Reference

U.S.

DEPARTMENT

OF

COMMERCE

AO. 1<E>^

Report of the

56th National Conference

on

Weights and Measures

1971
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards^ was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and

technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measure- ment system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau consists of the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, the Institute for Applied Technology, the Center for Computer Sciences and

Technology, and the Office for Information Programs.

THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the United States of a complete and consistent system of physical measurement; coordinates

that system with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce. The Institute consists of a Center for Radiation Research, an Office of Measurement Services and the following divisions: Applied Mathematics—Electricity—Heat—Mechanics—Optical Physics—Linac

Radiation^—Nuclear Radiation^—Applied Radiation^—Quantum Electronics^

Electromagnetics^—Time and Frequency^—^Laboratory Astrophysics^—Cryogenics^. THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research lead- ing to improved methods of measurement, standards, and data on the properties of

well-characterized materials needed by industry, commerce, educational institutions, and

Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies; and develops, produces, and distributes standard reference materials. The Institute consists of the Office of Standard Reference Materials and the following divisions: Analytical Chemistry—Polymers—Metallurgy—Inorganic Materials—Reactor

Radiation—Physical Chemistry.

THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services to pro- mote the use of available technology and to facilitate technological innovation in industry and Government; cooperates with public and private organizations leading to the development of technological standards (including mandatory safety standards), codes and methods of test; and provides technical advice and services to Government agencies upon request. The Institute also monitors NBS engineering standards activities and

provides liaison between NBS and national and international engineering standards

bodies. The Institute consists of the following divisions and offices: Engineering Standards Services—Weights and Measures—Invention and

Innovation—Product Evaluation Technology—Building Research—Electronic Technology—Technical Analysis—Measurement Engineering—Office of Fire Programs.

THE CENTER FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts re- search and provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in improving cost effectiveness in the conduct of their programs through the selection, acquisition, and effective utilization of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus within the executive branch for the development of Federal standards for automatic data processing equipment, techniques, and computer languages. The Center

consists of the following offices and divisions: Information Processing Standards—Computer Information—Computer Services —Systems Development—Information Processing Technology.

THE OFFICE FOR INFORMATION PROGRAMS promotes optimum dissemination and accessibility of scientific information generated within NBS and other agencies of

the Federal Government; promotes the development of the National Standard Reference Data System and a system of information analysis centers dealing with the broader

aspects of the National Measurement System; provides appropriate services to ensure

that the NBS staff has optimum accessibility to the scientific information of the world, and directs the public information activities of the Bureau. The Office consists of the following organizational units:

Oflfice of Standard Reference Data—Office of Technical Information and

Publications—Library—Office of International Relations.

1 Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, Maryland, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, D.C. 20234.

2 Part of the Center for Radiation Research.

3 Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302.
ifttoiifli Bureau OT st3n<3dr^ dilLZi 1972

, , ^ Report of the

N 6

mi

56th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1971

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials from the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S, Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Washington, D, C„ July 12-16, 1971

Report Editors: Frances C. Bell

Harold F. Wollin

\ United States Department of Commerce

Maurice H. Stans, Secretary

I/ National Bureau of Standards

"•t^ o* Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 358, 252 pages (Mar. 1072)

CODEX: XNBSAV

Issued March 1972

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. C1.S.6/.S : 358) , Price $1.50 Stock Number 0308-09.3:5
Abstract

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

Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, held in Washington, D. C, July 12-16, 1971, and attended by

state, county, and city weights and measures officials and representatives of the Federal Government, business, industry, railroads, and associations. Key words : Conference, weights and measures—laws ; weights and measures

regulations ; weights and measures—technical requirements ; weights and

measures—administration ; weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 26-27766
CONTENTS

(NOTE: Reports of the standing and annual committees and the Treasurer's report have been arranged together, beginning on page 147, for easier

reference.

)

Page

Officers and Committees VI

Committee Meetings—Monday, July 12, 1971 VIII

MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1971

Progress through Understanding and Cooperation, by M. Jennings, Conference Chairman, Director of Marketing, Tennessee Department of Agriculture 1 Address, by Hon. James T. Lynn, Under Secretary of Commerce r 5 Information: The Consumer Dilemma, by Dr. T. M. Brooks, President,

American Council on Consumer Interests, and Dean, School of Home

Economics, Southern Illinois University , 12 Address of Conference President, by Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, Director,

National Bureau of Standards 18 Presentation of Honor Awards 29

Presentation of Plaque to R. W. Searles 30

AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1971 Management as a Modern Approach, by Dr. M. L. Shotzberger, President, Catawba College 31 Forum on Management:

Management of a Weights and Measures Program, by T. M. Stabler,

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures 40 A Manager's View of Electronic Data Processing in Weights and Measures, by G. E. Mattimoe, Deputy Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Hawaii Department of Agriculture 47 The Information Crisis, by D. E. Edgerly, Weights and Measures Coordinator, Office of Weights and Measures 52 The Accreditation of Weights and Measures Jurisdictions, by R. T. Williams, Director, Consumer Service Division, Texas Department of Agriculture 58 Forum Discussion 60

MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1971 The Consumer Challenge: What Is It All About? by S. E. Cohen, Washington Editor, Advertising Age C7

III
Page

Forum on Merchandising:

The Unique Aspect of Textile Package Labeling, by H. H. Smith, Attorney, Legal Department, Cannon Mills Company 75 Product Standards and Polyethylene Film, by D. Levine, Market Manager, Film and Pipe, Monsanto Company 82 Does Equity Prevail? by E. E. Wolski, Manager of Quality Control,

Colgate-Palmolive Company 85 Unit Pricing—A Giant Step for Consumers, by Mrs. Esther Peterson, Consumer Advisor to the President of Giant Food, Inc. 90 Forum Discussion 96

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON—JULY 14, 1971

Conference Luncheon:

Guest Speakers: Hon. Virginia Knauer, Special Assistant to the President for Con- sumer Affairs 102 Jean Nidetch, Founder and President, Weight Watchers International 104 Industry Display of New Designs, Applications, Practices 110

MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1971 Measurement in a Changing World of Technology, by Dr. F. K. Willenbrock. Director, Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards 111 Forum on Measurement: A Manufacturer's View on Type Approval, by J. H. Landvater, Vice

President, Engineering, Ohaus Scale Company 117 The Flow Measurement of Cryogenic Fluids, by D. B. Mann, Chief,

Cryogenic Metrology Section, Cryogenics Division, National Bureau

of Standards 127 The Trucking Industry's Stake in Accurate Weight Determination, by E. V. Kiley, Vice President, Research and Technical SerAdces, American

Trucking Associations, Inc. 133 Development of a State Measurement Center, by R. R. Roof, Laboratory Metrologist, Bureau of Standard Weights and Measures, Pennsylvania Department of Justice 139 Forum Discussion 143

AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1971 (The Thursday afternoon session was devoted to reports of the Conference

committees, which will be found beginning on page 147.) IV
Page

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Report of the Committee on Education, presented by E, Prideaux, Chair- man, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Section, Division of Inspection

and Consumer Services, Colorado Department of Agriculture 147 Report of the Committee on Liaison with the National Government,

presented by L. D. Holloway, Chairman, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures Division, Idaho Department of Agriculture 156 Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, presented by

D. E. Konsoer, Chairman, Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures,

Food Division, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture 167 Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations, presented by S. D. Andrews, Chairman, Director, Division of Standards, Florida Depart- ment of Agriculture 188

REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Report of the Executive Committee, presented by M. Jennings, Chair- man, Director, Division of Marketing, Tennessee Department of Agri- culture 212

Report of the Committee on Nominations, Presented by S. H. Christie,

Jr., Chairman, State Superintendent, Division of Weights and Measures, New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 216 Report of the Committee on Resolutions, presented by K. J. Simila,

Chairman, Assistant Chief for Weights and Measures, Consumer Services Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture 217 Report of the Auditing Committee, presented by S. J. Darsey, Chairman,

Field Supervisor, Division of Standards, Florida Department of Agriculture 219 Report of the Treasurer, by C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana 220 Summary of the Incoming Executive Committee Meeting 222 Conference Registration List 224

V
OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

President: Lewis M. Branscomb, Director, National Bureau of Standards. Executive Secretary: H. F. Wollin, Assistant Chief, Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards. Chairman: M. Jennings, Director, Division of Marketing, Tennessee Depart- ment of Agriculture.

Vice Chairmen:

A. T. Anderson, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Cambridge, Massachusetts. M. L. KiNLAW, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Division, North Carolina

Department of Agriculture.

F. D. Morgan, Supervisor, Weights and Measures, Utah Department of Agriculture.

J. L. O'NEILL, State Sealer, Division of Weights and Measures, Kansas State Board of Agriculture. Treasurer: C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana. Chaplain: R. W. Searles, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Medina County,

Ohio.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

J. A. J. BoviE, Jr. L. D. Holloway

N. BUCUR J. V. PUGH

C. O. CoTTOM H. E. Smith

F. P. GALLO W. J. TUSEN

R. W. Glendenning S. F. Valtri

(All officers of the Conference are, ex officio, members of the Executive Committee.)

(Officers and Executive Committee members elected by the 56th National

Conference to serve the 57th National Conference on Weights and Measures

will be found in the report of the Nominating Committee, page 216.)

STANDING COMMITTEES

(The remaining term of office for each committee member, in years, is shown in parentheses following each entry. H. F. Wollin, Executive Secretary

of the Conference, is ex officio nonvoting secretary to each committee.)

EDUCATION

E. Prideaux, Colorado, Chairman (3) G. E. Mattimoe, Hawaii (2) VI
J. I. Moore, North Carolina

D. I. Offneb, St. Louis, Missouri (4) B. A. Pettit, District of Columbia (1)

(R. T. Williams, Texas, was appointed for a five-year term to replace J. I. Moore, whose term expired. J. C. Stewart, Virginia, was appointed to serve out the one-year unexpired term of B. A. Pettit, who retired from public

service. Mr. Mattimoe replaced Mr. Prideaux as chairman.)

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

S. D. Andrews, Florida, Chairman (3) G. L. Delano, Montana (1) M. R. Dettler, Seattle, Washington ' j R. M. Leach, Michigan (4) R. L. Thompson, Maryland (Interim member)

(R. L. Thompson was appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr. Dettler, whose term expired. M. R. Dettler was reappointed to serve out the two-year

unexpired term of R. W. Richards, who resigned from public service. Mr,

Andrews was reelected as chairman.)

LIAISON WITH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

L. D. HoLLOWAY, Idaho, Chairman (4) M. Greenspan, New York City, New York (2) R. C. Primley, Cities Service Oil Company

A. Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association (3) E. E. WoLSKi, Colgate-Palmolive Company (1) (W. N. Seward, American Petroleum Institute, was appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr. Primley, whose term expired. Mr. Greenspan replaced Mr. Holloway as chairman.)

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

D. E. KoNSOER, Wisconsin, Chairman (1) W. C. Hughes, Massachusetts (3)

J. C. Mays, Dade County, P'lorida (2) R. Rebuffo, Nevada

W. S. Watson, California (4)

(K. L. SiMiLA, Oregon, was appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr.

Rebuffo, whose term expired. T. F. Brink, Vermont, was appointed to serve out the three-year unexpired term of Mr. Hughes, who retired from public

service. Mr. Konsoer was reelected as chairman.)

VII
ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Nominations: S. H. Christie, Jr., New Jersey, Chairman; J. E. Bowen, Newton, Massachusetts ; R. H. Fernsten, Alameda County, California ; J. H. Johnson, Louisiana ; C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana ; R. W. Searles, Medina

County, Ohio ; R. T. Williams, Texas.

Resolutions: K. J. Simila, Oregon, Chairman; M. Dennis, Nebraska; G. L. Johnson, Kentucky ; E. Keeley, Delaware ; E. P. Nedrow, Ithaca, New York

L. A. Rick, St. Louis County, Missouri ; C. S. Zmudzinski, St. Joseph County,

Indiana. Auditing: S. J. Darsey, Florida, Chairman; R. J. Silcock, Vigo County,

Indiana ; R. J. Boney, Trenton, New Jersey. Associate Membership: E. F. Wehmann, Neptune Meter Company, Chairman;

C. Campbell, Reliance Electric Company; M. S. Godsman, Bennett Pump

Incorporated ; L. J. Moremen, Single Sersace Institute ; A. Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association ; J. F. Speer, Milk Industry Foundation ; B. Wasko, Voland Corporation.

IN CHARGE OF LADIES' ARRANGEMENTS

Mrs. H. F. Wollin, Mrs. T. M. Stabler

IN CHARGE OF REGISTRATIONS

Mrs. F. C. Bell, Mrs. E. M. Burnette, Mrs. B. A. Davis, Mrs. D. L. Rich

OPEN COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Monday, July 12, 1971 Monday was set aside for meetings of the Conference committees. Notices

of these meetings were carried in the Conference Announcement booklet, in

all pre-Conference publicity, and in the printed Conference program. The Conference committees that met on Monday were the Executive Committee, the Committee on Education, the Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances, the Committee on Liaison with the National Government, and the Committee on Laws and Regulations.

Many delegates participated in the committee meetings, which were very

well attended and informative to all. The discussions which took place in these meetings were particularly helpful to the members of each committee and

played an important role in guiding the committees in their deliberation and

preparation of their final reports. The final reports of the committees will be found beginning on page 147 and will reflect the discussion that took place during the open meetings and

the actions taken by the Conference at the time the final reports were pre- sented to the delegates.

VIII
REPORT OF THE FIFTY-SIXTH NATIONAL

CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1971

(M. Jexxings, ChairmoM^ Presiding)

Mr. R. W. Searles, Medina County, Ohio, the Conference Chaplain,

delivered the invocation and led the delegates in the Pledge of

Allegiance.

PROGRESS THROUGH UNDERSTANDING AND

COOPERATION

by M. Jennings, Cmiference Chairman^ Director, Division of

Marketing, Tennessee Department of Agriculture

As I look over this assembly of persons dedicated to the cause of weights and measures, I am fully aware of the seriousness and importance of my responsibility to this Conference

and to you. For the honor of the position which

I hold, I am most humbly grateful.

It is my happy privilege, as Chairman of

the National Conference on Weights and I\Ieas- ures, to extend to all of you a most cordial

greeting. On behalf of your officers and committees, I welcome each and every one of you

to this our 56th National Conference. It is our sincere hope and

desire that you will find this Conference both interesting and informative and that it will prove to be most worthwhile.

During the process of formulating the program for this Conference, it was decided to adopt the theme of "Progress through Understanding and Cooperation."' Then it was suggested that I use the

theme as a subject on which to say a few words. I was not told how

few or what few, so I brought along a few words of my own.

I make that latter statement to illustrate a specific point. ^ly

observations through the years have indicated that we have been

provided with exceptionally good leadership under the si)onsorshii)

of the National Bureau of Standards and its Office of Weights and

Measures. We have looked to tlie National Conference for guidance,

1
and through this sponsorship we have found it. The point I stress

is that we have received appropriate and constructive guidance and

not dictatorial commands. Those jurisdictions following the recom- mendations of the sponsors and the guidelines of the Conference are receiving the greatest dividends from their weights and measures

activities and, at the same time, rendering a greater service to the

public.

One of the real challenges of our times, in government, trade,

business, or profession, is to give the people—our public—an efficient and effective service that provides them with more service per dollar

and does this with a smile.

The National Conference on Weights and ^Measures is one of the

nation's most successful and progressive organizations of its type.

There is a good reason! The reason for its success and progress to date has been the attendance, participation, and support of state and

local weights and measures officers, federal officials, representatives

of business and industry, and the continuous sponsorship by the

National Bureau of Standards.

As of now, much credit is due Dr. Branscomb, Director of the

Bureau, and his staff, and particularly the Office of Weights and

Measures and the personnel in that division for their work in behalf

of progress in weights and measures. Under their continued leadership, I visualize much progress in the future.

The success and progress of the Conference is not confined to the duration of one week, but the value of results is reflected throughout the year. These imperishable hours of this week will be recorded

in history. It is up to us to write the appropriate pages of that

history.

All of us should have the vision to discern the horizons in our

assignments, our responsibilities, and our work, and the resolve to

strive toward them. Such discernment and such resolve must rest upon a clear awareness of past, present, and future. For the past, a

sense of history is needed to know the contributions toward progress

and their values. The values found important in the past still retain

their validity. For the present, a sense of perspective is needed to detect the challenges to these values, as well as their relation and

application to the issues and problems of the day. For the future, a sense of mission and realistic dedication is needed. Through such a vision, through understanding and cooperation, further progress

is possible.

From the first National Conference to this one, the prime objective

and purpose has been uniformity—uniformity throughout all the

states and local jurisdictions with respect to specifications and toler- ances, methods of test, laws, regulations, and administration. Uniformity of requirements is a necessity. Uniformity of compliance is desired. Uniformity in action is desperately needed. It is not enough

2
to think uniformity. We must continually move toward uniformity in

all facets of weights and measures. Oliver Wendell Holmes once

said, "The great thing in this world is not so much where we stand,

as in what direction we are moving." The effectiveness of the Conference in achieving uniformity depends upon understanding. From

our deliberations on the issues and problems confronting us, the

decisions reached are based on judgment, and judgment is certainly

affected by understanding. An honest and insightful contribution to the understanding of what is required in the weights and measures

area can help us to solve the problems in both preparation and

administration.

Another requirement in achieving uniformity is the cooperation of

many—weights and measures officials, manufacturers of weighing

and measuring equipment, the users of their equipment, and in fact

industry in general.

In addition to understanding and cooperation, there should be a

spirit of tolerance and an open mind that is willing to listen to the

other fellow. This will enable us better to understand, more clearly to comprehend and appreciate the good motives and earnest desires

of those with whom we work, men with whom we may sometimes

disagree, but men who deserve our respect and admiration equally

as much as we merit theirs. The composition of the Conference includes enforcement officials, federal officials, industry representatives, trade organizations, con- sumer groups, etc. It is natural that any group of this composition

and size, with diversified interests, will encounter periods of difficulty.

There will be differences of opinion, which is indeed proper, in order

to bring out all angles of the problem. Heretofore, all problems have

been worked out by cooperative action and by maintaining mutual

respect for each other, with the public interest always in mind. I

will encourage that any differences of opinion be presented in orderly

discussions during the Conference. It is my desire that all official discussions be conducted in constructive tune and without argumentative tone. In this philosophy, support me if you can, oppose me if you must, but, above all, participate. It is my hope that you recognize the program for this Conference

has been very carefully planned and arranged. It will include important subjects on management, measurement, and merchandising. An

impressive group of speakers will be presented, and the selection of

each speaker is in keeping with the importance of the subject. I am

certain their messages will be interesting, informative, and educational. Personally, I appreciate their time and effort to be helpful

to weights and measures administration in the United States. Not

only do we owe them our sincere gratitude; we owe them our undivided attention and our presence at all formal sessions of the

Conference.

3
It was my privilege and pleasure during the year to attend the

interim meetings of all the standing committees. Previously, I had

served on the Laws and Regulations Committee for five years, during

that time when there was much confusion on the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act concerning its requirements, exemptions, and application. It was also during the time when the ad hoc committee from

industry was active and so helpful. While serving as chairman of the

committee, numerous revisions in the ^lodel Law and INIodel Package

Regulation were necessary in order to conform to the requirements

of the new legislation enacted. While attending the interim meetings,

I was familiar with the proceedings and responsibilities of the Laws

and Regulations Committee. But the opportunity to attend the meetings of all the standing committees was an education in itself, an

inspiration to cherish, and an experience to be long remembered.

It gave me a, broader concept of the purpose and scope of the Conference, and a deeper realization of its value and importance.

I wish that all of you could have the same opportunity. I heartily

recommend that all future Conference chairmen be afforded the opportunity to attend the interim meetings of all standing committees.

It is necessary to update our laws, regulations, and requirements

at various intervals, in order to keep pace with progress and changing conditions.

Just think that for many years man was, literally, chained to the

earth. But in 1903 a couple of daring individuals took off from the

ground at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. In the short 60 years from

that time we were exploring outer space and eventually and success- fully landing men on the moon. Change accelerates change, and our

ability to be adjusted and progressive is our ability to change with

the changing times.

The revisions or changes recommended by the committees are pro- posed not merely for the sake of change, but because of need. It was

pleasing to note the unselfish approach on the part of all committee

members and their careful and constructive deliberations on all items which involved change.

Ruskin once said that, when we fail to praise those who deserve

praise, two sad things happen. We deprive the person or persons of

deserved recognition, and we deprive ourselves of one of the very

happiest of our privileges, the privilege of rewarding labor that

deserves a reward.

The standing committees have worked long, hard, and efficiently

in the preparation of their tentative reports. They are to be com- mended for their interest, honest concerns, and endeavor in fulfilling

their obligations. I greatly appreciate the cooperation I received from members who

promptly accepted appointment to serve on other committees and

4
from members who are serving in certain other positions. I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the cooperation I have received

from the officers and members of the Conference during the past year. Also, my sincere appreciation to Tom Stabler, Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures, and his staff for their splendid support

during the year. The lion's share of credit is due Harold Wollin, Assistant Chief,

Office of Weights and Measures, and Executive Secretary of the

National Conference, and to Mrs. Bell, his secretary, in covering the

many complex and sometimes vexing problems and the many minute

details that are necessarily attached to the planning and operation

of a Conference of this size and importance. And to them, my

special thanks ! From a humble heart, I extend sincere thanks to all who are contributing to the success of this Conference.

You have a copy of the program. The place and time for all ses- sions are listed. I assure you that all sessions will begin on time. I urge you now to be present at the beginning of each session. AVith

your attendance, full cooperation, and participation, this 56th Conference will be a success. We can have a great Conference, and I am

confident that it w^ill be a success. While we are making the Conference successful, let us, during this

week, take as much advantage of this opportunity for friendship as we are able. I wish to conclude my remarks with these words by

Longfellow

Let us, then, be what we are, and speak what we think, and

in all things keep ourselves loyal to truth and the sacred

professions of friendship.

ADDRESS

by the Honorable James T. Lynx, Under Secretary of Commerce

I am very honored to make my first appearance before this assembly. It is difficult knowing what to talk about. I have decided that I am not going to talk about the law. It took me

over 20 years to get into the law, and it took

me over 20 years to get out of it. It is difficult to resist the temptation at a meeting like this to discuss such issues as what room is left for

voluntary action under the antitrust laws to- day, whether by trade associations or other

groups interested in consumer or environmental matters. These were favorites of mine when I was General

5
Counsel of the Department. It is not easy to relinquish interest in them, and I do not think I will, but I am not going to talk about

them.

What should I talk about? Well, I am going to take advantage of

my position now as Under Secretary to get into something a little bit more broad brush. Mj subject is Government—how government

is organized and what the proper relationships are between the

federal, state, and local units.

This Conference represents the prototype of the federal, state, local relationship. In our weights and measures administration, every level of government fulfills its proper function. Every level of government accepts and executes its appropriate responsibility. The result

is one of the best working marketplaces in the world.

I think I can say on behalf of the administration that, if we could

make the entire structure of the United States Government work as well as it does now in weights and measures, our responsibility to posterity would be pretty well fulfilled. We are trying. And what I would like to discuss with you today are the exact ways we are

trying.

Staying with a couple of the most important aspects of our at- tempts, I want to talk about two initiatives—one, government reor- ganization, and the other, revenue sharing.

The President's Reorganization Plan has to be ranked as one of

the boldest initiatives of this century. It strikes directly at a problem

that people throughout the political spectrum have been decrying

for quite a while. Many Americans today are concerned that the

Federal Government is too complex and unresponsive. The President shares this concern. In the State of the Union message this

year he said, "The time has come to match our structure to our purposes ; to look with a fresh eye ; to organize the government by conscious, comprehensive design to meet the needs of a new era." Secretary Stans has described the President's plan as a businesslike

approach. He said, "I think the fundamental responsibility of the

Federal Government should be to protect our system of economic

activity and build upon it—revising it, modernizing it as circumstances change, as scientific and other develo^^ments evolve."

But I would hope that the Federal Government would always see that its basic mission is to preserve for the people of the United

States the great advantages that our government and our system have

brought to the people, and to build upon that as the years go by. And

this philosophy is directly to the point. President Nixon's Reorganization Plan is an important step in bringing the American Government into step with the 20th Century.

Why is rebuilding necessary? Let us look at how the government

has grown over the j^ast 20 years. The number of cabinet departments

6
has gone from 9 to 12. The number of major independent agencies

is even more dramatic, having gone from 27 to 41. Some departments

are organized around functions like health and transportation.

Others focus on special interests of constituencies, like farmers, stu- dents, workers, or, in our case, businessmen. There are more than

1,400 federal domestic programs today—ten times as many as there were two decades ago. And there are some—^this is the one that

staggers me—850 interagency committees.

The glaring fact is that the power and the responsibility to act on problems are widely scattered in the maze of federal bureaus and

offices, departments, and agencies. There is fragmentation of responsibility in matters ranging from business loans and manpower pro- grams to public land and water resources. The result is overlap,

confusion—a piecemeal approach to social and economic problems

at a time w^hen we urgently need comprehensive, coordinated action.

How did we get into this jumble? The government has grown in a random fashion over the years. As new needs arose in our changing

society, new offices were established to deal with them. One new struc- ture after another was simply piled on top of those already in exist- ence, and very little attention was given to the question of how the new would fit in with the old. This is not to say that the organizational problems created by this

haphazard growth have been ignored in the past. From 1987 on, every president has established committees, commissions, and task

forces to make studies and recommendations for executive reform.

The newest group is the Ash Council appointed by President Nixon.

Some of the government's structural weaknesses have been cor- rected, but we have never come to grips with the total problem

until now. The President has concluded that a sweeping reorganization of the executive branch is needed if the government is to keep up with the times and with the needs of the people.

Under the Reorganization Plan which was sent to Congress on March 25 of this year, four new cabinet level departments would

be created, each designed to perform a specific governmental i)ur- pose, to replace seven existing cabinet level departments. Those that

wwld go out would be the Department of Agriculture; my own

department (Commerce) ; Health, Education, and Welfare; Housing

and Urban Development; Interior; Labor; and Transportation.

The Reorganization Plan would replace all seven of these present

constituency-oriented departments with four new mission-oriented departments. The four are the Department of Natural Resources, the

Department of Human Resources, the Department of Community

Development, and (where we as a Department of Commerce go, in main) the Department of p]conomic Afl'airs.

7
The new Department of Natural Resources would be concerned

with our physical environment. It would j^rovide for coordinated

policy and management in five interrelated areas—land and rec- reation resources; water resources; energy and mineral resources;

oceanic, atmospheric, and earth sciences; and Indian and territorial

affairs. The Department of Human Resources would be concerned with

the well being of individuals and family—health, human development, and income security.

The Department of Community Development would have a broad

mandate to assist in the development of sound physical and social settings for the nation's rural, suburban, and urban communities

community-oriented transportation, housing, and community facili- ties and services. The Department of Economic Affairs would bring together major

parts of four existing federal departments—Agriculture, Commerce,

Labor, and Transportation. It would also include the Small Business

Administration, along with parts of a number of other existing

agencies. The Department of Economic Affairs would consolidate

the government's various programs and activities directed toward

economic growth and development. It would have a single mission

to keep the American economy productive, growing, and competitive.

Business and industry, labor, agriculture, and transportation play

closely interrelated roles in the United States economy. Although

they are economically interdependent in the present federal structure,

each is represented by a separate department as if it were a separate

and distinct piece of a jigsaw puzzle. This is wdiy we have as many

interagency committees as we do. Under the President's plan, these

interrelated interests would be coordinated in the same department.

Enough of a quick look at reorganization. I would like to turn

now to revenue sharing. You hear the w^ord, you see it in the papers,

but I wonder just how much focus there has been \\ith regard to what we have in mind. The proposal makes use of the Federal

Government's superior revenue-collecting powers to support state and local government. The plan for general and special revenue

sharing will provide an annual total of $15 billion in more flexible funds for states and localities. Nearly $6 billion of this is new money above and beyond Avhat the states and localities are now

receiving from the Federal Government.

There is currently some confusion over what revenue sharing is and what it is not. The key is the distinction I have mentioned

between general revenue sharing on the one hand and special revenue

sharing on the other. General revenue sharing will involve distri- butions by the Federal Government to states and localities with no

strings attached. I say no strings, but there are a couple. First,

8
the states will be required to comply with federal civil rights laAvs. Second, the states will be subject to post audit reviews by the Federal Government. The amounts of such monies will be established

by a formula based upon population and upon the efforts of the

states to raise their own revenues. In the first year it w^ill amount

to nearly $6 billion. States and localities will be able to spend this

money according to their own priorities.

On the other hand, special revenue sharing will take narrow,

categorical grant programs and replace them with new grants which

are far less restricted. In place of 130 separate grant programs,

nearly $11 billion of shared revenue will be grouped under six broad

headings, and the state and local governments will be permitted to spend them as they see fit, provided they stay within the assigned

broad purposes. State or local governments then can decide for

themselves whether or not specific activities carried on under the

categorical grant programs should be continued. Thus, no present

program deemed desirable at the local level need be terminated.

In fact, it can be greatly expanded with shared revenue. Further- more, no state or community will receive less under revenue sharing

than under the existing categorical grant program. The special revenue sharing fund is, in fact, a billion dollars bigger than the sum of the old programs folded into it. This extra one billion dollars is to be used to hold each local community harmless against the

possibility that new revenues might not equal the old ones. I should also stress that existing federal programs not folded into revenue sharing will not be cut back to provide revenue sharing

funds.

Taken together, these programs do the following: They should

alleviate the fiscal problems of state and local governments by pro- viding unrestricted additional funds through general revenue sharing,

and eliminate the present matching requirement and narrow purposes of categorical grants-in-aid which will be absorbed into the new special revenue sharing fund. The program should allow more

spending priorities to be set at those levels of government closest to the problems and the people. And it should reinforce both the

responsibility and responsiveness of government by providing state and local officials with both the flexibility and the funds to carry out

their duties effectively.

The reason why the sharing of federal revenues with state and

local governments is so urgent is the need to alleviate the i)resent

fiscal crisis at the state and local levels. I might add that tliis is a point where there are many in the room that could say Amen and

do a lot more of specific talking than I on this subject.

State and local expenditures have increased faster than their revenues—15 percent faster during the last two decades. These gov9
ernments rely mainly on property and consumer taxes which generate revenues that do not grow as fast as the economy. New taxes and

substantial increases in rates for old taxes have, therefore, been

necessary to raise the required revenue. State and local government

debt has also risen rapidly from $19 billion in 1948 to $185 billion

in 1969. During the last two decades, new taxes or rate increases

have driven state and local taxes from $105 per capita to $880 per

capita. As a result of all of these forces, states and localities face an

estimated revenue gap of $10 billion in 1971, despite increasing federal assistance and despite more than 450 major tax increases which

have been adopted in the past dozen years by state governments

alone. The general revenue sharing proposal provides a sound solution

to this problem. In sharp contrast to the growth pattern of state and local tax revenues, federal revenues respond quickly to eco- nomic growth, increasing almost li/^ percent for each 1 percent

increase in gross national product. The size of general revenue sharing program will be determined by taking a fixed percentage, l.o percent, of the federal individual income tax base. Initially, this

will provide a full year outlay of $5 billion, and this sum will groAv

with the future growth of the economy.

Federal aid has already risen from $1.8 billion in 1948 to $80

billion in 1971, but primarily in the form of narrowly focused cate- gorical grants. These restricted forms of federal assistance have had

an adverse effect on the nature and structure of American government at all levels. This approach has produced a welter of programs

which are poorly coordinated and are often in conflict, and I sus- pect that a number of you have found that on many occasions it has meant a great deal of program delay and uncertainty. Most

seriously, it has resulted in an erosion in the authority and responsibility of governors and mayors. It has overcentralized decision

making and created nearly autonomous government bureaucracies,

especially at the federal level. The principle behind President Nixon's revenue sharing program

is that, given sufficient resources, our states and localities can be more responsible in the exercise of power than can the Federal Government in Washington, D. C. The goal of revenue sharing is to restore a proper balance for our federal system. This program recognizes that the assistance

which the Federal Government has long granted the state and local jurisdictions has been given in a highly restrictive manner which has

hamstrung the development of healthy government in a healthy

community.

Revenue sharing will lieli^ change this situation and restore initiative, creativity, and citizen involvement in govennnent closer to

10
the people. In the words of the President: The time has come for a new partnership between the Federal Government and the states and localities—a partnership in Avhich we entrust the states and

localities with a larger share of the nation's responsibilities and in

which we share our federal revenue with them so that they can meet these responsibilities. So let us put the money where the needs

are, and let us put the power to spend it where the people are. I have faith in people. I trust the judgment of the people. Let us

give the people of America a chance—a bigger voice in deciding

for themselves those questions that so greatly affect their lives. Our feeling in Washington is that we have the compulsion to

treat everybody exactly the same way. Broadly speaking, money

flows out in massively detailed categories with all the regulations

exactly the same way, all over the country. At the same time, there

is great diversity in the nature of problems across the country. The

problems of Chicago may be very different from the problems of

Sacramento. The problems of New York City may be very different

from the problems of Raleigh. If we loosen the constraints on federal

money and proAdde more of it to the states and localities, then the

people have a chance to use the money in a manner that fits their

needs as they perceive them.

However, the advantages of revenue sharing go a great deal far- ther than that. We all feel much better and much more competent, we commit more energy and have much more zest to make things

work when we work things out for ourselves. Then we are not doing

something because we are told to do it, but because we decided for

ourselves that it was a good idea. When an achievement is made, we can say that it is our achievement, not the achievement of some

distant manager. In a nutshell, it is important that people have some

control over their own destinies. George Shultz, the Director of the Office of Management and

Budget, put it this way: "The thing that struck me is that, when

3'ou say to the worker on the lathe, 'A¥e want your ideas about how

the work place should be arranged, how it can be made more pror

ductive, how it can be made more suitable, and how the company

can prosper more,' you turn up all kinds of people who were not thought of as having any ideas. Lo and behold, they have ideas. They have energy. They have capacities that the management never gave them credit for." If we could only get the people of America to take a greater

interest in local government, then the tremendous energy and intelli- gence of our people will make revenue sharing a great success. Well, there you have it—two major })rograms that the President

has proposed, the modernizer in terms of government structure and

functioning. You will be hearing much more about these proposals

in the months ahead as they are debated.

11
I believe in government reorganization and revenue sharing. Times

are changing, and we must do what we can to see that government

continues to serve us in the years ahead. The proposals I have dis- cussed here should help make that possible.

Take back to your people this message : We seek a balance of

powers and a balance of resources which will enable the American

form of government and the American economic system to fulfill their promise. There is a misapprehension abroad that the American revolution is a historical event. No way, as Snoopy says. The

radical can point out that we have not accomplished more than

any other people in the history of this planet And use that as an

excuse to rest on somebody else's laurels. Both of these approaches

are excuses to avoid the bona fide challenges. We have a revolution

to complete, a responsibility to fulfill. It is most rare that a government is established which is truly

responsive to all the people. We are close to that goal. We have at hand the means to fulfill the promise of this country. The extent

to which we allow outmoded stmctures and institutions to deter us from our duty will be the limiting factor in our fulfillment of our

responsibility. This administration seeks to eliminate those limitations and free the American spirit and energy for greater involvement in the destiny of the nation. We ask your support.

INFORMATION: THE CONSUMER DILEMMA

by Dr. T. M. Brooks, President, Amxerican Council on Consumer

Interests, and Dean, School of Home Economics, Southern Illinois University

It has been said, "A man's judgment is no

better than his information." If the information on which a decision is based is complete,

appropriate, and unbiased, we are generally

confident that the decision, and our judgment

as well, will be indicative of the quality of that

information. If, however, the decision is made

on distorted, incomplete, deceptive, or misleading information, a man's decision, and again

his judgment, will reflect the quality of that

information. This can lead to trouble. But even

the search for quality information can lead a man into trouble. Consider the man who, with his wife, visited showroom after showroom

for weeks, carefully scrutinizing and studying new automobiles, comparing prices, performance data, comfort, and styling. "^ly good12
ness," the wife said finally, "it did not always take you this long to make up your mind. Why, you married me three weeks after you

met me." "Listen," said the husband, "buying a car is serious

business."

Contrary to the view of the authors of the Pentagon papers, the

healthy and effective functioning of a democratic society rests heavily

upon the existence of quality information among its citizenry. Professor Booth of the University of Chicago states, "It is a commonplace to say that democracy depends for its survival on an informed

citizenry. . . . Democracy depends on free choices, and choices can- not be in any sense free if they are made blind. Free choice is, in fact,

choice that is based on knowledge—not just opinions, but knowledge

in the sense of reasoned opinion" [1]. I would add that the effective operation of our mixed capitalistic

market economy is no less dependent on well informed consumers. If

the information available to consumers is incorrect, inappropriate, or

deceptive, consumers will be misled into making the wrong decisions.

The extent to which misinformation distorts individual decisions will

determine the degree to which the patterns of choice in our ecenomy

reflect this distortion. The direction of our economy is dependent in

large measure upon the multitude of consumer decisions. Any decision which the individual consumer makes will ultimately affect the

overall economy, although its effect may be very minute.

The late IVIildred Brady eloquently expressed the relationship

between the individual and his economy. She wrote, "From the point

of view of consumer economics, the individual failure of a family to spend wisely has market significance to the degree that that failure

has contributed to bad practices, has rewarded the inefficient, dishonest, high-priced, or low-quality product. The overall effect of poor

spending in a market so large and so varied as ours is glacial in

action, hard to detect at any given moment. On the individual family,

the result of a failure to spend wisely can be dramatic. The direction

of the slow, massive movement of the market as a whole is determined, however, by the multiplication of the million tiny economic

acts of the family functioning as a spending unit [2]." Thus, in the

long run, we are all involved, w^hether individual consumers spend

vicariously and foolishly or with wisdom and prudence.

We must ask ourselves what kind of society do we wish to live in. Is it to be a society based on the frivolous or on solid value ? Is it to be a consumption-directed society or a consumer-directed society?

Although the information available to consumers has a significance

far beyond the decisions made by the individual, the individual con- sumer is likely to feel the confusion and frustration of inadequate

information. If, for instance, through erroneous information, con- sumers are led to believe that product A is better than product B,

13
when B is really better than A, the producer of A will benefit

through this deception. He benefits not only at the expense of the

producer B, but also at the expense of the additional satisfaction

which the consumer would have received from product B. Consumer

satisfaction is the basic motivator to consiuner decisions. It is the reason why consumers even bother to acquire the needed information.

Information may be thought of as the raw material which feeds

into th3 decision-making process. Quality information leads to better

decisions. It leads to more consumer satisfaction. Decision making

is a productive process in which the amount of consumer satisfaction

is as dependent upon the quality of the raw materials as it is with

any other productive process, whether it be automobile production,

steel making, or appliance manufacturing.

Moreover, just as there are criteria for determining the quality of

goods and services, there are likewise quality standards for information. I would like to suggest three for your consideration. They are

reliability, validity, and communicability.

When we say reliable, we usually mean that something or some- one can be depended upon repeatedly. The opposite—unreliable

means that we cannot have much faith in the performance of the

subject. What are reliable sources of consumer information? What

sources can be depended upon for information which is of consistent

quality ? Is it advertising, labeling, the Better Business Bureau, Con- sumer Reports, or government publications?

In regard to advertising, the following item appeared in today's

Washington Post: "The U. S. Chamber of Commerce asked its members yesterday to do more to spotlight consumer health and

safety in advertising. 'Advertising is the consumer's principal source

of information about products and services. The business community and consumers alike are the losers Avhen advertisers use tactics

and appeals which impeach the good standing, repute, and credibility of the business world,' the Chamber said [3]."

Unfortunately, time will not permit an analysis of each source.

I can only ask from your experience what sources of information

do you find reliable?

Validity is the second attribute of quality information. By validity, we mean information which is appropriate—relevant to the decision

being made. There is a wide "gap" in validity in the information

available on many goods and services. Instead of receiving information on the properties, characteristics, and durability of the goods on the market, consumers are told how much the product will do

for them socially and sexually—information which far too often is totally irrelevant and incredible.

The third criteria for quality information is communicability.

14
We may ask the question, How well is the message transmitted and

received? Communication is a sharing process. The sender and the

receiver must be on the same wavelength.

The following letter received by Consumers Union may illustrate

the point. The letter, sent by a subscriber in regard to CU's testing

and reporting on contraceptives, went as follow^s: "Some w^eeks ago,

I filled out a blank establishing my eligibility to receive your pamphlet entitled A Report on Contraceptive Materials. I enclosed 25

cents. Yesterday, I received a form postcard informing me that

instructions on how to attain high fidelity reproduction would be

ready in about three weeks. While I appreciate the language in the

open mail would necessarily have to be somewhat guarded, I wonder

whether there has not been some misunderstanding. Please let me

again make my needs and wishes clear. I do not, in this instance,

want high fidelity reproduction; in fact, it is my wish to avoid

reproduction altogether."

Obviously, what had happened Avas that her order for the contraceptive report had by mistake been acknowledged as an order for

Consumers Union instructions on how to build a high fidelity

radio-phonograph combination.

Professor Bymers of Cornell University states, "Knowledge is the product or output of a successful communication effort, and it is also a key variable in the enterprise system. Many buyers, many

sellers, knowledge, and mobility are the minimum essential conditions of the free competitive market. These conditions alone do not

insure the existence of the competitive market. They only make its existence possible [4]." Is it not our goal to see the establishment of

a consumer-oriented free competitive market?

I believe the major thrust of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures is toward providing consumers and businesses with

reliable, valid information on weights and measures which can be

readily understood. This information, of course, is fundamental to the marketplace. We simply could not conduct business without it. It is, however, a job that is never completed. Continued abuses and

technological developments in marketing require constant surveillance and continual updating of procedures and techniques. Throughout history, reliable, valid, readily understood measures and weights

have been a prerequisite for orderly consumer-oriented marketing.

In recent years, however, legislative attention has been drawn

more and more to the critical information needs existing in other

areas directly affecting consumers. The truth-in-lending and truthin-packaging laws were landmarks in the road toward providing consumers reliable, valid information. The prominent disclosure of

quantity and other packaging data and credit terms was long over15
due. These laws pro^-ide additional testimony to the long list of laws

that support the consumer's '^right to be informed."

The present concern with unit pricing, product composition dis- closure, octane rating display, nutrient and performance labeling,

guarantee and warranty declarations, and see-through packaging, to mention only a few current problem areas, attests to the continuing

search for quality information.

It is mifortunate, I believe, that more and more laws must be

passed to require the disclosure of the information which consumers need to make intelligent decisions. Is there not some way in which

business can be encouraged to provide this needed information without resorting to new laws to force this disclosure I 1 predict that, as consumer education programs spread across this

country and grow in effectiveness, the demand for quality information will increase significanth^ The pressure will increasingly arise

directly from consumers themselves rather than from leading con- sumer advocates and those with professional interest in consumer

affairs. We believe "caveat emptor"—let the buyer beware—to be an

archaic concept. When will "cognoscat emptor"—let the buyer be

informed—become the order of the day?

The American Council on Consumer Interests and the National

Conference on Weights and Measures have a continuing and growing

responsibility in providing the consumer with quality information.

The health and direction of this nation's economy and marketplace

rest on our accomplishment of this objective.

AMiat is The American Council on Consumer Interests, you may

ask. The American Council on Consumer Interests is the only professional group in the United States having as its principal concern the

consumer's interest. It is professional in the sense that it seeks to analyze consumer issues, to promote research, and to disseminate

information about the consumer interest. Our group seeks to understand the problems and conditions which affect consumers regardless

of the direction in which the analysis may lead. We are not out to

bur}' business, or anyone else for that matter. The consumer is our

focal point. We seek to delineate the conditions affecting his decisions

and behavior. We seek to understand the effects of business practices

and conditions on the consumer. Ultimately many of us are concerned

with that somewhat vague and largely immeasurable concept of con- sumer welfare.

The existence of ACCI is largely attributable to one individual.

I am sure that you either know him personally or are acquainted with

liis name. He is Dr. Colston E. Warne, President of Consumers

Union of the U. S. In November 195:2 Dr. Warne inquired of some of

his fellow consumer educators as to their interests in launching an

16
association for consumer educators. His idea was enthusiastically

received and resulted in a meeting of 21 educators at the University

of Minnesota in April 1953. The necessary steps were taken at this

meeting which eventually led to the founding of an organization

under the name of the Council on Consumer Information. In 1969

the name was changed to the American Council on Consumer Interests to reflect growth and development in the organization's breadth

of concern. Considering ACCI's limited financial resources, its productivity

through the years has been amazing. The productivity of its early

years w^as marked by a series of consumer information pamphlets.

Some of the early titles were "Consumers Look at Fair Prices,"

"Consumers Look at Fair Trade," "Consumers Look at Burial Practices," and "What You Should Know about the Law of Estates." Dr. Leland J. Gordon, our mutual friend, prepared one of our

best sellers in 1957 under the title "Watch Your Weights and Measures." "Consumers Look at Federal Protective Services" was published in 1958. The pamphlet series was finally terminated in 1966

after reaching a total of 18 pamphlets since the beginning of the

series. The final three pamphlets, which were published in 1966, were

on the topic of consumer credit. Concurrent with the development of the pamphlet series, a highly

informative newsletter has been one of the most significant benefits

of membership. Originally issued four times a year, this popular

publication is now published nine times a year. Other important benefits which have accompanied the growth in

membership (now standing at nearly 3,000 members) are the "Journal of Consumer Affairs" published semiannually, winter and summer, and a newsletter, "Consumer Education Forum," which is designed expressly for public school consumer educators. Also, an

annual 2i/^ day conference is held each year to hear reports of

research on consumer matters and to discuss and analyze current consumer issues. In April we held our iTth Annual Conference at Indiana State

University at Terre Haute. Reports on unit pricing, consumer credit,

and life insurance, just to name a few of tlie topics, were presented to the conference participants. One development which occurred at this

conference, and of which I am especially proud as president of ACCI

this past year, was the establishment of the Colston E. Warne lecture

series. The lecture series, in perpetuity, was established to commemorate Dr. Warne's continued sui)port and contribution to the growth

and maturity of ACCI and to his contribution to the consumer cause

generally.

This lecture series will feature each year at our annual conference an outstanding authority on some aspect of consumer affairs. An

17
honorarium will be provided to the speaker out of a fund which has

been established for this purpose. We are presently seeking contributions to this fund from members and friends in order that it may

grow to the point w^here the annual interest earned from this fund

may be used for the speaker's stipend.

Other ACCI benefits which are presently under development are the publication of an annual conference proceedings and the estab- lishment of a job exchange. The job exchange will assist our members

in taking advantage of the opportunities in the field of consumer

interests. These new benefits are scheduled to be in effect this coming

year. Personally and on behalf of the executive committee and membership of the American Council on Consumer Interests, we are indeed

grateful for your interest in our organization. I especially welcome

the opportunity to talk about and to invite you individually to join

ACCI.

References

[1] Booth, Wayne C, Boring from Within : The Art of the Freshman Essay, an occasional essay in the humanities published by the University of Chicago

Press.

[2] Brady, Mildred E., The American Family and Consumer Education,

Marriage and Family Living, November 1963. pp. 448-451.

[3] Washington Post, U. S. Chamber : Aid Consumer, July 13, 1971.

[4] Bymers, Gwen, Seller-Buyer Communications—Point of View of a Family

Economist, 62d Annual Meeting, American Home Economics Association, June 30, 1971. 9 p. ADDRESS OF CONFERENCE PRESIDENT

by Dr. Lewis M. Braxscomb, Director, National Bureau of Standards

It is a great pleasure for me to be back with

you at the National Conference. I want to wish

you well for another successful and productive session this year. I would also like to thank

Under Secretary Lynn for his kind remarks

about the Conference as a model for fedei'al- state relations. I think sometimes Ave feel that

few recognize the full importance of what

weights and measures officials do. His recog- nition is gratifying.

In that respect, I would like to tell you about an experience I recently had in Mr. Jennings' home state of Tennes18
see. I had the honor to go to Nashville to talk to the Centennial Club

of Nashville, which is a gatherino- of blue-ribbon citizens of the

town. I talked to them about consumer matters and other things.

As an experiment 1 showed them a slide of the state weights and

measures laboratory building and asked if they knew what this ele- gant but modest structure was. I will confess to you that I was sur- prised when a great many hands went up. They knew that this was

the weights and measures laboratory which had been named for

Matt Jennings and they Avere familiar with its activities. Now,

either more people know about their weights and measures people

than I would have expected, or else Mr. Jennings must be doing an

unusually good job in the State of Tennessee. The Under Secretary has recognized this Conference as a model

for intergovernmental relations. Certainly it is, and it is rapidly

becoming a model for other things. In the past few years, the National Bureau of Standards, building on our experience with this

Conference, worked together with the governors of a number of

states to encourage the formation of a National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards. That conference, of course, is designed to bring some uniformity into the building regulatory sys- tem, where regulatory responsibilities are diffused among state and

local jurisdictions, just as they are in weights and measures, but with

a difference. In the weights and measures field we have an inte- grated national market. A mass-producing manufacturer in this

country can make a product, package it, and put the weight on

the package and be confident that his product can be sold in every

state in the Union. Not so with the manufacturer of industrialized

housing. He may make factory-built modules but he has to face the

fact that there are over 6,000 separate jurisdictions which have reg- ulations different in at least some respects that govern the acceptability of his product.

I have confidence that the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards, which is now about four years into its history, will long before its 56th birthday be demonstrating the kind

of service to the country that you have long provided.

The spirit and philosophy of this Conference is finding its way,

and not by accident I assure you, into the thinking of the Bureau

of Standards in many measurement fields. It does not do any good

for a standards laboratory to operate in splendid isolation, lacking

contact with the everyday problems of those who actually do the

measuring in the market, on the i)roduction line, and in the laboratory. The National Conference on Weights and Measures ser\ es one

of its main functicms in providing a forum where men and women

Avho work in all steps in the measurement chain can make their special problems and their clever solutions known to workers on all

19
other levels in the chain. Certainly we at the Bureau can do a better

job of providing services if Ave know what the people in the field need, if we know where Ave are doing a good job, and if Ave know

where Ave are not providing the support people really need.

If I had to point out one quality that makes this Conference great, I would have to say honesty. There is little reluctance among you to

re\^eal problems, or to state in no uncertain terms, dissatisfaction

Avith the performance of other people in the measurement chain on Avhom you depend.

In this connection, the Bureau of Standards comes in for its share

of comments, and Ave Avelcome them. We have been together for more

than half a century in this Conference. NBS and the states liaA^e developed the kind of relationship that permits us to discuss our

successes, our problems, and eA-en our failures. We have done this

in an open forum, open to any interested citizen, open to people

from industry and from other organizations that have a shared

interest in the problems that Ave face together.

NoAv, we have to have this sort of exchange in our system if Ave are to learn and groAv. EA^ery group providing services needs this sort of feedback. I am sure you knoAv Avhat feedback is. Jim

Bouton in the celebrated baseball book "Ball Four'' quotes outfielder

philosopher Steve Hovely as saying, "To a pitcher, a base hit is negative feedback." The National Conference on Weights and Measures is a good arena for receiving feedback of all kinds. Among

old friends, talk can be plain and honest. And I think that this

is the main factor in the success of the U. S. weights and measures

system.

We are trying to bring these advantages to other areas of our

operation. We have come to realize that we must have a strong and

direct interaction with the people who use measurement every day if we are to be able to provide them the sendees they need. Many of

you are probably familiar with the NBS ^leasurement Analysis Program, or MAP. In fact, some of you may be tired of hearing about

it, since I know my colleagues and I have talked about it before. In

this program, we recognize that it is not sufficient to provide a set of

calibrated weights to a laboratory and then to assume that all their

problems are solved. The ]\IAP scheme provides a continual feedback

to NBS of the measurement process in a participating laboratory on

a voluntary basis. We can adAase them of systematic errors in their

procedures, deficient procedures on the part of their personnel, and

so on. MAP is a complete calibration of a laboratory, not only of its standards, but of its people, its procedures, its environment. I think

that it is to date the most complete feedback process developed in the

measurement system. We began it in mass measurements Avith a set of

20
secondary level standards laboratories, and we are now extending it to many other areas of management. With an eye to the future, we

must realize that in INIAP we have an embryo process for objectively

certifying laboratories. This is a subject about which we will be

hearing much in the years ahead. We are going to hear more of this

idea in weights and measures laboratories, in clinical laboratories,

and in laboratories that conduct tests on consumer products, particularly in regard to safety. Certainly we will regard this Conference

as a model and a source of wise advice as we move or are moved into

these new areas. As the Conference considers the concept of feedback, and specifically the usefulness of objective procedures for qualifying measure- ment capability, many possibilities come to mind. Is it useful for each

state laboratory to know how effectively its everyday operations tie to the national standard ? Is it practical for the state inspector to ask more of the retailer than the possession of a well-calibrated scale in

a shop? Should not the store clerk demonstrate his ability to make

a measurement of adequate accuracy ? Would it not be useful for the

states to share with one another your experiences with respect to

effective compliance in the marketplace?

Some may say that such things might be taken to imply criticism

of performance of well intentioned, hard working people in and out

of government. I look at it the other way around. With openly dis- closed objective information that you yourselves obtain, you will

have the proof of how tough your job is and can show what benefit

would flow to the people in your state by increased resources for your

v/ork.

NBS would like to help wherever we can to bring your story to the

people and to public authorities. We need your help to point up our own problems so that we can plan to remedy them too. Another new area in which the Conference will have to give us

counsel and support is in the U. S. participation in the International

Organization for Legal INIetrology. I think that U. S. participation

has been delayed too long. In this connection, it is important that we

examine the nonparticipation of the United States in OILM. It is understandable that our federal government has not given the same

attention to national regulations governing type approval and certifi- cation that European countries have. For we are dedicated to two

principles—state responsibility for weights and measures regulation

and, within that framework, maximum freedom for innovation by

private industry. But so long as we do not even belong to the OILM,

we cannot influence the inevitable growth of legal requirements for

metric based measuring equipment in commerce. A¥orse still, bad

technology is being adopted in their criteria for accuracy and design

rather than performance as they write tlie recommendations.

21
I have recent information that indicates that the State Department

has approved U. S. participation. It remains for the Congress to act on the State Department's recommendations when they are made. We

are not sure whether all of this action could be completed in

time for the U. S. to participate in the next OIOI conference in

October 1972 ; but in any case, I think we can say that U. S. participation will depend heavily on the Department of Commerce, and the

Department w^ill turn to the National Bureau of Standards, and we,

of course, will want the active participation of the National Conference on Weights and Pleasures.

For my main topic this morning, I would like to talk briefly about

the U. S. Metric Study. We are less than one month removed from

the date when the Secretary of Commerce is due to make his recom- mendations on the basis of the recently completed NBS study. I cannot, unfortunately, tell you what the Secretary's recommendations

will be, but I can give you some general background which I believe

will help you interpret the recommendations when they are made

public in the next few weeks.

The Congress asked the NBS to attempt a thorough and rational

analysis of the impact on the United States of present world trends

with respect to measurement language and practices. We were not to accept the goal of metrication as an act of faith, nor were we to reject

it as an alien influence in our culture. We approached this very complex subject with open minds, determined to attempt w^hat no other

nation has yet achieved—a comprehensive and rational evaluation of

the nation's alternative courses of action.

Opinions differ on whether customary or metric units are intrinsically superior. Which, for example, is the more natural system

for people? Those favoring the customary system note that it is more natural to man in the sense that he carries his measuring gages

wdth him all the time. He carries his yard and his foot and his inch,

and with 2,000 steps he carries his mile. Yet, on the other side, those

who favor the metric system note that the most unique feature of

man, physiologically speaking so far as measurement goes, is his

having ten fingers—thus, the natural base for a system of decimal

arithmetic. It is on this basis that most people count and for which

metric measures are designed. However that argument might turn

out (and I believe that it would not be revealing any secrets to tell you that we do not have any way of deciding which system is more

natural for man in that philosophical sense), I think the fact of the

matter is that the main issues are so much more practical and so much more important to the everyday lives of our people and the

overall interest of the country that the decision will not turn on

such a philosophical basis. 22
All modem industrial nations assure the compatibility of their

scientific measurement systems at the highest level of precision

throuofh international metric measurement standards and their inter- comparison. To that extent the United States has been metric for

nearly a hundred years. The measurement standards maintained at the National Bureau of Standards are all international metric

standards.

In 1866, the United States, by Act of Congress, made metric units

legal in commerce and in other uses. The customary pound-yardsecond system standards are exactly defined by specified numerical

ratio to fundamental metric standards. Thus, the United States is formally and legally bilingual with respect to measurement systems.

If our national measurement system in science has long been on the metric system, our industry is getting there. Certain U. S. industries—pharmaceuticals and ball bearings, for example—have

switched to metric measure for their own convenience and efficiency.

Across American industry, our measurement schizophrenia is apparent. The width of photographic film is given in millimeters; the

spacing between the sprocket holes is given in fractions of an inch.

Spark plug threads are metric, but the plug heads and wrenches

are specified in inch standards. This is what we mean when we say

that use of the metric system is increasing in the country all the time.

This also brings me to the point where I must make a definition

and, I hope, lay to rest a misconception. There are two dimensions

to the idea of going metric, and in many circles there is confusion

between the two. Worse, in many places the two, where the two are properly distinguished, are thought to be inseparable. And neither

of these ideas is realistic. Let me draw the distinction between two facets of metrication

measurement language and engineering practice and design. The

idea of changing a measurement language is a simple idea and

fairly well understood, although not very easy to do. Insofar as pounds and ounces are concerned, scales can be converted to metric

by changing the dial plate alone. Only a language change is involved.

This is not always the case. Engineering i:)ractices and standards are

a different thing entirely. They involve the arbitrary sizes, shapes,

and configurations in which we choose to make our goods. They

derive from a natural inclination to try to simplify desicii and to show a preference for even numbers whei'ever design parameters are

arbitrary. Industry has been carrying on this practice of standardization for many years, and it has brought great benefit to both

manufacturer and consumer. Xow, industries in a country which uses the metric system will be inclined to standardize on sizes that more often involve e\eu

23
numbers of metric units. Where our industry may choose to make

a fitting that is two inches in diameter, the metric company might

prefer 5 centimeters. The two resulting parts would be tantalizingly

close in size, but completely incompatible. How do we meet such

incompatibility ? In the extreme case, we can try to keep most of our customary practices, domestic and industrial, even if we adopt

measurement metric language. Just what hardware would we have

to change? Obviously if we change measurement language, we must

surely change our measurement tools. The metering and scale industries have an unavoidably central

role in any change. Their capabilities and customers' cooperation will

largely determine the pace. But how about pipe sizes, construction

materials, automotive parts, land measurements, or the heights of

ceilings? In this area of decision making lies the major part of our dilemma and the major part of the metric uncertainty. AVe are

part, of the world market economically. The Ignited States is not

self sufficient economically any more than any one of our states is independent economically. Our economy could not function if products from Connecticut were not acceptable in California. Since 1900

you have soh^ed this problem in the weights and measures area. Even more, our economy cannot expand if products made in America

are not acceptable to other cotmtries.

It is a grave mistake to think that we must give up totally our

accepted engineering standards in order to deal with metric countries. First of all. many U. S. engineering standards are so technically sitperior to those of other cotmtries that they are used abroad

even thotigh they may not be formally adopted as the national

standards of those countries. Atttomobile wheel rims, for example,

are in standard inch sizes: oil drilling equipment is based on inch

designs throughotit the world.

In addition, there are established procedures for cottntries to get

together and write engineering standards acceptable to all. In these

deliberations through the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the associated International Electrotechnical Commission (lEC). we have every reason to expect that otir technologv'

will receive the recognition it is due if we j^'^i'ticipate vigorotisly in standards negotiation. Btit otir interim metric sttidy report on inter- national standards, published last December, shows that U. S. participation in international standards deliberations is less than fully

elfective. If we are effective in obtaining international agreements on

standards based on superior U. S. technology, then metrication, if it comes or when it comes, will be that much easier. The international standards report considered this such a pressing

l)ro];lem that it made specific recommendations to strengthen the

contributions of both American industry and American government

24
to international standardization. These steps, the report said, must

take precedence over our consideration of the metric problems, must

be met no matter what action we take on metrication; and the

Administration's recently introduced International Voluntary Standard Cooperation Act is a response to those recommendations in part

and a step in that direction.

