Agencies. — Since the Metric

Study Act directed that the Study "consult and

cooperate with other government agencies,

Federal, state and local," a Survey of Federal

Civilian Agencies was established to assess the effects of increasing metric usage on Federal Government functions other than the Department of

Defense.

This Survey ascertained the effects of metric

usage and its increase on the internal operations of

the participating agencies and the areas of national

responsibility of these agencies.

The first aim of the Survey, the effects of metric

changeover on the internal operations of agencies,

was to determine:

—The extent of present metric usage in

government agencies. — The impact of increasing worldwide use of

the metric system on U.S. government

programs. — The extent to which Federal agencies plan to

increase metric usage. — The possible impacts of a metric changeover

under alternative programs. — How the agencies would introduce the metric

system. — Whether the agencies favor a coordinated

metric conversion program.

The second aim of the Survey, the impact of

metric change on agency areas of national responsibility, was to seek estimates of the effects on: — National activities in the society at large over which Federal agencies have responsibility (for example, transportation, communications). — The ability of the Federal agencies to perform their missions with respect to those

areas of national responsibility.

Here the Survey evaluated the effects of increased metric usage on the interfaces between the

Government and the areas of national responsibility over which it has cognizance.

The Federal Survey team selected for participation in the Survey those civilian agencies which

would probably be significantly affected by increased metric usage. With this in mind, 35 departments and independent agencies were chosen. With

the subagencies in some Departments (e.g.,

Maritime Administration in Commerce; Office of

Education in Health, Education and Welfare; or U.S. Coast Guard in Transportation), the total

number of survey agencies came to 55. The agencies surveyed are listed at the end of this appendix.

It was decided that the questionnaire method was

the best approach to getting the needed information.

Knowledgeable respondents within the agencies

were to provide answers on the basis of "best

judgment." The agencies were asked to provide

lists of those agency subdivisions which would likely be affected by metric usage. Questionnaires were

then distributed to these subdivisions — amounting

to some 450 Government offices and units in all. Based on the agency responses to the two sets of

questionnaires (the internal operations and the area

of national responsibility questionnaires), the Survey team wrote a summary of the effects on each

agency's internal operations and its areas of national responsibility.

The results of the internal operations part of the

Survey were based on 394 responding subdivisions

spread through 50 Federal departments and agencies. In the area of national responsibility part,

there were 57 agency responses scattered over 33

departments and agencies. The areas of national

responsibility covered were:

— Energy — Food and Fibre — Communications — Transportation — Transportation Safety — Science and Technology, including the

National Measurement System — Education

-Health — Labor Affairs

—Trade Practices — Small Businesses — Consumer Affairs — Environmental Pollution Control — International Affairs and Trade — Economic Affairs: Taxation.
148 A METRIC AMERICA

Commercial Weights and Measures. — The purposes of this Survey were to: — Identify and describe the impacts of changing selected commercial weighing and measuring devices to record and indicate in

metric units, a process called adaptation. — Analyze the effects that increased metric

usage would have on state and local weights

and measures jurisdictions — in the areas of

laws and regulations, testing equipment,

and training programs.

In order to satisfy the first purpose of the Survey,

the following types of equipment were considered:

weighing devices, metering devices, taximeters, and

cordage and wire measuring devices.

Information about the adaptation of weighing and

metering devices was needed from both manufacturers and users. Some information was obtained

from questionnaires, the rest by interviews and let- ters requesting information. The sample to be sur- veyed consisted of 20 companies suggested by the

Scale Manufacturers Association and the Office of

Weights and Measures in the National Bureau of

Standards. These companies included nine scale

and balance manufacturers, 10 meter manufacturers, and one fabric measuring device manufacturer. There was a 75 percent return of the questionnaires sent to these 20 manufacturers. The

questionnaires sent to each of the three industries

surveyed (scale, meter, and fabric measuring)

varied somewhat because of the different nature of

the data sought. The respondents to the questionnaires represented about 50 percent of the annual

value of shipments in the weighing and metering industries; the sole manufacturer of fabric measuring

devices responded, also.

Additional information concerning adaptation of

scale and metering devices was obtained from trade

associations, including the Scale Manufacturers Association, the National Scale Men's Association,

and the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association.

Another study was made of the costs and time

periods involved in adaptation of taximeters, and

cordage and wire measuring devices. The information for this study was derived from (1) responses

from manufacturers of these devices to letters of

request for information; (2) telephone interviews

with trade associations, such as the International

Taxicab Association; and (3) discussions with experts on the staff of the Office of Weights and

Measures of the National Bureau of Standards.

In order to obtain information for the second purpose of the Survey (impacts of increased metric

usage on weights and measures jurisdictions),

questionnaires were sent to the weights and measures officials of: (1) all States, (2) the District of

Columbia, (3) Puerto Rico, and (4) 16 major urban

areas. A 93 percent return of the questionnaires

was obtained.

The results of this part of the Survey were

published in the report of the Task Force on Metrication of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures dated December 17, 1970. (This Task

Force report is published as part of the report on

Commercial Weights and Measures, cited in Appendix Two.) The National Conference, which is sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, is an organization of approximately 500 members.

The membership comprises state and local weights

and measures officers, Federal officials, and

representatives of business, industry, and consumer

organizations.

History of the Metric System Controversy in the

United States.— The objectives of this study were to

document earlier actions affecting the weights and

measures used by the United States and to chronicle previous investigations into the feasibility and

desirability of increasing U.S. use of the metric

system of weights and measures. Particular attention was paid to the many activities of the Congress

relevant to this subject and to the campaigns that

were waged, both for and against adoption of the

system, on a number of occasions.

Although a history of the issue was not specifically required under the provisions of the Metric

Study Act, it was felt that a review of the vast

amount of earlier material would be useful in placing the current study in its proper historical perspective.

A wide range of investigations on the subject of

metric adoption has been conducted in and out of
APPENDIX ONE 149

government. Those of major significance are

highlighted in this report. Six special interest groups

have existed, at one time or another, whose principal preoccupation was with the metric system.

The published material issued by such groups was

examined and unpublished records were utilized

where available in summarizing the groups' activities and strategies. In addition, the report includes a selection of typical articles from technical and

trade journals and newspapers as evidence of the

great deal of interest in the question exhibited by

the nation's press.

Throughout the work on this history, the issue

was treated as a social, political and economic

problem rather than as a scientific or technological

one, and a special effort was made to show the relationship of other contemporary issues to the

question of whether or not the U.S. should increase

its use of the metric system of weights and

measures.

