U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20230

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE

-

51st NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1966

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 290
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards is a principal focal point in the Federal Government for assuring maximum application of the physical and engineering

sciences to the advancement of technology in industry and commerce. Its responsibilities include development and maintenance of the national standards

of measurement, and the provisions of means for making measurements consistent with those standards; determination of physical constants and properties of materials; development of methods for testing materials, mechanisms, and

structures, and making such tests as may be necessary, particularly for govern- ment agencies; cooperation in the establishment of standard practices for in- corporation in codes and specifications; advisory service to government agencies on scientific and technical problems; invention and development of devices to serve special needs of the Government; assistance to industry, business, and

consumers in the development and acceptance of commercial standards and

simplified trade practice recommendations; administration of programs in co- operation with United States business groups and standards organizations for the development of international standards of practice; and maintenance of a clear- inghouse for the collection and dissemination of scientific, technical, and en- gineering information. The scope of the Bureau's activities is suggested in the

following listing of its three Institutes and their organizational units.

Institute for Basic Standards. Applied Mathematics. Electricity. Metrology.

Mechanics. Heat. Atomic Physics. Physical Chemistry. Laboratory Astrophysics.* Radiation Physics. Radio Standards Laboratory:* Radio Standards

Physics; Radio Standards Engineering. Office of Standard Reference Data.

Institute for Materials Research. Analytical Chemistry. Polymers. Metallurgy. Inorganic Materials. Reactor Radiations. Cryogenics.* Materials

Evaluation Laboratory. Office of Standard Reference Materials.

Institute for Applied Technology. Building Research. Information TechnologyPerformance Test Development. Electronic Instrumentation. Textile and

Apparel Technology Center. Technical Analysis. Office of Weights and Measures. Office of Engineering Standards. Office of Invention and Innovation.

Office of Technical Resources. Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical

Information.**

"Located at Boulder, Colorado 80301. ""Located at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
Report of the

51st National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1966

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials From the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives From U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Denver, Colorado, July 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 1966

Report Editor: L. J. Chisholm

United States Department of Commerce

Alexander B. Trowbridge, Acting Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

A. V. Astin, Director

National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication No. 290

Issued May 15, 1967

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

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

Treasurer's Report, have been arranged together, beginning on page 131, for

easier reference.)

Page

Officers and Committees vii Committee Meetings ix MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1966 Address of Conference President and Appointments to Standing Committees, A. V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards 1 Presentation of Honor Awards 7 Address, by J. P. Orcutt, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture,

Denver, Colorado 8 Performance Standards—A Joint Venture of Industry and Government,

by J. P. Eberhard, Director, Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards 9 Address, by J. F. True, State Sealer of Weights and Measures, Board of Agriculture, State of Kansas, and Chairman, National Conference on

Weights and Measures 15

AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1966 The Plastic Bottle Fulfilling Packaging Needs, by W. T. Cruse, Executive

Vice President, Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., New York, New

York 17 Food Package Labeling—Legal Requirements and Commercial Practices,

by H. L. Hensel, Law Department, Swift and Company, Chicago,

Illinois . 22

The Packaging Industry Looks at the Model Law and Regulation, by

G. M. Burditt, Partner, Chadwell, Keck, Kayser, Ruggles & McLaren,

Chicago, Illinois 26

Enforcement of State Laws and Regulations, by J. H. Lewis, Chief,

Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture, State of Washington 33

Legal Considerations of the Model State Law on Weights and Measures,

by G. A. Christenson, Assistant General Counsel for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce 41

MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1966 Seminar on Discrete and Continuous Weighing Systems, Chairman:

A. R. Parsons, Marketing Manager, New Products Division, Honeywell,

Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota (President-Elect, Instrument Society of America) 57

(1) Discrete Weighing Systems, Moderator: R. H. Damon, Research

and Development Director, Fairbanks Morse, Inc., St. Johnsbury,

Vermont 60

(a) Engineering and Design, by J. G. Green, Research Engineer,

Faribanks Morse Research Center, Beloit, Wisconsin 61

(b) Applications, by D. B. Kendall, Manager, Custom Engineering,

Toledo Scale Corporation, Toledo, Ohio 74

iii
Page

(c) Testing, by B. Taylor, General Manager, Exact Weight Scale Company, Columbus, Ohio 79

(2) Continuous Weighing Systems, Moderator, R. J. Bierman, Manager,

International Division, Ramsey Engineering Company, St. Paul,

Minnesota 84

(a) Engineering and Design, by R. J. Bierman 84

(b) Applications, by R. J. McEntee, Sales Manager, ABC Scale

Division, McDowell-Wellman Engineering Company, Cleveland,

Ohio 93

(c) Testing, by P. W. Chase, Project Engineer, Minnesota Ore

Operations, U.S. Steel Corporation, Pilotac Plant, Mountain Iron, Minnesota 99 MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1966 The Development of API Standards 1101 and 2531, by L. J. Barbe, Jr., Supervising Engineer, Oil and Meter Measurement, Humble Pipeline

Company, Houston, Texas 103 The Retail Gas Pump—Accuracy Problems, by R. E. Risser, Jr., President,

Southwest Pump Company, Bonham, Texas 110 Big Intelligence from Little Numbers, by E. E. Wolski, Manager of Quality

Control, Colgate-Palmolive Company, New York, New York 114 Remarks of Mr. J. H. B. Hornby, Deputy Chief Inspector for Weights and

Measures, Oxford, England 121 Open Forum: Cooperation—Communication—Compliance, Moderator:

M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau

of Standards 122 AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1966 (Thursday's afternoon session was devoted to reports of the Conference

committees, which can be found beginning on page 131.) MORNING SESSION—FRIDAY, JULY 15, 1966 Technical Program of the Office of Weights and Measures, by M. W.

Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards 123

State Standards and Laboratories, by T. M. Stabler, Laboratory Meteorologist, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards 125

Discussion—Activities of the Conference Standing Committees 130 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Report of the Conference Executive Committee, presented by J. F. True,

Chairman, State Sealer, Division of Weights and Measures, State of Kansas 131 Statement of the Incoming Conference Executive Committee, presented by

J. E. Bowen, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Newton, Massachusetts 132 REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES:

Report of the Conference Committee on Education, presented by S. H.

Christie, Jr., Chairman, Deputy State Superintendent, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Law and Public Safety, State of New Jersey 133 Report of the Conference Committee on Liaison with the National Government, presented by A. L. Little, Chairman, Head, Weights and Measures

Division, Plant Board, State of Arkansas 143

iv
Page

Report of the Conference Committee on Laws and Regulations, presented

by L. Barker, Chairman, Commissioner, Department of Labor, State of West Virginia 145 Report of the Conference Committee on Specifications and Tolerances,

presented by G. L. Johnson, Chairman, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, State of Kentucky 154 REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES:

Report of the Conference Committee on Nominations, presented by R.

Williams, Chairman, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, Nassau

County, New Nork 169 Report of the Conference Committee on Resolutions, presented by E. W.

Ballentine, Chairman, Director, Bureau of Inspection, Department of Agriculture, State of South Carolina 170 Report of the Conference Auditing Committee, presented by N. P. Tilleman,

Chairman, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Green Bay, Wisconsin.- 173 Report of the Conference Treasurer, presented by C. C. Morgan, City

Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana 174 Conference Registration List 176 H-44 Promulgation Map 195

V

OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES

OFFICERS

(As elected by the Fiftieth National Conference to serve during the Fifty-first) President : A. V. Astix, Director, National Bureau of Standards. Executive Secretary : M. W. Jexsex, Chief. Office of Weights and [ Ex officio Measures. National Bureau of Standards. J Chairman : J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and Measures, State Board of Agriculture. State of Kansas.

Vice Chairmen

E. H. Black. County Sealer of Weights and Measures, Ventura County.

California.

L. L. Elliott, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Everett, Massachusetts. M. Jexxlxgs, Director. Division of Marketing. Department of Agriculture. State of Tennessee.

J. L. Littlefield, Chief, Food Inspection Division. Department of Agriculture, State of Michigan. Treasurer: C. C. Morgan. City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary. Indiana. Chaplain: R. W. Seaeles. County Inspector of Weights and Measures. Medina

County, Ohio.

(As elected by the Fifty-first National Conference to serve during the FiftyM. W. Jexsex, Executive Secretary

J Ex officl

J. E. Bowex. Chairman

C. O. Cottom of Michigan, Vice Chairman

R. H. Febxstex of California, Tf'cc Chairman

F. M. Geesz of Connecticut, Vice Chairman

J. G. Gustafsox of Minnesota, Vice Chairman

C. C. Mobgax of Indiana, Treasurer

R. W. Seaeles of Ohio, Chaplain

OFFICERS

second

)

A. V. Astix, President

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

(As elected by the Fifty-first National Conference)

A. V. Astlx

M. W. Jexsex

J. E. Bowex

C. O. Cottom

J. R. Bird of New Jersey,

S. J. Dabsey of Florida. R. J. Fahet of Illinois.

I. R. Frazer of Indiana.

R. H. Ferxstex

F. M. Geesz

J. G. GUSTAFSOX

C. C. MOBGAX

R. W. Seaeles

Ex officio M. Greexspax of New York. W. H. Holt of West Virginia. D. E. Koxsoer of Wisconsin.

J. H. Lewis of Washington.

W. A. Polaski of Pennsylvania.

J. D. Waltox of Texas.

vii
STANDING COMMITTEES

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

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

EDUCATION*

S. H. Christie, Jr. of New Jersey, Chairman (1 )

.

L. A. Gredy of Indiana (2)

.

A. D. Rose of California (3). W. I. Thompson of New Jersey ( 4 )

.

J. I. Moore of North Carolina (5)

.

LAWS AND REGULATIONS*

M. Jennings of Tennessee, Chairman (1)

.

L. Barker of West Virginia (2)

.

H. L. Gofortii of Illinois (3).

J. F. Lyles of Virginia (4).

AV. A. Kerlin of California (5)

.

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES*

G. L. Johnson of Kentucky, Chairman ( 1 )

.

J. F. McCarthy of Massachusetts (2)

.

H. D. Robinson of Maine (3).

C. H. Stender of South Carolina (4). R. Rebuffo of Nevada (5). COMMITTEE ON LIAISON WITH THE NATIONAL

GOVERNMENT*

A. L. Little of Arkansas, Chairman (4 )

.

R". C. Allen of Ohio (3). R. J. Fahey of Illinois (2)

.

C. E. Joyce of Minnesota ( 1 )

.

R. C. Primley of Michigan (5)

.

ANNUAL COMMITTEES ACTING ONLY DURING THE

FIFTY-FIRST CONFERENCE

Nominations: R. Williams of New York, Chairman; E. H. Black of California

V. D. Campbell of Ohio ; H. E. Crawford of Florida ; J. B. McGee of Georgia ; R. E. Meek of Indiana ; D. M. Turnbull of Washington.

Resolutions: E. AV. Ballentine of South Carolina, Chairman; B. S. Cichowicz of Indiana ; G. L. Delano of Montana ; R. H. Fernstein of California ; D. E. Konsoer of AVisconsin ; W. A. Polaski of Pennsylvania ; R. K. Slough of Ohio. Auditing Committee: N. P. Tilleman of AVisconsin, Chairman; H. N. Duff of Colorado ; I. R. Frazer of Indiana.

*M. W. JENSEN, Executive Secretary of the Conference, is ex officio nonvoting secreta

to each committee.

viii
COMMITTEE MEETINGS, MONDAY, JULY 11, 1966

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

The Conference committees that met on Monday morning were the

Executive Committee, the Committee on Liaison with the National

Government, and the Committee on Laws and Regulations. The Committee on Education and the Committee on Specifications and Toler- ances met on Monday afternoon.

All final reports of the Standing and Annual Committees can be

found beginning on page 131.

ix

REPORT OF THE FIFTY-FIRST NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1966

(J. F. True, Chairman, Presiding)

The invocation was delivered and the memorial service for departed

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

Searles of Ohio.

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

ADDRESS OF THE CONFERENCE PRESIDENT AND

APPOINTMENTS TO STANDING COMMITTEES

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

I am truly pleased to be able to be with you

here today on this unique occasion—the first National Conference on Weights and Measures

that has been held outside of Washington. I believe that the difficulty many of you had to go through in order to be here today demonstrates the interest that all of you have in this

Conference and in the deliberations that take

place here. I would like to read you a greeting from the

governor of our newest State

Aloha and sincere best wishes for another outstanding

National Conference on Weights and Measures. As you

lead the Conference in its fifty-first year, you are cog- nizant of the special service rendered by the Bureau of

Standards to the people of all States. The State of Hawaii has instituted a statewide measures and weights program effective January 1, 1966.

The metrology program, under the guidance of your office and, in particular, Mr. Malcolm W. Jensen, is proceeding on schedule. We hope to be fully staffed and

equipped for standardization work by October 1966. We

will continue to support and participate in the program

and activities of the National Bureau of Standards on

weights and measures. Warmest personal regards. May the Almighty be with

you and yours always.

Sincerely,

John A. Burns, Governor.

1
Thank you, Governor Burns, for your greetings.

This Fifty-First Conference has another distinctive feature apart

from its location : We are meeting, in one of our sessions, with the In- strument Society of America. The great concern of the members of

this Conference with the problems of instrumentation and metrology

make it important to strengthen our ties with organizations such as ISA. I am very hopeful that the sessions we have scheduled in cooperation with them will be most fruitful. It is my responsibility and pleasure to report on the current status of

activities in the National Bureau of Standards. I believe the most

important recent development of interest to the members of this

Conference is the beginning of furnishing new sets of standards to the States. As many of you know, the Conference many years ago

adopted a resolution urging the National Bureau of Standards to seek

funds to provide these new standards and we receive, in our appropriation for Fiscal Year 1966, $400,000 to begin this program. The standards are now under construction and we expect to begin delivery of

the first ten sets this coming fall. The States that have been selected

to receive the first ten sets of standards were selected on a basis of need

and ability to use the standards. As I think most of you are aware,

these standards represent the ultimate in precision for reference standards, and they are far enough in advance of the standards now generally in use to require considerable advances or extensions in laboratory equipment and training of personnel to permit their effective exploitation. So we have vised the combination of need for new standards and the ability to use the standards in selecting the first ten

States. We hope that funds will be provided by the Congress for this

fiscal year for the next ten, and that over the next few years we will

complete the program of furnishing the standards to all fifty States. These first sets will go to, in alphabetical order: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,

Tennessee, and Utah. I think it is significant that this program of

furnishing new standards to the States will begin on the hundredth

anniversary of the last time this was done on a nationwide basis. It was in July of 1866 that the Congress last made provision to do this

job.

In furnishing these standards to the States, we would like to have some symbolic evidence of this program at our new site in Gaithersburg, Maryland. We are inviting each of the States, as they receive a new set of standards, to donate a tree representative of the State

which can be planted at Gaithersburg in an appropriate area. In mentioning Gaithersburg, I would like to report the progress in our relocation. Most of the construction there is now complete. We

are in the process of moving people into the new laboratories and,

2
at present, we have just a little over 50 percent of our Washington

staff now located in the new facilities. We have also just begun the final construction phase, which consists

of four special-purpose laboratories. These laboratories will not be

completed until late in 1968, but they will house only a small portion

of the staff. In the laboratories now available we will be able to house approximately 90 percent of the staff, and it is expected that

this 90 percent will be located in the new facilities by the end of this year. Late in the fall, we are planning a formal dedication of the new facility. I would also like to bring to your attention the fact that we have

been preparing a comprehensive history of the National Bureau of

Standards. We have been working on this project over the past five years, and expect it to appear this month. It is to be published by

the Government Printing Office, and its title is "Measures for Progress." We have selected as the date for the formal publication July

28, 1966, which is the hundredth anniversary of the legalization of

the Metric System in this country.

During the past year, we have been very active at the National Bureau of Standards in categorizing our program in terms of new defi- nitions promulgated by the President and the Bureau of the Budget.

This effort, government-wide, is called the Planning-Programming

Budgeting System. The objective is to aline all Federal Government

activities in terms of programs whose outputs can be measured. The

general goal is to attempt to provide better criteria for choice among

the many activities that the Federal Government must engage in so that return per dollar can be optimized.

Within the National Bureau of Standards, we have reached the

conclusion that our activities can be summarized under four major

program categories, each of which permits some means of evaluating

or measuring the output qualitatively, if not quantitativly. The first of these four program categories is called Basic Standards, and the

goal of this program is to provide the central basis for uniform compatible measurement in this country. It begins with setting up the

basic standards, with extending the standards through higher and

smaller values, with <the extension of the basic standards into approximately forty-five derived standards, and with providing measure- ment and calibration services for the effective utilization of these

standards throughout the Nation. Your own program of the Office of

Weights and Measures is a part of this basic program category of the

Bureau.

The second major program category is the Numerical Data program. This involves the determination of properties of matter and

materials that are of great importance to science and industry and

which are not available in sufficient accuracy elsewhere. The work

3
involves a deep understanding of the properties of materials, of the

relationship of properties to composition and structure. It also embraces our National Standard Reference Data System, which I have

mentioned in previous sessions of this Conference, dealing with compilations of critically evaluated data.

Our third program category is called Engineering Measurements

and Standards. This activity it primarily concerned with providing

criteria for the effective evaluation of commercial technical products and services, and the development of test methods to permit

application of these criteria. Our fourth general program category is called Technical Assistance

to Government, and its goal is to aid other government agencies in

the utilization of modern science and technology. Important in this area are programs in automatic data processing systems and in building research.

With the formulation of our program under these four major cate- gories, we are now attempting to formalize subcategories and to measure the effectiveness of our output in each subcategory.

A year ago, I reported to you that plans were afoot to create a new Environmental Science Services Administration within the Department of Commerce and the plan to transfer to it our Central Radio

Propagation Laboratory here in Boulder. That plan went through

and the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory is now no longer a part of the Bureau. ESSA is celebrating, by coincidence, its first birthday tomorrow, and perhaps during your visit to Boulder tomorrow and

to the NBS Radio Standards Laboratory, you may see part of the

ESSA birthday celebration in progress. New responsibilities continue to be added to the National Bureau

of Standards. The Congress, last summer, enacted a law dealing

with automatic data processing problems and assigned to the Bureau

the central responsibility for assisting other government agencies in

the utilization of these new techniques and for developing standards

for automatic data processing systems in order to facilitate the inter- changeability of such equipment and techniques.

In order to implement this responsibility, we established in the

Bureau a Center for Computer Science and Technology last fall. There is now pending before the Congress legislation which, if enacted, would bring additional responsibilities of rather serious impact.

The largest of these is the legislation dealing with automotive and

transportation safety. If this legislation is enacted, it seems likely

that the National Bureau of Standards will have a central responsibility to provide the technical basis for development of automotive

safety standards. This would involve the development of the neces- sary performance criteria and the development of test methods to evaluate conformance to these criteria. If this legislation is enacted

I-
and the responsibility now planned is assigned to the Bureau, the

budget for this program may approach the present basic appropriations of the entire National Bureau of Standards.

Another item now pending before the Congress is the so-called "Fair

Packaging and Labeling"' legislation. This, of course, is legislation of

great interest to this Conference since you have many activities related

to it. The involvement of the Bureau in this legislation, if enacted, will

be the provision of voluntary standards development procedures. As I think many of you know, we have had a Commodity Standards program whereby we work with industrial groups in the development of

standards which are then promulgated and adopted on a voluntary

basis. The legislation now pending before the Congress makes provision to use this mechanism to arrive at many of the standards which

are important in the packaging field. A third item has been pending for some time in the legislative field,

but the forecasts for its enactment this summer appear good. This is the legislation which would direct the Secretary of Commerce to study

the problems associated with the increased use of the Metric System

throughout the world. If this legislation is enacted, it would, of

course, involve a major effort on the part of the National Bureau of

Standards to carry out this study. If this is done I am sure we would

want to call on many of our friends associated with this Conference

for help in developing recommendations.

Our Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures, Malcolm Jensen,

who has done so much work throughout the years for this Conference,

is a man of many talents. We have found it necessary, in line with the

Bureau's increasing responsibility in the standards field, to give Mr.

Jensen a large responsibility. He is now our Manager of Engineering

Standards and has responsibility not only for the Office of Weights and

Measures, but for our program generally in Engineering Standards,

particularly our Voluntary Products Standards program.

In this field, Mr. Jensen has taken the lead in implementing one of

the important recommendations of the Committee on Engineering and

Commodity Standards set up under the Secretary of Commerce some

time ago. Their recommendation in the commodity or product standards area was that we revise our procedures for developing these standards in order to assure better technical review and to include a broader

range of viewpoints from the many interests concerned with such

standards. These new procedures were promulgated by the Department of Commerce last December, and we are now applying them

under the leadership of Mr. Jensen. I am sure that many of you will

regret that he is now no longer concerned full-time with weights and

measures, but I am sure you will appreciate that his talent has made

it necessary to give him larger responsibility.

5
I would like to mention just a few of the technological achievements

within the Bureau's program. It would be impossible to cover very

many of them, but I think the following are of special interest

First, at our new Gaithersburg facilities this past year, we have insti- tuted direct weighing calibrations up to 1-million pounds. Our new

engineering mechanics laboratory there was justified to an appreciable

extent by the need to improve our accuracy in direct weighing of val- ues this large. Our million-pound constant weight machine was made

operative during the past year. Associated with this, we have just

completed a many-year study and redetermination of the acceleration

of gravity with improved accuracy. This important constant is essential to the translation of our mass standard to a weight and force

standard.

We have instituted new calibrations of thermometers in the range

below 20 degrees Kelvin. We have instituted a number of new and

improved calibration services in the radio frequency field. This, of

course, is an activity which is the responsibility of our Radio Standards Laboratory at Boulder here in Colorado.

We have developed a number of important new standard reference

materials, and in this general area of materials research we have come up with a radically new method for purifying materials which

seems to offer the possibility of achieving near absolute purity-

achieving purity so high, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure.

I now come to one of the most pleasurable parts of my responsibility,

and that is the naming of new members to the Standing Committees of

the Conference.

On the Committee on Education, I am appointing W. I. Thompson

of Monmouth County, New Jersey, for a four-year term to succeed

John Madden who resigned to accept a position in industry. I am

appointing J. I. Moore of the State of North Carolina for a five-year

term to succeed J. T. Daniell of Michigan.

On the Committee on Laws and Regulations, I am naming W. A.

Kerlin of the State of California for a five-year term to succeed J. L.

Littlefield of Michigan.

On the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government, I am

naming R. C. Primley, Operation Manager of the Theisen- Clemens

Company, St. Joseph, Michigan, and Chairman of the A.P.I. Weights

and Measures Technical Committee, for a five-year term to succeed F. W. Love.

On the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, I am naming

Raymond Rebuffo of the State of Nevada for a five-year term to suc- ceed H. J. McDade of California.

I would like, at this time, to give my sincere thanks to the members

of these committees who have completed their assignments for their

6
interest and devotion to the work of the committees of the Conference.

I would also like to thank all of the other members of the Conference

for their contributions to our joint objectives. I would again like to say that I appreciate very much the opportunity that the National Bureau of Standards has in working with

the weights and measures officials of the States and individuals from

industry to carry out the important goals of the Conference, and I also

appreciate my opportunity to participate in these activities. Thank

you very much.

Dr. Astin presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference

who by attending the 50th Conference in 1965, reached one of the four

attendance categories for which recognition is made—attendance at

10, 15, 20, and 25 meetings.

PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

AWARD RECIPIENTS

25 Years

C.'D. Baucon

J. P. McBride

E. E. Meek

C. C. Morgan

20 Years

S. H. Christie, Jr. L. G. Close R. D. ThompsonH. E. Howard

15 Years

Mrs. F. C. Bell

S. Black

A. E. McKeever

C. H. Stender

F. C. Harbour C. E. Wagner

J. E. Mahoney

10 Years

A. J. Albanese

P. Grassi

H. H. Houston

H. P. Hutchinson

V. C. Kennedy, Sr. B. C. Keysar

J. E. Myers

C. H. Oakley

A. D. Rose

C. W. Silver

W. R. Tilley

H. M. Turrell

A. J. Komich

G. P. Kosmos

R. V. Miller

I. L. Wagner, Jr. C. E. Whitman

248-760 O—67 2 7
ADDRESS

by J. P. Orcutt, Conwvissioner, Department of Agriculture, Denver,

Colorado

HTlieGovernor wanted to be with you today

but, through some mixup in scheduling, he could

not attend. But he does welcome you to the

State and hopes that you have a very profitable

and fruitful Conference.

We feel it is an honor for Colorado to have

been selected for your first meeting outside of

the Washington area. I know one of the in- fluences in the selection of Colorado was the

National Bureau of Standards Laboratories in

Boulder.

This facility, which includes the radio and electronics laboratories,

will be one of the stops on your bus tour tomorrow. We are proud

of this development in Boulder. The NBS Laboratories have at- tracted growth industries to the State. Valuable contributions to the

State economy and the growth of a scientific community are only parts

of the story that put NBS in an excellent position as being among

Colorado's greatest assets. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about Colorado's agricul- ture and points of interest in the State. I would like to start with the

eastern plains where we just completed a rather bountiful wheat

harvest. We have thousands of acres on the eastern plains of Colorado devoted to wheat and interspersed with many large cattle ranches. Also in that area, we have the Rocky Ford cantaloupe

that is grown extensively and shipped all over the country, and I am

sure you have heard of this particular Colorado product.

Then we move on to the beautiful San Luis Valley in its mountain

setting where we raise lettuce, carrots, potatoes, all kinds of vegetable

crops, and we know that these are some of the best grown in the world.

At that high altitude and with the lack of rainfall being practically

all irrigated, there are grown some of the best vegetable crops in the

country.

Then, farther over, we run into the Durango and Cortez area where we raise the pinto beans, and again we go back to the lower level where we have wheat.

Farther up at Delta, Palisade, and Grand Junction, we have our Colorado fruit orchards with cherries, peaches, apricots, pears, and

so forth. Then we come back over on the eastern side and we have Weld County which ranks fifth among the counties in the United States in total crop production. We are pretty proud of this particular county.

8
They raise a wide diversity of crops up there—vegetable crops, can- ning crops, as well as larger wheat crops. We have all types of mountain recreational facilities in the State

summer and winter recreation. We have some of the best ski areas in

the country. A favorite attraction, which I am sure some of you will

see, is the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. The Academy

now is on 17,600 acres of land. Recently, I had an opportunity to go

back to the Naval Academy. They are housed on 400 acres. We

really spread them out in Colorado Springs. I think you would en- joy seeing that area. We again want to welcome you to Colorado and sincerely hope that

you will come back later and spend a wonderful vacation in our Columbine State. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—A JOINT VENTURE

OF INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT

by J. P. Eberhard, Director. Institute for Applied Technology,

National Bureau of Standards

My father was a minister and since Reverend

Searles read a passage from the Bible this morning, I thought it would be appropriate if I did,

but I wanted to make it appropriate for my talk

and my talk is about performance standards.

Interestingly enough, the Bible is an ancient, source of performance standards.

About 700 years before Christ, in fact, King

Lemuel of Israel laid down one of the all-time

classics of performance standards. We can

read in Proverbs, Chapter 31, the following

performance standards for a good wife

She will do him (her husband) good and not evil

all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly

with her hands.

She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth

meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she

reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her

tongue is the law of kindness. . . . This addresses itself to today's technology. I read this to my wife

and she was not impressed. I call this an early classic of performance standards, because it says nothing about the physical appearance of such wife ; it does not say how she is to help the poor or how

large a portion of meat she is to give to her maidens; but it does sug9
gest that her performance will be characterized by willing work, good

actions, and kindness. These latter criteria for performance have

been universally recognized as desirable and, just as universally, philosophers have recognized the difficulty of measuring such performance. These characteristics of performance standards are still good guides

for us today in the development of what I am concerned about engineering performance standards. They should describe the functional

requirements or effectiveness levels of materials, components, assemblies or systems, but not prescribe how these requirements are to be

met in terms of engineering design.

In our Institute for Applied Technology, we are not responsible for

developing performance standards for wives (although we come pretty

close because Mac and some of his boys are working on some standards

for women's dresses), but we are interested in advancing the Nation's

ability to write performance standards for buildings, for information

systems, for electronic instruments, for computers, and a variety of

other areas, including weights and measures. Under new legislation

now pending before Congress, as Dr. Astin indicated earlier, we may

be asked to provide the technical knowledge needed to write performance standards for automobile safety, possibly for "fair packing and

labeling" standards, and, hopefully, one of these days, performance

standards for what constitutes a good city. I thought it might be useful, therefore, to spend a few moments

exploring with you what we mean by performance standards, the diffi- culties inherent in trying to measure true performance, and my view

of the relationship—and I must stress it is my view—between government and industry in developing and using performance standards.

Almost every conference on research which I attend these days gets

around to discussing the need for performance standards of some sort. An industry association will likely have a committee for looking into a voluntary set of performance standards for the industry's product

a consumer group will likely demand that higher performance standards be developed in some area to help raise the quality of manufacturing ; and almost every government agency is advocating performance standards in its area of concern. Even that august body, the

United States Senate, is presently considering performance standards

relating to the ethics of its members.

I would like to make several different attempts to share with you

some of the thinking' we have done about what the term "performance

standards" means. The first attempt relates to what we call the link

between "user needs" and performance standards. The recognition or

analysis of user needs is the first step required for developing a true performance standard when we speak of engineering standards for

any product exchanged in the market place. We have pretended for a long time now that it is possible to write standards for use in build10
ing codes or to concern ourselves about safe automobiles by specifying

the engineering properties of such products. We know now that Ave need performance standards in these areas, and that we will need to look at the user requirements in order to do that. In the building area, this means more research to explore how

buildings are related to man's requirements; what functional, physiological, and psychological needs of man is the building expected to meet. Our knowledge in this area is extremely limited. Building

research has been dominated by engineers, physicists, and chemists

who concern themselves with the basic properties of the materials or equipment that went into the buildings, but very little with the basic

needs of the people who would use the buildings. We are going to need

a much larger contribution from the social scientists to building re- search if we want to get at true performance standards in the next few

years. Once it is possible to state the user requirements for a product or system, there are several other stages of development. The next stage

is performance criteria—those characteristics of the product that are observable and capable of being isolated. These need to be identified

and then appropriate test methods for evaluating them need to be developed. Once performance criteria and test methods are available,

then performance specifications can be written. Normally, only after

the specifications have been tried is one of the procedures begun for

reducing the knowledge and practice to a standard. Thus it is clear

that performance standards require a long period for their successful

development.

Another aspect of performance standards that needs to be understood is that there is a spectrum of complexity to which they can be re- lated. It is possible, for instance, to talk about performance standards for bathtubs and to do so by referring only to the required properties of the materials of which the tub is made. I would not call this a performance standard, but some people do. The next level of

complexity would be to describe the performance requirements of a bathtub by including the tub in a broader performance requirement

for the total plumbing system in the house. At this stage, its per- formance as one component of a larger system becomes important.

The next level of complexity would be to describe the plumbing sys- tem for a house as before, but to include the required functional and

physiological requirements for the people who will use the system.

However, in my view, we are still short of a true performance standard

as long as the requirements are related to a specific technological solution, and plumbing is a specific technological problem. Plumbing is based on water and gravity essentially. This is only one possible way

of solving the technological problem to which the bathroom addresses

itself. A true performance standard, therefore, states the user re- quirements and the needed performance levels without reference to

11
existing technological solutions. When we are able to do this, by and

large we make it possible for industry to develop new innovations.

Let me illustrate. If a building code says that the walls of a house

"shall be 2 x 4's, 16 inches on center," then it is a very narrowly drawn

specification standard because 2 x 4's is a specific size (or it used to be)

for a piece of lumber. Sixteen inches on center is a specific distance

apart. That is freezing technology. It has been frozen in many building codes that way for a long time. If it were possible to state in a building code that the walls of a house should have certain structural

properties, acoustical properties, heat-transmission characteristics,

surface properties, etc., and then to be able to measure the performance

of entire wall systems with respect to these properties; and if the

properties and tests have been based on the needs of the humans who

will live in the houses (as contrasted with the way that existing wall

materials now perform), then we would have a true performance

standard. Industry could develop walls of aluminum or kraft paper,

or even green cheese and, so long as the wall met the performance

standard, it would be acceptable. Under such conditions, innovations

would likely come forth in large numbers and the resultant benefit

to the public would be enormous. Performance standards then may be used to measure the functional

level of effectiveness of materials, components, assemblies and/or

systems.

They have as their primary input a determination of the interaction

of the product for which the standard is intended with the requirements of the human beings who will use it. The requirement for

drivers to be able to have good visibility under all driving conditions

would be an indication of an automobile safety performance

requirement.

Performance standards may also describe the interaction of products with natural forces like rain or gravity. The requirement that

the roof of a house be free of leaks would be such a requirement.

Performance standards will often describe the requirements for

the interaction of products with other systems. For example, a tire safety standard might well describe the interaction capability of the

tire with various road conditions.

The important thing here is that performance standards do not dic- tate design solutions. They would not say how an automobile was to be designed in order to provide better visibility for the driver, or how

a roof was to be constructed in order to avoid leaks, or how a tire was

to be made to minimize skidding on wet pavement. These design

solutions are best left to the skill and imagination of industrial engi- neers and product designers. Good performance standards, however,

will provide an equitable way of judging between alternative designs or engineering solutions.

12
Because they provide a basis for sound or equitable judgment between alternatives, performance standards should be a tool of governments at the Federal, State, or local level when matters of public

health, safety, or welfare are involved. Governments need not develop

these standards, but I would argue that they have a responsibility, as a public trust, to assure the development of adequate performance

standards and associated test methods in those areas which involve

health, safety, and welfare. I believe, in fact, that true performance

standards are the most democratic basis we have for assuring the public interest while allowing private enterprise to seek alternative design

or engineering solutions through competition. I have sometimes been surprised at the way that private industry

has resisted this shift to performance standards. It is not too surprising if a company that produces a single building material resists changing a building code that gives it a certain amount of market protection.

But there are not many one-material companies of any size left. Most

of them have diversified into new areas, and most of them claim to be

doing research. Outdated specification type building codes, therefore,

also make it difficult for this same company to introduce its own new

innovations. I am confident that in the next few years most companies will come to realize that free competition in the market place

is to their own long-term interest. As this begins to be realized, there

will be even more interest in developing good building codes based on

true performance standards, and our Institute for Applied Technology

in the National Bureau of Standards wants to help in this area.

"Well, what does all of this mean to those of you who are involved in

weights and measures ? I think it means that you should not be sitting

there dreaming with me about performance standards for buildings or automobile safety if you are not willing to look at yourselves. I think

it means some changes for you in the next few years, just as it means

changes for the rest of our friends in industry and government. You

have been in business for a long time, longer than the National Bureau

of Standards. During that time, the science and technology of meas- urement has gone through many changes. Only a century ago, we were

lucky if we could get a bushel in New York to equal a bushel in Pennsylvania. Now your calibration tools are so accurate that you probably exceed the practical ability of the normal small businessman or

his customers to fully utilize the accuracy you can demand of his

weights and measures. I know we do in the Bureau. I doubt that

extremes of accuracy very often come into your practice. But these are areas in which you are involved. Since I am a novice in your area, I can speak frankly. So let me.

I read last night the proposed standard for milk bottles. It seems

to me that as a consumer, I am not so much concerned that the container in which I buy milk be held to tolerances of nine-tenths of a

13
cubic inch for a quart, but I am interested in getting equal quantities

from -whichever producer I decide to buy. My performance requirements, therefore, are not very precise when I say equal quantities, but

science and technology have made it possible for you to require precision of the industries with which you deal. When I see your proposed

amendments to tolerances on the average capacity of milk bottles, the

following sort of naive questions come to my mind

Why milk bottles ? I hardly see them any more.

All my milk comes in paper containers. What are

these fellows trying to get at here ? It must, be that some people buy milk in bottles and that there is a tendency to skimp on the bottle size by some producers. Or maybe it is that the dairies are complaining about the bottle manufacturers, because a little more milk in a couple of thousand bottles could make

a difference to a diary when it does not make any

to me as a consumer.

I honestly do not know the issue here, and I purposely did not ask

Mac Jensen about this before I wrote this, because I wanted to make

a naive approach. I wanted to be naive because I wanted to guess

what performance purpose was served here in order to get you to think about performance standards and weights and measures laws.

You will remember that I suggested earlier that governments should

set true performance standards based on user requirements and let industry do the engineering to find solutions. My understanding of

your procedures is that it does this by design. Your performance

standard is basically that milk bottles be uniform in size, and you

leave it to industry groups to determine what uniformity tolerances

it would be possible or desirable to obtain. The caution I would suggest is that each section of your model laws take pains to point out the

underlying performance standard implicit in that law in order that

the specification which emerges or the design requirements which grow

out of the performance standards do not become gospel, because this

gospel tends to freeze the technology at a particular point of time.

Well, from what I have seen of your organization in the Inst few

years that I have been associated with the National Bureau of Standards, I am certain that you are a dynamic one. You would have to be for as many of you to get to Denver under these circumstances. I know you will want to do the best job possible, given the present state of science and technology. That is why I have tried to give you some

feeling for an important direction in which I think we are going with

engineering standards, and that is the direction of the development

of true performance standards. I wish you well in the remainder

of your meeting, and I thank you for inviting me to participate this

morning in your Conference.

14
ADDRESS

by J. F. Trite. State Sealer, Division of Weights and Measures, State

Board of Agriculture, Topeka, Kansas, and Chairman. National

Conference on Weights and Measures

It is, indeed, a happy privilege as Chairman

of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures to extend to all of you present today,

a cordial welcome. The officers and committees

welcome all of you to this 51st National Conference. It is our desire that this might prove

to be one of the most worthwhile Conferences

sponsored by this group. It may be significant

as we start on our second 50 years that this

Conference is being held in Denver. This is now a truly National Conference, and I believe

it will be helpful to weights and measures if the Conference can be held away from Washington, D.C., at times. In our present-day fast-moving world, no

jurisdiction ^an go it alone. We must support an association to obtain

information, to promote research, and to receive inspiration. I hope that you have read the program. It has been very carefully

arranged and includes an impressive group of speakers. The speakers

have put much effort in preparing their addresses and many of them

have traveled many miles. Their messages will be interesting and

full of information. I hope we will give them our undivided attention

at all sessions of this Conference.

This is the 18th National Conference on Weights and Measures

that I have attended. It has been my privilege and pleasure to become

well acquainted with weights and measures directors from most of our States. Many of them have been most helpful in developing our own program. Weights and measures always has room for improvement; all segments of work are demanding new and better methods.

We want to encourage industry to develop more accurate and faster

weighing and measuring devices. We must not stand in the way of

progress while seeing that equity prevails. Automation is necessaiw

in today's marketplace. If it were not for automation, prices of

commodities at retail outlets would be substantially higher than they

are now. While we may scream at the cost of things, yet the American

wage earner spends a smaller percent of his paycheck for the necessities of life than anywhere in the world.

This has been the first year for Handbook 44, 3rd Edition, and the

Examination Procedure Outlines that go with it. Some revision may

be in order and constant study is necessary to improve and make this

handbook useful to both weights and measures officials and all industry.

Mac Jensen and his staff have been very helpful with training schools

in many States. A number of States have their own training schools

15
for county and city inspectors. This is necessary. The inspector in

the field is the one who builds the weights and measures image in the

eyes of the public.

The success of this Conference is reflected in the uniformity or lack

of uniformity that exists among the States. With our present speed of

transportation and travel, complete uniformity is more important

than ever. At the last Annual Meeting of the National Scale Men's

Association, they discussed the registration bonding, or other regulatory procedures regarding scale servicemen. In many other fields we

lack uniformity.

In the past year, it has been my privilege to attend the meetings of

the Southern Weights and Measures Conference, Western Weights

and Measures Association, and the Midwest Region. All of these

meetings were excellently planned, and I was glad to attend.

Some of the standing committees held meetings since the last National Conference. You were sent their tentative reports in the folder

you received announcing the 51st National Conference on Weights and

Measures. You have all been encouraged to express your views, and

I hope you attended their meetings yesterday. These committees are

to be complimented on their deveotion to purposes and on their efforts to make these comittee reports of real value to all of our weights and

measures officials. We want to thank the members of industry for

their help and guidance to the Conference committees.

It is impossible at this time to give credit to, or even mention, all of

those who participated in National Weights and Measures Week.

You will hear much more about this from the Committee on Education and, here again, industry has not only cooperated, but it has

actually given leadership in helping promote National Weights and

Measures Week. It is part of our responsibility to tell the public

about our work so that we can better serve. Education is a slow process and requires year-round work with additional emphasis at the time

of Weights and Measures Week.

We are begining this morning the formal proceedings of this 51st

National Conference. The success or failure of this Conference is now up to you. With your full participation it will be a success for

all of us. Without your full participation, it will only be partly

successful. If you are not already familiar with the zeal and determination of our Executive Secretary, Mr. Mac Jensen, I am sure you will

be acquainted with it before the Conference is over. The times for

all Conferences are listed in your program. There is plenty of time

for discussion or small personal conferences. Will you please participate fully throughout the Conference. I would like to close these

few remarks with this quotation from the late Charles Schwab of

U.S. 'Steel: We are salesmen every day of our lives. We are

selling our ideas, our plans, our enthusiasm to those

with whom we come in contact.

16
AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1966

(M. Jennings, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

THE PLASTIC BOTTLE FULFILLING PACKAGING NEEDS

by W. T. Cruse, Executive Vice President, Society of the Plastics

Industry, Inc., New York, New York

It's an honor for the Society of the Plastics

Industry to have a representative address this

51st National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

The Society of the Plasties Industry (SPI) is the trade association for the plastics industry,

encompassing over 1,300 plastic raw materials

manufacturers, processors, and fabricators, as well as plastic fabricating machinery manufacturers.

The subject for this talk, the plastic bottle,

is one of the fastest-growing parts of our in- dustry. It might be best to first define some

parameters. The term "plastics" is generally defined as "any one of

a large and varied group of materials consisting wholly or in part of

combinations of carbon with oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and other

organic and inorganic elements which, while solid in the finished state, at some stage in its manufacture is made liquid and thus capable of

being formed into various shapes, mostly through the application

either singly or together of heat and pressure."

While plastics is a generic term for materials, there are two basic

classifications: thermoset plastics and thermoplastics. Thermoset

plastics are those which are set into permanent shape when heat and

pressure are applied to them during forming. This category of plastics material is not used in the manufacture of plastic bottles. The thermoplastic family of materials is used in the manufacture

of plastic bottles. These materials become soft when exposed to suffi- cient heat and harden when cooled, no matter how often the process

is repeated.

Most plastic bottles on the market today are manufactured of

thermoplastic materials by the blow molding process. Basically, blow

molding consists of extruding a hollow tube of the molten plastic material (called a parison) which is clamped between mold halves and

inflated by air. The material is cooled in the mold to retain the desired

shape of the mold and then ejected.

How did the plastic bottle start? As recently as the mid-Thirties,

there was no commercial blow molding of plastic containers or bottles.

17
About 1937 an experimental group investigated the feasibility of blow

molding new thermoplastic materials including cellulose acetate and

styrene. Experimental work brought out the unique personalities of

each of the thermoplastics. Gradually, mechanical methods were devised to handle these new materials.

This early work demonstrated that it was feasible to produce plastic

containers, tubes, and bottles. At that time, however, the price of

basic thermoplastic resins was so high that it discouraged commercial

application.

During World War II, this experimental work had been carried

further sufficiently to enable small containers for water purifying

tablets to be produced for the Army Medical Corps field kits. This was accomplished in early 1943. The containers were lightweight and

particularly desirable because they were durable.

Toward the end of World War II, simple household articles such

as decorative Christmas tree balls were being made in the United

States from blow molded acetate and styrene.

After World War II, low-density polyethylene became available to the infant plastic bottle industry. Although the cost of the raw material was still high, polyethylene offered many advantages that the

older thermoplastics lacked. It was not brittle, it retained its resil- iency even after molding, it had flow characteristics which permitted

a new freedom of design for the shape of containers. Early containers

blown of this material were put to use as carriers for acids and other

industrial products where durability was extremely beneficial. By

1946, technology for blow molding low-density polyethylene had advanced considerably and plastic containers were finding their way to markets in limited quantities for special applications.

Government regulations as set by the Interstate Commerce Commission were rewritten to encompass these new containers. This alone

required tremendous testing to show Government agencies that the

plastic containers were safe and, in most cases, superior containers to those made from conventional materials.

Great commercial impetus for the plastic bottle came when the first squeeze bottle was introduced in 1946. Dr. Jules Montenier developed

a liquid deodorant which he wished to be applied as a spray. He had

developed the spray nozzle, but needed a flexible or bellows-type container to hold the liquid and force it through a spray applicator. He

approached the group which had done the experimental work on plastic bottles. This group developed an oval-shape, two-ounce, blow

molded polyethylene container to meet his needs. This became the

first commercial plastic squeeze bottle. Within two years, five million

plastic squeeze bottles of Stopette deodorant had been sold. Repeated mention has been made of thermoplastic material used for

plastic bottles. Today, the prime resin for bottle production is polyethylene in its three density ranges : low, medium, and high. How18
ever, each thermoplastic resin brings to the plastic bottle is own unique

characteristics. These characteristics are studied in light of the dis- tinctive qualities of the products to be packaged in the plastic bottle. In addition to polyethelene, at present, polypropylene, polyvinyl

chloride, and polystyrene are being used.

Other plastics which have been successfully blow molded are acrylonitrile butadiene styrene polymers, cellulosics, ionomers, modified

acrylics, phenoxies, polyamides, polyesters, polycarbonates, and polysulfones. Resin research continues to create plastic materials that will serve specific end-use applications better, or to meet specific require- ments. For example, new resins are continually being developed

which are generally accepted for use in food packaging according to the requirements set by the Food and Drug Administration.

