[mi

NBS

PubU - cations

NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 442

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/National Bureau of Standards

Report of the

60th National Conference

on

Weights and Measures

1975
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 measurement 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 Institute 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 tljat 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 the Office of Measurement Services, the Office of Radiation Measurement and the following Center and divisions:

Applied Mathematics — Electricity — Mechanics — Heat — Optical Physics — Center

for Radiation Research: Nuclear Sciences; Applied Radiation — Laboratory Astrophysics^ — Cryogenics - — Electromagnetics ' — Time and Frequency ". THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research leading 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, the Office of Air and Water Measurement, and the following divisions:

Analytical Chemistry — Polymers — Metallurgy — Inorganic Materials — Reactor

Radiation — Physical Chemistry.

THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services to promote

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 Insti- tute consists of the following divisions and Centers: Standards Application and Analysis — Electronic Technology — Center for Consumer

Product Technology: Product Systems Analysis; Product Engineering — Center for Building

Technology: Structures, Materials, and Life Safety; Building Environment; Technical Evaluation and Application — Center for Fire Research: Fire Science; Fire Safety Engineering.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts research and provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in improving cost effec- tiveness 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 Institute consists of the following

divisions: Computer Services — Systems and Software — Computer' System's Engineering — Information 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. The Office consists of the following

organizational units:

Office of Standard Reference Data — Office of Information Activities — Office of Technical

Publications — Library — Office of International Relations — OflSce of International Standards.

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

= Located at Boulder. Colorado 80302.
60th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1975

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

San Diego, California, July 13-18, 1975

Report Editor: Sandra J. Edgerly

OF STANDARM

Report of the "^^^ ^ 1976

" c„^ United States Department of Commerce

; Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary

^ J j>^^ S National Bureau of Standards

Ernest Ambler, Acting Director "'t.u of "I

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 442, 272 pages (May 1976)

Issued (May 1976)

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. €13.10:442). Price $3.30

(Add 25 percent additional for other than U.S. mailing).
Abstract

This is a report of the proceedings (edited) of the Sixtieth National

Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of

Standards, held in San Diego, California, July 13-18, 1975, and attended by

state, county, and city weights and measures officials, the Federal Government,

business, industry, and consumer organizations.

Key words : Calibration ; communication ; consumers ; grain moisture meas- urement : laws and regulations: measurement; metric; packaging and labeling

r

police radar equipment ; standards ; supermarket automation ; weights and

measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 26-27766
CONTENTS

(Note: The reports of the standing, special, and annual committees and

the treasurer's report, which were presented on Wednesday and Thursday,

have been arranged together, beginning on page 165 for easier

reference.)

Page

Officers of the Conference VI

Standing Committees VI

Special Committee VII

Annual Committees VII

Open Committee Meetings, Monday, July 14, 1975 VIII

MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1975

Guarding Measurement Integrity, by Sydney D. Andrews, Conference

Chairman, Director, Division of Standards, Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services, State of Florida 1 Preparing for a Metric America, by Dr. F. Karl Willenbrock, Director,

Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards 6

Presentation of Honor Awards 13

Petroleum—Engineering, Measurement, Marketing, by Dr. Joseph

Byrne, Vice President, Marketing, Union Oil Company of California 14

Why Not Unshackle Measurement Standards, by L. T. Wallace, Director,

Department of Food and Agriculture, State of California 25

AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1975

Intergovernmental Communication Mechanisms, by Ralph J. Barra,

for Programs, National Bureau of Standards , 29

Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Office of the Associate Director

The State of California Measurement System, by Steve Kozich, President,

Quality Audit Company 36

Calibration of Police Radar Instruments, by David W. Allan, Frequency

and Time Standards Section, Time and Frequency Division, Institute

for Basic Standards, National Bureau of Standards 42

Grain Moisture Measurements and the Weights and Measures Community, by Frank E. Jones, Humidity Section, Heat Division, Institute

for Basic Standards, National Bureau of Standards, and Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Office of Weights and Measures, Institute for Applied

Technology, National Bureau of Standards 52

Impact of Electronics in Weighing, by John J. Elengo, Jr., Director of

Engineering, Revere Corporation of America 59

TUESDAY EVENING^JULY 15, 1975

Reception by Associate Membership 66

MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1975

Weights and Measures and the Consumer, by Maynard H. Becker, Director, Department of Weights and Measures. Los Angeles County.

Cailifomia 67

in
Page

Representing the Consumer Interest in Weights and Measures Law

Enforcement, by Helen E. Nelson, Director, Center for Consumer

Affairs, University of AVisconsin-Extension 74

Supermarket Automation—UPC and the Computerized Checkout

Counter, by Thomas K. Zaucha, Director of Public Affairs, National

Association of Food Chains 83

Maintaining an Economic Balance During Inflationary Times, by

Kendrick J. Simila, Administrator. Weights and Measures Division,

Department of Agriculture, State of Oregon 104

Overview of Consumer Issues, by Charles A. Barrett, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Department of Justice, State of California 115

AFTERNOON SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1975

No General Session Was Scheduled

MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1975

The Perfect Formula and PMTD, by Allen J. Farrar, Legal Adviser,

National Bureau of Standards 123

American Society for Testing and Materials—Voluntary Consensus

Standards, by William T. Cavanaugh. Managing Director, American

Society for Testing and Materials 133

International Organization of Legal Metrology—The Emerging U.S.

Role, by William E. Andrus, Jr., Program Manager, Office of Engineering and Information Processing Standards, National Bureau of

Standards 138

Converting to Metric Standards in Canada, by John L. Armstrong,

Chief, Standards Laboratory, Department of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, Canada 156

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs, presented by Daniel I. Offuer, Chairman ; Commissioner,

Weights and Measures, Department of Public Safety, City of St. Louis, Missouri 165

Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations, presented by

Richard L. Thompson. Chairman ; Chief. Weights and Measures

Section. Department of Agriculture, State of Maryland 173

Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, presented

by Walter S. Watson, Chairman ; Chief, Division of Measurement

Standards, Department of Food and Agriculture, State of California 188

Report of the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government,

presented by Wallace N. Seward, Chairman; Assistant to the Senior

Vice President for Industry Affairs, American Petroleum Institute 218

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Report of the Metric Planning Committee, presented by John H. Lewis,

Chairman ; Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Dairy and Food

Division, Department of Agriculture, State of Washington 225

IV
REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Page

Report of the Executive Committee, presented by Sydney D. Andrews,

Chairman ; Director, Division of Standards, Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services, State of Florida 229

Report of the Committee on Nominations, presented by Everett H.

Black, Chairman ; Administrator, Consumer Protection Agency.

Ventura County, California 234

Report of the Committee on Resolutions, presented by John M.

Chohamin, Chairman ; Superintendent, Department of Weights and

Measures, Middlesex County, New Jersey 235

Report of the Committee on Auditing, presented by Robert W. Probst,

Chairman ; Director, Bureau of Standards, Department of Agriculture,

State of Wisconsin 239

Report of the Treasurer, presented by C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights

and Measures, City of Gary, Indiana 240

Conference Registration List 242

V
OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

President: Ernest Ambler, Acting Director, National Bureau of Standards

Executive Secretary: H. F. Wollin, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures,

National Bureau of Standards

Chairman: S. D. Andrews, Director, Division of Standards, Florida Department

of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Vice Chairmen:

J. G. GusTAFsoN, Director of Consumer Services and Licenses, Minneapolis,

Minnesota

E. Prideaux, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Colorado Department of

Agriculture

H. D. Robinson, Deputy State Sealer. Bureau of Weights and Measures,

Maine Department of Agriculture

H. E. Sandel, Director, Department of Weights and Measures and Consumer

Affairs, San Bernardino County. California

Treasurer: C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana

Chaplain: J. H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Dairy and Food

Division. Washington Department of Agriculture

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Sergeants at Arms

:

D. L. Lynch, Chief, Weights and Measures Control, Department of Finance

and Revenue, Kansas City, Kansas

R. A. Thabalson, Metrologist, Division of Weights and Measures, Minnesota

Department of Public Service

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

C. p. Conrad P. E. Nichols

.1. A. Etzkorn L. p. Romano

E. Hanish R. F. Schulmeister

W. B. Harper R. A. Thabalson

F. D. Morgan E. Whitesides

(All officers of the Conference are, ex officio, membei*s of the Executive Committee.)

(Officers and Executive Committee members elected by the 60th National

Conference to serve the 61st National Conference on Weights and Measures

will be found in the report of the Nominating Committee, page 234)

STANDING COMMITTEES

(The remaining term of office for each committee member, in years, is shown

in parentheses.

)

EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

D. I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri, Chairman

W. B. Harper, Birmingham, Alabama (3)

W. H. KoRTH, Ventura County. California (4)

S. Valtbi. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania (2) R. T. Williams (1)

VI
(A. J. Ladd, City of Akron, Ohio, was appointed for a five-year term to replace D. I. Offner, wliose term expired. Mr. Williams replaced Mr. Oflfner as chairman.)

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

R. L. Thompson, Maryland, Chairman (1)

J. T. Bennett, Connecticut (4) R. M. Leach, Michigan

J. L. O'Neill, Kansas (2)

C. H. Vincent, Dallas, Texas (3)

(R. W. Probst, Wisconsin, was appointed for a five-year term to replace

R. M. Leach, whose term expired. Mr. Vincent replaced Mr. Thompson as chairman.

)

LIAISON WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

W. N. Seward, American Petroleum Institute, Chairman (1)

C. G. Gehringer, Pennsylvania Scale Company (4) L. D. Holloway, Idaho

J. F. Speer, Milk Industry Foundation ( 2

)

E. H. Stadolnik, Massachusetts (3)

(C. H. Greene, New Mexico, was appointed for a five-year term to replace

L. D. Holloway, whose term expired. Mr. Stadolnik replaced Mr. Seward as chairman.

)

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

W. S. Watson, California, Chairman

J. R. Bird, New Jersey (4)

W. E. CzAiA, Minnesota (2)

M. L. Kinlaw, North Carolina (3) K. J. SiMiLA, Oregon (1)

(C. Wooten, Florida, was appointed for a five-year term to replace W. S. Watson, whose term expired. Mr. Simila replaced Mr. Watson as chairman.)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE ON METRIC PLANNING

J. H. Lewis, Washington, Chairman

G. L. Johnson, Kentucky

G. E. Mattimoe, Hawaii

A. Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association (retired)

J. F. Lyles, Virginia (ex officio)

(Members of the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government are

also members of this committee.

)

ANNUAL COMMITTEE

Nominations: E. H. Black, Ventura County, California, Chairman; G. L. Johnson, Kentucky ; E. Keeley, Dela^'^re ; J. H. Lewis, Washington ; C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana ; H. E. Sandel, San Bernardino County, California

;

C. WooTEN, Florida

VII
Resolutions: J. M. Chohamin, Middlesex County, New Jersey, Chairman; M. D. Harpster, Illinois ; S. F. Hindsman, Arkansas ; J. W. Jones, Riverside

County, California ; O. D. Mullinax, Georgia ; W. C. Sullivan, Seattle,

Washington ; J. F. Tucker, New York

Auditing: R. W. Probst, AVisconsin, Chairman; D. L. Lynch, Kansas City,

Kansas ; S. R. Miller, San Diego County, California

Associate Membership: R. Southers, American Petroleum Institute, Chairman;

R. H. Dougherty, National Canners Association ; W. Garner, Martin Decker

Company ; W. F. Gerdom, Tokheim Corporation ; R. J. Lloyd, Scale Manufacturers Association, Inc. ; M. S. Thompson, Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles,

McGee, and Hastings ; E. F. Wehmann, Neptune Measurement Company

;

E. E. WoLSKi, Colgate-Palmolive Company ; J. D. Zelazny, Toledo Scale

REGISTRATIONS

Sandra J. Edgerly, Patricia A. Raschella, Sharon Shaff

LADIES' ARRANGEMENTS

Mrs. H. F. Wollin

MONDAY, JULY 14, 1975

OPEN COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Monday was set aside for meetings of the four Conference standing committees. Notices of t'hese meetings were carried in the Conference Announcement booklet, in all pre-Conference publicity, and

in the printed Conference program. Many delegates participated in

the committee meetings. The discussions which took place 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 165 and will reflect the discussion that took place and the actions taken by the Conference at

the time the final reports were presented to the delegates.

MANUFACTURERS' EQUIPMENT DISPLAY

An informal display of new equipment by manufacturers was

held on INIonday afternoon from 4 :00 to 7 :00 p.m. for the education

of the Conference delegates.

VIII
REPORT OF THE SIXTIETH NATIONAL

CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1975

(Sydney D. Andkews, Chairman, Presiding)

Mr. J. H. Lewis, Washington, the Conference Chaplain, delivered

the invocation and led the delegates in the Pledge of Allegiance.

GUARDING MEASUREMENT INTEGRITY

by Sydney D. Andrews, Conference Chairman, Director,

Division of Standards, Depaitment of Agriculture

and Consumer Services, State of Florida

Welcome to the 60th Annual National Conference on Weights and Measures. I hope all

of you have come prepared to work—for there

is much work to be done-—and prepared to

relax and enjoy this beautiful setting, when

time and your other responsibilities will permit. We are especially pleased to see that so many of yoii have brought your families. To

them we extend a special welcome. We sincerely hope it will l?e a profitable and enjoyable occasion for everyone.

As chairman of a conference that has such an outstanding pi-ogram with so many fine speakers, I suppose I should limit myself

to a few perfunctory remarks and get on with it. But, I feel so strongly about the fine work of this organization and its potential

for even greater service, I beg your indulgence while I share with

you a few thoughts on this subject.

First, about our theme for this year, "Guarding Measurement

Integrity." I hope you will not look on it as just a catchy phrase,

but as a lofty ideal and a real challenge.

For many years words have played an important part in my life,

and I often find myself seeking their true meaning. For this I rely

heavily on a much used volume of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

in my office. The true meaning of the word "integrity" as used in our theme intrigued me, and so once again I turned to Webster's.

Here I found many definitions covering varied uses of the word, but

the ones that seem to fit our theme were these

:

1
Integrity An uncompromising adlierence to a code of moral, artistic, or other values ; utter sincerity, honesty, and candor ; avoidance of deception,

expediency, artificiality, or shallowness of any kind.

While sitting before my dictionary reading aloud these definitions

of integrity, an old gentleman on the clean-up crew for our building

walked in with his broom. We have developed quite a rapport over

the years, and I have come to respect his homespun philosophy and

wisdom. He made the remark, "Mr. Syd, I see you're at the fountain

of knowledge again." I told him that I was seeking the true meaning

of the word "integrity."

He smiled and said, "That's a mighty important thing, ain't it?"

T agreed it was, and then I asked him, "What does the word 'integrity' mean to you?"

He paused for a moment and then replied in all sincerity, "Integrity is doing the right thing, even when there ain't nobody watching you."

I thought for a moment, then closed my dictionary and said to myself, "That's the definition I would like my friends at the National

Conference to think of for the word 'integrity' as used in our theme —doing the right thing, even when there ain't nobody watching!"

Many Biblical passages admonished man to resist the temptation

to cheat his fellowman. The earliest recorded history reveals laws

and decrees to assure proper weight and correct measure; some of

which imposed rather severe penalties on violators. Today in our

country the Federal Government, every state, and many local jurisdictions have weights and measures laws and regulations to assure equity in the marketplace. But there can be no equity without integrity, so let's all rededicate ourselves to doing the right thing, even "when there ain't nobody watching."

Although I have been quite active in the Xational Conference for

some time, it was not until serving as your chairman this year that

I became fully aware of the many valuable services rendered our Conference and all its members by the Office of Weights and Measures in the National Bureau of Standards.

Their organizational support is essential and I want to gratefully

acknowledge the help of Harold Wollin, chief of that office, who, as you know, serves as our executive secretary, and his entire staff. They provide a variety of other services to the Conference and

its members that enhance our performance, such as administrative,

engineering and training. The latter two I would like to see greatly

expanded because it not only would improve uniformity of enforcement, but would conserve tax money by having such programs developed once by a central agency with input from us all rather than

eaxjh individual jurisdiction developing its own.

2
One additional administrative service I Avould like to see as- sumed by the Office of Weights and Measures is its acting as a focal

point for information regarding deficiencies found in jurisdictions

around the country. Notices regarding widespread shortages in

weight, measure, or count discovered in one jurisdiction should be

sent to a central point for dissemination to all jurisdictions so that

sale of the short product could be stopped and appropriate action

taken as quickly as possible. To me. the logical clearinghouse for

this information is the Office of Weights and Measures.

But, if we want these additional services, we must be willing to

help provide the funds for them. We must be willing to let our

representatives in Congress know what these valuable services mean

to us and urge them to support the budget request of the National

Bureau of Standards on behalf of the Office of Weights and Measures. One thing is certain, it cannot provide increased services on

its present budget.

To all who are concerned with integrity in weights and measures,

I would urge you to consider the National Conference as the logical

forum for presenting new ideas as well as strengthening old ones

that are good. Producers, consumers, users, and officials at all levels

of government can come together, present their views, debate the

issues, and from this bring forth a consensus—something that is fair to all concerned—perhaps not exactly Avhat anyone wanted, but

a satisfactory compromise with which everyone can live.

All good laws and regulations are a compromise. You will notice

1 stressed "good" laws and "good" regulations. Thei'e is nothing

wrong with compromising objectives, methods, and even ideas, for

wisdom is never all on one side. The important thing we must ffuard

against is that we do not compromise our principles.

During the past year there have been some critics of the actions

or perhaps I should say the inaction—of the National Conference.

There have also been some defenders, and I am pleased to know

that there are those who will speak out on our behalf. Actually. I

am very grateful for both. Certainly, I do not Avant to discourage our critics. They often keep us fi'om becoming complacent—too selfsatisfied.

Those of us in regulatory work particularly should not resent

criticism, for we are servants of all the people. This is especially

true if it is constructive, and I choose to believe most criticism is offered in that spirit, although sometimes it is a little hard to recognize it as such. Actually, we should welcome this kind of criticism,

because it often comes from people who have our intei'est at heart

and are really trjdng to help us. Most of us have at least one critic.

An astute man, obviously one who had lived many years with a

critical spouse, once observed, "A man may be a fool and not knowit—but not if he is married."

3
I would particularly like to take this opportunity to emphasize

that we not only welcome, we strongly solicit, suggestions and constructive criticisms from our associate members. We need you. Although you are not allowed to vote on final decisions, we must have

your valuable input to assure our airiving at the right decisions.

Few jurisdictions, if any, do original research or development

work. There is little justification for spending the taxpayers' money

in this manner. Therefore, we rely heavily on you to bring us information about new developments, especially those that warrant

changes in laws or regulations. You are not "second class citizens"

in this organization, and we hope you will continue to keep us informed^—and on target—with your suggestions and constructive

criticism.

What I have to say now probably applies more to those jurisdictions not lepresented at this Confei'ence than to you delegates pressent, but I would like to implore all of you to become more active in

a total weights and measures program. Do not be just scale testers, even though that should always be a very important part of your

work; and do not continue the same old I'outine inspections year in

and year out. Broaden your horizons; work toward becoming truly a measurement center, toward insuring integrity in every measui^-

ment made in your jurisdiction. I dare say most of us are barely

scratching the surface, when you stop to realize that every transaction involving the exchange of goods, property, and service is affected in a vital way by weights and measures.

I hope you have come to this Conference to learn, to take home

something of value, and to put it into practice for the benefit of the

citizens in your jurisdiction. This week represents the culmination

of efforts on the part of many people, which began at the close of

the Conference a year ago. These efforts are intended to bring forth

the best possible model laws, model regidations, and handbooks on

Aveights and measures that can be produced collectively.

After everyone has had his say, and we hope you will exercise

that privilege if you have not already, we urge you to return to

your respective jurisdictions and work for the implementation of

these models. As all of you know, our finest works are but pieces

of paper containing well intended words until enacted into law by

a legislative body or promulgated as a regulation by an administrative official.

I hope our associate members are listening to this plea also, for

you can be a great force in the adoption of these models. It is a

political fact of life that legislators, with rare exceptions, are not

influenced very much by people in regulatory work. They look on

us as their employees, and we are often restricted by law as to what

we can do regarding impending legislation. Mostly, lawmakers listen

4
to their constituents. You in the private sector really have their

ear, and certainly I do not have to sell you on the value of uniformity of laws and regulations, especially those of you who operate

in multiple jurisdictions.

In the final analysis, it is the ultimate consumers who pay for

unwarranted uniqueness, so let us keep them in mind constantly.

To you they are customers, to us they are constituents, but they are the ones who pay the bills for all of us. Since you elected me to this great honor last year, it has been my

pleasure to represent the National Conference on numerous occasions. I am sorry I could not accept every invitation I received.

Especiallj^ do I regret not being able to attend all of the regional

conferences. Time and a limited travel budget prevented my doing

the job as I would have liked—certainly not my lack of interest in our great work.

But I did represent the Conference on more than a hundred occasions, mostly talking about the metric system, all the way from the

southernmost part of Florida to as far north as Halifax, Nova

Scotia, and now here we ai'e at this beautiful spot in lower California. Incidentally, I may lose my membership in the Florida

Chamber of Commerce over this. They cannot understand my allowing the National Conference to be held in California the year I was

chairman I Most of the appearances I have made as chairman have been to

talk about the metric system and our role in the conversion. I feel

we have a very important part to play if there is to be an orderly

conversion in the marketplace, and we need to get ready.

Some industries are making much progress in converting to metric

measurements. Many have a great incentive, they can show that it

is profitable. I hope we in weights and measures work can help provide incentives in the marketplace for consumers. Human beings are motivated by two basic emotions—^the fear of punishment and the

hope of reward. I hope we never have to resort to force or punitive

measures to get consumers to accept the metric system. Surely we

are smart enough to offer some reward for those who voluntarily

adopt the system. We need to work toward this goal.

Converting this country to the metric system of measurement is a

subject which has been of great interest to me ever since the early

days of my career when I was a practicing chemist; and I would

like to share with you some of my thoughts about it. However, I see by the program our next speaker has selected this subject for his

presentation; and because he is eminently better qualified to discuss

this timely topic, I will forego my desire and close now so as not to

impose on his subject or his time.

5
In conclusion, let me again thank you for the great honor and

privilege of serving as your chairman this year. It is an experience

I will always cherish. Please forgive me for waxing poetic on this

occasion, but I would like to leave you with a thought expressed by

the great bard, William Shakespeare, in his play "Hamlet"

:

This above all ; To thine own self be true, and

it must follow, as the night the day. thou canst

not be false to any man. Well, just as surely as night follows day, if we will collectively

dedicate ourselves to "Guarding Measurement Integrity"—doing

what's right even when there ain't nobody watching—we will provide the necessary climate in the marketplace so "That Equity May

Prevail."

PREPARING FOR A METRIC AMERICA

by Dr. F. Karl Willenbrock, Director, Institute for Applied

Technology, National Bureau of Standards

America is going metric. It may be years

before Miss America measures 91-66-91 or a new Hank Aaron hits an overpowering 109-

meter home run. But, inevitably and irreversibly, the metric system is coming to the United

States.

Radio announcers, supermarkets, beverage

bottlers, and ballpark scoreboards are hastening the everyday use of meters, liters, and

grams. As an entrepreneur in the State of Illinois puts it on a lapel button, "Take Me To

Your Liter !" And a well-known soft drink company has for a slogan

:

"A Quart and Liter But More." The punsters have gone metric

already.

Thei-e is no doubt that industrial America is on its way. As giants

such as IBM and General Motors convert to metric tisage, so must

thousands of their smaller manufacturers. As more metric products

appear in the market, every consumer must become familiar with

metric measurements. The school systems in over 40 States are teaching metric; others are planning to do so in the near future. Many

Federal agencies are using metric units and others are ready to go

metric. Metric bills have been introduced in 13 States, and in

Massachusetts and Minnesota laws have been enacted to guide the

metrication process.

Within the Federal Government, progress has not been as rapid

as we wished, but there is some. I would like to tell you about that

6
progress by reviewing some of the history of metrication in the

United States.

In 1866, Congress made the metric system legal in the United

States. In the same year, Congress directed that each of the States

be supplied with metric weights and measures. In 1875, exactly 100

years ago, the United States was one of the 17 nations that signed

the Treaty of the Meter. The 17 signers agreed to recognize the

metric system as the international system of measurement. In fact,

it was in late May of this year that the 100th anniversary of the

Treaty was observed in Paris. The celebration was attended by the

representatives of the 43 nations now adhering to the Treaty. The

National Bureau of Standards was the official representative of the

United States. The director and deputy director, Dick Roberts and

Ernest Ambler, represented NBS.

Incidentally, for those of you who may not already know, on June

30, Dick Roberts, director of the National Bureau of Standards,

succumbed to other agency pressures and became the assistant administrator for nuclear energy of the recently-established Energy

Research and Development Administration. I know that all of you

join me and the rest of NBS in wishing him well in this new position.

Although it has been 82 yeai-s since the prototype meter and prototype kilogram were declared to be the United States fundamental

standards of length and weight, it is amazing, in retrospect, that

none of these official actions of the previous century resulted in an

appreciable increase in the nse of the metric system in the United

States. The reason is easy to discern. It was simply not considered

economically feasible for our country to change, on a major scale, to

the metric system. United States industry felt that the costs and

inconveniences of a changeover would greatly exceed the benefits

and advantages that might accrue. This evaluation persisted until

the past 10 years.

However, the picture has changed markedly over the last decade.

The 1965 decision of the United Kingdom to convert to the metric

system, followed closely by the same decision by the other menibei's

of the British Commonwealth, made it obvious that the United States

would soon become a non-metric island in a metric world. In 1968,

the Congress passed an act authorizing the Secretary of Commerce

to study the advantages and disadvantages of increased use of the

metric system in the United States.

This three-year study, delegated to the National Bureau of Standards by the Secretary of Commerce, culminated in 1971 with a Report

to Congress entitled "A Metric America—A Decision "Whose Time

Has Come." In brief, the Report found that (1) metric use was increasing in the United States, that (2) American industry believed

7
that conversion to the metric system would be in the best interests

of the United States, and that (3) both the public and private sec- tors in the United States felt that any changeover to metric should

be done through a coordinated national program. That Report also

contained a picture entitled "Islands in a Metric World." In this

map, the United States shared with such highly industralized countries as Sierra Leone, Tonga, and the Barbados the distinction of

being one of the several non-metric countries in the world. Since that

time, however, most of these countries have converted to the metric

system. The United States now shares with Burma, Liberia, Yemen,

and Bruni, a miniscule section of the Island of Borneo, the dubious

distinction of being tlie only non-metric countries remaining in the

world today.

Currently, the most rapid metric changeover in America is taking

place in industry and in education. In industry, the manufacturers

of construction and agricultural equipment, automobiles, and computers are rapidly increasing their metric use. These manufacturers

include many of the largest multinational companies.

In education, the secondary schools are teaching metric education.

The metric education \a,w of August 1974 provided an impetus. This

law states that it is "the policy of the United States to encourage

educational agencies and institutions to prepare students to use the

metric system of measurement with ease and facility as a part of the

regular education program." Some children find the challenge of

learning the metric system exciting; others are not quite as enthusiastic.

Each letter we receive, no matter what the source, gets personal

attention. To letters from school children, we respond that the

change to metric in the United States has already started and that

the schools are beginning to teach metric. We also explain that the

metric system is actually a simpler system to use and that once it is leai'ned, measurements and calculations will be easier than they now

are. Such letters—and XBS responds to about 50.000 letters per year

on metric questions—show the impact of the metric education law.

Similarly, a metric conversion law passed by the Congress would

increase the awareness that a national changeover to metric is in

progress. Enactment of such a law would undoubtedly serve as a

catalyst for initiating or increasing metric use in both the public

and private sectors. The enactment of meti'ic conversion legislation will be of great

importance in speeding the current voluntary course that metrication

is now taking in our country. Congress is aware of this trend and

almost 10 metric conversion bills have been introduced into the

present Congress. One of these bills was prepared by the Administration.

8
For the most part, the bills are quite similar. They have two key

provisions. First, they declare that the Nation's metrication policy

is to plan and coordinate the increasing use of the metric system of

measurement in the United States. Second, they create a National

Metric Conversion Board to coordinate the various metric conversion programs in the United States. The House Committee on Sci- ence and Technology recently conducted extensive hearings on these

bills and approved, with amendments, the Administration bill. The

Administration's bill is currently awaiting action by the House Rules

Committee before it goes before the full House.

It is interesting to note that labor unions and small businesses who

were opposed to last year's metric conversion bill have indicated that

they are not opposed to this bill. As a result, the enactment of metric

conversion legislation by this Congress is possible. If the bill is enacted, a more direct challenge will be presented to the educational

system of this country, a challenge to industry, and a challenge to

each of us. One of the most exciting opportunities is in the field of consumer

products. Here Federal, State, and local governments have important

roles to play. As manufactured articles incorporate more and more

metric-designed components, the impact of metrication on the con- sumer will be increasingly felt. During this period, both opportunities and challenges will surface which need to be recognized and

responded to. Converting weighing and measuring devices is one of these challenges. You can use the time between now and M day, the day when

the United States is predominantly metric, to advantage. Wherever

possible, new measuring devices should be equipped with adapters

so that the devices can be quickly and inexpensively converted on M

day. Techniques should also be developed to adapt all existing measuring devices to metric.

In this area, weights and measures officials have a tremendous

opportunity for public service. You have close contact with both the

makers and purchasers of weighing and measuring devices. Do them

a favor—especially the purchasers. Use all of your communication

channels to alert them to the need for preparing for M day in the

most efficient and cost-effective manner. For them to "continue purchasing weighing and measuring devices without metric conversion

adaptability is not sensible or advisable. Your contacts with manufacturers of weighing and measuring devices give you the opportunity to convey to the suppliers the need for conversion adaptability.

In fairness to the purchaser, such equipment should have a dual

capability.

As for the consumers themselves, a public education effoit using

all available media should be undertaken in the period between now

9
and M day. This effort should be directed toward helping the con- sumer understand why the Nation is converting. Assure him that

what he will need to know about the new measurement units can be

learned readily. Also, assure the consumer that you have his interests

at heart. Make plans to protect the consumer during the conversion

period. And make the consumer aware of your plans.

Let's discuss an important feature of the legislation that is presently being considered by the Congress ; namely, the proposed Metric

Convereion Board. "Whether the Board will be attached to any

present Department or whether it will be independent of them all

is yet to be decided. But we can say that no matter which Federal

agency has the responsibility for coordinating metric conversion that

NBS will assist, in any way it can. NBS is well-qualified to respond

to the technical questions about the Intematdonal System of Units, or SI as it is called throughout the world. Upon request, NBS will

consult with the Board regarding the basic principles upon which

metrication should be based. NBS, thi-ough its Office of Weights and

Measures, will cooperate with the State weights and measures officials

to assist them in making the transition to metric smoothly and effectively.

The role we anticipate for the National Bureau of Standards is to

provide technical assistance to the proposed Metric Conversion Board

to clarify the SI system of measurement. It can also use its many

communications links to other governmental groups and to the private sector to assist in the solution of metric conversion problems.

Certainly, the Federal Grovemment will have other concerns. The

Federal Government, in itself, influences a sizable part of the econ- omy. As part of the Metric Study, NBS did a survey of all civilian

Federal Government agencies. These agencies reported that the longterm advantage to the Federal agencies of the change to metric would

clearly outweigh any short-term disadvantages—including the costs

of the change. In this respect, then, the civilian Federal agencies

feel the same as many of the private industries.

One area of responsibility deserves special mention at this Conference: commercial weights and measures, which are of particular concern to you. At some point during a planned national metrication

effort, commercial weights and measxires will have to be changed to

metric units. The changeover will include not only the commercial

weighing and measuring equipment and labeling of packaged commodities, but also the establishment of standard package quantities

under the antiproliferation provisions of the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act. These activities will need to be logically planned and

coordinated with this National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Existing legislation that imposes restrictions on the use of the

metric system, whether at the Federal, State, or local level, will have

10
to be ferreted out and remedial action recommended to the appropriate legislative bodies. This will require the joint effort of Federal.

State, and local governments and of the proposed National Board.

Over the past few years, the National Bureau of Standards has

played an important role in the guidance, coordination, and dissemination of metric information. Although NBS performs these services

for the entire Nation, we particularly look forward to cooperating

with you in the metrication tasks that will confront the weights and

measures officials. Now is the time to anticipate those tasks and plan

how to face them. Specific areas to which you can contribute are

:

The identification of State and local laws and regulations related to weights

that need to be amended, such as those for a loaf of bread.

Testing equipment that you use in the field needs to be evaluated to see if they can be adapted for metric use.

The development of metric training materials for weights and measures

oflScials and for the general public.

The changeover to metric in our country should be a national,

cooperative effort. Although U.S. industry will undoubtedly bear

the major burden of the changeover, important roles will be played

by the Federal, State, and local governments. At the State and local

levels, the National Conference on Weights and Measures has an

extremely challenging role to play and I am confident that you will

meet the challenge. Let me assure you that NBS will provide as much assistance as possible. We hope that if and when conversion

does come we will be able to increase the level of support that the

Office of Weights and Measures provides the Nation's weights and

measures officials. However, it would be premature for me to make

such a commitment before the Congress has determined national

policy in regard to metrication.

It is now my privilege to announce the names of the people who

have been appointed to serve on the four standing committees. All

of these people have had considerable experience in the weights and

measures field and will be able to contribute significantly to the

work of the standing committees.

The term for each outgoing member has expired and each new

appointee will serve a five-year term. The new appointees are

:

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

:

Mr. Council Wooten, Chief of the Bureau of Weights and Measures, State of Florida, replaces Mr. Walter S. Watson.

Committee on Laws and Regulations

:

Mr. Eobert W. Probst, Director of the Bureau of Standards, Stat«

of Wisconsin, replaces Mr. Ronald M. Leach.

11
Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

:

Mr. Anthony J. Ladd, Superintendent of the Division of Weights

and Measures, Consumer Protection, City of Akron, Ohio, replaces

Mr. Daniel I. Offner.

Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government

:

Dr. Charles H. Greene, Chief of the Division of Markets, Weights

and Measures, State of New Mexico, replaces Mr. Lyman D. Holloway.

In behalf of the Conference, I would like to express our appreciation to all committee members, and especially the outgoing

members, for their important work and loyal service to the Conference.

12
PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

Dr. Willenbrock presented Honor Awards to members of the

Conference who, by attending the 59th Conference in 1974, reached

one of the five attendance categories for Avhich recognition is made

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

Award Recipients

Robert D. Thompson

w. a. scheurer

C. G. Gehringer

johx g. gustafson

Richard N. Smith

Donald H. Williams

Harold F. Wollin

Richard J. Boney

George S. Franks

Marion Kinlaw

Charles H. Oakley

J. Clair Boyd

Nicholas DiMarco

David K. Forbes

John W. Hale

Harry K. Johnson

Charles W. Moore

Daniel I. Offner

Richard Southers

Richard L. Thompson

Robert W. Walker

Otto K. Warnlof

Robert T. Williams

30 Years

U.S. Department of Agriculture

25 Years H. J. Fuller and Sons

20 Years Pennsylvania Scale Company

Minneapolis, Minnesota

National Bureau of Standards

Dairy and Food Industries Supply

Association

National Bureau of Standards

15 Years Trenton, New Jersey

Cumberland County, New Jersey

North Carolina

U.S. Department of Agriculture

10 Years Iowa

Cumberland County, New Jersey

District of Columbia

Phillips Petroleum Company

National Bureau of Standards

Madison County, Indiana

St. Louis, Missouri

American Petroleum Institute

Maryland

Clark County, Indiana

National Bureau of Standards

Texas

13
PETROLEUM—ENGINEERING, MEASUREMENT,

MARKETING

by Dr. Joseph Byrne, Vice President, Marketing,

Union Oil Company of California, Los Angeles, California

I appreciated Syd Andrews' introduction

this morning and his definition of the word

integrity. It made me reflect on what I had

done in coming to make a presentation to this

Conference, because I first accepted this with

a notion to talk to you about some of the things

the new role of energy would do to your interests and your activities. But without anybody

watching, I decided that I would abandon that

technique and talk to you this morning about

something I feel strongly about. That is the

international complexity that oil brings to the world; also to give

you some background or some perspective—some of my perspective

at least—on the issues that face this country in trying to reach a national policy on energy.

I did not write out my speech ahead of time because I felt it would probably change before the hour of this meeting. In fact, I

very carefully took forty-five minutes this morning to read the news- paper to determine what the latest steps in national policy really are. As those of you who read the morning paper know, the President

has proposed a new program for decontrol of crude oil prices. The

Congress is already making noise like it is not going to accept his

proposal, and in effect will veto it. The Congress has yet to pass an

extension of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, and

that Act expires on August 31 of this year if no extension is made.

I really doubt that anyone can stand here this morning and predict

where we are going to be sixty days from now in a national energy

policy.

That is really the way the American system works ; we take time,

we debate, we tug and we pull. Yet, we do need a national policy on

energy and the purpose of my talk this morning is to give you some

perspective and background of Avhy I think that is so important.

Figure 1 is a projection of world energy consumption. It starts

in 1970 and goes to the year 2000. It shows the United States in 1970

using about one-third of the world's energy, and in the year 2000

with about 22 percent of the world's consumption, saying that the

i-est of the world grows faster than we will.

Incidentally, I will use barrels of oil as an energy equivalent measure. This is millions of barrels daily of ci-ude oil equivalent.

14
World Energy Consumption

MILLIONS OF BARRELS DAILY CRUDE OIL EQUIVALENT

1-400

HRest of World

Communist Countries

Japan

Western Europe

U.S.A.

14%-*E

6%

26%

2.2%

29%

7%

29%

9%

20%

28%

-300

-200

-100

1970 1980 1990

Figure 1

2000

Having heard -a discussion on the metric system this morning, I realize we use a petroleum barrel of 42 gallons. The gallon, of course, is an archaic unit of measurement, but it is engrained in the petroleum

way of life and we have 42 gallons of energy equivalent here today.

This forecast of a quadrupling of energy use in the world was

based on the price patterns of the early seventies. Undoubtedly, use

will trim downward some as time goes on; but this is not just a frivolous waste of energy that is forecast. It- is based on a very

fundamental issue in the world picture.

Figure 2, using 1970 data, depicts a comparison of standard of

living in dollars per capita on the left, with energy consumption

in barrels of oil equivalent on the right. The United States in 1970

led the list in standard of living and in use of energy.

There are those who quarrel with me when I put up this figure

and say you do not have to use great quantities of energy to have

a high standard of living; that it does not mean that the more energy

you use, the higher the standard of living. I agree there is a certain

amount of waste that can be trimmed out; there is a good deal of

conservation that can be made. The basic principle is that we do

need energy to increase the standard of living. The great American

farms of this country certainly could not do what they do without

the energy behind them ; nor could the great factories of our country do the things that they do without energy ; nor could we live as comfortably as we do without energy.

15
1970 per capita

National

Income

Thousand U.S. Dollar Equivalents

4 3 2

1970 per capita

Energy

Consumption

Barrels Oil Equivalent

20 30 40 50 60

United States

Canada

Sweden

United Kingdom

West Germany

USSR

France

Japan

Venezuela

Mexico

India

Figure 2 The fact is that the world as a whole has aspirations of increasing

its standard of living. Our national policy is to encourage them to

do so. If they do, we are going to see the world energy consumption

grow very rapidly.

Since there is a limited amount of energy, and since the rest of

the world is going to grow very rapidly, there is obviously going

to be a great deal of tussle and pull in order to get the energy for

various countries. This is the basic driving force that we will see in

the next twenty years in the energy field.

If we look at the various countries (figure 3), the various sections

of the world rather, and how they depend on foreign energy, we

take three areas: on the left, the United States; the center of this

chait. Western Europe; and on the right, Japan. We look at the red

part of the bars being indigenous energy and the orange part of

the bars as being that which is imported. The United States started

in 1970 practically independent of world energy with very small

imports. Western Europe was about 50 percent independent at the

beginning of this period. Growing in its indigenous supply at the end

of the period, it is projected by 1990 to still have a very significant

level of imports. In the Western Pacific, Japan started the decade

at 1970 about 95 percent dependent on foreign energy and is projected to end the year 1990 about 85 percent dependent on foreign

energy.

Obviously, these three areas of the world are going to have different approaches to the energy problems, and the force in this country

16
z

<

Q.

<

—r —

r

<

o

o

<

UJ

_Jo

I Z

6

>-

Dl

39N\ryo Q3ti

o

17
is to say let us go back and try to regain the 1970 position when we

were essentially independent of the world energy supply.

In this chart (figure 4) the bars above the line show who uses the

oil in the world; the solid bars below the line are the reserves. The

upper bars are oil used since Colonel Drake discovered that oil well

in Pennsylvania in 1859, and I guess we have to have an aside for a moment.

Total Discovered Oil

- Thousand

Million Barrels Production -i

1859-1971

Reserves

'

End 1971

-3

Figure 4

In the 1850's there was an energy crisis. The whale oil that was

used for lighting and as a lubricant was running out of supply. The

whales were disappearing and the whalers were having to go farther

for them. There was talk in this country of no illimiination ; energy

was going to be gone and the world was going to quit. But Colonel

Drake found a well in Pennsylvania and it just produced beautiful

kerosene. If he had found a well in California, it would not have

made kerosene, but he found the right kind of oil! The energy

crisis of the 1850's was solved very simply. I do not think we will

solve it that simply in the 1970's, but that was the beginning of the

oil business—Colonel Drake, 1859.

North America has been the big energy user for more than 100

years since oil was discovered, but the reserves lie in the Middle East.

Russia has big reserves and third in rank is the United States. China

is an unknown in this chart. We do not know how much reserves China really has found, nor do we know how much potential she

has.

18
In world oil order, until a year ago, the United States was the

world's leading oil producer. We have now, I believe the statistics

will confirm, been passed by Russia. We will soon be passed by Saudi

Arabia in production. But the reserves are in the Middle East.

Let us switch to the thing in the news about oil imports—who has

been importing the oil in dollars. Of coui'se, the United States leads

the list with $24 billion in 1974, followed by Japan, West Germany,

France, the United Kingdom, and on to Spain as the lowest on this

chart (figure 5). But those are the dollars in total. Let us look for a moment at dollars per capita (figure 6). When we look at it that

way, the United States falls to sixth position with $118 per person,

while West Germany leads the pack at $191. France is at $185; the

United Kingdom, $154; Spain, which was very low on the previous

chart, is up to $73. On a per capita basis then, there are many countries in the world that were impacted greater via the world oil price

than the United States.

OIL IMPORTS: the big spenders...

24.0

USA JAPAK WEST FRANCE UNITED ITALY BRAZIL SPAIN

GERMANY KINGDOM

Figure 5

AVhere do these dollars go in the Middle East? In total dollars,

the leader is Saudi Arabia with $29 billion, then Iran with $21

billion. Next in order are Venezuela, Nigeria, Libya, Kuwait, Iraq,

United Emirates, and Algeria (figure 7) . These are where the dollars

19
OIL IMPORTS: per capita expenditure

USA JAPAN WEST FRANCE UNITED ITALY BRAZIL SPAIN GERMANY KINGDOM

Figure 6

ALGERIA UNITED IRAQ KUWAIT LIBYA NIGERIA VENEZUELA IRAN SAUDI ARAB ARABIA EMIRATES

Figure 7

20
are flowing. The dollars are accumulating and they are being invested. I think many of you recognize that Saudi Arabia has an- nounced a $5 billion program to invest in petrochemical plants and

gas development and distribution within Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia

has a very advanced plan for industiializing its country and improving the standard of living. Ii'an has been on such a program. Some

of the other nations are just beginning to develop this, but they are going to use this oil money to develop their nations. Of course, they

are buying arms too. They all wish to have American arms. We

sold a great deal to Iran, and some to Saudi Arabia. I noticed in the

morning paper that Libya is now saying let us be friendly with the

United States because we now want U.S. arms also.

If we put this on a per capita basis (figure 8), we get a different

perspective. The United Arab Emirates hit $36,000 per capita.

They have very few people in that little group of states. It is often

called Abu Dhabi for the capital or the head city. (It really is not

the capital; it is not that well organized.) Kuwait is next, with over

$10,000 per person. In Kuwait, education and all medical care are

free. Saudi Arabia has $4,000 per person, still a veiy significant income ; but Iran is down to $700 per person.

OIL EXPORTS: per capita revenue

ALGERIA UNITED IRAQ KUWAIT LIBYA NIGERIA VENEZUELA IRAN SAUDI ARAB ARABIA EMIRATES

FlGTJBE 8

The population of Iran is much greater than Saudi Arabia, and

we see Iran in the news being veiy much worried about the effect

of inflation in world commodities and world industrial goods. Iran

21
is the leader in saying they need more money for their oil because

inflation is destroying buying power. When you look at the $700 per

person you can understand that they are more concerned than Saudi

Arabia about inflation, and Iran will be the leader for pushing oil

prices up in Octxjber.

The sleeper in this, as I mentioned earlier, is China (figure 9).

China has some great potential oil bearing provinces, including the

Yellow Sea which lies between Japan and China. China has had a

fantastic industrial growth since 1950. She has discovered oil. She

has become an oil exporter, even though her oil supply is rather

small. China is clearly on the basis of developing coal and planning

to use oil as a world trading commodity to help her foreign imports.

It is too early really to see what China is going to do in total, but we

could guess that ten years from now she is going to play a significant

part in the world energy picture.

CHINA'S GROWTH

420.0

FiGUBE 9

This brings us to the fact in this country that now is the time for us to develop our own sources. That is what project independence

Avas supposed to be when it was amioimced. This means developing

offshore. It means we are going to have to go for nuclear power; we

are going to have to develop coal; we are going to have to do re22

T
search work for solar, tidal, wind, and all the other reasonable

sources (figure 10). We are going to have to drill in deep and rough

waters. We are going to need tankers and we are going to need

ports because we cannot develop oil that fast. Anyone who says we

can reduce oil imports in the next two or three years—or even four

or five years—simply by making a decree that we will reduce imports

has to face that we are going to have to do something very drastic to our nation's economy. If we want anything like a normal growth and

a normal economy, we are going to have to have tankers; we are going to have to have ports to receive them; and we are going to

continue to import oil. ALTERNATE SOURCES OF ENERGY • Nuclear • Geothermal • Solar # Coal

• Wind • Shale • Tidal • Tar Sands

• Solid Waste Conversion

Figure 10

If I may brag a minute. Union Oil is the world leader in geothermal production. We have a project at the Geysers, north of San

Francisco. It is producing about 400,000 kilowatts now. It could go

to a million. It is now being held up by the Public Utilities Commission. The Utilities cannot get permission to go ahead, and Ave have had a two-year delay in the program to get further production.

We predict this field can produce enough electricity to supply the

city of San Francisco. There are other prospects in the United States

and they need to be developed.

We have a project in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico, not

far from where I was born and educated, where we have drilled a geothermal well. It has not yet been proclaimed commercial, but it is indicative that there are many places in the western United States

where geothermal energy is available.

Western Colorado is one of the places that we need to consider

for synthetic oil from shale. Developing shale is expensive. I think

it will be coming, perhaps by 1980 or 1983. It will take time, but it

is a substitute for foreign oil. Finally, I would like to say that Ave have to be a nation dedicated

to conservation if Ave are going to get to a degree of self-sufficiency,

which I think Ave must have. We must not be in a position to be

23
blackmailed by a group of foreign states that band together and say

they are going to use oil as either an economic or a political weapon.

On this chart (figure 11) are some thoughts as to where savings can

be achieved. I put up this chart partly because there is a great deal

of talk that the only way we can save oil is to save gasoline. Sometimes in the U.S. Congress you would think a gasoline tax would

be the only thing to save energy.

Potential Energy Savings

Million barrels daily - Oil equivalent

Smaller Automobiles

More Energy-Efficient

Industrial Plants

Increased Efficiency

in Electric Utilities

Less Space Heating

and Cooling

Higher Aircraft

Load Factor

77.

TOTAL SAVINGS

6.65 million barrels

oil equivalent

Figure 11

Smaller automobiles would be a significant way to save energy,

and that heads the list of potentials at 2.8 million barrels a day.

More efficient industrial plants, however, are a very significant saving. Other ways are : increasing efficiency in electrical utilities, re- placing some of the older and less efficient utility plants; controlling space heating and space cooling in our society, letting the temperatures run high in the sununer and low in the winter ; and saving

fuel in air transportation with higher aircraft load factors.

There are many other ways of achieving savings without drastic

eifects on our standard of living. In our headquarters office building,

which our president set out to make an example of conservation, we

have reduced the use of electricity by 40 percent. There are a few

people growling about the escalators not operating at certain hours

of the day, but other than that the building is entirely comfortable.

If we really develop a conservation ethic as a way of life, I think

we can readily effect a 20 to 25 percent reduction in a total energy

system of this country without any great handicap or any gi'eat

24
hurt. I think we must take on an educational program to convert to a more conscious effort in the use of our resources, particularly

energy (as well as to convert to the metric system),

WHY NOT UNSHACKLE MEASUREMENT STANDARDS

by L. T. Wallace, Director, Department of Food and

Agriculture, State of California

It is a pleasure to be here because I think

this outfit is terriby important and will become

increasingly important in the years ahead. I

am truly glad to be here and welcome you all. One of the things I learned very quickly

when I was ranching was that no matter how

good a herd of cows you had, there was

always a tail end that needed improvement.

That goes for the best herd anywhere in any

country, and that is the spirit in which Walter

Watson, Johnny Miller, and I have been talking about weights and measures and the whole area of public

interest,

I think Walter and the county sealers are excellent people; and,

frankly, I demand excellence from the crew because they are front

runners. They must reflect the positive aggressive attitude that we

have to take here in California and, hopefully, will take across the

nation.

I would like to talk to you a little bit about a feeling I have had,

one of discovery—and with that is both pleasure and dismay. Pleasure, as I said, of discovering our Division of Weights and Measures

people—dedicated people, experienced and knowledgeable professionals ; civil service in the best and truest sense. That does not mean

dead behind the ears. That means really dedicated people working

in the public interest. I felt dismay—dismay that I did not know

prior to my taking this new appointment that such an outfit existed.

Walter set me straight very shortly. I did not know the tremendous

job that was going on. I felt further dismay because I do not think

the general public knows much about the county sealers and the

whole Division of Weights and Measures.

I do not know about your respective states, but I will lay you

odds that not very many people know the terrific job that you people

are doing. I think it is time we changed that.

Since then, I have spent a lot of time getting acquainted with

Walter Watson and Johnny Miller and trying to keep them from

25
hiding their lights under their respective bushels. That was hard.

Walter and his crew are not avid limelight seekers and. frankly, I

am not either; but I do think that when you are doing as good a job

as they are, we are going to have to let people know about it. What did I find out as we talked ? At the national level I found

a visible reluctance to insure that when consumers buy certain items

like bacon or flour that they are pretty well guaranteed that the

packages actually weigh as much as the label says. At the local level

1 found there were terrific problems of funding. As a public official

I began to weigh the priorities of public expenditures.

On all levels—local, state, national—I found less than a total commitment from both the public and private sectors to offer the con- suming public (and stand behind) goods and services of stated

quality and quantity per stated unit price. Now, that bothers me a

lot. So, what was needed ? We began looking. We began looking at ourselves and talking

with county sealers. We decided three things; and through this

process we began to combine our sense of real pride, professional

pride, and a growing enthusiasm with recognition of the job ahead.

What are the three things? First, there is a need for our people to

look at themselves positively and tell people what a good job they

are doing. Secondly, I think there is a need for more cooperation and

coordination programwise, both interdepartment and intradepartment. Thirdly, I think there is a need within the Division to

articulate what it is "we" want to do. Forget anybody else. "What is

it that a group of knowledgeable professionals wants to do? What

is "our" agenda of program and priorities?

Walter and Johnny know that they have my complete administrative support all the way up and down the line. I hope the county

sealers know that too, because all of them do. They are fine x)eople,

fine professionals ; and they are the key to our successful program.

How do we get that job done ? First, we have to put a priority on

our programs and activities which have the highest payoff. This is a hard thing to do with all the diverse statutes and regulations,

measurements, weights, quantities, qualities, and geographic areas we have in California.

What about compliance? What about public savings? What about

timeliness ? These are some of the criteria that were used and are being used to assign a priority. Secondly, we began to reevaluate

our present way of doing things. For example, we are now turning

much more to "end result" type inspection. I think this can spread

limited funds. I guess every state here is going to run into funding

problems. This means we are going to have to more effectively allocate our scarce resources to get more productivity faster. That means

we cannot work at the bottom of the pyramid ; we are going to have

26
to work at the top of the pyramid and force personal responsibility

downward.

There is no reason why the Division of Weights and Measures

people always have to be good guys. If we are after higher rates of

compliance in the public interest, and if we are after better products,

more honest advertising, more honest representation, both within the

public and private sectors, we have got to force ourselves upward to

that tip of the decision-making pyramid and force responsibility

back downward. We do not have to fix the scales for everybody who

has scales. We can weigh the product that has gone over the scales

;

and if the product is short weight, we can tell the user to go fix his

scales. That seems logical and it gets us out of the scale repair business. Let somebody else handle that one. That is what I mean.

You can check a lot of short weight items in a store and let the

responsibility fall backward. Try to get the owner-user to be more

responsible.

We are also making more use of the tools at hand. What are some

of these tools? One is sampling. Are we really up to date on the

most scientific, most accurate sampling methods, within certain confidence limits, that we think we can match up with our budget—and

I do not mean in the .001 percent range. We do not need to worry

about that fine a cut ; but if we are after a 90 percent compliance, is

the sampling method we are using now the best? Are we using the

best technology available ? The same goes for measuring and testing

devices. Are we using the best programming methods for the materials and the equipment that we have? Are we using cost sharing

at all between counties ? Are we sharing anything between counties ? Does it make any sense to share anything between counties ? Another

tool is the citation. We are making more use of citations, penalties,

and fines, and we are making the citations public. That is a very

interesting force for compliance. When you know the news will be

made public if you are caught for short weight, then it does make

a difference on compliance level attainment.

What about results? I think we are already seeing results.

Certainly more attention is being paid to the Division of Weights

and Measures. They are highlighted in the Department of Food

and Agriculture here in California. There is increased public protection already being accorded the Division. There are increased

compliance levels, and I think there is a corresponding increase in

the efficiency of using public funds. I would like the public to get

more from its tax money expenditures.

There is also increased attention paid to the way device users can

help pay part of the general cost of inspection. This goes back to

what I said about the personal responsibility fix)m every citizen.

There is an increased responsibility for device accuracy put on the

27
owner-user. There is an increased attention to honesty and accuracy

in the marketplace wherever an item is inspected ; and this, I think,

is what makes any coxmtry worth living in. We want to continue to

be able to believe people in the marketplace.

Now, those are part of the results. We are still going pretty much

alone. Herb Cohen, who is my legal adviser, tells me in the Rath

case we have had no cooperation from any federal agency (with the

exception of the National Bureau of Standards, and I underline with

the exception) in pursuing our bacon short weight/measure case, which is now almost three years old.

Let me just read a one sentence paragraph taken from the June

1975 issue of Consumer Agency News, published by the Center for

Consumer Affairs, University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. It says:

"Even tlie California regulations challenged by Rath required only that the

average of the sample of the lot equal the declared net weight."

That hardly seems unreasonable to me. I know everyone is con- cerned about where weights are measured—at the point of manufacture, the point of wholesale delivery, the point of retail delivery, or some place in between, such as an interstate line. Perhaps we

should point more to the point where the consumers are directly involved—where they read the labels, where they have been taught to

increasingly believe what they read about food quality and quantity.

Again, that does not seem unreasonable to me. We are proceeding

on the basis of a program emphasizing honesty and accuracy for

the consuming public. Frankly, I wonder why so many of the federal

agencies are so reluctant to stop condoning short weight measures. I

just cannot understand it. We are going to continue our fight and continue to wonder why

certain traditional vested interests continue to hold sway over what

seems to us to be an obvious conflict of interest.

As you can see, we have identified some needs and we have identified some ways to fulfill those needs. It is a process. It is not a once-and-for-all thing. We have some results already ; we are going

to get some more results. I think that Walter and his counterparts

in all the other states and in Washington, D.C. are the forerunners

of trying to enforce honesty and accuracy in the private sector, of

which I am a great admirer. Without this honesty and accuracy,

somehow America is not going to quite measure up to its highest

standards as I think it should.

Enjoy yourselves in California. It is a great place. Thanks very

much.

28
AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1975

(Eakl Prideaux, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMUNICATION

MECHANISMS

by Ralph J. Baera, Intergovernmental Relations Officer,

Office of the Associate Director for Programs,

National Bureau of Standards

For the next twenty minutes, I would like

you to do a little dreaming with me and a

little imagining, because I am going to present

some new ideas for your consideration.

If you keep a few key words in mind

partnership, cooperation, opportunity—as I

tell you about the National Bureau of Standards' (NBS) own experiences in the intergovernmental relations activity, you may see a way

that you can use that kind of experience in

your own endeavors.

The NBS experience, specifically mine as intergovernmental re- lations officer, may serve as an example of the opportunities that are emerging in new areas of coopei'ation to solve many of the measure- ment problems that are facing our local communities and our nation

today, and especially tomorrow. These opportunities are not opportunities only for NBS. They are also opportunities for local weights

and measures officials.

Tomorrow's measurement problems will not be solved by the

Federal Government alone. Those problems will not be solved by

state governments alone. They won't be solved by cities alone. They

won't be solved by municipalities and counties alone; and they also

will not be solved by the universities alone. The solution to those

problems that we have facing us, not only in measurement but in

many areas of the economy, are going to require new partnerships.

In fact, on this afternoon's program you will hear about a few of

those partnerships. The next speaker will tell you about California's

own Measurement Advisory Committee which is a partnership between state executive branch agencies, industry, and academia. The

committee's efforts are focused on the measurement problems of the

State of California.

Later this afternoon, Frank Jones will tell you about partnerships

that are developing between NBS and several states in the area of

the measurement of moisture in grain. Later, the partnership between

29
NBS and state weights and measures officials in the calibration of

radar speed measurement equipment will be covered.

The organizations that are required to bring the various parties

together in these communication modes are organizations like the

National Conference on Weights and Measures. This Conference's

experience has proven to other sectors that it can happen ; that the

Federal Grovernment can cooperate with state and local government

officials and with industry to focus on national problems. Without

organizations such as this Conference, we would only have a fragmented effort going on and progress would just be at a standstill.

At this time I would like to tell you about some of the communication mechanisms that have been identified by the National Bureau

of Standards. Hopefully, you may identify some of these organizations as being ones that you might try to use, if you haven't already,

to broaden your own horizon and your own involvement in the solution of technological problems that are taking place in your state. Many of the organizations are much broader based than just measurement ; but I found through the discussions I have had with these

people that measurement technology is interwoven in most of their

problems. They are looking for measurement-oriented people to help

them solve their much broader based problems. It could be an exciting experience for any of you who want to get into a larger arena.

Let's take a look at NBS's Intergovernmental Kelations activity.

The activity is primarily a staff function for tJie executive board of

the Bureau, and it interfaces with a long range planning group. It serves as a "feedback" mechanism to the long range planning function of NBS and, hopefully, will impact on many of the programs

that the Bureau will be performing in years to come. By having a

l>etter feedback mechanism from state and local governments, we

should be able to learn of their needs enough in advance so that the

research and development and the projects at NBS are more relevant

to those needs.

The Intergovernmental Relations activity is also cooperating with

the Information Programs Office. For the first time, we are, in a systematic fashion, getting news about NBS programs into the hands

of state and local government officials and their staffs on a periodic

basis. For example, our monthly Dimensions Magazine is being used

to alert state and local government officials to programs that are taking place in NBS.

It is pretty hard to take a look at all fifty states and come up with

an organization chart that will fit all of them; but we can look at

the seven major services that the agencies of state government perform. The Book of the States, published by the Council of State

Governments, lists the major functional areas as shown in figure 1.

30
Most weights and measures officials are in the agricultural part

of state government. Some are now in the public protection or the

consumer protection areas of state government. I feel that there is a trend in that direction. The experience of weights and measures

officials in the area of consumer protection, along with their legislative background, could serve as a nucleus for the fonnation of a consumer protection agency in state government. You may see this as a development that may broaden your opportunities to serve in

many other ai'eas of consumer protection.

As shown in figure 1, the governor's science adviser may also be

a point of interaction for NBS with the state government. Several

science and technology bills in Congress call for a strengthening of

the role of science adviser in the states. If that takes place, it may

be a very effective communication mechanism between the Federal

Grovernment and the states.

OUTSIDE MODE

INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS ACTIVITY

NBS

ICALIB. SERVICES, SRM's. NAT'L CONF WTS

t MEAS., NCSBCS, NASIS

FCST DOMESTIC TECHNOLOGY

TRANSFER COMMITTEE

NSF FEDERAL LAB CONSORTIUM

MAJOR PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS

PUBLIC TECH

INC.

STATE SCIENCE ADVISORS

NSF

ISRU

NCSL

ISTDS, LABS]

COMMERCE

FIELD OFFICES

ASPA

FEDERAL AGENCIES

ZIX

S/L GOVERNMENTS

EXECUTIVE AND

LEGISLATIVE

Figure 1

The information flow from the Bureau to the states and from the

states to the Bureau takes many forms. Once we are aware of the

specific needs of a state or local government, we are able, with very

little effort, to get timely information to them by way of existing

publications covering that specific subject. At the same time, we

have newsletters flowing in from many state governments and state

associations. For example, the Nation's City Magazine, which brings

us pretty much up to date on a lot of the issues that are facing the

31
cities; the National Governor s Conference Bullet/in; the U.S. Conference of Mayors' State Government News and so on. There is an

milimited amount of information available if you are interested

in getting it. There are many groups, as shown in figure 1, already in existence

that can be used as communication mechanisms by a federal agency.

The NBS experience serves as an example to other agencies in the

Federal Government of how to establish communications with state

and local government constituencies. The state and local government

constituency includes not only the executive branch of state government, but also the legislative branch, which is an up-and-coming

force in Washington.