Metric Study Group

Director

Daniel V. De Simone

Program Managers

Louis E. Barbrow, Manufacturing Industry

Roy E. Clark, Federal Civilian Agencies

June R. Cornog, Nonmanufacturing Busi- nesses Stephen L. Hatos, Commercial Weights &

Measures

Gerald F. Gordon, International Trade

Consultants

Robert D. Huntoon

Alvin G. McNish

Chester H. Page

Special Assistants

George A. W. Boehm

Florence M. Essers

Leighton S. Lomas, Department of Defense

Jeffrey V. Odom, Conferences

Berol L. Robinson, Education

Bruce D. Rothrock, Labor and Consumers

Robert D. Stiehler, Engineering Standards

Charles F. Treat, History of Metric System

Supporting Staff (National Bureau of Standards)* Linda j. Luhn

George C. Lovell

Alice B. Margeson

Joseph P. Alexa Doris Blackmon Joseph D. Crumlish Lorraine Freeman Judy M. Melvin

A. Allan Bates Elaine D. Bunten Myron G. Domsitz Deborah Gilbert Howard E. Morgan

Diane Beall Robert W. Carson Carolyn L. Flood Robert J. Klein Jeanine Murphy

Muriel E. Nichols Arthur G. Strang

William O'Neal Evelyn Tallerico Robert R. Rohrs

Gustave Shapiro Jean M. Simon

Harry Stoub

John Tascher

Sandra Wean

Theodore R. Young

The principal agencies that participated in the

U.S. Metric Study were the National Bureau of

Standards and the Bureau of Domestic Commerce

in the Department of Commerce, and a special

study team in the Department of Defense. Other

federal agencies that contributed to the Study are

listed at the end of this appendix.

In addition, hundreds of individuals and organizations participated in the planning and conduct of the

Study or were consulted. A list of the major groups

follows.

This report does not necessarily represent the

views of any of these groups, its individual members, or the organizations with which they are

associated.

* Other individuals from other organizations that contributed

to the Study are identified in the 12 volumes of Metric Study

supplemental reports cited in Appendix Two.
150 A METRIC AMERICA

Metric System Study Advisory Panel

Louis F. Polk,* Chairman, a director of the Bendix Corporation

Francis L. LaQue,* Vice Chairman, former Vice President, International Nickel Co., Inc.

Leonard S. Hardland,* Executive Secretary, Office of Invention

and Innovation, National Bureau of Standards

William M. Agee, Vice President, Finance, Boise Cascade Company

Harold Berryhill, Principal, Central City High School, Central

City, Iowa

Philip T. Bodell, former Vice President, Research & Development, Mariement Corporation

Clay Buckhout, former Executive Vice President, American Association of Advertising Agencies

John F. Clark,* President & General Manager, Sunbeam Appliance Service Company

Jackson K. Emery, Metrology Consultant

Albert Epstein, Director of Research, International Association

of Machinists & Aerospace Workers

Sheldon I. Euler, President, Information Records Division, International Business Machines

Robert J. Friedrich, Manager, Metallurgical Sales, Consolidation

Coal Company

Gordon A. Goodrich, Director of Production Engineering,

General Foods Corporation

James A. Graham, Vice President, Corporate Planning &

Development, Standard Pressed Steel Company

Eugene Hamilton, Director of Research & Commodity Activities, American Farm Bureau Federation

Harold F. Hammond, President and Director, Transportation

Association of America

Thomas Hannigan, Director of Research and Education, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Doris Hanson,* Executive Director, American Home

Economics Association

William J. Harris, Vice President, Association of American Rail- roads

George M. Hartley, President, Copper Development Association

Incorporated

O. Dean Hubbard, Vice President and Assistant to the President,

Kimbell, Incorporated

Richard M. Hurd, Vice President, Engineering Department,

Bethlehem Steel Company

Vernon E. Jirikowic,* (Deceased) was Director of Research, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

Richard T. Kropf,* President, Belding Heminway Company, In- corporated

Ethel Langtry, Retail Consulting

William A. McAdams, Manager, Industry Standards, General

Electric Company

Kenneth G. McKay, Vice President of Engineering, American

Telephone and Telegraph Company

Herbert B. McKean, Vice President, Research and Development, Potlatch Forest Incorporated

Barry McNulty, Executive Vice President, Independent Garage

Owners of America

Charles C. Neas, Chemical and Plastics Division, Union Carbide

Corporation

James E. Noe, (Deceased) was Director of Research and Education, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Ivan A. Peters, Vice President, Title Insurance and Trust Company, Los Angeles, California

William D. Rinehart, Assistant General Manager, American

Newspaper Publishers Association Research Institute, Incor- porated

Joseph St Croix,* Director of Research, Oil, Chemical &

Atomic Workers International Union

Robert W. Schiessler, Manager, Long-Range Analysis and

Strategy Group, Mobil Oil Corporation

Harold S. Sizer, Director of Design, Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company

Elton E. Staples, former President, Hevi-Duty Equipment Company

Douglas C. Strain, President, Electro Scientific Industries, Incor- porated

Robert W. Sullivan, Executive Vice President, The Valve Manufacturers Association

C. B. Sung, Vice President and Group Executive, Advanced

Technology Group, The Bendix Corporation

Roy T. Trowbridge,* Director, Engineering Standards Section,

General Motors Corporation

Samuel H. Watson, former Manager of Standardizing, Radio Corporation of America

Douglas Whillock, attorney and partner in the firm of Reed,

Smith, Shaw & McClay

Listen A. Witherill, Chief Deputy Director, Los Angeles County

Department of Hospitals

William E. Zeiter,* attorney and partner in the firm of Morgan,

Lewis & Bockius

* Member of the executive committee.
APPENDIX ONE 151

Commerce Technical Advisory Board

James H. Wakelin, Jr., Chairman, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Commerce

Frank Cacciapaglia, Jr., Executive Director, Department of

Commerce

William D. Carey, Senior Staff Member, Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Ralph E. Crump, President, Frigitronics, Inc.

Aaron J. Gellman, Vice President of Planning, The Budd Company

Jack E. Goldman, Senior Vice President, Research and Development, Xerox Corporation

Frederick Henriques, Chairman, Board of Directors, Technical

Operation, Inc.

Frederick J. Hooven, Adjunct Professor of Engineering, Thayer

School of Engineering, Dartmouth College

W. Gordon Jarvis, President & Chief Operating Officer, The

Rucker Company

Milton C. Lauenstein, President, Ventron Corporation

Bennie D. Mayberry, Director, Institutional Development,

Tuskegee Institute

Kenneth G. McKay, Vice Presjdent, Engineering AT&T

Eric R. Morgan, President, Stainless & Strip Div., Jones and

Laughlin Steel Corp.

Bernard J. O'Keefe, President, E. G. & G.

James B. Quinn, Professor of Business Administration, Amos

Tuck School of Business Admin., Dartmouth College

David V. Ragone, Dean, Thayer School of Engineering, Dart- mouth College

Edward B. Roberts, Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management

Ernest S. Starkman, Vice President, Environmental Activities,

General Motors Technical Center

President's Science Advisory

Committee

Edward E. David, Jr., Chairman, Science Adviser to the President, The White House

John D. Baldeschwieler, Vice Chairman, Professor of Chemistry,

Stanford University

Solomon J. Buchsbaum, Vice President of Research, Sandia

Laboratories

Theodore L. Cairns, Assistant Director, Central Research Department, E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company

James S. Coleman, Professor of Social Relations, The Johns

Hopkins University

Lee A. DuBridge, former Science Adviser to the President, Lagu- na Hills, California

Val L. Fitch, Department of Physics, Princeton University

Herbert Friedman, Chief Scientist, E. O. Hulburt Center for Space Research, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

Richard L. Garwin, IBM Fellow, Research Division, Thomas J. Watson Research Center

Murray Gell-Mann, Professor of Theoretical Physics, California

Institute of Technology

Patrick E. Haggerty, Chairman of the Board, Texas Instruments,

Inc.