Statistics.

Let's review the statistics of plastic bottles manufactured (fig. 1).

SPI's Plastic Bottle Division yearly contributes monies to the Bureau

of the Census to help underwrite the expense of the Current Industrial

Report, Form M30E Plastic Bottles. Undertaken slightly more than

a year and one half ago, the Bureau of the Census shipment statistics for plastic bottles indicate that for the year 1965, 2,606,379,000 bottles were produced. This is the most current report. Divided into the

end use categories for which the bottles were manufactured, the classi- fications are as follows: In the household chemical field including

bleach and detergent containers, 1,608,175,000; industrial chemicals

and specialties which would be paints, varnishes, battery acid containers, etc.—77,103,000; in the toiletries and cosmetic field including

shaving preparations, hand, face and body lotions, and the like—576,-

513,000 ; in the medicinal and health classification, drug products, vita-

|

19
mins—257,920,000; in the automotive and marine product field, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze—motor oils—23,988,000; and in the field which is of particular concern to you, food and beverage—62,680,000

bottles were produced.

Within the Society's Plastic Bottle Division, there is a Food Bottling Committee which directs its activities to working with agencies

whch assemble and disseminate information concerning various local and national requirements and practices which apply to the manufacture and distribution of plastic bottles for food and beverage packaging. The plastic milk container falls in this classification and projects

its own interesting growth story in recent years. In 1961 and 1962

several dairies experimented with plastic gallon milk containers to

test public acceptance. These early test markets were encouraging

and a few dairies expanded their efforts to large scale commercial

status. These pioneer dairies, located in Newark, New Jersey;

Phoenix, Arizona; Newport News, Virginia; Chicago, Illinois, and

Highpoint, North Carolina have witnessed a widespread expansion of

their initial efforts. The pattern is as follows

Year

No. dairies using plastic

milk bottles Year

No. dairies using plastic

milk bottles

1962 1963

Jan. 1964. _ . June 1964

Jan. 1965

34

126590

June 1965 _ Oct. 1965

Dec. 1965.

Feb. 1966 May 1966

135 200

280

385

500 in 39 States

These figures were supplied from the industrywide observations of

a single firm participating in the Plastic Milk Bottle Program. The

plastic milk bottles themselves may be obtained from a national manufacturer of plastic containers, a local custom processor, or the in-plant

system whereby a blow molding machine is operated inside the dairy

and containers are produced as they are needed.

All sanitary precautions are being taken in the fabrication and

shipment of the bottles to assure that "the nearly perfect food" is protected from contamination at all times.

The new market for plastic milk containers has found us to be

lacking in our knowledge of weights and measures requirements

and we are, gentlemen, striving to improve our position in this field of

knowledge.

It hasn't been easy. . . . First, there was the basic conflict between

plastic milk containers and the regulations covering the packaging

20
of milk in bottles as outlined in Handbook 44. While it was obvious

in the early days of the plastic milk bottle that the dairies were trying

to fill the bottles to the top and give the consumer honest quantity, close

check revealed that bottles manufactured by our member producers

in some instances varied due to their own interpretation of Handbook 44. Secondly, as this problem became more acute, an SPI subcommittee on weights and measures was formed. The SPI Weights and Measures

team visited many dairies throughout the country and performed

extensive, controlled plastic bottle filling trials on the conventional

glass milk bottle fillers. Indeed, there were instances of overfill and

underfill. We instituted a system of checks to be followed by our member manufacturers and last year petitioned the committee on

weights and measures for a broader interpretation of Handbook 44 to include plastic milk bottles. Your committee essentially turned down

our request for broader interpretation and looking back now, with

justifiable reason. Further consultation with the Office of Weights and Measures in

Gaithersburg introduced us to Handbook 67 which covers the packaging of food as a commodity in a container. To eliminate confusion we

changed our vocabulary from "plastic milk bottle" to "plastic milk

container.'" We feel the contradiction in terms between bottle (H-44)

and container (H-67) as applies to the plastic milk container has been

cleared up.

Filling and Capping.

Most of the filling problems encountered in the early stages of the

development program have been solved. In dairies where plastic

containers are now in use on glass filling lines they move through filling

and capping operations at conventional rates. So far as capping is concerned, a number of commercially available caps provide sanitary

convenience and effective closure for the plastic containers presently

available. Sanitary filling equipment specifically designed for plastic

is being developed and some such fillers are available today. In addition to this, existing glass fillers with some slight modifications will

convert so that plastics can be satisfactorily filled. We believe that the functional plastic milk container with its novel

and varied designs presents the American dairy industry with a formidable promotional tool which can help increase the per capita

consumption of milk in this country, a goal which is most desirable to

all of us. The consumer has demonstrated a strong preference for goods packaged in plastic containers, including fluid milk. The fact that over

500 dairies are presently using plastic containers indicates it is already

a strong factor as a package for fluid milk.

21
Members of the Plastic Bottle Division who produce plastic milk

containers maintain individual company liaison as well as industry

liaison with dairy filling equipment manufacturers. There is a mutual

interchange of ideas to assure all parties concerned, including the dairy,

that the filling aspect of the plastic milk container is constantly

reviewed and perfection sought.

Although the plastic bottle industry is an infant in terms of more

traditional packaging vessels, our member companies strive constantly to improve container quality and manufacturing techniques.

We are working to perfect even better equipment and methods for the

handling of plastic bottles by customers and we are concerned with

improvement of the raw materials and supplies that our bottle-manufacturing members use in making and distributing their products.

A previous comment has indicated the almost overnight development of the plastic milk container as a packaging vessel. Consistent

with the public good health, we ask your continued patience, restraint,

and indulgence in reviewing our containers, safe in the knowledge that our goals are the same as yours. We wish to present the consumer with

a clean sanitary container holding a full measure of milk.

We believe that rigid plus and minus filling tolerances are important,

but the primary consideration of you weights and measures officials

is to provide the public with proper measurement of filled containers.

That being the case, we ask that you bear with us as we develop better

and better filling controls.

Members of the Plastic Bottle Division of the Society, with technical

and financial resources at their command, have assumed the obligation and responsibility to satisfy the technical and marketing requirements in the ever- improving packaging field. FOOD PACKAGE LABELING—LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND

COMMERCIAL PRACTICES

by H. L. Hensel, Law Department, /Swift and Company,

Chicago, Illinois

You will note that the title of my talk is "Food Package Labeling—Legal Requirements

and Commercial Practices." While this subject will not be ignored, I think it only fair to warn you that if you listen closely enough you

may hear a comment or two on the subjects of

uniformity and cooperation.

As a starting point, on the subject of legal

requirements, let us consider a list of some of

the laws with which the food industry must

comply in order for the labels on its packages to be legally correct. Such a list would include:

22
(a) The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act;

(b) The Federal Meat Inspection Act;

(c) The Federal Poultry Products Inspection Act;

(d) Federal Acts dealing with particular foods such as margarine, butter, etc. (e) State Weights and Measures Acts;

(f) State Food, Drug and Cosmetic Acts;

(g) State Acts governing meat and meat products;

(h) Special State Acts governing particular foods such as frozen

desserts, margarine, etc. All of these many laws have requirements concerning the labeling

of food products. The general types of requirements covered fall into the following categories

1. Giving the common or usual name of the product.

2. Listing the name and address of the manufacturer, packer or

distributor.

3. Listing of ingredients.

4. Stating the net weight.

5. Showing the inspection legend if there is government inspection of the product.

6. Showing all the above information at the proper location on

the package.

7. Stating all required facts in a conspicuous manner.

8. Giving all required statements for dietary products.

9. Giving all required statements for special ingredients such

as artificial coloring, artificial flavoring, preservatives, etc. Many of the above labeling requirements will be set forth in more

than one law. For example, net weight requirements are found in

State weights and measures laws, State food and drug acts, the Federal

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the

Federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, State laws governing meat

and meat products, and State and Federal laws concerning special

foods, such as oleomargarine.

As a final dimension to the measurement of food packaging legal

requirements, it should be remembered that most food manufacturers

distribute their products nationwide. This means that food manufacturers must comply with all Federal laws governing their products,

while at the same time they must comply with the laws of fifty States. The above comments briefly summarize the legal requirements for

labeling food packages. While it would seem that these requirements

are more than ample to protect the consumer, additional Federal legislation on this subject is now pending in Congress.

The next question is, what is the commercial practice of the food in- dustry concerning compliance with these requirements? Difficult though it may be, the rules are very simple. If at all possible, one

248-760 O—67—

3

23
uniform label is designed that complies with all the requirements that 1

affect that particular product in the jurisdictions where it will be sold. If this cannot be done on a uniform basis, nonuniform labels and procedures must be adopted. Sometimes this has meant designing a package only for sale in a given State. Sometimes it has meant that a given

label which is going to be used in, for example, six States will contain

information which is really only required in one of the six States. In

a few cases it has meant that, because of nonuniform labeling requirements, a particular product is not sold in a given State. Because of the complexity of the task of designing a uniform label,

and the problems that arise when a uniform label cannot be used, I would like to discuss with you what is being clone to increase uniformity

in the area of package labeling, and secondly, how you can help with

this problem.

In the field of weights and measures, the most important step to- wards uniform laws has been the adoption, by a number of States, of

the Model State Weights and Measures Law. At the present time some 21 States have passed the Model Law, and approximately the same number have adopted the Model Regulation Pertaining to Packages. Each year, this number increases. It is hoped that many more

States will follow this trend in the near future.

It should be mentioned that the mere adoption of the Model Weights

and Measures Law and Regulations does not mean that they will never

be changed. In a dynamic society, change is part of our way of life. Mr. Burditt will give you some additional comments concerning the

Model Law and Regulations in his talk this afternoon.

One of the best examples of preserving uniformity, when a serious

lack of uniformity was threatened, was the adoption of a model regulation on prominence and placement by your National Conference.

Nothing would be accomplished by retelling the story in detail to all of

you who know it so well from your own personal experience. It is, however, worth nothing that this experience is being cited time and

time again as an outstanding example of how State officials, Federal

officials, and industry representatives can work together and achieve

both a desired objective and uniformity.

As a result of the cooperative work of industry with your Conference on the subject of prominence and placement of the net weight

statement, industry has formed a permanent committee of those companies and trade associations concerned about weights and measures

problems. Frank Dierson of the Grocery Manufacturers Association

is Chairman of the committee and John Speer of the Ice Cream Association is Secretary. Two of the main purposes of this committee are

(1) to keep industry advised concerning any proposed nonuniform

weights and measures law, regulation or interpretation which affects labeling and (2) to work with State officials and officials of the National

Bureau of Standards toward more uniform labeling laws, regulations,

24
and interpretations. This industry group has been very effective in

helping to achieve these goals during the few years of its existence, and

I believe it will continue to advance uniformity in the future.

Other steps towards uniformity have been taken in connection with

food and drug laws. As of now, 33 States have adopted the Model

Food and Drug Act. Also, steps are being taken to draft a uniform

meat product law which could then be adopted as a model law by the

States. In addition to the above steps that are being taken, I would like to suggest at least two ways in which each of you can help achieve the

goal of uniformity. If any matter comes to your attention for decision,

and there is a known uniform law, regulation or interpretation, please

follow the uniform law, regulation or interpretation. If the matter

needs further clarification, refer it to Mr. Jensen of the National Bureau of Standards or your Laws and Regulations Committee and be

guided by their recommendations. Problems concerning how to ex- press the net weight statement have arisen in the past and have been

successfully and uniformly handled in this very manner. In this

regard, please remember that the smallest change from uniformity,

such as how a word may be abbreviated, can change millions of acceptable uniform labels into unusable labels. Secondly, I would urge you to restrict your labeling requirements

to the net weight legend on the package, leaving other subjects to more

appropriate enforcement officials. As an example of this point, it is my opinion that references on a label concerning the price to be paid

for an item should not be regulated by weights and measures officials. Before closing, I would like to make one comment concerning offi- cials of the National Bureau of Standards. State officials and industry

representatives both are fortunate to have men of great ability, such as M. W. Jensen and H. F. Wollin, in the Bureau of Standards. These

men are in a unique position to help achieve progress and uniformity

in the weights and measures field. Their assistance and cooperation

is greatly appreciated by industry, and, I am sure, the State officials as well. Appropriately enough, I have saved for the last my most important

comment. It concerns the cooperation of enforcement officials, such

as yourselves, with industry. With this cooperation, the food industry can operate on a nationwide basis even under nonuniform laws—with- out your cooperation such an operation would be almost impossible.

Let me illustrate how your cooperation is important

1. Although many of you are from States that have not yet

adopted the Model Law and Regulations, your interpretation

of your law and regulations has been substantially the equivalent of that given to the Model Law and Regulations.

2. If a label is brought to your attention, which appears not to be- in compliance with the law, an informal notice of this fact is

25
generally given so there is opportunity to correct any error that

may exist.

3. Where changes in labels are necessary, a reasonable time is usually allowed for using up old labels.

4. Where honest differences of opinion have occurred, they have

been resolved on a reasonable, practical basis. I cannot over- emphasize the appreciation of industry for this attitude on your

part.

We have had your 100 percent cooperation in the past. We very

much need it in the future. As cooperation is only successful as a twoway proposition, I want to assure you that the food industry will do

its part to make our relationship both effective and congenial.

THE PACKAGING INDUSTRY LOOKS AT THE MODEL

LAW AND REGULATION

by G. M. Btjrditt, Partner, Chadwell, Keck, Kayser, Ruggles & McLaren, Chicago, Illinois

The Model Law and Regulation are virtually

^0gm^ sacrosanct documents, and it is a pleasure and

£ ^\ honor to be invited to speak to you on a subject

which is so important to enforcement officials,

' '^§8^ fg^l» industry and consumers. As more and more

State legislatures adopt the Model Law, and more and more officials promulgate the Model

Regulation, uniformity is the beneficiary, and as Mr. Hensel said this morning, uniformity is es- pecially important to all of us. Consumers

benefit, since they can be assured of uniform

manufacturing procedures, quantity control and

labeling requirements regardless of where the

product is manufactured or sold. Enforcement officials benefit since

uniformity promotes compliance and since a substantial body of judicial and administrative interpretations is quickly built up. And in- dustry benefits since a package legal in one State is legal in others. So

I join Mr. Hensel in thanking and congratulating you, including, of

course, Mr. Jensen, his predecessor Mr. Bussey, and the other members

of the staff of the National Bureau of Standards, for your work in

drafting the Model Law and Regulation and securing their adoption

in so many States. Now with this kind of a background, I would like to be able to thank

you again for your invitation to speak and to sit down ! But my

assignment today is to consider the Model Law and Regulation from

the standpoint of those firms which are packaging commodities subject

to the Models, and to suggest possible amendments for your consideration. My first comment, from industry viewpoint, must necessarily

26
be, however, that uniformity is the most important single factor to be kept in the forefront of any discussion of the Model Law and

Regulation.

But uniformity is not necessarily promoted by rigid adherence to the status quo. For any law or regulation governing industries as dynamic as are those which sell consumer commodities must itself be

dynamic and not static if it is properly to serve the public. And if the Model Law and Regulation are not dynamic, they will soon be- come models in name only. Therefore, it behooves the National Conference, as you have always done, to review the Models frequently

and systematically to make certain that they are accomplishing the

purpose set forth on the cover of both documents: "Uniformity in

weights and measures laws and methods of inspection."

So let me make a few suggestions for your consideration, suggestions which are intended to promote future uniformity by keeping the

Model Law and Regulation vital and viable.

Remedies.

First let me say a few words about two sections of the Model Law

which set forth the remedies available to the enforcement official. Section 14 authorizes the director to issue

. . . stop-use orders, stop-removal orders, and re- moval orders . . . whenever ... he deems it neces- sary or expedien t to issue such orders. . . . Let me say that I am not personally aware of any instance in which

a weights and measures official has based a stop-use or similar order

merely on "expediency" as is authorized by the Model Law. Nevertheless, expediency is one of the tests provided by Section 14. It seems

to me that both industry and enforcement officials would be better

served by a statute which at least required the enforcement official to make a finding that public interest necessitated the issuance of the

order. Indeed an order not based on the public interest but merely on expediency might well be unconstitutional and at the very least give a possible defense to such an order in cases which should not be

defensible on procedural grounds irrelevant to the substantive issues

involved.

Section 16 of the Model Law authorizes the director, again omitting

words which are irrelevant for our purpose

... to arrest, without formal warrant, any violator

This same section authorizes seizure of packages without formal

warrant which itself is a broad power but one which is probably

justified since the action is against the goods rather than against a person. But the provision in the section which authorizes arrest without formal warrant is it seems to me too broad to justify leaving it in the Model. Again I am not aware of any instance in which this

27
section has been used or abused, which perhaps illustrates that enforcement officials, or perhaps attorneys general, also view this section as being too extreme.

I make these comments on Sections 14 and 16 only after serious

consideration and reflection. As a member of the Illinois Legislature, I have tried to vote consistently against what I like to call "mollycoddling" bills, those which make it easier for the criminal, the

delinquent, draft card burner, the cheat, to get along more easily in our society. This type of legislation which has friends not only in

legislative bodies but also in our court system, I feel very strongly runs counter to our American tradition. But so also do statutes which

authorize action based on expediency, or arrest and deprivation of

liberty without a formal warrant. So I commend for your consideration a review of Sections 14 and 16 since extremism, even in the defense

of honest weights and measures, is probably not justifiable.

Qualifying Terms.

The next subject which I should like to discuss is the use of qualifying terms. Section 26 of the Model Law and Section 3.9 of the Model

Regulation prohibit the use of any term "such as 'Jumbo,' 'Giant,'

'Full,' or the like that tends to exaggerate the amount of commodity."

Now I can understand how a word like "jumbo" or "giant" might be

misleading, although I would like to see a thorough consumer survey on this point before I am completely convinced. But the word "full"

does not seem to me to belong in this list of prohibited terms. Let

me give you a specific example. Two or three years ago, several food

companies began marketing a liquid food product in exotic shaped

jars and bottles which contained slightly less than a pint, some 15

fluid ounces, some 14 fuild ounces, and some as low as 13 fluid ounces. The exotic shape of the bottles precluded consumers from telling at a glance which of the jars were larger in volume. Indeed it was virtually impossible to differentiate the quantity in these jars from the full pint contained in competitors' jars. Accordingly, reputable firms

who wished to hold the line at one pint, which was the size to which

consumers had become accustomed, began marketing their jars with

a flag which bore the words "Full Pint." The purpose of this quantity

declaration was to enable consumers to see at a glance that the reputable firm's jars contained a full pint as distinguished from an ounce

or two or three less than a pint contained in the exotic shaped jars.

Use of the word "full" in this instance, it seems to me, promoted honest

and fair dealing in the interest of consumers and should not have been

absolutely prohibited by the Model Law and Regulation. You know,

every once in a while one of my children brings home a test with a list of words, one of which does not match the other words for some reason.

28
The object of the test is to pick out the word which does not belong

with the others on the list. It seems to me that such a test could be

applied to Section 26 of the Model Law and Section 3.9 of the Model

Eegulation, and if it is applied, the word "full" would be deleted from

these two sections. An alternative suggestion would be to permit the

enforcement official to allow use of the word "full" when in his opinion

public interest was served by use of the word "full."

Pricing.

Next let me make a few comments concerning sections of the Model

Law which relate to pricing. Mr. Hensel, this morning, listed the

many laws with which a seller of consumer commodities must comply.

These laws are, of course, enforced by numerous different agencies.

Eight now, in Illinois, we have an interim legislative commission entitled the Food, Drug, Cosmetic and Pesticide Laws Study Commission of which Mr. Hensel, incidentally, is one of the public members,

which is reviewing all of our State's laws in this area. We have found

laws enforced by the Department of Public Health, the Department of

Public Safety, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of

Education and Eegistration and of course by several divisions within

these departments. If we are to avoid overlapping jurisdiction,

duplication of effort, unnecessary expense to the taxpayer, and un- warranted burdens on industry, it is important that specific lines of

authority be described in our statutes and regulations.

In tins regard, it seems to me that matters relating to pricing and

price labeling, should be assigned to State and local law enforcement

officials, such as State's attorneys and attorneys general, and to State

agencies analogous to the Federal Trade Commission rather than to weights and measures officials. By this, I do not in any way mean to de-emphasize the importance of pricing regulations; indeed I believe

their importance would be emphasized by centralizing enforcement in one official and placing the burden squarely on that official to make cer- tain that laws are compiled with by everyone. I am sure you know

from your own experience that any time two different departments

within a State or two different officials within a State are given jurisdiction over the same subject matter, enforcement tends to be more lax

than it is when clearly defined jurisdiction is assigned to one department or to one official. Section 27 of the Model Law requires random weight packages to bear on the outside of the package "a plain and conspicuous declaration

of the price per single unit of weight, measure or count." Section 31

of the Model Act prohibits the misrepresentation of a price, prohibits

representation of a price in any manner calculating or tending to mislead the purchaser, and requires fractions of a cent in price labeling

to be prominently displayed. Now, no one can argue that misrepre29
sentations of price should be prohibited, but it does seem to me that

officials other than weights and measures officials should be charged

with the responsibility of enforcing these provisions.

Supplementary Declarations.

Section 3.7.1. of the Model Regulation permits a supplementary

declaration of weight, measure or count, provided, among other things

. . . any such supplementary declaration shall be

neither in larger size type or more prominently dis- played than the required quantity declaration . . . But frequently, a consumer is far more interested in a supplementary

declaration than in the primary declaration, and in such cases it is customary for industry to put the supplementary declaration in larger

size type. For example, a consumer is more interested in "4 waffles'' than in "6i/

2 ounces net weight;" or in "8 slices" than in "8 ounces net weight." In such instances, it is, of course, possible that "4 waffles" or

"8 slices" might be considered the primary declaration, but I would

suggest that Section 3.7.1 be amended to give the enforcing official authority to permit what would normally be considered to be a supplementary declaration to be larger than the primary declaration if the

public interest is thereby served.

Section 3.7.3 of the Model Regulation requires that a declaration

of quantity in terms of count be supplemented by a declaration in

terms of weight, measure or size

. . . unless a declaration of count alone is fully in- formative to the consumer

and Section 3.7.4 requires that a declaration of weight or measure be

supplemented by a declaration of count or size

. . . unless a declaration of weight or measure alone

is fully informative to the consumer. These words "fully informative to the consumer" are perhaps not quite as clear as they might be. They are the kind of words which lead to

differences of interpretation, and to that extent, impair uniformity.

One official might well take the position that a declaration of weight

is "fully informative to the consumer" and adhere to the strict meaning of these words. Another official, on the other hand, might decide

that the declaration is not "fully informative" and that a supplementary declaration is therefore required. Here is another instance in

which "public interest" might be written into the Model Regulation

to the benefit of all parties.

Nonconsumer Packages.

A great deal of effort has been put into the wording of Section 6. 8. 1 of the Model Regulation over the last few years. This is the section

which relates to "industrial-type" or "nonconsumer type" packages.

30
The present wording is still perhaps not quite as clear as it could be

For example, are "free samples" exempt, as they probably should be,

and if so—what packages qualify as free samples? This section is something of a Pandora's Box, but perhaps the lid could be lifted just a little for more examination of the contents without allowing anything to escape.

Shrinkage.

No talk on the Model Law and Regulation would be complete without a few comments on the very important and very controversial

subject of shrinkage. Section 8. 2 of the Model Regulation permits

variations from the declared weight or measure when caused by ordinary and customary exposure to conditions that normally occur in

good distribution practice and that unavoidably result in change of

weight or measure.

. . . but only after the commodity is introduced into

intrastate commerce

which is denned as

. . . the time and the place at which the first sale and

delivery of a package is made within the State, the

delivery being made either (a) directly to the purchaser or to his agent, or (b) to a common carrier for

shipment to the purchaser . . . This section also requires that ... so long as a shipment, delivery7 or lot of packages of a particular commodity remains in the posses- sion or under the control of the packager or the per- son who introduces the package into intrastate com- merce exposure variations shall not be permitted.

This position appears to be in conflict with the Federal rule which

requires that the package bear the stated quantity at the time it is introduced into interstate commerce, but permits shrinkage which

unavoidably results in change of weight or measure after the product

is introduced into interstate commerce. Manufacturers have an immense, and indeed impossible, burden in trying to overpack to meet

all possible conditions of shrinkage.

There is no panacea for this difficult problem. A uniform Federal

and State rule would, however, be most desirable and I sincerely

urge for your consideration incorporation of the Federal rule into

the Model Regulation.

One method fo alleviating this difficult problem at least for some

parts of the food industry has recently been suggested. A number

31
of viscous or semisolid products have customarily been sold by liquid measure. These products may shrink through loss of air or for other

reasons, but they do not lose weight. Therefore, it seems to be becoming more and more prevalent to label such products by weight rather

than by liquid measure. This change in the method of sale is probably

authorized by Section 25 of the Model Law and Section 3. 2 of the

Model Regulation, particularly if State officials are sympathetic to the difficult problem which faces industry.

Prescribed Units and Fractions.

Section 3. 5 of the Model Regulation requires that a declaration of

quantity be expressed in terms of the largest whole unit of weight or measure. An alternative to this requirement has been suggested, I

believe by Mr. D. W. Leeper of H. J. Heinz Company. Mr. Leeper

suggests that weight declarations of ten pounds or less, or one gallon

or less, be in ounces and fractions or decimal parts of an ounce unless

the quantity declaration is accompanied by a declaration of both the

price per unit of quantity and the total price. This "All Ounce" sys- tem has the advantage of facilitating price comparisons, and is in- cluded in S. 985 which was recently passed by the United States

Senate.

One other suggestion concerning the declaration of quantity should

be made in regard to the binary submultiple system—a term which

Mr. C. D. Baucom introduced me to about ten years ago. Section 3.6 of the Model Regulation provides that

Declarations of quantity may employ common frac- tions or decimal fractions

and requires that a common fraction be in terms of halves, quarters,

eighths, sixteenths, or thirty-seconds and be reduced to its lowest

terms. Frequently a manufacturer finds it necessary or desirable,

for example because of the size of servings, or for recipes or for vari- ous dietary reasons, to package a food in fractions of an ounce which

are not part of the binary submultiple system. In such instances, the

manufacturer is forced to show on his label for example, "6.33 ounces"

rather than "6% ounces," even though the latter may be more meaningful to most consumers. I realize that the binary submultiple sys- tem had valid and justifiable reasons for its original inclusion in the

law, but those reasons are no longer valid as is evidenced by the provision authorizing use of the decimal equivalent of fractions which are not binary submultiples. So even though it was historically sound,

and even though I love to say "binary submultiple," it seems to me

that public interest in the simplification of quantity statements should

lead you to consider amending Section 3.6 to relegate the binary submultiple requirement to the archives and to permit declarations at

least in thirds of an ounce.

32
Prominence and Placement.

Finally, I should say a word about prominence and placement which

are so thoroughly covered by Section 26 of the Model Law and particularly by Section 6 of the Model Regulation. You will be glad to

hear, both for time and other reasons, that I have no suggestions for

amendments. Section 6 is a perfect example of how consumers benefit when enforcement officials and industry cooperate to reach a, desired goal. The Committee on Laws and Regulations of the National

Conference—Mr. Barker, Mr. Littlefield, and Mr. Lewis as Chairmen,

and Mr. Goforth, Mr. Gustafson, Mr. Jennings, Mr. Lyles, Mr. Turrell, and very importantly Mr. Bussey and Mr. Jensen have made a great contribution in their work on Section 6, and the Industry Committee on Weights and Measures under the able chairmanship of Mr.

Frank Dierson, and with Mr. James Bell and Mr. Harvey Hensel as vice chairmen and Mr. John Speer as secretary also deserves our deep

appreciation. If there is any way in which the Industry Committee

can be helpful—or any way in which I can personally be helpful as a State legislator who has had the experience of shepherding a model

food bill through the legislature—-we are of course at your disposal.

The reciprocal cooperation of the Industry Committee and the National Conference, as Mr. Hensel said this morning, will inevitably

keep the Model Law and Regulation vital and viable in our mutual

endeavor to serve consumers.

ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

by J. H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Washington

Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington

I must admit that it was with a great deal of

reluctance and no small amount of procrastination that I accepted the challenge to present

this paper on a subject such as this. When

Mr. Jensen suggested I discuss one subject of

intelligent enforcement of the Model Law and

Regulations, my immediate reaction was "that's

not for me." However, when I went to Mr.

Webster's dictionary, I found that intelligence was defined as "the ability to learn or understand from experience." I said, "Man, that's for me." For if anyone ever had a great deal

to learn in weights and measures it was your

speaker. I took a new look at the possibility, a new evaluation of what

I had learned during my association with weights and measures and

33
felt that possibly I would have something worthwhile to share with

you.

Please pardon the personal reference but, as a background, I will

point out that, at the time I took my present position in November of

1958, our jurisdiction was in the throes of formulating new weights

and measures legislation to be presented to the legislative body in less than 60 days. Many hours had been spent in conference, drafting and

redrafting, and in numerous meetings with industry, local weights

and measures people, and many others. All seemed to have different

opinions about what should or should not be included in a weights and

measures law.

A call for help was made to the NBS Office of Weights and Measures

and it came in the person of Mr. Jensen. This resulted in the scrapping

of our cumbersome drafts and, after burning a little midnight oil, the

Model State Law on Weights and Measures, with a few minor changes, was slipped into place. With the help of favorable legislative committees, the Bill was guided through the Legislature in the spring of

1959.

The sense of pride in our new law quickly gave way to realization we had a responsibility to promulgate the regulations which the new

law required. In this area also help was solicited from the Office of

Weights and Measures and resulted in the adoption of the Model State

Regulation Pertaining to Packages in March 1960. These facts are

recited only to show that it has been our privilege to work with these

tools for almost seven years. I would not intimate that we in the State of Washington had a more

difficult time enacting a new statute than any other jurisdiction. As

a matter of fact, it seemed the opposition melted and many objections were overcome by the magic words "Model Law." This did not eliminate, nor has it yet eliminated, the need for public education and self enlightenment in the proper administration of these tools of enforcement. Training personnel to assure uniform interpretation in the field became the first order of business. To meet the inquiries of different

industries necessitated meetings, conferences and sometimes pleasurable luncheons to attain a meeting of minds on interpretation of sec- tions in question. It seems this is a never-ending process. Personnel

must be brought together at regular intervals to review policies, procedures and practical application of what the law demands. Our ever changing world about us puts great demands on our ingenuity and

creative imagination to keep up with it. Even a "model" law must be

updated frequently. The authority to promulgate rules and regulations provides a means to quickly and easily meet changes in merchandising methods that could not be foreseen when the law was enacted. Only through such rules and regulations can we enjoy the

flexibility needed to meet the changes we encounter. The importance

34
of this mobility cannot be over-emphasized. This however warrants

a word of caution as it is a thing that can be overdone. Too many

regulations have a tendency toward confusion and even frustration if profusion develops into contradictions.

Beyond a doubt our predecessors, who have met through the years

as the National Conference on Weights and Measures, would be thrilled

with the attainments exemplified in the current Model Weights and

Measures Law and Regulation. It thrills me to observe the progress

made in the few short years it has been my pleasure to be in the weights

and measures field. I don't believe there has ever been a finer spirit

of cooperation between industry as a whole and those of us charged

with the responsibility of enforcement. The recent development of the

prominence and placement sections of the Model Regulation stands out

as a memorial to such fine cooperation.

It is one thing to theorize on enforcement and another thing to make

a practical application of the cold, hard words that make up a law or

regulation. We have all met those who would lead us to believe they

enforced the letter of the law but in actual practice it has proved otherwise. It is my firm belief the laws are established for the purpose of

meeting the most demanding of situations and are meant to be tempered with justice and practicality. This does not mean we should

bend the law to meet personal whims or demands from pressure groups,

who have special interests, at the expense of uniform application. It means that each case and each situation commands an analysis of the

factors involved to determine the proper course of action. If the conditions demand such action the full extent of the law is available. We

have been advised that under the law an offender has the right to know

what the law requires of him. This is in disagreement with the often

used quote that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." While this may

be true we have found that in most instances when the requirements

are made known cooperative compliance has resulted. The term "in

most instances" is used advisedly because there are those who have no intention of complying until they are forced to do so. For these

few, laws and regulations might be strictly applied. I do not hope to intimate here that the State of Washington has

achieved the ultimate in enforcement. Frankly, many times I feel we

are far from it. Nevertheless we do enjoy reasonable compliance

within our jurisdiction. I would say the greatest single contributing

factor in this achievement is the fine cooperation and rapport we have

with the local jurisdictions.

Our law requires that each First Class city of 50,000 population or over must maintain their own Weights and Measures Program. We

have four such cities in Washington and they each contribute toward

the enforcement goal. This is done by carrying out an active program

in their respective jurisdiction, attending our statewide conferences or

35
training sessions and responding quickly and efficiently when called

upon to assist in an investigation, complaint or infraction. Many of

the local personnel have been in weights and measures much longer

than I and their counsel and advice has frequently helped over some

rough spots. I am pleased to say that two of our cities currently have

the Model City Ordinance in effect and the City of Seattle is running

the gauntlet of public hearings and will soon adopt it. Therefore we

basically have the tools. Now, it is a matter of using them to accomplish the desired end.

What is the desired end and how do we accomplish it? However

trite, I'm sure each of us would agree the desired end is "compliance"

with the requirements of the law and regulations. To accomplish this

end is the task to which we have all dedicated our best efforts. Planning plays no small part in effective enforcement. We have re- cently heard much of the terms "long-range" or "multiyear" planning.

This involves projection of programs, budget, personnel and personnel training into the future. In each of these areas we must have

goals that become targets toward which we direct our efforts. It has been said that one of the most challenging characteristics of

the American industrial and economic system is the persistency of

change. New marketing techniques, new products, new packaging

methods, new weighing and measuring devices and new demands for

laboratory services are just a few of the areas in which we must develop a perspective of what tomorrow's demands may be. While

many segments of industry are spending millions in research for new

products, better methods or new devices, governmental agencies are not blessed with funds to make exhaustive surveys or investigations

into the developments in these area. As a result, governmental agencies are consistently lagging behind or failing entirely to meet their

responsibility, either to the industries to provide guidelines or to the

public to provide protection.

The State of Washington is not unique as a jurisdiction whose tax

dollars never seem to reach far enough to provide the service or protection her many agencies feel we should provide. A growing population such as we have in our State puts a constant strain on manpower

available in our agencies to meet the demands. It is most improbable

that we will receive enough tax dollars to provide an inspector for each

50,000 population. We also note that with the added emphasis on

prepackage checking and the advent of multiple shopping centers this

figure has now been revised and it is suggested an inspector for each

30,000 population. An even more impossible goal for us to achieve.

The obvious answer is more detailed planning to better use the available manpower to meet tomorrow's situation. While this may seem

to be afield from effective law enforcement, it is very definitely a part

of the picture. To be effective, one must budget dollars for the neces36
sary equipment and provide careful program planning to utilize the

manpower you are able to hire. For budgetary purposes, we keep an accurate record of manhours

devoted to (1) different classifications of equipment inspected and (2)

prepackage inspection on a basis of lots and travel time. On a basis

of actual count or conservative estimates, we are able to evaluate what

kind of a job we are doing to meet our responsibility. I will not burden you with details, but just repeat : It is evident that under the pres- ent system and population growth, we can never meet the manpower

requirement. I don't believe this problem is limited to the State of

Washington. I read recently that by 1985 it is anticipated our national population will increase from the current 196 million to 266

million. Based on one inspector for each 30,000 population this would

mean an increase of over 2,300 inspectors in the U.S. or about a seventy

percent increase in weights and measures personnel. Where can we

find tax dollars to provide such an increase ? We shall return to the

solution of this problem a little later. At this point I would like to return to the Model Law and emphasize some of the effective tools available under its provision and especially in the field of prepackaging. In most instances of short weight

or measure a simple "off-sale" action is all that is necessary to secure compliance by reweighing or remeasuring a particular lot of merchandise. On occasion, one finds a merchant that is somewhat reluctant to cooperate with the inspector. We have found the "stop-order" provision very effective. We had our stop-order forms printed on letter

size sheets with the words "STOP ORDER" in bright red % inch let- ters. We have not had an incident to date where a stop-order taped

to a display of merchandise did not bring immediate compliance.

In many instances of "off-sale" action we found that frequently the

store manager was not immediately available to receive a copy of the

"off-sale" report. So the meat manager, the butcher, or other subordinate, who had a personal interest in the matter, made sure the store manager was not aware of our findings. As a result our reports were

often filed in the waste basket. We plugged this loophole by sending

out a follow-up form letter in each "off-sale" incident either to the

store manager, home office of the chain, or to the responsible packer

setting forth the location, date, items and reason for our actions. The

effectiveness of this follow-up is exemplified by the number of phone

calls we receive from all over the United States from packers requesting additional information on a particular lot of their product which we have moved against. I might also add that while these letters do

not provide a basis for prosecution they are quite effective when placed

in front of the prosecuting attorney as an indication of previous of- fences and to show that the offender has been reminded of what we had

found.

37
As most of you know, the Model Law provides that we can only prohibit the sale of short weight or short measure merchandise. Whether

the merchant repacks, if possible, or returns the lot to the packer is up to him. We sometimes suspected short weight lots only found

their way to other outlets or other States. One of our inspectors had

an occasion to overhear one end of a telephone conversation regarding

a lot of short weight bacon he had just ordered off sale. The butcher

readily admitted the wholesale representative had instructed him to simply hold the lot of bacon until the inspector had gone then put it back on the shelf. The wholesaler had assured the butcher that they

would protect him by issuing a credit memo for the shortage in case the

inspector made a follow-up on the disposition of the lot. This incident

prompted us to take steps to control the off-sale items. We procured

a steel die set of % inch letters as well as % inch rubber alphabet let- ters. These were mounted in wooden stamp handles. Each inspector was assigned a different letter. Impressions are made at the lower

right-hand end of the brand name, on the principal panel, either with

the steel die or firm cardboard cartons, or with the rubber letter and

non-toxic, quick-drying ink on soft or frozen items. Each of the local jurisdictions and the Pacific coast States were alerted to our system.

Each off-sale package is marked and the prepackage report indicates

the number of individual packages stamped with the inspector's identifying letter. The letters are big enough for identification but still do

not mutilate the package if the packer desires to repack utilizing the

original container. Our inspectors are advised that any lots found

bearing any other inspector's letter are to be rechecked in case it had

been repacked and brought into compliance. I must be frank and admit that although we had one prior case which resulted in a $75.00 bond

forfeiture involving re-submitting off-sale items that had not been cor- rected, we have not found an opportunity to take action under this

system. We are, however, reasonably sure that it is an invaluable

deterrent to those who might otherwise try to avoid costly repacking.

Some two years ago we provided our inspectors with a form to re- port incidents of mislabeling. In all cases where a quantity statement

failed to appear, off-sale action was taken. If it involves a technical

infraction such as qualifying terms or failure to express the quantity

statement in the largest applicable unit, the report form was made out and the necessary correspondence and follow-up was carried on from

the Olympia office. To keep the local city jurisdictions and our State

inspectors abreast of developments, each infraction was given a number and, after a sizable list was developed, a master sheet was mailed

to each. Thereafter, supplements were supplied showing new contacts or those that had complied either with corrections or a given date when

we could expect new labels to appear on the shelves. In keeping with

guidelines set up at our Western Weights and Measures Conference in

Boise in 1962, reasonable periods of time were allowed for corrections

38
of plates and dies and utilization of existing supplies of labels. In

this area we are pleased to report the effort expended by our office, several other States, and the common desire of all industries to abide

with legal requirements has resulted in a Aery gratifying program.

The cooperation of manufacturers, packers, printers, labelers and

carton manufacturers has been very pleasing. With new companies

and new products requiring education and follow-up it seems to be a never ending job. We must give credit to the fine effort made on the

part of many of the nationwide industry associations to apprise their

members of labeling requirements. I feel this, more than any other

single effort, has brought about improved labeling. I would like to mention one other form which we developed lately

that might be of benefit to you in your prepackage work. No doubt

many of you have adopted the standard prepackage report form (suggested by the Office of Weights and Measures) or a facsimile thereof.

We found that completing a form for each approved lot checkweighed or measured was time consuming and used lots of paper and

postage. We have now developed a single sheet designed to list the

pertinent information on ten different lots. The information includes

the name and address of the store, name and address of the manufacturer, packer or distributor, lot numbers or code, number sampled,

number in the lot, and size of the individual units. It has been esti- mated the use of this form will save us some $200 a year in postage

and increase the number of lots checked by at least twenty-five percent.

We still make out the regular perpackage form on any lots ordered off sale and process them in the normal manner.

I have not recited the foregoing activities with any intention of bragging but rather for the single purpose to emphasize some of the tools available under the Model Law and Regulation.

As we look for solutions to our problems, we realize that planning

is a continuous process. This involves establishing goals and formulating plans of action which will allocate available resources in the

most effective and economical manner possible to achieve our goals.

Our task is complicated by such factors as economic change, unusual

growth in population, and the resulting increase in responsibilities.

Where do we go from here? How do we meet the problem of the

limited tax dollar? Where do we find a solution to an inadequate

number of inspectors?

We have been embarrassed frequently when reminded by a device owner that the date on the approval seal indicates that an inspector had

not called on him for two and sometimes three years. What I'm say- ing is that with our growing responsibility we find it impossible to comply with the mandatory annual inspection of commercial weighing and measuring devices. We are also concerned that on many

occasions we are faced with an irate owner, when we find the error in

248-760 O—67 4 39
his device is costing him money, blaming us because we had not made

an inspection earlier to advise him of the error. It is doubtful that

this attitude is limited to our jurisdiction. Such incidents emphasize

that we have lost sight of the original purpose of mechanical inspection. I believe I am correct in assuming it was for the purpose of

determining that the owner was maintaining the accuracy of his device.

There is no doubt many contributing factors to the decline of this

ideal. An over-emphasized sense of service to the taxpayer, patronage,

and a desire for good public relations are some we might mention.

In the interest of meeting our responsibility to all our constituents we

have attempted to evaluate how we might more effectively use our manpower. This involved considering available tax dollars to provide

men and equipment to meet the intent of a weights and measures program. It was evident that we had the necessary tools. These consisted of a good law, reasonably modem regulations, an effective educational program, a basis for prosecution when necessary, modern

test equipment, and well-trained personnel throughout the State and

local jurisdictions. What is our next step ? Where do we go from

here? We believe improvement lies in the area of mechanical

inspection.

We have been watching with interest the "Selective Testing" program in the State of Wisconsin. We believe it has a lot of merit, particularly in placing the responsibility for accuracy where it belongs

with the device owner. We further feel that utilizing such a program

is the only way we will ever be able to adequately deploy our personnel

and equipment. We are currently taking steps to amend our law

to delete the requirement for annual testing and approval. We sin- cerely hope that the 1967 Legislature will recognize our need in this area and modify our statute to permit selective testing. The budgetary

scramble for the tax dollar is a common sports event in nearly all jurisdictions. We have it and I'm sure everyone of you who have

budget responsibilities join in the competition every financial period.

It seems the budget committee becomes impervious to the adjectives one uses to describe the needs. One cannot give up but must continue

in the conflict to obtain the dollars available for men and equipment.

Continued population growth and added responsibility demands an expanding program based upon projected needs. History and ex- perience dictate that we cannot hope for budget dollars to grow as rapidly as a booming economy. This results in an obligation to care- fully analyze the best possible method to expend the funds allotted

for your program. Intelligent use of the tools of enforcement available to us, coupled with long range planning and proper deployment

of manpower is what we intend to use in the State of Washington to produce the best possible program.

40
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE MODEL STATE LAW

ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

by G. A. Christentson, Assistant General Counsel for Science and

Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce

It is a pleasure to appear before this Fiftyfirst National Conference on Weights and

Measures. The first Model State Law on Weights and Measures, adopted forty-five years

ago by the Sixth National Conference on Weights and Measures, has been the subject of

continued study over the years. Succeeding

conferences have revised the Model Law as seemed desirable.

Individual States have used the Model Law as a basis upon which individual State laws could

be enacted. I understand that the legislatures

of 21 States have enacted the Model Law in substantially its present form. The laws of the remaining States differ

from the Model Law, some in a few respects, and some in many. Thus,

the States have many varying versions of law on weights and measures.

I cannot discuss all of these different statutes in the time available, but

must confine myself to the present version of the Model Law.

In recommending improvements to State weights and measures laws,

and in administering those laws, the State members of this Conference

must find a reasonable balance between conflicting interests. On the one hand, there is your duty to protect the citizens of your States

against inaccurate use or false marking of weights and measures. On

the other hand, we find a national need to promote the flow of commerce through uniform national weights and measures to minimize

the burdens on the exchange of goods and services across State boundaries. Also, there is the goal of avoiding unreasonable discrimination against those who actually exchange goods and services—the producer, the distributor, the user or consumer. Our society believes it

is good to have the widest sharing and distribution of these goods and

services. Fully aware of the dangers of oversimplistic solutions, I

shall attempt to clarify some problems which can arise in administering the Model State Law on Weights and Measures and make suggestions when appropriate.

Any review of the Model Law must begin with an understanding of

the relationship between Federal and State regulation of commerce

generally, and weights and measures in particular. This paper will

consider, first, the legal aspects of this problem. The next problem I

will discuss is what constitutional limitations there are on the power

of the States to regulate interstate commerce. Generally, these lim41
itations include the "burden on interstate commerce" doctrine and the

due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. Third and last, this paper will examine constitutional limitations upon State exercise

of police power, and I will touch on the search and seizure problem

under recent Supreme Court decisions.

