U.S.

EPARTMENT

OF

COMMERCE

National

Bureau

of

I

Standards

Report of the

57th National Conference

on

Weights and Measures

1972
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards^ was established by an act of Congress March 3,

1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and

technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the

Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measure- ment system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety.

The Bureau consists of the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials

Research, the Institute for Applied Technology, the Center for Computer Sciences and

Technology, and the Office for Information Programs.

THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the

United States of a complete and consistent system of physical measurement; coordinates

that system with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essential services

leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce. The Institute consists of a Center for Radiation Research, an Office of Measurement Services and the following divisions:

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

Linac Radiation - — Nuclear Radiation - — Applied Radiation - — Quantum

Electronics > — Electromagnetics • — Time and Frequency ^ — Laboratory

Astrophysics '• — Cryogenics ^. THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research 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 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 Institute also monitors NBS engineering standards activities and

provides liaison between NBS and national and international engineering standards

bodies. The Institute consists of a Center for Building Technology and the following

divisions and offices: Engineering and Product Standards—Weights and Measures—Invention and

Innovation—Product Evaluation Technology—Electronic Technology—Technical Analysis—Measurement Engineering—Building Standards and Code Services'*—Housing Technology'—Federal Building Technology*—Structures, Materials and Life Safety*—Building Environment*—Technical Evaluation and

Application*—Fire Technology.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts re- search and provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in improving cost effectiveness in the conduct of their programs through the selection, acquisition,

and effective utilization of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus within the executive branch for the development of Federal standards for

automatic data processing equipment, techniques, and computer languages. The Center

consists of the following offices and divisions:

Information Processing Standards—Computer Information—Computer Services —Systems Development—Information Processing Technology.

THE OFFICE FOR INFORMATION PROGRAMS promotes optimum dissemination

and accessibility of scientific information generated within NBS and other agencies of

the Federal Government; promotes the development of the National Standard Reference

Data System and a system of information analysis centers dealing with the broader"

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

that the NBS staff has optimum accessibility to the scientific information of the world,

and directs the public information activities of the Bureau. The Office consists of the

following organizational units:

Office of Standard Reference Data—Office of Technical Information and

Publications—Library—Office of International Relations.

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

' Part of the Center for Radiation Research.

3 Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302.

* Part of the Center for Building Technolog.v.
Report of the

57th National Conference on

Weight and Measures 1972

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials from the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Washington, B.C., July 10-14, 1972

Report Editors: Frances C. Bell

Harold F. Wollin

United States Department of Commerce

Frederick B. Dent, Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

Richard W. Roberts, Director

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 379, 216pages, (May 1973)

Issued (May 1973)

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

Washington, D.C. 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. C13.6/3:379).

Price $1.85 domestic postpaid or $1.50 G.P.O. Bookstore
Abstract

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

on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, held in

Washington, D.C, July 10-14, 1972, and attended by state, county, and city weights

and measures officials, the FedCTal Government, business, industry, and consumer

organizations.

Keywords: Administration; Conference; laws; procedures; regulations; requirements;

technology; weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 26-27766
CONTENTS

(NOTE: The reports of the standing and annual committees and the Treasurer's

report, which were presented on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, have been

arranged together, beginning on page 131, for easier reference.)

Page

Officers of the Conference vi

Standing Committees vi

Annual Committees vii

Open Committee Meetings, Tuesday, July 11, 1972 vii

MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1972

An Affair to Remember, by E. H. Black, Conference Chairman, Director of

Weights and Measures, Ventura County, California 1 Address, by Hon. Robert W. Cairns, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science

and Technology, U. S. Department of Commerce 3

Address of Conference President, by Dr. Lawrence M. Kushner, Acting

Director, National Bureau of Standards 9

Presentation of Honor Awards 15

Awards of Appreciation to Frances C. Bell 16

The Future is Now, by H. F. WoUin, Executive Secretary, National Conference on Weights and Measures 17

AFTERNOON SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1972

Forum on Liaison for the Benefit of Clients and Consumers:

NBS—The View Ahead, by Dr. F. K. Willenbrock, Director, Institute for

Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards 26

OIML—Undo* Congressional Consideration, by W. E. Andrus, Program

Manager for Engineering and Information Processing Standards, In- stitute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards 32

AAR + AREA + SMA + ICC—Keeping on the Right Track:

Remarks by J. J. Robinson, Executive Director, Operating Transportation Division, Association of American Railroads 41

Remarks by F. D. Day, Systems Engineer, Bridge and Building Maintenance, Penn Centred Railroad 42

Remarks by R. T. Brumbaugh, President, Streeter-Amet Division,

Mangood Corporation, and Vice President, Scale Manufacturers

Association 43

Remarks by Hon. R. L. Murphy, Commissioner of Interstate Commerce Commission 45

BBB + GSA—Getting to Know You:

Remarks by D. W. Determan, Vice President, Government and Legal

Affairs, Council of Better Business Bureaus 52

Remarks by R. T. Morgan, Director, Standardization Division, Federal Supply Service, General Services Administration 53

WEDNESDAY EVENING—JULY 12, 1972

Associate Membership Reception 58

III
Page

MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1972

Forum on Managing to Keep Pace with the Consumer Movement:

Program Evaluation—To Thine Own Self be True, by T. M. Stabler,

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards .... 59

Education—Finding the Right Approach to a Vital Effort, by S. W. Stiefel,

Operations Research Analyst, Technical Analysis Division, National

Bureau of Standards 64

Consumerism—Its Spefications, Tolerances, and User Requirements:

Remarks by Mrs. Betty Bay, Office of Consumer Affairs, Executive Office of the President 72

Remarks by S. H. Christie, Jr., Superintendent, Office of Weights and

and Measures, Division of Consumer Affairs, New Jersey

Department of Law and Public Safety 76

Remarks by J. E. Wiley, Jr., Sealer of Weights and Measures, Santa Barbara County, California 78

Remarks by Mrs. Margaret Dana, Consumer Relations Counsel 81

AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1972

Forum on Consumer Concerns in the Marketplace:

Unit Pricing and Open Code Dating:

Remarks by T. W. Leed, Professor of Food Marketing, Department

of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Massachusetts 90

Remarks by C. G. Adamy, Executive Director, National Association of

of Food Chains 93

Remarks by Miss Jean Judge, Director of Consumer Affairs, Grand

Union Company 93

Remarks by H. J. Stern, First Deputy Commissioner of Consumer

Affairs, New York City, New York 96

FDA + FTC + USDA—Regulatory News and Views:

Remarks by J. Gomilla, Chief, Fair Packaging and Labeling Branch, Food

and Drug Administiation 107

Remarks by E. W. Johnson, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission 109

Remarks by J. C. DeHolI, Chief, Labels and Packaging Staff, U. S.

Department of Agriculture 112

MORNING SESSION—FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1972

Forum on Technological Developments to Aid Consumers:

Digital Designs—Weighing:

Remarks by D. B. Kendall, Chief Scale Engineer, Toldeo Scale Company . . 117

Remarks by A. Cattell, Supervisor of Standard Product Engineering,

Fairbanks Morse, Inc 120

Digital Designs — Measuring:

Remarks by W. F. Gerdom, Manager, Customer Service, Tokheim

Corporation, and Chairman, Technical Committee, Gasoline

Pump Manufacturers Association 124

Remarks by R. E. Nix, Assistant to Manager of Engineering, Gilbarco,

Inc 125

Remarks by T. J. McLaughlin, Product Sales Manager, Veeder-Root, Inc. 126

IV
Page

Closed Fill Systems—For Ecology's Sake:

Remarks by R. Southers, Coordinator of Operations and Engineering,

American Petroleum Institute 127

Remarks by G. E. Moore, Vice President, Engineering OPW Division,

Dover Corporation, and Vice Chairman of the SAE Fuel

Supply Systems Committee 128

Remarks by D. J. Hine, NBS Research Associate, American Petroleum

Institute 130

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Report of the Committee on Liaison with the Fedo'al Government, presented

by M. Greenspan, Chairman, Chief Inspector, Department of Consumer Affairs, New York City, New York 131

Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs, presented by G. E. Mattimoe, Chairman, Deputy Director, Division

of Weights and Measures, Hawaii Department of Agriculture I37

Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations, presented by S. D. Andrews, Chairman, Director, Division of Standards, Florida Department

of Agriculture 141

Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, presented by

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

Division, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture 153

REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Report of the Executive Committee, presented by E. H. Black, Chairman, Director of Weights and Measures, Ventura County, CaUfornia 178

Report of the Committee on Nominations, presented by M. Jennings, Chairman, Director, Division of Marketing, Tennessee Department of

Agriculture 181

Report of the Committee on Resolutions, presented by N. M. Ross, Acting

Chairman, Chief Weights and Measures Inspector, Omaha, Nebraska 182

Report of the Committee on Auditing, presented by R. J. Silcock, Chairman,

Inspector of Weights and Measures, Vigo County, Indiana 184

Report of the Treasuro*, presented by C. C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Gary, Indiana 184

Summary of the Incoming Executive Meeting 186

Conferoiee Registration List

y
OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

President: Lawrence M. Kushner, Acting Director,

National Bureau of Standards

Executive Secretary: H. F. Wollin, Assistant Chief,

Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards

Chairman: E. H. Black, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Ventura County, California

Vice Chairmen:

E. W. Ballentine, Executive Assistant, Consumer

Protection Division, South Carolina Department of Agriculture

W. E. CzAiA, Supervisor, Division of Weights and Measures,

Minnesota Department of Public Service

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

. Washington Department of Agriculture

H. K. Sharp, Assistant Director, Marketing Division,

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture

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

Gary, Indiana

Chaplain: J. L Moore, Superintendent, Weights and Measures

Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Sergeants at Arms:

L. H. DeGrANGE, Field Supervisor, Office of Weights and

Measures, Maryland Board of Agriculture

J. C. Stewart, Assistant Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Regulatory Section, Virginia Department of Agriculture

and Commerce

Parliamentarian: D. L. Griffith, Director, Division of Consumer

Protection, West Virginia Department of Labor

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

R. W. Buchanan

M. Dennis

G. L. Johnson

J. H. Johnson

W. B. Kelley

A. J. Ladd

J. L. O'Neill

W. L Thompson

C. Wooten

C. S. Zmudzinski

(All officers of the Conference are, ex officio,

members of the Executive Committee.)

(Officers and Executive Committee members elected by the 57th National Conference

to serve the 58th National Conference on Weights and Measures will be found in the

report of the Nominating Committee, page 181.)

STANDING COMMITTEES

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

parentheses.)

EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

G. E. Mattimoe, Hawaii, Chairman (1)

D. I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri (3)

E. Prideaux, Colorado (2) J. C. Stewart, Virginia

R. T. Williams, Texas (4)

(S. F. Valtri, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was appointed for a five-year term to

replace J. C. Stewart, whose term expired. Mr. Williams replaced Mr. Mattimoe as chairman.)

VI
LAWS AND REGULATIONS

S. D. Andrews, Florida, Chairman (2)

G. L. Delano, Montana

M. R. Dettler, Seattle, Washington (1)

R. M, Leach, Michigan (3)

R. L. Thompson, Maryland (4)

(M. Dennis, Nebraska, was appointed for a five-year term to replace G. L. Delano,

whose term expired. Mr. Andrews was reelected as chairman.)

LIAISON WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

M. Greenspan, New York City, New York, Chairman (1)

L. D. HoLLowAY, Idaho (3)

A. Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association (2)

W. N. Seward, American Petroleum Institute (4)

E. E. WoLSKi, Colgate-Palmolive Company

(J. F. Speer, Milk Industry Foundation, was appointed for a five-year term to

replace Mr. Wolski, whose term expired. Mr. Greenspan was reelected as chairman.)

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

D. E. KoNSOER, Chairman, Wisconsin

T. F. Brink, Vermont (2) J. C. Mays, Dade County, Florida (1)

K. J. SiMiLA, Oregon (4)

W. S. Watson, California (3)

(W. E. CzAiA, Minnesota, was appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr. Konsoer,

whose term expired. Mr. Mays replaced Mr. Konsoer as chairman.)

ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Nominations: M. Jennings, Tennessee, Chairman; J. E. Bowen, Newton.

Massachusetts; J. C. Boyd, Iowa; S. H. Christie, Jr., New Jersey; C. C. Morgan,

Gary, Indiana; F. D. Morgan, Utah; J. D. Walton, Dallas Texas.

Resolutions: N. M. Ross, Omaha, Nebraska, Acting Chairman; J. M, Chohamin,

Middlesex County, New Jersey; A. W. Fenger, Minnesota; L. A. Gredy, Indiana;

D. L. Griffith, West Virginia; R. W. Horger, Santa Clara County, CaUfornia.

Auditing: R. J. Silcock, Vigo County, Indiana, Chairman; J. C. Blackwood,

Arkansas; T. A. Considine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Associate Membership: M. S. Godsman, Bennett Pump Incorporated, Chairman; C. W.

Campbell, Reliance Electric Company; L. J. Moremen, Single Service Institute; A.

Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association; J. F. Speer, Milk Industry Foundation;

B. Wasko, Voland Corporation; E, F. Wehmann, Neptune Meter Company.

REGISTRATIONS

Mrs. F. C. Bell, Mrs. E. M. Burnette, Mrs. S. J. Wilson

LADIES' ARRANGEMENTS

Mrs. H. F. Wollin
TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1972

OPEN COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Tuesday was set aside for meetings of the four Conference standing committees.

Notices of these 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, and the discussions which took place were

particularly helpful to the members of each committee and played an important role

in guiding the committees in their deliberation and preparation of their final reports.

The final reports of the committees will be found beginning on page 13 land 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 Tuesday af- ternoon from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. for the education of the Conference delegates.

VIII
REPORT OF THE FIFTY-SEVENTH NATIONAL

CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

MORNING SESSION-WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1972

(Everett H. Black, C/iaiVman, Presiding)

Mr. J. I. Moore, North Carolina, the Conference Chaplain, delivered

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

AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER

by E. H. Black , Conference Chairman, Director of Weights and

Measures, Ventura County, California

As Chairman of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures, I consider it both an

honor and a privilege to be able to welcome you

to our 57th National Conference on Weights

and Measures. By *'our" National Conference, I include each person in attendance and not just

those who have done such a fine job in putting

this program and the committee reports

together. Together, we all, by our participation,

can make this an outstanding Conference. I

think last year's Chairman, Matt Jennings,

said it in the best and fewest words: Support me if you can. Oppose

me if you must. But above all, participate."

**An Affair to Remember." This is the topic I am going to speak

briefly about today. The event was the scheduled interim meetings of

the four standing committees of the Conference, which were held the

first two weeks of February of this year at the National Bureau of

Standards.

(At this point Mr. Black showed slides of the four standing committees and discussed some highlights of the work of each committee.

I hope that this has helped to give you some idea of what happens

before the reports of the standing committees are acted on by this

Conference.

It is through meetings of this Conference and its committees that

the gas hits the carburetor with go power to the motor and pushes

that beautiful body we know as the National Conference and its

1
shining wheels that is made up of weights and measures officials,

industry representatives, and others. My regret is that we do not have

an orientation program for new attendees to the National Conference,

so that they might better understand the power plant under the

shining body of this Conference. With such knowledge and understanding, we could all go back to our respective jurisdictions or

businesses and help to make the wheels turn faster. Together, we

could develop enough power to win a race rather than just keep up.

I am prompted to ask: '*Are we an acting or a reacting National

Conference?" Everyone directly and indirectly connected with this

National Conference has done an excellent job over the years in

keeping up with matters associated with the weights and measures

field. But in this fast moving world in which we are living, are we some

day going to wake up and find that weights and measures is no longer

an identifiable arm and service of government? Have we become too

complacent and settled into somewhat of a self-satisfied rut?

I believe that we must continue to look for answers to these and

other questions that weights and measures officials and industry

representatives have discussed with me this past year, some of which

could be outlined as follows:

1. How can we better instruct weights and measures officials and

industry representatives so that they will feel a part of and become

active contributors in future meetings of the National Conference?

2. Do we have the framework to challenge and hold the interest of

the local official as well as the interest of those who represent state

jurisdictions?

3. We have a fine Conference organization and procedure. Yet

shouldn't we collectively sit down and devise ways for improving

communications between local, state, regional, and national

organizations? Such communications should extend and feed into the

standing committees of the National Conference for their

deliberations and action, with appropriate feedback through the

communications system.

4. Do we have adequate and proper procedures to handle proven

emergencies?

5. Could the NBS Office of Weights and Measures, with additional

staff, help develop and offer needed assistance concerning metric

conversion as part of their ongoing field training program? Or must

we rely on having each state develop its own program? We are being

asked many questions about simple metric problems that people are

now faced with, and we must supply the answers now, and not

tomorrow.

6. Could not the Office of Weights and Measures, with additional

staff and resources, take a more active role in doing things that the

states are not equipped to do or capable of doing— things that will

2
lead to more effective and uniform weights and measures regulation

and assistance throughout the nation?

These questions and comments have been presented to you solely to

make you think about where we are in weights and measures and what

we can do to assist our, and I emphasize "our," National Conference

to become more active and less reactive in meeting the problems and

issues of the future.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the

speakers who are to participate in our program and to congratulate

those who have contributed so generously and effectively in the work

of the Conference committees. I would also like to thank the staff of

the Office of Weights and Measures for the outstanding job they have

done throughout the year— recognizing the constraints under which

they operate.

I used to enjoy a sideline of coaching the football team at our local

high school. I will tell you what we used to tell the players. No team

will be better than its individual members, water boy to coach. No

game will be better than the individual desire, follow through, and

teamwork.

ADDRESS

by the Honorable Robert W. Cairns , Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce

jj^' My first task is to convey the good wishes of

^^^^w Secretary Peterson. He is sorry he could not be ^ . with you himself today, but he is under several

^ different kinds of pressure and had to forego

that pleasure. However, he is with us in spirit, ^ and I will be quoting him at length in my talk.

Peter G. Peterson is a technologist secretary.

He knows more about the role of science and

technology in our national economy and in our

role in the world economy than any Secretary of

Commerce may have since Herbert Hoover.

Before he became Secretary he prepared a report for the President

entitled "The United States in the Changing World Economy." I would like to tell you today some of the conclusions of that report and

some of the implications, particularly in regard to international

standardization. Today, these are very important considerations in

the Department of Commerce.

As never before, America needs the best it can get from technology

and from its scientists and engineers. For many years we have taken

for granted our technological capabilities and our technological

supremacy over all other nations. But we who are involved in

3
technology today, and I speak of all of us here, may well have some

serious misgivings about our situation.

The truth is that the old assumptions about the superiority of the

United States technology are in serious question. It is not only that

the young people are shunning science and engineering in college. It is

not only that consumers are rebelling about their products and about

technological problems. It is not only that people are concerned about

the impact of pollution and other unwelcome byproducts of a

technological world. The most critical and immediate problem for

technology facing us today is that the United States is losing its

dominant position in the markets of the world. Our economy is really

in jeopardy. Our balance of trades has turned to the minus side of the

ledger for the first time in this century. American productivity in its

industrial output, quality, and quantity, and in the service sector of

our economy in particular is woefully weak and being challenged by a

number of nations we helped put back in business after World War II.

Today America is being tested in a way that makes the Sputnik

challenge pale by comparison.

In the report I cited earlier Mr. Peterson set forth what has become

the basis for President Nixon's new economic policy with regard to

foreign trade and America's industrial development— in short, our

response to this serious deterioration in America's technological and

economic position. Dr. Peterson concluded that, if we are to provide

answers which will assure the economic future of this nation, we must

make large investments of America's financial capital and America's

technological talent, both public and private.

Let me direct your attention to some of the problems as Secretary

Peterson outlined them in his Changing World Economy Report.

First, it becomes obvious that over the past two decades the United

States share of the world's gross national product has been

shrinking— from nearly 40 percent in 1950 to only slightly more than

30 percent in 1970. Those are relative values, because the absolute

value shows the overall gross national product for the world rising

from $700 billion in 1950 to $3.2 trillion in 1970. If we make that

comparison, it might be concluded that we are not in bad shape.

Obviously, our total rose more than fourfold in twenty years; besides,

it was good that the total world wealth was being more uniformly

distributed.

Such superficial analysis bolstered our convictions over the years

that the United States was and remained dominant both in size and

competitiveness in the international economy, and that practices,

institutions, and rules governing international trade and payments

were structured to fit that fact. But the Peterson Report concluded

that we as a nation were too slow to realize that basic structural and

competitive changes were occurring. The fact of the matter is that the

United States was being challenged in the world marketplace, a

challenge symbolized by a net deficit in the balance of trade.

4
Whereas the average annual growth rate in imports exceeded the

growth rate in exports only slightly in the early 1960's, by 1971 the

growth rate of imports had climbed to triple the growth rate in exports. While U.S. manufacturing productivity rose 32 percent from

1960 to 1970, Japanese productivity almost tripled. While U.S. exports of manufactured goods rose 110 percent, Japanese exports

quadrupled.

Overall, the United States Industry still performs and uses its R &

D better than any nation in the world, but there is an interesting

disparity in foreign trade for two important classes of manufactured

products. Imports of so-called nontechnology intensive manufactured

goods have climbed drastically since 1958, when imports equalled

exports. This could be referred to as the year in which the Marshall

Plan nations achieved competitiveness in the world market. Exports

in these products are again on the decline.

Incidentally, the nontechnology intensive products are materials

that are basic in nature, particularly raw materials and the like. The

technology intensive products include manufactured products like

scientific and communications equipment, and other types of products

which have a lot of technology in them.

The technology intensive products show a different pattern. The

United States still exports more than it imports, although the gap is

narrowing. It is obvious that if you compare the negative situation on

the nontechnology intensive products and the positive situation, you

will get a net picture, which is diminishing and has become negative.

So effectively did Mr. Peterson present his case to the White House

that the application of technology is vital to industry, to society, and

to the wealth and welfare of our citizens in the world economy, that

the President sent to the Congress on March 16 of this year the first

presidential message ever on science and technology. The main

thrusts of that message are:

1. While U.S. excellence in science and technology leads the world,

we have been deficient in obtaining maximum economic and social

benefits from our national R&D investment. Therefore, we must

target better on research and development to achieve the national

benefits that we want.

2. A new partnership between the Federal Government and the

private sector must be obtained which will produce a favorable climate

for research, development, invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

The message asserts that only through the fullest utilization of our

national scientific and technological potential can we provide the

economic health necessary to sustain our national aspirations.

But a favorable balance of trade is only one of the measures that

would help the economy. Our rate of productivity has also been falling

over the whole of the last century. A rising living standard with

5
controlled inflation must rest on raising our productivity, and the new

demands being placed on the economy by the pursuit of an improved

quality of life for our citizens increases this challenge.

The President has made it clear that, if we do not begin to solve the

productivity problem, we cannot achieve our objectives of higher real

wages for our workers, or of higher profits to attract and spend the

capital needed to provide the record number of new jobs, up to 20

million this decade.

In the last five years of the 1960 's, the United States had the worst

record of productivity of any major power. Our total productivity

increased only 10 percent, at the same time that Europe's productivity rose 40 to 50 percent, and Japan's 90 percent. Yet, with 60

percent of the labor force now engaged in the service sector of our

economy, where productivity rose only four-tenths of one percent per

year during the last four or five years, it is clear that manufacturing

alone cannot carry the burden of overall productivity improvement.

We at the Department of Commerce, and specificaUy at the

National Bureau of Standards, are taking a hard look at new ways to

help U.S. industries enhance their productivity and competitiveness

on a broad front. We are taking our course from the President's lead.

He feels that is appropriate for the Federal Government to encourage

private research and development to the extent that the normal

operation of the market mechanisms is not effective in bringing

needed innovations into use. He has mobilized many segments of the

Government to search for initiatives which can enhance United States

industry's efforts to improve its productivity and reestablish

America's position in the world marketplace.

He specifically asked the Department of Commerce to conduct

continuing studies of the competitiveness and technological condition

of all parts of the United States industry and to be the focus in the

Federal Government for the development of policy regarding industrial research and development.