Philip Handler, President, National Academy of Sciences

Daniel P. Moynihan, Professor, Education and Urban Politics,

Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University

Kenneth Harry Olsen, President, Digital Equipment Corporation

Herbert A. Simon, Professor of Computer Science and Psychology, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, CarnegieMellon University

Lloyd H. Smith, Jr., Professor and Chairman, Department of

Medicine, University of California

Gerald F. Tape, President, Associated Universities, Inc.

John G. Truxal, Vice President, Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute

Harland G. Wood, Professor of Biochemistry, Case Western

Reserve University

David Z. Beckler, Executive Officer, Office of Science and

Technology

Detlev W. Bronk,* The Rockefeller University

Harvey Brooks,* Dean, Division of Engineering and Applied

Physics, Harvard University

James B. Fisk,* President, Bell Telephone Laboratories

Donald F. Hornig,* President, Brown University

James R. Killian, Jr.,* Chairman of the Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

George B. Kistiakowsky,* Department of Chemistry, Harvard

University

Edwin H. Land,* President, Polaroid Corporation

Colin M. MacLeod,* President, Oklahoma Medical Research

Foundation

Emanuel R. Piore,* Vice President and Chief Scientist, International Business Machines Corporation

Isidor I. Rabi,* Professor of Physics, Columbia University

Jermone B. Wiesner,* Provost, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

*Consultants-at-Large.
152 A METRIC AMERICA

National Inventors Council

Charles S. Draper, Chairman, President, Charles Stark Draper

Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Florence M. Essers, Executive Secretary, Office of Invention

and Innovation, National Bureau of Standards

Costas E. Anagnostopoulos, General Manager, New Enterprise

Division, Monsanto Chemical Company

William Bollay, Santa Barbara, California

Myron A. Coler, Director, Creative Science Program, New York

University

J. Presper Eckert, Vice President, UN I VAC Division of Sperry

Rand Corporation

Narinder S. Kapany, President, Optics Technology, Inc.

William B. McLean, Commander, Naval Undersea Research and

Development Center

Jacob Rabinow, President, Rabinow Engineering Division, Control Data Corporation

Samuel Ruben, Ruben Laboratories

John C. Stedman, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin

School of Law

Brooks Walker, President, Shasta Forests Company

Richard R. Walton, Boston, Massachusetts

Groups Invited to Contribute to

Hearings

Accrediting Commission for Business Schools

Administrative Management Society

Adult Education Association of the U.S.A.

Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc.

Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Air Freight Forwarders Association

Air Line Dispatchers Association

Air Line Pilots Association

Airline Stewards and Stewardesses Association, International

Airport Operators Council, International

Air Transport Association of America

Alabama Consumer Association

Alaska Consumer Council

Albuquerque Consumers Association

Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf

Alliance of Independent Telephone Unions

Allied Industrial Workers of America, International Union

Aluminum Association

Aluminum Workers International Union

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North

America

Amalgamated Transit Union

Amateur Athletic Union of the United States

American Academy of Actuaries

American Academy of Arts and Sciences

American Advertising Federation

American Agricultural Economics Association

American Apparel Manufacturers Association

American Association for Health, Physical Education and

Recreation

American Association for Textile Technology, Inc.

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Association of Advertising Agencies

American Association of Airport Executives

American Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta

American Association of Cost Engineers

American Association of Junior Colleges

American Association of Museums

American Association of Physics Teachers

American Association of Port Authorities

American Association of Retired Persons

American Association of School Administrators

American Association of School Librarians

American Association of State Highway Officials

American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists

American Association of University Professors

American Association of University Women

American Bakers Association

American Bankers Association

American Bar Association

American Boat Builders and Repairers Association
APPENDIX ONE 153

American Brush Manufacturers Association

American Bureau of Shipping

American Business Press, Inc.

American Business Women's Association

American Camping Association

American Cemetery Association

American Ceramic Society

American Chemical Society

American College of Surgeons

American Concrete Institute

American Consumers Association, Inc.

American Council of Learned Societies

American Council on Consumer Interests

American Council on Education

American Culinary Federation

American Dental Association

American Dental Trade Association

American Die Casting Institute

American Dietetic Association

American Dry Milk Institute, Inc.

American Educational Research Association

American Farm Bureau Federation

American Federation of Government Employees

American Federation of Grain Millers

American Federation of Information Processing Societies

American Federation of Musicians

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees

American Federation of Teachers

American Federation of Technical Engineers

American Feed Manufacturers Association, Inc.

American Fisheries Society

American Fishing Tackle Manufacturing Association

American Flint Glass Workers Union

American Footwear Manufacturers Association

American Forest Institute

American Forestry Association

American Foundrymen's Society

American Frozen Food Institute

American Gas Association

American Gear Manufacturers Association

American Geographical Society

American Geological Institute

American Geophysical Union

American Hardware Manufacturers Association

American Historical Association

American Home Economics Association

American Home Lighting Institute

American Hospital Association

American Hotel and Motel Association

American Industrial Arts Association

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Architects

American Institute of Baking

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

American Institute of Chefs

American Institute of Chemical Engineers

American Institute of Consulting Engineers

American Institute of Food Distribution, Inc.

American Institute of Industrial Engineers

American Institute of Interior Designers

American Institute of Laundering

American Institute of Merchant Shipping

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum

Engineers, Inc.

American Institute of Physics

American Institute of Planners

American Institute of Plant Engineers

American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers

American Institute of Steel Construction

American Insurance Association

American Iron and Steel Institute

American Ladder Institute

American Land Title Association

American Leather Chemists Association

American Library Association

American Management Association

American Maritime Association

American Marketing Association
154 A METRIC AMERICA

American Mathematical Society

American Meat Institute

American Medical Association

American Metal Stamping Association

American Meteorological Society

American Mining Congress

American Movers Conference

American Mutual Insurance Alliance

American National Cattlemen's Association

American National Standards Institute Telephone Group

American National Theatre and Academy

American Newspaper Guild

American Newspaper Publishers Association

American Nurses' Association, Inc.

American Nursing Home Association

American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc

American Optometric Association, Inc.

American Ordnance Association

American Paper Institute

American Petroleum Institute

American Petroleum Refiners Association

American Pharmaceutical Association

American Plywood Association

American Public Health Association

American Public Power Association

American Public Works Association

American Radio Association

American Railway Car Institute

American Railway Engineering Association

American Railway Supervisors Association

American Rental Association, Inc.

American Retail Federation

American Road Builders Association

American Short Line Railroad Association

American Society for Engineering Education

American Society for Metals

American Society for Nondestructive Testing

American Society for Quality Control, Inc.

American Society for Testing and Materials

American Society of Agricultural Engineers

American Society of Appraisers

American Society of Association Executives

American Society of Bakery Engineers

American Society of Brewing Chemists

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers

American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc.

American Society of Microbiology

American Society of Planning Officials

American Society of Professional Biologists

American Society of Sanitary Engineering

American Spice Trade Association

American Stock Yards Association

American Subcontractors Association

American Textile Machinery Association

American Textile Manufacturers Institute

American Train Dispatchers Association

American Transit Association

American Trucking Association, Inc.

American Veterinary Medical Association

American Vocational Association

American Warehousemen's Association

American Watchmakers Institute

American Watch Workers Union

American Waterways Operators, Inc.

American Water Works Association

American Welding Society

American Yarn Spinners Association, Inc.

Anti-Friction Bearing Manufacturers Association, Inc.