But the main immediate impact of the metric study, at least for

most of us, will be domestic and not international. In writing the

metric bill, the Congress was careful to avoid reference to schemes

for accomplishing conversion to metric usage, lest the impression get

abroad that the possibility of an instantaneous mandatory conversion was contemplated. That is, we were not charged with making a complete national plan for metric conversion, and we did not do it. We do not believe that instantaneous mandatory conversion is a policy alternative that even merits serious study. Nothing would

justify the enormous cost or confusion that such a crash program

would, in my judgment, entail. Instead, it is likely that, if the U. S. should decide to go metric, it would be done through a coordinated

national program based on governmental leadership and voluntary

cooperation of all sectors of the society. But a real question arises:

How completely voluntary could that process of conversion actually

be? Any broad-based voluntary cooperation among members of an

industry raises complicated antitrust questions, as Under Secretary

Lynn mentioned earlier. There is a question of what fonn and intensity the federal leadership in such a voluntary program might take. Even if the Congress should decide that no action is needed now,

there is still going to be increased metric usage based on voluntary

action, and I think that the voluntary principle is the one that is most in keeping with our economic philosophy.

But there is one place where some sort of legal and mandatory

considerations would be inevitable, and that is in retail trade and

the regulation of weights and measures. Should that day come that

this Conference finds itself deeply involved in guiding these legal

requirements, the response of the average consumer to any degree of

metrication will depend to a large degree not on what he learns in

school, not in what he hears on the radio and television, but what he

encounters in everyday life; and for everyday life, read "marketplace." His acceptance of metric usage will depend on two distinct

factors of everyday life. First would be how often and how intelli- gently metric measures are used in the marketplace; and second, and

far more important, would be the honesty with which metric measures are used in the marketplace.

If the merchant takes the introduction of metric measures as a cover for raising his price per unit weight or i)rice per unit volume to an unfair degree in relation to the cost involved, any metrication pro-25
gram can become a public relations disaster for the free enterprise

system. Here you would have, under those circumstances, a lot to do

with this aspect of whatever approach is ultimately taken to metrication. You have had your great influence over the years on public

confidence in the marketplace. Your influence on manufacturers,

wholesalers, and retailers, during whatever adaptation is coming,

could be decisive in maintaining the hard won public good will that

you have painstakingly built up. The really relevant question that we had to i^ose for ourselves in the

study was not so much what will automatically happen that benefits

the country the day w^e go metric, but, if w^e did go metric, what bad

would happen or what good. But what would be the nation's measure- ment language needs in the 1980's, 90's, and the next century? What

should we do to prepare for the future?

Now, some cynics may say, "Why should I do this for posterity?

What has posterity ever done for me?" But we are not even in the

position of the little Dutch boy who could put his finger in the hole

in the dike. It is as if we were in a rowboat in the middle of a swift

river. There is no question that the river is flowing from English to metric. The choices we have are to row upstream as long as we can, to drift Avith the current, or to pick up the oars and row vigorously

downstream. This is a determination of national policy. It is for the

Congress and the President to decide, and they have to decide

w^hether there are waterfalls and cataracts downstream or whether

there is some peaceful body of water around the bend. We only hope

that our study will provide the tools that they need to make that

decision intelligently.

No matter w^hat national approach the Congress may adopt, the

members of this Conference are going to have to play a central role in the way the American people adapt to the coming increase in

metric usage, which seems inevitable at least at some rate of change, no matter what the official action of the government. And I suspect,

therefore, that this is not the last time you will hear of the problem

of metric measurement usage. Now if I may, I would like to turn to some Conference business.

By now, most of you know that the National Conference on Weights

and Measures has decided to hold the Conference in different areas of the country, away from Washington, every other year starting

with the 1973 meeting. This decision was made mainly as a result of the proposal by your Executive Committee last year in Salt Lake

City and was strongly suj^jported by the Conference membership.

We at NBS are pleased that such a move is possible, and it should

prove to be a major step toward strengthening the interest and

involvement of weights and measures officials throughout the Ignited States in the affairs of this National Conference, as well as all others

26
who desire to participate in the Conference. It is important to bring

this Conference to the states and to the people. In fact, I am looking

forward to attending the Western Regional Conference in Hawaii

next month.

This leads me to a few other general thoughts that I have had

concerning future directions of the Conference. I believe that it would be advisable for your officers and your Executive Committee

to continue to explore new ways and means by which the National

Conference can serve the growing needs of the states and the many

people that look to the Conference for guidance. This in no way

means to imply that the Conference is not fulfilling the purposes for

which it is held, for it has compiled an outstanding record of success throughout the years. However, we know that those who work in the

field of weights and measures continue to experience problems

brought on by changes in the science of measurement, in our system

of government, and in the aspirations and needs of the people in com- merce and in technology. Thus, we must plun for and be prepared to adapt to these changes and to take such action as is necessary to struc- ture our organization and procedures to solve the problems that con- front us and meet the challenge of the future. It may be necessary

and desirable for Conference members to share more fully in the

leadership, I personally would welcome such increased participation.

More and more, the burden of work resulting from your expanded

service to the people will fall on you together with our weights

and measures staiT. The content of the Conference program this year and the many

constructive recommendations that are being proposed by your committees reflect the progressive nature and work of this organization.

Obviously, one has to be impressed with your efforts, and I wish to assure you that the National Bureau of Standards will continue to lend its support and assistance to the states and to the National Conference in every way possible.

We call on you to let us know how our partnership can be

imj^roved, and we urge you to use this Conference as a forum and

a means to achieve an even greater system of weights and measures

in our country. I hope to take advantage of the opportunity to meet

with the Executive Committee on Eriday morning to discuss with

them more specifically some additional steps that might be taken

to strengthen the Conference and its mission.

And now I come to the time when, as your President, I have the

privilege to announce the appointment of individuals to serve on the

Conference standing committees. I am sure you are well aware how

imj^ortant the Avork and contributions of these committees are to the success of the Conference. Eor this reason, considerable care27
is taken in the selection of committee members, and we take great

pride in their accomplishments.

I AYOuld like to thank those members who have served on committees for their valnable service, and I wish to extend my appreciation to those who are taking on new responsibilities. Before

making the appointments, I wish to point ont that the number of

ai^pointments is greater than usual this year, due to the recent retire- ment or termination from public service of several officials whose

term on a committee would not normally have expired this year. For the Committee on Laws and Eegulations, Mr. R. L. Thompson, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, State of Maryland, is appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr. Dettler, whose

term is expiring.

Mr. Dettler is reappointed to serve out the unexpired two-year

term vacated by Mr. R. W. Richards, who resigned from ])ublic service. I wish to point out that Mr. Dettler has served on the committee for only two years, having originally been appointed at the

54th Conference to serve out an unexpired two-year term. For the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, Mr. K. J. Simila, Assistant Chief for Weights and Measures, State of Oregon,

is appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr. Rebufio, whose

term is expiring.

Mr. T. F. Brink, Director, Division of Standards, State of Vermont, is appointed to fill the unexpired three-year term of ]Mr. W. C. Hughes, who is retiring from public service. For the Committee on Education, ]Mr. R. T. Williams, Director,

Consumer Service Division, State of Texas, is appointed for a five- year term to replace Mr. J. I. Moore, Avhose term is expiring.

Mr. J. C. Stewart, Assistant Su^Dervisor, Weights and Measures

Regulatory Section, State of Virginia, is appointed to ser^'e out the

one-year unexpired term of ]\Ir. B. A. Pettit, who retired from public

service. For the Committee on Liaison with the National Government,

Mr. W. N. Seward, Assistant to the Senior Vice Pi^sident, American

Petroleum Institute, is appointed for a five-year term to replace

Mr. R. C. Primle}^, whose term is expiring.

28
PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

Dr. Branscomb presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference who, by attending the 55th Conference in 1970, reached one

of the five attendance categories for which recognition is made

attendance at 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 meetings.

Award Recipients

30 Years R. M. BODENWEISER

C. C. Morgan

W. S. BUSSEY

S. H. Christie

E. R. Fisher

R. D. Thompson

Mrs. F. C. Bell

J. I. MoORE

G. L. Johnson

M. Rapp

C. E. Wagner

K. G. Hayden

A. J. Komich

R. V. Miller

R. J. SiLCOCK

E. W. Ballentine

R. C. Baumgartner

E. H. Black

W. T. DeLoge

R. H. Fernsten

M. S. GODSMAN

L. J. Gordon

M. Jennings

J. F. Lyles

L. Prendergast

E. A. Vadelund

JNIercer County, New Jersey

Gary, Indiana

25 Years Former Executive Secretary

New Jersey

Rhode Island

U. S. Dept. of Agriculture

20 Years National Bureau of Standards

North Carolina

Kentucky

Detecto Scales, Inc. Glass Container Manufacturers

Institute, Inc.

15 Years District of Columbia

Rockwell ]Manufacturing Co.

Toledo Scales

Vigo County, Indiana

10 Years South Carolina

Livonia, Michigan

Ventura County, California

Fitchburg, INIassachusetts Alameda County, California

Bennett Pump Incorporated

Weights & INIeasures Research

Center—Denison University

Tennessee

Virginia

Chicago, Illinois National Bureau of Standards

29
PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO R. W. SEARLES

. Jennings presents R. ^y. Searles irifJi plaque embossed with speeial resolu- tion of appreeiation passed hij the 56th National Conference on Weights and

Measures. (See also report of the Committee on Resolutions, page 30.)

30
AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1971

(F. D. ^loRGAx, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

MANAGEMENT AS A MODERN APPROACH

by Dr. IM. L. Shotzberger, President, Catawba College

Before we talk about the general field of

management, I would like to comment about a number of trends that are going on in the soci- ety and that are having a very great impact on

the practice of management. There are six of

them, and I will mention them generally and

then have a comment about each. These trends

are as follows : Government policy, education,

enterprise, technology, urbanization, and secularization. I want to suggest to you what each

of these six things are doing within our society

in A^ery general terms, but first I would like to suggest to you wdiat

they are doing to those of us who have what we call managerial

responsibility.

There has always been in this nation a high level of philosophic

freedom for all of us. You are all familiar with it; there is no need

to trace it in any detail. We talk in terms of free individuals and

free institutions. However, in the early days of our society, given

these six trends, the tendency was only for the very rich to have what we call practical freedom. In other words, you were free to go to the AYest Coast, but you i)robably could not get there. You had to spend

a lifetime doing so, or at least our families and predecessors did.

Today, however, due to these critical organic trends, most of us as individuals are freer than we have ever been. Since most of us work

for institutions, this freedom has put a tremendous constraint on the

institutions and on managers. And managers, by the way, are insti- tutional decision makers. The generalization very quickly is this. Since the people who are working for and with us are more free, we

as institutional decision makei's are less free. Yet it is interesting, in spite of these two basic develo[)ments, we are still required, as insti- tutional managers or institutional decision makers, to produce with

great quality and at low cost; yet we have a grouj) of people working

for us who no longer may be bullied around because of their personal

freedom.

Now let us see how these trends fit in. Since probably the middle

3()'s the emphasis at the level of go\ (>rnnient l)olicy, particularly with

31
regard to the federal government, has been that people are, after all, more important than institutions. Your very professional aspects of

life suggest that this is right.

The idea of a sound pound, a sound gallon, a sound foot, a sound

yard is to assure that I, as a consumer, get a fair break. It also is to assure, as you well know, that the manufacturer and the purveyor of

certain things deals with me honestly.

The essence of the policy has been to say that people, individually, are more important than institutions, and also more important as individuals than as institutional decision makers. What this has done

actually is to free us as individuals from the autocracy of our boss. In other words, we cannot be shoved around any more, as was the

case perhaps in the 30's and prior to that. The second trend that I mentioned was education. The actual

accomplishment of the educational process, particularly since the

turn of the century, has been to free most of us from ignorance, all but about 15 percent in terms of the adult population. The Blacks,

the ghettos, the urban Black, and the rural White are still not free

from the tyranny of ignorance, as we call it. For those in the age bracket of 25 and over, the quantity of education has gone up better than 50 percent since 1940. No one really

knows how to measure the quality of it except to say that it is better. Most of you who have high school students know that most of your

offspring know more in the tenth and eleventh grades than all of us did when we were seniors in college. So the quality of their education

is better too. An educated person is in a position to measure the decisions of all leadership, be it political, professional, social, or managerial. The

enterprise system interestingly has freed all but about 15 percent of our society from the tyranny of poverty. The handmaidens of slavery,

as perhaps you know, are ignorance and poverty. If you want to keep someone unfree, you keep him stupid and ignorant and poor. But most of the people with whom you are working and most of

the people with whom I am working are protected by government

policy. They are rather well educated and they have control over economic resources. All this, of course, means that we, in turn, have

a great capacity to take advantage of technological development, and

there is not much question about what technology has done. Its general characteristic has been to reduce almost our entire society and

much of the world from the mechanics and the nastiness of drudgery.

One way of putting it, as the census data now indicate, is that since

1960 and as of 1970 the control of energy output that each American

has at his command has increased by 25 percent in a decade.

A simple way to measure the force is by what technology has

made available to us, such as immense production capacity. Many

32
of your functions are within the department of agriculture in your

state and local area. No one has to tell you what has happened in

regard to food output on this continent, and particularly in regard

to the man hours that it takes to produce a given quantity of food

since 1900. It is almost unbelievable. Consider also the shear output

in the production of physical goods. About six percent of our working population produces everything we need, at least in our society.

This is just amazing.

Technology has been the handmaiden to this development, as you

well know, but at the national level it has made the world so small

it is almost unbelievable. At the personal level, it took me less than

four hours to get from little remote Salisbury, North Carolina, into

the Shoreham Hotel just yesterday. The day after tomorrow my

dear wife and I will leave Salisbury at 11 o'clock our time, and

at about 4 o'clock our time the next morning we will be in Rome.

That is about 6,000 miles. Technology has made the world a smaller

place. It is interesting because your education tells you all about it, and your economic resources let you take advantage of it. All of

these things indicate that people are enhanced and that they are much better off than they have ever been before.

You can listen to all of the Butlers and Kilpatricks that you

want to who say the number system is destroying society. It simply

is not so. Just let me give you one number—1-704-636-7136. That

is a lot of digits, but that number is more unique than my name. Martin Luther Shotzberger is quite a lot of name, but I know

six other people w^ho have my name, but nobody else in this world

has that number. What I am suggesting is that the number system

has helped me to be more unique than even my name. My social

security number is all mine and nobody else's. What I am suggesting

is that technology and the computer have made you and me and

all of our millions of colleagues in this country eminently more important individuals, freer individuals.

You are the manager, and here is an individual who is covered

by government policy and who has a good education and can com- mand a good salary and is free to use technology to his greatest

advantage. He does not have to bother too much with what you

think, because he is employable elsewhere. So his freedoms now are eminently greater than they ever were. In addition to that, he has an organizational base, and this is the function of urbanization and

urban structure. It has given us the markets by which weights and

measures can really become meaningful. It has given us the social structure by which I and all of you are free to enjoy all of oui* newly found freedoms.

How well does the concept of secularization tit in with all of

these five developments? Actually, what it ends up being is this. 33
Through all of these developments, we are so free now, we have an urban structure under which to enjoy our freedom, and we have a sense of values that does not cause us to feel a deep sense of immorality. In short, in 1900 it was almost sinful to be rich and free. Today it no longer is that. And the younger generation has caught on to this. They have accepted the freedoms of the society without

the great remorse that we had at the turn of the century. I think,

and many others think, by the way that they are better off than we are because they have this appreciation. I think it would be significant at this point to tell you that we know these things in large part because of the nature of your work.

We can weigh and measure almost every one of these statements. You are all familiar with the level of education. We can measure it. You are familiar with the level of economic wherewithal—$8,400

per family unit in the United States now. All of these things are measurable—the average income and the speed of technological

development. This now lets us move to some extent into this area of management.

Let us refer now to the chart entitled "A Management Model."

We can take this model and we can generally define the field of

management as involving the use of information around which or from which we will make decisions. And then we would know

automatically that a decision all by itself is really pretty sterile. It is not much more, if you will, than a process of mental games,

riddles. So once w^e get a decision, we then have to think in terms

of planning the implementation of the decision, organizing the

institution so as to achieve and implement this plan, and developing

the control factor so as to make certain that the decision itself is implemented through the plan and through the organization. So, in a conceptual sense, we say that management involves the use of

information, arriving at decisions, planning the implementation of

those decisions, constructing an organization to implement the decision, and setting up control processes to make sure the various

decisions are accomplished.

Then the next question is, obviously—With what ? Well, resources

is our word; and we say functions which might be translated as

jobs. We want to plan, organize, control functions, people, and

facilities. And many people argue that, if you are planning, organizing, and controlling any one of these three, you are a manager.

But we know that, if you are planning, organizing, and controlling

all three of these, you are a manager. Like it or not, you are one. We know also that it is a bit foolish to plan, to organize, and control even a decision without purpose, and so we do all of these things

in order to achieve objectives. In this model, the first statement of

objectives uses the phrase "routine or normal" objective.

34
A MANAGEMENT MODEL

73 01

•-I e

> 0) o >

M 0

4v A

(1) Informal

( 2 ) Decision-Making (The Process )

(a) Problem Identification

(b! Data '^-^ the ring & Analysis | (c) D^ecis_iGn

(d) Implementation

(3) Planning (4) Organizing

T

(5) Controlling

(6) Resources

A. Functions

(7 ) To Achieve Objectives

(a) Routine or Normal

(b ) Improvement or Innovative

(8) Tools of Routine

(a) Procedure (d) Rules The Process

A. Standards - (b) Policy (e) Regulations ^ B. Report Back

C . Evaluation

(c) Method (f) Technique D. Corrective Action

a. Acceptance

b. Exception

(9) Hesults of Control

We will, for the moment, disregard item (b) under objectives,

because at this point the control function becomes critically important

and we develop tools of routine. We want to make certain that the

normal functioning of the organization does get achieved, and here we use such language with which you are familiar—procedure, policy,

method, rules and regulations, and technique. All of this is to make

certain that the normal decisions and the normal operations of the

institution go on constantly. We do this basically by means of control process (on the lower righthand side of this model). We establish

standards with which you are quite familiar, such as a pound, plus or minus a tolerance, a foot, and so forth. AVe get a report back on per- formance, and then hopefully we will make an immediate evaluation.

35
If this is out of kick, then we go to corrective action. But the purpose

of control in this instance, and the purpose of routine is to make

certain that we have a very narrow degree of exception. If we can have low exception and high acceptance of our work, then we get a

great deal of released time, and this permits us then, as managers,

to turn our attention to the improvement or the innovative function

of management.

There are a couple of things that I want to say about the process rather than this model, and the first thing that I would like to say

is that it is not a discipline that is to be learned by doing. It is actually an intellectual process, and if it is an intellectual process you

have to know what you are doing before you practice it. For instance,

if you develop computer programmers just by letting them leam

computer programing by doing it without having first been taught,

the computer industry stock is going to go up in value, because igno- rant people will jam up the computer so that they cannot use it. This

is what we are really trying to say about the management process. What do you have to know in order to manage effectively? We can

use the model, for one thing. We can say that you have to know a great deal about decision theory, and there is a great deal to be

known here. You should know a great deal about planning theory,

about organization theory, about control theory, and about managing

by routine, by exception, and by innovation. Then, even before you

can do that and leam much about it, you have to know a great deal

about economics, sociology, psychology, mathematics, political science,

human relations, and communication.

What we are really suggesting here is that the field of management

now is beginning to be an immensely elaborate process, and the igno- rant cannot work in it etfectively. It is also interesting to say that it

is almost the only peculiarly American discipline to have been developed. Even with all the scarcity of jobs and space in technical and

scientific research, we are still importing into this country from

foreign nations such as India and Germany high technical brain

power. The only real discipline right now that we are exporting in

great quantity is the managerial discipline. When they get ready to

set up a business school in Beirut, where do you think they go? They

go to the United States and get people out of AVharton, Harvard, or Ohio State. AVhen they get ready to set up a business school at the

University of Turin in Italy, where do they go to get their knowledge? To the United States. It is about the only discipline that we

have developed in and of our own right. And yet it is a fascinating

discipline, and it is rapidly developing into a discipline of its own.

Referring now to the chart entitled "Criteria of Decision" and also back to the "INIanagement Model," you find out, by going down the

four items (a), (b), (c), and (d) under Decision Making, where the

36
CRITERIA OF DECISION

Speed Consistency (jualit>

I\ire Rationality Absolute - slow High High

Relative - fas' Deductive (if the Fast High High

principle(s) is (are) sound

Inductive (if, in the research sense, the criteria are met as in rationality and deduction

if sound principle results.

)

Policy and Procedure Fast High High Value Premises Fast High Questionable

(especially if all value premises arc- not accepted

within the organization! A Priori Analysis (Fast, consistent and qualitative if the assumptions are truly sound, otherwise, only fast.

)

Intuition Usually Low Low

fast

(Intutition Is viewed as a form of Induction without research, which may well result in -.u, unsound generalization which may serve as a decision base. Emotion Fast Low Low

manager is most important and where the organization is more

important. It is startling to find that, of the fonr, the organization

(that is to say, your colleagues and your peers) are more important

in (a), (b), and (d) than is the manager. But when you get to the

point of decision, it is the manager's job. It is rather interesting that

in the process now the manager is important at making or choosing

the decision; but in terms of getting at the decision, everybody in the organization is important. One way to say that is that, three to one, the organization is against you; and that means that you have

to work pretty well with them.

But in this area of decisioning, the measures in which we have

great interest are, first, speed. We want the decision made quickly.

AVe want the decisions to be of good quality and of consistency.

37
As an individual consumer, how long do you want to spend buying

a can of peas ? When you get a can of peas, you want your decision to be made quickly, and you want a good quality decision with regard

to the peas, and also consistency. This, of course, means that brands

have some role, but it also means that your function of weights and

measures is important, because, when that thing says 24 ounces avoirdupois, I want it to mean that, and it is your job to make certain

that it does. So, as w^eights and measures people, you help me in my

decision process ; and also, of course, you let me make it with rationality, with knowledge, and with certainty.

The extreme of decisions is down at the bottom of the sheet. Most

of the decisions in most any organization are going to range from

the highly routine to the highly innovative. ^lost of us are going to make more routine decisions than innovative decisions; yet it is important to know that the innovative decisions may have more

impact on the organization than any combination of routine decisions.

What this scale indicates here is the direction of the curve, and that

is accurate. We do not really know about the slope. There are a high

number of routine decisions and a relatively low^ number of innovative decisions. But the generalization is that, the more we know

what we are making decisions about, the more likely we are to make

good ones. If the decision is a new one, a primary tool is, of course, research. This is new in terms of the societal trends or devices. It can

be new to our organization, but a great deal can be known about it by other people. This moves us into the middle, and here we look at what is known about the decision and we try to translate it there. Over on the left we are talking about the routine process, and here we are going to base our decisions on knowledge, and so the generalization is this. The nearer we are to pure rationality, the more likely our decisions are to be right. The further w^e get from rationality

(that is, toward emotion and intuition), the less likely our decisions are to be right, although it is possible to get a great decision under

conditions of emotion and sometimes under conditions of intuition.

When you talk with people who are not well trained or well educated in the field of management and the field of decision making,

you find the good decision maker being described as highly intuitive. I take personally great disagreement with this premise. I think you

Avill find that most everyone with whom you are familiar w^ho is a great decision maker is not intuitive. He is extremely knowledgeable,

and he operates at the analogous level, like the computer. He sees certain symbols and certain symptoms, and he begins spinning his

tape—his knowledge, if you will. He sifts, he sorts, and he plants it, until he identifies the problem for wluit it is out of his knowledge

framework; and he does this all so rapidly that we figure he cannot

think that quickly and we ascribe to him great intuition. But intui- 38
tion is not much more than hunch. So if you have to rely on hunch,

the chances are pretty poor that you can make decisions of quality

speedily and with consistency. There is a possibility that you might

make a great decision somewhere along the line, but for us to rely

(m you to make consistently good decisions is probably not going to

Yv^ork. The same can be said, of course, with respect to emotion, and we

know why you do not make good decisions there. So let me suggest to you that we have these six great trends

government policy, education, enterprise, technology, urbanization,

secularization. All of them are working if you will make individuals more and more free. Conversely, as the personal freedom line goes

up, the institutional freedom line comes down. Yet we are under

severe pressure to perform better and better and better, institutionally and professionally, and we are dealing with people, though, that

do not have to take our guff.

This means then, in turn, that we have to know a great deal more

about the management process in its general term. I have found in

my own years of teaching and of studying that, when I ask someone

to define management, he does as the American Management Association does—which says getting things done through others. And that

is a sentence—one sentence to describe, if you will, 70,000 pages of

discipline. It does not make any sense. You cannot describe management with a sentence, just as you can- not describe it adequately and fully with a model. It is an immensely

complex thing about which we have to know a great deal. But yet,

you as the manager are responsible for the effective and efficient per- formance of your institution—the effective and efficient performance

of the individuals who work with you. So we suggest that the management approach is a new approach—not in the sense of the last ten years, but certainly in the sense of the last half century. The first business school in this country was not founded until right after

World War I. The first Ph. D. in the area was not given until 1930. So we are talking about a relatively new discipline, a very rapidly

developing one, and you have to know a great deal.

39
FORUM ON MANAGEMENT

T. M. Stabler, Office of Weights and INIeasures, Moderator

j It is my pleasure to be a participant on the

H panel of the Forum on ^Management and also H to moderate the discussion which will follow.

H First, I would like to introduce the other

H participants on the panel.

H ^Ir. George ]\Iattimoe is Deputy Director of

H the Division of Weights and Measures, Hawaii

H Department of Agriculture. He has spent four

^ years with the Department and is responsible

for the immediate success that it is experiencing. Prior to that, jNIr. ]Mattimoe served 17

years with the ^lantes Scale Company.

Mr. David Edgerly is a fellow worker in the Office of Weights and

Measures. He came to the National Bureau of Standards in 1967

with major responsibilities in the area of fair packaging and label- ing. For the past year he has been project leader for the OWM

Management Infonnation and Assistance Project.

Mr. Robert Williams is Director of the Consumer Protection and

Sendee Division in the Texas Department of Agriculture. He has

been with the Texas agency for 18 years and is currently President

of the Southern Weights and ^Measures Association. Prior to state

service, he was a staff writer for the San Angelo Standard Times and

the Amarillo Globe Xews, and later served as state editor of the

San Antonio Express and Evening Xews.

MANAGEMENT OF A WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PROGRAM

by T. M. Stabler, Chief, Office of Weights and ^Measures, National

Bureau of Standards

As managers of weights and measures programs, there are four

questions that concern you most.

1. What is the mission of my department ? 2. What is my job?

3. How do I obtain resources?

4. How do I allocate resources ? Let us look at these separately.

40
What is the Mission of My Department?

First, before any government group, organization, branch, or department can function effectively, it is necessary to define the pro- gram and identify the contributing elements. This is not unlike the

exercise one must engage in in industry, as the manager of a pri^^ate

firm or company. There, the object is to maximize profits. You have

to decide what to produce, for whom, how the product will be used,

and what will be the demand over a period of months or years. Will

the demand be constant, fluctuating? To state the problem simply,

how do you most effectively serve the public? What do you aim to accomplish by your activities in the weights and measures program ? We say that we guarantee "equity" in the marketplace. Is that

enough? Let us carry it further. Our aim is to see that buyer and

seller and recipients of services receive just rewards for amounts

produced, purchased, or sold. I am sure you can think of other

statements. How about the objectives on a short-term (1 year) and long-tenn

(5-10 years) basis? You say, "I know my objectives."

1. To make more money.

2. Work an 8-hour day, or less.

3. Lengthen vacations.

4. Satisfy the boss. But these are personal objectives. We need to establish objectives for

the weights and measures department, and means by which the mission can be accomplished. The list should perhaps include

1. Adoption of the Model Law.^

2. Adoption of the Model State Packaging and Labeling Kegulation,2

3. Obtaining adequate field standards.

4. Acquiring resources (dollars and people).

5. Long-range plans for program growth.

6. Active participation in the city, county, state, nationwide

weights and measures system through the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

There are many more.

1 Model State Weights and Measures Law, National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

2 Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation, National Conference on Weights and Measures. 3NBS Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements

for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices. 41
Before we can successfully plan realistic objectiA-es, we have to make a careful, thorough study of the existing situation. First, let us identify the people we serve. They include industry, wholesalers,

retailers, consumers—everyone who pays taxes and some who do

not ! Second, let us identify the scope of our task ; how many industries, how many producers, hoAv many buyers and sellers, how many

scales, meters, packages, and how many consumers. What is the

projected growth rate for the jurisdiction? In order to serve the

public effectively, you must determine the composition of your jurisdiction. You should consider a survey the most important initial step in identifying the problem. Certainly, the same considerations

would not be appropriate for Wyoming and New York, for example.

The size and characteristics of a given area dictate in large part

the kinds of programs needed to cope with the problems in pro- viding effective w^eights and measures supervision.

Now that you have identified the population, the next step in the

objective-setting procedure is to determine the existing level of

compliance with the laws and regulations. How bad is the non- compliance? If every weight and measure were perfect, you could

abandon your efforts and look for another job. There would be no

need for a public protector. However, this is probably not the case. Noncompliance will be as high as 80 percent in areas of ineffective

weights and measures control. You have a good idea of how good or bad the situation is with

regard to the level of compliance, and you are now in a position to establish realistic goals for the first year and for subsequent years

dollars, people, time, equipment—and to coordinate a program that

will effectively solve the problems you have identified. At this point,

you may be prepared to tender your resignation.

What is My Job?

In the event you do not quit, what is your job?

Your job is to conduct investigations. True or false? To test weighing and measuring devices. True or false? To check packages. True or false? To answer telephone calls and letters. True or false? To make reports to your supervisor. True or false ? You probably do some, or all, of these things; however, your primary job—responsibility—is management. You are primarily con- cerned with the overall planning for the organization, obtaining

resources, allocation of resources, preparation of budget requests,

and effectively keeping your peers informed. You are responsible for

establishing policy for your organization. Do you do these things?

42
The manager of a program must give due consideration to administrative matters. Take time to sit back and look at yourself, your

job, and your program. Although you may have these other duties

1 mentioned earlier, such as investigations and testing, your greatest

influence and contribution is in management. [To the established veteran in weights and measures: Things are changing fast in this

profession with the introduction of new management tecliniques

such as cost-benefit analysis, EDP, and an ever-increasing competition for resources, so tomorrow may be too late to compete successfully.] Look at the new, young faces that have appeared recently

in weights and measures throughout the nation. To these new

managers: Learn your lessons well, and do not be saddled by tra- dition or the "system." You are responsible for the successful operation of a Aveights and measures program that responds to the

"Challenge of the 70's," last year's theme of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

What makes the job so different today compared with 10, 15, or 20

years ago ? New devices and the introduction of electronics in Aveighing and measuring, the emergence of every conceiA^able commodity

in package form, and the advent of the "age of consumerism," to mention a few new influences in weights and measures. Also, with

the dramatic growth of our population, industry, and general econ- omy, our responsibilities have increased in proportion, in kind and

numbers—odometers in thousands of rental cars, packages of every

kind, taximeters by the thousands, scales for every purpose, millions of gasoline pumps and fuel-oil meters, and new consumer

interests involving special investigations and reports.

Hod Do I Obtain Resources?

If you now have your jobs in perspective and are thinking like managers, you might ask, "How do I get the dollars, people, and

equipment to do the job?"

There are many avenues open to the manager. An effective way

is to solicit the support of the consumers, industry, and government we serve. Establish an advisory connnittee, composed of leaders in their fields, to meet semiannually to discuss your program and how

it- can effectively serve the public. The group also can reconnnend new programs, additional personnel and equipment. Recommendations can be obtained from state weights and measures associations

and the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Include all supporting information and survey evidence in your

annual report and budget request. Describe your needs in terms of

dollars and cents, and bury the age-old "numbers game." Numbers

43
of gas pumps tested, scales tested, and packages checked are boring

statistics and really impress no one. What is the economic impact

of your efforts? What is the loss to buyer or seller, to the state (county or city), if the existing level of compliance is not improved?

To effectively relate your activities to economic benefits, you will

need data concerning the population, total number of quarts of milk

sold, total consumption of commodities (meat, cheese, produce,

canned goods), and translate these figures into dollar benefits, losses,

and economic impact. These data are available from industry associations, census and tax bureaus, state and federal sources such as departments of agriculture, commerce, etc. What tells the more complete story? That 10,000 packages were

checked and ordered off sale, or that the value of packages checked

during a period of time was $10,000 and the public saved $500 ? That

470 vehicle scales w^ere tested, or that certain manufacturers have

saved $85,000 in the purchase of raw materials because of the department's vehicle-scale testing program ? If prepared carefully, this will

be an interesting, valid, and convincing story.

The budget request should contain data resulting from studies and

surveys that demonstrate the need for additional people and equipment. Again, the need should be expressed in dollars (losses to manufacturers, packagers, consumers) and reflect actual levels of

compliance—50 percent, 65 percent, and so forth. The needs become

obvious to your budget analyst and budget committee, who understand

well the language of dollars and cents. The recommendations of your

advisory committee will lend support to your request at this time.

In effect, you have now done your job. You have presented the facts,

informed your bosses of the conditions that exist. They must now be

prepared to provide the resources that w^ill correct the problems, or

accept the responsibility for allowing noncompliance to continue—in

violation of the law ! In industry, managers report in units produced,

costs, and profits. In weights and measures, for so many years we

have been concerned only with units produced or number of devices

tested. Let us think in terms of costs and profits. With escalating costs, today's government must be concerned with the expenses associated

with production and the profits resulting from our activities. How Do I Allocate Resources? How do I distribute available resources to maximize the benefits?

There are many avenues open to the manager. First, what are the

resources available to me? They include dollars, time, and people.

To do the most effective job, we must place the resources in the

proper slot in the i)roper amount. How do you select the proper

slot ? It is necessary to review your completed survey of all commercial

44
weighing and measuring devices, random and standard-packed items

(food and nonfood), and consumer impact areas that relate to weights and measures. The list includes:

Devices.—Retail meters, wholesale meters, slow-flow and LPG

meters, vehicle tanks, farm milk tanks, measure containers, linear measures, wire and cordage meters, taximeters, odometers, timing

devices (parking-lot meters, parking meters, car wash), food store

scales, monorail scales, platform scales, vehicle scales, and railway

track scales. Consumer Interest.—Auto warranties, tire warranties, appliance

warranties, advertising by weight and measure, packages, food

products, tobacco, textile mill products, apparel (textile), lumber

and wood, furniture and fixtures, paper, chemicals (agricultural

paints), petroleum, rubber, stone, clay, glass, metal (screws, bolts),

electrical equipment, instniments, cameras, miscellaneous (golf

balls, zippers, matches, and candles).

This is not a complete listing, but it does give you some feel for

the vast extent of weights and measures influence. Obviously, there

is no way to check all of these items, yet most exist in every jurisdiction of the United States. Perhaps we had better establish

program parameters in keeping with our mission and program objectives. Let us categorize weights and measures and non weights and

measures responsibilities. Is the "hot line" or consumer complaint a weights and measures

responsibility? The answer is an emphatic NO, with certain exceptions. Certainly it is imperative that weights and measures identify

as a consumer service. In certain jurisdictions, weights and measures

activities have been placed in departments of consumer affairs. This

is where the action is, the political interest, and where the dollars go. If you say No to consumerism without reservation, you are dragging

your feet and digging your own grave. Your epitaph might read,

"He was a good weights and measures official in the horse-and-buggy

days." On the other hand, over-emphasis on consumerism could well

destroy a weights and measures program. Investigations of complaints relating to advertising claims are time consuming and costly.

For example, it could cost the jurisdiction $250 to investigate and

conclude that panty hose "guaranteed not to run," in fact, did run, and that a "long-life" battery costing $1.25 did not actually have a

useful life double that of an "ordinary" 75-cent battery.

There are many other kinds of consumer complaints that do not

relate to a weight or measure. Officials will forget their weights,

their scales, meters, and packages, and other technical responsibilities

if this activity is not kept in proper perspective. The key to law

enforcement—and our programs are law enforcement programs—is

45
the neutral approach. We must enforce the law impartially and not become consumer advocates. In turn, we cannot lobby for industry.

Both parties require a "third man" to mediate the buyin<r and selling process. You may decide that new programs in the consumer area should

include new car warranties that relate to odometer accuracy, tire warranties, accuracy of household measures in such products as carpeting, draperies, zippers, golf balls, and clothing sizes. Inquiries

of the "hot line''variety should be referred to consumer associations,

better business bureaus, and similar organizations.

Concerning the extensive list of Aveighing and measuring devices, can you test them all annually ? Impossible with limited funds, per- sonnel, and equipment. There are several options

1. Selection of certain devices for universal testing.

2. Selective testing of all devices.

3. Selective testing of certain devices and package control.

4. Selective testing, package control, and consumer investigations.

The last option presents a good balance if the selection process is carefully conceived. The basis for selection should be the economic

impact in the market—the value of the j^roduct sold and location of

the producer. Products of local manufacturers and packers should

be tested so that full compliance is achieved before commodities and

devices enter interstate commerce. The cost of testing and its benefits are important considerations.

The testing of gasoline j)umps is one of the most misunderstood

activities. What is the cost of testing a pumjD ? Four to five dollars ? Who benefits most, the station owner or purchaser ? Think about

that. To build a successful program, the responsibility for accuracy

of devices must rest with the owner-operators, and the weights and

measures laws must permit selective testing, and not restrict testing

to universal, annual inspections. Scale company and meter company

service personnel can maintain this equipment accurately, or should

(they are getting paid for it), so that nine times out of ten the scale or gas pump Avill be found "correct" Avhen tested by an official. Ninety percent compliance level is not an unrealistic goal for any

jurisdiction.

You have chosen the classes of devices to be included in your

enforcement program, based upon the cost of inspections, benefits,

and economic impact, and now the problem arises as to what consti- tutes an adequate, reliable sample. The sample cannot be selected at random and be meaningful. It must be based on a well-conceived

l^rogram, with controls and built-in bias I EDP, although not essential, assists greatly in this procedure. In gasoline pumps, for example, the selection process must be based upon manufacture of meter,

46
brand of product, total gallons metered (totalizer readings), and

geographic location. Device history will be an important factor after

the program has been in existence for a year, two, or three. With

this information, you can select the itinerary, determine the duration

between tests, and still maintain 90 percent compliance level (if, in fact, that is a realistic target).

Resource allocation is now possible in our reorganized program.

We have the information at hand to make sound management decisions: How much time, money, personnel, and equipment should be

vested in the various selected areas of activity, using the cost and

benefit of inspections, and the expected level of compliance as the

criteria. Without adequate, reliable information, an essential tool of management, weights and measures managers are faced with the impossible task of providing business, industry, and the general public an equitable climate where buyer and seller are on even ground.

The employment of modern management concepts and techniques

will enable the administrator to meet the requirements of today's

technology, expanding economy, and population. Weights and measures can respond to the need for effective, economical, and flexible programs within government.

A MANAGER'S VIEW OF ELECTRONIC DATA

PROCESSING IN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

by G. E. Mattimoe, Deputy Director, Division of AVeights and

Pleasures, Hawaii Department of Agriculture

The Spanish-American philosopher, George

Santayana, once said, "Those who do not re- member the past are condemned to relive it again." It would be nearly impossible for me

not to remember our past, particularly before

Ave acquired a computer to assist in managing

our program.

I should like to preface my comments by

identifying the proper agency and personnel

..'Ai-nx',^^.- who, at great expense and much personal

sacrifice, were the true prime movers behind

whatever achievements may Ivdve been accomplished in weights and

measures in Hawaii. INIy warmest thanks go to the National Bureau

of Standards in general, and specifically to Dave Eclgerly of the

Office of Weights and Measures and Walter Urban of the Technical

Analysis Division, who made our program an operating reality. I say

47
this without detracting one iota from the monumental efforts of our

chief metrologist, George Yokotake, and his staff. In 1966 the Hawaii State Legislature transferred the then existing

multi-county weights and measures operations to the state. Included was a hopeless polyglot of records, equipment, and different base

systems—if such a term may be so loosely used. We inherited five manual record-keeping systems, which were replaced as rapidly as our resources would permit. Constraints incident to being a new

state, the lack of trained personnel, and our i^eculiar position of

being situated in the Department of Agriculture for administrative

purposes only added to our early frustrations. We soon recognized

that the county records were irreconciliable one to another, so we put

them in storage and set about taking a new inventory of the state population of commercially used measuring equipment.

With these data as a base, we developed what we thought must be

the greatest .computer program in the world. In reality, all that we

had done was to re-invent the wheel or, more factually, the addressograph. We soon modified this into what must have been the most

expensive inventory list in the nation. Xot quite convinced that we

were not the greatest do-it-^^ourselfers in the business, we continued

to make about every mistake possible, including the proposed use of

high-speed optical scanning equipment which had not yet been developed. We published our efforts in a document at which, when

we presented it to our statewide information service (our computer

capability), they took one look and said, "Forget it !" Wounded, we regrouped and discussed our dilemma. We had

developed and designed this obviously great computer system, which we had to operate by hand. Certain that the fates were against us, we made our first sound management decision and sought outside

help. Even here we did the wrong thing. We enrolled in computer

classes and ingested huge amounts of general information. Then back

to the printing press, and out came HI-MARK-S, a copyrighted

document on the weights and measures program in Hawaii. When

our SWIS people rejected it the second time as being too grandiose,

we thought about restoring the monarchy.

We were saved from banishment into oblivion by enactment of our

state odometer statute, which gives us the responsibility for checking

120,000 odometers per year. This law called for an odometer correct- ness analyzer (which is a sneaky name for a desk-top computer) and

provided funds for purchasing. Through this unit, we were able to batch-process enough data to prove the validity of our program.

Only then did SWIS come to our rescue. But we had learned a valuable lesson about attempting to circumvent or encroach upon the

sacred domain of the computer people.

With 27,000 metrological devices in commercial use in Hawaii, our

data base represented equipment the manufacture of some of which

48
had long since been discontinued. Generally speaking, if somebody

made one, Ave got it. Such a divergent population caused us to look hard at our desired

output. What did we want or need to develop an effective inspectional

system that was subjectively unbiased? We decided upon consideration of the following factors

1. Inspectional requirements.

2. Optimizing internally scheduled inspections.

3. A management information system.

4. Measures of effectiveness.

5. Cost/benefit ratios. To implement this overall plan, we took the following action: We

established the inspection requirements of XBS Handbook 44 through

adoption of its examination procedure outlines (EPO's). To optimize

inspectional scheduling, we analyzed our data and plotted them in

the form of histograms. By overlaying each succeeding histogram on

the previous one, we were able to observe any general change in our

population, or at least to observe a trend if one started. We noticed

that monthly, semiannual, and annual inspections did not necessarily

reflect any change in the condition of accuracy of the units tested. (These observations were within the additive limits of uncertainty

involved.

)

We felt that we had a clue, and that usage, not time, seemed to be the more important factor of the two ; so we amended our statute

to eliminate time-frame inspections in favor of inspecting as often

as deemed necessary. We were not quite certain of the definition of

"as often as deemed necessary,'' but we had hopes that we could

develop one. I say this regarding usage data : It is not always easy to come by,

and it sometimes has to be generated in devious Avays ! Copies of

weight certificates is one approach. These might be forwarded to the Director within 72 hours of issue, and keypunching this information to update unit histories is no great problem. (We do this on a limited scale in Hawaii.)

Another might be fitting electronic equipment with totalizers

which help establish accuracy decay.

Gasoline dispensers and meters in general are "naturals'' for this

usage approach to reinspections. Their built-in totalizers have been

staring at us for years just begging to be read. If your jurisdiction

Avas much like ours, you probably just stared back or ignored them

entirely.

Under our neAv administrative law, gasoline dispensers must be

tested for correctness compliance on a monthly basis by the user. These test results must be submitted to the Director in a monthly

compliance report, Avhich also includes the totalizer readings for eacli 49
pump. In addition, the dealer must include the total amount of gasoline delivered during the same period by individual drop. This

information is entered into the individual gasoline dispenser history

and the station history, along with the computer-generated X, R,

and 0-. The computer analyzes the total gallons received versus the total gallons sold, and prints out these data, citing any gain or loss. The

computer identifies the dispensers that are within tolerance, that are

losing money, or that have progressed far enough along the fre- quency of use baseline that their probability of falling in the grey

area of uncertainty is imminent and should be serviced/inspected.

As each new monthly compliance report is received, it is additive

to the existing pump(s) file, so the dealer has a running record to date and a yearly record for reconciliation of profit and loss, most

of which is actually a serendipity to our record keeping.

We continue our practice of random-sampling the total population, and this sampling program has a definite effect upon the validity and quality of the individual operator's test data.

Factually, we conduct a perpetual school in proving gasoline

pumps through proper use of a prover, and this has probably been our most important single educational program. There is no numbers game necessary for annual reports to the legislature. We have

the facts and the consumer gain or loss, either actual if there is one, or prevented if there is not. These concepts are now being expanded to other devices throughout our operation.

The statistical approach to optimum inspection would not be

reasonably possible without the aid of the computer. After sufficient data is compiled, the "beyond tolerance" or accuracy decay point can

be projected with amazing results. Comi^uter-suggested inspectional

programs should be tempered by management experience and knowledge, but the use of data processing to establish the parameters for

such suggested inspection cannot be overemphasized, (xraphically,

the statistical basis for our optimum inspection scheduling looks

something like our "accuracy decay curve." Generally speaking, each

type of metrological device will show a higher failure rate during

the early portion of its service life. This is represented as "new

equipment failure" on the chart and is rightfully a part of management's area of concern, particularly should we go into self- certification of device by company, representatives.

As the metrological device enters the useful accuracy life span,

failures that occur during this i)eriod are usually not i)redi('table ; they randomly happen to happen. The "used equipment failure" portion represents a sharp increase in inaccuracy to the point of illegality and beyond, to total failure. Such a curve may be generated for

50
any type device, and will permit establishing the optimum inspection frequency for a regulatory body. Savings incident to such a program are obvious in the reduction of overinspections, which would

normally fall between the uprights in the useful accuracy life span

area anyhow.

Although we have not explored the possibilities, it appears that

such a program w^ould be adaptable to service contract type of work

outside the realm of regulatory effort, with a maximum return for

the firm utilizing such a program certainly assured, over a competitor

operating on a time- frame schedule.

Our statewide information system, which, much like weights and

measures in the beginning, had a tough time trying to figure out what was being done—much less, manage information. However,

time and tremendous effort by those individuals who believed in the basic concept resolved the early shortcomings, and we now have

an operable SWIS or, for our purpose, a management information

system.

We had initial difficulties in defining our measures of effectiveness.

Those of you who have suffered with PPB are familiar with this

problem. Those of you who have been more fortunate and have

escaped it should reflect upon such questions as: (1) Why am I in

the regulatory business? (2) What are my major areas of responsibility? (3) Could my budget be more beneficially spent in more meaningful endeavors?

These questions are good for many hours of soul searching, and

you will set a new time record for turnaround documents that are

rejected and graded "F" if your answers are like the following:

(1) Statute laws require a weights and measures division. (2) I am

responsible to see that commercial measuring equipment is accurate,

and that package weiglits and their labels are correct. (3) No, nobody

can spend my money any better than I can. Why, we have had

weights and measures since Biblical times.

These are not acceptable justifications under PPB; and since you

are in competition with every other agency for your tax dollar

budget, you rapidly find effective ways to express your reason for

being in business, or it will be expressed for you. In Hawaii, we accepted President Kennedy's definition that ''we are all consumers"—industry, business, and the individual alike. So

the established program objective of "reducing consumer losses" is palatable to us. More important, it is measurable and quantifiable,

both of which are necessary to support our contended effectiveness

and which naturally constitute the elements for cost/benefit analysis.

While we are still struggling in our infancy with this program, we

have made progress, which I would have said was impossible five years ago and, in fact, was impossible without tlie aid of the computer as a management tool.

51
THE INFORMATION CRISIS

by D. E. Edgerly, Weights and Measures Coordinator, Office of

AVeights and Measures

If we pause to consider the significance of

much of our progress during the past 150

years, we will single out as perhaps one of the

most influential advances, vastly improved and

sophisticated communications media. From the

first telegraphic message in 1844, to our present

day experimentation with laser borne communications, man has placed increased importance

upon the need for rapid and accurate dissemination of information.

Television, radio, and the telephone have

largely transformed this country into a position of prominence among

the informed nations of the world. By definition, inform implies the

imparting of knowledge, especially of facts or occurrences necessary

for an understanding of a pertinent matter or as a basis for action.

However, the extent to which we are informed varies with the differ- ent communications media. Certainly, the news medium is an information network designed to offer an unbiased accounting of world,

national, or local affairs. On the other hand, we have the entertainment medium which, though often informative, is more actively

engaged in playing on our emotions during our leisure hours. Then,

of course, we have the advertising medium concerned primarily with

campaigns and slogans slanted to gain the acceptability and dollar

support of goods and services. It often seems highly contradictory to me that a nation capable of

achieving a moon landing and finding cures for dreaded diseases can

at the same time be motivated by such titillating phrases as : "Let us put a tiger in your tank." "Is it true that blondes have more fun?"

"Make peace with grease." Yet, the American consumer manages to cast billions of dollar votes for these campaign ads of marketplace

products and, of course, the list of these slogans is endless as you

know. From this behavior pattern, then, we learn that the motivation

factor can be affected by A^arious stimuli. TTnderstanding these stimuli

provides us with the tools to cause a person to act in a predictable

fashion.

We come to understand, therefore, that the information process is better understood if approached as a science. In light of such, management science is emerging with a new concept of information, or,

if you like, management theory, which differentiates between data,

information, and knowledge. Learning to employ data, information.

52
and knowledge to motivate persons to act in a predictable manner is the crisis we face. "Information is conventionally defined as obtained knowledge,

facts, data, or news" [1]. The main inadequacy of this definition is that an assemblage of facts or the imparting of knowledge may or may not represent information depending upon the judgment of the

recipient. For example, a collection of data showing the number of

devices inspected over a period of time represents facts. Such facts or data may or may not be classified as information, depending upon

the significance being given to these assembled characters by the

transmitter of such data and its eventual recipient. If your objective

is to inspect 10,000 devices in a 12-month period, and the data before

you have the significance of substantiating your objective, your

information needs are fulfilled. If, on the other hand, you transmit

these data to your superior and he comes back asking what percent

of the devices inspected were rejected, you have not fulfilled his

information needs and the data you have supplied were of little significance to him. "Significance is defined as a measure of the net value

obtained from matching the needs of a specific problem with appropriate elements of data" [2]. I am not suggesting that facts or data play no role in our management process. Certainly, they play an important role, just as facts are the agent of the newscaster. There are times when we will need

to broadcast data or facts. However, there are going to be times when,

as in the case of an entertainer, we need to add significance to the

facts to play on emotions. There will also be times when we will

need to advertise. Knowing how and when to employ these techniques

in our day-to-day management process may decide our success or

failure as a manager. "The distinction between information and data

is that information is concerned with the use of evaluated data for a specific problem and for a certain individual at a certain time to achieve a definite goal. As problems vary, persons change, or time

passes, the value of information differs. That is, the value of information is not detached and permanent in itself. Its value is a function of its uses" [3].

Know^ledge is essentially information which has been stored away

for future use and its value is such that it is the ultimate conclusion of the information process. How many times have you come away from a briefing feeling that your delivery of the subject matter was adequate and, yet, you wonder how well those in attendance

perceived what you said? In short, this may be classified as the "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not

sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" [4]

syndrome.

53
In the awareness that differences do exist among data, information, and knowledge, we, as weights and measures managers, must

learn how to use data and how to generate useful information from

data that wall reflect how well Ave are achieving our program goals.

Certainly, there is no shortage of data in any weights and measures

department. As a matter of fact, the mountains of data being col- lected by field personnel represent a significant management problem in terms of what to do with these data. I submit to you, however,

that there is a very real shortage of information in most weights and

measures departments. The problem we now face it, I think, twofold

1. We tend to believe that the information needs for everyone in our organization are the same. As a result, inspectors, supervisors,

and superiors alike are offered the same information whether or not

they want it, need it, or understand it. Most of us have children.

Consider for a moment a situation where a father gathers his three sons together and says, "Boys, I think I'll tell you all the facts of

life." After his discussion, his three-year-old son yawns and says, "Dad, what's a girl?" His six-year-old sticks out his tongue and says, "I hate girls," and his 13-year-old says, "So what's new!" Information, to be effective, must be useful to the recipient.

2. We do not understand how to use information to effect a

desired conduct. If top level department decisions are being made on

the importance of various programs, and you are asked for input,

how much consideration do you think your program will receive if you simply submit a record of devices inspected and rejected by your

department. "According to information theory, the more imcertain

the decision maker is in selecting a certain course of action the

greater is the amount of infonnation supplied by useful data" [5]. I underline and emphasize the term "useful data." To be useful, they

must satisfy a need for information, and this means that we, as managers, must recognize that need and know something about the

person to be affected by the information before we can structure the

information to produce the desired conduct we want from the recipient. When we achieve an understanding of the information process

and learn how to emi)loy it effectively, then we can begin to predict

the forces that affect our programs and plan around them instead of

reacting to them.

The information crisis is not confined to weights and measures

administration. It cuts through nearly every discipline known to modem man. As a result of the need for fast, reliable information,

w^e are experiencing the growth pains of an entirely new industry in

this country devoted to the science of information. As a concept, this

is perhaps best explained by one of the most perceptive management

experts of our time, Peter Drucker.

54
The Information Industry

There is a great deal more to information and data processing than the computer ; the computer is to tlie information industry roughly what the

central power station is to the electrical industry.

The electrical industry became a certainty when Ernst Werner von

Siemens invented the first practical generator in 1856. But the electrical industry only became a reality twenty-three years later, in 1879, when

Edison designed the electric light bulb. In between there was furious

activity with a host of highly talented inventors at work. If it had been

fashionable then to speak of "first-generation," "second-generation," or "third-generation" computers, there would have been a "fifth-generation" or a "sixth-generation" generator before there really was any widespread

use of electric power. Practically every single one of the major electric- apparatus companies (like Westinghouse ) that are still household words

today was already founded by 1879 in every industrial country, including small ones as Sweden, Switzerland, and Hungary. But it was only Edison's

light bulb that made possible the use of electricity as a universal form of energy. Without the central power station there would be no electrical industry

without the computer there would be no information industry. And yet most of the money in the electrical industry and most of the engineering

and technical ingenuity as well have been invested in the equipment to transmit and to apply, whether power lines, lights, motors, or appliances.

Similarly most of the money and most of the ingenuity of the information

industry will go into the transmission and application of information

rather than into its generation and storage, that is, into the computer.

And most of the profit will come from transmission and application too. Since the computer first appeared in the late 1940's, the information industry has been a certainty. But we do not have it yet. We still do not have the effective means to build an "information system." This is where

the work is going on, however. The tools to create information systems

may already exist : the communications satellite and other means of transmitting information, microfilm and the TV tube to display and

store it, rapid printer to reduce it to permanent record, and so on. There is no technical reason why someone like Sears Roebuck should not come

out tomorrow with an appliance selling for less than a TV set, capable

of being plugged in wherever there is electricity, and giving immediate

access to all the information needed for schoolwork from first grade

through college. Yet though IBM is now shipping computers at the rate of a thousand

a month, we do not have the equivalent of Edison's light bulb. What we

are lacking is not a piece of hardware like the light bulb. What we

still have to create is the conceptual understanding of information. As long

as we have to translate laboriously every set of data into a separate

"program," we do not understand information. We have to be capable of classifying information according to its characteristics. We have to have a

"notation," comparable to the one St. Ambrose invented 1600 years ago

to record music, that can express words and thoughts in symbols appropriate to electronic pulses rather than in the clumsy computer language

of today. Then each person could, with very little training, store his own

data within a general system, that is, what the computer engineers call a "routine." Then we shall have true "information systems."

55
Twenty years hence it may be as unlikely for individual users, even big

companies, to have their own large computers as it is today unlikely for an individual manufacturing plant to have its own power station. Sixty years ago, a plant had to have its own power station if it wanted electricity. Xow it gets power through "time-sharing" from a central station. Similarly, information a few years hence may be primarily on some "time- sharing" basis, in which a great many users have their data on one and

the same computer, with complete privacy but also with complete and

immediate access at all times. Already the cost of information is going

down drastically. A few years ago one hour of computer time cost several thousand dollars. It now costs perhaps one hundred to two hundred

dollars. Ten years hence it may cost as little as a dollar or two. Eventually

it should cost no more than an hour of lighting, that is, a penny or less. In one important respect the computer differs greatly from the electric generator : an information industry can function without a computer.

This shows clearly in the field of education. Learning- and teaching are going to be more deeply affected by the new

availability of information than any other area of human life. There is great need for a new approach, new methods and new tools in teaching, man's oldest and most reactionary craft. There is great need for a rapid

increase in the productivity of learning. There is, above all, great need for methods that will make the teacher effective and multiply his or her efforts and competence. Teaching is, in fact, the only traditional craft in which we have not yet fashioned the tools that make an ordinary person capable

of superior performance. In this respect, teaching is far behind medicine,

where the tools first became available a century or more ago. It is, of course, infinitely behind the mechanical crafts where we have had effective apprenticeship for thousands and thousands of years. We need a new concept of information and a new understanding of learn- ing and of teaching. But while the "information revolution" will have its most dramatic impact on education, teaching and learning may not use computers at all or may use them only marginally. The materials, while

certainly quite different from what we have been using—as different as

the printed book of 500 years ago was from the oral tradition of the

earlier schools—probably do not need to be big machines with huge

memories. The amount of information needed throughout all the years

of formal schooling is actually quite limited and hardly requires anything

as complex as an electronic memory. "Programs" can be a great deal simpler than anything the computer uses. An ordinary desk calendar is, after all, also a "program," and a highly effective one. Information systems

without computers, in others words, are perfectly possible and may indeed

be as important as the systems built around the computer. Yet without the computer we would not have understood that information,

like electricity, is a form of energy. Electricity is the cheapest, most

plentiful, and most versatile energy for mechanical work. But information is energy for mind work. This is indeed the first era when energy

for mind work has been available. Information through the ages has been

all but completely lacking. At best it has been expensive, late, and quite

unreliable. Most people in responsible positions today, whether in govern- ment, in hospitals, in research labs, or in business, spend most of their time scratching to get a little incorrect and unreliable information on what happened yesterday.
The impact of cheap, reliable, fast, and universally available information

will easily be as great as was the impact of electricity. Certainly young

people, a few years hence, will use information systems as their normal

tools, much as they now use the typewriter or the telephone. Yet the telephone eighty years ago evoked somewhat the same panic the computer now does. In another generation, it is safe to predict, people will have

learned that the computer is their tool and not their master, and that it enables them to do the mind work they want to do and are unable to do

today for want of cheap, reliable, and fast information. The information industry will create tremendous employment opportunities.

The United States needs, for instance, around a million computer program- mers between now and 1975—as against the 150,000 to 200,000 we have

had to date. The computer programmer is to the information industry what

the worker on the assembly line was to the mass production industry of yesterday : the semiskilled but highly paid, highly productive worker. But

at the same time, the information technology also creates a great many

more highly skilled and demanding jobs, systems engineers, for instance, of whom we might need up to half a million or so within the next ten

years. Yet these are only beginnings [6].

References

[1] Bedford, Norman M., Onsi, Mohammed, Measuring the Value of Information : An Information Theory Ai^proach, taken from Management : A Book of Readings (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. New York, 1968), p. 529.

[2] McDonough, Adrian M., Information Economics and Management Systems

(McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1963), p. 76. [3] Bedford. Norman M., Onsi, Mohammed. Measuring the Value of Information : An Information Theory Approach, taken from Management : A Book

of Readings (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. New York, 1968),

p. 529.

[4] A widely distributed humorous saying of unknown origin.

[5] Bedford, Norman M., Onsi, Mohammed, Measuring the Value of Information : An Information Theory Approach, taken from Management : A Book

of Readings (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. New York. 1968),

p. 530.

[6] Drucker, Peter F., The Age of Discontinuity (Harper and Row Publishers,

Inc., 49 East 33rd Street. New York, New York, 1968). pp. 24-28.