How well we accomplish that task may have great impact on this

country's position in the world market in years to come. America's

ability to produce the necessities and the luxuries of life and to keep

our people gainfully employed depends on our industrial ability to

mass produce products for large markets. Producing products for

more than two hundred million citizens in a coherent national

market— that is the basis of our economic health.

We are not alone in understanding this principle. The nations of the

Common Market and European Free Trade Association are trying to

put together a market of 235 million people in Western Europe. To do

this, they must harmonize their measurement language and develop

common engineering standards so that they may exchange goods

freely among all of these nations.

Until quite recently, differences in measurement systems and

6
engineering standards did not have a major impact on world trade, in

that they were less important than other factors, like price,

reputation, reliability of the manufacturer, superior technology, and

quality of the product.

Now, however, differences of engineering standards are taking on a

new importance, because the countries abroad are agreeing on quality

standards and certification programs. The agreements provide that,

when products are certified by the producing country as meeting the

agreed engineering standards, they will be accepted without further

inspection or tests by all the other countries adhering to the

agreement. This mechanism will increasingly serve to facilitate trade

among the agreeing countries and can inhibit imports from all other

countries.

The urgent need now, if this potential nontariff barrier to trade is

not to have a major impact on our exports, is for our much greater

participation in the development of international engineering standards and our access to certification programs.

This subject of international standardization was a major topic in

the Metric Study about which you have heard much in the last couple

of Conferences. I will not go over the conclusions of that study again,

but our measurement usage will have an impact on our effectiveness

in international standards. It would be a grave mistake to think that

we must totally give up our own accepted engineering standards when

we participate, even though the international standards will be

written in metric measurement units. Many U.S. engineering standards are so technically superior to those of other nations that they

are used abroad, even though these may not be formally adopted as

national standards of those countries.

In addition, there are established procedures for nations to get

together and write engineering standards acceptable to all. In these

deliberations through the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electro-Technical Commission (lEC) we have every reason to expect that U.S. technolog>'

will receive the recognition it is due if we participate vigorously in the

negotiations.

Today only about 2,500 international standards and recommendations have been adopted by ISO and lEC. The world needs

somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 standards to function effectively. The industrial pressure to rationalize dimensions into metric

units will either force conversion to metric on a product -by-product

basis, or will drastically increase the expense U.S. manufacturers will

have to bear in keeping double inventories.

In view of these considerations, we must say that the most rational

stand we can take is vigorous participation in international standardization as proponents of U.S. engineering practice, combined with

a planned, voluntary conversion to metric usage in this country'. This
is the point of view that the Department of Commerce and the

National Bureau of Standards have taken before the Congress.

We are supporting before the Congress legislation to improve U.S.

participation in international standaridzation and, of course,

legislation to facilitate U.S. conversion to the metric system of

measurement. On February 29 the Department of Commerce sent to

the Congress legislation which would create a National Metric

Conversion Board to plan and coordinate a voluntary conversion

process in which metric units would become the most common units of

measure in America. The Board, to be made up of 25 representatives

of all sectors of our society, including industry, labor, trade

associations, citizens groups, and government, appointed by the

President and four members of Congress, would assist industry and

the public in adjusting to the use of metric measurement units.

The legislation introduced by members of both political parties in

the House and in the Senate declares that the policy of this nation

shall be to facilitate and encourage the substitution of the metric

system of weights and measures in place of the customary current

measurement units in education, trade, commerce, and all other

sectors of the economy. It is intended that metric units would become

the predominant, although not exclusive, language of measurement

within a period of ten years from the date of enactment.

To assist American industry in the international standards effort,

the Department of Commerce is supporting the International

Voluntary Standards Cooperation Act, also now before Congress.

This Act assigns to the Secretary of Commerce the principal

responsibility within the Government for promoting international

standardization activities. Among the things that the bill envisions

the Department doing are the following:

First, identify international standardization activities which affect

substantially the foreign commerce of the United States, and

determine where the participation by domestic organizations is insufficient to assure that the interests of the United States are

adequately protected.

Second, provide for appropriate participation by private and

governmental units of the United States in these standardization

activities.

Third, encourage the use of international voluntary standards and

international systems within the United States.

In short, we are talking here about having greater government

participation and a point of contact (namely, the Secretary of Commerce in this case) for an overall view of the U.S. international

standards activity and for doing something positive to improve our

performance. We have never really had such an asset before in our

international standards activities.

This, then, is something of an overview of our current thinking on

8
the U.S. role in the world market. As you can see, the Department of

Commerce is both concerned about the present situation and is doing

something positive about it. As people involved every day in

technology, I know you will be interested in the future of some of

these issues I have discussed. We at the Department will take care to

keep you informed. We welcome your interest, and, of course, your

support.

ADDRESS OF THE CONFERENCE PRESIDENT

by Dr. Lawrence M. Kushner , Acting Director,

National Bureau of Standards

Speaking to the National Conference is easy

in one way: I can eliminate the introduction to

my speech because I don't have to impress you

with the importance of measurement. In

another respect, though, it is always difficult to

talk to people who are in the same field as you

are. You had better tell them something new or

risk boring them half to death.

Fortunately, a lot of new things have been

happening on the frontiers of measurement,

and I thought I would round up some of them

this morning. Together, these new developments give a picture of

measurement as a dynamic and fascinating science— and, of course, I think that is a very accurate and precise picture.

On the surface the science of measurement is far from exciting.

Although we make billions of measurements every day, the entire

system of physical measurement can be traced back through its

family tree to just a few base units, such as the meter and kilogram. It

seems very simple, and very fixed. Dig a little deeper, though, beyond

the myths of ivory-tower, dusty-archive metrology, and a dynamic,

challenging branch of science comes to light.

Consider length, for example. Although the French founders of the

metric system sensibly decided to base the meter on an invariant

natural quantity, the earth's quandrant— made visible as a platinumiridium bar— served as the standard of length until 1960. At that

time, by International agreement, a wavelength definition of length

was chosen, based on the light from 86Kr lamp. The meter is now

defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of orange-red light from 86Kr.

Even this definition is far from perfect. The accuracy of measurements

with the Kr line is about a part in ten million, and the Krypton light

can produce interference over only about 50 cm. But the laser was

bom around 1960, and now a stabilized He-Ne laser offers the

9
possibility of a vastly improved definition of length— at least one

hundred times the accuracy, and the ability to produce interference

fringes over several hundred meters. So metrology is not static, and it

does not always follow other scientific advancements— it often leads.

As metrologists pursue that next decimal place of accuracy, some

unexpected and very exciting opportunities come their way. And

these opportunities, if followed far enough, often lead in a circular way

back to the quest for new knowledge and further accuracy. A beautiful

example of this interaction is unfolding at the NBS Boulder

Laboratories. Some years ago a project was started to determine the

speed of light with high accuracy. The speed of light, of course, is an

extremely important quantity, entering into many calculations and

having important theoretical implications. The approach used at

Boulder involved sophisticated measurements of several wavelengths

in a long-path optical system, an experiment requiring a super-stable

environment. The apparatus was installed in an abandoned gold mine

a few miles from Boulder. The mine provided a steady temperature

and freedom from man-made vibration. Here, in these quiet

surroundings, instabilities in the laser light source severely limited

the accuracy that could be attained. So the project team went back to

the laboratory and after a few years of hard work developed a superstable He-Ne laser. This was done by locking the laser light to the

natural vibrations of methane molecules in a glass cell.

The methane stabilized laser provides a much more accurate

method of realizing the meter than 86Kr, and the laser may well

replace ^^Kr as the International Length Standard.

Once stabilized, the laser was taken back to the gold-mine experiment. It proved to be so stable a light source, in fact, that in a 30

meter interferometer anchored to bed rock the investigators began to

see tiny motions of the earth produced by solar and lunar tides and

earthquake tremors. This "laser seismometer" can detect vibrations

as small as 20 trillionths of an inch. This is equivalent to detecting

changes of 1/100 of an inch in the distance from the earth to the sun.

So you see how the quest for measurement accuracy leads down

strange, unexpected, but very useful paths. Who knows now how this

** laser seismometer," which— remember— started out to be a measurement of the speed of Ught, might aid us in forecasting earthquakes.

Another example of the complexities and interrelationships of

modern science occurs in the measurement of time. From the dawn of

history man has -been concerned with time measurement, progressing

from sundials to pendulum clocks to balance wheel watches to today's

ceisum beam atomic clock accurate to 1 second in 30,000 years. The

atomic clock is used to control the precise time and frequency

broadcasts from the NBS stations WWV, WWVH, WWVL, and

WWVB. This fantastic ability to measure time, coupled with that

10
versatile new light source, the laser, has led to a complex project to

measure the distance from the moon to the earth. In July of 1969,

Apollo 11 astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin placed an array of

retroreflectors on the moon. This package contains 100 so-called

comer reflectors that have the property of returning a beam of light

back to its source without alignment being a critical factor. NBS

scientists were involved in the design of the reflector package, and in

making measurements with the array. In essence, what is being done

on a continuing basis is to shine the beam of a ruby laser from the

earth to the reflector, measuring very accurately the time required for

the laser light to make a round trip. The original measurements were

made with the Lick Observatory 120 inch telescope. Measurements

are continuing at the NASA Goddard Space facilities, with stations

planned in Japan, France, Russia, and other countries.

Pulses returning from the moon, a round trip of 2-1/2 seconds, are

timed to within 2 ns, giving an earth-moon distance accurate to within

1 foot.

Data obtained with continuing measurements will: * more accurately define the moon's motion

* perhaps reveal continental drift here on earth

* test the constancy of gravity as the universe expands.

Back on earth we also have been working on a system to distribute

time signals very accurately on commercial TV broadcasts. With very

minor modification, home TV receivers could be made to display time

of day on the screen when desired. Or the incoming signal could be

used to control a clock at the receiver. In cooperation with TV networks and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, we have

also shown the feasibility of using the same technology to put captions on the screen, a technique that would be of great help to people

with impaired hearing yet need not interfere with the viewing pleasure

of others.

NBS work to establish an accurate basis for x-ray wavelength

measurements also shows promise in an unrelated area. First let me

describe the x-ray wavelength experiment, which is of vast importance to crystallographers, solid state physicists, and theoreticians. In essence, what is being done is to pass an x-ray beam

through several parallel, near-perfect silicon crystals. An x-ray interference pattern is formed on the far side of the crystals. When one

of the crystals is moved relative to the others, a series of x-ray fringes

is produced and recorded. The atomic planes of the silicon crystals act

as a "picket fence," and the individual layers of atoms can be counted

as they move past the observing apparatus.

At the same time, a delicate measurement is made of the distance

the crystal has been moved. The number of atomic layers per unit

distance is then easily determined.

11
Such accurate knowledge of interatomic distances in crystals is

leading to some interesting experimentation— and speculation—

concerning a mass standard. For almost 100 years the standard of

mass has been an artifact, a cylinder of platinum-iridium. Over the

years numerous proposals have been made to base the kilogram on

some natural foundation, but none has come close to replacing the

present standard. But a possibility does exist. Since the spacing of

planes of silicon atoms in crystals has been accurately measured, and

since silicon crystals can be grown that are nearly perfect, the number

of atoms per unit volume can readily be calculated. If the density of

silicon is known with sufficient accuracy, then the weight of a single

atom of silicon can be calculated to high accuracy. What is needed is a

technique to determine exactly how many silicon atoms are in a

particular crystal. While we know how many atoms exist in a unit

volume, we cannot count all the atoms in a crystal. Once this next step

is taken, it will be possible to create any number of equally accurate

mass standards from highly perfect crystals.

One of the more fascinating aspects of science is its tendency to

provide us with solutions to questions which have not necessarily

been asked yet. The laser, for example, started as virtually a

laboratory curiosity. One of the first practical uses, incidentally, was

demonstrated at NBS when we showed that the laser could be used to

measure length over long distances. Within a short time both new

uses for lasers, and the number of lasers in use, multiplied in rabbity

fashion. Recently, a photographer from Fortune magazine did a

picture story on measurement at NBS. He was instructed by his

editors to include only one or two laser pictures. After touring NBS

for a day, the photographer complained that looking for a laboratory

which had no laser was like looking for a laboratory which had no

electricity. He won a dispensation from the editor, and the story

contained photos of quite a few working lasers.

A much newer device which is showing much the same

multiplication tendencies is the low temperature superconducting,

solid state device known as the Josephson junction. This device

produces a high frequency radio-like signal when an electrical voltage

is applied to it, or conversely, produces an electrical voltage when a

high frequency signal—microwaves, for example—is applied to it. The

relationship between the frequency and the voltage is very accurately

computable. This is an interesting relationship, because frequency is

one of the most precise measurements man is capable of making. We

see the possibility of carrying some of that accuracy along into basic

electrical measurements. Also, because the Josephson effect ties dc

voltages to radio and other frequencies, it brings superconductivity

solidly into electronic technology.

One of the Bureau's main activities with the Josephson junction is

in voltage measurement. A junction is installed in a waveguide, as you

12
see here, and microwaves are used to generate a voltage. As I've said,

we can measure frequency so accurately that the output voltage can

be computed very accurately and used as a standard or for calibration.

We have just recently used the Josephson junction to replace the

standard electrical cells which have traditionally been the basis for our

voltage measurements.

The potentialities of Josephson devices have generated a great deal

of activity in the voltage measurement field. One of the limiting

factors in intercomparing results among various laboratories has been

the lack of agreement on the precise value of their voltage standards.

Now agreement need only be reached on frequency— a much more

feasible task.

Because the Josephson devices are so sensitive to radio and

magnetic fields, they are coming into use as very sensitive probes in a

variety of applications. They show promise as temperature measuring

instruments in the very cold regions— down to less than 5 thousandths of a degree above absolute zero. Another group of Josephson instruments goes under the name

superconducting quantum-mechanical interference device, or SQUID.

We are developing SQUIDS to measure various radio and magnetic

fields. Among the more interesting applications is one device

developed at our Boulder laboratories to record magnetically the

human heartbeat. The result of monitoring magnetic signals from the

heart is a magnetocardiogram which looks like and gives much the

same information as an electrocardiogram. The advantage of the

magnetic device is that it is battery-operated and portable and

requires no complicated connections like an electrocardiograph. For

the magnetic examination, the patient need not even undress. The

technique also has some drawbacks at this early stage of development. Stray magnetic fields can wash out the readings. We are testing

the instrument in an abandoned mine shaft in Colorado for that

reason. This is a poor location for a doctor's office, and until

technology is developed to get above ground you probably will not be

having a magnetocardiogram in your physician's office.

The quest for more accurate measurements keeps the metrologist

working at the leading edges of physical knowledge. New theories,

newly discovered phenomena, and new equipment all have potential

for improving our ability to measure. In turn, the quest for better

measurements often leads in a circular way to knowledge that can be

applied to many fields. Working in the field of measurement is exciting, challenging and rewarding. To paraphrase a popular beer

commercial, I think metrology can safely be called "the unexpected

pleasure."

Now let me close by experiencing an expected pleasure— to announce the appointment of those who will serve on the Conference

standing committees.

13
As you all know, the work of this Conference is largely carried on by

these committees. Thus, the extent to which the Conference is effective is very dependent on the committee members—their

dedication and their industry. Thus, in making these new appointments, I would like simultaneously to recognize the outgoing

members and to thank them for their loyal service.

Appointments to standing committees,- National Conference on

Weights and Measures, are as follows:

Committee on Laws and Regulations:

Mr. Mike Dennis, Supervisor of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Nebraska, is appointed for a five-year term to

replace Mr. Gary Delano, Montana, whose term is expiring.

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances:

Mr. Warren E. Czaia, Supervisor, Division of Weights and

Measures, Minnesota, is appointed for a five-year term to replace

Mr. Don Konsoer, Wisconsin, whose term is expiring.

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs:

Mr. Sam Valtri, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is appointed for a five-year term to

replace Mr. James C. Stewart, Virginia, whose term is expiring.

Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government:

Mr. John Speer, Executive Assistant, Milk Industry Foundation,

Washington, D.C., is appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr.

Edward E. Wolski, Colgate-Palmolive Company, whose term is

expiring.

14
PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

Dr. Kushner presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference who, by attending the 56th Conference in 1971, reached one of

the five attendance categories for which recognition is made—

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

Award Recipients

25 Yean

A. Sanders

R. W. Searles

Scale Manufacturers Association

Medina County, Ohio

20 Yean

R. W. Foster

B. D. Miller

Single Service Institute

Byron Miller & Associates

15 Yean

W. J. Kehoe

F. L. McIntyre

H. E. SlEBOLD

C. W. Silver

R. H. ToLSON

O. H. Watson

H. L. Zupp

Paterson, New Jersey

John J. McIntyre Sons

Liquid Controls Corporation

Revere Corporation of America

Texaco, Inc.

Scales and Weighing

Neptune Meter Company

10 Yean

R. W. Glendenning

L. A. Gredy

E. T. Hunter

J. L. LiTTLEFIELD

R. E. Nix

J. Pollock

J. R. Shaeffer

H. K. Sharp

L. W. Vezina

C. S. Zmudzinski

Maryland

Indiana

Glen Cove, New York

Gerber Products Company

Gilbarco, Inc.

Kearny, New Jersey

Thurman Scale Company

Oklahoma

Alexandria, Virginia

St. Joseph County, Indiana

15
AWARDS OF APPRECIATION TO MRS. FRANCES C. BELL

Mrs. Bell, Secretary, NBS Office of Weights and Measures, was

presented two awards for her many years of valuable service to the

National Conference on Weights and Measures. She retired from

active duty with the Bureau of Standards after 24 years of government service.

Photo left: Dr. Kushner presents Mrs. Bell with a silver tray that

was engraved with the following inscription:

To Frances C. Bell

In sincere appreciation for many years of dedicated service to

the National Conference on Weights and Measures

July 12, 1972

Photo right: Chairman Black presents Mrs. Bell with a Certificate

of Appreciation on behalf of the Conference membership.

16
THE FUTURE IS NOW

by H. F. WoLLiN, Executive Secretary, National Conference on

Weights and Measures

H^^^^^^^^^K It is a privilege for me to take this opportunity to speak to you this morning about

1 the future of weights and measures— a future

that I predict will challenge our ambitions,

' ^ ^ cause a change in our modus operandi, and

threaten the security of those who adhere to the

^ ^ status quo. This prediction is not intended to

W, .;4 create alarm but rather to stimulate your

^ ^ " thoughts now on what you may be confronted

^ with in the future. The views I express are

generally my own, which have been conditioned

by some eighteen years of experience in the field.

Let me begin by commenting on the immediate future; that is, some

of the events of this week during the 57th National Conference.

I believe it is important for you to understand that the work of this

Conference began immediately following the adjournment of the 56th

National Conference last July. Such effort involved the activity of

many people over the year to establish the framework and direction

for what is to be accomplished during, and as a result of, this annual

meeting. Thus, I hope you will accept the fact that the National

Conference on Weights and Measures is not a one-week affair; nor is it

the instrument of a select group. It is truly a national conference for

all governments, industries, and the nation. Those who have

responsibility and contribute to its plan and conduct do so with the

utmost desire and dedication to serve the best interests of all concerned.

I feel the importance of the work by the several Conference standing

committees over the year should be fully recognized and the diligence

of committee members should be applauded. Their task is not a simple

one as evidenced yesterday during the discussion on the Committees'

tentative reports and later when each committee tackled the

preparation of its final report. So let us remember this week, and in

the future, that each committee strives to solve problems and offer

guidance on the many complexities that are encountered in weights

and measures— and in a way that fulfills the will of the majority.

Obviously, differences of opinion between and among government and

industry people will always exist, and the special interests of some will

and must go unserved.

Looking ahead to the remainder of the Conference this week, I hope

you will find the program that follows to be interesting and informative. As you know by now, a somewhat new and different ap17
proach in programming has been arranged. The new format of open

forum sessions was selected in order to increase delegate participation

and the exchange of information on a variety of topics and issues. We

have been most fortunate in arranging for the participation of many

qualified representatives of government, industry, and consumer

organizations during the forum sessions.

The procedural ground rules for each forum will be basically the

same and shall include brief opening statements by the forum

moderator and speakers followed by questions from the floor. Obviously, the success of each forum will depend on audience participation and the dialogue that develops with the speakers. It should

be mentioned, however, that time for discussion must be limited due

to the number of people involved and subject matter to be covered.

Thus, it is suggested that you be mindful of the time problem and

assist us in the orderly functioning of the forimi program. I am sure

that some of you would prefer to spend several hours discussing a

topic of particular interest to you, but to do so would require the

elimination of some topics that are equally important to others. With

your understanding and cooperation, I am looking forward to the open

foriim sessions starting this afternoon and to the questions and answers that will be generated to help serve and guide us in the future.

Now, I would like to comment on matters that relate generally to

this year's Conference theme, "Weights and Measures— The Consumers' Affair." Is there anyone here today who questions the fact

that weights and measures is the consumer's affair? I doubt it, and I especially hope not. Why then was this theme selected and what are

some of its implications?

Very simply, the theme draws attention to the fact that weights and

measures activities are an integral part of this nation's growing

concern and effort to serve the interests of consumers. Specifically,

the Conference program this year was planned in such a way as to

include developments and subject matter that would reflect our involvement in consimier affairs. Admittedly, not everything we will

talk about and take action on this week will seem to relate to the

consumer protection movement, but we know that it will, either

directly or indirectly. And these subjects will range from railroad cars

and packets of flower seeds to computer systems and international

standardization. Of course, we must accept the fact that most

everyone nowadays wants a '*piece of the action" and to be identified

as serving the consumer's cause. We are only a small part of a very

large group of people and forces who provide services and assistance

to meet the needs of consumers. The list is endless and includes

Virginia Knauer, Ralph Nader, government agencies, politicians,

associations, lawyers, businessmen, and, yes, even smoke stack inspectors and dog catchers. No one can deny that the role of each is

important, but the magnitude of effort by each group is what needs to

18
be understood and measured. In this regard, I feel the weights and

measures effort should clearly stand out in importance from the efforts of many others.

Let me briefly explain why I feel this way and comment on some

problems that have had an influence on weights and measures

programs.

Weights and measures administration is vital to the economic

welfare and to the integrity of measurements in commerce throughout

the United States. It is a service of government that protects not only

consvuners but all parties involved in commercial quantity determinations and transactions, including manufacturers, businesses, and

industries.

The weights and measures effort is carried out by approximately

three thousand state and local regulatory officials. Federal involvement and assistance rests primarily with the Office of Weights

and Measures of the National Bureau of Standards. Its contributions

over the years— including sponsorship of this National Conference—

have been instrumental in achieving a high level of nationwide

uniformity and effectiveness at the state and local levels.

The magnitude of the weights and measures effort can best be

appreciated when one understands that the value of all goods and

services measured commercially in the United States is $710 billion

annually. The economic impact and benefits of this segment of the

nation's commerce by weights and measures regulatory control is

tremendous. A loss of only one percent through inaccurate

measurement would represent a $7.1 billion loss in commercial

transactions.

Fortunately, such a loss is not likely to occur, for through the years

weights and measures officials have provided the necessary control

over commercial measurement and their effort has maintained "equity

in the marketplace." But what would be the situation if weights and

measures enforcement was discontinued or weakened to a point of

ineffectiveness? Could this happen and would not the economic loss to

this nation be chaotic? You know the answer to these questions as well

as I. What some of you may not know is that we have approached a

dangerous crossroads at the Federal, state, and local levels. Many

organizations and programs have been or are being severely curtailed

through reorganizations or budget reductions. In my opinion, this is

due primarily to the fact that weights and measures people and

programs have been generally taken for granted by the public and top

officials in government. The growing and politically popular area of

consumer affairs has surprisingly contributed to the crisis. Although

the weights and measures effort should be recognized as a fundamental part of consumer interest programs, such has not been the

case throughout the nation generally.

19
I am glad to say there are some exceptions. In a few states and

metropolitan jurisdictions, programs have been broadened and

strengthened because of their recognition and involvement with the

consumer movement. However, a major problem exists in those areas

where programs are being ignored, reduced, or taken over by a new

breed of consumer advocates and their newly formed organizations. In

these areas, weights and measures suffers from the stigma that it is

somewhat out of date, provides limited protection, and is generally an

unknown service of government in the eyes of those who profess to be

serving the cause of consumers, yet who undoubtedly are looking for

something that is more glamorous politically. This general apathy

towards weights and measures sometimes causes me to wonder— are

we failing? Is the value of our work so insignificant? Or, is it the price

one pays in government for doing a job well, over a long period of

time, with little or no fanfare?