Apartment Association of America

Arizona Consumers Council

Asphalt Institute

Associated Actors and Artistes of America

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.

Associated Credit Bureaus, Inc.

Associated General Contractors of America

Associated Master Barbers and Beauticians of America

Associated Tobacco Manufacturers, Inc.

Associated Unions of America
APPENDIX ONE 155

Association for Childhood Education International

Association for Computing Machinery

Association for Educational Communications and Technology

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Association of American Colleges

Association of American Geographers

Association of American Law Schools

Association of American Medical Colleges

Association of American Publishers

Association of American Railroads

Association of American Universities

Association of Graduate Schools

Association of California Consumers

Association of Classroom Teachers

Association of College and Research Libraries

Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture

Association of Electronic Manufacturers, Inc.

Association of Engineers and Scientists

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Association of Manufacturers of Confectionery and Chocolate,

Inc.

Association of Massachusetts Consumers, Inc.

Association of Motion Picture and TV Producers

Association of Mutual Insurance Engineers

Association of Oil Pipe Lines

Association of Pomona Valley Consumers

Association of State Colleges and Universities

Association of Stock Exchange Firms

Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers

Athletic Goods Manufacturers Association

Auto Body Association of America

Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.

Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association

Automotive Service Industry Association

Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of

America

Barbers, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists' International Union

of America, The Journeymen

Barre Granite Association, Inc.

Bicycle Institute of America

Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers Association

Bismarck-Mandan Consumers League

B'nai B'rith Women

Book Manufacturers Institute

Boot and Shoe Workers' Union

Boys' and Young Mens' Apparel Manufacturers Association

Brewing Industries Research Institute

Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of

America

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America

Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight

Handlers, Express and Station Employees

Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the United States and

Canada

Brotherhood of Shoe and Allied Craftsmen

Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters

Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New England, Inc.

Building Officials and Code Administrators International of

America

Building Owners and Managers Association International

Building Research Advisory Board

Business Equipment Manufacturers Association

California Redwood Association

Can Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

Canvas Products Association International

Car and Truck Renting and Leasing Association

Carpet and Rug Institute

Casket Manufacturers Association of America

Chefs De Cuisine Association of America

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Inc.

Chocolate Manufacturers Association of the U.S.A.

Christian Labor Association of the United States of America

Cigar Institute of America

Cigar Makers' International Union of America

Cigar Manufacturers Association of America, Inc.

Citizens for Consumer Action

Clothing Manufacturers Association of U.S.A.

Colorado Consumers Association, Inc.

Colorado Housewives Encouraging Consumer Knowledge

(CHECK)

Commerce and Industry Association of New York

Communications Workers of America
156 A METRIC AMERICA

Compressed Air and Gas Institute

Concrete Pipe Association, Inc.

Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences

Congress of Independent Unions

Connecticut Consumer Association, Inc.

Construction Specifications Institute

Consulting Engineers Council of the U.S.A.

Consumer Assembly of Greater New York

Consumer Association of the District of Columbia

Consumer Association of Indiana, Inc.

Consumer Association of Kentucky, Inc. Consumer Association of West Virginia

Consumer Conference of Greater Cincinnati

Consumer Federation of America

Consumer Research Advisory Council

Consumers League of New Jersey

Consumers League of Ohio

Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.

Cooperative League of the U.S.A.

Coopers International Union of North America

Copper Development Association, Inc.

Copper Institute

Cordage Institute

Corrugated Container Institute

Corset and Brassiere Association of America

Council for Exceptional Children

Council for Professional Education for Business

Council of Graduate Schools in the United States

Council of Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education

Council of Housing Producers

Council of Mechanical Specialty Contracting Industries, Inc.

Council of National Organizations for Adult Education

Council of State Governments

Credit Union National Association, Inc.

Cutting Tool Manufacturers Association

Dade County Consumers Council

Data Processing Management Association

D.C. Citywide Consumer Council

Directors Guild of America, Inc.

Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers' International

Union of America

Drug, Chemical, and Allied Trades Association, Inc.

Edison Electric Institute

Elastic Fabric Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

Electrical Apparatus Service Association

Electric Heating Association, Inc.

Electronic Industries Association

Engineers Council for Professional Development

Envelope Manufacturers Association

Evaporated Milk Association

Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association

Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America

Federal Employees Association

Federal Plant Quarantine Inspectors National Association

Federated Council of the International Association of Railway

Employees and Association of Railway Trainmen and

Locomotive Firemen

Federation of Homemakers

Financial Analysts Federation

Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association

Flavor and Extracts Manufacturers Association of U.S.

Flight Engineers' International Association

Florida Consumers Association, Inc.

Fluid Power Society

Food Processing Machinery and Supplies Association

Food Tray and Board Association, Inc.

Forest Products Research Society

Forging Industry Association

Freight Forwarders Institute Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association

Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association

General Federation of Women's Clubs, Inc.

Geological Society of America, Inc.

Georgia Consumer Council

Glass Bottle Blowers' Association of the United States and

Canada

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute

Grain and Feed Dealers National Association

Granite Cutters International Association of America

Graphic Arts Technical Foundation

Great Lakes Licensed Officers' Organization

Grocery Manufacturers of America
APPENDIX ONE 157

Gypsum Drywall Contractors International

Hard Fibers Association

Health Insurance Association of America

Health Insurance Institute

Hotel and Restaurant Employees' and Bartenders' International

Union

Human Factors Society, Inc.

Illinois Federation of Consumers

Illuminating Engineering Society

Independent Bankers Association of America

Independent Garage Owners of America

Independent Natural Gas Association of America

Independent Petroleum Association of America

Independent Watchmen's Association

Industrial Fasteners Institute

Industrial Forestry Association

Industrial Heating Equipment Association

Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of

America

Institute for Rapid Transit

Institute of Boiler and Radiator Manufacturers

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,

Institute of Food Technologists

Institute of Paper Chemistry

Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel

Institute of Traffic Engineers

Institutional Foodservice Manufacturers Association

Instrument Society of America

Insurance Rating Board

Insurance Workers International Union

International Alliance of Bill Posters, Billers and Distributors of

the United States and Canada

International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and

Canada

International Association of Assessing Officers

International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers

International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc.

International Association of Fire Chiefs

International Association of Fire Fighters

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and

Asbestos Workers

International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

International Association of Marble, Slate and Stone Polishers,

Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters Helpers and

Terrazzo Helpers

International Association of Siderographers

International Association of Tool Craftsmen

International Association of Visual Communications Management, Inc.

International Association of Wall and Ceiling Contractors

International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, Inc.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,

Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers

International Brotherhood of Bookbinders

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers

International Brotherhood of Operative Potters

International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades of the United States and Canada

International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers of the United States and Canada

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,

Warehousemen and Helpers of America

International City Management Association

I nternational Conference of Building Officials

International Die Sinkers' Conference

International Guards Union of America

International Jewelry Workers Union

International Ladies' Garment Workers Union

International Leather Goods, Plastics and Novelty Workers

Union

International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union

International Longshoremen's Association

International Mailers Union

International Maintenance Institute

International Molders and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO

International Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots

International Plate Printers, Die Stampers and Engravers Union

of North America

International Printing Pressmen's and Assistants' Union of

North America

International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union of North

America

International Taxicab Association
158 A METRIC AMERICA

International Typographical Union

International Union Guard Workers of America, United Plant

International Union of Dolls, Toys, Playthings, Novelties and

Allied Products of the United States and Canada

International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers

International Union of Elevator Constructors

International Union of Journeymen, Horse Shoers of United

States and Canada

International Union of Life Insurance Agents

International Union of Operating Engineers

International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers

International Union of Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and

Agricultural Implement Workers of America

International Woodworkers of America

Investment Company Institute

Jewelry Manufacturers Association

Joint Council of Economic Education

Laborers' International Union of North America

Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union

Lead Industries Association, Inc.