The Federal Council on Science and Technology Committee on

Domestic Technology Transfer meets in Washington about once every month. At these meetings, the several federal agencies engaged

in research and development activities and technology transfer share

their experiences and map out cooperative ventures to improve the

flow of technology to state and local governments.

Another comnmnication mechanism is the National Science Foundation's Federal liaboratory Consortium. About four years ago, this

consortium was formed by the Department of Defense laboratories

that are located in some thirty states around the United States.

About three dozen laboratories identified themselves as potential re- sources for state and local goverimient officials. The consortium now

includes some of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration laboratories, as well as some Energy Research and Development

Adminstration laboratories.

The major public interest groups in Washington could also be

invaluable communication mechanisms. The U.S. Conference of

Mayors has just established a Science and Technology Committee

that is going to be delving into many of the technological issues of

the cities.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has two committees; one is called the Intergovernmental Relations Committee and

the other is called the Science and Technology Committee. These

committees are very active in the role of tying together new partnershiijs and new modes of cooperation between the Federal Government and the state legislatures. They are looking for ways to transfer

knowledge and technology to the level of government that is closest,

to the people so that technology is applied to the problems that the

people themselves are identifying.

Organizations like Public Technology Inc. are trying to identify

the needs of the cities and to package those needs in such a way that

they can be understood by the scientists working in research. At the

same time they are working on tiie translation of the language of

32
the scientists into words that the state and local officials can understand so that they can see whether or not they can use some of that

knowledge and some of that technology that is available. Some of

the technology that can still be applied has been available for over

ten years.

The National Science Foundation has an Intergovernmental Sci- ence and Research Utilization activity that is very active in working with the states. They are funding experimental projects to test

different forms of partnerships between federal, state, and local governments to work on problems that are identified by state and local

governments. There is no reason why the voice of weights and measures officials should not be included in the voices that are heard in

those kinds of projects.

The National Conference of Standards Laboratories, which ties

together many of the industrial measurement standards laboratories

with Federal Government laboratories and some state measurement

laboratories, is an excellent example of a partnership trying to solve

problems that are taking place in industry as well as in government

in a cooperative fashion rather than in a fragmented effort.

NBS also has, as a communication mechanism, the :nany U.S.

Department of Commerce field offices located around the United

States. They have been used very effectively in the area of education, energy conservation and metric conversion. These field offices

will pix)bably take a very active role in the new programs that are coming.

The American Society on Public Administration has a Science and

Technology Committee. This committee could serve as an excellent

mechanism to bring together government officials at all levels to

focus on measurement-oriented problems. However, this will not

happen unless people like yourselves from the measurement community join together and have their voices heard.

One of the most active public interest groups in the area of technology transfer is the National Conference of State Legislatures

(NCSL). This Conference has a membership of 7,600 legislators. For

years, these legislators had been on the outside looking in. They

were not too involved in knowing what was happening in Washington ; but that is changing now. They hold the purse strings in most

state governments and are now taking a closer look at what kind of

money is coming into the states from Washington. They are also

trying to identify the major issues of the states so that the monies

sent to the states can be used in areas that are most beneficial to each

state. Five areas that have been identified are energy, natural re- sources, law enforcement, transportation, and food and agriculture.

In the food and agriculture area, and probably in the others, the

element of measurement technology should be included. It is going

33
to take people like you and others in the measurement community to

bring this to their attention. The legislators have to know that you

have measurement problems. If they do not know, they are not

going to be looking for funding to strengthen the measurement activities in the states. The Science and Technology Committee and the Intel-governmental Relations Committee, as shown in figure 2, are pretty representative of the country. Some 45 states are represented on the Intergovernmental^elations Committee and several states are represented

on the Science and Technology Committee.

COMMUNICATION LINK TO

STATE LEGISLATURES

DOT

ERDA

NASA

NBS

NSF RANN

NSF NCSL

INTERGOVERNMENTAL

SCIENCE RESEARCH

UTIL. OFFICE

NCSL

S & T INFORMATION

CLEARING HOUSE

INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS COMMITTEE

1418 MEMBERS, 45 STATES)

TASK FORCES ——^ ENERGY —

NATURAL RESOURCES

• LAW ENFORCEMENT • - TRANSPORTATION -

• FOOD AGRICULTURE

SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

|22 MEMBERS, 19 STATES]

7,600

LEG

IS

LA

T

0

RS

FiGUBE 2

A science and technology information clearinghouse function in

NCSL has required the funding of federal agencies as well as the

National Science Foundation. The National Bureau of Standards,

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department

of Transportation, and the Energy Research and Development Administration are four agencies at the present time that have cooperated in the project. The clearinghouse will try to identify the technology needs of the states through the members of these task forces

and, at the same time, to match those needs to the resources that are

available.

Where does NCSL fit in ? Where does the National Conference on

Weights and Measures fit in ? There are various industrial state and

federal laboratories located in your state. Each has its own specific resources that could be applied to solve local problems; but no one

has taken a look at the whole picture and tried to identify a state's

34
total resources. In many cases, if a problem emerges in a state ex- ecutive agency, say a weights and measures activity, and that activity cannot solve the problem, the search for a solution just ends

there. A communications network should be established between the

various laboratories of a state so that no matter where a problem

comes up, no resource is left out in trying to solve the problem. Of

course, if it cannot be solved in the state, then the next step is to

go outside the state and find out what other state may have a solution

to the problem. If you still cannot get a solution, then it is time to

go to Washington and find out whether some technology can be transferred from the Federal Government to solve the problem.

It is a communications challenge that we have facing us. We are not going to solve the kinds of problems that are emerging individually. It is going to take a lot of cooperation. It is going to take

your getting involved and knowing a little bit about some of the

other agencies in your state and some of the other laboratories in

your state so that they know who you are. If a measurement-type

problem comes up, they know how to get in touch with you.

DISCUSSION

Mr. L. O. Leexerts (Purex Corporation) : Do you have the same

lines of communication with other Federal agencies as you indicated

you have with the state agencies ? Mr. E. J. Barra (NBS) : Yes. In fact, I mentioned one of the

lines of communication, and that is the Federal Council on Science

and Technology. The Domestic Technology Transfer Committee is a direct line with almost all Federal agencies, Agriculture included.

I cannot think of one agency right now in the Federal Grovernment

that is doing some research and development that does not have a

representative on that committee; and we are working very closely

with that committee. That is just one example. The National Bureau

of Standards (Bud, maybe you can correct me, I am guessing on

this I think) gets something like 30 percent of its budget or 50 percent from other Federal agencies.

Mr. H. F. Wollin (NBS) : Forty.

Mr. Barra: Forty percent of our budget comes from other Federal agencies, and if you take a look at the list of projects that we

have going on right now at the Bureau of Standards, you know,

almost every Federal agency has asked us to do something in the

measurement area. Mr. Leenerts: I guess my next question really is not a fair one

because it has some political overtones. How does the Bureau feel

about the Senate bill, I think it is 200, that would form the agency

for consumer advocacy which would be doing essentially what you

are already doing by yourselves ?

35
Mr. Barra: I guess I would have to defer that. I do not think

the Bureau has a position at the present time, but maybe sometime

this afternoon you might be able to speak to some of the other NBS

people here and get a better answer than I can give you.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

by Steve Kozich, President, Quality Audit Company,

Whittier, California

It is certainly an honor to come before this

group and have something to say that I feel

may contribute to the effectiveness of your job.

Having spent many years in industry as a quality control manager, I know the problem

of production taking too much time to build

something and not having enough time to inspect it. I understand the problem that you

really cannot inspect the inside thread of a irut

t-oo well; and I also understand the problem

that the landing gear on aircraft that we go home on must be hard

enough to sustain the thrust, force, and Aveight of the aircraft.

John Quincy Adams said something like : "To know something it must be measured and the measurement must be related to some

unit."

In quality control work and in my background, I like to refer to

Ed Thorndike. He was a psychologist, and I believe he spent most

of his time working on the human mind. But, in his work he has

provided some words of wisdom that can be taken to general managers and presidents of major corporations. Thorndike said something like this : "Everything that exists must exist in some quantity,

and any quantity can be measured."

Therefore, we in the field of measurement science have no excuse

for both quantity control and accuracy of measurement. It is ex- pected that our equipment and devices will become faster and more

precise.

CONFLICTS

There is another problem here on the conflict of producer versus

control, manufacturer versus control, and seller versus control. Maybe the best way I can relate that conflict is through my experience

where I have a little story about the production manager who went

in for a physical, only to come back and find out that he was going

to die from cancer. The general manager went to him and said,

"John, I heard about the physical and I am extremely concerned.

36
You have given me 20 yeai-s of good profit and a lot of your life.

I want you to spend the rest of your life any way you wish, and I

will pick up the tab."

John said, "Move me into quality control."

"My goodness, you want to run it?"

"No, no, no, I don't want to run it, I just Avant to be an inspector."

"What?"

"I just want to be a bench inspector."

So, the production manager went into quality control the following Monday morning, spread out some nice green billiard cloth and

brand new measurement equipment, and he was checking more parts

than anybody else in the department. About two weeks later the

president of the company came up and said, "John, I don't understand. There have been times when we have had labor problems and

I couldn't see your point until I went home or the next morning.

There were times when I didn't think you'd get something out and

a week later you'd show me, but here it has been two weeks and I'll be darned if I can figure out your objective."

John looked up at him and said, "If anyone down here has to die,

it might as well be an inspector !" So you never want to misjudge that conflict. They may be working

hard, but they are never in weights and measures. There is another point that I would like to make, being a native

of California. Even though I have traveled to every state and several

countries, I have lived here all my life. I have attended California's

fine universities and worked in its fine industry. Over the last seven

or eight years I have been associated with a group of weights and

measures people predominantly because of the weights and measures

conferences and the measurement science conference at Cal Poly that

we hold every year, which, incidentally, is the first Friday and

Saturday in December.

If I were to put our weights and measures activities in California

into a simple phrase, from my viewpoint, I would have to tell you

that I believe the State of California Division of Measurement

Standards and the county sealers of this State are probably providing our consumers and our citizens the finest protection of any state or nation in the world. I feel that if I look back and define who is directly responsible, I would have to say that Walter Watson is probably the quarterback and Tiny Sandel, the sealer in San Bernardino

County, is probably our right tackle.

You can see by the attendance here that we are working together

up and down the State; the sealers in California communicate very

well. I have addressed groups of sealers here in California several

times and I am extremely pleased to see the high interest for con37
tinued truth in measurement. I want to take my hat off' to these fine

people in weights and measures here in California.

Some of the things I am going to cover here in a very shoit period

of time are our business environment, the State of California Measurement System (SCMS), some of the accomplishments of SCMS,

and trends in weights and measures as I see them.

BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

You have to have a system to fence an environment (production

versus control), and the marketing aspect also has a lot to do with

labeling. The basic problems of budget, the types of problems tliat

weights and measures people face, also affect their time. Statistics

have a lot to do with the conflicts. Corporation trends have a lot to

do with conflicts and truth in controls. Then, when we get into the

measurement system, I can show you several things that we have

developed for the purposes of organization and some of the activities, the membership, and the benefits that will be produced from

this activity.

The problem that the average weights and measures official sees today is basically that he is expected to do more. Generally, the staff

is one pay raise behind time. You generally need new technical support and technical information, new equipment is entering use much

faster than before, and you have a problem of training people to

maintain the pace with new devices that have been approved. The

cost of our products is higher than ever before. The consumer is

smarter, he knows what your job is today; therefore, you have to

give him a straight answer. The pmfit squeeze requires industry to

work as close to the legal limit as possible. When the Federal Government decides to publish statistics, industry tries to make the figures

look good.

I ran across a little write up in a recent publication that said a Hershey candy bar sells for ten cents. From 1965 to 1973 there Avas

no price increase, but the weight went from two ounces down to 1.2 ounces. The Federal index reported that there was no gain in price

on the Hershey candy bar. There was no comment that there was a 40 percent change in weight.

So you see, here is a marketing genius who maintained the same

package and slipped the consumer a quantity reduction at the same

price. I can only say that I will never forget the professor at San

Jose State Univei-sity who told me how pleased he was to attend the

Hershey Trade School, and that the commodity never had to be

advertised because it was so pure and sold by word of mouth. I

don't mean to say that Hershey isn't a good company. I just mean

to say that times change and sometimes the way we measure ourselves causes a change in our direction.

38
Let's take a look at corporation leverage. In 1950 we liad 440 beer

manufacturers. Today, there are 77. General Electric and Westinghouse could have come out with a fluorescent tube about 12 or 14

years before they did and conserved a lot of enrgy; but then they

wouldn't have sold so many light bulbs. Years ago, Gillette could

have quit selling its blue blade, but it took a British company to

bring stainless steel to the U.S. market. Years ago, our automotive

industry used to let us maintain our automobiles. Today you can hardly get your hands down to check the oil. This is what I call corporation leverage created by marketing and

the selfish grab of the dollar. My point here is that there is only a

profit objective in many of our corporations.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

Let's take a look at the State of California Measurement System.

I can't help but tell you folks that I believe that six or seven years

of hard Avork (chaired by Walter Watson and working with different

people within this group towards a common understanding of our

objective) has benefited the measurement community. A considerable amount of personal time has even transferred sorhe of our

efforts to a university program in measurement science. This has

been one of the finest and most rewarding times I have been able to

offer to what I feel is good for society.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF SCMS

What is the purpose of the State of California Measurement

System? Identified in the bylaws or the charter are nine basic purposes; but if somebody could come up with a tenth one, I am sure that a simple letter to AYalter Watson would give it an additional

impact. The nine purposes are

:

1. To identify the highest level of measurement capability within

the State of California for every unit possible.

2. To coordinate information on measurement calibration services.

When someone who has a problem doesn't know where to get his

equipment calibrated, maintained or adjusted, we hope that Ave can

provide this information to him.

3. To identify measurement needs.

4. To coordinate liaison between NBS and other Federal agencies.

5. To support continuing education in measurement science.

6. To assure continuous availability of measurement precision and

accuracy as may be required by various government agencies, industry, medical and educational institutions.

7. To eliminate unnecessary duplication of measurement e(iuipment

and resources.

39
8. To extend measurement capability and resources.

9. To identify measurement research needs and transfer this information to the necessary and the a^jpropriate government agency.

Now, that is a lot to expect from a small group; but you would

be surprised how much we have learned from one another by communicating among ourselves and how nmch guidance we have been

able to provide to each other.

We have found the following: (1) the people in weights and

measures understand the legal aspect of measurement control; (2)

the industrial members of the organization can provide input to

some new measuiement requirements; and (3) vai'ious government

agencies have diiTerent problems associated with the same unit of

measurement.

The committee is chaired by AValter Watson, Chief of the Califoi'nia Division of Measurement Standards, and includes two county

representatives, Maynard Becker of Los Angeles County and Eugene

Smith of San Mateo County. Industry is represented by Don Greb

of Lockheed and Dave Mitchel of Rockwell; both Mr. Greb and

Mr, Mitchel have been national presidents of NCSL. Other members include Les Evans of National Astro Laboratory in Burbank,

Dean Brungard from the Teledyne Corporation, Dr. Heath from

the California Highway Patrol, Dr. Bowles from the State of California Water Resources Board, and Dr. Greenberg, State of California Department of Health. Bob Horger, from Santa Clara County,

and Bill Cowan, who have both retired, have also worked with the

group. During Mr. CoAvan's time with the State, he helped give the

State of California Division of Measurement Standards its new

name and higher position in State government. Bill did a lot for

weights and measures, and I am happy to be able to fill in for him

today.

RECENT ACTIVITIES OF THE SCMS COMMITTEE

You might say you haven't heard too much about the activities

of the State of California Measurement System and ask what we

have been doing. Going back through my notes to determine what

we have accomplished, I will give you a brief report. In early

January of this year, Dr. Ernest Ambler and Mr. Ralph Barra

came to Lockheed and gave us information on the various agencies

and people in the State of California who were utilizing the services

of the National Bureau of Standards. They provided a very good

briefing of activities at NBS and what they envisioned as the new

direction of cooi-dination and liaison work with the State.

We were very fortunate at that time to also have the California

Highway Patrol, the Department of Health, and members of the

40
Water Resources Board represented there. I thought it was extremely

interesting to learn that the California Health Department has

certified over 2,500 laboratories here in the State of California. When

I found out that some of these standards are not traceable to NBS

but only to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), I almost

did a backflip.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SCMS

In February of 1975, we met at Rockwell. We developed a charter

committee and assigned a committee to develop a work action form

so that we could issue a form and have an action document submitted to the committee for action or transfer to the proper government agency.

In March of 1975, we met at the Division of Measurement Standards in Sacramento. Dr. Emanuel Horowitz came out from NBS

and provided an excellent briefing in his area. In May of 1975. we

met at the Marriott in Berkeley during the Air Quality Control

Symposium, and we received our charter and bylaws.

In June of 1975, we met again at the Division of Measurement

Standards in Sacramento. Our charter was approved, the work

action document was revised and finalized, and the first action

request was sent out by this committee to the Environmental Protection Agency for action.

That is quite a bit of work in six months. The thing I am proud

of is that we developed a system that will let other work go out of

here much faster. Our next meeting will be in Burbank at the

National Astro Laboratories in October of 1975.

What benefits can we expect from this system? First of all. I

believe we have developed a coordination system for measurement

problems. Second, I think we will have a directory of measurement

resources within the State. Third, I think we will identify legislative needs, and this is whei-e weights and measures officials really

outshine the quality control people in industry. They really know

how to identify conformance and turn it into law. I believe each

state could establish a similar system and particularly work on the

exchange of data.

TRENDS IN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

What are some of the trends? First, there will be more authoritj'^

for weights and measures officials—Ralph Barra mentioned it in

his talk—and a move towards consumer affairs. Here in the State

of California there are many new requirements in the point of

sale, such as the ticket that you use on the Bay Area Rapid Transit

(BART). The money goes in and the automatic ticketing equipment records the cost magnetically. It takes your five dollar bill and

41
gives you $4.40 in change in the form of a ticket. This is a point of

sale. We still don't have legislation on the control. I am sure it is

clone right, but how long will this equipment that is working right

give you integrity in the proper change? These things have to be

worked out.

The second trend is a greater movement towards surveillance.

Mr. Everett Black, in Ventura County, California, has worked in

that area, where the pressure is on the person who uses the device —-he needs to service and maintain his own accuracy and be responsible. This iiction results in greater control and makes better use

of county personnel and resources. Third, I think one of the things we are working for in the State

of California is the assurance that when you pick up a pound of

bacon, regardless of where it comes from, there will be one pound

in that package even if quite a bit of it is water.

CALIBRATION OF POLICE RADAR INSTRUMENTS

by David W. Allax. Frequency and Time Standards Section,

Time and Frequency Division. Institute for Basic Standards,

National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado *

and

Frank H. Bezoticky, Metrologist

Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture

State of Colorado

In common use for traffic speed control is a Doppler radar gun. The basic principle of operation of these guns is that the radar signal

reflected from a moving vehicle is shifted in

frequency by an amount directly proportional

to the speed of the vehicle relative to the

radar gun. Intrinsically one sees that such a radar gun is a frequency measuring device.

The typical w^ay of calibrating these radar

guns is to place in front of the gun a vibrating

tuning fork which produces a reflected signal

to which the radar responds as though it were a moving vehicle.

There exists a well-known relationship between this signal and the

speed of the vehicle provided the radar frequency is known.

A question raised by the judiciary system is how does one know

that a tuning fork used to calibrate a radar gun is at that certain

* Presentation was made by Mr. Allan.

42
specified frequency. Because of this question, several of these tuning

forks have been brought to the Frequency & Time Standards Section of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) in Boulder,

Colorado for calibration. For example, the radar guns now operating, using the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) allocated frequency of 10 525 MHz (a "Hz" historically Avas designated

cycle per second), haA^e a 50 miles per hour calibration point using

a tuning fork with a Aabration frequency of 1569.54 Hz.

The demand for this calibration has increased to the point Avhere

it has become quite clear that it shoidd be set up as an ongoingservice. It seemed out of the context of the XBS mission and logistically difficult to provide this service nationwide. HoweA'er, a rea- sonable alternative seemed to be to have the states' standards

laboratories provide this service. A pilot program Avas set up Avith

the Colorado State Standards Laboratory to demonstrate feasibility

of a measurement system which would have traceability to NBS.

However, the possession of even an NBS calibrated tuning fork

is not enough. Some of the available FCC allocated frequencies for

law enforcement radar include 10 525 MHz and 24150 MHz; the

vast majority of current radar guns use the 10 525 MHz allocation.

Suppose, for example, that a radar instrument which Avas designed

for 10 525 MHz had a microwaA-e oscillator Avhich was detuned (outside the FCC allocation) to 12 000 MHz; then that radar instrument

would measure a vehicle which Avas actually traveling 50 mph as traveling 57 mph even though a 50 mph tuning fork made for that

gun would cause it to read 50 mph. Similarly, if a 50 mph tuning

fork made for a 24 150 MHz type radar gun Avere used to calibrate a properly functioning 10 525 MHz type radar gun it Avould cause

the latter to read 115 mph! For the protection of all parties, it is

essential that both the frequency of the radar signal as Avell as that

of the radar instrument's accompanying tuning fork be certified as correct Avithin accepted accuracies. To directly measure the frequency

of the radar signal is a nontrivial problem requiring sophisticated

equipment ; however, an indirect measurement of the radar frequency

which can be easily implemented in the field is outlined below.

Fortunately, the microwaA'e oscillators typically used in most radar

guns have proven to be A^ery stable, and being solid state devices

they endure the rigors of field usage (e.g., shock, Adbration, large

temperature and car battery voltage A'ariations) and still read ac- curately, i.e., ± 1 mph. The FCC allocation tolerance is comparable

to an accuracy of ± 0.1 mph at 50 mph, and two of the major vendors

in this country, which have sold about 20,000 radar guns, report

43
that of the ones returned for repairs and maintenance almost none

of them were outside the FCC allocation tolerance. It is still recom- mended, however, that the law enforcement officer using the radar

gun occasionally check the radar frequency by transporting the gun

in a A^ehicle Avith a calibrated speedometer, and while pointing the

gun at a stationary object compare the radar gun's I'eading with that

of the calibrated speedometer. The readings should agree within 2

percent ( ± 1 mph at 50 mph) if the radar frequency is correct within

1 percent, the angle of pointing of the radar gun is within about 8°

of the direction of motion of the vehicle, and the speedometer is calibrated to within ± 1 mph.

The above procedure or one equivalent to it is mandatory for completeness because of the way the Doppler equation is used in most

speed radar instruments. The Doppler equation may be written

:

Av 2v cos ©

V C

where v is the radar microwave carrier frequency transmitted by the

gun, Av is the radar signal received by the gun as reflected back from

the moving vehicle minus v. v is the approach velocity of the moving

vehicle relative to the ground. 0 is the angle between the pointing

direction of the gun and the direction of travel of the vehicle, and c

is the propagation velocity of the radar signal. Most, if not all,

radar guns are constructed to simply measure Av under the assumption that 0 is zero (0), and that v is within the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) frequency allocation. Under these as- sumptions the gun can be made to directly calculate and display the

value of y well within a 1 percent error. The tuning fork placed in

front of a properly operating radar gun simply generates the signal

Av commensurate for some velocity v under the same assumption

that if the tuning fork's frequency is right the radar gun's reading

will be right. However, if a gun's radar signal v is off in frequency

(outside the FCC allocation) then this radar gun's indicated velocity

of a vehicle will be off by an amount directly proportional to the

amount v is off from the allocation assumed in the design of that gun. even though a timing fork used to calibrate the gun gave the right

gun velocity indication. The probability of being outside the FCC

allocation seems quite remote and hence the assumption made above

is very reasonable—making the tuning fork method a more con- venient method in the field of checking the radar gun. All that re- mains is to determine a procedure which will assure that the tuning

fork's frequency is right.

44
NBS recommended an equipment configuration for calibrating

the radar gun's tuning fork that would be relatively easy to set Up

and operate, reasonably inexpensive, and yet with sufficient accuracy

traceable to the primary frequency reference operated by NBS. The

following is our first effort to achieve the above goals.

V

Tuning

Fork

Microphone Amplifier Frequency

Counter

FlGTJBE 1

In figure 1 there remains the unresolved question of hoAv does one

know the reference frequency standard in tlie frequency counter is correct? Figure 2 shoAVS a relatively inexpensive answer to this

question

:

Amplifier Filter

(303) 499-7111

WWV Time-of-dav Service

> 600Hz iJjL n n u u

Frequency

Counter

Figure 2

The format for the Standard Time and Frequncy broadcasts of

NBS radio station WWV provides a continuous 600 Hz tone during

every odd minute from 0 seconds to 45 seconds except for a 0.04

second hole where the second's tick occurs, and except for minutes

9, 45, 47, 49, and 51 of every hour. Using this method with the frequency counter set at a sample time of 1 second or a multiple of one

second, one can calibrate the frequency counter to better than 0.4

percent as limited by current telephone frequency fidelity specifications. Only 1 percent accuracy is required for the tuning forks.

The equipment configurations in figures 1 and 2 have been tested

for ease of use and for cross country telephone signal-to-noise

problems on the telephone and were very satisfactory. The equipment cost of the components we used was about $500.00. A number

of other, different equipment configurations are possible and ac- ceptable if they guarantee traceability to NBS; e.g., by use of the

45
NBS Time Services either via telephone (figure 2) or via the radio

station WWV.

The pilot program began in September 1974. Since that time over 200 forks have been tested for more than 40 law enforcement agencies in Colorado and from Wyoming. All of the tuning forks tested

were found to oscillate within 5 Hz of the calculated (correct) frequency (less than 0.2 mph error).

The acceptance by the enforcenient agencies is enthusiastic, particularly for those police departments having court difficulties. About

40 percent of all agencies contacted quickly responded and have had

their tuning forks calibrated. About 10 percent of the departments

have indicated interest and their forks are slowly coming in. Fortyeight percent either did not have radar units or did not have tuningforks for the radar units. Two percent did not find it important to

have the forks calibrated.

Tolerances have not been developed for tuning forks as of this

writing. A tolerance of about ± 1 mph seems acceptable which

corresponds to ± 31 Hz for a 10 525 MHz radar gun. Most of the

tuning forks tested had a frequency averaging 2/10 of 1 percent in excess of the calculated frequency for that particular speed. Note:

this slightly higher frequency is shaded to be a slight advantage to

the violator.

Reports have been received from several police officers that attorneys in court are starting to question the accuracy of tuning forks

that appear to be damaged, referring to the scars appearing on the

forks from striking the unit to make it "ring." Nearly all the forks

tested by the Colorado laboratory bear these marks.

The frequencies of the Colorado tuning forks were within 5 Hz

of the calculated frequencies (same as new forks).

Two forks were tested that appeared to haA^e been run over or

possibly dropped from a moving vehicle. Yet when testing the forks,

the output of each was Avithin 5 Hz of the correct frequency

!

Several forks, when presented for test, did not bear serial numbers or identification. The units Avere tested and the frequencies

recorded. Next, each fork was stenciled with appropriate identification. Markings were placed beloAv the tines and just above the

handle. The forks were retested under the same test conditions. The

frequencies did not change even though this may be interpreted as a scarring of the forks.

Temperature tests were conducted on five different forks Avith

temperatures ranging from 0° F to 110° F. The average change in

miles per hour was only 0.69 mph for the 110° F span. The data for

four of these is plotted in figure 3. Overall, the tuning fork appeals to be a very stable standard

and suitable for the use intended.

46
0 50 100 150

TEMPERATURE (°F)

Figure 3. Equivalent radar gun speed versus temperature for 4 different 50

mph tuning forks. These loere typical tuning forks which are used

to check a radar gun.

Calibration of the frequency counter using the 600 Hz tone derived from the NBS, WWV telephone line has proven itself totally

adequate. The largest errors encountered have been ± 2 Hz (less

than ± 0.1 mph). Note: the telephone signal automaticallj' "hangs

up" after 3 minutes, so one should carefully note the "VVAW format

given in the text under figure 2 before calling (303) 499-7111.

We have received informal reports that significant litigation cost

savings are realized when the law enforcement officer produces an

official calibration certificate which has ultimate traceability to NBS.

DISCUSSION

Mr. R. L. Thompson (Maryland) : Are you familiar with what

they are calling Vascar?

Mr. D. W. Allan (NBS) : Yes, some. Mr. Thompson: Is this appropriate for that type of system?

Mr. Allan : It is not. It is a totally different system.

Mr. Thompson. Thank you.

Mr. C. Wooten (Florida) : You mentioned giving a certificate on

this.

47
Mr. a t.t.an : Pardon me?

Mr. Wootkn: A certificate, a certification. Did I misunderstand

you that you certify these?

Mr. Allan: That is right. We give written certificates.

Mr. Wooten : What we receive on weights is a report of test. Is

that the same as a certificate?

Mr. Allan: Basically.

Mr. Wooten: I have no further question on that, then. Now, if

you calibrate one of these turning forks, what is the life of that

calibration ? Mr, Allan: That is a good question. It seems that these tuning

forks are very rugged. In fact, we have measured some that apparently were run over and bent, and it seems that they have a very

high fidelity in maintaining their frequency. Within the 1 percent

tolerance, they are quite acceptable ; and from year to year you will

see essentially no change.

Mr. Wooten : Will this particular gun stand up in court ? Mr. Allan: AVill the gun?

Mr. Wooten: Yes.

Mr. Allan : We have seen several instances where certificates have

been taken to court for verification of the calibration of the tuningforks and it has helped quite a bit. As far as the gun itself, we are not certifying the gun. If people will raise questions about the inward parts of the gun and electronics, then they must raise those

with the manufacturer.

Mr. Wooten: So, there is always a question, then, of accuracy?

Mr. Allan : There is, to some degree. This question also has been

asked and when you look at it in detail, if the tuning fork gives you

the correct reading, the chances of having an erroneous reading from

a moving vehicle are essentially zero. It is either working or it is not.

Mr. Wooten: Thank you.

Mr. J. E. Bird (New Jersey) : We are trying to get into this, as Harry Johnson is aware of. We are trying to get the funds

through the Highway Safety Act to get this equipment. I am waiting

on a response from them now to get this. In response to Mr.

Wooten and to Dick Thompson, I am quite happy to announce

that within the past month we were sustained in the Superior Court

in New Jersey for our certificates. They now become prima facie

evidence in court; and we do not have to go and testify to the

accuracy of the equipment that we have calibrated or explain the

circumstances. This particular substantiation was involved in a Vascar case where we had laid out and certified the base half-mile/

mile courses for the State police and certified the stopwatches they

used in calibrating those devices.

Mr. Allan: Very good.

48
Mr. G. H. Fishman (J, B. Dee & Co.) : The point I am trying

to bring out is if you are fined on the basis of this gun, money

changes hands. Consequently, I am asking you if this makes the

gun a commercial device and if it requires that it be certified?

Mr. Allan : The gun itself ? Mr. Fishman: Yes, sir. Mr, Allan: I really cannot give you the legal implications of

that. All I know from the history is that tuning fork calibration has

been adequate. The tuning fork is a part of the radar gun system.

When you buy a gun, the companies supply the forks in the same

kit as a part of the calibration procedure. That is a part of the

industrial certification that they give you, that the gun is working

if you get this number with this fork; and I suspect that that is

probably part of a commercial instrument, but I really cannot

answer your question in full detail.

Mr. Fishman: Okay, sir. Thank you.

Mr. J. H. Aket (Wausau, Wisconsin) : Our local police force

is using a radar type device which does not need a tuning fork for

calibration. It has a built-in checking factor. By just pressing a button, you get a particular readout. Are you familiar with this type

of radar device; and, if so, how are these calibrated?

Mr. Allan: I have not seen that particular unit. There is a check position on many counters, and there must be a reference

standard there. Probably what happens when you put it in this

check position is that you cause some oscillator to vibrate to give you

a particular frequency. It has to be that way. That is how it works.

I mean, those are fundamentals, and at some point that unit has to

be calibrated. You cannot get something for nothing.

Mr. L. D. Draghetti (Agawam, Massachusetts) : When you calibrate a radar gun at 50 miles an hour, the tuning fork is set for

50 miles an hour. What is the possibility of the gun being inaccurate

at, say, 40 miles an hour?

Mr. Allan : In other words, is it linear ? Mr. Draghetti: Yes.

Mr. Allan: The physics involved say it has got to be linear,

unless there is something which is extremely pathological in the

gun, which would probably indicate other problems as well. It has

to be linear. It has to be right at 40 if it is right at 50.

Mr. Draghetti: I see. Mr. Allan: The equation itself is a linear equation; and if it works, it has got to be linear.

Mr. S. Darsey (Florida) : Are any variables involved with the

type of metal and the size of the vehicle; for instance, a Corvette

that has a plastic body versus a motorcycle or a big truck or an

49
aluminum vehicle, against a ferrous-type of metal? Are these variables in this thing?

Mr. Allan: Yes, they are. I personally do not have experience

with the radar guns doing this ; but having a background of physics,

knowing that it is a microwave signal and that it bounces off a re- flecting surface, it is those surfaces and the size of the surface that

determines how much signal you get back. It is a signal to noise

problem at microwave. So, the larger the surface, the better the

signal to noise, and it has also got to be the right kind of surface.

Essentially what it boils down to, at 10.525 GHz, is that most of

your metals are excellent reflectors. Plastic is lousy. In other words,

if you have a big truck alongside a Corvette with a plastic body

and he is really racing along, you probably will not see him.

Mk. Darsey: You do not calibrate these, then, based on the type

of vehicle you have? In other words, a truck makes no more difference than a car?

Mr. Allan: No. The police officer in court is going to have to

say that he, in fact, was pointing the gun and he was discriminating

between one vehicle and another. He knows the gun itself has about

an eight degree angle of acceptance.

Mr. Akey : Approximately how many tuning forks were checked,

how many were certified, and how many were found to be in error?

Mr. Allan : In this pilot program, the Colorado State metrologists

sent out to all of the police departments in the State of Colorado

invitations to send in their tuning forks. Let me give you the

numbei-s from his report. He has a paragraph here that indicates

the results. It says the acceptance by the enforcement agencies is

enthusiastic particularly for those police departments having court

difficulties. About 40 percent of all agencies contacted quickly re- sponded and have had their tuning forks calibrated. This number

is in the vicinity of 100 total, some of which are from Wyoming.

About 10 percent of the departments have indicated interest and

their forks are slowly coming in. Forty-eight percent either did

not have radar units or did not have tuning forks for radar units.

Two percent did not find it important to have the forks calibrated.

So, that is basically our response in the pilot program.

Mr. Akey: The question was how many of the tuning forks that

were calibrated were. . . Mr. Allan: You said that and I did not finish the question. As

1 recall, and again I wish Frank were here—if Earl can remember?

Six tuning forks were outside. Was that 1 percent or what?

Mr. E. Prideaux (Colorado) : I think it was about 1 percent or 2 percent.

50
Mr. Allax: If you are off 15 Hz, it can read one way or the

other. If you are off 15 Hz, it can read, for example, 51 miles an

hour as well as 50 miles an hour.

Mr. W. I. Thompsox (Monmouth County, New Jersey) : I wonder

if you could explain the principle of these so-called antiradar outfits

that are being sold in some of the motor magazine ads.

Mr. Allan: Well, there are vanous kinds of devices. One is an

alarm so that you know there is radar in the vicinity. All it is is a good receiver. It receives a 10.525 GHz signal. A light comes on

or a buzzer flashes or something that could tell you to look out.

Another thing that people do that is effective is to have a lot of

moving metal. I have heard the story of people putting alumiiyim

foil in plastic hubcaps so that it flips around inside. Again, it is a signal to noise problem. You have got to have enough moving

metal to overcome all of the other solid moving metal that is moving at the same velocity. But there are various kinds of these tricks

that people, I suppose, have tried. I am not aware of all of their

tactics, but these are examples.

Mr. J. Douglas (Douglas Equipment Company, Inc.) : I would

like to know if it is truly possible for the Highway Patrol, with

radar coming in your direction and you going in the other direction,

to actually measure the speed that you are traveling when you are going toward him ? Mr. Allan : You are both moving ? Both the vehicles are moving ? Mr. Douglas: Right, right.

Mr. Allan : You measure the relative speed.

Mr. Douglas : How can he do it ? Mr. Allan: Well, again, the principle involved is a matter of a

reflected microwave signal between the two vehicles.

Mr. Douglas: Well, I have talked to people in our State on the

Highway Patrol and they say it is not possible. Yet, they use those

machines to do it, and they will nail you for it. Mr. Allan : The thing that I would worry about in that situation

is that they are made to be stationary. They do make a moving

vehicle radar system, but it is a much more complicated system

and this is not what we are talking about. The radar gun that we

are talking about is made to be stationary for the following reason

:

The radar signal goes out and is reflected from the moving vehicle.

A moving vehicle is the only thing that will give you a frequency

different from that you send out. Now, in the environment there are many other cars that are stationary and he (operator of the

gun) is stationary. Those cars will also reflect signals, but they are on the same frequency that he sent out.

51
The radar gun has the capacity to discriminate between those

frequencies that are different and those that are on the frec^uency

that are sent out; so it can tell a moving vehicle relative to itself,

but it cannot see vehicles that are stationary with respect to itself.

So, if you are driving along the road and there are other cars along

the side of the road that are also moving, this would foul up the

system because I do not think it would work well. I do not know. I have not conducted that experiment.

GRAIN MOISTURE MEASUREMENTS AND THE

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES COMMUNITY

by Frank E. Jones, Humidity Section, Heat Division, Institute

for Basic Standards, National Bureau of Standards*

and

Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Office of Weights and Measures,

Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards

The most important factor in the trading

of grain and the most important criterion in

quality determination and pricing of grain is

its moisture content. INIoisture content determines storage and shipping qualities and is interrelated with other quality factors. Grain

is traded by weight, therefore, the water in the

grain is bought and sold at grain prices. For

this reason alone, the measurement of the

moisture content has a major economic impact.

Grain and other similar agricultural commodities are traded on the basis of certain levels of allowed moisture

content, the level depending on the particular commodity. The price

paid to the farmer is reduced ; that is, the farmer is "docked" if the

moisture content exceeds these levels. The grain pricing structure

requires greater accuracy in grain moisture measurement than the

existing system of grain moisture meters provides. This fact is, of

course, well known to the weights and measures official who has the

responsibility for the testing of moisture meters in his particular

state. The problems associated with grain moisture measurement have

been recognized at the National Bureau of Standards for some time.

For example, Dr. Richard W. Eoberts, past director of NBS, said

in his remarks to the 58th National Conference, "There is currently

* Presentatiou was made by Mr. Jones.

52
no moisture measuring device on the market that can be depended

upon to give accurate resuhs at all times. The result is that there is

no efficient method for testing grain moisture meters."

Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science and

Technology, U.S. Depai-tment of Commerce, said at the 59th National Conference, "Accuracy determinations of instruments to

measure moisture in grain are part of your basic mission to insure

equity in the marketplace."

At the same conference, Dr. Arthur O. McCoubrey, director of

the Institute for Basic Standards of NBS, mentioned that our microstudies of the National Measurement System revealed the real importance of determination of moisture in grain and that NBS was

trying to find ways to help solve this problem.

In June 1974 we held a Moisture in Grain Workshop at XBS to

which we invited participants from the grain industry, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the weights and measures community. The objectives of the workshop were (1) to attempt to

arrive at a consensus concerning the most urgent problems in the

determination of moisture in grain, and (2) to obtain advice con- cerning the roles NBS should play. Mr. George Johnson of Kentucky and the late Mr. Edward Waggoner of California represented

the weights and measures community. Mr. Johnson made an excellent presentation of the position of weights and measures officials.

His remarks included the following points. Weights and measures

officials are in the middle of the farmer-elevator situation and are looking to NBS for guidance. They need standards traceable to

NBS, guidance in sampling procedures, performance standards with

reasonable tolerances for moisture meters, recommended user re- quirements, maintenance procedures, specifications of environment

of the meter, and imiform field test procedures covering the sample

and range of grain moistui'e content.

Following the Moisture in Grain Workshop, the National Bureau

of Standards has undertaken a Grain Moisture Measurements and

Standards Program. In fact, there are two grain moisture programs

at NBS. In the Institute for Basic Standards (IBS) the program

is part of a broader Moisture Measurements and Standards Program. The Grain Moisture Program in the Institute for Applied

Technology (lAT) is in the Office of Weights and Measures. There

is very close cooperation between the programs.

The grain moisture programs at NBS include many diverse

facets. We would like to present a progress report on the programs

as they bear most directly on the weights and measures community.

One of the major efforts thus far has been on an early effective

response to the pressing need for solutions to problems associated

53
Avith grain moistui-e meters and the testing of them by state weights

and measures personnel. This effort is a cooperative one between

the states and NBS.

The most numerous grain moisture meters in present use are "capacitance" devices which directly display moisture content or for

which moisture content is determined from a dial reading and calibration charts. A number of the states have, incidentally, supplied us with data on the number of meters of various manufacturers in the

states. This was in addition to responses from state weights and

measures organizations to a questionnaire sent out by the Office of

Weights and Measures. The response is greatly appreciated and the

information is of considerable value to us. The moisture meters are calibrated by the manufacturers (or

by USDA in one case) using grain samples. The moisture content

of the sample is determined by an oven-drying method. In this

method, a portion of a sample of grain is weighed before and after

drying in an oven, the difference in weight being taken as the

amount of moisture in the portion of grain. Of course, there is a sampling problem. However, of even more fundamental significance

is the fact that the oven method is not specific for moisture ; that is,

for example, other substances than water can be driven off. Also, not

all of the water might be driven off. Since the problems associated with grain moisture measurement

vary from state to state, depending on specific crops and varieties,

climate, personnel, resources, etc., it has been necessary for us to

make visits to the states. On these visits we have learned a great deal

which has helped us in developing the program outlined below.

Table 1 illustrates the monetary value of water in the major grain

and soybean crops in one of the midwest states. The value of the

water in each crop is based on an assumed average moisture content.

The last column shows the dockage loss due to a 1 percent error in

the moisture measurement. "Docking" is the practice of reducing

the price paid for the grain when its moisture content exceeds a

specified value. For example, the price paid by an elevator operator

to the farmer for corn is reduced by 1 percent for each 0.5 percent

the moisture content exceeds 15.5 percent. Corresponding values for

the first 14 states with which we had contact are also included in the

table.

Table 2 illustrates the differences that exist between measurements

made on commercial capacitance-type moisture meters. Measurements

were made for three samples of South Carolina com of moisture

content (as determined by the Karl Fischer titration method) ranging from 15.4 percent to 24.5 percent. The maximum difference is seen to range between about 0.8 percent to 1.7 percent in moisture

content. Also included in the table are moisture determinations

54
O

<w

®

S CI

is

cs

©

<vo

oI ^ 1

Hi

o

CD* id 05 t-'

©

(M t- 00 iM Iffl CO ;d ;o i> o

t-' OSo

lO <S©

Q 05

OS

® tX

N lO rH X t- OS »ft ci os' CD CO t-

(M CD iH

©© ic ifl t- la

r-( CD CO

©

© CO

CO T-i

M rH

N w"

03

-^ t»>

Sw cS

oWW

o

O)s

ac

CJ©§

rH5)

fl

ej

ift

(20

T-I

^'H

©'

oJ

T-I

7-1

l-l S3aco

CO

o I £

as II O 4) 9 tH ;h 4 o ® <^ a ^ 4) 0) i(5 p

ej

PP 4) !»

-i-j i-i ^ a CO © eS oj tj ^ H

di

P3O

f4o

ISKPo

Pi

<^P

02 I £ a S a ^ a

4) J5

SIo a; O *

4j ^

aso a

>, >> O 4) a

-So

4io 5

•l-l +J

X C-l t- © r-i r4

00

© tIfl' © lO

IM. tH

©

os"

T-I 1^1

©

X CD

O 00

05 CO CO CO X © * 00

r-l rH C-J

t- t- rH

(M tifi os' rH rH

CO

© rH 05 lO id 05

55
made by the official USDA oven-drying method and a modified

oven procedure formulated by Mr. W. Haward Hunt of the Grain

Division of the Agricultural Mai-keting Service of USDA. Note

that the I'esults for the modified procedure are in close agreement

with the Karl Fischer results.

The Karl Fischer method is a chemical method involving re- action of water with iodine. The method is more nearly specific for

Avater than are oven-drying methods. The water is extracted from

ground grain by a solvent such as methanol and is reacted with

iodine in the titrator. The availability of automatic Karl Fischer

titrators has made it possible for personnel of limited fonnal technical training to use and apply the method.

We have evaluated the Karl Fischer method on a number of samples of grain. Our results indicate that the automatic titrators are

sufficiently precise to serve as a laboratory reference method for

testing moisture meters. However, to complete the evaluation of

the method, we need much moi'e data. We need the help of the states

in acquiring this data. We are inviting the states to help us evaluate

the method.

The program we are recommedning to the states has been designed

to enable the weights and measures official to accomplish the testing

of moisture meters used in commerce ; for example, at grain elevators

and grain dealer establishments. The testing is to be done using

grain samples of known moisture content. The moisture content of

the samples is to be determined in the state weights and measures

laboratory by the USDA oven method, since the moisture meters

have, in most cases, been calibrated by the manufacturer using the

oven method, and by the Karl Fischer extraction method if the re- sources of the particular state permit. The grain samples are to be

kept in sealed glass canning jars, refrigerated if the moisture content

is sufficiently high that the sample would otherwise deteriorate.

Samples with three different moisture contents of each grain of interest are to be taken to the field (again, refrigerated when neces- sary) and dumped into the moisture meter being tested, and meas- urements made in the manner prescribed by the manufacturer of

the met«r. The moisture content indicated by the meter or determined from the use of the appropiiate calibration chart is to be

compared with the known moisture content to ascertain the error

in the meter measurement.

The program briefly outlined above should enable the weights and

measures official to perform his duty of periodically inspecting and

testing the grain moisture meters used for commerce within his jurisdiction. The official will be contributing at the same time to "cleaning up" or optimizing the grain moisture measurement system in

his jurisdiction in a number of ways and will be contributing to the

56
education of the users of the meters. The equipment peripheral to

the moisture meter itself will be inspected; that is, the scale used

to weigh the grain sample, the thei-momet«r used to measure the

temperature of the sample and the calibration chart to be used with

the particular meter will be tested or inspected. Also, the procedures

used by the operator of the meter in making the meter measurements

can be observed and suggestions as to improvements can be made.

The use of an automatic Karl Fischer titrator for determining the

moisture content of the grain samples is optional. However, we en- courage the states to: (1) acquire an automatic Karl Fischer titrator

if their resources permit, (2) make moisture detei-minations on samples of grain grown in the state, by both the Karl Fischer method

and USDA oven method, and provide us with the data, and (3)

send samples of their particular crops to us. We have advised the states concerning the equipment they would

need to carry out the program and have prepared a draft of procedures. We have also set up a training program in the moisture laboratory at NBS in the use of automatic Karl Fischer titration equipment. Weights and measures peisonnel from several states have been

trained in this program thus far.

At present, six States (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and South Carolina) are actively involved in

the experimental program in that they have or will acquire automatic titrators. An additional nine States (Georgia, Illoinis, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin)

have expressed a serious interest in the field testing program. We

have not as yet visited or been contacted by all of the states to

which this program should be of interest. We anticipate that by the

time this appears in print, other states will be involved.

I have talked thus far about a cooperative program between the

states and NBS. We have also contacted the three major manufacturers of commercially used moisture meters about collaborating

with us on an evaluation of automatic Karl Fischer titration for use as their reference method in the preparation of meter calibrations. Two of the manufacturers are interested in such a collaboration. Recently, we met with Mr. W. Hayward Hunt and Mr. Edward

R. Liebe of the Grain Division of the Agricultural Marketing

Service of USDA to discuss collaboration on an evaluation of automatic Karl Fischer titration. We have reached agreement on the

collaborative effort.

Earlier in this session today, Mr. Ralph Barra discussed cooperation between the Federal Government, the states, and other segments

of the community. I would like now to give two examples of the re- sults of such cooperative effort in the grain moisture measurement

programs. In the preparation of grain samples for Karl Fischer

57
titration there has been a need for a means of grinding grain in an

extracting solvent (usually methanol) in a closed system to insure

that neither the grain nor the solvent gains or loses (in the case of

the grain) moisture from or to the atmosphere.

Dr. Kobert J. Smith, of Com Products Company International,

knew of our need and suggested that we use a mixer/mill which he

and his people had used with success in the preparation of corn samples for Karl Fischer titration. We acquired the mixer/mill. Dr.

Leslie A. Guildner of NBS modified the container to provide an

excellent seal, and the problem was solved.

As the second example of the results of cooperation, the State of

South Carolina has been experimenting for about a year with transferring grain samples from their weights and measures laboratory

into the field for use in testing grain moisture meters. They found

that they could preserve high moisture grain samples for several

days if they refrigerated them overnight between uses and for much

longer periods if left in refrigerated storage continually. Coupling

this information to us with our advice to them to use glass canning

jars rather than plastic jars, a number of states have begun to ex- periment in their diverse climates and with different crop varieties

to find a set of procedures which will preserve grain samples for use

in the field for as long as possible or desirable. This example illustrates how cooperative efforts provide results much more quickly

and effectively than we could attain them working separately.

Our job, yours and ours, is not finished. Not all of the problems

are solved. We have not as yet evaluated the capability of or intercompared the many moisture meters used in commerce. This is one

of the tasks we are encouraging the states to get involved in with us. Until it is known what existing meters are capable of in terms of

moisture measurements (separated from their calibration charts),

specifications and tolerances cannot be based on performance capability and, therefore, regulation based on unknown capabilities would

be both premature and subject to change. For example, it is possible

to set tolerances which none of the meters in a state can meet.

We realize that what we are suggesting to you is not strictly a modem regulatory function. However, it is a task that is so important to your states and to the national economy that you should

be involved in it early. We ask you to help us improve grain moisture

measurement and, therefore, contribute toward equity in the marketplace.

58
IMPACT OF ELECTRONICS IN WEIGHING

by John J. Elengo, Jr., Director of Engineering,

Revere Corporation of America, Wallingford, Connecticut

A few weeks ago, I was composing my

thoughts on what impact electronics has had

and will have in the field of weighing. I

thought of the changing world aix)und me. Could electronics really have an impact on the

measurement of weight? Then it crossed my

mind that the meter had been redefined to

wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation and

the second of time to a number of periods of

electromagnetic radiation. Could redefinition

of the kilogram be far behind? I opened my

desk drawer and glanced down at my good old friend—a log log

deci-trig slide rule. Right next to that slide rule was my shiny new.

super, all engineering function, solid state, electi-onic calculator. I

purchased it during a bai'gain sale at the local discount house. I

spent a few nights learning all about it. I wonder if anyone is left

with a warehouse full of log log deci-trig slide rules?

The old saying "the only certain things in life am death and taxes"

is wrong! There is another certainty and that is change—changing

times—changing technology.

Fortunately, as I look about, I realize that this is nothing new to

Americans—we thrive on technological change ! It is a natural part

of our life. We rise to the challenge, then reap the benefits which

result. Each of us recognizes that any occupation incorporates the

need to keep abreast. Our schools—primary, secondary, and advanced—give us the basic fundamentals to allow technical growth

with each new experience.

Stop and think of a few things that have significantly affected our

lives as a result of electrical development. Consider the benefit which

has been brought about. How would your home life be today without the light bulb, the telephone, and the television set ? Would our

factories have to be located alongside rivers and be equipped with

overhead belts for running power to each machine? As it has en- riched our lives, electronics has enriched and will continue to enrich

the field of weighing.

WHERE HAVE WE BEEN? WHERE ARE WE TODAY?

WHERE ARE WE GOING?

We have come a long way through the centuries. I don't know

when weighing was first affected by technological change, but I as59
sum© it started when the first: customer being traded material by

weight decided that he was coming out short and demanded improvement. Fortunately, the concerns of our century are substantially past

the need to weigh more accurately and are more dedicated to improvements in weighing efficiency, data collection, and the more

efficient contiol of assets through weighing. We can thank our forefathers, for the most part, for development and fine tuning of systems of levers, bearings, and weigh beams. A testimony to their

efforts is the fact that here in 1975 scales possessing this method of

construction still hold the majority of the marketplace. Today's

manufacturing engineering technology continues to make the mechanical scale a viable product. However, the state of natural re- sources in the world and the rising cost of labor is begiiming to effect

the economic balance between the mechanical and electronic worlds.

With respect to resources, the rising price of iron and steel is driving the cost of lever scale assemblies ever up. Rising labor costs asso- ciated with intricate fabrications and construction ai^e demanding

that these activities be minimized.

On the other hand, electronic resources, heretofore victim to the

high cost of development, are becoming less and less costly as a

result of paying ofl^ those costs. For instance, today's transistor radio

is available at only a fraction of its cost at early introduction. Large

Scale Integrated (LSI) circuit components provide a single package

containing hundreds of diodes, resistors, and transistors. Their cost

is the same or less than that of a single transistor at early rates. The discovery of electricity has had a pronounced effect on the

lives of everyone. So, it is only normal that it should have a far

reaching effect in the field of weighing. Professor William Thomas,

better known to the world as Lord Kelvin, reported in 1856 that cer- tain wires supporting a weight changed their electrical resistance as the weight changed. In 1938, Simmonds of the California Institute of

Technology and Ruge of the iSIassachusetts Institute of Technology

almost simultaneously perfected a method of bonding fine wires to a surface in such a manner as to be electrically isolated, but in such

intimate mechanical contact as to respond precisely to the movements of that surface. Shortly thereafter both Ruge and Thurston

of Cox and Stevens began to address themselves to the application

of this technology to the field of weighing and the strain gage load

cell began its rise to prominence. An infant technology ? —I guess so. by comparison to techniques pioneered by the Egyptians, Greeks and

Romans; but the modern load cell is a tribute to the technological

efforts of many allied industries. The developments of high quality

tool steels and their heat treatment, the developments of insulating

materials and adhesives, all employed in the manufacture of load

cells, are nearly equivalent infant technologies. Yet, these tech60
nologies are basic to our modern way of life; so in i-etrospect, load

cell technology has been ai-ound for a while.

The strain gage load cell offered and continues to offer a compact,

rugged weight or force sensing means, thereby negating the necessity for massive levers in medium and high capacity scales. The

electronic readout indicators, even the firet ones, are compact and

generally readily transportable. As a result, the first major influx of

electronic weighing apparatus came in the field of aircraft weighing

during World War II—bring the scale to the aircraft, not the aircraft to the scale.

I am certain that most of you are familiar enough with electronic

scales to understand their functioning without dwelling on details.

The load cell produces an output voltage proportional to load. This

voltage is referred to as an analog voltage, because it is continuously

variable with load. The modern electronic weight indicator receives

that voltage, amplifies it, and converts it from analog form to digital

form ; that is, an electrical signal which varies in discreet steps and

can be presented as an arable number on a display. One common

method of analog-to-digital conversion is "dual-slope integration."

A capacitor is charged for a given period of time at a charge rate

which is proportional to the load voltage. The amount of charge

received is, therefore, also proportional to load. Next, the capacitor

is discharged at a constant discharge rate determined by an internal

precision reference voltage. The discharge time, therefore, varies dependent on the amount of charge originally received and thus is

proportional to load. During this discharge period, an electronic

"clock" issues equally spaced pulses. These are counted and the

result displayed. By choosing the appropriate circuit components,

the display reads directly in correct engineering units.

Each clock pulse advances an electronic counter which codes the

number by producing a given voltage on selected electrical lines

arranged in a Binary Decimal Code. Unselected lines within the

arrangement are not energized. Therefore, the digital signal is "onoff" in nature, and the need for precise voltage level determination

is eliminated. This enables positive identification of bits and allows

for the processing of digital weight information with a higher degree

of accuracy than prevously attainable.

Today, rising costs of materials make precise weighing more and

more desirable, not only in the sale of consumable products, but in

their processing. So, it has been in recent years that basic industries

as iron and steel, food, pharmaceutical, chemical and transportation

have looked to the incorporation of electronic weighing to improve

efficiency and reduce costs. The compactness of the electronic weight sensor has enabled its

placement in even the tightest location of a manufacturing process.

61
Here, often the electronic weight signal is employed to control inventories, productivity and scrap. This has resulted in operating

efficiencies. Often this data is tied directly into computer systems and

also serves to cause the actuation of pumps, valves, and alarms. Operators or computers can "dial in" the formula for a multiingredient

batch, initiate a start command and sit back while an automated

electronic weighing system takes over—sequencing material in the

proper sequence, feeding fast for speed, dribbling the last little bit

slow for accuracy of cut-off, compensating for material already past

the shut-off valve, but yet in transit, and checking the tolerance of

the final delivered quantity. It would be difficult to envision the size

and complexity of a mechanical equivalent to this electronic scale means. As to where we are going, we need only to look about. Has your

local butcher gone electronic yet? Many have. It's a natural in a computing scale. Many new electronic industrial platform scales

offer low height, portability, and eliminate the necessity of con- structing pits. Electronics has increased the speed and improved

the accuracy of checkweighing and classification.

Let's take a quick look at the growth of electronic weighing over

the past decade. Working on a basis of load cell units placed in

service, let's establish our base index of reference at 100 for the units

placed in service in 1963. Consider the following growth

:

In just the past three years, we have seen the volume rate of load

cell units placed in service double.

We are witnesses to a major evolution in the field of electronics and

weighing. This evolution is in its infancy as is yet the electronic

evolution itself. The sensitivity and stability of electronic measuring

circuits will advance to the state where resolutions of one in two

hundred thousand are practical. The employment of such resolution

will be limited by physical parameters other than electrical. The

cost of logic decisions associated with process weighing, already at a fraction of the cost of a few years ago, will continue to be lowered

by orders of magnitude. Complex instrumentation and control circuitry will be reduced to a few groupings of electrical components

called Large Scale Integrated (LSI) arrays. The result is the elimination of hundreds and thousands of interconnecting wires and the

Year Units—1963 Based Indeo'

1963

1967

1971

1972

1973

1974

100

135

200

235

345

425

62
labor associated with assembling and troubleshooting. In more

sophisticated weighing systems, power requirements, already re- duced from the high consumption rate of thermoionic vacuum tubes

to the low consumption rate of transistors, will be reduced even

lower. This miniaturization of circuitry and reduction in heat generation will result in a decrease in overall size of the electronic scale

package. Low cost load cell/flexure arrangements will replace lever

systems, particularly in bench scales.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE FACE AS A

RESULT OF ELECTRONICS IN WEIGHING?

If you do not have an electrical or electronic background, listen

closely. One of our past Presidents said : "We have nothing to fear,

but fear itself." I wish to emphasize the word "we"—I have a secret. Although I am addressing myself to the impact of electronics, my

training is in mechanical engineering. Probably the first hurdle to cross in becoming familiar with electronic weighing is to apply a basic understanding of the science of electricity to the products at

hand. Too often, we tend to shy away from becoming familiar with

an electronic device, because we view it as a mysterious black box.

We are afraid to understand its basic method of functioning as it might be too sophisticated ; this is not so ! We need only understand

the details of a simple functional block diagram and should not

allow the intricacies of the detailed circuitry to overcome us. The second hurdle to cross is the "electronic language barrier. Sure

any new technology has some new words to learn, but generally they

are just new language applied to old common sense functions. I

supervise many electronic engineers. Most of the time I find myself

sajdng, "Okay, now say it again, but this time explain it to me in

ordinary layman common sense terms." I think we all have been

around enough to have learned that every different industry which

uses scales has its own industry jargon—^but, after visiting an installation one or two times, you find yourself using their terms too. I suppose the next generation of scale men will have less difficulty.

They are exposed to electronics at home and in school right from

the start. But, if today's generation is going to hold its own competing for advancement as tomorrow's generation arrives, and it is already arriving, then what is needed is a bit of self-motivation to

accept the natural challenge which technological change brings and

climb on board.

HOW DOES ONE ADAPT TO THE TECHNOLOGY OF

ELECTRONIC SCALES?

Once anyone gains exposure to a new technology, what once might

have been a special consideration becomes common sense when under63
stood and put into regular practice. Surely, you would not expect

the same performance from a scale significantly out-of-level as you

would from the same scale properly leveled. So too, with the con- version of weighing equipment from mechanical technology to electronic technology, there are some special considerations to be learned

and, in time, they too will become common sense. For instance, by now, w^e are all familiar enough with electrical

power distribution to know that all sources of energy are not of

the same quality. Oft-en in industrial environments, high current

motors ai"e regularly switched on and otf. During switching, the

power line can undergo abnormal electrical transients. For this

reason, the electronic scale is connected to a separate circuit nor- mally shared only by plant lighting. A simple enough consideration

for a precision scale and certainly no more demanding than finding a level place to set a scale down, but one that has to be recognized

by the equipment designer, installer, and user. The designer incorporates circuitry to provide for accurate perfoi'mance under nonnal

line fluctuations. The installer insures that the equipment is installed

in accordance with the designer's recommendations to prevent misoperation. The user follows the correct operating procedure and

maintains the equipment in good working order by performing regular preventive maintenance service. The result of this mutual technical understanding is a successfully operating scale.

Recently, there has been much discussion concerning the effects

of Radio Frequency Interference, commonly referred to as RFI, on

electronic scales. An incident was noticed that a scale read incorI'ectly when a mobile transmitter was operated nearby. Other similar

incidents are reported in other parts of the country. Concern sets in —and rightly so. Is their a need to gain new understanding on the

part of the designer, the installer, or the user? Where does the

weights and me^asures official, as the guardian of the public, fit in

this matter?

Certainly, radio waves have been around long before the first

electronic scale. Why should they present any more of a problem

now than previously? We understand the effects they produce and

the corrective measures which must be incorporated to tolerate their

presence.

In simplicity, the radio wave, which is an alternating curi'ent voltage, can be picked up on interconnecting wiring or power lines and

carried to the electrical components within a scale enclosure. Some

electrical components are capable of rectifying these signals, and

the resulting voltage can destroy the accuracy of an electrical weight

signal, if not suppressed. In the same simplicity as above, suppression is achieved by utilizing shielded interconnecting cables, proper

grounding of the scale instrumentation system, and incorporating

64
circuits which bypass the radio signal before it reaches any component which will rectify it or inapress it on the weight signal. This

technology is not new in the field of electronics. It was perfected

during World War II for the protection of military electronic devices and has been used extensively by many electronic scale manufacturers.