57
THE ACCREDITATION OF

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES JURISDICTIONS

by R. T. Williams, Director, Consumer Service Division, Texas

Department of A^jriculture

Within the past four years, most of our

states have received vahiable equipment and

standards to develop and maintain weights

and measures laboratories. Texas received this

equipment only last year, and the program in

the remaining states is in its final stages.

This has made possible the establishment or upgrading of first-class laboratory facilities in

all our 50 states. These laboratories can provide

a standard of services for the benefit of con- sumers and industry alike. And the public has

the right to expect and demand a high level of performance from

these facilities. But perhaps something is lacking at this stage. While we have the

equipment to do the job, do we have a measure by which to gage our own excellence in the performance of these duties? We deal in

weights and measures every day. By what means may we measure

ourselves ? Perhaps this void can be filled by a self-devised program of accreditation of our weights and measures jurisdictions. Now, accreditation

is not a word we frequently use in everyday conversation ; but it is a process by which we recognize and judge competence in many endeavors. Accredit, in its simplest terms, means "to give credit to" or "to have confidence in." It further means "to authorize or stamp with

authority." From whom may we, as state and local weights and measures officials, obtain this stamp of approval? The logical answer is "from ourselves, operating as an organized body on a national level." Accreditation of weights and measures jurisdictions has been con- sidered in past years; but the press of other duties and obligations

has pushed its serious consideration into the background. Now that

nearly all the 50 states have the facilities and new standards on which to build up a comprehensive program, is it not time to give

another look to the possible accreditation of our efforts? The idea has immense appeal to me personally; and I cannot take

any credit for the revival of the proposal at this time. It was submitted to me shortly after I took over as President of the Southern

Association last year, in a letter from Clarion Kinlaw of North

Carolina. Marion made a simultaneous inquiry of the National

Bureau of Standards, asking, in effect, "Why is this not possible?"

58
And I am here b^^lny to a«k you, as representatives of weights and

mf^nsures jiirisdirtioTis throiigrhoiu the nation, "Why not?'' Why can- not we devise an accreditation plan as a means for the evahaation of our programs with respect to laws, regulations, standards, test methods, equipment, and performance? Could not this be the vehicle by

which we can promote and encourage uniformity and excellence of

weights and measures administration and enforcement throughout

the United States? What better way to create motivation and incentives among jurisdictions and officials? If ever the need existed, and

if ever the time was ripe, I believe it is now

I recognize that perhaps not every jurisdiction is ready immediately to launch a self-evaluation and improvement plan by reason of

budgetary limitations or other considerations. To shoot for goals

takes time and money. Yet, it is not too early to establish these goals.

And may I stress that this would be a voluntary program which a

jurisdiction could enter into at any time it appeared to be ready.

But the goals must be set and the plans established beforehand.

Certainly I do not have a full-blown structure of national accreditation to present to you this afternoon. This is a project for all of us

to delineate in a methodical, practical fashion. Basic to such a plan,

however, is the establishment of a model w^eights and measures pro- gram to which other programs may be compared and rated by an

impartial organization or body. Criteria must be developed which

would serve as guidelines to weights and measures administrators for

evaluation of their own program structures and operations.

Now, a Certificate of National Accreditation on my wall in Austin

can be just another piece of paper in a nice frame if it does not have some real meaning behind it. I do not need another piece of paper on my wall. But I would like to earn a certificate, awarded by my

professional peers, which indicates that certain standards of professionalism have been met. Or if our Texas activities do not quite

conform to certain proposed standards, I would like to be able to go

before my superiors in Austin, or before the Texas Legislature, and

say, "Look ! Here are the national recommendations by which my

work is judged. In order to render this maximum service, I need

additional funds, a more adequately trained staff and field force."

I believe that a universal accreditation program would be an excellent lever in helping me obtain my needs. And certainly it could

eventually help elevate the reputation and status of all of us in our

profession.

Well, by whom will we be judged? When I received Marion Kinlaw's letter, my first reaction was that this would be a good i)lan to put into effect within the Southern Weights and Measures Association. Let the accreditation come from the Association itself, and be

awarded to the member states who qualify. But on reflection, it

59
was immediately apparent that it has greater potential and is more

meaningful if it is national in scope.

It seems more logical to have the program centered Avithin the

National Conference on Weights and Measures. A committee of

qualified men with good regional distribution could study the feasi- bility of such a program and lay the groundwork. Or perhaps nuich

of the administrative burden and detail could be shifted to the

Office of Weights and Measures, Avhich has the physical capability

to handle much of the evaluation work which would be necessary. I have no set plan to recommend, nor suggested procedures to offer. I think this properly belongs with this body if you agree that

we can benefit from an accreditation program. I merely lay the subject open to you, and I invite and encourage your discussion and

suggestions.

FORUM DISCUSSION

Mr. M. Greenspan (New York City, N. Y.) : Mr. Stabler, most

of us here, I believe, can be considered middle management. The

biggest constraints placed upon us in the management process is that

many of our superiors are political appointees or elected officials and,

in some cases, are not experienced managers. How can we develop

the kind of information we have heard about today in a meaningful manner so that our superiors can provide greater assistance to us

in the management process?

Mr. Stabler: That is a problem that is faced by nearly everyone

in weights and measures administration. Every weights and measures

jurisdiction is a separate entity, and each has its own peculiar set of

problems. However, it is a necessity for each jurisdiction to develop

and compile effective and complete information concerning its program and to show the benefit of its operations in relation to eco- nomic impact.

Mr. Greenspan : In recent years consumer protection has over- shadowed weights and measures. The keyword today is impact. I have made presentations, not on the basis of the number of devices

tested or the number of condemnations, but on the economic impact

upon the consumer due to lack of increased weights and measures

enforcement. And yet, these reports have had literally no eifect, and

the feedback that I get is, "It has little or no impact."

Mr. Stabler : There is no guarantee of a certain or immediate success. However, the percentages for success are greater Avith the type

of operation and management information that was suggested by

the panel speakers.

Mr. D. I. Offner (St. Louis, Mo.) : Mr. Mattimoe and Mr. Edgerly both made reference to the fact that savings to the consumer

60
were quantifiable. I feel these data can get you into a "numbers

game."

Mr. Greenspan: I Avould welcome assistance on the use and interpretation of such information, as I would not want to be open to the

charge that I am only involved in the numbers game.

Mr. Edgerly: This is the basic problem that Ave were first faced

with in terms of developing some type of assistance for you as a manager. First of all, to find what it is that you do, stating exactly

the number of devices and types of prepackaged commodities that

are subject to your jurisdiction. This has been completed. At the same time, we also found that it was possible to quantify the relative

value of commodities and services subject to your jurisdiction on the

basis of dollars and cents that are publisted through the Bureau of

the Census.

It is true that the complete accuracy of figures has a tendency to be more nebulous as you develop information from the data acquired.

We have used a computer, because of its high speed and accuracy,

to record actual errors in dollars and cents for both devices and pre- packaged commodities. We can then come up with a cost of error per device or per prepackaged commodity, and extend this error to the total retail sales for the device or commodity in a particuUir

state. The important thing is that we now have a mechanism for allowing us to show the kind of impact weights and measures operations

have on the economy of a jurisdiction. We really do not know

whether dollars and cents and consumer loss or manufacturer loss are going to be the answer that will bring innovations and greater

support to weights and measures programs. We think that possibly

they may be. In the very near future we hope to publish a file of

commodities and devices, based on a standard industrial classifica- tion code, that will give you dollar values for each commodity and

device inspected in your jurisdiction. The use of such data in your

inspection program should allow for more effective allocation of

resources. Mr. C. Wooten (Florida) : I believe Mr. Mattimoe said that he

had checked 120,000 rental car odometers during the year. What i)er- centage of these did not meet the requirements, and, of these, where was the correction made?

Mr. Mattimoe: I said that we are required to check 120,000 vehicle odometers in Hawaii, whether or not they are commercially used.

The law requires that, every time a vehicle is sold, the odometer ac- curacy must be verified by a state agency or a state-licensed agency.

That program is being implemented now. We are using what is tantamount to a three-turn test procedure. It is the responsibility,

under the statute, of the manufacturer or sales agency of the vehicle

to correct any that are not accurate.

61
Mr. WouTk.\ : With rcdpcct t.) youv selev'ti\'e testing program in ilawuii. do y^nx place any type of appro\ al sticker on a device when

It ln;^; .cclt-d ? Mix. J>l-iTriMO£ : At this particular time we do. We plan to phase

rhib uLiL probably in the beginning of next year. Mk. M. L. Kixlaw (North Carolina) : 1 hope that the incoming

Executive Committee will consider making a study on the accreditatioi: program as suggested b}' ]Mr. Williams. Also, is it intended to accredit only a weights and measures laboratory or the entire pro- gram of the jurisdiction '^ ISIr. Williams : We could begin wirh the laboratory program and

enlarge it later to include the entire program of a jurisdiction. This

is an important factor that must be studied.

Mr. Stabler : Most of you are familiar with the current laboratory

accreditation program conducted by the Office of Weights and Measures. This is called the laboratory auditing program, and the state laboratories" are certified if they meet certain j)erformance criteria for standardization. There is a very important reason for NBS to

certify the state laboratory creditability : XBS has custody of the

national standards, and it is very appropriate for standards activity

in the states to be traceable to XBS.

An overall accreditation program could include the present laboratory aaditing program. A criterion for the accreditation of a state program would be for tlie state to be a satisfactory participant in the

NBS laboratory program. Another criterion would be for the state to have at least the essential features of the Model State Weights and

Measures Law^ as adopted by this Conference. Other factors would

be to have adequate field standards for testing commercial equipment

and also adequate personnel based upon proper training and professional capability.

Dr. L. J. Gordon (Weights and Measures Research Center, Denison University) : The changes that I have seen in my tours of the

various states since I was a member of the XBS Advisory Committee

15 years ago have been dramatic. I can see in a few years ahead, with

the potential of accreditation, a tremendous uplift in qualit}- of the

performance in the several states with respect to their programs.

Mr. H. E. Smith (San Mateo, Calif.) : In California recently the

State Department of Agriculture upgraded the qualifications of

inspectors to require a college degree. Has any thought been given to the accreditation of exi^erienced inspectors Avho have completed the

NBS training courses?

]\Ir. Williams: The accreditation of [)ersonnel could very well be

a vital part of the ovenill program. The completion of training

courses would be one way for personnel to achieve accreditation, but

this is only one detail that must be considered in the [)roposed stud3\

62
]Mr. L. O. Leexerts (Purex Corp.) : I do not think that weights

and measures personnel are alone in their mid-management problem

in not being able to convince their superiors. In industry, many

managers are sent to management training courses, only to find when

they come back that they are up against a stone wall when they try

to implement new activities or practices. While some may think that

weights and measures is not a very glamorous profession, you people

certainly have a lot of power, and we respect it very much. Our

company has had very good relationships with you officials, and I can say nothing but good about our contacts with weights and measures officials. Mr. Stabt.er : T think one of the real reasons for an accreditatiou

program or for tlie employment of modern management techniques

is the realization that perhaps weights and measures is not as uniform as we would like to think. If you look at it from our position,

from the National Bureau of Standards, where we have intimate

contact with many, many officials, we recognize that there is a long

way to go to achieve uniformity throughout our nation, and accreditation may be the vehicle.

Mr. E. W. Searles (INIedina County, Ohio) : I am management in jMedina County, and I am also labor. I think I have over the past

33 years ui:)graded the work of weights and measures someAvhat. How

in my small jurisdiction can I prove loss or gain by my work in

actual dollars and cents? I would like to be able to make some kind

of a report to leave so that my successor will be able to get more

money, more help, and more equipment than I have. How can I boost

the fellow that is going to take my place ? INIr. Edgerly: There are very many jurisdictions that, because they

are small, will never have the advantages of what the computer can

bring. I think there is a very crucial need, therefore, that the material we are putting into the computer be in some way transcribed for

use on a manual basis. The mathematics that we have in the computer

can be done by hand. I think that the formulas that we have developed could be included in a publication. When we feel that our

figures actually work, then I think we should publish something for use by all weights and measures officials on a manual basis as opposed

to the computer.

Mr. Mattimoe: Somewhere between the devices that are available

to tlie J^ureau and the small desk top calculator that is available to

us, whicli we usually call a conq)uter, there may be a field where you

might land. These are not quite as expensive as they sometimes

api)eai- to be. They are peripheral equii)uient which are great little supi^ort items. In our case, we were able to get off the ground on a semiautomatic l)asis with such e(|uii)nient. That represented an investment, without the ])rintout devjcp, of only $::?,700. With the ])rint(^i]t device, it was douMe tlin< •Pi-j n inly y-u ^'ouhl (]n your own

writing if tl^e device would do the cnlculatino- f)r vou.

63
]Mr. J. E, Bo^\t:x (Newton, Mass.) : For several years I have been

trying to dramatize my figures so that they are not merely statistics of so many items checked. From the Department of Taxes at the

State House, I liave found out how many gallons of gasoline are sold

in the state during the year and how many gallons of fuel oil are

sold. Assuming that we are an average community, I point out that

a 2 percent error on 5 gallons of gasoline comes out to about 22 cubic

inches. We try to hold all of our gasoline pumps to 3i/4 cubic inches

of tolerance. So then a 2 percent error Avould amount to so many

hundred thousand dollars for gasoline and so many hundred thousand dollars for fuel oil. I have done the same thing with food. I take the state population

and divide it to get a proportional effect for my locality. These three

items totaled up come to about a million and a half dollars. I think

that makes a rather dramatic picture and is a pretty fair estimate of

the imj)ortance of the work I am doing. I point out that what I am

doing is pro'bably saving about that much and perhaps considerably more. Mr. Stabler : You are certainly on the right track. These figures can be related to actual compliance levels which effectively dramatize the situation. We see, of course, many annual reports from the

states m which they do report compliance levels. For example, in some of the jurisdictions with very w^ell established large-capacity

scale testing programs, the compliance level ranges TO to 95 percent.

Ba^d upon the 25 percent noncompliance or whatever the figure is, you can then translate this into hard, cold dollars

Mr. J. R. Kalkman (Canton, Ohio) : Mr. Stabler, did I understand you to say that you want to have nothing to do with consumer

protection in the weights and measures field ? Mr, Stabler : No, I did not. You must respond. How you respond

is the important consideration. If you are technically competent offi- cials and get involved with pantyhose and long-life battery guarantees,

and other things that are nontechnically based, then you will, in very

short order, lose your technical capabilities. You Avill no longer

carry test weights, will no longer be an expert in meters, weighing

equipment, or whatever it takes to do your technical job. You will no

longer have the capability to do the technical work if your emphasis

is too heavily on the nontechnical.

I think in the State of New Jersey weights and measures has be- come a division within the Department of Consumer Aff'airs, We

emphasized in our discussion with the Commissoner from New Jer- sey the necessity of maintaining the third-person stance and per- mitting the Weights and Measures Division to function technically.

We said that "hot-line" complaints and in\'estigations should go to different people who do not need to be technically trained. It takes

64
four years to thoroughly train a competent weights and measures

inspector. A hot-line artist can be trained in a few weeks to do his

job. This is the concern of the National Bureau of Standards, and

I know it is also the concern of weights and measures. Mr. J. C. Mays (Dade County, Fla.) : I wonder how many con- sumer representatives we have at this meeting. I was with the City

of Miami until 2i/^ years ago, when I was expanded to the county.

We now have the Consumer Protection Division, so I have been able

to get more money for my division. I certainly agree that weights

and measures should receive emphasis in the work, and we can ar- range our programing so as to have one day set aside for consumers and bring them more into our plans.

Mr. Stabler : That was the substance of m}^ remarks. You have to respond in order to get a piece of the action, but be careful how you

respond.

Mr. J. M. Chohamin (Middlesex County, N. J.) : Mr. Mattimoe,

you commented in your presentation on an experimental monthly

compliance report having to do with gasoline inspections. You said

it was only a temporary thing to gather information that was nec- essary for your computer.

Mr. Mattimoe; At this moment I do not have the authority to perpetuate it. Hopefully I Avill get the authority when I get back.

Interesting information is being generated out of the data that we

are collecting, particularly when we reduce it to cost and value. Mr. Mays : Mr. Edgerly, how important is this dollar impact

above something else? Mr. Edgerly: I think people generally understand dollars and

cents above tolerances and noncompliance, and to this extent this is primarily why we think it will have a significant impact. Getting

into the area of devices, though, you get into a very nebulous area, and that is, "How do you compute the value for checking the scale?"

Mr. Mays : In other words, if you are going to make a presentation,

rather than making it on errors or compliance figures, transpose

these figTires into dollars. Mr. Edgerly : I find in a lot of cases that peop'e seem to be apprehensi^-e about using their imagination in coming up with these re- ports. Maybe it is because they want to be absolutely sure that these

data are correct. Mr. Mays: I would like to encourage the recommendations that

Mr. Williams presented on laboratory accreditation and bring it into jurisdictional areas on personnel and performance, and to encourage it to be done almost immediately if this is feasible. Mr. W. I. Thompson (Monmouth County, N. J.) : Mr. Stabler,

you were recently quoted in the Wall Street Journal with a sum of

money that represented the average savings to a family of four over

a period of a year's activities of the weights and measures depart65
ment. That figure approximates the same one that I heard when I came to work 31 years ago. Has not inflation changed it somewhat

and how did you arrive at that figure?

Mr. Stabler: We estimate the average savings per family to be

about $150 at today's costs. Mr. R. L. Thompsox (INIaryland) : ^Ir. Williams^ Gene Smith from

California mentioned college degree requirements. I would prefer

that, if we are talking about accreditation of personnel, some con- sideration be given to other items such as attitude, moral character,

and on-the-job training.

Mr. Williams : Most of the things that we have discussed here this

afternoon are discussed in great detail in the regional seminars for

weights and measures directors and supervisors. I would recommend

that you attend one of these, and you will get some answers to a lot of questions that are in your minds right now. They are well worth

attending. . Mr. Stabler : For those who are not familiar with these seminars, we are holding seminars for weights and measures directors and

supervisors. The course content is considerably different for the two. Mr. L. a. Rick (St. Louis County, Mo.) : Has there been any comparison of jurisdictions where there is a fee charge and jurisdictions

where there is no fee charge so far as operations, efficiency, and so

forth, is concerned?

Mr. Stabler : None that I am aware of. A study of the effectiveness

of enforcement programs in fee versus nonfee jurisdictions would be

very interesting.

Mr. Rick : As I keep getting jurisdiction over more municipalities, I am having trouble in getting enough personnel. I keep contending

that weights and measures should be classified the same as police,

fire, and health departments, and should not have to carry its own

weight. In St. Louis County, it would cost 6I/2 cents per year per

capita to cover the expenses of my office without any fees coming in. If I could convince the people what they could expect for their

614 cents per person, I think we could do a much better job.

Mr. J. R. Bird (New Jersey) : Several years ago Mr. J. R. Roberts

from ^lanchester, England, was here, and I had quite a discussion

with him about accreditation and licensing. In England, weights and

measures people start when they are about 18 years old, and they

have a study curriculum that they have to go through. They take

examinations and consider themselves professionals. In the past few

years since I have come to these forums, I have seen the upgrading

of the programs to what I would call professional status, and I think

that many of us are beginning to feel that we are professionals. The

approach that has been suggested here is a milestone in weights and

measures in the United States, and I think that it should be pursued

further.

66
MORNING SESSION-^WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1971

(J. L. O'Neill, Vice Chairman. Presiding)

THE CONSUMER CHALLENGE: WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?

by S. E. Cohen, Washington Editor, Advertising Age

As we enter the 19T0's, the people of the

United States are confronted with a great

national debate whicli questions our most fundamental political and economic assumptions.

Hanging over us are social and environmental

problems of the most pervasive gravity. I do

not believe I overstate the case when I say that

many serious people—people who are by no means revolutionaries—wonder whether the

political and economic institutions which have

been so productive for so many of us will cope

with the world of the 19T0's. I am sure it is not necessary for me to recount the blessings which

have accrued to us in terms of individual liberty and opportunity for

self fulfillment. Nevertheless we are discovering that our institutions,

like all others, have shortcomings, and these shortcomings are catching up with us. The concentration of unskilled and under-employed people in our urban ghettoes is a product of our institutions too, and so are the

clouds of smog hanging over our cities, the contaminated clams and

oysters, and the desperate race to find burying space for our garbage.

Henry Ford II recently cautioned us against attributing these problems to scapegoats—to the government ofldcials and businessmen who

have been making the big decisions. But in a sense he merely dramatizes the seriousness of what we face. For if these problems are not

the doings of evil men—which they certainly are not—then they

must represent a normal side effect of our system. Since the problems

are here, and very real, it is obvious they will continue to get worse

if we continue to leave our public decisions to the kind of happenstance we have tolerated in the past.

The debate over the adequacy of our institutions confronts the

advertising and marketing world through the phenomenon we desig- nate as "consumerism." Consumerism says we have been giving busi- nessmen too much freedom to determine what is marketed and how

it is promoted. In a thousand and one different ways, the consumerists press for ground-rules imposed by society which seek to insure

that the competitive process remains witliin j^erimeters that preclude

67
the marketing of products and the use of selling techniques involving

potential harm to the individual, the environment, and the values of our nation.

It is too soon to speculate about the degree of change the consumerists expect to achieve. Two important articles, one by John Cabot

Lodge in the Harvard Business Review and the other by Prof.

Charles Reich of Yale Law School (the controversial book, "The

Greening of America'-), offer something of an overview. Both say, in effect, that w^e must find some new balance between the public and

private sectors if we are to muster the muscle we will need to deal

with such problems as the renovation of our cities and the restora- tion of our environment. In the pragmatic way of the politician,

President Nixon seems to be addressing himself to the same problem. Through revenue sharing, for example, he seeks to revitalize

state, and local government as additional centers of power to improve

the performance of the public sector. Behind these discussions, regardless of the vocabulary used, is the

growing fear that our political and economic institutions produce

waste, both human and material, on a scale which is no longer tol- erable. An analogy is drawn between the way we temporary residents

of this globe treat the earth's resources and the way we expect the

trust officer of a bank to manage an estate. If the trust officer dissi- pated the estate Avith the abandon that we use the earth's resources

which, after all, are the heritage of posterity—that officer Avould be

jailed.

Consumerism and environmentalism, two of the major forces which

have moved into the political scene during the past decade, come

from a common root and have common purposes.

The people who have been raising these issues inevitably begin to question the most basic assumptions which marketing people have

held about the social utility of the process of competitive product

innovation itself. These critics are not necessarily ungrateful for the

material comforts that have come their way as products are refined

and improved. But they are applying cost-benefit factors which indi- cate some so-called progress may be beyond the means of our society.

LTltimately, we reach the heart of the dilemma : How can w^e re- tain the vast potential good of competitive free enterprise as a pro- vider of goods and ser^dces, while at the same time assuring that the

public's safety and welfare—and the resources of this globe which

are the heritage of posterity—are not left to chance ? In a moment I will move on to the next segment of this discussion.

Meanwhile I urge you to keep in mind this crucial fact : As a nation

we have profound confidence in the proposition that our needs for

goods and services are best served when left to the creative force

of the private sector. The incentive for the private sector is, of course. 68
the opportunity to profit and personal gain. But society's interest is solely the goods and services it needs.

Private enterprise will remain the mainstay of our economy only

if society is satisfied with its performance as a supplier of goods

and services. And society will remain satisfied only so long as it believes the price is right, not only the price in dollars, but also the

price in terms of the impact on our resources and our values.

Until now I have been describing the deepseated forces for change

which are at work. When consumerism first emerged in the early

1960's, many businessmen were certain it was a gimmick contrived

by political opportunists, and it would go away if only Esther Peter- son was driven from the White House staff. In view of what 1 have

just described, I trust you can see w^hy this was a case of wishful

thinking on the part of people who were refusing to see the world

around them.

Consumerism is deeprooted, involving millions of poor and underprivileged people who may not be articulate, but who know when

they are being cheated, and tens of millions of affluent suburbanites

(the kind who do not normally look to government for help) who

are weary of the insults and indignities of an impersonal and opportunist society. Automation, affluence, mass merchandising, and urbanization have changed the quality of life in America, and not always

for the better. In this transformation, the individual finds the competitive marketing system a mixed blessing which brings unmatched

material possessions to all of us, but sometimes exacts a price in

other than money.

Consumers have found themselves frustrated by machines too complicated to service, and frustrated by reports that they have been

eating foods containing chemicals of questionable safety. Even the

multitude of product choices becomes a mixed blessing as the con- sumer struggles to make value comparisons and maintain his

possessions.

Beyond this, there are the environmental catastrophes that can

develop from competitive product innovation. The marketer does his

thing in terms of what will sell, and the consumer, no less materialistic, contentedly indulges himself. Consider, for a moment, the one- man, one-car phenomenon, as millions of sovereign suburbanites

migrate bumper to bumper into our cities, spewing their trails of

hydrocarbons and lethal lead behind them. The motor titans did not

plot to smother our cities in smog. They simply kept outdoing each

other with bigger and fancier and more powerful cars because their

record books showed that was the way to improve their market share

and their earnings. Consumers found this an agreeable way of life; and we were deeply involved l)efore we sensed that unpleasant, and

forbidding, implications had been overlooked.

69
Consumerism and environmentalism is insisting that we reappraise our assumptions about the rights and obligations of businessmen in

general and marketers in particular. For the next few moments, let us explore some of the points of contact. Friction Point No. 1: Product safety—safety for the individual

and safety for the environment.—Next week the Senate Commerce

Committee will begin hearings on product safety legislation. There is a substantial amount of agreement in principle about what needs to be done. There will continue to be problems galore. But we are equipping ourselves to prevent the mass merchandising of products which

become hazardous under normal conditions of use, and we are improving the prospect that the tested and properly engineered product

will not be displaced by shoddy and carelessly made products offered

at attractive discounts.

In the regulation of drugs, and in the control of water and air

pollution^ we are often dealing with problems which are on the

frontier of knowledge. Often the public may be demanding a cer- tainty which human experience is unable to provide. Nevertheless, someone has to try. So w^e are going to have more laws and regulations in these areas. Moreover, we are going to find the public temper

getting shorter and shorter with opportunists who complicate the

incomprehensible with self-serving advertising that misstates problems and their solutions.

Friction Point No. 2: The technological gap between the ability of

sellers to sell and the abUity of consumers to comprehend what they

are buying.—This is due in part to the products, wliich are often

incredibly complicated. But it is also due to selling techniques, which

are often designed to compound the confusion.

Advertising is less blatantly deceptive than in the past. But it may

be more subtle in implying more than it really says. Congress and

the FTC are both responding by demanding that advertisers be pre

pared to disclose documentation behind their performance claims.

This fall, in an effort to update itself on the psychological tricks that

are used in fashioning ads, the FTC will be conducting a hearing

that will look into what we call ''the second level of communication,"

the hidden message visible in neither the picture nor the words when

the ad is parsed or examined.

The technological gaps would exist, howerer, even if there were no deception as such. Marketers rightly recognize that values are often subjective and may not be measurable solely in dollars. So cars are sold as sex symbols, and teenagers are told hair goo enhances

their chance to "make it." It does not stop at that. Food is differentiated by packaging,

pricing comparisons blurr ed by odd-ounce packages and tie-in promotions. Common chemicals, recliristened with fancy names, are peddled

70
as miracle ingredients that whiten teeth, give better gas mileage, or

stop a headache twice as fast without churning the stomach acid. It

is hardly surprising that consumerists should be pleading for help

and that government should be responding.

Truth-in-packaging legislation and truth-in-lending legislation were passed because Congress feels consumers need help in making

product comparisons. Regulatory agencies feel the same way. That

is why FTC adopts rules requiring the disclosure of the light output

of bulbs and the octane rating of gasoline. That is why FDA. is giving top priority to demands for improved forms of food labeling

to provide more useful information about ingredients and nutrition.

Virginia Knauer has scored her most important successes in this area too. She has been influential, for example, in promoting bett^.r labeling for cosmetics and fruit-juice drinks. And she maintains

pressure for the disclosure of "how to buy" information accumulated

by government in its capacity of purchaser of consumer goods.

Sellers like to argue that there is ample information already available for consumers who seek it. But Richard Hoiton. Dean of the

School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, replies that

this begs the question. Our marketplace consists of full-time professional sellers pitted against part-time amateur buyers, he explains.

Many buy with but little thought about comparative value much of

the time; but almost everyone ultimately faces situations where he

longs for facts. Consumerism speaks for millions who do not want

to make careers out of shopping. They want shopping made more

rational, and the politicians are getting the message.

I suspect that some of the marketers who have been defending the

informational razzle dazzle are beginning to discover that there is another side to it. Millions of consumers despair when it comes to an intelligent buying decision for a major appliance or for clothing

staples, so they turn to private branders like Sears or J. C. Penney,

confident that their buyers know how to pick the best values. As this

reality becomes more apparent, I suspect that more and more busi- nessmen will begin to recognize that improved information systems

are in their interest, as well as in the interest of the consumer.

Friction Point A^o. 3 ; The impact of selling on our physical^ social^ and moral environment.—Modern marketing practices are often

intrusive to the point of rudeness. So FTC responds with proposals

to ban negative option selling. Congress protects consumers from

unordered merchandise and the mischief of the credit bureau computer. And Warren lOarl Berger, in his first opinion as Chief Justice,

goes out of his way to declare that a man's mailbox is part of his

castle. Bej^ond this, there are nnnierous ^'ontroversies which relate to the

impact of selling on niir values. Environmentalists contend adver71
tising promotes a materialism which leads to senseless destruction of

natural resources and mindless poisoning of air and water. They are

in court arguing that broadcasters be required to offset ads for cars and gasoline with antipollution messages which discuss the impact

of big cars in terms of traffic jams, smog, and the environmental

carnage triggered by highway grading.

National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting recently presented

the Federal Communications Commission with a worldwide study of

children's TV, which suggests American kids are victims of unbridled greed. The survey shows twice as many commercials on chil- dren's TV here as the next most commercialized nation, and many

more commercials than on nighttime adult shows. Broadcasters seek

to maximize their profit from every time segment of the day, so a

chfld's program which fails to attract sponsors is yanked, regardless

of quality. Networks which are the centers of talent and resources in our system provide specific children's programs only one day out of

seven, though kids are watching TV all seven days.

Robert Choate touched a raw nerve when he discussed breakfast

cereals last year—less because of his ratings of the cereals than his

comment on the sales techniques. He found that the cereals most

heavily promoted to children were often highest in sugar and lowest

in food value. Parents are uneasy about this cynical exploitation of

their children. Recently FCC asked the public how it feels about

children's TV, and it has received an outpouring of 80,000 comments,

almost all of them hostile. Clearly something has to change here. There is concern about the sheer volume of advertising, particularly for certain types of products which are of doubtful value at

best. Senator Frank IMoss is among those w^ho fear that the torrent of ads for headache remedies, wake-up and slow-down pills, and

stomach relievers is making us a nation of pill addicts. His newest

idea is an Institute of Advertising, Marketing, and Society to try to determine how advertising changes people's habits and life style.

Well, these are the kinds of issues that are being raised ; and as you

know, the marketplace of ideas (in Congress, in the regulatory

agencies, and in the courts) is overstocked with proposed remedies.

Some, such as new laws on product safety and new forms of con- sumer representation in government, are likely to pass in this Congress. Others, particularly some of the recent FTC cases, keep the

business comjimnity uptight.

We are w^itnessing the evolution of a new balance of influence in our society. And the survival of free institutions depends on our success in achieving the kind of balance which will pennit us to deal

with our social and environmental problems before they overwhelm

us. 72
I want to conclude with these observations

1. Our social and environmental problems are getting worse, and

the critics are becoming more demanding. In Los Angeles last January, there were two smog alerts in a single day—not routine ozone

smog, but deadly carbon monoxide smog. I have seen estimates that

highway traffic will double by 1986 and redouble by 2000. Imagine

what that can imply in terms of environmental carnage, urban and

suburban sprawl, and patients for the psychiatrists.

2. Consumerism is not just another name for big government. It is a new element in the interplay of conflicting forces in our society,

and it is here to stay. Consumerists try to use government, just as other special interests do. So they fight for a consumer advocate

within the government, and they shower the regulatory agencies

with proposals. But they are equally concerned about policy makers

and business, and they have been reminding us that businessmen

often function as judge, jury, and prosecutor in approving products or selling methods that become hazards to our lives and our

values. Consrmerism forces more accountability from government

and business, and in this sense it becomes a positive force, helping

us grope our way toward a safer and more equitable society.

3. Consumerism functions as both the antagonist and ally of the

public servant. The consumer advocate confronts government with

still another demanding form of oversight. He is often unmerciful,

and occasionally unreasonable. But his goal is essentially unselfish;

and he can be a source of strength for those who battle in the public

interest. In the absence of mechanisms that provided a true, independent advocate for the consumer view, government, by default, has

surrogated to itself a special obligation to present the consumer's

case. The emergence of competent professional advocates for the con- sumer can leave government people free to consider with greater

objectivity the broader public interest, apart from the desires of consumers.

4. Business faces closer government control as a result of defeats

it is suffering in Washington and in state capitols. But it suffers these defeats because it is losing a much bigger struggle^—the struggle for the confidence of the public. One survey after another shows

the public resents and distrusts much that has been happening in our

marketplace. The public knows something is wrong, and it wants

change. Only by becoming its own most critical critic, can the busi- ness community preserve its essential freedoms and help our nation

meet its most fundamental obligation— the preservation and perfection of the society we fashion for those who will follow.

73
FORUM ON MERCHANDISING

E. A. Vadelund, Office of Weights and Measures, Moderator

We have on our merchandising panel four

people, four topics. I will introduce them and

each will make a presentation, after which we

hope to have a dialog in the form of questions

and answers. Our first speaker this morning will be Mr.

Harold H. Smith of the Cannon Mills Company. Mr. Smith is a member of the Cannon

Legal Department, and his topic will be of concern to this group inasmuch as the Conference is currently considering amendments on

textiling labeling. His subject will be Textile Package Labeling.

Our second panel member is Mr. David Levine, Market Manager

of the Plastics Products and Resins Division of the Monsanto Company. Of great concern to weights and measures over the past twelve

months has been polyethylene film, and Mr. Levine will take us through the thick and thin of that. Our third panel member is Mr. Ed Wolski, Manager of Quality

Control for Colgate-Palmolive Company. Pie is currently a member

of the Liaison Committee of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures and will speak on the topic ''Does Equity Prevail."

Our fourth member is Mrs. Esther Peterson. She has been A^ery

active in government, first in the Department of Labor and later as Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Att'airs and

Chairman of the President's Committee on Consumer Interests. She

is at present Consumer Advisor to the President of (jiant Food

Incorporated, and will speak on a topic that is being considered by

the Committee on Laws and Regulations, "L^nit Pricing."'

74
THE UNIQUE ASPECTS OF TEXTILE PACKAGE

LABELING

by H. H. Smith, Attorney, Legal Department, Cannons Mills

Company, Kannapolis, North Carolina

The title of this paper may be slightly misleading—a mislabeling, if you will, of its contents. There is really nothing which deserves to be designated or considered unique in the technology of the actual labeling of the package of

a textile product. There is no problem with the

commodity or product being so extremely deli- cate or supersensitive to pressure that unusual

care is required in the application of the package or the label thereon. No variation to an

abnormally high or an abnormally low temperature at the time of packaging and labeling of the finished product

is required. There is no problem of absorption of odors or aromas from the packaging areas or from the conventional materials utilized

in the package or the label, or in the application of either. Being a dimension product, so far as measurements are concerned, textiles heretofore have not been and presently are not confronted with the

problem of humidity control at the time of packaging or with the

problem of dehydration after packaging and labeling; but mindful

of the technique of "watering tlie ropes,'"'' numufacturers of goods

from natural fibers must never be saddled with such limited variations from stated measurements as to cause measurement taken after

exposure to high luunidity to result in nonconforming goods.

Rather I wish to devote my remarks to the peculiar production

characteristics of a few of the major classes of packaged textile products required to be labeled in most jurisdictions in the United States. These pecidiar production cliaracteristics are wholly or in large part

the reasons for the Committee on Laws and Regulations of tlie National Conference on Weights and Measures recommending the

adoption of revisions in the Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation as published in the Announcement Booklet of the 55th

National Conference on Weights and Measureb.

Only a few specifics will be deafi with. The first of these will be

bed sheets and pillowcases. The rationale behind any required label- ing of a package thereof sliouid be to inform the purchaser of the

product's measurements in terms of what it will fit and tlie total aiiiount of fabric for value conipaj i.son.

*This is the application of water to ropes and hawsers so that there will be movement

or tightening as a consequence of the shrinkage resulting from the effect of water on

the fiber

75
The industry is called upon to mass produce in order to make available to the consuming public a commodity the price of which does

not prohibit its use. If sheets and pillowcases could be made by

trimming cloth of excess size down to the particular dimensions

desired in the manner that the custom tailor places his pattern on

cloth and cuts away the surplus, there would be little problem in

labeling the finished item.

Under the limitation of consumer economics, such practice cannot

be followed. Instead, part of the dimensions must be established in

the weaving process in order to obtain a price- acceptable product.

The housewife has recognized this for the several generations that

sheets have been utilized. She would purchase from the dry goods

store unbleached or grey goods 72 inches in width, including both

selvages. Initially, the customary purchase was of 21/2 yards of cloth

per sheet or 5 yards of sheeting per bed. The merchant would cut or tear off the unrolled cloth, the housewife would halve the five yards of cloth, whip a hem in the ends to prevent raveling, and have

a pair of sheets. Why the particular choice of length of 90 inches or

21/^ yards per sheet, unless it be the easy fraction for multiplication

of price per yard, appears unclear. In any event, as the average per- son tended to become taller and the length of beds was increased, the

sheeting requirements were increased by a quarter of a yard per

sheet, not by half a foot (6 inches), but by 9 inches per sheet or an

additional half a yard per bed. This is the story as related to me by

the textile people.

The width of mattresses was also expressed in terms of quarter

yards. A mattress for a single bed was a four-quarters mattress

(4 quarter yards) or 36 inches wide. A full bed or double mattress was a six -quarters mattress (6 quarter yards) or 54 inches. A like

inquiry as to whether chicken or egg was first can be made with

respect to loom sizes and the width of cloth woven. Which dictated

the other? The question will not be readily resolved, but it is interesting to note that loom manufacturers normally modified their

machines for width of output in quarter-yard increases from the nor- mal or 36-inch width to 45 inches, 54 inches, 63 inches, etc. Most

everyone has heard the expression of comparative excellence of

"all wool and a yard wide."

As fashion in bed linens gained in importance witli our increasing

affluence, the utility- whipped hems gave way to hems of various but

increased widths. The length of cloth for each sheet was increased to three yards or 108 inches. Since, in use, a substantial portion of both

a top sheet and of a bottom sheet is tucked under the mattress, the

matter of precise length of the finished item is not critical. Despite

much mechanization, the hemming of sheets is still accomplished by

the individual hemmer personally making tlie turnunder for every

76
hem, top and bottom, and hand-guiding every sheet through the

sewing machine. These turnunders are each supposed to be one- fourth

of an inch. With vohune operations, indiAddual operators are bound

to have variations in their own work, and these variations for a

plant's production are subject to increase with the number of individuals performing the hemming operation.

The introduction and acceptance of fitted sheets, together with the

continuing importance of fashion in hem widths, hem styles, color,

and design spawned the concept of a sheet being a garment for a mattress. Under this concept, the most important question relating

to size is: What measurements mattress will the garment fit? For

fitted sheets, accurate answer to this question is critical. For flat or

unfitted sheets, the accurac}^ of the answer is not critical, but it is both relevant and material. However, accurate answer as to the size mattress a flat sheet will fit in its finished measurements affords no

ready value comparison wdth another sheet of the same finished

dimensions selling for the same or a different price, because the one having the greater finished dimensions may actually contain less cloth than one with smaller finished dimensions. Skimpy turnunders

and narrowing of hem width at either or both ends allow delivery

of a given finished size containing less cloth than another sheet having the same finished size but having more cloth by reason of wider

hems and generous turnunders.

The garment concept, applicable equally to sheets and pillowcases,

appears to be a sound and hopefully an accepted solution to the problem of labeling these textile item^s. By stating the before-hemming

size, there is actual quantity of cloth disclosure to permit a quantityprice-value comparison. The traditional multiples of yards, expressed

in inches, handed down from preceding generations of housewives

and homemakers can be retained, and every purchaser has information at the time of purchase as to what the "garment" he has bought

is manufactured to fit. The manufacture of pillowcases presents, ordinarily, two steps

differing from what I have related about the preparation of sheets

for packaging and labeling. The first of these is that the cloth as woven by the loom is not intended as the width of the product, as

in the case of fiat sheets. The loom width of cloth, after further

processing and usually as a continuous mechanical operation, is folded and stitched along one side to form a tube before the manual

hemming is begun. After flat sheets have been hemmed, they only

have to be inspected and folded before they are ready for packaging.

Except for limited production items requiring additional manual

efforts, the pillowcase, upon completion of the manufacturing step,

is wrong side out. Before inspection, folding, and packaging of it, it must be turned right side out.

77
Another specific with which I wish to deal is the necessity for pro- viding realistic variations from derlnred dimensions in the label ino- of textile products. This need is most strikingly recognizable after

comprehending the manufacture of cotton towels and cloths, particularly those which are terry woven. Although the word terry is derived from the French ^^erb firer^ which I am told means to draw or to pull, the procedure of making

a fabric so that the surface loops forming the pile are drawn from

loosened warp threads was an art known to the ancient Egyptians

and the Incas of ancient Peru. Specimens of linen terrycloth believed

to have been woven before 4000 B. C. have been exhibited in the

Metropolitan Museum of Art, The terry bath towel so familiar to

all of us today had its rebirth less than 125 years ago, and attained

adolescence only during World War I. Terrycloth was first made by machine in England in 1848, after an Englishman had observed the handweaving of terrycloth in a Turkish harem. In 1851 the first machine-made terry towel was

exhibited at the London Exhibition. Upon the towel's being pre- sented to Queen Victoria, she granted permission for the production

thereof to be called "Royal Turkish Towels." For one reason or

another, Americans generally continued to use linen crash or plain- weave (huck) towels of linen or cotton until government requii'ements during World War I used all the smooth towels for the

military. Civilians were obliged to utilize terry towels, and by war's end the merits of the softer, more absorbent terry were Sf) widely

recognized and preferred that today terry is the accepted bath toAvel in this country.

I believe it w^ill be helpful in establishing the necessity for realistic variations from declared measurements of textiles to describe

very hurriedly the steps in the manufacture of a cotton terry towel.

To begin with, a cultivated plant product, an organic material which

in the natural state has varying physical properties, is the raw material. The properties of the raw material vary with climatic conditions, soil fertility, growing husbandry, maturity, and care in harvesting, and even with the genetic makeup of the seed. These

variable factors all affect the fiber contained in and surrounding

the seed in the seed pod of the maturing cotton plant. They bear

upon the length of the fiber, referred to as staple, its quality or grade, and its cleanliness. The longer the fibers, the finer the yarn

which can be spun from it, and the stronger the fabric which can be woven therefrom.

The ripe bursting cotton pods or bolls are picked and the seeds are separated from the fiber in a ginning process, after which the

fiber is baled into bales approximately 500 pounds in weight. These

bales of cotton are the raw material for the production of cotton

78
textile products. About eight different processes are involved in

con\^erting the baled cotton into the yam from which a fabric will

be woven. Before these processes, there will have been a sampling of the

cotton in each bale, so that it may be classified as to its properties and

characteristics for later blending, and in some instances the desired

color may be attained by dyeing the bale of cotton. The first process is removing the protective bagging and steel bands with which the cotton has been baled, and blending a bale of one class with bales of other classes as they are run through machines

called openers, so named not because they open the bales, which is otherwise done, but because they open the fiber by beating it, to the

end that dirt, seed pieces, and other foreign matter fall out. Then the

cotton enters a picker for further cleaning. Here, machine blades

revolving at high speed beat out dirt, seed, and other plant particles,

and any foreign matter, and the fiber is delivered from the machine

in laps or rolls about 18 inches in diameter and 40 inches wide. These

laps resemble the large rolls of absorbent cotton which can be purchased at the drug store. The third process is carding, where cleaning of the lap is completed

by the more than a million small w^ire teeth per machine. These teeth

also remove short, fuzzy fibers, and pull the remaining fibers into

parallel order, disentangling them to some extent and shaping them

into a thin filmy web. The next three steps are drawing, combing,

and roving. The filmy web delivered by the carding machines is processed through a drawing frame, which molds the web into a round,

rope-like, untwisted strand called a sliver (pronounced sly-ver),

which is coiled into large cans. Combing is then done to remove all short fibers, so that finer, longer-wearing, smoother yarn can be pro- duced. The fine-toothed comb arrangement continues to straighten

and parallel arrange the fibers, and another drawing frame combines

several slivers w^ithout twisting, further straightens the fibers, and

reduces the combined slivers to about the same diameter as one of

the original strands. Then these slivers go to machines called roving

frames, the operation of which further draws out and parallels the

fibers, reduces the cotton strand to a smaller and smaller diameter,

gives it a slight twist, and winds the roving onto bobbins. The importance of the fibers being parallel before they are twisted is that,

otherwise, the yarn will have no strength. The strength of yam

depends upon tightness of twist, evenness of spinning, and, as before

mentioned, the length and quality of staple.

The process of spinning completes the drawing out of cotton

roving. On the spinning frame, the large bobbins or spools of roving

are drawn into a single smaller strand, given the right amount of

twist to give it strength and make it into yam of required size. If79
colored yarn is desired and the baled cotton has not been dyed (stock

dyeing) the yarn may now be dyed. The technical name for even the

finest kind of thread is yarn. Among manufacturers, thread usually

refers to the spinning of linen or silk, and yarn refers to cotton or

wool. I am about to come to the specifics of weaving terry towels,

and may use the word thread interchangeably with or in lieu of yarn.

Most simply described, weaving is the interlacing of two systems

of fiber to produce a fabric. Standard cloth weaving is the interlacing

of two systems of threads (crossing each other) at right angles. The

lengthwise threads form the warp or foundation; the horizontal

threads are called the filling or weft. In plain weaving, the longitudinal and horizontal threads are tightly interlaced. In terry

weaving, as the shuttle is driven over and under the warp yarns in

alternate rows, a second set of warp yarns is loosened or slackened

to form loops on one or both sides. After the spinning operation which has been described, the yarns

which are to constitute the w^arp have had sizing applied to them

and have been wound parallel to each other on a large cylinder called a warp beam. Several thousand yards of each warp thread may be

wound on one of these beams. The warps may or may not have been

dyed at this stage.

Imagine now the weaving of a cotton terry towel of a specific construction and of a given intended size. Once w^eaving is begun, there

will be a continuous piece of cloth. The decision as to construction

will include the size yarn to be used, the number of warp threads per

inch, and the number of filling threads or ends per inch of fabric.

The length of the warp threads does not determine the length of the

fabric, because, as one warp beam is emptied, the warps on another

beam are tied in and the operation continues until the quantity

requirement for the particular item is satisfied. So there is produced

a continuous piece of cloth comprised of a series of individual towels

which must be desized, bleached, possibly dyed, dried, softened,

possibly sheared, cut apart along lines determined in the weaving,

and, except for fringed towels, be hemmed. In addition, there may be

the affixing of the manufacturer's or customer's label, and patterns

or designs are often printed on the completed towel.

The intended size and construction were decided upon and were

the basis for determination of price before weaving was begun, but

the dimensions of the finished products having identical construction

(that is to say, they have the same number of warp-wise threads and

the same amount of filling threads) may differ due to the interplay

of many variables. It is because of these many variables, which the

best manufacturing technology has not reduced to constants, that

allowable variations from declared dimensions of a minus 3 percent

and a plus 6 percent for items with no declared dimension less than

24 inches, and a minus 6 percent and a plus 12 percent for items with

80
a declared dimension less than 24 inches, are essential. Hastily

reviewed, some of these variables are

1. The nonuniformity of the individual vegetable fibers.

2. Minor variations in the amount of twist applied to the fibers of yarn of the same size.

3. Variations in the tension on the warp threads as the beam

decreases from full to empty, and as a new full beam is tied in.

4. Variations in the tension on the w^arps as the takedown rolls of fabric increase from empty to full.

5. Variations in tension from the interlacing of the ends or fill- ing as the weaving progresses.

6. Variations due solely to mechanical wear and increases and

decreases in tension due to the state of lubrication of

mechanisms.

7. Differences in stress on various towels constituting a segment

of the fabric, depending upon the segment's relative position

in the continuous strip as it is pulled or conveyed through

desizing, bleaching, dyeing, drying, fluffing, shearing, cutting,

etc. (The beginning end will be stretched by the unsupported

weight of fabric behind it and the terminal end will be

unstretched because of the absence of unsupported weight.)

8. The human inconsistencies in the hemming operation.

9. Stretching or shrinking in decorative printing operation.

The list might be extended, but this should suffice to indicate the

problems in the technology. These variables are present in greater or

less degree in the manufacture of practically every household textile

item industrially mass-produced, be it a towel, washcloth, sheet, pillowcase, bedspread, curtain, bathmat, or whatever.

I submit that the textile industry does a remarkable job in keeping

its production reasonably within the 3-6 percent and 6-12 percent

variations previously mentioned. I say reasonably, because there are

instances of items being beyond these variations, and they properly

are not identified or labeled as the intended product, but are downgraded or converted into other products. The alternative to the stated

variations is hand-measuring of the finished item, resulting in soaring

costs and prohibitive pricing of American-made items. Further, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize one more aspect of the dimensions of textile products such as towels, washcloths, bathmats, etc. This is that, once the construction of such an item is decided upon

and production is begun, in a modem plant items having that particular construction w^ill contain the same quantity of cotton fiber and will equally perform their intended use; namely, to dry or to absorb moisture, regardless of the precise dimensions of the item as stretched or shrunk in production.

81
Finally, let me observe that the matters herein discussed are widely

known within the textile industry, and no impression of originality

of thought by or with me should exist. For the contents hereof, I am

indebted to innumerable persons and sources, to all of whom and

which, unnamed, I give credit. PRODUCT STANDARDS AND POLYETHYLENE FILM

by D. Levine, Market Manager, Film and Pipe, Monsanto Company

As a member of the plastics industry, I am

pleased to be a part of this forum. My talk

and the following discussions will center on

product standards and polyethylene sheeting.

The Bureaus of Weights and Measures in the past decade have been instrumental in creating a greater awareness on the part of

the consumer. Consumerism, Truth-in-Lending,

and Fair Packaging and Labeling have be- come household words.

Manufacturers, packagers, and sellers of

products are labeling their items in understandable language. Some

took the initiative; others were prodded by groups such as weights

and measures. The packers of people food have joined the ranks of

the packers of pet foods and now list the ingredients of their products. The movement toward consumerism has brought forth large

numbers of people who want to know what they buy. They not

only want to know what they buy, but why it costs what it costs. The consumer is always interested in what the product costs. Consider that the accelerating costs in the construction industry, higher

wages to the worker, increased transportation costs, higher interest

rqtes, as well a.s increased material costs are reflected in the eventual cost of the product—in this case, the home. Eegardless of the

industry or the product, the consumer eventually pays. Reluctantly,

he accepts the constant increases, for various media continually in- form him of wage and transportation settlements and cost of living

indexes.

Along with those things that direct!}^ affect this cost of living,

what about those things which are not evid^^ut to him but that indirectly affect his piird)asing power ? He knows that, when he bu3^s a pound of butter or a gallon of fuel, ho. is getting what he is pa ving

for. Y^ou and your people have seen to thnt h->wp\ pr, what recourse

doe^s he have against a sellei who, in man v wnys, , ;5m increase his profits at the expense of the consumer by ni'^leaclin^^ 'abeling* or by

82
miiimfacturing products that may be at the low end of specilicadons or tolerances (if there are, in fact, such specifications and toler- ances) ? Polyethylene sheeting has fallen into this category.

This morning I would like to discuss some of the background

which led to the development of standards for a segment of the

polyethylene film sheeting industry. Polyethylene is that magic plastic which everyone uses and cannot do without. You find it in the

home as food w^rap, in bag form for freezer w^rap, or as trash-can

liners, still larger bags for spring cleanup time, as bags to cover your purchase of new shirts and sw^eaters, as a wrapping around

the loaf of bread you buy and the suit you have cleaned. It is a magic material, and literally billions of pounds are sold every year. Remember that the cost of a polyethylene wrapped sweater or any

other product similarly wrapped includes cost of this wrapping or

cover. Along with these items familiar to all consumers, polyetliylene

sheeting is sold and used by the hundreds of millions of pounds

every year in the construction, industrial, and agricultural markets.

Being a magic plastic, it is lightweight, a good moisture-vapor barrier, chemically inert, relatively inexpensive, and available in a myriad of colors and widths, even as wide as 480 inches or 40 feet. In the construction market, polyethylene sheeting is used under

concrete slabs to prevent moisture vapor from entering the house,

for the covering of building materials, and to close in unfinished

buildings so construction can continue in inclement weather. In the

agricultural markets, polyethylene sheeting is used as a cover in the

fumigation of fields prior to planting of fruits and vegetables, as a mulch to retain moisture in the ground, to prevent weed growth, to keep fruits and vegetables free from ground dirt and diseases, and for

covering greenhouses. Naturally, the cost of these materials is re- flected in the price of the finished product that the consumer buys,

whether it be $2.00 w^orth of vegetables or $20,000 worth of building.

Many thicknesses are used. Most common are 0.004" and 0.006".

0.004" (4 Mil) is 4/1000 of an inch, and slightly thicker than an ordinary piece of paper. It is usually sold by the roll or by the

square foot. In the early days of the industry, for want of standard

specifications, some manufacturers created their own. There seemed

to be as many specifications as there were manufa<iturers. So long

as -they were selling by the roll or by the square foot, the contractor, or the farmer, or the industrial user, and eventually the consumer did

not know the quantity of that material. Allegedly selling material

as 0.004" (4 Mil), a few companies produced polyethylene sheeting

as low as 0.0025" to 0.0055" thick. One-hundred-foot rolls of sheet- ing were often only 85 to 90 feet in length, creating an overall shortage to the user of as much as 10 to 35 percent.

83
Gentlemen, this costs the consumer the same as if he had bought

a carton of butter weighing 10 to 14 ounces that was marked 1 pound, or a carton of milk that contained anywhere from 20 to 30 ounces and marked 1 quart.

Some years ago, many responsible manufacturers of polyethylene

sheeting recognized the need for an understandable standard, and in

1961 the Department of Commerce and the industry developed and

published Commercial Standard 238-61. This standard, a voluntary

one, was fairly broad. It was the first attempt by a relatively new

industry to arrive at a common ground of understanding. The specifications were too loose; it was voluntary and not subject to regulatory actions, and left the door open for misinterpretation of the

standard. The result was a market flooded with lightweight material.

Again, recognizing the looseness of this standard and the need to protect the buyer, this group developed and had published a new

standard, now known as Product Standard 17-69. This voluntary

standard, which superseded Commercial Standard 238-61, had much

tighter although achievable specifications. It clearly spelled out for

both the manufacturer and user exactly what was packaged. To

further clarify the specification, it called for the label to show a net weight that would be the sum total of width, length, and thickness.

There are two ways for a buyer to check the quantity of a roll of

polyethylene sheeting. One, by using a finely calibrated micrometer,

making sure that the pressure is constant, the length of dwell time is adequate, and that sufficient measurements which can be averaged

are taken. The second way, and much simpler, is to weigh the package. To repeat, a net weight, by a simple formula, is the sum total of

width, thickness, and length. For example, a roll of clear polyethyl- ene sheeting 0.004'' X 10' X 100' (or 1,000 square feet) weighs 19.1 pounds. It does not weigh 17 pounds, or 15 pounds, or 14 pounds, or even 18% pounds—but 19.1 pounds. Other sizes, of course, are proportional. There can be no misintrepretation by anyone. The manufacturer and the buyer both know exactly what is in the package. All

that is needed for a check is a scale, which is normally readily

available. By initiating and following Product Standard 17-69,

responsible members of the polyethylene sheeting industry have made

a sincere and conscientious effort to assure the buyer of full value. We know you and your people are making a sincere effort to stop

the traffic of underweight, mislabeled polyethylene sheeting. We

know you still believe 16 ounces equal 1 pound, and that 12 inches

equal 1 foot. We thank you for the interest and dedication you have

shown. Our industry, my company, and I stand ready to assist you

in any way possible.

84
DOES EQUITY PREVAIL?

by E. E. WoLSKi, Manager of Quality Control, Colgate-Palmolive

Company, New York, New York

Does equity prevail? In my opinion it does. At least it has survived up to now. And in the

long run, equity will prevail. But I fear that to some degree we are perhaps redefining it, and redefining it in such a way that it will

ultimately cost the consumer money. Let me

explain.

First, as an individual my views are a

little different from those of most of the dele- gates to this Conference, because I represent a national packaging company. In my company

I manage the quality control function, which includes the administration of the company's internal policies, methods and controls over net

fill. Like most, we are a responsible and honest company. But at the same time, we operate in a highly competitive economy and must

accomplish our responsibility in these matters efficiently and at a minimum cost. In other words, there is no acceptable excuse for fail- ure to meet our company's obligations, nor is there any acceptable excuse for excessive cost to play it safe. My own company has been

in business now for 165 years and has a reputation for quality products, fair dealing, and value. At all levels of the corporate structure

there is the requirement that every employee discharge his responsibilities so as to protect that reputation. But it will come as no

surprise to you that every employee's performance as to cost is also measured. That is a fact of life in our economic climate.

My views are perhaps a little different from those of most of the

other associate members of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, because I have served for four years as a member of the

Committee on Liaison with the National Government and know full well that not all sellers comply. Some are no doubt dishonest. They

need to be ferreted out, and more power to you. Some simply do not

know what is required and operate in accordance with control policies which either tag them as violators or needlessly cost them money.

Either way, it is my deep personal conviction that no company can withstand either the bad publicity of citations for illegal practice or

the economic disadvantage of excessive overpacking to avoid trouble.

To a large extent, all packagers, large or small, are concerned about

their reputation on the one hand and about i)rofits on the other hand.

The Conference should consider educational sessions offered for

sellers. A better understanding of their obligations and their rights

85
^ould go a long way to resolve nil V;nt the 'j^rohleni .;>f possibly >'hg- ho7iest or iiicoinpetent oj^erotors

Toil will note that I said 'rights." because \ye are talking about

equity here. Webster defines '^equity" as "'a fr^e and reasonable conP'-^rmity to accepted standards of natural right, law, and justice,

without prejudice, favoritism, or fraud, and without rigor entailing

undue hardship.'' This means a fair and impartial regulation of

transactions involving weights and measures. Put another Ayay, it means that the buyer gets what he pays for. Everybody knows that means he does not get less. Unfortunately, it is forgotten by many

that it also means he does not get more. There have always been real problems. Centuries ago, in the middle ages, the seller reigned supreme. Transactions were made on the

basis of a system which was clearly and simply defined as Caveat

Emptor—Let the Buyer Bew^are. Now apparently there have always

been more buyers than sellers, and with the passing of a few centuries the Baker's Dozen became the basis of commerce. As you know,

a baker's dozen is 13. The term originated when the buyers obtained

such strict controls over short measure that bakers gave high count

(13 per dozen) to avoid the harsh penalties for offenders. The buyer

had succeeded in turning the tables. Caveat Emptor was dead. The

rule was Caveat Vendor—Seller Beware. The only side of the story

that history has not recorded is the obvious one that prices must

have increased as quantity did. Dishonest operators were, in fact,

brought under control, but the basic laws of economics and price

competition most certainly must have forced a price rise when over- age became the rule. There is an old saying that history repeats itself. As one who has

been interested in this Conference, in its goals, and in the progress

you all have achieved, I am, as a packager, very conscious of a trend

w^hich exists. And I feel concern because of what I see. Let us review what has happened. I do not think anyone will be so naive as to even suggest that an elimination or reduction of inspection or enforcement would result in anything other than a return to the situation which made the need for them so apparent. It is a well

known fact that where enforcement drops off, so does compliance.

I once asked the state director of one of the last states to initiate weights and measures enforcement what he encountered initially. I was informed that the average gallon Ayas about a half pint short

and that an average pound had been a little less than an ounce short. He further stated that the shortages had been statewide and were

almost uniyersal. He was firm in his conclusion that everybody,

literally everybody (and that includes you and me), needs to know

that someone is there watching what he does.