Some will argue that the very name of our profession— weights and

measures— is the cause for our dilemma, and that it should be

changed to something that clearly identifies who we are, what we do,

and whom we serve— in modern terminology so to speak. I personally

find it difficult to accept the reasoning or justification for such a

change. Weights and measures has a historical and worldwide

meaning and can be traced back through the pages of history to the

beginning of civilization. In my opinion, the solution lies not in

changing terminology but rests with those of us who can and want to

educate people on the full meaning and mission of weights and

measures.

Let us keep our name—weights and measures— and call upon our

friends in the consumer movement, agencies of government,

legislatures, and industry to assist in this educational effort. In this

regard, and accepting the fact that tradition is sometimes indefensible, I contend that it would be more advantageous for present

weights and measures bureaus, divisions, offices, and the like to

continue to be so called and to operate as a separate indentifiable

organizational unit of whatever larger department it now falls or may

be part of in the future. For example, a Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Consumer Affairs, would be a logical setup

and one that gives cognizance to the many diversified activities and

the factors with which we are involved, such as: laws, regulations,

standards, measurement, technology, inspections, device testing,

package control, education, and enforcement. In addition, by being a

part of a consumer affairs organization, weights and measures activities should receive the recognition and support that they

justifiably desire.

In the final analysis then, I see weights and measures as being the

consumers' affair— and we want it that way. But let us not overlook

the fact that weights and measures is also the nation's affair—

20
transcending in some respects those things of interest only to consumers. By the same token, there is much involved in the consumer

movement that has no relationship to weights and measures and this

is as it should be. The challenge we face is to establish the proper

relationships with others in the consumer movement and to work with

them as allies while at the same time maintaining our historic

governmental role of providing impartial protection and assistance to

all who sell and buy goods and services in the marketplace.

I am confident that officials throughout the United States are ready

and willing to extend the boundaries of their programs and to accept

whatever changes are necessary to meet the needs and goals of the

future. A number of you have already experienced organizational

changes and broadened program objectives. Many of you are here this

week to find the answer to questions and receive guidance on how best

to cope with the consumer issues. Hopefully, you will not go home

disappointed, for in addition to the program we have planned and the

speakers you will hear, you may have an opportunity to meet with

representatives of consumer organizations from throughout the

United States. I mention this because invitations were sent to every

consumer organization we could locate in America inviting their

attendance at this Conference. To our consumer friends in the

audience, I say welcome aboard. We look forward to your participation this week, and to a closer working relationship with you in

the future.

This concludes my comments on matters relating generally to the

57th National Conference. The remainder of my remarks will be

devoted to a brief summary of those things that I view will be important factors and considerations in the months and years ahead.

Some of what I cover will be discussed in greater detail during the

forums of this Conference. In fact, I would encourage discussion on

these points with the experts who will be appearing on the program

for this is the time and place to explore and construct the path to our

future. My views are offered in no particular order of importance or

priority and will begin with several points that have already been

mentioned but which I feel need to be stressed.

1. It is time for weights and measures administration to be duly

recognized and adequately supported at all levels of government—

Federal, state, and local— and by the public at large.

2. It is time for a reevaluation of priorities in consumer affairs and

for weights and measures programs to be placed near the top—not the

bottom—of the consumer movement spectrum.

3. It is time for those weights and measures officials who prefer the

status quo to understand that they will find it difficult, if not impossible, to justify the maintenance of their programs on the basis of

accomplishment in the past.

21
4. The weights and measures organization of the future will find it

necessary to develop new approaches to keep pace with advances in

technology, commerce, and socio-economic changes in the nation.

Weights and measures officials must be prepared to get involved in

new programs in which their measurement expertise and enforcement

qualifications can be put to effective use to achieve new goals and to

meet the growing need for more efficient and equitable measurement

control in commerce.

It will be our responsibility to ensure positive disclosure of all

quantifiable material factors influencing value comparisons in the

exchange of goods and services. This will mean that weights and

measures programs may branch out into new areas of measurement

that involve declarations of quality as well as our traditional concern

with quantity. Among our new concerns may be such things as

warranties, guarantees, and claims of durability on various consumer

tj^e products where these claims are based on measurements. Going

one step further, I can see our involvement in those public protection

programs that are measurement sensitive and oriented such as environment, health, and safety programs. As a matter of fact, this view

is more than mere speculation, for weights and measures officials have

already been approached to render technical aid in the monitoring of

pollution devices and the testing of air tower accuracy in service

stations.

5. The enormous growth of the population in the United States

coupled with parallel increases in the economy has brought about

demands on government to provide better services and a higher

standard of living. To meet these demands successfully, weights and

measures officials should realize the importance of developing wise

fiscal programs that will be responsive to public needs but at a

minimal cost. The significance of this is that we must develop and

apply better management techniques in order to make the best

possible use of our resources. Additionally, and probably more important, we have got to be able to prove that we are using dollars

wisely and to show the benefits of our effort. Providing assistance and

guidance to state and local jurisdictions in this area will be given high

priority by the NBS Office of Weights and Measures. The use of the

computer will help accomplish this task and has already been utilized

in developing the initial parameters and guidelines for such a

program.

6. Weights and measures technology will continue to take on

greater sophistication and require the development of new test

equipment and methodology. There is a critical demand for

engineering reseeirch and studies in several areas and these demands

will grow in number and intensity. Major attention must be given to

improving and strengthening the technical capability of officials

through specialized training and stepped up educational opportunities.

22
The specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements as

published in NBS Handbook 44 will continue to serve as the legal

basis and criteria in the determination of device accuracy and ac- ceptability. I would be the first to admit that Handbook 44 is not a

panacea for all the technical situations and problems in our field. It is,

however, the best set of rules that we, and our predecessors, have been

able to develop and the search for improvements is never ending. The

door is open to anyone who desires to offer recommendations on

improving Handbook 44. I emphasize "recommendations" for

whatever is published in Handbook 44 must first be approved by the

voting membership of this Conference and then it must also undergo

promulgation by the states to be officially accepted. Forty-eight

states have taken such action on Handbook 44 and the other 2 states

are guided by its provisions.

To wrap up my comments on this item, I suggest that we be careful

not to impede innovations in weights and measures technology with

regulations that place undue constraints on new ideas and designs.

The emphasis of Handbook 44 should be on the performance of

devices and include only such design and user requirements that have

a significant bearing on performance. In my way of thinking, the end

results that are obtained from weighing and measuring devices should

be the prime concern of weights and measures officials— and not

necessarily how one arrives at these results.

7. In our desire to serve the cause of consumers, we should not

forget that all of the nation's businesses and industries that are

involved in some way with commerce have a large stake in the affairs

of weights and measures administration. It is business and industry

who are regulated and they rightfully demand that weights and

measures requirements and activities be fair, technically competent,

and uniformly administered. It is not surprising, therefore, that the

staunchest supporters, other than the regulatory officials themselves,

for sound enforcement programs are the representatives of business

and industry for they recognize that such enforcement is for their

benefit as well as for their regulation. This is a very unique situation

and is perhaps unparalleled in any other governmental program.

But what of the future? Can we look to the continuation of

cooperation with business and industry? I believe we can, but I also

see a new trend developing that could cause somewhat of a change in

our relationship with business and industry. This trend involves the

transfer of responsibiUty for compliance with weights and measures

laws and regulations from regulatory officials to the industrial and

business communities. In other words, the weights and measures

activity is changing from its traditional service mode to that of

regulatory supervision and surveillance.

It will be up to the manufacturer and businessman to know and

comply with existing weights and measures laws and regulations at

23
all times. As in other fields of law enforcement, ignorance of the law is

no defense and violators will be cited as circumstances require. Of

course, the responsibility of business and industry to adhere to

weights and measures requirements has always existed but some

apparently are not aware of, or have been lax in assuming, their

responsibility.

This leads me to my last point, which has to do with some future

activities of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

8. The entire membership of this Conference— government, industry, and consumers— should accept the opportunity, if not the

responsibility, to inform people throughout the nation on the meaning

and significance of weights and measures administration. In my

opinion, this is not a Utopian scheme and the benefits to all would be

immeasurable. So let's get started and begin by encouraging more

organizations and people to get involved in the affairs of the National

Conference, recognizing the fact that the present representation is

excellent. In line with this, I would like to "ecognize the valuable

contributions that are made to the Conference by the Southern,

Western, and Northwest States Regional Associations. The input

from these associations represents a major part of the work of this

Conference. Their recommendations and assistance provide us with

the ''grass roots" information and field experience that is so important to our activities and deliberations.

There is a move afoot to establish a Northeastern Regional

Association encompassing those states that are not now a member of

a regional association. I heartily endorse this, action for when this

takes place we will have achieved a most desirable network of

national, regional, state, and local weights and measures associations

and conferences.

Moving on, I see the National Conference continuing to serve as a

national forum for the discussion of all matters relating to weights

and measures and to providing the means for the development of

model laws and regulations, test methods, enforcement procedures,

and administrative guidelines. But is this really all that needs to be

done to achieve nationwide uniformity and standardization? The

answer to this question is obviously no. We must not overlook the fact

that models need to be adopted and methods followed to reach our

ultimate goal. Thus, the acceptance of what the Conference produces

is what really counts in the long run. This will require a promotional

and educational program— telling people what, why, and how.

Equally important will be the evaluation of what we do and the results

we obtain. When all of this has been accomplished, we will be able to

measure and document the effectiveness and benefits of our effort.

The last remaining task is to prepare ourselves for any new

developments that could cause a heavy impact on our profession.

There are two on the horizon —a metric America is one, and U.S.

membership in the International Organization of Legal Metrology is

24
the other. Our readiness to cope with these developments is important

for weights and measures involvement will be significant. But have no

fear, for I know that weights and measures people can and will meet

the challenge.

So much for now. The road ahead in weights and measures looks

interesting. We can expect some rough spots and detours as we

travel along, but we have this Conference to guide us in the future.

AFTERNOON SESSION-WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1972

(HALBERT K. Sharp, Vice C/iairman, Presiding)

FORUM ON LIAISON FOR THE BENEFIT

OF CLIENTS AND CONSUMERS

T. M. Stabler , Office of Weights and Measures, Moderator

As the title for this forum suggests, liaison or

communication will be the underlying theme of

this afternoon's presentation. Although all

eight participants will not be treating this

subject specifically, the very presence of these

leaders from the Government, from the

Association of American Railroads, American

Railway Engineering Association, Scale

Manufacturers Association, Interstate

Commerce Commission, Council of Better

Business Bureaus, and General Services

Administration provides a means for improved communication and

understanding in government, industry, and weights and measures.

The topics and issues being discussed in this forum relate to our

programs of enforcement, the manufacture of weighing and measuring

devices, and the packaging of commodities. We have with us today

outstanding educators, administrators, and engineers. They will make

brief presentations and will then respond to your questions.

I would like now to introduce Dr. F. Karl Willenbrock, the Director

of the Institute for Applied Technology at the National Bureau of

Standards.

25
NBS-THE VIEW AHEAD

by F. K. WiLLENBROCK, Director, Institute for Applied Technology,

National Bureau of Standards

The thing I would like to talk to you about,

since this is a question that I know has come up

with many people in the weights and measures

community, is how we at'NBS make some of

the tough decisions about what sort of

resources are available to the Office of Weights

and Measures and how they get those

resources, and how we decide whether these

resources are enough. We use a system which is

characteristic of many government agencies,

and certainly is characteristic of the way things

happen at the National Bureau of Standards.

First of all, all NBS organizational units such as the Office of

Weights and Measures are reviewed both internally and externally on

a systematic basis usually at least annually, and in some cases more

often than that. The internal review procedure really is the responsibility of the chief of the office and the members of his staff, who have

to look at their programs, decide which ones they think need to be

strengthened, which ones need to be terminated, and which ones need

to be redirected.

An example of redirection is the recent interest of OWM in

examining the possibility of dynamic measurements on railway track

scales and actually reprogramming away some of the resources they

had previously used for static testing. This is an example of an internal area where OWM decides going toward in-motion weighing

systems rather than spending as much effort as they have in the past

on static weighing systems.

The external reviews are carried out by a series of agencies, usually

starting with my own operation, and then proceeding to the NBS

Director and his staff, and then the Department of Commerce.

Finally, there is a group called the Congress, who have a lot to say

about this whole process. I am sure that the Weights and Measures

staff, along with practically all the other staffs at NBS, think that

there are an infinite number of people who ask some semi-infinite

number of questions and who want their answers immediately.

However, I have found that, if you take a look at the successful

operations in the most successful groups in this process of review, you

will find that these groups are those who have done a series of things

and have clearly identified the users of the services that they are

performing. It is very important to have an identified group of people,

or identified constituency if you will, of users who are interested in the

services you are offering or performing.

26
I think the Office of Weights and Measures is in a much better

position than many other areas of the Bureau in having a well defined

group of people with whom it interacts and whom it serves. That is the

weights and measures community and the people that are associated

with it— the officials and the members of the industry. Through the

National Conference and its various activities, there is a good

structure, a communication structure by means of which this community can let the Office of Weights and Measures know the services

it needs as they vary in time, as they certainly will.

I think we have, through the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, what is effectively a wide band and relatively noise-free

communications channel, and we are in a very fortunate position here.

I think I would like to emphasize again the very important role the

Conference plays to us as we go through this annual ritual of resource

allocation.

At the present time we are undertaking a very systematic review of

all the activities of the Office of Weights and Measures and are trying

to analyze them thoroughly and to document the needs of the weights

and measures jurisdictions. In the process of this review which we

have been carrying on for several months, I think it has been clearly

demonstrated that there are unmet needs which exist in the area of

training, for example, and also in the areas of resource allocation

models and strategies and in engineering evaluation. The

docimientation of these needs has been very strong and very convincing to me, and I hope that the others who are in the chain that

have to approve new resource allocations will also be as convinced as I am that increased resources are needed and should be made available

to carry out expanded programs in these areas.

The resource allocation models which I understand were reported to

you two years ago at this Conference have had very significant

developments since then. They seem to offer a very worthwhile approach to the problem of maximizing the effectiveness of your inspection programs under the constraint of limited resources and

limited numbers of inspectors and available inspector time. We hope

to expand this and other management information systems in an

effort to help you to do an even more effective job than you have done

in your own jurisdictions. We think this is a very important area in

which we can provide a service to weights and measures officials.

We also feel that, in the area of engineering evaluation, there is

room for a somewhat similar approach to what we have utilized in the

past. Over the years the Office of Weights and Measures has received

a large variety of engineering evaluation requests from the states. You

are undoubtedly familiar with some of these, such as timing devices,

liquid fertilizer metering, many types of liquid and gas-measuring

devices, moisture meters, and so forth.

27
Since no one group has sufficient expertise to evaluate the variety

of requests this sampling indicates, we plan to enlist the aid of other

NBS engineering and measurement groups, and perhaps some

engineering and measurement groups outside of NBS. By involving

these people, we feel we can insure that the highest quality

engineering evaluations at the present state of the art will be available

to you, and that we will be able to reduce the processing time for these

requests. We are working very hard to make our systems more effective in this area, and to develop good, sound working relationships

with other divisions of NBS where particular expertise lies.

Associated with these engineering evaluations are also requests

from states planning on expanding their own metrological measurement and testing programs. We plan to continue to assist the

states in these measurement areas, and we want to help them in any

way that is appropriate. Here again, I see a very close interaction with

some of the basic measurements and standards activities, particularly

the Institute of Basic Standards, within NBS; and we can take advantage of the very significant developments that they have had in

what they call their measurement assurance program.

This is a program which NBS has been working on for some time

and which has been a means by which the measurement capabilities

have been extended in a most systematic way to other laboratories. It

is one that can be of great benefit to the weights and measures officials. It is a program which is designed to insure the continuous

credibility of measurements in mass, volume, and other quantities in

laboratories of users of high accuracy measurements.

We hope to be able to provide the states, on their request, with the

information required regarding the technical aspects of performing

measurements in new areas, the standards requirements, the environmental control requirements, the alternatives to NBS for

calibration services, so that the states can make an informed

judgment as to which services they wish to inaugurate and how to get

other ones they will need.

We find that some of these services are so demanding in capital

investments and operators' skills that it may not be cost beneficial for

the states to supply them, depending rather upon industries closely

coupled to the national measurement system via the measurement

assurance program of NBS.

As I have already mentioned, the task of developing analyses and

justifications for programs is a difficult and lengthy one. If we consider the theme of this Conference, "Weights and Measures —The

Consumers' Affair," and ask ourselves what new services OWM

should provide the weights and measures community, it is immediately apparent that we need all the help we can get and that you

can provide us in this way. We are very dependent upon the feedback,

the interaction we have. As you know, many members of the NBS

staff are here during this Conference because it is such a valuable

28
means of communicating with the very diverse community

represented by the weights and measures officials and related industries.

We know that the citizens in your areas have been asking that you

provide more consumer-oriented programs. We need their inputs, and

we think one of the most appropriate ways to get their inputs is

through you, so we can develop new programs and new services which

will be responsive to the needs that you are aware of.

As an example of that, I think our fair packaging and labeling

activities have been helpful to you in meeting some of the consumer

requests in the area of packaging. I am sure there are other areas in

which we should be doing some thinking and planning, such as

warranties, measurements associated with quality in addition to

quantity, and so on. What sort of new programs should we be

thinking about in these areas?

So I would like to end my very brief comments here by calling upon

all weights and measures officials to let the Office of Weights and

Measures know through all the means of communication you have

what areas we should be looking at, so that we can continue to do a job

which is as responsive as it can be within the resources we have

available to us.

DISCUSSION

Mr. V.H. Freygang (C&O/B&O Railroad): What steps have been

taken to formulate the program of evaluating motion weighing?

Mr. Stabler: What we have at the present time is a committee of

representatives from the railroad and weighing industries. This

committee was originally formed to evaluate a proposal for a study of

dectronic in-motion weighers, railroad weighers. However, the

committee deemed the proposal inappropriate because of the funding

levels and other technical matters associated with handling of test

equipment, such as test cars and test weights. So we have taken

another look at the problem.

We have now a tentative study outline. The NBS Office of Weights

and Measures has met with various experts at the Bureau of Standards in another attempt to put together a proposal that will result in

a test program to develop test procedures and specifications for

railway in-motion weighers. This would be a performance specification

to be included in Handbook 44.

So this is where we stand at the present time. It has been a long

road of frustration because of the complexity of the problem. It is a

very, very large undertaking to evaluate the present state of the art,

to evaluate each of the different kinds of in-motion weighers that are

presently installed and which would be installed in the near future. So

29
the original attempt has been scuttled in favor of this new approach,

which we hope will be successful and which will employ the full talents

of the Bureau, railroads, and scale industry.

Mr. G.L. Johnson (Kentucky): Does engineering evaluation mean

about the same as engineering research? Also, will we have a higher

priority on engineering research in the field of liquid fertilizer and

moisture meters than in the past few years?

Dr. Willenbrock: To me, engineering -evaluation in some cases

involves research. We use the word research in a somewhat different

fashion. On the other hand, it requires an engineering analysis, and in

some cases this is not within the present state of the art and research

is needed.

We are hoping that we can do a better job than we have in the past

on some of the problems that you refer to. We hope we can, with the

additional resources requested, be able to get a shorter turn-around

time and actually get out some of the engineering evaluations and

results that you need in a shorter time. So the answer to the latter is

yes.

Mr. N. Di Marco (Cumberland County, N.J.): Is the Office of

Weights and Measures participating in a program of exchange personnel where there is an exchange of personnel between the Office of

Weights and Measures and other jurisdictions throughout the

country?

Dr. Willenbrock: Wehave not had as many exchanges in that area

as I would like. We would like to move into an area where weights and

measures officials could spend an extended period of time at NBS.

Mr. E. Prideaux (Colorado): Will you condone the railroads

privilege of using in-motion weighing commercially while the

evaluation program continues for possibly as long as five years?

Mr. Stabler: The NBS Office of Weights and Measures has no

regulatory authority in this area. We cannot either condone or reject

or in any way prohibit railroads from weighing in-motion or in any

other way. I think the recommendation of OWM would be to grant a

temporary permission to use these devices commercially until such

time when there is a test procedure and a Handbook 44 specification

covering them.

Of course, the weights and measures official has the complete

authority to take whatever option he likes. The authority is in his

hands. However, I think the best analogy would be the approach

recommended at the time we were considering conveyor-belt scale

codes, where conveyor-belt scales were in existence and in commercial use long before weights and measures officials had test

procedures or specifications on which to base an approval or a

rejection.

Mr. K. Simila (Oregon): My first question relates to the status of

the OWM budget for fiscal years '72, '73, and '74. My second question

30
has to do with other activities in the Institute for Applied Technology

and what percentage of the Institute budget is allocated to OWM.

Dr. Willenbrock: Tom Stabler can give you the figure for FY '72

better than I can. We have only half the information for FY '73. All we

can say for FY '74 is that we have made requests for additional funds.

The best way to answer your second question would be to send you a

booklet describing our activities. To answer a question about the

relative sizes is a pretty complicated one. A lot of the funding that we

get in the Institute comes from other agencies who ask us to do work

for them. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban

Development funds many millions of dollars of research in our

Building Research Division, so therefore those funds are in some ways

within the Institute and in some ways are not within the Institute. So

this is a rather complex question.

Mr. C. Wooten (Florida): We are going to do our best to implement

the program in railway testing, and have decided to give a temporary

type of approval from the State of Florida provided the scales meet all

the requirements applicable today and provided the weight agreement

bureaus and the railroad inspectors are all in agreement.

Mr. Stabler: That sounds like a very good recommendation. There

are many other references upon which to base your judgment. The

AREA has a handbook referred to by Mr. Day as their "Brown

Book." I think this will continue to be a very important reference even

when there is an H-44 code for in-motion weighers. Scale companies

also have material and data concerning the performance of in-motion

weighers. I believe that most weights and measures officials would

take the same stance that you have taken.

Mr. Wooten: The industry is definitely going to request this of us, I

believe.

Mr. Stabler: The next panel participant is another NBS employee,

Mr. William E. Andrus, who is Program Manager for Engineering and

Information Processing Standards in lAT. Bill will discuss the

"OIML, International Organization for Legal Metrology— Under

Congressional Consideration."

31
OIML-UNDER CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION

by W.E. Andrus, Program Manager for Engineering and Information

Processing Standards, Institute for Applied Technology

I would like to talk to you this afternoon

about the International Organization for Legal

Metrology, the OIML, to tell you what it is,

how it relates to U.S. interests, and where we

stand on U.S. membership today.

By way of a little background, the OIML is a

treaty organization not under the United

Nations, but one concerned for the most part

with standards for instruments and

measurement techniques involved in legal

determinations of quantity and quality. OIML

was organized in 1955, and today has 35 members and seven

corresponding members. The membership is predominantly

European, with a few countries from outside Europe as members.

OIML is relatively small and, as a result, has a small staff and a

modest budget, a budget of $109,000 for 1972. The major expenditures

for this are for the staff and other costs, including operations, printing, the cost of convening meetings, and so forth. If the United

States were a member of OIML today, its share for this year's budget

would be $15,000. This is based on the fact that each member state is

assigned to one of four classes, taking into account primarily

population and adjustments for the extent of use of measuring instruments.

The function of OIML can best be understood by considering the

concept of the word metrology in general and the words legal

metrology in particular. Metrology is a collective term recognized over

the world for all problems of measurement. It comprises, first, the

measuring units and their standards, second, the measuring instruments, and third, the methods of measurement.

Legal metrology enters the picture when the public authorities

influence the treatment of measuring problems through legal

regulations. It is generally recognized that public authorities have the

obligation to insure that correct measurements be effected on a

uniform basis. National regulations have developed in the various

nations independent of each other, and they have, therefore, differed

widely. With rapidly advancing technology and increased international economic activity, the compatibility of both standards and

the legal aspects of standards (that is, the legislation and regulations

32
which may affect them) has become increasingly significant. The

unification of legal metrology is then the function of OIML.