Because not all electronic scales have been adequately provided

with means to prevent radio frequency interference, its effects have

been observed in all too many instances and have raised just concern. Recognizing the need to provide weights and measures official

with an understanding of the problem and a means of determining

that a scale is adequately protected against RFI, the Scale Manufacturers Association has formed a committee to prepare recommendations for consideration by the Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances of this body by the time of their interim meeting next

January

.

In closing, may I challenge you once again lest you too become

caught with a warehouse full of log log deci-trig slide rules. We are

scale men first and that is our expertise. Regardless of how that

weiighment is technically performed, we are experts in obtaining correct weighments. With a little effort and self-motivation keeping up

with the change from purely mechanical to electromechanical to electronic weighing will be easy and painless, interesting and rewarding65
TUESDAY EVENING—JULY 15, 1975

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP RECEPTION

The Associate Membership Committee hosted a reception on Tuesday evening for the enjoyment of Conference delegates. This reception was sponsored by contributions from the associate members.

Photographs of the reception and representatives of the sponsors are shown.

66
MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1975

(H. E. Sandel, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND THE CONSUMER

by Maynard H. Becker, Director, Department of Weights

and Measures, Los Angeles County, California

Throughout the ages of man there have been

three general continuous quests:

1. For the fountain of youth

2. For an eternal life

3. For a formula which will grow hair on

a man's head.

The possibilities of such achievements and the

social implications are undoubtedly interesting,

but equally interesting and currently more

practical is the continuous economic protection provided to millions

of consumers by their local weights and measures officials throughout the United States.

I would like to begin by briefly reviewing weights and measures

activities from the past to the present as they relate to the con- sumer. As you may know, weights and measures is one of the oldest

forms of consumer protection.

In my opinion, weights and measures activities in the United

States are in four stages of development or transition. I have identified these stages as

:

1. The Service Stage

2. The Regulatory Stage

3. The Enforcement Stage

4. The Administrative Technology Stage

When weights and measures initially received its start in the

United States, the only knowledgeable people in the field of commercial weighing and measuring were the weights and measures device manufacturers and the device repair and service personnel. The

Service Stage was implemented at this time. It was only natural that

the first nucleus of weights and measures inspectors would be from

the service and repair people. As a result weights and measures

activities were performed more as a service agency to the weighing

and measuring device owner. Repairs and adjustments to inaccurate

equipment were often made by the weights and measures inspectors.

67
Indeed, this service method was more often the most expedient way

of getting the job done. Package inspection was at a minimum.

Next, the Regulatory Stage began to appear. As time passed and

economic and other conditions changed, there was a gradual change

to the regulatory approach to weights and measures activities. The

regulatory approach placed emphasis on detennining whether or not

weighing and measuring equipment and packaged commodities were

accurate at the time of inspection. Inaccurate devices were now

tagged out of order and inaccurate commodities ordered off sale.

Repairs, adjustments and other corrections were left up to the

merchant whose equipment or packages were found to be in violation

of local or state laws and regulations. During the regulatory period

it became very apparent that a tremendous growth in packaged commodities was taking place.

The Enforcement Stage represents that period when some weights

and measures jurisdictions began to hold the merch&.nt responsible

and accountable for inaccurate weighing and measuring equipment

and for packaged commodities which were found to be short weight

or short measure. By this time in many areas throughout the United

States, service and repair companies were now capable of providing

preventive maintenance service for the weighing and measuring

equipment used by business and industry. Commensurate with this

concept of responsibility and accountability is the admonishment or prosecution of violators of weights and measures laws and regulations.

The last stage is that of Administrative Technology. This stage concerns itself with the weights and measures official using and

applying the latest developments in management techniques to the

functions of his organization. Increased costs of everj^hing, including labor, material, taxes, etc., mandate that every organization, and

particularly government, provide the best service or enforcement

possible with the financial resources available.

No knowledgeable person adopts a plan of insuring himself or

his possessions against loss or disaster without first comparing the

cost of such protection as it relates to anticipated benefits. This same

analysis also applies to the protective enforcement activities of

weights and measures programs.

One of the objectives of a government pi-ogram is that it respond

to the needs of the people. When taxpayers of a state, county or city

invest a certain portion of their tax dollars to prevent their receiving short weight or short measure, they have a right to realize sav- ings from enforcement activities in excess of the cost of the enforcement programs.

Today, many pi'ogressive weights and measures officials are care- fully and assiduously applying cost-benefit analysis to their tradi68
tional weights and measures pi-ograms. In my opinion, the stage of

Administrative Technology will initiate more challenges and changes

to the traditional approach to weights and measures than have taken

place in the last fifty years.

WHAT WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DOES FOR THE CONSUMER

The term "weights and measures" may mean different things to

different people. In a philosophical sense it means that equity shall

prevail in all commercial transactions involving determination of

weight, measui-e, or count. To the merchant, it may mean assurance

of fair competition, that both he and his competitor are required to

sell a full pound, gallon or count. On the other hand, to the merchant it may mean just another level of government interference

with free enterprise. To the consumer, it may mean assurance of

receiving correct weight, measure, or count at the marketplace. To

the taxpayer, "Weights and measures—what's that? No wonder our

taxes are so high !" Throughout the United States, various weights and measures offi- cials are charged with the enforcement of state or local laws pertaining to weights and measures. Adequate and proper enforcement of

these laws is necessary to protect the pocketbook of each and every consumer. What most consumers take for granted—^a full gallon' of

gasoline, a full pound of coffee, butter or bacon—are the results of

weights and measures inspection and enforcement activities.

In general, your weights and measures official provides consumer

protection through five major programs of enforcement. The inspection of commercially used weighing and measuring devices; the

statistical sampling and inspection for label and content accuracy

of various packaged commodities; a test purchase program for determining accurate use of the device and the correct extension of

prices charged; the investigation of consumer complaints; and last,

providing consumers with educational material relative to weights

and measures matters and directing consumers' attention to proposed legislation which is not in the consumers' best interest.

Inspection of the various weighing devices is generally accomplished by going to the many places of business and placing varying

amounts of test weights upon the scale to be tested. If the scale

does not pass inspection, it is tagged out of order, and the merchant

cannot use the device until repairs have been made and the scale

retested.

Examples of scales tested include those used to weigh drug prescriptions, candy, food items, building materials, truckloads of commodities and many other items weighed at time of sale, or for the

determination of a weight on which a charge for a service is based.

69
Most metering devices are inspected by passing through the meter

the commodity to be measured. For example, a gasoline dispenser at a service station is inspected by actually delivering a seiies of five

gallons of gasoline, as determined by the meter reading, into an ac- curately calibrated five-gallon measure or container. The amount of

gasoline delivered into the container is compared with the meter

reading to determine the meter accuracy. Other meters inspected by

your weights and measures official include those used to measure

water, oil, cryogenic liquids, electricity, and gas vapor.

There are still other meters for measuring distance and time,

such as taximeters, odometers on tow trucks, ambulances and rental cars ; as well as parking lot timeclocks ; parking meters ; laundromat

timer's on dryers and other timers. Again, inaccurate meters like

inaccurate scales are tagged out of order. Since the use or possession

of an inaccurate weighing or measuring device generally constitutes a misdemeanor violation, admonishment of violators ranges from

verbal warnings to court prosecution.

It is the practice of many weights and measures officials to place a paper seal on the device after inspection to indicate the device was

accurate when inspected. In my opinion, such a seal tends to convey

a false sense of security to both merchant and consumer by implying

that the presence of the weights and measures seal guarantees ac- curacy from one weights and measures inspection to another. Such

an assumption of accuracy is far from the truth.

While inspection of scales and meters constitutes one of the five

major enforcement programs, the largest and most complex is the

second program, that of packaged commodity inspection. If there is one area in which weights and measures has not kept pace, it is the

tremendous avalanche of packaged commodities. Each man, woman

and child purchases and consumes on the average each year 1,000

packaged items. In California alone that amounts to over 21 billion

packages; 65.9 percent of the total commercial dollar trade involves

packaged commodities.

Over the years the roles of the merchant and consumer have

changed significantly. Today, the local merchant's shelves are stocked

with hundreds of packaged products which were previously weighed

or measured by the merchant at time of sale from his bulk supply of

the product. Today when practically every food pi-oduct, as well as most other merchandise, is sold in prepackaged form, the consumer

is not present when the article he or she buys is weighed or measured. It has become increasingly the obligation of weights and

measures officials to make sure that the consumer's interest in this

type of transaction is safeguarded.

The revolution in the distribution of food has resulted in many

changes. It has brought about mass production, with giant manufac70
turing and distributing agencies; it has brought fierce competition

where only the most efficient may hope to survive; and with the effi- ciency has come the most searching cost-accoimting procedures.

These cost-accounting methods emphasize that if the package contains an on-the-average quantity, however small, above that declared

on the label, the resulting economic loss, when multiplied by the

volume of modem production, becomes a truly substantial loss of

money to the packer. By the same token, if the package contains an

on-the-average quantity that is less than the declared amount, the

consumer stands to have a substantial sum of money taken fI'om him

wrongfully.

Industry is constantly under competitive pressure to work as close

to the declared weight or measure as possible. This fact is understandable, but with little or no margin for error it inevitably in- creases the chance for short weight or short measure to occur. Such

a condition is particularly true when an industry has a weak or ineffective quantity control program.

To protect consumers from nonlabeled, mislabeled and shortweight or short-measure packages, weights and measures officials inspect hundreds of thousands of packaged commodities each year.

Proper and infoiTnative label information can be easily verified from

Adsual inspection. However, detennination of accurate package contents requires the application of a sophisticated statistical sampling

system based on an average concept. Simply stated, if the average

content of the commodity being inspected equaled or exceeded the

stated net content, the packages would pass inspection. If the aver- age content were less than the stated amount, the packages would

be placed off sale. When placed off sale, packages cannot be sold until

they have been corrected by remarking them or adding sufficient

product to make them acceptable.

For items weighed or measured at time of sale, such as delicatessen

items, meat, produce, fruit, candy, gasoline, oil, etc., many weights

and measures officials conduct test purchase programs. The test purchase method of inspection not only verifies the accuracy of the

equipment used but the accuracy of the person performing the

weighing or measuring, and in general will uncover any attempt to

defraud the consumei'.

In addition, thousands of consumer complaints are received and

investigated by weights and measures officials. Generally all complaints are accepted including anonymous telephone calls and letters.

Lastly, weights and measui-es officials within their budget limitations will provide consumers with brochures, speakers and infonnation through news releases relative to weights and measures matters.

In particular, consumers are generally informed about pending legislation which the weights and measures official considers not to be

in the best interest of the consumer.

71
WHAT CONSUMERS CAN DO FOR THEMSELVES

In concluding my presentation I will discuss what consumers can do for themselves and their local weights and measures official. There

are a number of actions the consumer can take to protect himseFf or

herself and to assist the local weights and measures officials. It is suggested to consumers that they continuously observe the various

weighing and measuring pixxiedures in their daily business transactions. Get out of your car and observe the delivery of gasoline and

oil to your oar. The checkstand operation, the candy store, the delicatessen and over-the-counter meat sales are but a few of the weighing and measuring transactions visible to the consumer. An honest

and careful merchant should welcome his customer's participation in

the sales transaction.

When purchasing sale items, consumers should pay particular

attention that the sale price and not the regular price is charged.

Many honest mistakes are made over sale items. Nevertheless, the

loss to the consumer is the same whether or not the overcharge was

intentional or inadvertent.

Those consumers interested in Avatching their household budget

should take advantage of the store items that are unit priced. Price

comparison of different sizes of the same brand of product will provide money-saving information. Carefully reading the package label

and the net content statement will also provide infonnation for an

intelligent purchasing decision.

Consumers can assist their local weights and measures official by

reporting to him possible weights and measures violations and supporting the annual budget request of the weights and measures department. Remember, your weights and measures official can protect

you approximately 50 percent of the time. Consumer alertness should

protect you the other 50 percent.

In closing, a continuing equity at the marketplace requires an

effort on the part of both the weights and measures official and the consumer. Teaching a child to cross the street by telling the child

to wait for the green light is but half the lesson. The child should

also be taught to wait before crossing the street to see if the traffic

will stop.

DISCUSSION

Ms. J. Kendall (Chicago Consumer Coalition) : Mr. Becker, I

would like to know if there is any consumer input into the panel, or whoever it is, that decides Avhich new scales are the ones to be approved for use in the retail market.

Mr. M. H. Becker (Los Angeles County, California) : There is none.

72
Ms. Kendall: Is there any industry input? I am sure there is. Mk. Becker: Well, yes. The developers of new equipment, of

course, in their sales programs and promotions attempt to sell these

devices and systems to the various agencies which would use them.

Ms. Kendall: I would like to suggest that somewhere along the

line you do include consumers in this kind of decision making. We

are the people who have to buy the things that are weighed by

these scales in the supermarket. A few years ago we were in Washington at the Conference and brought up the fact that so many of

these can be cheated upon electronically by different means and

screwdrivers and what not. Now, with the new digital scales that

are in mainly produce and delicatessen sections of the store, there

is an easy method of cheating; and it is too easily explained by the

person using the scale. That is where you can charge by the half

pound or the quarter pound or the pound. Say, in a delicatessen

counter you have a pound of potato salad for 69 cents and the person

who used the scale before had it set for the price per half pound.

This has happened to me personally. If they forget to readjust that

thing, you will be paying $1.38, for instance, for a pound of potato

salad that should be 69 cents—^double. And it is so easy for the person

to say, "Oh, gee. I just forgot to set it."

Why do you have to have it at the quarter pound or half pound ? Why can it not just be price per pound?

Mr. Becker: I would suggest that consumer groups having this

interest should make their views known to the people who are using

the equipment. In other words, if you do not feel that the type of

equipment your local merchant has is in your best interest, I would

suggest you make it known to him.

Ms. Kendall: Yes, but we do not get to know that there is a

digital scale coming along with all these things until it is in the

store, and we see it, and it is there. Then it is always too late.

Mr. Becker: Well, let me add this, if it is any comfort to you.

These devices, at least in California, are approved. Nothing is entirely

foolproof; and in our routine and intermittent spot checking, of

course, we attempt to find any hankypanky that may be going on. As I discussed, under our test purchase program, any honest mistakes or intentional mistakes are found when we pose as customers

and buy over the scales or any type of weighing and measuring

device.

Ms. Kendall: It seems to me that the Bureau's main function

should be to see that the scales that are finally approved should

provide the least chance for this kind of error rather than just

making it easier. Thank you.

Mr. L. D. Draghetti (Agawam, Massachusetts) : Mr. Chairman,

I am the inspector of weights and measures for the Town of Aga73
warn. In that capacity, I am also the consumer commissioner for

the Town of Agawam; and I act in the dual capacity. I am sure there are a good many sealers in this auditorium right now that

are acting in the same capacity. As far as the devices are concerned,

the approval of type for their use in the State of Massachusetts

must be ceitified first by our Director of Standards. I know, for

example, the fellows from New Jersey Avould take exception, as I

do, because there are many of us who are acting in a dual capacity in

our own jurisdictions.

Mr. H. E. Sandel (San Bernardino County, California) : Thank

you. Syd, did you have some words of wisdom?

Mr. S. D. Andrews (Florida). I just have to take the oppoilimity

to inform this young lady that this entire Conference is made up

of weights and measures officials representing jurisdictions. As such,

they are servants of the taxpayers, and we represent the consumers. But, balancing this is the industry people. We are here primarily

to represent the consumers, and my boss would not tolerate me for

one day if I did not stand up and represent the consumers. The fact

that we are frequently referred to as the third man in commercial

transactions is because we must be dedicated to fairness to both

parties in the transaction, and to be fair does not necessarily mean

that you are prejudiced one way or the other. Please, I hope you

will accept the fact that this entire Conference is made up of representatives who ai'e dedicated to protecting the consumer. You have

one in your State and your county, and all you have to do is feed

input to him. You are well represented, be assui'ed.

REPRESENTING THE CONSUMER INTEREST IN

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW ENFORCEMENT

by Helen E. Nelson, Director, Center for Consumer Affairs.

University of Wisconsin-Extension, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

What I want to do this morning is try to

give you a little insight into the consumer

movement as it is today, and then I'll try to

state my ow^n feelings about the pioblem that

confronts us all : How to measure net weight.

THE STATE OF CONSUMER

REPRESENTATION TODAY

Let me first talk about the state of consumer

representation today so you will know who the

cast of characters is. You have heard from one

g, Jackie Kendall, speaking for a group of

74
young housewives in Chicago who have been woi-king, in the con- sumer interest, with government and industry. Their work is primarily centered on the supermarket problem. I would guess they

have been functioning for about five years.

Consumer organizations—consumer groups—are also taking shape

at the national level. Consumers Union is one of the oldest con- sumer groups. It will celebrate its 40th anniversary next year. It

is the issuer of Consumer Reforts. It puts out about 2i/4 million copies of that magazine every month. About 350,000 members vote in the

annual election for the Board of Directors. Consumers Union has

real influence in the marketplace and in the consumer movement.

Consumer Federation of America is a group of about 200 con- sumer organizations around the country that have federated together. They have offices in Washington with a staff of about five

people. They represent the consumer interest in legislation in Congress and sometimes in the states. The annually convened membership

meeting adopts a policy statement which guides the staff in the

positions that they take throughout the ensuing year. Anybody can

get a copy of their policy statement and know where they stand

on a lot of issues.

The National Consumers League celebrated its 75th anniversary

this year. Their primary interests are in the field of food and health.

The American Council on Consumer Interests is a professional

organization of teachers, writers, economists, and people working

in the field.

The National Consumers Congress came into being after the

meat boycotts in the summer of 1972. Also headquartered in Washington, D.C., this group is organizing local groups with a grant from

Consumers Union.

In Washington we also have the Nader-oriented centers. One is the Center for Science in the Public Interst, which concerns itself

with the application of technology to the consumer interest.

So, as you can see, a good number of consumer organizations have

come into being nationally and are functioning every day in the

consumer interest, primarily by relating to government agencies.

Consumers Union has five attorneys in Washington and one in

San Francisco whose chief activities are filing suits against governmental agencies to push them to do the things that the Board of

Directors of Consumers Union feel are their responsibility. They

have successfully moved the Veterans Administration, the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA), and the Federal Reserve Board re- cently; and this will go on. The western representative here in California sued the State

Pharmacy Board and required them to drop their regulations which

prohibit the advertising of drug prices.

75
So, the point of this as I see it is that the consumer movement

is maturing. It is being served by professionals now, and it is going

to be more and more a professional posture that you will find the

consumer organizations taking.

There is also in-govenunent representation for the consumer today.

There are about 300 state and local consinner agencies in the coimtry now. Some of you direct those. Many of you have the responsibility for weights and measures and consumer affairs too, as we heard

this morning. In many others the two functions are not merged

together; but the consumer agency is a complaint handling agency

and a consumer advocacy agency without a regulatory responsibility.

Both models occur. At the Washing-ton level, you know, you have Virginia Knauer's

office, which now has over a million dollar budget. The government

agency with the greatest authority to work in the consumers' behalf

is Puerto Rico's. There we have an agency Avith a regulatory responsibility, an information service responsibility, and a budget of five

million dollars.

The Congress will pass the consumer agency bill this year, which

will put the consumer's name on several doors in Washington and

budget it for some money. It remains to be seen what President Ford

will do with it, but I expect that the closer we get to election, the

more favorably he will look upon it. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in its new amendments,

has provided funds of a million dollars to permit consumers to

appear before it, to participate in its hearings, to do research and

present evidence for the Commission's consideration.

The Food and Drug Administration is more and more putting

consumers on all of its committees, and it has a multitude.

Departments which ai-e members of the energy task force in the

Federal Government (there are five or six members such as Commerce and Transportation) are required by the President to have

a consumer advisory council. So, we are now structuring government

to get input from the consumer.

CENTER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS ACTIVITIES IN

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

This is another thing about which I wanted to report briefly to

you. At the last meeting a year ago in Washington, I reported to you

that our Wisconsin Center for Consumer Affairs had just taken over Leland Gordon's Center for Weights and Measures. In our first

year's program we have done a few hopeful things.

First, we initiated a newsletter to go to these 300 consumer agencies around the country and to weights and measures people, if they

wish. We are putting weights and measures news in this newsletter

76
for the consumer agency directors; and we are trying to educate

the consumer agency directors about some of the issues on weights

and measures. Next, we had a conference just last week; a seminar for the directors of state and local agencies. We had a session on weights and

measures and problems of net weight law enforcement. Mr. Charles

Vincent from Dallas, Texas was on our program and INIr. Gene

Smith from San Mateo County, California. So, you were well represented.

Also, we are tiying to educate and inform some of the consumer

group leaders about the issues in weights and measures so that these

consumer groups can function effectively and at any level necessary

when addressing themselves to weights and measures problems.

Toward that end, we convened early this spring a meeting of representatives of each of the national organizations that I have enumerated and a designated representative from the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (TJSDA), the Federal Trade Connnission, a state sealer

who is a committee member in the National Conference on Weights

and Measures, and a city sealer who is an officer of a regional association. So we had government well represented, with the exception

of FDA. The FDA could not spare anybody to come out and tell tis what their program was or is, and thereby saved somebody from

great embarrassment because their pi'ogram is practically nil at

this point.

We are going to issue a report of this two-day seminar, so it will

go to more people than were able to participate.*

We leai'ned a great deal about Washington's failure to share

information with consumers. The fact is that no consiimer, no anybody, is allowed to participate in the interagency meetings where

problems of net weight law enforcement are being discussed among

Federal agencies. No minutes are kept at the meetings ; but our fate

and maybe yours is being acted upon or is certainly being discussed.

The consumer groups took the fact that there was no record, that

the meetings were not public, to be a slight, if not a slap.

We learned that the USDA's regulations were thrown out by the

court as being too vague. We already knew that the FDA didn't

have any. We learned that the Federal Trade Commission has taken

action on only one product under the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act, under which they have a responsibility for all nonfood items.

On soap, they simply told the soap manufacturers that every bar

of soap had to weigh what it stated, and the soap manufacturei-s

complied.

* Conference Report: Consumer Briefing on Net Weight Law Enforcement is now avaUable from the Center for Consumer Affairs, Universitj' of Wisconsin-Extension, 929 North

Sixth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203.

77
One of the people at our conference was a staff member from the

Senate Commerce Committee. He said that his committe staff had

made a study after the FTC took this action some time later. They

made it before and after, and they could find no evidence of a price

increase.

If there is any other concrete evidence of what happens when

you make an industi-y package every item to weigh what the label

says it weighs, I have never seen it; and I would certainly like to

see it. We get talked to all the time about how this is going to cost

the consumer money, but how nmch? Give us a price. Let us relate

to the cost. Let us know how much it would cost. Don't just give

us hyperbole that it will cost a lot,

CONSUMER LOSING TRADITIONAL BUYER'S RIGHTS

I would remind you that traditionally the consumer has had

certain rights, as once all buyers had. Today, we find that other

buyers still have these rights protected, yet the consumer is being

deprived of them. Traditionally, the buyer has the I'ight to examine

the product. Now, on the commodity market, the big food companies still have that right. They can examine the agricultural

products they buy or specify a certain govermnent grade so they

do not have to examine it. There is a whole orderly system in our

marketplace which lets the buyer decide what he is going to buy

and lets him know what he is buying before he has bought it —up to

the point where you get to the consumer. The big buyers select by

quality grades and by standards. The consumer has scarcely any

of those buyer's rights left any more. For example, the canned vegetable may come all the way to the

retailer with a grade on it. Everybody knows the grade imtil it gets

to the consumer, and then the consumer gets a pretty picture.

Another traditional buyer's right is the right to find out the price.

As you heard from our fii-st speaker this morning, that is getting

harder and harder to do in the supermarket. That is why consumers

struggled so hard to get unit pricing. Even whei'e it was introduced,

it is not being kept up to date on the shelves. Consumers have come

to understand that we cannot rely on it. They are going to take us consumers still further into this void by taking off even the package

price now.

Consumers and only consumers are losing this right to know what

the price is in compai'able units. Consumers, as buyers, are becoming

second class citizens. The buyer has traditionally always named the

quantity he wanted to buy. Every buyer still does that, except the

consumer, and the consumer cannot do it. Traditionally, the buyer

has always been able to make sure that he got full weight. Witness

the Biblical injunction, "Let the buyer be present when the wine

78
is drawn." Now consumers have lost much of that right and are threatened with even greater loss of that right.

Consumers are not enjoying the traditional rights of buyei-s in

the marketplace today—rights that other buyers higher up in the

distribution channel do have. To remedy this situation—to restore

these rights—consumers have to look to the weights and measures

officials.

NET WEIGHT LAW ENFORCEMENT

The weights and measures people are about the favorite government agents of consumers. Few governmental officials, particularly

in the regulatory processes, are held in as high esteem by con- sumers as are you weights and measures people. Your chairman

points out that you represent the consumer. My response is, I sure hope so because we need it. On the crucial matter of net weight law enforcement, I address

you as law enforcement officials. That is what you are. One issue on

net weight law enforcement is when are we going to determine net

weight of packaged products? Are we going to determine it when

packed or when it is exchanged between seller and buyer?

One of the first things I learned fifteen years ago about law en- forcement in packaged goods transactions was that you cannot put

on the box "weight when packed." Now, after all this, we look as if

we might consider legalizing it. I think it is shocking.

You have also got the issue of how you are going to determine

illegality, and then the very large issue of by whom it is going to be

done. How you define legality and illegality of the amount of a product sold by weight or measure is of profound concern to con- sumers. A matter of such fvuidamental concern to all consumers—

a

matter of economic and legal justice both—cannot be "so technical

that they could not understand it."

The legality of daily marketplace exchanges of money for goods

touches every citizen. How is the consimier to maintain faith in our market economy if he or she is told by the law enforcement officials

that it is legal to get less than the package states he or she is getting ? Once you sanction shortweight but continue as law enforcement

officers, the next challenge to you is inevitable. You will have to

define "too short."

Will the Federal agencies preempt the field ? The USDA is already

trying to in their enforcement of the Wholesale Meat Inspection

Act of 1967. The FTC takes the position that they do preempt. They

will yield to a state law only when it gives the consumer more protection than their regulation does.

So, we have got a real threat from the Federal agencies as far

as who is going to do the law enforcement. I think consumers would

79
give more credence to their local weights and measures officials

checking in the retail store than they would to USDA checking in

the plant of the packer.

Consumers do not put uniformity as high on their priority list

as maybe law enforcement people do; and I can see how law en- forcement people would. Consumers tend to fear uniformity of

some kinds. They fear that it will be uniformity at the lowest common denominator. I think their instinct is if we are going to have

uniformity, we better have it be Federal regulation because we can watch those boys better; and there is one site of decision instead of

the thousands of sites that we have now.

I am really very hopeful that the National Conference on Weights

and Measures, made up of state and local enforcement officials, can

rise to the challenge this year.

One final plea, I think I heard correctly this morning that the

Executive Committee's report recommended, and you did adopt, a proposal that there will be an industi-y committee to meet to bring

industry's view to the Conference. I am going to be bold enough to

suggest that you should also extend the same representation to the consumer. After you create your industry advisory committee, create a consumer advisory committee. I have no doubt that we can field

enough representatives of intelligent, concerned consumei-s to give

you good consumer input. Thank you.

DISCUSSION

Mr. J. Gardner (Dayton, Ohio) : I am a consumer advocate and

also the chief of weights and measures. The two speakers who have

spoken this morning, the two last speakers, have raised a coiiple of

serious questions that I think need defending here. To us, weights

and measures means consumer protection. It seems that there is an

inference that the weights and measures officials are another breed

of animals that are probably holding hands with the people in

industry who make the devices that measure and weigh various

items and commodities. If the consumer had not had weights and

measures over the last 80 years, we would have been in a whole

mess of trouble. Am I getting through to you?

I want to say further that weights and measures holds the least

amount of water in most jurisdictions because most political hacks,

eveiy time there is an austerity budget or some weights and measures

man decides to enforce the law to the letter, cut his budget and step

on him.

Fui'thei-more, I do not want to make a soliloquy out of this thing,

but I think that the next couple of points I would like to make are extremely important. My people are not in that boat, but some of

the weights and measures people that are in this room get less pay

than janitors.

80
Now, I am going to put on my other hat as a consumer advocate.

I am a consumer advocate. We do wish to establish regulatory

measures. I think what I am saying is that I have amalgamated

consumer protection with weights and measures; and without the

two being together, we have a divorce situation. Consumer protection in its totality cannot happen.

Weights and measures is the only legal group that is located in

every county in the United States. Consumer protection is spotty.

Sometimes it is there and sometimes it is not there. I am saying

with 80 years of experience, the weights and measures people are the best things consumers have going for them today. Thank you.

Ms. JoNNiE Stahl: I live in San Diego and I am nothing more

than a consumer, but I find that I am a very important person today.

I am glad. I came here to be informed and I have been informed on

a number of things very much. I appreciate the speakers for giving

me so much information. I am confused on one point, however. I

am told that the Weights and Measures Commission is a public

servant—a servant of the consumer because it is a public agency, a government agency. I was under the impression tliat also the VA,

the FDA, the Federal Reserve Board, and the California Pharmaceutical Boards were also agencies which wei'e to serve the public,

the consumer. Yet, I have been told this morning that the con- sumer had to sue these agencies. I would like to have this explained

to me because I do not understand this relationship.

Mrs. H. Nelson (University of Wisconsin-Extension) : My interpretation of the question is, "What is the status of the Conference

on Weights and Measures? Is it a public body? Is it a private

body?" Is that right?

Ms. Stahl: No.

Mrs. Nelson: I am sorry, then. I don't get you.

Ms. Stahl: My question is if indeed the governmental agencies

are servants of the consumer, as was stated earlier, why does the

consumer have to sue them, and, of course, as you mentioned, so successfully sue them, if they are supposedly representing us?

Mrs. Nelson: Your point is that government agencies that are supposed to represent us and serve us don't always do it, and con- sumers get a bit cynical about it. So, more by your deeds than your

words would you be judged.

Mr. D. Montanari (Plymouth, Massachusetts) : I just wanted

to add two remarks to the remarks made by our colleague here. He

says we have been in the consumer protection business for 80 years.

However, in Plymouth, we have had sealers since, on record, since

1627. That brings us up to 348 years and I still think we are in the

consumer protection business. Thank you.

Mr. Sandel: Just one other question now and that is it.

81
Ms. R. E. Yannatta (Fight Inflation Together) : I am the chairwoman of a consumers group in Los Angeles called Fight Inflation

Together. I am also a consumer representative on a State Agricultural Board, so I have some experience in how consumers can represent themselves in government. The question here, I think, is more

complicated than anyone has said. I have just a few suggestions.

On the one hand, you defend yourselves as representatives of the

public. There is no question in my experience in Los Angeles that

the County Bureau of Weights and Measures is by far one of the

most active and best consumer oriented departments we have in the

State. On the other hand, you say you have to be fair; you have to

represent and balance both industry and consumers. Well, it seems to me that those are not the same position. You

are either representing the consumer—clearly have their interests over and above anybody else's—or you are a government arbiter and

you have to weigh both industry and consumer. You cannot do both.

I think in reality most government agencies in the kind of government system we have now are arbiters, where they are weighing

industry sides and consumer sides. Always, industry's influence is

more vocal and more readily present and more accepted than con- sumers because we are not organized. We camiot afford to come to

these conferences for three or four days, etc. That is the reality that

consumers are facing. So, even if you, as individuals, want to represent the consumer, you are in this position of being an arbiter and

you have to construct advisory committees from consumers just as you construct advisory committees from industry to get that kind

of balance.

Lastly, you come to us as consumers and say because you are defending us, you want us to vote more taxes for you to expand your

role. Well, then, don't be defensive and tell us that we cannot pai*-

ticipate in the decisions you make. The only way that consumers

and the public are going to support and expand weights and measures programs is if you allow us to participate, if you explain your

programs to us, and if you make them known to us on a much more

visual-vocal level than you ever have. Thank you.

Mr. L. D. Draghetti (Agawam, Massachusetts) : I would like to

address just a few comments, first of all, to the lady from Chicago.

On the scale she was talking about, this Conference is going to

address itself to what is known as radio frequency interference.

Transmitters can change the readings on electronic devices. We are most concerned about that. We really have no good concrete answers

yet, but we are looking into those problems. This is an understanding of the technical side of weights and measures and the approval

of these devices. We have the right to reject them any time they are not performing correctly.

82
Now, you look at unit pricing. Mrs. Xelson, you addressed yourself to unit pricing. Massachusetts was the first State in the Union

to support unit price legislation. Last year, the Massachusetts Consumers Council could not enforce the unit pricing law. It is currently

under weights and measures supervision in Massachusetts. We are having a job with that thing because, number one, we have again

changed our council that makes the rules and legulations pertaining to unit pricing and its enforcement ; approval of labels, even down to an explanation of the color of orange that would be on the

shelf. This is what we are faced with out there.

SUPERMARKET AUTOMATION—UPC AND THE

COMPUTERIZED CHECKOUT COUNTER

by Thomas K. Zauciia, Director of Public Affairs, National

Association of Food Chains, Washington, D.C.

With the passage of time, all phases of the

food industry continue to appreciate that: (1)

the consumer movement is here to stay; (2)

the longer it is here, the more sophisticated it becomes; and (3) it is good business to re- spond to consumer questions and consumer

concerns. Indeed, with the development of the Universal Product Code (UPC) and the automated scanner checkstand, the supermarket

industry knows very well that it has a re- sponsibility to respond to consumer concerns about this important

technology.

It is undei'standable that there will be consumer uncertainty when

computer equipment is placed in a food store, especially during a period of rising prices. Thus, companies who are experimenting

with the. new system have set up special consumer panels and have

developed consumer dialogues so as to learn those areas where their

customers have reservations and questions. It should also be noted

that consumer representative Jim Turner has been a very active

member of the Public Policy Subcommittee of the UPC Ad Hoc

Committee and has communicated consumer concerns about issues

such as item price marking as well as proposed research projects

that would measure consumer reaction to different aspects of the

system. In other words, the industry is sincere in its efforts to re- spond to consumers' questions and concerns, realizing that more

may have been done in this regard at an earlier time.

83
In that same context, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the

status of the UPC system with you and to answer any questions that

you might have, because only through an open dialogue can we hope

to dispel some of the misconceptions that have arisen, especially in

the political arena, as well as build confidence in an innovation that

should result in significant benefits to industry and to the supermarket shopper. In short, the industry must develop and maintain

the credibility of the system if we hope to achieve any of the benefits.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this morning only symbolizes

one in a series of continuing dialogues with weights and measures

officials about the implementation and development of the Universal Product Code, because it is our industry's very fervent feeling

that it is important that weights and measures officials have a good

understanding about the potential impact and effectiveness of the

Universal Product Code and the automated checkstand.

On your seats you will find a yellow brochure that contains many

of the questions and answers that are being raised about UPC

(attachment). When we finish this morning. I would suggest that

3'ou make a little side trip next door to see the NCR equipment they

are demonstrating. We can talk about it. and explain it, but I think

that in many respects the equipment speaks for itself. The NCR

people will be pleased to discuss some of the technical aspects of

the equipment.

With that background, how many companies are testing the scanner equipment and how are their customei-s reacting to this

change? There are about 50,000 supei-markets in the United States,

and the scanner equipment has been installed in only 23 stores:

Marsh Supermarkets, Troy, Ohio

Steinberg's, Ltd., Montreal, Canada

Brockton Public Markets. Stoughton, Massachusetts

Pathmark, South Plainfield, New Jersey

Foodarama, Inc., Middletown. New Jersey

Ralph's Grocery Company, Lakewood, California

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.. Rochester, New York

Foodarama, Inc., East Norriton, Township. Pennsylvania

Piggly Wiggly, Fort Worth, Texas

Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., Morton Grove, Illinois

Gemco Department Store (Division of Lixcky Stores), San

Leandro, California

Giant Food Inc., Severna Park, Maryland

First National Stores. Brighton, Massachusetts

Stop & Shop Supermarkets, Boston, Massachusetts

Chatham Super Markets, Centerline, Michigan

The Kroger Company. Indianapolis, Indiana

84
J. Weingarten, Inc., Houston. Texas

Piggly Wiggly, Fort Worth, Texas

Brodbeck Enterprises. Platteville, Wisconsin

Farmer Jack Market. Rochester. Michigan

Giant Food Inc., Glen Burnie, Maryland

Tri-City Grocers, Belleville, Illinois

J. Weingarten, Inc., Hoviston, Texas

This is a far cry from the 26,000 figure used by Nicholas von

Hoffman in a recent Washington Post article. As you well know,

the most volatile issue has been over the question of whether supermarkets should be allowed to experiment with a shelf-marked

pricing system as opposed to the traditional method of stamping

the price on individual items. But, it is significant to realize that

only three of the 23 stores using the scanner are experimenting with

the shelf-marked pricing system: the Gemco Department Store in

San Leandro, California; a IMarsh Supermarket in Troy, Ohio;

and a Giant Food store in Severna Park, ]Maryland. It must be

emphasized that the supermarket industry firmly contends that the

consumer must be provided with an accurate price description at

the point of selection. Thus, in terms of a mutual goal, there really

isn't any debate. Everyone agrees that the customer must know

that price at the time the product is selected.

I would emphasize further that there have been no policy decisions that would exchange one pricing system for another. Rather,

all the supermarket industry has asked for is the opportimity in

these early stages of use to test what could be a more efficient and

useful system of price identification. For example, what are the

economic benefits from a system of shelfmarking ? In a trend of

skyrocketing operating expenses where labor costs have now increased to 67.28 percent at the retail level, shouldn't this question

be explored?

How effectively can consumers use a shelf-marking system compared with the traditional system? Will a new pricing system

enhance the use of unit pricing and encouiage comparative shopping? Also, what impact will the new descriptive receipt tape (figure

1) have on comparative shopping?

The only way that these important questions can l)e answered is through a cooperative testing program with consumers. I regretfully submit that any group that chose to follow a political path of

promoting mandatory legislation to restrict such experimentation

was acting prematurely and not in the interest of the consumer.

Let's turn to that important question of consumer reaction to the

three stores which are testing the scanner with shelf uuirking instead

of individual price stamping.

85
GIANT FOOD INC.

COMPUTER-ASSISTED CHECKOUT

SALES RECEIPT

WEIGHTGIANT FOOD - SEVERNA PARK -

DATE/TIMECORN FLAKES

GT PORK&BEAN

GT ORANGE JC GT FACIALS

GT ALUM FOIL BEEF GRAVY

Hl-C PUNCH

JELLO FANTASTIK CRANBERRY JC LUX LIQ DET

GT LGHT TUNA

SKIM MILK QT PUSS-NBOOTS

GALLON MILK

JELLO HUD NAPKINS

FRISK CAT FD PORK LIVER GT ORANGE JC SIRLOIN STK

'3.54# BANANAS

COUPON

TAX DUE

TOTAL

FS BAL DUE

FS TEND

BALANCE DUE

CK TEND

FS CHG

CHG DUE

.33

.27 .43-

.34 1.59

.22

.55

.25 .87

.65 .43 1.09

.43

.33 1.43

.24

.2i .27 1.81 .42- 1.40

.42 1.00

.17 •

13.15-

9.94 5.00-

8.15-

15.00-

.00-

6.85-

• STORE LOCATION

' ITEM DESCRIPTION

FIRST ITEM OF 2/85C

TAXABLE ITEM

— 1/09/75 17:15 140/2 —

THANK YOU - COUNT ON US

SECOND ITEM OF 2/85C

COUPON ALLOWANCE

• TOTAL TAX

- TOTAL OF ORDER

TOTAL PAYABLE WITH FOOD STAMPS

-FOOD STAMPS PAID

- REMAINDER OWED FDR ORDER -AMOUNT PRESENTED

BY CHECK

- NO FOOD STAMP

CHANGE DUE -CHANGE DUE

> STORE NUMBER/

CHECKOUT LANE

CONVENTIONAL CASH

REGISTER SALES RECEIP

PLEASE RETURN RECEIPT

FOR REFUNDS EXCHANGES

-526- 00.33 GR 00.27 GR 00.43 GR 00.34 GT 01.59 GT 00.22 GR 00.55 GR 00.25 GR 00.87 GT 00.65 GR 00.43 GT 01.09 GR 00.43 DE 00.33 GT 01.43 DE 00.24 GR 00.21 GT 00.27 GT

01.81 MT

00.42 GR 01.40 MT 00.42 PR 00.17 TX 14.15B

GIANT FOOD-SUPER GIANT 1237 11 MAR 75

Figure 1

Earlier this year the Field Research Corporation conducted a consumer survey of the Gemco stoi'e in San Leandro, California,

and learned that 51 percent of the customers were not bothered by

individual price removal and that shelf labels and the descriptive

receipts tapes were acceptable alternatives. Eighteen percent were

bothered but would accept the change if it saved them money.

Twenty-nine percent were bothered regardless of the sa\dngs. Yet,

this group continued to shop regularly at the store. Another study was conducted by Marsh Supermarkets in their

Troy, Ohio store. It is interesting to note that from the very beginning Marsh customers were kept fully informed that the equipment

would be tested for a period of time with individual price marking

and then tested with a shelf-marking system.

86
Please consider the following consumer reactiW^. Eighty-three

percent felt that the new checkout system was faster than other

stores. Eighty-one percent answered that the system is more accurate.

On the question, "Are the new price labels easy to read?," 75 percent answered "yes." And, finally, on the price removal issue, 27

percent said that it would be acceptable if there were any savings at

all. Thirty-two percent said it would be acceptable with some savings.

Sixteen percent would prefer large savings ; and 25 percent felt that

price marks should be put back.

Giant Food of Maryland is the third food company which is

testing the UPC system without item pricing in its Severua Park

store. Two important points should be mentioned about the Giant

test. First, before the introduction of the scanner, Esther Peterson

organized a special consumer committee to resolve questions about

the system and to monitor the test being conducted by Giant. Secondly, Giant has opened a second store using the scanner equipment

and in this instance has left prices on the individual products. In this

way they will be able to measure consumer reaction and use of the

UPC system in a stoi-e using shelf-price identification compared to

the store using item pricing.

I think you will be interested in one study that was conducted

by the District of Columbia Office of Consumer Affairs at the

Severna Park store in preparation for a hearing on a proposed itempricing ordinance.

Meredith Fernstrom, director of Consumer Education, testified

that a number of significant conclusions can be drawn from the

survey findings.

"1. Shoppers in the Severna Park Giant store are generally quite

satisfied with the electronic checkout system, citing virtually

no complaints about it.

2. The majority of shoppers are not bothered by the absence of

price marking, and over three-fourths of the shoppers are opposed to a law requiring price marking on individual

items.

3. A majority of shoppers feel that their awareness of price

changes has not been affected by the absence of price marks

in this system.

4. The system of posting prices on shelf labels is working suc- cessfully in the Severna Park Giant, with the majority of

respondents finding the labels easy to read and in the correct

locations.

87
0. Shoppers would clearly prefer the savings inherent in a nonprice marking system as opposed to price marking, if such savings are passed on in the form of stabilized prices."

Overall, these early survey results suggest that consumers are pleased with the speed and accuracy of the UPC scanner system.

They also are impressed with the itemized receipt tape that will

inform them of the specific product as well as the price.

The survey results would suggest that the item price/slielf price

issue is an open one that should, and probably will, be settled by

the consumer in the marketplace rather than by some legislative

mandate. The results certainly are not representative of the absolute position taken by some labor-backed organizations who have

opted foi- government regulation lather than consumer research.

Much more needs to be learned about the total system and the

alternative pricing systems before any final policy judgments are made. For example. Dr. John Allen, professor. Food vSystems Economics and Management, Michigan State University; Dr. Gilbert

Harrell, professor, Marketing and Transportation Administration,

Michigan State University; and Dr. Michael D. Hiitt, professor of

Marketing, University of Vermont, are currently conducting a comprehensive behavior study in UPC scanner stores using the traditional pricing system compared with a shelf-marking system. The

research, which is being conducted in three phases, will study the

consumers' price deterndnation, unit pi'ice determination, price

consciousness in the store, price comparisons in the store, unit price

usage, shopping time, ability to follow prices and price changes

over time, satisfaction/dissatisfaction with store, and store choice.

The project is being sponsored by the Public Policy Subconmiittee,

and the formulation of the project has had direct consumer input.

The result will be made available to the public.

In response to the proposed research, the Consumer Federation

of America charged that it was a ploy by industry to slow down

mandatoi-y legislation. Our position is clear that legislation in this area is premature and not in the interest of the consuniei'. But, I

would sincerely hope that such labor-backed organizations Avould

become more interested in the questions of improved price awareness, improved comparative shopping, and reduced operating ex- penses, rather than devoting their attention to lobbying for legislation in states like Arkansas wdaei-e there isn't even a store that has

installed a scanner checkstand nor to the best of my knowledge even

plans to do so in the foreseeable future.

In conclusion, I hope that I have l^en helpful in answering some

of the questions that you might have conceining the status of the

development of the Universal Product Code and the scanner check88
stand. Indeed, there are many important questions that must be

researched and clarified. As I indicated at the outset, the credibility

of the system must be developed and maintained if it is going to provide benefit. It is in the spirit of creating a greater understanding

about the inteiTelated needs of the consumer, labor, and the supermarket industry that we are most anxious to continue a constructive dialogue about the Universal Produce Code and the electrouic

checkstand system.

Attachment

UNIVERSAL PRODUCT CODE AND THE

COMPUTER ASSISTED CHECKOUT SYSTEM

Government, media, the public, consumer groups and the food

industry are following development of new supennarket compiiter

assisted checkout systems closely.

The following Q and A describes typical systems and discusses

key issues associated with them.

COMPUTER ASSISTED CHECKOUT SYSTEMS IN FOOD STORES

What Are They?

Basically, applications of commonplace electronic technology,

which i-eplace many manual functions at the checkout counter with

electronically assisted ones. There is nothing exotic about equipment

designed for these systems.

But How Does it Work?

A computer assisted checkout operation is a faster, more accurate

system of processing and totaling a customer's order at the checkout counter.

With an electronic system the checkout clerk does not read the

prices of most individual items and punch them up on the cash

register, as in conventional checkouts.

Instead, the checker passes each computer coded item over an

optical scanner built into the checkstand which reports the price

of the item automatically to the cash register. The register then

prints out a desciiption of the item and its price on the customer's

sales receipt.

What About the Code?

The code which uniquely identifies each item on Avhich it appears

is called the Universal Product Code (UPC).

It is a coding system that will be used throughout the country by

most manufacturers to identify each of its products individually.

89
It now appears, on about 60 percent of all grocery items in supermarkets, as a symbol with thin and bold vertical lines with ten

human readable numerals at the bottom. A sample code symbol is attached, (figure 1).

The first set of five numbers identifies the manufacturer and the

second set of five the contents and size of the container.

Is the Price in the Code?

No, the UPC does not show the price. The retailer sets the price,

feeds it into the in-store computer, and assures its accuracy through

rigid control procedures.

Why Are These New Systems Being Tested?

Essentially, supermarkets have not changed since introduction of

self-service in the late 40*s and early 50's.

What customers may then have lost in the way of personal services

they gained through lower food prices and greater variety made

possible through economies of scale inherent in the self-service style

of operation.

It is imperative that supennarkets find ways to operate more effi- ciently as food distributors. If they cannot increase productivity in

their operations they will be unable to control rapidly escalating

operation costs—which represent on average 22 cents of each dollar

of sales—and thus help stabilize food prices.

Sixty-six percent of all operating costs are labor costs. Xew technology provides the potential for much greater efficiency as well

as improvements in service to the customer.

Where Are Computer Assisted Checkouts Now Being Tested

Today there are only 17 stores of the 200,000 food stores in the

U.S. using the system.

What Are Potential Benefits for Consumers?

The key word is potential. Food chain managements are not cer- tain about all elements of the system. That is why the industry and

the public are searching for answers through pilot testing. Specific

benefits are listed further on in this report.

Do Food Chains Consult Consumers in Their Tests?

Inevitably. Each supennarket chain activity seeks advice and

comment from customers or consumer groups per se before opening

an installation and while the test is underway. One goal of these

exchanges is to design the checkout operation according to con- sumer preference, whenever possible, from the beginning.

The other is to develop competitive advantage through progressively improved systems.

90
What Is the Biggest Hangup in Consumer Acceptance of Electronic

Checkouts?

By far the hottest issue is removal of price marking from individual items.

How Will the Customer Know the Price of Merchandise if Each Item Is Not

Marked?

With computer assisted checkout the customer will be provided

with multiple price tracking.

1. Item prices and in many stores luiit prices will be clearly and

prominently displayed on store shelves. One aim of present testing

is to develop an ideal shelf marking system. For example, shelf

stickers have now been developed that use vivid type size. These

new price labels are adhesive backed and designed to stay securely

in place on the shelf.

2. A TV-like screen at the checkout counter will flash the identity

of the item and its price as it is passed by the checker over the

scanner.

3. An audited receipt will describe each item and show its price,

in a vastly more complete way than with present sales receipts which

identify only the department from which the item is selected and

its price.

4. Many pilot stores in addition will provide a dummy checkout

scanner for customers to check prices on their own.

What Is the Eflfect of Proposed Legislation To Prohibit Removal of Price

Marking From Individual Items?

Any legislation which aborts experimentation with innovation

inhibits full development of a concept.

The industi-y does not have all the answers to questions about its

own needs or the consumer's. It sei-ves no one to handcuff development of the system in its infant stages. Of the seventeen stores in

operation, only three are experimenting without item prices.

If legislation proves necessaiy it may be introduced any time

patterns of operation which require legislation modification emerge.

It is in the interest of all concei-ned for government to study the

progress of this new technology, as it is doing now. But legislation

now amounts to nothing more than a roadblock in the path of

progress toward efficiency and shared benefits.

How Does the Public Benefit?

One regional chain on the east coast equipped with an electronic

system foresees a potential savings in operating costs of between

$7,000 and $10,000 per month per store. Underscore potential. It is

not yet a demonstrated fact. Because of competitive pressure, at

91
least part of these savings will be passed along to the customer if they materialize as projected.

Other benefits include:

• speedier checkout

• greatly reduced over- and underrings and other himian errors. In the earliest test of the system, there were no misreads in over seven million transactions.

• a detailed, audited record of food purchases, which can be made

pennanent by filing at home

• faster, more thorough product recalls when necessary

• more efficient storage and warehousing of products, thus, operating cost savings which can be passed to the customer and which

are not perceived by the general public.

Will Employees Lose Jobs?

Not necessarily. Many union contracts have guarantees against

job loss due to automation.

The electronic front end is intended to make more efficient use of

labor and open the way to greater capital investment in an industry

which is more labor intensive than any other major American industry. Thus, today, its customers in elfect subsidize inefficiency.

Proposed legislation would further delay or cripple management

efforts to use manpower more effectivelj'. Does it make sense to

employ these tactics at this time?

Where New Checkout Systems Are in Operation, What Does the Public

Think About Them?

In California, the Field Research Corporation has conducted con- sumer reaction studies of the Gemco store operation.

Generally the Field Research reveals that respondents overwhelmingly show positive reaction to the Gemco test, with respondents

volunteering they like new receipt tapes, faster checkouts and improved accuracy.

To specific questions concerning price markings, the following

results were recorded

:

1. Fifty-one percent were not bothered by removal of individual

price markings and found shelf labels and new receipts an acceptable

alternative.

2. Eighteen percent of those surveyed indicated they were "bothered" by lack of price markings, but Avould accept the alternatives

if they saved them money.

3. Twentj^-nine percent were "'bothered" and desired price marking

regardless of potential savings. Yet even this category of respondents continues to shop in Gemco regularly.

92
The following memorandum is fI'om the Council on Wage and Price

Stability of the Executive Office of the President, 726 Jackson

Place, NW., Washington. D.C. 20506. It is dated May 7, 1975.

MEMOKANDUM FOR For information call:

CORRESPOXDEXTS : (202) 456-6757

Following is the text of a telegram Albert Rees, Director of the

Council on Wage and Price Stability, sent to Repi'esentative

Xorman A. Murdoch of the Ohio legislature in response to his

request for a Council opinion on a bill which would compel prices

to appear on grocery store items

:

We are informed that H. 720, a bill to require prices in arable numbei-s to be marked on merchandise displayed for sale, is being considered by the

Ohio legislature. Such bills would deprive consumers of much of the con- siderable savings to be achieved through automated checkstands. Such

systems should be given a complete and fair test to ascertain whether or not adequate price information can be given consumers through shelf labels

and itemized receipts. H. 720 would prevent testing and therefore, we urge

that it be defeated.

The following newspaper article is from the Washington Star-Xews,

April 2, 1975.

RAYMOND PRICE

A False Consumer Issue

Like environmentalism, consumerism is a good cause that attracts zealots and

"antis," and as a result is constantly threatened by its own excesses.

Take the matter of supermarket pricing.

"Unit pricing," which consvnnerists pushed, was a major advance for the consumer. With all the various-sized containers, it's a big help to see the

price on the shelf in terms not only of total price, but also of how this translates into standard units—so the sliopper can see that the 7i/^ ounce jar of one brand at 93 cents costs 12.4 cents an ounce, wliile the 9-ounce jar of

another brand at $1.02 costs 11.3 cents an ounce. This is progress.

But now there's another and more important advance being pioneered by the

supermarket industry which has some consumerists fluttering in anticipatory

opposition : the computer checkout.

The way the computer checkout works is this :

Packages are coded by the manufacturer with marks that can be read by a

laser scanner. These funny-looking lines tell the scanner the brand, the size,

and what it is. Prices are not stamped on the items themselves, but are posted on the shelves—just as they are now. At the checkout counter, the clerk passes

each item by the scanner, which in a fraction of a second reads the coded

information, and prints both the description and the price on the checkout

slip. The customer thus gets a fully itemized sales slip, not just a column of

numbers.

93
It's far faster, saving time for tiie customer aiid saving labor costs for the

store, which means lower prices. It eliminates checliout errors. And, because

the information the scanner prints on the sales slip can at the same time be

fed autotmatically into a computerized inventory-control system, enormous

additional savings are possible in the store's operating costs—savings which,

in a competitive industry, will be passetl on to the customer.

This is a remarkable bit of progress for the consumer, where the consumer

needs it most.

Yet scare stories have been circulating, suggesting that shoppers would have

to shop blind, without knowing the price of each item until they got to the

checkout—which is nonsense ; all they have to do is read it on the shelf,

where most do anyway (and where the unit-pricing information is). Scare

stories have also been circulating suggesting that the system would make it easier for stores to hoodwink the customer by manipulating price changes,

which also is nonsense. By providing an itemized checkout list, it would make

it harder.

Besides, since supermarkets, more than almost any other retail business,

depend on repeat customei-s, the big loser in any sustained effort to hoodwink

the customer would be the store, and every store manager knows it.

Nevertheless, in the sacred name of consumerism, legislation has been introduced in Congress (and also in some state legislatures) to "protect" the public

by requiring that the price be individually stamped on each item. This

wouldn't completely undermine the new system. Most of the benefits would

still accrue, including the faster checkout and the more efficient inventory

control. But it would be a costly redundancy, requiring the expenditures of an enormous amount of time and labor.

It's understandable that employee unions would push such legislation as a form of featherbedding. But consumerists should know better. They should

know that they're going to have to pay for it, .iust as they do for every other

meddlesome interposition between buyer and seller imposed in their name,

and ultimately at their expense.

The following transcript is from the Eyewitness News program of

the WTOP Television network, Tuesday, April 29, 1975, 6 :00 p.m.

EDT.

SHOPPERS LIKE SEVEEXA PARK COMPUTER

CHECKOUT SYSTEM

Max Robinson : The computer age has come to the sui)ermark6t checkout

counter. Giant Foods' experiment with computer checkout requires some

changes in shopping habits, and some consumer groups question whether it really is an advance. Eyewitness News correspondent Patrick McGrath looks

into that dispute. (Film Clip)

Patrick McGratli : What makes Giant Foods' new Severna Park store different

from your average supermarket is that there are no prices on each individual

item of merchandise. Each product does have a funny symbol on it. It's called the universal product code. Although you and I can't make any sense out of this symbol, there is a computer in this store that can.

94
When the checkout lady passes this can over a laser scanner that's right here

in the checkout counter, the scanner sends an impulse to the computer ; the

computer then rings up the price and a description of the product on a fancy

cash register. (Clicking of computer)

Some consumer groups object to the fact that a price is not marked on each

item. They charge that the shopper will lose price consciousness and therefore

pay higher prices in the long run.

Giant says that the prices are clearly marked on the shelves below every

item. We decided to ask shoppers.

How do you feel about this computer checkout ?

Shopper: I like it. I think ifs fast. I like the whole system.

McGrath : Does it bother you there are no prices on each item ?

Shopper : No, not at all. If I want to keep a record, I take a list with me.

write them down as I go along, and I have them.

Shopper No. 2 : No, I think it's fine. I think it saves a lot of time. I think it's more accurate.

Shopper No. 3 : . . . first time I ever tried it. I think it's pretty good.

McGrath: Does it bother you that each item is not individually priced?

Shopper No. 4 : No, it don't bother me.

Shopper No. 5 : Oh, I think it's real good. It goes so fast, and everything.

McGrath : Does it bother you that each item is not individually priced?

Shopper No. 5 : No, I don't think so.

Shopper No. 6 : I believe I'd rather have it all marked. When I look at something, I'm not quite sure what price I'm looking at. I check the unit price, but

I don't know exactly what the full amount's going to be. It confuses me.

Shopper No. 7 : If anybody has any hang-ups about the prices not being on

the items, just take a black magic marker and mark it on there when you

buy it. You know (phrase unclear). I think it's great.

Shopper No. 8 : I don't know if it's a boon to shoppers. It's a lot of fun.

McGrath : They do not have each item marked. Does that bother you?

Shopper No. 9 : What do you mean, they don't—

?

McGrath : Well, there are no prices on the individual products. Were you aware of that?

Shopper No. 9 : But you've got a print-out that gives you even the name of

the thing that you bought. See, I bought some sausage and some ham, and

it says right on there—even gives you the brand name. (Laughs)

McGrath : That's after the fact, though.

Shopper No. 9: After the fact? Well, if you're too stupid to look at the price on the shelf, why—(Laughs) —you're not paying attention to what you're

doing. Right? Right!

95
McGrath : Well, judging from our non-scientific sample, it appears that

computer checkout is a big hit with the shoppers here ; and if Giant finds

that it results in significantly reduced operating costs, then it is likely that

computer checkout will spread not only to the other Giant stores, but to all of the major supermarkets in the Washington area. This is Patrick McGrath,

Eyewitness News, Severna Park.

The following newspaper article is from the Los Angeles Times,

Friday Morning, May 30, 1975.

LET THE BUYER DECIDE

That smudged and nondescript "78c" marking stamped on a can of tuna

has become the center of a new legislative controversy. The debate is growing as supermarkets begin experimenting with cost-saving computerized

checkout systems that don't require the price stamp.

The grocers want continued freedom to dispense with the markings on each item if they see fit, and if their customers continue to find improved

shelf markings an acceptable substitute. The Retail Clerks Union and

several consumerist groups object, calling the absence of price stami)s, on

each can and box, a "rip-off." They are pressing hard for new laws to re- quire the markings on every item.

The objections are premature and, so far, luijustified by the facts. The legislation would be a costly way of prohibiting a fraud that doesn't exist. A grand total of 16 stores throughout the nation, two of them in California,

have converted to electronic checkout systems. Some of them still stamp

prices on every item. Others rely only on shelf marltings.

Customers like the system ; sales have been growing faster at the computerized stores than at others.

Stores like it, too. They expect it to save huge amounts of money when

each company learns how to use it most efficiently. That means less inflation,

which is obviously good news to the customer.

But the law being proposed would wipe out much of the room for savings.

The key to the system is the striped code that now is part of most products'

labels. The code identifies the maker and the product—not the price, which

varies from store to store and from day to day. When a shopper takes his or her basket to the checkstand, a clerk pulls each item's code label past a scanner. The strii)es tell a computer what is inside the package; the

computer looks up the price in a file, and the machine at the checkstand

prints the entry on the customer's tape.

Errors are far fewer. So are consumer problems in deciphering their pur- chase records. Instead of a cash register tape that describes each item only

as "GROC" or "PROD" the shopper gets a detailed statement of what he

bought—"lime jello" or "macaroni" or "sweet peas"—and the price of each.

Each store's system costs about $100,000, and can save roughly $30,000 a year

in labor costs alone. That includes some checkstand clerks who will no

longer be needed because customers can be served faster. It also includes the

extra stock clerks now needed to stamp a price on each item.

96
No one need be flred, for supermarkets already have a tremendous annual

turnover of employes.

Foes of the plan to stop stamping each item fear confusion or deception.

Shelf markings always seem to be lost, mistaken or in ithe wrong place, they

rightly point out. But the computerized markets have begun using new

stickers that should solve those problems. And they say they are gettiug

good consumer acceptance and few complaints.

What's more, state laws already contain penalties for false shelf pricing.

That should keep retailers from posting one price and charging another.

There is plenty of competition in the supermarket business. If consumers

decide they don't like the priceless packages, they will favor markets that

stamp tlieir wares. And if abuses do crop up, as some surely will, they can be dealt with promptly by regulators and legislators.

In the meantime, let's not use needless laws to stifle an innovation that

could save added costs for every family. Let the buyer decide.

The following newspaper article is from the Chicago Tribune,

Sunday, June 8, 1975.

HOW NOT TO REDUCE PRICES

There is an evangelism about the consumer movement that compels pro- fessional consumerists to drive ahead with their anointed programs no

matter what they may do for (or to) the consumer. This is the best

explanation we can think of for the retail pricing bill which has come

before the City Council with the clear blessing of Mayor Daley.

The next best explanation is that it is being pushed by the union that

stands to gain the most from it.