86
In our operations, for example, the inspections are performed by

personnel who are not members of the production force. They are members of the quality control staff and have no personal stake in

the problem the production department faces if its goods do not

comply. And although we would like to think that we at Colgate

are a special breed of people not subject to the temptations of the

average man, I will never recommend that the final evaluation be

made by the i:)eople responsible for producing an item. In fact, to the contrary, we follow up by also making an additional independent

warehouse evaluation to verify that the goods correspond to the

reported results tabulated during the production run. Now, let us look at what this means. My company is honest. Of

course it is. But there is nothing unusual in that. Think for a minute

how literally impossible it would be, with various financial laws and

regulations, accounting audits, and other controls, to standardize on

an illegal practice. Also, consider how literally impossible it would

be to hide an actual cost result which differed from the standard

cost performance, which in turn must have been based upon compliance with legal responsibilities. We are concerned that mistakes

might not be caught in time. We are concerned that they might

sometimes not be reported. We are concerned because the reputation

earned in 165 years of fair and honest dealing represents an asset which we must protect. I would be less than frank if I did not say that, what with being

honest, with financial laws and regulations, auditing and all the

other controls, we are also influenced by the fact that effective

weights and measures programs are maintained. And we design our equipment and our controls to assure compliance.

Let us go back to the comment that history repeats itself and that

the current trend is a matter of personal concern to me. Today's

effective weights and measures enforcement programs in cities, counties, and states all exist because of the insistence of the public.

History had repeated itself, and Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware)

again demanded correction. It demanded supervised and enforced

correction. The result is the equity that has existed with reasonable

regulations defining the buyer's right to fair measure, the seller's responsibility, and the reasonable error which is to be expected above

or below the labeled quantity. Equity has prevailed.

But let me tell you why I am concerned by what I see. I observe

a trend for weights and measures enforcement to be incorporated

into broad consumer protection or consumer affairs agencies. The

trend further places the emphasis upon the label quantity often being

considered the minimum. We find ourselves in an expanding situation where on the one hand we all profess to recognize that the

seller, if he exercises care to operate within the limits of reasonable

87
plus or minus error, has earned the right to average the label quantity under our equitable system. We proAdde him with the economic

incentive to improve his operations and control so as to reduce

variation and thereby profit by the reduced overpacking this permits. This is his reward for his Avork, and in some instances the

reward justifies expenditure for better equipment and design. But

as he reduces variation and is able to reduce his average quantity

target, the number of underpackecl units will increase. That is a mathematical fact of life and simply follows the mathematical law

of probability. In fact, if he continues in his efforts to improve, he

would ultimately eliminate overfilling cost, w^ould average the label quantity, and would produce units within variations of reasonable

error. That is what we all want. It is the stated goal of packers and

enforcement officials alike. But look what happens.

The law of probability tells us that half will be above the label quantity, and half below, as he achieves this ideal we all want. As

he improves his control in accordance with his '^hare of the equity

w^hich prevails, his problems with enforcement inspection actually

tend to increase. It is a fact that the packager is entitled to operate

with effective controls, averaging the label quantity, with only one

unfortunate additional requirement. That one reqiiirement is that he

has the right to average the stated quantity provided he is always

equal to or above it on a sampled lot. 'Now just as individual units

will usually fall half above and half below the average (I say "usually" because some processes or operations tend to skew to one side,

and for many reasons), the average of samples will also tend to fall half above and half below the average. That is another manifestation

of the mathematical law of probability. The only thing different

about sample averages is that,rthey will ahvays vary less than the

individual units do, and the ^kewness of the process will tend to

reflect itself less in the average, values. Now it really is not equity to require only that a seller maiiiitain control and average and then

consider up to one-half the sampled lots in violation. But even so,

it is not a major problem for a packager who has a good program

effectively administered. It does not take long to recognize that the

apparent problems are relatively small and that he does, in fact,

do a good job when compared to others who do not. For the packager who does the job, equity does prevail, because reason also prevails.

But will reason continue to prevail? I hope it does. But there is no denying there are those who would see history again repeat itself and once more replace equity with the Baker's Dozen. Remember, we do already have a fair and equitable system. You all have a long record of effective administration to achieve vastly improved

conformance.

88
Perhaps these are misguided souls who believe that, in the freest and most competitive economy the \Yorld has known, the seller can somehow be forced to give something extra for nothing. He cannot. His price will increase. If he could give more, charge less, or make it better for the same price, he would do so to obtain the advantage

all that would give him relative to his competition. If he gives the consumer more, he will charge for it. He must.

If those who profess that "if it says a pound it should contain

a pound" are only objecting to the current equitable system based on the average, let them seek revision of the system. As a packager,

I do not care what law we have, provided it is uniformly and equitably enforced and is applied to all. If the desire of the consumer

is minimum regulations, fine; but change it to reflect that. Do not

tell me "average" and then enforce "minimum." And do not expect some packagers to somehow set a precedent for actually packaging

minimum while the system is still based on the average. They cannot

survive the economics. And do not select sellers to serve as precedent

setters. It has to apply to everybody.

I have observed another pressure applied—unusually precise, close- tolerance inspection weighing, so precise that it can sort out into

several brackets units that are within one division of the almost

universally accepted commercial weighing device. Unless the packager increases his weight and sacrifices his share of the benefits of our equitable system, he is automatically off sale 50 percent of the

time, just due to the probabilities of sampling. Would you believe

that the field inspection I mention will differentiate between the

tare values of individual toilet soap wrappers? This Avould seem,

to me at least, to fall outside the definition of equity which includes

"without rigor entailing undue hardship."

I have tried to show you both sides of the coin here today. As an

active participant and supporter of the Conference and its objectives

and as a member of industry, I will be the first to say that effective,

equitable weights and measures regulations and their enforcement

have brought benefits to the consumer and the seller alike. The con- sumer has assurance of fair measure, and the seller has protection from unfair practices by dishonest or incompetent competitors. I am firmly convinced that equity does prevail. But we of this

Conference must recognize that this will continue to be true only

so long as we all do our part to see that reason also prevails. There

can be no equity without reason.

89
UNIT PRICING—A GIANT STEP FOR CONSUMERS

by Mrs. Esther Peterson, Consumer Advisor to the President of

Giant Food Inc.

I am delighted to speak to you once again,

this time as a private citizen. I know you as old and dear friends with whom I share a com- mon cause. You stood up for us on the packaging bill and supported many of our proposals

when I served as Assistant for Consumer Affairs to President Johnson. I found you to be a cooperative and knowledgeable source of

expert advice when we consumer advocates were still thought of as crackpots who would

go away if ignored.

This group is so respected that we often take the protection you

guarantee for granted. No consumer group ever challenges your

honesty or your accuracy, and you guard a key consumer protection

without which business could not be conducted in this nation.

You are on the frontline of consumer protection, and therefore

your support for some new consumer breakthroughs would be invaluable. I hope to tell you about some of the exciting, innovative things we are now doing at Giant, and enlist your help in making them a

reality across the nation.

We have already introduced comprehensive programs of unit

pricing and open dating. Both programs are meeting with over- whelming consumer support. Everyone is not using these aids as much as we wish they would, but an increasingly large number of

shoppers do. We are planning a greater educational effort, especially

among young people, to make unit pricing and open dating part of

the shopping habit. And that is not all. Soon we will introduce

the nation's first experimental program of nutritional labeling,

which we have developed in cooperation with the Food and Drug

Administration.

These programs are designed to give shoppers the information they

need at the point of purchase. We want her family's' dollars to be

spent on the best quality, the best value, and the greatest nutritional content possible. We do not think that is too much trouble for the

retailer. We are committed to the consumer's "Right to Know" the

full facts about the products she buys. My experience at Giant has

confirmed what I have always believed. You cannot lump businessmen together and call them "the bad guys." Many businessmen understand the legitimate demands of consumers and want to reform the

90
mRrketplace. Tbev know that these reforms will be as good for busi- ness as they would be for the public.

These are the businessmen who will bring the desired 'Trogress

through Cooperation and Understanding."

But there are still too many powerful forces within the business

world who are forever tilting spears at monsters and hobgoblins.

They paint the consumer as the "enemy" of the poor, beleaguered, and

misunderstood American businessman. This is nonsense. It is an

unreal view of the word, and does a disservice to our nation. We can

ill afford additional polarization and conflict in these distressing

times. Business and consumers do not have to be enemies. Like the

plaintive cry from "Oklahoma,"—"Why can't the farmer and the

rancher be friends?"—I would like to show that the grocer and his

customer can be friends. Indeed we have demonstrated at Giant that

they are friends.

Perhaps the most exciting thing that has happened since I came

with Giant has been the breakthrough in communications that has

occurred. We have all been in our little boxes so long—welded to the

conventional wisdom for so many years. Businessmen have been tell- ing each other, "You cannot talk to those consumer people; they are

just close-minded nuts." We consumer people, on the other hand, have

tended to lump all businessmen together as ogres, and have refused

to negotiate with what we regarded as "the enemy." Both groups

have been wary and suspicious of government, which, in turn, has

often had a very paternalistic and patronizing attitude about the

effort of outsiders to meddle in what they regarded as their affairs. At Giant, one of the first things we did after I came aboard was

to start knocking down those artificial walls. We called in all the consumer people who had been complaining so loudly about the inaction of business over the years. Giant's top executives listened to them. They learned that some of the suggestions they received were

not so crackpot after all and that the people making the suggestions

did not have horns. The consumer people, on the other hand, were

greatly impressed by the receptivity and the progressive attitude of

Giant's management. We found wide areas of agreement where we

could work together. Today, those same Giant executives ask me to be sure that we have some of those erstwhile "consumer nuts" in

before making key corporate decisions. All our Giant consumer progrjams, and they are many, have resulted from this kind of ongoing

dialog.

These dialogs, I should add, are not complete without representatives of the key federal and state government agencies. It is fasci- nating to watch Jim Turner, the Nader group's expert on the FDA

and author of that indictment of FDA, "The Chemical Feast,"

working diligently with key FDA people at our Giant meetings on

nutritional labeling and ingredient labeling.

91
The experience has convinced me that, despite all our miracle

commmiications media, the terrible polarization this country is un- dergoing today is not due to any basic division among our people,

but to an incredible failure of communications. Our experience at Giant has convinced me that most of our national ills are capable of

solution if we can only put our rhetoric aside and sit down together

in an honest and open fashion and sincerely try to Avork out our

differences.

One of the programs that resulted from such a dialog was the

Giant program of unit pricing, which I have come to discuss Avith you today.

We were not the first in the nation to institute unit pricing, but

I would like to believe that we were the first to make it really useful

to the consumer, the first to make it more than a promotional gimmick. We were the first to install the system throughout the store and throughout the chain.

A great deal has been made of an industry survey which shoAved

that only 20 percent of America's shoppers even look at labels. I am frankly unimpressed by that figure. First, because I do not believe it. Second, because it is irrelevant, even if it is true. We have

a responsibility to provide the customer Avith all the information she

needs to make an intelligent decision, Avhether she chooses to use that

information or not. There are many citizens Avho do not vote—many

more than the 20 percent cited in the industry survey—but no one is suggesting the end of elections. Now, with your indulgence, I AA^ould like to tell you Iioav Ave developed Giant's unit pricing system, Avhat our costs Avere, and what

problems and benefits we discovered.

All methods of unit i:)ricing were considered before AA'e decided on one that Ave considered most efficient and effective. We quickly

decided against stamping the unit price on every can, for seA-eral reasons. First, the customer Avould have to pick up each item to

fi-nd its unit price. Second, aax thought it Avould be too costly and

might raise food prices. Third, Ave found that the technology to do it simply did not exist yet. So that put an end to that thought.

Next, we considered the possibility of posting the unit prices by

categories on large signs. We discarded this method as too cumber- some and inconvenient for the customer. The signs Avould often have

to be placed some distance from the point of purchase, and Avould

therefore not be used as often as Ave AA'ould Avant them to be. The least effective method, Ave decided, Avould be to give the cus- tomer a mechanical device, such as a paper slide rule, and urge her

to compute the unit price herself. This is time consuming, often

complicated, and places the burden of action on the consumer. 92
Giant instead chose the method which is easiest for the consumer

to use and is fairly easy for the company to maintain. We use shelf

labels. We like them because they give the customer the unit price

of each product at a glance. And she reads it in the unit most familiar to her. As one shopper exclaimed after learr>ing that she was

paying over $3.00 a pound for boneless and skinless sardines : "This

really is full disclosure!"

To make the units of measure as simple as possible, we decided to

list: Price per pound.

Price per quart.

Price per 100 count (paper napkins, etc.).

Price per 100 square feet (aluminum foil, etc.). Price per pint (health and beauty aids only).

Price per 30 cc. (health and beauty aids only).

Our executives then ran several pilot tests to see which type of

labels and which type of display counters w^ere best suited to this

method of unit pricing. We appraised more than 10,000 grocery

items and determined which unit of measure would be used for each.

After checking and verification, we converted each item size into a

factor for the computer. The data were then submitted to our Data

Processing Department for transmittal to the computer. The final printout was made, and all items were again checked for consumer

acceptance, value, and proper size. The Data Processing Department set up systems to handle the

ordering of new labels for new counter setups, price changes, new

items, and soiled labels. After a few months of operation, we dis- covered that the initial paper labels were not practical. They became

soiled and easily torn. So we have just switched over to a plastic

insert type of label. This has added somewhat to our costs. Initially, the estimated cost of maintenance for our unit-pricing

program was $15,000 a year, or approximately $150 per store. It now

costs more than that—$22,000, or approximately $230 per store per

year. The reason for the increase is the changeover to the plastic

labeling which I just mentioned. Once the installation is complete, we expect the cost to drop again.

Today, w^e are unit-pricing about 9,100 items. And contrary to some industry nay-sayers and doom prophets, it has not raised either our costs or our prices.

The other day our executive in charge of groceries told me:

"Esther, if you asked me to drop unit pricing tomorrow, I would

not do it. It is an invaluable management tool. It helps us run a

tighter ship." This came from a man who had not been terribly sold on the idea at the start. 93
Is not that ironic ? We are all sealed into our tight little boxes. We

are so suspicious of a suggestion when it comes frorn an unfamiliar

source. Management just assumes that a consumer reform will be

uneconomical. Consumers assume that any program which business

initiates contains some hidden device to take advantage of him. And

both are so wrong.

Unit pricing has been a marv^elous aid to Giant. It has given the

store much better inventory control. And since unit pricing was

adopted, pricing errors have dropped dramatically. There are some

problems, but they are mechanical ones. If an error is made, it is a universal error and appears in every store. Some peculiar packaging,

cents-off deals, and two/fors or three/fors require special computing.

I recently appeared on a Baltimore TV talk show and was using some examples to explain unit pricing. Just before we went on the

air, a TV -camera man—a union man who knew me from my days

with organized labor—loyally reported an error in one of my examples. A six-pack of Libby's grapefruit juice was listed as $3.68 a

quart. "'\^rhy, that can't be right, Esther," he said. What had happened was this. Our usual formula for computing

the unit measurement of a quart is

Instead, the package ounce factor was set up at 6. It should have

been 6 X 6, or 36. But do you know that, out of 8,827 grocery items in stock at thac

lime, tnere were only three such errors. As our data processing man

tuid me; "Esther, you picked a 2,942-to-one shot!"

One of the complaints about unit pricing is that the consumer will

overlook quality in x^ursuit of the cheapest product. This is not true. We find that customers are trying less expensive brands and then

switching to them Oiily if quality is comparable. For example, we are seeing increasing sales of Giant brand products—products whicii are often packed by the same canners and processors who label more

expensive brands, bat at a sa\'ings to the ooiiMiiner. \V'ith unit pricing,

retail price

In the case of the six-pack, the formula should have been

retail price—69 cents package ounces—36 cents ounces per quart—32 cents = 61 cents unit price per (juart

94
the customer is better able to decide which size of a particular brand

is most economical for her needs. For example : Six ounces of V-8

vegetable juice sells at 6/57 cents, which comes out to 51 cents per

quart. The 12-ounce size at 2/27 cents is 36 cents per quart. The

24-ounce size at 2/49 cents is 33 cents per quart. The 46-ounce size at 41 cents is 29 cents per quart.

That is how unit pricing works at Giant. Now let me comment

briefly on your proposed Model State Unit Pricing Regulation.

Naturally, I think the effort to standardize unit pricing laws is extremely important, and I suppr>rt it. However, section 3, which

provides an exemption for packages in quantities of one liquid ounce

or less does the consumer a disservice. It is exactly those small

items—many of them toiletries—which hide their true cost from the consumer. The same is true for section 4, which exempts the store from unit

pricing "when only one brand in only one size appears in a particular retail establishment." The customer can still benefit from the

knowledge of the pound price of sardines and compare its relative

value with a pound of ground beef. She is comparing the same basic

nutrient—protein. I think that, if we w^ant a better nourished

America and better informed shoppers, we will need this information.

I have already commented on the merits of the various unit-pricing

systems, and why Giant chose a label scheme. I feel strongly that the

other systems do not do the job. I also believe that a proliferation of

systems in the marketplace will confuse the shopper and hope that,

after examining the various possibilities, you will support the shelf

label method as a requirement. A regulation which fails to specify

this system will not do the job in my opinion.

There are many ways that unit pricing has helped both the con- sumer and the retailer. One result may be the end of fractional ounces, and to that I say Hooray

With unit pricing, there is no longer any benefit to be gained from

complicated package sizes. It means less proliferation of brand names of equal quality, often manufactured by the same company.

When the housewife has the facts at her finger tips, she can make

up her own mind. She does not have to take the word of the Jolly

Green Giant (that is not to be confused with Giant F(X>d!) or the

Man from Glad, or some otlier authority figure.

in cl<)sing, I would like to quote a few words by Mr. Danzansk^-,

the I*resident of Giant Food : We are fi»>*>ny reaUzing the tnith <>f the bihlicnl ndmonition that we oarnot

^eTve God S'd Mammon. A business has no itiherent right to exist; it m'i«t serve a socially useful and responsible function if it is to justify its continued

operation . . . RusinessnieTi. yonng ])<> the minorities, and yes, even th«^' often complacent middle Americans come to the realization that this is
no longer a time of materialism, but a time of the spirit—no longer a period

of self-seeking polarization, but a time of cooperation and dialog and partnership. Consumerism is here to stay and, frankly, I welcome it. Any force that keeps business on its toes, stimulates competition, and elevates standards of quality and service is good for America.

These words will perhaps give you some insight into why I am so proud to be associated with my third President—in this case, with

Joseph Danzansky, President of Giant Food, and with his very fine company.

FORUM DISCUSSION

Mr. L. O. Leenerts (Purex Corp.) : Mrs. Peterson, are you working on the labeling of the nutritional value of composite products,

such as pastries with fruits and vegetables in them?

Mrs. Peterson : Yes, we are working on that. I want to emphasize that it is in the test stage. I will not recommend to my firm

to go into a big labeling program until we know it is the right pro- gram. I think it is very important that the consumer know, for

example, what is new and what the nutrients are in these new foods.

Mr. E. Prideaux (Colorado) : Mr. Levine, can the density of

polyethylene sheeting significantly change the weight?

Mr. Levine: Films for the end use discussed here are made from

low density resins, which are normally in a 0.92 range. The lowest

commercially available density is 0.915. For the products that we

are talking about today, 90 to 95 percent are produced with a density between 0.918 and 0.920. The weight differential between densities is measured in just fractions of a percent. According to the

formula in Product Standard 17-69, the width times the thickness,

times the length, times the density equals the weight. The differ- entials between the normally used resins are very, very fractional

and measured in fractions of a percent. I have the information on

a sheet that I would be delighted to pass on to you or to anyone

else that has need for it. Mr. S. J. Darsey (Florida) : Mrs. Peterson, is unit pricing going

to prevent the store operator from putting on a weekend special ? Mrs. Peterson : Unit pricing has not affected the number of specials that Giant Food has had.

Mr. Darsey: Can a store manager lower the unit price if he is overstocked with perishable items?

Mrs. Peterson : Every manager has the right to lower it, but he

cannot raise it. Mr. Darsey: How is the flow of unit pricing information from

the computer center to the store handled? Do the tapes from the

machine come along with the delivery of a grocery order to a particular store, and does the grocery boy then put this on the shelf?

96
Mrs. Peterson : Yes. Mr. M. D. Havercamp (Ethyl Corp.) : As a manufacturer of polyethylene film, I would like to say that we certainly agree with the

thoughts so ably expressed by Mr. Levine this morning. The w^eights

and measures people are also due a lot of thanks and gratitude from

the industry for the dramatic input they have had in a relatively

short period of time in giving some regulation to this business.

Mr. L. D. Holloway (Idaho) : If polyethylene film is bought for

purposes other than for resale, how does that affect the end user, that is, a builder? Would you put "not for resale" on your label?

Mr. Levine: No. As I mentioned in my brief talk, the cost of

film used in mobile homes, for example, or in a building is reflected in the ultimate cost to the consumer. So whether or not it is for

resale at that moment, it eventually winds up in the consumer's hands.

Mr. Havercamp: I would like to make a point relating to the use

of film in mobile homes. Not all mobile home film is sold direct to the manufacturer. Much of this goes through a distributor, who, in

turn, resells it. Whether it is for resale or for consumption by an

industry or whatever, I think that everything produced by a manufacturer should be labeled, because at the time of manufacture you

do not know the ultimate hands through which it might pass. Therefore, any film product should be labeled to give the width, the thickness, and the length, and the weight should correlate to the thickness.

Mr. S. D. Andrews (Florida) : I w^ould like to pursue this discussion on "not for resale" because of an incident. At the request of the

Ethyl Corporation, we made an investigation of a quantity of polyethylene sheeting being used by a contractor in a certain part of our

state and were informed that he bought this polyethylene sheeting

for use in his jobs and that we had no right to inspect it—that if he could buy it in thicknesses of 1 mil a little cheaper than 4 mils,

he would do so. Does the new product standard recognize any thick- ness lower than 4 mils?

Mr. Levine: Yes, it does. However, the end use also dictates the

thickness needed. I mentioned in my talk that one of the i)urposes

for polyethylene sheeting is the prevention of moisture vapor trans- mission through a concrete slab. A 4 mil, according to various specifications by the FHA and other agencies, will have a certain

transmission rate, and the rate increases rapidly the thinner you go. Therefore a 1 mil or a 2 mil, to be used for the purpose of what a 4 mil was designed for, is the same as not using anything.

Mr. Andrews : This particular film was being used as a vapor barrier for concrete forms in building sea walls, and the contractor said

it was not that critical and that if he could get a 1 mil thickness, this

would be sufficient. Is this an accurate statement ? Mr. Levine : Sir, in my opinion it is not. 97
Mr. Andrews : ]May I say also at this point that it was not labeled. Mr. Vadeluxd: Well, if it was not labeled at all, it should have

been. I think it is a general weights and measures principle that,

whether you sell a product one time, two times, or a dozen times in

the distribution chain, it has got to be appropriately labeled, and a statement such as "not for resale" has no real meaning.

Mr. M. Greenspan (New York City, N. Y.) : Mrs. Peterson, you

indicated that you are using electronic data processing equipment

and that the cost was only $250 per year per store and did not result in any increased cost to the consumer. How will unit pricing affect the very small chain of self-service stores that do not have access to electronic data processing equipment ? Mrs. Peterson: The question for the smaller enterprise is an

extremely difficult one. I don't know whether their suppliers can have

the use of' a computer. A very cooperative system might be worked

out if this is possible. They may want to do it on a hand basis. I am

quite sure that the legislatures will have to work out some kind of

accommodation for small retailers. Mr. Greenspan : As an adjunct to unit pricing, would package

quantity standardization help the situation?

Mrs. Peterson : I do not think that is necessary if you have unit

pricing. As a consumer, I just want to be able to know and make

price comparisons. If we had standardization, that would be another

story. We tried to get that in the packaging bill and lost. ^Ir. Vadelund: I think I should comment here. The Laws and

Kegulations Committee's report is not for mandatory unit pricing,

but for a standard method of presenting the information when a

retailer chooses to use it. Mr. H. Elseth (Land O' Lakes) : Mrs. Peterson, is a product such

as eggs unit priced by the pound ? Mrs. Peterson : That is by count. A dozen is a dozen. The information is clear there. You have the sizes marked, and the point is the consumer has a basis for valid price comparison.

]Mr. Leenerts : In regard to unit pricing, JNIrs. Peterson, the motto

of the National Conference is "that equity may prevail." If we cut

off the concept of imit pricing for the small corner store, a lot of

people who do not have the transportation to go to a large market

or a large shopping center would not have unit pricing and, therefore,

would not have the same equity that more affluent people have who

can get in their cars and go to the larger market.

]\Irs. Peterson : You have touched on something that is beyond

unit pricing. It is very difficult to have big chains in a lot of the

intercity areas. I haA^e gone into that very deeply with Giant because

I felt that poor i^eople, above all, should have the advantage. But I have found in my own investigations that the small stores do not

98
have the mass production and they rightly have to charge more. I think our society is wrong. If we want to keep those little stores, then we have to give them some kind of assistance, or else w^e have

to make it possible for the one-price store to come into the area. I do not think unit pricing is the answer here. The answ^er is to look at what the problem is and to get into these deeper questions that relate to it. Mr. Darsey: Mr. Levine, Product Standard 17-69 has been in

effect now for quite some time. In our testing of polyethylene film, we found one over 4 mils, but all the rest have been less than 4 mils,

and only two were within variations specified in Product Standard

17-69. We also found that some companies who agreed to the standard in the beginning and whose names are listed as acceptors are producing polyethylene under several different names, several differ- ent qualities, and a dozen different ways of labeling the same product.

Are the companies that got together on the product standard really

adhering to w^hat they promised to do ? Mr. Levixe: I believe that the major responsible manufacturers

who have declared that they are producing in accordance with the

standard are, in fact, producing to it. If they are not, I think this is a matter for you people to exercise your powers.

Mr. HA^^:RCAMP : I would like to go back to the comment made by

the gentleman from Florida on evaluating film from several different

manufacturers and getting poor results. Most manufacturers, and

certainly the major manufacturers, for a long period of time have

been producing to the new PS 17-69, but prior to that, and during

the transitional period, there was tremendous inventory in all manufacturers' warehouses which was in compliance with Commercial

Standard 238-61.

As Mr. Levine said this morning, that standard was pretty loose,

and many manufacturers interpreted it to their own benefit. The

amount of film produced under that standard that could be found

in warehouses, customers' inventory, and manufacturers as well,

would be minimal. I think that we can gain more progress faster

if we concern ourselves with the new PS 17-69, because film should

be produced in full compliance with the standard and what the

weights and measures people accept as good product.

Mr. Levine: I would like to comment on this situation. The Federal Government has a si)ecification written around some polyethylene film. It is called LP-378C. Along with many quality

requirements, it has a thickness specification which, when analyzed,

permits the manufacturers to satisfy the govermnent with film measuring in thickness up to 10 })er('ent under, in turn creating a weight

shortage of 20 percent. Bear in mind, please, that the government purchases material for its own use and not for resale. I want to show

99
you a slide showing this 20 percent deficiency and how it is arrived

at. Please also bear in mind that the government agency admits that

it will settle for a 20 percent light material. It also advised, however,

that changes are being made.

As you can see, part of the specification says that, for thicknesses

ranging from li/^ mil to 9 mil, a tolerance of plus or minus 20 per- cent shall be permitted when tested as specified in 439. I show that

paragraph 439 says, "Five specimens at least 2''X2" in size are taken uniformly across the width of the roll and are tested." I use

a 4 mil examj)le because that seems to be a standard of measurement,

or lack of same. Xow, if we take measurements, allegedly 4 mil, and

one measurement is 2.8 mil and another 3.2, another 3.0 mil, an- other 3.6. and another 3.4, and you average them, they come out to 0.0032, which is 20 percent less than 4 mil. That will pass the military specifications. Xow, I just wonder if the government will buy

a yardstick that is 28.8 inches long, or a quart of milk that is 25.6 ounces, or permit a pound of butter in their commissary weighing

12.8 ounces. I think that this is where a lot of confusion is comingin, perhaps in Florida, and perhaps in many other states. Mr. Andrews : This is what has puzzled us, Mr. Levine. Even the cartons that are labeled with the new PS declaration consistently run under 4 mils. We are just wondering if the trade practice is to take

advantage of the 20 percent tolerance, or some tolerance, because,

if we base our decision on the polyethylene film we have tested,

meeting an average thickness of 4 mils, we would have condemned

every sample we have examined with one exception. This has been

done according to the techniques recommended in Handbook 67 to determine if the average is 4 mil. Is it going to be the stated purpose

of the polyethylene industry, in meeting the new PS 17-69, to aver- age the labeled thickness ? Mr. LE^^:NE : I, of course, speak for my company and the Society

of the Plastics Industry. AVhen producing to the new standard, they

are producing to meet the average, to be equal to the average or above. There is no thought, and there is no way, according to the

standard, where there can be a 20 percent light figure.

100
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 14, 1971

CONFERENCE LUNCHEON

Conference Luncheon, Regency Ballroom, Shoreham Hotel

Introduction of Virginia Knauer by Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb

It is a pleasure for me to make an introduction which I will make

in short and personal style, because the proper formal introduction

of the Honorable Virginia Knauer would, I think, take considerably more time than she plans to give in her remarks to this group.

You know Mrs. Knauer as the Assistant to the President for (Con- sumer Affairs. You know that, previous to her present position, she

provided outstanding leadership in the State of Pennsylvania in be- half of the consumer. We are fortunate to have someone as accessible

and capable as Mrs. Knauer to look after the affairs of consumers.

101
REMARKS

by the Honorable Virginia Knauer, Special Assistant to the

President for Consumer Affairs

Good afternoon. It is a great pleasure for me

i to be with you again. I recognize some fa mil

I

iar faces in the audience today. And I want

to take this opportunity to thank each of you

who attended the regional conferences on con- sumer problems my office held in the spring.

You provided valuable information and exper-

^^v"' tise, making a significant contribution to the

overall success of those meetings.

The responsibilities of weights and measures

officials have an important impact on America's consumers, and your j^erformance of those responsibilities play

a vital role in the progress of the consumer movement.

I understand, for example, that at the February meeting of your

Study Committee on Education, consumer education Avas discussed.

Since my earliest involvement in consumer protection, I have pro- moted consumer education as an imperative for all consumers, young

and old. There has been some progress, but we have a very long

way to go before consumer education is as familiar a part of the

curriculum as mathematics is today.

I, therefore, urge you to give vigorous support to new consumer

education programs, for your knowledge can be invaluable in cre- ating a marketplace characterized by informed consumers capable of

making wise purchasing decisions based on full information.

I am pleased, too, that some consumer issues have been incorporated into your National Conference discussions here this week. I would encourage you, not only at the national level, but at your

state organization level, to increase your consultation with consumers and increasingly seek their input in your policy program planning before you take dehnitive positions. And should this not also be the case with your state and county offices? After all, if it is the consumer you serve, you should have more contact with him to know his problems as he sees them, so there may be maximum ef- fectiveness in your j^rogram and policy implementation. There are a growing number of consumer organizations at the state and local levels now. Even if there are no formal consumer organizations in your state or at the county level, you can seek out community leaders

for discussions and consultation.

102
I would also urge the widest possible consumer input into any

proposed model rules and regulations before their adoption by this

group. And naturally, I would hope you call on fellow professionals

who have had experience at the state level on subjects for which you

are considering model regulations.

Certainly, federal departments and agencies are increasingly aware

of the consumer desire to be consulted in policies which directly

affect him, his desire to be alerted of proposed regulations and hearings, so that he may participate. This is equally true at the state level. I would also urge your increased coordination with other state

offices which already have consumer protection responsibilities, such

as the offices of the Attorneys General. As you consider the expansion

of weights and measures offices into broader consumer protection

offices, it is essential that they be not name-only offices or ones with

limited power, which would lead the consumer to believe they can

provide more than they actually can. If my office can be of any assistance to you, do not hesitate to call on us. The Director of our Division of Federal-State Relations, Mrs.

Betty Bay, has already been in contact with some of you, and I know

she would welcome the opportunity to increase communication between our office and the 50 states. In short, our door is always open.

Introduction of Jean Nidetch by Mr, Matt Jennings

The National Weights and Pleasures Conference through the years

has enjoyed much success with a purpose of administering accuracy

of weights and perfection of measurement. It seems appropriate to have as our speaker today the founder and president of the world's

largest weight control organization. This organization is also enjoying success by controlling weight and achieving proper and desired

measurement. The membership of this grouj) is known as Weight

Watchers, while membership in our group may be recognized as Watchers of Weight. As watchers of weight, we put on weight to determine the accuracy of devices on whicli you may weigh to determine the amount of weiglit you have taken of!'. And each one is important to the other.

It is a privilege to introduce and welcome Mrs. Jean Nidetch as our guest speaker at this lunclieon. Slie is in part Virginia (xraliam, an enthusiastic talker, she is part Ethyl Merman, you will certainly

be privileged and able to hear her, and she is part Joan Rivers,

amusing.

103
ADDRESS

by Jean Nidetch, Founder and President, Weight Watchers

International

^^.^ Equity does prevail. Some time ago, when I ^ was privileged to be invited to this very ^ esteemed Conference, I thought, "What am I ^ goii^g to say to those people?" I have experienced the same feeling so very often in these

past ten years. I have been invited to talk to very distinguished groups about a thing that

is so close to my heart that it takes me at least an hour to get around to the words that I know

best. How do you get around to being "fat"

when you are talking to a convention of podiatrists or to a convention of chiropractors? But eventually you have

to get around to the reason for your existence.

Five years ago I was invited to appear before Weight Watchers

in London, England, at Westminster Theater, and for a whole month

prior to the appearance I told everybody, "Come to Westminster

Abbey; that is where you will find me." You see, I am from Brooklyn. What do I know about London?

When I got there, I discovered that they do not even lose pounds

in London. They pay pounds to go into our classes. They lose something called stones. It would not be a problem if a stone was equal

to a pound, but it is equal to 14 pounds, so then I had to become a mathematician. As I walked up on the stage at Westminster Theater

that afternoon and looked out at the faces of some 3,500 people, I thought, "How will I ever be able to communicate with them?"

I stood up and said the only thing I had memorized prior to the

appearance, "Ladies and gentlemen, I weigh 5 stone and 2." From

that point on, I was lost, until I looked at their faces, and then I recognized something. All over the world it is the same expression

when you get right down to it. People are either skeptics about the

thing that I am involved with, or they are believers. They fall into

two categories. They are with us, or they are not yet aware of all of it. Well, when I was invited to appear at the National Conference on Weights and Pleasures, I said, "I am so grateful for the powers that

be. They have brought me to an organization that at least I feel I have something in common with." The word, ladies and gentlemen,

is weight.

104
I have been hearing the word weight all my life, but it was not

always spelled with a "w". It used to be plump, it used to be pudgy,

it used to be pleasingly. Then it became something called glandular. I am not even sure what glandular is, but I used to say it to anybody

who would ask. And then they did not always ask; they used to just

look and say "Why?" Then people used to say, "With a face like yours, how did you let yourself go?" Cute little things like that. And

I would say glandular. The remarkable thing about the word glandular is that nobody ever knows what you mean, but they say "Oh you

poor thing, eat something."

And so we who were fat discovered that the word weight can be

spoken about in inner circles in so many ways. You say glandular.

Then you say something like heredity. You have to eliminate all your thin relatives, and you find a fat cousin somewhere. She is the one you take after. And then you discover that you are talking about

a thing called weight. And you are a liar. You do not tell anybody

that you get up in the middle of the night to raid the refrigerator.

You do not talk about w^hat you eat after midnight. And you say

things like "if I only could, but I can't, it's glandular," or "it's the

air that I breathe," or "it's that cousin of mine that I take after." And so for those of you who do not know too much about who we

are and what we stand for, I am delighted for this privilege to tell you that Weight Watchers is a thing that has touched more than

three million people individually and, through them, hundreds of

thousands of their families and friends. And it has brought an

answer to a very interesting question. Can I really do this thing?

And this thing is, believe it or not, lose weight.

You at this Conference have been watching the fractions. We have

been watching the pounds and complaining about them, and making

all kinds of excuses and telling stories. I think back to 1961, when I weighed 214 pounds. Of course, on my driver's license, it said 150. That is part of the lie, you know. I was one of the people, and there

are many of us, who said, "I wish I could, but I can't." Statistics tell us, ladies and gentlemen, that there are 79 million

overweight Americans. And shall I tell you the sad thing about

them ? They think they can't. That is what is so sad. Somebody said to me earlier, "Do you object to us having the ice cream?" By the way, the difference between the pink tablecloths and

the yellow tablecloths is the dessert. The pink got ice cream and the

yellow got fruit cup. For those of you who don't know, there are two rows of tables on my right with yellow tablecloths. They are Weight Watchers. In that group there is a missing individual. The

individual that is missing weighs 2,100 pounds, because that is how

much has been lost collectively by that little group seated over there.

105
I should like to tell you that losing Aveight has a great significance.

Because of those who said we can't, we have discovered that we are capable of doing this thing by the very virtue of picking up our own

hands. You see, we used to blame the waiter. We blamed our mother.

^y& blamed our husbands. We blamed our wives. We blamed every- body in the world for a problem that we felt we could not correct. Obesity has been known to be one of the major killers in our world,

and I have been privileged enough to discover that it was no accident

that those of us who have suffered obesity found each other. In 1961

I went to the New York City Board of Health, and there I was

given a diet. The diet was written by a physician, and that is to answer so many of you who have questioned me as to where did it all begin and why did it start ? The diet was written by Dr. Norman Joluf. I had seen it many

times before. You see, part of the illness of fat people is that they

save diets. We collect them. Very often we paste them in albums.

We save them in shoe boxes. We have dresser drawers filled with

diets. All our lives we are great collectors. We are also pretty good

at rewriting. So it occurred to me in 1961 that the one thing you

cannot do is sit in judgment of. Very often people say to me, "What is it that makes this thing

wwk?" "Why is it that so many things fail and this thing works?"

Well, I must tell you in all honesty I do not know what makes it work. But then there are lots of things we do not know. I do not

know w^hat makes Chanel No. 5 smell so good either. I simply hope

they do not change the formula. You see, Ave are not sure whether it is the fish, the bread, the fruit, the milk, the female today, or the

lecture every week. We simply hope that nobody changes the formula.

And so Ave decided on two very strong rules. First, don't do it if you don't want to. Don't do it because somebody stands in front of

you and says, "It Avould be nice for you to lose Aveight.'' Nobody eA^er lost Aveight for somebody else in his AA'hole life. Do it if you Avant to proA^e to yourself that you can. If you have an overAveight spouse

or an overAveight child, by all means my advice to you is to leave

him alone. The Avorst thing in the Avorld you can do is tell him to

lose Aveight, because he eats something ever}- time you remind him

he has a problem. We suggest that you don't do this thing unless

you Avant to. The second very imi>ortant rule is to check Avith your

OAvn physician.

I think I talk the Avay I used to eat—comi)u]sively and constantly —and I loA'e to do it, especially to people Avho are interested in Avhat

Ave have to say. I started to talk to my friends about losing Aveight.

I took the diet that Avas giA en to me by the NeAv York City Board

of Health. I said, "Look, it is Avorking for me. I am eating three

meals a day.'' Not because I approved, may J tell you, but because

106
I was afraid not to. You see, at a clinic, if you don't follow the rules,

they terminate you. That is the word they use, and the thought of

being terminated from a free clinic. . . . And so, when I gave the copy of Dr. Norman Joluf's very fantastic and very simple diet to fat ladies, nobody believed. In those

days, it was only the ladies that came. You see, fat ladies did anything just to prove you were wrong. Fat ladies joined any organization in the world just to prove that it wasn't correct, that it wouldn't

work. And when those ladies succeeded in losing weight, their husbands and their brothers, their cousins and their nephews came, and

so we discovered something at Weight Watchers—that obesity does

not belong to women ; men can be afflicted too. In 1963 Weight Watchers Incorporated was born, primarily be- cause I discovered there were many of us. I lived in Queens, in New

York. So on May 15 Weight Watchers was born. Four hundred people attended the first meeting. We had 50 chairs, and that is what

started the three classes a day. We took the first 50 and sent the

rest of them to go windoAv shopping. Of course they went to eat something. Everybody eats before a meeting, you know that. It is alw^ays a pleasure to talk to a group that has just eaten. At least you know they are not hungry. From that point on, the rest of it is history.

We are proud to tell you that we are located in 47 states in these

United States and in five foreign countries. We have never brought

Weight Watchers to a place where we have not been invited. I have

had the extreme privilege of hearing our program given to inter- ested people in French, in Spanish, in Hebrew, in Braille, if you

will, for classes that have only the people who are blind, and in the

sign language for the deaf. We have classes for teenagers, classes for men only, co-ed classes. I have experienced joys that I cannot begin to tell you. But I Avould be remiss if I did not share with you three incidents that

have occurred to me in this past year. The first one took place in Phoenix, Arizona. I was in a department store in Phoenix, and a lady walked up to me with a Weight Watcher cook book and asked

me to sign it. She had crutches under her arm. I did not look at her legs, but I noticed her Weight Watcher pin. By the way, this

is the pin that we all wear*. It is significant of what we have lost. I asked her if it was difficult to lose the weight, and she said, ''No,

I have a manually controlled car.'' As she walked away, 1 looked

down and saw that she had two wooden legs, and it occurred to me

that she could have worn slacks that day, but she did not. Obviously

I had to have seen that here is a lady in Phoenix who made it to

class with a manually controlled car because of the de\oti()u and

dedication that is needed to do this thing.

107
A month later, in Dallas, Texas, a woman came up to me and

wanted me to meet a Weight Watcher—a lady who had lost 47

pounds and joined Weight Watchers in order to get a seeing-eye

dog. She had not been able to get one because she was overweight.

The third experience that I remember vividly was in New Haven.

Connecticut. A young girl came up and said, "I am 21 years old,

Mrs. Nidetch. I am computer dating. I have lost 96 pounds." It occurred to me that to be 21 and to be 96 jDounds overweight is as handicapped as the blind lady in Dallas and the lady with the

wooden legs in Phoenix.

For those people who have come to Weight Watchers, even in

spite of all their handicaps, I can tell you that I am proud and

pri^dleged to bring our story all over the world to anybody Avho is interested in hearing it. My next, visit, as I was telling Mr. and ^Irs. Jennings, will be in

Memphis, Tennessee. We will be talking to groups, free to the

public, open to the audiences who wish to come. Many of you today have stoj^ped me and asked questions about

your families. I should like to let you know that I would be more

than happy to answer whatever questions time will permit. I have

been asked to be as brief as possible, but I w^ould be remiss if I did

not introduce the lady who is the director of Weight Watchers in

Washington, D. C. She is with us today. She has lost 53 pounds, and

has been instrumental in leading a group of people to teach the rest of that yellow tablecloth group in how to do this thing. I should like very much to have Rose Friedland, 58 pounds lighter, stand up and

take a bow.

This morning there was a knock at my door here at the hotel. I opened the door, and there stood a young man. He asked me to sign

something for him and said, "I have lost IT pounds and I live in

Washington. I heard you were in town so I just came over to say

hello." His name is Vincent Cullen, and he is 15 years old, and I

invited him to lunch today.

He brought with him, at his request, his sister. His sister, ladies

and gentlemen, is what we at Weight Watchers refer to as a civilian. Civilians are people who are not fighting our war. When they have

a situation that they cannot cope with, their throats lock, they cannot

swallow. At the same time, the compulsive eater is eating anything

that does not move. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are a compulsive

eater and you are married to a civilian, don't stop loving him, just

stop competing with him. The civilians are sleeping all night while we are checking that refrigerator.

We have learned that people need each other. AVeight Watchers has

become somewhat of a love-in. All over this world I have greeted

people, I have shaken hands, I have said hello, and I have read all

108
the dreams and the hopes that are written across their faces. If losing

weight can bring people together where they can walk in dignity and

say "I can do it," then maybe they can live together. Maybe they can

ask the boss for a raise. ^laybe they can learn to make problems

smaller and solve severe situations. I think we can. There is a lady in New York who checked into Weight Watchers

weighing 749 pounds. She came to us and said, "I can and I will."

And she is doing it. Thus far, 250 pounds are gone. She has an army

of people behind her. You see, we discovered that people need each

other. Together we can move a mountain, even a mountain of fat. So, as a consumer, may I say thank you for helping to bring us together once again.

109
INDUSTRY DISPLAY OF NEW

DESIGNS, APPLICATIONS, PRACTICES

Industry Display, Executive Room. 8ho)'eliam Hotel A new feature of the Conference program this year was an educational display which was held on Wednesday afternoon in cooperation with industry. The informal display of equipment and material

by manufacturers and organizations that have an interest in weights

and measures activities was very well attended and received.

The following organizations participated

Arkstrom Industries, Inc. Berkel, Inc. Brookline Instrument Co.

Cannon Mills Co. Colt Industries

DeLaval Separator Co.

Empro Products Co.

Henry Troemner, Inc. Hi-Speed Checkweigher Co., Inc. Hobart Manufacturing Co. Howe Richardson Scale Co. Liquid Controls Corp.

National Scale INIen's Association

National Technical Information

Service.

Neptune ]\Ieter Co. Ohaus Scale Corp.

Revere Electronics

Rucker Precision

Sanitary Scale Co. Seraphin Test JNIeasure Co. Southern Weights and Measures

Assn.

Thurman Scale Co. Toledo Scale Co. Veeder Root Co. William Wilson's Sons, Inc.

110
MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1971

(A. T. AxDERSOx, Vice Chairman^ Presiding)

MEASUREMENT IN A CHANGING WORLD OF

TECHNOLOGY

by Dr. F. K. AVillenbrock, Director, Institute for Applied

Technology, National Bureau of Standards

Since all of you attending the Conference

_^0lr^^\ today understand your relationship with the

\ Office of Weights and ^Measures, I thought you

A might be interested in the relationship of the

wK^ ' *l| Office of Weights and Measures to the Insti-

\ , J Applied Technology and the relation-

)J ship of the Institute to the National Bureau of

J Standards, and the fit of all this in the context

of our time, past and present.

I wonder if your image of the Bureau is

' similar to the one presented to me a short while

ago—as a home for faceless individuals wearing green eyeshades. In

the last nine months I have learned that this is far from the truth. The very goal of the National Bureau of Standards belies bureaucratic, dreary role-playing. The goal is this: "To strengthen and

advance the nation's science and technology and to facilitate their

elfective application for public benefit." This is no mean goal.

Embodied in it are a number of responsibilities, and I would like to indicate what a few of these are. First, there is an obligation to science and technology in areas in which NBS has been assigned sole responsibility, particularly in the

development, maintenance, and improvement of national standards

of measurement. Another is to respond to emerging social problems

equity in the marketplace (which is your concern and also ours) and

the protection of the public from specified hazards.

Let me endeavor to impart a sense of what the first responsibility

is all about. Why are these measurement standards necessary? In the

early part of the century, industry liad little need for working meas- urements closer than a few thousandths of an inch. But time would,

and has, come when industry has needed standards to a millionth of an inch and, in scientific measurements, to even greater accuracies.

The NBS had to be out in front of these needs and, indeed, has

developed a worldwide reputation for continually being in this advanced i)osition. It has to stay there.

Ill
The time came, for example, in 1957, when the space race began

and NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

and also industry looked to NBS for new precision measurements.

High temperature measurements and the combustion of high energy

missile fuels were needed; so were accurate thrust measurements in

the million-pound range instead of the hundred-thousand-pound

range previously available.

Measurements were needed on the effects of sudden and violent

changes of temperature and pressure on the thousands of components

of a missile system, and on the materials and mechanisms of rocket

engines, air frames, and guidance systems. As appropriations for

basic research rose, the Bureau's efforts and measurements increased,

and in time we reached the moon and, I hope, also an enduring re- spect for the need for engineering standards.

Meanwhile public sentiment, always veering in one direction or another, has moved toward the down-to-earth concerns. Among these

is the protection of the consumer. Permit me to interject a historical observation at this point. The

history and progress of weights and measures in the United States

is in a sense the history and progress of the National Bureau of

Standards. I consider the National Bureau of Standards as a spinoff of the Office of Weights and Measures.

That history goes back to the first official document of the United

States, the Articles of Confederation, a clause of which stated that

the United States Congress would have the power to fix the standards of weights and measures throughout the nation. When the Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution, this

authority w^as given to the Congress in Article I. Such statesmen as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and John

Quincy Adams, and businessmen and scientists throughout the first quarter century of the Republic, repeatedly called for legislation

establishing uniform and reliable weights and measures standards.

Congress gave the Secretary of Treasury responsibility for developing the first standards, and a miniscule Office of Weights and Measures was set up within the Coast and Geodetic Survey. That was

in 1836. In the next 60 years, as the nation grew, the need for a A^ariety of standards grew with it. The Office of Weights and Pleas- ures was unable to cope with the creation of a Avhole galaxy of

entirely arbitrary standards Avhich affected almost every measurable

quantity required by farm, factory, or laboratory. And so on April

18, 1900, in a letter to Congress, the then Secretary of Treasury

Gage recommended that the Office of Standard Weights and Measures be reorganized as a separate agency to be designated the

National Standardizing Bureau, and that it remain under the Secre- tary of the Treasury. Secretary Gage's recommendation Avas trans- lated to legislation which the Congress enacted on Plarch 3, 1901.

112
Rexmond C. Cochrane, in his History of the National Bureau of

Standards, observed that, "Beyond anything its proponents could

have contemplated, the coincidence of the founding of the Bureau

with the Age of Reform shaped its history for the next 30 years. Weights and measures was to be the trigger."

The Bureau of Standards was not given regulatory or police powers. These were most appropriately left to the states. But it was

assigned responsibility for the establishment of standards, standards

instruments, tests, and analytical procedures, all of which made its scope of research in the physical sciences virtually unlimited.

The Bureau was lodged in the Treasury Department until the

creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903, when

it w^as transferred to that Department. When, in 1913, the Department of Commerce and Labor was divided into a separate Department of Commerce and a separate Department of Labor, the Bureaii was assigned to its present location in the Department of Commerce.

As you well know, it was in 1905, that year when President Roosevelt took after the meat-packing industry, that the Director of the

National Bureau of Standards called a meeting of the several states to "bring about uniformity in state laws referring to w^eights and

measures and also to effect a close cooperation between the state inspection services and the National Bureau of Standards." This was really a call for cooperative state-federal enterprise, which got

off to a rocky start, but which seeded your organization, the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

Now let me say a few words about the National Bureau of Standards and my major concern, the Institute for Applied Technology.

The lAT, as we call it, is one of the three institutes into which the

programs of the Bureau were regrouped in 1964. In the lAT we

have brought together the technology-oriented programs. The names

of the other two institutes, the Institute for Basic Standards and the

Institute for Materials Research, disclose their missions. There is also a Center for Computer Sciences and Technology.

One of our advisory panels once called the Institute for Applied

Technology a collection of disparate activities; and actually, as you

look at the lAT, its goals are really somewhat disparate also. These

goals are (1) to facilitate more efl'ective government and industry

use of technology by addressing those technological problems that

require national attention because of their complexity; (2) to pro- vide a common technical basis for a fair exchange between sellers and buyers with minimum regulation at the federal level; and (3) to provide standards, test methods, information, and specialized

services as required by law to protect the public from specified

hazards.

We include in this Institute an Office of Fire Research and Safety, an Office for Engineering Standard Services, an Office for Flammable

113
Fabrics, an Office for Invention and Innovation, a Product Evaluation Technology Division, a Building Research Division, an Electronic Technology Division, a Technical Analysis Division, and a Measurement Engineering Division. And, of course, we also include

the Office of Weights and Pleasures.

The Office of Weights and Measures has the responsibility of

making improved measurement technology work for industry and

the consumer by assisting the states in attaining their objectives of

providing for commercial equity between buyers and sellers. As part

of that responsibility, I can assure you that the Bureau is happy to support the National Conference on Weights and Pleasures as a forum in which industry, governuient, and the consumer can play a

vital role in lending direction to the weights and measures programs

of the United States. In his remarks at the opening of this Conference, Dr. Branscomb

referred to the start a few years ago of the National Conference of

States on Building Codes and Standards, which has been in many

ways modeled after your Conference on Weights and Measures. The

analogy between these two organizations is worth pursuing, since it illustrates the importance and value of the National Conference on Weights and jNIeasures. The situation in regard to building codes in the United States today is, in a number of ways, similar to the

weights and measures situation before 1901, only worse. There are more than 13,000 distinct jurisdictional entities in the United States and more than 6,000 differing building codes. Thus, a building process or material acceptable in one jurisdiction may or may not be

acceptable in the next. Finding out whether it is, is a costly and timeconsuming operation.

As one result, the building industry has not been able to make

optimum use of the new technologies available today, and the many

economic advantages of large-volume production in the construction

of housing, hospitals, schools, buildings, hotels, and so forth are denied to the American public. We need to pull this pathwork into a coherent system, not by a federal building code any more than a federal regulatory system for weights and measures is needed.

Rather, w^e should follow the weights and measures model. The legal

authority for the building regulation lies with the states, although

many have assigned their responsibility to more local govermnental

agencies.

The states need to work together to develop a fompatiblp 'system

of building regulations, so that there is a nationwide market for

building materials and systems. They need to develop a menjis of

encouraging the introduction of new and improved techniques and

materials in the construction piocess- To carry out these functions.

114
the states need techiiical support ; and through the lAT buihding

research program, tliat support is being supplied.

Thus, the analogy between the National Conference on Weights

and INIeasures and the National Conference on Building Codes and

Standards is quite a complete one. The states have the regulatory

authority, and the National Bureau of Standards stipports their

efforts to make the applications of that authority compatible within

and among the states. In this way we hope to achieve a market uniformity in the United States in the building field similar to the

market uniformity in the weights and meastires area. The results will

benefit both the consumer and the producer. We are working very

hard in the building regulatory area to reach the level of performance that weights and meastires has achieved during its many decades

of service. I think that this analogy is a particularly interesting one, because

it has been very apj)arent to tis in the Bttreau that the example set by the Weights and Measures Conference—the relationship which

exists between the state officials and members of the Bureau staff

has been cited over and over again as the work of the National Conference on Building Codes and Standards lias developed.

The close cooperation between the Office of Weights and JNIeasures and the state and local weights and measures officials has been one

of the major factors in the sticcess achieved in the past. But our expanding society continually poses new demands. We should, then,

find new avenues for increasing our communication at the local, state, and federal levels to learn how we might be of even greater assistance

in the future.

I'o this end, I met yesterday with yotir Committee on Liaison with

the Federal Government to discuss your present concerns, such as the

railroad track scale program, inspection of federally controlled

activities such as the Post Office and military resale stores, and the

need for new laboratory facilities for the major cities. Our meeting- was very valuable, and I learned much from our discussion. In the

weeks to follow, we will be considering these recommendations of

the Liaison Committee in order to determine the best means available

to address these problems.

The problems we face today most certainly require new technological advances. Achieving that technology, whether in measurement

science or in the tools of management phmning necessary to implement an effective weights and measures program, is the challenge we

all face. I am confident that, through our continued cooperation, commercial equity will prevail in an increasing degree in tliis country.

115
FORUM ON MEASUREMENT

O. K. Warxlof, Office of Weights and Measures, Moderator

The intent of this morning's session is to provide a forum on measurement, or, more

precisely, technical information based primarily on the mechanical activities of weights and

measures enforcement. We are in a technical

age. Although it has not received much atten- tion these past several years, the mechanical

activity is still a vital and essential part of

any weights and measures enforcement pro- gram. It always has been and always will be

the responsibility of weights and measures

enforcement to secure to those in business the possession of properly

designed and accurate weighing and measuring equipment with

which to carry on trade. And this can only be accomplished with an

appropriate standard—XBS Handbook 44—uniformly interpreted

and uniformly enforced. And here at the National Conference is where H-44 is developed.

The objective of the standard, "that equity may prevail," should

be expressed in performance terms generally, and the question of

how to meet that performance is left as open as possible. As you

know, the pholosophy expressed in the requirements of Handbook

44 are principally performance—not design. Wherever specifications

of performance rather than design are possible, it permits industry

to use its full innovative capability to solve the problem which is expressly described in the standard. Performance-based standards,

however, put a tremendous burden on the ability to measure, be- cause measuring performance is much more difficult than measuring

design, which can often be done by inspection alone rather than

periodic examinations and some supervisory activity.

Weights and measures is now confronted with a complex technological change in commercial measurement and in commercial devices. It is somewhat easier to argue about these changes superficially,

calling upon subjective judgments and insufficient knowledge, than

to do the hard work necessary to produce the needed technical facts in the development of the standard—H-44. It is our responsibility,

the responsibility of all in weights and measures, to produce the

needed technical facts and to maintain this performance philosophy

in the development of and amendments to the standard—H-44.

With the application of ADP to a weights and measures enforcement program, the examination of devices becomes more significant.

116
From the data obtained in this examination, determinations will be

made as to which devices will be tested in the future and at what

intervals. To provide a workable solution in this area, the data

must be reliable and the test procedures uniform.

With these thoughts in mind, the Office of Weights and Measures

will sponsor a technical seminar in weights and measures enforcement, directed to field supervisors, at the National Bureau of Standards November 15-19, 1971. An announcement and application will

appear in the next Tech Memo.

The forum this morning presents four topics of immediate interest to all involved in weights and measures—prototype examination,

cr^^ogenic liquids, trucking industry and weighing, and state laboratories. To present these topics to you, we have four distinguished

gentlemen, each leaders in their fields. They are: Mr. Landvater,

Vice President of Engineering, Ohaus Scale Corporation, and President of the Scale Manufacturers Association; Mr. Douglas Mann,

Chief of the Cryogenic Metrology Section of the NBS Institute for

Basic Standards, who has been working on a wide range of problems involving cryogenic systems and instrumentation; Mr. Edward

Kiley, Vice President of Research and Technical Services, American

Trucking Associations, who is a member of several professional

transportation organizations and is the author of many articles on

transportation economics; and Mr. Ronald Roof, Laboratory Metrologist, Pennsylvania Bureau of Standard Weights and Measures, who

is the coordinator of the Pennsylvania Bureau's State Measurement

Center utilizing the new state standards and equipment supplied by

the National Bureau of Standards.

A MANUFACTURER'S VIEW ON TYPE APPROVAL

by J. H. Landvater, Vice President, Engineering, Ohaus Scale

Corporation

As a scale manufacturer, prototype approval

of weighing devices is a two-edge sword. To

have it is both a blessing and a curse. As I expand on my feelings on this subject, I will, of course, be expressing in many cases my personal feelings, I will be expressing the

feelings of my company, Ohaus Scale Corporation, and I will also be expressing the feelings

of the Scale Manufacturers Association. I will

try throughout my discussion to make clear

to you when I am expressing an opinion of the

117
Scale Manufacturers Association and when my comments are those

of Ohaus Scale Corporation and my5=ielf personally.

Why do 1 say prototype tyj)e approval is both a blessing and a curse? First, let us look at the conditions that make manufacturers

consider it a blessing to have prototype type approval. Probably the

most important reason for wanting it is to "remove the gun from

our heads." Let me trace a typical new product design project to

illustrate what I mean. Let us assume, for illustration only, that

there is no prototype examination of any type. In order to illustrate my point, I am going to describe the sequence that led up to a new

product by Ohaus Scale Corporation over the last several years. Figure 1 show^s the product that I am going to use as the illus- tration. It is a conventional mechanical over-under checkweighing

scale.

Figure 1 118
Before deciding to design this product, we of course did some

market research. We knew there was a need in the marketplace for

this particular device, we knew^ what the customer wanted in new

features and performance characteristics, w^e knew what the price

should be, and we knew how well the product should perform.

We also had access to the basic standards which generally apply

in all jurisdictions where we will sell this product. Let us assume

for the moment that we will only sell the product within the geo- graphical limits of the United States and, therefore, we only need

concern ourselves with the specifications for design and performance

found in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44. If we meet

all those criteria, we will have a product that should be acceptable

by each of the w^eights and measures jurisdictions.

The first step is to turn designers loose on the project to work

out the basic design specifications. They take into account all the

specifications as they interpret them from Handbook 44, and the first step is to build a very simple working model to validate any new

concepts. Figure 2 shows that first working test model.