Federal-State Regulation of Weights and Measures: Preemption.

There are several expi'ess powers in the Constitution which authorize

the Congress to regulate weights and measures nationally through pre- emption. The most pertinent, but least used, provision occurs in Article

I, Section 8, Clause 5, which gives the Congress the power to "fix the

standards of weights and measures." Congress has only exercised this

power in part, and not to the extent of preempting the States from reg- ulating weights and most measures. In the 1830's, Congress authorized the distribution of standard weights and measures to the States,

and they have been uniformly adopted as the basis for State regulation of weights and measures. In 1866, Congress authorized use of

the Metric System of weights and measures in the United States. The

Act of 1866 1 makes legal the use of metric units and thereby limits

the States from prohibiting the expression of weights or measures in

those units. Of course, the States still may require sellers to include

customary units in addition to metric units. A measure now before

Congress would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study to determine whether and to what extent the Nation should convert to the use of the Metric System. Congress has established national units of electrical and photometric measurement for the United

States. 2 Congress also has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and

has used this authority more generously in weights and measures matters closely connected with products affecting health or safety. Fortunately, the mere existence in the Congress of the power over inter- state commerce, or the partial exercise thereof, has not excluded or prevented the States from imposing certain types of regulation upon

interstate commerce, in the absence of Federal regulation totally

occupying the field. This issue was settled in 1851 in the case of

Oooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, 12 Howard

299, decided in 1851.3 State power over interstate commerce has been

limited, however, by subsequent decisions protecting interstate commerce against undue burden or discrimination, as I will discuss later. Otherwise, the States still have the power to regulate commerce to the extent that Congress has not preempted the field in the process of regulating interstate commerce.

1 Act of July 28, 1866, 14 Stat. 339, R. S. Sections 3569, 3570 (15 U.S.C. 204, 205).

2 Act of July 21, 1950, as amended (15 U.S.C. 223, 224).

3 For earlier cases leading to this decision, see Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheaton

(17 U.,S.) 122, 192-197 (1819), Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheaton (18 U.S.) 1 (1820), Willson

v. Black-bird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. (27 U.S.) 245, 251, 252 (1829).

42
The principal exercise by Congress of the interstate commerce power

in a manner affecting State regulation of weights and measures, is what is now called the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Section 403 of the Act (Section 343 of Title 21 of the United States Code)

states that a food shall be deemed to be misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular, if its container is so made,

formed, or filled as to misleading or, if it is in package form, unless

it bears a label containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor and an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count

with certain minor exceptions. There are other Federal acts containing weights and measures provisions such the Meat Inspection Act

and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. The question is to what

extent do they preempt State action.

An early case, construing the effect of similar provisions in the Food

and Drug Act of 1906, held that they did not fully preempt the field. In Savage v. Jones. 225 U. S. 501, decided in 1912, a statute of the

State of Indiana required that a certain proprietary food have on its label a list of ingredients and minimum percentages of crude fat and

crude protein and the maximum percentage of crude fiber. A proviso

in the Federal Food and Drugs Act stated that the Act was not to be

construed as requiring manufacturers of proprietary foods, containing no unwholesome added ingredients, to disclose their trade formula,

with certain exceptions not material here. The Supreme Court con- strued the Federal Act as not limiting State power to require additional information on containers of the product sold within the State. The Court stated that congressional intent to restrict the exercise by

the State of this police power is not to be implied unless the act of

Congress fairly interpreted is in actual conflict with the law of the

State. Later cases cast further light on the relationship between Federal

and State laws on labeling of packages. They show that a State may

not require the substitution of a State-approved label for a Federally

approved label.4 However, the State may reasonably require additional material to be placed upon a label so long as it does not require

the removal of Federally-approved information from the label. 5 As

further examples, the States may regulate production of commodities

within their boundaries even though some of the commodities will flow

into interstate commerce, so long as they do not act in a manner in- consistent with acts of Congress.'1 State regulation may reach the

packaging of foods in certain standard quantities.7

* ilcDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U.S. 115 (1913).

5 Corn Products Refining Co. v. Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 (1919).

« Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52 (1915). Armour d Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U.S. 510 (1916). Opinions by Justice Holmes on

State power to regulate retail sale of food are found in Weigle v. Curtice Brothers Co., 248

U.S. 285 (1919) and Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 294 (1919).

43
The modern case-law which we have found on preemption appears

to fall into three general categories

1. Areas of law inherently requiring national uniformity.

2. Areas of law where Congress has either expressly indicated its intent on preemption of State law, or has expressly indicated a strong Federal interest in achieving national uniformity.

3. Areas where the intent of Congress is not clear. Federal preemption clearly occurs in areas of law inherently requiring national uniformity. A leading example of this doctrine is the

Federal alien registration system, which requires clear national standards. The Supreme Court has distinguished this type of preemption

from cases involving State laws regulating the labels on containers

of food.8 Though it may be desirable, national uniformity for food

labels is not an inherent necessity. A congressional intent, therefore,

must be found before preemption occurs. In Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corporation, 331 U.S. 218, decided in

1947, the Supreme Court found an express indication of intent to pre- empt in the legislative history of a 1931 amendment to the U.S. Warehouse Act. In that case, the Court ruled that if the matter on which

the State asserted the right to act was in a way regulated by the Federal act, the Federal scheme prevailed even though it was more moderate and less pervasive as a regulatory plan than that of the State. On the other hand, if the Federal act made no attempt to regulate in

certain areas, then State law still applied. In a more recent case, legislative history showed a strong intent to provide a uniform system

throughout the United States for the grading of tobacco under the

Federal Tobacco Inspection Act. Therefore, the Act was held to pre- empt the field as against a State law requiring additional information

to appear on graded tobacco sold within the State.9 In a case decided this January, the Supreme Court found evidence

of a congressional design not to preempt a field from State regulation.10 Over a vigorous dissent, the Court carefully reviewed the legislative

history of Public Law 88-108, authorizing arbitration of certain rail- road labor disputes, and held that the Act and arbitration award made

under it were not intended by Congress to preempt the full crew laws

of any State. The dissent by Justice Douglas stressed the national

character of the problems of automation and technological change.

He argued that these require national treatment which was inherent

in the arbitration law.

The troublesome case is one where someone must act, but neither

State nor Federal officials know whether Congress intended Federal

preemption. The Supreme Court has decided some of these cases in recent times, where congressional intent was not clear. For instance,

s Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 68 (1941).

» Campbell v. Hussey, 368 U.S. 297 (1961).

io Engineers v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 382 U.S. 423 (1966).

44
the Court held that the City of Detroit could impose smoke emission

standards upon vessels subject to Federal inspection and licensed for

operation in interstate commerce.11 The Federal inspection was not

for compliance with emission standards, but rather for compliance

with standards of vessel and boiler safety. The city smoke abatement

ordinance was clearly within the lawful exercise of State police power

to protect local health.

The significant case of Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S.

132, decided in 1962, held a Federal standard for avocado harvesting

did not preempt a different California standard on the same subject matter. The Federal standard was established under the Federal

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The standard established dates for picking avocados which were recommended each year

by a local committee in Florida, and approved each year by the Secre- tary of Agriculture. The California agricultural code used a different

standard which prohibited the sale within the State of California of

avocados containing less than eight percent of oil by weight. In

recent years, approximately six percent of the Florida avocados

shipped to California had been rejected as not meeting the California

eight percent oil content test. The question was whether the Federal

standard for the harvesting of Florida avocados preempted the California standard, preventing its application to Florida avocados sold

at retail in California. The opinion of the five-member majority of

the Court considered many factors in reaching its conclusion, including

the histories of the two statutes, the method by which the Federal

standard was determined, and the interest of the State of California

in preventing the marketing to its citizens of unwholesome food. The

Court held that the intent of Congress in the Federal act was to provide a mechanism for regulating the processing of food prior to its marketing to the public. Therefore, the Federal standard did not

preempt the California State standard. It should be noted, however,

that the case was sent back to the District Court for further findings.

It was not clear from the record whether the California standard dis- criminated against Florida fruit, because of differences between the

different varieties grown in the two States. If the California oil test was too strict a test for the variety of avocado grown in Florida, it would be held to be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce,

as I shall cover later. In a third recent case,

12 a newspaper and a radio station were lo- cated in New Mexico near the border with Texas. A New Mexico

court ordered the newspaper and radio station to stop publishing and

broadcasting advertising of a nearby Texas optometrist in violation

of a New Mexico statute governing the practice of optometry. The

u Huron Cement Co. v. Detroit,, 362 U.S. 440 (1960).

12 Head v. New Mexico Board, 374 U.S. 424 (1963).

45
Supreme Court was asked to reverse as to the radio station on the

ground that preemption by the Federal Communication Act prevented

the State from imposing any form of regulation on radio stations.

The Court stated that the Congress had given the Federal Communications Commission no specific mandate in this area and that there was no showing of actual conflict between regulation under the Federal Communications Act and the State law prohibiting advertising by

optometrists within the State. On the other hand,, the State statute was found to be a measure directly addressed to the protection of the

public health and clearly within the area closely identified with State

interest. The Count stated that since this was not in an area of law

inherently requiring national uniformity, there must exist such actual

conflict between the two schemes of regulation that both cannot stand

in the same area, or else there must be evidence of a congressional design to preempt the field, before the State statute can be held unenforceable against radio stations. The Court found evidence of neither

in this case and affirmed the judgment of injunction.

The above cases indicate that where Congress has not expressly in- dicated its intent, the courts will recognize legitimate State interests

in the protection of State citizens, if the State's law is not in actual conflict with Federal law or its basic purposes. These conclusions apply

to current laws, such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

and similar laws providing weights and measures authority within the

general area of product inspection.

The Congress is now considering a Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act which, in its present form, would expressly preempt conflicting

State law in an area that is now largely subject to State control, on

the grounds that national uniformity in sizes labeling, weights, and

quantities of consumer commodities is desirable not only as a basis for

exchanging products nationally, but also to provide increased status to the consumer from a national point of view. If advertising is na- tionwide, so also consumer interests should be expressed nationally.

The Doctrine of Undue Burden on Interstate Commerce.

Even where Congress has not preempted the field, the Federal courts may strike down any State regulation that is so arbitrary in its operation as to violate'the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and any State regulation over interstate commerce that constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce or

that discriminates unduly against out-of-State manufacturers and

shippers.

These doctrines are basic constitutional concepts in the area of standards and laws regulating the exchange of goods and services. As we

explore these judicial doctrines, we will note a shift in emphasis of

the case-law from giving reference to the right to contract to support46
ing the right of State and Federal Governments to establish law

that is concerned with the functional status of particular goods and

services. Formerly the courts recognized rights to contract with re- spect to any goods or services, with less emphasis on the overriding

public interest. That means we now look to weights and measures

laws or product standards as the common ground on which goods are exchanged. Xo longer in a complex product, line is freedom of contract

caveat emptor—sufficient to continue its leavening and freeing

effect. The freedom to contract opened the new law merchant and

produced the commerce that helped stabilize and restructure modern

Europe and the "West. Economic freedom was important to the merchants and guilds. For the serf who was tied literally to the land,

this new-found freedom gave him and others independence.

Xow the consumer needs standards to choose by. Even more, he

should participate in the process by which those standards for aiding

choice are issued, for in the market place he buys according to the

established standards. Sensible weights and measures regulations

always try to bring producer and user together at a common meeting

ground.

The doctrine of undue burden on interstate commerce seems to be

moving toward national standards for exchanging goods and services,

for it intervenes where there are burdensome or conflicting State re- quirements. Since the consumer now is receiving national status as

a participant in commerce, the undue burden doctrine could well be

used to reflect this status. This Conference has always been con- cerned with the relationship between the purported quantity of goods,

in a sale thereof, and the actual quantity. It has always sought to provide uniform protection for the consumer in these sales. So the

movement toward national weights and measures and national product

standards is a continuation and expansion of efforts of the sort that

your Conference has engaged in for more than half a century. Let

me be emphatic here. I am not referring to national in the sense of

Federal, but rather in the sense of national uniformity to reduce burdens on Commerce. As we see, when the burdens become too great,

the Federal courts step in to protect the country's interest in reducing

barriers to a genuinely national system of exchanging goods and

services. Consider two cases illustrating a change in thought toward efforts of the States to set minimum standards for goods and services with

the consumer in mind. In 1924, the Supreme Court held invalid

a Nebraska statute which set maximum and minimum tolerances over a period of 24 hours for the weights of both wrapped and un- wrapped loaves of bread. The Court held that the statute violated the

due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.13 There was

13 Jay Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U.S. 504 (1924).

47
evidence, particularly as to unwrapped loaves, that loaves baked to meet the maximum weight tolerance would fall below the minimum

weight tolerance before the end of 24 hours by reason of ordinary

shrinkage on dry days. There was also contrary evidence relied

upon by the State legislature and the State courts in approving the

statute. Furthermore, the 14th National Conference on Weights and

Measures had considered and endorsed legislation similar to the

Nebraska statute. Justices Brandeis and Holmes disagreed with the

Court. They dissented on the ground that in dismissing the evidence

accepted by the State legislature and the State courts and relying upon

the contrary evidence, in effect, the court was acting as a superlegislature. Section 33 of the Model State Law on Weights and Measures

reflects a reasonable balance between the majority and minority of the

Court. The tolerances are not fixed by statute, but by regulation, so that while tolerances are necessary, they may vary.

So, in 1924, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional an attempt

by Nebraska to impose certain standards upon bread. The obligation

of contract was still being given preferred treatment as against the

interest of the States or Nation in protecting citizens against deceptive

practices in consumer items. However, the Court takes a different

view today, and has even commented upon the 1924 case, in a recent

case. The opinion by Justice Black stated that the doctrine of the

1924 case, and like cases, ". . . that due process authorizes courts to hold laws unconstitutional when they believe the legislature has acted

unwisely—has long since been discarded." 14 The courts now generally leave considerations of economic due

process to the legislatures. In this respect the Supreme Court has

been passive. However, it has been active in other areas of law

as you know in civil rights and reapportionment, where Constitutional

limitations on the powers of the States are being given effect. Considering the Constitutional limitations on the States not to place un- due burdens on interstate commerce, the Court could very well be- come active in encouraging national standards for goods and services to protect the consumer and national producers and distributors.

A possible extension of the undue burden doctrine could limit the

States' power to impose weights and measures laws which interfere

with the national and perhaps even international flow of commerce

from producer to distributor to consumer. Only four months ago, a three-judge district court considered a State law requiring special labeling of meats and meat products of

foreign origin and a special license to sell them. The Court held

the law unconstitutional for imposing an undue burden on interstate

and foreign commerce.13 This doctrine, which is pertinent to modern

14 Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 730 (1963).

15 Tupman Thurlow Co. v. Moss, 252 F.S. 641 (1965).

48
problems arising out of the movement of goods and services in interstate and foreign commerce, arose in the 19th century out of the

efforts of States to regulate portions of interstate railroads.16 Some

forms of regulation have been permitted, but others have been over- turned by the Supreme Court on the ground that they burdened, interfered with, or discriminated against, interstate commerce. Recent

Supreme Court cases continue to apply this doctrine.

Before considering the degree of burden on commerce, the courts

will look to see if Congress has acted through positive legislation

to preempt the field. In the leading case of Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, decided in 1945, Justice Stone's opinion care- fully reviewed an Arizona law limiting the length of all trains in the

State to 70 cars for freight trains and 14 cars for passenger trains.

First he showed that the law was not in an area of law preempted by

any Federal statute. He then examined the facts showing that, even though the measure was enacted as a safety measure the railroads

in Arizona had no better safety records than railroads in neighboring

States without such train limit laws. He then showed that interstate commerce through Arizona was being materially delayed because

longer trains had to be broken in two at one Arizona border, and re- assembled at the other. Furthermore, the State Law was shown to decrease railroad operating efficiency and economy.

The Court, after balancing the interests of the State in enacting a

safety measure shown to have at most slight and dubious advantage,

and the interests of the nation in having efficient interstate commerce,

concluded that the train length law was an undue burden on interstate commerce. Justice Black dissented on the ground that this case was another example of the Court's acting as a superlegislature, but

it is quite clear from the majority opinion that the holding was not

based on the due process clause. Four years later, the Supreme Court

also overturned a New York statute regulating the purchase and shipping of milk in interstate commerce, over similar objections by Justices Black and Murphy and additional dissents by Justice Frankfurter and Rutledge.17 Interestingly enough, there was no dissent in the 1959 case of Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, 359 U.S. 520. That case held an Illinois statute requiring a contour mudguard on all trucks using the State's highways

to be undue burden on interstate commerce. There was conflicting

evidence as to whether the mudguard was more efficient than ordinary

mudguards. Trailers used by motor carriers in other States could not

be used in Illinois, and it appeared that the mudguard required in Illi- nois was illegal in at least one other State. The Court balanced the

State interests against the interests of interstate commerce and de- cided that the heavy burden placed upon interstate commerce by the

"The doctrine was stated in 1886 in Wabash, St. L. & P.R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557.

1? Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949).

49
local measure outweighed the rather inconclusive showing of safety

benefit to Illinois residents.

In the 1963 Florida Avocado Growers case, which I outlined for you

earlier, the Court returned the case to the lower courts to determine

whether the California statute on avocados unduly discriminated

against the varieties of avocados grown in Florida. All these recent

cases suggest that it is not so simple a proposition to say that if the

Congress has not acted in the field the residual police power to protect

citizens rests with the States. The Supreme Court decisions seem to be

based increasingly on an analysis of all factors relevant and an assess- ment of whether the State law unduly interferes with a national flow

of commerce which may now include a national standing for the con- sumer in the flow of commerce. Now consider the case of flour shrinkage in interstate commerce. Assume that two flour mills market flour in a particular State, and that one mill is within the State, while the other is located outside the State some distance away. Under the Model State Law on Weights and

Measures and the interpretation recommended by the 44th National

Conference on Weights and Measures 18 the miller within the State

may pack his bags of flour for sale in the State at almost exactly the

net weight stated on the bag, with a very small allowance for the

shrinkage that will occur between its being packed and its first sale. However, the miller located outside the State must overpack, according to my understanding, by as much as two percent and in some cases four or perhaps five percent to allow for the shrinkage which may

normally and unavoidably occur between packing outside the State and

the first delivery within the State.19 As the Model Law is now written

and interpreted, the bag of flour shipped into the State must still meet

or exceed its stated net weight at the time of its entrance into the State

despite the unavoidable loss of moisture.

This statement of facts shows that as between the two producers

there is a clear preference in favor of the local producer under the

present Model Law. Is there an undue burden on interstate commerce,

however? The interests of the States and of consumers must be con- sidered before attempting to determine whether the discrimination

is reasonable or is unconstitutional.

There is a long history of regulation of weights and measures by the

community, dating back to ancient civilization. This long history is based upon practical needs, such as the needs of buyers to know how

much they are buying so they may make meaningful comparisons and

the needs of sellers to ensure that they may compete upon an equitable

and fair basis. Also important is the fact that in our national com18 Conference proceedings, p. 26 (1959).

19 See Anker, Geddes & Bailey, A Study of the Net Weight Changes and Moisture Content of Wheat Flour at Various Relative Humidities, 19 Cereal Chemistry 128, 147 (Janu- ary 1942).

50
merce, goods produced in one part of the country can be expected to be sold in many parts. Consequently, the State and the community

both have a very strong interest in protecting consumers and honest

businessmen against misstatements of weight or measure and to assure

the freest possible flow of commerce.

It can be argued that Federal statutes, such as section 403 of the

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, requiring statements of net weight on

foods shipped in interstate commerce offer sufficient protection of

the interests of the consumers in one State insofar as foods from other

States are concerned. However, we understand that the States may

have or may obtain evidence showing that additional State weights

and measures inspections are required if the wellbeing of citizens of

the State is to be protected.

It can be argued that to reduce the burden on out of State flour

millers a State should make moisture measurements of flour shipped

into the State to determine whether the bag of flour met or exceeded its stated net weight at the time it was packed. However, we understand

that it is not easy or inexpensive to measure the moisture of flour and

that existing testing methods are not as precise as we might desire. So

if the State inspects for actual net weight at the point of entry into

intrastate commerce, is the advantage to the local seller an undue burden on commerce ? In other words, is it reasonably related to protecting the legitimate consumer interests from a national point of view ? In 1891, for example, a Virginia statute which required the inspection

and labeling of all flour brought into the State for sale was held invalid

because flour produced in the State was not subject to inspection.20 A Madison, "Wisconsin ordinance, which excluded a foreign corporation from selling milk in the city solely because its pasteurization plants were more than five miles away met a similar fate.21 Depending on the facts, the Supreme Court in a case today could

well hold that the interests of national consumers and producers in the

flow of commerce in flour and other shrinkage items should be protected against the discrimination that may result under the presentModel Law. There are many Supreme Court cases holding that no

regulation of interstate commerce is preferable to forms of State

regulation that burden interstate Commerce.22 In some instances,

Congress has followed up these cases by imposing Federal regulation,

filling the void left by Court decision.

*>Voight v. Wright, 141 U.S. 62 (1891).

21 Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951).

23 See, for example, Wabash, St. L. & P.R. Co. v. Illinois, supra, denying States the power

to regulate rates and practices of interstate commerce by rail ; Pub. TJtil. Comm. v. Attle- boro Co., 273 U.S. 83 (1927) denying State Public Utility Commission the power to regulate rates for interstate sales of electricity ; Missouri v. Kansas Gas Co. 265 U.S. 298

(1924) denying State the power to regulate rates for interstate sales of natural gas.

51
In the case of flour shrinkage, such a decision would not even leave a void in the law because Federal law does already require accurate statements of net weight on food packages shipped in interstate commerce. The Court, might hold that the States can keep interstate packers from mulcting the public by establishing broader tolerances for

foods shipped into the State, accounting for the shrinkage that reason- ably may occur. On balance, I feel that there is a sufficient likelihood

that the present law could be held to be an unconstitutional burden

on interstate commerce to merit suggesting to the Conference that

it explore alternatives in protecting consumers from a national point of

view (though not necessarily Federal) where producers could also

have national uniform treatment. I also make this suggestion because

I know that this Conference earnestly seeks to ensure "that equity may

prevail," and the present distinction between in-State, and out-ofState food packagers of shrinkage products and their sales to consumers all over the country may be inequitable from the point of view of a national flow of commerce.

Specifically, a forward looking model law should reflect the national

interests of producers, distributors and consumers alike. A suggestion

I recommend for your consideration is that the Model Law be amended

by the insertion of a section instituting reciprocity among the States

in the area of weights and measures regulation and inspection of the net weighing of products. In addition to possible changes in sections 26

and 29, the new section would provide that a State would give

reciprocal treatment and respect to the weight of prepackaged commodities received from a State that inspects all of the prepackaged

shrinkage items produced in the State according to certain uniform

minimum standards recommended by this Conference. Thus, States

receiving goods shipped in interstate commerce would be giving full faith and credit to the inspections performed by officials of the States

in which goods originate, under uniform national standards, to protect

all consumers against short weighing by packers and at the same time

to reduce burdens on commerce. Present section 26 would have to extend States discretion to setting tolerances based upon the reciprocal

arrangement rather than from the point at which a product enters

intrastate commerce.

I realize that working out specific language to accomplish this purpose may take a little work. Some of the issues involved are rather

delicate. Nevertheless, I recommend this Conference take leadership

in setting national standards for exchanging goods on the basis of uniform weights and measures which treat national producers and

national consumers alike. If this approach can be successfully implemented, it will be inherently fairer to packers of shrinkage items as well as other items, and it will enable the States to protect their citizens at the same time as protecting all citizens against short weighing at

52
the time of packing. It could promote genuine national uniformity in

weights and measures without the need for Federal legislation. Ultimately, the Conference may have to redefine "intrastate commerce,"

which as it is presently defined in the Model Law rests on the traffic theory of commerce, whereas, a national theory of commerce as applied

by the Supreme Court would reject as artificial any line drawn as when

a sale or delivery to a common carrier for sale takes place.23 The proposed Fair Packaging and Labeling Act could also affect present State law on net weight statements on shrinkage consumer

commodities. The Act, as presently written and as passed the Senate,

would exclude three shrinkage commodities meat, poultry and tobacco,

but not flour. If the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

or the Federal Trade Commission determine that the required net quantity statement shall accurately reflect net quantity at the time

of entrance into interstate commerce, it could very well be held that

the States could not enforce any differing standard, such as net weight

at the time of entering intrastate commerce ( which is provided in the

Model State Law on Weights and Measures) upon commodities moving between the States.

Enforcement : Searches and Seizures.

Let us now turn to the enforcement provisions of the Model Law.

The Model Law in section 16 empowers the director of weights and

measures with special police powers. He may arrest without formal

warrant any violator. He may "seize for use as evidence" without

formal warrant any incorrect or unsealed weights or measures of packages of commodities sold or for sale in violation of law. He is authorized to enter "any structures or premises" without warrant and to stop any person and require him to go to a specific place. I should first comment on the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643,

decided in 1961, in which the Supreme Court held the search and

seizure provision of the fourth amendment of the Constitution applicable to the States through the due process clause of the fourteenth

amendment. The fourth amendment protects against "unreasonable

searches and seizures." This means there is a similar constitutional

requirement imposed on States. In most situations, State police offi- cers are required to obtain a search warrant based upon probable cause

53 The concept that commerce was traffic—that it began with an act of transportation from one State to another—resulted in a false deduction that the only commerce Congress may regulate is an act of transportation to the point of being wholly an intrastate matter. Such an artificial definition of commerce was perpetuated in the 1918 case of Hammer v. Da-genhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), which held that an act forbidding manufacturers and

others to offer child-made goods for transportation in interstate commerce was void as

violating the reserved powers of the States. This holding and rationale was overruled formally in 1941 by the case of United State* v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941). The Model

State Law on Weights and Measures has not adequately reflected the 1941 decision which

in effect rejected artificial distinctions between national and State flow of commerce.

53
and describing the place to be searched and the evidence to be seized

before performing search and seizure, if the evidence is to be admissible. This type of control is spelled out in the fourth amendment.

The principal exception to the rule allows search and seizure pursuant

to a lawful arrest. Arrest without formal warrant is constitutionally

permissible if, at the time of arrest, the officer had probable cause to believe that the person being arrested had committed, or was committing, an offense. 24 If an arrest is lawfully made, a reasonable search

and seizure of evidence may also be conducted.25 The fourth amendment protections apply to corporations and to business premises, but in a reduced manner. There must be an inquiry or investigation authorized by law, and the search must be restricted

to materials that are "adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of

the relevant inquiry." 26 Congress has exercised this authority in Section 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 374)

,

by authorizing Federal agents to enter at reasonable times, places

reasonably connected with preparation and storage of foods destined

for interstate commerce, to inspect the goods and to take samples. 27 The courts are much more restrictive of executive power to inspect

private residences without warrant or probable cause to arrest. But

there are a few exceptions.

For example, in Frank v. Maryland, 259 U.S. 360, decided in 1959,

the Supreme Court has affirmed the authority of a Baltimore city

health inspector to enter and inspect a private dwelling in the daytime

without warrant when he suspected rat-infestment. Furthermore, the use of an administratively -granted warrant is held to authorize search

and seizure in immigration and naturalization cases.

28 The second sentence of Section 16 of the Model Law in rather

sweeping terms authorizes the director to inspect, the only limitation

being the phrase "In the performance of his official duties . . ." Section 17 authorizes the director to issue specific instructions to in- spectors covering the actual exercise of inspection authority and other

police power authorities. I am in complete agreement that under Section 16 you can constitutionally enter and reasonably search or inspect any commercial

establishment conducting activities subject to regulation under

weights and measures law. But an officer who interpreted the phrase

in Section 16 "the director is authorized to enter and go into or upon,

without formal warrant, any structure or premises," to include pri- vate dwelling houses might conduct an unconstitutional search. The

^Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964). ^Harris v. U.S., 3|31 U.S. 145 (1947).

so Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 209 (1946).

27 See Durovic v. Palmer, 342 F. 2d 634 (C.A. -7, 1965) approving inspection under the

statute.

28 Abel v. U.S., 362 U.S. 217 (1960).

54
Frank v. Maryland case was decided by a sharply divided court, with

four Justices dissenting. I have my doubts as to whether the doctrine of that case would be extended from State protection of public

health to State regulation of economic concerns, such as quantity

declaration of goods.

Consequently, I recommend that this Conference consider limitations upon use of authority to arrest or search without a warrant to avoid conflict with citizens' constitutional rights. You could do this

by recommending amendments to Section 16. Alternatively, since use

of special police powers under the Model Law is subject to regulations

issued by State directors and city and county sealers, in their respective jurisdictions, the Conference could recommend a set of uniform

regulations on arrest, search and seizure, and the remaining issues

that I am about to mention, to be issued by those officials. The latter approach appears to be more flexible and could be implemented more readily by State and local officials. The intent of the Model Law with respect to weights, measures, and

weighing and measuring devices needs clarifying in the light of

Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965). That case distinguished between articles, such as narcotics and unlicensed stills, which may not be lawfully possessed at all, and articles that become

forfeitable because of their use in an unlawful manner, such as a motor vehicle that has been used to transport untaxed alcoholic beverages. An article that has merely been used unlawfully may only

be condemned or forfeited if the evidence was obtained within the

limits of the fourth amendment. If possession of an article is unlawful, it may be condemned or forfeited regardless of the manner in

which the State obtained it. It is not clear whether the purpose of

the Model Law is to place inaccurate weights, etc., which are in- capable of repair, in the category of objects which may not lawfully

be possessed. A clearer statement of that purpose might be desirable

to help in administering the Model Law authority to condemn in Section 15. Sections 13 and 14 of the Model Law give broad authority to order

that packaged goods be put off sale and disposed of only in a manner

approved of by the director. But the Model Law gives the director no guidance as to what methods of disposal he is to approve. It might be helpful if reasonable guidance were provided, preferably

through a recommended regulation. The power of the State to in- tervene in the use of property without compensation is limited to means that are "reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the

purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals." 29 That state- ment is from an 1894 case, but it has recently been repeated by the

j Supreme Court.30

w Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (1894).

30 GoldMatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962).

248-760 0—67 5 55
Conclusion.

I have discussed the relationship between Federal and State regulation of commerce. I have particularly considered the extent to which Federal statutes preempt State law, and the extent to which

the constitutional doctrines of due process and undue burden upon

interstate commerce may serve to limit State regulatory power over

the flow of commerce. I have also considered constitutional limitations upon the exercise of special police power, particularly recent developments with respect to search and seizure. I hope my remarks will be of assistance to the members of the

Conference, as you work to achieve national uniformity in weights

and measures for the benefit of both buyer and seller, and for the

encouragement of the free flow of commerce throughout the Nation.

56
MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1966

(J. F. True, Chairman, Presiding)

SEMINAR ON DISCRETE AND CONTINUOUS WEIGHING

SYSTEMS

Chairman: A. E. Parsons, Marketing Manager, New Products Division, Honeyioell, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota (President-Elect,

Instrument Society of America)

Introductory Remarks:

m 4 With such rapid progress being made along

all technological fronts in the mid-1960's, it is

:£v* no surprise that the ancient art of weights and

measures is feeling the impact of technological

- changes. Change there is from a technological

point of view, but the importance of weighing

^Pj^^^^^ and measuring to the economy was recognized

A ^ I I in this Nation 140 years ago when John Quincy A Wk I I Adams, before he became our fifth President,

said

Weights and measures may be ranked among the necessaries of

life to every individual of human society. They enter into the

economical arrangements and daily concerns of every family.

They are necessary to every occupation of human industry; to the distribution and security of every species of property ; to every

transaction of trade and commerce ; to the labors of the husbandman ; to the ingenuity of the artificer ; to the studies of the philosopher; to the researches of the antiquarian; to the navigation of

the mariner, and the marches of the soldier; to all the exchanges

of peace, and all the operations of war. The knowledge of them,

as in established use, is among the first elements of education, and

is often learned by those who learn nothing else, not even to read

and write. This knowledge is riveted in the memory by the

habitual application of it to the employments of men throughout

life. We can paraphrase President Adam's words in contemporary terms

by listing such important uses of weighing in industry and commerce

as:

1. Materials accountability.

2. Process throughput control of raw materials, semifinished, and

finished goods.

•3. Proportioning and batching in production processes.

57
4. Filling- and packaging operations.

5. Checking and inspection procedures.

6. Testing programs.

7. Merchandising.

Along with the expanding needs for a variety of weighing equipment has come the requirement for increased precision, reliability, and

speed. The needs have been, and will be, satisfied by a multiplicity

of mechanical, electrical, and electronic weighing systems and their

associated instrumentation and control. Such space age developments

as miniature strain gage and load cell sensors, digital readout, special

purpose computer circuits, electronic scales, and continuous conveyor

belt scales have fulfilled the more demanding weighing requirements

of industry; but they have added also a variety of sophisticated

mechanisms to a field not prepared for this technology advance. In

recent years, there has been a growing awareness among users and

designers of weighing equipment of the need for more information

concerning its design, application, and calibration.

The demand for data and engineering information to facilitate

understanding, and to develop uniform standards of design, application practices, and testing procedures has come from industry and commerce as well as from municipal, State, and Federal Government

agencies.

The unique capabilities and experience of the Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards, and the Instrument Society

of America through its Standards and Practices Department, blend

neatly together for the purpose of organizing the means for meeting

the information and educational needs of industry, commerce, and

government.

The Office of Weights and Measures functions in the following fields of reference

1. Technical services to the States and to business and industry in

the area of measurement.

2. The design, construction, and use of standards of weight and

measure and of instruments associated with such standards.

3. The development of testing equipment and techniques.

4. The consideration of measurement problems.

5. The training of State and local officials in the technical aspects

of weights and measures programs.

6. The collection, arrangement, and dissemination of data on units

and systems of measurement, and on standards, testing equipment, procedures, and technical investigations.

The Instrument Society of America is dedicated to advancing the

knowledge and practice related to the theory, design, manufacture, and

use of instrumentation, controls, and data processing equipment in

various scientific, technological, industrial, and community applica58
tions. Its Standards and Practices Department studies technical practices in instrumentation and. prepares and recommends uniform

practices where the adoption of such uniformity will simplify work, facilitate general understanding, and promote the interchange of information. Although ISA has organized and participated in similar

cooperative programs with other professional societies and government agencies in the past, it is a special privilege to work together

with the Office of Weights and Measures in an activity in which we

have such a mutual interest, and through which such a significant

contribution can be made.

This morning's session will cover the subject of Discrete Weighing

Systems during the first segment of the morning, Continuous Weighing Systems in the second part, followed by a panel of distinguished

speakers who will lead a general discussion until the conclusion of the

session. Our speakers—all from industry—either in the field of de- signing and manufacturing weighing equipment or its use in production processes, will cover the basic fundamentals and a variety of

specific examples related to the design and engineering, application,

and calibration of weighing equipment. These papers will certainly

bring us all to a common base of understanding of the technological

progress in weighing systems. However, it is our hope that they will

also stimulate questions and comments from you who represent the

application of weighing systems in day-to-day usage. We look for- ward to hearing your candid reactions and opinions, in addition to the

questions, during the Panel Session.

Mr. Jensen and I are optimistic enough to expect this morningsession will produce

1. An audience more familiar with the fundamentals and applications of modem weighing systems.

2. A few manufacturers who have learned the real needs of the

users.

3. A plan by which the Office of Weights and Measures and the

Instrument Society of America might better serve the needs of

industry, commerce, and government agencies in the field of

weighing.

59
(1) DISCRETE WEIGHING SYSTEMS

Moderator: E, H. Damon, Research and Development Director,

Fairbanks Morse, Inc., St. Johnsbury, Vermont

Introductory Remarks:

The presentations we are about to hear are on

a subject that may seem somewhat in the line of

wishful thinking to some of us, and may seem to be of little value in commercial weighing to others but, if we have these thoughts, we must identify the most important single commodity any

of us have—that of time.

We are about to enter the era of the supersonic

transport, which will have the capability of

crossing the Continental United States slightly

in excess of one hour. Why ? The only reason

is to save time. Even such a monstrous undertaking, in terms of engineering and research

required to obtain the product, and the cost of operating such a vehicle,

is justified simply because so many people are willing to pay a premium to save a little more than three hours out of their day.

This is a far cry from 1775, when it took John Adams 2y2

'"'eeks to travel from Boston to Philadelphia—traveling 8 to 9 hours on most

days.

Ever since John Adams' time, or shortly after it, our Nation has

been the leader in the nearly worldwide obsession to save time. Those

of us who are allied with industry have seen the growing urgency for

increased efficiencies (less time) , and the greater demands on our tech- nical personnel (less time). There is every reason to expect that this

urgency will reach even further than it already has into our field of

industrial and commercial weighing in the not-too-distant future.

These additional demands will be in the nature of weighing in

motion.

For a basic review, we recognize three areas of weighing in motion

these are bulk material weighing systems, weighing of moving rail- road cars or highway vehicles, and weighing of inert or passive objects

while they are in motion. The first area—you recognize the belt con- veyor scale as the exponent of this approach—will be covered in the

second session of this seminar. The second area is one that has re- ceived considerable attention from the railroads and a good degree of

success has been obtained by the scale industry in meeting present

requirements. However, these vehicular loads are supported by the

vehicle springs—which introduces a set of random factors not present

in the third area—the weighing, in motion, of the passive object.

60
Each of these three areas has been developed to the present state of the

art because of the need to economize on our old friend (or enemy!)

time.

It is the intent of all of us to insure that buyer and seller alike are protected to the full extent of the law when a commodity is sold by

weight. All of our legislation concerning scales is directed at the

performance of a machine and does not consider the human factor at

all. This might be considered a paradox as we all know that "to err

is human" and that by neglect or by design, weighing equipment that

is in good condition can be operated to the detriment of either the

buyer or the seller. Motion weighing comes closer to consumer protection because the human element is no longer present—the dial is not

misread by accident, or the butcher's thumb is not part, of the sale. From all indications we in the industry have seen, our efforts will

be directed more and more towards less handling of materials, towards more prepackaging and containerization, and to furnishing equipment

to legally weigh random goods without the necessity of halting the

steady stream of production that is a vital element of our economy.

The term legally tceigh was used deliberately. At present, there is no legislation that recognizes the fact that a commodity is in motion

at the time it is being weighed. This is the purpose of this seminar;

to examine the variables which surround and obscure the facts of motion weighing, so that we may, at some future date, provide means by

which the consumer and producer alike will be treated with equity, and

benefit from the saving of time that the weighing industry can provide.

(A) ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

by J. G. Greex, Re-search Engineer, Fairbanks Morse Research Center,

Beloit. Wisconsin

Introduction.

Motion-weighing is a very broad concept

which can conceivably be considered to embrace

the weight-derivation of any matter in motion,

whether it be a solid, a liquid, or a gas ; from the

electron revolving about the nucleus of an atom

to the flight of a spaceship in celestial orbit. It would seem, then, rather logical to first define

the boundary limits within which this subject

will be related ; that of weighing discrete, inert

objects in motion. One of the dictionary defini- tions of "inert," is: "not having the ability to move itself," a definition which seems most appropriate for this subject. By virtue of this

61
definition, such objects as a motor vehicle moving along a highway,

or a freight car moving down the hump of a railroad classification

yard, are excluded from consideration. A "discrete object" is defined

as one constituting a separate entity. For weighing purposes, a dis- crete object may consist of a single box or carton, or it may consist of

several boxes on a single pallet, the total weight of which is desired.

Therefore, motion-weighing within the confines of these definitions can be illustrated by a weighing system in which an object is carried on a motorized conveyor, is transferred to a motorized conveyor mounted on

a weigh-platform, is weighed, and is then transferred to a discharge

conveyor or chute. Furthermore, the term "weighing" as herein used,

is the derivation of the true weight of an object and not a classification

weight as derived in an "over-under" system.

Weighing systems must keep pace with the other advancements being made in manufacturing. Industry today no longer can tolerate

the time-consuming luxury of weighing on slow- responsive mechanicalbeam and pendulum-dial scales. The demand is for faster weighing

procedures, and this demand can be, and is being, met by motionweighing. Along with the demand for faster weighing procedures

have come the requirements for more and more sophisticated automatic

controls and data processing instrumentation. Weighing devices can no longer be treated as simple self-embodied weighing and indicating

scales, but instead must be considered as part of the production flowpattern of the complete producer-consumer cycle. With the advent

of automatic systems has come a decrease of supervisory control, and

weighing systems today are frequently called upon to operate over ex- tended periods of time with no weighman in attendance. Under such

conditions the problems involved in accurate weighing have become

much more severe and scale manufacturers, as well as others interested in weights and measures, have had to reconsider many of the "old

stand-by" rules and reevaluate them in the light of the ever rapidly

changing weighing techniques.

Motor-weighing, by its own descriptive nomenclature, defines a system operating in a time-domain. Weighing systems operating on

a second, one-tenth second, and 10 milliseconds time base for weight

derivation are not uncommon, and systems capable of weighing in

microseconds of elapsed time are entirely feasible. Mechanical weighing systems—that is, levers, beams, and pendulum mechanisms—do

not have the high speed of response needed to weigh in these very

small time bases, so most motion-weighing installations employ some form of transducer to convert mechanical force to electrical output.

One of the most popular type of transducer is the bonded straingage load cell and future use of the terms "transducer" and "load cell" will be understood to mean the strain-gage type.

Most automatic motion-weighing systems can be broadly blockedout into five basic functions which serve to define the system. Each

62
WEIGH TRANSDUCERS MEASURING

PLATFORM INSTRUMENTATION

CONTROL DATA

PROCESSING

, 1 , JTCPEV^ITER

I I

I |_ PRINTER

I

_1_

I

. 1 I COMPUTER

[" VISUAL"! |~ ADDING

~~] INDICATOR MACHINE |

I J I I

Figure 1. Block diagram of automatic motion-weighing system.

of these functions are illustrated on the block diagram of figure 1, as:

fl) Control, (2) Data Processing, (3) Measuring Instrumentation,

(4) Transducers, and (5) "Weigh-Platform.

Control.

The control functions of the complete weighing system are under

the command of the master sequencing circuitry. The master se- quencer issues the instructions to interrelate the various timed events

of the system. As an example, an object being weighed may interrupt

u light beam when the object has advanced to a specified position on

the weigh-platform, and in so doing, initiate the measuring cycle.

The master sequencer accepts the signal produced by the interruption

of the light beam and programs the instrument to measure the weight

of the object. After the information has been derived, the master

sequencer then instructs that the data processing phase be carried out. The data processing requirement may be the very simple one of merely

entering the weight information into a printer, or it may be a more

complicated one requiring the use of more elaborate, sophisticated

time-sharing data processing equipment. Upon completion of the

data processing cycle, the master sequencer then re-establishes the

timing circuits preparatory to accepting the next object. Mechanical

gates for spacing the flow of objects over the weigh-platform, and

diverting gates on the discharge side of the weigh-platform, as well

as memory devices and other production control equipment, are timerelated to the measuring cycle by means of the master sequencer.

63
In most commercial weighing installations the design of the control

system must be engineered for the job. Rarely is a so-called "off-the- shelf" system suitable. Since the design of the control system only

indirectly affects the weighing accuracy, and only then in the event

of a circuit malfunction, the important design considerations are those related to cost, reliability, and sequencing speeds. In instances

where the maximum number of weighings per unit time is important,

then the very fast switching times of solid-state components may be

the only answer, whereas in other cases relays, stepping switches, and

other similar control devices may be most advantageous. In all design

formulations, the economics of the system components must be balanced against the engineering excellence desired.

Data Processing

.

Data processing is strictly related to the requirements of the overall

system and not to the weighing portion alone. It is a matter of, "now

that you have the weight figures, what do you want to do with the in- formation ?" No one weighs an object just for the fun of doing it, but

rather to use the information for some specific purpose. In industry

this information may be necessary to expedite or control some manufacturing process or material-handling requirement. In the past, a

scale manufacturer's responsibility was to provide an indication of the

object weight and at most, to give a printed record of the weight, but

with the advance of science on all fronts, such simple weighing systems

are no longer adequate.

Most data processing systems today depend upon some form of

digital coding. Digital coding offers several advantages. One of the

most important being the ability to transmit and mathematically

manipulate the information without error. Weighing instruments

are, therefore, of the direct digital type, or a means is available to convert the analog information to digital. A pendulum-dial scale, for

example, may have an analog-to-digital conversion mechanism mounted

on the dial indicator shaft to provide the desired digital output.

Translation matrices are available to convert any coded system into

any other coded system so the design problem of interfacing the weighing instrumentation with any commercially available data processing

equipment presents no particular problem. Assuming that the information taken from the weighing instrument is correct, then the trans- mittal and manipulation of this data to and through data processing

equipment can be handled virtually error-free.

Measuring Instrumentation.

Mechanical lever systems, beams, and pendulum-dial scales were the

work-horses of industrial and commercial weighing for many, many

64
years. The demands for faster weighing procedures, automatic controls, and data processing soon made evident that these mechanical devices were inadequate for the requirements. The mechanical scale re- quired too much hime to come to a balance condition so the direction of

development turned toward electronics. Weighing times of three

seconds or more permitted the use of Servomotor-driven null-balancing bridge networks in association with load cells. Such systems, being

electro-mechanical in nature, were more than adequate to meet this

time requirement. However, as it became evident that weighing times

of one second, one-tenth second, and even milliseconds would be needed

to integrate weighing into the new industrial processes, new concepts

in weighing instrumentation were developed. As a result, several new

designs have made their appearance in the past few years. These new

instruments are almost entirely electronic in order to take advantage of

the higher switching speeds offered by electronic circuitry.

Electronic weighing instruments are essentially digital voltmeters.