To paraphrase the stated purpose of OIML, it is to form a center of

documentation and information in the field of legal metrology. It is to

establish close relations with respective national weights and

measures services and other services in charge of legal metrology, and

to furnish advisory assistance to the interested states— states, in this

case, being countries. Also, OIML determines the general principles of

legal metrology, issues uniform international recommendations of

legal requirements for measuring instruments with respect to their

use and control; in particular, sets up a code of specifications and

tolerances with which measuring instruments must comply in order to

acquire international approval. Additionally, OIML promulgates

model laws and regulations in the fields of legal metrology, for instance on the establishment of a national weights and measures

service and on the necessary control and supervisory activities.

The decisions of the organization have the character of recommendations, not the force of law. However, members of the

organization are morally obligated to implement these decisions as far

as possible.

OIML consists of the International Conference on Legal Metrology,

the International Committee of Legal Metrology, and the International Bureau of Legal Metrology.

The Conference consists of delegates from member states. Where it

used to meet every six years, it now meets every four years. It submits its decisions to the member states for information, consideration,

and recommendation.

The Committee, on the other hand, consists of one delegate from

each state, and it meets every two years. The technical work of OIML

is conducted by working groups within the framework of this Committee.

The Bureau itself constitutes the Secretariat of the Organization;

and, interestingly, it is forbidden by the Convention from carrying out

any experimental research or laboratory work.

To date, 19 OIML international recommendations have been

published covering standards for a wide range of measuring instruments and equipment. Other publications include a vocabulary of

metrological terms, numerous proposed recommendations and

committee reports, and literature on the OIML organization and

procedures. The documents are prepared in French. Arrangements

have been made with the United Kingdom to have international

recommendations as well as some working documents translated into

English.

The U.S. did not join OIML at its inception in 1955 because the

United States, in order to curb the proliferation of new international

organizations, preferred at that time to see international activities

carried out under the aegis of the United Nations. In this case, this

33
policy did not deter the formation of OIML. However, after much

discussion over the years, finally on April 11, 1972, President Nixon

requested the Senate to give its advice and consent to accession to the

convention establishing an OIML.

In his letter to the Senate recommending accession he said: "The

U.S. has in the past been an interested observer in the Organization's

work, and I believe that accession to the convention would now be of

clear advantage to the United States. As the world's largest trading

nation and as a world leader in the standards field, we would better be

able to assume a positive role in the setting of international standards

for measurement and, in so doing, to expand our international trade."

The reasons for joining OIML are scientific as well as economic.

While scientific considerations alone would furnish a valid basis for

joining the organization, there are other very pressing reasons for

doing so, not the least of which is the deteriorating balance of

payments situation of our country.

The Department of Commerce has mounted a number of programs

to attack this problem, including a greatly reinvigorated international

standardization program. Standards are assuming an ever more

important role in the international scene, especially in the trading

sector which is so vital to our balance of payments position. They can

act either as a lubricant in the trade machinery or as a source of

friction to trade. Many instances can be cited as examples of such

friction, and a number of them have become serious trade policy

problems.

It is not only the experience of individual firms or industries that

concerns us, but rather the total export-import outlook for the future

as it relates to the U.S. balance of payments problem and the role of

standardization. The Department of Commerce a short time ago

completed a study of the prospects for U.S. export-import trade over a

five->ear period. This study finds that U.S. export growth is likely to

slow down in the coming years if export expansion measures are not

taken, and that import growth is not likely to recede to levels that

would provide a significant trade surplus. Either a diminishing

surplus or a deficit, particularly in the context of an uncertain balance

of payments situation, might endanger the continuance of the liberal

trade policy which has contributed materially to the economic growth

of the United States and its principal trading partners. This would, of

course, adversely affect the international political relations of the

United States.

The report urges that the United States take positive measures to

increase exports rather than adopt a trade contracting policy of

restricting imports. The report makes a number of major recommendations for positive measures to increase exports, one of which is

to strengthen U.S. participation in international standards making.

Joining OIML is just one of the actions required in the international

standardization field, but an important one. While no one can say

34
precisely what the effects of not doing it might be, we can get a good

idea by examining the scope of OIML's work and the importance of

U.S. trade in those products on which OIML might make recommendations not compatible with U.S. interest and concerning which

the U.S. as a non-member would have no influence. An analysis of

U.S. exports as related to the work of OIML committees shows a

significant volume of U.S. trade which could be affected by the

decisions of OIML on the items included in the Organization's work

program. Whether or not the effects would be adverse would depend,

of course, on the kinds of decisions made. We do know, however, that

as a nonmember we would have no influence on these decisions.

Closely related, but of a longer-run nature, is the potential importance of the markets in the developing countries in the light of

OIML programs concerning them. OIML is now moving into the area

of metrology standards for the developing countries. Last year they

distributed a questionnaire to developing countries and to its 36

members for the purpose of obtaining advice on the need for technical

and administrative assistance in setting up departments of legal

metrology in the developing countries. Such departments have

responsibility for the metrology of measuring instruments regulated

by law for use in commerce and industry and in the field of public

health. The implications of this for future opportunities in the fields of

trade and direct investments in these countries cannot be overestimated.

This is a long-term program and, as a nonmember, the influence of

the United States will be severely limited in its formulation and

implementations. Our faith that these countries will develop into

economically viable states with potential markets has been backed up

by the billions of dollars the U.S. has poured into their development

efforts. The extent to which the U.S. can expect to share in these

markets depends, among other things, on their developing standards

systems, which, if not wholly consistent with the U.S. standards, are

at least compatible insofar as trade relations are concerned. Experience has shown that, for such relationship to exist, the U.S. must

participate. We must be able to help in the formulation and implementation of standards and standards policies.

Despite the importance of the balance of payments aspect of our

nonmembership in OIML, we should not let this overshadow the

seriousness, from a scientific point of view, of our absence. So far, we

have simply opted out of an important decision-making body in the

field of metrology, which is, in effect, the legal counterpart of the

International Committee of Weights and Measures (the CIPM), in

which the U.S. has been an active member since its inception in 1875.

Legal questions were almost always on the agenda of CIPM, and at

one point consideration was given to establishing within the scope of

CIPM a consultative committee of practical metrology which should

deal with problems of legal metrology. If this had happened, the U.S.

35
would now be participating in the deliberations regarding the legal

aspects of metrology. It did not, and OIML was formed, and the U.S.

has little influence in this major sector of international standards

activity. In fact, it is difficult, as a nonmember, to keep adequately

informed on OIML's activites.

Were the U.S. a member of OIML, we would be able to bring

scientific and legal talents to bear in influencing internationally

adopted measurement techniques in favor of methods which, if not

advantageous to American procedures, would at least not present

major disadvantages. As a matter of fact, the Western countries

continually urge the U.S. to join OIML. They want the technical

competence which the U.S. can bring to the organization, and they

want the influence of the U.S. They say that the organization is now

being dominated more and more by the Eastern countries, and that

they need the U.S. in order to bring more balance from the Western

point of view. They are confident that the U.S. can influence the

character of the organization, and some of our European friends even

predict that the U.S. would soon be elected to a vice presidency of the

organization.

Be that as it may, it is not in the interest of the U.S. to remain a

nonmember. Industry has supported and urged U.S. membership in

OIML for years. The Scientific Apparatus Manufacturers Association

(SAMA) makes a point that, as the world becomes more and more

dependent on science and technology, it becomes more dependent

upon scientific instruments, the tools of the research laboratory, the

hospital, the classroom, the defense plant, and the general

manufacturing facility. In the U.S. we have an investment of some

$25 billion in measurement instruments, and this is increasing

rapidly. Therefore, the need for a legal basis for instrument compatibility becomes greater. The Association believes that we cannot

maintsdn our leadership in this field or our position in world markets

unless we strengthen our participation in the international standards

making activities. SAMA joins the scale manufacturers and APL in

supporting U.S. membership in OIML.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which undertakes the primary responsibility for United States participation in

international voluntary standards making organizations, says that

nonmembership in OIML is a serious deterrent to participation in the

development of standards related to metering devices, scales, and

other measuring instruments. ANSI points out that OIML is in a

unique position in that it is composed of the weights and measures

officials of the various countries, many of whom are responsible for

the development of regulations and laws.

So you can see that there are many advantages to the U.S. in

joining the OIML. It has a direct interest, the results would be

tangible, and the cost would be minimal.

36
But where do we stand today? As I indicated earlier, in April of this

year President Nixon submitted to the Senate a request for their

advice and consent for accession to the conventions of OIML. This

request comes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and

Senator Fulbright, its chairman, has recently requested and received

additional information on the makeup, the purposes, and ac- complishments of OIML, as well as further justification for U.S.

membership. When hearings will be held on this request is unknown

at the present time. In this election year and with the priority and lack

of urgency associated with this legislation, we are not hopeful for early

action.

It has been our hope that the U.S. would be a member in time to

participate as a member of the meeting of the International Conference of Legal Metrology which will be held the last week of October

in London. This conference used to meet every six years, now every

four. It is the session where OIML recommendations receive final

approval and where major actions on organization and programs take

place. Of particular importance this year is the proposal of the

Russian delegation to initiate a program of standard reference

materials within OIML with the secretariat to be held by the Soviet

Union. We question the need for such a program, particularly under

the auspices of OIML. A few years ago it was suggested that a

program of this nature be initiated by the International Conference of

Weights and Measures, which we supported, but it was rejected by

the Soviet Union and the Conference. The initiation now of such a

program needs in-depth discussion and the active involvement of the

United States as the world leader in the development and

promulgation of standard reference materials.

In conclusion, I would like to say we are over the first hurdle. We

have come to an agreement within the Executive Branch of the

Government that U.S. membership in OIML is desired and needed.

The next hurdle is that of obtaining Senate approval, and early action

on this is dependent upon the sense of urgency associated with this

legislation.

DISCUSSION

Mr. M. Greenspan (New York City, N.Y.): If the National Conference passed a resolution addressed to the Senate urging their action

on the United States joining OIML, would that in any way be helpful

in getting any action?

Mr Andrus: Whether it would be helpful or not depends a lot on

this election year, but I would say that it would not do any harm.

Mr. a. Sanders (Sales Manufacturers Association) : I believe we

were at least one of the first to endorse our participation in OIML for

very practical reasons. OIML is setting standards and specifications

37
and tolerances for scales and weighing devices in Europe and Latin

America and elsewhere. Not only can we not participate, but we

cannot even find out what they are. They are all in French and nobody

has them. If the United States is permitted by the Senate to participate, who would handle it?

Mr. Andrus: The official participation, such as the naming of

delegates, has to be under the authorization of the Department of

State. The coordination of U.S. participation would undoubtedly be

handled by the Department of Commerce, namely the National

Bureau of Standards. The coordination of participation in the

technical working groups, of which there are some 60-odd, now

functioning in OIML, would be handled probably by my office with

the in-depth involvement of OWM and the Institute for Basic

Standards, which does a great deal of work in the basic measurement

area.

Mr. Sanders: To my way of thinking, this thing is ultimately going

to fall on OWM, because they are the technical experts on weights and

measures.

Mr. Andrus: A great deal of the work, yes.

Mr. Sanders: We have a very awkward system of weights and

measures administration in the United States, with 50 states entitled

to set their own laws and regulations. Granted that OWM has a great

deal of influence through the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, still how can we morally obligate ourselves to adopt what is

adopted by OIML?

Mr. Andrus: I would visualize the National Conference as playing a

very active and influential role in the entire discussions and activities

of OIML. Since in this country the responsibility for weights and

measures is a state responsibility, this forum of the Conference should

play a very active role, particularly in recommendations of the U.S.

Mr. Sanders: Is there a possibility of getting OIML to revise its

constitution somewhat concerning this moral obligation?

Mr. Andrus: This moral obligation is really nothing new. We have a

moral obhgation, when we vote in favor of standards adopted by ISO

and lEC, to try to see them implemented. It is not binding. And I feel

that any actions that we take in OIML would be in the interests of

what we could adopt within this country, or we would have to take a

position in opposition to it.

Mr. J.I. Bird (New Jersey): If the Conference is going to have

participation in OIML, will this participation involve the standing

committees that we now have, or will a new standing committee be

formulated to be in charge of this type of work?

Mr. Stabler! At this point we do not know the answer to that. The

United States will have to become a member first, and then we will

have something on which to base the involvement of the Department

of Commerce, NBS, OWM, and the National Conference.

38
Mr. S.J. Darsey (Florida): We have trouble with imported goods

that are not marked according to FPLA or any state regulations. The

Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government has recommended that this problem can best be solved by initiating dir^t

representation in the International Organization of Legal Metrology

to effectively confront weights and measures officials representing the

exporting countries. Since we do not belong to this organization, what

would be the best route to take at this time to see that imported goods

meet FPLA?

Mr. Andrus: In general, there is a great deal of legislation which

imposes standards on products that are marketed in the United

States. These same standards apply to products that are imported for

those same markets. These include not only quantity accuracy

measurements, but also fireproofing of fabrics, the safety of building

devices, safety in toys, and, as further legislation is enacted, there will

be more regulations.

Mr. Stabler: So far as FPLA is concerned, this is strictly an enforcement problem. Commodities shipped into New York City from

foreign countries are subject to Federal requirements, such as those of

the Food and Drug Administration of HEW, or the Federal Trade

Commission. They are certainly subject to the weights and measures

laws of New York State. I do not know of any easy solution to this,

looking from the outside in, through OIML.

Mr. Andrus: In general terms, I think we are approaching very

rapidly a national and, ultimately, an international certification

system with which we have reciprocal agreements among other

countries that standards are certified as meeting certain standards,

particularly in the area of safety, before they are ever exported, let

alone imported. But this is long term. It will be a long time before this

really comes into being. There is a system under consideration now by

lEC for electrical products, and ISO is considering a system which

covers other areas of products. They have had systems of this nature

operating in Europe for a number of years under CEE. They have had

a system for electrical applicances, in which products certified in one

country and verified in a second country then are acceptable to all of

the countries who are members of CEE. So in the long term, I think it

is an international certification system which will meet a lot of these

problems. In the matter of measurements, I think we would have

fewer problems if we were guaranteed that the products arriving on

our docks from overseas were under the same measurement systems

and the same standards that we have here in this country.

Mr. Stabler: I would like to ask BillKeindel to what extent Canada

has participated in OIML.

Mr. W.A. Keindel (Dept. of Consumer & Corporate Affairs, Ottawa,

Canada): So far as I know right now, we have not participated other

than the attendance at the conferences. We did convene the Coding

39
Committee in Canada the early part of June, but I cannot tell you

what the results were in international coding.

Mr W.N. Seward (American Petroleum Institute): I believe there is

some confusion here. To my knowledge, Canada is not a member of

01ML and, therefore, is not qualified to have a meeting of either its

working groups or plenary sessions in Canada. My best estimate,

however, is that ISO has, in fact, had meetings in Canada, and there

were some scheduled in June.

In the case of OIML, the meetings have almost traditionally been

held in Western Europe with a few exceptions, notably in India, and in

one or two other countries in the underdeveloped category who have

stressed interest in a particular project undertaken by OIML.

One thing that is missing in our discussion is the proposal for the

United States to accept a code of conduct under the general agreement

on tariffs and trade. Would you care to comment on its potential

impact on weights and measures as it applies to OIML?

Mr Andrus: The Code of Conduct on standards is designed

basically to eliminate the nontariff trade barrier aspect of standards in

which a standard is imposed upon imports but not imposed upon

products that are manufactured locally. Basically, the code states

that the same standards must apply to all products. Its impact on the

weights and measures activity or the work of OIML is that the same

systems of measurements —that is, uniformity— would be applied to

the products that are imported as well as those manufactured locally.

In doing so, it is very obvious that the import of the OIML recommendations will be much greater than they are perhaps even today.

AAR + AREA -h SMA + ICC

KEEPING ON THE RIGHT TRACK

Mr Stabler: In the next part of the program we have representatives from AAR, AREA, and SMA. Mr. John Robinson is

Executive Director of the Operating Transportation Division,

Association of American Railroads. Mr. Fred Day is Systems

Engineer of Bridge and Building Maintenance, Penn Central Railroad.

He also serves as Chairman of Committee 14 of the American Railway

Engineering Association. Mr. Robert Brumbaugh is President of the

Streeter-Amet Division of Mangood Corporation and Vice President

of the Scale Manufacturers Association. I would also like to ask the

Honorable Rupert L. Murphy, Commissioner of Interstate Commerce

Commission, to join our panel members, as I understand that he does

have a scheduling problem.

Mr. Robinson, how is the Association of American Railroads

serving the interests of weights and measures officials?

40
REMARKS BY MR. J. J. ROBINSON

We are, of course, a nonprofit trade

association, and we share a lot of the same

problems or advantages of the Bureau of

Standards, whichever way you want to look at

it. We are governed primarily by the policy of

our members, the member railroads. We do not

set policy. We do attempt to carry out their

wishes. We represent them on practically every

aspect of railroad operations.

The AAR was organized a number of years

ago primarily to insure smooth and expeditious

interchange of freight cars between the carriers. But our role has

expanded, and now we cover just about every aspect. We perform a

limited staff function on our own. We get into very detailed investigations. We invariably call upon our members for information

and assistance.

AAR's role of assisting the weights and measures officials has in

the past been fairly limited. It has grown quite rapidly just in the past

couple of years, and this growth has centered almost entirely upon the

joint program with the National Bureau of Standards on the railway

track scale testing program. A great deal of credit goes to Dick Smith

for his efforts and for his cooperation in this. This program has been

very successful, and we anticipate it will expand even more in the

future as the states become more interested and more active in this

area.

At the present time, in conjunction with the Bureau of Standards

we issue a tentative itinerary for the movement of the two NBS test

cars, with which you are familiar. We also intervene from time to time

directly with the railroads whenever scheduling problems arise or a

specific movement is required for these cars. We work very closely in

conjunction with the AREA, on which Mr. Day will have more

comments in the next few minutes, on the actual testing of the scales

and the maintenance of the specifications and tolerances. We work

jointly with the Bureau of Standards and also the Interstate Commerce Commission on the investigation of the fair weight problems

which have come to the fore in recent months, and we have also

worked very closely with the Bureau of Standards on in-motion

testing, which is planned for the very near future. The railroads'

contribution in this area primarily is in the form of transportation and

also making facilities available.

Again, I want to stress that our participation in the past has been

limited, not by choice, just merely by circumstances. We look forward

to a greater role in the future.

Mr. Stabler: Mr. Day, what technical developments in railroad

weighing and practices can we watch for in the future?

41
REMARKS BY MR. F. D. DAY

I am sure you are all aware after yesterday's

session and from other discussions that the

scale weighing business, so far as the railroads

are concerned, is undergoing a continuing

change, and there has been a rapid change in

the last fifteen years. The AREA spent a great

many years coding and detailing very

specifically how to build track scales for

weighing railroad cars. The cars are big, they

^

^re heavier, they are pretty nearly the heaviest

things that are weighed. We handle atomic

reactors that weigh a million and one-half pounds, and they get scaled

occasionally. Of course, they have many axles, so it is sometimes not

as great a load as you may think.

With the change in the method of handling railroad cars, there has

been a big change in the method in which we weigh the railroad cars. In the first place, we do not weigh the cars very much any more. We

used to weigh every car. Back in 1900, when all the tariffs were set,

every car was weighed. The light weight was recorded, painted on the

side of the car. We had lots of weighmasters. We had lots of scales.

Every commodity was weighed, and the tariff was collected by the

railroad for handling each kind of commodity. Different commodities

had different rates. In addition to that, the railroad guaranteed

through its scale that the weight in that car was what it said.

With the new method of weighing that is coming about rapidly, we

are weighing cars nowadays in unit trains. The unit train business, as

you probably all realize from reading about them, consists of 100 cars. Sometimes we have them 250 cars long. Most of the work done with

unit trains has to do with coal for fire plants. The fire plant is interested in how much coal they get. We are interested in how much

revenue we get.

We have found that the small electronic, coupled, in-motion scales

(not the great big scales that we have all over the railroad) can very

rapidly, without anybody being there, pick up every car that goes by

and weigh every axle or every set of axles that goes by, and send the

information to the centralized computers. In some cases, we even have

tare weights in the computer that will give us the net weight and make

up the weight bill, and nobody even sees the cars.

I foresee in tjie future that, along with the car reporting, many,

many more automatic scales— electronic, unattended scales, with the

labels that are now on 85 percent of the cars— will report where all the

cars are every day. They will report how much the cars weigh every

day.

Now, we have a big problem with this light weight business. I found, on checking cars on the Penn Central, that most of the cars

42
that were light-weighed that were wrong had things that had not

been removed. I would like to be sure that anybody who wants to

challenge hght weights on cars (and they are open to challenge, and

many of them are not precisely correct) makes certain before sending

in any data that the cars are absolutely clean. Many cars are not

perfectly cleaned, and shippers and receivers are supposed to clean

them under the ICC regulation, but they do not always do it.

As to how the scales will be built, these are all technical problems,

electronic problems. We have gone from radio tubes to transistors. We

are now in the integrated circuit state. There is a great deal of effort

being made to get amorphous crystals. We have all kinds of electronic

technology available, and you can be sure that the railroads, through

all the various engineering departments and scale people who are

interested in this subject, are taking every advantage of it, and the

manufacturers are also interested to bring as precise a product to this

new method of weighing as can possibly be done.

Mr. Stabler: Mr. Brumbaugh, what problems face the scale industry in conforming to weights and measures requirements for

railroad scales?

REMARKS BY MR. R. T. BRUMBAUGH

This question was asked of the industry, and

I did not really feel that I could speak for the

industry, so I took the liberty of contacting a

number of companies which are currently

producing railroad track scales. The answers

received varied from manufacturer to

manufacturer, and I will try to do my best to

give you a summary of the replies without any

intentional editorializing.

From several manufacturers, the response

was quite simple. There is no problem in

meeting weights and measures requirements where they are properly

defined. The example used here was the area of static scales and static

scale testing. In these areas, Handbook 44 is explicit and, consequently, compliance is simple.

However, the majority of the new scales being installed are not of

the static type, and that is where the "no problem" reply falls apart.

The fact of life is today that the economics of static weighing of cars is

prohibitive to the railroads. Of course, we could look at it this way. If

in-motion weighing were prohibited on the railroads, soon there would

be either no railroad weighing or no railroads. But that really would

not provide us with a solution. So if in-motion weighing and coupled

in-motion weighing are to be practiced, then resolving the

43
specifications problem is necessary. This is the task that is currently

being undertaken and should be resolved.

Another response received, although not really in answer to the

question set by Tom, was the desire to set forth the difference between

testing and weighing. Since testing to determine conformity to

weights and measures requirements is a means to an end and not an

end in itself, it would appear illogical to perform a satisfactory controlled test and then put the scale in operation under conditions that

do not permit conformity. Testing must be objective and representative of actual operating conditions. Railroad track scales are not

installed to weigh test C8irs, but rather to weigh the rolling stock

moved by the railroad.

Therefore, realistic criteria must be adopted as well as common

testing principles, so that varying requirements do not exist from test

to test. This will go a long way in minimizing the industry problem in

meeting weights and measures requirements,

Along these lines, another respondent asked a question rather than

provide an answer. The question was, "What are the real accuracies

that result from day-to-day operation of currently approved static

scales? What is the distribution of error as attributable to different

weighmasters, weighmaster techniques, and just plain human error?"

None of these factors exist in scale testing, but they do exist in

everyday weighing. A comparison of error distribution obtained from

this sort of a test could be very interesting when compared to the error

distribution which you find in couple motion weighing.

In summary, it would appear that the scale manufacturers do not

feel that there is a problem in meeting weights and measures

requirements for railroad scales. There is, however, a problem in

conforming in those areas that are not well defined and may vary in

individual interpretations. It is sincerely hoped that the studies

currently contemplated will result in a weights and measures

requirement that will in itself avoid any problems of conformity.

Mr. Stabler: Commissioner Murphy, what steps can be taken to

establish a closer working relationship between Interstate Commerce

Commission (ICC) and weights and measures officials?

44
REMARKS BY MR. R. L. MURPHY

The National Bureau of Standards and ICC

under present statute must adopt rules and

regulations and administer them at all times in

the best interest of the public. We are both

interested in promoting uniformity of

requirements and methods among weights and

measures jurisdictions. Too many times a

government agency will overlook the functions

of another and how those functions could

enhance the value of its own responsibilities.