Figure 2 119
I find there is generally a misconception in the minds of most

people about the amount of engineering elfort required in designing

a rather straightforward mechanical weighing device. After all, it is not very greatly different from similar devices that we have de- signed and manufactured in the past, so why the big deal ? Actually,

any deviation from an existing established design requires A'ery

careful attention to detail in order to design the best function at the best manufacturing cost. Our next step after a careful evaluation of the first very rough

model is to do an actual detailed product design, do some styling,

and build some samples which now look very much like the finished

product will eventually look. Figure 3 shows one of those working

prototypes.

FiGUKE 3 At this stage, these prototypes are handmade by fool and model

makers. Every part is cut from solid stock to the exact detail drawing dimensions, and the product again is carefully tested and evaluated. Only at this point, after the engineers have satisfied themselves

and the management of our company that they do, in fact, have a

satisfactory design, are we ready to proceed with preparation for

production.

120
At this point we do not yet have a prototype suitable for submission for type approval evaluation, because the handmade prototypes shown on the last slide will be changed in several ways, as a

result of the testing and evaluation performed at this time before

the product goes to its final production design. There will also be some changes as we prepare for production—that is, as we design

the tools, determine the manufacturing methods, adapt the manufacture of parts to certain machine tools, etc. Submission of a pro- totype at this point would be premature, since the product will

change in some ways, and could change in ways that would affect the validity of the prototype examination.

After anywhere from one year to five years of engineering efforts, a product of this type is tooled, and the first pilot production lot

is completed. By this time the company may have invested anywhere from a few^ thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of

dollars in getting ready to produce the product. Somewhere along

the line they have also spent considerable time, effort, and money

in preparing the promotional materials that go along with advertising the product setting up their marketing plans for the product,

and in general p^" paration to get it into the hands of the buying

public.

Now let us make one basic assumption and say that the engineers

and the company have, in fact, correctly interpreted all of the specifications found in Handbook 44, and they do in fact have a piece of

equipment that meets all of those specifications. We are also working on the basic premise, as you remember, that there is no prototype type approval examination in existence. As these new j^roducts

begin to reach the marketplace, they will be inspected for conformity

to H-44 design specifications, as well as conformance to tolerance of

performance from H-44. This will be done by the local weights and

measures inspector in the jurisdiction in which the product is to be used.

Since no one legislative body will have said to those individual

inspectors, "This product does meet all of the design and construction requirements of H-44," the company will always feel as though

it has "the gun at its head." Any one of the individual inspectors

could at any time question whether this scale does, in fact, meet all the specifications. He may question things as subtle as hardness of

pivots, or relationship between pivot hardness and bearing hardness.

He may question whether, while this product is at that moment

being used for a particular purpose, it could at some other time be

used for some different purpose and, thei'efore, some construction

feature not meet H-44 specifications. He could wrongly interi)ret the

code and decide that the product was in violation of the code, whereas, in fact, it may be in complete conformance to the code, but sim121
ply because of his interiDretation cause a condemnation of the product

in a particular case. This could result in the company's need to repeatedly defend the conformity of its product to applicable

specifications.

Let us look now for a moment, however, at the situation as it actually exists. We do, in fact, have type-approval examination, and,

at least until a few years ago, that type approval was handled by

each individual jurisdiction which had such type approval written

into its code. I must be honest to admit that this has been good.

In general, some 26 jurisdictions have required prototype submission

for type-approval examinations before marketing new products

within their jurisdictions. The extent of their examinations has

varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as is to be expected. However, this has not been without problems from time to time. The basic

problem that has existed has been nonuniformity of interpretation

of H-44.

" In the past, it has been my experience, and the experience of other

manufacturers, that interpretations based on H-44 by different jurisdictions will differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and will also

differ within a jurisdiction from time to time. We will find ourselves

in some cases building in certain design features to the product

required by one jurisdiction but not by others. We Avill find changes

in philosophy and interpretation as personnel changes within a jurisdiction over the years. I am sure everyone here can look back at the

changing interpretations of H-44 within your own jurisdiction over the years as people come and go within your weights and measures

office. This is only natural, since everyone is an individual and will see things differently.

When the National Bureau of Standards suggested a few years

ago that it would take on the responsibility of conducting prototype examinations as a service and make reports of their examinations as a service to the various states requiring prototype

examination, we at the Scale Manufacturers Association endorsed

their plan. It is not that we believe the people at the National Bureau

are so much more competent in evaluating prototype designs, not that we believe they will be more favorable in their decisions toward the

manufacturer's product, but only that we believe one interpretation

of the code is preferable to many interpretations of the code.

This is one reason for our endorsement of the prototype examination service. Another is that the Bureau does have excellent laboratory test facilities and technicians available to perform the testing

and evaluations of the prototypes. This is really one of their major

reasons for being—the maintenance of primary standards, test i:)ro- cedures, etc. It is only logical that they should be well equipped to perform the technical aspect of the prototype evaluation.

122
Still another reason is their intimate knoAvledge of the development of the H-44 code. The people of the Office of Weights and

Measures are intimately associated with the basic philosophy which

goes into the revisions and development of the code from year to year. Who else would be in a better position to keep completely

up to date on the intent of the various provisions of the code ? Now that I have told you why we think prototype type approval is important to a manufacturer and why we endorse the NBS prototype reporting concept, let me tell you why we object to some of

the phases of a type-approval program, why we consider this a twoedge sword, and, while we are in favor of the blessings we receive

from type approval, what we consider to be its curse. The curse is time. Time is money. Money, and thus profit, is our

reason for being in existence as a manufacturer. Unfortunately, the

NBS examination service lengthens the approval cycle and costs us money.

When I discussed the design cycle earlier of one simple mechanical weighing device, I am sure you recognized that there is a large

amount of money invested in a project of this sort before we are ready to submit a prototype for type-approval examination. I ex- plained that we really need to have the product tooled up and take one of the products from our pilot production lot for submission

for examination. At that point we are very close to being ready to deliver products to customers. We do not want any additional delays

at that point that prevent us from beginning to get a return on our

investment.

Just so you have some frame of reference, a normal return on

investment of any manufacturing operation is considered to be 20

percent. That is, if there is an investment of $100,000 in design

development and tooling of a new product, there should be a return

of $20,000 per year to pay off the invested money and give the

investors a reasonable return. This breaks down to $1,633 per month

return needed for every $100,000 invested. It is obvious, then, for

every month we are held up in making delivery of products waiting

for type approval, it will cost us $1,633 for every $100,000 invested.

While the Scale Manufacturers Association and we at Ohaus Scale

Corporation are wholeheartedly in favor of the NBS prototy})e

examination service, we recognize that this adds one additional area

of lead time into the total approval cycle as it now stands. In order

for us or any manufacturer to get type approval of a new product, we must first submit it to the National Bureau of Standards for

their examination. After they have examined the product, if they find

it acceptable we then must submit it to those other jurisdictions

which require submission of a prototype for their examination.

123
What can we do to solve that problem? From a manufacturer's

point of view, Ave would like to see all states accept the National

Bureau's examination and report of test as a report on which they

will base their type-approval certification. Up to this time, that

situation does not exist. Some jurisdictions will accept the Bureau's

report and base their decision on that report. Other jurisdictions

require a submission of a prototype to their jurisdiction, a repeat

of the testing which has already been accomplished by the National

Bureau of Standards, and then a report of their findings and accept- ance or rejection of the product.

I have looked into the background of what has actully happened

in the last several years since we have had XBS type-approval examination and reports. Table 1 shows the number of requests that have

gone to the Bureau for prototype examination since 1966. Essentially it has been an increasing number from year to year as the

jDrototype service has progressed.

Table 1

REQUESTS FOR PROTOTYPE EXANINATION YEAR NUMBER

1966. 6 1967 10 1968 13 1969 15 1970 38

1971 16 (To Date) TOTAL: 99 Table 2 shows the results of the type-approval examinations con- ducted by the Bureau. It is interesting to notice that scales and

indicators—products of our industry, the weighing industry—make

up 78 of the total of 99 products submitted. It is also interesting to note that not all of the products, by any means, have met H—t-t requirements, which is an indication that the Bureau examination

is saying to manufacturers, "We have examined your product and

it does not shape up. Try again."

I also polled the Bureau, as well as various manufacturers, on

their experience with the acceptance of the National Bureau's pro- totype report by the various jurisdictions. The I^ureau made a sur- vey a few years ago and was advised by all but two jurisdictions

that they would accept tlie NBS report in lieu of examination of the

product themselves. The two jurisdictions who declined to accept the

NBS report were California and New Jersey.

124
Table 2

PESULTS PF PPOTOTYPE EXAPINATION

DID NOT

li-iiii [^TFT \i-im TYPE OF DEVICE PEQUIREMNTS PEQUIPEMHTS IN PROCESS

SCALES & INDICATORS £i7 18*

GAS PUMPS 1 1

'"S^ PUr I IDICTPfC & i.T.arCr' ii 2

:LC.. FL^i 'tTFPS 1

-

, 1 VEHICLE TANK f^TER ImDKATPP" 1 1

F££,PIC If CrPTACE

T^/riTEFb 1 tP^Y .(iKZ 1 1 TOTALS; 59 27

-jrtF TCOf-TLJDEL Trn'ORARY APPROVAL PENDING COfiFERENCE ACTION

t IF Tr. IP, •

However, in polling manufacturers who have had actual experi- ence with the type-approval reports of the Bureau, we find that in some cases several other jurisdictions will, when the chips are down,

ask to see a sample of the product rather than accept the NBS

report. These jurisdictions who have vacillated are North Carolina, New York, New York City, and Massachusetts. Other jurisdictions have stated that they will accept the NBS report subject to an examination of the first product installed in their jurisdictions.

These have been Pennsylvania and Illinois. In polling the National Bureau of Standards and the scale manufacturers, I can find no case, however, where any jurisdiction has

disagreed in any major point with the findings of the NBS examinations. Understand clearly what I am saying. The manufacturers

who have submitted their products to the National Bureau of Standards for their examination and report have found that a subsequent submission of the same products to all jurisdictions that

requested to see the products has resulted in approval by those

jurisdictions essentially in accord with the NBS report.

I make this point as strongly as I can, because I think it is only

prudent management on your part to test a new system before accepting it. I think it has been prudent of you to have required your own

examinations of new prototypes after receiving the report from

the National Bureau of Standards to confirm their examination

125
and report. However, I think the history of the unanimous accept- ance of each individual jurisdiction of those products found acceptable by the National Bureau since 1966 is sufficient proof that the

NBS examination and report is a valid standard on which to base

your acceptance of the products.

Of course, at this point I am speaking primarily to the delegates

from the States of North Carolina, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York, since these jurisdictions have not yet really

accepted the NBS examination service. I believe that you would be

well served to accept the NBS report on prototype examination of new products as your official examination and the basis for accept- ance of those products for sale in your jurisdiction.

When I say this, of course, I am speaking to you with an ulterior

motive—profit. By accepting the NBS report, you will not only be

shortening the total time cycle for approval of a new product, which

I explained earlier is expensive for manufacturers when the approval

cycle prohibits us from delivering new products, but you will also reduce our cost in the separate submission of prototypes to your in- dividual jurisdictions. While this may seem like a small thing to you, from a manufacturer's point of view the submission of prototypes to various jurisdictions, the subsequent followup, demonstration of the product to you, and subsequent consultations get to be

expensive items in each new product placed on the market.

We believe the successful history of the past five years of NBS

prototype examination and reports speak for themselves. It has been

successful. We believe it can be more successful. And we hope it will become the accepted method of testing and evaluating new

products in the future.

126
THE FLOW MEASUREMENT OF CRYOGENIC FLUIDS

by D. B. Maxx, Chief, Cryogenic ^Metrology Section, Cryogenics

Division, National Bureau of Standards

Introduction

The question could reasonably be asked why

the weights and measures officials are now be- ing subjected to the problems associated with

the measurements of cryogenic fluids. Traditional cryogenic fluids are generally extremely

pure (impurities are of the order of parts per

million), and the quality suffers if care is not

exercised in maintaining this purity. These

fluids are extremely cold, generally existing at

less than 120 K (-244 °F) and requiring special material and structures for containment

and handling. For example, carbon steel at these temperatures has

many of the characteristics of glass and can shatter during cooling

or use at these low temperatures. Lubricating oil is solid at these

temperatures and, therefore, useless in reducing friction and wear

of moving parts of valves and meters. Special materials, such as

stainless steel, brass, copper, and specially prepared alloys, must

be used in place of the more conventional materials. Lubrication

must be accomplished by using bearings of special materials or by

using the lubricating qualities of the fluid itself. To carry the adverse characteristics of cryogenic fluids a step

further, many of these fluids are highly reactive as oxidizers or

fuels. As a matter of fact, two of these fluids (hydrogen and oxygen) are used extensively in high performance rocket vehicles and

have played an important role in the Apollo program.

There are, of course, a number of redeeming characteristics of

these fluids. This can be shown by referring to table 1, whicli lists some selected properties of the more important cryogenic fluids as compared to water. In addition to the low temperatures and vis- cosities associated with the liquids, there is a remarkable increase in the density of the liquids as comi)ared to their normal gaseous state. Therefore, traditional cryogenic fluids are attractive from the standpoint of i)urity, of high density, and as a stable source of low

temperatures.

127
Table 1. Selected Properties of Cryogenic Liquids Compared to Water

T(°F) Specific Density Liq. (XBP)*

(NBP)* Gravity Density Gas (NTP)**

Water 212 (373 K) 1.0 1603 Methane -259 (112 K) 0.42 632 Oxygen -297 ( 90 K) 1.14 860 Argon -303 ( 87 K) 1.39 842 Nitrogen -320 ( 77 K) 0.81 696 Hydrogen -423 ( 20 K) 0.071 848

Belixnn . -452 ( 4 K) 0.125 753 Normal boiling point.

**Normal temperature and pressure (70 °F, 1 atmosphere).

These are important characteristics and are the basis for most of

the widespread uses of these fluids. Table 2 lists a number of uses for these fluids and the list is increasing at a rapid rate. The quantity of cryogenic fluids produced is also increasing rapidly. It is estimated [1, 2] that in 1970 over $600 million worth of these fluids were produced. By extending the present rate of growth to 1985, the

industry will produce, at that time, products worth $2.5 billion.

Table 2. Uses of Cryogenic Fluids

Oxygen: Steel making, welding, nonferrous metal refining, aerospace rocket

oxidizer, breathing atmosphere, treatment of sewage. Nitrogen: Food freezing ; inert atmosphere in metal, chemical, electronic, and aerospace industry ; deflashing of molded rubber and plastic

parts; vehicle refrigeration (aircraft, railroad, highway) ; live- stock branding; heat treatment of metals (cryoquenching) ; explosive forming of metals ; freezing of water-logged soils ; cryo embalming ; infrared detectors ; cryosurgery. Helium: Aerospace inerting and pressurant gas, welding, superconductivity, nuclear reactors. Hydrogen: Aerospace fuel, hydrogeneration of edible oils, heat treatment of metals, atmospheric control in electronic industr>^ Argon: Welding, continuous casting of steel.

128
The fact that cryogenics is a large and growing industry does not make it necessarily of interest to weights and measures officials. The

fact that the uses of the fluids are increasingly diverse and that

larger amounts of these fluids are changing ownership in the marketplace does make it of interest to weights and measures officials. The argument may be offered that only a few highly industrialized

and urbanized states are concerned with measurements of cryogenic

fluids. The reply is that the diverse uses of the fluids does not limit use within these states. In many transactions, cryogenic measurement

problems exist, but perhaps to a lesser degree than other problems

which are considered of more urgent immediate interest by the

weights and measures officials. This situation is changing as the uses and quantities of cryogenic fluids increase. I wish to bring to your attention a measurement program involving

the cryogenics industry, state weights and measures officials, and NBS.

The program is, we believe, solving existing problems, as well as providing a basis for future developments in both metering technology and the increasing responsibilities of state regulatory agencies

in assuring good and useful measurements.

Cryogenic Flowmetering at NBS

The Cryogenics Division of the NBS Institute for Basic Standards

has been involved in cryogenic measurements since 1952 [3-6]. A

number of attempts have been made by the Division during this time

to coordinate and develop a program on flowmetering. Until recently,

these efforts have not been sufficiently intensive. In the period 1966-67

this situation changed quickly because of a number of culminating

events.

1. The CGA Proposed Model Code.—In June 1967 the Compressed

Gas Association (CGA), a producer-oriented trade organization, proposed to the 52d National Conference on Weights and Measures a model code for flowmetering of cryogens. Although the Conference on Weights and INIeasures found that cryogenic measurement problems were, at that time, centralized only in a few states, the proposal

by the CGA was shown to be a significant step in the national recognition of cryogenic flow measurement problems.

^2. The California Code on Cryogenic Measuring Devices [7].—In

the fall of 1967, the State of California Bureau of Weights and Measures began hearings on its own proposed code for cryogenic liquid

measurement devices to be used within the State of California. The

Cryogenics Division was asked to participate in these hearings. We

provided technical information and were asked by the State of California and the Compressed Gas Association to provide standard

129
density data for the gases hydrogen, oxygen, argon, and nitrogen to be incorporated in the code. Values of these densities were made part

of the code. A reference document gives information on precision and

accuracy expected in the code tabular data [8].

After several hearings in the fall and winter of 1967-68, the code was adopted and made law in the State of California on July 1, 1968. The code itself followed very closely the recommendations made in

NBS Handbook 44 [9] for similar codes. One of the most significant

code specifications was the tolerance specification, reading as follows

"The maintenance tolerance shall be four percent (4%) of the indicated delivery on underregistration and two percent (2%) of the

indicated delivery on overregistration. The acceptance tolerance shall be one-half the maintenance tolerance." It was felt that, at that time,

this accurately represented the capability of meters used in commerce.

3. Instrument Society of America Ad-Hoc Committee Report on

Cryogenic Flow Measurement [10].—The Ad-Hoc Committee was

composed of industrial, government, and university representatives

with a broad experience in cryogenics. The report returned to the

ISA Conference in June 1967 represented an extensive review and

definition of the broad national needs for cryogenic measurements

and standards, and provided suggestions for the economic justification for meeting these national needs. In the abstract of the final report, the Ad-Hoc Committee recommended (a) a national standard

and transfer standard for cryogenic flow, (b) an accepted measure- ment methodology for cryogenic flow, (c) a national authority to develop the standards, transfer standards, and methodology, and

(d) a state of the art education of all personnel using cryogens and

flow measurements. For those interested in the work of the committee,

it seemed to indicate that an extensive program was required.

In addition to these four recommendations, the Ad-Hoc Committee

report did point out that there w^ere two separate and distinct applications of cryogenic flowmetering. The first utilizes a moderate flow

rate totalized metering of commercial cryogenic fluids. This would

be the type of metering encountered on a trailer truck type application, where a producer is servicing a number of separate customers

and is metering and billing on the basis of meter reading. The second

application of cryogenic metering is typified by the aerospace application of high flow rate measurement of fuels and oxidizers. Rates as high as hundreds of pounds j^er second would be an example.

Since the NBS Cryogenics Division particij^ated in all three of the

above actions, we were requested to make recommendations on a definitive program. In the fall of 1967, we suggested a flow research

facility and program be initiated that would have three primary

objectives

130
1. Conduct a basic cryogenic flowmetering study to determine

and evaluate the performance of the traditional metering methods

as applied to cryogenics. This portion of the program would determine present status.

2. Provide the methodology necessary to preserve the accuracy

and precision of meters as demonstrated in 1 for measurements made

in the field.

3. Investigate new measuring methods.

Details of the progress of the program to date are available in the

literature [11-14]. In summary, we at NBS have enjoyed exceptional

cooperation with the cryogenic industry as represented by the (Compressed Gas Association and regulatory agencies as represented by

the State of California Bureau of Weights and Measures. The CGA

has provided funding for a joint government-industry venture which

has resulted in a cryogenic flow facility unique in the U. S. and in

the world. There has been considerable international interest and

support. This joint venture includes a coordinating committee meeting three to four times a year to review and plan program objectives

and results. The Bureau of Weights and Pleasures of the State of

California is represented during the meetings and provides valuable input in defining program objectives and in the transfer of

technological information.

The committee provides a forum for the exchange of views and

procedures in the methodology of cryogenic flow^ measurements. NBS

in its traditional third-party position has provided guidance and

assistance to both parties, as well as becoming knowledgeable of the

practical problems of field measurement.

In addition, NBS has attempted to fully disclose the procedures

used in evaluating meters under test and the methods of indicating

precision and accuracy of the meters. In short, we recognize the fact

that metering devices may be rated as to precision and accuracy in a number of ways. We have provided a recommended method in

sufficient detail to allow other methods of interpretation of the basic

data.

At the present time, the four types of flowmeters used in commerce

have been evaluated as to the ability of the meter to make and to maintain a measurement. We are presently involved in evaluating new flow measurement devices submitted by both foreign and domestic suppliers for the purpose of determining if a transfer standard

can be selected or developed for use in certifying meters in the field. A portion of the program involves the interlaboratory comparison

of the test standards. Such an evaluation has attracted considerable

interest nationally and internationally because of the expense of

building and maintaining cryogenic flow facilities.

131
As to possible future developments, we are looking to the development of a uniform code for . flow measurements of cryogenic fluids and a continuing program of methodology to sustain and support

such a code. Developments in the growing liquefied natural gas

(LNG) industry must be folloAved closely as the possibility exists

that this industry could, in the next few years, overshadow the tra- ditional cryogenic fluid industry in the area of production, distri- bution, and measurement activities. It w^ould be worth while to consider integrating the measurement requirements for LNG into

the uniform cryogenic measurement code.

In conclusion, we at NBS feel fortunate in being involved directly

in the measurement activities represented by this Conference. We

hope that we can continue to provide industry with useful measure- ment techniques and services and to "cooperate with the states in

securing uniformity in weights and measures laws and methods of

inspection."

References

[I] Industrial Gases : Short of Some Goals but Still Growing, Cryogenic and

Industrial Gases, Vol. 6, No. 1, 19-24 (Jan.-Feb. 1971).

[2] Flynn, T. M., and Smith, C. N., Trends in Cryogenic Fluid Production

in the United States, Proceedings of the Intl. Inst, of Refrig. Com, I, Tokyo,

Japan (1970), p. 241.

[3] Richards, R. J., Jacobs, R. B., Advances in Cryogenic Engineering, 4, 272 (Plenum, X. Y. 1959).

[4] Purcell, J. R., Schmidt, A. F., Jacobs, R. B., Advances in Cryogenic

Engineering, 5, 282 (Plenum, N. Y., 1960).

[5] Burgeson, D. A., Advances in Cryogenic Engineering, 5, 307 (Plenum,

N. Y. 1960).

[6] Alspach, W. J., Flynn, T. M., Advances in Cryogenic Engineering, 10, 246 (Plenum, N. Y., 1965).

[7] Alfano, J., Inst. Soc. America Conf., No. 69-586 (1969).

[8] Roder, H. M., McCarty, R. D., Johnson, Y. J., NBS Tech. Note 361 (U. S. Govern. Print. Office, 1968).

[9] NBS Handbook 44, 3d ed. (U. S. Govern. Print. Office, 1965).

[10] Inst. Soc. of America, Ad Hoc Committee Report on ' Cryogenic Flow

Measurement (1967).

[II] Dean, J. W., Brennan, J. A., Mann, D. B., Advances in Cryogenic

Engineering, 14, 299 (Plenum, N. Y., 1969).

[12] Dean, J. W., Brennan, J. A., Mann, D. B., and Kneebone, C. H., Cryogenic Flow Research Facility Provision Accuracy Statement, NBS Tech. Note 606 (July 1971).

132
[13] Mann, D. B., Dean, J. W., Brennan, J. A., and Kneebone, C. H., Cryogenic Flow Measurement—Positive Displacement Volumetric Flowmeters,

Paper 1-6-113, Symposium on Flow, Pittsburgh, Pa. (May 1971).

[14] Brennan, J. A., Dean, J. W., Mann, D. B., and Kneebone, C. H., An

Evaluation of Positive Disijlacement Cryogenic Volumetric Flowmeters,

NBS Tech. Note 605 (July 1971).

THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY'S STAKE IN

ACCURATE WEIGHT DETERMINATION

by E. V. KiLEY, Vice President, Research and Technical Services,

American Trucking Associations, Inc. I would conclude from looking at some of

the slides here this morning that the subject

of my talk is a rather pedestrian subject. However, the weight I am going to talk about is not the difference between the weight of an empty truck and the weight of a loaded truck.

/ I am going to talk about the problem that the

^^jjL trucking industry has, and that is the weight

l^^^k \ of the truck itself on the highway.

HHnk ^i f , We are the only transportation agency that

has over us a limitation on the weight of the

equipment with which we do business. Doing business, as we do, on

the nation's highways, we naturally must abide by state weight

limitation. We understand this, we promote it as a matter of fact

it is sound, and it should be done. But when we compete with rail- roads, and now with airlines, who face no similar restrictions, then we do have a stake in accurate weight determination. This has al- ways been the case, but it is more critical now than ever before.

A type of vehicle very popular in the western part of the country as a major hauler of freight is what is known as a double bottom.

This vehicle consists of two 27-foot semitrailers in tandem with a power unit, and the one of which I am speaking has five axles. This

vehicle usually is about 65 feet in overall length. I am going to use

this particular vehicle as an illustration of the subject that I want

to get into. For years the trucking industry has operated on the nation's highways under state size and weight regulations. We recognize that this has to be done. Our only concern is that these regulations be arrived

at in a technically sound manner and be reasonable and in line with

actual public need. Over the years, these size and weight regulations

have always been centered around the needs of the individual states. This is a very important thing from our standpoint. The trucks today

133
are the nation's major haulers of freight. Trucks haul more freight

today in this country than the railroads. This is not recognized often

in the public press because, unlike the railroads, the trucking industry

does not have a national labor organization. We are not subject to a total strike of all trucks hauling freight, such as the railroads are. Therefore, we never have a total shutdown of truck service. The regulations covering truck sizes and weights have developed

over the years according to each state's needs, its evaluation of its highway capabilities, and what was needed in the economy of each

individual state. A very close identification between what is per- mitted and what is important to the economy of the several states can

be amply illustrated by reading the size and weight laws in these

states and the variations from the legal limits in the way of tolerances over and above what is otherwise legal.

An important factor long recognized by highway engineers in

terms of stresses in the highway pavement has been the amount of

weight carried in a vehicle by each axle of the vehicle. Each axle

carries a certain part of the total weight of the vehicle. In order to protect the pavement, highway engineers in the states have long had

regulations, and the state legislatures have gone along with these

regulations and have passed legislation imposing limitations on what

each actual axle can carry. Theoretically, this means that, if there were no structures and no bridges on the highway system, the regulations covering axle loads would be sufficient. The highway engi- neer would not care too much, from the standpoint of the safety of

the highway itself as a structure, what the total weight of a vehicle was, so long as the weight on any one of the axles did not exceed a

set limit. This axle-load limit, tied as it was to the highway itself, varied

from state to state in many cases. It was not always the same. Gradually over the years, a regional pattern developed, and, in essence, what we have today and have had for several years is lower axle-load

limits in the western part of the country and higher axle-load limits

in the eastern part. This stemmed not only from the fact that in the

eastern part of the country the highways are recognized as being a

little stronger because of better subsoil, but in addition to that the

congested eastern part of the country required higher axle loads to lead to economical and sound truck transportation. The western part

of the country could have longer vehicles because of the lack of congestion, and therefore the tendency there was to keep the axle load

a little lower and have longer vehicles. This is a situation that existed for years. There were no federal

regulations of any kind covering truck sizes and weights. In 1956,

with the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act, the Federal Government for the first time got into this field. In the federal law of

134
1956 the government set a limit on the sizes and weights of motor

trucks using the national interstate system of the highways.

This was not a comj^letely preemptive piece of legislation. What

it did was to set maximum permissible limits that the states could

have in their laws for vehicles using the national interstate highway

system. The states could come up to the federal limits, but could not

go beyond them. If the states had limits higher than in the federal

law, they could keep the higher limit, but could not go beyond that. The federal law has remained unchanged since 1956. Despite studies

and recommendations leading to suggested changes, the law has

stayed the same. The main point that I want to emphasize is that the state size and

weight determinations had almost without exception gone to the

question as to how much should be carried on each axle. In this case, the steering axle never presented a problem because it never did get

that heavy. However, the tandem axle would have a limit on how

much it could carry. A portable scale could easily determine the

weight of this axle. But there we get very seriously into the question

of accuracy. The other axles were then weighed individually, and

then the gross weight of the vehicle itself was determined on a platform scale. If the vehicle in total did not exceed a certain weight as measured by a platform scale and if each axle did not exceed a cer- tain weight as measured perhaps by a portable scale or another scale,

then the vehicle was legal and could proceed on its way.

But over the years and prior to the passage of the 1956 Act, the

highway engineers became concerned about the fact that the tests they were conducting were inadequate. To adequately protect bridges

and structures on any highway system, in addition to checking the

weight that might be carried on a vehicle so that the entire vehicle

did not exceed a certain weight, they found that stresses on bridge

members required that another check be made. It was not only important, they said, to be sure that each axle did not exceed a certain

weight or that the gross weight did not exceeil a certain figure, but

it was also necessary to determine the weight that was being carried on each group of axles in that combination—in other words, what

was being carried on axle group l-o, on axle group 1-4, on axle

group 2-4, on axle group 2-6, on and on. You can see how many

combinations of groupings you could have of axles within this

combination.

In a multiniillion dollar road test conducted in the State of Illinois and completed in the middle 1950's, the American Association of

State Highway Officials and the Federal Bureau of Public Koads

jointly concluded that these tests showed to their satisfaction that

weight controls had to include a weighing of these axle groups. So

the vehicle, then, had to pass three tests of weight if the state weight

135
laws were what they were recommending, (1) the weight on each

axle, (2) the weight on the overall vehicle, and (3) the weight of

each axle group.

When legislation was proposed to change the federal law from

its present flat maximum gross weight limit to a new more reasonable weight limit, the highway officials and the federal officials themselves recommended higher limits, but insisted that the legislation that they would approve and could enforce would have to in- clude provisions for weighing each of these intermediate axle groups.

I think you can immediately see the problem this presents. What this

means, of course, is that, if the federal legislation continues in effect as part of the Federal Aid Highway Act, it will include, unless the

highway officials or engineers change their thinking, the type of

weight controls I have discussed.

Now, this is a rather complicated and very technical method.

They say it can be done, and I am sure it can be done. But I think

you can immediately see the problems it does present. It would mean that not only would the states have to provide for this type

of weight control, but the carrier himself, before his vehicle has left the terminal, would have to be certain before he sent a vehicle on

the road that he did not violate any part of this three-pronged control on vehicle weights.

The theory that they advance (and it is a technically sound

theory so far as the relationship of the vehicle to the highway is concerned) actually results in a vehicle whose gross weight will in- crease as it gets more axles under it, but whose average axle weight

will decrease. Now this follows a proven theory that the more axles

under a vehicle, the greater the spread of the load on the highway

and the less the pressure on the bridge members; but, of course, you could not have an accumulation of the individual axles. So

we now face, as I mentioned, if we have a continuation of federal

limits on sizes and weights, a new approach to truck weight

determination.

This is a critical matter for the trucking industry. As I mentioned

earlier, we have these limitations within which we must live, have

lived, and will have to live in perpetuity. But we have reached the

limit, of course, at this stage of the game in the techniques and

technology of the truck manufacturer as to tare weight. So if we are

to increase our pay load (and, as we say, pay load is the payoff),

then the only way to do this is with a higher gross weight in order

to get the pay load, and the higher gross Aveight comes only to this

type of weight determination and weight control. Therefore, the

stake of tlie trucking industry in the accuracy and technology of

weight determination is paramount. I do not think we need much

imagination to say that, if the highway engineers say that the only

136
way we can go wnth increased vehicle weights is to be sure the

vehicle does not violate the accepted weights for a highway structure, then we can go, but it automatically follows that we must have

a technique of being sure that we do not do this, and that these

things can be measured and can be determined.

Now that is the first and the most serious part of this problem of accurate weight determination, but then there is another.

Virtually all of the states (there may be one or two exceptions)

have and have had in their size and weight laws what they call tolerances. In other words, the law may say X pounds, but then it says that you may have 5 or 10 percent above this before you are operating illegally. Now, most of these tolerances are what have

been called statutory tolerances. Let us say, for example, that the

State of Virginia has an 18,000-pound single axle-load limit and a statutory tolerance of 10 percent. What this means is that a motor

carrier who is carrying 19,800 pounds is not in violation of the law.

He would be reprimanded and be told to "watch it," but he has not

committed a violation in the sense that he would be fined. Other states have what are known as administrative tolerances.

These are leeways that the states have given. Recognizing the fact that a motor truck may start out completely legal (this is particularly true of axle weights, for example), but, in the course of operating in snow or ice, it will accumulate additional weight and

therefore be over the weight limit, or its load may shift, or other

things can happen that Avill change the weight on an individual axle

and on the gross weight during movement of the vehicle, administrative tolerances are allowed. But when it was proj^osed to change the

federal ceilings and include new limits, attention was called to the

fact that these tolerances, if they were allowed to exist in the state law, would actually result in axle-load limits higher than the federal authorities thought should be permitted. The reasoning was

that, if a state had a 10 percent tolerance over and above an exist- ing weight limit and we raised the weight limit up and they still have that 10 percent tolerance, then they are above what we as engineers think should be allowed.

So, when federal legislation was considered two years ago, it was specifically stated that the new weight limits in the federal law

would be inclusive of any tolerances. In other words, there would

not be any. So, in effect, taking the Virginia example, 18,000 pounds

on a single axle with 10 percent tolerance would be 19,800 pounds.

If Virginia were to go to 20,000 pounds, that would be it. It would

not be 20,000 plus 10 percent. It would be 20,000 pounds.

This raises, then, a very serious question. What about tolerances

for inaccuracies in scales? Over the years, and even today, the

traditional method of checking the motor carrier's axle weights has

137
been on the portable scale. Portable scales are notorious for inaccuracies up to as much as 15 percent.

This has been recognized in the state laws. But if we are facing

a situation where this is taken away by federal legislation, which

says no tolerances, you are illegal if you are above it. Then the need

for very accurate determination of weights is more important than

ever before. Perhaps the answer here would lie not in administrative

or statutory tolerances, but in merely a scale tolerance.

Now, I hope I have indicated to you how serious a problem this is to the industry. We would be fooling ourselves, and I think the industry would be fooling itself, if we thought that the future in truck

sizes and weights was not going to involve these complications.

I guess what I would like to hope for is that most of you here

today would say, "You can't do it this way; no type of equipment

can be made that would adequately and accurately do this." Then,

perhaps, we could go to the federal officials and say, "Look, you can't do it this way. We have the people to tell you that you can't." On the

other hand, if it can be done (and I suppose this type of weighing

can be developed), then I guess the best thing you can do is wish

us luck. But as we face the future on this, we have to take up with renewed

effort what we have tried before to get—^more accurate weighing,

from the standpoint of truck use—accurate weighings and equipment, so that the states can use it in enforcing their law and our

carriers will have to have it in their terminals to be sure that, when

vehicles go on the road, they are not exceeding the state w^eight limits. There is a desperate need for the type of instnnnentation and the

type of manufacture of equipment that can give us and the regulatory authorities the kind of weight determinations which will enable us to operate vehicles that will be to the satisfaction of the state and

federal governments and operate without damage to the nation's

highways, be it the pavement or be it the structures. To the trucking

industry, who is hauling the bulk of the nation's freight, weight

determination is a very, very serious matter.

138
DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE MEASUREMENT CENTER

by R. R. Roof, Laboratory Metrologist, Bureau of Standard Weights

and Measures, Pennsylvania Department of Justice

I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear on the program of the 56th National

Conference on Weights and Measures. In making this presentation, I am privileged to represent not only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but the metrologists of all the other

weights and measures jurisdictions who manage their ow^n state's standards laboratory.

Certainly a state metrologist appearing on the

program of the National Conference at the

invitation of its Executive Secretary attests to the fact of the increasingly vital role these weights and measures

officials have in the development of an effective weights and measures

enforcement and service program.

As the demand for more exacting measurement services increases,

the more apparent it becomes to all the states of the importance of

adequate technical laboratory facilities. A state weights and measures

laboratory serves not only state government, but commerce, industry,

and educational and research institutions as well. The state standards program was initiated in 1965 by the National

Bureau of Standards, Office of Weights and INIeasures. The aim of

the program was to supply the qualifying states with a new distribution of mass, length, and volumetric standards in U. S. Customary

and Metric denominations. Not only would the National Bureau of

Standards distribute new standards, but would also give to the qualifying states supplementary equipment and technical assistance to

utilize the standards to the maximum. The participating states had

to have a stable weights and measures program and suitable facilities such as a solid foundation floor and agreeable environmental conditions, had to agree to provide funds for laboratory accessories, and,

finally, had to employ qualified personnel who could be trained to operate the facility once it was establislied. The Pennsylvania Bureau of Standard Weights and JNIeasures qualified for the state standards program in April 1967 by moving

from its offices on the second floor of the main capitol, where it had

been located since the inception of the Bureau in 1912, to new^ facilities on the bottom floor of the Transportation and Safety Building,

with adequate space and conducive environmental conditions for

139
laboratory facilities. However, the laboratory was not dedicated until

March 3, 1969. Much of the equipment supplied to Pennsylvania, which was in the

second group of ten states to be selected, was of a prototype nature,

meeting original specifications set forth by the National Bureau of

Standards. Serious initial problems of some vendors not meeting

specifications caused much delay in the delivery of standards and

equipment to the laboratory. Total worth of the standards, equipment, and technical assistance supplied to Pennsylvania was in excess of $75,000.

With the new facilities, equipment, and standards available, many

requests for certification of testing services for Pennsylvania industry that formerly had to be refused due to inadequate facilities could

be accepted and tested accurately with the new state standards. Inaccuracies in, field standards theretofore undetectable on our old equipment were found, resulting in a fairly high rejection or condemnation

rate. In the first year, 90 percent of the 157 fifty-pound field standards examined on the 30-kilogram balance were found to be outside

of the permissible tolerance, requiring recalibration (readjustment)

of these test weights.

It has become increasingly apparent that, of the three areas of

capability of the laboratory (mass, length, and volume), the mass or

calibration of weights has the most potential for the laboratory. In

addition to the mass standards provided under the state standards

program, the laboratory obtained a 2,500-pound and a 5,000-pound

standard, which were taken to the National Bureau of Standards and

calibrated against the national standards. As a result, the Pennsylvania laboratory now has calibrated known standards from a micropound (one-millionth pound) up to 5,000 pounds. A 20-gram

capacity microbalance w^as acquired with accuracy to 1 microgram

(one-millionth of a gram). With this new precision balance, which was not supplied in the federal program, the laboratory has been

able to test an increasing number of small mass NBS Class S and

Class S-1 weight kits. This has included actual weight calibration

as well as certification by tolerance testing.

The Class S and Class S-1 weights are used in industry as plant

standards and the testing of analytical single-pan balances. Since

these sets range in denomination from 100 grams to 1 milligram,

weights below 30 grams, which comprise about two-thirds of the total number in the individual kit, could not be accurately tested on the

balances supplied under the state standards program, due to the very

minimum tolerance on these weights. As a result, any state weights

and measures jurisdiction participating in the state standards pro- gram which has a serious demand for weight calibration by industry

would need to have additional precision balances to determine errors

140
on these small mass standards; and to industry, this area of testing

is of crucial importance.

Probably the most typical instance of the Bureau's laboratory benefit to its field enforcement activities has been in the calibrating of the

test weights on the Bureau's six large-capacity scale test units. Previously, the Bureau had no facilities for accurately testing the 20,000

pounds of field standards on these units; and since their original

calibration at the National Bureau of Standards, dating as far back

as 1961, there had not been a reverification of the weights. To be able

to accurately test the large 5,000-pound field standards, the laboratory's 2,500-pound capacity equal-arm Russell balance had to be con- verted to a new capability of handling 5,000 pounds on either arm

while still maintaining adequate precision. With the assistance of

Mr. Harry K. Johnson of the National Bureau of Standards, the

Russell balance was equipped with a new hydraulic system and two new high-capacity rams on the upper and lower cylinders of the

balance.

As a result of this new technical capability of the Bureau, the owners of the 6,000 large-capacity scales in the commonwealth can

be assured that their weighing devices will be tested by accurate and

yearly verified field standards. Additionally, the laboratory has been

able to provide this expanded testing service to several of the independent scale repair services throughout the commonw^ealth, thus

assuring them of the accuracy of their standards and assisting them

in meeting contract specifications with their clients. Since Pennsylvania places heavy emphasis on its package control

program, devoting about 60 percent of the Bureau personnel to this

type of enforcement, the laboratory has had to become more inte- grated into supporting the field testing functions of the general-duty

inspectors. Utilizing the precision equipment in the laboratory has

permitted quick and precise checks on field tests of prepackaged

commodities on a number of occasions. Packagers of commodities

have differed with the determinations of the Bureau's field force,

particularly when their products were ordered off sale for being

below the labeled weight. Since the quantity control operations of

packagers has reached new levels of sophistication, their contentions

are not treated lightly by the Bureau. When a dispute occurs, the

product is examined in the laboratory, which matches or exceeds the

packer's accuracy. Additionally, problem commodities which are not conducive to field testing have been brought into the laboratory and

tested for net determinations.

There is little doubt that a most essential element in the develo})-

ment of a state measurement center is a i)romotional effort botli internal and external. The metrologist in charge of the state measure- ment center must constantly prove his worth to the total weights and

141
measures program. He must show and explain in understandable

form to his superiors the continuing function and new projects of

the laboratory, emphasizing areas such as in training, where its capabilities might be utilized to support the weights and measures

enforcement activities of the Bureau.

The metrologist must compete with the other areas of the Bureau

for funds and appropriations support, and constantly keep the

Director interested in the operations so he will seek additional funding and manpower support for the laboratory from his superiors.

The key to internal promotion is to keep as many people as possible informed, knowledgeable, and interested, because they have not

had the benefit of your education and training, and could lose interest simply because they do not understand the scope of the work.

By taking time to explain the operations of the laboratory to the

Bureau's field inspectors as well as the Pennsylania local sealers of weights and measures w^hen the opportunity presents itself, the

metrologist has kept them knowledgeable in the laboratory activities; and since they have very close contact with Pennsylvania industry in their day-to-day work, they have been an invaluable source of referrals to laboratory from industry.

A vigorous external promotion program should be initiated. However, this is somewhat dependent on the time that can be allotted,

the money appropriated, and your own public relations expertise.

Numerous field trips have been made to key Pennsylvania industries

to meet with standards and quality assurance personnel to better

understand their role and how their problems might relate to services that could be provided by the Bureau's laboratory. Speaking

engagements have been scheduled and industry officials are encour- aged to visit and inspect the laboratory facilities. Professional societies, educational groups, and federal agencies such as the Defense

Supply Contract Administration Service, with nearly 200 inspectors

in key Pennsylvania industries, have been excellent sources for

getting the word out. On an increasing number of occasions, the laboratory has been

called upon to assist industry officials on in-plant measuring problems, from care and use of weight and volumetric standards to as- sistance in setting up production line scale auditing programs, as well as instruction on the proper testing of their scales. While some

of the problems we encountered were beyond our current capabilities,

through diligent research and contact with other federal agencies

and private standards laboratories, we have been able to accurately

refer the individual to a proper alternative so his problem could be

solved. To maintain a high degree of professionalism and continually at- tempt to increase its quality of service, the Pennsylvania State

142
Standards Laboratory was enrolled into the National Conference of

Standards Laboratories, which promotes cooperative efforts toward

solving mutual problems faced by our type of facility. Many of the

most recognized laboratories in industry, government, and education

throughout the country belong to NCSL.

Additionally, the laboratory became a participating member of

the American Society for Quality Control, Harrisburg section, and

it is my privilege to hold an office within the local section. With

the potential of the laboratory's services and the assistance of these

two organizations, the laboratory w^ill be able to obtain the recog- nized professionalism and confidence that produces the environment

necessary for a standards laboratory to flourish. The success of a state measurement center depends largely upon

the initiative, the industry, and the enthusiasm with which the state participates and contributes to the support of that program. The

National Bureau of Standards and its dedicated staff of the Office of Weights and Measures have provided the ball field (the standards, the equipment, and the balances), and have trained the players (the metrologists), and it is up to the team (states) to "play

ball." FORUM DISCUSSION

Mr. W. S. Watson (California) : Mr. Landvater, I have several

comments I would like to make concerning type approval. For ex- ample, what would a small scale manufacturer who is manufacturing for the local market do for type approval? What does the

manufacturer do for type approval who has manufactured a device

for which the National Bureau has yet to adopt a code? What

would we do in a situation where, after having phased out our type

approval program, we were called upon to test the device of a manufacturer who has either neglected or refused for some reason to get

type approval?

Mr. Landvater : I am thinking exclusively of a case where a manufacturer expects to get type approval throughout the country and

where he, therefore, wants to go to one source to get type approval.

If a manufacturer is going to sell in one local area, that is his

option. 1 did not intend to suggest that a state should abdicate its right to type approval examination. I do not know how to respond

to your second point because I am afraid I do not understand.

Mr. Warnlof: In the absence of a code, there must have been a new development, such as the example we have here today, where we

are in the process of working with cryogenic measuring devices. I suggest it is the responsibility of the National Bureau of Standards

143
to aid in the development of appropriate codes for new devices and

to make recommendations to the S & T Committee.

Mr. C. Wooten (Florida) : We are in favor of the prototype pro- gram that you now have. However, I would like to see a manufacturer, after he gets prototype approval and ships his new device into a local or state area, notify the weights and measures office of this so that the inspectors can, in turn, be notified and will not be completely lost when they encounter a new scale. Mr. L. D. Holloway (Idaho) : I have many reports of prototype

examinations from scale manufacturers, but I have very few from

meter manufacturers. Are new types of devices not being developed,

designed, and produced, or have the meter manufacturers ignored

the NBS prototype examination program?

Mr. H. E. Siebold (Liquid Controls Corp.) : I cannot answer that

as Chairman of the Meter Manufacturers Technical Committee, but

I can give you my own personal feeling. There has been some reluc- tance to advocate national type approval. I think you will find more

willingness to accept prototype certification or inspection rather than

national type approval. We do propose to submit new devices as they come along, but I think part of the answer is also that there are not

that many new measuring devices brought out. Some of the accessory equipment may be changed slightly, and here you have to decide for

yourself whether it is new and different enough to submit for prototype examination.

Mr. J. R. Bird (New Jersey) : There are many devices that have

been type-approved in North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Jersey,

and other states which have been meeting H-44 requirements for

years, and many inspectors do not have a list of these. It might be

appropriate for OWM to compile and issue a list of such devices.

Also, how much of a test has been made on the devices for which

prototype approval certificates are issued ? Many times w^hen we have

conducted type approval tests on equipment, we have had to make

repeat tests over periods of time up to maybe two years to determine

the repeatability of the equipment, especially on the new electronic

devices. One period of tests often is not enough.

Mr. Warnlof : We will gather the information you have requested

and make it available to you. Mr. M. Greenspax (New York City, N. Y.) : It was mentioned

that the City of New York does not quite fully accept NBS type

approval examinations. I am all in favor of a system whereby we

would have one national type approval. However, we still try to

insist on type approval due to a number of incidents that have

occurred. For instance, a gasoline pump dispensing unit was found

to be so constructed that it did not meet the H-44 requirement stating

that the security seal shall be readily accessible. In another instance.

144
a device that had received NBS type approval was found, in our

view, to present an opportunity for fraudulent practices. Until the

art is a little better developed in these areas, we will very reluctantly

have to continue type approval.

Mr. Warxlof: First, since no gasoline pump dispensing unit has

been submitted to NBS for prototype examination, the problem you

have indicated is an enforcement one. The decision as to whether a device is so designed that it may facilitate fraud is difficult to make.

The key word is "facilitate," since fraud may be practiced on most

any device.

Mr. O. S. Watsox (Consultant, Scales and Weighing) : Mr. Roof,

please describe the microbalance you have for calibrating standards

of 30 grams and under, including the fractionals.

^Ir. Roof : We bought a Mettler M5 microbalance with a capacity

of 20 grams which reads out to 1 microgram. To be able to discern

the Class S and S-1 tolerances, you almost need a finer balance than

is supplied under the new state standards program.

Mr. Watson : Does the balance you refer to have digital indications

and does it have sufficient sensitivity to get down to 1 microgram or

1 milligram?

Mr. Roof : It is a single-pan balance and does have digital indications. The sensitivity would be approximately 1 microgram.

Mr. S. D. Andrews (Florida) : Mr. Roof, how did you go about

the conversion of the Russell balance to 5,000 pounds?

Mr. Roof: We had the assistance of Harry Johnson of OWM. I

also assisted, as did a very good large-capacity scale inspector we

have who is very mechanically inclined. Many of the modifications were mechanical in nature. We installed a new ram in the bottom

cylinder, which required removing the beam and upper cylinder. We

bought two large weigh pans, so that we could apply weight to 10,000 pounds. The Office of Weights and INIeasures supplied the

technical assistance.

Mr. Andrews : Will the base recommended for the original balance

require modification?

Mr. Roof: If the beam would hold the 10,000 pounds that is re- quired, I feel fairly confident that the base would also, but this

would depend on how your base was built. Mr. Warnlof: If you are thinking in those terms, Sid, you can

contact OWM and we will get those answers for you. Mr. R. L. Thompson (Maryland) : Mr. Kiley, as a Maryland resi- dent and with the responsibilities you have, you are probably familiar with many of the state's problems in weighing, where the state police have to avoid continued use of permanent installations in the

weighing of vehicles and have to resort to the questionable wheelload weighers. We are frequently approached by the state police to

145
be witnesses for the state, and if the state police are not fast enough we find ourselves, instead, witnesses for the defendant. Has your

organization considered approaching people like the Maryland State

Police, the Department of Highways in Virginia, or the Department

of Transportation in Pennsylvania, and offered to engage in a cooperative effort to develop some portable unit that could be moved,

whether by tractor trailer or pickup truck, to various locations in the

state where vehicles could be weighed in the manner you described?

Mr. Kiley : We have done this, but not in the State of Maryland.

We are a federation of state trucking associations, and each state trucking association is generally autonomous in approaching its problems. We have made this approach in other states and have also approached the National Bureau of Standards, who laid out a pro- gram, but the matter had to be dropped for lack of funds. Now that we have a new Department of Transportation that is very involved

in this problem and also has the necessary funds, we hope to make

another approach through them and then go to the Bureau of Standards and to the states to find an answer. Mr. Thompsox : Thank you. I w^ould refer you to Lt. Guy Brown

of the Maryland State Police.

Mr. Warxlof: We all operate within constraints as far as our

resources are concerned. With existing resources, it was impossible

for us to pursue this matter further.

Mr. S. H. Christie (New Jersey) : Mr. Mann, in the handling of

cryogenics, there has been a problem of osmosis, which seems to be

accelerated with certain fluids. Are you familiar with this problem?

Mr. Maxx : I am not familiar with the problem. I would be very

interested in talking to you about it. Mr. Warnlof : Doug, have you in your studies defined appropriate

limits for performance requirements for cryogenic liquid-measuring

devices ? Mr. Mann : During the establishment of the code in the State of

California, we established a guideline as the result of many hours

of discussion between meter manufacturers and the state regulatory

agency. The code specifies a maintenance tolerance of plus 2 and

minus 4 percent, with an acceptance tolerance of half of that. The

results of a year's work on positive displacement meters, which are the meters currently used in practice, indicate that this is a reasonable state-of-the-art tolerance at this time.

Mr. Warnlof: What is the advantage of liquid measuring as opposed to gravimetric measuring?

Mr. Mann : The . reason for metering of cryogenic fluids is the same as for metering in gasoline trucks. The quantities are getting

smaller, and multi-deliveries from a single truck require on an eco- nomic basis the metering and billing of individual amounts.

146
AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1971

(M. L. KixLAw, Vice Chairman^ Presiding)

(Thursday's afternoon session was devoted to reports of the Conference

committees. These reports, as well as other committee reports presented during

the Conference, follow.)

REPORTS OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Presented by E. Prideaux, Chairman^ Supervisor, Weights and

Measures Section, Division of Inspection and Consumer Services,

Colorado Department of Agriculture

(Wednesday, July 14, 1971) The Committee on Education submits its report to the 56th National Conference on

AYeights and Measures. The report consists of

the tentative report transmitted in April as part of the Conference Announcement, as amended by the final report. The report represents recommendations of the Committee that

have been formed on the basis of written and

oral comments received during the year and

oral presentations made during the open meeting of the Committee.

Subcommittee on Computer Technology

The Subcommittee met February 3 to discuss the framework of

a plan for adoption by the National Conference of a model weights

and measures information systems program. It is the oi)ini()n of the

Subcommittee that the most important service that could be ren- dered to weights and measures administrators is the development of a

series of prototype computer programs encomi)assiiig a luiified objective of providing information useful in program planning, e\aluation, and resource allocation.

147
Toward this end, the Subcommittee is cooperating with the NBS

Office of Weights and Measures in the development of:

(a) A prototype resource allocation program to be used in the

allocation of inspection emphasis for all goods and services

within the purview of weights and measures law and regulation. This resource allocation program has been completed

and is currently undergoing test in the States of Hawaii and

Pennsylvania. Once documented and published, the program

will be made available to the states. (b) A series of program codes for use by the states in processing

data that will promote the uniform dissemination of information among the states. (c) A set of uniform report forms for device and package inspection that will promote the uniform collection of data to be

used in the computer programming. The necessity for uniform reporting was graphically demonstrated by the costly

experience of the four participating states. The Subcommittee urges all jurisdictions having interest in or

currently working with automatic data processing equipment to take an active interest in the model programs to be offered soon by the

National Conference. Only through concerted planning by the

Conference during this early stage of computer usage in weights and

measures can the states hope to establish the uniformity of program

design so necessary for interchanging information and for problem

solving.

National Weights and Measures Week

Committee Chairman Earl Prideaux of the State of Colorado once again accepted the responsibility of serving as chainnan of the important Subcommittee on National Weights and Measures Week.

The Committee wishes to acknowledge and thank ]\Ir. Prideaux for

his enthusiasm and initiative in the promotion of the Week. As has

been the case in past years, a statewide coordinator was appointed

in each state to coordinate and report on activity throughout the

state during the Week. ]Mr. Prideaux did an outstanding job in keeping the state coordinators informed regarding availability of and

suggested uses for promotional material.

Newspaper mats, the consumer pamphlet ''The Weights and ]\Ieas- ures Men," and reduced-size Third Man i)osters were distributed on

request by the Office of Weights and Measures.

148
Mr. Arthur Sanders of the Scale Manufacturers Association dis- tributed suggested press releases, radio and TV spot announcements,

a feature newspaper story, and other useful material in the SMA

Weighlog. The Committee is grateful to Mr. Sanders and to SMA

for this effort and for the window stickers made available again this year. Mr. John O'Neill of Kansas suggested the development and use of

a placemat depicting the "weights and measures story" for restaurant and cafe use during the Week. Several jurisdictions used this idea

and developed attractive and colorful placemats using the sample

supplied each jurisdiction by the State of Colorado. Many other

jurisdictions have expressed interest in this item for next year's

promotion.

The Committee wishes to acknowledge and express its deepest

appreciation to Mrs. INIargaret Dana, syndicated columnist, for her

excellent article appearing during the Week.

Many of the states, counties, and cities used the Week as a climax

in their public relations and information programs and developed

exceptional promotional material for use during the Week. Each

jurisdiction was urged to bring its most outstanding or innovative

promotional idea to the 56th National Conference for the purpose of

exchanging ideas w^ith other jurisdictions.

During the open committee meeting, representatives of the National Conference of Standards Laboratories suggested that the title "National Weights and Measures Week" be changed to "National

Measurement Week" to include the broad spectrum of measurements.

The Committee felt that this suggestion was particularly appropriate

in view of the favorable position of the Conference regarding adoption of the SI (System International). The Committee agreed with

this suggestion and recommended favorable action by the Conference.

Discussion on Foregoing Item Mr. W. I. Thompsox (Monmouth County, N. J.) : As an employee

of government service now fighting for its own identity, I question

any further diminution of the term weights and measures, especially

at a time when the weights and measures activity in many instances

is being taken over by a Consumer Affairs Division.

Mr. a. Sanders (Scale Manufacturers Association) : I agree entirely with Bill Thompson. ^Measurement Week has a different connotation from National Weights and INIeasures Week. The purpose of

Weights and INIeasures Week has been to promote the work of

weights and measures people. The term measurement will dilute the

whole subject, and weights and measures people will have no incentive to go out and promote the Week.

149
Mr. M. Eapp (Detecto Scales) : The consumer will not associate

the term National Measurement Week with the work done by weights

and measures people, whereas the term AVeights and Measures Week

emphasizes not only the activity, but the people involved. My recom- mendation is that we stay with the old name until we find a better

one.Mr. J. E. BowEN (Newton, Mass.) : In my work as a weights and

measures official, I have been actively engaged in the promotion of

Weights and Measures Week, and I want to applaud and agree with

the comments that have been made.

Mr. S. D. Andrews (Florida) : I would like to expand on these

remarks because I have on previous occasions, at this Conference and

other weights and measures conferences, exj^ressed some rather grave

misgivings about our moving away from our traditional position of

weights and measures officials. I hope that this Conference will give

serious consideration before changing the title of such an important

and historical tradition as Weights and Measures Week, where we

honor those men w^ho are actually engaged in weights and measures

activities. (The recommendation of the Committee to change the name of National

Weights and Measures Week to National Measurement Week was voted down

by the Conference.)

Method of Sale of Commodities and Unit Pricing

The Committee was presented a full report concerning the status of these two items by Eric Vadelund, NBS staff assistant for the

Committee on Laws and Regulations. The Education Committee

highly endorses and supports the efforts of the Laws and Regulations

Committee in these two areas and urges favorable action by the Conference on these items in the interest of national uniformity.

Consumer Affairs and Education

The Committee included during its interim meeting a round-table

discussion with a select group of individuals representing the con- sumer interest. The purpose of the meeting was to explore those areas of concern to consumers in which weights and measures officials can

lend assistance, and also to discuss and develop new w^ays and means

by which state and local officials can more effectively respond to consumer problems and needs.

In addition to the Conference Chairman, Executive Secretary,

Education Committee members, and OWM staff members, the follow150
ing distinguished consumer representatives were present for the

meeting

Mrs. Ann Abrams, Special Assistant to the Director, Institute for

Applied Technology, NBS.

Mrs. Betty Bay, Director for Federal-State Relations, President's

Committee on Consumer Interests. Mr. J. J. Shevis, Public Relations Director, Consumer Federation

of America.

Mrs. Margaret Dana, Consumer Relations Counsel.

Mr. J. C. Mays, Director, Consumer Protection Division, Dade

County, Florida.

Mr. J. C. Stewart, Assistant Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Regulatory Section, Virginia.

Many excellent suggestions for involving w^eights and measures

officials more deeply in matters of consumer concern were discussed

at length during the meeting. The Committee pledges its full support and cooperation to those organizations represented in their re- spective efforts to meet consumer needs. An invitation was extended

to all participants to have representatives of their organizations

present at future National Conference meetings for the exchange of

information and development of guidelines in this important phase

of weights and measures administration.

Metric Education

Steve Hatos of NBS appeared before the Committee to report on

the progress and status of the U. S. Metric Study. It is the feeling

of this Committee that, given the possibility of U. S. conversion to the metric system of measurement, there are two broad areas in the

education field where the National Conference and weights and measures jurisdictions should take action.

First, in the light of statistics gathered by the Conference Task

Force on Metrication, it is clear that weights and measures personnel

will have to undergo an education program in order to be able to understand the metric system. Therefore, we strongly urge that upcoming weights and measures training programs and conferences

have on their agendas at least one item concerning the metric sys- tem (e.g., history of the metric system).

Second, it is taken as an undisputed fact that the general public

is for the most part completely unfamiliar with the metric system.

Consequently, in the event that Congress approves a metric con\'ersion program, a great deal of publicity will be needed in order to acquaint the public with this system. The National Conference on

151
AVeights and Measures, as well as weights and measures officials at

all levels, should be prepared to assist in a national educational pro- gram. Since it is the weights and measures area where the consumer

Avill, no doubt, face the greatest hardships in adjusting to any new

measurement system, officials must be ready to answer consumer in- quiries about the metric system in a competent manner.