The signal fed into the instrument is a voltage whose magnitude is proportional to the weight of the object on the platform. The instrument measures this voltage to produce a digital indication and output.

There are several different principles employed to convert the voltage

to a digital output, among which are the following

(a) Ramp Type.—An unknown voltage is compared to a lin- early-increasing voltage called a "ramp." The time required for

the ramp to rise from a fixed reference voltage to a value equal to the unknown voltage is a measure of the unknoAvn voltage.

(b) Voltage to Frequency.—The unknown voltage is used to control an oscillator whose output is a series of pulses in which the

frequency of pulses is proportional to the value of the unknown

voltage. By counting the generated pulses over a precisely controlled interval of time, the value of the unknown voltage is determined.

(c) Step-Voltage Type.—A series of independent reference

voltage steps is provided in digital, digital-decade, binary, or binary-decade sequence to which the unknown voltage is compared. By comparing the unknown voltage to the reference volt- age steps in sequential order, the value of the unknown voltage is established.

(d) Voltage-Divider Type.—In this method, the unknown volt- age is compared to a voltage derived from a series array of precision resistors across a very stable reference voltage source. Many

configurations of the precision resistors values may be employed,

such as binary, binary-decaded, or digital-decaded.

Each type has advantages particular unto itself. No one instrument

is universal in its application and each has a place in the general

scheme of motion-weighing. Measuring times as low as one milli- second and up to ten seconds can be chosen from among these various

65
types. Instrument accuracies of 0.01 percent or better are possible

with the types mentioned. A wide choice of instrumentation is, therefore, available from which the one most suitable in regard to measuring

time and acuracy can be chosen to meet the particular requirements of a particular motion-weighing installation.

Transducers.

It is the function of the transducers to change the gravity-weight

of the object being weighed into a proportional voltage output which

can be measured by the instrument. There are several different types

of transducers being employed in weighing systems today, such as, pneumatic, hydraulic, and electrical. Among these, one of the most

popular types is the bonded strain-gage load cell. Strain-gage load

cells have been manufactured in sizes varying from ounces-full-load

rating to twelve-million-pounds full load rating now in use at NASA.

Strain-gage load cells have several advantages in motion-weighing in- stallations since they have very fast response times, are compact, are not

subjected to wear, and, since the output is electrical, the coordination

with other control equipment is quite straight forward.

The acuracy of the overall motion-weighing system is dependent, in

large measure, on the characteristics of the load transducers. If the

output of the transducer is in error with respect to the applied load,

the most perfect measuring instrument will indicate a system result

that is in error. Linearity of voltage output with respect to applied

load on strain-gage load cells is normally 0.1 percent for most weighing

applications, with some special applications using load cells of 0.05 percent linearity. Variations in ambient temperatures in the vicinity

of the load cells can cause errors in the output voltage. Most load

cells are temperature compensated, but usually only in the range of

+ 15°F. to +115°F. Many weighing applications exceed these temperatures in both extremes. Changes in barometric pressures also can

cause an error in the output voltage of load cells and some manufacturers have included in their designs means to compensate for such pres- sure changes. Since strain-gage load cells are usually of the wheatstone-bridge resistive configuration requiring an input voltage to produce the output voltage, it is most essential that well regulated

power supplies be employed. The extra effort and cost required to provide excellent load-cell power supplies is more than paid for in the

stability and accuracy achieved.

It is evident that if a motion-weighing system is to approach a 0.1 percent accuracy, and if load cells of even 0.05 percent linearity are

used, and if the accuracy is to be maintained over an extended period

of time, then many design complexities must be introduced into the

system. Unfortunately, as design complexities increase, the cost of the

system increases, and reliability decreases. Reliability can be restored

through deliberate redundancy, but at a further increase in cost.

66
Weigh-Platform.

Aside from the influence that the choice and application of the load

cells have on the overall accuracy of a motion-weighing system, the

most important problems center about the design of the weigh-platform. In fact, as a design problem, the load cells and the weigh-platform must be considered as a unit since the problems of one are directly

related to the other. Many motion- weighing scales are designed so that

a complete belt-conveyor system is mounted on load cells ; the conveyor

then becomes the weigh-platform. The objects to be weighed are brought to the scale by conveyors, are transported across the scale platform by the weigh-conveyor, and are then carried away by other

conveyors. In such systems, it is common to include all necessary

components of the weigh-conveyor, such as drive motors and reduction

gears, as an integral part of the conveyor, so that the entire dead weight

of the conveyor is carried on the transducing system.

Because most motion-weighing scales are part of a more general

system, and because many of these have special design features to meet

a customer's particular requirement, it is not always possible to thoroughly check out the completed design in a laboratory before in- stallation in a customer's plant. No amount of laboratory testing can

duplicate the environmental and dynamic conditions under which the

scale will be operating in day-in, day-out service. In order to illus67
trate how certain design modifications to a weigh-platform improved

the overall system accuracy, the results of a series of field tests are herein included and discussed.

Illustration I is of a high-speed motion-weighing scale installed in

the field early in 1963.

Instrument: Single-Sample Ramp System-Electronic.

Scale Capacity : 100 pounds.

Indication : Digital, 99.9 pounds maximum reading capacity, 0.1 pound minimum graduation.

Measuring Speed : One-tenth second maximum.

Readout : Parallel entry into totalizing adding machine.

Conveyor : Belt conveyor operating at 120 feet per minute.

Trigger Device : Photocell.

Transducers : Four strain-gage load cells. Installation and Operation : The scale is located between the end

of a production line and the shipping dock. Packaged production

items are randomly placed on a continuous conveyor belt traveling at 75 feet per minute. They are discharged onto a short length of speedup conveyor traveling at 120 feet per minute. This exchange performs

the desired separation between items. From the speed-up conveyor

the items are transferred to the weigh conveyor. When the item is fully scale-borne, and at a point near the discharge end of the weigh

conveyor, a photocell light beam is interrupted, triggering the weigh

cycle. Upon completion of the weigh cycle, the item weight is dis- played on the digital indicators and is also automatically entered into

the parallel-entry adding machine. The result is a printed record of

each individual item. Available to the shipping dock foreman is the

facility for pulling out a subtotal or total for each production run as

desired.

In order to appreciate some of the salient points brought out by the

mathematical treatment of the test data herein presented, the conditions under which the weighing system operated are worthy of consideration.

1. The instrument is digitally indicating with a minimum graduation of 0.1 pound. This is equivalent to 1.6 ounces, and if this

1.6 ounces is placed anywhere on the weigh-conveyor (having a

total surface area of 8 square feet) , either concentrated or evenly

distributed, the scale will indicate this change in load. It is not

difficult to visualize the many ways in which the force acting upon

a moving conveyor can change by the very small amount of 1.6 ounces, particularly on a system operating under dynamic conditions associated with full production.

2. This particular system is fully-automatic with no weighman

in attendance. It is a "command" device, its weigh-cycle being

initiated by the object being weighed. Consider a static weighing

scale under the operation of a weighman when a fork lift truck

68
is passing by. If the truck should induce a vibration into the scale mechanism and the scale indicator oscillates about the balance

point, the operator merely waits until the truck has passed and

the indicator has settled out before reading the weight. This privilege is not allowed an automatic device for it must weigh on con- mand, reset itself, and be ready for the next object following

closely behind. On a production line, there is no stopping except

in the case of emergency.

3. In this particular installation, a further complication was

introduced by the chimney effect of a discharge chute. After the

object was weighed and printed, it was discharged from the weigh

conveyor into a spiral chute that carried the object down to a lower level shipping dock. Under certain atmospheric conditions,

there would be a draft up the chute and across the weigh-conveyor

sufficient to cause a change of 10 graduations or more on the scale indicators. The scale -responded to the force created by the flow

of air across the conveyor.

4. As mentioned previously, the instrumentation of this instal- lation employs the ramp principle; that is, a linearly increasing

voltage is compared to the load-cell voltage output and the time

required for the two voltages to reach coincidence is indicative of

the weight on the weigh-conveyor. The instrument is, therefore, a single-sample device. It does not average in the maimer of the

integrating principle, nor does it average in the manner a 10- sample system would. It is reasonable to expect that an improvement in accuracy could be achieved by use of either of the latter two methods. However, one-tenth second allows very little time

for integrating averaging, and vibrations below 10 cycles per sec- ond will not allow even one full cycle for averaging. In a 10-count

averaging system, to hold a total measuring time of one second

would require each sample of measuring time to be 10 milliseconds or less.

Test Procedure.

Because the scale was installed in a production line operating on a three-shift-per-day basis, it was iiecessary to make all dynamic tests in conjunction with the production runs. Changes and corrections to the scale could be made only during infrequent down-times or weekends. It was desired to run the tests at three specified weights of approximately 30, 50, and 75 pounds. Three mail sacks were loaded with

magazines and then were weighed very accurately on a beam scale by

the substitution method. The weight of the sacks turned out to be 32.4 pounds, 49.5 pounds, and 70.9 pounds. These sacks were kept intact

and used in all tests, thus becoming so-called secondary standard

weights. Under the conditions existing for making the tests, mail

69
sacks were much more convenient to handle than cast-iron test weights

and a lot safer for the personnel involved. The procedure was to

insert the test bag into the production run about 25 feet ahead of the

weigh-conveyor, allow it to pass over the scale where it was weighed

and recorded, catch it just as it left the weigh-conveyor and before it disappeared down a chute, then reinsert it into the production line to repeat the weighing process. Literally thousands of weighings were made in this manner and the results subjected to statistical analysis.

Rather than include a mass of data which would only serve to cloud

the issue, the results of four significant tests using the 49.5 pounds test sack will be discussed.

Design Modifications and Test Results.

Test No. 1.

Test Sack—49.5 pounds.

Before the start of the test, the scale was statically checked with

calibrated test weights in 5-pound increments and was found to vary

by not more than 0.1 pound (or one graduation) over its entire capacity

range.

One hundred weighings were made and a histogram of the results is shown plotted in figure 2. The class interval selected for this histogram is 0.1 pound simply because this interval corresponds to the

valuation difference of one graduation. Figure 3 is the Gaussian

distribution curve derived from the data and on it are shown the pertinent statistical results. It is seen that the average weight is 48.99

pounds or 0.51 pounds low with respect to the test sack of 49.5 pounds.

The one-sigma deviation was 0.278 pounds, and, with respect to a plus/minus 0.1 pound tolerance on the test sack, only 6.5 percent of

the weighings could be expected to fall within this tolerance band.

There was a range of 13-class intervals from low to high weight

readings.

In themselves, these figures have little significance, other than to verify the obvious conclusion that the scale was not doing a good job.

However, these statistical figures will become more meaningful in the

light of subsequent results. It would not take a mathematician to conclude from the^esults of this test that something was wrong. Here was a scale that statically weighed within a tolerance of 0.1 percent,

yet its dynamic average was 0.51 percent in error, and its dispersion

of data ranged from 0.7 percent to 0.6 percent high from its average.

As a result of several tests under the various conditions of loading,

all of which statistically told essentially the same story, it was decided an engineering change was called for. Several reasons were suggested

for the cause of the trouble, such as slow dynamic instrument response, but as each suggseted cause was investigated, the finger of guilt pointed

70
more and more to the weigh-conveyor. A change in the weigh-conveyor

assembly was made to provide a smoother traverse of the test sack over

the conveyor length and another test conducted.

Test No. 2.

The same test sack of 49.5 pounds was used in Test No. 2 as in Test

No, 1. Before start of the test the calibration was checked with cali- brated weights and no error exceeded one graduation, or 0.1 pound.

One hundred weighings were made and a histogram of the results is shown plotted in figure 4. A comparison of figure 4 with figure 2

shows a visual improvement of the scale system, in that the range of

values has been reduced from 13-class intervals to 9, illustrating a tendency of the individual weighings to group more closely about the

arithmetic average.

Figure 5 is the distribution curve of the data of Test No. 2. The

average weight was 49.26 pounds, or an error of 0.25 pound lower than

the test sack. The one sigma deviation was 0.172 as compared to 0.278

of Test No. 1, which is a considerable improvement. The percentage of

weighings expected to fall within the plus/minus 0.1 pound indicating

range has risen from the 6.5 percent of Test No. 1 to 20.3 percent in

Test No. 2. The calculations now have a meaning in that any changes in test results can be mathematically related in a unit of measures, rather

than the customary expressions of "a little bit better," or "a whole

lot better." Lord Kelvin is quoted as saying, "when you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know

something about it . . ."

248-760 O—67——

G

71
The changes made to the conveyor resulted in an improvement to the system, but the average weight was still on the "low" side. Attention was next directed to a redesign of the check-link assemblies of the

conveyor. New check-links were made and installed, and a new series of tests were run.

Test No. 3.

Using the same test sack of 49.5 pounds, and being assured by cali- brated weights that the scale was statically within the plus/minus

0.1-pound tolerance, the plot of 100 weighings is shown on the histogram of figure 6. Figure 7 is the distribution curve of the 100 weighings. The average weight of this test was 49.51 pounds, or only 0.01 pound high with respect to the test sack weight. The range was 10-

class intervals ; better than Test No. 1 and about equal to Test No. 2, which was 9-class intervals. The one-sigma deviation was 0.167, only

slightly better than Test No. 2, but the expected percentages of plus/

minus 0.1 pound in tolerance weights had risen to 61.8 percent from

the 20.3 percent in Test No. 2. The redesign of the check-links resulted in a substantial improvement in that the weighings almost equally bracketed the test-sack

weight, the average weight was only 0.01 percent in error (based on

full-capacity load), and the in-tolerance percentage had improved by

41.5 percent.

The results of Test No. 3 were quite encouraging so a further modification of the checking system was tried. The orginal design consisted ,of four plate-fulcrum type check-links, one at each corner of

the conveyor. The final change consisted of removing the two check72
links on the downstream end of the conveyor and using only the

two check-links on the approach end as the restraining members. This

change permitted the conveyor assembly to realign itself under varying

operating conditions with the following results

TestNo. A.

Using the same test sack of 49.5 pounds, and with the scale in static calibration plus/minus 0.1 pound maximum error, the plot of 100

weighings is shown on the histogram of figure 8. The distribution curve of the 100 weighings is shown on figure 9. The average weight was 49.47 pounds or 0.03 pound low with respect to the test sack weight

of 49.5 pounds. The one sigma deviation improved to a factor of 0.100

with the resulting improvement of the expected in-tolerance weighing

of 74.7 percent. As a matter of interest, 95 percent of the weighings

would be expected to fall within plus/minus 0.2 pound.

Summary.

To achieve an acceptable accuracy in motion-weighing is more of

a mechanical design problem than one of electronics. Measuring

instruments can be chosen from the several different types whose

accuracy is compatible with the available measuring time. Motionweighing introduces many mechanical problems not experienced in

static weighing systems, and motion-weighing equipment must operate

under environmental conditions over which they have little or no

control. It is axiomatic that a static calibration test on a motion-weighing

system is of little value in predicting the accuracy to be expected

under dynamic conditions. Because of the nature of motion-weighing

and because dynamic operation induces extraneous forces that static scales are not subjected to, it is hardly to be expected that, under con- tinuous service, motion-weighing will always meet the same standards

of accuracy as static scales. For these reasons and because many motion-weighing installations require only a total weight figure, or an

average weight, the following proposal is introduced as a topic for

future discussions

Proposal.

An acceptance requirement of a motion-weighing installation should

be predicated on a statistical evaluation derived mider dynamic conditions. It would seem logical that the one-sigma, two-sigma, and

three-sigma deviations be specified and that the mean value be related

to the true value by a statistically calculated mean error.

73
(B) APPLICATIONS

by D. B. Kendall, Manager, Custom Engineering, Toledo Scale

Corporation, Toledo, Ohio

Weighing has long been considered a neces- sary but time-consuming operation. Many

transactions are based on the weight of material

or objects, and, in many cases, workers are paid on the basis of the weight of material produced.

These are commercial applications and weights

and measures officials have jurisdiction over the

equipment used. In addition, many weighing

operations are performed in manufacturing

processing operations and to determine plant

efficiency, shrinkage of product and other factors. These are noncommercial applications.

Years ago when the beam scale was the only

known method of obtaining accurate weights, the weighing operation was quite time-consuming and tedious, and the records available were

quite primitive. With the introduction of automatic indicating

scales, it was soon found that the speed of weighing operations could

be increased and better methods of record keeping were developed for use with these scales. Scales were incorporated in conveyor lines,

whether of the roller type or the belt type, by mounting a short section

of roller or belt conveyor on the scale platform. In the case of over- head track conveyors, a section of the track was suspended from a lever

system. Because of the time required for the scale indicating mechanism to come to rest in order to accurately measure the weight, it was common to stop the object on the scale or else move it very slowly

across the scale. This type of equipment is generally limited to speeds

of about 900 weighings per hour.

When the load cell was invented, it was soon realized that this in- strument was capable of very high-speed measurement of weight.

Much effort was put forth to develop the load cell to the point where

it is now capable of measuring weight to commercial accuracies. Many

of you are familiar with the conventional load cell scale where a potentiometer is driven by a servo motor to a position where the voltage

output of the load cell is balanced in order to determine the weight

of the load. Such a device cannot be made substantially faster than

a conventional, mechanical automatic-indicating scale. The load cell itself is capable of very rapid response to the load upon it. The con- tinuing demands of industry for methods of rapidly measuring weight

forced the development of the high-speed weighing equipment described to you by Mr. Green. Besides dramatically increasing the

speed of weighing, such equipment is easily adapted to transmit weight

74
and other information in a form readily usable by modern data re- cording and processing equipment, so it fills a need very important to modern industry.

There are many noncommercial applications of this type of equipment. The need of the U.S. Post Office Department to increase the

speed in handling mail was an important factor in forcing early

development of this equipment. Other noncommercial applications

are the gross weighing of packages to determine that the desired components are all present, and the gross weighing of a number of

packages to determine that an order has been properly filled. Rapid

counting of parts by weight for inventory and determining shrinkage

between departments can also be accomplished.

For commercial applications, net weighing is almost universally re- quired. In order to perform commercial weighing operations, the

following five basic requirements must be met

1. Only one object must be weighed at a time.

2. Provision must be made for offsetting the weight of containers or wrapping material or devices used to suspend the object being

weighed.

3. The object must be moved across the scale in such a manner that

vertical forces other than weight will be held to an absolute

minimum.

4. The object must be on the scale for a sufficient time to accurately measure its weight. If the object is swinging, or there are other

causes for cyclic variation in the weight measurement, it may be

necessary to have the object scale-bourne for a sufficient time to average the weight readings over a period of time.

5. There must be an adequate and accurate means for reading the

weight measurement and either indicating or recording, or both

indicating and recording, the weight value.

Two of the more common applications of weighing discrete objects

in motion will be described. The first is the case where an overhead

monorail conveyor is used and the second will be where the objects are conveyed on either a belt or roller-type conveyor.

Monorail Scales.

In the case of an installation for the weighing of hog carcasses sus- pended from a monorail and driven by a powered conveyor (fig. 1),

a short section, of conveying rail is suspended either from two load

cells or from a lever system which is connected to a single load cell. The first requirement of weighing, only one object at a time, is accomplished by establishing the length of the weigh rail at a dimension

less than the spacing between the pushers on the powered conveyor.

75
The second requirement of offsetting the tare is accomplished by

adjusting the scale to read zero when a hanger is on the weigh rail. It obviously is important that the weight of these hangers be very

uniform.

The third requirement of assuring absolute minimum vertical forces

other than weight is accomplished in the design of the carrier and

pusher to eliminate vertical components in the process of driving the

carrier. Proper lubrication of the carrier wheel is an important factor

in this application.

The fourth requirement of adequate time to perform the weighing

operation is generally accomplished by a limit switch operated by the

carrier a suitable time after it is scale-borne. The maximum time

available is generally used to average the weight readings, so that the

effect of swinging of the carcass or other oscillating forces is removed.

Since the hangers are normally spaced at two foot intervals, the scale- borne section of rail can be up to about 21 inches long. Satisfactory

weighing operations at speeds up to 1,200 per hour have been accomplished with this application. Under ideal conditions, it would bo

possible to weigh at 3,000 per hour.

The fifth requirement for suitable indicating and/or recording of

the weight is accomplished by equipment that, besides showing the

weight figure in digital form, can automatically enter predetermined

supplementary information (such as the grade of the carcass, oper76
ator, and seller or buyer identification) into data recording and processing equipment. The total weight of different grades of meat,

processed by specific operators for different sellers or purchasers, is accumulated to determine the pay for the operator and to make out a check for the seller or an invoice for the buyer. Controls can be

provided to direct carcasses in selected weight zones to different

processing areas.

Belt and Roller Conveyors. (Figure 2)

The first requirement of proper spacing of the objects to insure only one on the scale at a time can be met by proper spacing of the objects on a belt conveyor. For roller conveyors it is generally necessary to provide some indexing means. Using either a stop roller or stop

fingers, packages on the main conveyor are stopped when they get to the entering point of the approach conveyor. When it is desired to

77
pass a package onto the scale, the stop is pulled down so that the next

package can enter this conveyor. The approach conveyor runs at a higher speed than the main conveyor so that the package is separated

from those following it, and the following packages are stopped. The

package to be weighed is moved onto the scale by the approach con- veyor, and when it is passed across the scale the next package is released. The second requirement for offsetting tare weight can be accomplished, if the package or wrapping weight is uniform, by offsetting

the tare on the scale. If packages have different tare weights, the

scale can be adjusted for gross weighing. Tare weight information can be coded onto the packages and the tare weight subtracted in the

data processing equipment.

The third requirement, of moving the package across the scale with

minimum vertical forces aside from weight, is accomplished by the

use of a belt conveyor with very carefully balanced components.

The fourth requirement of assuring adequate time on the scale for

the proper weighing operation is accomplished by the proper design of

the length and speed of the belt conveyor on the scale so the longest

object will be fully scale-borne for a suitable time, and the use of

photocells, as shown, or limit switches operated by the object being

weighed, to start the weighing operation after any impact effect has

subsided. Either a single instantaneous weight reading can be taken

or an average weight reading can be taken over a specified time. Satisfactory weighing operations at speeds of 2,400 per hour are possible.

The fifth requirement of indicating and/or recording can be accomplished in many ways. Either the individual or total weight can be

indicated by the weighing equipment. For recording and data processing, the weight information can be fed into an adding machine or tape punch. Various types of auxiliary information such as identifi- cation of lot or operator, customer or vendor, and date, or time and

date can be entered along with weight. Computations can also be

performed by various computers. One example is the case where parts

are purchased or sold by number. In this case the weight and the

number of parts per pound can be entered into a computer and the

number of parts in a lot determined from the weight. Another application is that where such material as synthetic film is sold on a standardized moisture content basis. The weight, actual moisture content and a correction factor are fed into a computer. The weight corrected

to the standard moisture content is determined and used for the

buying or selling transaction.

Various applications of this high-speed weighing equipment have

been described. The obvious question of how weights and measures

officials can determine that both the buyer and the seller are treated

fairly will be answered by the speaker who follows.

78
(C) TESTING

by B. Tatlor. General Manager. Exact Weight Scale Company,

Columbus. Ohio

Mr. Green has concluded with a series of

histograms and distribution curves showing

averages, standard deviation and other data.

These are the end result of the testing procedures, and I would like to start a little nearer

the beginning in terms of concepts and principles involved, hopefully arriving at the same

conclusion as did Mr. Green. In addition, we

should look at these statistics in the light of

H—1± requirements and possible future standards of performance.

As Mr. Green and Mr. Kendall have pointed

out, the equipment involved here is a system

rather than a scale, and this introduces two new problems—one being

material handling onto and across the scale, and the other the additional gear, electronic devices and such, that complete the entire

system.

Handbooks 44 and 94 contain the procedures for scale testing and

set up standards of acceptance. Usually, inspection does not indi- cate how good a scale is, but merely that it operates within allowed

limits. In-motion weighing is not as easy. It involves more detail, new

criteria for performance, and it is complicated by the fact that sys- tems are usually made for specific applications. There is no standardization as envisioned by H-94. Also, in the usual weighing devices,

the inspector will be familiar with the mechanism (as H-94 suggests

he should be) but the complexity of many systems may place the in- spector at some disadvantage.

Figure 1 shows a relatively simple system, consisting of a scale, some control equipment, and a readout.

It could be much more elaborate, with perhaps a manual input, the

transmission of data over long distances, and possibly into a computer,

There could be feed-back from the computer to the scale, and so on. In fact, one recently discussed system consisted of 1 percent weighing equipment and 99 percent electronics, which should please our

friends in the instrument business.

As a first step in the examination of in-motion weighing systems, a more complete inspection is necessary. Here are some of the points

that should be given special note

1. Listing of the manufacturer's name, item description or model

number.

79
RANDOM WEIGHT TOTALIZING

PRINTER

Figure 1

2. Capacity of the unit and normal weighing range.

3. A brief review of the system and how it works.

4. What is the type of weighing device and what is its identifi- cation ?

5. How is the readout done and how is the readout device graduated ? What is the readout device and what future use is made

of the weight data through cards, tape, computers, etc?

6. What is the commodity size, shape, and range of weights?

7. How is the handling done, conveyor to scale, on the scale, and

away from the scale ?

8. In the weighing operation, how long is the item scale-borne ? What is the product spacing and units per hour ? 9. Are the ambient conditions satisfactory, such as air in motion

with open windows or doors ? Is there moisture, heat, cold, or dust?

10. In the matter of vibration, we have a problem of very great importance. Are there vibrations in the building structure and

are they transmitted to the scale? Does it interfere with scale operation ? 11. Is the material handling equipment durable, free of binds and

friction and unaffected by interference from surrounding objects? Is the smoothness of transfer on and off the scale adequate ? 12. Is there any evidence of improper use or inadequate

maintenance ? 13. Are wide variations in temperature possible ? As an introduction to the actual testing procedure, there are two

major concepts that should be discussed.

80
The first of these has to do with the consistency of results : that is, the system "in control" or "out of control.'* The second main point

in testing of in-motion equipment is the subject of probability.

Figure 2 is a mechanical system. It is relatively simple, with two

components and a readout technique that is not very complicated.

Furthermore, the system is "in control," by which we mean that the

results can be predicted with mathematical accuracy.

For anyone thinking that this system is not amenable to prediction, note this frequency distribution in figure 3. With 36 possible combinations, note that there are 6 ways to get a 7, one way to get 12. So the

pair of dice illustrates a system that is "in control" and has predictable

results—the requisites of any good system.

But systems can go astray. Figure -A shows one that has. Obviously, when compared with our standard, it is out of control and

the probability does not match our standard either. In the preparation of a chart to show test results, the total range is divided into 20 groups, which is a good rule of thumb, and the various

readings indicated. With the columns blocked in, a histogram is formed which shows the pattern of weighments ( fig. 5)

.

-=e;_ency distribution

TOTAL UP ON PAIR OF DICE Figure 3

SYSTEM HISTOGRAM

ir:

81
-1 -0.6745cr +0. 6745o

Figure 7

With a great number of tests, the tops of the histogram chart would

form a curve. This familiar bell-shaped distribution chart is a very

important working tool (fig. 6). Its shape, location, and spread are the criteria for testing.

The location of the midpoint (or average) should be determined,

and some measure of the spread is needed.

Dispersion, or the spread of the curve, is described by the mathematical term "Standard Deviation'* and this is defined as the root mean square deviation of the observed numbers from their average.

.V normal distribution curve has characteristics shown in figure 7

where 68 + percent of all of the test results will fall within ±1 standard

deviation, 95+ percent within ±2, and 99+ percent within ±3.

A good test is needed for at least 3 different points in the weighing

range. (A commodity should be used similar to that regularly run.)

To be accurate, a great number of weighments should be made, per- haps 200, and for a 350-pound load this might prove to be quite a

task. On this form,, space is provided for recorded data, for plotting

it, and for calculating results. Figure 8 shows a completed test, with

weight data shown and a chart plotted. Average is 372 pounds.

Standard deviation is 3.1 pounds.

The shape of the histograms shows fairly good control, but the test average is low. Furthermore, there are three stray readings that in- dicate some sort of problem. Assuming that this first test was not

satisfactory, some adjustments were made and a new series recorded

(%. 9).

82
EPO TEST

ACTUAL WEIGHT OF TEST LOAD 377 LBS

TEST READINGS

TEST

375 372 372 :~1 369 375 373 379

376 374 378 370 373 361 370 371 371 372 372 373 370 372 372 — : 372 370 370 37

CALCULATED AVERAGE

AVERAGE ERROR

STANDARD DEVIATION

-5 LBS.

LBS.

Figure 8

EPO TEST

ACTUAL WEIGHT OF TEST LOAD 377 LBS

TEST READINGS

TEST 2

367 370 370

368 371 372 370 37 376

370 370 371 369 372 373

361 371 362

372 36 365 369 364 363

371 J 62 362

370 362 363

CALCULATED AVERAGE

AVERAGE ERROR

STANDARD DEVIATION

-9 LBS.

4.2 LBS.

Figure 9

EPO TEST

ACTUAL WEIGHT OF TEST LOAD 375 LB5 '

TEST READINGS

TEST 3

375 377 376

376 376 376

375 3

7 4 373

374 373 375 375 372 374

374 373 375 375 374 373 375 376 374 374 375 376

376 374 375

CALCULATED AVERAGE

AVERAGE ERROR

STANDARD DEVIATION

375

0 LBS.

1.2 LBS.

Figure 10
Obviously the fix was not very good. The average error is now

9 pounds, standard deviation is 4.2 pounds, and the histogram clearly

shows an "out of control" condition. Normally this would be con- sidered as a poor test. For the next inspection, the test looks better (fig. 10). It will be

noted that, as part of the reinspection, we checked the test load and

found it to be actually 375 pounds.

Our average reading was 375 and standard deviation 1.2 pounds.

Evidently, a good test was performed. So, taking this test data and

showing it on a curve, we can say

1. That the system's average error is less than 1 pound.

2. That 68 percent of all weighments will be within 1.2 pounds.

3. That 95 percent of all weighments will be within 2.4 pounds.

Or, if the system had a capacity of 1000 pounds, performance, reading

to the nearest pound, could be stated as

68 percent of all readings will be within .1 percent of full scale 95 percent within .24 percent of full scale. To summarize, we have suggested three criteria for testing:

1. Consistency of test results (out of control)

.

2. Test averages.

3. Standard deviation.

Obviously, it is much easier to specify a test procedure than to develop standards of performance. As weighing systems come into

"commercial" use, and as they become the responsibility of weights

and measures officials, it will certainly be the job of NBS and this

Conference to think about standards of performance.

(2) CONTINUOUS WEIGHING SYSTEMS

(A) ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

by R. J. Bierman, Manager, International Division, Ramsey

Engineering Company, St. Paul, Minnesota

The basic justifications for weight measure- ment and control in the process industries have

changed very little in recent years. However,

the selection of specific equipments and suppliers has become more complex, due primarily

to industries' more exacting demands.

With the advent of industrial data collection

and processing, management has realized that more accurate data was required at the source. In order to accomplish these objectives, it has I been necessary to maintain a closer control, and

to measure the flow of raw materials more ac- curately, than ever before.

84
Let us examine the various factors in the flow of bulk materials

which determine the need for accurate weighing and control.

The most incontestable index of material accountability is toeight. It provides management and the accountant with the exact information

that is required to establish a complete picture on the flow of materials to all operations. Weight is a more exact measure than—"a

ship's displacement" or "number of carloads" or "so many truckloads."

Weight establishes a standard that "bags," "containers," "trucks," and

"ships" as unit measuring devices cannot provide with uniformity.

Weighing devices can be used in processes to control the throughput

of raw materials and thus establish production rates. This permits

engineering and production to size equipment for a predetermined

throughput and to be able to maintain this production schedule to its maximum throughput.

Closely related to throughput control is the control of secondary

materials such as other solids and liquids, all of which must be closely

controlled to produce proper material balances. It has become quite

common today to control the addition of one or more materials to the

primary flow material at a predetermined accurate percentage. A good

example of this type of control is found in a cement plant where clinker

and gypsum may be blended, in a coal plant, where various grades of

coal are blended, or in a steel mill in the feed to a blast furnace, where

several ingredients are continuously weighed on conveyor belts and all fed in proper proportions to the furnace. This is called a "stock feed

system" and may be controlled by a punch card or computer system.

A very important application for conveyor scales is "load-out" control where a bulk carrier is loaded by a conveyor equipped with a con- veyor scale. The "load-out" system is set for a predetermined load in

"tons'* (or equivalent weight designation) . The conveyor and/or asso- ciated feeder, is actuated and loading continues until the exact amount

of material is weighed out into a truck, rail-car, barge, or ship. The

principal advantages of this type of a load-out system are: The exact tonnage desired in each truck or carload is easily "dialed

in" and accurately controlled

no overloads.

No truck or platform scale weighing is required, therefore, hauling cycle time is significantly reduced.

No scale house operator required.

Accurate tonnage figures available in printed form for each load.

Accurate tonnage total of daily production.

Accurate total of number of daily loads.

Many State governmental agencies have adopted this system after re- viewing its performance on a variety of applications.

There are two general methods of weighing a bulk material—gravimetric and nongravimetric. By far the most common of the two

methods is the gravimetric method for weight determination. If a body is to be weighed, then the gravimetric force must be countered by

85
an opposing force. By measuring the opposing or counterbalancing

force, the actual weight can be determined.

There are three principal categories of gravimetric weighing de- J r vices: (1) gravimetric counterbalance systems employing a mass to - jf counterbalance the load; (2) deflectional counterbalancing systems, > s where the load force causes an elastic element such as a spring to deflect a condition of equilibrium and where the internal forces resist the j I applied load-force. Deflectional electrical devices fall into this cate- \ | gory including load cells; (3) force-balance counterbalance systems

in which pneumatic or hydraulic pressure becomes the counterbalance

force. One common method of gravimetric weight measurement is the \: j deflectional counterbalance approach utilizing an electrical transducer s i such as a strain gage consisting of one or more resistance wires that are supported in a framework or are bonded to a tension or compres- $ j sion member. As the wires are stressed, the resistance—and thus the i | current—changes in proportion to the load. Strain gage load cells have no moving parts and typically have a deflection of less than

0.01 inch at maximum deflection. Most strain gage load cells of this [

„ type are temperature compensated. Another type of load cell is the , type using a deflection member actuating a linear differential trans- former. This type has the advantage of being able to support a large j

. amount of overload and, in one case, is temperature controlled rather

than temperature compensated. The load range of this unit is readily

changed by altering the size of the deflection member.

Pneumatic and hydraulic load cells are used to directly support the

load, or they may be used in a counterbalance system using levers with

the air or hydraulic pressure being used to position a scale beam to a rebalanced condition.

Another approach is the flexure plate system which eliminates the ' ' knife edge pivots and bearings. Strips of steel in tension suspend the

levers from the main frame. The levers, in tuxm, suspend the weigh- : ing platform, in tension by means of identical flexure plates. Very j » little movement of the plates occurs in the weighing operation.

The principal nongravimetric weigher is the nuclear-radiation gage. \ { This device is relatively new to industry. In this system, a source of

| | nuclear energy is absorbed to a greater or lesser degree by the material p

( in the radiation path. With gamma radiation, the absorption of

energy is proportional to the mass of the absorbing material. A i! i nuclear gage is sometimes calibrated by checking against a gravimetric i] weighing device. The radiation element or source is contained in a : j suitable holder designed so the radiation is directed toward the material being measured. The radiation detector is placed on the opposite

side of the material. The output of the gage thus becomes a measure j of material mass.

86
A belt scale, suitable for in-transit weighing, is comprised of several

basic components. The first objective is to measure the load of material on the conveyor belt. This is normally accomplished by a weigh

frame or scale carriage. This typically is a metal framework which

supports one or more carrying idlers and transmits the change in weight or displacement of the frame to a weight transducer ( a device

for translating mechanical displacement to an electrical or pneumatic

signal) or merely transfers the displacement through a series of mechanical levers to the final element.

Since any load transducer is only measuring pounds per foot, this

signal, in order to be meaningful, must be compensated by a belt speed

signal. Therefore, there must be a belt speed compensating device

which transmits a linear electrical signal. The speed sensors can

either be mechanical or electrical. The mechanical speed detection

is typically accomplished by means of a friction driven pulley, in contact with the conveyor belt, which results in the pulley being driven at a speed proportional to the belt speed.

Electrical speed sensors are of four basic types. The tachometer

geneator is probably the most popular means of speed detection. The

tach (as it is popularly called) generates an output voltage directly

proportional to belt speed. The output may either be dc or ac. The ac type is more commonly referred to as an alternator. The third type

is a Selsyn motor which produces a three-wire synchro signal with a

rotating field proportional to belt speed. The fourth type is a pulse

motor which has a number of poles and transmits pulses directly proportional to belt speed.

In many cases, the conveyor belt speed is constant and it is only

necessary to couple a time measurement in the integrator to accomplish

weight-flow integration.

This brings us to the last of the principal scale elements, the inte- grator. There are many types commercially available, each with its own distinctive features.

One of the oldest types of integrators is the mechanical Avheel or the

disk type (fig. 1). A similar system is sometimes used with the

pneumatic actuated load cell. The disk is positioned radially on the

wheel relative to the conveyed weight. The wheel rotates proportional

to belt speed. Another similar type uses an integrator belt which is run at a speed proportional to the belt speed. A wheel carrying a

series of small disks rides on the belt causing the wheel to turn. The

instantaneous load affects the angle between the wheel and direction

of the belt. The two variables are mechanically integraded.

There are many types of electronic integrators. Some are mechanically actuated, others are electrically actuated, some are intermittent,

others continuous, some use vacuum tubes, others are solid state.

248-760 0—67 7 87
Figure 3

However, the most important characteristic of any integrator should

be its capability to integrate both in a negative and a positive direction.

This requirement is dictated on a conveyor belt of any length that tj has worn or new sections of belting and whose weight must be averaged \) so that when a belt makes a complete revolution, the totalizer ends i up with the same reading as when it started. In order to accomplish r this, the totalizer must be able to reverse as well as go forward. Most ; of the electronic integrators accept a variable voltage output signal ; from the weight transducer. This signal is compensated by the speed i generator signal and the resulting voltage is fed to an integrating j amplifier. The interating amplifier feeds into a pulsing motor which j] is directly connected to a counter. The polarity of the amplifier out- ,).
put determines whether the counter motor is driven in a forward or

reverse direction. The rate of pulsing is determined by the weight-flow

rate. Thus, each output pulse corresponds to a given quantity of

material (fig. 2).

Other elements of a scale system may be classified as accessory items

since they are not actually required to make the primary measurement,

but are only required to supply other supplementary information or operating features.

One of the most popular acessory items appears to be the analog

recorder, either circular or strip chart. This type of instrument is used

to record rate of flow, acepting a signal direct from the weighttransducer or from the integrator.

A newer type of recording, and rapidly becoming one of the more

popular types, is the digital recorder similar to the adding machine

tape type. One digital recorder not only prints the total weight

but also the date, time, and a product code letter. There are also more

elaborate forms of digital recording, including the automatic wide

carriage typewriter, which is capable of printing several columns of

information from an infinite number of sources. One of the most important scale applications today is the control

of the flow of bulk materials. The conveyor scale or weighing feeder

actually closes the control loop. The controller receives the weight

signal from the load transducer and provides an output control signal

to control the rate of flow of the bulk material. Thus, with the con- veyor scale, we have a true closed loop control system.

There are many ways to approach the control of bulk materials

through intransit weighing. There are many different types of models

and manufacturers of control instruments on the market. Control can be accomplished electrically, pneumatically, or hydraulically, or even through a combination of the three. The weight-transducers

transmit an electrical signal which is acceptable to most of the potentiometric instruments available commercially today. The controllers,

themselves, may be of the recording, indicating, or non-indicating type,

depending upon the requirements of the application. Similarly, the

final controlled element, that part of the loop which actually regulates

i the feed, varies considerably on each application. One of the more

popular types of control is to use a variable speed drive on the weighing feeder and regulate the flow of material by varying the speed

of the feeder. Another approach is to use a constant-speed weighing

conveyor and vary the feed rate of the weighing conveyor by an independent feeder. The type of device selected is usually determined by

the type of material being fed. A vibrating feeder or pan feeder is often selected for coarse material,

whereas fine materials are commercially fed with a star or rotary valve

feeder, also equipped with variable speed drive.

89
In another approach, the conveyor belt is loaded directly from a

bin and a striker gate, operated by a pneumatic or hydraulic actuator,

is utilized to control the flow of material on the conveyor belt. Another means of control is by the load-out control method (previously

described) in which a counter is set for a prescribed number of tons and material is fed over the weighing conveyor until the integrator

count matches that of the set point counter. This type of control is usually used for loading bulk carriers.

The subject of automatic feed control could be a complete discussion

in itself, but time is limited and we have just discussed the more popular forms of controls, without going into a detailed description.

At this time, we should briefly mention some of the different types

of conveyor scales as manufactured by the various scale companies.

A brief mention of the more distinctive principles of operation of

the individual units is all that time permits.

The Merrick Scale Company manufactures three basic types of con- veyor scales: (1) Mechanical, (2) Electric or strain gage, (3) Hydraulic. The mechanical scale has been manufactured for the longest

period of time. The scale employs a weigh frame and a lever system

which transmits the signal to a mechanical integrator. The mechanical integrator works on a wheel and disk principle. The scale has s rate transducer available to translate belt speed into the integrator

integration is continuous.

The Merrick Hydraulic Scale receives its signals from the weighbridge through a mechanical level system to a fixed hydraulic load cell,

j Electrical signals are obtained by connecting through a pressure-tocurrent transducer and then to a continuous solid state integrator. The

hydraulic load cell is a piston-cylinder type cell. The design of the 'i strain gage scale is similar to the hydraulic except that a strain gage

load cell is used instead of a hydraulic cell and the output is therefore

electrical. Speed compensation is obtained by the use of a tachometer

generator.

The Thayer Scale Division of Cutler Hammer utilizes a scale lever- jj age system of vertical steel flexure plates. The plates are held in fi tension to transmit forces vertically from the weigh idlers through a

full leverage ratio to the sensing element. Since the plates are securely |

bolted in place, the leverage ratios are precisely defined. The multiple ; level system mechanically amplifies low platform deflection. Tests i weights can be placed on the scale platform surface giving a summation of all gravitational forces. Multpie ilders are available for | longer weigh spans. The load cell is temperature compensated and |l can withstand 1000 percent overload. Thayer uses a mechanical inte- grator with a six (6) digit accumulator. They also can offer a solid J state integrator with a digital belt speed compensating signal. The

amplifier is solid state with plug-in circuit boards.

90
The Trans-Weigh Company's belt scale utilizes two or more idlers

transmitting a load-force to a single strain gage load cell. The ABC McDowell scale is a weighbridge supporting multiple

idlers, with a compression type of strain gage load cell. The cell is temperature compensated and hermetically sealed. The B.I.F. Division of New York Air Brake Company manufactures a converyor scale called Conveyoflow using a pneumatic load

cell. The manufacturer states the pneumatic load cell is not temperature sensitive. The pneumatic load cell operates on a force-balance

system and has an instantaneous recurrable deflection. This deflec- tion is in the order of .003" to .005". A pneumatic load cell can be

used in an explosive atmosphere. The Conveyoflow utilizes a wheel

and disk integrator. The integrator can subtract using a forwardreverse counter. The manufacturer claims that the load cells cannot

be damaged when overloaded since they "bottom-out." The load cell requires a good clean dry air supply.

Fairbanks-Morse uses a mechanical scale system using a spring

loaded scale beam to counterbalance the load force transmitted by the

mechanical lever system. The belt speed is transmitted to the inte-

' grating mechanism by a sprocket chain from a friction roller in contact with the belt. This scale utilizes a code and disk mechanical type

of integrator. They also have a new strain gage load cell scale. Another type of electrical-type scale is manufactured by Gilmore

Industries, Inc. The scale carriage consists of two or more idlers. The electrical motion transducer is a strain gage, which is temperature

compensated and is hermetically sealed. The integrator is electronic,

solid state, with a motor driving the totalizing counter through a belt. The counter is the reversing type for calibrating the empty belt. Eamsey Engineering Company manufactures a conveyor scale which is unique in its principle of operation (fig. 3). Ramsey uses a weight transducer which consists of a deflecting bar actuating an LVDT. The maximum movement from zero to full load is 0.015".

The transducer, because of its design, can be loaded up to 1000 percent

overload. In addition, the transducer housing is temperature controlled rather than temperature compensated. The Ramsey scale carriage, constructed of tubular welded steel, is supported by rubber

trunnions type pivots. The integrator is electronic and solid state incorporating a forward-reverse counter for averaging out the heavy

and light section of the conveyor belt. The integrator is housed in

a NEMA 4 enclosure, which is resistant to dust and moisture conditions. It also has the capability of transmitting a current signal proportional to tons per hour to a remote located instrument.

The weighing device which we will mention is the radiation type

as manufactured by the Ohmart Corporation. The main advantage

of the nuclear scale is there are no moving parts, permitting the primary sensor to operate in corrosive and dusty atmospheres. The

91
sensor does not come in contact with the belt and the manufacturer

states the scale is then not affected by belt tension and misalined idlers. Also only eight inches of belt are required for a measurement. The

manufacturer states there is a built-in calibration checker. Also the

unit can be used on all types of conveyors. The scale actually measures mass weight per unit area. Calibration is often achieved by using

batch scales for check points. The integrator is an integral part of

the recorder or can be located remotely from the recorder, receiving a signal from the recorder.