As the bill stands now, as drawn up by Jane Byrne, Mr. Daley's resident

consumerlst, it would increase the retailer's cost of doing business, restrict

his ability to offer items "on sale" at reduced prices, and deny housewives

the lower prices [mainly on food] that come with advanced technology.

It would do all this mainly by making it unlawful to sell any prepackaged

commodity unless the selling price is "marked directly on the package."

Most items are already marked individually. The ordinance means that

prices would also have to be stamped on popular, fast-moving items which

at present are not normally marked individually—such as candy, packets

of soft-drink mix, and ice cream.

The ordinance means that stores would have to continue stamping the

price on each container even if they switch to the new, computerized check- out system. Under this system, cans and packages are premarked with code

symbols identifying what they are. At the checkout counter, an electric

eye scans the code ; the price is supplied by a computer ; a tape is printed

;

and the job is done in a fraction of the time it takes at a conventional

checkout line. This is a costly system but should save money for both the

retailer and the consumer—or at least it should if clerks don't have to go

around stamping the price on each container anyway.

97
The ordinance requires tliat prices also be given on shelf signs, which

certainly should be done and is generally done already, but it requires that

this price be given per unit [normally per pound] and that if the item is placed on sale at a reduced price, this figure, too, be changed. This will

result in a lot of decimal points and fractions which may mean something to the mathematician, but will be ignored by the average housewife.

The ordinance further requires that if an item is offered "on sale," tbe

"immediately preceding price" must have been in effect for at least 30

days. The effect would be to rule out sales on recently acquired items.

Significantly, the chief supporters of the bill [aside from consumerists]

are not the housewives, but rather the Illinois Retail Clerks Association,

whose members are paid for doing the stamping and whose wages, of course, add to the price the consumer pays.

There are, of course, some conveniences in having each package individually

priced, but one of the truisms of progress is that it means exchanging the

lesser advantages of the old for the greater advantages of the new. To

require individual package pricing when it is no longer needed at the

checkout counter [and when the price is already displayed on the shelf]

is like requiring automobiles to be tied to a hitching post when parked

or prohibiting them from going faster than the speed of a gallop.

Of course there are some merchants who deceive the public with "on sale"

signs. They should be restrained, but in a reasonable manner. Mrs. Byrne

would burn down the house in order to cook the pig.

If the aldermen can't see the folly of this, we hope their wives will get

to them before they approve a measure which will do more to hurt shoppers

than to help them.

DISCUSSION

Ms. Shirley Goldinger (Consumer Federation of California) : I want to tell you that in over ten years that I have been working on

consumer issues, no issue has so incensed the public and gotten them

to feel an alliance with each other as this thing of removing the

prices on packages of food. In interviewing thousands of people,

I have maybe found one oi' two persons. I question any surveys you

had and would like to know the nature of the sample and how the

statistics have been manipulated because I have stopped outside of

supermarkets, I have gone to Ralph's Lakewood Store, I have done

shopping, I have spoken to thousands of senior citizens who are

frightened. They feel we cannot read the tapes without some kind

of a magnifying glass. There, in no sense, do I get even the slightest

indication that people are for this.

The other thing I ask you is, you have been developing this in

your industry for years—where was all the consumer input in the

years that this was being developed? "Where did you ask consumei'

groups to sit in on all of these kinds of discussions on these things ? We have been asking you for years for pull dating and open dating

9S
procedures on packages. We did not get that. We are going to get

this automated computer checkout system instead.

And, finally, we are working with legislatures all across the country to see if we can stop this. Our opponents are the lobbyists that

are sent out for the retail food chains.

Last, but not least, I saw the thank you up on the film there. I

want to know if you are putting thank you on machines, when you

are going to do away with people?

Mk. T. K. Zaucha (Xational Association of Food Chains) : Xo,

we are not going to do away with people

It is very interesting, this food sui-\^eillance legislation that is pending in Washington in front of the Senate, Commerce, and Labor

and Public Welfare that includes open dating with pull date information. Obviously, your national organization must not have

kept you pretty well informed as to the status of tliat legislation

and the intent of it and the support that it is getting, in that the

National Association of Food Chains will, in all likelihood, be supporting food surveillance with open dating in it. That is number one. Secondly, we are not really in disagreement ; we are really not.

You said you talked to tens of thousands of people and they are very scared about item pricing being removed. I told you right

at the outset they are scared of computers, they are scared of higher

prices, and there is a credibility problem that has existed for some

years about supermarkets. So, thei'e is no disagreement there.

Then, to suggest the removal of item pricing at a time of increasing prices—yes, you are going to get a vei-y adverse reaction. And

what was my point ? INIy point was this : We want you then, the

consumer, to decide that particular issue. We do not want to go the

route of the state legislatures. And if, in fact, you do have the

sufficient pressui'e in particular areas, as you have already asserted

yourselves, then you will not have any change.

But, we are suggesting that we want to research, we want to test. Three stores do not make a policy at all. So, I do not really think

we are in that much disagreement.

A final point on the Field Research Corporation, how these

figures were manipulated. I guess if I pay for the study, I manipulate it. If the government pays for the study, it manipulates it; and

if you, as a consumer group—maybe funded by some union who

happens to be in favor of it —I guess you manipulate it. The point

is this : Field Research Corporation is an independent organization

;

it has tremendous credibility in California, so go review it. If you

find anything wrong with it, publicize it. Mk. J. Cecconi (XBS) : How are prices on items changed in the

computer ?

99
Mr. Zaucha: How and when are prices changed? That is a good

question. The identification of product, manufacturer, and the specific product is in the code. The price is not in the code. The pricing

system is programmed back at the central computer; and, indeed,

there is tremendous need to establish the security system and the

credibility of changing prices in some coordinated fashion back at

the central computer— back at the central office—so that if you have

taken off individual item prices, for example, or even if you have

not, that you ai-e able to coordinate that with your shelf marking.

I think what you will find in response to that is very clear, precise statements by companies that no such charges will ever take

place during the time that the store is in business operation, but

it will be done when the store or stores are closed.

Mr. Cecconi : I asked that question for the reason that since there

are no prices marked on the cans, you really never can tell. . . . Mr. Zaucha : Wait a minute. Let us not make that assumption.

We have seventeen companies that are experimenting. Fourteen still

have prices on individual items. Okay?

Mr. Cecconi: Okay, but you still have three.

Mr. Zaucha : And you have the three that are experimenting.

Mr. Ceccoxi : Okay, one other item here. On these statistics, when

you say it is faster to go through an automated store, you never did

mention if there was increase in the number of lanes and an increase

in the manned lanes on the avei'age.

Mr. Zaucha: Lanes meaning checkout lanes or aisles in the store?

Mr. Cecconi : Checkout lanes.

Mr. Zaucha : No. The type of study that makes the 50 percent

comparison is to take the type of operation that you have now, let us say an eight or ten checkout system using traditional cash registers, and then using a new system with eight or ten computerized

scanning devices. That is where the comparison is being made.

Mr. Ceccoxi : And the man hours are also not changed on the

checkout lanes?

Mr. Zaucha : No, I can say that you probably will have a more

efficient use of labor. You piobably have a more efficient scheduling

of labor so it could impact to some degree numbers of hours by

checkers.

]Mr. D. Franklix (California Public Interest Research Group) : One of our services for consumers is i-etail supermarket surveys. On

the last survey we made a couple of months ago, I, myself, surveyed

a Gemco Store in San Diego County. There were 90 items on our

survey. I compared the shelf items with the item piicing for those

90 items. None of those items were different between the shelf price

and the item price. I would like to ask you, firstly, how do you expect

a consumer without a computer or withovit a computer mind to

100
remember the prices on their average shopping when they get to

the checkout counter and be able to determine whether or not, first of all, the shelf price is correct and be able to determine, secondly,

whether or not the price of the item that is in the compviter happens

to be correct?

Mr. Zaucha : Okay. First of all, I would say that your survey

about the accuracy of shelf marking is quite an improvement over

the GAO study, so share with me at least the point that indeed

the supermarkets are attempting to improve on their shelf marking

capability.

Secondly, that comes down to the essence of it. You have got to

be accurate with your shelf marking if you are going to remove item

pricing. If you do not. you are going to lose your customer. If you

lose your customers, you defeat your purpose.

]Mr. Fraxklix : You are not going to lose your customers because

your customers are not even going to know. That is what we are trying to saj. The customer is not going to remember the price

of 60 items or 30 items or 10 items when he gets to the checkout

counter and know that he has been mischarged. INIost people do not

go home, take out a pencil, and compare the items that they Ixiught

with the items and prices on their checkout list. Secondly, since you say there are seventeen stores that are experimenting with this and thx'ee of them do not have price marking,

I do not understand why you have spent most of your talk representing the three that do not and have not given the arguments for

the fourteen stores which have kept their prices marked.

Mr. Zaucha : Because the issue at hand is not" over the fourteen,

it is over the three, so we might as well discuss that in full.

Mr. B. Lame (Santa Cruz County, California) : If the industry

is concerned with communicating with citizens about possible concerns that may arise in reaction to this system, then I Avould like my

remarks to be received as an attempt at a dialogue with the industry. I just had some thoughts that came to mind during your presentation.

If the retail food industry is two-thirds labor intensive as you

indicated, then I do not think the industry should be so surprised

that the labor unions would be very reluctant to embrace such a new

system.

Mr. Zaucha : There is no surprise.

Mr. Lame : Then, there is an expected negative reaction from the

labor unions. I have also conducted a unit piice survey in several

of the stores in Santa Cruz County; and I also have noted that

approximately 20 percent of the unit prices listed on the shelves are complete inaccurate.

101
Mr. Zaucha: That was a conclusion of the GAO study that I alluded to earlier, suggesting that if you are going to go to a total

system of shelf marking, you better improve upon your unit price

as well as your shelf total price sticker.

Mr. Lame: Apparently we have requirements now that if the

unit prices are listed, they should be accurate; and if 20 percent of

them are not accurate, then indeed the i-equirements are not being

met. I wonder what assurance there would be that shelf prices would

be any more accurate than the current unit prices are?

Mr. Zaucha : In response to that, I think the magnitude of the

issue—as the lady pointed out befoi'e—this has become one of the

hottest, most impoitant issues that has come down the pike in (^uite a long time. It is just kind of encumbent upon companies to respond

to that shortcoming if they are going to go to that type of system.

Mr. Lame : Knowing a little bit about how computers work, I know that price changes can be progrannned into the computer

without any customer knowledge—indeed, additions can be made to

the bill without even being printed upon the cash register receipt.

I think citizens are probably concerned that the computer will slip

something by them without their knowledge.

Mr. Zaucha : As I indicated in my conclusion, there is one message

that I want to try to get across. What is number one priority for

this industry is to establish, any way it can, the credibility of that

industry and of the system; and that is one of the questions. We

also can get into the idea of computer piracy. People can misuse all

sorts of things, but my i-equest is to let us have an opportunity to

test it and share those results with you and, hopefully, in doing so establish the better level of working credibility.

Mr. Lame : If I may, just one more item. If the Aveights and

measures departments around the country are going to be expected

to check out these systems and make sure that they are accui'ate and

performing correctly, then I think we are going to have to have a much more vigorous enforcement policy, because weights and

measures officials cannot l)e in all places at all times. Thank you.

Ms. J. ScHAKOwsKi (Chicago Consumer Coalition) : I had the

pleasure last evening of spending some time with Tom. We met some

friends of his, and the issue of item pricing was presented to these

two people, who are not involved in this conference, b}- a member

of the Grocery Manufacturers of America and by Tom. Jackie

Kendall and I were there and Ave weie kind of silent. As soon as these people heard that prices may come off items, they said that is a really bad idea. It is a very simple thing for us to understand.

We have talked to many consumers, all of whom, once they understand the issue involved, agree that prices need to be on.

102
It seems to us that industry is taking the wrong question. It seems

that they are saying, "How far can we go before consumers rebel?,"

not "What is the right thing to do?"

It seems that you are presenting false choices. We either have the

option of clear shelf labeling or prices on. Which are you going to

take? You are not going to have both. It seems that is what you

are saying to us. What is the cost of putting the price on? You keep telling us about cost. Do not tell me that you cannot figure quite accurately

exactly what it is going to cost the consumer per week, per month,

per year, and let us decide whether or not that is worth the price.

The consumers that we have talked to feel that they are willing to

pay a small amount of money in order to have the accurate information.

It has been documented again and again—the business of inaccurate shelf tags. I bought a large Hershey's chocolate bar the other

day. The shelf tag read 8 ounces; the marking on the same item

was really 6 ounces. We cannot rely on accurate shelf tags. Again

and again through studies this has been shown. We will not have

the power of self-enforcement if this infonnation is removed from

the label. This is an important tool.

Comparative shopping has been mentioned. I ask you how I in the

store can compare the prices of canned corn with frozen corn or

fresh corn if I have umnarked items in my cart. There was a cartoon

recently in a magazine of two women shopping with a microphone

and intercom system, yelling across the isles the prices so that comparisons could be made. This is what it amounts to. Now, that film was irritating as well. Tom, are you listening?

The film was irritating in that the word "pleasant" was used over and over again, that we should have a "pleasant" shopping experience. Who cares? When we walk into that store, we are business

people ; we are transacting business. We are interested in making the

most intelligent, rational decisions we can make. I do not care so much about the music that is piped through or the smile on the

checker's face. I want to know that I have been a smart business

person and gotten the most for my money. It seems to me that this

is impossible without detailed information in the form of item

pricing. Thank you.

Mr. Zaucha: Ladies and gentlemen, I just want you to go back

through my presentation and the research projects that were being

outlined. I want you then to listen to the responses made hj the

last speaker. And, again, there is no question that there is a concern about the issue—no question whatsoever. Is there a better way of

becoming comparative shoppers or not? That is what we are trying

to develop.

103
Xow, there is a couceni here; and 1 heard it with some of the

inferences made about Aveights and measures people by consumer

activists. AVe are veiy anxious in continuing and developing dialogues with consumers. I am very concerned in seeing this political

issue that has been developed. Xow there is a distinction that is

starting to be made between customers and consumer activists, and

that should not take place. Industry makes the distinction. All I

want you people out there to know is that out in Severna Park,

Maryland—the Giant Store—the Troy, Ohio store, and the Gemco

Store, you do not find people leaving that store by the thousands

that these people have indicated to you this inorning; and I hope

that does not take place.

MAINTAINING AN ECONOMIC BALANCE DURING

INFLATIONARY TIMES

by Kendrick J. Simila, Administrator, Weights and Measures

Division, Department of Agriculture, State of Oregon

In providing the Conference executive secre- tary with a title to attach to my remarks on

this morning's program, I could be accused of

ambiguity ; that is to say the title of this addi'ess, "Maintaining an Economic Balance During Inflationary Times," could be taken or

interpreted in one or more of several ways. It

cquld suggest a session with helpful hints for

household budgeting, a listing of energy-saving guidelines for commercial enterprises, or even perhaps a lecture on fiscal responsibility

for public administi'ators. As worthy as such efforts on the subject

might be, however, they would fall short of my purpose here, which

is to identify and explain some of the less obvious economic benefits

accruing to our troubled economy because of "routine" weights and

measures regulatory activities being perfonned across the country.

By use of the tenn "routine" in conjunction with weights and

measures regulatory activities I do not mean to imply that they are

either simple mechanical tasks being performed by individuals with

minimum qualifications or that their value to the general public is minimal in comparison to their cost. On the contrary, this routine

weights and measures or "legal metrology" activity, properly done,

demands the education and skills of (qualified measurement standards

specialists. Moreover, the value received on an economic scale is

minimally at least several times greater than the program costs. What

is routine about these activities (device examinations, packaged

104
pmducts label and content inspections, test purchase or shopping for

compliance programs, complaint investigations, etc.) is the qniet,

matter-of-fact manner in which they are being accomplished without all the fanfare and headlines of so many latter-day consumer

protection pTOgrams.

They are also routine in the sense that they have historically been

among the first activities of governments anywhei-e. In Oregon, for

example, weights and measures regulation existed prior to statehood

as a consequence of actions taken by our territorial legislature. Also

while our coimtry is only observing its bicentennial t^his year, I note

(from personal observation on a trip to Florida) that the first re- corded weights and measures activity on this continent by innnigrants was regulation of the public market in St. Augustine, Florida,

some 377 years ago (1598—^by order of Grovernor Mendez de Canzo).

Before proceeding, a few definitions and concepts from the field

of economics are in order to be sure we are together on terminology.

Someone has said that economics is the science of stating the obvious

in terms of the incomprehensible. I am afraid that there is just

more than a little ti'uth in that statement. The tenns "economics"

itself we accept from Webster as being "the science that deals with

the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth, and with

the various related problems of labor, finance, taxation, etc." Keep

in mind from that definition that to assure the equitable transfer of

ownership of the many billions of dollai'S w^orth annually of products and services being produced, distributed and consumed within

this country requires weights and measures regulation.

A pei"son obtains goods or services from another (i.e., transfers

ownership) in one of three ways: by theft, by gift, or by equitable

trade (which includes sale or purchase). Only with equitable trade

through the medium of the market are the needs of both buyers

and sellers, users and suppliers, or producers and consumers satisfied. With the major exceptions of financial investments and durable

goods (automobiles, appliances, etc.) most all other transactions in

the stream of commerce we have called equitable trade involve the

determination of quantity in tei'ms of weight, volume, count, or other measure. Without weights and measures regulation of these

quantity determinations, they inadvertently or deliberately tend to

drift from the category of equitable trade into the domain (at least

partially) of theft or gift.

Two terms economists like to use to further subdivide their field

of study are: (1) microeconomics—covere those theories and subjects dealing with individual sectors of the economy, specific industries, etc., and (2) macroeconomics—covers those topics and theories

dealing with the economy as a whole. The theories and rules that

are applicable at one level may not, it seems, apply equally at the

105
other. Since inflation invariably affects all segments of the economy,

we will be examining weights and measures contributions in this

battle primarily from the macix>6conomic point of view.

To place these macroeconomic benefits in proper perspective, however, we must first touch briefly upon the microeconomic side qf

benefits from weights and measures regulatory activities. With these

then out of the way, the "macix)" concepts should stand out more

clearly.

The most commonly encountered statistics illustrating the benefits

of our work in our cities, counties, and states in the so-called microeconomic category are those we prepare which show the value per

capita or per family of effective weights and measures regulation

and enforcement in reducing short weight, short fill and other misrepresentations of quantity. At one time a number of years ago the

Education Committee of this Conference, I believe it was, projected

this value to be $150 per family annually. More recently, in the early

1970's the National Bureau of Standards undertook development of

a systematic approach to quantifying these types of micix)economic

benefits statistics based on : (1) actual product, service or commodity

merchandising methods, (2) inspection results in the jurisdictions,

and (3) volumes of trade. While this work has not yet reached

fruition, it is the best hope yet that someday weights and measures

administrators, consumers, and policy and lawmaking bodies (such

as city councils, county commissions, and state legislatures) Avill be

able to quantify and verify the substantial benefits of establishing or expanding effective weights and measures programs.

Essentially what we are talking about categorically then, when we

refer to weights and measures regulatory activities directly benefiting the consumers and business in our communities through more

accurate determination of the quantity of goods and services, are the

microeconomic returns or benefits. These are benefits we can most

readily undei-stand and someday hope to place a dollar value on. The prefix "micixa" here is itself somewhat a misnomer. It does not

mean that the economic returns referred to are small or insignfioant,

but rather only a partial picture of the total economic sector involved. In fact, the numbers involved in such microeconomic benefits

could vary anywhere from the estimated $150 saved annually by one

family to the several billion dollars saved annually throughout the

United States from the efforts of all jurisdictions in regulating the

more than $800 billion in U.S. commerce subject to weights and

measures requirements.

The value of the more complex macroeconomic benefits of weights

and measures regulatory activities that accrue in response to the

economic disorder we call inflation is much more difficult to calculate.

(Difficult here is obviously a relative term, since the methodology for

106
quantifying even the previously mentioned microeconomic category

of benefits itself has not yet been perfected.) Nevertheless, these

indirect benefits are no less real for their being in the nature of

being almost indeterminate. Their one distinguishing characteristic or common denominator is that they are, in a sense, independent of

what sector of the economy, or which industry, or type of product

or service is being considered. This conmionality is shared by the

fact that inflation hits all areas of the economy ; no area is exempt.

The impact of inflation may be felt more in some product or service areas than others, durable goods versus real estate for example, but

it cannot be avoided entirely. For this reason the economic pressures

for commercial enterprises to minimize inflation-caused reductions

in profit margins are widespread and naitural in a free enterprise

economy.

Let us proceed to examine, then, one of these unique, inflationfighting so-called macroeconomic category benefits of weights and

measures regulatory activity. Consider, if you will, the case of a packaged product seller Company X (be it a producer, distributor, or retailer) whose pi'oduct raw material supplier has just raised

prices. In this oversimplified case we will assume Company X has

three choices to avoid bearing the total cost of this inflation it is

experiencing. First, it can raise its own product's price a commensurate amount. Second, it can keep its price the same and reduce the

quantity per package. Third, it can keep the price and quantity the

same but make it faster and with less care, in effect reducing the

quality. In actuality many combinations of the above could occur,

which possibilities we are discounting in this example.

At this point a further complication needs to be considered and

that is the choice Company X has as to whether it will fully or

partially disclose or not disclose to the public on its packages the course it has decided to follow. A lack of disclosure in some cases would, of course, be a weights and measures law violation. Decreasing the product quantity but not changing the label declaration

would be one such violation. Decreasing the production line overfill,

however, would not necessarily lesult in violations providing that

the filling line variables did not then produce a greater incidence of

unacceptaJble lots due to unreasonable individual package errors or minus averages for the lots.

A very probable response of Compan}^ X (and particularly if they

are selling a consumer product at retail) in this instance would be one that is typical of many other firms that have faced similar

choices in the past. That is, a new product package size would be

introduced, with full disclosure to the public of the new size and

price. The unit price of the "new" item would, of course, be some- what higher than the old size which would then be discontinued.

107
At the very least then this new package would require a new round

of quantity labeling and fill checking by weights and measures jurisdictions. In some cases a need for checking compliance with unit

pricing or exemptions from standard size regulations would also be

involved. In any event, the factor of package and/or price change

due to inflation would have increased the likelihood of errors over

the company's performance during "steady-state" marketing.

The point of the preceding example involving Company X has

been to illustrate the types of situations and choices that arise in

commercial enterprises as a result of inflationary pressures, that to

some degree or other are regulated or kept in check by the presence

of a weights and measures regulatory activity. This is not to suggest

that inflationary pressures are solely responsible for presenting opportunities for fraud or deception to occur. Obviously, such opportunities exist all along for those who are inclined to operate with

such business ethics. What is special about an inflationary period in

contributing to quantity measurement and product pricing problems in commerce is the ovei'all climate of change and uncertainty.

This transitional environment makes it difficult not only for buyers

to make accurate current value comparisons between alternative

products or services, but genuiziely hard for sellers to fairly value

their inventories and price accordingly. The presence of weights and

measures jurisdictions on the scene enforcing uniformly those commercial measurement standards and requirements that apply in each

case serve double duty during such periods. Xot only are the normal

economic period (i.e., steady-state) inadvertent or deliberate erroi-s

being detected and corrected, but those special case inflation-based

problems or errors are also being uncovered, exposed to public

scrutiny and given the necessary impetus for cori'ection. I might

add that in most instances the necessary coirective action (from our

experience in Oregon) is taken voluntarily after the findings have

been repoited and the appropriate notice given.

A second observation on the inflation-fighting macTOeconomic

benefits of weights and measures regulatory activities relates to as- sisting in the maintenance of free competition. ]Most business failures

in our country occur during periods of economic upset. The inflationaiy spiral we have experienced during the decade of the 1970's

to date has been a major economic blow, particularly to many small

businesses that are not part of a corporate conglomerate. Without

the underlying support of weights and measures regulatory programs that assui'e each producer, distiibutor and retailer of products

and services that his competitors must meet the same standards in

the marketplace, many of the independent and small businesses in all sectors of the economy would not be able to weather the effects of

predatory piicing and other cutthroat marketing methods that occui'

108
during periods of dynamic change. While perfect competition does

not really exist in a strict sense in the United States, it is approached

in many trade channels such as those foi' marketing agricultural

produce. Moreover, it is approximated in the markets foi' industrial

items produced by small firms such as cottonseed oil and rough lumber.

Maintaining a semblance of free competition is obviously a complex economic task. Near monopolies and oligopolies (only a fcAV

sellers) in trade occur for a variety of reasons. Some finns are lai'ge

for the reason that such size carries with it genuine efficiency from

the standpoint of production or marketing or both. Others may go

beyond the size that is most efficient from a production standpoint

in order to gain the market power to influence prices. Still others may

want greater size or reduced competition for some noneconomic rea- son such as prestige (i.e., industiy leader). While other regulatory

factors are also involved, weights and measures regulatory activities

remain leveling mechanisms that assist in keeping competition on an

equal footing.

The businessman faced with recurring employee demands for

higher wages to "keep up with the cost of living," the retired person

trying to meet rising utility costs and higher I'ent on a fixed income,

and the housewife struggling to put food on the family dinner table

in a period of escalating food prices need hardly be told that inflation

is a serious economic problem. Similarly, the city sanitation worker

who is laid off because the municipal budget has to balance ; the

graduating senior who, despite excellent marks, has no luck in finding a job—any job; and the home builder who finds no market for

his product are all too familiar with the evils of recession. Economic

ailments affect us all. If allowed to become too severe, they create

great physical and psychological hardships and strain the fabric of

our country's social and political structure. Moreover, even in mild

cases they produce secondary eft'ects, which if untreated feed upon the

economy in a self-destructing manner.

While weights and measures regulatory activities, as largely internal domestic government functions, in and by themselves neitlieastimulate nor retard the basic causes of an economic ciisis like

inflation, they do play an important role in treating the most visible

crisis symptoms: rising prices, shrinking quantities, declining quality, and i"educed levels of competition in goods and services. That

weights and measures regulatory activities do this has not been

readily recognized by either the public or the regulatory agencies

themselves. Thus it may seem paradoxical that to better understand what appears perfectly obvious when we discuss our nation's

economic picture during the morning coffee break has required

description by seemingly complex economic analysis. Personal ex109
perience, however, is often a poor guide to generalization. For ex- ample, American motorists may feel inflation has grabbed them by

the gas tank when, in fact, the latest rise in the cost of motor fuel

they see may have resulted from a government anti-inflationary

policy measure (such as an additional oil import taritT to reduce

consumption until domestic production and supplies can be increased).

In conclusion, "Maintaining an Economic Balance During Inflationary Times" has meant examining the uniquely important role

that weights and measures regulatory activities play especially during periods of the economic disease we know as inflation. This inflation-fighter role of weights and measures activities we see produces

benefits that are similar in nature (i.e., economic) to those produced

during noninflationary or normal times, yet in a sense they are much

wider and more far-reaching benefits to the general public and the

business community.

DISCUSSION

Mr. H. E. Sandel (San Bernardino County, California) : Thank

you very much, Ken. Xow, we want to express our appreciation to

the speakers on how much we enjoyed their presentations this morning. At this time we would like Mr. Zaucha to come back to the

podium, if he would please, and we will start otf with questions and

stay here as long as you like.

Ms. J. ScHAKOwsKi (Chicago Consumer Coalition) : This has to

do with weights and measures enforcement people and the removal

of prices in supermarkets. In the Chicago area, two Jewel Stores

have already removed prices on many of their items. They do not

have a scanning system in, but they do have only shelf prices. Since

January of this year the signs for short weight and deceptive practices have gone from $1,550 in January to $8,270 in April. The

majority of these signs have increased in the two stores where the

prices have been removed, where there are different price markings

for similar items on the same shelf, no price markings at all on many

packages on shelves. This is the kind of thing that is going to happen. The weights and measures people in many communities are not

only charged with the responsibility of weights, but also of con- sumer protection in terms of deceptive practices.

Mr. T. K. Zaucha (National Association of Food Chains) : Obviously the weights and measures people are certainly not holding

hands with the supermarkets in Chicago. Se<x>ndly, perhaps you

could describe to the audience the nature of the Jewel Stores that

have taken off prices, why they are taking off prices on certain items,

and what is the customer's reaction to that practice in the stores in

which they are doing it.

110
Ms. ScHAKowsKi: The stores that are doing it are called grand

bazaar stores. They are quite large and the products are placed in

large bins with supposedly a shelf price or a marking on the cases, which often is not there.

The response from consumers has been horrible. The Consumer

Sales Department in Chicago has gotten over 500 complaints since

they started removing prices. In some instances they were forced to

put them back on because of the reaction from consumers. Mr. Zaucha : What is the principle in back of the bin method of

storage ? Ms. ScHAKOwsKi : I assume they think it is more efficient.

Mr. Zaucha : And cost productive, right ? Ms. ScHAKOwsKi: The prices certainly are not any cheaper. On

any of the surveys we have done, the reduction in costs has not been

transferred to the consiuner. Jewel is the highest priced supermarket

in the Chicago area. Mr. Zauchas : How about those bin prices ? Those are not special

items? You don't find a couple of pennies off on an item in those

bins?

Ms. ScHAKOwsKi: In connection with other Jewel Stores? They

might be cheaper than other Jewel Stores in some cases, but they

are not cheaper than other stores in the area that price regularly.

Mr. Zaucha : But, you see, again, that is really the point T am

making—that there lare some economics that they are . . . Ms. ScHAKOwsKi : Sure, but that is two stores. They can afford to

lower the prices in those two stores, just like when the supermarkets

came along and put all the small ma and pa stores out of business.

Let's undersell them until they get out; and then we can i"aise the

price and there's no place else to go. Sure, we have an alternative

now.

Mr. Zaucha : You have opened up another area of discussion, but

the point is this, the reasoning in back of it is to determine a more

efficient, economical way of distributing food ; and the grand bazaar

concept is certainly unique. It is certainly no indication of the

attempt of Jewel or any other market to deceptively keep price information from consumers. Ms. Schakowski : But it certainly removes the price from the consciousness of the consumer. Mr. Zaucha: Well, I will disagree with you there. I think shelf

marking may, in fact, make people more price conscious. Let me ask

you another question. How price conscious are consumers, and is

there a need to try to improve on that consciousness?

Ms. Schakowski: Before the prices started flying all over the

place, you could approach many women in the supermarket and they

would know the price of the products they bought regularly. I

111
would see it on the shelf, I would see it when it was charged at the

checkout, I would see it when I unpacked it at home, I would see it when I put it on the shelf, I would see it when I would take it off

the shelf to use it, and believe me, I would remember what that

price was. However, if I am only going to see it on the shelf, I am going

to lose consciousness of those prices. I am not going to be aware that

I have a jar sitting here from last month that was 39 cents and now

it is 45 cents. I just will not be aware of it. Mr. D. I. Offner (St. Louis, Missouri) : I am a weights and measures official. I cannot ever foi'get the fact that I am a consumer too. I am not sure which hat I am wearing right now, because I really do

not think that there is a dichotomy that actually shows its head a bit

in this discussion today. I am not defensive. I do not think we should

be defensive, but I think we should keep our eyes open.

Forgetting the weights and measures official aspect now, I. as a consumer, know from my own experience. Long before I was in

weights and measures, I did the shopping. I have had a large family.

I know what the problem is. The one thing that UPC does—in the

direction it is going—is to go against the trend of full disclosure. A

consume-r is interested in low prices, but I think without doubt the

consumer is willing to spend what has to be spent.

The consumer knows that theie are a few bargains. You are willing

to spend what has to be spent, but you do want full disclosure. I

think the trend that we are seeing in devices today is everything is going digital. There is no argument about what the gallonage in the

new gasoline pumps is. There is immediate reaction to price; you

know what you are spending. But UPC comes along and goes

directly contrary to that trend.

The important consideration—and I think this showed its head

in the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, at least the philosophy did —about comparative shopping is being able to make a judgment

before you make a decision. Remarks have been made, and we all

know they are accurate, regarding the inability to keep shelf-marked

prices current. We have seen just an awful lot of this in the past

year with rapidly changing prices. We are talking in tei-ms of perhaps reduction of payroll costs on the part of the merchant and so forth, which means, perhaps, lesser ability to keep shelf marking

current.

It is like Syd Andrews said the other day in his own presentation,

we have always got to be ready to compromise, but we do not have

to compromise principles. One of the compromises I think that UPC

is ultimately going to have to make is to leave the individual price

markings on the package.

112
Yet, there are many other benefits to UPC. UPC is not a matter

of taking price markings off, and I think maybe we are getting

things a little out of perspective. As I understand UPC, it seems to

me that there are tremendous benefits to the merchant and, p'erhaps.

ultimately to the public. So let us use it, recognizing that we may

well have to keep the price on the package.

I know stores in the St. Louis area that are completely universal

product coded; not in grocery stores, but in general merchandise

stores. In every case that I can think of, they used the UPC and

have made no effort to remove the prices. I think the UPC people

should be ready to recognize that the public feeling on this; is simply

going to require that prices stay on the individual containers.

Mr. Zaucha: I think your point is very well made and taken.

I think you hit it extremely well when you talked about the age of

disclosure. Ironically, you know, when you talk about the total perspective, universal product code with the detailed checkout tape

ideally lends itself more to the age of disclosure. But, as you say, the

item pricing issue has really kind of overshadowed all other aspects

of it. It may be an issue that a lot of people are going to have to

face up to. Mr. Offner: I had a lengthy discussion with some of the Toledo

Scale Company people last night on this point. I would probably

get clobbered by my wife if she knew I were relating this publicly,

so this part I siippose is off the record. The fact is I have got a family of seven children—^they are largely raised now. From the time I

have been married, for a variety of reasons, I have practically lived

in grocery stores. Shopping is a time consuming operation. I think

anybody here who has ever done any shopping knows that it is not

unusual to get into a grocery store and be there for two hours. You

have all kinds of decisions to make. Time is an important commodity for all of us. When I get home, I do not have the time nor the inclination to

then recheck a tape. Ideally it may work out all right. You can do

this. But, you know you have never bought an automobile and after

you have bought the automobile got home and looked at the bill

of sale and said, "Hey, this is what I paid for that automobile." It is

disclosure, but it is disclosure that is not timely.

Mr. Zaucha: From that applause, let me ask you a question.

Would you then like to see item pricing without the new checkout

tape ? You don't think that is a consumer value ? Let me again go back to his point that indeed customers in the

past, but some still do, would take their list and check it off to see that in fact they had everything. The new checkout tape will offer a new form of audit, but it will take a little time on the part of

113
customers, just like current checks. It has another advantage to it

also. After shopping in Store A, I can take that slip across the

street to Store B or Stoi'e C and comparatively shop. I can take

that whole shopping list and go to a completely new supermarket

and do a price comparison on my order. I think that is an advantage

in the era of exposure.

Mr. M. Trujillo (Puerto Rico) : I have a suggestion that will

solve most of the problems that have been discussed this morning

regarding UPC. First of all, the price can be printed with a little

UPC label in numeral foiTns. I am sure you are familiar with tlie fact that there are scanners on the market right now thai can read

longhand.

Mr. Zaucha : But, the manufacturer does not set the price of

the i-etail item.

Mr. Trujillo: No, no. That would continue to be a function of

the supermarket, but instead of pricing at the pix)gramming level,

he will be pricing at the ticketing level of the supennarket and still have the automated phase of having the machine read the price and

include it in the cash register ticket. In that fashion you will have

the advantage of the automation that it would involve and you will

not have the problem of the regulatory officers and the consumers

objecting to not seeing the price. This is entirely possible with the

technology now available.

Mr. Zaucha: That is an interesting concept. It really is, and I

would be interested in talking to you more about it. Ms. Schakowski: I would like to take exception to two of your

comparison shopping things, and then I am finished. One, there is no way when I get that tape home that I can compare the prices

because I don't know what the prices were on the shelf. I cannot

remember them. I don't have them on the packages. I cannot check

them against the tape so there is no comparison there.

Secondly, I cannot take it to another store and check because I cannot remember whether the cereal was 12 ounces or 16 ounces. There is no way to remember that. It is not written on the tape.

Mr. Zaucha : Oh, come on now ! You know the various sizes of

cereal . . . Ms. Schakowski : No, I do not. How many various sizes of cereals

and soap detergents are there . . . Mr. Zaucha : I don't accept what you are saying. I know the type

of cereal sizes that I buy . . . Ms. Schakowski: '\^niat are they? How many sizes of Kellog's

Corn Flakes are there? Have you ever done a price comparison sur- vey between supermarkets? Have you seen a package of cake mix

in one store that might have been 18 ounces and the same brand in

another store that was 17% ounces?

114
Mr. Zaucha : The same brand ? Ms. ScHAKOwsKi : Same brand, same pi'oduct, same size box, different weights.

Mr. Zatjcha : How does that help by having the item priced ? You

still cannot compare it. Ms. ScHAKOwsKi: You cannot compare it. How am I going to

compare this tape with another store if they are not the same size ? Mr. Zaucha : Let's conclude on this point. I can assume then that

your position is, and this is your official position, that the consumer

receipt tape in no way helps comparative shopping between storefs ? Ms. ScHAKOwsKi : Between stores ? Mr. Zatjcha: That's right.

Ms. ScHAKOwsKi: No, not the way it is now, unless it has a size

on it. Mr. Zaucha : Okay. That is interesting. Thank you.

OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER ISSUES

by Charles A. Barrett, Chief Deputy Attorney General,

Department of Justice, State of California

It is a pleasure to address this 60th Xational

Conference on Weights and ISIeasures, especially as you are holding your Conference for

the first time in Califoinia.

I want to talk to you today about a subject

which is of concern not only to those of you

who are weights and measures enforcement

officers, but to all of us who are interested in

the future of the consumer protection movement. This subject is the proper relationship

between the fifty states and the national go\'-

ernment in protecting consumeis.

It is important to recall that our Constitution is expressly conditioned upon the delegation of certain enumerated powers to the Federal Government and the reservation of all powers not expressly

delegated. This fundamental principle has important applications

in the field now called consumer protection just as it has had

throughout our histoiy in the area more traditionally described hj

the phrase "the police power of the states." The idea behind the phrase "consumer protection" is hardly new

;

it predates our American Revolution by more than 500 years. The

concept that those who purchase goods and services have a right

to accurate information concerning those articles has specific expression in the Magna Carta. In 1215 the English noblemen on the fields

115
of Rimneymede required King John to guarantee the Englisli people

certain civil and political liberties including connnercial I'ights.

Section 35 of this charter of fundamental x'ights provides:

"There shall be one measure of wine throughout our whole

realm, and one measure of ale and one measure of corn—namely,

the London quart—^and one width of . . . cloth . . . and with

weights, moreover it shall be as with measures."

By the Magna Carta the English monarch was required to recognize that varying standards of measures and. equally important, the

giving of false information about the weight or measure of a product

is harmful and is not only because of the obvious and immediate

injury to the purchaser, but becaiise of the depressing effect which

false information inexorably has upon commerce in general.

These provisions of the Magna Carta are the modern basis for

the establishment of government-sanctioned weights and measures

offices and uniform standards of weights and measures. And they

represent the early recognition in our Anglo-American system of

jurisprudence of the futility of a system of commerce based upon

the short-sighted doctrine of caveat emptor.

The provisions of the Magna Carta, later common law principles

developed from the Magna Carta and the enlightened self-interest

of merchants, necessarily resulted in increased government regulation

of the marketplace for the protection of all concerned.

This governmental regulation has developed over the years to

provide protection to all consumers—and this includes businessmen

from unsafe products and from goods which are misrepresented. The

object of this regulation has been to increase the information available to consumers so that the choices we make are informed

choices.

As we all know, governmental regulation of the marketplace has

increased substantially in the past several years. The last ten years

have seen the creation of Federal agencies with responsibilities for

auto safety, tire safety, consumer product safety and envii'onmental

quality, to name just a few. At the same time increased public awareness has brought about demands for more activity on the part

of the Federal Government.

Some have recently suggested that there is now too nuich regulation in the marketplace, that the proliferation of Federal agencies

and regulatory bodies has begun to stiflle commerce, that there is no

need for more Federal agencies to watch out for the interests of consumers. At the same time, certain of the voices which cry out

against proliferation of Federal agencies, suggest that the historic

role of the states in protecting our citizens from short measure and

harmful products ought to be transferred to the Federal Govern116
ment, that only centralized control can protect both commerce and

consumers. There is an apparent conflict in these two proposals—on the one hand we are told we do not need Federal regailatory agnecies and

on the other hand, centralized control and enforcement is necessary.

Let me suggest that both proposals are wrong; that if we analyze

each position in its context we will tind that there is need for aggressive Federal consumer policies, as well as continued activity by

the states to assure our citizens that the products they pui'chase are

full measure and not deceptively packaged.

Of course there have always been those Avho contend that government—whether it be Federal or state—should not meddle with the

market mechanism, that legislatures should not by statute require

truth in packaging, that the courts should not hold manufacturers

strictly liable for product defects. What gives these voices a rallying

point in 1975 is the legislation now pending in Congress to establish a Consumer Protection Agency (CPA), the opponents of which claim

will only superimpose another layer upon the already mammoth

Federal bureaucracy.

The chief purpose of the pi'oposed Consumer Protection Agency

is to advocate the interests of consumers before Congress, the courts,

and, most importantly, before other administrative agencies. The

theory behind this legislative pi'oposal is that there is need for

Federal intrusion into the marketplace to facilitate rational spending

and avoid economic waste ; consmners. continue the advocates of the

CPA, will never be oi'ganized sufficiently to have their demands

have sufficient impact in the marketplace ; to bring about the balance

of forces which consumers need they must have the benefit of government assisted bargaining power.

But what of the complaints that there are ali"eady too many

Federal I'egulatoi-y agencies and that the same objectives can be

achieved by establishing an Office of Consumer Representative in

the present agencies? Many of those who object to the proposed Consumer Pi'otection Agency argue that it would merely add another

level to the already overloaded Federal bureaucracy.

Their point may have validity, and it underscores an important

dilemma. The reason, it is said, that we need this agency is that the

government is so unresponsive and bureaucratic that the consumer

is left out. But have we solved his problem by establishing yet

another bureaucracy ? A lot of people are saying that government has

become too big and unresponsive, that more money and more bureacracy is not the answer. There seems to be a general feeling in

"Washington and the states that we should get away from the 1960's

policies of ever-expanding government.

While the qiiestion of a Consumer Pi-otection Agency is important,

equally impoitant is the reaffirmance of the constitutionally defined

117
role of the states as separate and distinct entities actively engaged in

the protection of their citizens from the consequences of anti-social

behavior including such economic crimes as the sale of commodities

in short measure. In the last 40 years we have witnessed a vast increase in the functions performed by the Federal GoA'ernment. This demonstrably increased role of the Federal Government has resulted in part from

the failures of the states to take an aggressive role in resolving critical problems.

In the last 10 years the Congress has enacted the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act, the Wholesome Meat Act, the Poultry and Poultry

Products Inspection Act and other laws designed to impose national

standards of truth in packaging and wholesomeness in foodstuffs.

These objectives are important to the health and welfare of our

people and deserving of support. Unfortunately, however, there have

been included in many of these otherwise beneficial laws, preemption

clauses which have been used by a few short-sighted businessmen and

by regulatory agencies insensitive to the needs and concerns of con- sumers to frustrate the efforts of weights and measures officials in

the discharge of the duties which they have performed since the time

of the Magna Carta.

While the announced pui'pose of these preemption clauses is to

promote commerce through uniformity in regulatory standards and

enforcement procedures, they have in fact had contrary effects. Some

packers, seeking short-term gain, have ai'gued that their products

need bear true statements of weight only when they leave the packing house door—not when you and I read the labels in the supermarket, and not when other businessmen buy them for resale to its or for further processing. And certain Federal agencies have un- thinkingly taken up this position, forsaking the statutory requirements which mandate that they administer the laws for the protection of consumers and competitors.

The adverse economic consequences which follow from acceptance

of the "accuracy when packed" concept are severe loss of what

lawyers call "the benefit of the bargain," reduction in the true value

of the product mislabeled, and loss of confidence in our ability to

rely upon weights and measures representations. Further acceptance

of this standard of consumer deception would result in constxmers

and businessmen alike losing confidence in the market system and in

the governmental agencies charged by law with protecting and with

promoting the interests of consumers. Of equal importance is the argument advanced by these same shortsighted persons that the various preemption clauses mean that the

states no longer have any function in enforcing laws designed to

protect their citizens from fraud in the market place, that the Fed118
eral Government has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce these laws.

Those who make this argimient do so with the knowledge that the

Federal agencies which they would have assume the powers of the

state in this field do not presently possess the expertise, experience

or equipment necessary, let alone the funding necessary, to train the

thousands of additional Federal employees who would be needed to

make any such Federal program effective.

The practical consequences of this argument are twofold. First,

you and your associates would have to close up shop—cease inspecting products meiely because at one time they wei-e in a plant subject to some Federal regulation. And second, there would be no Federal inspector to replace you. The advocates of federalization of

weights and measures inspection do not include in their proposal a

request for Federal funds to replace the state and local weights and

measures officials whom they claim are meddling in something that

is too important to be left with the states. And as a practical matter,

there will be no Federal funds forthcoming to perform this necessary

function.

It would seem to me to be a misapplication of Federal monies to

train Federal employees to do the job already being done by state

and local employees. State and local weights and measures officers are hardly meddling, they are carrying out one of the functions traditionally performed by the state. In fact, we have seen that enforcement through the police power of what are now truth in packaging

laws predates the recent Federal legislation by hundreds of years.

Most importantly, to permit centralization of weights and measures enforcement would allow a major encroachment upon the historic and necessary role of the states of protecting our citizens from

unsafe, unwholesome and deceptively packaged goods. The states did

not surrender their police power when they delegated certain powers

to the Federal Government. Although some states may have been

less than vigorous in the past in using this power, they still have it available and should not peimit further encroachment.

While I advocate vigorous action by the states in weights and

measures enforcement and other aspects of our police power, I also

believe that there should be a uniform national standard—true

weight to the consumer. Only this standard will fulfill the commitment which we all have to assure consumers that they get what they

pay for and to protect businessmen by assuring that all must meet

the same measure. There is a legitimate role and purpose for the Federal Government

in the weights and measures field. Indeed, an outstanding example

is the role of the National Bureau of Standards to assure the integrity of our system of weights and measures—to assure that "a

pound is a pound the nation around."

119
Tliere is also a legitimate role for the states—to protect our citi- zens—businessmen and consumers—fi-om fraud in the marketplace

whether it results from false oi- deceptive packaging or unwholesome,

adulterated or unsafe food or other commodities and regardless of

where the commodity was packed.

There is no need for there to be an irreconcilable conflict between

Federal and state administrative agencies in the enforcement of truth

in packaging laws. All that is necessary is recognition of the historical role and practical necessity of enforcement by the states of

standards which pi'otect the public—be they consumers or competitors—from fraud in the marketplace. Indeed to a certain extent this

goal is recognized in current Federal legislation. And. to the extent

it is not, it should be.

Most importantly, enlightened administration of existing laws by

the Federal agencies in the interest of consumers and competitors can go a long Avay toward recognizing the role of the states in our

Federal system.

The argument made by those who would remove the states' police

power has important consequences beyond the weights and measures

field. In California and other states theio are A'igorous programs to

protect consumers—again this includes both the public and businessmen—from deceptive acts and practices, including deceptive packaging, false advertising, and monopolization and other restraints of

trade.

For example, in California in the past 6 months we have filed lawsuits and obtained judgments in several deceptive packaging cases

alone. And just three weeks ago we filed a major anti-trust action

against most of the major oil producers alleging restraint of trade.

"We have also taken steps to alleviate one of the most significant

problems of consumers, that of inflation. In October 1974. I appointed an inflation task force to examine ways in which we could

attach this most serious problem. In ^farch of this year the task

force reported upon specific legislative proposals which, if enacted,

would bring about substantial savings to California consumers. These

proposals include repeal of laws forbidding price advertising in cer- tain fields and repeal of California's fair trade laws, proposals Avhich are now before our legislature.

My point is this : It is equally important in all areas that the police

power of the states not be restricted. The constitutional role of the

states does not requii'e that we wait upon the Federal Government

to act in each area in which, the health or welfare of our citizens

demands protection. To the contrary, both our constitutional responsibilities and practical necessity require that the states vigorously

exercise our i-esponsibilities to consumers—be they individuals or

120
businessmen—to insure that the marketplace is truly free by assuring

that products which are offered are safe and honestly presented.

Those of you assembled here in San Diego this week should take

particular pride in your history and in your present role as bearing

an important part of this responsibility. I wish you well in your

endeavors to assure honest weights and measures and to carry out

the proper role of the states.

DISCUSSION

Unidentified Voice : I would be remiss as a board member of the

Consumer Federation of America, and Helen Nelson, if she were

here, would be remiss too, if we did not call attention to the fact that

in no way is the national consumer movement looking to curtail or

restrict the support of the independent consumer agency bill.

We, too, recognize the problem of preemption. We, too, recognize

that consumer problems are best handled at local levels. Wherever

you can do that, the responsiveness of local government to the complaints or problems of the consumer is the best place for this to be

done.

But there is a role for the independent consumer agency in the

Federal Government. There aie many consumer problems of a national level that the states cannot deal with. For example, there was

no consumer input in the Russian wheat deal, which resulted in the

14 percent increase in the price of many food pi-oducts. That is not

something that state consumer protection agencies would be getting

into. But it is something where, if there was a consumer independent

voice on the Federal level, thei'e would be input on that level from

consumers as far as their feelings and the impending Russian wheat

deal again.

There are many decisions made on the national level that affect the

price of gasoline—millions of dollars that consumers spend for gasoline. Again, although you are involved on the state level, there is a national consumer view on this. An independent consumer agency

bill has been formulated and supported for over five years by many

of the consumer groups, many of the California congressmen, two

United States Senators ; there is a valid place and a valid voice for it in the Federal Government. We ai-e aware of state consumer protection problems. We certainly support all of the power that you people

have; and w^e would be willing to give you a lot more. Thank you

very much.

Mr. D. McCurry (National Consumers Congress) : I have heard

this morning two or three things that I think had not been touched on

and I feel will not be touched on as we move on; and I want to

speak to them. I have sat hei'e all week as a consumer i-epresentative

121
who used to work with the nieasurenieut section of USDA and heard

folks time after time try to separate the technical aspects of the jobs

they have on the state and local levels in weights and measures from

the public policy role that those jobs have ; and it seems to me that

is an impossible kind of thing to do. It. I guess, behooves a confer- ence like this to pat themselves on the back and say in a body what

a good job we have done, and you have. But time after time, in talking to individual Aveights and measures sealers here, I have heard

of great frustration—if we had budget, if we had more personnel,

if we could keep up with the technological changes that ai-e taking

place in the industries that we have to regulate, then we could in

fact do a better job.

Those are public policy questions. It gets to my mind, down to the

basis at least of what I have heard some of the consiimer repivsentatives saying here this morning, that if you want less bureauci^acy in government, government is going to have to be opened

up so that there is some input from folks who do not have the dayto-day information that an inspector or sealer has. Records have

to be opened up when convictions are (Obtained, then those have to be

publicized.

It is strange that as technology increases the so-called choices

that the consumers have in the marketplace—and Ave all know that

the quality production and the quality of products on the shelves in

the stores give us less and less choices as each year goes on—^that as we ti-y to make some sensible choices, that unless consumers can

enter into the very process where you gentlemen, and if there are some ladies here who are heads of departments or city sealei"s, include you as well, have to choose and protect consumers, then the

only way that yon are going to get real support for your jobs and

your budgets is to have consumers enter into that marketplace.

Those are public policy questions and those are questions where

you all are not getting the kind of support, from consumers, because

the support to the consumers is not getting out, that says here is what we are doing for you—^the kind of education that says, yes, Ave have cited this number of stores in the past month for shoitweight

practices, Ave obtained this number of convictions. Consumers come

down and try to look into the files to see what stores they should

be wary of and what stores they should not be wary of. Too often

a hassle to find that information is insuperable for consumers to

deal Avith.

AFTERNOON SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1975

Xo General Session Was Scheduled

122
MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1975

(Harlon D. Robinson, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

THE PERFECT FORMULA AND PMTD

by Allen J. Farkar, Legal Adviser,

National Bureau of Standards

When I was asked to speak before this Conference, I was especially pleased and proud t o do so. From my nearly ten years' association as the Bureau's chief counsel, I have come to re- spect and admire the accomplishments and

contributions of weights and measures officials

and those allied with you. In these times when

guarding measurement integrity—the theme of

this Conference—is so important to insure that

equity prevails in the marketplace, I know of

no group that has had a greater impact on our

society or our economy than the community of weights and measures officials.

It was my intention when I first planned my talk to delay until

nearly the end of it the meaning of the letters "PMTD" which are

in the title. However, as a lawyer, I began to idealize that much

of my talk, which is about the laws under which the National

Bureau of Standards operates, might not mean . as much to you

' unless I pointed out at the start the importance of the phrase those

letters stand for—People Make The Difference. Laws may be enacted, but in the final analysis, it is how the people, through their

attitude and approach, carry out and obey them that make the

laws a viable, effective and meaningful part of their daily lives.

AVhile the law is important, of even greater importance are the

people who make the law, those who administer it, and those who

operate within it. In short, it is the people who make the difference.

And that is what this talk is really all about.

Today, I want to talk to you about a subject that has been on my

mind for some time—^and I suspect on yours as well. It has been TO

i years since the first meeting was held at NBS with a handful of

' weights and measures officials to look into the matter of the methods

of inspection of commercial weights and measures and the working

I standards used by state, coimty. and city sealers. Since that time,

a nujnber of model laws have been proposed to this National Conference. Many have been adopted and subsequently enacted into

law by the state legislatures. Some of these model laws I will mention a little later.

123
In connection with this overall process, however, the question

which somehow continues to elude us is, "What is really the proper

role of the National Bureau of Standards in the establishment of

standards and regulations?" This basic question spawns a series of

related questions. Is our role, or should our role be, that of a leader

with all the functions, responsibilities and prerogatives that such

a term implies; should we play a cooperative role with state and

local officials; perhaps assume a passive position akin to that of

a moderator by providing appropriate direction or guidance where

needed ; or a combination of the above depending upon the facts and

circumstances of the particular situation? Finally, whatever our

role is or has been, do these strange and difficult times require a reevaluation of our statutory role with a view toward adopting a new stance?

If we are to assess what the Bureau's role in this area should be,

let us first examine its primary mission and purpose. While that

sounds like a rather straightforward and simple assignment, the

fact is that to do so is not an easy task. The National Bureau of

Standards is a rather complex and multifaceted organization. It covers a variety of scientific disciplines and engages in a great many

activities and programs involving viitually the entire spectrum of

physical measui'ement matters. Essentially, however, the Bureau's

overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and

teclinology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. One of the ways it seeks to achieve that goal is to furnish

essential services leading to accurate and unifonn physical measure- ments throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry and

commerce.

With the Bureau's broad overall goal in mind, let's examine the

machinery which powers the Bureau toward that goal—in short, the

laws under which NBS operates and carries out its programs. More

particularly, since we are primarily interested in weights and measures laws, standards, and I'egulations, we should focus on that portion of the Bureau's authority which is relevant to our area of

interest.

The first—and by far most important—statute is the NBS Organic

Act—the Act of March 3. 1901, as amended. Section 2 of that Act

sets out six basic functions which the Bureau is authorized to undertake. Of those, I think two are of special interest to us. The first

is "the custody, maintenance, and development of the national

standards of measurement and [providing the] means and methods

for making measurements consistent with those standards, including

the comparison of standards used in . . . commerce . . . with the

standards adopted or recognize by the Government." The second

function—and the one most frequently cited and relied upon by

124
the Bureau in connection with its interaction with other organizations—is the one which authorizes "cooperation with other governmental agencies and with private organizations in the establishment

of standard practices, incorporated in codes and specifications." I

plan to refer again to that paiticular function in a moment because

it, in my judgment, is central to the theme of what Ave are considering—the statutory role of the Bureau in the establishment of A^-eights

and measures laws, standards and regulations.

The two functions I have mentioned might be termed general or

basic functions. To carry out those basic functions, the Bureau is also authorized to undertake a rather lengthy list of 19 specific

activities. Here again, two of those specific activities are of particular interest to those concerned with weights and measures. The

first of these is authority to undertake "the investigation and testing

of railroad track scales, elevator scales, and other scales used in

Aveighing commodities for interstate shipment." The second is one

that appears in virtually every handbook, model laAv, repoit, or

other publication issued by the Bureau's Office of Weights and

Measures and one, therefore, that I am certain almost everyone in

this room knoAvs. That function is "cooperation Avith the States in

securing uniformity in Aveights and measures laws and methods

of inspection."

So much for the Bureau's basic statutory authority. The Organic

Act, however, is by no means the only statutory authority under

Avhich the National Bureau of Standards operates, nor in Avliich it

is named to carry out a specific mission or responsibility. There are a total of 20 Federal statutes that have been enacted over the years

which assign specific scientific duties to NBS. As the needs of this

Nation grew and the technology advanced, NBS was given additional responsibilities to deal Avith areas such as energy conservation, environmental pollution, and the advancement of computer

technology. Some of the statutes in these areas may not be known

to you. Others, hoAvever, such as the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act and the Consumer Product Safety Act, I am sure are Avell knoAvn

to you.

Having cited the Bureau's Organic Act and indicated that there are a number of other statutes under which the Bureau exercises re- sponsibility, let me noAV point out something you may not realize.

Neither the Organic Act nor any of those other statutes confei' on

the National Bureau of Standards any regulatory authority or en- forcement powers. At one time the Bureau was assigned by various

statutes the responsibility to develop and issue mandatory standards

covering brake fluids, seat belts, the closure mechanism on re- frigerator doors, and wearing apparel. However, even those statutes

placed the responsibility for inspection, insuring compliance with the

125
standards, and prosecution for violations on such regulatory or law

enforcement agencies as the Federal Trade Commission and the

Department of Justice. In lecent years, new laws have been enacted

which have added other regulatory agencies, such as the Department of Transportation and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and clothed them with inspection and enforcement powers

to make sure that mandatory standards issued by the Government

are complied with.

If the Bureau has no regulatoi*y or enforcement authority, how

then does it carry out its authorized mission of developing the

national standards of measurement, the establishment of standard

practives for incorporation in codes and specifications, and securing

uniformity in weights and measures laws and methods of inspection ? In a word—cooperation. Cooperation with whom ? Cooperation

with other governmental agencies, with private organizations, and

with the states. How did this type of role for NBS evolve and,

more importantly, has it been eifeotive?

Because of the growing intei'est in the Nation's history as the

bicentennial date of its birth approaches, a brief look at the historical background of weights and measures activities in this

country will, I think, throw some light on how the Bureau derived

its present authority. From there, we can see what results have

been achieved throug'h the cooperative approach and whether it has been effective.

The United States Constitution states quite plainly that "the

Congress shall have the power ... to regulate commerce . . . among the several states . . . and ... to fix the standards of

Aveights and measures." In the nearly 200 years of this great Nation,

you will see that the Congress has done very little in the field of

weights and measures. In 1836, the Congress adopted a Joint Resolution which directed

the Secretary of the Treasury to supply each state with a copy of

weights and measures adopted as standards for the customhouses.

In that way it was intended that a luiiform standard of weights and

measures could be established throughout the United States. This

action by the Congress, taken 60 years after the Declaration of

Independence, was the first definite action directed toward achieving

nationwide uniformity of standards. An Act two years later authoiized a gift of balances to the states to carry out the Resolution of

1836.

It may be of interest to note that to carry out those early Congressional directives, the Department of the Treasury established

the Office of Weights and Measures to construct and distribute the

standards and balances called for under those legislative actions.

This Office later became known as the Office of Standard Weights

126
and Measures. By that name the Office remained until section 1 of

the Act of March 3, 1901 decreed that "the Office of Standard

Weights and Measures shall be known as the National Bureau of

Standards." The Bureau, however, remained as a pait of the

Treasury Department until 1903 when it was transferred to the

newly created Department of Commerce and Labor. The Department of Labor was split off as a sepai'ate department in 1913.

Returning now to the chronology of Congressional action, tlie Congress, on July 28, 1866, legalized the use of the metric systean

and, by a Joint Resolution passed on the previous day, directed

the Secretary of the Treasury to furnish to each state a set of

standards of the metric system. In 1881, a complete set of all the

weights and measures that had been adopted as standards was

ordered by Congress to be delivered to each state. The Joint Resolutions and laws I have mentioned comprise the

total of Congressional directives in the field of standard systems oi' units of weights and measures. There are no specific Congressional requirements imposing uniformity among the states in the

matter of standards. Howevei', the immediate result of the early

distribution of standards to the states was, in virtually all cases, the

adoption as state standai'ds of the standards received from the

Federal Government. Hence, uniformity in this respect was brought

about indirectly rather than by direct action. Further, as I am

sure almost all of you are aware, the Bureau has undertaken the

distribution of a completely new set of standards, precision balances,

and laboratory instruments to each of the states. To date a total

of 45 states have received their set of standards and instruments

to replace the ones made available to the states under the laws of

1836 and 1838.

In addition to the laws I have mentioned, thei'e are two provisions

common to current state weights and measures laws which operate

to establish a firm basis for national uniformity of state standards.

The first of these provisions is to the effect that weights and

measures, which are supplied to the states and certified by the

National Bureau of Standards, shall also be state standards. The sec- ond is to the effect that the state shall submit its primary standards

to NBS once every ten years for recertification or shall have participated in the NBS laboratory and standards surveillance program.

As you can see from this brief glimpse into the history of weights

and measures legislation in this country, the Congress, except for

some relatively minor and little used Standard Barrel Acts of World

War I vintage, has not seen fit to exercise, to any substantial degree,

its authority under the Constitution to establish weights and measures. Nor has it seen fit to vest that power in any Federal agency.

What the Congress has done is make plain its intention that a joint

127
etfort be made between the Federal Government and the states to

establish a viable and effective weights and measures system. This

approach is manifested in that poition of the NBS Organic Act

already cited which permits the Bureau to undertake "cooperation

with the States in securing unifonnity in weights and measures

laws and methods of inspection."