League of Utah Consumers

League of Women Voters of the United States

Leather Industries of America

Leather Workers International Union of America

Life Insurance Association of America

Linen Supply Association of America

Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union

Louisiana Consumer League

Luggage and Leather Goods Manufacturers of America, Inc.

Machine Printers and Engravers Association of the United

States

Machinery and Allied Products Institute

Magazine Publishers Association, Inc.

Mail Order Association of America

Major League Baseball Players Association

Manufacturing Chemists' Association

Manufacturing Jewelers and Silversmiths of America, Inc.

Marine Engineers Beneficial Association

Maryland Consumers Association, Inc. Mason Contractors Association of America

Material Handling Institute, Inc.

Mathematical Association of America

Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Inc.

Mechanics Educational Society of America

Medical Surgical Manufacturers Association

Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International

Union

Metric Association, Inc.

Metropolitan New York Consumer Council

Minnesota Consumers League

Missouri Association of Consumers

Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association

Motel Association of America

Motion Picture Association of America

Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association

Municipal Finance Officers Association

Mutual Insurance Advisory Association

Narrow Fabrics Institute

National Academy of Engineering

National Academy of Sciences

National Aerospace Education Council

National Agriculture Chemists Association

National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees

National Alliance of Television and Electronic Service

Association

National — American Wholesale Grocers Association

National Appliance and Radio-TV Dealers Association

National Appliance Service Association

National Association for Community Development

National Association for Public Continuing and Adult Education

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

National Association of Accountants

National Association of ASCS County Office Employees

National Association of Bedding Manufacturers

National Association of Biology Teachers

National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians

National Association of Broadcasters

National Association of Building Manufacturers

National Association of Casualty and Surety Executives
APPENDIX ONE 159

National Association of Chain Drug Stores

National Association of Chain Manufacturers

National Association of Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture

National Association of Colored Women's Clubs

National Association of Counties

National Association of County Agricultural Agents

National Association of Credit Management

National Association of Electric Companies

National Association of Elementary School Principals

National Association of Engineering Companies

National Association of Extension Home Economists

National Association of Federal Veterinarians

National Association of Food Chains

National Association of Furniture Manufacturers

National Association of Glove Manufacturers, Inc.

National Association of Government Employees

National Association of Government Inspectors

National Association of Greeting Card Publishers

National Association of Home Builders

National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers

National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials

National Association of Independent Food Retailers

National Association of Independent Schools

National Association of Letter Carriers

National Association of Life Underwriters

National Association of Manufacturers

National Association of Margarine Manufacturers

National Association of Mens' and Boys' Apparel Clubs

National Association of Motor Bus Owners

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

National Association of Mutual Savings Banks

National Association of Negro Business and Professional

Women's Clubs, Inc.

National Association of Photographic Manufacturers

National Association of Planners-Estimators, and Progressmen

National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors

National Association of Postal Supervisors

National Association of Postmasters of the U.S.

National Association of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees

National Association of Power Engineers, Inc.

National Association of Purchasing Agents

National Association of Real Estate Boards

National Association of Refrigerated Warehouses

National Association of Retail Druggists

National Association of Retail Grocers of the U.S.

National Association of Secondary School Principals

National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

National Association of Service Managers

National Association of Small Business Investment Companies

National Association of Special Delivery Messengers

National Association of State Universities and Land Grant

Colleges

National Association of Textile and Apparel Wholesalers

National Association of Theatre Owners

National Association of Trade and Technical Schools

National Association of Variety Stores

National Association of Wheat Growers

National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors

National Association of Wool Manufacturers

National Automatic Merchandising Association

National Automobile Dealers Association

National Band Association

National Bankers Association

National Bar Association

National Brotherhood of Packinghouse and Dairy Workers

National Building Material Distributors Association

National Business Education Association

National Canners Association

National Coal Association

National Coffee Association of the U.S.A.

National Collegiate Athletic Association

National Commission on Accrediting

National Concrete Masonry Association

National Confectioners Association of the United States, Inc.

National Conference of Standards Laboratories

National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards

National Congress of Parents and Teachers

National Constructors Association

National Consumer Finance Association

National Consumers League

National Cotton Council of America
160 A METRIC AMERICA

National Council for Geographic Education

National Council for the Social Studies

National Council of Catholic Men

National Council of Catholic Women

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives

National Council of Jewish Women

National Council of Negro Women

National Council of Senior Citizens

National Council of Teachers of English

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

National Council of the Young Men's Christian Associations of

the United States of America

National Crushed Stone Association

National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of

America

National Dental Association

National Education Association of the U.S.

National Education Association Division of Adult Education

Service

Home Economics Education Association

National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

National Elevator Industry, Inc.

National Environmental Systems Contractors Association

National Executive Housekeepers Association

National Farm and Power Equipment Dealers Association

National Farmers Union

National Federation of Federal Employees

National Federation of Grain Cooperatives

National Federation of Independent Business

National Federation of Licensed Practical Nurses

National Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees

National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers

National Fluid Power Association

National Fire Protection Association

National Fisheries Institute

National Flexible Packaging Association

National Forest Products Association

National Foundry Association

National Furniture Warehousemen's Association

National Governors Conference

National Grange

National Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Association, Inc.

National Hand Knitting Yarn Association

National Higher Education Association

National Home Furnishing Association

National Home Study Council

National Housewares Manufacturers Association

National Housewives' League of America, Inc.

National Independent Automobile Dealers Association

National Independent Dairies Association

National Industrial Traffic League

National Industrial Workers Union

National Industries for the Blind

National Institute of Diaper Services, Inc.

National Institute of Drycleaning

National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, Inc.

National Institute of Municipal Law Officers

National Institute of Packaging, Handling and Logistic

Engineers

National Institute of Real Estate Brokers

National Institute of Rug Cleaning, Inc.

National Knitted Outerwear Association

National Knitwear Manufacturers Association

National League of Cities

National League of Postmasters of the U.S.

National Licensed Beverage Association

National Lime Association

National Limestone Association

National Liquor Stores Association

National LP-Gas Association

National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association

National Macaroni Manufacturers Association

National Machine Tool Builders' Association

National Management Association

National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Associatior.

National Maritime Union of America

National Medical Association

National Milk Producers Federation

National Newspaper Association

National Notion Association
APPENDIX ONE 161

National Oil Fuel Institute

National Outerwear and Sportswear Association, Inc.

National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association

National Paper Box Association

National Pest Control Association, Inc.