The Toledo Scale Corporation manufactures a strain gage load cell conveyor scale. They too use a single weigh idler for simplicity of in- stallation and to eliminate all other effects except the load on the belt. They utilize the principle of four parallelograms using flexure stabilizers, which are designed so only the true axial load on the belt is transmitted to the load cell. The output of the load cell is channelled

into a high-speed servo unit. The servo system, in addition to being a

load indicator, positions the input of a ball-and-disk mechanical inte- grator. The Toledo system has the capability of measuring negative

loads, compensating for light belt sections. The manufacturer claims

this feature eliminates the problem of excessive wear on the integrator.

The belt speed compensating unit is on the bottom side of the belt near

the scale. The roller can either drive the disk in the integrator directly

through a flexible shaft and suitable gearing, or it can drive a Selsyn

generator which drives a Selsyn motor in the unit to drive the inte- grator disk through gearing. The output shaft of the integratordrives a standard mechanical counter through suitable gearing to read

the total weight. The integrator and gear trains are enclosed in a dust tight enclosure.

We realize that there are other manufacturers of conveyor scales, but

due to time limitations, we tried to mention those which have distinctive features. Many of those not mentioned are very similar in operating principle to those mentioned in this paper.

We cannot leave the subject of conveyor scales without briefly dis- cussing gravimetric feeders, which are weighing devices of another

type. When we discuss feeders, we are talking about control and here

is where instrumentation and closed-loop circuits enter into the weighing picture. It is very easy to run into "application of scales" at this

point and this subject is covered in the second paper by Mr. McEntee.

We would like to offer a few brief comments on design characteristics

of weighing feeders.

There are several different approaches to controlling the feed rates of raw materials using weighing feeders. One of the more popular

types of feed control is the use of a striker gate which is raised or lowered to control the amount of material on a weighing conveyor.

The striker gate can be actuated by an electric, pneumatic, or hy92
draulic actuator with the position of the gate being determined by

the conveyor scale signal as compared to the desired control point.

Another type of weighing feeder is one where the striker gate is kept in a fixed position and the speed of the weighing feeder belt is varied. This is accomplished by the controller actuating a variable

speed drive.

On a third type of approach, the entire weighing feeder section is weighed. The conveyor is usually constructed of a light material so

as to reduce the tare weight. The feed to the belt is controlled by a variable speed drive operating a star valve or a screw feeder.

On another type of feeder the weight of the material on the weigh

feeder pivots the feeder and the change in position of the feeder changes

the amount of feed through an interconnecting pickup, either electrical or through an electric-mechanical servo system. There are also feeders manufactured by a few companies which have a direct mechanical

linkage to effect a change in the feed rate. There are many other methods of controlling feed rates of bulk

materials, but we only have a limited amount of time and we have,

therefore, had to limit the amount of detail which we could present

today.

(B) APPLICATIONS

by R. J. McEntee. Sales Manager. ABC Scale Division, McDowettWellman Engineering Company. Cleveland, Ohio

Introduction.

The proper application of a continuous scale

system, involves not only the selection of the

right design of scale, but, equally important, an

analysis of the product, the material handling

considerations of the transporting system, and

the instrumentation required to provide total- ized results and/or a record of operation.

This paper will mention product characteristics, material handling problems, and various

instrument schemes currently enjoying wide use

actual applications will be discussed for several

industries where continuous weighing systems

are popular.

Investigation.

All manufacturers use a "Data Sheet" to initially define customer

requirements. Obvious information asked for includes

Material

Rate of Flow

Density

93
Conveyor Belt Speed

Conveyor Inclination

Conveyor Width

Type of Idlers

Idler Spacing

Additional questions are necessary to provide a thorough study of a problem

Temperature Extremes

Particle Size or Sieve Analysis

Percent Moisture and Desirability of Moisture Compensation

Desired Accuracy

Storage Hopper Configuration

Type of Readout Instruments

Alarm Signals

Although not all-inclusive, the above listings illustrate the parameters

that affect the application of continuous scales.

Product Groups.

Literally dozens of charts have been published by manufacturers

dealing with bulk materials which categorize hundreds of products

by their physical properties. The goal of these charts is to help select equipment capable of coping with the unique flow characteristics of

each. The significance of flow characteristic data is appreciated

when it is realized that continuous scale applications often involve

not only conveyor belt scales, but also, scale feeders. Here, the scale

is an integral part of the conveying mechanism and the entire unit is located below the storage hopper. The application engineer who

promises to weigh the material passing over the scale, but assumes no responsibility for getting the material to the scale is not solving

the problem. And, with continuous scale systems, getting the material to the scale without interruption is often the more difficult task.

Mate ria I Handling

.

As it affects the scale manufacturer, the material handling problem

is primarily one of assisting the engineer with hopper design and

selecting the proper feed control device at the scale inlet. Until recently very little scientific data had been available governing the correct bin design for bulk materials. Experience, gained

through trial and error, had taught broad principles such as, a conical

| bin will pass material better than a flat walled bin, and then, one verti- 1] cal side to a conical bin is better than a spherically shaped conical bin. 1

The difficulties in not having reliable data became more pronounced I in recent years with the introduction of so many new bulk materials

especially in the chemical industry.

94
Instruments are available today which measure compactness, angle

of resjiose, shear forces, angle of friction between the bulk solid and

the bin wall material, and formulas have been developed which give

bin discharge opening and shape, angle of side slopes and other parameters to aid material flow. The proper feed control device at the scale feeder inlet is equally

important to a sound weighing system. Manufacturers choose between a shear gate, rotary valve, vibratory feeder, or screw feeder (fig.

1). Occasionally, combinations of these are used such as, vibrating- screw feeder. Each has merits ; the gate, offering lowest cost but use- able only on free-flowing, small-particle material; the rotary valve,

suitable for floodable materials but discharging in increments rather

than continuously ; the vibratory feeder, ideal for lumps and relatively

large particle sizes; the screw-feeder, excellent for both floodable and

nonfree-flowing materials of small particle size.

Instrumentation.

Continuous belt scales and scale feeders are available using mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, and electronic weight sensing mechanisms.

The mechanical and electronic units are most popular, and, since both

produce electronic outputs, the instrumentation systems in the continu- ous scale market are primarily electronic (fig. 2).

Both analog and digital control techniques are applied. Digital

instruments are relatively new and are just beginning to gain wide

acceptance in most industries, although the petro-chemical industry

has used digital control instruments for approximately 5 years. The

weighing industry is almost certain to increase its use of digital controls in the future; however, at present, the overwhelming majority of

controls are analog.

Most scale manufacturers produce their own integrator; that is, an

electronic panel mounted instrument which receives and amplifies a

rate of flow signal from the scale, computes the rate with respect to

time, and drives a motor to which is connected a gear train and totaliz- ing counter, thereby displaying an accumulated total. Beyond this,

it is common practice to rely on established instrument suppliers for

such items as chart recorders, ticket printers, and computing elements.

The scale manufacturer does, however, design control systems and

assumes responsibility for all instrumentation applied.

An example of instrumentation in its simplest form is a mechanical

conveyor belt scale which mechanically multiplies belt speed by belt

load and drives a 6-digit totalizing counter located in the scale cabinet . Additional examples of instrumentation are discussed in the following

section.

95
Industrial Applications.

Sand and Gravel—Load-Out Control System.

A continuous weight of both fine and coarse aggregate is obtained from screens. Scale output is integrated, and a permanent record of input to storage bins is achieved with a chart recorder. Load-out into trucks or rail cars is eccomplished on a preset batch-weight basis with scale output integrated and printed on a multicopy billing form In installations of this type, it is possible to eliminate truck scales or track scales.
Pulp and Paper Industry—Automatic Moisture Compensation Control of Wood Chips to Digester.

Continuous belt scales have long been used to control "wood chip flow

to the digester where the chips are cooked in an acid bath in preparation for the paper machine. In the past, it has not been possible to control chips based on dry weight since an accurate means of moisture

measurement was not available. (The difficulty has been in distinguishing between the free hydrogen—which appears as moisture and

is what a moisture gage actually measures—and the natural hydrogen

in the wood) . "With the problem just about solved, it is expected that

this application will become a frequent one for scale companies.

Both a total weight (wood chips plus water) signal from the scale and a water-only signal from the moisture gage are directed to a computing relay which simply subtracts water from the total and trans- mits a "dry wood chip" signal to the set-point controller where a comparison is made with set point. A corrective signal is then transmitted

to the vibratory feeder via the control rectifier to modulate flow. Both

total weight and dry wood chip weight may be totalized for record

purposes.

Coal Industry—Unit Train Loading.

A common application is the loading of coal from stockpile to unit

trains. A somewhat different approach is often taken to the standard

practice of a conveyor belt scale. Because tonnages are relatively high

(1,000 tons per hour and up), even a low cost commodity like coal can

cost the shipper considerable sums of money in lost revenue unless

weighing accuracy is high. The conveyor belt scale is adversely af- fected by the unusually long conveyors (commonly, 2,000 to 4,000 feet )

,

and conveyors with one or more vertical curves. Consequently, a "coal-loader7

' is employed. This is a scale (usually

mechanical) mounted on a special conveyor built by the scale manufacturer, and designed to closely control belt tension and vibration.

A typical unit is 25 feet long, uses multiple weigh idlers, has gravity

take-ups, is completely enclosed, contains built-in calibration equipment and is always calibrated to an acceptance tolerance of better than

± 0.25 percent of actual weight based on track scale calibration. The

coal-loader is used as the basis for payment and is inspected by the local Weighing and Inspection Bureau under the jurisdiction of the Association of American Railroads.

Coal is free flowing and of uniform size, unless frozen, and thus a manual shear gate suffices at the conveyor inlet. Instrumentation re- quirements include a remote rate of flow meter with alarm contacts, a remote totalizer, and a tape or ticket-type printer for bookkeeping

purposes.

97
Cement Industry—Raw Mill Proportioning.

The manufacturers of Portland Cement have been progressive in recent years in their attempts to reduce operating costs. Virtually all new plants today are computer monitored or computer controlled and

digital systems are gaining in popularity. Both conveyor scales and

scale feeders are widely used in proportioning of raw materials to the

kiln. A typical raw mill proportioning system allows the chemist to adjust percentages of each material without regard for total feed rate and, similarly, permits total feed adjustment independent of the

proportions.

In the system illustrated, the belt speeds of all weigh feeders are modulated in unison from the master variable frequency drive which

is paced by the raw mill sound level. The belt loadings are controlled

only by the percentage settings as determined by the chemist (or the

computer)

.

Nuclear Scales.

Applications of belt scales have broadened in the last 4 years with

the introduction of a non-contact scale that can be used on many types

of conveyors—belt, vibrating, apron, and air slide. The scale employs

nuclear radiation to measure belt loading with belt speed correction

available for nonuniform speed conveyors.

The scale is of prime interest where vibration or variable belt ten- sions would adversely affect conventional scales and where short term

accuracy is not of paramount importance.

Rail-to-Water Load-Out.

Common to many industries and of increasing importance to weights

and measures officials is the rail-to-water weighing application wherein

the continuous scale is used as the basis for payment. Hopefully, the

day is nearing when uniform codes will be available to help the bi- partisan official decide what constitutes satisfactory accuracy and Avhat

standard to use in evaluating results.

Reference

Jenike, Andrew J., Storage and Flow of Solids, Bulletin No. 123

of the Utah Engineering Experiment Station, University of Utah,

Salt Lake City, Utah.

98
(C) TESTING

by P. W. Chase, Project Engineer, Minnesota Ore Operations, U.S.

Steel Corporation, Pilotac Plant, Mountain Iron, Minnesota

Comments on conveyor scale weighing per- formance by plant operators seem to fall into

two categories, with very little middle ground.

One group is of the opinion that if conveyor

scales can be trusted at all, it is only to within

about 10 percent. The other group claims consistent accuracies of 1 percent, or y2 percent, or even a few tenths of a percent. In this writer's

experience, further questioning on the above

comments generally yields indication of an in- verse correlation between percent error and

maintenance.

This maintenance comprises mainly calibration and testing procedures. These, in turn, comprise mainly procedures designed to ascertain and control the relationship of the conveyor

belt, and especially its load, to the weighing mechanism. A relatively

small percent of maintenance is concerned directly with the weighing

and totalizing per se. To establish a common basis around which to discuss calibration

and testing, certain assumptions will be made about the installation.

Possible relaxation of these constraints will be mentioned later and

discussion by the panel is entertained. The assumptions are as fol- lows :

1. The conveyor belt is free of vertical curvature, or at least the

weighing area is distant from such curvature.

2. The scale is located at a point of low and preferably uniform

conveyor belt tension. (This implies a gravity takeup and a horizontal conveyor. If an inclined conveyor is used, the scale should be as near the lower end as possible.)

3. All sensing idlers and at least two adjacent idlers on each side are selected for concentricity.

4. Conveyor belt speed is accurately measured.

5. Idler alinement is within 0 to + 1/32 inch 2 ].

6. The conveyor supporting structure is rigid.

7. A shallow t roughing angle is used on the conveyor belt.

8. The weighing area is free of skirt boards.

9. The weighing area is sheltered from wind.

10. The no-load to full-load deflection is very small [

3 ]. 11. The belt is relatively uniformly loaded and at about 75 percent

of rated scale capacity.

12. The weighing area is kept clean from spillage and other foreign

matter.

99
13. The integrator or totalizer can accumulate in either plus or minus

direction.

This is admittedly an idealistic list, and it is certainly a rare weighing application which fulfills all the requirements. The statements

do permit discussion of testing and calibration apart from these com- mon perturbations

Calibration techniques fall into three general categories, namely:

material runs, chain weighing, and static weighing.

Common to any of these techniques is the requirement of careful

zeroing. Perhaps an additional requirement for completely uniform

conveyor belting should have been added to the list above. Instead,

the plus and minus total accumulation is used to permit zeroing despite

the fact that different sections of the conveyor exert slightly different

forces on the weighing idlers even with an empty belt. For this rea- son, it is essential that the zero testing include several complete passes

of the conveyor belt. The totalizer should accumulate zero tons after

any unit number of passes. Material-run offers the greatest assurance of accurate calibration be- cause it is a direct test of the entire system, measuring totalized weight

in an operating environment. Material passing over the scale at or near the normal loading is collected and static weighed to provide an

accurate known standard. It is also possible to check the calibration

at other points above and below the normal loading to establish a cali- bration curve. Because conveyor scale installations in the real world

often fall short of the requirements listed earlier, it is useful to consider

which problems are partially compensated for by this testing method.

Tension effects due to loading of an inclined belt are included in the

test, as are some effects of a vertical curvature if it is not in the

weighing area. Small misalinement effects and effects of load sensing

mechanism deflection (both are related to tension) are also included

in the test. Probably most scales which have been approved for billing purposes

are calibrated using material-run.

Although the material-run test is certainly direct and desirable, in

many scale installations it is very difficult to accomplish. These in- stallations must rely on chain weigh testing as the most accurate available calibration.

The roller-type chains used in this testing are accurately weighed

at periodic intervals and the known weight per foot is then used as the

standard for calibration. It is important that these test chains be kept

clean and in good condition to retain their value as a standard. They

should be kept dry and under a dust-cover when not in use. As in the zeroing test, the test with the chain should include several

unit passes of the conveyor belt. Assuming that the total length of

the conveyor has been accurately measured and all of the constraints are applied, this technique should be capable of calibration to within

100
about ±y2 percent [

4 ] . Note that the chain weight procedure does not

include the tension effects produced by a loaded belt. On an inclined

belt, particular attention must be paid to idler alineraent and small

deflection under load because both errors are increased by increase of

belt tension.

The least direct calibration technique, and one which in this writer's

opinion should be confined to interim testing, is that of static weighing.

In this method, a known weight is added to the scale suspension and

a unit number of conveyor passes is used to establish the calibration

in similar fashion to the chain weigh technique. In addition to the

severe list of constraints previously mentioned, this method has several

additional problems:

1. If the conveyor load is not transmitted to the weight sensor at a one-to-one ratio, it is necessary to accurately establish the true

ratio.

2. The length of the weighing section must be accurately measured.

3. The effects of even the nominal belt tension of the no-load condition and the effects of conveyor belt stiffness are not included

in the test. Despite the problems above, this test is useful as an easily performed

interim check. Failure of the check to fall within predetermined

limits would indicate need for recalibration by material-run or chain

weigh tests. The relatively new nuclear scale offers some promise in noncontract

weighing not subject to errors from belt tension or small misaline- ments. This device will undoubtedly see wider application in the

future.

Considering the relative accuracy and inconvenience of the three

techniques discussed, a program of the following type should be con- sidered for testing a conveyor scale

1. Frequent, preferably daily, zero checking.

2. Frequent, preferably daily, testing by static weight.

3. Periodic chain-weigh calibration.

4. Initial calibration by material-run testing with periodic retesting

dependent on the veracity of the chain-weigh calibration.

The optimal periods between the chain-weight and material-run

tests are dependent on the individual installation, largely influenced

by how well the installation meets the frequently mentioned list of

constraints.

References

f

1] Effect of Belt-Conveyor Parameters in Belt-Scale Accuracy,

Hendrik Colijn.

[

2 ] Belt Scale Got You Buffaloed, R. L. Small and H. Colijn.

[

3 ] Colijn, op. cit., recommends .005 in total deflection. Small and

Colijn, op. cit., recommends 1/64-inch total deflection.

101
[

4 ] Small and Colijn, op. cit., Table 1. Instruction Manual, Gilmore Industries, Inc. Instruction Manual, Ramsey Engineering Company

Various publications—Merrick Scale Manufacturing Company

Process Weighing, D. M. Considine, Chemical Engineering

August 17, 1964.

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 13, 1966

No Business Session.

102
MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1966

(J. L. Littlefield, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

THE DEVELOPMENT OF API STANDARDS 1101 AND 2531

by L. J. Barbe, Jr., Supervising Engineer, Oil and Meter Measurement. Humble Pipeline Company. Houston. Texas

Abstract.

The paper describes the organizational ori- gins of Standard 1101 in ASME (American

Society of Mechanical Engineers) and API

(American Petroleum Institute). Basic metering guides contained in the standards are described. Of special interest are reasons for

omitting metering tolerances from the standard. Precautions for metering and calibration

of provers are enumerated. Eecent developments in meter proving equipment are described.

Origins of Standard 1101.

API Standard 1101 had its beginning from

activities of the ASME, which had organized

its Research Committee on Fluid Meters in 1916. The committee had as one of its objectives "the preparation of a text- book on theory and use of fluid meters sufficient as a standard refer- ence." The initial report assembled by this committtee, published in

1924, has been supplemented and revised many times. A very knowledgeable and authoritative text titled, "Fluid Meters—Their Theory

and Application," was the final result. The information in the text

is not limited to petroleum fluids, but covers numerous types of liquid

and gas fluid meters. Prior to 1941, the ASME Research Committee on Fluid Meters had

sponsored significant research on positive displacement meters at the

University of Oklahoma. The API became interested in the project

and a joint committee, the ASME-API Committee for Volumeter

Research was formed to continue the program. The research was

completed and the results published in the May 1943 transactions of

the ASME.

The P.D. (Positive Displacement) meter research work demonstrated that such meters can accurately measure liquid hydrocarbons.

The oil industry, recognizing the need for an authoritative guide for

their use of such meters, called upon the ASME-API joint committee

to prepare a tentative code. Methods already prescribed by other

bodies, including the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

248-760 O—67 S 103
were reviewed and recommendations of meter manufacturers and

users were obtained.

The ASME-API Petrolium P.D. Meter Code No. 1101 (Tentative) was drafted by the joint committee and published in 1946. The code was revised in 1952. Subsequently, ASME withdrew from joint

sponsorship, because the primary research was accomplished and

Code 1101 had become almost exclusively a petroleum industry activity.

The current codification is embodied in API Standard 1101 (1960),

and is titled "Measurement of Petroleum Liquid Hydrocarbons by

Positive Displacement Meter." The responsible API body is the

"Committee on Liquid Metering.*' It is significant to note that Positive Displacement has been dropped from the sponsoring committee's

name in recognition of other types of petroleum meters which

are coming into use.

Contents of Standard 1101.

The contents of Standard 1101 are broken down into these major

sections

Section I—Installation

Section II—Meter Provers and Their Calibration

Section III—Meter Proving Procedures

Section IV—Meter Performance (effects of temperature, pressure, and flow rate)

Section V—Operation and Maintenance of Metering Systems

Appendix—Installation Diagrams, Truck and Loading Rack Meter

Facilities, Test Measure and Prover Tank Construction, Sample Forms, Tables, etc.

Application of Standard 1101 to Metering.

The measurement performance required of a metering facility will

vary with different branches of industry and among individual operators. The accuracy or tolerance required is governed by the nature

of the operation, the degree of precision obtainable in the particular

type of operation, and by practical economics.

Standard 1101 recognizes that differences in tolerance requirements

for metering will unavoidably exist. For this reason numerical limits are purposely omitted from Standard 1101 where possible. The

Standard concentrates on techniques and procedures. Where desirable or neecssary, metering tolerances are left to the discretion and mutual

agreement of the parties concerned. Where contractual exchanges

are involved, the metering tolerances are generally specified in the

contract. Examination of some typical situations will illustrate why different

'

operators may require different metering tolerances. For example,

104
truck meters and loading rack meters are operated intermittently to measure comparatively small batch quantities. Operating conditions

for these meters inherently include frequent starting and stopping of

the meter, periods of time during which the meter and contents are

idle, variations in metering pressure, and variations in metering temperature. These are less than optimum conditions if one is to obtain

the very highest order of measurement precision. In retail dispensing

of petroleum liquids, the volume measured for an individual transaction is usually so small as to make adjustment of the quantity to 60° F. base neither necessary nor practical.

On the other hand, a pipeline transportation meter will handle rela- tively large volumes under comparatively stable conditions of temperature and pressure. Incentive exists for maintaining close-accuracy

tolerances, because a small error multiplied by a large volume becomes

significant. Reduction to 60° F. reference base is usually mandatory.

Let us assume a theoretical facility measuring 100,000 barrels

(1,200,000 gallons) per day of liquid valued at $5.00 per barrel. Let

us also assume that to improve the measurement by l/10th of 1 per- cent would require some special equipment and several hours additional labor for taking data and making calculations. Inasmuch

as the value of the liquid represented by l/10th of 1 percent is $500.00

per day, it is quite possible that the additional costs can be justified.

On the other hand let us assume that an 8,000 gallon transport is being loaded with gasoline valued at about 26 cents per gallon and

that by the use of some additional equipment and by special calculations the measurement tolerance can be improved l/10th of 1 percent.

In this case the additional l/10th of 1 percent represents a value of

only $2.08. Obviously this is not sufficient to justify the cost of the

additional labor, especially -when we consider this is a plus or minus

value.

Thus Standard 1101 leaves the establishing of metering tolerances

to the meter users. Or, in cases where the consuming public must be

protected, authoritative codes such as NBS Handbook 44 may be

invoked to cause the maintenance of adequate meter measurement.

Meter Accessories.

Many things external to a meter can affect its accuracy and mechanical life. All too often the meter is blamed for poor performance

when in fact it is impossible for it to perform properly under the

conditions of its application. One common fault of operators is application of excessive meter mechanical loading. Use of too many devices mechanically powered by the meter can adversely affect meter

performance under variable flow conditions and shorten meter life. These devices include various excessive combinations of large numeral

105
counters, ticket printers, electric pulsors, set-stop valves, samplers,

temperature compensators, gear adjusters, combinators, etc. A P.D. meter should be considered primarily as a precision instrument for measurement. It is not designed for, nor should it be used,

as a prime mover for turning heavy mechanical loads. In the case of retail loading rack and truck meters, a number of these mechanical

devices are perhaps necessary. It is recommended that efforts be made

by each operator to keep meter torque load to the minimum possible.

Performance of air eliminators and valves can have obvious effects on meter accuracy. Air or vapor not eliminated from the measured

stream will register as liquid at liquid prices. Valves affecting meter

registration integrity should be capable of positive bubble-tight seal at all the operating pressures encountered. Set-stop valves should

close smoothly and not create shock and backlash in the meters.

Effects of Temperature and Pressure. Where large volumes are measured it sometimes is desirable to adjust the metered volume for temperature and pressure. The procedures for this are described in the Standards. We will note here only an example of some typical values encountered

Assume: 68°F. API gasoline measured at 50°F. and 25 psi.

If the registered volume is 100,000 gallons at unity meter

factor, adjustment to atmospheric pressure would increase

the volume 21.25 gallons. Adjustment to 60 °F. would

increase the volume another 680.00 (table 6)/700.00

(table 7) gallons. Combined adjustment to net for both

temperature and pressure then would be 721.25 gallons or an increase of 0.72 percent.

Design of Meter Provers.

Standard 1101 on meter prover capacity requires that the capacity

of a prover shall not be less than the volume delivered in one minute

and that preferably, it will be iy2 to 2 times the volume delivered

in 1 minute. The reason for this minimum limitation is to minimize

the slight errors which may be in gage readings, clingage, run-down,

cyclical meter compensators, etc. As will be mentioned later, there are types of provers where these slight errors can be eliminated and

the prover volume can be smaller.

Calibration of Meter Provers.

Weights and Measures personnel are often required to perform or witness water-draw calibration of meter provers. The following are some principles which, if observed, will expedite the obtaining of re- peating runs, and reduce the amount of uncertainty in the results.

106
1. Use clean water with a minimum of dissolved air or other gases. Do not let water stand in the tank any longer than necessary be- fore beginning withdrawal. This will lessen the amount of gas

bubble formation in the tank.

2. Utilize weather conditions, coverings, or thermal insulation which

reduce ambient temperature effects on the prover.

3. Provide an ample size water-draw connection. A two-inch con- nection with a good quality ball or plug valve will speed up the

water-draw and permit easy throttling for topping out test measures.

4. Use care to accurately scribe gage scales, and properly position

them as required by the calibrated volume. Attach in a secure and stable manner on the tank and seal in place. Scales on upper

and lower neck should be mounted in the same vertical quadrant.

The precision of this operation is equally important to that of

the water-withdrawal procedure.

API Standard 2531.

At the time of the last revision (1960) of Standard 1101, developments were being made concurrently in refinement of mechanical dis- placement meter proving techniques. In 1963, the API published

Standard 2531, "Mechanical Displacement Meter Provers." These

provers to date have found their greatest application outside retail metering circles. "However, a number are now in service at truck

loading racks and are subject in some instances to approval by State or local sealers. A detailed listing of the advantages of displacement provers appears in Section V of Standard 2531. The more important advantages

are

1. The meter is proved under operating conditions using running

start-stop procedures.

2. Prover volume can be less than required for prover tanks.

3. Adaptable to automated meter proving.

Mechanical displacement provers are built in many configurations.

All may be broadly categorized as being either of the bidirectional or

unidirectional type. Both types are not in oil industry service in

considerable numbers throughout the world.

One such prover is illustrated in figure 1. This drawing is taken

from Standard 2531 and is a typical layout of a Bidirectional Prover

System. The prover is basically a cylinder from which a piston or sphere displaces a known volume of fluid. It consists of a calibrated

length of pipe between two precision detector switches, a sphere or cup-packed free piston displacer, and valving for reversing stream

flow to reciprocate the displacer. The meter to be proved is equipped

with an electrical pulse generator such that the output pulses, usually

107
PRESSURE GAGE f

PRESSURE/ VACUUM RELIEF AND VENT VALVE ASSEMBLY

SEPARATOR TEE ASSEMBLY SPHERE

CALIBRATED VOLUME -

PROVER SECTION MAf BE

LAID HORIZONTALLY AND/OR

BURIED BELOW GROUND

-BLANKED -OFF BORE -SPHERE LAUNCH

100° ROTATION 90° TO 180° ROTATING BALL VALVE FOR HANDLING SPHEROID

FIGUR.fi 2. Typical Unidirectional Return-Type Prover System.

in the order of 100 pulses per gallon or 1000 pulses per barrel are- proportional to the quantity delivered through the meter. The detector switches "gate" a high speed electronic counter on and

off to count the meter pulses generated by the meter while the fluid is

108
being displaced by the displacer in traveling between the detector

switches. Meter factor is determined by comparing the meter registration of the electronic counter with the known calibrated displacement volume between the detector switches. Appropriate adjustments

for temperature and pressure are usually made in arriving at the

meter factor. The unidirectional prover uses a spheroid displacer traveling in an "endless loop/' The principle of operation is similar to the bi- directional prover, except the spheroid displaces in one direction only.

Figure 2 taken from API Standard 2531 pictures a prover of this

popular type.

Electronic Master Meter Proving.

High speed electronic pulse counting equipment first adapted for

use with displacement provers has in very recent years been adapted

for master meter proving. The master meter is first calibrated into a conventional prover tank or by other recognized method. The master

meter may then be used to prove an operating meter by use of electronic

equipment.

A pulse generator is attached to the master meter. The meter to be

proved is fitted with a mechanical or electronic switching device which

gates an electronic counter on and off at the end of a prescribed number of meter shaft revolutions or preset volume. The registration of

both meters for the preset proving volume is then available. Comparison of the operating meter volume registration to that of the master

meter is then made to arrive at a proof of the operating meter.

Future Revisions of Metering Codes.

The Committee on Liquid Metering is considering revision or supplementation of Standard 1101 to cover the exceptions and/or re- quirements for turbine metering and for metering viscous fluids. These additional guides are expected within the next one or two years.

Conclusions.

Standards 1101 and 2531 have made material contribution to obtaining accurate petroleum measurement. The API Committee on Liquid

Metering solicits your suggestions for improvement, of these Standards. We are particularly grateful to the National Bureau of Standards for furnishing calibration of our master test measures and other

petroleum measurement standards.

109
THE RETAIL GAS PUMP—ACCURACY PROBLEMS

by K. E. Rissee, Jr., President, Southwest Pump Company, Bonham,

Texas

In a discussion of accuracy or the lack of it in

retail gasoline dispensing equipment, it is neces- sary to comment briefly on the ever changing

motor fuels to be handled. These fuels contain

not only the usual carefully blended hydrocarbons, but also many very sophisticated chemical

additives. While the value of such additives

to the general public is unquestioned, the unexpected use of new ones can, and often does, pose

problems of near catastrophic proportions to the dispenser manufacturer.

To illustrate this point, after testing the

equipment, our factory sprays it with a light

preservative oil which is normally flushed out in the first twenty-five

gallons delivered at installation. However, in the presence of one of the new additives this oil, proven to be so satisfactory in the

past, suddenly assumes the consistency of molasses and collects on the

piston and valves of our meter thus causing the slow-flow calibration

to drop well below the full flow. In the comments on dispensers and their components that follow,

other calibration difficulties resulting from these additives, in addition

to those from the better known characteristics of gasoline, will be dis- cussed in some detail. When a situation like the one with the preservative oil and the additive occurs, it appears that the dispensers were never tested at the

factory. Contrary to appearance no gasoline pump manufacturer is so confident of the suppliers, his manufacturing teclmiques, his parts

inspection, or his personnel as to ship without complete and comprehensive testing. This testing follows the same basic pattern for all with such additional individual tests as product characteristics

warrant.

An average service station pump installation with means for testing

calibration, power input, pressure, suction, or ability to separate air

is to be tested as follows

1. After connecting electrical leads and suction line to dispenser,

close all air valves, and open all others including nozzle.

2. Close disconnect switch and start dispenser.

When the air in the system has been dissipated with the pumping

of a minimum of 25 gallons of naphtha, check input power (525

watts) and delivery rate (Mg.p.m.).

110
4. Check for leaks after closing nozzle, stopping dispenser, and opening compressed air valve. ( Test Pressure : 100 pounds per square

inch.)

5. Close compressed air valve, open nozzle and slowly turn dispenser

switch until watt-meter indicates initial contact. At this point

check to be certain that computer pawl is properly timed to in- sure interlocking.

6. With nozzle open and dispenser running, close quick closing suc- tion valve for wet vacuum test. (25 feet of Hg.

)

7. Open quick closing valve and operate dispenser normally for the

5-gallon calibration tests being certain to stop and reset between

each to prove separator check valve. At this time, adjust meter

to minus 2 cubic inches (0 with gasoline) allowing only one cubic

inch variance at 2 g.p.m.

8. By opening air valve with nozzle open and dispenser running,

test separators for a complete stoppage of flow.

9. Every ten units, test air separator efficiency by comparing a full- flow calibration check with air entering suction line through a

.030 inch orifice and open orifice valve to the previous one without air and reject any with a variation of more than 3 cubic inches.

An average service station installation with provisions for testing

calibration, rate of flow, pressure drop, or valves is to be tested as below

1. After being certain that compressed air valve is closed, connect

electrical leads and supply line.

2. With nozzle open, start pedestal and pump 25 gallons through it to disperse air.

3. Close nozzle, shut off dispenser, and open compressed air valve to check for leaks. (Test Pressure : 100 pounds per square inch.)

4. Close compressed air valve, start dispenser, and check flow rate (13 g.p.m.).

5. Turn off dispenser, reset, and slowly turn on until pilot light in- dicates switch contact is made. At this spot in the cycle, check

computer pawl for proper position to insure interlocking.

6. Operating dispenser normally, adjust meter calibration to minus

2 cubic inches (0 with gasoline) on the full flow 5-gallon tests, and

reject any with a variation of more than one cubic inch at 2 g.p.m.

7. Test valves by opening nozzle, turning off dispenser, and closing

switch at panel board.

As indicated in these test procedures, a sincere effort is made to in- sure the performance of our equipment and particularly to calibrate

all to zero on gasoline. However, in spite of our effort, some are found to be several cubic inches off at installation. Of the possible causes for this inaccuracy, the variation of approximately 2 cubic

111
inches built into the computer is the best known and most widely dis- cussed. As a consequence it is only being mentioned here. A less known and less frequent cause is from rough handling during

shipment. Such can and does distort the computer frame making the

computer itself hard to turn. The resulting additional torque can produce calibration differences of about 2 cubic inches which may be either

plus or minus depending on the make of the meter. Probably the greatest of all causes for initial dispenser mismeasurement lies with the ever changing additives in gasoline. As in the inci- dent mentioned earlier, they make the use of any sort of preservative

very questionable. Yet, without some protection, a dispenser that has

been in storage for as long as six months can be expected to measure at

least plus 5 cubic inches, but to drop back to zero after pumping

approximately 500 gallons.

Many of these additives are metal cleaners and as such are reactive

to metals in general. Their reaction is not corrosive, but apparently

etches out of the meter valve and valve seat metal grains which cut

both. When this happens, the slow-flow calibration goes up in the test can with some meters and down with others.

With the additives and other changes in gasoline, the 2-cubic inch

differential between them and our test liquid becomes less certain. Results of recent tests indicate that while there is little difference in vis- cosity, lubrication, and liquid film thickness, the adhesion of the gasoline film to the meter valve and valve seat is considerably less. This

reduced adhesion allows more gasoline than naphtha to slip through

the valve cover, thereby increasing the calibration.

To verify these findings, the controlled grinder marks, long considered necessary for lubrication, were machine lapped off a valve and

valve seat, In addition, the edges sharpened by the lap were left to shear away the film allowing metal to metal contact. The valve and

seat were then tested in a meter which calibrated the same on naphtha

as on several different gasolines.

What ever the cause of calibration variation, the parts most often

affected are the meter valve and seat. For this reason different materials are being tested continually in the hopes of finding the ultimate

combination. While such appears unlikely for the moment, at least the problem is better defined.

Since these tests with meter valves indicates some difference in the

wetting properties of gasoline, it would be interesting to know if our

test cans are likewise affected. No discussion of this kind is complete without some reference to the

inaccuracies caused by vaporization of the gasoline. In a dispensing

pump on a conventional underground system, it occurs in the suction

while pumping, and on a specific gasoline, is proportional to suction,

atmospheric pressure, and temperature. Thus the amount of vapor.

112
which must be removed from gasoline before metering, varies, but is efficiently handled, by the air separator.

While separators are very efficient devices, there is always a critical volume of vapor which cannot be completely separated. In ours this

critical volume is equivalent to the quantity of air that will pass a .030 inch orifice in a suction line with a vacuum of 8 inches of Hg. As

indicated previously in our test procedures, the resultant inaccuracy

amounts to 3 cubic inches.

The performance of separators have not been affected with the

change in gasolines. However, the use of larger tanks and longer

lines have increased the suction and consequently the vapor which

must be eliminated.

In addition to vaporization from suction, vapor from summer temperatures is formed in the measured fluid line of the pump and in the

lines from the check valve in the submersible pump head to the nozzle

of the pedestal. With no provision for its elimination in either's

lines, it represents a slight reduction in calibration. As to the extent

of this reduction, calibration tests made in the cool of the morning

and the heat of the day indicate 2 cubic inches reduction for the pump

and 5 cubic inches for the pedestal.

While testing in the heat of the day, it was noted that the location of

the nozzle spout in the neck of the test can could make a difference of

2 cubic inches in the calibration of the pedestal, but no difference in

the calibration of the pump. If any conclusion could be drawn from

this limited information, it was that with no separator in the pedestal

to remove the light ends, the gasoline was vaporizing in the test can- To prove these differentials in measurements resulted from vapor

only, our meter was tested in temperatures ranging up to 165° F. and was found to be consistently accurate. Like vapor, wear is often mentioned as a cause of inaccuracies.

While such is certainly true, our experience overall shows that problems of this type are being slowly reduced through the use of new

materials.

These comments, which were merely a list of facts and experiences,

illustrate the ever changing nature of our problems. Their solutions

are often perplexing and require the understanding of all concerned.

113
BIG INTELLIGENCE FROM LITTLE NUMBERS

by E. E. Wolski, Manager of Quality Control, Colgate-Palmolive

Company, New York, Neio York

As you know, I attend this Conference as a representative of industry. I am sure you appreciate that the most valuable assets of any

company are its reputation for fair dealings j

and the integrity its trademarks imply. My own

company has the reputation of being in business \ continuously and serving the public well for 160

years. We, as a company, guard that reputation i zealously. To live up to our company slogan,

J "Quality Products Since 1806," is a continuing

g objective of our management and must be the 1 concern and responsibility of every employee.

My assignment within the company is nationwide management of the Quality Control Program for all my company's products. A major part of that program is weights and measures control.

Weights and measures law enforcement, is not a burden to a capable

manufacturer. Far from being a burden, these laws do not restrict I their protection to the consumer—in these days of fierce competition

they also protect the conscientious manufacturer from those who are unable to comply or unwilling to administer the controls which guarantee compliance.

What is compliance? We market our products in all fifty States. Although the laws and regulations may vary somewhat from State to State, they all require that the average fill must equal at least the

labeled quantity, and sampling must show the filling operation is maintained under control. A packager should only need to control his oper- ation within reasonable tolerances and give fair and honest measure. Manufacturers ask themselves the questions, "What is the best control?" and "Can I improve?" At the same time weights and measures

officials are faced with the problems of identifying the capable packager, and of identifying those who need assistance to comply or to eliminate excessive and costly overfill. The answers to all these questions are in statistical control of net fill and statistical evaluation of

the resulting production.

A relatively few numbers and some interpretation of them can yield a great deal of information—"Big Intelligence from Little Numbers."

Let us look at the manufacturer's problem first. One of the primary considerations in the control of any manufacturing operation is that no two things will be exactly alike in every

detail. There is variation from unit to unit; and this variation may

114
be large or small, depending upon the precision of the overall process

or operation. The variation in the overall process or operation in- cludes not only our ability to control it, but our ability to measure the

results accurately. For example, if we were to have several chemists

perform an analysis of the same material, we would not get exactly

the same result every time. The same thing is true of a process or a

filling operation. We may be operating at the specified value, but

the individual units will vary about it. It does no good to adjust the

operation unless the result is far enough from the standard value to give evidence that the average has actually shifted.

The degree of variability inherent in an operation can be estimated

by making use of statistical methods. Statistics is a system of techniques by which conclusions and predictions can be drawn from numerical data. It is based upon the mathematical theory of probability. In

our operations it is used to determine the point where action should be

taken (rejection or adjustment, for example). These points are es- tablished at values where the odds are that our operation has wandered

from.the desired control, and an adjustment is required to correct for

the shift ; values are also determined which serve as the basis for rejection of any goods produced at that level. There are a number of terms which must be understood for practical

application of statistical techniques (fig. 1)

.

X (or. the value) : The observed individual result for each unit

measured.

Frequency : The number of times a given value for X is observed out of

the total of all the observations recorded in the frequency (f).

Frequency Distribution: A tally of the number of times each value

occurs, to illustrate the pattern of the variation.

XXX XXX

x x x x x x

X X X X X X

_x x x x x x

AVERAGE

X = XI + X2+X3+X4 +Xn

-1/8 -1/16 -0 +1/16 +1/8 +3/16 +1/4 ("| FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION

FREQUENCY CURVE

Figure I

-Zcr -1(7 x +lcr +lcr +3<r NORMAL CURVE

115
-Z<7 -1(7 -\(7 X +1(7 +3<T ~Z(7_-2(7 -\C7 X +\(7 +1(7 +1(7

X ± 0.6745(7 = 50% X ± \C = 68.26 7o

X ± 2CT = 95.46 % X ± 3<T = 99.73 7o

Average: The arithmetic mean of the individual values.

Standard Deviation: A mathematical relationship of the individual

samples to the average value. This is one of the most useful measures of the degree of dispersion and permits one to predict what

future samplings will show. The Standard Deviation, "sigma"

(a), is the root-mean-square deviation of the values from the

average.

Range: The difference between the largest and smallest observed

values in the range (R)

.

Frequency Curve: The frequency distribution, if it included a large

enough number of observations, would eventually widen to include some of the values which occur less often and would ultimately

describe the true distribution of values for the process under study.

If we were to construct a smooth curve connecting the tops of the

frequency tallies, the height of the curve at any point would be

proportional to the frequency at that point, and the area under the curve between any two limits, compared to the total area under the

curve, would be proportional to the frequency of occurrence between

these limits. Such a curve is called a frequency curve. Normal Curve: The frequency curve which occurs most often is symmetrical and bell-shaped. If the X values are stepped off in terms

of the standard deviation, practically all the area under it is in- cluded between the limits X±3ct.

Figure 2

116
The most commonly used limits (fig. 2) are

Limits Percent of Total X±0.6745(t 50. 00

X±<r 68. 26

X±2a 95. 46

X=Sa 99. 73

This means that in those distributions which roughly approximate the

normal curve about two-thirds of the occurrences fall within one

standard deviation on either side of the average, all but about 5 per- cent fall within plus or minus two standard deviations, and practically

all fall within plus or minus three standard deviations.

Control Charts: A control chart is prepared by determining the limits

which represent the spread the process would normally exhibit if it remained at the desired average value. Observed weights are plotted to provide a record of the sampling. When an observation

is outside the established limits, correction is made. If not outside

the limits, it represents the expected normal variability and no adjustment should be made. Unnecessary adjustments only serve to

shift the average from the desired value and to increase the process

spread. The only way to reduce the variation of a system is to re- duce its standard deviation, and this requires a significant modification of the process. Now, let us look at how a packager solves the problem of controlling

fill. My company has an official statement of Aveight policy which is the responsibility of those who manage production. I would like to quote from this:

It is the policy of the company to deliver fair measure to our customers at all times. To accomplish this, filling targets must be set at values which assure that all production averages marked quantity or more.There is a certain amount of variability inherent in the fill- ing operation. Therefore, operation must be controlled at the

correct target value, to not only protect against production of unreasonably light packages due to excessive variation, but

also to protect against unreasonably heavy packages, since some

States, counties, and municipalities enforce regulations which

prohibit overfilling.

Even the most modern high-speed fillers available today, which

approach the ideal of perfection in uniform, fill, still never meet it. As can be seen from the analysis of statistical data, they do reduce the

variation and are actually more accurate than manual weighing for

production quantities. But the laws of nature say some variation will

always exist, and the degree of variation can be determined and predicted, and the operation controlled to maintain good performance.

It is first necessary to evaluate each production line for each product

and size which is filled. A study is made to determine that the filler is

117
in first-class mechanical condition and adjustment. Consecutive samples representing all the filling stations in the filler are obtained by ! several cycles or revolutions of the filling head. The net fill of each

individual unit is obtained and plotted, showing the variation as i compared to average.

A repetitive pattern with one or more stations consistently off shows

a need for mechanical adjustment or repair.

A completely random distribution about the average shows the

machine to be in good order and ready for an evaluation as to its capability.

A minimum of twenty-five subgroups of consecutively produced

samples are taken at five-minute intervals while the filler is in production. The number of samples per subgroup is equal to the number of

stations in the filling head. Each individual sample is weighed and a frequency distribution developed. If a normal distribution is obtained, we may then calculate, statistically, the target which will provide protection against an excessive number of unreasonable minus

errors. As the random distribution can be narrowed by significant

changes in the operations, this target approaches marked quantity.

About two-thirds of our filling lines are sufficiently precise and controllable to such a degree as to allow filling at label quantity as a

target. On the other hand, to keep unreasonable minus errors at the i required minimum, we are obliged to overfill on other lines. This 1 overfill target requirement is determined in the same manner and may I vary from only a few hundredths of an ounce up to an ounce on the

larger sizes of certain products.

From these capability data, we set up the control limits for the line operator. These are also used by roving inspectors to randomly check

filler performance against the target to verify that the operator has I maintained control. Most lines are of such design as to permit instal- lation of automatic reject devices. On other lines we hold all ware- house goods for the periods when these independent inspections show

reject levels. This is accomplished by identifying stocks through an

imprinted shipping case time code. All such held stocks are inspected

and evaluated on the same basis as at the filling line. Rejects are re- worked by sorting and the unacceptable merchandise is scrapped.

Fillers are reevaluated at regular intervals as a standard practice.

In addition, such equipment checks are also made when the inspection

data may indicate the possibility of a malfunction. Even with sys- tematic maintenance and control, many factors (normal machine wear,

for example) will gradually alter the capability of the operation.