Years ago the Commission did institute an

investigation back in 1913, and I think it would be of interest to read

some of the excerpts from the report of the Commission:

Assuming that in some form the government must exercise authority over

installing and the testing of track sc^es, should this be done by the state or by

the nation? It is evident that this duty is eminently local in its character. So far as the states see fit to underttike this work, it can perhaps better be done in that

way than through the exercise of federal authority, and the different states

should be encouraged to assume and exercise an actual jurisdiction in this

particular situation.

The Commission at that time did not recognize that there has to be

some control over the states to insure uniformity. "In our opinion," it

stated, "some federal tribunal, perhaps this Commission, should be

given authority in the following respects: To fix the points at which

scales shall be installed ; to describe the standards of such scales and

their installation; to test or supervise the testing of such scales; and

to supervise their operation."

The report further said that the federal authority should not ac- tually test all scales nor provide all the necessary apparatus for

testing, claiming that the statute should require the carriers themselves to install proper scales, properly maintain and test them, and

should invest the federal tribunal with authority to make the

necessary rules and regulations to assure the same.

In my opinion, our Commission was never given authority over

requirements and testing of scales or the light weighing of equipment.

Rather, evidence points to the Bureau of Standards as the agency

having control of standards of scale maintenance. The Commission

did adopt the American Railway Association's rules governing the

weighing and reweighing of carload freight in May 1914. But these

rules do not specify anything pertaining to the periodic testing of

scales or the light weighing of equipment.

In this report of 1914 concerning the light weighing of cars, the

Commission had this to say:

We have seen that one of the most specific sources of error is the wrong

stenciling of the tare weights of cars. A car may vary somewhat in weight from

week to week, according to the climatic conditions, and therefore the car should

be weighed both light and loaded at that end of the route at which the weight is

45
governed. This, however, in the great majority of instances, is impossible. The

stencil t£ire weights must be accepted, and it is extremely important that the

weights should be as accurate as is possible. While the stencil tare weight never can be made absolute, there is no excuse for the wide element of error which now

exists.

If the scales are located at proper places which are tested and operated by

government officials, there would seem to be no reason why the tare weights of cars might not be corrected upon the scales, and in this event it would be

comparatively easy to test the tare weight of every car at least once in every two

years.

They concluded this report by saying, "In our opinion the following

rules should be adopted: Reweigh every car within one year from the

date when it is put into service; reweigh every car after it undergoes

substantial repairs; reweigh every car at least once in two years."

Now, unfortunately, the carriers over the years revised these

recommended rules of the Commission, whereas of this date they

specify no period for reweighing or restenciling.

A few months ago I became quite interested in the stenciled weight

of freight cars, and I requested our Bureau of Operations to conduct a

study to determine the accuracy of such stenciled weights. This investigation proved beyond a doubt that immediate action is essential

to protect the shippers' interests. The discrepancies found between

the stenciled weight and the actual weight were astounding. We must

find a reason— if carelessness in the stenciling of freight cars is it, or if

it is inaccuracies in the scales themselves.

Accurate weights are important to the carrier, the shipper, the

receiver, and the ultimate consumer in the final analysis, who pays the

freight bill. The weight of a shipment is a vital factor in the determination of the freight charges, and the inaccuracies in weighing

result in the imposition of unreasonable charges and in discrimination

between shippers, just as readily as do differences in the weight of the

freight in itself.

There are many ways to illustrate the importance of correct weights

to the shipping public and consumers. One of the most important

ways, however, is to recite the legal implications involved. Carrier

rates are for the most part published on a per hundred weight or per

ton basis. If incorrect weights are utilized, the carrier will not receive a

proper return for services rendered, or shippers will be penalized by

overcharges. Shippers and receivers should be equally concerned that

all weights used for the assessment of freight charges are true and

correct, since they too are charged with knowledge of both the Interstate Commerce Act and the Elkins Act, and since any over or

under charges directly affect the economy of each commercial transaction represented by the shipment of merchandise.

Thus, all factors being equal, actual weights on freight shipments

would tend to assure all interested parties of a fail* and reasonable

cost. The importance of correctness in weights extends to almost

every phase of the Commission's work. As pointed out, weight plays

an important part in the assessment of the freight charges. An

46
element of consumer interest is the movement of household goods.

While the Commission has taken steps to correct the many

irregularities involved in the movement of household goods through

the institution of rule-making proceedings and subsequent revision of

the regulations, the method by which weights are obtained is a mighty

important factor in the cost to the public for the movement of his

household goods.

DISCUSSION

Mr. C. Wooten (Florida): We will be working with the railroads*

using the railroad's equipment. How do we get the test car back to a

privately owned scale after it has been repaired following removal

from service?

Mr. Robinson : That will depend somewhat on the carrier and the

number of test weights they have. I can assure you that the railroads

will cooperate with the state to get the test weight cars back just as

soon as possible. If you run into problems in this area, if you will

contact us, we will definitely try to work with the railroad. But I think

you have a very good relationship with most of the carriers in your

territory, and I am sure they will get the test weight car back just as

soon as possible.

Mr. C.E. Joyce (Pillsbury Company): Mr. Day, it has been my

experience with railroad track scales that we do not have too many

inaccuracies in actual weighing. The heart of this whole problem is the

inaccuracy in the marked or stenciled tare. You hit the nail on the

head when you said it is the material that is left in the car. Now, would

you tell me where that material is that is left in the car?

Mr. Day : Quite often grain is caught behind the bulkheads in the

cars.Mr. Joyce: The truth of the matter here is that it is behind your

endiiners and between your top and open bottom liners. Tare weight

changes constantly, and that builds up. The only way to remove it is

for the shipper who orders the car fit for the safe carriage of the

commodity to tear those linings out. But he cannot do that. In other

words, the cars are not properly built.

Mr Day: Don't forget that many of the cars are old and many of

the cars are new. Many of the grain people are now shipping in

covered bulk hoppers, brand new cars. Mr Joyce: When you have a double-wall car and you permit the

stuff to get in there and to rot, mold, and increase the weight of that

car, the shipper, the receiver, and the carrier lose, because you are

billing basically with an incorrect weight. I just want to clarify the

point as to who leaves the material in the car. Mr. Day: Under grain rules, most grain is weighed as it goes in the

car and then it is weighed as it comes out of the car.

47
Mr Joyce: You are talking about a big elevator with scales. We are

talking about that poor guy out in the country with the country

elevator. He has to take a gross weight and a tare weight.

Mr I.M. HAWvER(Santa Fe Railway): We do not have any trouble

with the Big Johns. But when we bring a box car out of the shop with

a new lining and the first customer loads it with a fork lift, the lining

gets smashed. If the next shipper ships some kind of granule product

such as grain or wheat, which may contain some moisture, some of

this may stay behind the liner. We have an agent at every station, and

all the shipper has to do is to tell him that the lining is bad. We will

get the car number and get the car in the shop. None of the shippers

say, "You have a bad tare weight." If they let us know, we will take

care of it. , Mr E. Prideaux (Colorado): Mr. Murphy, some state jurisdictions

will not allow either in-motion coupled weighing or in-motion uncoupled weighing. The railroads have to be protected, but there are

inequities that have to be corrected. How will ICC react to this new

method of weighing if complaints are made by the railroads?

Mr Murphy: Perhaps the Commission may institute an investigation of rule making. Primarily what the Commission is concerned with is the correct or the nearest correct tare weight that can be

used. I do not think any rule could require the railroads to change over

from one type of weighing to another, but our purpose primarily will

be to get some accuracy in the weights which are not there today.

Mr Stabler: I should hope that the National Conference could

perform effectively in this area and develop a code and test

procedures.

Mr Murphy: I might add that we are trying to work with you to

that extent.

Mr Prideaux: Are we going to have action on this?

Mr Murphy: I hope we get action on it. We previously had very few

complaints, but the complaints have pyramided in the last few years.

The number of cars is dwindling each year, so, with the improvement

and modernization of methods of weighing, I do not see that the

number of cars is a real problem. Some of the cars have not been

weighed in years, and the variance in the weights that we had from

spot checks would astound anyone who saw it now.

Mr Prideaux: This thing cannot stay dormant for any length of

time and we must have progress reports. State jurisdictions and

industry are going to require this. Would you agree with this?

Mr. Stabler: I agree with that.

Mr. Day: I think we have to be careful not to confuse too many

different things in the same pot. One thing we are talking about is tare

weights. The stencils are put on the car on somebody's railroad by the

mechanical department of some car shop. Whenever a new car is built,

it is weighed by either the manufacturer or by the railroad if it is built

in the railroad's own shop^

48
The other subject relates to the scales that are used to weigh the

cars when they are brand new and absolutely clean. I don't think that

any scale that is used to put the stencil on the side of the car is going

to be inaccurate. Some manufacturers have been using electronic inmotion scales, but they do not weigh them coupled in-motion when

they do any stenciling. In-motion, uncoupled weighing, whether it is

done by axle or by truck or by the complete car, has been found by the

AREA testing committees to be just as accurate as weighing by static

scales.

We have prepared in the AREA recently, and it should be adopted

before the end of the year, a method for testing a scale for motion

weighing cars that we feel can be used and should be adopted by the

AAR. It includes uncoupled in-motion and coupled in-motion.

Due to the jiggles and joggles occurring in coupled in-motion

weighing, no one at this stage can guaranty positively that any single

car can stay down in the range that static weighing can produce. This

means that a new approach has to be taken.

We are servicing the same customers that you people in the states

are servicing. On the Penn Central we have more electronic scales on

the property of customers than we have on our own property. The

customers insist that we test them, and they insist that you test them

to see that we test them right. We are not, as an industry, trying to

force coupled in-weighing onto the states. We are having it demanded

of us by the customers.

Mr. Stabler: Mr. Brumbaugh, you stated that the costs were so

much greater in statically weighing a car versus in-motion. Do you

have an approximate cost figure?

Mr. Brumbaugh : Actually this depends on a lot of factors, but

figures have been published by AREA to show that a static weighing

will cost upwards of twelve to thirteen dollars. A coupled in-motion

will be about 45 cents per car. It is sort of interesting that everybody

is getting excited about this new technique of motion weighing. The

first in-motion railroad track scale was installed in 1902, coupled inmotion weighing in 1907, and multidraft motion weighing in 1940.

Mr. C.G. Johnson (Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau):

Ninety percent of the traffic moving on my western railroads does not

require weighing on the railroad. It is moving under weight

agreement. Under these circumstances, the tare weight on the side of

the car means little or nothing. Grain movement in and out of the

Pillsbury elevators can be weighed through hopper scales and nothing

has to be related to the tare weight on the side of the car. In behalf of the weight bureaus— the Western, the Eastern, the

Southern, and the two Transcontinental Inspection Bureaus—we are

in the business of providing the best possible weights not only for the

railroads, but also for the patrons of the railroads. When the industry

has its own scale, we make sure that it is used properly. We have the

weighmasters on the western railroads under oath. When people talk

49
about human error, I must rise in defense of these weighmasters,

because I know a lot of good weighmasters.

I would think that railroad weighing, the maintenance of railroad

track scales, and the use of these scales by our weighmasters is not

this dreary, dismal picture that has been painted. I think it is quite a

thing to be proud of in American industry.

Mr. Stabler: Mr. Johnson, would you please describe to us what a

weight agreement is?

Mr Johnson: Mr. Murphy made reference to the National Code of

Weighing Rules that was written in 1913. We had weight agreements

before the National Code. But in the National Code they give a

national form of weight agreement whereby the shipper or the

receiver, as the case may be, will enter into a weight agreement with

the inspection bureau on behalf of the railroad serving his terminal.

Under the terms of this weight agreement, he by various means

assists us in the determination of the net weight of the car. If we are

shipping bags of flour, we will bill him at 100 pounds or 101 pounds,

whatever the gross weight is on this bag of flour. He will certify in this

bill of lading that he has put in a thousand cases of canned goods in

the car and he has the privilege of biUing that car on that weight. We

will then come and verify this traffic moving on a weight agreement.

This is provided for by tariff. This is not something that someone

dreamed up and a privilege being given to the bureau to perpetuate

the Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau. It is in Western

Trunkline 335, the tariff on weighing and reweighing under which I live. Now that is a weight agreement. It takes various forms. I can

have a track scale on a weight agreement. I can have a hopper scale on

a weight agreement. I can have a dormant scale in my warehouse. I can have anything to determine this weight. I can bill by theoretical

weights. This is a new facet in this business of determining weights

for weight agreement purposes. But it has one intent— to eliminate

track scaling— and we have in our territory eliminated 90 percent

roughly of all weighing of the traffic moving under our jurisdiction.

Mr. Stabler: Why do we want to eliminate 90 percent of the track

scale weighing?

Mr. Day: Because the customers want it eliminated. It takes too

long, and there is too much delay in moving the cars and getting them

to their destination. People do not want their goods stored in the yard

for two days so that the car can be weighed on a track scale. This is

the reason that these weight agreements are made and that scaling is

eliminated.

Mr. Stabler: I did detect one commnent that Cliff made that will

interest weights and measures people I am sure. That is the

"theoretical weight." Now this is something that I am sure we are

going to discuss and hear more about at the Conference next year.

Mr. Murphy: I am familiar with your weight agreements and the

purposes of it, but you still miss the point to which I made reference.

50
The gentleman from Pillsbury has a problem there that we are familiar

with. We do not intend to become dormant. We expect to have regular

reports. The matter is of such significance that we are going to follow

through with it.

Mr. Joyce : Mr. Johnson is right on the package weight agreements,

but we are not talking about package freight or about the bulk freight

that goes over the big elevator scales. We are talking about the

country elevator scale, where we have to use the marked tares. And

those tares are not right because the material is trapped in those

linings. It is not a question of broken linings. It is a question of

accumulation. If you want to check weights, don't check the railroad

track scales. There is very little wrong with them. Just compare and

check the light weight of those cars versus the marked tare, and that

is where you are going to find the whole crux of the situation.

Mr. J.L. FiNNELL (Louisville and Nashville Railroad): Mr. Wooten

was complaining about not getting a test car back to the scale that

needed to be put back in service. On my railroad we have four scale

inspectors that service 13 states. Once we move a scale tester out of

the district, it is pretty hard to get it back, and one of the main

reasons is that these cars move under a speed restriction. We can only

move them on certain trains. Our scale inspectors have itineraries that

they have to adhere to. We do not mean to hold the state people up in

putting the scales back in service. I know you have a 30-day

restriction on this, but you will have to work with us.

BBB + GSA-GETTING TO KNOW YOU

Mr. Stabler: We have with us Mr. Dean W. Determan, Vice

President, Government and Legal Affairs, Council of Better Business

Bureaus, and Mr. Reuben T. Morgan, Director, Standardization

Division, Federal Supply Service, Government Services Administration.

Mr. Determan, my question for you is, "How can weights and

measures officials assist better business bureaus in consumer affairs

activities?"

51
REMARKS BY MR. D. W. DETERMAN

I think over the years there has been a degree

of cooperation between the various state and

local weights and measures people and many of

our bureaus. I have been told that some years

back there was a concerted effort to get some

standardization in the air conditioning industry

in the use of BTU's and that this was an area

where the bureaus were very active and worked

very closely with weights and measures people.

There are other ways in which this can be done.

I have been told that weights and measures

people across the country are facing an identity crisis. I do not know if

that is a fair comment. It is certainly a fair comment when it is applied

to better business bureaus. The whole era of consumerism in the past

decade has caught up with and passed up better business bureaus

across the country. For the past two years we have been in very much

of an identity crisis. We have operated in the marketplace much like

the weights and measures people operate. You do not pat yourself on

the back. You go out and take your tests and inspections, and you do

not really get any publicity for it.

The same is true with the better business bureaus. They handle

complaints and take care of faulty advertising. We really cannot go

out and say, '*That company is falsely advertising," because we won't

get their cooperation the next time we find a false ad.

We have been taking a whole newlook at ourselves, and we have

been in the past year undertaking a very ambitious program. This

program encompasses many new activities for better business

bureaus. In at least two of these activities, perhaps three, I can see

involvement of weights and measures people.

One of these activities, the one that I am partial to since it falls

under my direct supervision, is the establishment of consumer ar- bitration programs throughout the country. Our goal is to have 120

cities under consumer arbitration programs by next May. Right now

we have some 76. Now, in these consumer arbitration programs, often

issues pertaining to the weight of a product or a measure or an advertisement may be at issue, and we are looking for expertise, independent, neutral expertise to assist the arbitrator in arriving at a

good decision. In this area weights and measures people, I think,

would be invaluable as technicians, as experts.

A second area has been our establishment of the National Advertising Review Board. This is a Board established directly under the

Council which is reviewing and monitoring national advertising. As

you well know, questions arise there, too, which involve the weight of

a product, the measure of a product.

52
The third area is our expanded consumer education program.

Again, this relates to many labeling questions. How to make the

consumer a wise consumer is another area where, again, you have a

great deal of expertise. So I expect we will be working much more

closely with you. We have certainly urged our bureaus to work more

closely with you and with all governmental agencies. Many people

who have problems in the marketplace are being referred to weights

and measures people in the local areas when they come to better

business bureaus with their problems.

Mr. Stabler: Mr. Morgan, are weights and measures requirements

considered in the development of federal specifications for products?

REMARKS BY MR. R. T. MORGAN

I did not realize until recently that weights

and measures requirements played a part in the

development of federal specifications. It has

been pointed out to me by the National Bureau

of Standards that in some cases gross weight is

accepted under federal specifications and, in

other cases, net weight.

Really, we have not thought too much about

what we meant other than that we needed a

pound, a gross, or a ton of an item. Since sitting

in on this Conference, I think we have to take

another look at the whole program, because maybe we are missing

something so far as a procurement program in the federal government

of GSA is concerned.

I do not know how we could help the weights and measures people,

but I think that we can use them a great deal, because we are just

customers in the marketplace like everyone else. Greater attention will

be given in the future to weights and measures requirements when

federal specifications are written.

DISCUSSION

Mr. J.F. Lyles (Virginia): Mr. Morgan, your taking another look at

the federal standards and how you purchase will mean a great deal to

weights and measures people, because many times the first comment

that we get is, "We are purchasing these according to federal standards, so why should you be concerned?" In other words, we hear the

argument that, if the federal people are buying on gross weight, then

it is all right for everyone else to trade on gross weight.

Mr. D.L. Offner (St. Louis, Missouri): I suggest that, when you

review your specifications, you also take into account the method of

sale of a product. Where a product is customarily sold by weight, we

53
are sometimes told, "I sell it to the federal government by liquid

measure."

Mr Morgan: We have a program going right now. We are making a

concerted effort to review all of our specifications and we are coordinating them with the industries to be sure that we are doing just

this.

Mr Stabler: Mr. Determan, one thing that concerns weights and

measures officials, particularly in regard to the Conference topic this

year, is the criteria you would use to follow up a consumer-type

complaint. You are the Better Business Bureau, and you obviously

cannot become the consumer advocate.

Mr Determan: Interestingly enough, our national business

members are saying to us that we have to become more of a a)nsumer

advocate and become more efficient and effective in the handling of

complaints than in the past. We are right now in the process of setting

up a uniform complaint handling process that will be instituted in 150

bureaus coast to coast. We are now going to all of the businesses in

the community and saying, "Identify the one individual in your shop

who handles complaints." In many of our bureau cities it is a

prerequisite for a business to become a member of the Better Business

Bureau, and they have to identify the individual who is going to

handle the complaints and precommit the business to arbitration if

they want to be a member.

Mr Offner: In St. Louis we have had functioning, under the

auspices of the Better Business Bureau, for about two years, a consumer protection board which has monthly meetings to which all

people are invited who have enforcement activities of interest to the

consumer. In this way the Better Business Bureau gets a better idea

about what referrals should be made, and it also helps the enforcement

people to get to know one another, and helps interdepartmental

relationships that may not even involve the Better Business Bureau.

Mr Determan: We have a pilot program going on in Buffalo, New

York, called a clearinghouse, where all the federal, state, and local

agencies have combined and set up a single telephone number for

every type of consumer complaint, whether it involves advertising,

faulty weights and measures, or any other consumer complaint. That

number happens to be the number of the Better Business Bureau, who

then refers the cases to the appropriate agencies. We have a committee of all the federal, state, and local officials, which serves as a

monitoring committee to make sure we are doing the job right.

Mr. J.L. Jones (Pennsylvania): I think it is important that those in

the business world begin to think of themselves as consumers,

because there is hardly ever any business that at one time or another

does not play the role of a consumer, and he must have the same type

of protection as any individual consumer must have.

54
Mr. Lyles Mr. Determan, is it my understanding that a business

has to join your Better Business Bureau before you get a working

relationship with them?

Mr. Determan: That is not necessary. All I am saying is that, for a

business to join the Bureau, they have to meet certain prerequisites,

and these prerequisites are getting a little higher as we go along. We

will handle arbitration, complaints and inquiries about all businesses,

members or not.

Mr. Lyles: But you can take action against a business that is not a

member of your Bureau?

Mr. Determan: Well, up to a certain point. Bureaus have no teeth at

the end of the process. Arbitration is our one effort to get teeth at the

end of the process. If a company is not a member of the Bureau, we

have very little leverage in getting it to change a business practice

that we might not approve of or might not fit a particular trade

practice. With our members we have more leverage.

Mr. L.A. Rick (St. Louis County, Missouri): Where there is a

consumer protection board set up under the auspices of the Better

Business Bureau, weights and measures personnel do not lose their

identity as they do under a consumer protection office. I do not think

that any single office for consumer protection could have all the legal

aid available to the Better Business Bureau with its 20 or more

agencies. This is one of the ways we can do a beautiful job so far as

consumer protection is concerned and still hold our identity, which to

us means a lot.

Mr. S.D. Andrews (Florida): I only regret that Mr. Morgan was not

here yesterday afternoon to hear the presentation by the spokesman

for the wiping cloth industry, which used its dealings with the federal

government as the precedent for being allowed to sell on gross weight

when the Model State Law and all other regulations that we have been

able to get our hands on require net weight.

Mr. Stabler: Mr. Morgan, are you aware of the magnitude of GSA

purchases that could or should be subjected to weights and measures

regulations, whether it be by GSA or someone else? Would you say

that 50 percent of your items are purchased by weight or measure?

Mr. Morgan: I don't even have a feel on that. On dollar volume, it

would not be 50 percent. It might be in the 30 percent class.

Mr. Stabler: If it were 30 percent, how would this compare with

your total dollar volume of purchases? What volume does GSA

purchase annually?

Mr. Morgan: About a billion dollars a year.

Mr. Stabler : So we are talking about 333 million.

Mr. Morgan: That figure may be somewhat misleading, because

one of the biggest purchases is of computer equipment for all

government agencies, which is the largest single item purchased by

GSA where its dollar volume is concerned. The wiping cloth incident

55
has been brought very forcefully to my attention in the last four or

five days. I have had this job for about a year, and I did not realize

that we had this problem, but I got it the other day from the Bureau of

Standards, so you can be well assured that we are looking at it.

Mr. T.E. Kirby (Georgia): Mr. Morgan, many of the state

organizations such as the Highway Department will be purchasing

polyethylene using the standards that are established by GSA, and I believe those are 368C. We found, when we got copies of those, that

polyethylene in particular was allowed under those standards a 20

percent deficiency in terms of average weight or thickness. I also

found out that FHA was using this polyethylene and was using this

mil thickness, specifying 368C as the basis of that. On questioning the

engineer in charge of construction relative to the requirements that

were being met by FHA, I was told: *'If we require 6 mil polyethylene

on site, we inspect to see if it is 6 mil. If it is 4 mil polyehthylene, then

we check it to see if it is 4 mil." When I asked what system was used

for checking it, he said: "A fellow with anj^ experience at all can take a

sheet of it, feel it, and tell you if it is 4 mil or 6 mil.

Mr Morgan: I hope that was not one of the GSA inspectors. If you

will check the specifications, you will see that they indicate the test

method to be used for checking the thickness and that it is not by

feeling the sheet of polyethylene.