National Petroleum Refiners Association

National Postal Union

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association

National Restaurant Association

National Retail Hardware Association

National Retail Merchants Association

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

National Rural Letter Carriers' Association

National Sand and Gravel Association

National Scale Men's Association

National School Boards Association

National Science Teachers Association

National Screw Machine Products Association

National Secretaries Association

National Security Industrial Association

National Shoe Retailers Association

National Small Business Association

National Society of Professional Engineers

National Soft Drink Association

National Sporting Goods Association

National Tool, Die, and Precision Machinery Association

National University Extension Association

National Urban League

National Vocational Agricultural Teachers Association

National Warm Air Heating and Air Conditioning Association

National Waterways Conference, Inc.

National Wholesale Druggists Association

National Wooden Pallet and Container Association

Negro College Committee on Adult Education

Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York and

Vicinity

North Carolina Consumers Council

Northern Textile Association

Office and Professional Employees International Union

Ohio Consumers Association

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union

Operations Research Society of America

Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International

Association of the United States and Canada

Optical Manufacturers Association

Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen

Oregon Consumers League

Packaging Institute, Inc.

Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute

Paper Bag Institute, Inc.

Paper Shipping Sack Manufacturers Association

Paper Stationery and Tablet Manufacturers Association

Patent Office Professional Association

Pattern Makers League of North America

Peninsula Consumer League, Inc.

Pennsylvania League for Consumer Protection

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association

Pickle Packers International, Inc.

Plastic Products Manufacturers Association, Inc.

Plate, Cup, and Container Institute, Inc.

Portland Cement Association

Poultry Breeders of America

Printing Industries of America

Private Truck Council of America, Inc.

Producers' Council, Inc.

Professional Photographers of America

Radio-Television News Directors Association

Railroad Yardmasters of America

Railroad Yardmasters of North America, Inc.

Retail Clerks International Association

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union

Rhode Island Consumers' League

Rubber Manufacturers Association

St. Louis Consumer Federation

Sales and Marketing Executives — International

Salt Institute

Scale Manufacturers Association

Schiffli Lace and Embroidery Manufacturers Association

Scientific Apparatus Makers Association

Screen Manufacturers Association

Seafarers International Union of North America

Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO
162 A METRIC AMERICA

Sewing Machine Trade Association

Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' Natione

Association, Inc.

Sheet Metal Workers International Association

Shipbuilders Council of America

Soap and Detergent Association

Society for Advancement of Management, Inc.

Society for Experimental Stress Analysis

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

Society of Aerospace Material and Process Engineers

Society of American Florists

Society of American Foresters

Society of American Military Engineers

Society of Applied Medical Systems

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Society of Fire Protection Engineers

Society of Manufacturing Engineers

Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, Inc.

Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

Society of Packaging and Handling Engineers

Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers

Society of Plastics Engineers, Inc.

Society of Real Estate Appraisers

Society of Soft Drink Technologists

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

Society of Women Engineers

Society of Wood Science and Technology

South Dakota Consumers League

Southern Building Code Conference

Southern Furniture Manufacturers Association

Southern Labor Union

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute

Steel Founder's Society of America

Stove, Furnace and Allied Appliance Workers' of Nortl

America

Structural Clay Products Institute

Sulphur Institute

Super Market Institute

Surety Association of America

Tanners Council of America

Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry

Theater Equipment and Supply Manufacturers Association

Texas Consumers Association

Textile Distributors Association, Inc.

Textile Foremen's Guild, Inc.

Textile Workers Union of America

Tobacco Associates, Inc. Tobacco Institute

Tobacco Workers International Union

Toilet Goods Association, Inc.

Tool and Die Institute Toy Manufacturers of America

Transport Workers Union of America

Tricot Institute of America, Inc.

Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

United Allied Workers International Union

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and

Canada

United Brick and Clay Workers of America

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

United Business Schools Association

United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International

Union

United Church Women of the National Council of Churches

United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America

United Federation of Postal Clerks

United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association

United Furniture Workers of America

United Garment Workers of America

United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America

United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union

United International Union of Welders

United Mine Workers of America

United Papermakers and Paperworkers

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America

United Shoe Workers of America

United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association

United States Beet Sugar Association

U.S. Brewers Association, Inc.

U.S. Conference of Mayors

United States Independent Telephone Association
APPENDIX ONE 163

United States Savings and Loan League

U.S. Screw Service Bureau, representing

Aerospace Precision Fastener Association

Aircraft Locknut Manufacturers Association

Precision Aerospace Rivet Association

Sockets Group Products Bureau

Tapping Screw Service Bureau

Tubular and Split Rivet Council

U.S. Cap, Screw and Special Threaded Products Bureau

U.S. Machine Screw Service Bureau

U.S. Wood Service Bureau

United Steelworkers of America

United Stone and Allied Products Workers of America

United Telegraph Workers

United Textile Workers of America

United Transportation Union

United Transport Service Employees of America

University Photographers Association of America

Upholstered Furniture Manufacturers Association

Upholsterers' International Union of North America

Utility Workers Union of America

Valve Manufacturers Association

Vinyl Fabrics Institute

Virginia Citizens Consumer Council

Washington Committee on Consumer Interests

Washington Society of Engineers

Water Pollution Control Federation

Window Glass Cutters League of America

Wire Association, Inc.

Wisconsin Consumers League

Woodworking Machinery Manufacturers Association

Work Glove Manufacturers Association, Inc.

Writers Guild of America, Inc.

Writing Instrument Manufacturers Association, Inc. Young Women's Christian Association of the U.S.A.

Zinc Institute, Inc.

Zirconium Association

FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE U.S. METRIC STUDY

Department of State Department of the Treasury

Department of Defense

Department of the Army

Department of the Navy

Department of the Air Force

Defense Atomic Support Agency

Defense Communications Agency

Defense Intelligence Agency

Defense Supply Agency

National Security Agency

Department of Justice Department of the Interior Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Environmental Science Services

Administration

Bureau of International Commerce

Maritime Administration

Patent Office

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Travel Service

Office of Product Standards

Office of Telecommunications

Department of Labor

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Environmental Health Service

Food and Drug Administration

Health Services & Mental Health

Administration

National Institutes of Health

Office of Education

Social Security Administration

Social & Rehabilitation Service

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Transportation

Office of Secretary of Transportation U.S. Coast Guard

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Railroad Administration

Urban Mass Transportation

Administration

National Highway Safety Bureau

National Transportation Safety Board

Atomic Energy Commission

Civil Aeronautics Board

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Maritime Commission

Federal Power Commission

Federal Trade Commission

General Services Administration

Interstate Commerce Commission

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

National Science Foundation

Small Business Administration

Smithsonian Institution Tennessee Valley Authority

U.S. Postal Service

U.S. Information Agency

U.S. Tariff Commission

Veterans Administration

Office of Management and Budget

Council of Economic Advisors

Office of Emergency Preparedness

Office of Science and Technology

Office of Telecommunications Policy

President's Committee on Consumer Interests Government Printing Office Library of Congress
APPENDIX TWO:

Bibliography

U.S. Metric Study Supplemental

Reports

Published as part of the U.S. Metric Study Record

[ 1 ] Huntoon, R. et al. , "International Standards,"

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-1,

(1970).

[2] Clark, R., and Tascher, J., "Federal Government: Civilian Agencies," Nat. Bur. Stand.

(U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-2,(1911).

[3] Hatos, S., "Commercial Weights and Measures," Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ.

345-3, (197 1).

[4] Barbrow, L., Coordinator, "The Manufacturing Industry," Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec.

Publ. 345-4,(1971).

[5] Bunten, E., and Cornog, J., "Nonmanufacturing Businesses," Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.).