I think we are at the point now where the question can fairly be

asked in order to gauge the effectiveness of the cooperation appi'oach

assigned to it by the Congress—what results has the Bureau achieved

in cai'rying out that approach ? An achievement of majoi' importance

is the establishment of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures. This prestigious group, which has been functioning since

its fomiation 70 years ago, is the model the Bureau and state officials

conceined with other standardization problems have used and re- lied on to form similar oi'ganizations. Perhaps the best example

of an organization which has patterned itself after this Conference

is the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards. Another is the forthcoming National Conference on Radiation

Measurement. But rather than dwell on those groups who have seen

fit to organize on a basis similar to this Conference, let's I'eflect on a few accomplishments that have come out of this Conference.

No less than eight model laws, regulations, and ordinances, as well as I'evisions and amendments to those models, have been adopted

by the National Conference over the year's and enacted into law

by various state and local legislative bodies. Foremost among these

has been the Model State Weights and Measures Law which was

first adopted by the National Conference in 1906. This was also the

first model law to be adopted by the National Conference. Amendments and revisions have been made to this model law over the years

to keep it cui-rent with new or changing practices and needs. I believe it is coi-rect to say that the weights and measures laws in every

state are patterned generally on some version of the model law

adopted by the National Conference.

Another significant model adopted 'by the Conference is the Model

State Packaging and Labeling Regulation. This regulation has in

turn been adopted by 31 states to date. The Conference first adopted

a packaging and labeling regulation in 1952. It was later rewritten

to be compatible with the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act en- acted in 1966, and the current version of this regulation includes

amendments which were adopted by the Conference in 1974.

Other models adopted by the National Conference during the past

ten years include the Weighmaster Law ; the Registration of Servicemen and Service Agencies Regulation ; the Unit Pricing Regulation

;

the Open Dating Regulation; and the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation. The Model Weights and IMeasures Ordinance

128
is a composite of those laws and regulations. Its purpose is to

provide for a comprehensive weights and measures program at the

city or county level and thus complement state activity in this area. There are in addition several handbooks and publications that

have been published by NBS for use by state and local weights

and measures officials. The most significant of these is Handbook 44

entitled "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices." This

handbook incorporates code requirements that were adopted by the

National Conference and, like the model laws and regulations, have

been enacted into law by state legislatures. Othei-s, although not

adopted by the National Conference, have been recommended by the

Conference for use by state and local officials. These include such

well known handbooks as Handbook 67 entitled "Checking Piepackaged Commodities;" Handbook 82 entitled "Weights and Measures Administration;" and Handbook 112 entitled "Examination

Procedure Outlines for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices."

The "cooperative" approach found in the NBS Organic Act is certainly the hallmark that typifies the nature of its activities. It

has resulted in the productive interaction of NBS with the National

Conference and the development of the model laws and the other

mentioned publications. This approach, however, is not limited to

strictly weights and measures activities.

An excellent example of the voluntary and cooperative approach

may be found in the Bureau's labeling program for household appliances and equipment to elTeot energy conservation. The goal of

this program is to encourage manufacturers voluntarily to provide

consumers, at the point of sale, with information in the forjn of

labels attached to the appliances which reveal the energy con- sumption and energy efficiency of those appliances. These labels

include a system intended to make it possible for consumers to compare by cost or otherwise the energy consumption and energy efficiency characteristics when purchasing household appliances and

to select those that can effect savings in enei-gy oonsumption.

Another example is the Bureau's development of voluntary product standards. This program of long standing at NBS covers tlie development of voluntary standards under a set of published procedures for products, packages, processes, and materials. Mr. William

Cavanaugh, who follows me to the platform this morning, will dis- cuss in some detail the voluntary standards system in the United

States.

A new program soon to get underway at the Bureau which will use this same approach is the national voluntary laboratory ac- creditation program The goal of this program is to provide, in

129
coopera-tion with the private sector, a national voluntary system lo

examine upon i-equest the technical competence of private and public

testing laboratories that serve regulatory and nonregulatory product

evaluation and certification needs. The program is also intended to

accredit those laboratories that meet the qualifications established

under certain published procedui'es and to require those laboratories

that are accredited to maintain an acceptable level of competence.

Moreover, the cooperative approach which up to now has been

ascribed to NBS activities carried out under its Organic Act is not

simply limited to that Act. It pervades every statute under which

NBS carries out an activity.

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, referred to earlier is a

fine illustration of this point. The requirement imposed on the

Secretaiy of Commerce under section 9 of that Act to furnish a copy

of each regulation promulgated under that Act to state officers is but

another example of cooperation with state authorities to promote

to the greatest practicable extent unifoimity in state and Federal

legislation of the labeling of consumer commodities.

Section 5 of that same Act provides yet another example of the

voluntary and cooperative manner of reducing the undue proliferation of weights, measures, oi- quantities in which any consumer

commodity is being distributed in packages for sale at retail and such

proliferation impairs the ability of consumei's to make value comparisons with respect to such commodity. In those cases the Secretary of Commerce shall request manufacturers, packers, and distributoi-s of the commodity to participate in the development of a voluntaiy product standai'd foi- such commodity under the procedures of the development of voluntary product standards.

Other examples could be shown. These would include the Bureau's

work for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to help develop

test methods for use in safety standards covering such products

as toys and flammability standards for the children's sleepwear;

work done for the Energy Research and Development Administration to evaluate promising energy- related inventions; development

of a performance standard for police riot helmets for the Department of Justice; development of calibration standards for measuring automobile exhaust emissions for the Environmental Pi'otection

Agency; measurement of tire noise for the Department of Transportation; and many more. These other activities which I have cited aro intended to show,

like the activities cited earlier that pertained more directly to weights

and measures activity, that the Bureau's work is of this cooperative

nature in areas other than those having to do with weights and

measures. These, then, are the results of the Bureau's efforts in

both areas of endeavor through use of the cooperative approach.

130
The other half of that question remains—has the cooperative approach been effective?

Each of you who has worked or had some association with XBS is

Avell qualified to answer that question in your heart and mind. In

my mind, the answer is a resounding yes. Because you deal with

the public, you are in a unique position to determine the public's

needs. Through your cooperation in working with NBS, we have

jointly gained the public's respect and admiration in the area of

weights and measures activities and acceptability of our proposed

standards, model laws and regulations.

Early in my talk I posed some questions about what should be

the Bureau's role in establishing weights and measures laws and

regulations. It should be obvious by now that that role is somewhat

of a mixed bag. Obviously, the Bureau is constrained by the limits

of its statutory authority—whether set out in its Organic Act or any other statute under which it is assigned some responsibility.

I do not, however, intend to use those constraints as a "cop out,"

for I do have some definite views whei'^ our responsibilities lie. NBS has, as we have seen, no regulatory or enforcement powers

and must therefore seek to gain acceptance of its standards setting

activities through cooperative interaction with the states and the

business community. However, it can and should exei'cise the

qualities of leadership. That means we must be aware of the

needs, desires, and problems of the weights and measures community.

Through our own efforts we must be able to offer counsel, as- sistance, suggestions and a i-ecommended course of action to deal

with those needs and problems.

One of the qualities of leadership is a keen recognition of re- sponsibility. That means being aware of the effects or potential

effects of the action one is aibout to take. The establishment of a standard or regulation—especially a weights and measures standard

or regulation—affects the lives and wellbeing of a great many

people. Such a standard or regulation, even though volimtary in a

technical sense, becomes upon adoption by the National Conference

on Weights and Measures and subsequently by the states and local

communities a law or regulation which must be obeyed. Action at

the final level therefore affects the manufacturer of the item or equipment involved, his employees and his suppliers, the method

of operation by thousands of weights and measures officials in carrying out their inspection and enforcement responsibilities, inumerable distributors and retailers, and probably millions of con- sumers. Embarking upon a course of action affecting that many people is an awesome responsibility even though we are in no sense talking

about life and death matters. Competent leadership acting in these

131
areas will want to move with care if it is to exercise sound judgment.

This means seeking opinions of those segments of the business and

technical sectoi's of our society who ai-e going to be affected by the

action being contemplated.

In shoit, economic, social, environmental, enforcement, and technological practicability considerations must be carefully examined

and evaluated before any final action is taken. One way to do that

is by attempting to obtain a consensus of opinion and support for

the action being planned. Under our form of government, that means

activity soliciting and genuinely listening to the views of a broadly

representative segment of the society that will be affected by a particular law, standard, or regulation so as to assure that due

process has been afforded to all interested paities. In a word, this

means acting cooperatively with others and seeking to obtain the

cooperation of those whose support will be needed to make a pi-oposed standard or regulation effective, meaningful, acceptable, and

used by those to whom it is directed. Such cooperation can be

gained b;' providing appi-opriate direction or guidance where

needed.

I think we can fairly assume that as a practical matter a combination of all of these roles—that of a leader; seeking the co- operation of others; and acting as a moderator when necessary

is, in the final analysis, the true statutory role of the National

Bui-eau of Standards in the establishment of weights and measures

standards and regulations.

The working together of Bureau people with the people of this

Conference in seeking to implement the statutory authority of NBS

and the meaning it has for all of us is the perfect formula on which the title of my talk is based. As I have indicated at the

outset of my talk, the initials "PMTD" in the title mean "People

Make the Difference." The phrase itself sounds so simple, but in

reality it is the most difficult one to execute. The interaction of

people working together is best exemplified by those of you who

have served this Conference through the years. You indeed have

made all the difference. Without your support, your interest and

dedication to the goals and objectives of this Conference, none of

its past achievements would have been possible. The goals and

tasks that you will set for youi'self at this Conference will be made

easier and more effective if you take not only the information you

have obtained here, but also the realization that these goals will be

moi'e easily achieved if you will carry with you the thought that in

the long run people woi-king together make the difference. In that

way the future accomplishments of this Conference will be as significant as those already achieved.

132
Whatever direction our future effort takes, we will continue our

close interactions with state and local weights and measures officials. We need and seek your help in identifying problem areas,

and in assessing proposed solutions. We welcome your cooperation.

You may be assured of ours.

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALSVOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS

by WiLiAM T. Cavaxaugh, Managing Director, American

Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

I can't think of a better theme for a talk at

the Sixtieth National Conference on Weights

and Measures than that of cooperation to

achieve common goals. That is the very heart

and soul of this Conference. You ladies and

gentlemen have gathered here from every

corner of our land in a cooperative effort to

guard and enhance the integrity of the meas- urement system of this Nation. It's a job that can be done only through cooperation. The

whole Nation benefits from what you do here.

Two words come to mind when I walk into a meeting like this

and get a feel for what is happening: openness and participation.

This Conference is open—open to people, open to ideas. Its lifeblood

is participation—^those who are interested come here and participate

to make things go. But an open door is pretty meaningless luiless

the participants show up. That thought puts me in mind of one

of the popular slogans the anti-war activists were using a few years

back: "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?"

Openness and participation also happen to be two concepts that

lie at the heart of our Nation's voluntary consensus standards system.

If standards are to be accepted and used in the marketplace (and

unless they are, there is little point in developing them), they had

best be developed in an open forum in which all those atTected by

the standards can participate. Of couise, government can always

mandate standards but it seems to me that things always work out

better if the mandate is preceded by the greatest possible degree

of openne^ and participation in the procedures used to develop the

standards.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. About a year and

a half ago, as one of the many responses to the newly discovered

energy crisis, the Federal Government, with the very best of in133
tentions, published a new standard and asked that all the states

comply. The standard stipulated that, henceforth, the maximiun

speed permissible on the Interstate Highway System Avould be 55

miles per hour. There was no question of the technical validity of

the standard; enormous amounts of gasoline would be conserved.

The standard appealed to be a reasonable one. But what happened? Within thi*ee weeks from the time the

standard was implemented, there was great tumult in the land.

There were riots. There was shooting. Highways were blocked.

Trucks carrying essential goods from the Midwest to the East had

to be convoyed, like merchant ships scurrying through a submarine

pack during wartime. Five people in my home State of Pennsylvania

were killed. Why? Because one important party with a great interest in that standard had not been consulted before it Avas

mandated.

As we all know, that party was finally consulted, and the problem

was resolved. If only at the outset the government had used the

approach that you are using here, and the approach that we have

used so successfully for so many yeai"s in the voluntary consensus standards system, that problem could have been avoided.

One explanation we hear so often for people's reluctance to use procedures involving opemiess and participation is that they are too

time-consuming. Well, that's true. They are time-consuming. So are

all democratic processes. We don't often hear anyone complimenting

the United States Congress for the speed of its accomplishments.

But to paraphrase, I believe, Winston Churchill, democracy may

appear to be a terribly cumbersome and inefficient system, but the

difficulty is, it's the best system around.

I believe we can make the same claim about the voluntary con- sensus standards system. It has been said that standards are "little

laws." If that is true, and I believe it contains a great deal of

truth, then it follows that the most effective process for developing

these little laws is one involving the greatest possible degree of

openness and participation. Such a process is at the heart of the

voluntary consensus system.

This is not to say that the system has solved all its problems

not by any means. We have not yet been able to provide the degree

of openness that we would wish ; some who would like to participate

cannot. And we have not yet been able to attract the degree of

participation that we would wish; some who should participate do

not.

It is one thing to provide openness in theory ; it is another thing

to provide it in practice. The difference, as in so many things in

this world, is primarily economic. To say that the system is open

to participation by all may be a little bit like saying (and I ex134
aggerate to make the point) that anyone in this country is free

to buy a Cadillac.

It is entirely true, for example, that participation in the work

of an ASTM standards-writing committee is open to all interested

parties, but some parties are more equal than others. The ASTM

door is open, but not everyone can afford the trip. The XYZ Corporation most assuredly finds it more feasible to participate in

ASTM committee work through a representative than does the ABC

League of Consumers, simply because it has much greater re- sources. An engineer working in a testing laboratory for a giant

retailer finds it easier to get to a meeting in Los Angeles than does

an ordinary consumer in Omaha. And so it goes.

ASTM faced up to this problem several years ago and found

itself wanting. So we instituted a new program—the first of its

type, I believe, in this country, and possibly anywhere, and qviite

possibly still the only one of its type. Our Board of Directors

appropriated money to subsidize participation in our standardsdevelopment work by those who could qualify to represent the underrepresented consumer but who had no source of funds to support

their participation. The subsidy includes the out-of-pocket ex- penses incurred in attending meetings of ASTM standards committees. In the process of doing this, we struggled M^ith the age-old

questions: "Who is the consumer? Who represents the consumer?

"What does the consumer really want? Incidentally, that last question has always seemed to me to be on a par with the wistful

question (was it Freud who asked it?) : What does a woman want?

You can no more successfully generalize about consumers than you

can about women.

As I say, we struggled with these questions, but we didn't wait

for the answers before taking action. That has too often been the

pattern in some organized endeavors to "do something" about the

consumer question. Someone is sure to say, "First, let's define what

we mean by 'consumer'." Then the wheels grind to a halt while the

group rides off in all directions through the Avoods to see if it can

tree a definition.

So, in the matter of openness, ASTM has put its money where its mouth is. True, the amount of money is modest. But the principle

has been established, and I believe the effectiveness of this program

has been amply demonstrated. Who do we consider qualified to represent the voice of the consumer in our standards work ? We consider

representatives of the institutionalized consumer movement in this

country, certainly ; some people from the universities ; state and local

purchasing officials. We have found a rich source of such talent

from among the membership of the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing and the National Association of State Purchasing

135
Officials. It seems to us that a person who buys hundreds of vacuum

cleaners for schools and hospitals is at least as interested in getting

a good deal as is the housewife in Dubuque. And he is doubtless a good deal more competent to hold his own as a participant in

standards-writing.

In the matter of openness, then, we are making some progress.

In the matter of participation broadly, we have another set of problems. Many of these problems, I believe, stem from a recent minor

explosion in governmental regulatory activity on many fronts. It is by now a cliche to list them: the environment, occupational safety

and health, consumer product safety and performance.

With regard to these activities, I wish very briefly to make three

points. First, even though the end product may be a governmental

regulation—a mandatory standard, if you will—it still seems to me

that the voluntary consensus standards system very often has a distinct role to play. Second, whenever in the pursuit of public policj' a new area must be opened up to governmental regulatory activity,

there is always the possibility that we will sweep into the standards

orbit literally thousands of managers in and out of government

whose ignorance of the standards system in this country is complete.

They have no idea what it is, how it works, how it can be used, and

what its potential is. Third, even among those who are familiar with

the voluntary standards system, and I am thinking now primarily

about those in government, there is often a reluctance—because of

budgetary pressures, or because of the sneaking feeling that attend- ance at working committee meetings is somehow tainted with the

flavor of junketeering—^to provide the strength of participation

from government that the system must have in order to sustain a vigorous public presence. The system is not a private system : it is not

a public system. It is truly a blending of public and private interests

in the pursuit of public policy, and it must have strong representation from the public sector in order to survive.

Why do I believe so firmly that the voluntary consensus system

has a role to play in developing the standards base for governmental

regulatory programs? There are several reasons. First, the A^oluntary system is the place where the standards expertise from all segments of our society—government and industry, producer and con- sumer, regulated and regulatoi'—come together and talk to one

another in their common language. This does not ensure that every

voice will be heeded, but that every voice will be heard. It ensures

that nothing will be forgotten, that no single element in the system,

in a well-meaning etfort to achieve instant results, can run hell-bent

toward the wrong goal line.

Another reason is that the standards base for governmental regulation quite often demands the best that our Nation has to offer in

136
the way of measurement technique; and, as no one in the workl

knows better than the people in this room, no element of our society

lias a corner on the science and the ait of measurement. We need all

the help we can get in devising the best way to measure the ozone

in the upper atmosphere or the nitrous oxides in the lower.

Finally, as the example of the 55-mile speed limits shows, a regulatory program that is clearly understood by those to be regulated has the best chance for successful administration, and nothing

increases the understanding of a program quite as much as an opportunity to participate in its development.

On the question of exposing new areas of management in the

private sector to the benefits offered by participation in the voluntary consensus standards system, I suppose I must take my message

elsewhere. But on the further question of increased participation by

representatives of government at all levels, surely today I am speaking in the right hall.

One agency at the Federal level, the sponsor of this Conference,

sets an excellent example. More than three hundred employees of the

National Bureau of Standards—scientists, engineers, and others

actively participate in the standards development work of ASTM.

No doubt there are many reasons for this. One reason must as- suredly be that these standards experts know full well that an

ASTM committee is one of the best places in the world in which

to exchange notes with their counterparts outside of government and

to experience all the benefits of such an exchange.

Representation from other levels of government is growing, but

not nearly fast enough. One problem, which I alluded to earlier, is budgetary. The fire commissioner of Philadelphia, for example, is personally convinced of the benefits of his participation in ASTM

committee work in the area of fire hazard standards, and he does

participate. Two weeks ago he attended an ASTM meeting in Montreal. He used part of his vacation to do so. This should not be necessary.

Another problem, I am convinced, is simply that many officials at

various levels of government suddenly find themselves responsible

for programs involving the need for standards and are unaware of

the enormous potential of the voluntary consensus system to help

them. My plea to you in this room, who are knoAvledgeable about the

system, is to help your counterparts in other agencies at your level

of government by making sure that, when they are faced with the

need for a wheel, they do not proceed to reinvent it. The standards

wheel is in place, well lubricated, and ready to roll. All we need is to be pointed in the desired direction and to have the interested

parties hop aboard. Let's do it together.

137
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL

METROLOGY—THE EMERGING U.S. ROLE

by William E. Andrus, Jr., Program Manager, Office of

Engineering and Information Processing Standards, National

Bureau of Standards ; United States Representative to the

International Organization of Legal Metrology

It is ineed a pleasure to address the 60th

National Conference on Weights and Measures, particularly in such a beautiful city as San Diego.

My discussion will be broken into three

parts: first, I wish to provide you with some

background infonnation on OIIVIL (International Organization of Legal Metrology) , its

aims and objectives; secondly, I will discuss

NBS's role and our efforts to organize and plan

for U.S. participation in OIML; and thirdly,

and more importantly, I want to discuss with you the problems

and opportunities posed to the United States by OIIVIL.

OIML impacts upon roughly $1 billion worth of scientific and

measurement instruments exported each year by the U.S. As shown

hei-e (figure 1), U.S. statistics for 1974 indicate exports of $248

million in engineering and scientific instiiiments and $675 million in

measuring and controlling instruments (figure 2). Exports amount

to about 25 percent of total domestic production for these instruments and increased an average of 25 percent over 1973. This $1 billion figure represents instrument hardware that is exported by the

U.S. which may be affected by OIINIL recommendations.

However, we also have to look at OUML from the standpoint of

measurement methods which are developed and incorporated into

recommendations and which specify how instruments are to be used

during the measurement process. For example, the U.S. is a large

exporter of grain, some $8 to $9 billion worth a year. At present,

OIML, in International Recommendation #8, recommends an airoven method in the testing of grain moisture—a significant factor

in determining the price of the grain. The OIISIL method calls for

drying the grain during the test for two hours. The U.S. does not

agree and recommends that the drying time should not exceed one

hour. The USDA argument for this is that the longer drying time

may be removing more than free water and may be costing U.S.

exporters considerable sums of money. The differing test methods

between U.S. and foreign ports tend to work to the disadvantage of

the U.S. exporter.

138
ECONOMIC IMPACT

Engineering & Scientific instraments

2^

MM

^m

1.M0

1.4M

1^

1JM

70 71 72 73 74 79

Figure 1

Thus, in considering the economic importance of OIML we must

consider both instrument hardware and measurement methods.

While we can say that the hardware represents $1 billion a year in

exports, it is very difficult at present to deteiTnine the economic impact of differing measurement methods.

OIML was founded in 1955 by Convention. It is an intergovernmental organization which is now composed of the following 43

nations (figure 3). As you can see, all of the major trading nations

of the world are members. The Organization has a reputation of

being strongly European influenced and we have found this to be

very true. However, I will cover this aspect of OIIVIL later in my

discussion.

OIML's generally recognized goal is to resolve international technical and administrative problems raised by the use of scientific

and measuring instruments in the field of legal metrology. OIML

defines "legal metrology" as: "That part of metrology which treats

units of measurement, methods of measurement and measuring instruments, in relation to the mandatory technical and legal requirements which have the object of ensuring a public guarantee of

security and of the appropriate accuracy of measurements (OIML

"Vocabulary) ." As you can see, this definition allows for a very wide

139
ECONOMIC IMPACT

MsisurinQ & ContraInQ

histniniBnts

TOTAL VALUE OF PMOUCmr

71 71

Figure 2

OIML MEMBERS

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cameroun

Cuba

Cyprus

CzechoslovaKia

Denmaric , Dominican Republic

Egypt

Ethiopia

Finland

"France

Germany, F.R.G. Germany, P.itG.

Guinea

Hungary

India Indonesia

Iran

Israel Haly

Japan

Korea, D.P.R. Lebanon

Monaco

Morocco

Netheriands

Norway

Pakistan

Figure 3

140
interpretation of the types of scientific and measuring instruments

that could come under the definition. We find that there is constant

debate within OIML as to what is or is not legal metrology and,

therefore, subject to coverage by OIML. The rule of thumb generally is that if there is an expressed interest in developing national

regulations on a subject and if the International Committee agrees

on undertaking the new project, OIML will usually sponsor the

work. As you know, the U.S. looks upon legal metrology as being

commensurate with your efforts in the regulation of commercial

weighing and measuring instruments. However, there are many other

areas involving health and safety where measuring instruments are used in order to assure conformance with pre-established standards —which in some cases may be mandatory. Product safety and pollution measuring are two important examples of areas where regulations exist.

OIML objectives are as shown here (figure 4) . It is important to

understand that OIML does not develop typical volimtary standards

as is the case with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission

(lEC). It develops model laws and regulations to be used as the

basis of national laws and regulations of the member nations. As

such, these international recommendations are written differently

from voluntary international standards developed by ISO and lEC.

For example, OIML recommendations usually specify accuracy

classes for instruments based upon how the instruments are to be

used. The reoornni?ndations usually also require an initial and subsequent verification of the instrument to assure compliance with

metrological and technical specifications. In some cases, they will

also provide guidance on the optimal frequency of inspection for

the instruments.

OIML OBJECTIVES

• To determine general principles of legal metrology

• To set standards for scientific and measuring

instraments

• To incorporate these standards into model draft laws

and regulations

141
Organizationally, OIML consists of (figure 5) : first, the International Conference of Legal Metrology, which is composed of delegates from member nations and which meets at least eveiy six years

(the International Conference is the final authority in OIML for

approval of international recommendations) ; secondly, the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML), which is composed

of one delegate from each nation, and which meets at least every

two years (the Technical Work Plan of OIML is carried out through

the CIML^.

OIML

Figure 5

The president of CIML is Mr. van Male, director of the Netherlands Weights and Measures Office. Mr. van Male has a distinguished

reputation in the field of weights and measures and is highly re- spected by OIML members. At the June meeting of CIML he was

just reelected as president for another six-year term. There are two

vice presidents who also were just elected; and I was fortunate to

be named one of the vice presidents along with Mr. Ermakov of the

Soviet Union who was reelected for a second six-year term. I re- placed Mr. Honti, of Hungary, who is retiring and was made an

honorary member of the International Committee.

The third organizational arm of OIML is the International

Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) which comprises thfe central

secretariat of the Organization. It is composed of a staff of approximately fifteen, and is located in Paris, Franco. BIML is headed by a permanent director, Mr. Bernard Athane, a young Frenchman with

weights and measures experience who replaced the former director,

Mr. Costamagna, the first of last year. As some of you probably recall, Mr. Athane addressed the 59th National Conference in Washington last year. His staff consists of professional metrologists and

administrative aides who manage the Organization, arrange for

142
conferences, and so forth. Finally, assisting the president of CI^IL

is a council comprised of ten official CIML representatives who serve

at the pleasure of the president as a consultative committee. The

council meets at irregular intervals as deemed necessary by the

president.

As I have already stressed, OIML is a unique organization. Because it is intergovernmental, member nations are usually represented by individuals from government departments of metrology;

in other words, by NBS counterparts from other nations. As mentioned, the outputs of OIML are model laws and regulations. Additionally, OIML members are "morally obliged" to implement OIISIL

decisions. Now I would like to dwell a little on the term "morally

obliged" because it has caused some confusion as to exactly what the

United States is committed to do as a member of OIML. Actual

Avritten interpretations of "morally obliged" are few indeed. What

is shown here is the extent of Avritten guidance

:

OIML Convention—1955—^Article VII:

"The latter (member states) shall be morally obliged to implement these

decisions (Recommendations) as far as possible."

U.S. Secretary of State to the President—March 15, 1975:

"Actions of the (International) Conference are in the form of Recommendations and are not legally binding but member states ai'e morally

obliged to implement decisions of the Conference as far as possible."

However, the question has been discussed at some length within

OIML ; and here is what is generally regarded as practical and ac- ceptable to the United States

:

1. The U.S. should exert "best eifort" to harmonize national regulations with OIML recommendations, providing that there is general agreement on behalf of affected U.S. concerns that the changes

are technically sound and that there are identifiable economic advantages ; 2. Where national regulations do not exist on areas covered by

OIML recommendations, the U.S. is not morally obliged to adopt

such regulations in order to satisfy its obligation ; and,

3. There are no sanctions, legal or otherwise, for not adapting the

OIML recommendations.

I believe that under this interpretation, the U.S. has a rather wide

latitude insofar as adopting OIML recommendations. As you know,

the National Conference on Weights and Measures passed a resolution during its 1974 meeting which says that the Conference does

not feel obliged to adopt OIML recommendations bearing on commercial weighing and measuring instruments unless the Conference,

as a body, approves of the OIML recommendation and, secondly.

143
that the U.S. has cast an affirmative vote on the recommendation. I

consider that it is well within the prerogative of the National Conference to take such a position ; I do not consider it a breach of our

moral obligation.

The OIML budget is as you see here (figure 6). The contributions

paid by member nations are based upon population and the U.S.

dues could not be considered execessive, particularly when compared

to U.S. dues to ISO and lEC which are about $328,000 for 1975.

The dues to ISO and lEC are paid by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) whereas U.S. contributions to OIML are paid from State Department funds. Actually, OIML is going to

have to face substantial budget increases over the next five years. Its

current offices and secretariat staff in Paris are not large enough to

accommodate the past and projected g'rowth in the Organization.

OIML BUDGET

(per Calendar Year in $000)

1973 c 1974 ,1975 1976

BMiftt $171 $181 $189 $197

U.S.SIiait $ 39 $ 18 $ 19 $ 21

• Cwrtribirtitns bastd on population

• U.S. coRtriMion paM by Stato Dopartment

Figure 6

Now to the heart of OIML, its technical working program. Probably the simplest way of visualizing OIML's technical program is as a triangle (figure 7) divided into four interrelated parts. At the

apex of the triangle is the International Conference of Legal Metrology which is the final authority for adoption of OIML International

Recommendations. There are 34 recommendations at present and

another 15 planned for adoption during the 1976 International Conference. Draft international recommendations going before the International Conference for vote must first have been approved by the

International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML). The CIML is the technical arm of the Organization and is responsible for the entire working program. Under CIML's direction, and only after its

approval, technical committees (called pilot secretariats) and subcommittees (called reporting secretariats) are established. At pres144
OIML TECHNICAL PROGRAM

Figure 7

ent, there are thirty pilot secretariats covering broad subject areas and 165 reporting secretariats which actually draft the recommendations. These secretariats are administered by member nations on a

voluntary basis. The pilot secretariat is responsible for developing

a work plan for a given study area and for recommending individual

working groups (reporting secretariats) to draft the recommendations. Thus, while the pilot secretariat does not itself produce draft

recommendations, it is in a strong position to influence the final output of its working groups.

The Senate of the 92nd Congress recommended U.S. membership

in OIML on the basis of hearings conducted in August 1972. Dick

Simpson, at that time Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Science and Technology, testified for the Department in favor of

membership. Testimony was also given by various industry groups

such as API (American Petroleum Institute), the Scale Manufacturers Association, and others. Basically, the main reason given for

joining OIML was to protect the U.S. trade position with respect to

scientific and measurement instruments. On the basis of testimony

presented, the Committee on Foreign Relations - recommended U.S.

membership; and the U.S. became a formal member of OIML in

October 1972. The U.S. objectives in OIML are as follows

:

• To improve export opportunities.

• To influence the adoption of international recommendations.

145
• To keep abreast of evolving international measurement technology.

• To influence developing countries in their adoption of legal

metrology practices. • To facilitate U.S. involvement in international standards

activities.

On the basis of the Senate hearings, responsibility for U.S. participation in OIML is subdivided as shown here (figure 8).

Program management is centered within my office. I serve as the

U.S. repersentative to the Intemational Committee of Legal Metrology. I have a special assistant, David Edgerly, who spends the vast

majority of his time in the daily management of the program. We

are assisted, of course, by experts throughout NBS and in private

industry. There are four basic activities involved in our program.

They are:

• Analysis of OIML technical documents.

• Preparation of U.S. technical positions.

• Participation in OIML working groups.

• Coordination of U.S. administered OIML secretariats,

PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES

DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

• Paymtnt of U.S. dues • Program implementation and

• DetigMtion of U.S.

direction

rtprosontatives NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

• CoonNnation wtth • Development of U.S. positions

DoC for technical matters

• Program management

Figure 8

In order to assist NBS in managing U.S. participation in OIML,

the government formed a public committee entitled the Advisory

Committee for International Legal Metrology (figure 9). The committee is composed (figure 10) of approximately 20 members, representing the organizations listed here. The principal activities of the

committee are to advise NBS on metrological studies, project recommendations, and intemational recommendations of the OIML. It

146
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL LEGAL

" METROLOGY (ACILM)

(Chartered March, 1974)

n

ACILM

Manufacturers

Federal Agencies

Standards Bodies

State & Local Governments

]FlGUEE 9

ACILM MEMBERSHIP

• Department of Commerce

o (including NBS)

• Department of Agriculture

• Department of State

• Environmental Protection Agency

• American National Standards

Institute

• Meter Manufacturers Technical

Committee

• Scale Manufactuftrs Association

• Scientific Apparatus Makers

Association

• Instrument Society of America

• American Gas Association

• American Petroleum Institute

• National Conference on Weights

and Measures

• The Packaging Institute

(Staff liaison: Senate Commerce Committee)

Figure 10

provides the widest possible opportunity for input by interested

public and private sectors of the U.S. The committee also serves very effectively as the means for arranging private sector support

of U.S. held secretariats in OIML.

This brings me to the final part of my discussion. The U.S. has

now been a member of OIML for two and half years. During much

of that time, NBS has been putting together a program for U.S.

147
participation in OIML, including the establishment of an advisory

committee to guide the U.S. in its participation. The vital question

is "Have the efforts to date paid off, and is the U.S. accomplishing

its stated objectives in OIML?"

At this particular time, it is impossible for me to assure you that

the mere presence of the U.S. in OIML will enhance oUr exports of

scientific and measuring instruments X percentage over the next

five years. It would be nice if the situation were that clear cut where

a 10 percent expenditure of effort in OIML would yield a commensurate 10 percent increase in exports. Instead, what I will say

to you is this : U.S. manufacturers of scientific and measuring instruments do face hardships because of OIML recommendations and

these hardships cost dollars of trade that are lost. In just a minute

I will outline some of the specific problems. The second thing I

want to say is that the problems that exist are the result of two

forces in OIML : first, the U.S. has an enormous task in overcoming

the predominantly European influence in OIML, particularly as it relates to bloc voting by EEC member nations; and secondly, the

U.S. has a formidable job in swaying technical opinions away from

rigid design requirements for devices to performance requirements.

And I might add that inherent in the problem of design versus perfoiTnance is the widespread European insistence on pattern or prototype approval of devices as a means of insuring performance. As

you are probably aware, other than a small voluntary program going

on in our Office of eWights and Measures, the U.S. has no national

pattern or prototype approval program. This represents a future

problem for the U.S. in OIML, and one that this oCnference will

have a hand in solving.

Let me now point to some examples of the problems we currently

face in just a few areas where draft recommendations are pending.

The devices involved are volumetric provers, household water meters,

and belt-conveyor scales. In the first and last instance these devices are a U.S. export item. In the case of water meters, they are not ex- ported at present to any great extent, but we are told that a future

export possibility does exist.

In the case of volumetric provers, the U.S. currently exports to

about 12 OIML member nations. The type of prover I am talking

about is a five-gallon capacity standard field test measure as shown

here (figure 11) being used by a weights and measures inspector

during the test of a retail fuel dispenser. The draft OIML recom- mendation is unacceptable to the U.S. It requires that the device be

constructed only of metal, which would eliminate fiberglass, a completely acceptable substitute which is now being used in the U.S.

The recommendation sets specific heights and internal neck diameters of provers that are inconsistent with U.S. practice. We prefer

148
Figure 11

to set dimension ranges that will allow for the construction of a wide variety of provers for special purposes in the field.

Additionally, the OIML recommended method for calibrating the

device is different from U.S. methods. All things being considered,

our manufacturers estimate that the cost of producing the OIML

prover would be around $150 as compared to $50 for current U.S.

provers, and they agree that there appears to be no metrological advantage in moving to the more expensive prover. The U.S. evidently

is not the only country with problems over these provers. In a rare instance France and West Germany also disagree with the draft,

which was prepared by India, and so it must go back to committee

for revision.

In the case of household water meters, the U.S. manufactured meter

is totally excluded from consideration by the OIML draft recom- mendation. The secretariat is held by the United Kingdom and the

device I am speaking of is the household water meter shown here

(figure 12) in common use throughout the United States. The

draft recommendation established classes of water meters according

to range of the load as shown on this chart (figure 13). As you can

see, there are five classes ranked according to their level of accuracy

which are recommended for use in national regulations governing

these devices. The American Water Works Association has plotted

for us where currently manufactured U.S. meters fit relative to these
Figure 12

classes. As you can see, they are all outside the recommended classes.

Therefore, if this recommendation were adopted today, U.S. meters

would be totally excluded from foreign markets.

The recommendation was voted upon during the CIML meeting

in June and, fortunately, did not get adopted. However, there were

enough "yes" votes for adoption. What killed it was that many of

the developing nations had not reviewed the document and, therefore, abstained from voting. Hence, a large number of abstentions

killed the draft and not the 3 "no" votes that were cast by the U.S.,

Australia, and Venezuela. We are optimistic, however, that we can

obtain changes that will solve the problems we have with the draft

before it is voted on again next year.

My last example, concerning belt-conveyor scales, is a beautiful

case demonstrating OIML's infatuation with rigid design requirements for devices and bloc voting by Common Market members of

OIML to protect EEC interests.

OIML recommendations have a characteristic of being overly con- cerned about how a device should be designed. From a U.S. point of

view this type of thinking creates two major problems : first, it tends

to lock in technology to certain design requirements; and secondly.

150
RECOMMENDED CLASSIFICATION OF WATER METERS

OIML DRAFT RECOMMENDATION

it stifles innovation. For example, over objections from U.S. delegates attending a recent meeting on belt-conveyor scales in London,

the working group imposed requirements that would limit the

length of the belt on a belt-conveyor scale system to 100 meters. This

was done under the misconception that this would insure that a beltconveyor scale would operate within an accuracy limit of 2 percent

permissible error. There are belt conveyors in the U.S. (figure 14), such as shown

here, with belt lengths of 500-1000 meters capable of maintaining an

accuracy within tht 2 percent permissible error. These will be unacceptable in Europe if the draft recommendation is adopted as written.

The U.S. position was voted down in this instance by a bloc vote

of Common Market countries attending the meeting. The U.S. was

similarly voted down when it attempted to have weight chains (a

series of known weights linked together to form a mass standard)

introduced into the draft recommendation for use in simulation tests

151
FiGUBE 14

to calibrate a belt-conveyor scale. The weight chains as shown here

on a belt system (figure 15) are a convenient and economical method

for testing belt-conveyor scales, particularly those in remote locations, without having to use product on the belt.

Now we come to the final and crucial question, "What can the

United States do to overcome the problems just discussed?"

152
Figure 15

Let me say first that I think that OIML is currently where the

National Conference on Weights and Measures was twenty to

twenty-five years ago, in terms of facing the tremendous task of

bringing about uniformity within the U.S. on weights and measures

laws and regulations. Only, OIML is concerned with uniformity

among 43 nations. Hence, we are looking at years of effort ahaad

before we can expect the kind of cooperation internationally that

currently exists on a national scale here in the U.S.

The strategy we are planning for the U.S. is based upon three very

clear and simple concepts. First, the U.S. must seek out and hold

important committee secretariats within OIML. This provides us with the leverage to influence the final outcome of draft international recommendations. You will recall that there are 30 pilot

and 165 reporting secretariats within OIML at the present time.

Here (figure 16) is the current breakdown as to how these secre- tariats are distributed. As you can see, in the two and one-half years

that we have been a member of OIML, the U.S. has been able to

capture more secretariats than any other nation. You may think

we have moved too fast and perhaps "bitten off more than we can

chew," but look at it another way (figure 17). This shows the distribution of voting patterns. You will recall my earlier remarks on

bloc voting and its influence in OIML. This shows a little more

clearly what we are up against, even though as a single nation we

hold more secretariats than any other OIML member.

153
DISTRIBUTION OF OIML

SiECRETARIATS

USA 29

France 26

W. Germany 26

USSR 24

Poland 9

United Kingdom 8

Austria 7

Czechoslovalcia 5

Belgium 5

Switzeriand 5

India 3

Sri Lanka 2

Hungary 2

Morocco 1 Netheriands 1 BIML 9

Unassigned 33

TOTAL 195

Figure 16

DISTRIBUTION OF SECRETARIATS BY

• MAJOR VOTING BLOCS

EEC Countries ° 34%

Eastern Bloc Countries 20%

Western Bloc Countries 15%

• USA

Developing Countries . 4%

Nen ANgned Countries & BIML 10%

Figure 17

154
The second strategy is, quite simply, to get American industry

actively involved in the U.S. program for participation in OIML.

After all, it is our industry in the long run who stands to gain the

most from international uniformity in the scientific and measuring

instrument field. As you can see from the distribution of secretariats

within the U.S. (figure 18), our industry is becoming actively involved ; and I think this is largely due to the efforts of our Advisory

Committee in attracting the interest of U.S. manufacturers.

Lastly, the U.S. must continue to develop well thought out technical positions on OIML recommendations. In instances where there

are conflicts between an OIML recommendation and U.S. practice,

we must be able to offer sound and saleable technical proposals in

support of U.S. arguments for changes. It is of little purpose for

the U.S. to criticize a technical document unless we are prepared to

offer reasonable technical alternatives,

DISTRIBUTION OF US SECRETARIATS

IN OIML •

TC SC/WG

NBS 4 9 .

Private Industry 1 14

Other Government Agencies 1 (to be determined)

6 23 -

Figure 18

Kecently, OIML announced that 18 international recommendations

that were adopted in 1968 would be open for revision during 1975,

and that interested member nations should submit requests for re- vision. This provided the U.S. a unique opportunity in that all 18

of these recommendations had been adopted in 1968, prior to U.S.

membership in OIML. Therefore, we had had no input into their

development. Working through the U.S. Advisory Committee, we

spent approximately six months canvassing industry and government to develop proposed technical changes to the recommendations.

The effort involved several hundred industry and government ex- perts and the results were interesting. Of the 18 recommendations, 16

required major changes and/or were totally imacceptable to the

155
U.S. A lengthy report was prepared requesting revisions and was

sent to all 43 member nations. We are very optimistic that we will

win many of the technical points raised. This kind of effort must

continue if the U.S. is to be effective in OIML. It is time consuming,

costs valuable resources, but is absolutely vital to our effective participation in OIML.

I am optimistic that the U.S. can look forward to a good working

relationship with OIML member nations. I believe that on the basis

of what we have accomplished to date in OIML, other nations are convinced that the U.S. wishes to assume a leadership role in the

Organization. However, this will involve the cooperation of all of

you in this i-oom. In summary, the National Conference on Weights

and Measures has an important responsibility internationally to

promote U.S. measurement technology. It is a task you know well

for you have been doing it on a national level since 1905.

Thank you for your cooperation to date, particularly that provided by Jim Lyles, your representative to our Advisory Committee.

Thank you also for the opportunity of returning to San Diego and

meeting with you here today.

CONVERTING TO METRIC STANDARDS IN CANADA

by John L. Armstrong, Chief, Standards Laiboratory,

Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Ottawa, Canada

The year 1975 is a significant one for legal

metrology in Canada. Dominion Day, July 1,

marked the centenary of the proclamation of

Canada's first Weights and Measures Act in

1875. The year 1975 is also the centenary of

the signing of the Treaty of the Meter.

I rather wish I could state that 1975 marks

the completion of metric conversion in Canada,

but it would be more accurate to say that it marks the end of the preliminaries.

While metric units of measurement have

been legal for use in Canada since 1875, and there has been a progressive trend towards their adoption in certain industries in re- cent years, the opening gun in the major push towards SI—International System of Units—was not until the presentation to Parliament in January 1970 of the White Paper on Metric Conversion.

At that time, while it was presented in the form of a policy state- ment by the government rather than of a bill of enactment, it re- ceived the unanimous support of all parties. It provided for the

156
formation of the Metric Commission which was to coordinate planning for a voluntary program on metric conversion.

On March 17, 1975, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to whom the Chairman of the Metric Commission reports,

presented to Parliament a set of guideline dates for metric conversion based on industry planning. The key dates were

:

1974 : completion of the investigation phase

;

1975: completion of the planning phase, with definition of

the proper sequence of conversion activities;

1976: completion of the detailed scheduling phase, with

establishment of optimum timing of conversion activities ; 1975 implementation, the actual physical work of conver- through sion, peaking in 1977-78 and substantially completed

1980: by 1980.

It is the considered policy in Canada that the actual physical

process of metric conversion should follow rather thorough planning and preparation. The preparative phase is not by itself disruptive or very expensive ; and to the extent that is done well, the actual

work of conversion can be relatively swift and painless.

What we do not want to see is metric conversion stuck on top

dead center, with the industrial leaders, particularly those with multinational interests, trying to pull the toboggan onto the downhill

slope while the rest of the economy with equal effect tries to hold

it back.

It is also the considered policy in Canada that the high visibility

aspects of metric conversion—weather reports, road signs, postal

scales, gasoline pumps and retail food .scales—^must not be allowed

to lag behind in metric conversion. If the consumer in Canada eats

his breakfast to a weather report in Celsius, drives 16 km to work

at 50 km/h, mails a 200 g parcel, and on the way home buys 45 liters

of gasoline, a half kg of butter, a kg of hamburg and 6 liters of

milk, metrics will indeed be a part of our daily life in Canada, and

industrial conversion will carry on from this point with a natural

pick up of momentum on the downhill slope.

Weather reports, road signs and postal scales are relatively easy

since they are dependent on government decision. Since April 1,

1975, all weather reports in Canada have been in Celsius, although

some private radio stations still also quote Fahrenheit. Road signs

will go metric in September 1977. The Post Office plans are not yet

finalized, but the postal system will probably go metric in 1977.

It appears that gasoline dispenser conversion will move more

rapidly than we had originally thought. The petrloeum industry had

157
accepted the inevitability of metric conversion and was working to- ward a completion date of about 1980. The industry is, however,

being overtaken by events.

The price of gasoline has been increasing rapidly, largely as a

result of the pulls of the international marketplace, but partly also

due to a new federal excise tax of 10 cents per gallon, effective June

1975, which is designed to discourage unnecesary use. As a result,

the price of premium gasoline in a few remote areas is already oyer

$1.00 per Canadian gallon, equivalent to about 84 cents per U.S.

gallon. The computers will, of course, not accept a price greater than

99.9 cents per gallon.

On a strictly interim basis, to avoid very expensive and interim

mechanical modifications to the computer sections, we will permit

sale by the half gallon with a suitable legend on the computer face.

Cut-off dates will be the earliest of : August 1, 1978, if less than 10

percent of all dispensers are affected; 2 years from the date that over 10 percent of all dispensers are affected; and 1 year from the

date that over 20 percent of all dispensers are selling at over $1.00

per gallon. Since metric conversion is the logical ultimate solution

to the problem—$1.00 per Canadian gallon is the equivalent of 22

cents per liter, well within computer capacity—we will in effect have

the retail gasoline industry converted by mid-1978 at the latest and

early 1977 at the earliest.

Prepackaged goods in Canada which are factory packed will

shortly all bear metric markings, either in conjunction with conventional marking—dual labeling—or exclusively in metric if they are packaged in approved round metric sizes. Beyond September 1, 1975,

no nonfood packages, and beyond March 1, 1976, no food packages

can be sold which do not bear metric marking. This will be a significant step in consumer education, but by no means conclusive

since many consumers seem to buy by eye or by "heft." Metric package marking can help, but will not force, the consumer to "think

metric."

The metric conversion of retail food scales is perhaps the most

critical and at the same time the most difficult problem in the metric

conversion program of any country, and Canada is no exception.

Scale conversion—or replacement—costs money, and no retailer

really believes he will sell more pork chops by the kilogram.

The Working Group on Scale Conversion in the Retail Food Industry which has members from both the retail food industry and

the retail scale industry, has made excellent progress in preparing a

detailed plan for metric conversion.

It is planned to set up local-coordinating committees in districts

corresponding roughly to the 21 weights and measures districts across the country, each centered on a major city, and within each

158
district to schedule metric oonversion by advertising areas. Within

each retail chain, enough new scales of advanced design would be

purchased so that there would be "floaters" for changeout. Ideally,

and there are of course many reasons why we could fall short of the

ideal, a new or converted metric scale would be set up beside each

unconverted scale so that over a single weekend, in a given advertising area, there would be a clean changeover to metric. It is planned

to convert in three test areas—Sherbrooke, Quebec; Peterborough,

Ontario; and Kamloops, British Coliunbia—'beginning January

1978, and begin the general schedule of oonversion in July 1978, after

the lessons of the "pilot" project have been thoroughly studied.

So much for the plan. A problem which has become increasingly

obvious is that while all major retail chains and all major associations are represented in the Working Group, and all have participated effectively, none are as yet financially committed ; and all are

to a greater or lesser degree concerned about the reactions of the

independents who can and probably will go their own independent

ways. The major chains are firmly entrenched in most major metropolitan areas and can probably ignore the independents there, but

in many areas of Canada independents handle the greater part of

the business.

There is some possibility of relief from import duty and sales tax

on metric conversion kits, and such relief could be tied to an agreed

conversion schedule to provide some degree of encouragement and

reward for "all pulling together."

But it becomes increasingly obvious to me, at least, that some

system of cut-off dates will ultimately be required to ensure orderly

and optimum progress in retail conversion. The Weights and Measures Act now specifically precludes the establishment of cut-off dates

for use of the traditional units of measurement. It could be fairly

simply modified to permit the establishment by regulations—that is by Cabinet decision—of highly selective cut-off dates after achievement of consensus in the affected segments of industry. These cutoff dates could be applicable to approval, first inspection of a new

device, reinspection of an existing device, and finally, sale of commodity in terms of traditional units. Such dates could be set where

necessary for particular types of devices, for particular trade categories, and for particular geographic areas. Such a system of cut-off

dates could be a whisk broom rather than a bulldozer.

There has to date been some concrete progress on the industrial

front. A number of companies are "going metric" on new plants and

on new equipment, and at the same time are converting their product

lines. Some segments of industry are well advanced with planning

and scheduling. The grain industry, for instance, has set February

1, 1977, as the date after which all grain industry transactions will

159
be in terms of metric tons. In this industry, most new scales are already being installed in metric.

The conversion of scales and meters will obviously have a major

impact on the weights and measures inspection service. We had

metric conversion very much in mind in the drafting of the new

Weights and Measures Act and Regulations which came into effect

one year ago. The new Act clearly holds the device owner responsible

for maintaining the accuracy of his weighing or measuring equipment ; and through him, the service organization can be encouraged

to do the job conscientiously and well. Following any significant

servicing work, including metric conversion, the organization or per- son doing the work must report it to the local weights and measures

office. Service organizations are encouraged to apply their own company

security seals after they have tested the device, and these seals re- ceive the same protection under the new Act as do the seals of the

weights and measures inspectors. Following receipt of the report,

the inspection staff can then make spot-check inspections to maintain

adequate control.

Under the old Act, many device owners considered the inspection

certificate to be a "license to use" and in some manner also a guarantee of continuing accuracy during the life of the certificate. Under

the new Act, any device must be inspected before first use, but beyond that point, it can legally continue in use as long as the owner

satisfies himself that it continues to be accurate. It may, of course,

be sealed against use by the inspector if found on a regular or control inspection to be grossly inaccurate. But the important point

here is that the device can be returned to use following metric con- version before it has been inspected, and the inspection staff can maintain control with intelligent selective inspection without becoming a crucial bottleneck in metric conversion.

Any new equipment being ordered for the inspection staff is now

metric. We are equipping new weight trucks with 500 kilogram and

20 kilogram weights, and our "bulk" weights are also 20 kilogram.

Weight kits are of the rectangular stainless steel bar type in the

larger sizes. Weights are in the 1, 2, 2, 5 series, including 14 one kilogram weights, and extend down to 1 gram. Special kits for the

product inspectors who look after packaging plant inspections, ex- tend down to 10 milligrams and have only 9 one kilogram weights.

As rapidly as possible, each inspector will be equipped with a metric

weight kit since using an avoirdupois set for inspecting a metric

scale can be very discouraging.

In the larger sizes, an "add-on" weight kit can be quite practical

;

and this is probably the ideal solution during the period of conversion since industrial scales will be converted on a very hopscotch

pattern.

160
Our heavy duty weight trucks now carry 18 one-thousand pound

weights and 3 one-thousand pound baskets, which are interchangeable with the block weights for handling. Each basket has a sealed

weight of 200 pounds and contains 16 fifty-pound weights. For the

testing of a metric scale, 2 fifty-pound weights are added for each

1,000 pound block weight on the scale. With a very small add-on,

again in the 1, 2, 2, 5 series, we have 600 kilograms.

Add-ons for fifty-pound weights to take them up to 25 kilograms

do not work out quite as well, but it is still practical for an inspector

to carry a kit of add-ons for the 10 fifty-pound weights he carries in

the trunk of his car and for a weight truck to carry add-ons to permit testing of intermediate capacity metric scales with a fifty-pound

weight.

Similarly, our five-gallon and one-gallon test measures for service

station inspection will be replaced with 20-liter and 5-liter sizes,

but we will continue to use the old cans for calibration of both gallon

and liter gasoline dispensers. A five-gallon can (Canadian) is the

equivalent of 22.73 liters. It is a simple matter to drop a 30 milliliter

aluminum "dunker," attached to a chain, into the can to change the

volume at the zero-error graduation line to 22.7 liters. This effective

volume enables the gasoline dispenser to be tested to an even tenth

of a liter.

Working the other way from liters to gallons is even more convenient. A new volumetric prover calibrated to 500 liters is only 0.014

percent short of 110 Canadian gallons, a good "round" quantity for

testing gallon meters. A conversion of "500 liters equals 132 U.S.

gallons," which involves an error of only 0.065 percent, would also

be close enough that a dual scale could be used.

The message here is that with a little forethought, the metric cojiversion of inspection equipment need not be a staggering expense

and that replacement of existing equipment can be postponed for a number of years.

And what of the technical problems of device conversion? To

deal with liquid meters first, most manufacturers of gasoline dispensers are planning on installing on new and overhauled dispensers a snap-conversion gearbox between the meter and the computer head.

It takes up very little vertical space and once a pin or level is actuated at the time of metric conversion, an internal spring holds it into a 4.546-to-l step-up gearing position. The price register will be

reset from, say, 79.9 cents per gallon to 17.6 cents per liter, and the

"gallon" legends will be overlaid with self-adhesive "liter" masks.

Checks are being run to determine whether the increased gearing

drag will be enough to require recalibration.

This snap-conversion gearbox costs only about $25, plus labor, so

it may also be used for dispensers which are entirely field converted.

161
Industrial meters, basically, are converted by interchanging gearing and the register face. But an interesting problem is this : In most

cases, step-up gearing would increase the final wheel speed beyond

its mechanical limits and step-down gearing will be required. If a gallon meter is converted to read in decaliters, it is pretty straightforward; but if it is converted to read in liters, the decimal place

is wrong, the final wheel color is wrong, and the conversion costs

about twice as much as for gallons-to-decaliters. The petroleimi industry prefers the purist approach of conversion to either liters or, for the largest meters, cubic meters, but after learning of the costs

involved they are deferring a decision for several months. I rather

think that they will decide that in the long run it would be preferable to avoid introducing a further term, the decaliter, into the system.

A very great number of technical approaches to scale conversion

will be required since scales are themselves a very broad category.

As a general comment, metric conversion will probably accelerate

the trend to digital electronic readouts, both in complete replacement of scales and also in replacement of beams and dials, particularly unit weight dials, with steelyard load cells and digital readouts.

The escalating price of meats and produce have already outstripped the computing capacity of that old workliorse, the cylinder

scale, and many of these will be replaced with digital electronic computing scales. But the working group gave a good deal of thought

to the future of the cylinder scale. Not every store can afford to go

electronic at present price levels. The recommended approach is to

convert all the cylinder scales of a single manufacturer to a single

capacity of 10 kilograms and to produce a single chart to minimize

tooling costs. This chart would have unit prices in a geometric progression with roughly 4 percent increments from $1.70 to $16.20 per

kilogram; and the same figures, by dropping the final zero, would

give an effective range from 17 cents to $16.20 per kilogram with

no computation. Price splitting with cylinder scales, while admittedly

imdesirable, is an almost universal practice; and by two-step price

splitting, the proposed chart would provide a total of 1,300 unit

prices from a chart having only 52 unit price columns.

To sum up, in Canada we believe that careful planning for metric

conversion will pay off and that very close attention must be given

to retail conversion to ensure that the consumer will come to "thinls:

metric" as early in the game as possible. Planning, to be effective,

must involve all segements of the economy and when all these heads

get together, many good ideas are generated for minimizing the costs

and hastening the substantial benefits of metric conversion.

162
Metric conversion is a very interesting experience and so far in

Canada the general climate has been one of acceptance and support.

If it were not that I suspect the United States is already ahead of

Canada on metric conversion in many significant segments of the

economy, I would say, "Come on in! The water is fine!".

DISCUSSION

Mr. D. Montanaki (Plymouth, Massachusetts) : I would like to

ask Mr. Armstrong if he has had any feedback, negative or positive,

from the construction industry. How are they going for the metric

system? Are they selling lumber by the yard? What effect does it have on the construction industry ? Mr. J. L. Armstrong (Canada) : I am afraid I haven't been following this really closely. There is a working group in the construction industry rather parallel to the working group in scales in

the retail food industry, and it has been making real progress. But

the real details of their decisions, I am not familiar with. For instance, one thing I can tell you is the size of a sheet of plywood

would be 1.2 meters by 2.4 meters, and this sort of thing. It will be

a rationalized dimensioning system, but I am afraid I really cannot

get into details. We could get the information for you if you are

interested. I am not an expert.

163
I
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

ADMINISTRATION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Presented by D. I. Offner, Chairman^ Commissioner of

"Weights and Measures, Department of Public Safety,

City of St. Louis, Missouri

(Thursday, July 17, 1975)

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs submits its final

report to the 60th National Conference on

Weights and Measures. The report consists of

the tentative report as offered in the Conference Announcement, and 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 re- ceived during the year and oral presentations

made during the open meeting of the committee.

NATIONAL SURVEY OF WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES ADMINISTRATION

The second phase of the national survey on resources and activities has been completed, and a preliminary study of the data reveals

the need for additional contact in the form of telephone or written

communication in specific areas. The fact that less than 200 responses

were received from more than 800 contacted, and in many cases the

responses were anonjrmous, makes the value of the data very questionable. The committee expresses its disappointment in the response

to this effort.

A third phase of the survey, covering training activities of the

various jurisdictions, has been conducted since the last Conference.

This third phase was, in fact, part of an overall study of the NBS

training program conducted by Dr. Justin Kim of the Technical

Analysis Division with considerable assistance from Mr. Henry

Oppermann of Wisconsin, who participated in our program under

the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. During a lengthy discussion

of the survey with Dr. Kim at the interim meeting, it became apparent that certain areas of training and qualifications of weights and

measures personnel are in need of attention. Among the problem

areas is the contrast evident between the level and uniformity of

165
training of metrologists throughout the country, and the lack of

uniformity in the level of training of field personnel. Another such

problem area is the desperate need for funding any adequate training program.

FUNDING FOR METRIC EDUCATION

The committee is advised that Public Law 93-380, known as the

Education Amendments Act of 1974, authorized the expenditure of

$10,000,000 per year over a four-year period to support establishment

of programs in metric education. Though this authorization of ex- penditures has not as yet been funded, the committee has been advised that an early appropriation of such funds is possible. It is the

recommendation of the committee that as soon as such funding becomes available, the executive secretary of this Conference should

file an application for a grant to be expended by the Conference in

development of a metric educational program.

The committee is pleased to report that contact has been made

with Dr. Floyd A. Davis, Project Manager, Metric Education Program, U.S. Office of Education, ROB 3, Room 3043, Washington,

D.C. 20202, in regard to this item. Dr. Davis is receptive to the

idea of a plan of metric education for weights and measures officials

and is in attendance at this Conference primarily for the purpose

of meeting with the committee in implementation of a satisfactory

plan.

Mr. John Landvater of Landvater Associates has offered the services of his firm in developing the details of a metric education grant

to accomplish systematic training for weights and measures officials.

Mr. Landvater is also present at this Conference and has met the

committee to discuss the details of his firm's services.

The committee would like to express its appreciation to Dr. Davis

and Mr. Landvater for their presentations at the committee's open

session. The committee is delighted at the prospect of working with

Dr. Davis and Mr. Landvater in this very important program.

STANDARDIZING THE SPELLING OF "METRE" AND "LITRE"

The committee recommends that appropriate action be taken to

make uniform throughout the nation the spelling "metre" and "litre."

The committee feels that consideration should be given to accomplishing this through promulgation in the Federal Register by the

director of the National Bureau of Standards, thus formalizing the

position advocated by the director in the recently issued LC 1056,

"NBS Guidelines for Use of the Metric System."

166
TECH MEMOS

The committee is happy to report that since the resumption of

publication of the Tech Memo, three memos have been issued and

distributed. These are Tech Memos 25, 26, and 27. Publication will

continue on a quarterly basis or more often if necessary. The committee has long recognized that the Tech Memo has tremendous

potential, both as a training medium and an information source. The committee sees this as a valuable vehicle for the dissemination

of information about work of the National Bureau of Standards and

for the various weights and measures officials to inform others of

methods and techniques which they have developed. The success of

the Tech Memo will, however, require input from the various weights

and measures jurisdictions. Officials should send their contributions

to Mr. R. N. Smith at the Office of Weights and Measures. The

committee strongly endorses this action by OWM and urges weights

and measures officials to cooperate by making proper use of this information dissemination vehicle.

EXAMINATION PROCEDURE OUTLINES (EPO'S)

The committee recommends that the Committee on Specifications

and Tolerances develop Examination Procedure Outlines (EPO's)

for devices for which no EPO's presently exist. Among the devices

for which EPO's are presently needed are railroad track scales and

a whole range of timing devices. The committee recommends that in

the development of EPO's consideration be given to augmenting the

citation of reference sections by including the title of the section and

the page number in addition to the section number.

The committee is aware of a feeling that there may be a legal

problem resulting from the incorporation of the EPO's into a separate handbook. It may be necessary in some jurisdictions to go

through legislative adoption of this new handbook to give it neces- sary legal status.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE PROGRAM PLANNING

The committee's mission has been expanded to include assistance

to the executive secretary in developing programs for future Conferences. The committee welcomes the opportunity to have input in

planning future programs and encourages Conference members to

forward ideas which they may have for future consideration.

In connection with our new responsibility, the committee met with

Mr. Robert Walleigh, former NBS Associate Director for Administration, who is presently involved in planning both the NBS 75th

167
anniversary celebration and the NBS involvement in the bicentennial

celebration in 1976. Mr. Walleigh extended an invitation to the Conference to hold at least one session at the National Bureau of Standards, including a tour of NBS facilities and exhibits.