In order to assist jurisdictions in these endeavors, the Committee

feels that it should prepare a bibliography of material which could

be used in such education efforts. Of course, for the present, it would

be up to the various jurisdictions to obtain this material from the

sources indicated in the bibliography. However, the Committee will

continue to explore the possibility of having the Office of Weights

and Measures serve as a clearinghouse for such items.

Finally, the Committee urges that the Conference adopt the fol- lowing resolution

Whereas, U.S. conversion to the metric system is probable, and

Whereas, metric conversion would result in a good many impacts on the manufacturers and users of commercial weighing and measuring devices,

weights and measures jurisdictions, and the general publu : Therefore, be it Resolved by the 56th National Conference on Weights and Measures that

this Conference pledge its full support and cooperation to the Federal Gov- ernment in a coordinated national program to increase the use of the metric system : And be it further Resolved that the Executive Committee is authorized to take whatever action or actions that are needed to enhance an orderly changeover to metric units in the commercial weights and measures field following congressional authority

to metricate in this area : And be it further Resolved that copies of this resolution be sent to the President of the United

States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of the National Bureau of Standards.

General Information Project

Since the area of responsibility of the Committee on Education is expanding to cover a broader spectrum of interest, it is the view of

the Committee that other Conference members can make valuable

contributions on certain specific items. Mr. James Stewart, Assistant

Supervisor of Weights and Measures for the State of Virginia, was

asked by the Committee Chairman to make a comprehensive survey

of state weights and measures offices and selected industries to solicit new ideas for the Committee's consideration in carrying out its re- sponsibility to the National Conference. JNIr. Stewart received many

constructive suggestions that were compiled and presented to the

152
Committee during the interim meeting. Several of the suggestions

have been implemented, and others are under serious consideration

for the future. The Committee is grateful to Mr. Stewart for his

etforts in contacting officials, compiling information, and presenting

his report, and to those officials that responded to the survey with

their suggestions for improvement in certain areas of Conference

responsibility.

Railway Track Scale Program

The Committee was presented a description of the model state railway track scale testing program as proposed by the National

Bureau of Standards. This cooperative state-railroad-industry-NHS

program as administered by the Office of Weights and Measures was

referred to the Liaison Committee for action by the Conference.

The Office of Weights and Measures has proposed an engineeringstudy under the NBS Research Associate Program to evaluate elec- tronic in-motion railroad car w^eighers and to recommend additional

code requirements in NBS Handbook 44 and the development of

standardized test procedures.

State Reports

The practice of compiling a pamphlet containing reports of special weights and measures activities in the states was resumed at the

55th National Conference on Weights and Measures. After a thorough discussion of the benefits derived from such a pamphlet, the

Executive Secretary was instructed to contact the states again this

year for information to be included in a similar pamphlet for dis- tribution at the 56th National Conference. The Executive Secre- tary was also instructed to include a questionnaire asking the views

of the states concerning the elfectiveness of this project. The Committee urged all state directors to respond both to the call for interesting information and to the questionnaire, in order for the Committee

to carry out the wishes of the Conference regarding this project.

The Committee is grateful to the 80 state directors who submitted

activity reports for inclusion in the State Rei)orts pamphlet. In re- sponse to the questionnaire concerning the j)amphlet, 28 officials contacted feel that the practice of compiling and distributing this

information is beneficial and should be continued. Seven officials re- sponded negatively regarding the continuance of this project.

During the open meeting. Dr. Leland Gordon suggested inclusion

of reports from major metropolitan areas in the State Reports pamphlet. It is the Committee's opinion that State Reports should reflect

153
all weights and measures activities Avithin the state. Therefore, the

Committee urges that state directors take this into consideration in the preparation of their reports.

Technical Education

The Committee heard a report by Otto Warnlof of the Office of

Weights and Measures on the status of various projects and activities concerning training programs at the federal, state, and local

levels. There was considerable discussion on such subjects as the home

study course, audiovisual aids, state and local training officers, and

participation by industry representatives. The Committee wishes to

stress the value and importance of a sound training effort in all jurisdictions. Additionally, it feels that there is a need for new con- cepts and improved techniques and aids in w^eights and measures

training programs. It was suggested that this matter be explored

in greater detail by officials at the forthcoming Conference.

The Committee advises that the final draft has been completed

for the new home study course and that availability will be an- nounced when printing has been completed.

Master Schedule for State and Regional Conferences

The Committee is aware that at certain times in the past, state or regional weights and measures meetings have been scheduled for

the same w^eek, thus making attendance difficult or impossible for

those who desired to attend both meetings. After much discussion,

the Committee asked the Executive Secretary to compile and have

available in the Office of Weights and Measures a master list of

dates and locations for all state and regional weights and measures

meetings. It is hoped that industry organizations that are closely

associated to the weights and measures field also participate in this

undertaking. State and industry officials are urged to plan their

meetings as far in advance as possible and to work with the Office of Weights and INIeasures in the selection of dates to avoid future

conflicts.

154
The Committee expresses its appreciation to all who have contributed to and participated in the committee deliberations. The

Committee urges all weights and measures ofHcials and other inter- ested parties to promptly communicate with the Committee on all matters of concern embraced in the Committee's expanded area of

activity. The Committee is also grateful to the other appropriate

standing committees of the Conference for their interest in and

action where necessary on those items referred to them by the Committee on Education. It is only in this manner that the Committee

can render maximum service to the Conference.

E. Prideaux, Chairman^ Colorado

J. I. Moore, North Carolina

G. E. Mattimoe, Hawaii

D. 1. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri

H. F. WoLLiN, Secretary^ NBS

K. N. Smith, Stajf Assistant. NBS

Committee on Education

(On motion of Mr. W. I. Thompson, seconded from the floor, the Conference

by voice vote defeated the committee recommendation to change the name of National Weights and Measures Week ; and on motion of the committee chair- man, seconded from the floor, the report of the Committee on Education, as amended, was unanimously adopted by voice vote.) (On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the Confer- ence by voice vote authorized the Executive Secretary to make any appropriate

editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, so long as the sense of the report is not modified.)

155
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON WITH THE

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Presented by L. D. Holloway, Chairman, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures Division, Idaho Department of Agriculture

(Thursday, July 15, 1971)

The Committee on Liaison with the National

Government submits its report to the 56th

National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The report consists of the tentative report

transmitted in April as part of the Conference

Announcement as amended by the final report.

The report represents recommendations of

the Committee that have been formed on the

basis of written comments received during the

year and oral representations made during

the open meeting of the Committee. The Committee intends to maintain the line of communications already established with federal agencies and to aggressively pursue all matters

involving federal and state relations in the weights and measures

field.

Relations with Federal Regulatory Agencies

1. During its interim meeting February 11-12, 1971, the Committee

received a report from the Office of Weights and INIeasures concern- ing the status of various regulations from the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of

Agriculture, and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The Committee received communications from state and local weights and measures officials concerning recently published USDA

Meat Inspection Regulations. The issuance by USDA of a temporary

order suspending the requirements of part 817.2 (c) as applied to random weight meat packages sliipped in nonconsumer containers

drew varied opinions from state officials. Imder the suspension, ran- dom meat packages enclosed in nonconsumer packages are not

required to contain a declaration of the net (quantity of contents. Some officials voiced concern over the suspension, stating the disadvantage to the retailer of having to sti'ip the commodity to determine

156
the actual or average tare to use in marking net weight statements

or to accept, if provided, the tare supplied by the packer and rely on its accuracy. There was even concern that, by not requiring these

imier packages to be labeled, USDxi was in conflict with the IModel

Packaging Regulation. Other officials felt the suspension justifiable,

since traditional shrinkage problems associated with the shipment of

prepackaged fresh meats necessarily dictates that the commodity be

reweighed and labeled by the retailer just prior to retail display and

sale. The Committee has been assured by OWJNI that the suspension of

317.2(c) for random weight inner meat packages does not conflict

w^th the requirements of the Model Packaging Regulation. Since no

conflict of regulation exists, and particularly since there is no con- sensus of opinion by the states, the Committee can only instruct that

a letter be sent to USDA explaining the divergence of views ex- pressed by the states and asking that the matter receive additional

study before flnal action. The Committee also recommends to the

Conference that the matter be turned over to the Laws and Regulations Committee for future consideration and action as necessary.

2. The Committee carried over from the 55th National Conference

the matter involving tare weights for commercial carriers. On the

basis of a complaint from one state that its regulations conflict with

Interstate Commerce Commission regulations regarding the inclusion of driver weight in a tare, the Committee is of the opinion that

(a) the problem is not widespread in the states, since most weights

and measures jurisdictions do not have responsibility in this area, and

(b) though a conflict does exist, its impact is negligible, since the

net effect of both requirements is an accurate tare. Accordingly, the Committee recommends to tli^ Conference that no

action is warranted at this time.

3. The Committee received correspondence from a weights and

measures jurisdiction concerning serious short-weight violations en- countered in various imported packaged })roducts. Considerable

inspection eti'ort is necessary to take api)r()priate legal action on

these short-weiglit violations. Additionally, the process of notifying

foreign packers and imi)()rters of violations encountered poses communication problems. Therefore, the Connnittee has considered the

problem and has authorized OWM to contact the appropriate federal

agency having jurisdiction over imported goods to seek its cooperation and enforcement assistance in this matter.

157
Weights and Measures Programs in Federal Establishments

1. Military Installations

The Committee met with a representative of the Office of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Eeserve Affairs) to discuss the program of weights and measures inspections on military

instaHations. The program as established in June 1970 appears to be

completely successful. However, on the basis of discussions with the

representative from DOD and members of OWM, several potential

problem areas are apparent.

(a) Memoranda circulated to the states b}- the Committee, requesting among other things that results of inspections both acceptable and unacceptable be forwarded to DOD, are not receiving

widespread cooperation. As an example, only seven jurisdictions have forwarded reports since June 1970.

(b) Several jurisdictions reported that, upon followup visits, no api^arent corrective action had been taken by military

authorities.

In taking these matters into account, the Committee asked OWM

to cooperate with DOD in establishing procedures that will provide

explicit program guidance for both military and weights and measures officials. These guidelines are presented herein for consideration

and adoption by the National Conference

GUIDELINES FOR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES INSPECTION

IN RESALE ACTIVITIES AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

General Information

1. Authority.—The program was established on a formal basis June 8, 1970 by a memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and

Reserve AflFairs to the Assistant Secretaries of the Military Departments. The

program received official endorsement by weights and measures officials during

the 55th National Conference on Weights and Measures in July 1970.

2. Scope.—The program is a cooperative undertaking between the military

and state and local weights and measures officials for the purpose of achieving standards of commercial equity in the military that are commensurate with

standards in public merchandising. Participation in the program by military

commanders is directed. Participation by state and local weights and measures

officials is contingent upon existing priorities of need and the limitations ol budget and manpower. However, weights and measures officials are expected

to exert every eflFort to provide assistance to military commanders in view of the unanimous approval at the National Conference. 158
3. Operational Standards.—Technical requirements pertaining to weighing

and measuring devices shall be as recognized in NBS Handbook 44—Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing

and Measuring Devices, Fourth Edition, 1971. Labeling requirements pertaining

to prepackaged commodities shall be as specified in the Model State Packaging

and Labeling Regulation as adopted by the National Conference on Weights

and Measures.

Program Implementation

1. Meeting.—The most important consideration in planning for the inspection program is that installation commanders and weights and measures ofii- cials meet and discuss all aspects of weights and measures administration.

Installation commanders are directed to contact weights and measures

officials to establish an inspection program. Weights and measures officials are expected to fully inform the installation commander of the nature, extent,

benefit, and, if applicable, the cost of inspection services. Such discussion should include the concept of NBS Handbook 44, the average concept in checking prepackaged commodities as outlined in NBS Handbook 67, and the labeling

requirements as specified in the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation, as adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

If practical, weights and measures officials should survey the installation with representatives of the commander and officials of resale activities to determine the extent of weights and measures checks currently being per- formed, the size of resale activities, and the numbers and types of scales and

metering devices in use.

It is important at this meeting that both the military commander and the weights and measures official agree to the extent of inspection services to be performed and that administrative details, such as entry upon the installation and reporting of discrepancies encountered, be agreed upon by all parties.

2. Minimum Requirements.—By memorandum of June 8, 1970, from the

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, installation commanders are directed, at a minimum, to provide for the inspection of weighing and measuring devices used in serving resale activity patrons together

with appropriate checks of the accuracy of prepackaged goods put up by store personnel.

Weights and measures officials must take cognizance of these temporary

limitations. However, military commanders may, at their discretion, broaden

the inspection program to include other areas. Again, weights and measures

officials should provide guidance to commanders as to the nature of inspections

that should be conducted based on the types of devices used on the installa- tion and the volume of prepackaged goods sold through resale activities. For

example, several installation commanders have authorized weights and measures officials to inspect weighing and measuring devices not used in direct

selling to military consumers and to inspect other than store-packed packages

being sold in resale activities. These inspections have been quite helpful to the

military in monitoring the accuracy of goods being introduced into military

resale channels, whether such goods are in packaged form or in bulk shipments

and weighed or measured at point of receipt.

3. Scheduling Inspections.—Any inspection program, to be effective, must

operate on an unannounced basis. Weights and measures officials should not 159
announce their visits to military store operators in advance. On the other hand,

officials of resale activities within the military operate stores which, by square

area comparison to public supermarkets, far exceed the volume of business enjoyed by stores in the public sector. Such condition dictates that military

store operators plan in advance for peak sales which normally coincide with

military pay periods. Weights and measures officials should be aware of when

these peak periods occur and should attempt to schedule their inspections in a period that would be the least disruptive to normal store operation.

4. Entry upon Military Installations.—Nearly all military installations control right of entry upon military grounds, and all military installations control right of entry to military resale activities. Installation commanders

and weights and measures officials must cooperate to establish right of entry

to military grounds and resale activities for inspection officials that will allow

for a minimum of delay and yet take cognizance of security standards that

are unique to the installation.

5. Inspection.—Weights and measures officials must understand that an

inspection is for the purpose of performing a cooperative service for the mili- tary. Legally, state and local inspection officials have no jurisdiction over the

devices being used or prepackaged goods being displayed for sale. Accordingly,

"stop sale," "stop removal," or "condemnation" procedures cannot be used

unless expressly authorized by the installation commander. Even then, such powers are to be used administratively and there is no sanction, legal or otherwise, for noncompliance with such use. The authority for any action must

be drawn from the military commander.

Military commanders must understand that the inspection service is designed

to benefit their command rather than impose any hardship, and that the service provided will require the valuable time of inspectors well trained in the

field of weights and measures. The assurance of commercial equity in resale

activities within a command carries with it an economy of effort that serves the best interest of military consumers and the armed services as a whole.

Therefore, commanders should take a personal interest in achieving high

commercial standards and should provide the vehicle for immediate corrective action when discrepancies are encountered.

6. Reporting.—Reports of inspections conducted are the yardsticks to be used in evaluating the success of the program. When completing inspections,

weights and measures officials, after visiting with store operators, should then visit with the installation commander or his designated representative

to discuss results and to leave copies of inspection reports. Weights and measures officials are requested to forward copies of all inspections to:

Office of Weights and Measures

Attention: Military Inspections

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234 Commanders should feel free to submit any comments or questions to the above address. The Office of Weights and Measures will process the data and

provide a monthly cumulative report to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Aflfairs.

7. Corrective Action.—It is the responsibility of the installation commander

to insure that appropriate action is taken to correct violations of operational standards as outlined in paragraph 3 under General Information. 160
Weights and measures officials encountering recurring violations after re- peated notice of violation to the installation commander are requested to forward notice of same directly to: Colonel Robert A. Hammerle

OASD (M&RA) (PAF) (MPP)

Room 1B660 The Pentagon

Washington, D. C. 20301

8. Technical Education and Training.—\t is the intent of the Department of Defense to work toward standards of commercial equity in its resale activities that are commensurate with standards enjoyed in the public sector. However,

such standards require time to achieve, along with a thorough understanding

of good commercial weighing and measuring practices. To this end, a program

of technical education and training is now under way whereby officials from

the NBS Office of Weights and Measures provide instruction at selected mili- tary resale activity schools. All com.manders are encouraged to have their store operators and their staff participate in training seminars sponsored by State and local weights and measures officials in their immediate area. Similarly,

weights and measures officials are encouraged to plan and conduct training in commercial weighing and measuring practices for military store operators.

The Committee learned that OAV^I is cooperating with DOD in

providing instruction on weights and measures enforcement to military students attending commissary schools throughout the United

States. Additionally, OWM is participating in programs sponsored

by military associations concerned with operating military resale

activities. The Committee recognizes the splendid cooperation exhibited by

DOD in this program and recommends to the National Conference

that every effort be given to promoting the programs at all levels of

weights and measures enforcement.

2. Post Oifices The matter of weights and measures inspection of postal scales was

carried over from the 55th National Conference, at which time the

Committee directed the Executive Secretary to begin negotiations

with postal officials in establishing such a program.

Since the 1970 Conference the Post Office Department has, by

Public Law 91-375, undergone reorganization. Under the Act, the new U. S. Postal Service is established as an independent organization of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. It

is the opinion of the Committee that the reorganization into a quasiindependent corporation, with all powers and duties vested in a Board of Governors, is clear expression of intent to operate such

organization in the same manner as a private corporation. In light

of this opinion, the Committee addressed a letter to the General

Counsel of the Postal Service expressing the view that the scales

161
used to compute basic postal charges are commercial devices and are

subject to the accuracy requirements as established by law or regulation in the states. The General Counsel has responded to the Committee stating that the Postal Service is still an arm of the Federal

Government and, therefore, not subject to state and local jurisdiction.

With this ruling in mind, and in the interest of continuing to pursue a cooperative program with postal authorities similar to the DOD

program, the Committee met with postal officials to discuss the terms

of such an endeavor. Of principal concern in establishing such a pro- gram is the issuance of a policy statement by the Postal Service

under which weights and measures officials could use traditional

powers in regulating postal scales. The Committee expected to be able to offer in its final report a

directive from the U. S. Postal Service authorizing such a program.

Unfortunately, the failure of the Postal Service to cooperatively

seek issuance of a policy prior to the Xational Conference warrants

further action by the Committee. Therefore, the Committee recom- mends to the Conference that correspondence be forwarded to the

Postmaster General, apprising him of the situation and asking for

his cooperation in this endeavor.

3. General

The Committee wishes to extend to the Xational Conference its opinion concerning the entire scope of weights and measures enforcement on federal establishments. The Committee sees two important

roadblocks to enforcement by state and local officials on federal

establishments.

(a) The question of jurisdiction necessitates that, whatever inspection activities are conducted, these can only be conducted with

the approval and cooperation of federal officials having immediate control of the activity.

(b) The sheer number of devices and prepackaged commodities in

federal resale or service activities, such as military commissaries and post offices, presents a nearl}^ impossible task

to current weights and measures resources. For instance, it is estimated that over 500,000 postal scales exist in this country.

Additionally, there are some 300 military commissaries in the

United States. With these i^oints in mind, the Committee has prepared corre- spondence to appropriate officials of the Xational Bureau of Standards asking that tlie Committee, as a rej^resentative of the states, be

given the opportunity to discuss with them the possibility that an arm of the Federal Government be empowered to assume the

162
responsibility of weights and measures enforcement of federal

establishments.

NBS Enabling Act In its final report to the 55th National Conference, the Committee

recommended to the National Bureau of Standards that the Bureau

actively seek to extend its Enabling Act to include specific responsibility to promote uniformity between law^s, regulations, and practices

adopted by federal agencies and bearing on weights and measures enforcement. The matter was brought to the attention of the

Bureau's legal advisor. In his opinion, such specific authority al- ready exists under subsection 1.01.03 of the Enabling Act, which

reads that the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to undertake

"cooperation with other governmental agencies and private organizations in the establishment of standard practices."

This being the case, together with a generally favorable history

of intergovernmental cooperation, the Committee recognizes that

authority for NBS liaison activities with federal regulatory agencies does exist. However, in light of the increasing demands for state and local weights and measures activities and the fact that these

officials have no jurisdiction over the devices and prepackaged goods

in federal establishments, the Committee strongly urges that NBS

seek to amend its Enabling Act to assume the responsibility of

federal weights and measures enforcement in federally operated

premises.

Weights and Measures Labeling Handbook

The Weights and Measures Labeling Handbook, NBS Handbook

108, has been published and is currently on sale through the Superintendent of Documents at a unit price of $3.25. Copies may be

ordered by SD Catalog No. C13.11:108., U. S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D. C. 20402.

Advisory to OWM

The Committee received comment from OWM that valuable assist- ance could be rendered by having the Connnittee act in an advisory

capacity to OWM on its programs. Accordingly, during its interim

meeting, the Committee received a program review from the Chief

of the Office of Weights and Measures outlining the anticipated

activities of OWM for the coming fiscal year and the funds avail163
able for supporting such activities. On the basis of the review and

several agenda items offered in the tentative report, the Committee

recommended that

(a) OWM publish its organizational structure to alleviate some

confusion that currently exists within the states as to addressing correspondence to OWM on National Conference and non- Conference matters.

(b) A meeting be arranged with the proper managers of the National Bureau of Standards at which the Committee could dis- cuss OWM programs and express the needs of the National

Conference as these needs relate to OWM programs.

The Committee expresses its appreciation to OWM for suggesting

that the Committee assume this important responsibility, and recom- mends to the National Conference that such a function be instituted as a yearly activity of the Committee.

National Railway Track Scale Program

The Committee received comment from OWM on efforts under way

to achieve a nationwide railway track scale program embodying the

cooperation of the technical staff of OWM and weights and measures enforcement officials in the field. The Committee strongly endorses

such a program and recommends its adoption to the National Conference as follows

MODEL STATE PROGRAM FOR RAILROAD TRACK SCALE TESTING

1. Introduction.—There are in the U. S. approximately 7,000 railroad track

scales. Track scales are in use daily, and the commodities weighed represent

millions of dollars to agriculture, industry, and commerce in every state. Regulatory authority over railroad track scales in use in the states rests with the

state weights and measures officials. The weights and measures law applies to

all commercial weighing devices.

2. Problem.—In the past, very little authority has been exercised over rail- road track scales by weights and measures officials, due to the lack of special

equipment needed to test these devices. The National Bureau of Standards has long recognized the need for supervision of track scale accuracy and weighing, and since 1913 has conducted a track

scale testing program. The Bureau annually tests and certifies the 17 master

track scales located throughout the United States, since these are used as standards in the calibration of railroad-owned test cars. All of the major rail- roads operate composite test cars and conduct scale maintenance and testing programs. 164
Recent tests by NBS indicate that some scales liave failed to meet the accu- racy requirements and are not being properly maintained. Improper mainte- nance and resulting inaccuracies have caused high rejection rates in some

areas.

3. Proposal.—It is proposed that the state weights and measures department,

the National Bureau of Standards, and railroad industry cooperate in a track

scale testing program. The testing equipment and personnel of NBS and the

railroads will be utilized in making necessary tests. A state weights and measures official will be present to witness each NBS test and sign the reports. An

NBS Report of Test will be issued for all scales tested by the National Bureau

of Standards.

4. Program Design.—Railroad-owned scales will be tested for accuracy on a sample basis with NBS equipment. This will provide information concerning

the effectiveness of railroad testing and maintenance programs. Industry-owned scales will be tested on a sample basis by either NBS

equipment or test cars owned by the railroads. The sample of railroad and

industry-owned scales to be tested by NBS will be chosen cooperatively by

NBS, the railroads, and the state weights and measures agencies. Criteria to be used to determine which industry or railroad scale will be tested by NBS

include scale capacity, extent of commercial use, scale type, past test performance, and location. Industry and the railroads may request the NBS test. All test cars used by the railroads should be calibrated at least once each

year on an NBS-approved master scale. (An NBS field calibration may substi- tute for a master scale calibration.) Any railroad track scale used commercially

should be tested at least once each year.

5. Benefits.—This program should result in improved railroad track scale accuracy. Consequently, more accurate determinations of loading and freight

commodity charges will result. Through improved scale accuracy and weighing

procedures, significant economic benefits will be realized by the railroads and

private industry. This cooperative program will provide support for the state weights and measures officials in the certification of railroad track scales. Consistent with its endorsement, the Committee has forwarded

correspondence to appropriate NBS officials asking for Bureau support of the program. Additionally, the Committee anticipates meetings with select congressional leaders to emphasize the importance

of the program and to secure the necessary funding to support its activities.

Physical Standards for Major Cities OWM has conducted a limited survey of the large metropolitan

cities having weights and measures laboratories to determine the

types of standards in use and their relative age and condition. It is the opinion of the Committee that there exists the technical need for

certain metropolitan cities to keep and use standards that are trace- able to NBS. The Committee, therefore, has directed OWM to study

the matter and to develop a tentative plan for consideration by the

Bureau and the National Conference.

165
Wheel-Load Weighers

The matter of wheel-load weighers originated with the Committee

on Specifications and Tolerances. In its report to the 55th National

Conference, the S & T Committee urged weights and measures

officials to provide OW^I with information on the subject so that,

in response to such data, the Liaison Committee could approach

federal agencies on any conflicts in requirements. No data have been

received by OWIM.

Therefore, the Committee is of the opinion that no action is warranted at this time. L. D. HollowAY, Chairman^ Idaho

M. Greexspax, New York City, N. Y.

R. C. Primley, Cities Service Oil Co.

A. Saxders, Scale Manufacturers Assn.

E. E. WoLSKi, Colgate-Palmolive Co.

H. F. WoLLiN, Secretary^ NBS

D. E. Edgerly, Staff Assistant^ NBS

Committee on Liaison with the

National Government

(On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the report

of the Committee on Liaison witli the National Government was unanimously

adopted by voice vote.) (On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the Conference by voice vote authorized the Executive Secretary to make such editorial changes as may be needed to the report without changing the intent or meaning

of the report.)

166
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Presented by D. E. Koxsoer, Chairmmu Director, Bureau of Weights

and Measures, Food Division, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture

(Thursday, July 15, 1971) The Committee on Specifications and Tol- erances submits its report to the 56th National

Conference on Weights and INIeasures. The re- port consists of the tentative report, trans- mitted in April as part of the Conference

Announcement, as amended by the final report.

The report represents recommendations of

the Committee that have been formed on the

basis of written and oral comments received

during the year and oral presentations made

during the open meeting of the Committee.

All recommended amendments are to appropriate provisions of the

codes of the National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44, 3d Edition,

Specifications^ Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for

Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices.

General Code

1. G-A.7. Effective Enforcement Dates of Code Requirements.—

The Committee agrees with the comment it received that the requirements as added to the code last year would seem to preclude the

regulatory authority of each jurisdiction, and thus recommends that

this paragraph be amended to read as follows:

G-A.7. EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT DATES OF CODE REQUIREMENTS. —Unless otherwise specified, each new or amended code requirement sh^U

not be subject to enforcement prior to January 1 of the year following

the adoption by the National Conference on Weights and Measures and

publication by the National Bureau of Standards.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. G-S.5.5. Money Values—MathemMical Agreem,ent.—The Committee feels the philosophy expressed in this requirement is sound

and applicable in many instances. However, the Committee believes

that this requirement does not recognize the possibility of a (]iiantity

value presented as analog and a money value presented digitally. To

provide requirements for this condition, it is the view of the Committee that the individual codes be amended as necessary. Therefore,

167
the Committee recommends that no change be made to G-S.5.5. and

that the Scale Code be amended as described in Scale Code item 2.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. G-UR.2.2. Lnstallation of Iiidicating or Recording Element.—

A state official indicated that the means provided for direct communication between the weighing element and the primary indicating or recording element were often temporary in nature and proved

unsatisfactory, and suggested that these means be permanently installed. The Committee recommends that this paragraph be amended

to read as follows:

G-UR.2.2. INSTALLATION OF INDICATING OR RECORDING ELEMENT.—A device shall be so installed that there is no obstruction between

a primary indicating or recording element and the weighing or measuring

element; otherwise, there shall be convenient and permanently installed means for direct communication, oral or visual, between an individual located

at a primary indicating or recording element and an individual located at the weighing or measuring element. [See also G-UR.3.2.]

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

4. G-UR.4.4. Replacement of Security Seal.—The Committee re- ceived several recommendations concerning this requirement. It is the Committee's view that a security seal should be affixed to an

adjustment mechanism at all times whether or not it is an official seal or that of a serviceman, manufacturer, or installer. The Committee recommends that this requirement be amended to read as follows

G-UR.4.4 SECURITY SEAL.—A security seal shall be appropriately affixed to any adjustment mechanism designed to be sealed.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

Scale Code

1. S.1.5.1. For Computing Scales Only—Value Graduations and

Graduated Intervals.—A manufacturer of computing scales has re- quested that this requirement be clarified to indicate that it pertains

only to analog money-value graduations as they appear on the computing charts of drum or fan-type scales, and to extend these

requirements to cover the higher prices needed for today's scales. Thus, the Committee recommended in its tentative report that S. 1.5.1. be amended to read as follows

168
S.1.5.1. MONEY-VALUE GRADUATIONS.—The value of the graduated

intervals representing money values on a computing scale with analog indi- cations shall be as follows:

(a) Not more than 1 cent at all unit prices of 25 cents per pound and less.

(b) Not more than 2 cents at unit prices of 26 cents per pound through

$1.25 per pound. (Special graduations defining 5-cent intervals may be employed, but not in the spaces between regular graduations.)

(c) Not more than 5 cents at unit prices of $1.26 per pound through $5.00 per pound.

(d) Not more than 10 cents at unit prices above $5.00 per pound.

Value figures and graduations shall not be duplicated in any column or row

on the graduated chart. (See also G-S.5.5., S.I.5.2., and S.1.5.3.) On the basis of comments received both prior to and during the

open meeting, the Committee has reconsidered this item and recom- mends the following change

(c) Not more than 5 cents at unit prices of $1.26 per pound through $3.40 per pound.

(d) Not more than 10 cents at unit prices above $3.40 per pound.

(S. 1.5.1. as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

2. To provide for agreement between analog and digital values as discussed in General Code item 2, paragraph G-S.5.5., the Committee

recommends that present paragraph S. 1.5.2. be renumbered S.1.5.3. and that a new paragraph S. 1.5.2. be added as follows

S.1.5J2. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATION.—A computing scale with analog

quantity indications used in retail trade may compute and present digital

money values to the nearest quantity graduation when the value of the minimum graduated interval is 0.01 pound or less. (See also G-S.5.5.)

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. S.1.5.3. Customer's Indications (formerly S.1.6.2.).—The Committee received a comment from the Southern Weights and Measures

Association that there is presently being marketed computing scales with digital indications on the operator's side and only analog indications on the customer's side. It was the view of the Southern

Association that devices equipped with digital indications for the

operator should be similarly equipped for the customer. The Committee agrees and recommends the following nonretroactive amendment to this paragraph

169
S.1.5.3. CUSTOMER'S INDICATIONS.—Weight indications shall be shown

on the customer's side of computing scales when these are used for direct

sales to retail customers. Computing scales equipped on the operator's side with digital indications, such as the net weight, price per pound, or total price, shall be similarly equipped on the customer's side. (Nonretroactive as

of 1971.)

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

4. The Southern Association has recommended that recognition be

given the newly developed computing scales having a tare mechanism

that is readily accessible to the operator. It has long been an enforcement problem to insure that net weight is represented for commodities sold directly over computing scales, such as in the delicatessen

section. To recognize the new developments in devices and provide

for net-weight sales, the Committee recommended in its tentative

report the following amendments to S.2. Design of Balance, Level,

Damping, and Arresting Mechanisms:

Amend the title of S.2. to read

S.2. DESIGN OF BALANCE, TARE, LEVEL, DAMPING, AND ARRESTING MECHANISMS.

Delete present paragraphs S.2.1.2. and S.2.1.3. and add new paragraphs as follows:

5.2.1.2. BALANCING MECHANISMS.—Except on cream-test, moisture-test,

jewelers, prescription, prepackaging, checkweighing, and other scales not used in direct sales, a mechanism (excluding a balance ball) for adjusting

the zero-load balance shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of and entirely separate from this mechanism. A balance ball shall not itself be rotatable unless it is automatic in operation or it is enclosed in a cabinet. (Nonretroactive as of 1956 and to become retroactive on January 1, 1916.)

5.2.1.3. TARE MECHANISM.—The tare mechanism (including a tare bar) shall operate only in a back\Yard direction (that is, in the direction of underregistration ) with respect to the zero-load balance condition of the

scale. Comment was made at the open meeting that on devices equipped

with a tare knob the tare knob should be so located that a customer

could vieAv its operation. It is the Committee's opinion that this con- dition is enforceable under the present General Code requirement

G-UR.3.2., which requires not only that the weight indications may

be viewed by the customer but that the weighing and measuringoperation may be observed as well. However, on the basis of several

written comments on this recommended change, the Committee rec- ommends the following editorial changes from its tentative report

170
5.2.1.2. BALANCING MECHANISM ON SCALES USED IN DIRECT

SALES.—A balancing mechanism (other than a balance ball) shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of and entirely separate from this mechanism, or enclosed in a cabinet. A balance ball shall not itself be rotatable unless it is automatic in operation or is enclosed in a cabinet. (Nonretroactive as of 1956 and to become retroactive on January 1, 1976.)

5.2.1.3. TARE MECHANISM.—The tare mechanism shall operate only in a backward direction (that is, in the direction of underregistration) with

respect to the zero-load balance condition of the scale. Delete S.2.5. and S.2.5.1. and renumber S.2.6., S.2.6.I., S.2.T., and

S.2.T.I. as S.2.5., S.2.5.1., S.2.6., and S.2.6.I., respectively.

Add the following definitions:

direct sale. A sale in which both parties in the transaction are present when

the quantity is being determined.

balancing mechanism. A mechanism (including a balance ball) that is de- signed for adjusting a scale to an accurate zero-load balance condition. tare mechanism. A mechanism (including a tare bar) that is designed for determining or balancing out the weight of packaging material, containers,

vehicles, or other materials that are not intended to be included in net-weight

determinations.

(Section 4 as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

5. jSB.7. For Raihoay Track Scales.— Northwest Weights and

Measures Association has recommended that the sensitivity requirement for railway track scales be reduced. The Committee feels this

would be a progressive step to take and therefore recommends the

following amendment to SR.T.

SR.7. FOR RAILWAY TRACK SCALES.—The SR shall be three tir..es the value of the minimum graduated interval on the weighbeam, or 100 pounds,

whichever is less. The Committee received a written comment that this requirement

be adopted in its present form only if ITR. 1.1.7. was adopted.

(UR.l.1.7. was subsequently adopted and section 5 was adopted by voice vote.)

6. T.1.1.1. With Tloo or More KhmentH.—The Committee was

advised that this requirement has created a hardship on scale owners,

particularly with respect to maintaining agreement between the

dial indication at capacity and the drop weight indication within

the value of the minimum graduated interval on the scale. The Committee has given this problem (and others associated with section T.

171
Tolerances) very careful consideration, and recommended in its ten- tative report the following amendments to the section on Tolerances

Amend paragraph T.l. to read:

T.I. TOLERANCE APPLICATION.—Tolerance values shall be applied to all indications and recorded representations of a scale. Change the title of T.1.1. to read

T.l.L TO ERRORS OF UNDERREGISTRATION AND OVERREGISTRATION.

Delete paragraph T.l. 1.1.; renumber present paragraphs T.1.2. through T.1.6. to T.1.3. through T.I.7., respectively; and add new

paragraph T.1.2. as follows:

T.L2. TO SCALES WITH MULTIPLE ELEMENTS.—Tolerances shall be

applied independently to each indicating and recording element of a scale. However, the following requirements pertaining to analog and digital ele- ments shall also apply:

( a ) All analog elements similar in design shall not differ from one another,

and all digital elements shall not differ from one another.

(b) All analog indications and recorded representations shall not differ from digital indications and recorded representations by an amount

greater than the value of the minimum graduated interval on the scale. (c) All components of the same element used in combination (such as a

dial and unit weights) shall not differ by an amount greater than the

applicable tolerance at a given test load. On the basis of comments received both prior to and during the

open meeting, the Committee recommends the following change from

the tentative report:

(a) All analog indications within the same element shall not differ from one

another and all digital elements shall not differ from one another.

(b) All analog indications and recorded representations shall not differ from

digital indications and recorded representations by an amount greater

than the value of the minimum graduated interval on the device, except

the elements shall not differ under a no-load zero balance condition. Delete paragraph T.3.1. Application, and renumber paragraphs

T.3.2. through T.3.7. as T.3.1. through T.3.6., respectively.

Add the following parenthetical statement at the end of new paragraph T.3.1. General, as follows:

(Basic tolerance values include the minimum tolerance values as set forth in section T.2.)

172
Add the following definition to the Scale Code

minimum tolerances. Minimum tolerances are the smallest values that can be

applied to a scale. Minimum tolerances are determined on the basis of the

value of the minimum graduated interval or the nominal or reading face capacity of the scale. (See also General Code definition for basic tolerances.)

(The foregoing section 6 on Tolerances as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

7. Scales (Balances) Indicating in Troy Weight.—Two suggestions were received requesting that basic tolerance values be provided for

scales (balances) indicating in troy weight. It is the Committee's

opinion that such scales are intended to be covered by the requirements for jewelers scales. To further clarify this situation, the Committee recommended in its tentative report that the definition for

jewelers scale be amended to read as follows

jewelers scale. One adapted to weighing gems and precious metals, including

those indicating in troy weight.

In its tentative report the Committee tried to handle as expeditiously as possible requirements for balances and scales indicating

in troy weight used by precious metals dealers. Since the tentative

report, it was pointed out that this led to complications, especially

in the area of minimum tolerance and SR requirements. The Committee withdraws its recommended amendment in the tentative

report and offers the following comment: In the examination of

balances used commercially, when Handbook 44 requirements are not applicable, the Committee recommends that state laboratory

metrologists, field supervisors, and other knowledgeable personnel be

consulted as to what requirements are appropriate in the examination. The Office of Weights and Measures should also be consulted

when additional help is needed.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

8. T.3.7. For Wheel-Load Weighers.—Last year the Committee, in

response to several suggestions to reduce the tolerances for wheelload weighers, recommended in its final report that more data be

gathered on this matter and that this item be continued on the Committee's agenda. On the basis of the information received during

the ensuing year, the Committee recommends no change to this

requirement.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) 173
9. UR.l.l.Jf. For Hand-Operated Grain Hopper Scales Only.—The

Committee received several suggestions to eliminate the term "handoperated" from paragraph UR.1.1.4. and other user requirement

paragraphs in which it is used. The Committee agrees and recom- mends further that UR.1.1.4. be amended to read as follows:

UR.1.1.4. FOR GRAIN HOPPER SCALES ONLY.—The value of the minimum

graduated interval shall be not greater than 10 pounds for scales with a nominal capacity of 50,000 pounds or less, and not greater than 20 pounds for

scales with a nominal capacity of more than 50,000 pounds.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

10. UR.1.1.7. For Railway Track Scales Only.—T\\Q Committee

received suggestions from the Northwest and Western Weights and

Measures. Associations to reduce the value of the minimum graduated

interval in this requirement. On the basis of these suggestions and

consultation with others experienced in the field of railroad weighing,

the Committee believes that a change in this requirement is advisable

and accordingly recommended in its tentative report the following

nonretroactive amendment

UR.1.1.7. FOR RAILWAY TRACK SCALES ONLY.—T/ie value of the mini- mum graduated interval shall he:

(a) Not greater than 20 pounds on non-automatic indicating scales. (b) Not greater than 50 pounds on automatic indicating scales having

nominal capacities up to and including 200,000 pounds.

(c) Not greater than 100 pounds on automatic indicating scales having

nominal capacities over 200,000 pounds.

(Nonretroactive as of 1971.) On the basis of comments received during the open meeting, the

Committee recommends that paragraphs (b) and (c) as given in the

tentative report be rescinded and that the following new paragraph

(b) be substituted:

(b) Not greater than 100 pounds on automatic-indicating scales.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

11. UR.1.1.8. For Scales with Nominal Capacities of 500 Pounds

or More^ other than Animal^ Livestock., Hand-Operated Grain Hopper^ Crane., Axle-Load., Vehicle Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers^ and

Railway Track Scales.—The Committee received a recommendation

that this paragraph be amended to provide a maximum value for the

minimum graduated interval on scales with nominal capacities of

174
less than 500 pounds. It was the view of the Committee that, since

there are so many applications for scales in this lower weight range,

it Avould be difficult to stipulate a value that would be entirely suit- able for all scales in this range. To provide further clarification, the

Committee recommends that a note be added at the end of this paragraph so that it will read as follows

UR.1.1.8. FOR SCALES WITH NOMINAL CAPACITIES OF 500 POUNDS

OR MORE OTHER THAN ANIMAL, LIVESTOCK, GRAIN HOPPER,

CRANE, AXLE-LOAD, VEHICLE SCALES, WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHERS,

AND RAILWAY TRACK SCALES.—The value of the minimum graduated in- terval shall be not greater than 0.1 percent of the nominal capacity of the

scale, and in any case not greater than 50 pounds.

NOTE: For scales with nominal capacities of less than 500 pounds, refer

to paragraph G-UR.1.1. of the General Code, Suitability of Equipment.

In addition, the Committee recommends that paragraph UR.1.1.8.

be changed from nonretroactive to retroactive status, as it has been

nonretroactive since 1960.

(Section 11 was adopted by voice vote.)

12. The Western Association recommended that a new user requirement be added to provide for a minimum graduated interval of not

greater than 10 pounds on automatic indicating scales with a nominal

capacity of greater than 5,000 pounds, other than animal, livestock,

grain hopper, crane, axle-load, vehicle, wheel-load weighers, railway,

and aggregate scales. The Committee stated in its tentative report

that, in its view, the present requirements of UR.1.1.8. are adequate

and that, when a particular jurisdiction wishes to require that devices

in certain applications be equipped with a minimum graduated interval less than the maximum described in UR.1.1.8., it may do so under

the provisions of G-UR.1.1., Suitability of Equipment.

The Committee received a written comment suggesting that the

Committee's recommendation in the tentative report opened the door

for nonuniformity. The Committee's view expressed in the tentative

report has not changed ; however, it was not its intention to encourage

nonuniformity but rather to recognize that under certain conditions

a jurisdiction may wish to require a smaller minimum graduated

interval than as stipulated in the present requirements of UR.1.1.8.

The Committee wishes to remind the Conference that the values of

the minimum graduated intervals in all of the UR.l. Selection

Requirements are indicated as not greater than the specified amount.

There are many applications where, in the weighing of extremely

expensive commodities, one might recommend a finer graduation than

the maximum specified in the UR.l. section. The Committee reiterates

that in its view tlie present requirements of I^R. 1.1.8. are adequate.

175
However, when a jurisdiction determines that, for good merchandising practices, a device should be equipped with a minimum graduated interval less than the maximum described in UR.1.1.8., it may so require under the provisions of G-UR.1.1. Suitability of

Equipment.

(Section 12 was adopted by voice vote.)

13. The Committee received several recommendations that the

Scale Code be amended to include additional requirements pertaining to railway track scales and railway weighing. The Committee has

recommended in this report several amendments to existing requirements for railway track scales. The Committee believes that adequate

information is not available at this time to recommend further re- quirements and recommends that OWM continue to study this area and that all interested parties communicate with OWM during the

ensuing year.

(The foregoing Item was adopted by voice vote.)

Code for Belt-Conveyor Scales

1. N.S.I. Zero-Load Test.—On the basis of several suggestions to clarify this requirement, the Committee recommends that N.3.1. be

amended to read as follows

N.3.1. ZERO-LOAD TEST.—If a belt conveyor has been idle for a period of two hours or more, before the start of the test the conveyor shall be run empty for not less than 15 minutes. The test shall then be conducted with

the belt conveyor empty for an interval of not less than 10 minutes and not

less than three circuits of the belt. The counter shall be read when a marked

spot on the belt passes a marked spot on the conveyor at the beginning and

conclusion of the test. The zero-load test error shall not exceed 0.05 percent

of the rated capacity per hour of test.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

Code for Liquid-Measuring Devices

1. Diversion of Measured Liquid.—The State of California

suggested that this requirement be reworded similar to S.3.1. of the

Code for Vehicle-Tank INIeters and that subsection (b) of this re- quirement be included as a user requirement. The Committee felt that

certain changes would be desirable and recommended in its tentative

report that S.3.1. be amended and that new user requirement 2.4. be

added as follows:

176
S.3.1. DIVERSION OF MEASURED LIQUID.—No means shall be provided

by which any measured liquid can be diverted from the measuring chamber

of the meter or discharge lines therefrom. However, two delivery outlets may be installed on a motor-fuel device used exclusively in the fueling of trucks if means are provided to insure that liquid can flow from only one

such outlet at one time.

UR.2.4. DIVERSION OF LIQUID FLOW.—A motor-fuel device used ex- clusively In the fueling of trucks equipped with two delivery outlets shall be

so installed that the flow from either of the delivery outlets cannot be diverted from the truck being serviced. The Committee also recommended in its tentative report that an

additional user requirement be added reading as follows:

INDICATION AND DELIVERY WITH TWO OUTLETS.—On a motor-fuel

device (that may include a satellite dispenser) used exclusively in the fuel- ing of trucks equipped with two delivery outlets, there shall be conspicuously displayed on the device appropriate signs or markings that explain the system of indication and delivery.

On the basis of written and oral comments, the Committee re- scinded the second user requirement and recommended that UK.2.4.

be amended to read as follows:

UR.2.4. DIVERSION OF LIQUID FLOW.—A motor fuel device equipped

with two delivery outlets used exclusively in the fueling of trucks shall be

so installed that any diversion of flow from either of the delivery outlets will be readily apparent.

(Section 1 as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

2. N.Ji..l. Normal Tests.—In order to have common usage of terms

throughout the code, the Committee recommends the following editorial change to paragraph N.4.i. : Change the word "disconnected''

at the end of the paragraph to "deactivated."

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. N4.2.2. Special Tests for Retail Motor-Fuel Devices.—The Committee received several communications that retail motor-fuel devices

equipped with automatic nozzles are often operated at a discharge

rate established by the automatic discharge nozzle when set at its slowest setting. As it is fundamental that devices be examined so as

to duplicate as nearly as practicable service conditions of operation,

the Committee recommends that the word "or" be deleted from subsection (a), that the word "or" be substituted for the words "whichever is less" in subsection (b), and that a new subsection (c) be

added as follows:

177
(c) the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver when

equipped with an automatic discharge nozzle set at its slowest setting,

whichever is least.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

4. In recognition of the several suggestions received by the Committee concerning requirements for motor-fuel devices at marinas

and airports, it is the view of the Committee that G-UR.3.2. Position

of Equipment should be appropriately considered when such devices are inspected. Additionally, the Committee recommended in its ten- tative report that a new nonretroactive user requirement be added

as follows:

UR.l.l.l. FOR MARINAS AND AIRPORTS.—T/je length of the discharge hose shall he as short as practicable, and in no case exceed 50 feet. Discharge

hoses exceeding 15 feet in length shall be adequately protected from weather

and other environmental factors when not in use. (Nonretroactive as of 1971, and to become retroactive on January 1, 1974J

The Committee received both written and oral comments on its recommendation at the open meeting. On the basis of these several

suggestions, the Committee recommends accepting the proposal of

API to participate in a study, and, as an interim measure, recom- mends that UR.l.l.l. be amended to read as follows

UR.1.1.1. FOR MARINAS AND AIRPORTS.—r/ie length of the discharge hose shall be as short as practical, and shall not exceed 50 feet unless it can

be demonstrated that a longer hose is essential. Discharge hoses exceeding

15 feet in length shall be adequately protected from weather and other environmental factors when not in use. (Nonretroactive as of 1971, and to become retroactive on January 1, 1974.)

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

5. UR.3.2. Unit Price mid Product Identity.—The Committer

received several suggestions that this requirement be amended to require that the device compute and deliver at the same price. The

Committee, therefore, recommends that the word "and" be substituted for the words "or to" and the term "as the case may be" be

deleted in line 4 of the first sentence of this paragraph. The sentence

will then read

On a retail device of the computing type or of the coin-operated type, there

shall be displayed on each face of the device the unit price at which the device is set to compute and deliver, and there shall be conspicuously displayed on each side of the device the identity of the product that is being dispensed.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

178
6. In a communication from the Southern Association it was stated

that in wholesale sales, when the volume of product delivered was

adjusted for temperature variations, an automatic temperaturecompensated meter was not always used. In those cases the temperature of the product was determined at various times and various

locations throughout the day. In order to provide uniformity and

equity in this method of sale, the Committee recommended in its tentative report an amendment to the title of UR.3.5. and the addition

of new user requirement UR.3.5.3. as follows

UR^.5. TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION—WHOLESALE.

UR.3.5.3. NONAUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.—If the volume of the product delivered is adjusted to compensate for temperature

variations, the product temperature shall be determined at the receiving

vehicle at the time it is loaded. The accompanying invoice shall indicate that the volume of the product has been adjusted for temperature variation and shall state the temperature of the product from w^hich the volume was

adjusted.

The Committee received a written comment that the recommended

amendment in the tentative report could be interpreted to require

that the temperature be taken in the truck and preclude the use of

thermometer wells at the meter or in the discharge lines leading to the fill spout. On the basis of this comment, the Committee recom- mends that this amendment read as follows:

UR.3.5.3. NONAUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.—If the volume of the product delivered is adjusted to the volume at 60 °F, the product temperature shall be taken during the delivery in the liquid chamber of the meter or in the meter inlet or discharge line adjacent to the meter,

or shall be taken at the time the product is loaded in the compartment of the receiving vehicle. The accompanying invoice shall indicate that the vol- ume of the product has been adjusted for temperature variations to a volume

of 60 °F and shall also state the product temperature used in making the adjustment.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

7. The Committee received several recommendations that the L^ID

Code be amended, if necessary, to provide for the wholesale ai)plication of the totalizers on retail gasoline pumps. This subject was

discussed at the 52d National Conference in 1967 and included in the Committee's final report. The following recommendation of the

Committee concerning the use of the totalizer on a retail motor-fuel

dispenser as a commercial measuring device was adopted by the ^r2d Conference

179
Any indicating or recording element of a liquid-measuring device that is to be the determining factor in a commercial transaction involving measure- ment should, without question, conform to all appropriate requirements for liquid-measuring devices. The Committee included the following statement from its report

to the 53d Conference:

The Committee notes specifically that the requirements pertaining to indicat- ing elements included in the Code for Liquid Measuring Devices that are

applicable to the totalizers in commercial service, are only those that are

appropriate for wholesale devices, even though the totalizer is installed in a

"retail device." The Committee concurs with the actions taken during the 52d and

53d Conferences. However, it has been suggested that the LMI) Code

be amended to provide for the commercial use of retail devices

equipped with key control systems. These devices allow certain individual purchasers to purchase gasoline through a pump with the use of registered keys. Payments are made monthly based on a

totalizer reading. Such totalizers operate independently with the

individual keys. The Committee, therefore, recommends that paragraphs S. 1.4.2. and UR.3.1. of the LMD Code be amended to read as

follow^s

S.1.4^. RETURN TO ZERO.—The primary indicating elements, and primary

recording elements if the device is equipped to record, shall be readily returnable to a definite zero indication. However, a key-lock or other self -operated

device may be equipped with cumulative indicating elements provided that

it is also equipped with a zero-return indicating element. Means shall be

provided to prevent the return of primary indicating elements, and of primary recording elements if the device is so equipped, beyond their correct zero position.

UR.3.1. RETURN OF INDICATING ELEMENT TO ZERO.—On any device used in making individual retail deliveries to individual consumers, the primary indicating element, except totalizers on key-lock or other self-operated

devices, and the primary recording element if the device is equipped to record,

shall be returned to zero before each such delivery.

(Section 7 as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

8. New Plan of the American Petroleum Institute.—The Committee has been advised that a plan has been developed and approved

by API that will establish a close working relationship between

weights and measures officials of each state and the Petroleum Council or Committee of that state. The plan ofi'ers a program and pro- cedures for handling weights and measures problems that involve

the petroleum industry.

180
The Committee was encouraged by the statement from API during

its open meeting that, to date, the Petroleum Councils representing

30 states have been contacted, and cooperative programs with weights

and measures officials have been established in these states. This

effort will continue until all states have been contacted and a cooperative educational program initiated in each jurisdiction.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

Code for Vehicle-Tank Meters

1. UR.2.2. Ticket in Printing Device.—The State of California

recommended that this requirement be amended to provide for in- stances in which two or more receptacles on the customer's premises

are filled to allow for a cumulative total on the ticket. This would

permit a ticket to remain in the device while the vehicle is in motion

but does not leave the customer's premises. The Committee can see no problem with this practice and, thus, recommends that UR.2.2.

be amended by adding at the end of the paragraph the phrase

"while on a public street, highway, or thoroughfare."

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

Code for LPG Liquid-Measuring Devices

1. N4'l' Normal Tests.—For the reason explained previously in

this report, the Committee recommends the following editorial

change to paragraph N.4.1. : Change the word "disconnected" at the

end of the paragraph to "deactivated."

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. TJR.2.6. Ticket in Printing Device.—For the same reason indicated in the paragraph relating to the Code for Vehicle-Tank dieters,

the Committee recommends that UE.2.6. be amended by adding at the end of the paragraph the phrase "while on a public street,

highway, or thoroughfare."

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. The State of Florida informed the Committee that the vast majority of devices used in dispensing LP Gas at service stations were dispensing only a small portion of their total volume to the

fuel tanks of highway vehicles. Most of the product is dispensed

to bottles on trailers, campers, trucks, etc. To require a dispenser

181
with a zero set-back interlock would subject these dealers to an unjustifiable expense. It was the recommendation of the State of Florida

that this code be amended so as not to require a zero set-back inter- lock on devices primarily used to fill those bottles. The Committee,

therefore, recommends the following amendments:

Amend the title of S.2.T. to read as follows

S.2.7. FOR RETAIL MOTOR-FUEL DEVICES ONLY.

Amend the definition for motor-fuel device by inserting the word

"primarily" following the words "A stationary device'' in the first line. Amend the definition for retail device to read as follows

retail device. A device used for single deliveries of liquefied petroleum gas for domestic or nonresale use.

(Section 3 was adopted by voice vote.)

Code for Vehicle Tanks—as Measures

1. S.2.5. Permanent Indicators.—In response to several suggestions,

the Committee recommended in its tentative report that this requirement be amended to read as follows

S.2.5. PERMANENT INDICATORS.—Any indicator that is not intended to remain adjustable, and its accompanying bracket or support, shall be

securely welded in position.

On the basis of comments received during the open meeting, the

Committee recommends that S.2.5. be amended to read as follows

S.2.5. PERMANENCE.—Any indicator that is not intended to remain adjustable, and all brackets or supports, shall be securely welded in position. (Nonretroactive as of 1971 and to become retroactive as of January 1, 1974.)

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

Other Items

1. Handbook J^I^ Revision.—The Committee was advised that the

National Bureau of Standards will publish a revised edition of

Handbook 44, to be known as the Fourtli Edition, following the 56th

182
Conference. This new edition of the handbook will be published to eliminate the necessity for inserting the considerable number of

replacement sheets that have been issued since the publication of the

Third Edition in 1965. Certain appropriate editorial changes will be

made in the contents of the Introduction and the section on Fundamental Considerations. No changes, other than those adopted by the

56th Conference, will be made in the technical requirements of the

various codes. However, the Fourth Edition will feature significant

changes in the layout and typography of the codes to improve their

readability and to facilitate the insertion of future amendments.

The Committee has seen a representative sample of the proposed

revision and is most enthusiastic with its format. The Committee

recommends the adoption of these changes and the publication of the

Fourth Edition of NBS Handbook 44.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. Timing Devices.—On the basis of engineering studies by the

Office of Weights and ^Measures, a Code for Timing Devices was

developed. The Committee includes this code in its tentative report

and recommends that this be included as a tentative code in Handbook 44. The Committee wishes to remind interested persons that the

requirements of the General Code are also applicable to these devices.

1971 Tentative Code

TIMING DEVICES

(This Tentative Code has only a trial or experimental status and is not intended to be rigidly enforced. The jequirements are designed for observation and study prior to the development and final adoption of a Code for Timing Devices.)

A. APPLICATION

A.l.—This code applies to devices used to measure time during which services are being dispensed (such as vehicle parking, laundry drying, and car washing).

A.2.—See also General Code requirements.

S. SPECIFICATIONS

S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS AND OF

RECORDED REPRESENTATIONS.

183
S.1.1. PRIMARY ELEMENTS.

5.1.1.1. GENERAL.—A timing device shall be equipped with a primary in- dicating element, and may also be equipped with a primary recording ele- ment. However, a readily observable in-service light that indicates that laundry driers and car washes are in operation shall be deemed an ap- propriate primary indicating element.

5.1.1.2. UNITS.—A timing device shall indicate and record, if the device

is equipped to record, the time in terms of minutes for time intervals of 60 minutes or less and in hours and minutes for time intervals greater than

60 minutes.

5.1.1.3. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT.—The value of the smallest unit of indicated time and recorded time, if the device is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

(a) One-half hour on parking meters indicating time in excess of two

hours.

(b) Six minutes on parking meters indicating time in excess of one but

not greater than two hours.

(c) One minute on all other devices, except those equipped with an in- service light.

5.1.1.4. ADVANCEMENT OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS.—Primary indicating and recording elements shall be susceptible of advancement only during the mechanical operation of the device, except

that clocks may be equipped to manually reset the time.

5.1.1.5. OPERATION OF IN-SERVICE INDICATOR LIGHT.—The in- service light indicator shall be operable only during the time the device is in operation.

S.1.2. GRADUATIONS.

5.1.2.1. LENGTH.—Graduations shall be so varied in length that they may

be conveniently read.

5.1.2.2. WIDTH.—In any series of graduations, the width of a graduation

shall in no case be greater than the width of the minimum clear interval between graduations, and the width of main graduations shall be not more

than 50 percent greater than the width of subordinate graduations. Graduations shall in no case be less than 0.008 inch in width.

5.1.2.3. CLEAR INTERVAL BETWEEN GRADUATIONS.—The clear in- terval shall be not less than 0.03 inch. If the graduations are not parallel, the measurement shall be made

(a) along the line of relative movement between the graduations and

the end of the indicator, or

(b) if the indicator is continuous, at the point of widest separation of the graduations.

184
S.1.3. INDICATORS.

5.1.3.1. SYMMETRY.—The index of an indicator shall be symmetrical

with respect to the graduations with which it is associated and at least throughout that portion of its length that is associated with the graduations.

5.1.3.2. LENGTH.—The index of an indicator shall reach to the finest graduations with which it is used, unless the indicator and the graduations

are in the same plane, in which case the distance between the end of the

indicator and the ends of the graduations, measured along the line of the graduations, shall be not more than 0.04 inch.

5.1.3.3. WIDTH.—The width of the index of an indicator in relation to the

series of graduations with which it is used shall be not greater than

(a) the width of the widest graduation and

(b) the width of the minimum clear interval between the graduations.

5.1.3.4. PARALLAX.—Parallax effects shall be reduced to a practicable

minimum.

S.1.4. PRINTED TICKETS.—A printed ticket issued or stamped by a timing

device shall have printed clearly thereon the time when service begins and

when service ends. The time indication shall be designated as follows:

(a) Date (month and day).

(b) Time of day (hour and minute, and a.m. or p.m. designation when not

in terms of 24-hour time).

S.2. MARKING REQUIREMENTS.

S.2.1. OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS.—Operating instructions shall be clearly stated on the device.

N. NOTES

N.l. TEST METHOD.—A timing device shall be tested with a timepiece

equipped with a sweep second hand and with an error of not greater than plus

or minus 15 seconds per 24-hour period. In the test of timing devices with a nominal capacity of one hour or less, stopwatches with a minimum graduated

interval of one-fifth second shall be used. In the test of timing devices with a nominal capacity of more than one hour, the value of the minimum graduated

interval on the timepiece shall be not greater than one second. Timepieces and

stopwatches shall be calibrated with standard time signals as described in National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 236, NBS Frequency and Time

Broadcast Services.

185
T. TOLERANCES

T.l. TOLERANCE VALUES.—Maintenance and acceptance tolerances for tim- ing devices shall be as follows

T.1.1. FOR LAUNDRY DRIERS AND CAR-WASH TIMERS.—The mainte- nance and acceptance tolerances on underregistration shall be 2 seconds per

indicated minute and on overregistration 1 second per indicated minute.