Spec. Publ. 345-5,(1971).

[6] Robinson, B., "Education," Nat. Bur. Stand.

(U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-6, (1971).

[7] Rothrock, B., ed., "The Consumer," Nat.

Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-7, (1971).

[8] Gordon, G., "International Trade," Nat. Bur.

Stand. ( U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-8, ( 1 97 1 ).

[9] Lomas, L. et al., "Department of Defense,"

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-9,

(1971) .

[10] Treat, C, "A History of the Metric System

Controversy in the United States," Nat. Bur.

Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-10, ( 197 1 ).

[11] Stiehler, R., "Engineering Standards," Nat.

Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-11,

(1971).

[12] Odom, J. ed., "Testimony of Nationally

Representative Groups," Nat. Bur. Stand.

(U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-12,(1971).

Congressional Hearings and Reports

[ 1] "The Metric System," Hearings Before Subcommittee No. 1 and the Committee on

Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of

Representatives, 87th Congress, 1st Session,

on H.R. 269 and H.R. 2049, June 28, 29, and

July21, 1961.

(Hearings on Bills to provide that the National Bureau of Stan- dards conduct a study to determine the practicability of the adoption by the United States of the metric system of weights and

measures.)

[2] "Providing for a Survey To Determine the

Practicability of Adopting the Metric System

of Weights and Measures," H.R. Report No.

785 (to accompany H.R. 2049), 87th Congress, 1st Session, 1961.

[3] "Conversion to Metric System," Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce, United

States Senate, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, on

S. 1278, January 7, 1964.

(Hearings on a Bill to provide that the National Bureau of

Standards shall conduct a program of investigation, research and

survey to determine the practicability of the adoption by the United States of the metric system of weights and measures.)

[4] "Notes on Conversion to the Metric

System." Report of the Committee on

Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of

Representatives, 89th Congress, 1st Session,

1965.

(Brings together representative information concerning the

historical, technical, international, financial, industrial, and

legislative aspects of the metric system and the types of

problems involved in converting to it.)

[5] "The Metric System," Hearings Before the

Committee on Science and Astronautics,

U.S. House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 1st Session, on H.R. 2626, Superseded

by H.R. 10329, Aug. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9, 1965.

[6] "Providing for the Secretary of Commerce To

Conduct a Program of Investigation,

Research, and Survey of the Metric System

in the United States," H.R. Report No. 850

164
APPENDIX TWO 165

(to accompany H.R. 10329), 89th Congress,

1 st Session, August 24, 1 965.

(Incorporates language changes suggested by Department of

Commerce. Contains additional views. Concurrent Resolution

458, by James G. Fulton, that U.S. adopt the metric system.)

[ 7] "Conversion to Metric System," Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce, United

States Senate, 89th Congress, 1st Session on

S. 774, July 14, 1965.

(Bill contains amendments suggested by Department of Commerce to focus study on impact of increasing worldwide use of

metric system on United States.)

[ 8] "Study of the Metric System," Senate Report

No. 751 (to accompany S. 774), 89th Congress, 1st Session, September 16, 1965.

[ 9] "The Metric Study Bill," Hearings Before the

Committee on Science and Astronautics,

U.S. House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, on S. 774, January 18,

1966.

(Testimony by Dr. J. Herbert Hollomon, Assistant Secretary

for Science and Technology, Department of Commerce.)

[ 10] "Authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to

Make a Study To Determine the Advantages

and Disadvantages of Increased Use of the

Metric System in the United States," H.R.

Report No. 1291 (to accompany S. 774), 89th

Congress, 2nd Session, February 17, 1966.

[11] "Authorizing the Secretary of Commerce To

Make a Study To Determine the Advantages

and Disadvantages of Increased Use of the

Metric System in the United States," H.R.

Report No. 33 (to accompany H.R. 3136),

90th Congress, 1st Session, March 6, 1967.

[ 12] "Increasing the Use of the Metric System,"

Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, 90th Congress,

1st Session, on S. 441 and S. 2356, November

15, 1967.

(S. 2356 intended to reflect industry concern with effect of

metric usage on standards of size and shape, and to require more

specific recommendations for meeting costs of conversion.)

[

1 3] "Study of the Metric System," Senate Report

No. 1442 (to accompany H.R. 3136), 90th

Congress, 2nd Session, July 18, 1968.

(H.R. 3136 modified to provide for study of engineering stan- dards and recommendation as to means of meeting costs of conversion.)

Selected Official Reports

United Kingdom

[ 1] Going Metric — Progress in 1970, Second Report of the Metrication Board (Her Majesty's

Stationery Office, London, 1971).

[2] The International System of Units (SI),

(British Standards Institution, London, 1970).

[ 3] Going Metric: the First 5 Years 1965-1 969, The

First Report of the Metrication Board 1970

(Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London,

1970).

[4] Change to the Metric System in the United

Kingdom, Report by the Standing Joint Committee on Metrication, Ministry of Technology (Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London,

1968).

[5] Report of the Committee on Weights & Measures Legislation, Presented by the President

of the Board of Trade to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, May 1951 (Her

Majesty's Stationery Office, London,

Reprinted 1960).

Australia

[6] Report from the Senate Select Committee on

the Metric System of Weights and Measures,

Part I — Report, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 1 968 — Parliamentary

Paper No. 19 (Commonwealth Government

Printing Office, Canberra, 1969).
166 A METRIC AMERICA

India

[ 7] Verman, L., and Kaul, J., eds.. Metric Change

in India (Indian Standards Institution, New

Delhi, 1970).

Canada

[ 8] White Paper on Metric Conversion in Canada,

Government of Canada, Honourable JeanLuc Pepin, Minister of Industry, Trade and

Commerce (Queen's Printer for Canada, Ottawa, 1970).

Other Selected Documents

[1] Page, C, and Vigoureux, P., "The International System of Units (SI)," Nat. Bur. Stand.

( U.S.), Spec. Publ. 330 ( 1 97 1 ).

[2] "Brief History and Use of the English and

Metric Systems of Measurement, with a Chart of the Modernized Metric System,"

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 304

A

(1968, Revised 1970).

[3] ASTM Standard Metric Practice Guide (A

Guide to the Use of SI — the International

System of Units), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1970).

[4] Orientation for Company Metric Studies

(Mechanical Products Industry), 2nd Edition,

American National Standards Institute, New

York (1970).

[5] Measuring Systems and Standards Organizations, American National Standards Institute,

New York (1969).

[6] ISO Recommendation R 1000, Rules for the

Use of Units of the International System of

Units and a Selection of the Decimal Multiples and Sub-Multiples of the SI Units, 1st

Edition, American National Standards Institute. New York ( 1 969).

[ 7] Slattery, W. ed., "An Index of U.S. Voluntary

Engineering Standards," Nat. Bur. Stand.

(U.S.), Spec. Publ. 329(1971).
APPENDIX THREE:

ISO R 1000 1969(E)

ISO Recommendation R 1000 February 1969

(Annex Omitted)

RULES FOR THE USE OF UNITS

OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNITS

AND A SELECTION

OF THE DECIMAL MULTIPLES AND SUB-MULTIPLES

OF THE SI UNITS

I. SCOPE

This ISO Recommendation gives rules for the use of units of the International System of Units and for forming

and selecting decimal multiples and sub-multiples of the SI units for application in the various fields of technology

2. GENERAL

2.1 The name Systeme International d'Unites (International System of Units), with the abbreviation SI. was adopted by the 1 1th Conference Generate des Poidset Mesures in 1%0

The coherent units are designated "SI units".