Mr. J.M. Chohamin (Middlesex County, New Jersey): Mr. Morgan,

are you familiar with other agencies who draw specification from your

agency or v/ho adhere to specifications from your agency, such as the

Veterans Administration?

Mr. Morgan: Yes, we are very familiar with them. In my division

we have what we call a Federal Specification Program. If there is a

federal specification written for an item, it is mandatory for all federal

agencies to use it. If it is an interim specification that has not been

coordinated with all the agencies who have an interest in it, it is not a

mandatory requirement. I think we have even a greater impact,

because many of the state and local governments also use the federal

specifications.

We have a council for the state and local purchasing agents that is

headed by the Commission of Federal Supplies and Services. It meets

quite often. I do not know the number of states who are members of

the council, but we continuously send our specifications to the ones

that are members and ask for comments. If they can suggest any

improvement, we ask them to let us know. We are working with

several of the states, but do not have as many as we would like to

have.

Mr Chohamin : Can we look forward to having your agency tighten

immediately on those important specifications that bear particularly

on weight or measure?

Mr. Morgan: I do not think we are in a position to say which ones

are important. If you will give us this information, we certainly will.

56
Mr. L.D. Holloway (Idaho): This 20 percent variance does not even

come close to what we enforce in our regulatory program. Why would

the federal government so set specifications that would have a plus or

minus range so far out from the standard that we enforce?

Mr. Morgan: I cannot answer that question right off because I am

not familiar with all the specifications in that detail. If you are talking

about the specifications for the normal polyethylene, I will have it

looked into.

Mr. Andrews: Does anybody know what PS 17-69 has in

limitations on variations?

Mr. T.I. BiDGOob (Monsanto Company): PS 17-69 was adopted at

the end of 1969, and it provides for an average of no error. You have an

allowed variation of plus or minus 20 percent in terms of thickness.

But the old 368C was allowed to be as much as 20 percent deficient or

20 percent in excess of the stated quantity, but it was generally

produced at the lower level.

Mr. Andrews: Mr. Morgan, do you have research facilities in your

organization where you actually work out these specifications, or do

you rely on established organizations and associations to help you

with these specifications?

Mr. Morgan: We have very limited research facilities. It is mainly

reseeirch on developing test methods. We depend a great deal on

ANSI, industry, and associations to help us with our specifications.

We have a very competent, professional staff in most of the commodity areas, but we do not have the research and development

facilities that you are thinking about.

Mr. Lyles: Mr. Morgan, I am sure that you may look for what the

National Bureau of Standards puts out in regard to voluntary product

standards. Mr. Stabler, I think that you need to take a look at your

system for putting out these voluntary product standards, because

they do speak of tolerances. The average concept is not mentioned in

your product standards. So, to me, we have a conflict here between the

tolerances as mentioned in your voluntary product standards as well

as what we look at in the field as meeting the average.

57
WEDNESDAY EVENING-JULY 12, 1972

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP RECEPTION

Conference delegates enjoyed a delightful reception on Wednesday

evening, which was sponsored by contributors of the associate

membership. Photographs of the reception and representatives of the

sponsors are shown.

58
MORNING SESSION -THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1972

(Gene Ballentine, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

FORUM ON MANAGING TO KEEP PACE

WITH THE CONSUMER MOVEMENT

D.E. Edgerly, Office of Weights and Measures, Moderator

During the 56th National Conference last

year, it was proposed that steps be taken to

establish a mechanism within the Conference

itself for evaluating state and local weights and

measures programs with respect to their laws,

regulations, standards, test methods, equipment, and the performance of the personnel

themselves. The goal of the program is to

promote and to encourage uniformity and

excellence of weights and measures administration. As you know, the Conference

asked OWM to propose a plan for fulfilling the stated goal. Our first

panel member is Tom Stabler, Chief of the Office of Weights and

Measures, and he has been pretty much quarterbacking this entire

effort throughout the past year.

PROGRAM EVALUATION-TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE

by T.M. Stabler, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures,

National Bureau of Standards

Evaluation and certification of weights and measures programs is a

new concept and should be of interest to everyone concerned with

good government.

You are well aware, as am I, that considerable fiction exists in

weights and measures reporting. To combat this, I think we should,

through introspective means, search for the truth and answers to

questions such as: Just how good is the law in my state in comparison

with the Model? What is the level of compliance in the field? How

effective is our technical education program?

The Office of Weights and Measures of the National Bureau of

Standards and several weights and measures jurisdictions recognize

an existing lack of uniformity in laws and regulations for practices

and procedures between states, cities, and counties. There is an information gap relating to program effectiveness, the level of activity

in compliance, and funding necessary to conduct weights and

measures programs that will be truly responsive to the needs of industry and consumers and afford a high level of protection in commercial transactions.

59
It was proposed at the 1971 National Conference that a planning

committee be formed to study the feasibility of a weights and

measures evaluation and certification program.

If the Conference adopts such a program for evaluation and cer- tification, a standing committee, perhaps, should be formed to certify

qualifying participants, based upon evaluation by an impartial body,

perhaps the NBS Office of Weights and Measures. It is believed that a

well designed voluntary program will greatly assist weights and

measures departments in their efforts to properly adjudge inspection

and testing programs and laboratory services. In addition, it should

provide useful information for planning, budgeting, and reporting.

An evaluation and certification committee of the National Conference could be estabhshed as a standing committee and meet annually at the Conference for the purpose of evaluating and certifying

the state weights and measures programs. The committee could be

composed of seven members. As a suggestion, three weights and

measures officials with statewide responsibility would have membership on the committee, together with one representative of a

manufacturing industry (a scale company or a meter company), one

representative of the packaging industry, and one weights and

measures official with local responsibility, either a city or county

official. Perhaps the seventh member would be the Chief of the Office

of Weights and Measures in a nonvoting capacity, except in the case

of a tie vote.

Surveys and data collection could be conducted by the Office of

Weights and Measures of the National Bureau of Standards. The

committee would study and evaluate the data for each state application and vote to certify each qualified state. Qualified states

could receive National Conference on Weights and Measures cer- tificates for a specified period, perhaps a two-year period or a four-year

period. States failing to qualify should receive a letter of explanation

and review of survey data. In all cases, the data should be confidential.

The evaluation and certification program could be conducted in two

or three steps. Step 1 might consist of an evaluation of the state law as

compared with the Model Law. The Model Law has fifteen or so very

basic provisions that all state laws should have, not to say that the

state laws could not have, in addition to the Model Law, other sec- tions that are necessary for enforcement of weights and measures in

their jurisdictions. However, the state laws should have certain basic

ingredients that the Model contains.

Step 1 would also provide for an evaluation of the state regulations,

including the adoption of Handbook 44 as an official regulation, the

regulations for packaging and labeling, the registration of service

companies, and weighmasters. Part of this first step could be an

evaluation of the state's laboratory and standards— the primary state

standards of weight and measure and field standards. Does the

60
laboratory provide an adequate environment for measurement at the

state level?

Also in this first step would be an evaluation of personnel. Does the

state, in fact, have an administrator of the weights and measures

program? Does the state employ field supervisors? Perhaps there

exists a gap between the administrator and the field personnel,

creating a problem for effective coordination.

Questions should be asked concerning technical education: What is

the educational program for personnel? Have they completed the

weights and measures home study course? Do they participate in

state training efforts on a regular basis? Does the state offer an annual

training opportunity for its personnel? What is the formal educational

level of the state personnel? Are they college graduates; are they high

school graduates; are they something less?

Following the initial evaluation and certification, a state could then

request a step 2 evaluation. This might include administrative

procedures, such as the allocation of resources, data collection and

how it is used or, in fact, if it is ever used, the reporting system and

how the reports are transmitted from the field to the office. Other

considerations include the inspection followup, system of communication from the office to the users of weights and measures, and

enforcement policies. Does the state conduct a service program with

little or no enforcement, or is there effective enforcement of the law?

Step 3 might include an evaluation of the testing program. This

would involve a field survey of testing or examination procedures.

Questions would be asked concerning the compliance level for a

jurisdiction, within various areas of testing and inspection. What is

the compliance level for packages? What is the compliance level for

gas pumps, small-capacity scales, large-capacity scales? The true

measure of effectiveness of a weights and measures jurisdiction must

include consideration of comphance in the economically important

areas of testing.

Evaluation of the state programs should be conducted in some

sequence such as I have outlined. The cost of the program will cer- tainly be a determining factor as to how many steps are involved,

duration, etc. A state should be permitted to apply for an evaluation

at any time during the year. In order to obtain a comprehensive,

unbiased report, the Office of Weights and Measures should conduct

the survey. To qualify for certification by the National Conference, a

specific rating must be achieved, and recommendation for certification

be endorsed by the standing committee.

This is the basic proposal for an evaluation and certification

program. We hope to be able in the coming year to develop the criteria

that can be used in a program of evaluation. We may even call upon a

state to volunteer for a pilot evaluation. Then we can say to the

Conference, "This is how it worked. This is what we propose. These

are the standards that will be used in evaluating state programs." The

61
National Conference will then have a basis for endorsement of a much

needed evaluation and certification program.

DISCUSSION

Mr. D.I. OFFNER(St. Louis, Missouri): I tend to become more and

more leery of the confidential nature of any type of reporting in which

a governmental agency is involved. There are pressures all the time

for release of information which, by its very nature, is necessarily

confidential. Much of the pressure for release of information is for

what you could almost call '*raw data."

Secondly, I think we should be just a little bit slow on the creation

of a standing committee because its function would be so much different from the functions of other standing committees in the Conference. This committee, as I conceive it, would receive input only

from OWM rather than input from all elements in the Conference.

Granted, somebody has to have the certification or power, but it

seems to me that this would more likely function as an arm of OWM

rather than of the Conference.

Mr. Stabler: I have to emphasizeagain that this proposal is really a

result of brainstorming sessions and some input from several officials.

It is not a blueprint of anything that is operational. This program

does not exist as of now.

Mr M. Greenspan (New York City, N.Y.): I take the opposite view.

A survey along a similar vein was conducted several years in New

York City by OWM. The written report of the survey, which I made

public, was most helpful to me in obtaining additional equipment. I have used it not only to obtain additional equipment, but as one of the

major factors in our projected central testing facility that we hope to

get. The very fact that OWM did make this survey and did point out

the deficiencies was most helpful to us. I felt no compunction about

making some of these facts public. I think that a program of this type

would be helpful throughout the entire country in updating and

improving the services and even in helping to get the budgets that

everyone so desperately needs.

Mr R.L. Thompson (Maryland): it is not clear to me whether the

intent is to evaluate all the programs within the state, including local

jurisdictions.

Mr. Stabler: I think that this program in the initial stages would

have to be limited. In any new effort like this, you have to proceed in a

slow, perhaps conservative mode initially, but I see no reason why

this could not be expanded to include local jurisdictions. Perhaps this

would be a program that the state could conduct on its own.

Mr. Thompson: With reference to the model laws and regulations, it

is conceivable to me that a specific locality may have something that

for its purposes it considers superior. Some jurisdictions have now,

62
and others are considering, a fee system. In some areas a difference or

deviation from the Model may be needed.

Mr. Stabler: I think that any evaluation must have an acceptable

standard. You would have to judge a program against something. It

may not be a standard of excellence, but at least it is a standard

universally recognized throughout the nation. The fifteen provisions

of the Model should be in every law. Then whatever additional items

the state needs because of its peculiar circumstances could be included. Necessary additions should not detract from the rating a state

would get in an evaluation of the law. However, if a state law contained only three or four provisions of the Model, you could not say

that it had the basic Model Law, and this is where the problem of

uniformity arises. Uniformity, of course, is one of the major concerns

of this Conference and of officials.

Mr. R.W. Buchanan (Pennsylvania): Has any thought been given

as to how the cost would be handled?

Mr. Stabler: Perhaps as this program develops, it could be selfsupporting. I think that there should be a fee involved and that, if a

state is interested in evaluation, it should be willing to pay for this

service. If an evaluation and certification program is really of value to

a state, the cost might become a budgetary item in its request for

funds.

Mr. J.H. Lewis (Washington): Has anything been accomplished

concerning the development of guidelines to help us to best utilize our

field reports?

Mr. Stabler: I think the OWM electronic data processing system

does this. The draft that is being circulated for comment treats this

subject quite effectively as to what data are important to gather and

how they are effectively utilized in the enforcement of your law.

Mr. Edgerly: When I discuss this, I will have an opportunity to

amplify it a little more.

Mr. Stabler: Data utilization would certainly be a very important

part of any evaluation program. As you know, there are files and files,

years of accumulated data that are never used, and this is a serious

problem.

Mr. Edgerly: Yesterday afternoon Dr. Willenbrock mentioned the

review processes that the divisions within our Institute participate in.

Dr. Willenbrock also mentioned the fact that the programs within

OWM are being studied to determine their general relevancy to the

people we serve, and also to attempt to identify what needs there are

that we must address ourselves to in the future.

Our next guest is a Bureau member who assisted us in analyzing

some of our programs, Mr. Wayne Stiefel. Wayne's education includes

a B.S. degree in engineering from V.P.I, and also an M.S. degree in

administration from George Washington University. He has worked

at NBS for five years, and for the past two and a half years has

worked as an operations research analyst in the Technical Analysis

63
Division. This is a division within the Institute that is responsible for

helping us to analyze our programs and to determine relevancy.

EDUCATION-FINDING THE RIGHT APPROACH

TO A VITAL EFFORT

by S.W. Stiefel, Operations Research Analyst, Technical

Analysis Division, National Bureau of Standards

We of the Technical Analysis Division were

asked to review the Office of Weights and

Measures training program and to make an

appraisal of this important program with the

support and cooperation of the staff of the

Office of Weights and Measures. The emphasis

was to be on observations which would improve

the program. Today I would like to ask your

cooperation also, drawing on the forum

provided by the National Conference to gain ^. .^.fi^ ,>.v. J y^^j. responses to proposed ideas. The

evaluation of new ideas can be a major concern for operations research

studies, but the creation of these new ideas is illusive and frustrating.

In this regard, we can use your help.

The suggestions I will present have received no official attention as

yet, and I am hoping this discussion will uncover any unforeseen

ramifications and offer further stimulation to our thinking. My

remarks today will include a brief description of our approach to the

study, an explanation of our view of the present training program,

areas for potential improvement, and our preliminary ideas intended

to enhance the OWM program offerings.

Let me start by getting into some of the source material used. It

consisted principally of the training records supplied by the OWM

program manager for technical education, Mr. Otto Warnlof, and

information obtained through interviews with a limited number of

state and local weights and measures officials. The time available

during our study precluded the gathering of data which was not

readily available within the Office of Weights and Measures. The

training records used dated from July 1969 and detailed location of

the training, the date, the audience, the topic discussed, and the

duration of the session, as well as the OWM personnel involved. We

selected a two-year period for our analysis, calendar years 1970 and

1971, and limited the study to an assessment of how the training

program had been operated, as opposed to an evaluation of its

64
ultimate effect. This was due to absence of required information, and I will touch on this again later on.

The approach included an analysis of the distribution of training

offerings to the state and local jurisdictions, and also the distribution

among the categories of training, to determine the underlying

structure and apparent emphasis of the program.

The objective of the technical education program is to encourage

and support a high level of competency of weights and measures

personnel in the field. OWM has attempted to satisfy this objective by

responding to the vast majority of state requests for training. The

knowledge that OWM has concerning the need of jurisdictions for

training comes from this direct contact with weights and measures

officials and from questions and discussions with industry representatives concerned with weights and measures practices within

those jurisdictions.

OWM's technical education includes training program.s for weights

and measures inspectors, metrologists, and weights and measures

administrators. Our examination of the training offered within these

categories during the two-year period shows that there were only three

states receiving no training assistance in some form from OWM. On a

subject basis, four-fifths of the states received training oriented to

weights and measures inspectors, and three-fourths received

metrology training. For a staff as small as OWM currently musters,

this would seem to indicate fairly extensive coverage.

On a geographic basis, however, one-quarter of the nation's states

received almost one-half of the training output. In terms of actual

numbers, thirteen states participated an approximate average of 4.5

sessions per year, while thirty-nine states averaged only 1.5. It might

be thought that this geographic distribution could reflect level of

enforcement activity which would normally increase with economic

activity, and that the extent of enforcement activity would be related

to the need for training.

Using a gross estimate of economic activity from the U.S. Census

Bureau, we find that the bulk of OWM emphasis, almost two-thirds, is

placed on states having one-third of the nation's economic activity. A

similar result was indicated in an analysis of population-related

distributions. In this case, states containing one-third of the nation's

population received almost one-half of OWM training. It may be that

OWM training and resources are being concentrated where they are

most needed and that some jurisdictions do not perceive a need for

OWM assistance. Unfortunately, there is at present no objective

means readily available within OWM to determine what the

jurisdictional needs are and thereby to support this notion.

In examining the nature of OWM training activities, we discovered

that somewhat under 45 percent of the effort is W & M inspector

oriented, somewhat under 30 percent is devoted to metrology, and

somewhat less than 20 percent is on administrative subjects, with the

65
remainder devoted to information dissemination on various subjects.

Further geographic and subject oriented analysis revealed that just

four regional sessions accounted for 20 percent of all of training exposure received by the jurisdictions and encompassed 60 percent of

the states. Training in W & M administration averaged 5.6 states per

session, while metrology training averaged 2.5 states, and W & M

inspector training averaged 1.5 states per session. Presumably the

more extensive coverage of a single session of a subject permits OWM

to devote less resources to that subject and still maintain equally

effective levels in all areas.

In addition to the conduct of training courses, OWM is concerned

with the development of materials to support their training efforts.

These include NBS publications and visual aids such as the slide and

tape series on device examination procedures. The publications,

however, it is noted, must serve several purposes simultaneously.

They are used as a guide for enforcement, as training aids, and simply

as a source of knowledge, as references. To illustrate the point.

Handbook 44 is a set of codes for weights and measures devices and

practices used in commerce, and at the same time serves as a direct

basis for weights and measures inspector training.

The membership of this Conference has placed technical education

high on its list of priorities for OWM programs, indicating its value to

your weights and measures program. This was brought up yesterday

by Mr. Moe Greenspan's reading of his letter to Dr. Branscomb, in

which the Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government gave

technical training as second on its list of priorities next to the

National Conference.

Our analyses were concerned with enhancing OWM's ability to

meet your training needs, and our suggestions are offered with this

intent in mind. The following ideas might be considered by OWM as

suggestions for potential improvement to its programs. First, as I pointed out earlier, there is a need for OWM to have an objective

information base— its own management information system, if you

will —to know who needs training help and what kind. The informal

mechanism of information gathering that exists today should not be

lost, but should be supplemented by the application of the same kinds

of sophisticated computer systems OWM is telling you that you

should be using to do your job better.

You have a right to wonder why OWM devotes its resources as it

does, especially if you are one of the jurisdictions that sees OWM

personnel once a year. And OWM should have the capability to tell

you why in convincing fashion.

Finally, this information system capability will ultimately provide

the basis for demonstrating needs for and effects of the OWM training

efforts. It is this that provides the kind of objective information for

program justification that high level management is demanding

today. Besides better rationale for resource allocation, OWM must

66
also seek ways to increase its resource utilization. Regional type

sessions as mentioned earlier are clearly a step in the right direction.

It would be well to provide more training in this format. Also, more

effective utilization of resources is needed. The home study course is

an example of what I have in mind, but more of this needs to be done.

The development of detailed course outlines, with training material

such as visual aids and detailed illustrated text material, would

provide a package which would ease the training burden for weights

and measures jurisdictions, with or without OWM's direct involvement. Particular emphasis should be directed at producing a

complementary document to explain the codes in NBS Handbook 44

and provide illustrated explanations of required procedures. Review

of other NBS publications should address their present function and

the desirability to introduce complementary material strictly for

training purposes.

Ultimately, however, OWM needs your continued iniative and

energies. OWM training efforts are directed to the individual, for

enhancing his competency. In the end, however, what effect OWM

training efforts have on the individual depends on the encouragement

he receives back home. There are three ideas we have in mind in this

regard.

First is the possibility of increasing receptivity and motivation

among the individuals who are being trained. State police, for

example, have inducements that encourage the policemen to participate in training programs. There are approved courses of study

and formal incentives for the men to uplift themselves. To what

extent is it possible to parallel these programs for weights and

measures personnel?

Another idea aimed at the individual involves a scheme similar to

that present in Great Britain, where all inspectors are given an

examination. Upon passing, they are issued certificates of

qualification. The element which would be useful from our nation's

viewpoint involves the certification provision.

What is proposed is that OWM, in concert with the National

Conference Education Committee, develop an appropriate

examination for weights and measures inspectors or, if deemed

necessary, several examinations where divisions and functions are

recognized. The states could make their own decisions concerning the

use of the examination. However, examination results would serve to

illuminate what the strong and weak areas are. This would alert the

states concerning their training needs on both the statewide and the

individual basis.

The last notion I have takes advantage of a federal program for

intergovernmental exchange of personnel, I am thinking of a weights

and measures intern program, where senior officials of supervisory

level, not directors, would work in OWM for several months on

projects mutually agreeable to the individual, his jurisdiction, and

67
OWM. This would provide OWM with the concentrated effort from

officials with valuable field experience, and at the same time give the

individual a national perspective for weights and measures concerns.

In closing, I have suggested that thought be given to the OWM

program in rationalizing the allocation of effort, in increasing

utilization of existing resources, and in using the resources more

effectively. Also I have suggested that thought be given to the individual, to his encouragement, his evaluation, and his reward. If

OWM is to serve your needs, it is essential that they maintain the

cooperation and supporting relationship they have with you, the state

and local officials. Implementation of any of these suggestions would

be possible only with your support. Your responses, therefore, with

regard to these matters will be essential to any successful

followthrough.

DISCUSSION

Mr. J.R. Bird (New Jersey): In effect, we are becoming more and

more professional in our approach. Rather than using the word

training so many times, we should also use the term educational

approach, because it is not enough to train a professional weights and

measures man to do the nuts and bolts operation. He must have a

background of education to project and uplift his work in a

professional manner.

Mr. Stiefel: I wastryingto make a distinction between training as

opposed to education. Education, in the context that I would be using

it would be more of education of the general public as to what weights

and measures concerns were. Training related directly to the actual

technical knowledge that the official needs to perform his duty.

Mr. J.M. Chohamin (Middlesex County, New Jersey): I would like

you to elaborate on the proposal for a working agreement between

OWM and officials cooperatively working on projects at OWM. How

would it be financed?

Mr Stiefel: lamnot familiar with the exact details of the program.

I do know that there is already estabUshed a program whereby individuals come to the Federal Government for perhaps as much as a

year. I am not certain of this, but I believe it is possible to get

government funds to subsidize such a person for that period of time.

Before such an arrangement is attempted, however, there must be a

desire on the part of both parties to do it. It has to go through a

budgetary process to get approval, just like other OWM programs.

Mr. Chohamin: We are in the National Regional Council in my

county, which takes in all in a circle from New York City as far east as

Hartford and as far southwest as Camden, and are going to have some

time on closed circuit T.V. for exchange of views. The Assistant

Director for this project came to my office and asked me what type of

68
program we could give them to put on the air for weights and

measures officers. I would like to suggest that you consider taping

some of these training sessions for such a program on a local level and

on a national level. Incidentally, I suggested that portions of this

Conference might possibly be taped for the benefit of officials who

could not be here.

Mr. J. L. Donaldson (NBS Institute for Applied Technology): To my

knowledge, I do not think that the government would subsidize the

intergovernmental personnel program. However, there are two

methods by which such a program could be instituted. One is by an

actual exchange of personnel. Somebody in OWM would replace the

fellow in the field for a period of time. Another would be to have OWM

attempt to push this as a program that it supports and possibly get

some money for it. Right now the climate is receptive for bringing

people into the Bureau on a short term basis. However, OWM would

have to know that people would be willing to come into the Bureau

and work for a few months.

Mr.'Edgerly: We are talking about a new approach to our training

program whereby, instead of fielding requests fi^om the states to do

training, we will actually try and determine for a state, based on the

individuals and the level of training in the state, what training they

need.

Mr. Stiefel: Some of the things that you would consider would be

the turnover rate in the state, with the actual breakdown of the inspectors* jobs on a functional basis, and the training that the state

was performing by itself. The best thing to base any kind of a

determination on would be information on the individuals, because

training or education is aimed at the individual, to get him to perform

his job better.