We are in the process of making a trial installation of an original

design system. This will permit collection of filling data on magnetic

tape, with automatic conversion of these data for computer processing

and continuous monitoring of each line's capability. Revisions to tar118
gets can then be made on an even more controlled basis, and the need

for maintenance can be spotted even sooner. Industry does cooperate and spends literally millions of dollars in

equipment, inspection, maintenance, scrap, reword, and other costs to do a good job in controlling net fill. Xow, let us look at the questions of the weights and measures officials. These were:

1. Who are the capable packagers?

2. "Who are those who need assistance to comply or to eliminate excessive overfill ?

It is relatively easy to determine what a packager's ability and intent

are. Such big intelligence is readily available from a few little numbers. In fact, as you would expect, we routinely sample our own and

competitive goods at retail not only to further police ourselves but also

to evaluate our competition. Believe it or not, if a competitor makes a

significant change in his filling operation or his policy, it will not be

long before Ave are aware of it. And I am sure he keeps as well in- formed regarding our operations.

The results of inspections should be plotted as a frequency distribution, and the plot retained in the file related to that packager. After

at least ten inspections are plotted, the data can be readily analyzed

as follows (based upon the usual sampling of ten units) :

1. Determine the average and the range for each of the samplings.

2. Determine the overall average and the average of the ranges.

3. Estimate sigma- a =R/3.078.

4. Step off plus and minus la, 2o-, 3a- on the frequency distribution.

5. Evaluate:

(a) Is the overall average at or above the marked quantity ? (b) Are about % of the values between ±lo-?

( c) Are only a very few outside ± 3a ? If (a) is answered "yes," he gives fair measure.

If (b) and (c) are answered "yes/' he has control.

If (b) and (c) are answered "no," he needs assistance to improve his program.

6. What is his intent ? If he averages marked quantity or more, he obviously has the

intention of giving fair measure.

7. How successful is he in controlling unreasonable minus errors ? If we subtract the label quantity from the overall average, the

result is his overfill. To determine how his overfill relates to

his filling control capability, we add the reasonable error to the overfill to determine how much above the reasonable error

his fill actually averages. Dividing this result by the sigma

which has been estimated, gives his "POTENTIAL ERROR.''

248-760 O—67' 0 119
If his " POTENTIAL ERROR" is: 3.5 lie has practically no units below unreasonable

error

3.0 he has y10 of 1 percent below unreasonable error

2.33 1 percent

2.05 2 percent

1.88 3 percent

1.75 4 percent

1.65 5 percent

1.28 10 percent

1.04 15 percent

0.84 20 percent

0.50 30 percent

0.25 40 percent

It should be borne in mind that these are estimates and are subject

to the errors which sampling can introduce. I am sure most of you

recall the Presidential election of 1948 where Mr. Dewey retired for

the night with everyone positive he had been elected in a landslide victory. When all the votes were in, Mr. Truman had been chosen.

Nevertheless, in practically every case, you will find that packagers

with a properly designed program will usually show evidence of good

control, will show average quantity to be at least label quantity and

their potential error will be at a reasonable level. Likewise, illegal

practice will usually be shown if it exists as will the results obtained

by the honest fellow who tried but needs a little help. I am sure you will find that, as you apply these techniques, they take

hut little time while providing a great deal of assistance in deciding

where best to direct your efforts to obtain better enforcement of the

laws.

It is, indeed, true that the result can be "Big Intelligence from Little

Numbers."

120
Remarks of Mr. J. H. B. Hornby, Deputy Chief Inspector for Weights

and Measures, Oxford, England

Mr. Chairman, just a bicycle ride from my

home on the outskirts of Oxford lies the body

of the greatest Englishman the world has ever known, Sir Winston Churchill, in an English

country churchyard. Now there is, you understand, in England, a great love for this mag<

nificent and colorful man, and a lot of money

has been contributed by a lot of people to a fund

which was established in his memory to send a number of men and women to the countries of

their choice, from time to time, to make a study

of their own particular jobs. This is known as the Winston Churchill Memorial Traveling Fellowship Scheme. I applied, 3 months ago, for one of these fellowships

to come to your country and to Canada to make a study of consumer

protection for a period of 6 months.

I am more than conscious, Mr. Chairman, of the responsibility this

imposes on me, having spent so much money to send me out here. But

I draw some consolation from the words of Sir Winston Churchill

himself, who, when he received one of his many awards, said, "I am

proud, but also awestruck, in your decision to include me. I feel we

are both running a considerable risk and I do not deserve it, but I

shall have no misgivings if you have not." Having said what I am here for, I suppose I ought to tell you what

I am not here for; that is, to have a holiday. My friends in England said that one of my greatest difficulties in the next 6 months

will be fending off the hospitality of the kindly American people.

This does not mean that I shall always say "No" to all kindnesses automatically. I am sure you will understand I am here to work and work

pretty hard. I have a full program ahead. I am here, gentlemen,

to pick your brains, to ask questions, and to find out what America

does, how, and why. If it seems that all I do is ask how and why and

when and what for, then I am sure you'll understand. Please bear

with me. Mr. Chairiman, Mr. Reg. Roberts, of the Manchester Weights and

Measures Department, is the permanent chairman of our own professional organization, the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration. Before I left, he asked me to convey to you and the Conference the greetings and best wishes of the Institute for a happy and

successful Conference here in Denver. This I now do with pleasure

and honor.

You have also seen, I think, other distinguished members of the

English Weights and Measures Service ; Mr. Gray and Mr. Gregory

121
come to mind. These are men who have spent a lifetime in weights

and measures. They are at the top of their profession and experts

in every way. Please do not confuse me with them. I am no expert.

I have been in this job a third of the length of time they have. I am

here more as a student than as a teacher and an expert.

You have no idea how much I look forward to the next 6 months.

1 want to talk to as many of you as possible and see as many of you

as possible. Thank you again for all your kindnesses and for listen- ing so attentively.

(Mr. R. E. Meek, of Indiana, supplemented Mr. Hornby's remarks

with a brief description of Mr. Meek's visit with the British Weights

and Measures Administration, at Torquay, England.)

(Following Mr. Hornby's remarks, an Open Forum was held, moderated by Mr. M. W. Jensen, where the floor was declared open to the

Conference attendees. The delegates were free to discuss any administrative or technical problems that the rest of the busy Conference

program might have precluded.

)

AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1966

(E. H. Black, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

(Thursday's afternoon session was devoted to reports of the Conference committees, which can be found beginning on page 131.)

122
MORNING SESSION—FRIDAY, JULY 15, 1966

(J. F. True, Chairman, Presiding)

TECHNICAL PROGRAM OF THE OFFICE OF WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES

by M. W. Jexsex. Chief. Office of Weights and Measures. National

Bureau of Standards

f

During each of the past few years, we have

presented to the Conference a report of the

Office of Weights and Measures which was made

up of individual reports from several of the professional staff members. This year, because the

major emphasis of our program was on the new

State standards project, I will report to you

briefly on the overall program and will be fol- lowed by a report in some detail from Mr.

Stabler on the standards project.

We now ai-e located in the Administration

Building of the new facilities of the Bureau at Gaithersburg, Maryland. We have had the

pleasure of A'isits from a few of you, and I hope many of you will be

able to see these facilities in the near future. On this point, the ex- ecutive Committee agreed this morning to recommend to the Conference that it meet in 1967 in Washington and that there be included

in the program a tour of the new NBS facilities. With respect to our activities, Ave still find it necessary to devote a seemingly large portion of our days to communications—both letters and oral. The number of visitors to the offices has dropped off some

since our move to Maryland, but those who desire to consult with us seem to have no difficulty in reaching the facility some 25 miles northwest of the Capital.

Technical training continues to be a major activity and we hope a major contribution. Through the years there has been a gradual in- crease in the requests for our assistance in technical education. We

hope this increase will continue.

We have underway at this time a number of technical investigations,

including proving techniques and technical requirements for liquid

meters dispensing liquid fertilizers and for vapor meters in LP-Gas

service. We have continued a search for a more stable material with a better

surface from which to make testing tapes for fabric-measuring devices. (We have found what appears to be an almost ideal material,

but it presently is too expensive for this use.)

Yesterday morning, during the open discussions, there was some

mention of recent developments in the metering of milk. Dr. Ed Glass,

123
of Pennsylvania State University, who devoted, his graduate studies

to milk metering, still is studying in this area. We will be keeping in ]

1 close touch with the work and will report to you as real progress be- comes evident.

There also was some mention yesterday of plastic cartons for milk

and of a preliminary introduction of such cartons for reusable service, tj None of the plastic cartons submitted to us for examination has been

| such that they could be considered "milk bottles." It, accordingly, is our view that these must be considered as containers only until tests prove definitely that they have measurement characteristics and other

capabilities to meet all requirements of the Code for Milk Bottles.

Cooperatively with selected weights and measures jurisdictions,

we are entering into a rather broad study on the effects of evaporation on the official testing of meters. The attempt here is to determine,

with precision, whether our present test measures and liquid provers ; adequately reflect the commercial delivery of meters. As a simple

example, a retail motor-fuel dispenser delivers its product into a fill pipe of an automobile averaging 1% inches in diameter, whereas 1 the five-gallon test measure with which the dispenser is officially tested

has a neck of four inches diameter. We are attempting to de- (J

j termine whether there is sufficient evaporation during a test to affect j the accuracy of the test as we attempt to "duplicate service conditions ! of operation."

As many of you know, we have continued throughout this past

j,

| year our policy of attending and participating in all State and regional

5 weights and measures conferences. In addition, we have appeared on the programs of quite a number of industry meetings.

In the future, because of budget limitations and a strictly imposed

traveling ceiling, it will be necessary for us to establish certain guidelines covering our participation in meetings and conferences. To the

extent that we are invited, we will be present at regional weights and

meaures conferences. We will attend only those State meetings at which we feel we can make a definite contribution. In most cases, our

participation in meetings of industry will be limited to those where

the industry underwrites travel costs. The NBS railway track scale program was transferred to us about j a year ago. In this area, we accept as our principal responsibility the ?l operation of the facility at Clearing, Illinois, and the calibration of

j the 19 master track scales, which have the function of standardizing

the test cars used by the railroads. We hope during the coming year I to study this entire field very carefully and to establish a program that

j operates effiicently and effectively with a minimum outlay.

Our calibration load continues at a reasonably high level. In the

j laboratories of the Office of Weights and Measures we undertake the J calibration of all except the reference standards of the States, includ- ;] ing a number of special standards for industry.

124
Our publication output during the past year was somewhat lower

than we would have desired. New Handbook 44 and the Conference

Report were issued as were a number of Weights and Measures Tech

Memos. We completed a rewrite of Miscellaneous Publication 233,

which is the basic publication covering units and systems of weights

and measures and tables of conversion for both the U.S. Customary

and Metric units. Considerable progress has been made in the Te- nsion of Handbook 67, Checking Prepackaged Commodities. We

hope to have the manuscript revision in the hands of the printer by fall with a target publication date of early 1967.

In mentionong the Tech Memo, I am constrained to point out once again that this system of communication can really succeed only if it

is bidirectional. We receive very little from weights and measures

officials. I urge you to keep the Tech Memo in mind and to bring to our attention anything you have encountered that you think might

be of interest to other officials. Our professional staff has gained two and lost one since the 50th

National Conference. We are pleased to have had join the staff Charles

Schreyer, a highly capable physical chemist, and Harry Johnson,

who, undoubtedly, is one of the very best calibrators in the nation.

Donald Mackay left us to become Chief of the Office of Engineering Standards Services. Fortunately, Don still reports to me. As I mentioned at the beginning, our major effort during the year

has been in State standards and State laboratories. You will hear

next a report on this project from the individual most intimately

connected with it, Tom Stabler.

STATE STANDARDS AND LABORATORIES

by T. M. Stabler. Laboratory Metrologist, Office of Weights and

Measures. National Bureau of Standards

Abstract.

The program of the Federal Government to supply new standards and instruments to each

State is now underway. Ten States have been

chosen to receive them beginning this winter.

These States have had to provide suitable lab- oratories and qualified personnel to perform

the calibrations and to promote measurement.

The National Bureau of Standards will assist the States in the establishment of the laboratories and in the training of the technologists.

The final goal is to have established the State

Measurement Center in all 50 States.

125
New State Standards Program .

The program of the Federal Government to supply new standards

of mass, length, and capacity, and instruments to each State got un- derway during 1965 when the Congress appropriated $400,000 to supply the first ten States. The standards are now being manufactured, and the ten States have been chosen to receive them beginning

this winter. These initial accomplishments, however, are only the

beginning of a far-reaching program that is now in the early stages

of development.

The New State Standards Program is designed to equip the States

so that they may become significant elements in "The National Measurement System," which will include the National Bureau of Standards at the Federal level, regional government laboratories, 50 State

weights and measures laboratories, industry laboratories, and education and research institutions. This will be a highly integrated system

of measurement laboratories and ultimately will effectively serve the

local or "grass roots" institutions.

The demand for better measurements and measurement service in

this general area is far greater than can be provided by a central governmental agency. One outgrowth of the measurement demand is the National Conference of Standards Laboratories which held its third meeting in May at the Bureau's new site in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Several hundred people interested in standards and measure- ment met. to exchange information concerning laboratories, and laboratory operations. (This organization, also sponsored by the National

Bureau of Standards, may develop an "associate" relationship with

the National Conference on Weights and Measures.)

The State weights and measures laboratories will have an increasing responsibility and will play a major role in the National Measurement System. As in the past, the National Bureau of Standards will

continue to maintain the primary responsibilities, the national standards for measurement, including research and development of meas- urement techniques. The Bureau will lend whatever technical assist- ance is necessary in the development of a State measurement center

of the 50 State measurement centers. Such a State weights and measures laboratory will, in turn, serve the State government ; its commerce and industry, and its educational

and research institutions. It will perform tests on all State field standards of mass, length, and volume used by the weights and measures inspectors, and also on standards used in the many other State

agencies such as, for example, by the State chemist, veterinarian, dairy,

feed and fertilizer inspectors, seed inspectors, botanists, public health

inspectors, and petroleum laboratory technicians.

The commerce and industry of a State may well be the largest users of the weights and measures laboratory capability. Manufacturers, i

126
producers, and buyers and sellers of commodities must know that

their products meet certain measurement criteria. This is basic to quality and quantity control. Measurement control is essential in all trade, and the bases for this control are the physical standards of

length, mass, and volume. Obviously, an important service to industry* will be testing of standards used by firms within the State engaged

in the manufacture, repair, and maintenance of commercial weighing

and measuring devices. It is essential that the State weights and measures laboratory be

capable of serving as the measurement center for the State. This

requires first that the physical standards of the State, those that are

directly related to the national standards, must be maintained and

used under carefully controlled conditions.

The laboratory technologist must have an appropriate background

and must be trained to utilize fully the accuracy built into the new

standards. He will, in fact, be the key to the successful operation of

the precision measurement center. He will be responsible for the

operation of the laboratory, for the care and maintenance of standards, and for the calibrations. To fulfill his role, he will have to fully

acquaint himself with his field and to pursue a continuing course of

study in measurement science. He must be a career professional in

every respect.

At the time these new standards and instruments are delivered to and and installed in a State, the Office of Weights and Measures will

assist in the initial training of the technologist. He will be introduced

to calibration procedures and will be taught the care, maintenance,

and use of the precision instruments. As the calibration program

develops the technologist will receive additional training at the State

laboratory*, and, as he advances, he will have the opportunity to attend

regional training schools at other State laboratories. His final "graduate" studies will be in the laboratories of the National Bureau of

Standards. Laboratory learning will be truly a continuing effort. The standards delivered to the States will be the best present technology offers. Even so, they are only as good as the values assigned to them. Initial values for the standards will be given by the National

Bureau of Standards prior to delivery to the State. After this, the

technologist will maintain these values through intercomparisons of

standards and through calibrations in his own laboratory.

A second vital function of the metrology technologist will be the

promotion of measurement capability throughout the State. He may

plan an important role in finding the answers to such questions as : Is there waste in commerce and industry that could be eliminated through

better measurement ? Would this result in dollar savings and a better

end product? With a smaller margin of profit in manufacturing,

would closer control of measurements result in a better profit picture ?

127
Would a different measurement technique result in labor saving?

Will improved test equipment reduce service costs ? Another, and perhaps equally important, service to be performed

by the technologist is that of measurement counsel. Questions will

be asked : What kind of measuring instrument should a manufacturer

purchase for a specific purpose ? What is the best type of balance for a specific application ? What classification of test weights will be most

satisfactory? What technique will provide the greatest precision?

How do I ascertain the accuracy of my volumetric measure?

Hopefully, one of the principal "customers" of the measurement

services provided by the State laboratory will be the educational insti- tutions. The chemistry, zoology, physics, engineering, agriculture,

medical, pharmacy, athletic, and many other departments of a university have particular measurement needs and measurement problems.

The universities will, of course, be providing the basic framing for

all laboratory technologists and hopefully for all weights and measures

officials in the future.

The final and an essential element of a State measurement center

is the promotion of measurement. In some cases this will be a major

responsibility for the department's administrators and in others it will be the responsibility of the technologist. In order to identify and

meet the measurement needs throughout the State, and to develop

measurement capability, a vigorous promotion of measurement will

128
be initiated and sustained. And this promotional effort will take many

forms and will require much initiative. In order that the technologist may develop and prove a competence

in his laboratory measurements, the calibration capability of the State

laboratories will be evaluated through a standards comparison program. The National Bureau of Standards will supply carefully cali- brated standards of mass, length, and capacity to the State laboratories for measurement. The reports of the States will be. compiled

and the results compared. The NBS confidential report to a State will

give an analysis of the calibration results of that State and appropriate information on comparability of other States. And so the plan and the program unfold perhaps as exciting a chapter in weights and measures as has been encountered to date. The first ten States to receive standards have been selected. They

are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, New

Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah. They were selected on

the basis of their fulfilling the requirements for physical preparedness, need, and the availability of a (fulltime) qualified technologist.

The total "package" (fig. 1) includes the following

1. Sixty-seven mass standards (metric and avoirdupois) 30 kilo- grams to 1 milligram, and 50 pounds to 0.000 001 pound of 8.0 g/cm3

stainless steel.

2. Two 500-pound stainless steel, type 303, stacking weights.

3. One 25-foot, 7-meter precision steel tape with engraved graduations.

I. One 100-foot, 30-meter steel tape.

5. One 16-foot, 5-meter stainless steel length bench, precision microscope, tension weights, and other accessories.

6. One 18-inch steel rule graduated in hundredths, sixty-fourths,

thirty-seconds, and sixteenths of an inch.

7. Sixteen "automatic"' volume standards including 12 pipets and 4

burets, 5 liters to 1 milliliter and 1 gallon to 1 minim.

8. One 5-gallon, stainless steel volumetric standard with slicker

plate.

9. One 100-gram capacity, single pan, semiautomatic precision

balance with 8.0 g/cm3 stainless steel built-in weights.

1 J. One 1-kilogram capacity, single pan, semiautomatic precision

balance with 8.0 g/cm3 stainless steel built-in weights.

II. One 3-kilogram capacity, single pan, precision balance.

12. One 30-kilogram capacity, single plan, precision balance.

13. One 2500-pound capacity, equal-arm, precision balance.

14. Designs of State weights and measures laboratories.

Conclusion.

The new State standards program is one that should benefit, di- rectly or indirectly, every citizen of the United State. Its real success

129
will depend largely upon the initiative, the industry, and the enthusi- asm with which the States participate and contribute.

Weights and measures supervision has been cited as the finest ex- ample of Federal-State relationship in the Nation.

This program of standards and laboratories, this concept of responsible roles in the National Measurement System is another opportunity, and an extremely vital one, to demonstrate a cooperative and

coordinate Federal-State activity that is truly in the public interest. It is a challenge that we at NBS will accept with pride and dedication.

(Following Mr. Stabler's address were the reports of the Conference

Committee on Resolutions, Auditing Committee, Treasurer, and In- coming Executive Committee. The Conference then discussed the

"Activities of the Confei*ence Standing Committees'' where questions were directed to the Standing Committee Chairmen and the Executive Secretary by the delegates. At the conclusion of the discussion,

Chairman True presented the gavel to the incoming 52nd National

Conference Chairman, J. E. Bowen of Massachusetts. The benediction was then delivered by the Conference Chaplin, Rev. R. W. Searles. Thereupon, at 10:32 a.m., the 51st National Conference on Weights and Measures was adjourned, sine die.)

130
REPORTS OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

presented by J. F. True, Chairman, State Sealer, Division of Weights

and Measures, State of Kansas

(Tuesday, July 12, 1966, 2 : 12 p.m.)

The Executive Committee of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures met in

open session on July 11, 1966, at 8:30 a.m. Items discussed were the Conference location,

dates, program, program length, and the possibility of holding at least one of next year's

sessions at the new facilities of the National

Bureau of Standards at Gaithersburg, Maryland.

There was a positive recommendation by the

Committee that the 1967 National Conference

be held in Washington, D.C., during June.

The Committee deemed it advisable to leave

the matter of Washington hotel location open, pending the best possible arrangements that the Executive Secretary can make for the

conference delegates.

The Committee felt that both program length and format have

been satisfactory and recommends no change at this time.

Considerable interest was expressed in the possibility of holding at

least one 1967 Conference session at the new NBS-Gaithersburg facilities and in touring the new facilities. There is great interest in holding the entire Conference at the National Bureau of Standards at such

time as appropriate lodging facilities become available.

The Executive Committee was presented with no evidence that

would indicate a need at this time for a change in the registration fee.

J. F. True, Chairman

E. H. Black

L. L. Elliott

M. Jennings

J.L.Littlefield

C. C. Morgan

R. W. Searles

A. J. Albanese

L. A. Gredy

J. G. Gustafson

M. W. Kinlaw

H. K. Sharp

F. F. Thompson

L. W. Vezina

A. W. Weidner

W. W. Wells

E. C. Westwood

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

Executive Committee

131
(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor,

the Report of the Executive Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

STATEMENT OF THE INCOMING CONFERENCE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

presented by J. E. Bowen, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Newton, Massachusetts

(Friday, July 15, 1966, 10:05 a.m.)

The Executive Committee for the 52d National Conference met for breakfast at 7:30

a.m. on Friday, July 15, 1966, to consider matters falling appropriately within its authority.

Decisions were reached as follows

1. The dates June 25-29, 1967, were voted

as the most favorable for the 52d Conference.

2. The City of Washington, D.C., was chosen

for next year's Conference. It was left to the discretion of the Executive Secre- tary to choose those hotel accommodations most favorable to the Conference

delegates.

3. The registration fee will remain at $15.00.

4. An allocation of $100.00 was voted for the Committee on Education for expenses associated with National Weights and Measures

Week and other committee expenses.

5. The responsibility for planning the program of the 52d Conference was delegated to the Executive Secretary, with a suggestion that consideration be given to resuming the midweek

Conference luncheon, with an appropriate guest speaker.

Several good suggestions for topics for next year's program were

discussed. It was suggested that the Thursday morning Open Forum

be expanded to allow more time for delegates to discuss matters with

each other that the rest of the Conference program may preclude.

Suggested new topics were: Calibration problems in the space age, Federal-State cooperation in metrology, record-keeping methods for

weights and measures officials, a critical analysis of State weights and

measures supervision, and the possibility of an Alfred Tech graduate

describing the Measurement Science program.

It was also suggested that ideas be explored to find some method

to consult with ladies who have attended this year's Conference on

the planning of next year's ladies' program.

132
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

presented by S. H. Christie, Jr., Chairman, Deputy State Superintendent, Division of Weights and Measures, New Jersey Department

of Law and Public Safety

(Thursday, July 14, 1966, 2 :15 p.m.)

1. Introduction.

The Committee on Education is committed to

a program of the technical training of weights

and measures officials, the education along

weights and measures lines of the general public and of users of weighing and measuring

equipment, and the public relations programs

for weights and measures organizations.

The Committee has been active during the

past year, and through correspondence, tele- phone communication, and personal meetings

of members when possible, has developed several topics for presentation in its report to the 51st National Conference on "Weights and Measures.

2. Formal Education.

Alfred Tech, the Agricultural and Technical Institute of the State

University of Xew York, has now graduated its first class in Measurement Science; twenty-five graduates have received an Associate Degree in Applied Science. They are well-qualified to step into the

vacancies that industry is finding are becoming exceedingly difficult to fill. Executives of the scale industry have continued to exhibit their in- terest in this program, which was initiated as a result of their activity.

Besides the contribution of equipment for laboratory and lecture programs, many qualified individuals have played an important part

through participation as guest speakers and lecturers. It is an obvious fact that for this program to be really successful,

financial assistance for desirable students must be forthcoming so that

the Measursement Science Course can be competitive in its recruiting.

A new Committee has been formed which is being chaired by the

very energetic Mack Rapp. The goal is $100,000. Interested individuals, corporations, associations, etc., and particularly Weights and

Measures Associations, should consider contributions to the Measurement Science Course Scholarship Fund. Contributions are tax de- ductible under a certificate of the Internal Revenue Service.

133
Your Committee notes with pleasure that plans for formal education are also being sponsored by tbe California Department of Education, the California Sealers Association, and industry representatives together. We understand that interest in establishing a Measurement Technology Course has been shown by Grossmont College in El Cajon. A committee formed by the California Sealers

visited the institution and found a new, well-equipped plant with a very enthusiastic staff. Your Committee wishes the California Sealers success and feels that the Conference records should show its appreciation for the efforts of this group, for it is by such means that additional formal education in weights and measures activities will be accomplished.

3. National Weights and Measures Week.

This portion of the Committee's program has been successfully

handled in the past by means of subcommittee action. The same

plan was used this year. John F. Madden, the then Director of

Weights and Measures for the State of New York, was appointed as subcommittee chairman. A few months after his appointment, Mr.

Madden resigned his position in New York 'State and from the Committee on Education. This left the Committee short one member and,

of course, its subcommittee chairman.

Due to his success in the past in directing National Weights and

Measures Week activities, in January of this year Lorenzo A, Gredy

of the State of Indiana was appointed chairman of the subcommittee.

The Committee is deeply grateful for his complete cooperation in

directing this nationwide activity and for the preparation of the re- port which follows:

Lorenzo A. Gredy, Chairman, National Weights

and Measures Week Subcommittee

The primary purpose of Weights and Measures Week is to inform

the public concerning the importance of the work of weights and

measures officials in cities, counties, and States. Interest in the .| "Week" judging from the reports and from articles in the various

newsletters indicates that this year's "Week" was a great success. We

were able to reach more people than ever before.

Much of the material used in previous years, such as Governors'

proclamations, newspaper articles, newspaper mats, displays, lectures,

radio and TV spot announcements, and the films produced by the || Office of Weights and Measures, was utilized again this year. The I Committee on Education is indebted to The Scale Manufacturers

| Association for its assistance in providing several thousand Weights

and Measures Week stickers.

134
Peter Grassi, Head of the Middletown, Connecticut Department of

Consumer Protection, and Sealer of Weights and Measures, supplied

a copy of the March 9, 1966 "Shopper News" which illustrates an out- standing local promotion. This paper, which has 7,500 circulation,

features an editorial and pictures dealing with the successful observ- ance of National Weights and Measures Week in Mr. Grassi's jurisdiction. Middletown sponsored a "Careful Shoppers" contest. In all, pictures of nine careful shoppers were featured on several pages of the

newspapers. The use of contests can give imeptus not only to the

"Week" but can put the spotlight on the services of weights and

measures officials. All weights and measures officials are deeply indebted to Congressman John M. Ashbrook of Ohio for inserting in the Congressional

Record on Monday, February 28, 1966, an article prepared by Dr.

Leland J. Gordon concerning National Weights and Measures Week.

Those of you who have not read the article or would like copies may

secure copies of this February 28th issue of the Congressional Record

by writing to your respective Congressman.

It is impossible to present the details of all the promotional ideas

that were used during the "Week." The scale industry and others were very cooperative in furnishing pamphlets, posters, and display

materials. This report, therefore, cannot be brought to a conclusion

without thanking members of our Conference, both the weights and

measures officials and associates, for their fine cooperation and for the

interest shown in this very vital governmental activity.

4. Neio Training Material Planned for the Technical Training of

Weights and Measures Officials.

The Office of Weights and Measures is planning the production of

the third in a series of audiovisual self-training aids for weights and

measures officials. This new training material will be produced in

cooperation with the Packers and Stockyards Division of the United

States Department of Agriculture and will give audio and visual in- struction in a step-by-step procedure covering the complete examination of a typical livestock scale as recommended by the Office of

Weights and Measures and the USDA. The Committee highly en- dorses this joint effort on the part of the two Federal Agencies and

urges weights and measures officials to make widespread use of this

training material when it becomes available.

The Committee also urges officials to continue their interest in and

use of the two presently available training aids covering the examination of a computing scale and single-product motor fuel dispenser.

The Committee is indebted to the editors of the various newsletters

for their valuable aid in publicizing the availability of this material

248-760 O—67 10 135
during the past year. If present interest continues it will be possible

to continue in the future to plan and produce similar presentations

covering other commercial weighing and measuring devices.

5. Technical Training Schools for Weights and Measures Officials. The Office of Weights and Measures has continued its established

program of conducting technical training schools for weights and

measures officials and has in fact had more requests for these schools

during the past year than during any other similar period over the fif- teen years the schools have been offered. Since the last Conference twenty-two schools ranging from two to four days duration have been conducted in the various jurisdictions.

These schools generally cover Handbook 44 requirements, interpretations of laws and regulations, and recommended uniform examination

procedures for the various commercial devices. They can be tailored

to fit the specific needs of any requesting jurisdiction. In addition, a Supervisor's Training School was held in Boulder, Colorado last August for the purpose of giving the Supervisors in the western

States training that would qualify them to conduct similar classes

in their own jurisdictions.

Also, staff members from the Office of Weights and Measures as- sisted officials in Bogota, Colombia in the installation and use of a complete set of primary laboratory standards. Field training also was conducted covering the basic weights and measures control of

small commercial weighing and measuring devices.

The Committee on Education highly commends the Office of

Weights and Measures on this widespread training activity and urges

weights- and measures officials to continue their increased interest and

activity in this vital phase of their programs.

6. Weights and Measures Newsletters.

It has been noted that recent issues of various Newsletters have

carried an increased amount of information which is of value to the

weights and measures official in the field. With this in mind, your Committee desires, once again to bring to the attention of the Directors of the several States the value of dis- seminating technical information through such "house organs." It must be remembered that both industry and labor organizations use

this media as an extremely valuable informational tool, and it should

not be overlooked by us.

7. Development of Material for Use in Elementary and Secondary

Level of Schools.

Last year your Committee pointed out the great value of educating

the public by starting the program in the elementary and secondary

136
school classrooms. The youngsters themselves not only become

knowledgeable on the subject of weights and measures by this means,

but through internal family discussions the parents also are made

aware of these activities. In many jurisdictions throughout the country efforts have been

made along these lines. Apparently, all have been successful. It is admitted that the subject material discussed or shown must be tailored

to fit the occasion. Consideration must be given to the type of courses

offered by the school, the general business climate of the area involved,

and to the inclinations and the status of the student body involved.

In order to be of service to weights and measures officials, and also

in the hope of furthering public education by working through the

school children, the Committee agreed to undertake the production

of outlines and other suggested material to serve as a basis for weights

and measures presentations at the elementary and secondary school

levels. Sample outlines for use at the various grade levels starting

with the 3rd grade and going through the 8th grade level are a part of

this Final Report. It is the sincere hope of the Committee that

weights and measures officials will make widespread use of this material and that it will be possible to produce similar material for use

at the high school level next year. Weights and measures officials should encourage and solicit invitations to appear in the schools in their jurisdictions for the purpose of presenting weights and measures

information.

8. Commemorative Stamp—100th Anniversary of the Congress

Recognizing the Metric System as Legal in the United States.

Once again we were sorely disappointed in not having the United

States Post Office publishing a commemorative stamp, recognizing

the action of the Congress in making legal the Metric System in the

United States 100 years ago. If the desired stamp could have been produced in time for and dis- tributed during National Weights and Measures Week, it is conceivable that the attendant publicity would have been beyond our fondest

expectations. It is the Committee's opinion that with the interest

being exhibited today throughout the entire world in the possible con- version to the Metric System, such a stamp would have been a real attention getter. The Committee also contends that our request ans- wers the criteria required : First, that the 100-year period is a signifi- cant multiple of a 50-year desired base ; second, that the subject matter

is of prime importance to each and every member of our society ; and

last but not least, that our Congress itself is considering the matter.

137
9. Professional /Status of Weights and Measures Officials.

With the careful planning of the program of the National Conference; the distribution of new physical standards of weights and

measures to the States ; the much closer contact of State officials with

the research, development, and manufacturing segments of industry;

the development of formal educational programs relating to measure- ment science : the requirement of traceability to the National standards of weight and measure in the reports issued as a result of the tests and inspection performed on various instruments and devices and

physical standards utilized in the "standards rooms*' of industry ; the

image and the status of the weights and measures official is growing

fast. Recognition of this is evidenced by a recent release, to which your

Committee points with pride. The release was issued by the Instru- ment Society of America, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and informs us

that under date of March 25, 1966, Mr. Roy J. Bierman, Manager of

the International Division of Ramsey Engineering Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, has been appointed the Instrument Society of

America (ISA) official representative to the National Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the- National Bureau of Standards. This announcement was made by Dr. John G. Truxal, ISA

President and Dean of Engineering at Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. Mr. Bierman will serve for a two-year term. We consider this a dynamic step forward since Mr. Bierman will

exchange ideas with the National Bureau of Standards' Office of

Weights and Measures to cooperatively develop and disseminate

information on acceptable procedures for the use and testing of

instrumentation for static and dynamic methods for weighing and

measuring.

It should be remembered, too, that ISA is a scientific and technical

nonprofit organization which is dedicated to the advancement of in- strumentation through dissemination of information, stimulation of

educational activities, and the development of standards and recom- mended practices.

We feel, therefore, that it is incumbent upon this Committee to give

very careful consideration to the possibility of developing an acceptable program for the purpose of specifically defining what is professional status as it applies to weights and measures officials. Prerequisites for this recognition might include such as : Attendance

and participation in the National Conference on Weights and Measures and its activities; the learning of certain calibration techniques

and legal requirements; and the successful completion of a course in

the administration of weights and measures.

138
We should also consider the possibility of recognizing the services

rendered by an individual in specific categories over a required period

of time.

Sample Outlines To Be Used as a Basis for Weights and Measures

Presentations at the Elementary School Level

Suggested Outline—3d-4th Grade Level

Theme—"Weights and Measures and Mathematics."

1. Explain in very broad and simple terms that practically everything we buy or sell has been weighed, measured, or counted to determine its value.

1.1. Someone must be responsible for, first—establishing the

basic units of measurement and, secondly—to make sure

all weighing and measuring is done accurately.

2. Explain briefly our present system of weights and measures and

how it came about.

- 2.1. Our forefathers, when they settled this country of ours, brought with them customs and standards from the European countries.

2.2. Great differences existed among these standards2.3. The Federal Government had standards built and supplied each State with a set.

3. Demonstrate, with the use of field standards, what a pint, quart,

gallon, inch, foot, yard, ounce, and pound really look like.

3.1. With the use of standards like these men in each State

check the weighing and measuring devices and packages

that are used in commerce to make sure your parents get

a gallon of gasoline or a pound of meat when they do

their shopping.

3.2. The men that do this checking are called Weights and

Measures Officials.

Equipment Needed : (a) Set of Class "C" weights from y16 oz to 2 pounds.

(b) Several glass capacity measures, Class "C"

(c) Class "C" length measures, steel tapes, yard measure,

etc. References

NBS Circular 593—"The Federal Basis for Weights

and Measures"

NBS Handbook 82—"Weights and Measures Administration"

NBS Handbook 44—"Specifications, Tolerances, and

Other Technical Requirements for Commercial

Weighing and Measuring Devices"

139
Suggested Outline—5th-6th Grade Level

Theme—"How Weights and Measures Control Concerns Every Citi- zen."

1. Show film "Assignment Weights and Measures.''

2. Discuss local program in detail answering any questions film may

have generated.

2.1. Explain responsibility imposed by St atute.

2.2. Show pictures or slides of various equipment and field activity.

2.3. Explain any unusual situations encountered at the local

level. Equipment

Copy of NBS film "Assignment Weights and Measures.'' Copy of State law and local ordinance, if appropriate.

Slides of equipment and field activity.

16-mm sound motion picture projector and screen. Tape recorder and slide projector.

References

State law and local ordinance

Current program plan

Suggested Outline—7th Grade Level

Theme—"The Mechanics of Weights and Measures."

1. Show and explain how a computing scale works.

1.1. Explain the test for accuracy of a computing scale using '< audiovisual aid and test weights.

2. Show and explain how a gasoline pump works.

2.1. Explain the test of a single-service gasoline pump using

audiovisual aid.

3. Show film "Assignment Weights and Measures."

Equipment

Drum-type computing scale. Single-service gasoline pump or series of slides, showing

internal parts of a gasoline pump.

A few 1 or 2-pound test weights.

Audiovisual aids—"The Examination of a Computing

Scale" and "The Examination of a Single-Service 1 Motor Fuel Dispenser."

Film—"Assignment-Weights and Measures."

Tape recorder and slide projector.

16-mm sound motion picture projector.

References : NBS Handbook 94.

140
XBS Handbook 44. Set of Examination Procedure Outlines.

Literature from scale and gasoline pump companies ex- plaining operation of respective devices.

Suggested Outline—8th Grade Level

Theme—"History of Weights and Measures Control in the United

States."

1. The Constitution : Article 1, Section 8. 1.1. Congress shall have the power ... to coin money, reg- ulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the

standard of weights and measures.

2. Lack of Congressional Activity.

2.1. George "Washington's first message to Congress, January

1790 : '•Uniformity in the currency, weights, and measures

of the United States, is an object of great importance, and

will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to."

2.2. Thomas Jefferson was instructed to make a study and

report suggested solutions to our measurement problem.

±3. Xo action on Jefferson's report until Surveyor Act of 1799.

2.3.1. Each port was to examine and check their

weights periodically.

2.3.2. This Act was ineffective because there was no

standard to use.

2.4. John Adams made a classical report in 1821 in which he

urged working toward a universal or international

system.

2.4.1. Xo action on Adams report.

3. The Mint Act of 1828.

3.1. The Standard Troy Pound, used for regulating the

weight of our coinage became our Xational Standard of

Mass for a short time.

4. The Senate resolution of 1830 regarding standards of the

customhouses.

4.1. F. E. Hassler, Superintendent of Coast Survey, made

comparison of standards and found wide discrepancies

existed. Using information he obtained, Hassler went

to work building a set of standards.

4.2. Hassler chose—36 inch yard, 231 cubic inch gallon,

2150.42 cubic inch bushel.

5. Joint Kesolution of 1836—Complete set of standards to each

State.

6. Amendment to an appropriation act in 1838 to provide balances

for each State.

7. Action by States adopting these Standards as the official State

Standards.

141
8. Act of 1866 making the metric system legal.

9. The Metric Convention of 1875 establishing the International

Bureau of Weights and Measures.

9.1. U.S. became member and in 1890 received Kilogram 20

and Meter Bar 27.

10. The Mendenhall Order of 1893.

10.1. Superintendent of Weights and Measures decreed these

metric prototypes would be our National Standards.

11. The establishment of the National Bureau of Standards in 1901.

12. The Role of the States in Weights and Measures enforcement.

12.1. NBS acts as custodian of our National Standards and

furnishes States with values for their Standards.

12.2. States exercise regulatory control over commercial

weighing and measuring.

13. Show film "A True Standard."

Equipment

World wall map.

Slides or original standards and balances.

Slides of new standards.

Slide Projector.

16-mm sound motion picture projector.

Film "A True Standard" (short version).

References

NBS C-593—"The Federal Basis for Weights and

Measures"

Bussey-Jensen paper—'Weights and Measures Administration in the U.S."

L.C. 1035—"Units and Systems of Weights and Measures

Their Origin, Development, and Present Status." The Model State Weights and Measures Law.

The Committee takes this opportunity to publicly acknowledge its appreciation and to offer our sincere thanks to all who have so splendidly cooperated and assisted throughout the year.

S. H. Christie, Jr., Chairman

J. T. Daniell

L. A. Gredy

A. L>. Rose

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

Committee on Education

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor,

the Report of the Committee on Education was adopted by voice vote.)

142
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON WITH

THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

presented by A. L. Little, Chairman. Head, Weights and

Measures Division. State of Arkansas

(Thursday. July 14, 1966, 2 :36 p.m.)

At its organizational meeting in Washington

the Committee decided to devote its energies

during this first year of its operation to a matter deemed of utmost importance both to weights and measures officials throughout the

United States and to packagers of products and

commodities—the development of means by

which uniformity in requirements pertaining to package labeling might be realized among all Federal and State authorities.

To this end, the Committee met in Washington on May 10 with representatives of six agencies of the Federal Government. During that

meeting, the model package labeling requirements of the National Conference were discussed in detail, and the Federal officials individually

explained their requirements and any inconsistencies between those

and the model requirements.

Excellent lines of communication were developed. The Federal

officials, without exception, dedicated themselves to the success of the

Committee's aim.

Subsequent to that meeting, communications among Committee

members have continued and the beginning of real progress can be

seen. The Committee has been kept informed of developments in the Congress of the United States relating to a Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act. During its open meeting this matter was brought up from the

floor and was discussed briefly.

This subject was determined to be the responsibility of the Resolutions Committee. Accordingly, the Committee has no recommendation to make.

During its open meeting on Monday the Committee encouraged

weights and measures officials and representatives of business and in- dustry to bring before it items deserving attention. It is the aim of

the Committee to serve the Conference, all levels of Government, and

business and industrial interests affected by or interested in weights

and measures supervision.

It is the view of the Committee that its establishment by the Conference was an excellent and progressive move. It is the aim of the

143
present members to make every effort to see to it that the needs of

the Conference in Federal-State relationships are well attended to. A. L. Little, Chairman

K. C. Allen

E. J. Fahey

C. E. Joyce

F. W. Love

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

Committee on Liaison with the

National Government

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor,

the report of the Committee on Liaison with the National Government

was unanimously accepted by voice vote.)

144
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND

REGULATIONS

Presented by L. Barker, Chairman. Commissioner, Department of

Labor, State of West Virginia

(Thursday, July 14. 1966, 2 :42 p.m.)

The Committee on Laws and Regulations

submits its report to the 51st National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report

consists of the Revised Tentative Report distributed at the Registration Desk of this Conference as amended by the Final Report.

1. MODEL STATE LAW ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

In order that the Model Law may be entirely correct with respect

to State standards, particularly in light of the program of the National

Bureau of Standards to provide new standards to each State, amendments to Sections 4 and 5 are deemed advisable.

SECTION 4. STATE STANDARDS OF WEIGHT AND

MEASURE.—Amend by deleting the last sentence of the section.

SECTION 5. OFFICE AND WORKING STANDARDS AND

EQUIPMENT.—Amend both the title and language to read:

SEC. 5. FIELD STANDARDS AND EQUIPMENT.—In addition to the State standards provided for in Section 4 of this Act,

there shall be supplied by the State such "field standards" and

such equipment as may be found necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. The field standards shall be verified upon

their initial receipt and at least once each year thereafter by comparison with the State standards.

SECTION 31 BUTTER, OLEOMARGARINE. AND MARGARINE.—The Committee has been informed that oleomargarine and

margarine in liquid form are being test-marketed in several locations

and that the Federal Food and Drug Administration has issued a defi- nition and standard of identity for these products. The Model Law

specifies that butter, oleomargarine, and margarine "shall be offered

and exposed for sale and sold by weight, and only in units of *4

pound, Y2 pound, 1 pound, or multiples of 1 pound, avoirdupois

weight."

It is the view of the Committee that an entirely proper interpretation of Section 34 would be that the terms "butter, oleomargarine, and

145
margarine''1 include these commodities whether in liquid or solid form

and, accordingly, that the pt^oducts, whether liquid or solid, must be

offered and exposed for sale and sold by weight and only in the units

specified in Section 34. SECTION 38. HEATING AND COOKING OIL.—The title of

this section has caused some confusion. The Committee recommends

that this section be amended as follows : SEC. 38. FURNACE AND STOVE OIL.—All furnace and

stove oil shall be sold by liquid measure or by net weight in accord- ance with the provisions of Section 25 of this Act. In the case of

each delivery of such liquid fuel not in package form . . . SECTION 39. TEXTILE PRODUCTS.—Subsection (2) of this

section permits the use of a "trademark, symbol, brand, or other mark

that positively identifies such manufacturer, packer, or distributor" in

lieu of the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or

distributor for textile products. It has been pointed out that the

silence of the Model Law with respect to a method for "postively identifying" the responsible party is a void that should be corrected. The

Committee, therefore, recommends that subsection (2) of Section

39 be amended by adding the sentence

Any such trademark, symbol, brand, or other mark that is employed to identify the manufacturer, packer, or distributor

shall be filed with the director.

SECTIONS 9, 24, and 44-—To provide for the promulgation of a Model Regulation Pertaining to the Voluntary Registration of Servicemen and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices, three minor amendments to the Model State Law on Weights and Measures are necessary. The Committee recommends,

therefore, the following amendments

SECTION 9. SPECIFIC POWERS AND DUTIES OF DIRECTOR: REGULATIONS.—In line 10, delete the word "and"; J| change the period at the end of this to a comma and add the following

regulation

and (4) rules governing the voluntary registration of servicemen and service agencies.

SECTION 24. DUTY OF OWNERS OF INCORRECT APPARATUS.—At the end of the section, change the period to a semicolon and add the following phrase

or until the rejection tag has been removed and the rejected

device repaired and placed in service by a person duly registered to perform such acts under a regulation issued by the

146
director for the registration of weights and measures servicemen and service agencies.