The committee would like to explore the possibility of setting up

exhibits of historical weights and measures artifacts which many

jurisdictions may have. The exhibit would be at NBS during 1976.

The committee would like some indication of interest on the part of

jurisdictions in participating in this project.

Ideas for program items and format for future Conferences, start- ing with 1975, should be communicated to the committee through

E.. N. Smith, staff assistant, at the Office of Weights and Measures.

NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

The committee wishes to thank its member, "W. B. (Red) Harper,

who served as chairman of National Weights and Measures Week,

for an outstanding job in promoting the Week. Mr. Harper deeply

appreciated the 32 State directors who cooperated with him by appointing a State coordinator; he was disappointed, however, in the

fact that 18 State directors failed, for whatever reason, to respond.

Special thanks arc also extended to the Scale Manufacturers Association, the Scale Journal, and Toledo Scale Company for their co- operation and help in promoting the Week.

The committee is pleased to report that response for weights and

measures week activities to be made a part of the state and local

weights and measures activity summary has been good. Conference

delegates are urged to retain their copies of the activity summary for

future information and use.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION EXHIBIT OF

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

The committee has been informed by Dr. Jon Eklund that neces- sary time and funding for the original project is not available. However, the Smithsonian is presently putting together a large bicentennial exhibit titled "We the People" that will include weights and

measures historical artifacts and information. The exhibit will be

semipermanent in nature and will appear in three parts: "Of the

People," "By the People," and "For the People." The exhibit will

open in April 1975 ; and it is expected that it will be visited by 12 to

16 million people in 1976. It is planned to keep the exhibit available

to visitors for a ten-year period. Weights and measures officials

should plan to visit this exhibit while attending the Conference in

1976.

168
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES

1. Weights and Measures Commemorative Stamp

The committee has no new information to report on the commemorative stamp. Efforts are still being made, notably by Mack

Eapp, on this subject. The committee recommends that the good

offices of the Secretary of Commerce be sought in obtaining a weights

and measures commemorative stamp.

2. Weights and Measures Commemorative Medallion

A final order of medallions was received in June of this year. Response to this project has been outstanding and orders are con- tinuing to be received. The committee urges all who are interested

in receiving medallions to order as soon as possible. The project will

continue as long as the supply lasts. Orders should be directed to

:

R. N. Smith

Office of "Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

3. Scouts of America Weights and Measures Merit Badge

The committee has been informed by the National Scout Organization that, due to circumstances beyond its control, it is necessary that

the inauguration of new merit badges be suspended for a time. We

have been assured that this item can be brought up for action at a

later date.

The Scout Organization appreciates the interest and work that

Conference members have put forth on this project. The committee

wishes to express its appreciation to the Conference members for

their interest and support of this project. The committee will renew

our request for a merit badge at the earliest opportunity.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE SELF-ADHESIVE DECALS

The committee was pleased to supply each registrant at this Conference with two National Conference decals. This was done in partial response to the many requests that have been received for these

decals since the 50th Anniversary National Conference.

In further response to requests received, the committee is happy

to announce the availability of these decals for purchase by weights

and measures and industry officials. In order to minmize the problem of order taking and handling of finances, it is necessary to offer

these on a minimum order basis of $5. Since a sizable order was

placed with the company manufacturing these decals, considerable

169
savings can be passed on to those wishing to purchase the decals.

The minimum order of $5 will purchase 30 decals. Forty-five decals can be offered for $7.50; 60 for $10; 75 for $12.50; or 100 for $15;

and at the rate of $15 per hundred for larger orders. Checks should

be made payable to the National Conference on Weights and Measures and orders should be directed to

:

R. N. Smith

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

An order form is included as part of this report.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES—INDUSTRY INFORMATION PROGRAM

The committee is very pleased to note that Scale Manufacturers

Association President Charles W. Silver has announced a new program of information exchange between SMA members and weights

and measures officials. The program will make status reports, new

standards, position reports, and other SMA material available to

weights and measures officials by direct mail.

In return, SMA will ask that tlxe weights and measures community send copies of information of interest and concern to the

weighing industry to the SMA office (at the following address) for

distribution

:

Scale Manufacturers Association

1000 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

The committee wholeheartedly endorses and supports this program

and urges weights and measures officials to cooperate.

170
ORDER FORM

FOR

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES MEDALLION

Please enter my order for

:

, Sterling Silver Weights and Measures Medallion $15.00 each

Bronze Weights and Measures Medallion 7.50 each

Presentation Case for Weights and Measures

Medallion 2.50 each

Total amount enclosed : $

Make check or money order payable to

:

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Name

Address

Mail order to

:

R. N. Smith

OflSce of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

171
ORDER FORM

FOR

NATIONAL CONFERENCE DECALS

Please enter my order for

:

30 Decals $ 5.00

45 Decals 7.50

60 Decals 10.00

75 Decals 12.50

100 Decals 15.00

at $15 per 100 Decals

Total amount enclosed : $

(Minimum Order $5.00)

Make check or money order payable to

:

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Name

Address

Mail order to

:

R. N. Smith

OflSce of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

D. I. Offner, Chairman, St. Louis, Missouri

W. B. Harper, Birmingham, Alabama

W. H. KoRTH, Ventura C!ounty, California

S. Valtri, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

E. T. Williams, Texas

R. N. Smith, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. WoLLiN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs

(Mr. Oflfner moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the report

of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs was

adopted in its entirety by the Conference by voice vote.)

172
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND

REGULATIONS

Presented by R. L. Thompson, Chairman,

Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture,

State of Maryland

(Thursday, July 17, 1975)

The Committee on Laws and Regulations

submits its final report to the 60th National

Conference on Weights and Measures. The

Report consists of the tentative report as offered in the Conference Announcement and

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.

MODEL STATE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

1. Noise Measurement Standards

The Western States Weights and Measures Association concluded

that there is a consensus of opinion that weights and measures jurisdictions should be expanded to provide authority to establish technical requirements for noise measurement devices. The committee

agrees and feels that this is only one element of an ever expanding

set of responsibilities. The current Model Law appears to limit

activities to commercial devices, which is too restrictive. The committee recommends that Section 4. should, therefore, be revised as follows

:

SECTION 4. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WEIGHING AND

MEASURING DEVICES.—The specifications, tolerances, and other technical

requirements for commercial, law enforcement, data gathering, and other

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 Requirements for

Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices," and supplements thereto or

revisions thereof, shall apply to weighing and measuring devices in the state,

except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. Weighing Practices in Service Related Industries, Based on Estimates

The County of Ventura, California, expressed concern about Amtrak's practice of representing baggage charges based on estimated

173
weights. Similar problems were identified in other service related

industries including laundries. The committee feels that the law

should be as explicit for services as it is for products and recom- mends that Section 8. be revised as follows

:

SECTION 8. MISREPRESENTATION OF QUANTITY.—No person shall

sell, offer, or expose for sale less than the quantity of commodity or service

he represents, nor take any more than the quantity of commodity or service

he represents when he furnishes the weight or measure by means of which

the quantity is determined.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. Time as an Enforceable Quantity Declaration

The enforceability of quantity declarations using time as the basis

of measurement for commodities, including packaged commodities,

must be considered carefully if equity in the marketplace is to be

achieved. The committee wishes to stress to those who have submitted

time declaration questions that the enforceability factor should not

override consumer protection and uniformity considerations. Based

on the above criteria, the committee recommends that the Conference

take the position that time is not an appropriate quantity declaration

for fireplace logs. The committee further recommends that the States

follow FTC guidelines in requiring lineal measure for the sale of

movie films and permit either lineal measure or playing time for

magnetic tapes and cassettes.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

4. Representation of Price in Submultiple Units of Weight

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, concerned about

computing scales which represent prices per 14 pound and per 14

pound, asked that a review be made of the "delicatessen practice" of

declaring price in submultiple units of weights as a possible violation of Section 9. Under this provision : "No person shall . . . represent the price in any manner calculated or tending to mislead or in

any way deceive a person."

The Committee on Laws and Regulations does not perceive itself as the proper forum for those seeking an advisory opinion as to

the legality of this trade practice.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

MODEL STATE METHOD OF SALE OF

COMMODITIES REGULATION

1. Precooked Stuffed Poultry Products

A variety of methods of sale of precooked stuffed poultry products

has been recognized by the State of Virginia and others. It is sug174
gested that a uniform method be established so that sellers, where

possible, will represent the quantity of these items in a like manner.

The committee, therefore, recommends consideration and adoption

of the following revised addition

:

SECTION 5. MEAT, POULTRY, AND SEAFOOD.—In the case of precooked products where weight is declared or precooked stuffed products, the

label must show the total net weight of the product at the time of sale.

(After lengthy discussion, the foregoing item was defeated

by a standing vote.

)

2. Three Quart Package for Fluid Milk

The International Paper Company proposed again this year that a three quart milk container be included as an allowable size under

Section 6. Last year they indicated that the three quart container

would yield significant savings in scarce materials, such as paperboard and plastic coatings. They now allege that this size is permitted in approximately 20 States and the dairies that have sold

the three quart have replaced more expensive packaging methods

and have passed some of the savings along to the consumer. For the

a.bove reasons, the committee recommends that Section 6. be revised

as follows:

SECTION 6. FLUID MILK PRODUCTS.—All fluid milk products, including

but not limited to milk, lowfat milk, skim milk, cultured milks and cream

shall be packaged for retai^l sale only in units of 1 gill, V2 liquid pint, 10 fluid ounces, 1 liquid pint, 1 liquid quart, V2 gallon, 3 liquid quarts, 1 gallon, Wi

gallons, 2 gallons, 2Vi gallons, or multiples of 1 gallon: Provided, that

packages in units of less than 1 gill shall be permitted.

(After lengthy discussion, the foregoing item was defeated

by a standing vote.

)

3. Proliferation of Cottage Cheese Sizes

Two regional weights and measures associations recommended

that cottage cheese packaged for retail sale should be limited to a

rational set of allowable sizes. The Milk Industry Foundation sur- veyed the situation and in their report indicated that they did not

find undue proliferation of packaged cottage cheese quantities. The

Foundation also stated that a variety of small sizes is essential to

meet current market demand. The committee determined that a

rational set of sizes should be established.

Because low fat and dry curd cottage cheese products generally

differ in density from cottage cheese, and therefore may require

standard packages which are slightly larger, the committee now

recommends that Section 7. be revised as follows

:

SECTION 7. OTHER MILK PRODUCTS.—Cottage cheese, cottage cheese

products, and other milk products which are solid, semisolid, viscous, or a

175
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 cottage cheese, cottage cheese products, sour cream,

and yogurt shall be packaged for retail sale only in units of 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 64, 80, and 128 ounces avoirdupois; and further Provided, That multipack or

single serving sizes of 6 ounces or less shall be sold only in even ounce

increments.

Note: Standard package sizes shall apply to low fat and dry curd cottage

cheese products as of July 1, 1976.

(The foregoing item vfas adopted by voice vote.)

4. Peat and Peat Moss

In order to increase productivity and reduce distribution costs in

the peat industry, Peat Institute members have standardized on a 40 pound size. They have, therefore, requested that this unit be

added to the set of allowable sizes. Additionally, they agreed to

support an amendment for a rationalized set, which would eliminate

three sizes currently allowed. The committee, therefore, recommends

for consideration and adoption the following revision

:

11.2.1. Weight.—Peat and peat moss sold in terms of weight shall be

offered and exposed for sale only in units of 50 pounds, 40 pounds, 20 pounds,

10 pounds, or 3 pounds.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

5. Combination Quantity Declarations

This year the committee continued discussions with appropriate

trade associations to define allowable differences for combination

quantity commodities. Based on these discussions the committee rec- ommends consideration and adoption of the following amendments

and appropriate renmnbering of existing provisions

:

16.2. Glassware.—Large Blown Pitchers and Apothecaries.—The allowable difference between actual and declared capacity shall be plus 6.25 percent

or minus 5 percent of the stated capacity for items over 6 ounce capacity.

16.3. Glassware.—Large Pressed Bowls, Mixing or Casserole; Loaf Pans;

Utility Dishes; and Roasters.—The allowable difference between actual and

declared capacity shall be plus 6.25 percent or minus 5 percent of the stated

capacity for items over 6 ounce capacity.

16.4. Glassware.—Small Blown and Pressed Bowls, Blenders, Pitchers,

Sherbets, Desserts, Soups, Cups and Mugs.—The allowable difference between

actual and declared capacity shall be:

(a) Plus or minus % ounce for items of 6 ounce capacity or less; (b) Plus 6.25 percent or minus 5 percent of the stated capacity for items

over 6 ounce capacity.

16.5. Paper and Plastic Cups.—The allowable difference between actual

and declared capacity shall be:

176
(a) Plus or minus Vi ounce for items of 5 ounce capacity or less; (b) Plus or minus 5 percent of the stated capacity for items over 5 ounce capacity.

(A motion to table the foregoing item until next year was adopted by voice vote.

)

6. Fireplace and Stove Wood

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended

that a new section be added to establish a method of sale foi" fireplace

and stove wood. Additionally, others have questioned the current

practice of selling processed wood by time measure, which several

companies are doing and/or by weight, which the Federal Trade

Commission prefers. The committee, after careful deliberation, feels

that the consumer will be better able to make value comparisons if

all fireplace and stove wood is sold by cubic measure. The committee,

therefore, recommends consideration and adoption of the followingnew section

:

SECTION 18. FIREPLACE AND STOVE WOOD.—For the purpose of this

regulation, this section shall apply to the sale of all wood, natural and

processed, for use as fuel.

18.1. Definitions.

18.1.1. Fireplace and Stove Wood.—Any kindling, logs, boards, timbers

or other wood, split or not split, advertised, offered for sale or sold as fuel.

18.1.2. Cord.—The amount of wood which is contained in a space of 128 cubic

feet, when the wood is ranked and well stowed. For the purpose of this

regulation, "ranked and well stowed" shall be construed to mean when pieces

of wood are placed in a line or row, with individual pieces touching and

parallel to each other, and stacked in a compact manner.

18.1.3. Representation.—A "representation" shall be construed to mean any

advertisement, offering, invoice, or the like that pertains to the sale of fire- place or stove wood.

18.2. Identity.—A representation may include a declaration of identity

that indicates the species group (Example: 50% hickory, 50% miscellaneous

softwood). Such a representation shall indicate, within ten percent accuracy, the percentages of each group.

18.3. Quantity.—Wood, of any type, for use as fuel will be advertised,

offered for sale and sold only by measure, using the term "cord" and fractional parts of a cord ; except that wood, natural or processed, offered for sale

in packaged form will display the quantity in terms of cubic feet, to include

fractions of cubic feet.

18.4. Prohibition of Terms.—The term "face cord," "rack," "pile," "truckload," or terms of similar import shall not be used when advertising, offer- ing for sale, or selling wood for use as fuel.

18.5. Delivery Ticket or Sales Invoice.—A delivery ticket or invoice will

be presented by the seller to the purchaser whenever any nonpackaged fire- place or stove wood is sold. The delivery ticket or sales invoice will contain

at least the following information:

(a) The name and address of the vendor

(b) The name and address of the purchaser

177
(c) The date delivered

(d) The quantity delivered and the quantity upon which the price is based, if this differs from the delivered quantity

(e) The price of the amount delivered

(f) The identity of the most descriptive terms commercially practicable,

including any quality representation made in connection with the sale

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

7. Prefabricated Utility Buildings

The Southern Weights and Measures Association requested that

the Conference establish a unifonn method of sale for utility buildings. The committee concluded that the practice of offering for sale

garden type and other prefabricated utility buildings on the basis

of nominal sizes tends to mislead consumers. Industry representatives

argued that the use of nominal sizes has become a standard trade

practice which is wholly acceptable to retailers. They also indicated

that requiring industry to declare accurate outside dimensions including roof overhang would be a hardship and of little or no value

to consumers. The committee, therefore, recommends for consideration

and adoption the following new section

:

SECTION 19. PREFABRICATED UTILITY BUILDINGS.—These buildings shall be offered for retail sale on the basis of usable inside space as

follows

:

(a) Length, measured from inside surface of wall panels at the base;

(b) Width, measured from inside surface of v/all panels at the base;

(c) Height, measured from the base to the top of the shortest wall panel.

Note 1. Inside dimension shall be declared to the nearest inch.

Note 2. If total usable inside space is declared in a supplemental declaration it shall be to the nearest cubic foot.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

MODEL STATE PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

1. Metrication

In keeping with the Conference's advocacy position in favor of

metrication, the Committee on Laws and Regulations is actively pursuing the task of modifying the model state regulations to make them

fully compatible with the modernized metric system. The Model

State Packaging and Labeling Regulation was selected as the first

model to be revised. The committee wishes to stress that its intent

is to provide guidelines for imiform metric labeling of packages not

subject to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act or whenever packagers choose to use metric labeling, but in no case should any revised

section be construed as requiring information different from the re- quirements of the Act. Last year a new section was added to provide

for the uniform use of metric symbols. This year the committee has

178
revised Section 6. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY: CONSUMER PACKAGES to remove barriers to metrication at the

state and local levels and to prescribe the units to be used on metric

packages. The committee, therefore, recommends for consideration

and adoption the following new Section 6.

:

SECTION 6. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY: CONSUMER PACKAGES

6.1. General

6.1.1. Customary Units

6.1.2. Abbreviations

6.1.3. Metric Units

6.1.4. Symbols

6.2. Largest Whole Unit

6.3. Net Quantity

6.3.1. Use of "Net Weight"

6.3.2. Lines of Print or Type

6.4. Terms : Weight, Liquid Measure, or Count

6.4.1. Combination Declaration

6.5. Units with Two or More Meanings

6.6. Prescribed Units

6.6.1. Less than One Foot, One Square Foot, One Pound, or One Pint

6.6.2. Four Feet, Four Square Feet, Four Pounds, One Gallon, or More

6.6.3. Weight: Dual Quantity Declaration

6.6.4. Fluid Measure: Dual Quantity Declaration

6.6.5. Length Measure: Dual Quantity Declaration

6.6.6. Area Measure: Dual Quantity Declaration

6.6.7. Bidimensional Commodities

6.6.8. Count: Ply

6.7. Fractions

6.7.1. Customary System Fractions

6.8. Supplementary Quantity Declarations

6.9. Qualification of Declaration Prohibited

6.1. General—Units of the customary system of weights and measures and units of the metric system of weights and measures are jointly recognized, and units of either one of these systems may be used in a declaration of quantity. Additionally, units of both systems may be combined in a

declaration of quantity or listed in separate declarations of quantity. Nothing

contained in this Section shall be construed to supersede any labeling re- quirement specified in Federal law.

6.1.1. Customary Units.—A declaration of quantity

(a) in units of weight shall be in terms of the avoirdupois pound or ounce;

(b) in units of liquid measure shall be in terms of the United States

gallon of 231 cubic inches or liquid-quart, liquid-pint, or fluid-ounce

subdivisions of the gallon, and shall express the volume at 68 ° F

(20 ° C), except in the case of petroleum products, for which the

declaration shall express the volume at 60 ° F (15.6 ° C), and except

also in the case of a commodity that is normally sold and consumed

while frozen, for which the declaration shall express the volume at

179
the frozen temperature, and except also in the case of a commodity

that is normally sold in the refrigerated state, for which the declaration shall express the volume at 40 ° F (4 ° C)

;

(c) in units of linear measure shall be in terms of the yard, foot, or inch;

(d) in units of area measure shall be in terms of the square yard, square

foot, or square inch

;

(e) in units of dry measure shall be in terms of the United States buafasii of 2,150.42 cubic inches, or peck, dry-quart, and dry-pint subdivisimiB.

of the bushel

;

(f) in units of cubic measure shall be in terms of the cubic yard, cubic

foot, or cubic inch.

6.1.2. Abbreviations.—Any of the following abbreviations for customary

Units, and none other, may be employed in the quantity statement on a package of commodity

:

avoirdupois avdp ounce oz

cubic cu pint Pt

feet or foot ft pound lb

fluid fl quart qt

gallon gal square sq

inch in weight wt

liquid liq yard yd

(There normally are no periods following, nor plural forms of, these abbreviations. For example, "oz" is the abbreviation for both "ounce" and

"ounces.")

6.1.3. Metric Units.—A declaration of quantity

(a) in units of mass (weight) shall be in terms of the kilogram, gram,

or milligram

;

(b) in units of liquid measure shall be in terms of the liter or milliliter;

(c) in units of linear measure shall be in terms of the meter, centimeter,

or millimeter;

(d) in units of area measure shall be in terms of the square meter or square centimeter;

(e) in units of cubic or dry measure shall be in terms of the cubic meter

or cubic centimeter.

6.1.4. Symbols.—Any of the following metric symbols may be employed

in the quantity statement on a package of commodity

:

kilogram kg centimeter cm

gram g millimeter mm

milligram mg square meter m'

liter 1 square centimeter cm'

milliliter ml cubic meter m'

meter m cubic centimeter cm*

(Symbols are not capitalized unless the unit is derived from a proper name.

Periods should not be used after the symbol. Symbols are always written

in the singular form—do not add "s" to express the plural when the symbol

is used.)

6.2. Largest Whole Unit.—Where this regulation requires that the quantity declaration be in terms of the largest whole unit, the declaration shall,

180
with respect to a particular package, be in terms of the largest whole unit

of weight or measure, with any remainder expressed in

(a) common or decimal fractions of such largest whole unit; or

(b) the next smaller whole unit, or units, with any further remainder in

terms of common or decimal fractions of the smallest unit present

in the quantity declaration.

6.3. Net Quantity.—A declaration of net quantity of the commodity in

the package, exclusive of wrappers and any other material packed with such

commodity, shall appear on the principal display panel of a consumer package and, unless otherwise specified in this regulation (see subsections 6.6. through 6.6.8.) shall be in terms of the largest whole unit.

6.3.1. Use of "Net Weight."—The term "net weight" shall be used in

conjunction with the declaration of quantity in terms of weight; the term

may either precede or follow the declaration of weight.

6.3.2. Lines of Print or Type.—A declaration of quantity may appear on one or more lines of print or type.

6.4. Terms: Weight, Liquid Measure, or Count.—The declaration of the

quantity of a particular cemmodity shall be expressed in terms of liquid measure if the commodity is liquid, or in terms of weight if the commodity

is solid, semisolid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid, or in terms of

numerical count. However, if there exists a firmly established general con- sumer usage and trade custom with respect to the terms used in expressing

a declaration of quantity of a particular commodity, such declaration of

quantity may be expressed in its traditional terms, if such traditional declaration gives accurate and adequate information as to the quantity of the

commodity.

6.4.1. 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 individual 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

individual units unless a declaration of count alone is fully in- formative.

6.5. Units with Two or More Meanings.—When the term "ounce" is employed in a declaration of liquid quantity, the declaration shall identify the

particular meaning of the term by the use of the term "fluid" ; however, such

distinction may be omitted when, by association of terms (for example, as

in "1 pint 4 ounces"), the proper meaning is obvious. Whenever the declaration of quantity is in terms of the dry pint or dry quart, the declaration

shall include the word "dry."

6.6. Prescribed Units.

6.6.1. Less than One Foot, One Square Foot, One Pound, or One Pint.

The declaration of quantity shall be expressed in terms of

181
(a) in the case of length measure of less than one foot, inches and fractions of inches

;

(b) in the case of area measure of less than one square foot, square

inches and fractions of square inches;

(c) in the case of weight of less than one pound, ounces and fractions

of ounces;

(d) in the case of fluid measure of less than one pint, ounces and fractions of ounces

;

Provided, That the quantity declaration appearing on a random package may

be expressed in terms of decimal fractions of the largest appropriate unit,

the fraction being carried out to not more than two decimal places.

6.6.2. Four Feet, Four Square Feet, Four Pounds, One Gallon, or More.

In the case of

(a) length measure of four feet or more

the declaration of quantity shall be expressed in terms of feet, followed in

parentheses by a declaration of yards and common or decimal fractions of

the yard, or in terms of feet followed in parentheses by a declaration of yards

with any remainder in terms of feet and inches. In the case of

(b) area measure of four square feet or more;

(c) weight of four pounds or more;

(d) fluid measure of one gallon or more

the declaration of quantity shall be expressed in terms of the largest whole

unit.

6.6.3. Weight: Dual Quantity Declaration.—On packages containing one pound or more but less than four pounds, the declaration shall be expressed

in ounces and, in addition, shall be followed by a declaration in parentheses,

expressed in terms of the largest whole unit: provided, That the quantity

declaration appearing on a random package may be expressed in terms of

pounds and decimal fractions of the pound carried out to not more than two

decimal places.

6.6.4. Fluid Measure: Dual Quantity Declaration.—On packages containing one pint or more but less than one gallon, the declaration shall be ex- pressed in ounces and, in addition, shall be followed by a declaration in

parentheses, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit.

6.6.5. Length Measure: Dual Quantity Declaration.—On packages con- taining one foot but less than four feet, the declaration shall be expressed

in inches and, in addition, shall be followed by a declaration in parentheses,

expressed in terms of the largest whole unit.

6.6.6. Area Measure: Dual Quantity Declaration.—On packages containing one square foot but less than four square feet, the declaration shall be

expressed in square inches and, in addition, shall be followed by a declaration in parentheses, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit.

6.6.7. Bidimensional Commodities.—For bidimensional commodities (including roll-type commodities) the quantity declaration shall be expressed,

(a) if less than one square foot, in terms of linear inches and fractions

of linear inches;

(b) if at least one square foot but less than four square feet, in terms

of square inches followed in parentheses by a declaration of both

182
the length and width, each being in terms of the largest whole unit:

Provided, That

(1) no square inch declaration is required for a bidimensional commodity of four inches width or less,

(2) a dimension of less than two feet may be stated in inches within

the parenthetical, and

(3) commodities consisting of usable individual units (except roll- type commodities with individual usable units created by perforations, for which see Subsection 6.6.8. Count: Ply) require a

declaration of unit area but not a declaration of total area of

all such units;

(c) if four square feet or more, in terms of square feet followed in

parentheses by a declaration of the length and width in terms of

the largest whole unit : Provided, That

(1) no declaration in square feet is required for a bidimensional

commodity with a width of four inches or less,

(2) bidimensional commodities, with a width of 4 inches or less,

shall have the length expressed in inches followed by a state- ment in parentheses of the length in the largest whole unit

[Example: 2 inches by 360 inches (10 yards)],

(3) a dimension of less than two feet may be stated in inches within

the parenthetical, and

(4) no declaration in square feet is required for commodities for

which the length and width measurements are critical in terms

of end use (such as tablecloths or bedsheets) if such commodities clearly present the length and width measurements on the

label.

6.6.8. Count: Ply.—If the commodity is in individually usable units of one or more components or ply, the quantity declaration shall, in addition

to complying with other applicable quantity declaration requirements of this

regulation, include the number of ply and the total number of usable units.

Roll-type commodities, when perforated so as to identify individual usable

units, shall not be deemed to be made up of usable units; however, such

roll-type commodities shall be labeled in terms of

(a) total area measurement,

(b) number of ply,

(c) count of usable units, and

(d) dimensions of a single usable unit.

6.7. Fractions

6.7.1. Customary System Fractions.—A statement of net quantity of

contents of any consumer commodity may contain common or decimal fractions. A common fraction shall be in terms of halves, quarters, eighths,

sixteenths, or thirty-seconds, except that

(a) if there exists a firmly established general consumer usage and

trade custom of employing different common fractions in the net

quantity declaration of a particular commodity, they may be employed, and

183
(b) if linear measurements are required in terms of yards or feet,

common fractions may be in terms of thirds.

A common fraction shall be reduced to its lowest terms; a decimal fraction

shall not be carried out to more than two places.

6.8. Supplementary Quantity Declarations.—The required quantity declaration may be supplemented by one or more declarations of weight, measure,

or count, such declaration appearing other than on a principal display panel.

Such supplemental statement of quantity of contents shall not include any

terms qualifying a unit of weight, measure, or count that tends to exaggerate the amount of commodity contained in the package (e.g., "giant"

quart, "full" gallon, "when packed," "minimum," or words of similar import).

6.9. Qualification of Declaration Prohibited.—In no case shall any declaration of quantity be qualified by the addition of the words "when packed,"

"minimum," or "not less than," or any words of similar import, nor shall

any unit of weight, measure, or count be qualified by any term (such as "jumbo," "giant," "full," or the like) that tends to exaggerate the amount

of commodity.

(A mction to table the foregoing item until next year was adopted by voice vote.)

2. Location of Quantity Declaration on Cylindrical Containers

A representative of the paint industry indicated that a reading of

Section 8.1.1. in conjunction with Section 10.7. raised an ambiguity

as to whether quantity declaration on cylindical containers were

required to appear in the bottom 30 percent of the principal display

panel. When informed that Section 10.7. was an additional requirement, the industry representative suggested that it would be helpful to packagers if the ambiguity is removed. The committee agrees

and, therefore, recommends consideration and adoption of the

following amendment:

8.1.1. Location.—The declaration or declarations of quantity of the contents of a package shall appear in the bottom 30 percent of the principal

display panel or panels. For cylindrical containers, see also subsection 10.7. for additional requirements.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. Gift Packages Offered for Sale With No Weight Declarations

The State of Colorado expressed concern about the selling of gift

packages of products with no weights or estimated weight. This

problem was described as serious and one that seems to be nationwide. The committee agrees and hereby requests that this matter be

referred to the Eesolutions Committee for appropriate action.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

184
4. Packaged Seed

The Association of American Seed Control Officials determined

last year that they should strive to achieve a revision to Section

10.10. Packaged Seed so that small packages of seeds would be sold

by count rather than metric weight. An ad hoc Committee was

formed to define and resolve this issue. The findings of the ad hoc

Committee are as follows

:

• A quantity declaration by count would be, per se, of more value

to consmners than a quantity declaration by metric weight.

• The improper and nonuniform use of metric sjnnbols on seed

packages causes considerable confusion as consumers learn to use the metric system.

• A declaration by weight, generally, enables consumers to obtain

sufficiently accurate information as to the quantity of the contents of a package and facilitates value comparisons.

• There would be additional cost to consumers, should NCAVM

require the seed industry to provide accurate enforceable count

declarations.

Based on the above findings, it is the opinion of the Laws and

Regulations Committee that the costs that consumers would have

to pay to obtain accurate enforceable statements of count for small

packages of many types of seeds would exceed the benefits. The committee also believes that consumer problems associated with learning to use the metric system will be alleviated by the committee's

efforts to achieve metric uniformity and will pass with time. Additionally, however, the committee believes that the seed packaging

industry should provide on each package, on a voluntary basis, more

consumer information such as the percentage of germination as re- quired by seed laws and an estimate of the required planting area

for a given package of seeds. Finally, the committee believes that

with certain specialized methods of preparing and packaging seed,

an accurate enforceable statement of count is readily determinable

and should be required. The committee, therefore, recommends for

consideration and adoption the following revision to Section 10.10.

Packaged Seed:

(c) The quantity statement for coated seed, pelletized seed, encapsulated

seed, seed tapes, pre-planters, etc., shall be in terms of count.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

5. Serving-Size Packages

Several weights and measures officials called to the attention of

the committee an apparent discrepancy between a USDA regulation

and the Model State Packaging and Labeling Eegulation.

185
USDA regulation (9 CFR § 317.2 (9(i)) states: "Individually

wrapped and labeled packages of less than i/^-ounce net weight

which are in a shipping container, need not bear a statement of net

quantity of contents when the statement of net quantity of contents

on the shipping container meets the requirements of this paragraph . . ." The model regulation Section 11.4. provides that: "Individual-serving-size packages of foods containing less than

ounce . . . and not intended for sale at retail, shall be exempt from

the required declaration of net quantity of contents . . ." The committee is of the opinion that whenever these packages are sold at retail a declaration of net quantity of contents should be re- quired and State and local weights and measures officials should take

appropriate action. The committee, therefore, recommends no change

to Section 11.4.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

6. Variations Resulting from Exposure

The National Bureau of Standard's Technical Consultant on the

revision of Handbook 67 raised the issue of striking Section 12.1.2.

because of its unenforceable wording and to follow the USDA position of disallowing references in its regulations to "reasonable variations caused by gain or loss of moisture."

After careful deliberation, the committee looked with some favor

upon the deletion of Section 12.1.2. Nevertheless, the committee believes that action at this time might be premature because of pending

litigation which could determine a course of action with requirements

not contemplated by the committee. The committee has not, however, ruled out the possibility that it will be able to make a recom- mendation to the Conference in the future and hereby reaffirms the

position taken by the Conference in its response of March 29, 1974,

to the U.S. Department of Agriculture concerning their proposed

rule on net weight labeling.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

7. Incorporate by Reference FTC Regulations

Representatives of the Toy Manufacturers of America respectfully

requested that the National Conference on Weights and Measures

adopt an amendment to the Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation which would incorporate by reference all regulations,

statements of general policy or interpretations issued by the Federal

Trade Commission under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

While the committee believes that uniformity of regulations is an

important objective it is of the opinion that protection of the purchasers and sellers within individual States is an overriding oon186
sideration and should not be left solely in the hands of Federal rule

makers. The committee, therefore, recommends against adopting any

such amendments.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

8. Individually Wrapped Pieces of Confectionary

After the interim report was issued, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed to exempt individually wrapped pieces

of confectionary of not more than 2 ounces from the requirement for

net quantity of contents declaration. On behalf of the Conference,

the Laws and Regulations Committee vigorously opposed this proposed rule in a letter of May 7, 1975, to the Hearing Clerk, FDA.

(Copies may be obtained from the Office of Weights and Measures

at the National Bureau of Standards.) The committee now seeks

ratification of this action.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

MODEL STATE UNIT PRICING REGULATION

1. Presentation of Price

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended

the addition of the following provision to Section 6. PRESENTATION OF PRICE : If discounts are offered for buying more than

a single like unit of a commodity then any additional units sold in

the same transaction must be at the same unit price. (Example: If

an item is priced at "15 cents each; three for 39 cents," then the

fourth and succeeding items in the same transaction would be at the

rate of 13 cents.)

The committee is of the opinion that weights and measures jurisdiction is limited to the determination of proper methods of presenting price and does not extend to restricting pricing practices. For

this reason the committee is opposed to the adoption of the above

suggested amendment.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

FUTURE ITEMS

Next year the committee plans to consider methods of sale for

bailer and binder twine, along the lines of regulations of the State

of Kansas, and methods of sale for onion sets and other types of

bulbs. The committee, at this time, prefers that all bulbs sold at

retail should be sold by count; but until a specific method is established, sale may be by weight, dry measure, or count. Additionally,

the committee plans to consider extensive revisions to Section 15.

MACHINE VENDED COMMODITIES.

187
The Committee on Laws and Regulations extends its thanks to

all those members of the Conference and business and industry

representatives who submitted items for consideration. Only through

such continuing communications can the committee fulfill its function to the Conference.

R. L. Thompson, Chairman^ Maryland

J. T. Bennett, Connecticut

R. M. Leach, Michigan

J. L. O'Neill, Kansas

C. H. Vincent, Dallas, Texas

T. N. Trot, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. WoLLiN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Laws and Regulations

(Mr. Thompson 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.)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Presented by Walter S. Watson, Chairman, Chief, Division of

Measurement Standards, Department of Food and Agriculture,

State of California

(Thursday, July 17, 1975)

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances submits its final report to the 60th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The report consists of the tentative report as offered in the Conference Announcement and

as amended by its 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, Fourth Edition,

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for

Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices.

188
This is perhaps a bit worn comment; but this year, the work of

the S & T Committee has been greater than ever before. We have

continued to refer to "a rapidly advancing technology." We know

that this is more true today than in any other previous period.

The committee has attempted to recognize this new technology

and include in NBS Handbook 44 adequate requirements; and in

order to maintain a viable working document, we bit off a rather

large chunk.

Attempting to respond, in a very short time period, to all the

needs, we have listened to all interested parties before coming to

any conclusions—^t-ruly a democratic process—^and you know the

wheels of democracy move slowly.

It's a lot easier, as is done in most of the rest of the world, for a relatively few government officials to sit down and write regulations that become requirements without regard to the views of other

parties.

We have been criticized for a number of things this year, but do

you realize the S & T Committee tentative report this year consists

of 35 pages? (Previous years averaged about 15.) Our final report

is 14 pages; previous years have been eight—which means that the

input, your input, was received by the committee and changes were

made.

At our open session on Monday, I commented that when we re- convened some of you would not be pleased with our decisions. There

are a number of issues in which we suspect the views of the Conference are fairly evenly split; thus, we are bound to become unpopular

with about fifty percent of you. But we are not here to win a popularity contest, rather we "bit the bullet" and made recommendations which we consider sound.

The key to reaching one of the goals of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures is "uniformity" developed through a democratic process, and that means you can't win them all. Consequently, it is your moral obligation to return to your jurisdictions

and do your utmost to enforce the will of the majority. We assure you that we will, whatever your decisions are on each and every

item of this report.

We will now present this report for your action. Each item will be

considered and acted upon individually, and we are ready to dis- cuss any part or all of them.

GENERAL CODE

1. (r~/S. 5. 6. Recorded Representations.—A comment was received

that analog recorded values are difficult to read ; therefore, the code

should be amended to require all recorded values be printed digitally.

189
The committee recommends that G-S. 5. 6. be amended by adding

the following nonretroactive sentence to G-S. 5. 6. Recorded Representations :

All recorded values shall be printed digitally.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

CODE FOR SCALES

1. Unit Prices on Electronic Computing Scales.—A recommendation was received from the Northwest Weights and Measures Association to amend the code to restrict the capability of electronic computing scales from displaying and printing unit prices based on

units of l^ lb or I/2 lb. During the interim meeting, this subject was

discussed at length among all of the standing committees. As a re- sult of these discussions and discussion at the Conference, the committee wishes to oifer the following comments and recommendations

:

(a) A random package bearing a label conspicuously declaring

(1) the net weight, (2) the price per pound, and (3) the total price

was given every consideration by Congress during the hearings on

the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Congress indicated its declaration of policy in the passage of the Act as stated in Section 2 "to

enable consumers to obtain accurate information as to the quantity

of contents and should facilitate value comparisons." It was apparently the view of Congress that the label on a random package did

in fact provide accurate information as to the quantity and facilitate

value comparisons; and for those reasons, such a label was given

special consideration in the Act and the regulations promulgated

persuant thereto.

(b) A random package bearing a unit price based on 14 lb or

14 lb units is a violation of Section 13 of the Model State Weights

and Measures Law.

(c) Value comparisons by consumers are extremely difficult when,

in the same display, there are unit prices based on 1 lb, lb, or 14

lb units. It is the committee's view that prices displayed in this

manner do, in fact, tend to mislead and are in violation of Section

9, "Misrepresentation of Pricing," of the Model State Weights and

Measures Law.

(d) Therefore, weights and measures officials should consider the

advertising, posting, recording, or displaying of unit prices based

on 1^ lb or 14 lb units in violation of the Model State Weights and

Measures Law, Section 9, "Misrepresentation of Pricing," and Section 13, "Declarations of Unit Price on Random Packages."

(e) Multiple unit pricing (i.e., 7 lb/$l, 4 lb/89<J, etc.) in the sale

of random weight items from bulk can confuse the consumer, frus190
trate value comparisons, and result in pricing errors. The committee

is opposed to suoh pricing. However, until the advertising, posting or displaying of multiple unit prices is a prohibited method of sale of

bulk commodities, the adoption of Handbook 44 provisions eliminating such capability from computing devices would increase the

incidence of such pricing errors without ending the undesirable practice itself.

(f ) Further, the committee recommends amending the Scale Code

as follows:

Add the following sentence to paragraph S.1.6.3. Customer's

Indications

:

Unit price displays visible to the customer shall be in terms of the price

per pound and not in fractions thereof.

A motion was made, seconded, and passed to amend this sentence

to read:

Unit price displays visible to the customer shall be in terms of the price

per pound and not in fractions or multiples of a pound.

"Remarks on Foregoing Item"

The committee expressed the view that it was its intent in the

recommendation of amendment to paragraph S.1.6.3. to preclude

the practice of pricing commodities in any manner other than per

pound.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

2. Point of Sale Systems.—Several recommendations were received

concerning point of sale systems. After careful consideration, the

committee recommends that the interpretation of the code as indicated in the final report of the S & T Committee of the 58th National

Conference are appropriate. However, for further clarification, the

committee recommends amendment to the code as follows

:

S.1.6.4. Recorded Representations, Point of Sale Systems—The sales

information recorded by cash registers when interfaced with a weighing

element shall contain the following information for items weighed at the checkout stand:

(a) the net weight,*

(b) the unit price,*

(c) the total price, and

(d) product class or, in a system equipped with price look-up capability,

the product name or code number.

*Weight values shall be identified by the word "pound" or the abbreviation "lb."

The committee does not wish to restrict innovation by requiring

a standard format for the printing of this information ; however, the

191
committee wishes to recommend to manufacturers of this equipment

to work together in the development of a standard format which

would provide much better consumer readability.

(The foregoing iftem was adopted by voice vote.)

3. Direct Sales with PrepacJcaging Scales.—^Communication was

received from the City of St. Louis expressing concern over the use of a prepackaging scale in direct sales when a customer has used the

call button at the meat display to request a particular cut of meat.

It was the committee's view that it would be too restrictive to require

the supermarket equipped only with prepackaging scales to have a computing scale located in the meat section for these few sale applications. It was further the committee's view that when these special

cuts as requested are weighed on the prepackaging scale, that the

customer should be provided the random, label. Therefore, the committee recommends that paragraph UR. 3. 1. Prepackaging Scale be

amended to read as follows:

UR.3.1. Prepackaging Scale.—A scale marked with the words "For Prepackaging Use Only" or with a statement of similar meaning shall only

be used for putting up packages including special customer orders and

shall not be used for weighing commodities intended to be delivered to the buyer in any manner other than in a properly labeled random

package.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

4. S.2.3. Leveling Indicating Means.—A recommendation was

received to amend this paragraph to require the level indicating

means to be visible in normal operation. After careful consideration,

it was the view of the committee that this recommendation be followed by manufacturers whenever possible. However, certain designs would require the level indicating means to extend out from

the scale housing and be readily subject to damage. For this reason,

the committee is not recommending amendment to the code but

strongly urges manufacturers in future designs to place the level

indicating means in a location that may be readily observable in

normal operation.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

5. S.2. Design of Balance., Tare, Level., Damping., and Arresting

Mechanisms.—The committee received numerous comments concern- ing the design of weighing systems including tare capability, zero

setting, and damping means, especially with respect to the fraudulent

aspects of these designs. The committee considered and discussed at

length these comments. The discussion included tare beams, tare bars

on cabinet dials, pushbutton zero/tare, and thumb-wheel tare on

electronic digital indicators.

192
The comments and recommendations that follow were considered

by the committee to be restrictive enough to prevent the facilitation

of fraud and yet not so restrictive as to preclude the full application

of existing technology and new innovations

:

(a) Weights and measures officials should make certain that tare or automatic zeroing capability is appropriate for any given application. It is the committee's view that tare and automatic zeroing,

with appropriate design constraints to prevent the facilitation of

fraud, are appropriate.

The committee further expressed the view that if a tare capability

is provided in a direct sale application, the design must meet the

requirements of paragraph G-S.5.1, Indicating and Recording Element, General; that is, primary indications shall be clear, definite,

accurate, and easily read under any conditions of normal operation

of the device.

(b) In nondirect sale applications, it is the committee's view that

most existing technology (i.e., push-button zero or tare) is appropriate since the party making the weight determination has available to him many other convenient means for fraud. In these applications, it is important that the equipment provide the operator with

clear, definite, accurate, and easily read indications and recorded

representations under any conditions of normal operation of the

device.

(c) With respect to tare bars on cabinet dials, it is the committee's

view that if the enforcement official determines that tare is not

appropriate in a given installation, they not be allowed on new installations ; and in existing installations, the tare bars and poises be

removed.

(d) It is the committee's view that it is appropriate for electronic

digital indicating scales to indicate values in excess of nominal

capacity not to exceed 105 percent, providing the equipment maintains accuracy to that extent. It is also the committee's view that

any tare or push-button zero capability used for this equipment

should subtract from the nominal capacity. That is, if a 100,000 lb

scale has the capability of indicating up to 105,000 lbs. it must maintain its accuracy up to that load ; and if a 50,000 lb tarei was taken,

the maximum net value that could be indicated would be 55,000 lbs.

(e) The committee recommends the following nonretroactive

amendments to the code

:

Change S.2.1.2. to read

:

S.2.1.2. On Scales Used in Direct Sales.—A mechanical mechanism (except for a balance ball or on digital scales with an analog zero adjustment mechanism with a range of not greater than one minimum increment) shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of and

193
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 en- closed in a cabinet (nonretroactive as of 1956 and to become retroactive on

January 1, 1976).

An electronic mechanism designed to be manually operated to provide an

automatic zero balance condition ("pushbutton zero") shall be operable or

accessible only by a tool outside of and entirely separate from this mechanism,

or enclosed in a cabinet, or shall be operable only when the indication is stable within:

(a) plus or minus 1 increment for systems of 5000 lbs capacity or less, and

(b) plus or minus 3 increments for systms of more than 5000 lbs capacity.

(Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1977 and to become retro- active as of January 1, 1981

)

Add the following new paragraph S.2.4.1.

:

S.2.4.1. Electronic Elements.Electronic indicating elements equipped with

recording elements shall be equipped with effective means to permit the

recording of weight values only when the indication is stable within:

(a) plus or minus 1 increment for systems of 5000 lbs capacity or less, and

(b) plus or minus 3 increments for systems of more than 5000 lbs capacity.

The values recorded shall be within applicable tolerances. (Nonretroactive and

enforceable as of January 1, 1977 and to become retroactive as of January 1, 1981)

Add the following new paragraph 8.1.4.1

:

S.1.4.1. Capacity Indication.

A digital indicating element and recording ele- ment shall not display or record any values when the gross platform load is in excess of 105 percent of the nominal capacity of the system. (Nonretroactive

and enforceable as of January 1, 1977 and to become retroactive as of January

1, 1981)

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

6. S4-^. Adjustable Weighing Elements.—Based on a recommendation received to clarify this paragraph, the committee recommends

amendment to the code as indicated below. It was also the view of

the committee that the nose-iron position on scales of 2000 lbs or

less not be defined at the factory.

S.4.2. Adjustable Components.—An adjustable component such as a noseiron, pendulum, spring, or potentiometer (but not a component for adjusting level or zero-load balance) shall be held securely in adjustment and

shall not be adjustable from the outside of the scale. The position of a nose-iron on a scale of more than 2000 lbs capacity, as determined by the

factory adjustment, shall be accurately, clearly, and permanently defined.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

7. S.6. Marking Requirements.—A recommendation was received

from the Southern Weights and Measures Association that this sec- tion be amended to require a single plate with a standard format for

all information required to be marked on scales. Comments from scale

194
manufacturers indicated that this was impractical since electronic

indicating elements are interfaced with weighing elements of varying

nominal and sectional capacities and are appropriately marked at the

time of installation. It was the committee's view that if devices are conspicuously marked with the information required by G-S.l. Identification and S.6. Marking Requirements that a single plate with a standard format, although desirable, is not necessary.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

8. TJRM. Installation Requirements.—A recommendation was re- ceived from the Southern Weights and Measures Association that

this section be amended with specific requirements for approaches to

vehicle scale. The committee was informed that a number of states

had already adopted some regulations. It was the committee's view

that approaches have an effect on weighing accuracy and scale maintenance and that uniform requirements should be adopted, therefore, it recommends the following amendments. These amendments

are consistent with the Scale Manufacturers Association's "Recommendation for the Design and Installation of Pit-Type Scales for

Weighing Highway Vehicles and Their Axle Loads," which was

endorsed by the 57th National Conference.

UR.2.6. Approaches

UR.2.6.1. To Vehicle Scales.—On the approach end or ends of a vehicle

scale installed in any one location for a period of six months or more,

there shall be a straight approach in the same plane as the platform.

The approach shall be the same width as the platform and at least one half the length of the platform. Not less than ten feet of any approach adjacent to the platform shall be constructed of concrete. UR.2.6.2. To Axle Load Scales.—At each end of an axle load scale

there shall be a straight paved approach in the same plane as the

platform. The approaches shall be the same width as the platform and

of sufficient length to insure the level positioning of vehicles during

weight determinations.

A motion was made, seconded, and passed that the recommended

new paragraph UR.2.6.1. be nonretroactive.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

9. Radio Frequency Interference (RFI).—The committee received

comments from the Northwest and Western Weights and Measures

Associations and the State of California that notes and testing procedures be developed for radio frequency interference tests on electronic digital scales. After hearing many comments from weights

and measures officials and the Scale Manufacturers Association, the

committee does not have sufficient information at the present time

to recommend code amendment.

The Scale Manufacturers Association has formed a subcommittee

to study radio frequency interference and will have a proposal for

195
the next interim meeting of the S & T Committee. However, the committee wishes to remind weights and measures officials that all weighing and measuring equipment must meet the performance criteria

(tolerances) on all installations. Therefore, if an electronic digital

indicator is installed in an environment where a radio frequency

phenomenon proves to interfere with its performance, the indicator

must be appropriately shielded or the interference removed so that

the device performs accurately.

The following information is prepared for use by weights and

measures personnel, and outlines procedures for identifying RFI as a cause of eleotix)nic weighing malfunction. It should be noted and

recognized that RFI pix>blem3 can be steady and obvious, or intermittent and obscure; the latter conditions are naturally the most

difficult to identify.

I. Checking for Equipment Stability Under RFI Conditions

It is reasonable to require that the weighing equipment be capable

of operating under all normally encountered conditions. If a potential source of RFI is e\adently present (see Part IV), it should be operated

as it is intended, in its normal location, and its effects observed. If the weighing equipment is affected, the actions described in Fart VI

are indicated.

"Note : When attempting to isolate a jjroblem caused by portable

equipment, the equipment should only be operated within the proximity

to the equipment expected in normal operation. Even a system with

extremely good RFI resistance characteristics may be affected if the

RFI source is operated in extremely close proximity to the weighing

equipment."

II. Indications of Radio Frequency Interference

A. In a properly installed and adjusted system. Radio Frequency

Interference will be evidenced by one or more of the following

weight display indications

:

1. Continually unstable display (continuous source).

2. Intermittently unstable or offset (high or low) display (intermittent source).

3. Regularly unstable or offset (high or low) display (regularly

repetitive source).

B. RFI effects on accessory items such as printers or displays will

usually be evidenced at the instrument before they become an accessory problem, since the instrument circuits are more sensitive

to interference problems.

An exception to this general rule could occur where an RFI protected instrument v>'as provided as a standard part of a system

which included non-protected accessories. This condition would

show as a difference between the indicator and acc^sory. Intermittent operation of accessory equipment without command would

also symptomize RFI.

196
III. Checking for Radio Trequency Interference

The unstable or offset weight display conditions described in Part I will

indicate the presence of RFI. To further identify RFI as the problem,

have the following quick checks performed

:

1. Turn the instrument 90° to either side; if the display condition

changes, RFI is suspect.

2. Disconnect any plug-in accessories ; if the display condition changes,

it is quite possible that the connecting cable is acting as an RFI

"antenna" (See Part VI—Action).

3. Physically touch any bare metal grounded portion of the instrument or chassis ; if this application of body capacitance causes

the display to change, RFI is suspect.

4. Use a jumper wire to connect an alternative ground path between

any bare metal portion of the instrument or chassis and a known

ground point (water pipe, conduit, etc.) ; again, if the display

changes, RFI is suspect.

In general, if any rearrangement of the normal conditions of the instrument cause a display change, RFI is indicated.

IV. Typical Sources of Radio Frequency Interference

Any source of electrical radiation to the air is a potential RFI originator.

The closer or stronger the source, the greater the possibility of interference

effects. Those most frequently encountered are developed by communication

and electrical equipment.

A. Communication Sources

:

1. Commercial transmitters (radio or television)

2. Two-way radio transceivers (citizens band, police, ham radios)

3. Closed-circuit television monitoring equipment

4. Electronic burglar alarm systems

5. Microwave systems (radar, telecommunications, telemetry)

6. Navigational beacons (airports, harbors)

7. Radio and TV receivers in the immediate area

B. Electrical Noise Sources

In addition to noise-generating equipment sharing the same power

source as the weighing equipment (which most specifications prohibit), electrical devices and systems are frequently capable of

radiating sufficient RFI to effect weighing equipment performance.

1. Engine ignition systems (trucks on motor truck scales).

2. OflSce equipment (adding machines, calculators, typewriters,

copiers)

.

3. Vending machines.

4. Appliances (air conditioners, fans, refrigerators, microwave

ovens, mixers).

5. Stock handling equipment (elevators, fork trucks, hoists).

6. Relay switching equipment (motor controls and industrial

controls )

.

7. Motors and generators ; especially DC and brush-type AC (electric tools, alternators, etc. )

.

197
V. Isolating RFI Sources

If possible, the quickest way to identify a suspected RFI source is to disconnect it or switch it off; if the weight display malfunction ceases, identification is positive.

RFI caused by commercial communication sources can frequently be identified by using common receiving equipment such as a radio. For example,

nearby high strength radio or TV stations can be identified by a strong

receiving signal, and the carrier wave modulation (sound level) will sometimes cause simultaneous instability of the weight display. Certain radar

or navigational sources will cause corresponding interference in radio

reception.

VI. Action

When confronted with evidences of radio frequency interference, the in- spector generally has only two courses of action

:

1. Have the scale user/owner remove the source of RFI.

2. Reject the scale and recommend service. RFI effects can be eliminated by qualified service personnel.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

10. Wheel-Load Weighers.—To recognize a design of portable

weighing elements used in the same manner as wheel load weighers

with the capability of weighing single or tandem axles, the committee recommends amending this definition as follows

:

Wheel-load weighers. Compact, self-contained, portable weighing ele- ments specially adapted to determine the wheel loads or a^3(;le loads of

vehicles on highways for the enforcement of highway weight laws only.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

11. Railroad Track Scales.—The committee received recommendations from many organizations recommending a separate code for

railroad track scales. The committee agreed with this recommendation; however, in reviewing the code, found that there were only

seven paragraphs that dealt exclusively with railroad track scales.

The remaining code requirements ; that is, all of the sections dealing

with graduations, indicators, weighing elements, weigh beams, and

poises, are applicable to railroad track scales except those directed

specifically to computing scales, prescription scales, etc. Therefore,

it is the committee's view that until such time that there are more

requirements applicable to railroad track scales only, the added administrative cost to duplicate substantial portion of the Scale Code

in a separate railroad track scale code is not warranted at this time.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

12. Goufled-In-Motion Unit Trains.—The committee received a recommendation that the code be amended to provide a separate

tolerance of plus or minus one percent for individual car weights

when a particular scale was used commercially for unit trains only.

198
It was also reoonimended that a iinit train for oommercial applications be defined. The committee heard comments from scale manufacturers, railroad representatives, and users of railroad track scales.

The committee concluded that the tolerance structure as presently

set forth in T.3.6.3. and T.3.6.4. does, in fact, apply to all railroad

track scales used for coupled-in-motion weighing. This conclusion

is based on the evidence presented the committee over the last two

years while the committee was in the process of developing tolerances

and other requirements for these types of scales. Therefore, the committee recommends no amendment to the code and that devices used

to weigh coupled-in-motion unit trains should meet the requirements

of paragraph T.3.6.3. and paragraph T.3.6.4. when being tested.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

13. The Weighing of Gold.—Since the purchase, sale, and ownership of gold became legal in the United States as of December 31,

1974, the committee reviewed the Scale Code requirements applying

to jewelers scales and other considerations dealing with the sale of

gold. It became evident that it was necessary to amend the code to

provide design and performance criteria for scales to be used by

retail gold dealers. Also to be considered was appropriate weighing

equipment to be used in a new method of sale of certain jewelry

(i.e., silver and turquoise bracelets and necklaces and the like).

The committee was informed that the weight of the gold introduced into commerce would be marked on the ingot, coin, or wafer

by the refiner. It was further understood that the actual exchange

or possession of gold would be limited and the dealer (banks, etc.)

would retain possession of the gold and a paper transaction would

indicate ownership. However, if a purchaser were to take possession

of the gold and later resell it to the original seller or other dealer,

it would then be necessary for the dealer to determine whether or not

the weight indicated on the ingot, coin, or wafer was still valid.

It was the committee's view that it would not be necessary that

these dealers equip themselves with balances with performance capabilities equal to one part in 5,000 or one part in 10,000. However, it was the committee's view that it would be necessary for refiners to use balances with that degree of accuracy to make certain that the

weight markings were correct.

To provide realistic requirements for jewelers scales to be used for

check-weighing by gold dealers and the sale of costume jewelry,

the committee recommends the following amendments to the code:

SR.3. For Prescription Scales.—The SR shall be 0.1 grain (6 milligrams).

SR.4. For Jewelers Scales.

SR.4.1. With a Capacity of One-Half Ounce or Less.—The SR shall be

0.1 grain (6 milligrams).

199
SR.4.2. With a Capacity of More Than One-Half Ounce.—The SR shall

be the value of the mimmum graduated interval of the device.

Eenumber present paragraphs SR.4., SR.5., SR.6., and SR.7. to

SR.5., SR.6., SR.7., and SR.8. respectively.

T.2.3. For Jewelers Scales.

T.2.3.1. With a Capacity of One-Half Ounce or Less.—The minimum

tolerance shall be 0.1 grain (6 milligrams).

T.2.3.2. With a Capacity of More Than One-Half Ounce.—The minimum

tolerance shall be one half the value of the minimum increment.

T.3.3. For Jewelers Scales.—The basic maintenance and acceptance toler- ance shall be 0.05 percent of the test load.

The committee wishes to offer the following concerning gold dealing for your information and guidance. It should be helpful to you

in the event of inquiries or complaints. The recommendations have

been issued by the President's Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs,

the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC),

the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC). The following has been extracted from the

Federal Register, dated December 24, 1974:

Various Federal and State regulatory agencies will regulate gold trading.

The SEC regulates public interstate offerings of and trading in securities re- lated to gold. Federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts in interstate commerce is enforced by the FTC. Trading in gold commodity futures and

transactions involving margin and leverage contracts in gold bullion and

bulk gold coins will be regulated effective April 21, 1975 by the recently

created Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Federal laws against

securities and mail fraud will be enforced by the SEC, the Postal Inspection

Service, and the Department of Justice. Justice Department has underway

a major effort to detect and prosecute the growing number of frauds involving gold and other precious metals.

The purchase of and investment in gold is a potentially fertile area for

unscrupulous promoters and fraudulent schemes. Moreover, the price of gold

is oftentimes dictated by speculative interests rather than industrial sup- ply and demand, and is subject to significant and rapid fluctuations.

Inquiries or complaints regarding unfair or deceptive trade practices, including false or misleading advertisements, should be addressed to the FTC's

Division of Special Statutes, 7th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580.

Weights and measures officials should be prepared to deal with

complaints concerning the weight of gold. In order to determine the

actual weight of a quantity of gold, a balance with performance

capabilities of one part in 10,000 should be used.

A motion was made and seconded to table this item. The motion to

table was defeated.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

200
CODE FOR LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

1. 8.1.1.3. Value of the Smallest Unit.—The committee received a comment that a digital device which met the requirements of this

paragraph, i.e., with the value of the smallest unit being 0.1 gallon,

it would be impossible to determine the performance of the device

since the uncertainty at any given indication would be ± 0.05 gallons

(11.55 in*). It is the committee's view that it is not necessary to

amend this requirement since this paragraph is intended to set forth

the maximum value of the smallest unit and that if in fact the value

of the smallest unit was too large to prove the performance capabilities, it would not meet the requirements of paragraph G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements, General.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. S.2.1. Vapor Elimination.—The committee received a recom- mendation from the Northwest and Western Weights and Measures

Associations that this paragraph be amended to require that the

means provided to prevent the passage of air and vapor through

the meter be automatic in operation since a user could imply that he

was utilizing manual means during sales. It was the committee's view

that it would be unenforceable if the means provided were manual;

and the committee recommends amendment to the code as follows

:

S.2.1. Vapor Elimination.—A liquid-measuring device or metering system

shall be equipped with an effective vapor eliminator or other effective means,

automatic in operation, to prevent the passage of vapor and air through the

meter. Vent lines from the air or vapor eliminator shall be made of metal

tubing or some other suitably rigid material.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. Metric Tolerances.—At its interim meeting, the committee heard

a comprehensive report from Sim Oil Company concerning a study

being conducted on the retail sale of gasoline in metric units. The

study indicated that trial metric retail petroleum dispensers were

installed in Pennsylvania and Florida in cooperation with those re- spective weights and measures jurisdictions. To meet the needs for

tolerances for this equipment and future equipment, the committee

recommends the following metric tolerances be included in the

code:

201
TABLE 1.—TOLERANCES FOR RETAIL DEVICES. EXCEPT SLOW-FLOW

METERS AND EXCEPT ON ELAPSED-TIME TESTS

Maintenance Acceptance

Indication tolerance tolerance

U.S. Customary (On normal and (On normal and on

Units on special tests) special tests)

(xdllO'ns Cubic inches Cuotc inches

% or less 2 1

1 3 IV2

2 4 2

3 5 2y2

4 6 3

5 7 3%

A /I 1 1 Yl ^ i\uu. J. in per Auu 72 per

XUU. indipfitprl ^CA.I.L\J1A. firallon

Metric Units

Liters Cubic centimeters Cubic centimeters

5 60 30

10 80 40

15 100 50

20 120 60

Over 20 Add 4 cm' per liter Add 2 cm' per liter

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

4. Indicating Elements on Retail Petroleum Dispensers.—The re- port from Sun Oil Company also presented survey data concerning

the utilization of a different display of the money value for a total

sale than is presently being used in the United States; specifically,

the utilization of two decades on the least significant wheel of the

display. This is accomplished with the use of one cent graduations

with a numerical figure associated with each five cent graduation.

Thus the total capacity of this least significant wheel is $1.00 Although there are no specific code requirements which would not

allow this application, other than general readability, Sun Oil Company decided to get consumer reaction and the view of the committee since it was a departure from existing displays. (The use of

this "two decades on one wheel" is in widespread use in other parts

of the world.) This equipment together with the results of the sur- vey was made available by Sun Oil Company at the 60th National

Conference.