Mr. D.I. Offner (St. Louis, Missouri): Some thought should be

given to the fact that the Bureau and the weights and measures

jurisdiction may not agree on the type of training that is needed. We

in the field are often not most aware of exactly the type of training

that we need.

Mr. Edgerly: In our program at OWM we go out and do a lot of

training, yet we have no feedback. We do not test the officials and we

do not know how good the absorption rate is. We cannot evaluate our

efforts if we do not have some means of f^dback.

Mr. R.L. Thompson (Marvland): I think that the testing is an

excellent suggestion to determine what level a jurisdiction has

acquired and what additional training would be desirable to reach

some yet to be determined point. I feel that the program leader, or

director, or superintendent is often aware of what this program needs

in the way of training. My thought is that, once it has been decided

what a jurisdiction needs, the jurisdiction be approached to decide

what portion of this training it could effectively cope with.

69
Miss Jacqueline Kendall (National Consumers Union): It is

commendable to hear you people talking about educating inspectors,

but it seems that before this is done the standards should be raised on

the scales themselves. What good is all that training if the best

trained inspector can leave a store with a scale that is so easily

manipulated.

Mr. Warnlof: I feel certain that, with the sophistication in the

devices today, scales cannot be manipulated as easily as you say. But

let us also talk about the consumer's responsibility. If she sees a

manipulation, it is her responsibility to call it to the attention of the

weights and measures official or to the merchant.

Miss Kendall: Most of the wrapping scales in the supermarket, for

instance, measure in hundredths of a pound increments. If they can be

set so the label will not register say for eight hundredths or sixteen

hundredths of a pound, you can allow for all kinds of discrepancies

that way.

Mr Warnix)f: The package speaks for itself. It is the weights and

measures responsibility to enforce a package-checking program. There

is no device that cannot be manipulated in some way, but I am

convinced that the devices that are available for packaging meat

products which we are talking about at the supermarket level are

designed appropriately and properly. The enforcement program is to

see that they are used properly. Some jurisdictions require that there

be a scale in the store available to consumers so they can check

packages.

Mr Edgerly: I think we are getting into the area of consumerism

now, which is going to be our next topic.

CONSUMERISM-ITS SPECIFICATIONS, TOLERANCES,

AND USER REQUIREMENTS

Mr Edgerly : One hundred years ago the concept of the consumer

did not really exist in America. The range of goods available was

narrow, and the list of a family's needs were really basic. The

relationships then between buyer and seller were personal and almost

direct, and the simplicity of the marketplace provided really little

room for abuse.

However, as our economy grew, the way of life for the average

American family changed considerably. Technological progress

brought man marvels never dreamed of. But it also brought confusion and perils that he could not have foreseen. An imbalance was

created in the marketplace, and society was slow to correct that

imbalance. It was not until well after the turn of the century that

President Theodore Roosevelt was able to claim that America had

awakened to the fact that no man may poison the public for private

profit. But even then the statement was ahead of its time. Free enterprise was freely translate to mean "caveat emptor," let the buyer

70
beware. And there was a tacit acceptance of the principle that

anything a merchant could get away with was acceptable.

Only recently have Americans realized that this doctrine erodes our

traditional concepts of justice. They have wearied of feeling victimized

by merchants and manufacturers, and they have set out to reform and

to rectify this imbalance between buyer and seller. For more than a

century, state and local weights and measures officials have worked to

strike this balance between buyer and seller— the very same objective

identified in the consumer movement.

What then, if anything, separates these two efforts? Granted,

consumerism embodies a wider range of maladies than just weights

and measures. However, no one can deny that the clientele group

which is served by both consumerism and weights and measures is the

same— the general public. Nor can anyone deny that state and local

governments were becoming increasingly aware of their responsibility

to provide a coordinated program of consumer affairs.

It is my pleasure this morning to moderate a panel of distinguished

guests who will discuss this broad area of consumerism and in particular, we hope, its relationship to weights and measures. Each panel

member will offer brief comments, after which I will open the floor for

discussion by the delegates.

Our first panel member is Mrs. Betty Bay, who is Director for

Federal-State Relations for the Office of Consumer Affairs. She

previously served on the staff as Associate Director for Legislative

Affairs, Associate Director for Field Operations, and as liaison with

national consumer organizations. Before joining the Office of Consumer Affairs, she served as Consumer Information Specialist at the

Department of Agriculture and as an Associate Editor for Better

Homes and Gardens, as well as Editor for the Trenton Missouri Daily

and Weekly Republican Times. Mrs. Bay is a native of Missouri and a

graduate of Iowa State University.

In recent years, the term consumerism has been widely used when

referring to a number of maladies in the marketplace. Are there, in

fact, a set of issues which clearly identify to the consumer platform? If

so, would you discuss these with us please?

71
REMARKS BY MRS. BETTY BAY

The term consumerism does not appear in

my 1960 Theory Dictionary, and yet that term

and what it implies is very much with us. I think there is a very broad consensus today

that consumerism is here to stay, and it is

healthy. I know the long and commendable

record of weights and measures officials in

serving the consumer and in seeing that he or

she is fairly served. Yet, as you seek to move

with the times and to assure that your office

serves the wants and needs of today's consumers—I think it is very well and I laud you for this review of what

is on the consumer's mind today— the first intelligent step in problem

solving is to define the problem.

Now I will give you the overview of our Office of Consumer Affairs

in the Executive Office of the President. We do have the advantage of

a national perspective provided from the thousands and thousands of

letters we receive from consumers, the meetings with them, with

contacts with federp officials, local officials, educators, and the

business community. But if I make one point here today, it would be

this. We laud your inviting us to speak on behalf of the consumer or to

bring his probLms to your attention, but, as you meet in your

national meetings, your regional meetings, and your local meetings, I would strongly encourage you to reach out and meet with the consumer himself.

There are organized groups, voluntary groups of consumers, a long

list of national organizations not organized as a consumer organization per se, but in their national progrgim and in their state and local

programs they are interested in the consumer. A few of those examples are the League of Women Voters, the American Association of

University Women, the American Association of Retired Persons. It

is a long list.

Harold Wollin met recently with a group of the Washington

representatives of those organizations who meet regularly with us to

tell them about this upcoming meeting, and I would encourage you

very strongly to reach out in your own state and local level to find

these groups and the individual consumer as well. One of the points I wanted to make here has been made by example— a young lady who

represented consumers and came to the microphone and asked a

question.

You may find consumers with a wide range of questions you do not

anticipate. Perhaps clarification is needed in many cases. It is well to

hear what is on their minds. I think one of the points of consumerism

that those of us in government as well as those in the business

community must recognize and act to resolve is that the consumer

72
grows weary of being talked to or addressed by those of us who

assume we know what he needs to know or wants to know. I think you

will find it refreshing, informative, and very helpful, as you develop

your programs, to hear from the consumers themselves.

Some of the issues you may think are not a question on the consumer's mind are questions, and one of the basic needs today is increased communication directly with the consumer. For those of us in

government and the business community, and educators, all of us who

seek to work with the consumer, we have no grounds for smugness to

say, "Oh, we are putting out a pamphlet which explains our

program," or **We will go and speak at a program to the consumers."

We need to evaluate in terms of today's communications the kinds of

material that we are making available which we think are informative

and educational.

Today we are coping with a whole new means of communication.

Consumers, the public, or whatever term you would use (they are

interchangeable in my mind) are accustomed to the television, to fast

pace presentations. We do not, I think, totally satisfy them. We give

them a pamphlet and send them home and say, "There it all is."

We need to reach them in new ways. What we tell them is for their

own good, but there are needs to improve the presentations that we

make to them. We need to constantly appraise the means of communication and how well we reach groups who may not have English

as their native and basic language and those who have not had the

advantage of education. I see a lot of pamphlets, publications, not

only from state and local level, come over our desk, but from the

federal government as well, and too often we gear them for, say, a high

school level education. They are in very small print, so that, if you

have eye problems, you may not be able to read all the g(X)d news

therein.

We in our office will be happy to provide you, either through the

Secretariat for this Conference or directly in any way the list we have

of state and local voluntary consumer organizations, the list of

national organizations interested in working with the consumer. In

short, we will work with you in any way to help you reach out, and I hope you will.

I have been to some of your state meetings, regional and otherwise,

and I did not see as many consumers there as I might have hoped. I will trust that this is past history and that you will be communicating.

It may not always be comfortable, but I think it is one of the primary

needs today.

The letters which roll into our office, the state and local consumer

offices, with their documentation of despair, of fraud, and runaround

of people being hurt, and of responsiveness spell out the roots and

causes of the consumer movement.

The marketplace today is more impersonal, so the consumer has

more of a sense of "I don't know where to go with a question. I don't

73
know where to go when I have a problem. Are they really listening?

Are they really there?" We have a more mobile society, so that the

trading area where you go to shop may be today here, tomorrow miles

away, so again we have this loss of contact with where to go with our

problems, and I keep hitting to all of us who by any standard are

government, federal, state, or local.

I have heard some horror stories of the runaround or the referral,

endless it seems to the consumer, of where he goes with the questions.

I have heard of fourteen phone calls made by one man to get a

question answered. One secretary even hung up. I think he was calling

about mulches, if you want to know, and one secretary who apparently had not heard the word mulch before said, You know you're

pulling my leg," and hung up on him. Within our own bounds, we can

train the secretaries or whoever answers the phone to realize that it is

the consumer at the other end, and the consumer feels that he is

paying the bill. He is, for all of us. We work for him. Rather than to

say, "Our office doesn't handle that; we suggest you call some other

agency," take the added step and tell him where to call, or, best yet,

give him the name of the guy and the phone number. Give him help.

He is saying, and I think to a great logical degree, You know I want

answers from government as well."

Also, as a followup of World War II, the consumer was hungry for

goods. But we have an increasingly sophisticated consumer today. We

have a turn toward more quality, which again makes him look in

despair when something he buys does not measure up to all he expected or all the advertising or labeling or the package led him to

expect, and he does not know where to go and be heard and get redress

for his grievances.

These problems should not have crystalized to the extent that they

have, but we do have an emergence of consumer leadership at all

levels. President Nixon, in his last consumer message to the Congress,

pinpointed many of the problems facing consumers when he said: ''In

today's marketplace, the consumer often finds himself confronted

with what seems an impenetrable complexity of many of our consumer

goods, in the advertising claims that surround them, the merchandising methods that pervade them, and the means available to

conceal their quality. The result is a degree of confusion that often

confounds the unwary and too easily can be made to favor the unscrupulous." **I believe," said President Nixon, "new safeguards are

needed, both to protect the consumer and to reward the responsible

businessman."

In short, we do not feel the consumer movement is antibusiness. I think there is growing in the business community the feeling that the

scale should be balanced between the buyer and seller in a world

today, where the consumer if faced with a plethora of goods and has

less ability, because of the technical nature, to evaluate them himself.

The consumer wants to be heard and to have redress for his

74
grievances. He wants his money back when he feels he has been taken,

and his cause is just. He wants to have an advocate at the policymaking level. He does not want to be done to or talked down to. He

wants to be a part as we make policies, and this goes to government

too, at the federal, state, and local level. One of the things Mrs.

Knauer has done is to translate that great "legalesed" document

called the Federal Register into layman's language, to try to make it

available to the consumer so that he knows of hearings that are

coming up and occasions when his views are solicited. Previously they

were solicited in the Federal Register only, and he did not have access

to this. She has tried to put this into the hands of consumers, so they

know and feel that their views are welcomed and they know how to

direct them properly to be heard.

The consumer is seeking an advocate to represent his views where

he personally cannot be represented before agencies of the government. He wants to have more information on labeling, packaging,

advertising, warranties, and guarantees. Mrs, Knauer has encouraged

business to adopt unit pricing, and I hope that you would within your

own realm of jurisdiction give similar encouragement to the business

community. Other examples of things that have been high on her

priority list include packaging of bacon to allow the consumer to see

the fat-lean ratio before she buys, percentage labeling on orange juice

products, cosmetic ingredient labeling, and open dating of foods to

show how long they have been on the shelf.

In the insurance area she has been urging very r^ently the

disclosure of comparative life insurance cost. Among other priority

projects, of course, is auto no-fault insurance, which we are currently

working on.

This is to give you the broad scope of consumer issues. The consumer wants increased product safety and to be assured that his

health is respected. He wants consumer education for himself and his

children. Our office is well aware of the increased attention at the state

and local level to consumer problems, such as the establishment of

consumer offices, focal points for the consumer to bring his problems

and to research new means of resolving these problems.

One of the things I did recently in our Federal-State Relations

Division was to try and document the many exciting things happening at the state and local levels. There was not, we found, in any

form like this, a documentation so that the states could draw from one

another what was being done at the legislative, program, or information level. We hope to continue this, and we hope that you will

give us input as to what your officers are doing, so we can share this

with other states and so that the consumer will know who and what is

being done in his behalf.

Our office, the Division of Federal-State Relations, stands ready to

work with you at any and all times. You do have and you have had a

long responsibility in the consumer's behalf. We cannot sit. We have

76
to stand and find new ways to reach him, to listen, and to try and

adapt what we are doing to resolve the problems that are on his mind.

Mr Edgerly: The next gentleman who was to have been with us

this morning unfortunately could not come. His name is Mr. Charles

J. Irwin, Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs in New Jersey.

However, Mr. Sam Christie, State Superintendent of the Office of

Weights and Measures in the Division of Consumer Affairs has agreed

to stand in for him.

Mr. Christie, many of the delegates here this morning face the same

situation that you faced some time back in the development of the

Division of Consumer Affairs. Could you just briefly outline the

activities of your Consumer Affairs Office and also where weights and

measures fits into this?

REMARKS BY MR. S H. CHRISTIE, JR.

Mr. Irwin is a very dynamic person, very

active, and he has a greac many thoughts as to

how to go about making the Consumer Affairs

Office in New Jersey a very effective and efficient one for the sake of the consumer and the

state.

The office is a combination of many boards

that have been involved in consumer complaints over a number of years, and includes

weights and measures as one of its cor- nerstones. As Mr. Irwin got into the work, he

found to his surprise that weights and measures is a very definite

consumer affairs project and can be very effective in promoting

consumer affairs in general.

One of the things that he has done has been to take our task force

operation and combine it with task force people from other branches of

his office, and we make unannounced hit-and-run appearances for

checkweighing packages and observing the equipment that is being

used. At the same time, the other members of this task force from the

various other segments of the office are there to discover violations

that exist in other fields in order to do away with some of the complaints that have come in regarding those. It is a combination effort.

In one of the ghetto areas, for instance, the operation conducted by

our office disclosed a very horrible condition insofar as the health

violations were concerned, and the place was immediately shut down.

We weights and measures men did not know at the time that there

were some complaints regarding the health conditions, but the other

officers did, and it gave them the opportunity to go in and observe and

act.

We have found that only a minimum number of complaints on

weights and measures come into the Office of Consumer Affairs in

Newark, but there are many complaints coming in regarding con76
tracts, home improvements, and operations particularly in the nature

of franchise operations. Very recently the Office was able to get a

cease and desist order to prevent a particular individual from conducting his shady type of operation which had been going on for four

or five years, and at the same time get a rebate of around $225,000 to

the various citizens of the state who had been bilked by this individual.

This is a coordinated effort which revolves around one thing, and

that is action. It is to get the most effective use out of manpower, to

reduce the complaints, and to let the consumer know the end result.

Too many times reports or complaints have been received at various

state offices, and were not followed up. Many times these complaints

were thoroughly investigated, but the consumer himself did not know

the results, and this instituted another series of complaints.

The action has been successful, too, in another way so far as we in

weights and measures are concerned. We now have an opportunity to

reach out and talk to groups that we had no contact with before. The

interest is great enough so that educators, for instance, are now

coming to the Office for additional information, not just on consumer

affairs in general, but weights and measures in particular.

The young lady who was at the microphone earlier is a case in point.

We have an opportunity on these occasions to settle the questions in

the minds of these individuals as to the operations of equipment, why

certain things can take place, why certain things cannot be done, and

what they should do to help prevent being cheated by just simple

observation and reporting. We also have an advantage in that

members of the staff are constantly meeting with groups, two, three,

or four times a day. They are making talks and carrying our message.

These communications result in the education of consumers, thus

keeping complaints down to a lower level.

This, too, has assisted Mr. Irwin in allowing only the larger, more

important, legal complaints to be handled at the higher level, where it

takes special investigation and a legal staff to complete the case.

Mr Edgerly: Our next pane! participant is Jim Wiley. He is a

native of Santa Barbara, California, and entered weights and measures

in 1952 as a deputy sealer. He returned to Santa Barbara in 1954 as

deputy sealer and was appointed county sealer in 1959. He has served

on various committees of the California Association of Weights and

Measures, and is presently President of that body.

Mr. Wiley, could you give us your thoughts about consumer affairs

with respect to the State of California, and also with respect to your

ideas as to whether weights and measures should be in this field?

77
REMARKS BY MR. J. E. WILEY, JR.

The need for adequate protection is

paramount. Either we assert ourselves in the

consumer's behalf, or he is going to look

elsewhere. I firmly believe that a logical place

for a consumer affairs office lies within the

framework of your local weights and measures

jurisdiction. To fulfill this need, I would like to

direct my remarks to only two subjects; first,

to the establishment of a separate function for

consumer affairs within the present structure of

weights and measures, and, second, to a change

from the traditional weights and measures inspection philosophy.

The establishment of a separate, and I w ould like to stress separate,

consumer affairs agency within your present weights and measures

administration would give you a single local office for people living

within your local jurisdiction to turn to. Again, I stress the importance of the local agency to receive consumer complaints. For

instance, the County of Los Angeles discovered 125 agencies involved

in consumer protection, and they admit that their list is not complete.

No wonder, then, the poor consumer often gives up in disgust,

mumbling about government bureaucracy. And bureaucracy, by the

way, is defined in the dictionary of quotations as follows: "A sure sign

of bureaucracy is when the first person who answers the phone can't

help you."

The taxpayer deserves and is entitled to quick, local relief from a

legitimate complaint. One highly respected county in California made

six points in a request to their Board of Supervisors for the establishment of a local consumer affairs office, and I believe these are worth

repeating.

1. To receive complaints of unfair business practices and dealings

against the consumer.

2. If a law has been broken, to report the violation to the proper

city, county, state, or federal agency.

3. To assist, develop, and conduct programs of consumer education

before organizations on request.

4. To disseminate information to the news media, displays and

pamphlets alerting consumers to misleading and deceptive practices.

5. Cooperate with city, county, state, and federal agencies to

protect and promote the interest of local consumers.

6. To encourage local business and industry to maintain high

standards of honesty, fair business practices, and public responsibility in production, promotion, and sale of consumer goods and

services.

78
Let us examine, then, some of the statistics of two counties

currently handling both weights and measures responsibilities and

consumer affairs from the weights and measures office. Each has a

population slightly less than a half million. Each is receiving 100 to

120 complaints per month. Each is successfully resolving over 80

percent of these complaints.

Complaint backlog is between 100 and 240 per month, with complaint attention from one week to three weeks. I would like to point

out that priorities are placed on urgent complaints.They are handled

immediately in these counties. Monetary return ranges between

$25,000 and $81,000 per county so far in their program, which is about

one year old. One county reports an average of $12.42 per complaint

returned to the customer. This may be in money, services, or goods.

The consumer complaints of both counties are increasing about 20

percent a month. Because of the ongoing consumer awareness, one

program reports a 49 percent increase in weights and measures

complaints. And this is because the consumer now is aware he has

some place to complain to.

As you recall, I stressed the need for a separate division for weights

and measures and consumer affairs. Weights and measures has a well

established effective and efficient foundation for consumer protection.

A consumer affairs agency is new and deserves a different approach.

Remember these important rules: In weights and measures you are

the third man in the marketplace, acting in about the same capacity as

an umpire in a baU game. In consumer affairs you have to definitely

swing toward the consumer.

An alternate to the creation of a separate division for consumer

protection is to become more effective in your weights and measures

program, and how to become more effective was a question asked at a

Southern California meeting some four years ago. It did not take us

long to discover that we spent 80 percent of our time inspecting

weighing and measuring devices, of which 20 percent were found to be

inaccurate, whereas 80 percent of the consumer dollar was spent on

packaged items. Through the excellent and continuing help of the

NBS Office of Weights and Measures, the California Department of

Agriculture, Bureau of Weights and Measures, and a number of

dedicated county sealers, a plan was developed for a pilot program,

and this was authorized for the Counties of Santa Barbara and

Ventura. The objective of this plan has three elements:

1. To put the responsibility of the accuracy of the device on the

owner and user, not on the weights and measures official.

2. To make more effective use of manpower and equipment.

3. To place more emphasis on the end product.

To accomplish these objectives, the following basic plan has been

designed. Formerly most commercial devices were required to be

sealed annually. Many device owners depended on weights and

79
measures inspectors to inform them of the condition of their devices.

Under the new system, all commercial devices will be placed on a

variable frequency of inspection. That is, a device may be on increased

inspection of every six months or a decreased inspection of every two

years. Records will continue to be kept on the condition of devices,

and additional records will indicate the maintenance program of the

individual business establishment. This will free the weights and

measures inspectors from inspecting devices annually where records

have shown that these devices have been accurate in each inspection

in the past two years and the business establishment maintains its

devices.

Together with a variable inspection program is the requirement for

licensing. This is done by county ordinance, and the servicemen will

be required to be licensed annually. Each repairman will be required to

affix his license number to the device he installs, repairs, or adjusts. If

his work indicates that he is incompetent or results in several recalls

before the device is repaired, he could lose his license to work within

that county.

Lastly, a citation system will be implemented. After an adjustment

and educational period, a device owner may be cited for violations of

our weights and measures laws.

In summary, I would like to reemphasize that consumer affairs is a

new program logically belonging within the confines of weights and

measures, but it must be treated as a separate entity. I would like to

make one remark to the lady who commented on supermarket scales.

That scale, I assume, was off of zero. With our citation program, we

would hope to give that guilty person a fair trial.

Mr Edgerly : Our last panel member is Mrs. Margaret Dana. She is

a professional consultant on the changing attitudes and problems of

consumer buyers. Having studied at Oberlin College and New Jersey

State College, her primary concern has been a firsthand study of

consumer buyers, observing what and how they buy, how they use

what they buy, and what they say about these products.

Mrs. Dana provides various newspaper columns with consumer

information. Two such columns, "Before You Buy" and "Consumer's

Question Box,** have been syndicated by United Features Syndicate

to some 120 newspapers. To maintain authoritative pipelines to

sources of essential information for consumers, Margaret cooperates

with many technical groups. She is a member of the Board of

Directors for five organizations, Underwriter Laboratories, American

National Standards Institute, American Society for Testing Materials, National Association for Buyer Protection, and the Philadelphia

Better Business Bureau.

Mrs. Dana, I am going to quote from one of your letters to me: "I

feel there is too much weight on consumer protection and not enough

on consumer information. In my view, information is the most vital

protection, and I would like to see more of it in the weights and

80
measures field. This really is the kind of protection consumers need,

even when they are not aware of it/' I would like you to elaborate on

these views if you would please.

REMARKS BY MRS. MARGARET DANA

A couple of weeks ago I met with a rather

large consumer education group, and we were

talking about weights and measures. I think

you would be amused by what was a

unanimous appeal from them. They said:

"Weights and measures people are too invisible; they are too quiet. We would like them

to make more noise in our communities."

Please note that I am trying to remember to

say "weights and measures people" and not

"men." The last time I used the word men in

my columns, the editor of the Milwaukee newspaper wrote me and

said: "Out here in Milwaukee we have some women in our weights and

measures department, and we would prefer if you wouldn't talk about

weights and measures men."

Before I start in on the business of what the consumer wants, let me

thank so many of you for those letters I have had from you this past

year, telling me about how many of your departments now have a

nice, easy, findable telephone address in your phone book. You would

enjoy knowing how many consumers have written to me saying,

"Hey, I was able to find the weights and measures phone number in

my phone book."

I want to thank you for letting me know about the great projects,

the letters from Massachusetts and Kentucky and Tennessee and Los

Angeles. I am very glad to be able to carry the news back to consumers that you are doing this.