T.1.2. FOR PARKING-GARAGE CLOCKS AND TIME RECORDERS.

T.1.2.1. ON TIME INTERVALS.—The maintenance and acceptance toler- ances on overregistration and underregistration shall be three seconds per

hour, not to exceed one minute per day.

T.1.2.2. ON TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL CLOCKS

USED FOR "TIME IN" and "TIME OUT".—The maintenance and accept- ance tolerances for a period up through 24 hours shall be as follows:

(a) On overregistration, no tolerance.

(b) On underregistration, five minutes.

T.1.3. ON PARKING METERS.—The maintenance and acceptance tolerances

shall be as shown in table 1.

TABLE 1.—MAINTENANCE AND ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES FOR

PARKING METERS

Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances Nominal time capacity On overregistration On underregistration

30 minutes or less No tolerance 10 seconds per minute with

minimum of 1 minute

Over 30 minutes to and

including 1 hour

No tolerance 5 minutes plus 4 seconds

per minute over 30 minutes Over 1 hour No tolerance 7 minutes plus 2 minutes

per hour over 1 hour

T.2. TO TESTS INVOLVING DIGITAL INDICATIONS OR REPRESENTATIONS.—To the tolerances that would otherwise be applied, there shall be added an amount equal to one-half the minimum value that can be indicated or recorded. 186
UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. STATEMENT OF RATES.—The price in terms of money per unit or

units of time for the service dispensed shall be clearly, prominently, and con- spicuously displayed.

UR.2. INOPERATIVE DEVICES.—Fully informative instructions for the return of money for service not received shall be prominently displayed at

all installations.

UR.3. TIME REPRESENTATIONS.—Any time representation shall be within

plus or minus two minutes of the correct time in effect in the area, except an

individual clock used only for "time out."

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

The terms defined here have a special and technical meaning when used in the Code for Timing Devices. car-wash timers. A timer used in conjunction with a coin-operated device to measure the time during which car-wash water, cleaning solutions, or waxing

solutions are dispensed.

in-service light indicator. A light used to indicate that a timing device is in operation.

laundry-drier timers. A timer used in conjunction with a coin-operated device

to measure the period of time during which a laundry drier is in operation.

parking meter. A coin-operated device for measuring parking time for vehicles. time recorders. A clock-operated mechanism designed to record the time of

day. Examples of time recorders are those used in parking garages to record

the "in" and "out" time of day for parked vehicles. timing devices. A device used to measure the time during which a particular

paid-for service is dispensed. Examples of timing devices are laundry driers,

car-wash timers, parking meters, and parking-garage clocks and recorders. (The Tentative Code for Timing Devices was adopted by voice vote.)

The Committee expresses its appreciation to all who have con- tributed to and participated in the committee deliberations. The

Committee urges all weights and measures officials and other affected

parties to promptly communicate with the Committee on all matters

of concern. It is only in this manner that the Committee can consider

all problems and fully evaluate all situations prior to issuing its reports.

187
D. E. KoxsoER, Chairman^ Wisconsin

W. C. Hughes, Massachusetts

J. C. Mays, Dade County, Florida

R. Rebtjtfo, Nevada

W. S. Watsox, California

H. F. WoLLix, Secretary, NBS

O. K. Warxlof, Stajf Assistant, NBS

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

(Mr. Konsoer moved far adoption, and after a second from the floor, the

report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances as amended was

adopted in its entirety by the Conference by voice vote.) (On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the Conference by voice vote authorized the Executive Secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, so long

as the requirements thus adopted' are strictly adhered to.

)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Presented by S. D. Andrews, Chairman, Director, Division of

Standards, Florida Department of Agriculture

(Thursday, July 15, 1971) The Committee on Laws and Regulations

submits its report to the 56th National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report

consists of the tentative report, transmitted in

April as part of the Conference announcement,

as amended by the final report.

The report represents recommendations of

the Committee that have been formed on the

basis of comments received during the year and

during the open meeting of the Committee.

The Model State Law on Weights and Measures Realizing that the language of the ISIodel Law was cumbersome,

and that some of the provisions have remained unchanged for many

years, the Committee decided to attempt a modernization. The thrust

of this revision was not to introduce new concepts, but rather to

refine the old.

188
A basic consideration was to provide a framework for weights and

measures enforcement. Accordingly, all references to the establishment of weights and measures agencies at the state, city, and county

levels have been deleted. These deletions were made on the grounds

that all states have long since made provisions for apportioning

weights and measures jurisdiction.

The text of the revision which follows is basically the same as the

present Model Law. The method of sale provisions have all been

properly relegated to regulation, rather than having half by law and

half by regulation. In addition, the Committee has included provisions for the method of sale of specific commodities, not covered

by either law or regulation, but which have been the subject of Conference recommendations.

The sections dealing with packaging and labeling have been culled

to understandable basics, avoiding duplication and the resultant con- fusion with the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation.

The rationale behind all these changes is that the basic law should

be tampered with as little as possible, leaving to regulation all the

technicalities and the minor, but sometimes necessary, variations

between jurisdictions.

Two significant additions are the provision for sale from bulk and

the authority of the director to establish methods of sale when necessary. The majority of the remaining changes are editorial and not

substantive, despite the obvious reduction in the number of words.

It is the Committee's hope and intent that the Model State Law,

the Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities,

and the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation will be

adopted in every jurisdiction as a unit in the interest of nationwide

uniformity. The revised Model Law will provide the framework,

with the Model Regulations providing the specifics necessary for

implementation. It is the Committee's view that this approach will

exactly parallel the situation with respect to regulations governing

weighing and measuring devices which has proven to be so successful; i.e., the Law provides the necessary tool for action, and Handbook 44 provides the sj^ecifics.

Thus, the Committee recommends the adoption of the following

revised Model Law and the new INIodel State Regulation for the

Method of Sale of Commodities. To improve reference to the various

sections of these new models, a table of contents will be included in the final publication of each document.

MODEL STATE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of that this Act may be cited as the "Weights and Measures Act." 189
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.—When used in this Act:

1.1. Weight(s) and (or) Measure(s).—The term "weight(s) and (or) measure(s)" means all weights and measures of every kind, instruments and devices

for weighing and measuring, and any appliance and accessories associated with any or all such instruments and devices.

1.2. Weight.—The term "weight" as used in connection with any commodity means net weight.

1.3. Correct.—The term "correct" as used in connection with weights and measures means conformance to all applicable requirements of this Act.

1.4. Primary Standards.—The term "primary standards" means the physical standards of the state which serve as the legal reference from which all other standards and weights and measures are derived.

1.5. Secondary Standards.—The term "secondary standards" means the physical standards which are traceable to the primary standards through comparisons, using acceptable laboratory procedures, and used in the enforcement of weights and measures laws and regulations.

1.6. Director.—The term "director" means the of the Department of

1.7. Person.—The term "person" means both plural and the singular, as the

case demands, and includes individuals, partnerships, corporations, companies,

societies, and associations.

1.8. Sale from Bulk.—The term "sale from bulk" means the sale of commodities when the quantity is determined at the time of sale.

1.9. Package.—The term "package" means any commodity put up or packaged in any manner in advance of sale in units suitable for either wholesale or

retail sale.

Discussion on Section 1.9. In the tentative report of the Committee, the definition for the

term "package" appeared as follows:

1.9. Package.—The term "package" means any container or wrapping in which any commodity is enclosed for use in the delivery or display of that commodity to purchasers.

To clarify the definition of the term "package" so as not to include

the container used for delivery of the commodity, such as a Avrapping or container used in an over-the-counter sale, the Committee

recommended in its final report an alternate definition, as follows

1.9. Package.—The term "package" means any container or wrapping in which any commodity is enclosed for the sale or display of that commodity.

190
Following this proposal, very lengthy discussion ensued in which numerous other definitions were offered by the delegates and in each

case voted dow^n by the Conference. The committee chairman, on

behalf of the L & R Committee, then recommended the following

definition

The term "package" shall be construed to mean a commodity put up or packaged in any manner in advance of sale in units suitable for either wholesale or retail sale.

(The amendment as offered by the committee chairman was adopted by voice vote.) SECTION 2. SYSTEMS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—The system of weights and measures in customary use in the United States and the metric

system of weights and measures are jointly recognized, and either one or both

of these systems shall be used for all commercial purposes in the state. The

definitions of basic units of weight and measure, the tables of weight and

measure, and weights and measures equivalents as published by the National Bureau of Standards are recognized and shall govern weighing and measuring

equipment and transactions in the state. SECTION 3. PHYSICAL STANDARDS—Weights and measures that are

traceable to the U. S. prototype standards supplied by the Federal Government,

or approved as being satisfactory by the National Bureau of Standards, shall be the state primary standards of weights and measures, and shall be maintained in such calibration as prescribed by the National Bureau of Standards.

All secondary standards may be prescribed by the director and shall be verified upon their initial receipt, and as often thereafter as deemed necessary by the

director. SECTION 4. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVICES.—The specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for commercial weighing and measuring devices as adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures and published in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Re- quirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices," and supplements

thereto or revisions thereof, shall apply to commercial weighing and measuring

devices in the state, except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

SECTION 5. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR.—The director

shall:

5.1. Maintain traceability of the state standards to the National Bureau of Standards.

5.2. Enforce the provisions of this Act.

5.3. Issue reasonable regulations for the enforcement of this Act, which regulations shall have the force and effect of law.

5.4. Establish standards of weight, measure, or count, reasonable standards

of fill, and standards for the presentation of cost per unit information for any

packaged commodity.

191
5.5. Grant any exemptions from the provisions of this Act or any regulations

promulgated pursuant thereto, when appropriate to the maintenance of good

commercial practices within the state.

5.6. Conduct investigations to ensure compliance with this Act.

5.7. Delegate to appropriate personnel any of these responsibilities for the proper administration of his office.

5.8. Test annually the standards of weight and measure used by any city or county within the state, and approve the same when found to be correct.

5.9. Inspect and test weights and measures kept, offered, or exposed for sale.

5.10. Inspect and test, to ascertain if they are correct, weights and measures

commercially used

(a) in determining the weight, measure, or count of commodities or things

sold, or oflfered or exposed for sale, on the basis of weight, measure, or

count, or

(b) in computing the basic charge or payment for services rendered on the

basis of weight, measure, or count.

Discussion on Sections 5.4, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10 In its tentative report, the Committee recommended the following

language for sections 5.4, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, and 5.10

5.4. Establish standards of weight, measure, or count, reasonable standards

of fill, and standards for the presentation of cost per unit information for any

packaged commodity, as necessary.

5.6. Conduct investigations necessary to ensure compliance with this Act.

5.7. Delegate to appropriate personnel any of these responsibilities necessary

for the proper administration of his office. 5.9. Inspect and test, as necessary, weights and measures kept, offered, or exposed for sale.

5.10. Inspect and test, as necessary, to ascertain if they are correct, weights

and measures commercially used . . .

(a) in determining the weight, measure, or count of commodities or things

sold, or offered or exposed for sale, on the basis of weight, measure,

or count, or

(b) in computing the basic charge or payment for services rendered on

the basis of weight, measure, or count

Provided, that in compliance with a regulation issued by the director, tests may be made on representative samples of such devices and the lots shall be

held to be correct or incorrect on the basis of the results of the inspection

and tests of such samples.

Mr. W. a, Ki:rlin (American Petroleum Institute) : I understand

that section 5.10 covers the sample testing of milk bottles and singleserAdce containers, but it very definitely also includes the sample

192
testing of other weighing and measuring devices. I maintain that

this would be an improper application of sampling procedures.

Mr. Vadelund: The language in section 5.10 does not specify that an improper sampling method is to be used. It does state that the

director may issue a regulation to allow for sample testing of devices.

It provides for two things—the sample testing of devices such as milk bottles and measure containers and the use of a samplingtechnique.

Mr. L. D. Draghetti (Agawam, Mass.) : The Massachusetts

Weights and Measures Association sent a letter dated June 21, 1971,

to the L & R Committee requesting that the term "necessary" be

struck from sections 5.4, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, and 5.10, and that the proviso

paragraph be deleted from section 5.10. We feel that these words

are in conflict with the annual testing requirements of the Massachusetts laws and will result in a selective testing program.

Mr. H. E. Smith (San Mateo County, Calif.) : I would like to speak in favor of Mr. Draghetti's proposal because some managers

may interpret the term "necessary" in the most austere way possible,

possibly resulting in a reduction of personnel and reduction in budget

where weights and measures professionals are not heading the

departments.

Mr. J. E. BowEN (Newton, Mass.) : The main purpose of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures is to promote uniformity in weights and measures enforcement. I feel that the jurisdictions who have mandatory testing and sealing should continue on this basis until the National Conference makes a decision on the

preference of selective versus mandatory testing.

Mr. Vadelund: The matter of mandatory annual testing of devices was settled by the Conference some time ago. The existing

Model Law states: "It shall be the duty of the director, within a 12-month period, or less frequently if in accordance with a schedule issued by him, and as much oftener as he may deem necessary, to inspect and test, to ascertain if they are correct, all weights and

measures commercially used." All the Committee has done is simply

to recast this requirement in different language.

Mr. R. W. Horger (Santa Clara County, Calif.) : It seems to me

that there is no need for the proviso paragraph, because whether we

test the devices once a year or once in ten years, and whether the

sampling system is used or not, it would still be up to the director

of the department.

(The amendments proposed by Mr. Draghetti to sections 5.4, .^.G, 5.7. 5.9, and 5.10 were adopted by voice vote.)

5.11. Test all weights and measures used in checking the receipt or disburse- ment of supplies in every institution, for the maintenance of which funds are appropriate by the legislature of the state. 193
5.12. Approve for use, and may mark, such weights and measures as he

finds to be correct, and shall reject and mark as rejected such weights and

measures as he finds to be incorrect. Weights and measures that have been

rejected may be seized if not corrected within the time specified or if used or disposed of in a manner not specifically authorized. The director shall con- demn and may seize weights and measures found to be incorrect that are not

capable of being made correct.

5.13. Weigh, measure, or inspect packaged commodities kept, offered, or exposed for sale, sold, or in the process of delivery, to determine whether they

contain the amounts represented and whether they are kept, offered, or ex- posed for sale in accordance with this Act or regulations promulgated pursuant

thereto. In carrying out the provisions of this section, the director shall employ recognized sampling procedures, such as are designated in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 67, "Checking Prepackaged Commodities."

5.14. Prescribe, by regulation, the appropriate term or unit of weight or measure to be used, whenever he determines in the case of a specific commodity

that an existing practice of declaring the quantity by weight, measure, numerical count, or combination thereof, does not facilitate value comparisons by

consumers, or offers an opportunity for consumer confusion.

5.15. Allow reasonable variations from the stated quantity of contents, which

shall include those caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing

practice only after the commodity has entered intrastate commerce.

Discussion on Section 5.15 In the Committee's final report, section 5.15 read as follows:

5.15. Allow reasonable variations from the stated quantity of contents, which shall include those caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course

of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice.

Mr. G. L. Johnson (Kentucky) : I think that this variation is desirable. However, I feel that it stops too short. I would like to

offer an amendment to include after the word "practice" (at the end

of the sentence) the phrase "only after the commodity has entered

intrastate commerce." As the paragraph now reads, we will be rec- ognizing the variation due to moisture loss, but it does not say where

it shall start.

(The amendment to section 5.15 was adopted by voice vote.) SECTION 6. SPECIAL POLICE POWERS.—When necessary for the enforce- ment of this Act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, the director is: 194
6.1. Authorized to enter any commercial premises during normal business

hours, except that in the event such premises are not open to the public, he

shall first present his credentials and obtain consent before making entry

thereto, unless a search warrant has previously been obtained.

6.2. Empowered to issue stop-use, hold, and removal orders with respect to any weights and measures commercially used, and stop-sale, hold, and removal

orders with respect to any packaged commodities or bulk commodities kept,

offered, or exposed for sale.

6.3. Empowered to seize, for use as evidence, without formal warrant, any

incorrect or unapproved weight, measure, package, or commodity found to be

used, retained, offered, or exposed for sale or sold in violation of the provisions

of this Act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

6.4. Empowered to stop any commercial vehicle and, after presentment of his credentials, inspect the contents, require that the person in charge of that

vehicle produce any documents in his possession concerning the contents, and

require him to proceed with the vehicle to some specified place for inspection.

Discussion on Section 6 Mr. G. L. Johnson (Kentucky) : I wish to offer an amendment

because in our state many times we need the power of arrest. There

are cases where we find the violator in transit; and by the time we

go down to the court house, swear out a warrant, and get back,

he is gone. We are law enforcement officers. Let's not strip ourselves

of w^hat little authority we have to provide industry and our con- sumers viith. the protection that they deser\'e. I suggest that an additional subsection be added to section 6 having the same language

that is now Avritten in our present Model Law, as follows

6.5. With respect to the enforcement of this Act, the director is hereby vested with special police powers, and is authorized to arrest, without formal warrant, any violator of this Act.

(The amendment to section 6 was adopted by voice vote.) SECTION 7. POWERS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL OFFICIALS —Any weights

and measures official appointed for a county or city shall have the duties enu- merated in sections 5.9 through 5.13 and the powers enumerated in section 6 of

this Act. These powers and duties shall extend to their respective jurisdictions, except that the jurisdiction of a county official shall not extend to any

city for which a weights and measures official has been appointed.

SECTION 8. MISREPRESENTATION OF QUANTITY.— person shall

sell, offer, or expose for sale less than the quantity he represents, nor take any more than the quantity he represents when, as buyer, he furnishes the weight

or measure by means of which the quantity is determined.

195
SECTION 9. MISREPRESENTATION OF PRICING.—No person shall misrepresent the price of any commodity or service sold, offered, exposed, or ad- vertised for sale by weight, measure, or count, nor represent the price in any manner calculated or tending to mislead or in any way deceive a person. SECTION 10. METHOD OF SALE.—Except as otherwise provided by the

director, commodities in liquid form shall be sold by liquid measure or by

weight, and commodities not in liquid form shall be sold only by weight, or by measure, or by count, so long as the method of sale provides accurate quantity

information. SECTION 11. SALE FROM BULK.—Whenever the quantity is determined by

the seller, bulk sales in excess of twenty dollars ($20) and all bulk deliveries of heating fuel shall be accompanied by a delivery ticket containing the follow- ing information:

(a) The name and address of the vendor and purchaser.

(b) The date delivered.

(c) The quantity delivered and the quantity upon which the price is based,

if this differs from the delivered quantity.

(d) The identity in the most descriptive terms commercially practicable,

including any quality representation made in connection with the

sale. (e) The count of individually wrapped packages, if more than one. SECTION 12. INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PACKAGES.—Except as oth- erwise provided in this Act or by regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, any package kept for the purpose of sale or offered or exposed for sale shall bear on the outside of the package a definite, plain, and conspicuous declaration of:

(a) The identity of the commodity in the package, unless the same can

easily be identified through the wrapper or container.

(b) The quantity of contents in terms of weight, measure, or count.

(c) The name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or dis- tributor, in the case of any package kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold in any place other than on the premises where packed.

SECTION 13. DECLARATIONS OF UNIT PRICE ON RANDOM PACKAGES.—In addition to the declarations required by section 12 of this Act, any package being one of a lot containing random weights of the same commodity

and bearing the total selling price of the package shall bear on the outside

of the package a plain and conspicuous declaration of the price per single unit

of weight.

SECTION 14. ADVERTISING PACKAGES FOR S^LE—Whenever a packaged commodity is advertised in any manner with the retail price stated, there

shall be closely and conspicuously associated with the retail price a declaration

196
of quantity as is required by law or regulation to appear on the package. Where

a dual declaration is required, only the declaration that sets forth the quantity in terms of the smaller unit of weight or measure need appear in the

advertisement.

SECTION 15. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES.—Any person who violates the

following enumerated provisions or any provision of this Act or regulations

promulgated pursuant thereto, for which a specific penalty has not been prescribed, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon a first conviction thereof

shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50 or more than $500, or by im- prisonment for not more than three months, or both. Upon a subsequent conviction thereof, he shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100 or more

than $1,000, or by imprisonment for up to one year, or both. No person shall:

(a) Use or have in possession for use in commerce any incorrect weight or measure.

(b) Remove any tag, seal, or mark from any weight or measure without

specific written authorization from the proper authority.

(c) Hinder or obstruct any weights and measures official in the performance of his duties.

Discussion on Section 15 Mr. Andrews: The Committee is of the opinion that it is both

unwise and unnecessary to establish minimum penalties. Therefore,

to allow for greater judicial discretion, the Committee suggests the

deletion of the words "of not less than $50 or more than $500" and

inserting the words "up to $500." Also, delete the words "of not less than $100 or more than $1,000" and insert the words "up to $1,000."

Mr. S. F. Valtri (Philadelphia, Pa.) : In 19 years of experience in

going to court, I have found that the judges invariably will impose

the minimum fine. This means that we are giving the judge the

opportunity to impose a $1.00 fine. If this is what we are going to do,

then we might as well stop bringing violators into court. Therefore,

I would like to make a motion that we revert back to the tentative

report and keep the words "not less than" in this section.

Mr. G. L. Johnson (Kentucky) : I think that, without a minimum

fine, we are definitely weakening our weights and measures law. In

my state, many judges use the minimum fine as a crutch, especially

in .the lower courts. I have heard the judge tell the neighbor we have

brought in for violation, "Well, John, I am going to do the very best

I can for you. I will give you the minimum fine of $100." I think

that we definitely must have a minimum fine. Mr. p. T. Gamelli (West Springfield, Mass.) : I agree wholeheartedly with the minimum fine concept too. In order to show the

importance of our law and of what we are trying to do, it is very

197
definitely necessary to have the minimum fine. Someone might say

that, if there is a minimum fine, that is what the judge will impose.

However, if there is a subsequent violation, you will already have

something to go on. The cooperation of the courts I have found to be

excellent.

(The Committee's amendment to the tentative report was voted down by the Conference.) SECTION 16. INJUNCTION.—The director is authorized to apply to any

court of competent jurisdiction for a temporary or permanent injunction re- straining any person from violating any provision of this Act. SECTION 17. PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE.—Wheneyer there shall exist a weight or measure or weighing or measuring device in or about any place in which or from which buying or selling is commonly carried on, there shall be

a rebuttable presumption that such weight or measure or weighing or measuring device is regularly used for the business purposes of that place.

SECTION 18. SEPARABILITY PROVISION.—If any provision of this Act

is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person or cir- cumstance is held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of the Act and the applicability thereof to other persons and circumstances shall not be

affected thereby.

SECTION 19. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING LAWS.—AW laws and parts of laws contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed

except as to offenses committed, liabilities incurred, and claims made there- under prior to the effective date of this Act. SECTION 20. REGULATIONS TO BE UNAFFECTED BY REPEAL OF

PRIOR ENABLING STATUTE.—The adoption of this Act or any of its provisions shall not affect any regulations promulgated pursuant to the authority

of any earlier enabling statute unless inconsistent with this Act or modified or revoked by the director. SECTION 21. EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall become effective on

(The Model Law as amended was adopted section by section by voice vote.)

H: ^ Hi ^ % ^

198
MODEL STATE REGULATION

for the METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

This Regulation shall apply to:FOOD PRODUCTS

SECTION 1. BERRIES AND SMALL FRUITS.—ShaW be offered and exposed

for sale and sold by weight, or by measure in open containers having capacities

of Yz dry pint, 1 dry pint, or 1 dry quart, and when sold by measure, the containers shall be deemed not to be packages for labeling purposes. SECTION 2. BREAD.—Each loaf and each unit of a twin or multiple loaf made or procured for sale, kept, offered, exposed for sale, or sold, whether or not wrapped or sliced, shall weigh '/i pound, 1 pound, V/z pounds, or a multiple of 1 pound, within reasonable variations or tolerances: Provided,

that the provisions of this section shall not apply to biscuits, buns, or rolls weighing 4 ounces or less, or to "stale bread" sold and expressly represented at the time of sale as such, and when so sold, the wrappers shall be deemed not to be packages for labeling purposes. SECTION 3. BUTTER, OLEOMARGARINE, AND MARGARINE.—ShaW be

offered and exposed for sale and sold by weight only in units of '4 pound,

Vz pound, 1 pound, or multiples of 1 pound.

SECTION 4. FLOUR, CORN MEAL, AND HOMINY GRITS.—Viheat flour, whole wheat flour, graham flour, self-rising wheat flour, phosphated wheat

flour, bromated flour, corn flour, corn meal, and hominy grits, whether enriched

or not, shall be packaged, kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold only in units of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100 pounds: Provided, that packages in units of less than 2 pounds or more than 100 pounds shall be permitted.

SECTION 5. MEAT, POULTRY, AND SEAFOOD.—^haW be sold by weight,

except the following, which may be sold by weight, measure, or count:

(a) Shellfish. (b) Items sold for consumption on the premises.

(c) Items sold as one of several elements comprising a ready-to-eat meal

sold as a unit for consumption elsewhere than on the premises where

sold. (d) Items sold as part of a sandwich.

When meat, poultry, or seafood is combined with some other food element

to form a distinctive food product, the quantity representation may be in terms

of the total weight of the product or combination, and a quantity representation need not be made for each element.

In the case of ready-to-cook, stuffed poultry products, the label must show

the total net weight of the poultry product and the minimum net weight of the poultry in the product.

199
SECTION 6. FLUID MILK PRODUCTS.—AW fluid milk products, including

but not limited to milk, lowfat milk, skim milk, cultured milks and cream

shall be packaged for retail sale only in units of 1 gill, '/2 liquid pint, 10 fluid ounces, 1 liquid pint, 1 liquid quart, Yz gallon, 1 gallon, IV2 gallons, 2 gallons,

21/2 gallons, or multiples of 1 gallon: Provided, that packages in units of less than 1 gill shall be permitted.

SECTION 7. OTHER MILK PRODUCTS.—Cottage cheese, cottage cheese

products, and other milk products which are solid, semi-solid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid, as defined in the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance of the U. S. Public Health Service, as amended in 1965, shall be sold in terms of weight: Provided, that sour cream and yogurt shall be packaged for retail sale only in units of 4, 8, 12, 16, 32, 64, and 128 ounces avoirdupois: And Provided

further, that yogurt may additionally be sold in units of 5 and 6 ounces

avoirdupois.

SECTION 8. PICKLES.—The declaration of net quantity of contents on

pickles and pickle products, including relishes but excluding one or two whole

pickles in a transparent wrapping which may be declared by count, shall be expressed in terms of fluid measure. Sales of pickles from bulk may be by

count. NONFOOD PRODUCTS

SECTION 9. CO^r/A^GS'.—Asphalt paints, coatings, and plastics shall be sold

in terms of liquid measure. SECTION 10. SOFTWOOD LUMBER.—Applies to softwood boards, timbers,

and dimension lumber that have been dressed on four sides, but shall not apply

to rough lumber, to lumber that has been matched, patterned, or shiplapped, or to lumber remanufactured or joined so as to have changed the form or

identity, such as individual, assembled, or packaged millwork items.

10.1 DEFINITIONS.

10.1.1. Dressed (Surfaced) Lumber.—Lumber that has been dressed (or sur- faced) for the purpose of attaining smoothness of surface and uniformity of

size.

10.1.2. Boards.—Lumber IV4 inches or less in actual thickness and V/z or more inches in actual width. Boards less than 51/2 inches in actual width may

be classified as strips.

10.1.3. Timbers.—Lumber 41/2 or more inches in least actual dimension. Timber may be classified as beams, stringers, posts, caps, sills, girders, purlins,

etc.

10.1.4. Dimension Lumber.—Lumber from IV2 inches to, but not exceeding, 4|/2 inches in actual thickness, and l'/2 or more inches in actual width. Dimension

lumber may be classified as framing, joists, planks, rafters, studs, small timbers, etc. 200
10.1.5. Rough Lumber.—Lwmber that has not been dressed but which has been

sawed, edged, and trimmed at least to the extent of showing saw marks in the wood on the four longitudinal surfaces of each piece for its overall length.

10.1.6. Matched Lumber.-—Lwmher that has been worked with a tongue on one edge of each piece and a groove on the opposite edge to provide a close tongueand-groove joint by fitting two pieces together; when end-matched, the tongue

and groove are worked in the ends also.

10.1.7. Patterned Lumber.—Lumber that is shaped to a pattern or to a molded

form, in addition to being dressed, matched, or shiplapped, or any combination

of these workings.

10.1.8. Shiplapped Lumber,—Lumber that has been worked or rabbeted on

both edges of each piece to provide a close-lapped joint by fitting two pieces

together.

10.1.9. Grade.—The commercial designation assigned to lumber meeting specifications established by a nationally recognized grade rule writing organization.

10.1.10. Species.—The commercial name assigned to a species of trees.

10.1.11. Species Group.—The commercial name assigned to two or more indi- vidual species having similar characteristics.

10.1.12. Representation.—A "representation'* shall be construed to mean any

advertisement, offering, invoice, or the like that pertains to the sale of lumber.

10.1.13. Minimum Dressed Sizes (Width and Thickness).—The standardized

width and thickness at which lumber is dressed when manufactured in ac- cordance with the U. S. Department of Commerce Voluntary Product Standard

20-70, "American Softwood Lumber Standard," and regional grading rules con- forming to VPS 20-70. (See table 1.)

10.2. IDENTITY.—Representations shall include a declaration of identity that specifies the grade or grades, species or species group, and whether the lumber is unseasoned(green) or dry.

10.3. QUANTITY.—Representations shall be in terms of the number of

pieces, the minimum dressed width and thickness, the length of individual pieces or the lineal footage, except that:

(a) The use of nominal dimensions shall be allowed when used in conjunction with the required minimum dressed sizes and actual length.

(b) With respect to all invoices, a table of minimum dressed sizes may

appear on the reverse side of the invoice, so long as appropriate ref- erence to the table is prominently and conspicuously shown on the

face of the invoice. 201
TABLE 1. SOFTWOOD LUMBER SIZES

Minimum standard dressed sizes at the time of manufacture for both unsea- soned (green) and dry lumber as published by the U. S. Department of Commerce in Product Standard 20-70.

Product

Classification (Nominal Size)

Minimum Dressed Sizes (See Note 2)

Unseasoned Dry

Inches Inches Inches Dimension

Lumber

1-9/16 X 3-9/16 1-1/2 X 3-1/2 2X6 1-9/16 X 5-5/8 1-1/2 X 5-1/2 2X8 1-9/16 X 7-1/2 1-1/2 X 7-1/4

2 X 10 1-9/16 X 9-1/2 1-1/2 X 9-1/4

2 X 12 1-9/16 X 11-1/2 1-1/2 X 11-1/4 (See note 1) Board

Lumber

1 X 4 25/32 X 3-9/16 3/4 X 3-1/2

1 X 6 25/32 X 5-5/8 3/4 X 5-1/2 1X8 25/32 X 7-1/2 3/4 X 7-1/4

1 X 10 25/32 X 9-1/2 3/4 X 9-1/4

1 X 12 25/32 X 11-1/2 3/4 X 11-1/4

Note 1. The dry thicknesses of nominal 3" and 4" lumber are 2-1/2" and 3-1/2", unseasoned thicknesses are 2-9/16" and 3-9/16". Widths for these

thicknesses are the same as shown above. Note 2. Product Standard 20-70 defines dry lumber as being 19 percent or less

in moisture content and unseasoned lumber as being over 19 percent

moisture content. The size of lumber changes approximately 1 percent

for each 4 percent change in moisture content. Lumber stabilizes at approximately 15 percent moisture content under normal use conditions. SECTION 11. PEAT AND PEAT MOSS'.—Applies only with respect to organic matter of geological origin, excluding coal and lignite, originating principally

from dead vegetative remains through the agency of water in the absence of

air and occurring in a bog, swampland, or marsh, and containing an ash content

not exceeding 25 percent on a dry-weight basis (dried in an oven at 105 °C.

(221 °F.) until no further weight loss can be determined).

202
11.1. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY.—The declaration of quantity of peat

and peat moss shall be expressed in weight units or in cubic-measure units.

11.2. UNITS.

11.2.1. Weight.—Peat and peat moss sold in terms of weight shall be offered and exposed for sale only in units of 100 pounds, 70 pounds, 50 pounds, 25 pounds, 10 pounds, or 3 pounds.

11.2.2. Cubic Measure.—Peat and peat moss sold in terms of cubic measure

shall be offered and exposed for sale only in units of 6, 5.5, 4, 2, 1, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, or 0.2 cubic feet. If the commodity is labeled in terms of compressed cubic measurement, the quantity declaration shall represent the quantity in the compressed state and the quantity from which the final product was compressed (the latter declaration not exceeding the actual amount of material

that can be recovered).

SECTION 12. ROOFING AND ROOFING MATERIAL.—ShaW be sold either by the "square" or by the "square foot" only.

12.1. DEFINITIONS.

12.1.1. Square.—The term "square" shall mean the quantity of roofing or

roofing material that, when applied according to directions or instructions of the manufacturer, will cover an area of 100 square feet exclusive of side laps or side joints: Provided, that, in the case of roofing or roofing material of corrugated design, the side lap or side joint shall be one full corrugation.

12.1.2. Square Foot.—The term "square foot" shall mean the quantity of roofing or roofing material that, when applied according to the directions or

instructions of the manufacturer, will cover 1 square foot (144 square inches)

exclusive of side laps or side joints.

12.2. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY.—When the declaration of quantity on a package of roofing or roofing material contains the term "square," it shall include, plainly and conspicuously, a numerical definition of the term

"square"; for example, "One square covers 100 square feet of roof area."

12.2.1. Common Fractions.—The use of the common fraction one-third (1/3)

is specifically authorized in the quantity statement of a package of roofing or

roofing material when, and only when, used as the common fraction of the "square."

12.2.2. Quantity Statement.—The primary declaration shall only be in terms

of a square or square feet. There is no prohibition against the use of supplementary quantity declarations, such as shingle dimensions, but in no case

shall the weight of the material be stated or implied. However, the use of numerical descriptions for rolls of felt roofing material may continue to be

used. 203
SECTION 13. SEALANTS.—Calkmg compounds, glazing compounds, and

putty shall be sold in terms of liquid measure. SECTION 14. ALL COMMODITIES.—Whenever an advertised, posted, or labeled price per unit of weight, measure, or count includes a fraction of a

cent, all elements of the fraction shall be prominently displayed, and the numerals expressing the fraction shall be immediately adjacent to, of the same general design and style as, and at least one-half the height and width

of the numerals representing the whole cent. SECTION 15. REVOCATION OF CONFLICTING REGULATIONS.—AW provisions of all orders and regulations heretofore issued on this same subject

that are contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this regulation,

and specifically , are hereby revoked. SECTION 16. EFFECTIVE DATE.—This regulation shall become effective on ^ , except that section 10, Softwood Lumber, shall become

effective on April 1, 1972. Given under my hand and the seal of my office in the City of , on this day of , A.D. 19 Signed

(The Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities was adopted

section by section by voice vote.)

$ 4: ^ 4:

Model State Packaging and

Labeling Regulations

1. Shipping Containers:

It has been brought to the attention of the Committee that the

Model State Packaging and Labeling Kegulation makes no mention

of shipping containers used to deliver wholesale or retail packages to manufacturers, packers, or processors. However, section 1(8) of the

Model Law specifically mentions the term "shipping containers."

In order to clarify this point, the Committee suggests that a sec- tion 1(b) be added to the Kegulation, and subsequent sections renumbered accordingly.

1(b) Shipping containers or wrapping used solely for the transportation of any commodities in bulk or in quantity to manufacturers, packers, or processors, or to wholesale or retail distributors, but in no event shall this ex- clusion apply to packages of consumer or nonconsumer commodities, as defined

herein. 204
2. Combination Declarations : The requirements for Combination Declarations, as set forth in

sections 6.3.1. and 6.3.2. of the Model Regulation, do not provide for

all the possible combinations of quantity statements on certain packaged goods. A good example is the multiple declaration for roll type

commodities required by section 6.6.8. of the Regulation. In order to clarify this apparent inconsistency, the Committee recommends the

following change:

6.3.1. COMBINATION DECLARATION.—

(a) A declaration of quantity in terms of weight shall be combined with

appropriate declarations of the measure, count, and size of the individ- ual units unless a declaration of weight alone is fully informative.

(b) A declaration of quantity in terms of measure shall be combined with

appropriate declarations of the weight, count, and size of the individual units unless a declaration of measure alone is fully informative.

(c) A declaration of quantity in terms of count shall be combined with

appropriate declarations of the weight, measure, and size of the indi- vidual units unless a declaration of count alone is fully informative.

3. Textiles:

The American Textile Manufacturers Institute has urged the Committee to refine the provisions of the Model Regulation with respect

to the packaging and labeling of textile products. It was felt that the

existing requirements do not include provisions for all types of textiles, and that certain of the requirements would not provide purchasers with appropriate information. On this latter point, it was

noted that the requirement for finished dimensions on certain textile products (sheets and pillowcases) would introduce a dimension of no

value to the consumer. It was suggested that the consumer needs to know the size of the article the product is designed to fit, and the

total amount of cloth in the package in order to make a reasonable

value comparison.

It is the view of the Committee that sufficient justification for the

requested changes has been given and, therefore, the following change

to section 10.9.2. is recommended:

10.9.2. rEXr/LES.—Bedsheets, blankets, pillowcases, comforters, quilts, bedspreads, mattress covers and pads, afghans, throws, dresser and other furniture

scarfs, tablecloths and napkins, flags, curtains, drapes, dish towels, dish cloths, towels, face cloths, utility cloths, bath mats, carpets and rugs, pot holders,

fixture and appliance covers, nonrectangular diapers, slip covers, etc., shall be exempt from the requirements of subsection 6.6.7. of this regulation: Provided,

That

205
(a) The quantity statement for fitted sheets and mattress covers shall

state, in inches, the length and width of the mattress for which the item is designed, such as "twin," "double," "king," etc. (Example:

"Twin Fitted Sheet for 39 x 75 in mattress.")

(b) The quantity statement for flat sheets shall state the size designation

of the mattress for which the sheet is designed, such as "twin,"

"double," "king," etc. The quantity statement also shall state, in inches, the length and width of the mattress for which the sheet is designed, followed in parentheses by a statement, in inches, of the length and

width of the sheet before hemming. (Example: "Double Flat Sheet

for 54 X 75 in mattress (81 x 104 in before hemming)").

(c) The quantity statement for pillowcases shall state the size designation

of the pillow for which the pillowcase is designed, such as "youth,"

"standard," and "queen," etc. The quantity statement also shall state, in inches, the length and width of the pillow for which the pillowcase

is designed, followed in parentheses by a statement, in inches, of the length and width of the pillowcase before hemming. (Example: "Stand- ard Pillowcase for 20 x 26 in pillow (42 x 36 in before hemming).")

(d) The quantity statement for blankets, comforters, quilts, bedspreads, mattress pads, afghans, and throws shall state, in inches, the length

and width of the finished item. The quantity statement also may state the length of any ornamentation and the size designation of the mattress for which the item is designed, such as "twin," "double," "king,"

etc.

(e) The quantity statement for tablecloths and napkins shall state, in inches, the length and width of the finished item. The quantity state- ment also may state parenthetically, in inches, the length and width

of the item before hemming and properly identified as such.

(f) The quantity statement for curtains, drapes, flags, furniture scarfs,

etc, shall state, in inches, the length and width of the finished item. The quantity statement also may state parenthetically, in inches, the length of any ornamentation.

(g) The quantity statement for carpets and rugs shall state, in feet, with any remainder in common or decimal fractions of the foot or in inches, the length and width of the item. The quantity statement also may

state parenthetically, in inches, the length of any ornamentation.

(h) The quantity statement for woven dish towels, dish cloths, towels, face cloths, utility cloths, bath mats, etc. shall state, in inches, the

length and width of the item. The quantity statement for such items,

when knitted, need not state the dimensions.

(i) The quantity statement for textile products such as pot holders, fix- ture and appliance covers, non-rectangular diapers, slip covers, etc. shall be stated in terms of count and may include size designations and

dimensions.

206
(j) The quantity statement for other than rectangular textile products

identified in subsections (a) through (h) shall state the geometric

shape of the product and the dimensions which are customarily used

in describing such geometric shape, (Example: "Oval Tablecloth 54 x

42 in," representing the maximum length and width in this case.)

(k) The quantity statement for packages of remnants of textile products

of assorted sizes, when sold by count, shall be accompanied by the term

"irregular dimensions" and the minimum size of such remnants. The textile manufacturers also requested that the Committee consider extending the degree of permissible variations for the dimensions of individual textile items, and provide for tolerances on the

average of a given lot, shipment, or delivery of packaged textile items. It was pointed out that smaller textile items were in need of

a larger plus and minus range because of the many variables inherent

in the manufacturing process. Also, the textile manufacturing process

requires a commitment to expected finished size far in advance of the

completed item, unlike the manufacture of paper or foil where

cutting to size is at or near the final step of the process. The Committee is of the view that there is merit to the request for

larger j:>lus and minus variations for individual textile items and

recommends the addition of section 10.9.3. to the Regulation

10.9.3. TEXTILES: VARIATIONS FROM DECLARED DIMENSIONS.—

(a) For an item with no declared dimension less than 24 inches, a minus

variation greater than 3% of a declared dimension and a plus variation greater than 6% of a declared dimension should be considered

unreasonable.

(b) For an item with a declared dimension less than 24 inches, a minus

variation greater than 6% of a declared dimension and a plus variation greater than 12% of a declared dimension should be considered

unreasonable. On the matter of a tolerance for packaged textile items, the Committee feels that the average concept is appropriate for textiles and

that a specific tolerance is not warranted. The Committee cautions,

however, that the nature of the manufacturing and distribution is such that it is possible for a particular lot, shipment, or delivery to average below the quantity represented. In such instances, it recom- mends that official examinations be made of additional lots, shipments, or deliveries to determine if all i)ackages of the particular

commodity are in violation or, conversely, all fully conform to legal

requirements.

The Committee also had brought to its attention the need for some

relief from the labeling requirements for variety packages of textiles. 207
Such packages often require lengthy listings to fulfill the quantity

statement requirements. The Model Regulation currently grants

limited exemptions to combination packages because of the lengthy

nature of the quantity statement. It is proposed that similar exemptions be granted as follows

10.9.4. EXEMPTION: VARIETY TEXTILE PACKAGES.—Vairiety packages

of textiles which are required by reason of sections 6.3.1. and 6.3.2. to provide

a combination declaration stating the quantity of each individual unit, shall be exempt from the requirements in this regulation for:

(a) LOCATION (See subsection 8.1.1.),

(b) FREE AREA (See subsection 8.1.4.), and

(c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF NUMBERS AND LETTERS (See subsection

8.2.1.).

4. Multi-Unit Packages

The Committee has been made aware of a minor inconsistency in

the provisions concerning multi-unit packages. The Model provides

that the individual units of a multi-unit package are exempt from

the location requirement if all other requirements are met. However,

the definition of multi-unit requires that the individual units be

capable of individual scale (section 2.8.). If the individual units take

advantage of the exemption from location (section 11.17.), then

they are not capable of individual sale. They are not part of a multiunit package by definition and, therefore, do not get the exemption.

Because of this inconsistency, the Committee recommends deletion

of the last paragraph of section 10.4. and of section 11.17. entirely,

and the renumbering of subsequent sections.

(The amendments to the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation were

adopted section by section by voice vote.)

Other Items

1. Seed Labeling:

The Committee met with representatives of the American Seed

Trade Association concerning the proper labeling of vegetable and

flower seed packets. As the result of deliberations since the interim

meeting, the Committee proposes the following requirements to be

considered for adoption at the next Conference

208
(a) Packets of vegetable and flower seeds shall be labeled as to quantity,

with a combination declaration of weight in terms of metric units and minimum count.

(b) The quantity declaration shall appear in the upper 30 percent of the

label principal display panel in proximity to the price.

The effective date for these requirements is September 1, 1972.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. Coin- Operated Devices : In its report to the 55th Conference, the Committee requested in- formation from weights and measures officials concerning the possi- ble need for quantity statements on vending machines. In the interim,

the Committee has received very little information on this matter

and again urges weights and measures officials to submit their views.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. Unit Pricing

The Committee received a report from the Office of Weights and

Measures on the extent of unit pricing experiments and current legislative proposals. Numerous unit pricing experiments are being con- ducted on a voluntary basis throughout the country. Many state and municipal legislative bodies are in the process of considering

such legislation. Most legislative proposals place the responsibility

for enforcing unit pricing requirements upon weights and measures

officials. Additionally, the Model State Weights and Measures I^aw

has long contained a requirement for unit pricing on certain types

of packaged commodities.

It is the Committee's view that this widespread activity could well

lead to a great degree of nonuniformity in cost-per-unit labeling.

Accordingly, the Committee directed the Office of Weights and

Measures to prepare a draft model regulation for cost-per-unit

labeling for consideration at the 56th Conference. This draft was

prepared and distributed to all interested parties prior to the 56th

annual meeting.

In view of comments received (m the draft prior to and during

the Committee's open meeting, the Committee recommends the adoption of the following regulation

209
MODEL STATE UNIT PRICING REGULATION

Section 1. Except for random weight packages unit priced in accord with

existing regulations and uniform weight packages of cheese and cheese products unit priced in the same manner and by the same type equipment as random weight packages, any retail establishment providing unit price infor- mation in addition to the total price, for any commodity listed herein, shall also provide the unit price information for all packaged commodities listed herein and in the manner prescribed herein.

Section 2.

Meat, Poultry, and Seafood

Fruits and Vegetables

Fruit and Vegetable Juices and Drinks

Dry Detergents, Soap Powders, and Dry

Household Cleaners

Liquid Detergents and Household Cleaners and Disinfectants Relishes and Condiments

Liquid Soups and Condensed Liquid Soups

Cereals Candy

Cookies and Crackers

Sanitary Paper Products

Foil, Film, and Other Rolls of Wrapping

Cooking Oils and Shortening

Salad Dressings

Soft Drinks

Jams, Jellies, Preserves, and Peanut Butter

Coffee, Tea, and Cocoa

Syrups, Table and Topping

Cheese, Natural and Processed

Rice Pet Food

Toothpaste

Deodorants, Personal Shaving Preparations

Toilet Water and Colognes

Hair Preparations

Price per pound

Price per pound or per indi- vidual unit, or whole unit

of dry measure

Price per quart

Price per pound

Price per quart

Price per pound or quart

Price per pound or quart

Price per pound

Price per pound

Price per pound

Price per 50 sq ft, or, if by

count, per 50 units, includ- ing ply Price per 50 square foot Price per quart or pound

Price per quart

Price per quart

Price per pound

Price per pound

Price per pound or quart

Price per pound

Price per pound

Price per pound

Price per ounce

Price per ounce

Price per ounce

Price per ounce

Price per ounce

The standard of reference for all categories listed above shall be the latest edition of the "Standard Industrial Classification Manual" published by the Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget.

Section 3. Any of the commodities listed herein shall be exempt from these

provisions when packaged in quantities of less than one ounce (avoirdupois)

or one fluid ounce or when the total retail price thereof is ten cents or less.

210
Section 4. Any of the commodities listed lierein shall be exempt from these

provisions when there is only one brand in only one size appearing in a particular retail establishment.

Section 5. The unit price information shall be to the nearest tenth of one

cent when less than one dollar and to the nearest cent when a dollar or more.

Section 6 (a). In any retail establishment in which unit price information

is provided in accordance with the provisions of the regulation, that information may be displayed by means of a sign, which offers the unit price for one

or more brands and /or sizes of a given commodity, by means of a sticker, stamp, sign, label, or tag affixed to the shelf upon which the commodity is displayed, or by means of a sticker, stamp, sign, label, or tag affixed to the consumer commodity itself.

Section 6 (b). Where a sign providing unit price information for one or more sizes or brands of a given commodity is used, that sign shall be provided

clearly and in a nondeceptive manner in a central location as close as practical

to all items to which the sign refers.

Section G (c). If a single sign or tag does provide the unit price information

for more than one brand or size of a given commodity, then the following

information shall be provided:

(1) The identity and the brand name of the commodity.

(2) The quantity of the packaged commodity if more than one package size per brand is displayed.

(3) The total retail sales price.

(4) The price per appropriate unit in accordance with section 2.

Section 7 (a). Not less than one-third of the commodity categories listed in section 2 of this regulation shall be unit priced by any individual retail establishment within 90 days after this regulation, by its terms, becomes

applicable to such establishment.

Section 7 (b). Full compliance with this regulation by any individual retail establishment shall be attained within 120 days after this regulation, by its terms, becomes applicable to such establishment.

(The Model State Unit Pricing Regulation was adopted hy voice vote.)

The La^ys and Regulations Committee extends its thanks to all those members of the Conference and business and industry rei)rosentatives who submitted items for consideration. Only throuo-h such

continuing communications can the Committee fulfill its function (o

the Conference.

211
S. D. Andrews, Chairman, Florida

G. L. Delano, Montana

M. R. Dettler, Seattle, Washington

R. M. Leach, Michigan

R. L. Thompson, Maryland

H. F. WoLLiN, Secretary, NBS

E. A. Vadelund, Staff Assistant, NBS

Committee on Laws and Regulations

(Mr. Andrews moved for adoption, and after a second from the floor, the report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations was adopted in its entirety

by the Conference by voice vote.) (On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the Conference by "voice vote authorized the Executive Secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, so long

as the requirements thus adopted are strictly adhered to.)

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Presented by M. Jennings, Chairman, Director, Division of

Marketing, Tennessee Department of Agriculture

(Tuesday, July 13, 1971) The Executive Committee of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures met in open session on Monday, July 12, 1971, at 11 : 00

a.m. Discussion was held on the following items:

1. Plans for the 57th National Conference.—The Executive Committee presented the following general arrangements for the 57th

National Conference:

Site: Washington, D. C. Hotel: The Shoreham

Dates: July 10-14, 1972

Kates : $19 single ; $23 double ; $45-up suites

The Committee is in agreement with these arrangements and rec- ommends action accordingly by the Incoming Executive Committee.

2. Conference Finances.—The chairman, during the open meeting,

pointed out the problem of rising costs of Conference operations.

212
The Conference treasury is at a very low level, and funds may not

be available for all of the necessary expenses in the year ahead. It is the view of the Committee that such steps as are necessary be

taken to provide adequate funds for the operation of the Conference, even if this means a further increase in the registration fee. The Committee recommends that the Incoming Executive Committee

give this matter very careful consideration and take such action as needed.

3. Program Details.—It is the consensus of the Committee that

this year's general program and events be continued. The Committee invites further suggestions which will be studied and included

in the plans and arrangements for next year if possible.

4. Amendments to the Organization and Procedure of the National Conference.—In accordance with the actions of the 55th

Conference and discussion during the open meeting, the Executive

Committee recommends the following amendments to the Conference Organization and Procedure

(a) Change the title of the Committee on Liaison with the

National Government to "Committee on Liaison with the

Federal Government."

(b) Change the title of the Committee on Education to "Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs."

In addition to these changes in titles, section 7 of the Organization

and Procedure should be amended to read as follows:

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs.—The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs annually presents a report for Conference action. Its field of operation embraces all matters deal- ing with the education and training of weights and measures officials, the promotion of weights and measures principles and techniques among the general public and the users of weighing and measuring devices, the development

and recommendation of administrative procedures and public relations pro- grams, and the identification of commercial weights and measures practices

and problems which are of concern to consumers.

The Executive Committee also recommends that the Executive

Secretary be authorized to make such other editorial clumges to the

213
Organization and Procedure statement as are necessary to implement these amendments.

5. Future Conference Sites.—The Committee was pleased to be

advised that approval has been granted by the National Bureau of

Standards to hold the National Conference on Weights and Measures

outside the City of Washington, D. C, every other year, starting

with 1973. This will mean that the Conference will meet in Washington next year and every even year thereafter. Hotel space has

been reserved in Washington for the second week in July through

1980. These arrangements are necessary due to the heavy demand

for hotel space in Washington, and especially for 1976, when Washington will be a focal point for the bicentennial celebrations of our

country.

Tentative arrangements have been made to hold the 1973 Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the Leamington Hotel, the

week of July 15-20, 1973. Thereafter, suitable locations in other sec- tions of the country will be selected for each succeeding odd year,

in accordance with the recommendations of future Executive Committees and the approval of the Conference. The Committee agrees

with the suggestion it heard during the open meeting that i^relimi- nary plans and arrangements also be developed for cities throughout

the United States over the next 10-year period.

6. Metmc Task Force.—At the request of the National Bureau of

Standards via authority granted to it by Public Law 90-472, popularly known as the Metric Study Act, the 54th National Conference on Weights and Measures authorized the Executive Committee "to conduct a study into the problems that measurement changes might

have on the weighing and measuring field." The Executive Committee, in turn, directed the Conference Executive Secretary to establish a Task Force on INIetrication to examine such problems. The Task

Force was formalized on April 20, 1970, with an appropriate organizational charter. The charter provides that the Task Force will

expire at the close of this Conference.

This past December, the Executive Committee, acting for the

entire Conference, as provided by the Organization and Procedure of

the Conference, approved the final report of the Task Force. This

report will be part of the U. S. ^letric Study Report on Commercial

Weights and INIeasures, NBS SP 345-3 and the entire NBS Report

that will be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce in August.

Inquiries concerning the availability of the Commercial Weights and

Measures Report should be sent to the NBS Office of Weights and

Measures.

The Committee wishes to thank the members of the Task Force

for their efforts in the preparation of the Task Force Report, and

214
wants to especially thank Mr. Stephen Hatos of the Office of Weights

and Measures for the excellent manner in which he "quarterbacked"

this endeavor.

7. Reyort of Associate Memhership Committee as Given hy

Emmett Welimann^ Committee Chairman,—The Associate ]\Iembership has held two meetings this year and plans a third. The first of

these was held at the Bureau in February, at which time plans for

the State Directors' Reception, the Industry Educational Display,

and the Conference Dance w^ere discussed. An excellent exchange of

viewpoints took place, which w411 result in a satisfactory program,

w^e are confident.

The second meeting, held yesterday here in Washington, resulted

in the following

(a) The Committee has agreed to evaluate the Industry

Display, a new experimental feature this year. At our

third meeting this week, we will discuss our conclusions and

offer comments.

(b) Mr. Chuck Campbell reported progress relating to the Conference Dance. The Committee agreed Mr. Campbell should

be recognized for his outstanding efforts. The Committee

expressed its thanks to ^Ir. Campbell and feels he should

be introduced during the Directors' Reception. He has been

asked to serve again as coordinator in the planning of the

Conference Dance next year.

(c) At the final meeting this week, a recommendation will be

made to the Executive Committee for a new chairman.

The Committee wishes to thank those delegates who participated

in the open meeting on Monday. On behalf of the Executive Committee, may I say that we hope your experience during this Conference

is informative and enjoyable. It has been our pleasure to serve you. M. Jennings, Chairman

A. T. Anderson

M. L. KiNLAW

F. D. Morgan

J. L. O'Neill

J. A. J. Bovie, Jr.

L. D. HOLLOW^AY

J. V. PUGII

H. E. Smith

W. J. TUSEN

S. F. Valtri

C. C. Morgan

215
N. BUCUR

CO. COTTOM

R. W. Glendenning

R. W. Searles

H. F. WoLLiN, Secretary

T. M. Stabler, Staff Assistant

Executive Committee

(On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the report

of the Executive Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS

Presented by S. H. Christie, Jr., Chairman, State Superintendent,

Division of Weights and Measures, New Jersey Department of Law

and Public Safety

(Thursday, July 15, 1971) The Committee on Nominations met on Monday, July 12, for the purpose of selecting a

slate of nominees for all elective offices and

for the ten elective memberships of the Executive Committee. In the selection of nominees

from the active membershijD, consideration was

given to attendance records, geographical dis- tribution. Conference participation, and other

factors deemed by the Committee to be

important.

The Committee on Nominations submits the

following names in nomination for office to serve during the ensuing

year and at the 5Tth National Conference on Weights and Measures

Chairman: E. H. Black, Ventura County, California.

Vice Chairmen: E. W. Ballentine, South Carolina; W. E. Czaia,

Minnesota; K. Kebulfo, Nevada; H. K. Sharp, Oklahoma.

Treasurer: C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana.

Chaplain: J. 1. Moore, North Carolina.

Executive Committee: ]\Iiss Irene 1. Boone, Pennsylvania; M.

Dennis, Nebraska; G. L. Johnson, Kentucky; J. H. Johnson,

Louisiana; W. B. Kelly, Connecticut; T. Ladd, Akron, Ohio;

J. H. Lewis, Washington; W. 1. Thompson, Alonmouth

County, New Jersey; C. Wooten, Florida; C. S. Zmudzinski,

St. Joseph County, Indiana.

216
S. H. Christie, Jr., Chairman^ New Jersey

J. E. BowEN, Newton, Mass.

R. H. Fernsten, Alameda County, Calif.

J. H. Johnson, Louisiana

C. C. Morgan, Gary, Ind.

R. W. Searles, Medina County, Ohio

R. T. Williams, Texas

Committee on Nominations

(There being no further nominations from the floor, nominations were

declared closed and the oflEicers nominated by the Committee were elected unanimously by voice vote.)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS

Presented by K. J. Simila, Chairman^ Assistant Chief for Weights

and Measures, Consumer Services Division, Oregon Department of

Agriculture

(Thursday, July 15, 1971) The Committee on Resolutions wishes to ex- press the appreciation of the 56th National

Conference on Weights and Measures to all who contributed in any way toward the con- duct of a successful meeting. A special vote of thanks is extended to the following:

1. To the Honorable James T. Lynn, Under Secretary of Commerce, for

his excellent keynote address and interest in the concerns of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

2. To Mrs. Jean Nidetch, Founder and President, Weight Watchers Inter- national, for her highly successful efforts to serve the public in an area of "weight and measurement" known throughout the world, and for her delightful presentation as guest speaker to the annual Conference Luncheon.

3. To Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, Director of the National Bureau of Standards, for his recognition of the importance of weights and measures administration in the United States, and for his excellent leadership and contributions

in this field.

4. To Dr. F. K, Willenbrock, Director, Institute for Applied Technology,

National Bureau of Standards, for his excellent presentation on Measurement

in a Changing AVorld of Technology, and for his support of weights and

measures activities at all levels of government.

5. To Dr. M. L, Shotzberger, President, Catawba College, for his splendid address on Management as a Modern Approach.

217
6. To Dr. Thomas Brooks, President, American Council on Consumer Interests, and Dean, School of Home Economics, Southern Illinois University, for his interesting and informative talk on consumer affairs.

7. To Mr. S. E. Cohen, Washington Editor, Advertising Age Magazine, for

his thought-provoking address to the Conference and his interest in the con- sumer movement.

8. To all other program speakers and to all committees for having given

generously of their time and efforts in preparing and presenting their excel- lent papers and reports.

9. To the governing officials of all state and local jurisdictions for their manifest interest in weights and measures work.

10. To Mr. David S. Hinton, Assistant Convention Sales Manager, and the

staff of the Shoreham Hotel for their many courtesies in contributing to the enjoyment and comforts of the delegates.

11. To representatives of business and industry for their liberal cooperation

and hospitality.

12. To the staff of the National Bureau of Standards for planning and

administering the many details involved in the work and program of the National Conference. The following resolutions are presented in their entirety for consideration of the members of the Conference

Resolution on the Metric System

Whereas, U. S. conversion to the metric system is probable, and

Whereas, metric conversion would result in a good many impacts on the manufacturers and users of commercial weighing and measuring devices,

weights and measures jurisdictions, and the general public : Therefore, be It Resolved by the 56th National Conference on Weights and Measures that

this Conference pledge its full support and cooperation to the Federal Gov- ernment in a coordinated national program to increase the use of the metric system : And be it further Resolved that the Executive Committee is authorized to take whatever action

or actions that are needed to enhance an orderly changeover to metric units

in the commercial weights and measures field following congressional authority

to convert to the metric system in this area : And be it further Resolved that copies of this resolution be sent to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of the National Bureau of Standards.