SECTION U- OFFENSES AND PENALTIES.—Amend subsection (2) to read as follows:

(2) Use, or have in possession for the purpose of current use

for any commercial purpose specified in Section 11, a weight or measure that does not bear a seal or mark such as is specified in

Section 15, unless such weight or measure has been exempted

from testing by the provisions of Section 11 or by a regulation

of the director issued under the authority of Section 9, or unless

the device has been placed in service as provided by a regulation

of the director issued under the authority of Section 9 of this Act.

(Item 1 was adopted by voice vote.)

2. MODEL STATE REGULATION PERTAINING TO PACKAGES

SECTION 1. APPLICATION..—The Committee has been asked

to interpret the application of specific prominence and placement

requirements to quantity declarations on small packages that, under

the terms of Section 1, APPLICATION, are exempted from the re- quirements for such declarations. It is the opinion of the Committee

that, if a package is exempted from the requirement for a quantity

declaration, stipulations as to a voluntarily presented quantity declaration are not imposed by the Model Regulation and cannot be demanded

under its terms. Section 26 of the Model Law, [METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES] : PACKAGES: DECLARATIONS OF QUANTITY

AND ORIGIN; VARIATIONS; EXEMPTIONS, in subsection (c)

under the second proviso, mandates the director to establish by regulation "exemptions as to commodities put up in variable weights or

sizes for sale intact and either customarily not sold as individual units or customarily weighed or measured at time of sale to the consumer."

There appears to be a definite omission in the Model Package Regulation, since this regulation makes no mention of any such exemptions.

The Committee, therefore, recommends that Section 1, APPLICATION, of the Regulation be amended by adding at the end the fol- lowing language

And Provided further, That a commodity shall be exempt from

such declaration if such commodity is put up in variable weights

or sizes for sale intact and is customarily either weighed or measured at the time of sale to the consumer. SECTION 3.3. UNITS—WEIGHT, MEASURE.—This section

requires, under (b), that declarations of liquid measure express the

volume at 68°F (20°C) except for commodities normally sold while

frozen or refrigerated, in which case the declaration expresses the

147
volume at the temperature normally prevailing when such commodity i is sold. The "base" temperature for petroleum products is and has

been 60°F ; accordingly, the Committee deems it appropriate to amend

Section 3.3. (b) to read as follows

(b) in units of liquid measure shall be in terms of the United

States gallon of 231 cubic inches or liquid-quart, liquid-pint, and

fluid-ounce subdivisions of the gallon, and shall express the

volume at 68° F (20° C), except in the case of petroleum products, i for which the declaration shall express the volume at 60°

(15.6°C), and except also in the case of a commodity that is normally sold while frozen or refrigerated, for which the declaration shall express the volume at the temperature normally

prevailing when such commodity is sold

SECTION 6.7. [PROMINENCE AND PLACEMENT] PERMANENTLY LABELED GLASS CONTAINERS.—As this sec- tion is now written, it would apply to all glass containers on which

label information is either blown or applied to the surface. This

point must be clarified. Additionally, with the increasing use of

plastics as containers, it is deemed by the Committee advisable to extend the coverage of Section 6.7. to plastics also, as appropriate.

The Committee recommends that Sections 6.7., 6.7.1., 6.7.2., and 6.7.3. be amended to read as follows

6.7. PERMANENTLY LABELED GLASS OR PLASTIC

CONTAINERS.

6.7.1. LABEL INFORMATION BLOWN, FORMED, OR j MOLDED INTO SURFACE OF CONTAINERS.—When all label

information is blown, formed, or molded into the glass or plastic

surface, the required declaration or declarations of quantity may

also be blown or formed into the surface: Provided, That in such

cases said declarations shall appear in close proximity to the

trade or brand name ; in the instance of glass or plastic contain- 1 ers for soft drinks or fruit juices, the height of any letter or number shall be not less than 3/16 inch for containers of 1 pint or less

capacity and not less than 7/32 inch for containers of greater I than 1 pint capacity; and for containers for all other products 1 the minimum height of numbers and letters shall be as set forth

in Section 6.5. of this regulation.

6.7.2. LABEL INFORMATION APPLIED TO SURFACE OF

CONTAINERS.—When any label information is applied to the

surface of a glass or plastic container in white or in any color,

the required declaration or declarations of quantity shall also be

applied to the surface. In the instance of glass or plastic con- tainers for soft drinks or fruit juices, the height of any letter or number shall be not less than % inch for containers of 1 point or less capacity and not less than 3/6 inch for containers of

greater than 1 pint capacity; and for containers for all other

148
products the minimum height of numbers and letters shall be as

set forth in Section 6.5. of this regulation.

6.7.3. LABEL INFORMATION ON CAP OR CROWN OF

CONTAINERS.—When all other label information is displayed on the cap or crown of a glass or plastic container, the required

declaration of quantity may also be displayed on the cap or crown

and shall be displayed prominently, conspicuously, and in color

contrasting with the background : Provided, however, That in the

instance of glass or plastic containers for soft drinks and fruit

juices, and of plastic containers for milk and other fluid dairy

products, when all other label information is displayed on the

cap or crown, the required quantity declaration may be blown,

formed, or molded into, or permanently applied to, that part of

the glass or plastic container that is in close proximity to said cap

or crown, in sizes as specified in Section 6.7.1. SECTIONS 6.2., 6.3.. 64.3., and 6,5.—To fulfill the aim described

under Section 6.7., minor amendments to these sections will be necessary. The Committee, accordingly, recommends that each of these

sections be amended by incorporating, as appropriate, references to

plastic containers.

(Item 2 was adopted by voice vote.)

3. MODEL REGULATION FOR PAPER PRODUCTS

SECTION 5. GIFT WRAPPING PAPER.—Some confusion has

arisen in connection with the application of this section to gift wrapping of all types offered for retail sale. To clarify, the Committee

recommends that this section be amended to read as follows:

5. GIFT WRAPPING.—The declaration of quantity on a package of gift wrapping paper, foil, plastic, or other material, whether

packaged as individual sheets or in roll form, shall indicate the

numerical count and the dimensions of the individual sheets. The

declaration of quantity on a package containing more than one

roll ("multi-roll" packs) shall indicate the number of individual

rolls and the dimensions of the sheet on each roll. Any linear

dimension greater than 48 inches shall be expressed in terms of

feet or as feet and inches. Any supplementary declaration of

quantity shall be in juxta-position with, and shall be subordinate

to, the required declaration.

(Item 3 was adopted by voice vote.)

4. MODEL REGULATION FOR ROOFING AND ROOFING MATERIALS

SECTION 7.—Since this regulation was not intended to cover roofing materials in liquid form, this should be made clear in the regula149
tion. The Committee recommends that the first sentence of Section

1 be amended to read as follows:

1. Roofing and roofing materials, except those in liquid form,

shall be sold either by the "square" or by the "square foot."

5. MODEL REGULATION PERTAINING TO THE VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION OF

SERVICEMEN AND SERVICE AGENCIES FOR COMMERCIAL WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES

There is evidence of increasing interest on the part of the States

to establish controls of one kind or another over individuals and

agencies servicing commercial weighing and measuring devices.

With no guidance from the National Conference on Weights and

Measures and no model from which to work, wide diversity is growing among the States. There presently are in existence a number of !

'

different types of controls for servicemen—licensing with examinations, licensing without examinations, bonding, involuntary registration, and voluntary registration. It thus seems important to the Committee that the Conference

adopt a model plan and language necessary to implement such a plan.

The plan proposed is simple with respect to both requirements and

administration. It offers to a serviceman and to a service agency the | privilege of registering voluntarily with the director of weights and

measures and, having registered, the privileges of restoring rejected

devices to service and of placing in service new or used devices.

Servicemen and service agencies are required to provide evidence,

in the form of references and of competence, and to submit standards

and testing equipment for examination and certification when registering, and at least biennially thereafter. A certificate of registration,

including an assigned registration number, is issued to a registrant by

the director of weights and measures. The director is authorized, for

good cause and after careful investigation and consideration, to revoke a certification of registration without recourse. A registrant is required to execute and sign a "Place in Service

Report" for each device he restores to service or places in service, and

to send the original of said report to the director.

In order to provide maximum effectiveness of the program and to reduce to a minimum legal obstacles to service across State lines, provision is made for reciprocity among States having similar voluntary

registration policies—reciprocity in recognition of registered servicemen and agencies and of certification of standards and testing

| equipment.

This plan has been endorsed by both the Scale Manufacturers Asso- j ciation and the National Scale Mens' Association.

(Item I was adopted by voice vote.)

150
The Committee recommends the adoption of the Model Regulation

Pertaining to the Voluntary Registration of Servicemen and Service

Agencies for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices, as follows

MODEL REGULATION PERTAINING TO THE VOLUNTARY

REGISTRATION OF SERVICEMEN AND SERVICE

AGENCIES FOR COMMERCIAL WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as set forth in section

of chapter of the statutes of the State of

(cite section or sections authorizing promulgation of general regulations) , I, , State Director of Weights and Measures,

hereby adopt and promulgate the following regulations

REGULATION NO

1. DEFINITIONS.

1.1. COMMERCIAL WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICE.—The term "commercial weighing and measuring device" shall be construed to include any weight or measure or weighing or measuring device commercially used or employed in establishing the size,

quantity, extent, area, or measurement of quantities, things, produce, or

articles for distribution or consumption, purchased, offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award, or in computing any basic charge or payment for sen-ices rendered on the basis of weight, or measure, and

shall also include any accessory attached to or used in connection with a commercial weighing or measuring device when such accessory is so designed or installed that its operation affects, or may affect, the

accuracy of the device.

1.2. REGISTERED SERVICEMAN.—The term "Registered

Serviceman*' shall be construced to mean any individual who for hire,

award, commission, or any other payment of any kind, installs, services, repairs, or reconditions a commercial weighing or measuring

device, and which voluntarily registers himself as such with the Director of Weights and Measures.

1.3. REGISTERED SERVICE AGENCY.—The term "Registered Service Agency" shall be construed to mean any agency, firm,

company, or corporation which, for hire, award, commission, or any

other payment of any kind, installs, services, repairs, or reconditions a commercial weighing or measuring device, and which voluntarily registers itself as such with the Director of Weights and Measures. Under

agency registration, identification of individual servicemen shall not

be required.

2. POLICY.—It shall be the policy of the Director of Weights and

Measures, hereinafter referred to as "Director," to accept voluntary

248-760 O—67——11 151
registration of (a) an individual and (b) an agency that provides ac- ceptable evidence that he or it is fully qualified to install, service,

repair, or recondition a commercial weighing or measuring device;

has a thorough working knowledge of all appropriate weights and

measures laws, orders, rules, and regulations; and has possession of, or available for use, weights and measures standards and testing

equipment appropriate in design and adequate in amount. (An employee of government shall not be eligible for registration.) This

policy shall in no way preclude or limit the right and privilege of

any qualified individual or agency not registered with the Director

to install, service, repair, or recondition a commercial weighing or measuring device.

3. RECIPROCITY.—The Director may enter into an informal re- ciprocal agreement with any other State or States that has or have

similar voluntary registration policies. Under such agreement, the

Registered Servicemen and the Registered Service Agencies of the

States party to the reciprocal agreement are granted full reciprocal

authority, including reciprocal recognition of certification of standards and testing equipment, in all States party to such agreement.

4. REGISTRATION FEE.—There shall be charged by the Director an annual fee of $1.00 per Registered Serviceman and $5.00 per

Registered Service Agency to cover costs of administering the plan.

Said fee shall be paid to the Director at the time application for registration is made, and annually, during the month of January, thereafter.

5. VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION.—An individual or agency

may apply for voluntary registration to service weiging devices or measuring devices on an application form supplied by the Director.

Said form, duly signed and witnessed, shall include certification by

the applicant that the individual or agency is fully qualified to install,

service, repair, or recondition whatever devices for the service of which

competence is being registered ; has in possession, or available for use,

all necessary testing equipment and standards; and has full knowledge

of all appropriate weights and measui'es laAvs, orders, rules, and regulations. An applicant also shall submit appropiate evidence or refer- ences as to qualifications.

6. CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.—Upon receipt and

acceptance of a properly executed application form, the Director shall

issue to the applicant a "Certificate of Registration," including an as- signed registration number, which shall remain effective until either

returned by the applicant or withdrawn by the Director.

7. PRIVILEGES OF A VOLUNTARY REGISTRANT.—A | bearer of a Certificate of Registration shall have the authority to re-i ; move an official rejection tag or mark placed on a weighing or measuring device by the authority of the Director; place in service, until such I time as an official examination can be made, a weighing or measuring

j

152
device that has been officially rejected; and place in service, until such

time as an official examination can be made, a new or used weighing or measuring device.

8. PLACED IN SERVICE REPORT.—The Director shall furnish each Registered Serviceman and Registered Service Agency with

a supply of report forms to be known as "Placed in Service Reports."

Such a form shall be executed in triplicate, shall include the assigned

registration number, and shall be signed by a Registered Serviceman

or by a serviceman representing a Registered Agency for each rejected

device restored to service and for each newly installed device placed

in service. Within 2i hours after a device is restored to service, or placed in service, the original of the properly executed Placed hi Service Report, together with any official rejection tag removed from the

device, shall be mailed to the Director at

(address) The duplicate copy of the report shall be handed to the owner or operator of the

device, and the triplicate copy of the report shall be retained by the

Registered Serviceman or Agency.

9. STANDARDS AND TESTING EQUIPMENT.—A Registered

Serviceman and a Registered Service Agency shall submit, at least biennially to the Director, for his examination and certification, any

standards and testing equipment that are used, or are to be used, in the

performance of the service and testing functions with respect to weighing and measuring devices for which competence is registered.

A Registered Serviceman or Agency shall not use in servicing commercial weighing or measuring devices any standards or testing equipment that have not been certified by the Director.

10. REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.—The Director may, for good cause, after careful investigation

and consideration, suspend or revoke a Certificate of Registration.

11. PUBLICATION OF LISTS OF REGISTERED SERVICEMEN AND REGISTERED SERVICE AGENTS.—The Director

shall publish, from time to time as he deems appropriate, and may

supply upon request, lists of Registered Servicemen and Registered

Service Agencies.

(Item 5 was adopted by voice vote.)

Lawrence Barker, Chairman

J. Lyle Littlefield

Matt Jennings

H. L. Godforth

J. F. Lyles

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

Committee on Laws and Regulations.

(On motion by Mr. Barker, seconded from the floor the Conference

by voice vote adopted the Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations.)
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS

AND TOLERANCES

presented by G. L. Johnson, Chairman, Director, Division of

Weights and Measures, State of Kentucky

(Thursday, July 14, 1966, 3 :15 p.m.)

The Committee on Specifications and Toler- ances submits its report to the 51st National

Conference on Weights and Measures. The re- port consists of the Tentative Report, transmitted during April as part of the Conference Announcement, as amended by the Final Report.

The substantive recommendations take the

form of proposed amendments to the codes of

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44,

Third Edition, Specifications, Tolerances, and

Other Technical Requirements for Commercial

Weighing and Measuring Devices.

1. GENERAL CODE

General application paragraph G-A.6. NONRETROACTIVE

REQUIREMENTS.—The Technical Committee of the Scale Manufacturers Association has pointed out, quite properly, that a significant

change in the effectiveness of nonretroactive requirements was brought

about with the adoption of the new codes. Whereas the Second Edition of Handbook 44 stipulated that such requirements did not apply

.

"to equipment that is in the State at the time of such promulgation,

either in use or in the stocks of manufacturers of or dealers in such

equipment," the revised requirement is that nonretroactive requirements are not enforceable with respect "to devices that are in commercial service in the State as of the effective date or to new equipment

in the stock of a manufacturer or dealer in the State of the effective

date."

From the standpoint of scale manufacturers, the critical difference

is that a device not in conformance with a nonretroactive requirement

^ could not be accepted in trade with the plan that it be resold for com-

^ mercial use. It is the view of the Committee that the new requirement is completely appropriate and is, as a matter of fact, necessary if devices

not meeting the latest technical requirements are to be, little by little, "weeded out" and replaced with devices that conform in all regards

to the latest technical requirements.

The Committee recommends no amendment to general application \ paragraph G-A.6.

154
DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM

Mr. D. B. Kendall: The chairman of the SMA Technical Committee made a presentation at the open meeting on Monday requesting either clarification or rewording of this requirement to correspond

to the Second Edition of H—14. The S and T Committee has not seen

fit to go along with that suggestion, but because of the newness of the

Third Edition we propose to follow the progess in various State in- terpretations and, if necessary, make a presentation at the next

Conference.

(The foregoing Committee item was adopted by voice vote.)

General tolerances paragraph G-T.l. ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES.—Mr. Lyles of Virginia suggests that a subparagraph be

added to this paragraph to read "(d) to equipment that has been re- turned to commercial service following reconditioning, overhauling, or adjustments and is being officially tested for the first time within 30

days after corrective service."

A requirement such as this would reinstate the provision that

existed in the Handbook prior to 1963, except that the period during

which acceptance tolerances would be applied would be reduced from

90 days to 30 days. At that time the Committee and the Conference

were of the view that, on the one hand, a device owner or operator

was, in effect, being penalized for good service operations directed to the maintenance of his equipment in acceptable operating condition,

and, on the other hand, it was always difficult for the official to determine if and when reconditioning, overhauling, or adjustments had

been made in order that the acceptance tolerances could be applied.

The Committee is of the firm belief that the present provisions of

the handbook are appropriate and adequate, and recommends no amendment to this paragraph.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM Mr. W. A. Kerlin : I think there is a very serious loophole in paragraph G-T.l. This has been covered in all of the handbooks prior

to 1963, with the exception that there was a 90-day proviso. I cannot

help but agree with Mr. Lyles that it should still be covered. I would

like to make a motion to amend the committee report to read

(d) To equipment that has been returned to commercial service

following reconditioning, overhauling, or adjustments, and is being

officially tested for the first time within 30 days after corrective service.

(The foregoing item, as amended, was adopted by voice vote.)

DISCUSSION ON THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING ITEM Mr. K. C. Allen : I think the Conference has just made a mistake.

On the motion of Mr. Kerlin, we did adopt paragraph (d), which

155
specifies the official testing of equipment returned to commercial service following reconditioning, overhauling, or adjustments. Now,

reconditioning is a major item. It should meet acceptance tolerances.

And overhauling is major. But I think the Committee has made a mistake when it says that acceptance tolerances must be met whenever

a scale or a meter is adjusted. I would suggest that somebody make

a motion that you reconsider this and take "or adjustments" out of

that paragraph.

Mr. M. W. Jensen : I believe it would be necessary, before we start discussion, for someone who favored the motion to move for

reconsideration.

Mr. Kerlin : I move for reconsideration of G-T.l. I would like to amend the motion that I previously made by striking the words "or

adjustments" so that the committee report would read

(d) To equipment that is being officially tested for the first time

within 30 days after major reconditioning or overhaul.

(Following further discussion, paragraph (d) as amended following

reconsideration was adopted by voice vote.)

General user requirements paragraph G-UR.44- REPLACEMENT OF SECURITY SEAL.—In a communication to the Committee, Mr. E. W. Searles of Medina County, Ohio, suggests that the

Committee consider an amendment to this paragraph that would re- quire a distinctive marking on a security seal affixed to any mechanism

for adjustment following service, repair, or replacement that requires

mutilation or destruction of the official seal. The Committee recommends no amendment to this -paragraph, be- cause the purpose is simply to impose in the operator of a device the

responsibility of seeing that the adjusting mechanism on his device is appropriately sealed at all times. The responsibility both for the

accuracy of the device and for the sealing of the adjusting mechanism

resides in the owner or operator, and the identification of an individual who affixes a replacement seal is of no legal consequence.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. SCALE CODE

Specifications paragraph S.2.1.2. BALANCE BALL.—Mr. Daniell of the City of Detroit has recommended that this paragraph be

amended so as to clearly provide that the zero-load balance on scales of reasonably high capacity be adjustable only through the use of a tool outside of, and entirely separate from, the zero-adjusting element.

Additionally, the Committee has been informed that, in some jurisdictions, the present language is being interpreted as requiring the use of a tool. It is the opinion of the Committee that the ease and rapidity of zero-adjustment of large scales should be encouraged and that,

156
when such adjustment can be accomplished with a readily accessible

knurled knob, a push-button, or even an automatic mechanism, accu- racy in weighing is promoted.

Me. C. O. Cottom: I would like to request that the Committee

study this matter for another year to see if the requirements of Handbook 44 are completely adequate.

Mr. J. H. Lewis : I thoroughly agree that we should do everything we can to facilitate the balancing of large-capacity scales. Commercially, I see nothing wrong with having a knurled knob or any other means which will facilitate the accurate and ready balancing of a large-capacity scale. I suggest that we stay with the Committee

recommendation.

Mr. D. E. Konsoer: My reason for supporting Mr. Cottonvs position is that a large-capacity scale, such as a livestock scale, equipped

with a balancing mechanism that could be easily adjusted could lead

to the perpetration of fraud, in violation of paragraph G-S.2. The

scale could be adjusted so as to be behind zero balance during a weighing, and immediately after the weighing could be returned to zero

balance.

Mr. Cottovt : Going back in history, with the hanging poises, we

have been very careful to make it mandatory that no loose balancing

material be used. This new mechanism on automatic-type scales allows an operator to change the balance condition easily in a fraudulent manner. Mr. Johnson : I would say the Committee has clearly stated its position in its final report. A definite problem has developed on some

of the newer type scales, and the Committee feels that, with this ease

of adjustment, there will be a better chance of getting exact weight.

In addition, if the owner of a scale is ever caught manipulating the

balance, the facilitation of fraud paragraph of Handbook 44 can be

called to his attention.

Mr. Jensen : I think perhaps I should clear the record with respect

to the original reason for this amendment. It had to do with the rotation of the balance ball itself. I believe you will find in searching

the records that that amendment became necessary because the rotatable balance ball tended to move itself during a weighing operation

, it was not made necessary by the problem of fraud. Furthermore,

j I believe the scale experts present will tell you that the reason it is necessary to have material inside the hanging poise fixed, and not

loose, is because, if the material is loose, it tends to shift and

, will definitely change the ratio of the weiglibeam.

i (The proposed amendment to the foregoing item was defeated by a standing vote, and the Committee recommendation was adopted by

a standing vote.)

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM

157
Specifcations paragraph 8.6. MARKING REQUIREMENTS

and definition "nominal capacity^—Amendments are recommended ' by the Scale Manufacturers Association with the following

explanation

There appears to be a trend toward requiring net weight printing

of loads on vehicles. We understand Virginia requires printed net weight tickets for fill and similar material in highway construction

] and the midwest weights and measures officials are considering require- I ments for printed net weight tickets for delivery of fertilizer and feed !

i grains. For the latter application, if the weight of an empty truck or

a partially filled truck can be offset, the net weight of the full or

partial load can be printed. To meet these requirements, a tare bar

would be required on a type registering beam scale or additional tare capacity would be required on an automatic indicating scale with

printing device. In some cases the same scale might be used for net weighing or gross weighing. Such a scale would have indicating ele- ments which add up to a capacity considerably greater than the owner

would ever require.

The Committee, upon investigation, is of the opinion that this is an

appropriate request and accordingly recommends that a subsection (d)

under paragraph 8.6.1. be added to read as follows:

(d) On any scale with a nominal capacity less than the sum

of the reading elements.

This amendment requires an amendment to the definition of

l 'nom- |i inal capacity'"1 so it will read as follows

nominal capacity. The nominal capacity of a scale is (a) the

largest weight indication that can be obtained by the use of all of

the reading or recording elements in combination, including the

amount represented by any removable weights furnished or ordinarily furnished with the scale, but excluding the amount

represented by any extra removable weights not ordinarily fur- | nished with the scale, and excluding also the capacity of any aux- J iliary weighing attachment not contemplated by the original

design of the scale, and excluding any fractional bar with a ca- 1 pacity less than 2'/2 percent of the sum of the capacities of the

remaining reading elements or (b) the capacity marked on the

scale by the manufacturer, whichever is less. (See also nominal

capacity, batching scale; nominal capacity, hopper scale.)

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

Notes paragraph N.l.4. TEST FOR SENSITIVENESS FOR I NONAUTOMATIC-INDICATING SCALES.—The Scale Manufacturers Association notes:

158
Considering the fact that a beam scale equipped with a balance

indicator and graduated chart is as easy to read as an automaticindicating scale, subpargraphs (b) and (c) of this specification

require considerably greater sensitivity for the beam scale with

balance indicator than for the automatic-indicating scale. This

difference in requirements could be eliminated if "whichever is greater" were changed to "whichever is less" where this statement

appears in both paragraphs. We recommend that this change be

made.

The Committee has been informed of no difficulty in connection with

conformance with this requirement and has no evidence that difficulty

is to be expected. Accordingly, the Committee recommends no chwige.

Sensitivity requirements paragraph- SR.2. GENERAL.—When

this paragraph ( which establishes as the basic sensitivity requirement

for nonautomatic-indicating scales "the value of the minimum graduated interval on the weighbeam or 0.1 percent of the test load, whichever is greater") was developed, both the Scale Code Advisory Committee and the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances were aware

that it offered distinct possibilities of technical inappropriateness.

Mr. Lyles of Virginia has recommended that the proposed amendment for this paragrajm included in the Tentative Report be changed

so as to make the SR on a nonautomatic-indicating scale with a nominal capacity of 1,000 pounds or less the value of the minimum

graduated interval on the weighbeam.

As the Committee points out in its Tentative Report, it is recom- mending the restoration of the language contained in the Second Edition of the Handbook while it continues to study this matter. The

Committee is of the opinion that a change according to Mr. Lyles'

recommendation might tend to confuse the matter further, and thus

recommends that paragraph SR.2. be amended to read as f

ollows

SR.2. GENERAL.—Except for vehicle, axle-load, livestock,

animal, railway track, prescription, jewelers, cream-test, and

moisture-test scales, the SR on a nonautomatic-indicating scale

shall be twice the value of the minimum graduated interval on

the weighbeam, 0.2 percent of the nominal capacity of the scale, or 40 pounds, whichever is least.

Tolerances paragraph T.2.2. [MINIMUM TOLERANCE

VALUES] FOR LIVESTOCK SCALES.—This requirement, which

fixes 2 pounds as the minimum tolerance value, maintenance and ac- ceptance, for livestock scales, has been found to be unrealistics with

respect to automatic-indicating scales with digital recording. Even

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

159
with the addition of one-half the value of the minimum graduated

interval, as provided in tolerances paragraph T.1.2. for digital indicaitons or representations, a digital scale with 5-pound intervals would

be permitted to print no error from zero to 2,500 pounds on acceptance

test, and from zero to 1,250 pounds on maintenance test. The Committee recommends that tolerances paragraph T.2.2. he

amended to read as follows : T.2.2. FOR LIVESTOCK SCALES.—The minimum mainte- nance tolerance and acceptance tolerance shall be 2 pounds, or

one-half the value of the minimum graduated interval, whichever

is greater.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

Tolerances paragraph T.2,5. [MINIMUM TOLERANCE

VALUES] FOR RAILWAY TRACK SCALES.—-The present re- quirement for a minimum tolerance value of 25 pounds for a railway

track scale is technicially incorrect in light of a minimum test-weight

load of 30,000 pounds and a basic acceptance tolerance of 1 pound per

1,000 pounds of test load.

The Committee recommends that tolerance paragraph T.2.5. he

amended hy replacing "25 pounds'1 '' with "30 pounds.'''

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

TOLERANCES FOR SCALES IN GRAIN WEIGHING SERVICE.—Mr. H. W. Ritter of the Terminal Grain Weighmasters National Association, Chicago, addressed a letter to the Conference and

stated that his organization found the provisions of the Scale Code

"objectionable" because they did not recognize the existence of a 1920

Interstate Commerce Commission Docket (9009) which proposed

tolerances for scales in grain weighing service somewhat less than those

presented in the Handbook.

In its return communication, the Committee pointed out to Mr. Ritter that ICC Docket 9009 has no legal status, "and since many other

commodities of greater value per pound are shipped in quantity interstate, it was the decision of the Committee, backed up by Conference

adoption, to include grain scales with scales used to weigh all other

commodities."

The Committee is confident that the position taken hy the Conference in this regard is sound and that this matter requires no further

review.

( Tbe foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.

)

User requirements paragraph UR.1.1.6. [VALUE OF MINUMUM

GRADUATED INTERVALS ON PRIMARY INDICATING

AND RECORDING ELEMENTS] FOR VEHICLE SCALES.

160
AXLE-LOAD SCALES, AND WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHERS

ONLY.—Once again the scale manufacturers have recommended

that there be no specified minimum graduated interval for axle-load

scales, which, under the terms of application paragraph A.2., are covered by the code only when they are "in official use for the enforcement of traffic and highway laws."

Although the Committee is well aware of the variations in force

exerted by a single axle of a multiple-axle highway unit, and is aware

also that the weight determination of such a single axle is never a

precise reflection of the forces that may be exerted by that axle on the

highway, the Committee cannot ignore the response of weights and

measures officials to the questionnaire distributed to all States during

the development of the Handbook revision. At that time, it was the

overwhelming consensus of State highway load-limit enforcement officials that a 20-pound graduation was desired (even, in some cases, required) on axle-load scales. The Committee recommends no amendment to user requirement

UR.1.1.6.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

Definition "decreasing-load test.''—With the stipulation in notes paragraph N.1.2. that the decreasing-load test on an automaticindicating scale be conducted with a test load equal to one-half of the

maximum applied test load, the present definition for decreasing-load

test is incorrect.

The Committee recommends that this definition be amended to read

as follows:

decreasing-load test. A special supplementary test for automatic-indicating scales only, during which the performance of

the scale is tested when the load is being reduced. In this test, an observation is made with a test weight load equal to one-half

of the maximum applied test load.

Definition "sensitivity requirements (SR)."—Under the new meaning of SR (sensitivity requirement), the definition may be subject to misinterpret at i on

.

Accordingly, the Committee recommends that this definition be

amended to read as follows

Sensitivity requirement (SR). A performance requirement

for a nonautomatic-indicating scale; specifically, the minimum

change in the position of rest of the indicating element or ele- ments of the scale in response to the increase or decrease, by a

specified amount, of the test-weight load on the load-receiving

element of the scale.

(The foregoing definitions were adopted by voice vote.)

161
3. CODE FOR LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

Specifications paragraph 8.144. PRINTED TICKETS.—During the open meeting, gas pump manufacturers recommended that this

paragraph, which presently requires that a ticket issued by a retail device that presents the total computed price shall present also the

total volume of the delivery in terms of gallons and the price per gallon, be amended to permit the total price and either the total volume or

the price per gallon. In their presentation, industry representatives

claimed that devices to meet the present requirement are not available,

but that devices to meet the requirement recommended by them are

available. As the Committee pointed out last year, it does not desire

to inhibit technical progress ; nonetheless, the issuance of a ticket by a computing weighing or measuring device that does not include the

quantity delivered and the price per unit of weight or measure is definitely lacking with respect to present-day requirements. Additionally, the Committee must point out that no device such as is claimed to be in existence has been demonstrated to any of its members. No amendment is recommended.

(The foregoing Committee item was adopted by voice vote.)

TOLERANCES—DIGITAL INDICATIONS OR REPRESENTATIONS.—An industry spokesman has recommended that

recognition be given to digital indications and representations of retail liquid-measuring devices and that a tolerance paragraph be added to provide an additional tolerance equal to one-half of the minimum

value that can be indicated or recorded. This would in effect recognize, as presently is done in the Scale Code, the inability of digital

indicators or recorders to decide whether to go up or down in in- dicating or recording when the actual delivery is precisely half way

between two values that can be indicated or recorded. The Committee has seen no evidence of retail liquid-measuring devices that are truly digitial, and, until such time as these devices are at least "on

the drawing board" cannot conscientiously recommend an alteration

in the code. No amendment is recomm,ended.

(The foregoing item wae adopted by voice vote.)

4. CODES FOR LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES AND VEHICLE-TANK METERS

TOLERANCES.—During recent years, and particularly in con- nection with the preparation of the revision of the codes, many weights

and measures officials have recommended that the tolerances on wholesale liquid-measuring devices and on vehicle-tank meters be reduced

for large test drafts. (The Southern Weights and Measures Association, in conference on October 20, 1965, adopted a recommendation of

its Committee on Specifications and Tolerances: "We recommend to

162
the Specifications and Tolerances Committee of the National ConferI ence on "Weights and Measures, the meter manufacturers, and the

American Petroleum Institute that they increase their efforts in studying present tolerances on wholesale meters in order to be in position to recommend to the 51st National Conference reduced tolerances on

wholesale-type meters."

)

Subsequent to the publication of the Tentative Report, the Committee received a communication from Mr. R. C. Primley, Chairman of

the API Subcommittee on Weights and Measures

The American Petroleum Institute is happy to report, that under

the direction of the Operation and Engineering Committee, its Subcommittee of Weights and Measures was given authority, and have

set up a Technical Committee to work with the National Conference

and the National Bureau of Standards in the determining of adequate

tolerance for petroleum meters in the area of wholesale marketing.

More recently, approval has been given to employ a full time technical director with the experience and knowledge to establish a research

and fact finding program and work in conjunction with the National

Bureau of Standards in this endeavor. With the work of the Technical Committee, and the full time director, we feel you can be assured

that by the 52nd Conference in 1967, sufficient information will have

been developed to help all concerned make a satisfactory constructive

decision.

The Chairman of the Meter Manufacturers' Technical Committee

has recommended a special "special'' tolerance for a split compartment

test of a vehicle-tank meter—a tolerance based upon the flow rate of

the meter under test. The meter manufacturers point out, and ac- curately, that the error developed during a split-compartment test (designed to test the effectiveness of the meter air separator) is a function of the compartment, piping, and meter design, and is not

normally affected by the volume of the test draft.

The tolerances "on special tests" set forth in tolerance paragraph

T.2. and Table 1 were developed to include tests specified under notes paragraph N.4.2. SPECIAL TESTS, including those designed "to develop operating characteristics of the metering system during a split-compartment delivery.'' The Committee has no evidence of

unreasonable numbers of meters being rejected as a result of splitcompartment tests and no information from weights and measuures

officials as to hardships being thus created.

The Committee recommends no amendment.

(The foregoing item was adopted by the conference.)

5. CODE FOR VEHICLE-TANK METERS

PRESSURE CONTROL.—-The City of New York has recom- mended that a UR installation paragraph be added that would require

163
that the "installed" pressure of the product in a meter be not greater

than the "rated" pressure. In his communication, Mr. Richard W.

Brevoort, Director, New York City Bureau of Weights and Measures,

points out that his inspectors have found many faulty air eliminators

with collapsed floats, apparently caused by very high pump pressures. The Committee is of the opinion that this matter is adequately

covered by general user requirements paragraph G-UR.2.1. INSTALLATION, wherein it is stipulated that a device shall be installed in

accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Accordingly, no

action on this matter is recommended.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote)

6. CODE FOR VEHICLE TANKS USED AS MEASURES

COMPARTMENT INDICATORS, CALIBRATION CHARTS,

AND MEASURING STICKS.—A recommendation that the Code

for Vehicle Tanks be Used as Measures be amended has been received

by the Committee from the City of New York. This recommendation

includes two proposed amendments—(1) a specification requirement

that there be a suitable indicator in a compartment, and (2) that a compartment be supplied with a calibration chart and measuring

stick. Historically, only vehicle tanks with indicators have been classified as vehicle tanks used as measures. Throughout the years it has not

been deemed necessary by the Conference or by the States to include a requirement that indicators be a part of the tank. (Many specification requirements with respect to the indicators themselves are, of

course, included in the code.)

During a rather long period of time, measuring sticks (which be- came known in the trade as "guessing sticks") were accepted in the measure of partial compartment deliveries of petroleum products.

With the wide use of liquid meters mounted on vehicle tanks, the

Conference and the States prohibited the use in commercial delivery

of the measuring stick. The Committee is of the opinion that official recognition of this type of measurement would be retrogression.

The Committee recommends no amendment to the Code for Vehicle

Tanks Used as Measures.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

7. METERING OF CRYOGENIC FLUIDS

The Compressed Gas Association of New York City has been in

communication with the Committee Secretary in connection with the

development of a code for cryogenic liquids including, but not limited

to, liquid argon, liquid helium, liquid hydrogen, liquid methane, liquid

nitrogen, and liquid oxygen at temperatures below —150° C

(-238°F).

164
Mr. Gordon X. Stropel, Assistant Secretary of the Association, has

advised that a Subcommittee on "Weights and Measures of Cryogenic

Fluids has been formed and has been working toward the development of appropriate code material.

The Committee is not aware of the extent to which cryogenic fluids are metered commercially. If it is determined that such measure- ment is of sufficient consequence to warrant the development of code

material, the Committee icill direct its attention along these lines. Advice on th is point is solicited from, the States.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

8. CODE FOR MILK BOTTLES

Specifications paragraph S4. MARKING REQUIREMENTS.—

In its report to the 50th National Conference, the Committee noted

that, in its view, tolerances on milk bottles were in need of consideration and that bottle manufacturers and the trade organization rep- resenting dairies had requested time to conduct a comprehensive

study. This study now has been completed and a recommendation

with respect to milk bottle tolerances has been received.

It will be noted that, in the proposal, tolerances are unbalanced

greater in excess than in deficiency. The aim here is to provide, on

the average, milk bottles that will contain at least the nominal volume.

Although the proposed tolerances are not presented as nonretroactive,

the Committee recommends that they become effective only with

respect to milk bottles that are manufactured after adoption of the new tolerances by the Conference. To facilitate the implementation

of these new tolerance requirements with respect to milk bottles manufactured after the effective date, the Committee recommends that they

be identified and that such identification be uniform among all bottles. Th weights and measures heads of the northeastern States, meeting

at Hartford, Connecticut, May 18 and 19, suggested that the Committee give consideration to alternative language for specifications paragraph S.4., reading as follows: "S.4. MARKING REQUIREMENTS.—A milk bottle shall be permanently marked with a state- ment of its capacity. The capacity statement shall appear on the

breast of the bottle near the junction of the shoulder and neck."

The Committee recommends no action on this proposal because it can see no purpose that would be served and because millions of bottles now in use and thousands of molds for the making of bottles have

the capacity marking in other and apparently fully satisfactory

locations.

Following the issuance of its tentative report, the Committee re- ceived a communication from Mr. Earl Wagner of the Glass Container Manufacturers Institute pointing out, quite appropriately, that

the proposed nonretroactive language suggested for a new specifica165
tions paragraph S.4.2. IDENTIFICATION was unrealistic in that

it stipulated an effective date of July 1, 1966 (actually before Conference action) and required that the date marking on a milk bottle be in "close proximity to the capacity marking.''' (Milk bottles are marked as to date, but the marking normally is on the bottom.)

The Committee recommends that specifications paragraph S.4-. be

amended to read as follows:

S.4. MARKING REQUIREMENTS.

5.4.1. CAPACITY.—A milk bottle shall be permanently

marked with a statement of its capacity. The capacity statement

shall not be on the bottom of the bottle.

5.4.2. IDENTIFICATION.A milk bottle manufactured

after January 1, 1967, shall be marked with the last two digits of

the year in which the bottle was manufactured.

TOLERANCES ON AVERAGE CAPACITY AND ON INDIVIDUAL BOTTLE. Amend Table 1 and paragraph T.2., and

add Table 2, to read as follows

T.l. TOLERANCE ON AVERAGE CAPACITY.—Mainte- nance and acceptance tolerances in excess and in deficiency on

the average capacity of milk bottles tested shall be as shown in

table 1.

Table 1.

Maintenance and acceptance tolerances, in excess and in deficiency, on

average capacity of milk bottles

Tolerances on average capacity

Nominal capacity In excess In deficiency

Fluid Cubic Fluid Cubic

drams inches drams inches

10 fluid ounces or less_. 0. 75 0. 17 0. 25 0. 06

1 pint 1.00 0. 23 0.50 0. 11

1 quart 1.25 0. 28 0. 75 0. 17

1/2 gallon . 2. 00 0. 45 1.00 0. 23

1 gallon 3. 00 0. 68 2. 00 0. 45

2 gallons 6. 00 1. 35 3. 00 0. 68

T-2. TOLERANCE ON INDIVIDUAL BOTTLE.—Mainte- nance and acceptance tolerances in excess and in deficiency on the

capacity of an individual milk bottle shall be as shown in table 2.

166
Table 2.

Maintenance and acceptance tolerances, in excess and in deficiency, on capacity of an individual milk bottle

Tolerances on individual capacity

Nominal capacity In excess In deficiency

Fluid Cubic Fluid Cubic

drams inches drams inches

10 fluid ounces or less 2. 25 0.50 1. 25 0. 28

1 pint 3. 00 0. 68 2. 00 0. 45

1 quart 4. 00 0. 90 3. 00 0. 68

1/2 gallon. 6. 00 1.35 5. 00 1. 13

1 gallon 10. 00 2. 26 8. 00 1. 80

2 gallons 18. 00 4. 06 12. 00 2.71

It must be pointed out that, since tolerances can never be nonretroactive, weights and. measures officials will be required to exercise particularly good judgment with respect to the enforcement of these new

provisions of the Milk Bottle Code. First, every State should take

immediate action to give official status to the new provisions in order

that bottle manufacturers may modify their molds without delay and

start supplying bottles according to the new requirement as of January 1, 1967. Second, examinations of bottles on hand but not yet

placed in service should be completed prior to January 1, 1967, in

order that bottles purchased and manufactured according to the old

requirements, and in completely good faith, can be approved for

service without hazard.

Uniformity on this point is a particular obligation of all weights

and measures administrators.

(Item 8, code for milk bottles, was adopted by voice vote.)

9. CODE FOR ODOMETERS

The Committee has been working with the automobile industry

toward the standardization of odometers on trucks, the primary con- cern being, of course, trucks rented on the basis of mileage. This

turns out to be rather a tremendous task. There are literally tens of

thousands of transmission-differential-tire combinations in use in the

trucking industry, and detailed tests and studies must be made to design the most accurate odometer.

The Committee is assured that, with the vehicle-year 1968 trucks,

odometers on so-called light trucks ( 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight

and less) will meet specifications, and that the medium and heavy

trucks will follow shortly.

248-760 0—67 12 167
The Committee's recommendations to weights and measures officials are (1) that no regular testing program of truck odometers be con- ducted until they are specifically included in the code and (2) that a complaint be Imndled on an individual basis with such adjustment of

charges as is indicated by the particular case.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

The Committee is gratified by the response of the States in giving

official status to the new Handbook. There remains, however, a number of States that have not yet taken action. It is the sincere hope of

the Committee, and of all conscientious weights and measures officials, that the remaining States will take this necessary step in the very near future.

The principal aim of this Conference is uniformity. Surely uniformity in technical requirements for devices—requirements developed

democratically through the Conference—should be a first effort of

every State. G. L. Johnson, Chairman

H. J. McDade

J. F. McCarthy

H. D. Robinson

C. H. Stender

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

( Mr. Johnson moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor,

the Report of the Conference Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, as amended, was adopted by the Conference by voice vote.)

168
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS

presented by R. Williams, Chairman^ County Sealer of Weights

and Measures, Nassau County, New York

(Thursday, July 14, 1966, 3 :10 p.m.)

As provided in the Organization and Procedure of the Conference, the Director of the

National Bureau of Standards, Dr. A. V. Astin,

is the President of the Conference and is authorized to designate the Executive Secretary. All other officers are to be elected by

vote of the Conference with the exception that

vacancies occurring during the Conference

year may be filled by the Executive Committee.

In selecting active members of the Conference

to nominate for elective officers as presented in

this report, consideration was given by the

Committee to several factors, such as attend- ance records, geographical distribution, Conference participation,

and interest shown in promoting Weights and Measures Administration. The Nominating Committee submits the following report, nominating for office for the National Conference on Weights and Measures

and to serve for the ensuing year or until their successors might be

elected, the following

Chairman : J. E. Bowen, Massachusetts.

Vice Chairman: C. O. Cotton, Michigan; R. H. Fernsten, California: F. M. Gersz, Connecticut; J. G. Gustafson, Minnesota.

Treasurer : C. C. Morgan, Indiana.

Chaplain : R. W. Searles, Ohio.

Executive Committee : J. R. Bird, New Jersey ; S. J. Darsey, Florida

R. J. Fahey, Illionis; I. R. Frazer, Indiana ; M. Greenspan, New

York; W. H. Holt, West Virginia; D. E. Konsoer, Wisconsin;

J. H. Lewis, Washington; W. A. Polaski, Pennsylvania; J. D.

Walton, Texas.

R. Williams, Chairman J. B. McGee

E. H. Black R. E. Meek

V. D. Campbell D. M. Turnbull

H. E. Crawford Committee on Nominations

(There being no further nominations from the floor, nominations

were declared closed and the officers nominated by the Committee

were elected unanimously by voice vote.)

169
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS

presented by E. W. Ballentine, Chairman, Director, Bureau of

Inspection, State of South Carolina

(Friday, July 15, 1966, 9 :40 a.m.)

The Committee on Resolutions, having met

and considered resolutions submitted to it by

members of this 51st National Conference on Weights and Measures and other resolutions

that originated with members of the Committee, now submits to this Conference for its consideration and action the following resolutions that have received the unanimous endorsement of the Committee.