It is the committee's view that this technology meets existing re- quirements of Handbook 44 and is appropriate.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

5. One-Half Unit Price on $.499 Variators.—The committee re- ceived comment that modifications were readily available for this

equipment and that industry was slow in making the change. Based

202
on all information the committee was able to obtain on this subject, the committee recommends that jurisdictions set as a final en- forcement date for this conversion January 1, 1976.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

6. Color Coding for Fill Openings for Underground Storage

Tanks at Retail Service Stations.—The committee received a suggestion that it be required that these fill openings be uniformly color

coded throughout the industry, especially because of the problems

brought about by unleaded product. The committee was informed

that the American Petroleum Institute had attempted to gain a consensus with respect to colors and was unable to do so. The committee felt that it should address itself to the problem but could

not specify particular colors and makes the following recommendation:

Add the following new paragraph UR.2.5.

:

UR.2.5. Product Storage Identification.—The fill connection for any petroleum product storage tank or vessel supplying motor fuel devices shall be

appropriately marked as to product contained.

A motion was made, seconded, and passed to amend this recom- mended new paragraph UIl.2.5. to read

:

UR.2.5. Product Storage Identification.—The fill connection for any petroleum product storage tank or vessel supplying motor fuel devices shall be

permanently, plainly and visibly labeled as to product contained.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

7. The committee received a suggestion from Ventura County,

California that the code be amended to require that approval seals

applied by weights and measures officials to liquid measuring devices

indicate the product used during the test. It was the committee's

view that it could not develop a requirement directed towards the

manufacturer or the user but that it was appropriate that these devices be so marked.

Since the Note section addresses itself to weights and measures

officials, it was the committee's view that amendment could be made

in that section indicating to officials that approval seals applied

should contain that information. Therefore, the committee recom- mends that the Liquid Measuring Device Code and Vehicle Tank

Meter Code be amended as follows:

Amend paragraph N.l. by adding the following sentence to the

end of that paragraph:

A seal or tag should be attached by the weights and measures official fol- lowing a satisfactory examination indicating the product used during the test.

203
The plates used by a particular jurisdiction are illustrated below

:

the one marked for gasoline products is red, and the one for fuel

oil products is green.

THIS METER

TESTED

WITH

GASOLINE

O

Department of Weights and Measures

THIS METER

TESTED

AND

APPROVED O

ONLY FOR

FUEL OILS

Department of Weights and Measures

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

CODE FOR VEHICtE TANK METERS

1. N.l. Test Liquid.—See Item 7 of the ^ Code for Liquid Measuring Devices.

( The foregoing item waS adopted by voice vote.

)

CODE FOR LPG LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

1. S.3.1. Diversion of Measured Liquid.—The committee received a recommendation from the Southern Weights and Measures Association that this code be amended to provide for two or more outlets

on the outlet side of the meter. The committee heard comments

from the meter manufacturers and users expressing the appropriate204
ness and need for this application. The committee recommends paragraph S.3.1. be amended to read

:

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 the discharge line therefrom. However, two or more delivery outlets may be permanently installed if means are provided to insure that:

(a) liquid can flow from only one such outlet at one time, and

(b) the direction of flow for which the mechanism may be set at any time

is definitely and conspicuously indicated.

In addition, a manually controlled outlet that may be opened for

the purpose of emptying a portion of the system to allow for repair

and maintenance operations shall be permitted. Effective means shall

be provided to prevent the passage of liquid through any such

outlet during normal operation of the device and to indicate clearly

and unmistakably when the valve controls are so set as to permit

passage of liquid through such outlet.

With the addition of this requirement, the committee wishes to

remind weights and measures officials that during an examination

of a particular device equipped in this manner, normal tests and

special tests must be conducted with the appropriate discharge rates

on each outlet. Tests should be conducted to make certain that the

valves operate as intended.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

CODE FOR LPG VAPOR MEASURING DEVICES

1. UR.2.3. Corrections for Altitude.—The committee received a comment from the State of Wisconsin that this was a difficult, if not

impossible, requirement to enforce. It was the view of the committee

that since altitude has an effect, in many instances greater than the

applicable tolerances, it is necessary that this requirement be met.

However, it must be clearly understood that there is no need for

additional technology for devices used at higher altitudes; rather,

those devices be simply marked with the altitude correction factor

and that the invoice for billing include the information that the

quantity on which the charges are based has been corrected for altitude and the factor used in this correction. The committee recom- mends that paragraph UR.2.2. Invoices be amended to read as follows:

UR.2.2. Invoices.—Any invoice on which the charge is based on units other

than cubic feet or cubic meters shall have shown thereon the cubic foot or

cubic meter equivalent of the unit on which the charge is based. [Added

1972] Any invoice shall also include the altitude correction factor utilized

in determining the quantity on which the charges are based.

205
Considerable discussion on this item ensued, resulting in a motion

to table the item for one year; the motion was defeated.

( The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.

)

2. Definitions.—At the suggestion of the Office of Weights and

Measures, the committee recommends amendment to the definitions

of this code by adding the following

:

cubic foot, metered. That quantity of gas whicli occupies one cubic foot when

under pressure and temperature conditions existing in the meter.*

cubic foot, standard. That quantity of gas which occupies a volume of one

cubic foot when under a pressure of 14.73 psia and at a temperature of

60 ° F.*

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

CODE FOR FARM MILK TANKS

1. Farm Milk Tanks.—The committee received a recommendation

from the State of California concerning farm milk tanks. This

recommendation was well documented. The committee agrees with

the proposal and recommends code amendment accordingly. The proposal, as received by the committee, is reprinted in its entirety to serve as an example to other Conference members wishing to offer

future proposals to the S & T Committee for their consideration

:

PROPOSAL #1: TOLERANCES

Problem

:

Due to the ever increasing average size of commercial milk tanks, a problem has developed with the tolerance structure.

Tanks as large as 15,000 gallons are now in commercial use. Five

thousand gallon tanks are becoming common.

The present tolerance table for milk tanks is designed in such

a manner that the allowable percentage of error decreases as the

test draft increases.

Example : Test Draft Tolerance

Gallons Gal. %

1,000 2 .20%

5,000 6 .12%

10,000 10 .10%

15,000 14 .09%

Source : American National Standards Institute, Inc. "American National Standard

for Gas Displacement Meters (500 Cubic Feet per Hour Capacity and Under)," First

Edition, 1974.

206
The uncertainty of a volumetric prover certified by a state laboratory has been determined to be ± .04 percent.

Eeference : "Meter Manual" pp. 11 and 12 by : Meter Manufacturers Technical Committee

Section 3.2. under Testing Apparatus in the Fundamental Considerations issued with H-44 states that the error of a standard

should not be greater than 25 percent of the smallest tolerance

to be applied. This means that the minimum tolerance which

should be applied to any device proved by a volumetric prover

should never be less than .16 percent. (.16% X 25% = .04%)

Therefore, we have a situation where either our standards are no

longer suitable for the testing of milk tanks or the tolerance is too

small.

To further illustrate the problem, we must consider the possibility

of a tank being calibrated by a commercial calibrator using a

ertified prover with a .04 percent error in one direction and then

being proved by a weights and measures official using a certified

prover with a .04 percent error in the other direction, resulting

in the generation of an error of .08 percent. This proving error consumes almost all of the present tolerance, leaving practically

nothing for human error or tank variations.

Proposed solution:

Since it is not practical to expect that the uncertainty of the

volumetric standard can be reduced, we propose that the tolerance

for milk tanks be amended as follows

:

(Items to be deleted are shown lined out; new

words are underlined.)

T.2. Minimum Tolerance Values.—On a particular tank, the maintenance

and acceptance tolerances applied shall be not smaller than the smallest volume corresponding to the graduated interval at any the point of

test draft on the gage rod or surface gage indicating means or onehalf gallon whichever is greater.

T.3. Basic Tolerance.—Basic maintenance and acceptance tolerances

shall be shown in table 1. (The error at any liquid level of a farm

milk tank is the difference between the gallonage shown for that l evel on the gallonagc chart and the corresponding gallonagc determined by

test. The tolerance is applied according to the volume of tost liquid in the tank at each test draft, regardle ss of the nominal capacity of the tank)

0.2% (2/10%) of the volume of test liquid in the tank at each test draft.

Table 1—Delete entire table.

For the committee's further information, the following chart has

been prepared to show a comparison between existing tolerances

(both milk tank and milk meter) and the proposal.

207
H-44

Test Existing Proposed Existing Milk

Draft Tank Tolerance Tanli Tolerance Meter Tolerance

gals. gals. % gals. % gals. %

100 1/2 .50% V2* .50% y-2. .50%

250 V2 .20% Vi .20% .7 .28%

251 1 .40% 1/2 .20% .7 .28%

500 1 .20% 1 .20% 1.3 .26%

501 2 .40% 1 .20% 1.3 .26%

1000 2 .20% 2 .20% 2.3 .23%

1001 3 .30% 2 .20% 2.3 .23%

1500 3 .20% 3 .20% 3.3 .22%

1501 A 9707"^ .^1 /o q 0.0 2000 4 .20% 4 .20% 4.3 .22%

2001 5 .25% 4 .20% 4.3 .21%

5000 6 .12% 10 .20% 10.3 .21%

10000 10 .10% 20 .20% 20.3 .20%

15000 14 .09% 80 .20% 30.3 .20%

(*Min. tolerance applies)

PEOPOSAL #2: TESTS by MASTER METEE METHOD

Problem

:

Due to the ever increasing average size of commercial milk tanks

requiring more manhours per test, a need has developed for a faster

method of proving.

Some states have already developed a proving system using a master meter method. This has proved to be a rapid method which

allows readings to be taken at strategic points in the tank. The

problem with a master meter system is that it may very well have

an accuracy error of its own which exceeds the tolerance for a milk

tank. It has already been shown that a certified prover has an uncertainty of ± 0.04 percent. If you use this prover to certify a master meter system, the best you can expect from that system is

± 0.1 percent uncertainty. (Uncertainty of prover + sensitivity

of indicating elements + repeatability of manual operations "human

error.")

Consequently, the minimum tolerance that should be applied to a device checked by the master meter method is ± 0.4 percent

(4/10%).

Proposed solution:

In an effort to take advantage of this rapid method of proving

tanks by master meter and still control the basic accuracy of mi.lk

tanks at a reasonable level, we propose the following amendments

to H-44 Code for Milk Tanks

:

(Items to be deleted are shown lined out: new words are underlined.)

Adopt new section N.5 as follows

:

N.5. Test Methods.—Acceptance tests of milk tanks shall be the prover

method or with a metering system capable of operating within 25%

208
of the applicable tolerance. Subsequent tests may be of either the

prover method or the master meter method.

A motion was made, seconded, and passed to amend this recom- mended new paragraph N.5. to read:

N.5. Test Methods.—Acceptance tests of milk tanks may be of either

the prover method or the master meter method provided that the

metering system is capable of operating within 25% of the applicable

tolerance found in T.3. Subsequent tests may be of either the prover

method or the master meter method provided that the metering system

is capable of operating within 25% of the applicable tolerance found

in T.4.

Adopt a new section T.4. as follows

:

T.4. Basic Tolerance Values, Master Meter Method.—Basic maintenance

and acceptance tolerances for tanks tested by the master meter method

shall be .4 percent (4/10%) of the volume of test liquid in the tank

at each test draft.

Add the following to "Definition of Terms":

acceptance test. Refers to the first time a milk tank is officially tested

and accepted at a particular location. Applies to tests of newly con- structed tanks as well as relocated, used tanks.

master meter method. A method of testing milk tanks which utilizes an approved master meter system for measuring test liquid removed

from or introduced into the tank.

prover method. A method of testing milk tanks which utilizes approved

volumetric prover (s) for measuring the test liquid removed from or introduced into the tank.

(The foregoing item as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

CODE FOR TIMING DEVICES

1. 8.1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit.—After two years as a tentative code, the Timing Device Code was made final, effective January

1, 1975, by action of the 59th NCWM. The committee received

several recommendations for amendments to this code, and during

its interim meeting heard presentations by three industry representatives. Based on the information received and the discussions,

the committee recommends the following:

Amend S. 1.1.3. Value of the Smallest Unit, subsection (c), by

striking the words "One minute" and inserting the words "Five

minutes" so as to read

:

(c) Five minutes on all other devices, except those equipped with an

in-service light.

Amend T.1.1. to read:

209
T.1.1. Tolerance Values, For Laundry Driers and Car-Wash Timers.—The

maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be:

(a) on overregistration, no tolerance, and

(b) on underregistration, six seconds per indicated minute.

Amend T.1.2. to read:

T.1.2. Tolerance Values, For Time Clocks and Time Recorders.—The

maintenance and acceptance tolerances on overregistration and underregistration shall be three seconds per hour, not to exceed one minute

per day.

Delete paragraph T.1.2.1. and paragraph T.1.2.2.

Amend Table 1. Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances for Parking Meters, by changing the first entry in the third column to read

:

10 seconds per minute, but not less than two minutes

Amend UR.3. by adding the following sentence to the end of that

paragraph

:

In addition, the time reading of the "time-out" clock shall be the same

as or less than the reading of the "time-in" clock.

The committee heard presentations by representatives of two

meter manufacturers concerning the use of parking meters in which

there was no indication of time remaining but simply an indication of either "legal time" or "violation" or a brief indication of

the time purchased and then "legal time" or "violation." Printed

on the meter was the amount of time received for a specific sum ; for

example, "30 min. for each nickel." It was stated that many municipalities wanted to use this type of meter to preclude the use of

remaining time, as indicated, by a subsequent parker. It was the

committee's view that an indication of purchased time remaining

is important to consumers, but the disappearing time dial did have

some advantage. Therefore, the committee recommends amendment

to the code by adding the following paragraph

:

S. 1.1.6. Discontinuous Indicating Parking Meters.—Convenient means shall

be provided to indicate to the purchaser the unexpired time.

It was also brought to the committee's attention that in the

testing of parking meters, officials were beginning the time interval

test when the indicator was in coincidence with the time graduation.

Industry representatives testified that a parking meter is a timing

device, not a clock; therefore, the time interval imder test should

begin at the moment the meter is activated by either the insertion

of a coin on automatic meters or the operation of the manual activating control. When the meter is activated, the indicator will advance

to some position either coincidental wi)t'h the graduation or some

210
distance beyond. This means that the customer will always get at

least the time paid for, since there is no tolerance on overregistration; and the extra time, or underregistration, should be within

the tolerances stipulated in table 1.

"Kemarks on Foregoing Item"

Considerable discussion on this item ensued. A motion was made

and seconded to add an additional User Requirement to the code

as follows:

UR.4. Parking Meters Used for Traffic Control.—Parking meters used

for enforcement of parking time limitation laws or ordinances on public

thoroughfares, shall not be subject to the provisions of paragraph S.1.1.6. The addition of this recommended paragraph UR.4:. was defeated

by a standing vote.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

OTHER ITEMS

1. Grain Moisture Meters.—The committee was informed that

NBS is conducting a study on grain moisture meters. The study

is being conducted by Mr. Frank E. Jones, Humidity Section, Institute for Basic Standards, NBS, and the Office of Weights and

Measures. Several states will be requested to participate in this

study. The committee recommends that individual states do not take

independent action on the development of a code for grain moisture

meters until completion of this study.

A motion was made and seconded to amend this item by changing the last sentence in the item to read

:

The committee recommends that individual States do not take lndei)endent

action on the development of a code for grain moisture meters until completion of this study, providing the study is completed by January 1, 1977.

This amendment to the item was defeated by a standing vote.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. The Swing to Metric.—The committee discussed at length the

expanding use of the metric system in the United States and the

possibility of a conversion to metric in the commercial measure- ment system.

Included in the discussion was U.S. participation in the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). All International

Recommendations of OIML are metric. It was the committee's

view that publications such as NBS Handbook 44 and 105-1 could

not adequately provide metric equivalents. Therefore, it was the

decision of the committee that existing publications of these types

should remain in the U.S. Customary System and be applicable

211
to U.S. Customary weights and measures. The committee felt that

to deal with metric and provide hard conversion, a Handbook 44

M (metric) and a Handbook 105-1 M (metric) should be developed.

The committee did discuss the progression of imits or series used

in weight sets. OIML requires weight sets to be in a 5, 2, 1 series

with either the 2 or the 1 repeated (for example, 50, 20, 20, 10, 5,

2, 2, 1, .05, .02, .02, .01).

It is the view of the committee that for international imiformity

weights used comanercially in the U.S. should be in a 6, 2, 1 series

and that any series deemed appropriate for other applications (for

example, 5, 3, 2, 1) is acceptable.

Since the resources of OWM are limited, the committee requests

the aid of all interested parties in the development of these publications. The Scale Manufacturers Association has offered to help

and is exploring the possibility of a research associate program for

this endeavor.

( The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.

)

3. Utilities Type Water Meters.-—The committee received a recom- mendation from the State of New Jersey that a code be developed

for utilities type water meters since in some jurisdictions these devices are subject to weights and measures enforcement. It is the

view of the committee that these devices should be subject to

weights and measures regulation and it offers the following tentative code for Conference action. This tentative code is based on

American Water Works Association Manual M6, Second Edition,

which is already in force in the State of California.

Adequate time was not available for the development of a metric

code. The committee will have prepared for the next annual Conference a code in metric units. In the meantime, the committee recom- mends that conversion from the U.S. Customary Units indicated

in the code to metric units be applied to metric equipment.

1975

TENTATIVE CODE

WATER METERS

(This Tentative Code has only a trial or experimental status and is not

intended to be rigidly enforced. The requirements are designed for observation and study prior to the development and final adoption of a Code for

Water Meters.)

A. APPLICATION

A.l.—This code applies to devices used for the measurement of water, generally applicable to, but not limited to, utilities type meters installed in homes

or business establishments and meters installed in batching systems.

212
A.2.—This code does not apply to water meters mounted on vehicle tanks (for

which see Code for Liquid Measuring Devices).

A.3.—See also General Code requirements.

S. SPECIFICATIONS

S.l. Design of Indicating and Recording Elements and of Recorded Representations.

5.1.1. Primary Elements.

5.1.1.1. General.—A water meter shall be equipped with a primary indicating element and may also be equipped with a primary recording

element.

5.1.1.2. Units.—A water meter shall indicate and record, if the device is equipped to record, its deliveries in terms of gallons or cubic feet or binary or decimal subdivisions thereof except batch plant meters, which

shall indicate deliveries in terms of gallons or decimal subdivisions of the

gallon only.

5.1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit.—The value of the smallest unit of

indicated delivery and recorded delivery, if the device is equipped to

record, shall not exceed the equivalent of

:

(a) 10 gallons on utility type meters,

(b) 1/10 gallon on batching meters delivering less than 100 GPM, or

(c) 1 gallon on batching meters delivering 100 GPM or more.

5.1.1.4. Advancement of Indicating and Recording Elements.—Primary

indicating and recording elements shall be susceptible of advancement

only by the mechanical operation of the device.

5.1.1.5. Return to Zero.—If the meter is so designed that the primary

indicating elements are readily returnable to a definite zero indication, means shall be provided to prevent the return of these elements beyond

their correct zero position.

5.1.2. 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 interval shall not

be less than 0.04 inch. If the graduations are not parallel the measure- ment 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.

213
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 not be greater than

(a) the width of the widest graduation, and

(b) the width of the minimum clear interval between graduations.

When the index of an indicator extends along the entire length of a graduation, that portion of the index of the indicator that may be brought

into coincidence with the graduation shall be of the same width throughout the length of the index that coincides with the graduation.

5.1.3.4. Clearance.—The clearance between the index of an indicator and

the graduations shall in no case be more than 0.06 inch.

5.1.3.5. Parallax.—Parallax effects shall be reduced to the practicable

minimum.

S.2. Design of Measuring Elements.

5.2.1. Provision for Sealing.—Adequate provision shall be made for applying security seals in such a manner that no adjustment may be made of

(a) any measurement elements, and

(b) any adjustable element for controlling delivery rate when such rate tends to affect the accuracy of deliveries.

The adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for purposes of affixing a security seal.

5.2.2. Batching Meters Only.

5.2.2.1. Air Elimination.—Batching meters shall be equipped with an

effective air eliminator.

5.2.2.2. Directional Flow Valves.—Valves intended to prevent reversal of

flow shall be automatic in operation.

N. NOTES

N.l. Test Liquid.—A meter shall be tested with water.

N.2. Evaporation and Volume Change.—Care shall be exercised to reduce to a minimum, evaporation losses and volume changes resulting from changes

in temperature of the test liquid.

N.3. Test Drafts.—Testing drafts should be equal to at least the amount

delivered by the device in two minutes and in no case less than the amount

delivered by the device in one minute at the actual maximum flow rate

214
developed by the installation. The test drafts shown in table 1 shall be fol- lowed as closely as possible.

N.4. Testing Procedures

N.4.1. Normal Tests.—The normal test of a meter shall be made at the

maximum discharge rate developed by the installation.

N.4.2. Special Tests.—Special tests to develop the operating characteristics

of meters may be made according to the rates and quantities shown in table

2, Section T.

N.4.3. Batching Meter Tests.—Tests on batching meters should be con- ducted at the maximum and intermediate rates only.

T. TOLERANCES

T.l. Tolerance Values.—Maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as shown in table 1 and table 2.

TABLE 1.

Meter

size

(inches)

Normal tests Maximum rate

Rate of

flow

(GPM)

Meter

indication

Tolerance on over- and underGal. Ft' registration

%

1m

2

3

3

6

15

25

40

80

120

250

350

700

50 5

50 5

100 10

300 40

500 40

500 50

1000 100

1000 100

1

1.5%

UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. Batching Meters Only.

UR.1.1. Strainer.—A filter or strainer shall be provided if it is determined

that the water contains excessive amounts of foreign material.

UR.1.2. Siphon Breaker.—An automatic siphon breaker or other effective means shall be installed in the discharge piping at the highest point of

outlet, in no case below top of meter, to prevent siphoning of meter and

permit rapid drainage of pipe or hose.

UR.1.3. Provisions for Testing.—Acceptable provisions for testing shall be

incorporated into all meter systems. Such provisions shall include a two-way

valve, or manifold valving, and a pipe or hose installed in the discharge

line accessible to the proper positioning of the test measure. The valving,

piping or hose shall not be smaller than the size of the actual discharge line.

215
u

o.- 02

4)

e

§

u

2

e

* c 2

O 9 -w

us

lA lA us < > o o ( u> us

1-H M t- N

US

l-llHlHIAUSUSOO

> o o e o o o I rH us us us o e

Mco^oousoee rH CM W

9) i) «) "S NX
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

The terms defined here have a special and technical meaning when used in

the Code for Water Meters.

batching meter. A device used for the purpose of measuring quantities of

water to be used in a batching operation.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

FUTURE ITEMS

The committee wishes to inform the Conference that studies will

commence or be continued on the following subjects:

(1) Code for Kilowatt Hour Meters

(2) Grain moisture meters

(3) The display of operating instructions

(4) Digital designs

(5) Closed fill systems

(The foregoing item 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 aifected

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.

W. S. Watson, Chairman^ California

J. K. Bird, New Jersey

W. E. CzAiA, Minnesota

M. L. KiNLAW, North Carolina

K. J. SiMiLA, Oregon

O. K. Warnlof, Stajf Assistant^ NBS

H. F. WoLLiN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

(Mr. Watson moved for adoption ; and after a second from the floor, the re- port of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances 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, provided

that the requirements thus adopted are strictly adhered to.)

217
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Presented by W. N. Seward, Chairman^

Assistant to the Senior Vice President for Industry Affairs,

American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.

(Thursday, July 17, 1975)

The Committee on Liaison with the Federal

Government submits its report to the 60th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The report consists of the tentative report as offered in the Conference Announcement and

as amended by the final report.

The report represents recommendation of the

committee formed on the basis of careful analysis of the interim meeting discussion and on

the basis of written comments received during

the year and oral presentations made during

the open meeting of the committee. The committee intends to expand

its communications with the Federal Government and to advocate

the NCWM's interests before it.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF

LEGAL METROLOGY

Mr. W. E. Andrus, United States representative to the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), requested clarification of the NGWM mechanism for review of OIML documents.

This continuing activity is the main tool for introducing United

States weights and measures philosophy and techniques into this

international treaty organization.

The Liaison Committee recommends giving the National Measurement Policy and Coordination Committee the privilege of providing

the U.S. Advisory Committee for International Legal Metrology,

or its representative, a decision on the consistency of the international recommendations with respect to model laws and codes. The

Liaison Committee reserves the prerogative of calling for voluntary

ad hoc task groups from among all NCWM members and associate

members to put before the appropriate standing committee of the

Conference (Specifications and Tolerances, Laws and Regulations,

Liaison) their individual task group opinions concerning the technical consistency of the international recommendations or drafts with

respect to U.S. model laws and codes.

218
The judgment of the National Measurement Policy and Coordination Committee would be transmitted to the Conference's representative to the Advisory Committee for International Legal Metrology (ACILM) with the recommendation of how he should vote

and what comments/conditions should be made known to the International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML). This judgment would

not be binding on the XCWM until such time as the NCWM would

take formal action on the National Measurement Policy and Coordination Committee report.

VOTING POLICY FOR OIML MODEL

INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

There are two levels of voting on OIML recommendations. The

first and lower level is nonbinding and only technical compatibility

is at issue. The upper level is "morally binding" and should have

clear criteria for an affirmative vote. (A vote approving the lower

level—technical compatibility—does not commit the voter to approve the upper level vote.)

Positions on lower level ballots may be handled within the

NCWM, without recourse to its National Measurement Policy and

Coordinating Committee, based on sound technical judgment derived

from its members and staff. Positions on upper ballots will be cast only by the Conference on the recommendation of its National Measurement Policy and

Coordinating Committee.

The criteria for the NCWM taking an affirmative position at the

upper level are:

1. There exists an NCWIM model code or handbook which is not

in conflict with the OIML proposal.

2. While an NCV^^M model code or handbook does not exist, the

National Measurement Policy and Coordinating Committee unanimously concurs that the OIML proposal is sufficiently beneficial

to be adopted by the Conference.

3. Minor differences exist between existing NCWM model codes

and/or handbooks and the OIML proposal; however, the NMPCC

believes amendment (s) to existing domestic standards can be ac- complished with a minimum of difficulty and economic dislocation.

REPORT OF NCWM REPRESENTATIVE TO OIML

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The year 1974 was a particularly important one for the United

States in the OIML. First, top priority was given to ensuring U.S.

participation in important technical committees in OIML. At pres219
ent, within OIML there are 30 technical committees (called pilot

(ecretariats) and 141 subcommittees (called reporting secretariats)

that are working to produce International Recommendations. The

following is a breakdown of the number of secretariats chaired by

the U.S. as compared with other major industrial nations.

Technical

Committees Subcommittees

(Pilot (Reporting

Secretariats) Secretariats)

Chaired Chaired

United States 6 13

France 4 14

West Germany 3 14

Japan 0 0

United Kingdom 1 6

U.S.S.R. 4 21

Total 18 67

Thus, five nations (excluding Japan) have control of 60 percent

of the technical committees and 47 percent of the subcommittees.

Of the 19 committees and subcommittees chaired by the U.S., 11 are of interest to the weights and measures community in that these

11 cover commercial weighing and measuring instruments.

The second area where major accomplishments by the U.S. are

possible involves revision of OIML International Recommendations

that were adopted prior to our membership in OIML. Nineteen such

Recommendations were adopted in 1968 without technical input

from the U.S. These Recommendations are up for revision in 1975.

As a result, the U.S. embarked upon a major effort during 1974 to

analyze the Recommendations and to propose revisions that will

inject U.S. philosophy and practice. The purpose of such efforts is to remove technical barriers that result from nonuniform international requirements. The NBS Office of Weights and Measures participated in the analysis of the Recommendations, as did many other

government agencies, industry trade associations, and private manufacturers of scientific and measuring instruments. The U.S. will

negotiate with OIIML during 1975 to actively seek revisions that

are in our interest.

Lastly, during 1974, an ACILM was established and began to work

closely with NBS on OIML matters. The ACILM. is a cross section

of government officials and industry representatives from organizations and/or associations who have an interest in OIML. The committee acts as an advisor to NBS in formulating U.S. positions and

serves as the mechanism for: (1) ensuring adequate review and

220
analysis of technical documents; (2) identifying technical programs

in OIML of interest to the U.S.; (3) identifying interest groups

(industry or government) that should become involved in technical

committees of OIML; and (4) recommending technical assignments

to the various interest groups.

HANDBOOK 67

A draft for comment of the revision of NBS Handbook 67,

"Cheoking Prepackaged Commodities," was distributed at the 60th

National Conference on Weights and Measures. A number of con- cerned industry representatives who offered their help and advice

on reviewing the draft have formed a committee under the auspices

of the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling. It is hoped that this will encourage other concerned organizations and

interests to form their own groups to review the draft.

It should be noted that a questionnaire is appended to the end

of the draft to facilitate expression of suggestions and viewpoints.

All comments, however, must be received before December 1, 1975,

to enable collection of the responses in time for the interim meetings

in January 1976. All comments should be mailed to:

Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

NET WEIGHT POLICY NEGOTIATIONS

NBS, as part of its task in revising Hankbook 67, has been meeting with representatives from the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),

and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to determine if a set of

national, uniform net weight requirements (including net weight

definition, tare determination, sample size, retail checking requirements, etc.) are feasible among all the agencies which have jurisdiction over packaged goods. NBS is aware of the technical requirements which local retail and wholesale package checking must

meet; but, as a nonregulatory agency, NBS is not able to convey the

regulatory procedures and problems faced by state and local en- forcement agencies except in a second-hand manner to the other

Federal agencies. Therefore, the Liaison Committee encourages and

invites state, county, and municipal regulatory representatives to

attend and/or provide written or oral input to these negotiations.

The Liaison Committee requests volunteers to act as a core group,

with the purpose of giving typical views of state and local regulatory officials, to represent the NCWM at these ongoing negotiations.

221
IMPORTED PACKAGED COMMODITIES

The authority over the labeling of packaged commodities coming

from other nations into the United States was investigated by the

committee. U.S. border States have some difficulty tracing re- sponsibility when packaging and labeling requirements are not

met and the source of the package; that is, the responsible party,

is unknown.

The United States Treasury Department's Bureau of Customs

enforces other Federal agencies' regiilations in this matter; therefore, USDA, FDA, and F'TC, which have concurrent jurisdiction over certain items, were called upon during deliberations.

For those items over which FDA has concurrent jurisdiction (all

non-meat foods including shellfish) FDA suggests contacting either

the regional offices (whose addresses can be furnished upon request

to the OWM, NBS) or the Commissioner for Compliance, FDA,

Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland, directly. For those meat and

poultry items over which USDA has concurrent jurisdiction, contact either their regional offices (addresses supplied upon request

to OWM) or USDA-APHIS, Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, Washington, D.C. 20250. FTC enforces Section 5 items under

FPLA through the Bureau of Customs. Contact for problems in this area is Mr. Earl Johnson, Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC,

6th and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

It is recognized that many items have no Federal agency regulating them. However, the Bureau of Customs puts pressure on the

importer or distributor in the same manner as the State. Therefore,

this committee recommends that weights and measures enforcement

officials explain to the retailers who buy imported packaged goods to

:

1. Buy on consignment or a revocable letter of credit. If there

is something wrong with the label, the importer is thus bound

to fix it.

2. Get the distributor's name, so that there is a way to trace

liability.

3. Check packaged goods to see if name and place of business,

contents, and net quantity are all on the label.

STATE AND LOCAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS

Mr. Ralph Barra of NBS reported on opportunities for interaction of the States with NBS in areas other than weights and

measures (mainly quality-of-life measurements using the NBS

weights and measures mechanism of the NCWM as a model). This

interaction needs, however, a central focus within the State for

the many common measurement problems which individual State

222
agencies have. There are some experiments ongoing, notably in

California, in which the State sets its own priorities and then channels its needs to NBS if necessary.

A discussion on measurement systems was held at NBS recently

with Dr. J. Wyckoff, also from NBS, and Mr. Barra, focusing on

measurement-intensive agencies in a few states. Representatives from

California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, and Pennsylvania

attended. The following recommendations were the results of this

meeting

:

1. Since there is little knowledge in the states of ongoing activities at NBS, other than in weights and measures, a newsletter

should be initiated from NBS to key people within each state

whose agencies have physical measurement components. In

weights and measures, this newsletter would go primarily to

state offices and regional association newsletter editors.

2. Each state should be encouraged to study its own measurement

system to improve that system and tie it in with the National

Measurement System. Weights and measures officials can as- sume a major role in their own states.

3. California has formed a State Measurement Advisory Board,

and this pilot program requires a closer look. The preliminary

results were reported in San Diego at the 60th National Conference.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ISSUES WITH RESPECT

TO MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

In view of the lack of uniformity upon military bases and facilities on the issue of retail stores' measuring devices and packages,

and in light of the potential economic concern to the consumers

who use these stores, the Liaison Committee will reopen discussions

with the appropriate military officials on this subject.

W. N. Seward, Chairman^ American Petroleum Institute

E, H. Stadolnik, Massachusetts

C. G. Gehringer, Pennsylvania Scale Company

L. D. HoLLowAT, Idaho

J. Speer, Milk Industry Foundation

J. F. Ltles (ex officio) , NCWM representation to ACILM

C. S. Brickenkamp, Stajf Assistant^ NBS

H. F. WoLLiN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government

(Mr. Seward moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the

report of the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government was adopted

in its entirety by the Conference by voice vote.)

223

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON METRIC PLANNING

I

Presented by J. H. Lewis, Chairman

Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture,

State of Washington

(Thursday, July 17, 1975)

^ The Committee on Metric Planning submits

its report to the 60th National Conference on ^ Weights and Measures. The report consists of

15^^--- =s the tentative report as offered in the Conference Announcement and 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 re- ceived during the year and oral presentations

^^^m made during the open meeting of the committee.

Analysis of the work plan reported to the 59th National Conference on Weights and Measures resulted in the following recom- mendations for immediate NCWM action with respect to metric

conversion.

1. The Specifications and Tolerances Committee should give high

priority to the development of a metric Handbook 44. A mechanism

which the Metric Planning Committee feels should be explored is the invitation to affected industries and trade associations to participate and submit first drafts of certain portions of the metric

handbook. The Metric Planning Committee referred its knowledge

of the availability of help from the Scale Manufacturers Association to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee.

2. The Laws and Regulations Committee should give high priority

to the preparation of a Model Metric Labeling Guideline (which

would include preferred units, symbols, placement of metric label,

rounding off, decimal placement, etc.) using those portions of the

"Model Metric Regulation" submitted at the 59th NCWM which are

applicable.

3. The Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee should evaluate resources for preparation and distribution of

metric educational material (including weights and measures training and public speaking kits).

The aforementioned recommendations were transmitted to the

committees on the first day of the interim meetings.

225
The Metric Planning Committee also recommends the NCWM

adopt the spelling of "metre" and "litre." These spellings correspond

to SI units nomenclature. Another key advantage is the avoidance

of confusion of the unit "metre" with the device "meter." It should

also be noted that the most recent NBS policy statement also prefers this spelling (NBS Guidelines for Use of the Metric System,

LC 1056, Nov. 1974).

The Metric Planning Committee recommends the National Conference on Weights and Measures accept the American National

Metric Coimcil's (ANMC) invitation to form a Weights and Measures Practices Sector Committee on the ANMC.

COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY

AND COORDINATION

At the recommendation of the Committee on Metric Planning,

whose tenure expires with the close of the 60th National Conference

on Weights and Measures, a new standing committee of the Conference is proposed as set forth herewith. The new committee, to

be known as the "Committee on National Measurement Policy and

Coordination," will assume the responsibilities and objectives of the

special committee that was established to deal with initial planning

for metric conversion in the field of weights and measures in the

United States. In addition, the new committee shall have responsibility for the establishment of policy and coordination of activities

within the Conference on matters of national and international significance. Such matters will include: (a) metrication, (b) International Organization of Legal Metrology, and (c) other standards

organizations—ANSI, ISO, ASTM, and NCSL. A major responsibility of this committee would be to delegate the organizing and/or

establishing of work groups or task forces to meet the responsibility of the Conference towards standardization organizations, such

as the establishment of the Weights and Measures Practices Sector

Committee for the American National Metric Council.

In keeping with the spirit of this proposal, the OIML representative would report to the Committee on National Measurement

Policy and Coordination. A further responsibility of the new committee will be to plan and coordinate matters of policy and activity

among the other four standing committees of the NCWM—Specifications and Tolerances, Laws and Regulations, Education, and Liaison. For %is reason, the committee chairman of each of these four

conunittees will comprise the majority voting membership of the

new committee. The fifth and one remaining voting member of

the committee shall be appointed annually from the list of former

chairmen of the NCWM who are still active in weights and measures regulatory service in their jurisdictions. This voting member

226
will serve as committee chairman and for a term not to exceed

five years. During any given year, the current chairman of the

NCWM will serve as an ex officio member of the committee. Special

advisors and consultants will be called upon to serve the committee

as the need arises.

To implement the establishment of this new committee, the following changes to the Conference Organization and Procedure are proposed :

1. Page 2: Objectives

Amend this section by adding a new (b) and reletter as follows:

"1. Objectives

The objectives of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

are (a) to provide a national forum for the discussion of all questions

related to weights and measures administration as carried on by regulatory officers of the States, Commonwealths, Territories, and Possessions

of the United States, their political subdivisions, and the District of

Columbia; (b) to provide a mechanism to establish policy and coordinate

activities within the Conference on matters of national and international

significance; (c) to develop a consensus on model weights and measures

laws and regulations, specifications and tolerances for commercially-used

weighing and measuring devices, and testing, enforcement, and administrative procedures; (d) to encourage and promote uniformity of requirements and methods among weights and measures jurisdictions; and (e) to foster cooperation among weights and measures officers themselves and

between them and all of the many manufacturing, industrial, business,

and consumer interests affected by their official activities."

2. Page 5 : Committees

Standing Committees.—Amend this section to read as follows:

"5. Committees

Standing Committees.—The standing committees are the Committee on

National Measurement Policy and Coordination, the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, the Committee on Laws and Regulations, the

Committee on Education, Administration and Consumer Affairs, and the

Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government. The membership of

the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination shall

be comprised of the committee chairmen of the other four standing committees and a fifth member who shall be appointed annually by the

Conference president from the list of former Conference chairmen who

are still active in weights and measures regulatoiy service. This fifth member shall also serve as committee chairman and may be reappointed

for a total term of office not to exceed five years.

The membership of the remaining standing committees shall have a normal complement of five members appointed by the president from the

active membership (except that the members of the Committee on Liaison

with the Federal Government may be appointed from the active or the

associate membership) on a rotating basis for five-year terms (one new

227
member being appointed, and one old member retiring, each year). When

it is necessary to make an appointment to any of the five standing

committees to fill a vacancy caused by the death, resignation, or retirement from active service of a committee member, the appointment shall

be for the unexpired portion of such member's term. Except as noted,

each standing committee annually selects one of its members to serve as

its chairman. At his option, the president may designate one or more

advisory or associate members as consultants to a standing committee."

3. Page 8 : Following the paragraph on "Executive Committee"

add the following:

Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination.—The

Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination annually

presents a report to the Conference on its activities. Its policies and

coordinating efforts are subject to Conference ratification. The objective

of this committee is to serve as a policymaking and coordinating body in

matters of national and international significance which may include such

areas as metrication. International Organization of Legal Metrology

(OIML), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), International

Standards Organization (ISO), American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM), National Conference on Standards Laboratories

(NCSL), and such internal matters as may be required.

J. H. Lewis, Chairman^ Washington

C. G. Gehringer, Pennsylvania Scale Company

L. D. HolloWAY, Idaho

G. L. Johnson, Kentucky

G. E. Mattimoe, Hawaii

A. Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association

W. N. Seavard, American Petroleum Institute

J. Speer, Milk Industry Foundation

E. H. Stadolnik, Massachusetts

J. F. Lyles (ex officioJ, NCWM representative to ACILM

C. S. Brickenkamp, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. Wollin, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Metric Planning

(Mr. Lewis moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the

report of the Committee on Metric Planning was adopted in its entirety by

the Conference by voice vote.)

228
REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Presented by S. D. Andrews, Chairman,

Diirector, Division of Standards, Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, State of Florida

(Wednesday, July 16, 1975)

Site:

Dates

:

Hotel

:

Rates

:

The Executive Committee of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM) met in open session on Monday,

July 14, at 1 :00 p.m. The following particulars were presented for consideration and

action by this Conference.

1. Plans for the 61st National Conference

The plan and general arrangements for the

61st National Conference on "Weights and

Measures were reviewed and include the following :

Washington, D.C.

July 11-16, 1976

Shoreham Americana Hotel

Single—$24, Double~$30, Suites—$60 and

up

Special Arrangements to Celebrate

:

Program Format;

(a) Bicentennial

(b) NBS 75th Anniversary

The committee recommends to the incoming Executive Committee that they proceed with special arrangements to celebrate

Bicentennial year and the NBS 75th Anniversary.

The committee recommends that the basic

program outline for the 61st Conference

be similar to the general format that was

followed for this Conference meeting.

However, there may be slight deviation

from this year's program because of special

events occurring in 1976.

229
The committee recommends further that

the incoming Executive Committee give

consideration to the following items in developing its plans for the 61st NCWM

:

(a) Extend the Conference meeting to include sessions on Friday to allow for a more comprehensive program.

(b) Hold sessions at the National Bureau

of Standards which would include a tour of the Bureau facilities.

(c) Expand the social activities to include a luncheon or banquet to which members of Congress, top government officials, and other dignitaries would be

invited.

Eegistration Fee: To meet the added costs involved in the

conduct of an expanded program during

the 61st NCWM, the Executive Committee

recommends that the registration fee be

increased to $50 for the Bicentennial year.

2. Future Conference Sites

Tentative Conference arrangements have been made for 1977 and

1978.

62nd NCWM:

Site: Dallas, Texas

Dates: July 17-22, 1977

Hotel: The Statler Hilton Hotel

Kates: Single—$25, Double—$30, Suites—$50 and

up

63rd NCWM:

Site: Washington, D.C.

Dates: July 9-14, 1978

Hotel: Shoreham Americana

3. Interim Committee Meetings

In recognition of the importance of the NCWM interim committee meetings, the Executive Committee wishes to establish the

practice of announcing during the Conference annual meeting the

dates and other arrangements of the interim meetings for the year

ahead. Accordingly, arrangements for the 1976 interim committee

meetings will be as follows:

230
Site:

Dates:

Committees

:

Purpose

:

Attendance

:

Communications

;

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Maryland

January 26-30, 1976

All NCWM standing committees

To consider and develop tentative reports

on:

(a) All matters carried over from the previous Conference.

(b) New proposals.

(c) Problems that the committees feel re- quire attention.

Government officials, industry representatives, and consumers may attend the interim meetings to appear before a committee on a matter of concern to them.

Such appearance is scheduled on the basis

of a written request to the executive secre- tary.

All persons who wish to communicate

proposals, suggestions, or other items for

committee consideration must do so in

writing. These communications must be re- ceived by the executive secretary no later

than January 15.

4. Committee on Metric Planning

A special Committee on Metric Planning was established as a

result of action which occurred during the interim committee meetings last year. The committee consists of the members of the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government and, in addition,

G. Johnson, Kentucky; J. Lewis, Washington; and G. Mattimoe,

Hawaii. The committee has served for a period of two years.

The Executive Committee has been briefed on the proposal by

the Committee on Metric Planning, which will be a part of that

Metric Committee report to establish a new standing committee to

carry on responsibilities in the area of policy and coordination

within the framework of the Conference. The Executive Committee

endorses this proposal and recommends the implementation by the

incoming Executive Committee.

5. Report of the Associate Membership Committee

As is a customary procedure, the Executive Committee called on

the Associate Membership Committee for its report. The following

report was presented by Mr. Richard Southers, committee chairman.

231
The Associate Membership Committee was formed for the purpose of providing a means for associate members to contribute to

overall success of the Conference. Although this contribution to

date has been principally in the form of sponsorship of a social

function, this is not the basic reason for the committee's organization.

Associate members who would like to make suggestions about the

Conference or its organization may not feel there is a means provided to have their ideas considered. Therefore, the Associate Membership Committee affords these individuals a means of conveying

their ideas and suggestions and also encourages its members to avail

themselves of this communication vehicle.

The committee met with the executive secretary of the Conference at the time of the interim meetings to discuss the role of the

Associate Membership Committee at this Conference. A reception

has been arranged for Tuesday night between 5 :30 and 7 :30 p.m.,

which we hope will be enjoyed by all. Such receptions are meant

to provide a time and place where all Conference attendees can get

together in a social atmosphere and become better acquainted.

Please let us know if you have any suggestions on how this committee can help to better serve the aims of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures.

6. The committee would like to encourage active members of the

Conference to send in their suggestions as to program speakers,

topics, schedules, activities, and other related matters to the executive secretary so that such suggestions may be considered by the

Executive Committee in the development of the program for next

year.

S. D. Andrews, Chairman^ Florida

J. G. GusTAFSON, Minneapolis, Minnesota

E. Prideaux, Colorado

H. D. Robinson, Maine

H. E. Sandel, San Bernardino County,

California

C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana

J. H. Lewis, Washington , C. P. Conrad, New Jersey

J. A. Etzkorn, South Dakota

E. Hanish, LaPorte County, Indiana

W. B. Harper, Birmingham, Alabama

F. D. Morgan, Utah

P. E. Nichols, Alameda County, California

232
L. P. Romano, Monroe County, New York

R. F. ScHULMEiSTER, New Mexico

R. A. Thaealson, Minnesota

E. Whitesides, Texas

H. F. WoLLiN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Executive Committee

(Mr. Andrews moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the

report of the Eexecutive Committee was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by voice vote.)

233
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS

Presented by Everett H. Black, CJmirman,

Administrator, Consumer Protection Agency,

Ventura County, California

(Thursday, July 17, 1975)

The Committee on Nominations met on

\ Wednesday, July 16, for the purpose of select-

\ ing 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 membership, con- sideration was given to attendance records,

geographical distribution. 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 61st National Conference on Weights and Measures

:

Chairman: R. L. Thompson, Maryland

Vice Chairmen: L. A. Gredy, Indiana; E. Keeley, Delaware; P. E. Nichols,

Alameda County, California; D. I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri

Treasurer: C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana

Chaplain: J. H. Lewis, Washington

Executive Committee: E. W. Ballentine, South Carolina; F. L. Brugh,

Indianapolis, Indiana; H. W. Chandler, Yolo County, California; A. W.

Fenger, Minnesota; S. F. Hindsman, Arkansas; G. E. Mattimoe,

Hawaii; J. B. Rabb, Alabama; W. C. Sullivan, Seattle, Washington;

M. Trujillo, Puerto Rico; W. Tusen, New Hampshire

E. H. Black, Chairman, Ventura County, California

G. L. Johnson, Kentucky

E. Keeley, Delaware

J. H. Lewis, Washington

C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana

H. E. Sandel, San Bernardino County, California

C. WooTEN, Florida

Committee on Nominations

(There being no further nominations from the floor, nominations were declared closed, and the ofHcers nominated by the committee were elected un- animously by voice vote.)

234
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS

Presented by John M. Chohamin, Chairman; Superintendent,

Weights and Measures, Middlesex County, New Jersey

(Thursday, July 17, 1975)

» 2. To Dr. F. Karl Willenbrook, Director of

the Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., for his innovative address and his recognition of the importance of preparing for metrication in America and

for participation in the awards ceremony.

3. To Mr. L. T. Wallace, Director of the California Department

of Food and Agriculture, for his fine presentation and recognition

of the importance of having standards for measurement; and

through him to the State of California, our expressed appreciation

for being a gracious host State to the 60th National Conference on

Weights and Measures.

4. To the Conference host, City of San Diego, and its weights

and measures officials for their great assistance in the preparations

for this Conference.

5. To the management and staff of the Sheraton-Harbor Island

Hotel for their fine facilities and numerous courtesies which con- tributed to the comfort and enjoyment of delegates.

6. To all speakers of the Conference for their valuable and informative contributions to the program.

7. To the representatives of busineiss, industry, and consumer

organizations for their liberal cooperation and hospitality.

8. To the National Bureau of Standards, and in particular the

staff of the Office of Weights and Measures, for planning and

diligently administering the many details involved in the work and

program of the Conference.

9. To all officers, appointed officials, and committee members of the

60th National Conference on Weights and Measures for their valuThe Committee on Resolutions wishes to

extend appreciation of the 60th National Conference on Weights and Measures to each and

everyone who has contributed in any way to- ward its success. A special note of thanks goes

to the following:

1. To Mr. Charles A. Barrett, Chief Deputy

Attorney General for the State of California,

for his very relevant presentation which defines "weights and measures."

235
able service and contributions to the functioning of an orderly and

successful Conference program.

The following resolutions are presented in their entirety for

consideration of the members of the Conference:

Resolution on the Spelling of Metric Units

Whereas certain handbooks, model codes, and other materials of the National Conference on Weights and Measures include increasing reference to the metric system of units (SI) ; and

Whereas the Conference has endorsed the position taken by the Committee

on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs : Therefore be it Resolved, That the National Conference on Weights and Measures hereby

adopts the spelling "metre" and "litre" for immediate use.

Removal of All Barriers to the Adoption and Use of the

International System of Units (SI)

Whereas the United States of America is moving toward the implementation

of the International System of Units ( SI ) of weights and measures ; and

Whereas the use of the International System of Units (SI) in all agency

publications and in the adoption of policy by your agency encouraging the use

of the SI System are excellent avenues for associative learning of the SI

System ; and

Whereas government departments and agencies on all levels can render a

vital service of education by encouraging use of both systems in (for ex- ample) labeling, statistical reporting, blueprints, and engineering: Therefore

be it Resolved, That the National Conference on Weights and Measures strongly

recommends that all barriers be removed to securing appropriate modification of laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, and policies to provide and

secure the equality of the International System of Units (SI) with the cus- tomary system of weights and measures and to allow and make legal the

International System of Units (SI) for all matters in which it is in the best' national interest.

Resolution Requesting Necessary Support for the Office of Weights and

Measures to Carry Out Their Expanded Responsibilities for Metric Services

Whereas the National Bureau of Standards, through the Office of Weights

and Measures, is the governmental entity entrusted with the task of providing advice, training, and support activities to Federal, State, and local agencies in the measurement area ; and

Whereas technical advances in industry have increased the measurement

responsibilities of the Federal and State agencies; and

Whereas the consumer businesses and government are turning to the

n't' fO

National Bureau of Standards for advice at an increasing rate ; and

Whereas an informal changeover to the modernized metric system (SI) is tking place in the United States and a formal, planned change may be

adopted in the near future; and

Whereas the Office of Weights and Measures of the National Bureau of

Standards does not have the resources to perform adequajtely to meet the

demands for their services reqeusted by Federal, State, and local agencies

:

Therefore be it

236
Resolved, That the National Conference on Weights and Measures request

that Congress through the appropriate committees appropriate an adequate

level of funding to the Office of Weights and Measures of the National Bureau

of Standards so that it can continue and expand its services to meet the in- creasing demand for services related to the use of the modernized metric sys- tem (SI).

Guidelines for Point of Sale Systems

Whereas new procedures and systems at points of sale have appeared rapidly

in the retail markets throughout the Nation ; and

Whereas no provisions have been uniformly established nationwide to pro- vide type approval, methods of use, and inspection ; and

Whereas such conditions are contrary to the aims, objectives, and policies

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures ; and

Whereas the National Conference on Weights and Measures believes that

such sale systems and all components thereof rightfully are examples of the

measurement devices used in commerce today, and should therefore be under

the complete jurisdiction of weights and measures enforcement agencies

:

Therefore be it Resolved, That the appropriate committees be requested to establish guidelines for approval and use of such point of sale systems and all component

parts thereof.

Net Declaration of Contents of Gift Packages

Whereas there is sufficient evidence of the continuing sale of gift package

commodities without the required net declaration of content statement; and

Whereas there is evidence also of the sale of gift package commodities with

estimated net decalaration of content ; and

Whereas this problem appears to be nationwide in violation of existing

packaging regulations : Therefore be it Resolved, That the National Conference on Weights and Measures strongly

advise and recommend to the heads of tlie state departments of weights and

measures that immediate steps be taken to insure that all such packaged

commodities offered for sale bear the net declaration of contents.

Resolution on the Adoption of the

Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation

Whereas uniformity in the method of sale of commodities is an important

goal of the National Conference on Weights and Measures ; and

Whereas the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Emulation is an

important guideline for securing uniformity ; and

Whereas the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities R^ulation is expanding in importance and will continue to expand at a rapid rate to cover

the sale of many additional commodities ; and

Whereas many commodities lack a uniform method of sale and lack uniformity in enforcement because of uneven adoption of the Model ; and

Whereas adoption of the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation by the states should proceed at a more rapid pace : Therefore be it Resolved, That the National Conference on Weights and Measures recom- mend that member jurisdictions that have not yet adopted the Model State

237
Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation seek with all due speed to have

their jurisdictions taken appropriate action.

J. M. Chohamin, Ghairman, Middlesex County, New Jersey

J. W. Jones, Riverside County, California

W. C. Sullivan, Seattle, Washington

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.)

238
REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Presented by R. W. Probst, Chairman

Director, Bureau of Standards

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture

(Thursday, July 17, 1975)

The Auditing Committee met on Wednesday,

July 16, for the purpose of reviewing the

financial records of the Conference treasurer,

Mr. C. C. Morgan. The committee finds these

records to be in accordance with Conference

procedure and correct.

R. W. Probst, Chairman^ Wisconsin

D. L. Lynch, Kansas City, Kansas

S. R. Miller, San Diego, County, California

Committee on Auditing

(On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the report

of the Auditing Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

239
REPORT OF THE TREASURER

Presented by C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Gary, Indiana

(Thursday, JVily 17, 1975)

Balance on hand July 1, 1974 $ 4,388.23

RECEIPTS

:

Registrations (381 at $30.00) $11,430.00

Beverage Refund 44.05

$11,474.05

$15,862.28

DISBURSEMENTS

:

Atwood Transport Lines, Inc. $ 216.00

NAME Tour Guide 27.50

Creative Signs 275.00

The Shoreham Hotel Master Account _ 1,711.88

Howard Devon, Musical Service 585.00

Franklin Press, Letterhead 27.40

Louise Young, Speaker Expense 197.88

Registration Desk and Miscellaneous

Conference Expenses 578.13

Sydney Andrews, Letterhead

(Chairman) 24.96

Visual Aids, Electronic Corp. 194.00

Chicago Decal Co. 504.20

Franklin Press, Registration Receipts 76.40

240
January Interim Meetings:

Conference Chairman 316.47

Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances 1,828.02

Committee on Laws and Regulations _ 1,221.93

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs 1,714.93

Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government 900.69

Committee on Metric Planning 1,617.03

Operating Expenses, Local Travel,

Motel Hospitality Room, Reception,

and Miscellaneous Charges 311.80

Weights and Measures Signs, Empire

Room (Cash) 15.75

Bank Service Charge 7.19

$12,352.16

Balance on hand July 1, 1975 $ 3,510.12

Medallion Income $12,555.50

DISBURSEMENTS

:

Franklin Mint $ 1,500.00

Franklin Mint 2,257.92

Franklin Mint 2,231.45

5,989.37

Medallion Balance $ 6,566.13

Conference Balance 3,510.12

Balance $10,076.25

Bank Balance $10,053.75

Cash on Hand 22.50

$10,076.25

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.)

241
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

State, City, and County

Weights and Measures Officials

ALABAMA

state John B. Rabb, Metrologist, Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture & Industries, P.O. Box 3336, Montgomery 36109 (Tel. 205:

832-6766)

City Weights and Measures OflBcials : Birmingham 35203 W. B. Harper, Chief, Weights and Measures

Division, Inspection Services Department,

Room 207, City Hall (Tel. 205 : 254-2246)

AEIZONA

state Richard F. Harris, Assistant Director, Department of Administration, Weights and Measures Division, 10202 N. 19th Avenue, Phoenix

85021 (Tel. 602: 271-5211)

Raymond H. Helmick, Chief, Weights and

Measures Division

Henry C. Tanner, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures Division

John M. Woodbury, Investigator, Weights and

Measures Division

Kenneth B. Hallock, Investigator II, Weights

and Measures Division

ARKANSAS

state Sam F. Hindsman, Director of Weights and

Measures, Department of Commerce, 4608 W.

61st Street, Little Rock 72209 (Tel. 501 : 371-

1759)

CALIFORNIA

state L. T. Wallace, Director, Department of Food

and Agriculture, 1220 N Street, Room 104,

Sacramento 95814 (Tel. 916: 445-7126)

Walter S. Watson, Chief, Division of Measurement Standards, Department of Food and

Agriculture, 8500 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento 95826 (Tel. 916: 445-7001)

Charles H. Beardsley, Manager, Division of

Measurement Standards

Darrell a. Gxjensler, Manager, Central Region

Edward R. Lake, Program Coordinator, Weights

and Measures Devices (Tel. 916: 322-4080)

Ney J. LusE, Supervisor, Quantity Control In- vestigation (Tel. 916: 485-7001)

Robert A. Ramm, Sui)ervlsing Investigator (Tel.

916: 322-4080)

J. B. Oliver, Chief Metrologist

Elmer E. Martin, Training Coordinator (Tel.

916: 445-7001)

Mike Saling, Technician III (Tel. 916: 322-

4080)

242
Carl L. Myers, Manager, Division of Measurement Standards, 2135 Akard Avenue, Redding

96001 (Tel. 916: 247-3799)

Vashek Cervinka, Senior Analyst, Department

of Food and Agriculture, 1220 N Street, Sacramento 95814 (Tel. 916: 322-2395)

Edward L. Dietz, Jr., Regional Coordinator, Department of Food and Agriculture, 28 Civic

Center Plaza, Room 880, Santa Ana 92701

(Tel. 714: 558-4196)

Richard B. Starn, Manager, Southern Region,

Division of Measurement Standards, 8635

Firestone Blvd., Downey 90240 (Tel. 213:

869-2457)

James C. Hopkins, Weights and Measures Technician II County Weights and Measures OflScials : Alameda Patrick E. Nichols, Director of Weights &

Measures, 333 Fifth Street, Oakland 94607

(Tel. 415: 874-6736)

James E. Sihbring, Supervising Weights and

Measures Inspector

Dick Vizzard, Senior Inspector

Lewis R. Chapman, Inspector

Mark H. Hanson, Inspector

Chris S. Lavagnino, Inspector

Eugene K. Lucas, Inspector

Calaveras Wesley B. Andahl, Director of Weights &

Measures, Government Center, San Andreas

95249 (Tel. 209: 754-4142)

Contra Consta K. E. Danielson, Assistant Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer, Department of Agriculture,

161 John Glenn Drive, Buchanan Airport, Concord 94520 (Tel. 415: 682-7550)

Fresno Ray C. Morgan, Director of Weights and Measures and Consumer Protection, 1730 South

Maple Avenue, Fresno 93702 (Tel. 209: 488-

3027)

Imi)erial Claude M. Finnell, Director of Weights and

Measures, County Services Building, 940 West

Main Street, El Centro 92243 (Tel. 714: 352-

3610, Ext. 240)

Kern Vernon L. Lowe, Director, Weights and Measures, 116 East California Avenue, Bakersfield

93307 (Tel. 805: 861-2418)

John O. Harries, Assistant Director

Joseph V. Brooks, Senior Deputy

Richard L. Mullican, Senior Deputy

Wayne E. Poe, Senior Deputy

S. Cervantes, Deputy

Larry H. Miller, Deputy

Bill J. Novickas, Deputy

RovAL C. Wells, Deputy

Jack R. Whelden, Deputy

Los Angeles Maynard H. Becker, Director of Weights and

Measures, 3200 N. Main Street, Los Angeles

90031 (Tel. 213: 225-1357)

Marin Kenneth B. Brown, Director, Weights and

Measures, 519 Fourth Street, San Rafael

94901 (Tel. 415 : 453-0938)

Donald E. Foster, Inspector

Merced Rex Lyndall, Director of Weights and Measures, 533 West 26th Street, Merced 95340

(Tel. 209: 726-7431)

243
Monterey Daniel R. Smith, Director, Department of

Weights, Measures and Consumer Affairs, Box

302, Salinas 93901 (Tel. 408 : 758-3859)

Orange William Fitchen, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 1010 South Harbor Blvd., Anaheim

92805 (Tel. 714: 774-0284)

Plumas Richard L. Swanson, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 295, Quincy 95971 (Tel. 916: 283-2078)

Riverside Joseph W. .Tones, Director of Weights and

Measures, 2950 Washington Street, Riverside

92504 (Tel. 714: 787-2620)

Sacramento James E. Cox, Assistant Director of Weights

and Measures, 9651 Kiefer Blvd., Sacramento

95827 (Tel. 916 : 454-2861)

San Bernardino H. E. Sandel, Director, Department of Weights

and Measures and Consumer Affairs, 160 East

Sixth Street, San Bernardino 92415 (Tel. 714:

383-1411)

Ronald E. Mobden, Assistant Director

San Diego Kenneth Little, Agriculture Commissioner,

San Diego 92123

Stephen R. Miller, Director of Weights and

Measures, 555 Overland Avenue, Bldg. 3, San

Diego 92123 (Tel. 714: 565-5781)

Robert T. Frazieb, Insx)ector of Weights and

Measures

William H. Holland, Inspector of Weights and

Measures

Robert K. McNeblin, Inspector of Weights and

Measures

Alan M. Martin, Insi)eetor of Weights and

Measures

John J. Meteb, Inspector of Weights and Measures San Joaquin Thomas H. Ladd, Director, Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 407, Stockton 95201 (Tel. 209

:

982-4532)

San Mateo H. Eugene Smith, Director of Weights and

Measures, 702 Chestnut Street, Redwood City

94063 (Tel. 415 : 364-5600, Ext. 2227)

Gail K. Kobpobaal

Santa Cruz G. S. Anderson, Director, Weights and Measures

and Consumer Affairs, 640 Capitola Road,

Santa Cruz 95062 (Tel. 408: 425-2054)

Charles G. Lipska, Deputy Sealer

W. W. Sharps, Deputy Sealer

Barry C. Lame, Insi)ector of Weights and Measures Solano William C. Olson, Director of Weights and

Measures, 560 Fairgrounds Drive, Vallejo

94590 (Tel. 707: 553-5280, Ext. 284)

Sonoma Eugene J. Bologna, Director of Weights and

Measures, County Administration Center,

Room 407, 2555 Mendocino Avenue, Santa

Rosa 95401 (Tel. 707 : 527-2548)

Tehama Donald R. Hill, Director of Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 38, 1760 Walnut Street, Red

Bluff 96080 (Tel. 916 : 527-4504)

Ventura William H. Korth, Director, Department of

Weights and Measures, 608 El Rio Drive,

Oxnard 93030 (Tel. 805: 487-7711, Ext. 4378)

ToM Atkinson, Deputy Director

David F. Laubacher, Inspector II

244
Chaeles v. Dunn, Insi)ector III Everett H. Black, Administrator, Consumer

Protection Agency, 666 El Rio Drive, Oxnard

93030 (Tel. 805: 487-7711, Ext. 4460)

Yolo Herbert W. Chandler, Director of Weiglits and

Measures, P.O. Box 175, Woodland 95695 (Tel.