Resolution on R. W. Searles Whereas, it is appropriate for an organization of professionals in a com- mon field of endeavor to publicly recognize one of merit in their midst, and

Whereas, able and faithful service to weights and measures generally,

and to this organization specifically, has been rendered by him continuously

for over 25 years, and

Whereas, his integrity, dedication to, and genuine concern for the goal of equity in weights and measures have been an outstanding example to all

Therefore, be it 218
RefioU'cd, that the 56th National Conference on Weights and Measures

express its deep apjireciation to Mr. R. W, Searles, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Medina County, Ohio, for services rendered as a long-time member

and officer of the Conference : And be it further

Resolved, that this body, on behalf of the entire weights and measures

fraternity, extend its best wishes to the Reverend and. Mrs. Searles for health and happiness in the years ahead : And be it further

Resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to the Governor of the State

of Ohio, the leaders of both legislative chambers, the State Weights and

Measures Division, Ohio Department of Agriculture, and the appointing

authority, Medina County, Ohio. K. J. SiMiLA, Chairman^ Oregon

M. Dexxis, Nebraska

G. L. JoHxsox, Kentucky

E. Keeley, Delaware

L. A. Rick, St. Louis County, Mo.

C. S. Zmudzinski, St. Joseph County, Ind.

Committee on Resolutions

(On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the report

of the Committee on Resolutions was adopted by voice vote.)

REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Presented by S. J. Daksey, Chaivman^ Field Sui^ervisor, Division of

Standards, Florida Department of Agriculture

(Thursday, July 15, 1971) The Auditing Committee of the 56th National Conference on Weights and Measures

met on July 14, 1971. We examined the financial records of the Conference Treasurer, C. C. ^Morgan, and found the books well kept and all bills paid as of July 1, 1971.

S. J. Darsey, Chairman^ Florida

R. J. SiLcocK, Vigo County, Ind.

R. J. BoxEY, Trenton, N. J. ('ommittee on Auditing

(On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the report

of the Auditing Committee was adopted by voice vote.) 219
REPORT OF THE TREASURER

Presented by C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Gary, Indiana

(Thursday, July 15, 1971)

Balance on hand June 1, 1970 $ 4,352.05 RECEIPTS : Registration, 313 at $20.00 $6,260.00

Trade Party 1,395.00 Tickets for Park City 1,493.25 Return from S & T Committee 14.84

OfiScers' Luncheon 84.00

Subtotal 9,247.09

Total $13,599.14

220
DISBURSEMENTS : Franklin Press, Plaque $ 19.50 Hotel Utah, Executive Dinner and Breakfast, Conference

Luncheon, food and beverage for Conference Dance,

Orchestra, Registration and Meeting Room Expense 3,186.90 Treasure Mountains Rock City, Rides and Dinners 2,115.15 Rock City Resort Center, Beverages 274.65

Salt Lake Transportation Company, Bus Transportation 640.50

Millers & Ellison, Flowers 20.90 Central Printing, Printing during Conference 151.99 Faisal Kawar, Photographic Expense 45.00 IBM Typewriter Rental 40.00 Burns Detective Agency 27.00 Dorothy Freed, Music 58.00 Stan Farnsworth 25.00 Susan Litchfield 10.00 Advertisers, Matt Service, Inc., Matts 103.45 Committee on Specifications and Tolerances 1,553.64 Committee on Laws and Regulations 776.36 Committee on Education 1,208.66 Committee on Liaison with the National Government 767.81 Colonial Manor Motel 583.88 Franklin Press, Letterheads 38.15 Ann Knutson, Weights and Measures Week 25.00 Postmaster, Stamps 8.00 Franklin Press, Tickets 89.75 Brewood Engravers 116.00 Discount Trophies, Inc., Plaque 56.06 Misc. Registration, Film and Operating Expense, Cash 173.31 Bank Charges 2.66

Subtotal $12,117.32

Balance on hand July 1, 1971 $ 1,481.82

Depository : Bank of Indiana

(Signed) C. C. Morgan, Treasurer (On motion of the Treasurer, seconded from the floor, the Report of the Treasurer was adopted by the Conference.)

221
SUMMARY OF THE INCOMING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

Presiding Officer, E. H. Black, Conference Chairman^ Sealer of

Weights and Measures, Ventura County, California

(Friday Morning, July 16, 1971) The newly elected Executive Committee held

a breakfast meeting on Friday morning for the

purpose of considering plans for the 5Tth National Conference on Weights and Measures

and to discuss and take action on matters

referred to it by the outgoing Executive Committee. A summary of the discussion and decisions that were reached follow^

1. The Committee was pleased to have Dr.

Lewis INI. Branscomb attend the meeting and

participate in the discussion. Dr. Branscomb commented on matters

pertaining to the relationship of the National Bureau of Standards

to the Conference and expressed his interest in and support of the

affairs of the Conference.

2. The Committee adopted a motion to hold the 5Tth Conference

in Washington, D. C, at the Shoreham Hotel, on July 9-14, 1972.

3. The problem of Conference finances was discussed at some

length. The increasing costs associated with the conduct of the Conference have reduced the Conference treasury to a minimum level. Consideration was given to several suggestions for reducing expenses

and obtaining more funds for Conference operations. Such suggestions included: (1) Increase tlie registration fee; (2) reduce social functions; (3) limit the travel of standing committees; and (4) seek

outside financial support. The Committee authorized Mr. H. F. Wollin, Executive Secretary, to study these suggestions and to take

such actions as necessary to alleviate the problem.

4. Because of the present financial status of the Conference, the

Committee decided not to allocate a specific budget for the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Alfairs. Approval was given to the Executive Secretary to provide such funds as are urgently needed and available fur educational purposes.

222
5. The Committee was in agreement that the program for the 57th

National Conference should follow the general format of the past

few years. No decision was made on the selection of topics and

speakers or on the scheduling of events, as these will be determined

at a later date, depending on developments in the field of weights

and measures during the coming months.

6. A motion w^as adopted giving the Executive Secretary approval

to proceed with plans and arrangements for holding the 1978 Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It was also recommended that

steps be taken to establish a schedule of future Conference locations

as far as ten years in adA^ance.

7. It was recommended that the Conference Chairman appoint

members to the several annual committees as soon as practicable

following the Conference to allow^ ample time for members to cor- respond and carry out the functions of their committees.

8. Mr. M. S. Godsman, Chairman of the Associate Membership

Committee, met with the Executive Committee to discuss matters

relating to the affairs of the associate members in the Conference.

He stated that his Committee will study the possibility of increased

industry participation in the Conference and of improving communications with weights and measures officials. He also agreed to consult with industry representatives concerning their views regarding an increase of the registration fee for associate members.

9. In response to a proposal that was made during the Conference, the Committee discussed what steps could be taken to establish

a State ^Veights and Measures Accreditation Program within the

framew^ork of the Conference. ^Ir. T. M. Stabler, Chief, Office of

Weights and Measures, was assigned the responsibility for organizing a study committee on accreditation for the purpose of developing

recommendations regarding this program. Mr. Stabler indicated thnt

it should be possible to assemble the committee and report on its preliminary findings by the time of the interim meetings in February. The committee will present a detailed rcpoi*t on the progress

of this important subject during the 57th Conference.

223
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

Delegates—State, City, and County Weights and Measures

Officials

ALABAMA

State R. T. Hunt, Inspector, Division of Weights and

Measures, Dept. of Agriculture, Room 222

State Office Building, Montgomery 36101 (205 : 269-7722)

ARKANSAS

State J. C. Blackwood, Director, Weights and Measures Division, Arkansas State Plant Board,

4211/2 West Capitol, Little Rock 72203 (501:

371-1021)

B. W. SuLLivANT, Metrologist, Weights and

Measures Division, State Plant Board, 4608 W. 61st St., Little Rock 72209 ( 501 : 202-4384)

CALIFORNIA

State W. S. Watson, Chief, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Dept. of Agriculture 1220 N St., Sacramento 95820 ( 916 : 445-7001)

County Sealers of Weights and Measures

Alameda R. H. Fernsten, 333 Fifth St., Oakland 94607

(415: 874-6736) Los Angeles J. R. Plummer, Assistant Director, 3200 N. Main St., Los Angeles 90031 (213:225-1357) San Diego S. R. Miller, P. O. Bx 588, San Diego 92112

(714: 239-7711) San Mateo H. E. Smith, 702 Chestnut St., Redwood City 94063 (415:369-1441) Santa Clara R. W. Horger, 409 Mathew St., Santa Clara

95050 (408:299-2105)

Sonoma E. J. Bologna, 2555 Mendocino Ave., Santa Rosa

95401 (707:527-2548) Ventura E. H. Black, Director, 608 El Rio Drive, Ox- nard 93030 (805 : 487-5511 X 4378)

224
COLORADO

State E. Pkideaux, Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Section, Division of Inspection and Con- sumer Services, Dept. of Agriculture 3130 Zuni St., Denver 80211 (303 : 659-0495) H. Houston, State Inspector of Oils, Colorado

Oil Inspection Dept., 1024 Speer Blvd., Denver

80204 ( 303 : 892-2096)

CONNECTICUT

State W. B. Kelley, Senior Inspector, Weights and

Measures Division, Dept. of Consumer Protection, State Office Bldg., Hartford 06115

(203: 566-4778)

A. M. Nelson, Metrologist, Weights and Measures Division, R-G-17, State Office Bldg.,

Hartford 06115 ( 203 : 566-5230)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Hartford 06103 N. Kalechman, 550 Main St. (302 : 566-6457)

Middletown 06457 G. J. Thommasi, Municipal Bldg. (203:347-

4671)

DELAWARE

State E. Keeley, Supervisor, Division of Weights and

Measures, Dept. of Agriculture, Drawer D, Dover 19901 (302 : 678-4824)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Weights, Measures, and Markets Branch, Building Division, Bureau of Building, Housing & Zoning, Department of Economic Development, 1104 You St., S. E., Washington, D. C. 20020 ( 202 : 629-4662)

District K. G. Hayden, Acting Chief

D. K. Forbes, Supervisor

Inspectors J. T. Ben nick

F. J. Murray

W. W. Wells

FLORIDA

State S. D. Andrews, Director, Division of Standards,

Dept of Agriculture, Room 107 Nathan Mayo

Bldg., Tallahassee 32304 (904:599-7333)

225
C. WooTEN, Ohief, Bureau of Weights and Measures (904 : 599-7339 X 339)

S. J. Darsey, Supers^isor of Weights and Measures, 1118 S. 17th Ave., Hollywood 33020

(305 : 922-8612)

County Sealer of Weights and Measures : Dade J. C. Mays, Director, Consumer Protection Division, Justice Bldg., Room 903, 1351 N. W.

12th St., Miami 83125 (305:377-5111)

GEORGIA

State T. E. Kirby, Director, Weights and Measures

Laboratory, Farmers Market, Forest Park

30050 (404: 361-6764)

HAWAII

State G. E. Mattimoe, Deputy Director, Division of Weights and Measures, Dept. of Agriculture, 1428 S. King St., P. O. Box 5425, Honolulu

96814 ( 808 : 941-3078)

IDAHO

State O. C. Arstein, Commissioner of Agriculture, 1365 Orchard Ave., Boise 83704 (208:375-

0190)

L. D, HoLLOwAY, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Division, Dept. of Agriculture, 2120 Warm Springs Ave., P. O. Box 790, Boise

83701 (208:384-2345)

ILLINOIS

State G. E. Yard, Superintendent, Division of Feeds,

Fertilizers, and Standards, Dept. of Agriculture, State Fairgrounds, 531 E. Sangamon

Ave., Springfield 62706 (217:525-7655)

City Sealers of AVeights and Measures : Chicago 60602 R. J. Fahey, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Consumer Sales, Weights and Measures, City Hall R-808 ( 312 : 744-4093)

Chicago 60605 L. Prendergast, Public Vehicle License In- spector, Public Vehicle License Commission,

1111 S. State St., Room 105 (312: 744-6227)

226
Skokie 60076 S. S. Stann, Inspector, 5127 Oakton St. (312:

673-0500)

Springfield 62701 J. E. Underwood, Sealer, City Hall (217:789-

2166)

INDIANA

State L. A. Gredy, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, State Board of Health, 1330 W.

Michigan St., Indianapolis 46206 (317:633-

6860)

County Inspectors of Weights and Measures

Clark R. W. Walker, City-County Bldg., Room 314

Jeffersonville 47130 (812:283^451)

Floyd E. G. Silver, P. O. Box 362, City-County Bldg.,

New Albany 47150 (812:945-5357) Grant H. Cline, P. O. Box 421, Marion 46592 (317:

664-5239)

Johnson W. E. Handy, Johnson County Court House,

Franklin 46131 (317:862-1515)

Knox W. D. Liddil, Court House, Vincennes 47591

(812: 882-2358)

Lake N. Bucur, 524 Roosevelt St., Gary 46404 ( 219: ^4-2187)

LaPorte E. Hanish, 119 Tilden Ave., Michigan City 46360 (219: 874-7197)

Madison C. W. Moore, Box 84, Lapel 46051 (317:534-

3328)

St. Joseph C. S. Zmudzinski, County-City Bldg., 227 W.

Jefferson Blvd., South Bend 46601 (219:284-

9751)

Tippecanoe W. McMurry, PO Bx 444, Lafayette 47902 (317:447-3230)

Vigo R. J. SiLcocK, Room 12—Courthouse, Terre Haute 47885 (812:232-5746)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures : Anderson 46011 E. E. Gadberry, P. O. Box 2100 (317: 646-5814)

Gary 46407 C. C. Morgan, 1100 Massachusetts St. (219:

944-6566)

Indianapolis 46204 F. L. Brugh, City-County Bldg., Rm G-6 (317:

633-3733)

W. R. CoPELAND. Deputy Insi)ector

W. J. Roberts, Deputy Inspector

South Bend 46621 B. S. Cichowicz, 701 W. Sample St., West Wing

(219: 284-9297)

227
IOWA

State J. C. Boyd, Chief, Standards Control, Weights

and Measures Division, Dept. of Agriculture, State Capitol Bldg., Des Moines 50319 (515:

281-5716)

KANSAS

State J. L. O'Neill, State Sealer, Division of Weights

and Measures, State Board of Agriculture, State Office Bldg., Topeka 66612 (913:296-

3846)

City Sealer of Weights and Measures: Kansas City 66101 D. Lynch, Deputy Sealer, City Hall (913:371-

330 X 212)

KENTUCKY

State G. L. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, Dept. of Agriculture, 106 W.

Second St., Frankfort 40601 (502 : 564-4870)

R. Egnew, Metrologist

LOUISIANA

State J. H. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, Dept. of Agriculture, P. O. Box

44292 Capitol Station, Baton Rouge 70804

(504 : 389-5168)

MAINE

State H. D. Robinson, Deputy State Sealer, Division

of Consumer Protection, Dept. of Agriculture, State Office Bldg., Augusta 04330 ( 207 : 289-

3841)

G. Kennedy, Metrologist

MARYLAND

State R. L. Thompson, State Superintendent, Office of Weights and Measures, State Board of Agriculture, 360 Symons Hall, University of Maryland, College Park 20742 (301 : 454-3551)

L. H. DeGrange, Field Supervisor (301 : 454-

3552)

228
R. D. Eaves, Inspector (301:635-3791)

R. W. Glendenning, Inspector, P. O. Box 356, Chestertown 21620 (301 : 778-2237)

S. I. Hayden, Inspector, 360 Symons Hall, University of Maryland, College Park 20742 ( 301

373-5486) M. R. Shockley, Inspector (301:454-3552)

R. L. Weller, Inspector (301:454-3552)

County Sealers of Weights and Measures

Montgomery M. S. Soward, Chief, Division of Zoning, Per- mits and Licenses, County Office Bldg., Rockville 20870 (301 : 279-1426)

C. CooLEY, Inspector II P. Peterson, Inspector II W. Rice, Inspector II Prince George's R. J. Cord, County Service Bldg,, Room 101, Hyattsville 20871 (301:779-3851)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Baltimore 21202 T. A. Considine, Chief, Division of Tests, Rm.

1103 Municipal Bldg., ( 301 : 752-2000 X 2845)

J. W. Fincham. Chief Inspector (301 : 752-2000 X 796)

MASSACHUSETTS

State W. C. Hughes, Head Administrative Assistant, Division of Standards, Executive Office of Consumer Affairs, State House—Room 194, Boston 02133 ( 617 : 727-3483)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Agawan 01001 L. D. Draghetti, 36 Main St. (413 : 786-0400)

Cambridge 02139 A. T. Anderson, Room 202 City Hall (617:

876-6800)

Everett 02149 L. L. Elliott, City Hall (617:389-2100)

Fitchburg 01420 W. T. Deloge, 42 Elm St. (617:343-7012)

Newton 02159 J. E. Bowen, City Hall, Newton Centre (617:

244-4700)

Springfield 01103 R. E. Clark, Municipal Bldg., Court St. (413:

736-2711)

W. Springfield 01089 P. T. Gamelli, 61 Morgan Rd. (413 : 781-7550)

MICHIGAN

State R. M. Leach, Chief, Food Inspection Division,

Dept. of Agriculture, Lewis Cass Bldg.,

Lansing 48913 (517:373-1060)

County Sealer of Weights and Measures

Washtenaw R. Harter, 4133 Washtenaw Rd., Ann Arbor

48104 (313:971-6054 X 297)

229
MINNESOTA

State W. E. Czaia, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Dept. of Public Service, 1015 Currle

Ave., Minneapolis 55403 (612:333-3249)

A. W. Fenger, Inspector (507:388-1820)

R. A. Tharalson, Supervisor Inspector (612

333-3249)

City Inspector of Weights and Measures

Minneapolis 55415 L. J. Anderson, Inspector, Dept. of Licenses,

Weights & Measures, City Hall, Rm. 101-A

(612: 861-6221)

MISSISSIPPI

State J C. B. Noblin, Director, Weights and Measures

Division, Dept. of Agriculture & Commerce,

Box 1609, Jackson 39205 (601:354-6585)

MISSOURI

State J. H. Wilson, Director, Weights and Measures

Division, Dept. of Agriculture, Jefferson Bldg., Jefferson City 65101 (314:636-7166 X 48)

County Sealer of Weights and Measures : St. Louis L. A. Rick, 7900 Forsyth, Clayton 63105 (314: 863-6360 Stat. 395)

City Sealer of Weights and Measures

St. Louis 63104 D. I. Offner, Commissioner, Rm. 145 1220 Carr Lane Ave. (314:453-3251)

MONTANA

State G. L. Delano, Chief Sealer, Division of Weights

and Measures, Dept. of Agriculture, Capitol

Bldg., Helena 59601 (406:449-2630)

NEBRASKA

State M. Dennis, Supervisor of Weights and Measures, Dept. of Agriculture, P. O. Box 4695

State House Station, Lincoln 68509 (402:

471-2536)

City Sealer of Weights and Measures

Omaha 68102 N. M. Ross, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Permits & Inspection, Interim City Hall

108 S. 18th St. (402: 341-8122 X 245)

230
NEW HAMPSHIRE

State W. J. TusEN, Chief, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Division of Markets and Standards,

Dept. of Agriculture, State House Annex,

Concord 03301 (603:271-3700)

NEW JERSEY

State S. H. Christie, Jr., State Superintendent, Division of Weights and Measures, Dept. of Law

and Public Safety, 187 W. Hanover St., Trenton 08625 (609:292-4615)

J. R. Bird, Deputy State Superintendent

C. P. Conrad, Jr., Technician

County Superintendents of Weights and Measures

Bergen J. A. Pollock, 66 Zabriskie St., Hackensack

07601 (201:342-4191)

Burlington E. D. Gaskill, 54 Grant St., Mount Holly 08060

(609: 267-3300 X 210)

Camden A. J. Francesconi, Court House, Room 403, Camden 08101 (609:964-0242)

Cumberland G. S. Franks, 1142 Landis Ave., Vineland 08360

(609: 691-0999)

N. DiMarco, Deputy Superintendent, 12-M Weymouth Place, Bridgeton 08302 ( 609:451-0118)

Gloucester R. J. Morris, 49 Wood St., Woodbury 08096

(609 : 845-1600)

J. SiLVESTRO, Assistant Superintendent Mercer R. M. Bodenweiser, Court House, Trenton 08607

(609: 989-8000)

Middlesex J. M. Chohamin, Old Records Bldg., Kennedy

Square, New Brunswick 08819 (201:246-

0400)

Monmouth W. I. Thompson, Hall of Records, Rm. 302, Freehold 07728 ( 201:431-4000)

J. A., J. BoviE, Jr., Assistant Superintendent, 82 W. Wall St., Neptune City 07753

E. Camoosa, Assistant Superintendent, 1106

Jeffrey St., Asbury Park 07712 Ocean M. R. Burd, Jr., 11 Hooper Ave., Toms River

08753 (201:244-2121 X 257)

Salem ^ R. B. Jones, P. O. Box 24, Court House, Salem

08079 (609:935-3152) Somerset J. A. Kriney, Somerset County Administration

Bldg., Somerville 08876 (201:725-4700)

Municipal Superintendents of Weights and Measures

Kearney 07032 J. 1»ollock, Town Hall, 204 Kearny Ave. (201

991-2700)

Passaic 07055 P. DeVries, City Hall (201 : 471-3300) Paterson 07505 W. J. Kehoe, 115 Van Houten St. (201:684-

3430) Trenton 08618 R. J. Boney, Trenton Civic Center, Armory

Drive (609:302-3441 X 361)

231
NEW MEXICO

State R. F. Schulmeister, Metrologist, Division of Markets, Weights and Measures, Dept. of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3170, Las Cruces 88001

(505: 646-1616)

NEW YORK

County Sealers of Weights and Measures

Monroe L. Romano, 291 Westfall Rd., Rochester 14620 (716:473-8058)

A. Graziano Nassau S. B. Knowlton, Assistant to Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, 400 County Seat Drive,

Mineola 11501 (516:535-3206)

City Sealers' of Weights and Measures

Glen Cove 11542 E. T. Hunter, City Hall, Bridge St. (516:676-

7877)

New York 10013 M. Greenspan, 80 Lafayette St., (212 : 566-8776)

NORTH CAROLINA

State J. I. Moore, Superintendent, Weights and Measures Division, Dept. of Agriculture, P. O. Box

27647, Raleigh 27611 (919:829-3315) M. L. KiNLAW, Supervisor

R. F. Peaks, Inspector

P. B. Rasmussen, Inspector

OHIO

State R. E. Bowers, Chief, Weights and Measures,

Dept. of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg 43068

(614: 866-6364)

County Sealers of Weights and Measures

Clark J. S. Powers, County Bldg., Springfield 45502

(513: 324-5871)

Medina R. W. Searles, Board of Education Bldg., 137 West Friendship, Medina 44256 (216:722-

6354) Tuscarawas J. E. Mathews, County Auditor's Office, New

Philadelphia 44663 (216 : 364-4421)

Wayne C. G. Lytle, % County Auditor, Wooster 44691

(216: 262-1816)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Akron 44304 A. J. Ladd, 69 N. Union St. (216 : 375-2612) Canton 44702 J. R. Kalkman, 218 Cleveland Ave., S. W. (216: 455-8951 X 249) Cincinnati 45214 L. B. Frank, 2147 Central Ave. (513:421-5700

X 303)

232
OKLAHOMA

State H. K. Sharp, Assistant Director, Marketing Division, Dept. of Agriculture, 122 Capitol,

Oklahoma City 73105 (405:521-3861)

OREGON

State K. J. SiMiLA, Assistant Chief for Weights and

Measures, Dairy & Consumer Services Division, Dept. of Agriculture, Agriculture Bldg.,

Salem 97310 (503:378-3792)

PENNSYLVANIA

State Miss Irene I. Boone, Acting Director, Bureau

of Standard Weights and Measures, Dept. of

Justice, B-130 Transportation & Safety Bldg.,

Harrisburg 17120 ( 717 : 787-6359)

R. W. Buchanan, Supervisor

R. R. Roof, Laboratory Metrologist

County Sealer of Weights and Measures

Allegheny W. D. Scott, #4 County Court House, Pitts- burgh 15219 (412:355-4480)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Allentown 18101 A. L. Heilman, Jr., City Hall, 435 Hamilton St. (215 : 434-9601 X 250)

Philadelphia 19107 S. F. Valtri, Chief, Room 622 City Hall Annex,

(215: 686-3475, 3476)

C. E. McHuGH, Supervisor

J. A. Sabo, Field Inspector II

PUERTO RICO

State M, V. Gonzalaz, Supervisor Official, Weights

and Measures Division, P. O. Box 13934, Santurce 00908 ( 809 : 725-5667

)

RHODE ISLAND

State E. R, Fisher, State Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Dept. of Labor, 235 Promenade St., Providence 02908 (401:227-2756)

233
SOUTH CAROLINA

State E. W. Ballentine, Assistant to Commissioner,

Dept. of Agriculture, P. O. Box 11280, Columbia 29211 (803 : 758-2426)

R. M. Magoffin, Deputy Commissioner

C. T. Smith, Director, Consumer Protection Division

J. A. Atkinson, Consumer Specialist R. S. Barnhill

A. DeLorme, Jr.

J. V. PuGH, Director, Metrology Division

TENNESSEE

State : M. Jennings, Director, Division of Marketing,

Dept. of Agriculture, Box 9039 Melrose Station, Nashville 37204 (615:741-1561)

L. R. Whitford, Laboratory Technologist (615:

834-0589)

TEXAS

State R. T. Williams, Director, Consumer Service

Division, Dept. of Agriculture, John Reagan

Bldg., Box 12847 Capitol Station, Austin 78711 (512:475-3140)

Z. Florence, Administrative Assistant (512:

475-1357)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures : Dallas 75201 J. D. Walton, 303 City Hall (214 : R18-9711)

Fort Worth 76107 R. L. Sharp, 1800 University Dr., (817:536-

3217)

VERMONT

State T. F. Brink, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Dept. of Agriculture, Agriculture

Bldg., Montpelier 05602 (802 : 223-2311 X 469)

VIRGINIA

State J. F. Lyles, Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Regulatory Section, Division of Regulatory

Services, Dept. of Agriculture and Commerce,

1 North 14th St., Richmond 23219 (703:770-

2476)

234
J. C. Stewart, Assistant Supervisor

F. Saunders, Field Supervisor (703 :362-1607) M. Cain, Metrologist (703:770-2476)

D. Reese, Inspector (703:770-2476)

J. Rogers, Inspector (703:986-4650)

County Sealer of Weights and Measures

Arlington J. P. Noonan, Arlington County Court House,

Arlington 22201 ( 703 : 558-2343

)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Alexandria 22313 L. W. Vezina, P. O. Box 178, City Hall (703:

750-6241)

Danville 24541 C. A. Shumate, P. O. Box 3300 (601:792-9211

X 310)

Newport News 23601 J. L. Davis, 118 Main St., City Hall (703: 596-

3011)

Richmond 23219 A. B. Moody, Jr., Senior Inspector, 501 N. 9th

St., Room 130 (703:649-4208)

W. G. Alvin, Inspector (703 : 288-4623)

Virginia Beach 23456 E. Litchfield, Assistant Consumer Protection

Officer-Sealer, Consumer Protection Bureau,

Municipal Center ( 703 : 427-4421

)

WEST VIRGINIA

State D. L. Griffith, Director, Consumer Protection

Division, Dept. of Labor, Charleston, 25305

(304: 348-2195)

WISCONSIN

State D. E. Konsoer, Director, Bureau of Weights

and Measures, Food Division, Dept. of Agriculture, 801 West Badger Road, Madison 53713 (608:266-7243)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures : Green Bay 54301 N. P. Tilleman, City Hall Racine 53403 R. J. Zierten, City Hall (414:634-7111)

Sheboygan 53081 R. K. Lorenz, City Hall (414:457-5411)

235
MANUFACTURERS, INDUSTRY, AND BUSINESS

Advertising Age:

S. E. Cohen, Washington Editor, National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C. 20004 (202: 737-7659)

Allied Chemical Corporation: H. J. Keer, Technical Service, Agricultural Division, P. O. Box 61, Hopewell,

Virginia 23860 (703:458-7811)

American Bakers Association

J. M. Crejed, General Counsel, 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W., Washington,

D. C. 20006 ( 202 : 296-2526)

American Can Company:

W. H. Marks, Supervisor, Dixie Products, Technical Services Dept., 333 N. Commercial St., Neenah, Wisconsin 54956 ( 414 : 722-4211 X 5509)

American Frozen Food Institute

L. S. Fenn, Director of Technical Service, 919 18tli St., N. W., Washington,

D. C. 20006 ( 202 : 296--t080) American Oil Company

J. E. St. Germain, Manager, Construction & Engineering, 1 N. Charles St., Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (301 : 727-6700)

American Paper Institute: M. B. Weir, Attorney, 161 E. 42nd St., New York, N. Y. 10017 (212 : 682-8811)

W. V. Driscoll, Manager, Tissue Division, 260 Madison Ave., New York,

N. Y. 10016 ( 212 : 889-6200)

American Petroleum Institute: W. A. Kerlin, Special Representative, 1801 K St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006 (202:833-5643)

W. N. Seward, Assistant to Senior Vice President (202 : 833-5661)

R. SouTHERs, Coordinator of Operations and Engineering (202 : 833-5643) D. J. HiNE, API Research Associate (301:921-2401)

American Seed Trade Association

R. J. Falasca, Assistant to the Vice President, 1030 15th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20005 (202:223-4080)

American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

R. E. Blanchard, Director, Market Division, 1457 Broadway, New York,

N. Y. 10036 (212:244-0800)

American Trucking Association, Inc.

E. V. KiLEY, Vice President, Research & Technical Services Division, 1616 P St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20036 (202:269-3215)

Amstar Corporation:

R. Fremgen, Quality Control Supervisor, 120 Wall St., New York, N. Y. 10005 (516:433-2703)

Applied Information Industries

F. J. SuTTiLL, Director, New Product Development, 345 New Albany Rd., Moorestown, New Jersey 08057 (609:234-1000 X 215)

Arkstrom Industries, Inc.

A. Franzblau, President, 415 Avon Ave., Newark, New Jersey 07108 (201:

243-1410)

Armour and Company

V. J. Delgiudice, Manager, Government Liaison Dept., Box 9222, Chicago,

Illinois 60690 (312:751-4612)

236
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association : H. H. Whittemore, Managing Director, Room 2111, 757 Third Ave., New

York, N. Y. 10017 (212:421-2690)

Atlantic Research/ Systems Division:

S. S. KozicH, Director, Quality Assurance, 3333 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa,

California 92626 (714:546-8030)

Atlantic Richfield Company

J. F. Straub, Jr., 260 Broad St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 (215:

735-2345) Bennett Pump Incorporated: M. S. GoDSMAN, Manager, Field Service, Broadway & Wood Sts., Muskegon,

Michigan 49444 ( 616 : 733-1302)

Berkel, Inc.

D. Moody, Manager, Scale Division, One Berkel Drive, LaPorte, Indiana

47350 ( 219 : 362-3165)

Borden, Inc.

C. R. Test. Attorney, 50 W. Broad St, Columhus, Ohio 43215 (614 : 461-4313)

Brookline Instrument Company:

B. L. SwERSEY, President, 4 Westchester Plaza, Elmsford, New York 10523

(914: 592-4553)

Cannon Mills Company

H. S. Smith, Attorney, Legal Department, Kannapolis, North Carolina 28081

(704 : 933-1221) M. E. Kester, Assistant Vice President, Packaging Director Car Wash Week—U. S. Oil Week:

J. B. Eraser, Managing Editor, 802 National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C. 20004 ( 202 : 393-5180)

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company

H. A. Harwood, Regional Manager, P. O. Box 382, Roslyn Heights, New

York 11577 (516:484-1133)

Chain Store Age:

H. V. Semling, Washington Correspondent, P. O. Box 674, Washington, D. C. (202: 521-2157)

Chatillon, John & Sops:

N. Lavenda, Sales Manager, 83-30 Kew Gardens Road, Kew Gardens, New

York 11415 ( 212 : 847-5000)

Chemical Specialties Manufacturing Association:

A. A. Mulliken, Executive Director, 50 E. 41st St., New York, N. Y. 10017

(212: 685-8722)

F. D. Sparre, Legislative Consultant Coca-Cola Company:

R. L. Callahan, Jr., Attorney, P. O. Drawer 1734, Atlanta, Georgia 30301

(404: 875-3411)

Colgate-Palmolive Company

E. E. WoLSKi, Manager of Quality Control, 300 Park Ave., New York, N. Y. 10022 ( 212 : 751-1200)

Collier, Shannon, Rice & Edwards:

H. Jennings, 1625 Eye St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006 (202:393-1050) Consumers' Union: Frances A. Ulmer, 777 National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C. (202 : 638-

5557)

Covington & Burling:

P. M. Phillipes, Attorney, 888 16th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. (202:

293-3300)

237
Dairy & Food Industries Supply Association

D. H. Williams, Technical Director, 5530 Wisconsin Ave., Washington, D. C. 20015 (301:652-4420)

Dee, J. B. & Company, Inc.

G. FiSHMAN, General Manager, 1722 W. 16th St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46207

(317: 635-5548)

DeLaval Separator Company

H. MuHLACK, Supervisor, Siemen's Meter Department, 5724 N. Pulaski Rd., Chicago, Illinois 60646 (312:463-3020)

J. L. Raymond, Milk Process Department, DeLaval Building, Poughkeepsie,

New York 12602 (914:452-1000)

Detecto Scales, Inc.

M. Rapp, Vice President, 103-00 Foster Ave., Brooklyn, New York 11236 (212:949-4500) Dresser Industries

F. W. Love, Administrative Assistant, Petroleum Equipment Division, 124 W. College Ave., Salisbury, Maryland 21801 (301:749-6161) Eaton Corporation

T. Edmonds, Sales Engineer, Control Division, 191 E. North Ave., Carol Stream, Illinois 60187 (312:682-8051)

Emerson Electric Company

A. J. Komich, Product Manager, Liquid Meters, Brooks Instrument Division,

Box 450, Stateshoro, Georgia 30458 (912:786-5471)

Empro Products: H. C. HoppEE, Sales Manager, 459 McLean Blvd., Paterson, New Jersey 07513

(201 : 271-1100)

Ethyl Corporation—Vis Queen Division

A. Brown, Regional Sales Manager, 451 Florida Blvd., Baton Rouge, Louisi- ana 70821 (504:348-0311) M. D. Havercamp, Sales Manager (504:348-0131)

P. G. PiLANT, Midwest Sales Manager B & A Products (504 : 348-4971) Exact Weight Scale Company

R. W. Grant, Vice President, Sales, 1005 W. 3rd Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43212

(614: 294-6253)

Fairbanks Morse

K. F. Hammer, President, St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 (802:748-2371)

T. G. SoPER, Vice President, Marketing

J. P. York, Product Manager

Food Fair Store, Inc.

L. DiMaria, Darien & Pattison Avenues, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19148

(215: 403-1301)

Fredonia Seed Company

G. B. Weaver, President, Box 180, Fredonia, New York 14063 (716: 672-2174)

Fuller, H. J. & Sons, Inc.

W. A. ScHEURER, Public Relations, 1212 Chesapeake Ave., Columbus, Ohio

43212 ( 614:488-3312)

Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association : R. M. Byrne, Technical Director, 331 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y. 10017 (212:661-2050)

General Foods Corporation

L. J. Adams, Attorney, 250 North St., White Plains, N. Y. 10605 ( 914 : 694-

2372)

J. P. Fay, Manager—Quality Assurance, (914:694-5341)

238
General Mills, Inc.

D. B. CoLPiTTs, Technical Manager, Weights and Measures, 9000 Plymouth

Ave., North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427 (612:540-2729)

W. C. Mailhot, Director, Quality Control, 9200 Wayzata Blvd., Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55440 (612:540-2354)

O. A. OuDAL, Consultant, 1411 East 99th St., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420

(612: 888-9825)

Gerber Products Company

J. L. LiTTLEFiELD, Government Relations Manager, 445 State St., Fremont,

Michigan 49412 (616:928-2264)

Giant Food, Inc.

Mrs. E. Peterson, Consumer Advisor, P. O. Box 1804, Washington, D. C. 20013 (202:341^365)

Gilbarco Inc.

R. E. Nix, Assistant to the Manager of Engineering, Friendly Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 (919:292-3011)

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

C. E. Wagner, Technical Director, 330 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y. 10017

(212: 682-5533)

E. J. Mentz, Associate Technical Director

Grocery Manufacturers of America

D. H. Greeley, Research Assistant, 1425 K St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20005 (202:638-6100)

Gulf Oil Company

G. R. Davis, Director, Supply & Operations, P. O. Box 611, Tulsa, Oklahoma

74135 (918:627-9151)

Halmor Services, Inc.

J. C. Halpine, President, 1120 No. Boston, P. O. Box 6157, Tulsa, Oklahoma

74106 (918:587-4173)

Hammer Lithograph Corporation

P. W. Bouchard, Assistant Sales Manager, 425 Exchange St., Rochester, New

York 14608 (716:546-2112)

Hines, Edward Lumber Company : A. F. Muschler, Technical Director, 200 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago. Illinois 60604 ( 312 : 922-9030)

Hi-Speed Checkweigher Co., Inc.

G. E. Siddell, Sales, 605 W. State St., Ithaca, New York 14850 (201:356-

6500)

G. F, Oberrender, Jr., Sales Manager

Hobart Manufacturing Company

K. C. Allen, Vice President, Scale Operations, 216 So. Torrence St., Dayton,

Ohio 45403 (513:254-8451)

C. G. Gehringer, Sales Manager, Industrial Sales, Pennsylvania Ave., Troy,

Ohio 45373 (513 : 335-7171) M. E. Bone, Weights and Measures Representative, 216 S. Torrence St., Dayton, Ohio 45403 (513:254-8451)

Howe Richardson Scale Company

H. S. Dalecki, Assistant National Service Manager, 3(>-12 47th Ave., Long

Island City, New York 11101 (212:392-7050)

Humble Oil & Refining Company

S. M. Paxson, Product Handling Specialist, Box 1288, Baltimore, Maryland

21204 (301:667-9100)

239
Jewel Companies, Inc.: R. W. Miller, Jr., General Attorney, 1955 W. Nortli Ave., Melrose Park,

Illinois 60160 (312:345-0500)

Johnson & Johnson:

G. E. Heinze, National Director, Control Laboratories, Research Center, New

Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 ( 201:524-1352) Keene Corporation

R. D. Perrenoud, Project Engineer, Pump & Meter Division, P. O. Box 250, Greeneville, Tennessee 37743 (615:638-8156)

Keyes Fibre Company:

W. A. Largent, Director, Consumer Division, 420 Lexington Ave., New York,

N. Y. 10017 ( 212 : 686-3790)

King, J. A. & Company:

J. A. King, Chairman of the Board, Box 21225, Greensiboro, North Carolina 27420 ( 919 : 292-0511)

Kraft Foods:

C. E. White, Supervisor, Process Control Systems, 500 Peshtigo Court, Chicago, Illinois 60690 (312:222-2861)

Krafto Corporation

R. M. Hersh, Attorney, 260 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y. 10016 Kroger Company:

D. P. Leahy, Manager, Technology & Quality Assurance, 1014 Vine St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 (513:381-8000 X 310)

Label Manufacturers National Association, Inc.

F. R. Cawley, Executive Director, Room 511 Wilson Plaza Bldg., 2425 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22201 (703:528-8444)

Land O' Lakes, Inc.

H. Elseth, Manager, Egg Division, 200-210 Waseca Ave., New Richland,

Minnesota 56072 (507:465-3211)

Lehn & Fink Products Division Sterling Drug:

F. G. Taylor, Group Leader, Aerosols, 225 Summit Ave., Montvale, New

Jersey 07645 ( 201 : 391-8500) Lever Brothers:

L. S. Doyle, Attorney, 390 Park Ave., New York, N. Y. 10022 ( 212 : 688-

6000) H. R. MacDonald, Manufacturing Services Manager

Liberty Glass Company:

E. K. Mills, Technical Director, P. O. Box 520, Sapulpa, Oklahoma 74066

(918: 446-6730 X 262)

Liquid Controls Corporation

H. E. Siebold, Vice President, Technical Services, P. O. Box 101, North

Chicago, Illinois 60064 (312:689-2400)

Lockheed Electronics Company

J. F. Devitt, Service Manager, U. S. Route #22, Plainfield, New Jersey 07061 (201:757-1600)

Louisville and Nashville Railroad

J. L. Finnell, General Scale Inspector, 908 W. Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky 40201 (502:587-1121 X 415)

Mclntyre, John J. Sons, Inc.

F. L. McIntyre, President, 514-16 Knorr St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19111 (215: 745-3304)

Martin Decker Company:

E. I. Shelley, Manager, Industrial Sales, 1928 So. Grand Ave., Santa Ana,

California 92705 (714:540-9220)

240
Measuregraph Company

G. P. Reis, Director of Sales and Service, 4245 Forest Park Blvd., St. Louis,

Missouri 63108 (314:533-7800)

L. ScHWALKE, Drafting Supervisor

Milk Industry Foundation, International Association of Ice Cream Mfrs.

J. F. Speer, Executive Assistant, 910 17th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006 ( 202 : 296-^250)

G. P. WiTTE, Graduate Fellow

Miller, Byron & Associates:

B. D. Miller, 7712 Georgia Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20012 ( 202: 829-3903)

Millers' National Federation

F. H. Mewhinney, Vice President, Government Relations, 1114 National

Press Bldg., Washington, D. C, 20004 (202:628-6291)

Mira-Pak, Inc.

W. W. Mills, Vice President, Box 14049—7000 Ardmore, Houston, Texas

77021 Mobil Oil Corporation:

W. MacFadyen, Wholesale Plant Engineer, 4 Penn Center Plaza, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 ( 215:627-7000) Monsanto Company

D. Levine, Market Manager—Film & Pipe, North 8th St. & Monroe Ave., Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033 (201:276-2900)

T. I. BiDGooD, District Sales Manager

T. Ralles, District Sales Manager—West Coast, 2710 Lafayette, Santa Clara, California 95052 (408:243-0414) M. W. Sullivan, Technical Sales, North 8th St. & Monroe Ave., Kenilworth,

New Jersey 07033 ( 201 : 276-2900)

Morris Scale Company

C. V. Morris, 1537 S. E. Morrison St., P. O. Box 14306, Portland, Oregon

97214 ( 503 : 232-5339)

National Agricultural Chemicals Association:

R. J. Alikonis, Assistant Regulatory Counsel, 1155 15th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20005 (202:296-1585)

National Association of Food Chains

P. A. KoRODY, Jr., Director of Consumer & Environmental Affairs, 1725 Eye

St., N. W., #210, Washington, D. C. 20006 (202:338-7822)

National Association of Retail Grocers: H. J. Bison, General Counsel, 1625 K St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006

(202 : 347-9868)

National Biscuit Company

S. Terra, Attorney, 425 Park Ave., New York, N. Y. 10022 (212 : 751-5000)

National Canners Association

R. B. Heiney, Director, Government-Industry Relations Division, 1133 20th

- St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20036 (202:338-2030)

A. T. Rhoads, Assistant Director

R. Tolley, Head, Food Regulations and Standards

National Fisheries Institute:

T. D. Sanford, Director of Technology, 1225 Connecticut Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 22036 (202:223-3161)

National Forest Products Association

W. C. Hitchings, Manager Government Specifications, 1619 Massachusetts

Ave., Washington, D. C. 20036 (202:332-1050)

241
National L-P Gas Association

W. M. KiPLiNGER, Jr., Wasliington RepresentatiTe, Suite 100, 2011 Eye St., N. W., WasMn^on, D. C. 20006 (202:466-8979)

National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association:

L. F. DoRMAN, Executive Vice President, 302 Ring Bldg., ISth & M St. N. W.,

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202:338-3770)

W. K. CoNDRELL, General and Legislative Counsel (202 : 223-4800)

J. Vander Laan, Chairman, Model State Lumber Regulation Committee. Van's Building Supply Company, 221 S. Houghton St., Lake City, Michigan

49651 (616:839-4345)

National Paint, Varnish & Lacquer Association, Inc.

J. M. Montgomery, General Counsel, 1500 Rhode Island Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20005 (202:462-6272)

National Soft Drink Association

T. A. Daly, Legal Counsel, 1101 16th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20086

(202 : 83a-2450)

R. K. A. FicKER, Assistant General Counsel Neptune Meter Company

E. F. Wehmann, Assistant Chief Engineer, 47-25 34th St., Long Island City,

New York 11101 (212:361-1212)

K. Davidson, Sales Engineer, Liquid Meter Division, Park 80 Plaza East, Saddlebrook, New Jersey 07662 (800:631-2887)

Neptune Meter Company, Revere Electronic Division: H. L. Zupp, Regional Manager, 3525 Guilford Ave., N. W., Canton, Ohio

44718 (216:492-3632) Northeastern Retail Lumbermen's Association

J. M. DiCKERMAN, Washington Representative, Suite 401, 1730 Rhode Island

Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20036 ( 202:223-4860)

Of Consuming Interest

J. S. Wilson, Editor, 2201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22201 Ohaus Scale Corporation

J. H. Landvater, Vice President, Engineering, 29 Hanover Road, Florham

Park, New Jersey 07932 (201:377-9000)

Oswalt Industries, Inc.

R. Mathias, Scale Manager, North Highway 83, Garden City, Kansas 67846 (316:276-7681)

Paperboard Packaging Council

R. R. Lovelace, Director—Government Relations, 1250 Connecticut Ave., N, W., Washington, D. C. 20036 ( 202 : 223^965) Penn Central

R. E. Park, General Scale Inspector, Room 750 Penn Center 6, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19103 ( 215 : 594-1664)

Penney, J. C. Company, Inc.

R. C. Sherman, Senior Attorney, Legal Department, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N. Y. 10019 (212:957-6094)

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association

S. S. Kellner, Attorney, 1155 15th St., N. W., Washington. D. C. 20005

(202: 296-2440)

Pillsbury, The Company

C. E. Joyce, Manager, Customer and Product Protection, 608 2nd Ave., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612:830-4424)

Poly-Tech Corporation : S. G. Ross, President. 1401 W 94th St.. Bloomington, Minnesota 55481 (612:

884-7281)

242
Presto Products, Inc.

T. Zeller, Director of Packaging, Box 407, Appleton, Wisconsin 54911

Procter & Gamble Company : G. Hopper, Attorney, 301 E. Sixth St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 ( 513 : 562-3696

)

A. H. Every, Associate Director—Product Development, Ivorydale Technical

Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45217 (513:562-6524)

R. E. Belliveau, R&D Coordinator (513:562-6926)

R. E. Trunick, Associate Director, 6000 Center Hill Rd., Cincinnati, Ohio

45224 (513:562-7696) Purex Corporation, Ltd.

L. O. Leenerts, Manager, Technical Copy Control, 24600 S. Main St., Wilmington, California 90744 (213:775-2111 X 562)

Quaker Oats Company

F. A. Dobbins, Director, Quality Assurance, Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60654 ( 312 : 222-6764)

Ramsey Engineering Company : W. Harris, Application Engineering Manager, 1853 West County Road C,

St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 (612:633-5150) Revere Corporation of America

C. W. Silver, Vice President, Engineering, 845 N. Colony Rd., Wallingford,

Connecticut 06492 (203:269-7701)

Rucker Precision

J. C. Fielding, Government Liaison, 17000 S. Red Hill Ave., Santa Ana,

California (Washington Office—1500 Massachusetts Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20005 Tel: 202 : 659-8062

)

Safeway

M. Kegley, Washington Representative, 1730 M St., N. W., Suite 809, Washington, D. C. 20036 (202:659-1997)

Sanitary Scale Company

E. C. Karp, Vice President, 910 E. Lincoln Ave., Belvidere, Illinois 61008

(815: 544-2181)

J. V. Farwell, Sales Manager

K. Wilder, National Service ^Manager

Scale Manufacturers Association, Inc.

A. Sanders, Executive Secretary, No. 1 Thomas Circle, Room 313, Washington, D. C. 20005 (202:628-4592)

Scott, O. M. & Sons:

H. C. Doellinger, Government Relations, Marysville, Ohio 43040 ( 513 : 642-

4015)

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

N. A. Wilson, Supervisor of Scales and Weighing, 500 Water St., Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (904:353-2011)

Sealright Company, Inc.

F. J. Smith, Quality Control Manager, 8001 N. W. 97th St. Terrace, Kansas

City, Missouri 64153 (816:891-6300)

Sears, Roebuck and Company

J. E. Lehrer, Attorney, Department 766, 925 S. Homan Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60607 (215:265-5354)

Seraphin Test Measure Company : L. C. ScHLODER, Manager-Owner, 1314 N. 7th St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19122 (215: 765-7731)

Single Service Institute: R. W. Foster, Executive Director, 250 Park Ave., New York, N. Y. 10017

(212 : 697^545)

243
L. J. MoREMEN, Manager, General Services Smith, A. O. Corporation

N. Markoff, Supervisor, Service Station Equipment. Meter Systems Division, 1602 Wagner Ave., Erie, Pennsylvania 16511 (814 : 89^3131)

P. E. SwANSON, Product Engineer (814 : 899-0661 X 268)

Soap and Detergent Association

K. Greene, Public Afifairs Representative—Washington, 1200 18th St., N. W.,

Ring Bldg., Washington, D. C. 20036 ( 202 : 223-1614)

Sun Oil Company

J. F. DuLANEY, Repairs & Maintenance Supervisor, Middle Atlantic Region, 200 W. Lancaster Ave., Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 ( 215:688-8200)

W. A. PiERSON, 1608 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215:

985-1600)

Swift and Company:

B. H. Thompson, Attorney, 1725 K St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20007 (202

223-4894)

Texaco, Inc.

R. H. ToLSON, Supervisor, Construction Terminals, 135 E. 42nd St., New

York, N. Y. 10017 ( 212 : 953-6561)

Thread Institute: W. F. Operer, Executive Director, 15 E. 40th St., New York, N. Y. 10016 (212:685-6575)

3-M Company:

H. A. BiRNBAUM, Product Toxicologist, 3M Center, Bldg. 220-2E, St. Paul,

Minnesota 55101 (612 : 733-2328)

Thurman Scale Company

J. R. Schaeffer, Vice President, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio 43216 (614:443-9741)

Tokheim Corporation:

W. F. Gerdom, Manager, Product Performance, 1600 Wabash Ave., Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801 (219 : 743-0361)

Toledo Scale Company

J. P. Landis, Vice President—Marketing, Division of Reliance Electric Company, Telegraph Road, Toledo, Ohio 43612 (419:478-5811)

R. A. Metzger, Vice President, Reliance Electric Company

C. W. Campbell, Manager, Weights and Measures, P. O. Box 6757

D. B. Kendall, Chief Scale Engineer

J. T. Hoyle, District Manager, 5300 Kilmer Place, Hyattsville, Maryland

20781 (301:277-3646)

Troemner, Henry, Inc.

K. R. Stephens, Vice President—Marketing, 6825 Greenway Ave., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142 ( 215 : 724-0800)

Union Oil Company of California

G. H. Hemmen, General Manager, Distribution, 461 S. Boylston St., Los

Angeles, California 90017 (213:482^7600)

United Fruit Company:

H. L. Stier, Director—Quality Control, Prudential Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02199 (617:262-3000 X 791)

Utah Retail Merchants:

R. D. Moore, Attorney, 530 Judge Building, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801:328-9741)

244
Veeder Root Company:

D. E. Mills, Factory Service Representative, 70 Sargeant St., Hartford, Connecticut 06102 (203:527-7201)

T. J. McLaughlin, Product Sales Manager

West Point Pepperell

P. M. Johnson, Packaging Manager, 111 W. 40th St., New York, N. Y. 10018 Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau

C. G. Johnson, Assistant Manager, 450 Union Station, Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312: 726-6900 X 267 to 269) Western Wood Products Association

H. H. HoFMANN, Eastern Regional Manager, 145 Northway, Severna Park,

Maryland 21146 ( 301:647-7121)

Wilson's, William M. Sons, Inc.

C. J. Denny, Manager, Customer & Technical Service, 8th St. & Valley Forge

Road, Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446 ( 215 : 855-4631)

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

G. P. WooDARD, Chairman, NAFC Public Affairs Committee, P. O. Box B,

Jacksonville, Florida 32203 (904:384-5511)

Winslow Government Standard Scale Works, Inc.

C. E. Ehrenhardt, President, 25th & Haythome Ave., P. O. Box 1523, Terre Haute, Indiana 47808

ADVISORY MEMBERS—U. S. GOVERNMENT

U. S. Department of Commerce:

Hon. James T. Lynn, Under Secretary

R. M. Blassey, Industry Specialist

Miss Velda V. Brickler, Consumer Interests Specialist—BDC/M&CAD

National Bureau of Standards:

Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

Institute for Applied Technology

Dr. F. Karl Willenbrock, Director Mrs. Ann C. Abrams, Special Assistant W. B. Andrus, Jr., Program Manager, Engineering and Infonnation

Processing Standards

Office of Weights and Measures

T. M. Stabler, Chief H. F. WoLLTN, Assistant Chief, and Executive Secretary National

Conference on Weights and Measures

E. A. Vadelund, Program Manager, Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

S. Hasko, Engineer

R. N. Smith, Program Manager, Railway Track Scale Program

O. K. Warnlof, Technical Coordinator H. K. Johnson, Engineering Technician

B. C. Keysar, Engineering Technician

D. E. Edgerly, Weights and Measures Coordinator

D. W. Corrigan, Weights and Measures Coordinator

245
S. L. Hatos, Economist

A. E. Banks, Engineering Technician M. D. Hawkins, Laboratory Aide

Mrs. F. C. Bell, Administrative Assistant to Executive Secretary.

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Mrs. E. M. Burnette, Administrative Assistant Mrs. B. a. Davis, Secretary Mrs. D. L. Rich, Secretary

Office of Invention and Innovation

J. Odom, Executive Secretary, ISIetric Study, National Conference Program

Institute for Basic Standards:

Dr. E. W. Cannon, Chief, Applied Mathematics Division

D. B. Mann, Chief, Cryogenic Metrology Section, Cryogenic Division,

Boulder, Colorado 80302

U. S. Department of Agriculture:

Packers and Stockyards Administration, Scales and Weighing Branch

R. D. Thompson, Chief

C. H. Oakley, Assistant Chief M. W. Stephens, Livestock Scales and Weighing Specialist

Department of Defense:

J. R. Stipp, Civil Engineer, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army

Federal Trade Commission

F. A. Cassidy, General Physical Scientist R. R. Hannum, Attorney

E. W. Johnson, Attorney

U. S. Food and Drug Administration

G. L. Beard, Food and Drug Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland

20852 (301:443-3360)

R. E. Dickinson, Food and Drug Officer G. W. KiLPATRicK, Director Federal- State Relations D. R. Mackay, Assistant Director for Engineering Standards, Bureau of Product Safety, Washington, D. C. 20204 ( 202 : 926-8367)

OTHER GUESTS

Dr. T. Brooks, Dean, School of Home Economics, University of Southern

Illinois, Carbondale, Illinois 62901

Dr. L. J. Gordon, Director, Weights and Measures Research Center, 117 Locust

Place, Granville, Ohio 43023 ( 614 : 587-2096) Mrs. Jean Nidetch, Founder and President, Weight Watchers International,

% Mr. Howard Rubenstein, Public Relations Manager, Weight Watchers

International, 233 Broadway, New York, N. Y. 10007 Mrs. Virginia Knauer, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer

Affairs, New Executive Office Bldg., Washington, D. C. 20506

O. H. Watson, 232 Millbridge Rd., Riverside, Illinois 60546 ( 312:446-1024)

Dr. M. L. Shotzberger, President, Catawba College, Salisbury, North Carolina 28011 H. H. Wright, Advisory Member, Box 5, Lyons, New York 14489 (315:946-

9218)

246
FORM NBS-n4A n-711

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1 . PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. 2. Gov't Accession BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA No.

^ {2 b 1 J-'w v_} -L _/ (J

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Report of the 56th National Conference on Weights and Measures

5. Publication Date

ivi arcn ly i l, 6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(s).^^^^

_ woUin; F. C. Bell

8. Performing Organization

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/ Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address Same13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

This is a report of the proceedings of the 56th National Conference on Weights

and Measures, held July 12-16, 1971, at the Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D. C,

and attended by state, coxinty, and city weights and measures officials and representatives of the Federal Government, business, industry, railroads, and associations.

17. KEY WORDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons) Administration, Weights and Measures; Conference, Weights and Measures; Laws,

Weights and Measures; Technical Requirements, Weights and Measures; Wj^ghts^^d

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

fx] UNLIMITED. UNCL ASSIFIED 25Z

1 1 FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NTIS. 20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

UNCLASSIFIED $1.50
INSTRUCTIONS

FORM NBS.114A: BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET (REVERSE SIDE). This Bibliographic Data

Sheet is an NBS adaptation of the form prescribed by COSATI guidelines (Appendix F. NBS Manual for Scientific and Technical Communications). Please complete with extreme care. This

sheet will provide the basis for the literature citation of the publication, and in most^cases it will become an integral part of the final publication itself. A. Complete item 1 if information is available; otherwise, OTIP will complete later. (See K below.)

B. Ignore toned items 2, 6, 8, and 14; these are reserved for possible future use. Also, ignore item 3- C. Complete items 4 and 7.

D. Leave items 5, 21, and 22 blank; OTIP will complete.

E. Items 9, 19, and 20 are preprinted; you need add nothing.

F. Complete items 10, 11, and/or 12 when applicable.

G. For item 13, enter "Final" or "Interim" and calendar period covered, as appropriate.

H. For item 15, enter other relevant information. (For example, upon receipt of completed Form NBS-266 from author, OTIP will enter the complete citation for NBS - authored papers

published in non-NBS media.)

I. Complete items 16 and 17. Guidance is given in Section 4 and -Appendix B of the NBS

Manual for Scientific and Technical Communications.

J. For item 18, enter one of the following: "Unlimited" - for open-literature documents cleared under NBS editorial procedures, or "For official distribution. Do not release to NTIS" - for limited, restricted, or need-to-know

material. (Other availability statements are being developed. If the above are not applicable, contact OTIP for guidance.)

K. In completing item 1, use the brief designators shown in the right-hand column below. Each

designator will be followed by the specific publication number for that item. This number will be the same in both the longer and briefer designators for the same document. For example: NBS Technical Note 548 will be equivalent to NBS-TN-548. You would enter NBS-TN-548 in item 1 of Form NBS-114A. NBS Identificotion NBS Technical Note NBS-TN- NBS Monograph NBS-MN- NBS Handbook NBS-HB- NBS Special Publication NBS-SP- NBS Applied Mathematics Series NBS-AMS- NBS National Standard Reference Data Series NBS-NSRDS- NBS Building Science Series NBS-BSS NBS Federal Information Processing Standards Publication NBS-FIPS- NBS Voluntary Product Standards NBS-PS- NBS Consumer Information Series NBS-CIS- NBS Journal of Research Section A NBS-JRA- NBS Journal of Research Section B NBS-JRB- NBS Journal of Research Section C NBS-JRC- NBS Technical News Bulletin NBS-TNBSince each paper in the three-volume NBS Journal of Research is assigned a specific designator, OTIP will add that designator to the appropriate Journal designator shown in the above

rieht-hand column to obtain the entry for item 1. * ' USCOMM-DC 66244.P71

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 972 O—449 - 948
SELECTED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PUBLICATIONS OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBS Handbook 44 Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical

1ft71 r TlpnlaopmfTil' Requirements for Commercial Weighing and

Measuring Devices. Looseleaf (binder not

flTiniifillv^ included

)

2.00 NBS Handbook 98 Examination of Farm Milk Tanks .35 NRS Handbook Q<> Examination of Liquefied Petroleum Gas LiquidMeasuring Devices .35 TVRS TTandrook' Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard

105-1 Weights .25 NBS Handbook Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard

105-2 Measuring Flasks .25 NBS Handbook Specifications and Tolerances for Metal Volu- 105-3 metric Field Standards .25 NBS Handbook 108 Weights and Measures Labeling Handbook 3.25 NBS Circular 593 Federal Basis for Weights and Measures .45 NBS Miscellaneous Units of Weight and Measure—Definitions and

Publication 286 Tables of Equivalents 2.25 REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1966 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 290 1.00 1967 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 297 1.25 1968 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 311 1.25 1969 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 318 1.50 1970 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 342 1.75 Order above publications, with remittance, from the Superintendent

of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

20402.

Other publications available, at no charge, from the Office of Weights

and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C.

20234.

Organization and Procedure of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures

Mission of the Office of Weights and Measures

Model State Weights and Measures Law

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation

Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation

Model State Unit Pricing Regulation

Model State Weighmaster Law

Model State Registration of Servicemen and Service Agencies

Regulation

Model City Ordinance