2.2 The International System of Units is based on the following six base-units

metre (m) ampere (A)

kilogramme (kg) kelvin(K)

second (s) candcla(cd)

as units for the base-quantities : length, mass. time, electric current, thermodynamic temperature, and luminous intensity.

2.3 The SI units for plane angle and solid angle, the radian (rad) and the steradian (sr) respectively, arc called supplementary units in the International System of Units.

167
168 A METRIC AMERICA

ISO/R 1000- 1969(E)

2.4 The expressions for the derived SI units are stated in terms of base-units; for example, the SI unit for velocity is metre per second (m/s).

For some of the derived SI units special names and symbols exist; those approved by the Conference

Generale des Poids et Mesures are listed below :

Quantity Name

of SI unit Symbol

Expressed in terms

of basic or derived

SI units

frequency hertz Hz 1 Hz = 1 s"

1

force newton N 1 N = 1 kg m/s2

work, energy, quantity of heat joule J 1 J = 1 N m

power watt W 1 W = 1 J/s

quantity of electricity coulomb C 1 C = 1 As

electric potential,

potential difference,

tension, electromotive

force volt V 1 V = 1 W/A

electric capacitance farad F 1 F = 1 As/V

electric resistance ohm n 1 Q. = 1 V/A

flux of magnetic induction,

magnetic flux weber Wb I Wb = 1 V s

magnetic flux density,

magnetic induction tesla T 1 T = 1 Wb/m2

inductance henry H 1 H = 1 V s/A

luminous flux lumen lm 1 lm = 1 cd-sr

illumination lux lx 1 lx = 1 lm/ni2

It may sometimes be advantageous to express derived units in terms of other derived units having special names; for example, the SI unit of electric dipole moment (A s m) is usually expressed as C m.
APPRENDIX THREE 169

ISO/R 1000-1969<h>

2.5 Decimal multiples and sub-multiples of the SI units are formed by means of the prefixes given below

Factor by which the unit is multiplied Prefix Symbol

10 12 tera T

10' giga G

106 mega M

103 kilo k

102 hecto h

10 deca da

10"' deci d

10"2 centi c

10"3 milli m

10"6 micro u

io-9 nano n

lO"12 pico P

lO"15 femto f

lO"18 atto a

The symbol of a prefix is considered to be combined with the unit symbol to which it is directly attached, forming with it a new unit symbol which can be raised to a positive or negative power and which can be combined with other unit symbols to form symbols for compound units.

Examples 1 cm3 = (l(T2 m)3 = lO^m3

l^s'1 = (lO-'s)"1 = 10V

1 mm2 /s = (l(T3 m)2 /s = 10^m2 /s

Compound prefixes should not be used; for example, write nm (nanometre) instead of m^m.
170 A METRIC AMERICA

1SO/R 1000- 1969(E)

3. RULES FOR THE USE OF SI UNITS

AND THEIR DECIMAL MULTIPLES AND SUB-MULTIPLES

3.1 The SI units are preferred, but it will not be practical to limit usage to these; in addition, therefore, their decimal multiples and sub-multiples, formed by using the prefixes, are required.

In order to avoid errors in calculations it is essential to use coherent units. Therefore, it is strongly

recommended that in calculations only SI units themselves be used, and not their decimal multiples and

sub-multiples.

3.2 The use of prefixes representing 10 raised to a power which is a multiple of 3 is especially recommended.

NOTE. - In certain cases, to ensure convenience in the use of the units, this recommendation cannot be followed; column S of the tables in the Annex gives examples of these exceptions.

3.3 It is recommended that only one prefix be used in forming the decimal multiples or sub-multiples of a

derived SI unit, and that this prefix be attached to a unit in the numerator.

NOTE. - In certain cases convenience in the use requires attachment of a prefix to both the numerator and the denominator at the same time, and sometimes only to the denominator Column 5 of the tables in the Annex gives examples of these exceptions.

4. NUMERICAL VALUES

4.1 When expressing a quantity by a numerical value and a certain unit it has been found suitable in most

applications to use units resulting in numerical values between 0.1 and 1000.

The units which are decimal multiples and sub-multiples of the SI units should therefore be chosen to provide values in this range; for example,

observed or

calculated values can be expressed as

12000N 12kN

0.00394 m 3.94 mm

14 010 N/mJ 14.01 kN/mJ

0.0003 s 0.3 ms

4.2 The rule according to clause 4.1 cannot, however, be consistently applied. In one and the same context the numerical values expressed in a certain unit can extend over a considerable range; this applies especially to tabulated numerical values. In such cases it is often appropriate to use the same unit, even when this means exceeding the preferred value range 0.1 to 1000.

4.3 Rules for writing symbols for units are given in ISO Recommendation R 31, Part ... * : General

principles concerning quantities, units and symbols.

5. LIST OF UNITS

For a number of commonly used quantities, examples of decimal multiples and sub-multiples of SI units, as

well as of some other units which may be used, are given in the Annex to this document.

* At present at the stage of draft proposal. (Annex Omitted)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 O - 437-584
FEDERAL REFERENCE DATA

Title — A Metric America: A Decision Whose Time Has

Come

NBS Special Publication 345

Author— Daniel V. De Simone. National Bureau of

Standards

Key words— Business and industry; economy; education;

international relations; international standards; international trade; metric; technology

assessment.

Abstract — This report evaluates and distills the findings

of the U.S. Metric Study in which thousands

of individuals, firms and organized groups,

representative of our society, participated.

On the basis of all the evidence marshalled

in the Study, the report concludes that the

United States should change to the metric

system through a coordinated national program. The chapter headings are: I. Perspective, II. Two Centuries of Debate,

III. Measurement Systems, IV. Arguments

That Have Been Made for Metric and for

Customary, V. Going Metric: What Would

It Really Mean? VI. The Metric Question

in the Context of the Future World, VII.

Going Metric: The Broad Consensus,

VIII. Recommendation and Problems Needing Early Attention, IX. Benefits and Costs,

X. Two Paths to Metric: Britain and Japan.

The report includes a bibliography of 12

supplemental reports authored by members

of the U.S. Metric Study Group.

PHOTOGRAPHS in this publication were selected from:

Official photographs of

U.S. Department of Commerce

including the following bureaus

Census, NOAA, DIB,

Patent, MARAD, NBS

Atomic Energy Commission

U.S. Department of Defense

U.S. Army

U.S. Navy

U.S. Air Force NASA

British Metrication Board

Contributions from:

Bell Helicopter

Caterpillar Tractor Co. Daven Electronics

DeVilbiss Co.

Ex-Cell-0 Corp. Ford Motor Co. General Electric General Dynamics

General Motors

International Harvester Co.

ITT McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Northrop Corp.

TRW Systems Group

Union Carbide Corp.

Union Pacific Railroad White House Collection WMAL-TV, Wash., D.C.

and other private sources.

Visual Editor and Design

Matthew F. Lynch

U.S. METRIC STUDY

The U.S. Metric Study emblem uses

the American Shield in a special way:

The stripes represent the six base units

of the International Metric System

and the dot its decimal ratios.