916: 666-8261)

Tuba Jack A. Huey, Director, Department of Weights

and Measures, 921 W. 14th Street, Marysville

95901 (Tel. 916 : 743-8879)

COLORADO

state Earl Prideaux, Chief of Weights and Measures,

3125 Wyandot, Denver 80211 (Tel. 303: 892-

2845)

Milton D. Schneider, Chief, State Oil Inspection, 1024 Speer Blvd., Denver 80204 (Tel.

303: 892-2096)

CONNECTICUT

State John T. Bennett, Chief, Weights and Measures

Division, Department of Consumer Protection,

State Office Bldg., Room G-17, Hartford

06115 (Tel. 203: 566-4778)

City Weights and Measures Officials : New Britain 06051 Armand Albanese, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall, 27 W. Main Street (Tel. 203

:

224-2491, Ext. 230)

Stamford 06906 Alfons F. Koziol, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 429 Atlantic Street (Tel. 203: 348-5841-

DELAWARE

State Eugene Keelet, Supervisor of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Drawer

D, Dover 19901 (Tel. 302: 678-4824)

FLORIDA

state Sydney D. Andrews, Director, Division of

Standards, Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, Mayo Bldg.—Laboratory

Complex, Tallahassee 32304 (Tel. 904 : 488-

0645)

Council Wooten, Chief, Bureau of Weights and

Measures (Tel. 904: 488-9140)

S. J. Darsey, Assistant Chief, Bureau of

Weights and Measures

GEORGIA

state Thomas E. Kirby, Director, Weights and Measures Laboratory, Atlanta Farmers Market,

Forest Park 30050 (Tel. 404 : 363-7611)

HAWAII

state George E. Mattimoe, Deputy Director, Division

of Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 5425,

Honolulu 96814 (Tel. 808: 941-3071)

245
Gerald Bockus, Metrologist, Division of

Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 226, Capt.

Cook 96704 (Tel. 808: 323-2608)

IDAHO

state Lyman D. Holloway, Chief, Bureau of Weights

and Measures, 2126 Warm Springs Avenue,

Boise 83702 (Tel. 208: 384-2345)

ILLINOIS

state Casimir L. Mitalski, Quantity Standard Technician, 531 E. Sangamon Avenue, Springfield

62706 (Tel. 217: 782-7655)

City Weights and Measures Officials : Chicago 60602 John F. Surane, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Consumer Sales, Weights and Measures, 121 N. LaSalle Street, Room 808, City

Hall (Tel. 312: 744-4007)

Carol Witherell, Program Analyst ( Tel. 312

:

744-4092)

Fernando A. Olivares, Consumer Service Officer

INDIANA

state Lorenzo A. Gredy, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, State Board of Health, 1330 W.

Michigan Street, Indianapolis 46206 (Tel. 317:

633-6860)

County Weights and Measures Officials

:

Clark Robert W. Walker, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Room 314, City-County Bldg.,

Jeffersonville 47180 (Tel. 812: 283-4451)

Clinton William H. Crum, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, R.R. it2, Frankfort 46041 (Tel.

817: 258-2106)

Delavpare J. Paul Janney, Inspector of Weights and Measures, 208 County Bldg., Muncie 47305 (Tel.

817: 747-7714)

Floyd Edward G. Silver, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, City-County Bldg., Room 325, P.O. Box 362, New Albany 47150 (Tel. 812: 945-

5357)

Gibson William R. Sevier, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Court House Annex, Princeton

47670 (Tel. 812: 385-2426)

Johnson Wayne B. Handy, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Johnson County Court House,

Franklin 46131 (Tel. 317: 736-5774)

Lake Dr. Nicholas Bucur, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, 2298 North Main Street, Crown

Point 46807 (Tel. 219: 942-4455)

La Porte Edwin Hanish, Inspector of Weights and Measures, 119 Tilden Avenue, Michigan City 46860

(Tel. 219: 879-9486)

Madison Charles W. Moore, Insi)ector of Weights and

Measures, Madison County Government Center & Courts, Anderson 46011 (Tel. 317: 646-

9359)

Marshall Gordon W. Schultz, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Route Jtl, Bremen 46506 (Tel. 219:

546-2949)

246

i
Miami Victor Scott, Inspector of Weights and Measures, R.R. iil, Bunker Hill 46914 (Tel. 219:

699-6382)

St. Joseph Chester S. Zmtjdzinski, Inspector of Weights

and Measures, County-City Bldg., 227 W.

Jefferson Blvd., South Bend 46601 (Tel. 219

:

284-9751)

Tippecanoe Webster McMurry, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, P.O. Box 444, LaFayette 47902

(Tel. 317: 742-0626)

Vigo Robert J. Silcock, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Room 4, Court House, Terre Haute

47807 (Tel. 812 : 232-5746)

City Weights and Measures Officials

:

East Chicago 46312 Thad A. Bogtjsz, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 4713 Northcote Avenue (Tel. 219: 397-

0073)

Gary 46407 C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

1100 Massachusetts Street (Tel. 219: 944-

6566)

Hammond 46320 Dean Brados, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

5925 Calumet Avenue, Boom 315 (Tel. 219:

853-6377)

Indianapolis 46204 Frank L. Bbugh, Administrator, Division of

Weights and Measures, Room G-6, CityCounty Bldg. (Tel. 317: 633-3733)

Russell Brown, Deputy Inspector

Walter J. Roberts, Deputy Inspector

Mishawaka 46544 George Staffeldt, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall (Tel. 219: 255-2281)

South Bend 46621 Bert S. Cichowicz, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Central Service Facility, West Wing,

Room 113, 701 W. Sample Street (Tel. 219:

284-9273)

IOWA

state J. Clair Boyd, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture,

State Capitol Bldg., Des Moines 50319 (Tel.

515: 281-5716)

KANSAS

state John L. O'Neill, Sealer, Weights and Measures

Division, State Board of Agriculture, State

Office Bldg., Topeka 66612 (Tel. 913 : 296-

3846)

City Weights and Measures Officials

:

Kansas City 66101 Donald L. Lynch, Chief, Weights and Measures, Department of Finance and Revenue,

Municipal Office Bldg., 701 North 7th Street

(Tel. 913 : 371-2000, Ext. 212)

Topeka 66603 Douglas S. Wright, Assistant City Attorney,

Consumer Protection Division, Weights and

Measures, 215 E. 7th (Tel. 913: 235-9261, Ext. 205)

KENTUCKY

state George L. Johnson, Director, Division of

Weights and Measures. Department of Agriculture, 106 West Second Street, Frankfort

40601 (Tel. 502: 564-4770)

Ronald C. Egnew, Laboratory .Supervisor

247
LOUISIANA

state Jacob H. Johnson, Director, Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 44292, Capitol Station, Baton

Rouge 70821 (Tel. 504: 389-7087)

A. B. MoNTooK, Inspector (Tel. 318: 984-3803)

MAINE

state Harlon D. Robinson, Deputy State Sealer of

Weights and Measures, State Office Building,

Augusta 04330 (Tel. 207: 289-3841)

Clayton F. Davis, Director, Division of Inspections

MARYLAND

state Richard L. Thompson, Chief, Weights and

Measures, Division of Inspection and Regulation, Department of Agriculture, Room

3205, Symons Hall, College Park 20742 (Tel.

301: 454-3551)

City Weights and Measures Officials : Baltimore 21202 Thomas A. Considine, Chief, Division of Tests,

Department of Public Works, 1103 Municipal

Bldg. (Tel. 301: 396-3457)

MASSACHUSETTS

City Weights and Measures Officials : Agawam 01001 Louis D. Draghetti, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, 36 Main Street (Tel. 413 : 786-0400, Ext. 51)

Brockton 02401 John F. Coyne, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Room B-12, City Hall (Tel. 617: 580-

1100, Ext. 158)

Cambridge 02139 Robert K. Laffin, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Room 202, City Hall (Tel. 617 : 876-6800, Ext. 251)

New Bedford 02745 Frank E. Przybyszewski, Deputy Sealer of

Weights and Measures, 306 Liberty Street

(Tel. 617: 993-2454)

Plymouth 02360 David Montanari, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 35 Davis Street (Tel. 617 : 747-0100)

MICHIGAN

state Ronald M. Leach, Chief, Food Inspection Division, Department of Agriculture, Lewis Cass

Bldg., 5th Floor, Lansing 48913 (Tel. 517:

373-1060)

City Weights and Measures Officials

:

Flint 48503 Reginald Kirt, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

420 East Boulevard Drive (Tel. 313 : 766-7449)

MINNESOTA

state Warren E. Czaia, Director of Weights and

Measures, Department of Public Service,

1015 Currie Avenue, Minneapolis 55403 (Tel.

612: 333-3249)

Ray a. Tharalson, Supervisor Inspector

Arvid W. Fenger, Inspector

248
City Weights and Measures Officials : Minneapolis 55415 John G. Gustafson, Manager, Licenses & Con- sumer Services Department, City Hall, Room

101A (Tel. 612: 348-2080)

MISSOURI

state J. W. Abbott, Director of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box

630, Jefferson City 65101 (Tel. 314: 751-4278)

Robert D. Wittenberger, Program Supervisor,

Scale (Tel. 314: 751-3440 or 751-4992)

Robert C. Parks, Program Supervisor, Petro- leum Section (Tel. 314: 751-4993)

City Weights and Measures Officials

:

St. Louis 63104 Daniel I. Offner, Commissioner, Weights and

Measures, 1220 Carr Lane Avenue, Room 145

(Tel. 314: 453-3251)

MONTANA

State Gary L. Delano, Administrator, Division of

Weights and Measures, Department of Busi- ness Regulation, 805 North Main, Helena

59601 (Tel. 406: 449-3163)

NEBRASI^A

State Steven A. Malone, Administrator, Division of

Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 1420 P Street, Lincoln 68509 (TeL

402: 471-2875)

NEVADA

State Knute D. Pennington, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures, P.O. Box 1209, Reno 89504 (Tel.

702 : 784-6413)

Frank W. Jones, Inspector of Weights and

Measures

NEW JERSEY

state James R. Bird, Deputy State Sui)erintendent,

Department of Weights and Measures, 187 W.

Hanover Street, Trenton 08625 (Tel. 609 : 292-

4615)

County Weights and Measures Officials

:

Burlington Earl D. Gaskill, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 54 Grant Street, Mount Holly

08060 (Tel. 609: 267-3300, Ext. 210)

Camden A. J. Francesconi, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Room 306, Court House, Camden 08101 (Tel. 609 : 964-0242)

Cape May A. David Gidding, Sui)erintendent of Weights

and Measures, 6807 Seaview Avenue, Wildwood Crest 08260 (Tel. 609: 522-4861)

Cumberland George S. Franks, Superintendent, Weights &

Measures & Consumer Protection, 800 East

Commerce Street, Bridgeton 08302 (Tel. 609:

451-8000, Ext. 296)

Nicholas DiMarco, Deputy Superintendent

249
Gloucester Robert J. Morris, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, County Bldg., 49 Wood Street,

Woodbury 08096 (Tel. 609: 845-1600)

Joseph Silvestro, Assistant Superintendent

Middlesex ^_ John M. Chohamin, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 841 George Road, North

Brunswick 08902 (Tel. 201: 246-6297)

Monmouth William I. Thompson, Superintendent of

Weights and Measures, Hall of Records,

Room 300, Freehold 07728 (Tel. 201: 431-

4995)

Salem . Robert B. Jones, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, P.O. Box 24, Salem 08079 (Tel.

609 : 935-3152)

City Weights and Measures Officials : Camden 08101 F^ed DiPiero, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, 415 Federal Street (Tel. 609 : 963-

0964)

Kearny James Pollock, Municipal Superintendent, 402

Kearny Avenue (Tel. 201: 991-2700)

NEW MEXICO

state Dr. Charles H. Greene, Chief, Division of

Markets, Weights & Measures, Department of

Agriculture, P.O. Box 3170, Las Cruces 88003

(Tel. 505: 646-1616)

Richard F. Schulmeister, Metrologist

NEW YOEK

state Stewart Simon, Administrative Analyst, Department of Agriculture and Markets, Bldg.

its. State Campus, Albany 12235 (Tel. 516:

457-6999)

County Weights and Measures Officials : Monroe Louis P. Romano, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 350 E. Henrietta Road, Rochester 14620

(Tel. 716: 473-8058)

City Weights and Measures Officials : New York 10013 James J. White, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Consumer Affairs, 80 Lafayette Street

(Tel. 212: 961-7363)

NORTH CAROLINA

State Marion Kinlaw, Director, Consumer Standards

Division, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box

26056, Raleigh 27611 (Tel. 919: 829-3313)

Thomas W. Scott, Chief, Measurement Standards Section,

OHIO

state Kenneth R. Adcock, Chief, Division of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

14573 National Road, S.W., Reynoldsburg

43068 (Tel. 614: 866-6361)

County Weights and Measures Officials

:

Champaign Paul R. Scott, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Champaign County Auditor's Office,

Urbana 43078 (Tel. 513: 653-9775)

250
Cuyahoga Frank Kosits, Jr., Supervisor of Weights and

Measures, 1219 Ontario, Cleveland 44107 (Tel.

216: 241-2700, Ext. 505)

City Weights and Measures Officials

:

Akron 44304 Anthony J. Ladd, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Consumer Protection Department, 69 North Union Street (Tel. 216: 375-

2612)

Dayton 45408 James Gardner, Chief, Weights and Measures,

101 W. 3rd Street (Tel. 513: 255-5574)

Youngsitown 44503 Anthony C. Julian, Sealer of Weights and

Measures and Director of Consumer Protection, Health Department, W. Boardman and

S. Phelps Streets (Tel. 216 : 744-0279)

OKLAHOMA

state H. K. Sharp, Assistant Director, Marketing

Division, Department of Agriculture, 122

Capitol Bldg., Oklahoma City 73105 (Tel. 405 : 521-3860)

OREGON

state Kendrick J. Simila, Director, Weights and

Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Bldg., Salem 97310 (Tel.

503: 378-3792)

Max O. Burns, Supervisor, Standards Laboratory

PENNSYLVANIA

state Walter F. Junkins, Director, Bureau of Standard Weights and Measures, Department of

Agriculture, 2301 N. Cameron Street, Harrisburg 17120 (Tel. 717,: 787-9089)

County Weights and Measures Officials

:

Allegheny Walter D. Scott, Chief Inspector, Bureau of

Weights and Measures, Room 4, Court House,

Pittsburgh 15219 (Tel. 412: 355-4480)

City Weights and Measures Officials : Allentov5^n 18102 Arnold L. Heilman, Jr., Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Department of Consumer Development, 302 Gordon Street (Tel. 215: 797-1953)

Philadelphia 19107 Sam F. Valtri, Chief, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, 13th and Filbert Streets, City Hall

Annex—Room 622 (Tel. 215: 686-3475)

Cornelius E. McHugh

PUERTO RICO

Puerto Rico Maximiliano Trujillo, Assistant Secretary. Department of Consumer Affairs, P.O. Box 13934,

Santurce 00908 (Tel. 809: 726-7585)

SOUTH CAROLINA

state William L. Harrelson, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 11280, Columbia

29211 (Tel. 803: 758-2426)

Eugene W. Ballentine, Director of Consumer

Services

251
SOUTH DAKOTA

state James A. Etzkokn, Sui)ervisor, Weights and

Measures, Division of Consumer Protection,

State Capitol Bldg., Pierre 57501 (Tel. 605:

224-3170)

TENNESSEE

City Weights and Measures Officials : Knoxville 37915 W. C. Wells, Sealer, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, 800 East Church Avenue (Tel. 615

:

546-6220)

TEXAS

state Ed Whitesides, Director, Consumer Services

Division, Department of Agriculture, Box

12847, Austin 78711 (Tel. 512: 475-4304)

Charles E. Forester, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures (Tel. 512: 475-6577)

J. Herb Eskew, Chief Metrologist, Department

of Agriculture, 115 San Jacinto, Austin 78711

(Tel. 512: 475-3720)

R. T. Williams, Director of Programs, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 12847, Capitol

Station, Austin 78711 (Tel. 512: 475-3140)

City Weights and Measures Officials

:

Dallas 75201 Charles H. Vincent, Director of Consumer

Affairs, Department of Consumer Affairs,

Room 108, City Hall (Tel. 214: 748-9711, Ext. 1218)

F. G. Yarbrotjgh, Assistant Director of Con- sumer Affairs, 1500 Mockingbird, Room 408,

Dallas 75235 (Tel. 214: 748-9711, Ext. 1218)

James C. Blackwood, Supervisor, Weights &

Measures Division (Tel. 214: 630-1111, Ext. 421)

Fort Worth 76107 Richard H. Atjghinbaugh, Director, Consumer

Protection, 1800 University Drive (Tel. 817:

335-7211, Ext. 209)

UTAH

state Fred D. Morgan, Supervisor of Weights and

Measures Services, Department of Agriculture, Room 412, State Capitol Bldg., Salt

Lake City 84114 (Tel. 801: 328-5421)

VERMONT

state Tbafford F. Brink, Director, Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, 116

State Street, MontpeUer 05602 (Tel. 802 : 828-

2436)

VIRGINIA

state James F. Ltles, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures Section, Department of Agriculture

and Commerce, Division of Product and In- dustry Regulation, 1 North 14th Street, Room

032, Richmond 23219 (Tel. 804 : 770-2476)

252
WASHINGTON

state John H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures,

Dairy and Food Division, Department of Agriculture, 406 General Administration Bldg.,

Olympia 98504 (Tel. 206 : 753-5042)

City Weights and Measures Officials : Seattle 98104 William C. Sullivan, Supervisor of Weights

and Measures, 600 4th Avenue, Room 102

(Tel. 206: 583-2950)

WEST VIEGINIA

state David L. Griffith, Director, Consumer Protection Division, Department of Labor, 1900

Washington Street, East, Charleston 25305

(Tel. 304: 348-7890)

Mack H. Combs, Laboratory Metrologist, Department of Labor, Capitol Complex, Building B, Charleston 25305

WISCONSIN

state Robert W. Probst, Director, Bureau of Standards, Department of Agriculture, 801 West

Badger Road, Madison 53713 (Tel. 608 : 266-

7241)

City Weights and Measures Officials : Fond du Lac 54935 Robert P. Knipple, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Hall, 76 E. Second Street (Tel.

414 : 922-2600)

Wausau 54401 James H. Aket, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 400 Myron Street (Tel. 715 : 842-3413)

West Allis 53214 Siegfried Wolff, Health Commissioner and

Sealer of Weights and Measures, Public

Health Department, 7220 West National Ave- nue (Tel. 414: 476-3770)

WYOMING

state Elvin R. Leeman, Laboratory Supervisor, Department of Agriculture, 2219 Carey Avenue,

Cheyenne 82001 (Tel. 307: 777-7321)

Manufacturers, Industry, and Business

Acme Scale Service

J. Feldstein, Owner, 10411 Garvey, El Monte, California 91733 (Tel. 213:

283-2298)

Acme Scale Company

Fred Stultz, General Manager, 5303 Adeline Street, Oakland, California

94608 (Tel. 415: 654-1672)

Acme Scale and Supply Company

Ray C. Canfield, President, 5427 Butler Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

15201 (Tel. 412: 782-1808)

American Can Company

William H. Marks, Supervisor of Specifications, American Consumer Products, 333 N. Commercial Street, Neenah, Wisconsin 54956 (Tel. 414:

722-4211)

American Meat Institute

Chester Adams, Secretary, P.O. Box 3556, Washington, D.C. 20007 (Tel:

703 : 841-1030)

American Metric Journal

Robert A. Hopkins, Feature Editor, AMJ Publications, Inc., 18314 Oxnard

Street, Tarzana, California 91356 (Tel. 213: 345-9305)

253
Vincent R. Hopkins, Feature Editor

American Petroleum Institute

Wallace N. Seward, Assistant to Vice President, 1801 K Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202 : 833-5660)

Richard Southers, Coordinator of Operations & Engineering (Tel. 202:

833-5643)

W. A. Kerlin, Special Representative

W. C. Grosshauser, Associate Member, 1437 South Boulder, Tulsa, Oklahoma

74012 (Tel. 918: 584-2311)

American Seed Trade Association

Robert J. Falasca, Assistant to the Executive Vice President, 1080 15th

Street, N.W., Suite 964, Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202: 223-4080)

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

William T. Cavanaugh, Managing Director, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19103 (Tel. 215: 299-5500)

H. C. ZwEiFEL, Director, Western Activities, 8553 Verdosa Drive, Whittier,

California 90605 (Tel. 213: 693-2212)

Amstar Corporation

Walter Zielnicki, Quality Control Supervisor, 1251 Avenue of the Americas,

New York, New York 10020 (Tel. 212 : 489-9000)

Ronald Watkins, Packaging and Warehousing Manager, P.O. Box 7428,

Spreckels, California 93962 (Tel. 408: 455-1811)

Analogic Corporation

Guy W. Wilson, Product Sales Manager, Audubon Road, Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880 (Tel. 617 : 246-0300)

Armour Food Company

V. J. Del Gitjdice, Manager, Government Reg. Agencies, 8849 South Greenwood Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60619 (Tel. 312 : 734-3804)

Association of American Railroads

John J. Robinson, Executive Director, Operating Transporting Division,

1920 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202 : 293-4144)

Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

I. M. Hawver, Superintendent of Scales, 1001 E. Atchison, Topeka, Kansas

66604 (Tel. 913: 234-9736)

Atlantic Richfield Company

R. W. ScHMiTz, Equipment Engineer, 515 South Flower Street, Los Angeles,

California 90071 (Tel. 213 : 486-2877)

Badger Meter Inc. Charles B. Kincaid, Senior Representative, P.O. Box 332, Duarte, California

91010 (Tel. 213: 357-2301)

Bennett Pump Company

John P. Hauet, Manager, Field Service, P.O. Box 597, Muskegon, Michigan

49443 (Tel. 616: 733-1302)

Brooks Instrument Division, Emerson Electric Company

Gerald W. Long, Regional Sales Manager, 6940 Aragon Circle, Suite 10, Buena

Park, California 90620 (Tel. 714: 944-2300)

Cal South Equipment Company

Roy I. BoYDSTON, President, 1356 W. Cowles Street, Long Beach, California

90813 (Tel. 213: 436-6271)

Canners League of California

James W. Bell, President, 1007 L Street, Sacramento, California 95814 (Tel.

916: 444-9260)

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company

David H. Perry, Vice President, Box 151, Webb City, Missouri 64870 (Tel.

417: 673-4631)

C G Systems, Inc. Billy J. Click, President, P.O. Box 570, Colton, California 92324 (Tel. 714:

825-2932)

Frank Carlson, Engineer

Glenn Gedatus, Sales Manager

Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings

Merrill S. Thompson, Attorney, Room 2360, 135 South LaSalle Street,

Chicago, Illinois 60603 (Tel. 312 : 726-2545)

Chessie System, Inc. Emil Szaks, Director, Structures Design. P.O. Box 1800, Huntington, West

Virginia 25718 (Tel. 304: 525-0341, Ext. 5740)

254
Chevron Chemical Company

Donald F. Searle, Manager, Product Quality, 200 Bush Street, San Francisco,

California 94104 (Tel. 415 : 894-4573)

Cities Service Oil Company

E. C. Primley, Field Engineer—API Task Force Leader, 228 Industrial

Avenue, P.O. Box C, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085 (Tel. 616: 983-5241)

Coca-Cola Company

Robert S. Carles, Attorney, P.O. Drawer 1734, Atlanta, Georgia 30301 (Tel.

404 : 897-2091

)

Robert L. Callahan, Jr., Washington Affairs Coordinator (Tel. 404:

897-2092)

Colgate-Palmolive Company

Edward E. Wolski, Manager of Quality Control, 300 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10022 (Tel. 212 : PL 1-1200)

CPC International, Inc. Gary Baier, Director of Quality Control, 15700 Shoemaker Avenue, Santa Fe

Springs, California 90670 (Tel. 213 : 921-7411)

Data General Corporation

Larie K. Brandner, Regional Representative, 1054 Elwell Ct., Palo Alto,

California 94303 (Tel. 415 : 965-1010)

J. B. Dee & Co., Inc. Gene H. Fishman, President, 1722 W. 16th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana

46260 (Tel. 317: 635-5548)

Diamond International Corporation

Liane Waite, Director, Home Economics, 733 Third Avenue, New York, New

York 10017 (Tel. 212 : 697-2177)

Dr. H. E. Corwin, Technical Director, Fiber Products Division (Tel. 212

:

697-1700)

Byron A. DeWalt. Vice President, (5414 Gayhart Street, Los Angeles, California 90040 (Tel. 213 : 722-7316)

David R. Desmond, Sales Manager

Doric Scientific R. E. Lagrand, Sales Manager—West, 3883 RufBn Road, San Diego, California

92123 (Tel. 714 : 565-4415)

Douglas Equipment Company, Inc. John Douglas, President, 119 E. 4195 So., Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 (Tel.

266-8281)

Douglas Oil Company

Archie R. Johnston, Manager, Product Quality, 14700 Downey, Paramount,

California 90723 (Tel. 213 : 531-2060)

Dover Corporation/ OPW Division

Robert C. Carl. Vice President, Engineering, 2735 Colerain Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45225 (Tel. 513 : 541-5400)

Dover Corporation /Blackmer Pump Division

Clair J. Tracy, Product Manager, 1809 Century Avenue, S.W., Grand Rapids,

Michigan 49509 (Tel. 616: 241-1611)

Dresser Industries, Inc. Warren J. Dubsky, Chief Engineer, Fuel Dispensing Products, 124 W.

College Avenue, Salisbury, Maryland 21801 (Tel. 301: 749-6161)

Dudley & Conley Scale Company

Bruce Thompson. Director of Marketing, 785 Colton Avenue, Colton, California 92324 (Tel. 714 : 825-1617)

Dunbar Manufacturing, Inc. Harvey Lodge, Vice President, Sales, 307 Broadway, Swanton, Ohio 43558

(Tel. 419 : 244-3021)

Duncan Industries, Division of Qonaar Corporation

Ralph B. Elsner, Vice President, Sales, 751 Pratt Blvd., Elk Grove Village,

Illinois 60007 (Tel. 312 : 437-0710)

Dynamics Ele<^ronic Products

Mitchell Gooze, Engineer, 9001 FuUbright, Chatsworth, California 91311

(Tel. 213: 998-8281)

Eaton Corporation, Controls Division

Martin W. Hamilton, Eng. Mgr., 191 E. North Avenue, Carol Stream, Illinois

60187 (Tel. 312 : 682-8364)

255
Eldec Corporation

O. W. Sailee, Vice President, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (Tel. 206:

743-1313)

Electroscale Corporation

Peter H. Stanton, Chairman and Chief Executive, 15 Third Street, Santa

Rosa, California 95401 (Tel. 707 : 546-6785)

DoRO Maffia, Manufacturing Manager

David Holden, Chief Engineer

A. H. Emery Company

Walter M. Young, 70 Pine Street, P.O. Box 608, New Canaan, Connecticut

06840 (Tel. 203: 966-4551)

Empire Scale Company

Al Stoler, President, 301 South Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California

90013 (Tel. 213: 629-3311)

Exxon Company—USA

H. E. Harris, Engineering Coordinator, P.O. Box 2180, Houston, Texas 77001

(Tel. 713: 221-2936)

Exxon Corporation

R. A. Hartmann, Coordinator, 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New

Yorli 10020 (Tel. 212 : 974-3764)

Fairbanks Weighing Division of Colt Industries

Kenneth F. Hammer, President, 711 E. St. Johnsbury Road, St. Johnsbury,

Vermont 05906 (Tel. 802 : 748-2371)

A. A. Cattell, Vice President, Engineering

Peter J. Rozema, Vice President, Marketing

Ellis B. Fitzgerald, Manager, Technical Engineering

Arthur W. Kroll, Manager, Product Development

Flowcon Systems, Division of Bower Industries

Robert L. Sachs, Vice President, P.O. Box 1631 West Orangewood Avenue,

Orange, California 92668 (Tel. 714 : 633-8334)

Franklin Electric Company, Dove Packaging-Weighing Division

John W. Young, Product Manager, P.O. Box 666, Levittown, Pennsylvania

19058 (Tel. 215 : 949-2400)

Fredonia Seed Company

George B. Weaver, President, Box 180, Fredonia, New York 14063 (Tel. 716:

672-2174)

H. J. Fuller and Sons

William A. Scheurer, Public Relations, 1100 Chesapeake Street, Columbus,

Ohio 43212 (Tel. 614 : 488-3312)

General Foods Corporation

Charles P. Orr, Corporate Safety Consultant, 250 North Street, White Plains,

New York 10625 (Tel. 914 : 694-4073)

General Mills, Inc. Donald B. Colpitts, Technical Manager, Weights and Measures, 9000 Plymouth Avenue, North, MinneapoUs, Minnesota 55427 (Tel. 612 : 540-2729)

William C. Mailhot, Director, Quality Control, Sperry Division, 9200

Wayzata Blvd., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 (Tel. 612 : 540-2354)

Neal D. Peterson, Counsel, 1730 M Street, Room 907, Washington, D.C.

20036 (Tel. 202 : 296-0360)

Gerber Products Company

Lyle Littlefield, Government Relations Manager, 445 State Street, Fremont,

Michigan 49412 (Tel. 616 : 928-2264)

Gilbarco

Claude R. Parent, Manager, Special Accounts, 344 Village Square, Orinda,

California 94563 (Tel. 415 : 254-1011)

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc. George Teitelbaum, Director, Glass Technology and Design, 1800 K Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202 : 872-1280)

Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc. James C. May, Manager, State Public Affairs, 1425 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202 : 638-6100)

Gulf Oil Company, U.S. Joe a. Garner, District Operations Superintendent, 6930 Hayvenhurst, Van

Nuys, California 91406 (Tel. 213 : 988-6210)

George R. Davis, Manager, Operations—Central Region, P.O. Box 661, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74102

256
Hardy Scales

Ronald A. Vanden Berg, Marketing Manager, 4075 Ruffln Road, San Diego,

California 92123 (Tel. 714 : 565-7701)

William E. Smith, Staff Engineer (Tel. 714 : 565-7705)

Heinz U.S.A., Division of H. J. Heinz Company

John S. Elliott, Senior Manager, Government Regulations, 1062 Progress

Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212 (Tel. 412 : 237-5862)

Hobart Corporation

Fred H. Katterheinrich, Sales Engineer, World Headquarters, Troy, Ohio

45374 (Tel. 513 : 835-7171)

Kenneth C. Allen, Consultant, 216 South Torrence Street, Dayton, Ohio

45401 (Tel. 513 : 254-8451)

John H. Nielsen, Weights & Measures Representative, 325 Phelan Avenue,

San Jose, California 95112 (Tel. 408 : 298-6333)

Geo. A. Hormel & Company

Byron M. Crippin, Jr., General Counsel, 501 16th Avenue, N.E., Austin,

Minnesota 55912 (Tel. 507 : 437-5671)

Howe Richardson Scale Company

George D. Wilkinson, Vice President, 681 Van Houten Avenue, Clifton, New

Jersey 07015 (Tel. 201 : 471-8400)

Karl E. Johnston, Regional Sales Manager, 3156 E. LaPalma, Anaheim,

California 92806 (Tel. 714 : 630-6230)

Raymond G. Harris, Western Regional Service Manager

Hunt-We^on Foods, Inc. Irving H. Goldenfield, Quality Assurance Regulatory Manager, 1645 West

Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California 92634 (Tel. 714, 558-7717)

Clifford R. Kloos, Group Leader, Research & Development (Tel. 714:

871-2108, Ext. 1039)

Interface, Inc. R. F. Caris, President, 7401 East Butherus, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 (Tel.

602 : 945-5555)

IBM Corporation

Brenton W. Smith, P.O. Box 12275, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27709 (Tel. 919: 755-5801)

International Municipal Parking Congress

William D. Heath, Executive Director, 1111 Army-Navy Drive, Arlington,

Virginia 22202 (Tel. 703 : 521-6167)

International Paper Company

Joseph Cannon, Manager, Marketing Services, 220 E. 42nd Street, New York,

New York 10017 (Tel. 212 : 490-5858)

Ed E. Mull, Marketing Manager, 20321 Susana Road, Compton, California

90221 (Tel. 213 : 774-2970)

Jewel Companies, Inc. Ralph W. Miller, Jr., Vice President, Regulatory Research and Planning,

1955 W. North Avenue, Melrose Park, IlUnois 60160 (Tel. 312 : 531-6103)

Johnson and Johnson

George E. Heinze, Director of Science Information, Research Center, New

Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 (Tel. 201 : 524-5151)

Kimberly-Clark Corporation

Warren W. Whitlinger, Director, Quality Assurance, Consumer Products

Division, Winchester Road, Neenah, Wisconsin 54956 (Tel. 414: 729-5372)

Koch Oil International (Chemical Division)

Louis P. Massari, General Manager, 1000 Capital National Bank Bldg.,

Houston, Texas 77002 (Tel. 713 : 228-0741)

Koontz Equipment Corporation

A. F. Roach, Jr., President, 8325 Ohio River Blvd., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

15202 (Tel. 412 : 761-8696)

James F. Caye, Sales Manager

Kraftco Corporation

John M. Creger, Associate Counsel, Kraftco Court, Glenview, Illinois 60025

(Tel. 312 : 998-2487)

The Kroger Company

David P. Leahy, Technical Consultant, 1240 State Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio

45204 (Tel. 513: 921-5300, Ext. 461)

257
Landvater Associates

John H. Landvater, 95 Summit Avenue, Summit, New Jersey 07901 (Tel.

201: 273-8757)

Lerner Oil Company, Inc. Louis Ball, Vice President, 17171 So. Western Avenue, Gardena, Oalifomia

90247 (Tel. 213: 532-2500)

Lever Brothers Company

H. R. MacDonald, Plant Operations Manager, 390 Park Avenue, Nevr York,

New York 10022 (Tel. 212 : 688-6000)

Liberty Glass Company

E. Kenneth Mills, Consultant, P.O. Box 520, Sapulpa, Oklahoma 74066 (Tel.

918: 224-1440, Ext. 325)

Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. John S. Smith, Quality Control Manager, Statistical Applications, 800 Sylvan

Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 (Tel. 201: 567-8000)

Liquid Controls Corporation

Howard Siebold, Vice President, Technical Services, P.O. Box 784, Fort Bragg,

California 95437

Martin Decker Company

W. H. Garner, Industrial Sales Manager, 1928 South Grand Avenue, Santa

Ana, California 92705 (Tel. 714 : 540-9220)

E. I. Shelley, Western District Sales Manager

James A. Schrack, Marketing Manager

Henry Luyties, Regional Manager

Jack Downs, District Manager

Bud R. Dixon, General Sales Manager

John P. Bieber, District Sales Manager, 2605 W. Berwyn Avenue, Chicago,

Illinois 60625 (Tel. 312 : 784-8306)

Measuregraph Company

Ralph C. Cox, Divisional Sales Manager, 124 E. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles,

California 90015 (Tel. 213 : 749-5083)

U.S. Metric Association

John H. Corbett, Director, San Diego Chapter, 10509 San Carlos Drive,

Spring Valley, California 92077 (Tel. 714 : 466-2823)

Metro Equipment Corporation

Jacques C. Boubille, President, Box 187, Agnew Station, Santa Clara,

California 95054 (Tel. 408 : 247-8787)

Midwest Scale Company

Robert L. Kennedy, General Service Manager, 1327 7th Street, Rockford,

Illinois 61108 (Tel. 815 : 968-3731

)

John L. DeBo, Serviceman

Milk Industry Foundation

John F. Speer, Jr., Executive Assistant, 910 17th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202 : 296-4250)

Austin T. Rhoads, Administrative Assistant

Millers' National Federation

John J. Sherlock, Vice President and Secretary, 1776 F Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202 : 452-0900)

Missouri Farmers Association, Inc. W. M. Baker, Supervisor, Weights and Measures, Facility Engineering Division, 201 South Seventh, Columbia, Missouri 65201 (Tel. 314 : 443-1661)

Mobil Chemical

R. R. Wiseman, Quality Control Supervisor, Tech Center, Macedon, New York

14502 (Tel. 315: 980-2711)

Mobil Oil Corporation

G. W. McDiFFETT, Engineering Programs Coordinator, 612 S. Flower Street,

Los Angeles. California 90051 (Tel. 213 : 683-6308)

J. A. Petrelli, Manager, Operation Engineering, 150 E. 42nd Street, New

York, New York 10017 (Tel. 212 : 883-5204)

Monsanto Company

Carl L. Timmons, Area Sales Manager, P.O. Box 3790, Anaheim, California

92803 (Tel. 714: 772-3010)

Morris Scale Company

Clifford V. Morris, President, 1537 S. E. Morrison Street, Portland, Oregon

97214 (Tel. 503: 232-5339)

258
MSI Data Corporation

Ken W. Lloyd, National Field Service Manager (ASTROS), 340 Fischer

Avenue, Costa Mesa, CaUfornia 92627 (Tel. 714 : 549-6330)

L. R. Murphy Scale Company

William Goodpastee, Vice President, 1610 North C Street, Sacramento,

California 95814 (Tel. 916 : 441-0178)

National Association of Food Chains

Thomas K. Zaucha, Director of Public Affairs, 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite

210, Washington, D.C. 20006 (Tel. 202 : 331-7822)

National Canners Association

Dr. Richard H. Dougherty, Assistant to the Executive Vice President, 1133

20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. 202 : 331-5925)

National Cash Register Corporation

Ralph Canada, Main & K Streets, Dayton, Ohio 45479 (Tel. 513: 449-2030)

A. Raymond Daniels, Manager, Industry and Government Relations, (Tel.

513: 449-2454)

National Controls, Inc. Wallace M. Evans, Vice President, Marketing, P.O. Box 1501, 1160 Hopper

Avenue, Santa Rosa, California 95403 (Tel. 707: 527-5555)

National Semiconductor Corporation

Dick Velten, Marketing Support Coordinator, 2921 Copper Road, Santa Clara,

California 95051 (Tel. 408 : 732-5000, Ext. 7191)

Neptune Measurement Company, Inc. Emmett F. Wehmann, Assistant Chief Engineer, P.O. Box 792, Emerald

Road, Greenwood, South Carolina 29646 (Tel. 803: 223-1212)

New Brunswick International, Inc. Louis P. Bonapace, President, 309 Seaman Street, New Brunswick, New

Jersey 08901 (Tel. 201 : 246-3544)

Newport Labs

Lyell C. Kinney, Sales Manager, 630 B. Young Street, Santa Ana, California

92705 (Tel. 714: 540-5486)

Ohaus Scale Corporation

Robert E. Vail, Regional Manager, Box 4118, 685 Catamaran Street, Foster

City, California 94404 (Tel. 415 : 574-4430)

Orbitran Company, Inc. Harold L. Jensen, Jr., Senior Applications Engineer, 11487 Woodside Avenue,

Lakeside, California 92040 (Tel. 714 : 448-5075)

Pan Nova, Inc. Paul Samsing, Retail Operations Manager, 10750 South Painter Avenue,

Santa Fe Springs, California 90670 (Tel. 213: 944-9888, Ext. 244)

Thomas E. Jones, Operations Manager

Peabody Coal Company

Stanley Cisiewski, Manager, Weighing Systems, 301 N. Memorial Drive,

St. Louis, Missouri 63102 (Tel. 314 : 342-3469)

Penn Central Railroad

Fred D. Day, System Production Engineer, 6 Penn Center, Room 750, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (Tel. 215: 594-1666)

Pennsylvania Scale Company

C. G. Gehringer, Vice President, Operations, 21 Graybill Road, Leola,

Pennsylvania 17540 (Tel. 717 : 656-2653)

Pepsi-Cola Company

Richard T. Jennings, Manager, Technical Services Western U.S., 2617

Hallmark, Belmont, California 94002 (Tel. 415 : 421-6505)

Phillips Petroleum Company

Roland S. Bahlmann, Engineer, Codes and Regulations, 511 TRW Bldg.,

Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004 (Tel. 918 : 661-4943)

Phillips Scale Company

O. B. Phillips, President, 3130 Elliott Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98121

(Tel. 206 : 284-6090)

The Pillsbury Company

C. A. Taubert, Quality Associate, 608 2nd Avenue, South, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55402 (Tel. 612 : 330-4332)

John H. Allen, Attorney, 816 Pillsbury Bldg., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

(Tel. 612: 330-5175)

259
Pitchers Equipment (Company, Inc. Robert F. Pitcher, President, 3220 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland, California

9-4609 (Tel. 415 : 654-5262)

Pono Industries, Inc. Craig Mattimoe, President, 953 Wainiha Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96825

(Tel. 808: 395-1492)

Presto Products, Inc. Tony Zeller, Director of Packaging, Box 407, Appleton, Wisconsin 54911

(Tel. 414: 739-9471)

Procter & Gamble Company

J. D. Wallace, Section Head, Ivorydale Technical Center, Spring Grove &

June Streets, Cincinnati. Ohio 45217 (Tel. 513 : 563-5172)

T. N. Thomas, Section Head, Room 4N36, Ivorydale Technical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45217 (Tel. 513: 562-5183)

John P. Siegfried, Counsel, 301 East 6th Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(Tel. 513 : 562-4400)

Procter «& Gamble Manufacturing Company

J. R. Mitchell, Plant Chemical Engineer, 1601 West 7th Street, Long Beach,

California 90813 (Tel. 213: 432-6981)

Puerto Rico Gasoline Retailers Association

Victor M. Pagan, President, P.O. Box 283, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00657

(Tel. 809: 789-3129)

Jose M. DA\^LA, Director, 249 F. D. Roosevelt Avenue, San Juan, Puerto

Rico 00918 (Tel. 809: 767-1010)

Purex Corporation

Lester O. Leenerts. Manager, Technical Copy Control, 24600 South Main

Street, Carson, California 90745 (TeL 213 : 775-2111, Ext 307)

Quaker Oats Company

Dr. R. O. Xesheim, Vice President, Research & Development, John Stuart

Research Laboratories, 617 West Main Street Barrington, Illinois 60010

(Tel. 312 : 381-1980)

Fred A. Dobbins, Director, Quality Assurance—Compliance, 617 W. Main

Street, Barrington, Illinois 60010 (Tel. 312: 381-1980, Ext. 248)

Railweight, Inc. Samuel H. Levinson. President, 1821 Willow Road, Northfield, Illinois 60093

(Tel. 312 : 446-8390)

Revere Corporation of America

Charles W. Silver, Vice President, Operations, 845 North Colony Road,

Wallingford, Connecticut 06492 (Tel. 203: 269-7701)

John J. Elengo, Jr., Director of Engineering

RJR Foods. Inc. Russell Gale, Plant Quality Control Manager, 360 S. Acacia Avenue, Fullerton, California 92634 (Tel. 714: 871-4495)

Rockwell International Corporation

Marshall G. Cook, Sales Manager, 400 No. Lexington Avenue, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania 15208 (Tel. 412 : 486-2942)

Rockwell International, Autonetics Division

A. Lauebman, Supervisor, Metrology and Test Equipment Dept. 220, Mail

HC 02, 3370 Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, California 92803 (Tel. 714:

632-3923)

Helena Rubinstein

Herbert E. Schneider, Director of QuaUty Control, Northern Blvd., Greenvale, New York 11548 (Tel. 516 : 484-5400)

Sandia Laboratories

Jack L. Wilson, Supervisor 8413-1. Livermore, California 94550 (Tel. 415:

455-2681)

Sanitary Scale Company

Edward C. Karp, Vice President, 910 E. Lincoln Avenue, Belvidere, lUinois

61008 (Tel. 815 : 544-2181)

John V. Fabwell IV, General Sales Manager

Scale Manufacturers Association

Raymond J. Lloyd, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, 1000 Vermont Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202 : 628-4634)

Daryl E. Tonini, Technical Director

260
Seraphin Test Measure Company

Raymond R. Wells, Sales Manager, 30 Indel Avenue, Rancocas, New Jersey

08073 (Tel. 609 : 267-0922)

Singer, Business Machines Division

Benny Herbst, Manager, Product Safety, 2350 Washington Street, San

Leandro, California 94577 (Tel. 415 : 357-6800)

William M. Stanger, Principal Applications Engineer

Single Service Institute, Inc. Thomas W. LaCascia, Director, General Services, 250 Park Avenue, New

York, New York 10017 (Tel. 212 : 697-4545)

S J Controls, Inc. Fred Hesley, 8815 Junipero Avenue, Long Beach, California 90806 (Tel. 213

:

426-6033)

A. O. Smith, Inc. Philip E. Swanson, Engineering Supervisor, Meter Division, 1602 Wagner

Avenue, Erie, Pennsylvania 16512 (Tel. 814: 899-0661)

Soap «& Detergent Association

Mary P. Kilcoyne, Coordinator, Legislative & Regulatory Information, 475

Park Avenue South at 32nd Street, New York, New York 10016 (Tel. 212:

725-1262)

Southern Weighing and Inspection Bureau

C. E. Pike, Manager, 151 Ellis Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (Tel. 404:

659-6266, Ext. 266)

Martin R. Gkuber, Jr., Supervisor of Weights

Sperry Univac

James L. Tobin, Manager, Systems Planning—Supermarket Systems, Box

500, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422 (Tel. 215 : 542-5238)

Spinks Scale Company, Inc. Deane F. Laird, President, 836 Stewart Avenue, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30310

(Tel. 404 : 758-0744)

Standard Oil Company of California, WOI

C. A. Garl, Supervisor Engineer, Engineering & Maintenance, P.O. Box 3495,

San Francisco, California 94119 (Tel. 415: 894-5401)

Streeter Amet Division, Mangood Corporation

Robert T. Brumbaugh, Vice President, Development, 105 W. Adams Street,

Chicago, Illinois 60603 (Tel. 312 : 726-5705)

E. J. MicoNo, General Service Manager, Slusser & Wicks, Grayslake, Illinois

60030 (Tel. 312 : 223-4801)

Suburban Propane Gas Corporation

John R. Kukucka, Manager of Engineering and Regulatory Services, P.O. Box 206, Whippany, New Jersey 07981 (Tel. 201 : 887-5300)

Sun Oil Company

William R. Martin, Manager, S/S Maint. & Equipment, 1608 Walnut Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (Tel. 215 : 985-1600, Ext. 3749)

Sweda International, Division of Litton

H. Warren Gross, Applications Si)eciali&t, One Park Avenue, Morristown,

New Jersey 07960 (Tel. 201 : 540-0500)

Swift and Company

Harvey L. Hensel, Assistant General Counsel, 115 West Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, Illinois 60604 (Tel. 312 : 431-2631)

3-D iaatruments

Jim Hetzler, President, 883 South East Street, Anaheim, California 92805

(Tel. 714: 956-9630)

Thurman Scale Company

Joseph R. Schaeffer, Vice President, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio

43207 (Tel. 614 : 443-9741)

Tokheim Corporation

Walter Gerdom, Manager—Customer Service, 1600 Wabash Avenue, Fort

Wayne, Indiana 46803 (Tel. 219 : 423-2552)

Toledo Scale, Division of Reliance Electric

Anthony P. Divincenzo, Vice President and General Manager, P.O. Box

6757 Toledo, Ohio 43612 (Tel. 419 : 470-6200)

R. O. Bradley, Chief Scale Engineer

Edgar J. Quebtinmont, Retail Product Marketing Manager

J. Donald Zelazny, General Sales Manager (Tel. 419: 470-6625)

Donivan L. Hall, Chief Engineer (Tel. 419: 470-6200)

261
Ben N. Dillon, Industrial Product Marketing Manager

John J. McLellan, Western Region Manager, 8208 Capwell Drive, Oakland,

California 94621 (Tel. 415: 569-4015)

Theril L. Montooth, Area Manager (Tel. 415: 569-5980)

William N. Lowe, Area Manager, 5735 E. Washington Blvd., Los Angeles,

California 90040 (Tel. 213: 724-3204)

Traffic Appliance Corporation

S. L. Chkistensen, President, P.O. Box 39349, 4207 Willimet Avenue, Los

Angeles, California 90039 (Tel. 213: 245-6778)

Transducers, Inc. Hovi^ARD NiELSON, Vicc President, Marketing, 12140 E. Rivera Road, Whittier,

California 90606 (Tel. 213: 945-3741)

Henry Troemner, Inc. WiLBERT D. Abele, Vice President and General Manager, 6825 Greenway

Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142 (Tel. 215 : 724-0800)

Union Oil Company of California

Dr. .Joseph Byrne, Vice President, Marketing, 461 South Boylston Street, Los

Angeles, California 90017 (Tel. 213: 486-6719)

Earl I. Lash, Manager, Marketing Engineering (Tel. 213: 486-6224)

Eugene R. Friess (Tel. 213: 486-6108)

Vandalen Scale Company, Inc. Dutch Vandalen, President, 349 1st Avenue, San Mateo, California 94401

(Tel. 415 : 341-4663)

Veeder-Root Company

T. J. McLaughlin, Manager, OEM Sales, 70 Sargeant Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06102 (Tel. 203: 527-7201)

Ronald Sardella, Manager, Distributor Field Sales, 1049 Grand Central,

Glendale, California 91201 (Tel. 213: 245-0161)

Voland Corporation

Bernard Wasko, Vice President, 27 Centre Avenue, New Rochelle, New York

10802 (Tel. 914: 636-2014)

Weighing Systems, Inc. Verne A. Engstrom, Sales Manager, 2845 E. Illini, Phoenix, Arizona 85040

(Tel. 602: 276-5514)

Western Oil & Gas Association

Kenneth P. Denny, Manager, Community Relations Department, 609 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90017 (Tel. 213 : 624-6386)

Wickes Agriculture

Charles H. Roth, Director, Packaging Sales, P.O. Box 2069, Saginaw, Michigan 48605 (Tel. 517: 754-0471)

William M. Wilson's Sons, Inc. Charles J. Denny, Manager, Customer and Technical Services, P.O. Box

309, Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446 (Tel. 215: 855-4631)

Winslow Scale Company

Joe Giner, Vice President, General Manager, P.O. Box 1523, Terre Haute,

Indiana 47808 (Tel. 812: 466-1231)

United States Government

Department of Agriculture

R. D. Thompson, Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Washington. D.C. 20250 (Tel. 202: 447-3140)

Charles H. Oakley, Assistant Chief

Charles Paul, Assistant to Administrator. 14th & Independence Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20250 (Tel. 202: 447'4378)

Dr. William H. Dubbert, Chief Staff Officer, Technical Services, APHIS,

South Agriculture Bldg., 14th & Independence Avenue, Washington, D.C.

20250 (Tel. 202: 447-3840)

John T. Lacy, Supervisory Scales and Weighing Specialist, Packers and

Stockyards Administration, Federal Office Bldg., 15000 Aviation Blvd.,

Room 2W6, Lawndale, California 90260 (Tel. 213: 536-6687)

262
Federal Trade Commission

Robert R. Hannum, Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 6th &

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580 (Tel. 202 : 962-7688)

Office of Education

Dr. Floyd A. Davis, Project Manager, Metric Education Program, ROB 3, Room 3043, Washington, D.C. 20202 (Tel. 202: 245-3352)

U.S. Navy

C. G. KuLLMAN, Director, Mechanical Standards Division, Naval Air Rework

Facllitiy, Naval Air Station, North Island, San Diego, Oalifornia 92135

(Tel. 714: 437-6991)

John H. Tabler, Project Engineer

National Bureau of Standards

Allen J. Fabbar, Legal Adviser

William E. Andbus, Jr., Program Manager, Engineering and Information

Processing Standards

David E. Bdgebly, Special Assistant for International Standards Programs,

Engineering and Information Processing Standards

Ralph J. Babra, Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Office of the Associate

Director for Programs

G. J. Sonnichsen, Photographer, Office of Information Activities

Frank E. Jones, Physicist, Humidity Section, Heat Division, Institute for

Basic Standards

Db. F. Kabl Willenbbock, Director, Institute for Applied Technology

Office of Weights and Measures

:

Habold F. Wollin, Chief, and Executive Secretary of the National Confer- ence on Weights and Measures

Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Program Manager, Program Research and

Development

Terbance N. Troy, Program Manager, Consumer Laws and Regulations

Otto K. Wabnlof, Program Manager, Technical Services and Training

Richard N. Smith, Technical Coordinator

Stephen Hasko, General Engineer

Joseph J. Cecconi, Engineer

Allen Banks, Engineering Technician

Benjamin Banks, Engineering Technician

Harry K. Johnson, Engineering Technician

Blayne C. Keysab, Engineering Technician

Joanne Hall, Program Coordinator, Consumer Laws and Regulations

Sandba J. Edgebly, Secretary

Patbicia Raschella, Clerk- Stenographer

Shaeon Shaff, Clerk-Stenographer

NBS-Boulder

David W. Allan, Frequency and Time Standards Section, Time and Fre- quency Division, Institute for Basic Standards

Raymond C. Sangster, Manager, Strategic Planning, Institute for Basic

Standards

Other Guests

Alyce J. Archuleta, Librarian, San Diego Public Library, 820 E Street, San

Diego, Oalifornia 92101 (Tel. 214 : 236-5800)

John L. Armstrong, Chief, Standards Laboratory, Standards Bldg., Standards

Lab., Rm. 201, Tunneys Pasture, Holland Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

KIA 0C9 (Tel. 613: 996-3035)

John D. Buchanan, Research Officer, Department of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, Place du Portage, Ottawa, Hull, Canada (Tel. 613: 997-1370)

Stuabt C. Buek, Advisory Member, retired Solano County Director of Weights

and Measures, 70 Heliotrope, Vallejo, California 94590 (Tel. 707 : 642-7849)

Sheeby R. Camp, Consumer Investigator, Consumer League Information Center,

2275 Meyers, Escondido, Oalifornia 92025 (Tel. 714: 743-3588)

263
R. Gabon, Regional Supervisor, Weights and Measures, Department of Con- sumer and Corporate Affairs, 855 Ste. Catherine St. E., 12th Floor, Montreal,

^ Quebec H2L 4N4 Canada (Tel. 514: 283-3105)

Samuel H. Christie, Advisory Member, retired State Superintendent of

Weights and Measures for New Jersey, 123 Hillcrest Road, Warren, New

Jersey 07060 (Tel. 201: 647-3267)

Elena Cota, Special Worker, E.O.C. Headstart, 348 W. Market Street, San

Diego, California 92101 (Tel. 714: 239-9281, Ext 57)

M. R. Dettler, Advisory Member, retired Supervisor of Weights and Measures

for Seattle, Washington, 16223 Eighth Avenue South, Seattle, Washington

98148

Mary D. Dickerson, San Diego State University, San Digeo, California 92182

(Tel. 714: 469-2090)

Dan Franklin, Director, California Public Interest Research Group, 621 4th

Avenue, Room 207, San Diego, California 92101 (Tel. 714: 236-1508)

David S. Gault, Sr., Librarian, San Diego Public Library, 820 E Street, San

Diego, California 92101 (Tel. 214: 236-5565)

Shirley Goldinger, President, Consumer Federation of California, 621 So. Virgil Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005 (Tel. 213 : 388-7676)

Clarissa W. Howard, Consumer Affairs Assistant, E.O.C. Headstart Project,

348 W. Market Street, San Diego, California 92101 (Tel. 714: 239-9281, Ext. 47)

CiAiRE M. Hughes, Home Economist, Fed Mart, 8008 OtheUo, San Diego, California 92111 (Tel. 714: 271-1800)

Patricia Katka, Librarian, San Diego Public Library, 820 E Street, San Diego,

California 92107 (Tel. 214: 236-5552)

Dr. Edgar W. Kutzscher, Consulting Physicist, 15450 Briarwood Drive, Sherman Oaks, California 91403 (Tel. 214: 783-6093)

James R. Lawson, Director, Metric Centre, San Diego County Department of

Education, 6401 Linda Vista Road, San Diego, California 92111 (Tel. 714:

278-6400, Ext. 377)

Clyde E. Martin, News Reporter, KOGO Radio, San Diego, California 92138

(Tel. 714: 263-6191)

David M. Mathieu, Editor/Publisher, Weighing & Measurement Magazine, P.O. Box 4476, Rockford, Illinois 61110 (Tel. 815: 965-0015)

Dan C. McCurry, Reporter, Food Co-operative News, 64 E. Lake, Chicago,

Illinois 60601 (Tel. 312 : 269-8101)

Patricia McGovern, Nutritionist, E.O.C, 348 West Market Street, San Diego,

California 92101 (Tel. 714: 239-9281)

Katie McLaughlin, Delegate, Fight Inflation Together, 1434 Westwood Blvd.,

Los Angeles, California 90024 (Tel. 213: 474-4518)

Mary K. Means, Consumer Affairs Counselor, San Diego Gas and Electric

Company, 101 Ash Street, San Diego, California 92101 (Tel. 714: 232-4252)

Judy M. Miller, Consumer Federation of California, 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite

540, Los Angeles, California 90010 (Tel. 213 : 385-3481)

Mary Jane Morgan, Consumer Investigator, Consumer League Information

iCenter, 2275 Meyers Avenue, Escondido, California 92025 (Tel. 714: 743-3588)

H-elen Nelson, Director, Center for Consumer Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Extension, 929 North Sixth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 (Tel. 414

:

224-4177)

Al Nicholson. Consultant, 1372 Los Alamos Road, Santa Rosa, California

95405 (Tel. 707 : 539-4689)

Wjlliam H. Parry, Reporter, San Diego Union Newspaper, P.O. Box 191, San

Die^o, California 92115 (Tel. 714: 299-3131)

Margaret C. Pearson, Projects Director, California Public Interest Research

Group, 621 4th Avenue, San Diego, California 92101 (Tel. 714: 236-1508)

Margaret C. Reutgen, Dietition, Headstart, 4933 Ocean Blvd., San Diego, California 92109 (Tel. 714: 488-8925)

Natalie P. Schmidt, Consumer Investigator, Program Coordinator, Consumer

League Information Center, 2275 Meyers Avenue, Escondido, California 92025

(Tel. 714: 743-3588)

JoiNNiE Stahl, Consumer, 3060 Cranbrook Ct., La JoUa, California 92037 (Tel.

714 : 453-44441)

2^
Derek J. S. Stockwell, District Inspector, Weights and Measures, Department

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, 3625 Lougheed Highway, Vancouver,

British Columbia, Canada (Tel. 604 : 666-3834)

Courtney N. Swensen, Writer, Dairy Scope Magazine, 1286 Discovery Street,

Sp. 122, San Marcos, California 92069 (Tel. 714 : 744-3359)

Harry B. Taylor, Regional Supervisor of Weights and Measures, Department

of Consumer and Corjwrate Affairs, 300-303 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (Tel. 204 : 985-2828)

Jane S. Wilson, President, Federal-State Reports, Inc., 2201 Wilson Blvd.,

Arlington, Virginia 22216 (Tel. 703: 525-4950)

Ruth E. Yannatta, Director, California Law Center, Fight Inflation Together,

National Consumer Congress, 1434 Westwood Blvd., Los Angeles, California

90025 (Tel. 213: 474-4518)

265

r^DS-l UA (REV. 7-731

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBS SP-4422. Gov't Accession

No.

3. Recipient's Accession No,

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Report of the 60th National Conference on Weights and

Measures 1975

5. Publication Date May 1976

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S) Sandra J. Edgerly (Editor)8. Performing Organ, Report No.

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 Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP) Same as 9.

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 26-27766

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most sigr^iticant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

This is a report of the proceedings (edited) of the Sixtieth National

Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National

Bureau of Standards , held in San Diego , California, July 13-18, 1975 and attended by state, county, and city weights and measures officials , the Federal Government, business, industry, and consumer organizations.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order, capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name: separated by semicolons) Calibration; Communication; consumers; grain moisture

measurement; laws and regulations; measurement; metric; packaging and labeling;

police radar equipment; standards; supermarket automation; weights and measures

18. AVAILABILITY ^ Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS UNCL ASSIFIED 272

1 Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washineton. D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. CI?. 10:442

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

1 1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22I5I UNCLASSIFIED

$3.30

USCOMM.DC 29042-P74

SELECTED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PUBLICATIONS OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBS Handbook 44

1971 (Replacement

Sheets issued

annually

)

NBS Handbook

105-1

NBS Handbook

105-2

NBS Handbook

105-3

NBS Miscellaneous

Publication 286

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing

and Measuring Devices. Looseleaf (binder

not included). 7.90

Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights .25 Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Measuring Flasks .25 Specifications and Tolerances for Metal Volumetric Field Standards .25 Units of Weight and Measure—Definitions and

Tables of Equivalents 2.25 REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1970 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 342 1.75 1971 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 358 1.50 1972 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 379 1.85 1973 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 391 2.50 1974 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 407 3.75

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 Ofiice 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 State Open Dating Regulation

Model City Ordinance
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use. S300

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

BOOK

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM-2 1 5

YEARS NBS

9721


WERT

BOOKBINDING

MIDDIETOWN PA MAY 81