There are included a number of individual

resolutions which express appreciation for the

arrangements for, conduct of, and participation

in the National Conference. In order to expedite the handling of this phase of the Conference program, I request

permission of the Chair simply to indicate those to whom appreciation

is to be officially expressed

1. To the Honorable John P. Orcutt, Commissioner of Agriculture, State of Colorado, for his constructive contribution to the program of the 51st National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

2. To. Dr. A. V. Astin, J. P. Eberhard, M. W. Jensen, and staff of the National

Bureau of Standards for their tireless efforts to insure a successful Conference

in planning and administering the program and other details so essential to an

interesting educational meeting.

3. To Mr. C. L. Bragaw and the staff of the Boulder Laboratories, National

Bureau of Standards, for the many details involved in the physical arrange- ments of the Conference.

4. To the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture for the

interest and contributions in obtaining these new basic standards for greater accuracy in quality determination.

5. To the National Park Service for making available the services of Mr. Glen

D. Gallison, and to Mr. Gallison for the many courtesies extended to the Conference delegates.

6. To all program speakers and Standing Committees for their excellent pre- sentations and contributions to the success of the Conference.

7. To all State and local governing agencies that have arranged for or made

possible the attendance at this meeting of one or more representatives of their organizations to participate in the deliberations directed toward the betterment

of weights and measures controls throughout the Nation.

8. To business and industry for cooperating with the Conference, for attending

and participating in the Conference, and for contributing to the success of the Conference through their participation and their gracious hospitality.

170
9. To the Denver Convention and Visitors Bureau for assisting with the

registration of delegates, for making available the use of bulletin typewriters,

and for furnishing such excellent materials for distribution to the delegates.

10. To the management of The Brown Palace Hotel, who, through the facili- ties and courtesies of its staff, has materially assisted in the conduct of the conference. The following resolutions are being read in whole in order that

they might receive the consideration of the members of this Conference: MOISTURE IN GRAIN

"Whereas, it is recognized that there exists great confusion in the

determination of moisture contents of grain being sold

Therefore, be it resolved that this 51st National Conference on Weights and Measures recommend and request the U.S. Department

of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, to jointly study and develop uniform methods for

determining moisture in grains being bought and sold. This said

study to include methods of test and standards for moisture meters. RESOLUTION ON FAIR PACKAGING AND LABELING LEGISLATION

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures has

long provided leadership in a cooperative State-Federal-industry ef- fort for nationwide uniformity in requirements for packaging and

labeling of commodities in the interest of consumers ; and

Whereas, under the leadership of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, a majority of the States have adopted similar

laws and regulations in the cause of uniformity, and many industries,

at great expense, have complied with these laws and regulations, especially as they apply to labeling ; and

Whereas, in 1963, the 48th National Conference adopted a resolution

of appreciation for congressional interest in "Truth in Packaging'7

legislation ; and

Whereas, U.S. Senate Bill S. 985, "Fair Packaging and Labeling,"

as reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Commerce in May

1966 and subsequently passed by the Senate, in general is consistent

with the aims and efforts of this Conference : Therefore, be it Resolved. That this 51st National Conference on Weights and Measures, duly assembled in Denver, Colorado, this 15th of July 1966, hereby endorses legislation on fair packaging and labeling to attain the

goals parallel with this Conference ; and be it further

Resolved. That this Conference endorses enactment by the Congress

of S. 985 as passed by the Senate, but recommends, in order to facili- tate the accomplishment of the bill's objectives, certain technical language changes, as follows

1. Section 12, pertaining to the bill's effect on State law, should

be clarified to reflect the view7 of the Senate Committee on Commerce,

171
as published in the Report of the Committee, that "the bill is not in- tended to limit the authority of the States to establish such packaging

and labeling standards as they deem necessary in response to State and

local needs." Specifically, the Conference recommends the substitution of the words "are inconsistent or in conflict with" for "differ

from" in said Section 12. This would make absolutely clear that

State consumer-oriented weights and measures laws are not nullified,

whether differing or not from Federal laws or regulations, if these are necessary for the protection of the citizens of the State and do not conflict with Federal laws or regulations so as unreasonably to affect the

flow of products in interstate commerce.

2. The requirements for the declaration of net quantity of contents on the label under Section 4(a) (3) (A) should be expressed in

terms of the largest whole unit or decimal fraction thereof, rather

than being restricted to ounces or whole units of pounds, pints, or

quarts. Declarations of quantities of length, area, and numerical

count should be included in such requirements.

3. Since the words "accurately stated" in Section 4(a) (2) could

be construed under present custom and usage to allow no measure- ment inaccuracy whatsoever, the Conference recommends adding the

phrase "as is consistent with good packaging practice" after the words

"accurately stated."

4. The parenthetical expression in Section 4(a)(3)(B), "(by

typography, layout, color, embossing, or molding)," should be deleted,

since the three critical points with respect to conspicuousness are type i size, color contrast, and free surrounding area. and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the appropriate committee or committees of Congress and to the Secretary i of Commerce.

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor,

the Report of the Committee on Resolutions was adopted by voice

vote.

)

E. W. Ballenttne, Chairman

G. L. Delano

R. H. Fernsten

B. S. Cichowicz

D. E. Konsoer

W. A. POLASKI

R. K. Slough

Committee on Resolutions

172
REPORT OF AUDITING COMMITTEE

presented by N". P. Tilleman, Chairman, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures. Green Bay. Wisconsin

(Friday, July 15, 1966, 9:50 a.m.)

The Auditing Committee met on the morning

of July 13 and inspected the financial state- ments of the Conference Treasurer, Mr. C. C. Morgan. We found them in good order.

N. P. Tilleman, Chairman

H. N. Duff

I. E. Frazer

Committee on Auditing

(The report of the Auditing Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

173
REPORT OF THE TREASURER

presented by C. G. Morgan. Treasurer, City Sealer of

Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana

(Friday, July 15, 1966, 9:53 a.m.)

Balance on hand June 1, 1965 $6, 770. 87 Receipts : Registration fees—589 at $15.00 $8, 835. 00 Refund from Education Committee 17. 00 Trade Party 1,030.00

Sale of Banquet Tickets—16 at $10.00 160. 00 Ladies Luncheon 225. 00 Weights and Measures Exposition 4, 444. 49 Bank Interest Accrued 270. 85

Subtotal 14, 982. 34 14, 982. 34

Total 21, 753, 21 Disbursements : Lamb Seal & Stencil Company 37. 74 Franklin Press, Receipts, Tickets, and

I. D. Cards 151.80

T. M. Stabler, Entertainment 175. 00 Stephen Lesieurs Music 490. 00 The Film Center 59. 00 Washington Country Club, Ladies Buffet 247. 50 The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone

Company 14. 46 The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone

Company 13. 47 Franklin Press, Brochure, Program, and

Badges 228. 60

A. B. & W. Transit Co., Sightseeing 144.00

Exhibits Aids 248. 00

Virginia Moore, Fashion Lecture, Ladies 35. 00 Sheraton Hotel, Dinner, Breakfasts,

Florentine and Balcony, Cotillion Room 9, 466. 30

174
Disbursements—Continued

The American Electrotype Company, Mats $35. 00 Lamb Seal & Stencil Company 7. 00 William Stancliff, Attendance Certificates 28.30 Franklin Press. Identification Cards and

Receipts .__ 83. 10 Hotel for Mr. Owen, Ladies Luncheon on Tour,

Banquet Miscellaneous, Headquarters Suite,

and Registration Desk 553. 95 Bank Charge 8.10

Subtotal 12, 026. 32 $12, 026. 32

Total balance on hand June 10. 1966 9, 726. 89 Depository : Bank of Indiana, Gary, Indiana

First Federal Savings and Loan Company, Gary, Indiana

(Signed) C. C. Morgan.

(On motion of the Treasurer, seconded from the floor, the Report of the Treasurer was adopted by the Conference.

)

175
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

Delegates—State, City, and County Officials

ARIZONA

City Sealer of Weights and Measures

Phoenix 85003 S. E. Favour, Division of Licenses, Municipal Office Building, 10 N. 3d Avenue. ARKANSAS

State A. L. Little, Director Divison of Weights and Measures, State Plant Board, 421% W. Capitol Avenue. Box 1069, Little Rock 72203. CALIFORNIA

State W. A. Keelin, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 1220 N Street, Sacramento 95814. County Sealers of Weights and Measures : Alameda R. H. Fernsten, 333 5th Street, Oakland 94607. Contra Costa A. B. Coon, County Department of Agriculture, 161 John Glenn Drive, Buchanan Airport, Concord

94520. Kern A. D. Rose, 1116 E. California Avenue, Bakersfield

93307. Los Angeles M. H. Becker, 3200 N. Main Street, Los Angeles 90031. Marin K. B. Brown, 519 4th Street, San Rafael 94901. Orange William Fitchen, 1010 S. Harbor Boulevard, Ana- heim 92805. San Bernardino H. E. Sandel, 160 E. 6th Street, San Bernardino

92410. San Diego H. J. McDade, 1480 F Street, San Diego 92112. San Luis Obispo B. G. Corrick, P.O. Box 637, San Luis Obispo 93401. San Mateo H. E. Smith, 702 Chestnut Street, Redwood City

94063. Santa Clara R. W. Horger, 409 Mathew Street, Santa Clara 95050. Solano Stuart Burk, 560 Fairgrounds Drive, Vallejo 94590. Sonoma E. J. Bologna, Room 407 County Administration

Center, 2555 Mendocino Avenue, Santa Rosa 95401. Stanislaus J. M. Abernethy, P.O. Box 2015, 2115 Scenic Drive,

Modesto 95354. Ventura E. H. Black. P.O. Box W—Main P.O.. Ventura 93002. COLORADO

State J. P. Orcutt, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, State Services Building, 1525 Sherman Street. Denver 80203. H. N. Duff, State Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Section.

T. W. Singleton, Assistant. W. M. Morris h, Administrative Assistant. Inspectors

C. S. Bentley.

C. C. Crouse

176
H. L. GlLLISPIE. G. D. Hooker.

Raleigh Messerschmitt.

Earl Prideaux.

C. M. Scofield.

T. J. Wars.

F. H. Brzoticky, Laboratory

Technician. Harvey Houston, Director,

Oil Inspection Department, 1024 Speer

Boulevard, Denver 80204.

City Sealer of Weights and Measures

Denver 80202 H. E. Gardner, Room 202, 810 14th Street. Andrew Kutes. CONNECTICUT

State F. M. Gersz, Deputy Commissioner.

Department of Consumer Protection,

Room 105 State Office Building,

Hartford 06115.

J. T. Bennett, Chief, Weights and Measures

Division. W. B. Kelley, Senior Inspector.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Hartford 06103 Nathan Kalechman, City Hall, 550 Main Street. New Britain 06151 A. J. Albanese, City Hall. Delaware

State W. H. Naudain, Director, Department of Weights and

Measures, State Board of Agriculture, Dover 19901. FLORIDA

State S. J. Darsey, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Division of Standards, Department of Agriculture, 1118

S. 17th Avenue, Hollywood 33020.

Cif, Sealers of Weights and Measures

Jacksonville 32202— H. E. Crawford, Room 203 City Hall. H. E. Howard, P.O. Box 70S Miami 33133 Coconut Grove Station. GEORGIA

State J. B. McGee, Director, Weights and Measures Division Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Building,

Capitol Square, Altanta 30334. IDAHO

State Lyman Holloway, Inspector, Weights and Measures

Division, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 790, Boise 83701.

177
ILLINOIS

State H. L. Gofokth, Superintendent, Division of Feeds,

Fertilizers, and Standards, Department of Agriculture, State Fairgrounds, 531 E. Sangamon Avenue,

Springfield 62706.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Chicago 60610 R. J. Fahey, Central Office Building Room 302, 320 N. Clark Street. T. R. Heller, Inspector. 60605 Luke Prendergast, Chief Taximeter Inspector, Public Vehicle License Commission, 1111 S. State Street, Room 105.INDIANA

State R. E. Meek, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, State Board of Health, 1330 W. Michigan

Street, Indianapolis 46207.

L. A. Gredy, Inspector.

County Inspectors of Weights and Measures : Clark R. W. Walker, Court House Annex, Jeffersonville 47130. Floyd E. G. Silver, Room 325 City-County Building, P.O. Box 362, New Albany 47150. Grant Harvey Cline, P.O. Box 421, Marion 46953. Howard I. R. Frazer, 113 N. Washington Street, Kokomo

46901. Lake Nicholas Bucur, Lake County Building, 4th and

Broadway, Gary 46402. Madison C. W. Moore, Court House, Anderson 46011. Marion E. H. Maxwell, Room G-4 City-County Building,

Indiamapolis 46204.

F. L. Brugh, Deputy.

Marshall G. W. Schultz, Route 1, Bremen 46506. Miami Victor Scott, R.R. 1. Bunker Hill 46914.

St. Joseph C. S. Zmudzinski, Room 14A Court House, South

Bend 46601. Vanderburgh L. L. Lehr, 1557 Lodge, Evansville 47714. Vigo R.J. Silcock, Room 5 Court House, Terre Haute 47802. City Sealers of Weights and Measures : Gary 46402 C. C. Morgan, City Hall. Indianapolis 46204___ W. R. Copeland, Room G6 City-County Building.

South Bend 46601 B. S. Cichowicz, City Hall, 214 N. Main Street. Terre Haute 47801— J. T. Harper, Room 205 City Hall. IOWA

State W. E. Weed, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Capitol Building, Des Moines, 50319. KANSAS

State J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and

Measures, State Board of Agriculture, State Office Building, Topeka 66612.

J. L. O'Neill, Deputy, Box 26, Williamsburg 66095.

178
City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Kansas City 66101__. D. L. Lynch, Deputy, Department of Finance and

Revenue, City Hall. Topeka 66203 D. J. Weick, Room 254 City Hall. KENTUCKY

State G. L. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Capitol Annex, Frankfort 40601.

City Inspector of Weights and Measures : Covington 41011 J. R. Cbockett, License Department, Room 203 City

Building.

LOUISIANA

State J. H. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture and Immigration, P.O. Box 44292 Capitol Station, Baton Rouge 70804.

C. S. Johnson, Chief Assistant.

F. F. Thompson, Chief Chemist, Petroleum Products

Division, Department of Revenue, P.O. Box 18374

University Station, Baton Rouge 70821. MARYLAND

State J. E. Mahoney, State Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Department of Markets, State Board of Agriculture, University of Maryland—Room 247 Symons Hall, College Park 20742. R. L. Thompson, Assistant. County Sealer of Weights and Measures : Prince George's R. J. Coed, 5012 Rhode Island Avenue, County Service Building, Room 101, Hyattsville 20780.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures : Baltimore 21212 G. H. Leithauser, Room 1106 Municipal Building.

MASSACHUSETTS

City Sealer of Weights and Measures

Cambridge 02130 ___ A. T. Anderson, Room 202 City Hall. Chelsea 02150 F. J. Ryan, City Hall. Newton 02159 J. E. Bowen, City Hall. Swampscott 01907 __ G. H. Holt, 39 Essex Avenue. MICHIGAN

State J. L. Littlefhxd, Chief, Food Inspection Division,

Department of Agriculture, Lewis Cass Building,

Lansing 48913. R. M. Leach, Assistant.

C. O. Cottom, Supervising Inspector.

County Sealer of Weights and Measures : Saginaw W. E. Hoffman, 6358 Mackinaw Road, Saginaw 48604.

179
Gity Sealers of Weights and Measures

Dearborn 48126 O. L. Hubbakd, Mayor.

J. A. Hughes, 13030 Hemlock Avenue.

Detroit 48207 J. T. Daniell, 1445 Adelaide Street. Livonia 48154 R. C. Baumgartner, 15050 Farmington Road.

Pontiac 48058 M. J. Nolin, 110 E. Pike Street.

MINNESOTA

State W. B. Czaia, Supervisor, Department of Weights and

Measures, Railroad and Warehouse Commission,

One Flour Exchange, Minneapolis 55415.

A. W. Fenger, Inspector.

City Sealer of Weights and Measures:

Minneapolis 55S02 J. G. Gustafson, Room 101A City Hall.

MISSISSIPPI

State P. W. Gaither, Deputy Director, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture and Commerce, State Office Building, Post Office Box 1609, Jackson 39205.

MISSOURI

State J. H. Wilson, Director, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Jefferson Building, Jefferson City 65102. County Sealer of Weights and Measures

St. Louis L. A. Rick, 8008 Carondelet, Suite 206, Clayton 63105. City Sealer of Weights and Measures

St. Louis 63103 D. I. Offner, Department of Public Safety, Room 414

City Hall. MONTANA

State C. L. Purdy, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Capitol Building, Helena 59601.

G. L. Delano, Chief Sealer, Division of Weights and

Measures. Ed Kelsh, Deputy.

NEBRASKA

State R. W. Hoppner, Chief, Division of Dairies, Foods,

Weights, and Measures, Department of Agriculture

and Economic Development, P.O. Box 4695 State House Station, Lincoln 68509.

NEVADA

State Raymond Rebuffo, Chief Deputy State Sealer, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 350 Capitol Hill Avenue, P.O. Box 1209, Reno 89504.

180
NEW JEKSEY

State Michael Gold, Deputy Attorney General, State House Annex, Trenton. W. J. Wolfe, Sr., State Superintendent, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Law and

Public Safety, 187 W. Hanover Street, Trenton

08625.

S. H. Christie, Jr., Deputy.

J. R. Bird, Supervisor.

County Superintendent of Weights and Measures : Essex W. H. Schneidewind, 278 New Street, Newark 07103. Monmouth W. I. Thompson, P.O. Box 74, Allenhurst 07711.

J. A. J. Bovie, Assistant, 82 West Wall Street, Neptune City 07753. W. G. Dox, Assistant, 216 Maple Avenue, Red Bank

07701. Passaic William Miller, 317 Pennsylvania Avenue, Pater- son 07503. Somerset J. A. Kriney, Jr., County Administration Building,

Somerville 08876. Municipal Superintendents of Weights and Measures

Nutley 07110 Roy Gundersdorff, Director of Public Affairs, Town

Hall, Chestnut Street. W. L. Callanan.

Trenton 08609 R. J. Boney, 324 E. State Street, City Hall Annex. NEW MEXICO

State J. T. Lacy, State Inspector, Division of Markets,

Weights, and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 170, University Park 88070. NEW YORK

State F. J. Fallon, Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture and Markets,

Laboratory Building, 1220 Washington Avenue,

Albany 12226.

J. F. Tucker, Senior Inspector.

County Sealers of Weights and Measures

Nassau Robert Williams, 1035 Stewart Avenue, Garden City

11533. A. W. Weidner, Jr., Assistant. Suffolk J. M. Kerbs, County Center, Riverhead 11901.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Glen Cove 11542 E. T. Hunter, City Hall, 10 Elsinor Avenue. Lackawanna 14218 J. J. Seres, 84 Rosary Avenue. New York 10013 R. W. Brevoort, Department of Markets, 137 Centre

Street. Moe Greenspan, Assistant. Syracuse 13210 J. M. Byrne, 101 N. Beech Street. Yonkers 10701 S. J. DiMase, City Hall.

181
NORTH DAKOTA

State Adin Helgeson, Chief Inspector, Department of Weights and Measures, Public Service Commission,

State House, Bismarck 58501. Inspectors

Oscar Nustad.

Allen Otterson. OHIO

State V. D. Campbell, Chief, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg 43068. County Inspectors of Weights and Measures

Allen Don Clem, 4305 Southgate, Lima 45806. Auglaize Ferd Wellman, 309 S. Main Street, New Knoxville

45871. Coshocton W. B. Graham, c/o County Auditor, Court House,

Coshocton 43812. Medina R. W. Searles, 137 W. Friendship Street, Medina

44256. Richland C. E. Kerr, c/o County Auditor, Mansfield. City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Akron 44304 R. K. Slough, 69 N. Union Street. Dayton 45402 Karl Gulledge, 960 Ottawa Street. OKLAHOMA

State H. K. Sharp, Assistant Director, Marketing Division, State Board of Agriculture, Capitol Building, Okla- homa City 73105.

L. D. Halley, Special Assistant to the Director for the State of Oklahoma Bureau of Standards, University of Oklahoma Research Institute, 1808 Newton

Drive, Norman 73069. OREGON

State W. B. Steele, Deputy State Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture

Building, Salem 93710. PENNSYLVANIA

State W. A. Polaski, Director, Bureau of Standard Weights

and Measures, Department of Internal Affairs,

Main Capitol Building, Harrisburg 17120. County Inspectors of Weights and Measures

Allegheny W. D. Scott, Court House, Grant Street, Pittsburgh.

E. W. Stec. Philadelphia S. F. Valtri, Room 305 City Hall, Philadelphia 19107.

J. A. Sabo. Washington P. J. Pavlak, Box 147, Daisytown 15427. City Sealer of Weights and Measures

Bethlehem 18018 Castanzo Castellucci, Department of Public Safety, 623 8th Avenue.

182
SOUTH CAROLINA

State C. H. Stender, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 1080, Columbia 29202.

E. W. Ballentine, Director, Bureau of Inspection.

SOUTH DAKOTA

State Division of Inspections, Department of Agriculture, State Capitol Building, Pierre 57501. George Beatty, Inspector.

George Clark, Inspector.

Public Utilities Commission, State House, Pierre

57501. Alvin Bartelt, Inspector.

J. A. Etzkorn, Inspector. B. E. Hofer, Inspector. D. C. Hanna, Senior Inspector, Spencer 57374. Leonard Bles, Assistant. TENNESSEE

State Matt Jennings, Director, Division of Marketing, De- partment of Agriculture, Melrose Station, Box 9039,

Nashville 37204. TEXAS

State R. T. Williams, Director, Consumer Protection and

Services, Department of Agriculture, John Reagan

Building, Austin 78711. Charles Vincent, Assistant.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Dallas 75201 J. D. Walton, Room 303 City Hall. Forth Worth 76107— R. L. Sharp, Department of Public Health and Welfare, Public Health Center, 1800 University Drive. UTAH

State F. D. Morgan, Supervisor, Weights and Measures,

Department of Agriculture, Room 412 State Capitol

Building, Salt Lake City 84114. Inspectors

H. J. Crook.

George Davis.

Rodger Ltjnt. D. E. Taylor. VIRGINIA

State J. F. Lyles, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Regulatory Section, Division of Regulatory Services,

Department of Agriculture and Immigration, 1436 E. Main Street, Room 304, Richmond 23219. Inspector

R. H. Shelton.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Alexandria 22313 L. W. Vezina, City Hall, P.O. Box 178. Richmond 23219 W. G. Alivis, Safety-Health-Welfare Building, Room

130, 501 N. 9th Street.

183

248-760 O - 67 - 13
WASHINGTON

State J. H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures Section,

Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 128, Olympia

98501. City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Seattle 98104 D. M. Turnbull, 600 4th Avenue, 101 Seattle Municipal

Building.

WEST VIRGINIA

State Lawrence Barker, Commissioner, Department of Labor, State Office Building, Room 643, 1800 E. Washington Street, Charleston 25305. W. H. Holt, Administrative Assistant to Commissioner. B. R. Haugiit, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures.

Inspectors

R. B. COUGHENOUR.

F. J. Thomas.

E. L. Hoskinson.

Matt Johnson.

R. E. Short.

E. B. Woodford.

WISCONSIN

State D. E. Konsoer Assistant Chief, Division of Dairy,

Food, and Trade, Department of Agriculture, 209B

Hill Farms State Office Building, Madison 53702. City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Green Bay 54301 N. P. Tjxleman, City Hall. Milwaukee 53212 R. A. Ennis, 1331 N. 5th Street. WYOMING

State E. R. Leeman, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Division of Consumer Services, Department of Agriculture, Room 308 Capitol Building, Cheyenne 82001. Inspectors

Steve Riley.

Wayne Salisburg.

Advisory Members

U.S. Department of Commerce:

G. A. Christenson, Assistant General Counsel for Science and Technology,

Washington, DC.

C. E. Brokaw, Director, Denver Field Office, 16419 Federal Bldg., Denver,

Colorado. National Bureau of Standards

Office of the Director (Division 100) : A. V. Astin, Director. A. J. Farrar, Legal Advisor.

Office of Public Information (Division 102) : J. F. Reilly,

Writer-Editor.

184
Institute for Basic Standards

Metrology Division (Division 212) : H. E. Almer, Physical Science Technician, Mass and Volume

Section. Institute for Applied Technology ( Division 400 ) :

J. P. Ebebhabd, Director.

Office of "Weights and Measures (Division 404) : M. W. Jensen, Chief. H. F.Wollin, Assistant to the Chief. R. X. Smith, Technical Coordinator.

S. Hasko, Engineer.

T. M. Stabler, Laboratory Metrologist.

C. H. Schreyer, Physical Chemist. H. K. Johnson, Engineering Technician.

L-. J. Chisholm, Weights and Measures Coordinator.

J. H. Geiffith, Engineering Aid. Mes. F. C. Bell, Administrative Assistant. Mes. E. M. Btjenette, Secretary. Mes. D. J. Sntdeb, Administrative Clerk. Mes. B. B. Watkins, Secretary.

Boulder, Colorado

C. L. Beagaw, Information Specialist, Technical Information Office. W. Smitheal, Photographer, ESSA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture:

Consumer and Marketing Service: Packers and Stockyards Division

R. D. Thompson, Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch, Washington,

D.C.

T. C. Haeris, Jr., Scales and Weighing Specialist, Washington,

D.C.

A. J. Alcorn, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of Defense:

U.S. Air Force

L. L. Bowen, Instructor, Precision Measurement Equipment School, 801 Hanover, Aurora, Colorado 80010. D. A. Cutshall, Instructor, Precision Measurement Equipment School,

Dowry AFB, Colorado 80230. R. B. Dodrill, Instructor, Precision Measurement Equipment School. Dowry AFB, Colorado 80230.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare:

Food and Drug Administration : . F. L. Lofsvold, District Director, 5604 Xew Custom House, Denver,

Colorado 80202. R. A. Tucker, Food and Drug Officer, Office of Federal-State Relations,

Crystal Plaza, Arlington, Virginia.

Associate Members—Manufacturers. Industry, Business

American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages

R. L. Callahan, Jr., Legal Counsel, 1128 16th Street, NW., Washington, D.C.

20036. American Can Company

C. G. McBride, Assistant to Vice President, 24th and Dixie Avenue, Easton,

Pennsylvania 18043. W. H. Marks, Supervisor, Specifications Department, Neenah, Wisconsin 54956.

185
E. H. Ruyle, Research and Development Representative, 11th Avenue and St. Charles Road, Haywood, Illinois 60153. American Oil Company

P. A. Felix, Chief Engineer, 910 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60680. American Petroleum Institute

R. Southers, Operations and Engineering Coordinator, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020. Arkstrom Industries:

A. Fkanzblatt, President, 415 Avon Avenue, Newark, New Jersey 07108. Armour and Company

C. V. Thompson, Production Control Manager, P.O. Box 9222, Chicago, Illinois 60690. Auto-Weigh

J. A. MacFarlane, Sales Manager, 1105 West Roseburg Avenue, Modesto,

California 95350. Bennett Pump Division, John Wood Company : M. S. Godsman, Service Manager, Broadway and Wood Street, Muskegon,

Michigan 49444. W. F. Whitney, Western Regional Sales Manager, 3125 East 12th Street, Los

Angeles, California 90023. Bowser, Inc.

W. J. Quinlan, Service Manager, Pump and Meter Division, P.O. Box 250, Greeneville, Tennessee 37743. Chadwell, Keck, Kayser, Ruggles, and McLaren

G. M. Burditt, Attorney, Suite 2360, 135 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603.

Chatillon, John & Sons

F. J. Lynch, Field Manager, 83-30 Kew Gardens Road, New York, New York. Fairbanks Morse, Inc.

R. H. Damon, Research and Development Director, St. Johnsbury, Vermont

05819.

J. G. Green, Research Engineer, Research Center, Beloit, Wisconsin 53511.

T. E. McLaffon, District Sales Manager, 2500 W. Pennway, Kansas City,

Missouri 64108. Foxboro Company

F. J. Rezendes, Systems Sales Engineer, Mechanic Street, Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035. Franklin Institute Laboratories:

R. C. Herrick, Senior Research Engineer, 20th and the Parkway, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19103.

Fuller, H. J., and Sons, Inc.

W. S. Fuller, Vice President, 1212 Chesapeake Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43212. General Mills, Inc.

D. B. Colpits, Technical Manager, Weights and Measures, 1081 21st Avenue,

SE., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414. Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Company : R. E. Nix, Manager, Sales Engineering, West Springfield, Massachusetts.

C. R. Parent, Manager, Western Division, San Francisco, California. Gilmore Industries

D. T. Stone, Regional Manager, P.O. Box 20656, Dallas, Texas. Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

C. E. Wagner, Director of Technical Services, 330 Madison Avenue, New York,

New York 10017.

186
Great Western Sugar Company

D. E. Ebxer, Packaging Coordinator, 1530 16th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. Gulf Oil Corporation

J. F. Stephexsox, Chief Engineer, Box 1519, Houston, Texas 77001. Gurley, W. & L. E.

M. S. Dicksox, Vice President, 514 Fulton Street, Troy, New York 12180. Halmor Industries, Inc. : J. C. Halpixe, President, 1120 N. Boston, P.O. Box #6157, Tulsa, Oklahoma

74106. Haskon, Inc.

D. R. Settee. Technical Coordinator, 187 Mill Lane, Mountainside, New Jersey

07092. Heusser Instrument Company

W. Reetexacht, President and General Manager, 121 West Malvern Avenue,

Salt Lake City, Utah 84115. Chevron Oil Company

H. R. Solomox. Superintendent, Operations, 1700 Broadway, Denver, Colorado

80202.

Cities Service Oil Company

R..G. Beck, Coordinator of Terminals, P.O. Box 300, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101. Coca-Cola Company

C. R. Gillespie. Industry Relations Staff Representative, P.O. Drawer 1734, Atlanta, Georgia 30301. Colgate-Palmolive Company

E. E. Wolski, Manager of Quality Control, 300 Park Avenue, New York, New

York 10022.

E. S. Wtlkixs, Associate Counsel, 300 Park Avenue, New York, New York

10022. Continental Can Company, Bondware Division

R. F. Oethex, Director of R & D, 1200 W. 76th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60620. Conveyor Company

A. Smith, R&D, 16045 East Arrow Highway, Irwindale, California 91707. Conveyor Scale Company

D. K. Reteb, 2630 South Jersey, Denver, Colorado 80222. Corning Glass Works

R. K. Gaedxee, Supervisor. Weighing Engineering Laboratory, Corning, New

York 14830. Crystal Preforming and Packaging Inc.

R. Fttee, Director, Market Development. Industry Relations, 1406 W. Winona

Avenue, Warsaw, Indiana 46580. Dee, J. B., & Company, Inc.

E. H. Fishmax. Governor District I, 1722 W. 16th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana

46202. Drafto Corporation

J. B. Keaelixg, President, P.O. Box 158, Cochranton, Pennsylvania 16314. DuPont de Nemours, E. I., & Company

F. D. Spabee, 6054 DuPont Building. Wilmington. Delaware 19809. Emery. A. H, Company : G. D. Retxolds, Jr., Vice President, Sales, 25 Pine Street, New Canaan,

Connecticut 06840. Exact Weight Scale Company : W. A. Scheeeee, Vice Chairman of the Board, 538 East Town Street, Columbus,

Ohio 43215. B. Tayloe, Vice President-General Manager, 538 East Town Street, Columbus,

Ohio 43215.

187
Hobart Manufacturing Company

K. O. Allen, Vice President, Scale Operations, 448 Huffman Avenue, Dayton,

Ohio 45403. M. E. Bone, Weights and Measures Representative, 448 Huffman Avenue,

Dayton, Ohio 45403.

G. G. Gehringee, Sales Manager, Industrial Weighing, Pennsylvania Avenue,

Troy, Ohio 45373. Holly Sugar Corporation

L. W. Norman, General Chemist and Director of Research, P.O. Box 1052, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901.

J. E. A. Rich, Eastern District Manager, P.O. Box 1052, Colorado Springs.

Colorado 80901. Honeywell, Inc.

A. R. Parsons, Market Manager, New Products Division, 2701 4th Avenue

South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404. Howe Richardson Scale Company : R. P. Closson, Regional Service Manager, 2839 S. 19th Avenue, Broadview,

Illinois 60153. W. L. Hamilton, Regional Manager, Broadview, Illinois 60153.

G. F. Johnston, Manager-Bulk Handling Division, 668 Van Houten Avenue,

Clifton, New Jersey 07013.

G. D. Wilkinson, National Service Manager, Clifton, New Jersey 07013. Humble Oil and Refining Company : K. H. Baird, Engineering Coordinator, Marketing Department, Operations and

Engineering, P.O. Box 2180, Houston, Texas 77001. Humble Pipeline Company

L. J. Barbe, Jr., Supervising Engineer, Oil and Meter Measurement, P.O. Box

2220, Houston, Texas 77001. Hunt-Wesson Poods

R. E. McKennan, Manager—Food Quality Control, 1645 W. Valencia Drive,

Fullerton, California 92633. Instrument Society of America : C. D. Cross, Vice President, Engineering, Ramsey Rec, Limited, 67 Industrial Road, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada.

International Milling Company

J. T. Lynch, Vice President and General Sales Manager, Grocery Products

Division, 1200 Investors' Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402,

Kraft Foods

C. E. White, Production Technician, 500 Peshtigo Court, Chicago, Illinois 60690. Leeds and Northrup Company : R. S. Day, Assistant Sales Manager, Industrial Instruments, 4901 Stenton Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19144. Lehn & Fink Products Corporation : F. Taylor, Chairman, OSMA Aerosol New Weight Committee, 225 Summit

Avenue, Montvale, New Jersey 07645. Lever Brothers Company

L. H. Bloom, Attorney, 390 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. W. L. Button, Jr., Plant Operations Manager, 390 Park Avenue, New

York, New York 10022. Liberty Glass Company

E. K. Mills, Technical Director, P.O. Box 520, Sapulpa, Oklahoma 74066. Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation

D. F. McMahon, Assistant to the Vice President, 122 E. 42nd Street, New

York, New York 10017.

188
Lincoln Steel Corporation

L. E. Ltjff, Design Engineer, 315 West "O" Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 6S508.

J. M. Smith, Sales Engineer, 315 West "O" Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508. Lion Oil Company

W. J. Barkley, Construction Manager, Lion Building, El Dorado, Arkansas

71730. Liquid Controls Corporation

H. Stebold, Chief Engineer, P.O. Box 101, North Chicago, Illinois 60064. Mantes Scale Company

T. R. Mantes, President, 489 6th Street, San Francisco, California 94103. Markle Scale Service

L. F. Markle, Scale service, manufacture and repair, 1390 S. Eaton Street, Denver, Colorado 80226. Martin-Decker

L. Almquist, Southern District Manager, 5929 Waltrip, Houston, Texas

77017.

C. L. Howard, General Sales Manager, 3431 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach,

California 90807.

J. Shelley, Industrial Sales Manager, 3431 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach,

California 90807. Maryland Cup Corporation

L. S. Rome, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117. Mayer, Oscar, and Company : D. L. Paul, General Product Controller, 910 Mayer Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

53704. McDowell-Wellman Engineering Company

R. J. McEntee, Sales Manager, ABC Scale Division, 16300 S. Waterloo Road,

Cleveland, Ohio 441110. Merrick Scale Manufacturing Company, Inc.

R. H. Jackson, Sales Manager, 180 Autumn Street, Passaic, N. J. 07055.

L. J. Walker, Project Engineer, 180 Autumn Street, Passiac, New Jersey, 02055. Mid-America Pipeline

G. E. Mace, Chief Engineer, 1437 S. Boulder, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119. Miltz Industry Foundation

J. F. Speer, Jr., Executive Assistant, 910 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1105,

Washington, D.C. 20006.

Millers' National Federation

O. A. Oudal, Weights and Measures committee, 1411 East 99th Streeet, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420. Mobil Oil Corporation

J. C. Dible, Maintenance Supervisor, 4545 Holly Street, Denver, Colorado

80216. Murphy Scale and Equipment Company

W. V. Goodpaster, Vice Pressident-Manager, 1800 West Colfax, Denver, Colo- rado 80204. National Association of Margarine Manufacturers

R. J. Leighton, Assistant to the President, 545 Munsey Building, Washington,

D.C. 20004. National Canners Association

H. P. Schmitt, Director, Labeling Program and Assistant to Executive Vice

President, 1133 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036. National Confectioners Association

J. M. Scheer, Director of Special Services, 36 South Wabash Avenue, Chicago,

Illinois 60603.

189
National Fisheries Institute

T. D. Sanford, Director, Tecnology, 1614 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20009. National LP-Gas Association

W. H. Johnson, Vice President, 79 W. Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603. Neptune Meter Company

B. A. Balendonck, Sales Department, 5540 E. Harbor Street, Los Angeles,

California 90022. A. C. Kisling, 5540 E. Harbor Street, Los Angeles, California 90022. W. A. Medord, Engineer, 47-25 34th Street, Long Island City, New York 11101.

E. F. Wehmann, Manager, Engineering Administration, 47-25 34th Street, Long Island City, New York 11101. Olin Mathieson Chemical Company : R. P. Philpitt, Manager, Legislative aand Regulatory Affairs, 745 5th Avenue,

New York, New York 10022. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

D. M. Mahoney, Manager, Quality Control Department, Glass Container Division, 14th and Adams Streets, Toledo, Ohio 43624. M. E. Smith, Supervisor, Customer Service, Plastic Products Division, 14th and Adams Streets, Toledo, Ohio 43624. Paper Cup and Container Institute

R. W. Foster, Executive Director, 250 Park Avenue, New York, New York

10017.

L. J. Moremen, Manager, General Services, 250 Park Avenue, New York, New

York 10017. Paper Stationery and Tablet Manufacturers Assoieation, Inc.

F. Cowan, Jr., Executive Secretary, Suite 2301, 444 Madison Avenue, New

York, New York 10022. Peabody Coal Company

S. L. Cisiewski, Supervisor, 301 N. Memorial Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63102. Pepperdige Farm, Inc.

C. H. Brown, Manager, Product Development Services, Westport Avenue,

Norwalk, Connecticut 06852.

Phillips Petroleum Company

J. W. Hale, Technical Representative, 8A1 Phillips Building, Bartlesville,

Oklahoma 74003. Pillsbury Company

C. E. Joyce, Manager, Customer and Product Protection, 608 2nd Avenue,

South, Pillsbury Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. Plateau, Inc. O. L. Garretson, President, 1909 Bloomfield Boulevard, Valle Grande Center, Box 108, Farmington, New Mexico 87401. Procter and Gamble Company : O. J. Hausknecht, Head, Factory Service, Soap Products Weights and Measures, Ivorydale Technical Center, June Street and Spring Grove Avenue,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45217.

G. Hopper, Legal Division, 301 East 6th Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202.

L. Theohorous, Associate Director, Product Development Division, Ivorydale

Technical Center, June Street and Spring Grove Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio

45217. Quaker Oats Company

F. A. Dobbins, Quality Control Manager, Mechandise Mart Plaza, Chicago,

Illinois 60654.

190
Ramsey Engineering Company

E. J. Bierman, Manager, International Division, 1853 West County Road C,

St. Paul, Minnesota 55113. B. Cahill, Sales Manager, 1853 West County Road C, St. Paul, Minnesota

55113. W. M. Harris, Senior Systems Engineer, 1853 West County Road C, St. Paul,

Minnesota 55113. B. Wilson, Field Engineer, 1166 Elati Street, Denver, Colorado 80204. Republic Steel Corporation

D. R. Smith, Corporation Weighing Supervisor, 410 Oberlin Road, S.W., Massillon, Ohio 44646. Revere Corporation of America : C. W. Silver, Chief Engineer, Research and Engineering, 845 North Colony

Road, Wallingford, Connecticut 06493.

P. S. Wells, President, 845 North Colony Road, Wallingford, Connecticut

06493. Rexall Drug Company

F. T. Pickerell, Marketing Coordinator, 8480 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles,

California 90054. Rockwell Manufacturing Company

A. J. Komich, Product Manager, Box 450, Statesboro, Georgia 30458. Scale Journal Publishing Company : Mrs. S. Pickell, Business Manager, 176 West Adams Street, Room 1937, Chicago, Illinois 60603. Scale Manufacturers Association, Inc.

A. Sanders, Executive Secretary, No. 1 Thomas Circle, N.W., Room 304, Washington, D.C. 20005. Schaevitz Bytrex

H. Nielsen, Technical Representative, 2540 Page Drive, Altadena, California

91001.

Scott, O.M., and Sons Company

D. Bangs, Agronomist, Marysville, Ohio 43040. Sealright Company, Inc.

R. S. Weeks, Manager of Marketing Services, South First Street, Fulton,

New York 13069.

Shell Chemical Company

G. W. Spotts, Senior Engineer, Box 700, Woodbury, New Jersey 08096.

F. A. Weber, Supervisor, Dairy Packaging, 110 W. 51st Street, New York, New

York 10020. Smith, A. O., Corporation : R. C. Weldon, Area Sales Manager, P.O. Box 5422, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104. Soap and Detergent Association :

J. H. Brebbia, Counsel, 1000 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.

E. S. Pattison, Manager, 295 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017. A. M. Fallon (Miss), Staff Member, Editor Digest and Legislative Services,

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

T. M. Cartt, Secretary, Plastic Bottle Division, 250 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10017. W. T. Cruse, Executive Vice President, 250 Park Avenue, New York, New

York 10017. Southwest Pump Company

R. E. Risser, Jr., President, 201-215 East 1st Street, Bonham, Texas 75418.

295 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017.

191
Speedometer Service and Instrument Company

O. S. Hurlbut, Senior Member, 131 Fell Street, San Francisco, California

94102. Spinks Scale Company

D. F. Laird, President, 836 Stewart Avenue, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30310. Streeter-Amet Company

E. J. Micono, Service Manager, Slusser and Wicks Streets, Grayslake, Illinois 60030. Swab Wagon Company, Inc.

W. P. Lehman, Secretary, 21 South Callowhill Street, Elizabethville, Pennsylvania 17023. Swift and Company

H. L. Hensel, Attorney, Law Department, 115 West Jackson, Chicago, Illi- nois 60604. Texaco, Inc.

R. H. Tolson, Assistant Superintendent, Construction and Equipment Division, 135 East 42d Street, New York, New York 10017. Theisen-Clemens Company

R. C. Primley, Operation Manager, 1207 Broad Street, St. Joseph, Michigan

49085. Thread Institute, Inc.

W. F. Operer, Executive Director, 15 East 40th Street, New York, New York

10016. Thurman Scale Company

J. R. Schaeffer, Vice President, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio 43207. Tobacco Institute, Inc.

F. J. Welch, Executive Vice President, 1735 K Street, NW., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20006. Tokheim Corporation

W. Louthan, Manager, Field Service, 1602 Wabash Avenue, Fort Wayne,

Indiana 46801. Toledo Scale Company

D. B. Kendall, Manager, Product Engineering, 5225 Telegraph Road, Toledo,

Ohio 43612. R. V. Miller, National Manager of Weights and Measures and Sanitary

Standards, 5225 Telegraph Road, Toledo, Ohio 43612. Truss Transporter Company

F. Ewry, President, 3841 North Sadlier Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46226. Union Oil Company of California : G. H. Hemmen, General Manager Distribution, Los Angeles, California. U.S. Borax and Chemical Corporation

E. L. Shaw, Instrumentation Supervisor, 13620 Gilbert Street, North Edwards,

California 93523. U.S. Steel Corporation ; Minnesota Ore Operations

P. W. Chase, Project Engineer, Pilotac Plant, Mountain Iron, Minnesota

55768. Voland Corporation

B. Wasko, Vice President, Engineering, 27 Centre Avenue, New Rochelle, New

York 10802. Wallace and Tiernan, Inc.

C. R. Bach, Sales Manager, 25 Main Street, Belleville, New Jersey 07109.

192
"Wayne Pump Company, Symington Wayne Corporation

F. W. Love, Administrative Assistant, Engineering Department, West College

Avenue, Salisbury, Maryland 21801. Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau

C. G. Johnson, General Supervisor, Room 450 Union Station, Chicago, Illi- nois 60606. Other Guests

L. J. Gordon, Weights and Measures Research Center, Denison University, 117 Locust Place, Granville, Ohio 43023.

J. H. B. Hornby, Deputy Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures, 5 Thesiger

Road, Abingdon, Berkshire, England.

O. H. Watson, 232 Millbridge Road, Riverside, Illinois 60546.

193

195

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1967 O—248-760



SELECTED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PUBLICATIONS OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBS Handbook 44, 1965 CReplacement Sheets issued annually)

NBS Handbook 67 NBS Handbook 82

NBS Handbook 94 NBS Handbook 98 NBS Handbook 99 NBS Circular 540 NBS Circular 593

NBS Miscellaneous

Publication 247 NBS Technical

Note 195 NBS Technical

Note 196

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices. Looseleaf

(binder not included)

Checking Prepackaged Commodities

Weights and Measures Administration

Examination of Weighing Equipment

Examination of Farm Milk Tanks

Examination of Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Liquid-Measuring Devices

Weights and Measures Case Reference Book

Federal Basis for Weights and Measures

Weights and Measures Standards of the United States—a brief history

Report on Technical Investigation of Odometers Report of the Investigation of Slow-Flow

Meters for Fuel Oil Distribution Systems

$2.00

0. 35

1.75 3.00

.35

.35

1.25

. 30

.35

. 25

. 20 REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1963 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 254 .75

1964 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 263 1.00

1965 . MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 272 1.00 Index to the Reports of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures from the First to the Forty-fifth, 1905 to 1960 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 243 . 40 ORDER ALL PUBLICATIONS, WITH REMITTANCE, FROM THE

SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, U.S. GOVERNMENT

PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402.
i
I
IffiHHNHH