What do consumers want in protection? The word protection is so

badly misused and misinterpreted. Even more badly misused and

misinterpreted in my opinion, and I am speaking from a merely

physiological point of view, is the word "want." What do consumers

want? It is very important, as you head into a lot of new areas of

consumer affairs, to make a very distinct difference in definition

between two types of wants. What do consumers want?

The first one is very misleading, and it has become a very serious

matter in this country, because it happens to be the easier conclusion

to come to, decision to make, and it is very broadspread. Be careful of

it, because the consumer "want" is from the consumer who has

neither information, sophistication, education, or know-how. Consequently, such a consumer wants, or thinks he wants, complete

safety of all products so that he never has to think about it; it is taken

care of for him.

81
The number 1 type of consumer wants mandatory protection

always of the best in a product, always the best, whatever that is and

for whom, and never any variation at all in the weights and measures

of any line of products. No allowance at all for one-fourth ounce off or

a cent away.

The number 2 type of consumer— and here is our target— bases his

want on decisions that come from full information and from free choice

among performance alternatives. You see, we do away with that old

idea that there is a best. There isn't any such animal any longer. There

are performance levels; there are differences, differentials. And put

together, they make different products which suit different demands

and budgets. This second type of consumer is slow to come about in

this country.

We have gone a long, long time in this country assuming that there

was a kind of implied guarantee that everything we expected of a

product would be taken care of—that it would weigh, measure, and

behave as we expected. Well, that kind of economic ignorance has got

to go. We have to learn to understand how things are made, how they

are produced, what a production line does, and what distribution does.

Then, maybe, we will not have some of those idiotic charges that have

been made in the past year, such as the charge that in one of our large

jurisdictions people in that city were being cheated out of a million or

two million dollars every year because weights and measures people

were not on the ball keeping packages right according to the way they

were labeled. I looked into that very carefully, as perhaps some of you

know. I found that it was an extrapolation of a weight on one whole

group of units that was below what it was labeled, but everybody

extrapolated to say, "If one package is that much off, with five million

people buying they are all being cheated the same amount." Well, that

is just ignorance.

Now, how are you going to get to this target of the informed,

competent consumer who cooperates with you? Well, first by

changing the half truth and the unwarranted conclusions that are

widespread today, and changing them to whole truths from government, industry, and educators. What we need is a habit, and a

training for a habit to use your head, to think. You have to have it in

school, you know. You have to start in school. We are not being

trained in our publication education today to acquire the habit of

using our heads. Too many people think that somebody else will do

the thinking for us and, if we just go ahead, we will come out all right.

We won't. And you have an obligation to stand for that thing, good

consumer education of real integrity in our public schools.

Human nature tends to believe the worst always. I think it is a

hangover from primitive times, when the norm usually was the worst.

So any story spread today about an industry cheating you, the

packaging being lousy, or everybody being cheated here— well, it does

82
happen, but not wholesale, and people do not differentiate. We need

to.

Now I am going to go along with your previous speakers who have

talked about training needed by the weights and measures people. Of

course you know that I am slightly biased in favor of weights and

measures people, because I consider that you have been in the consumer information business a long, long time. But over and over again

as I go through the country and ask a weights and measures man in a

certain area how many times a year or how often he checks the scales

in our grocery stores here, I don't get an answer, not because he

doesn't want to answer, but because he doesn't know.

We need people-to-people contacts. Consumers need to know that

the weights and measures people are really concerned, and they need

to understand what you do. So far as the packaging law is concerned,

I have tried fifty thousand times, it seems to me, to explain to people

what they should look for. They want to know: "Well, what are the

weights and measures people looking for? What do they do? What

have they to do with the packaging law?" Try to have some roundtable discussions locally and tell them about it. They need to know

how to protect themselves by knowing what to check.

I am still getting tons of letters asking what it is all about, the meat

packaging and the funny things on the label. One person asked what

the one and forty-one ounces meant on the label. I explained that it

meant one and forty-one hundredths of a pound. Have you tried

explaining this to them in your jurisdiction, or have you assumed that

they did understand? Let us join in making our target more consumers who are informed and who want to know the important things

to help them make a choice.

DISCUSSION

Mr. M. Greenspan (New York City, N.Y.): In New York City we, in

cooperation with the Bronx Community College, in 1967 developed a

very extensive program of educating community leaders. It was a

course that involved twenty weeks, three hours a night, and the

course started with such simple things as reading the scale, and then

went all the way up to contracts, credits and so on. In developing this

program, we started out with groups of twenty. Before half of the

sessions were over, they dropped down to groups of ten or eight, and

90 percent of the information never got back to the community. This

is where the big problem, we feel, lies. How can this kind of information get back to the community?

Mrs. Bay: I don't think any of us, frankly, have totally resolved

that. I would make no indictment here of your own program; I will

only speak of some I have seen. We have to look into our own

structuring of such educational programs. Sometimes where we have

83
created a schoolroom situation, we have had courses or programs at

hours which seemed logical, but may not be most convenient for

people with small children or working people to attend. Again, in a

schoolroom situation, some adults who have not had adequate

schooling hesitate to reveal what they do not know. Such programs

have failed through the approach we have taken.

We have to look at some of the means being used by the advertising

media, by all phases of the media, the new communications

mechanisms that we can utilize. In our own office we have been

searching for this and hope shortly to come out with suggested

guidelines for adult consumer education. When that is available, I will

get the word to you and will try and share copies with you.

The one most helpful thought I could offer is to meet with the

community leaders you are trying to work with and evaluate what

caused their dropout. Also try to get more of their input into it.

Mrs Dana: I have been training small groups of people that I call

missionaries. Where there is a consumer education committee or

group, I gather together delegates from that group and we have a

training session, primarily to translate words into simple words

mutually understood. I had a discussion some years ago with the

Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission about advertising, and he

said: *'If you want to be understood by everyone, and not misunderstood, you can do it, but you have to plan to do it, and then you

have to make sure you have done it."

With these missionaries, we talk about how to get the very simple

basic story across, and proceed from the known to the unknown. We

never venture out into a difficult situation like "Where should the

labeling appear on the package according to the Model Law." Instead,

we say: '*Can you read this better this way or that way? Is this type

large enough? Can everybody see it? How should it be? Well, then

that's what the Model Law says it should be." I have found in different parts of the country that these missionary efforts really work

like a charm.

Mr. S.H.Christie, Jr. (New Jersey): The Consumer Affairs Office in

New Jersey has a program known as CALO Officers. These are

Consumer Affairs Liaison Officers. Right now there are about ninety

people involved. They are strictly volunteers. All of them are women.

They go through a certain training program so that they can do a

certain amount of sifting at their level of whatever problems come to

their attention. They seek out and search, as well as receive, information regarding not only our work, but any work pertaining to the

Consumer Affairs Office. The greater the number of cities and towns

that you have in a concentrated area and the more difficult your work

is to police your area, the greater value these people can become to you

as a helpful agent.

Miss Jan Schakowski (National Consumers United): We are a

grassroots activist organization located in Evanston, Illinois. It

84
seems to me that, if you people are really serious about communicating with consumers, you should examine the makeup of the

weights and measures officials. It seems to me that a homogenous

group would have some difficulty in dealing with a very

heterogeneous population. I see a very small number of women and of

representatives of minority groups. It would seem to be the

responsibility for this Conference to somehow resolve that situation.

Mr. Christie, you just mentioned that all of your volunteers are

women. Why are the volunteers women? Why are they not the policy

makers, the decision makers, the paid personnel, so that you don't

have to recruit women to communicate with women.

Regarding short weight, the National Consumers United has a scale

of our own that has been certified by the City of Chicago. We go

around weighing things, and we have found a tremendous amount of

short weight. According to an article that appeared in the National

Observer on October 23, 1971, an average American family of four is

robbed of $150 every year. That is the government's estimate of the

high price of short weighing, a practice that may cost consumers as

much as ten billion dollars a year. Whose fault is that?

Mrs. Dana: I am very familiar with that quotation. I believe that

was a mistake. That was not the government's estimate of how much

each family lost each year, but how much each family was saved each

year through weights and measures programs. I have that directly

from the Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures.

Mr. Edgerly: This afternoon we are having a forum dealing with

packaging and labeling, and we certainly would invite the two ladies

from NCU to stay over and participate in that forum also. We cer- tainly hope that other members of your group and other organizations

will participate more actively in this Conference.

It seems to me that there are two predominant fears that stand

pretty much as a roadblock to really jumping in with both feet to the

consumer affairs agency. One is the fear of a loss of identity of the

weights and measures effort. The second is a fear that the workload

that you currently have is almost impossible in terms of the resources

that are available.

Mr. Wiley: There is legislation now in California to provide some

$750,000 to promote the establishment of consumer affairs or the

expansion of consimier affairs within counties and for the creation or

expansion of a fraud division within the District Attorney's Office.

These grants are only for two years, and the size and number of the

grants depend upon the population of the county. So far as loss of

identity, I can see that fear. Weights and measures has been long back

in the shadows, while consumerism is now right out in front. I personally believe that these two departments should be combined under

one roof, but operated separately because they are separate.

Mr Christie : I think the fear of loss of identity is very evident. It is

prevalent in any organization that has had a long background of

85
activity with a silent sort of operation. The weights and measures

operation can be compared to an iceberg. It is more effective than is

evident, because only about one-third of the iceberg is really above

water. It has been stated to us that we are equivalent to the FBI, a

silent arm of government, but very effective.

I think, however, that they are both here to stay, that they are

compatible, and they can work side by side. I think the matter of loss

of identity will be diminished when you have personnel at the top

directing the movement, because weights and measures people

themselves have been consumer-minded for a great many years.

Consumerism is a tag line of the day. Those who handle the money are

willing to put money and services out for that purpose, but in the next

five or six years I think you are going to find it leveling off in order to

become fully effective and make use of all the personnel involved.

Mr J.C. Mays (Dade County, Florida): The Consumer Protection

Division for Dade County, Florida, was formerly the Weights and

Measures Division. However, we are listed in the phone book under

weights and measures, and we try to keep weights and measures in

the forefront in our operations. Mrs. Dana, could you in your column

make some suggestion to the women's organizations and civic

organizations to appoint a consumers affair representative to work in

conjunction with the weights and measures people?

Mrs Dana: I think this is a great idea. In fact, I am doing it in a

variety of fields all the time. I am now trying to get a group of women

together nationally to have a briefing on how a good standard is set

and how you have a test method for that standard and what it means,

and what a sampling plan is. The National Bureau of Standards and

all the standards making groups have agreed to underwrite and

sponsor it. I think it is a very good idea to get more of our organized

clubs to undertake a community service in exactly that way.

Mr Stabler:I think it is the responsibility of this Conference and of

the OWM staff to do what we can to see that weights and measures

does not lose its technical capability as a result of the consumer

movement. Certainly we must see that equity does prevail. Whether

we retain our identity or not is a moot question, but we must retain

our technical capability. I have seen instances, when weights and

measures has been combined with other activities in state government, not necessarily inspection activities, where weights and

measures officials have become "hotline" authorities and investigators of consumer complaints. In a very short time these people

have lost their technical ability. They can no longer test scales or

gasoline pumps or have the technical know-how to check packages.

We, as weights and measures officials have a responsibility in the area

of consumer interest, but we have other responsibilities that, in my

view, far outweigh consumer protection in the contemporary sense.

We must retain our technical capability.

Mr. S.D. Andrews (Florida): I would like to go a little further and

86
say that I question the wisdom of having a weights and measures

division in a consumer affairs office. I think perhaps we are all going

to lose our identity if such things as this come about. If we lost our

identity, I think it will be the result of our not doing a good job. We

will lose the respect of the consumer because we are not doing a

professional job as impartial arbitrators in weights and measures

matters.

The broad spectrum of consumer affairs encompasses so many

things other than pure weights and measures that I question the

wisdom of having weights and measures officials become consumer

advocates. I think they would be immediately suspect by the other

party that they are not being fair and impartial. So I would like to

emphasize the necessity for retaining our professional impartial

position and strengthen our identity as such. I think if we do that we

will improve our stature not only with the consumers, but with the

consumer advocates, who will look to us to settle those problems that

come to their attention where there is a need for professional service to

decide whether a consumer has been shorted in those areas that

require professional weights and measures attention.

M Dana: I would like to say that I agree. I do not like the idea of

weights and measures becoming a part of, or lost in, a consumer affairs department. If it could be kept independent, if its standards of

technical excellence can be maintained, and if the community will

support the financial needs of that department to do a good job, which

is a very important thing to get across to consumers, then I think that

is okay. But I agree that we ought not just let them become complaint

carriers. They are too important for that.

Mr Andrews: I agree. For example, many of the consumer complaints that we receive in the State of Florida have no relation

whatever to weights and measures, such as insurance frauds, poor

service to automobile repairs, and things of this kind. We are just

getting bogged down in handling complaints that we really have no

expertise in.

Mr. Christie: We have become an office within the Division of

Consumer Affairs. We are engaged in our own type of work. However,

when it comes to referrals, we now receive weights and measures

complaints that are funneled to us, and we have to report to the

consumer the action that has been taken. There are times when we

assist the other branches, but those are minimal. We are functioning

as a separate entity and we do retain our identity in this respect.

Mr R.J. Cord (Prince George's County, Maryland): I have had the

opportunity to sit as a commissioner on a Consumer Protection

Commission for a period of a year. Within a nine-month period, we

addressed ourselves to some 397 complaints, of which only one was

specifically related to weights and measures. We had complaints from

well educated people, from people representing their children who had

purchased something and gotten injured. Has any thought been given

87
to educating the people in the public school system and informing

them about consumer protection and what the county does for them in

this field?

Mrs Bay: Starting the day Virginia Kanuer took office, she has

been talking about the great need for increased consumer education in

the schools. Our office has pubUshed suggested consumer education

guidelines from kindergarten through the twelfth grade. Some of the

problems that must be considered before a state mandates consumer

education are whether the teachers are trained to teach it and whether

we have a sufficient number of teachers to teach it. Some schools are

working consumer education into existing courses, such as figuring

interest rates in mathematics courses.

Mr. E. Prideaux (Colorado): Mrs Dana, I would like to comment on

one remark that you made concerning the inspector that could not

give you the information you wanted on the inspection of scales. The

person to whom you spoke was an exception. I guarantee that the

inspectors do know where the scales are, how often they inspect them,

and how they operate.

Mrs Dana: It is actually in the small towns or small county areas

where I run into something like this, where perhaps the inspector is a

political appointee who does not have any training.

88
AFTERNOON SESSION -THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1972

(John H. Lewis, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

FORUM ON CONSUMER CONCERNS IN THE MARKETPLACE

E.A. Vadelund, Office of Weights and Measures, Moderator

The forum this afternoon will concentrate on

recent developments in the marketplace that

affect the consumer. Representatives from the

academic world, from business, and from

government will participate as panel members.

The opening portion of the session will center

on a discussion of unit pricing and open code

dating— what they are and what they are not.

This will be followed by a description of who is

doing it nationwide, followed in turn by a

description of how it works where it has been

utilized and by discussion on enforcement problems.

Other aspects of packaging and labeling will be discussed by federal

regulatory agency officials. Developments concerning slack fill, the

limited coverage of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, and

problems in meat and poultry labeling will be reviewed.

Our first group of participants includes Mr. Theodore W. Leed,

Professor of Food Marketing, Department of Agricultural and Food

Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Miss Jean Judge,

Director of Consumer Affairs for the Grand Union Company of East

Paterson, New Jersey; Mr. Henry J. Stern, First Deputy Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, New York City; and Mr. Clarence G.

Adamy, Executive Director of the National Association of Food

Chains, Washington, D.C.

Panel members from federal regulatory agencies are Mr. John

Gomilla, Chief, Fair Packaging and Labeling Branch, Food and Drug

Administration; Mr. Earl W. Johnson, Attorney, Federal Trade

Commission; and Dr. John C. DeHoll, Chief of the Labels and

Packaging Staff, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

89
UNIT PRICING AND OPEN CODE DATING

REMARKS BY MR. T. W. LEED

I would like just briefly to talk about unit

pricing and open dating in terms of the whole

concept of conjsumerism. I would like to give a

definition of what consumerism is and indicate

how unit pricing and open dating fit into this

whole concept of consumerism.

I think one of the best definitions of consumerism that I have seen is in an article

written by two gentlemen by the name of Day

and Aker in the July 1970 issue of the Journal

of Marketing. They defined it as the widening

range of activity of government, business, and independent

organizations that is designed to protect individuals from practices of

both business and government that infringe upon their rights as

consumers. They said that really there are three aspects to this. One is

protection against clear-cut abuses, such things as food and drug, fair

trade practices that protect consumers against outright fraud or

deceit— food inspection which deals with health and wholesomeness—

and these are probably the least controversial part of consumerism.

The second is the provision of adequate information. The third is the

protection of the consumer against himself and other consumers.

I think that the second area, the provision of adequate information

for making purchasing decisions, where unit pricing and open dating

fit into the picture, is the aspect of consumerism that has been getting

the most attention, because of the feeling that buying is becoming so

complex with the proliferation of products and ingredients that the

consumer is simply not in a position to make intelligent decisions

without more information on price and quality. So I think that unit

pricing and open dating fit into this category of trying to provide the

consumer with more information on price and quality.

I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you are on as to how

you would evaluate this statement. I have tried to be objective about

this because I have a great deal of respect for industry. I feel that the

food industry has a good overall track record, and I think it would be

too bad if we passed legislative regulations that interfered with improving this track record. On the other hand, I think there are some

practices that have been perpetuated, or at least accepted, by industry

that perhaps are not in the best interests of the consumer.

Let me go on and tell you what I think unit pricing is, and also open

dating. First, unit pricing is simply the identification of price per

standard unit of weight or measure, which enables the consumer to

make valid cost comparisons, and it is not a measure of value. It is

simply a measure of cost. The consumer, however, should be able to

90
make a value judgment once the cost per standard unit of weight or

measure is known. So it facilitates value comparisons; it does not

measure value.

It is not a substitute for individual preferences and tastes. Certainly

I do not think that it will replace brand preference. In fact, unit

pricing may indeed reinforce brand preference. I think that unit

pricing is consistent with our concept of the free market, because

perfect knowledge or perfect information is one of the basic precepts of

our market system.

Where is unit pricing in effect in terms of regulations?

Massachusetts was the first state to pass a unit pricing law. It went

into effect January 1, 1971. Connecticut, Maryland, Rhode Island,

and New York City are other jurisdictions where unit pricing

regulations are now in effect. I think that the passage of the unit

pricing law in Massachusetts was due largely as a result of the failure

of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act to bring about package

standardization in foods.

How does it work? Well, in Massachusetts it covers upwards of

5,000 items. Most of the grocery items are included, some health and

beauty aids, and frozen fruits and vegetables, and juices. Meats,

poultry, and fish had been unit priced in Massachusetts for some time

under a previous law. The law in Massachusetts, as in the other

states, requires certain kinds of graphics and means for providing this

information. An orange tag has to be placed directly above or below

the item in Massachusetts; or where that is not possible, there has to

be a list or a sign at or near the point of display.

The unit price has to be expressed in three digits— to the nearest

cent if the price is over one dollar, or to the nearest tenth of a cent if

the price is under one dollar. The units are pounds, pints, quarts,

gallons, 50 feet or 50 square feet, and 100 units, depending upon the

customary way that the commodity is sold. We had a regional conference at the University of Massachusetts in March, and I feel that

progress was made in bringing about greater uniformity among the

states and municipalities in the Northeast that had unit pricing

regulations.

One of the basic issues here has been, first of all, should we have

unit pricing, do consumers need it, and will they use it? Secondly,

should it be voluntary or mandatory? There are arguments on both

sides of this obviously. I guess it boils down to whether or not unit

pricing is a right or a privilege. I think that unit pricing is perfectly

consistent with the concept of the free market. President Nixon, and I think President Kennedy before him, stated that the consumer has the

right to make an intelligent choice based upon accurate information. I think that unit pricing is consistent with that concept.

Should unit pricing be mandatory or voluntary? After studying this

issue for some time and watching it operate, I really lean toward

mandatory unit pricing regulations because, I think for it to be ef91
fective, it has to be uniform. It has to be presented in a uniform

manner, and I think you people in weights and measures understand

the importance of uniformity in presenting information. Do consumers use it? If they do not, does this mean that we should not have

it? I think it is too soon to tell whether consumers will use it. I think it

is such a new and different method of presenting prices that consumers are not familiar with it and probably will not use it until

greater education is brought about. Many of the educators at our

conference said that unit pricing is vital and that it will provide an

important foundation for consumer education in food buying. I think

that unit pricing can be a very positive fact in facilitating consumer

choice and, certainly, in increasing consumer satisfaction, and

perhaps in improving the credibility of the food industry. Let me put

it this way. I do not think that all industry spokesmen have been

honest with themselves or with the public in some of the arguments

that are given against unit pricing.

I think open dating is a bit different from unit pricing, inasmuch as

the unit price does provide a standard for making cost comparisons

and making value judgments. The purpose of open dating is to

provide the consumer with a guide to quality. Open dating is generally

accomplished in several ways. One is to put the date of manufacture

or packaging on the product. Another is to put a pull date on the

product— a date when it should be removed from sale. Or it can be an

expiration date— a date beyond which the product should not be

consumed. These are all ways of providing open dating.

Open code dating, by the way, I think is a contradiction in terms,

because code dating is a code which requires a key to interpret,

whereas open dating can be read by the consumer, whether it is the

date of pack, expiration date, or pull date. It is obvious to the consumer without knowing what the "code" is.

There was a very thorough study made at Rutgers University by

the Department of Food Technology, and their conclusions were that

open dating would not generally result in providing meaningful information to the consumer on quality, and they recommended that it

not be done. Their point was that temperature and other factors are

much more important in determining quality than in simply time

elapsed, and that putting on the open date could actually mislead the

consumer because, depending upon how the product is handled, the

product that has been in the market channel a short time could be of

poorer quality than the one that has been in the market channel a

longer time.

So I think that, unlike unit pricing, open dating does not provide

the consumer with a consistently meaningful standard of comparison.

I think that pull dates for highly perishable items like bread and milk

make sense, where you have a very short span in terms of time and

distance and the distribution system. But for processed packaged

92
foods, I have some very serious reservations as to whether it will be a

desirable thing to accomplish.

REMARKS BY MR. C. G. ADAMY

How widely are they being used? In addition

to the four states and one city where these are

required by law, 109 corporations, food chains,

now voluntarily unit price their goods. Recognizing the widespread operating areas in which

these companies operate, this means that, in

every major metropolitan area in the United

States, two or more companies have provided

them, so they are available in every real market

in the United States.

As to open dating, some 62 companies are

now open dating their private labels. As you understand, open dating

realistically or practically is best done at the point of labeling, and so,

in the case of private labels, we are, of course, the labeler, and this

information is, for all intents and purposes, generally available in the

market throughout the United States, not necessarily in every

company or every store.

These are both positive reports. There well may be more companies

in both categories doing this. Once we determined that this large a

number of people were participating in these two programs and that

they did reach throughout the length and breadth of the nation, we

had achieved the goal we were interested in. Other than continuing to

promote the program, we are no longer keeping track of the number of

companies engaged in the program, so there could be more.

REMARKS BY MISS JEAN JUDGE

Consumerism, I think, is probably one of the

most exciting, one of the most positive, one of

the greatest opportunities that has confronted

government, education, and business in many

moons if it is viewed in the correct way. I deplore any kind of a climate that says, '*If you

are not for me, you are agin me," or that also

says, "You are guilty until you are proven

innocent," because I think both attitudes and

statements foreclose communication and mean

that the approach tends to be negative

defensiveness rather than positive offensiveness in the consumer

interest. Meetings such as this are probably the healthiest thing that

have come down the pike in a long time.

93
I use the term '* price comparison information" instead of unit

pricing. The semantics of consumerism get a little confusing. For

many people, unit pricing means quite a different thing from what it

literally means under laws, and that is price comparison information.

As a matter of corporate policy, the Grand Union Company is a

consumer oriented company and it has been committed to the consumer's right to know the information that is needed or wanted to

make better informed buying decisions. This is generated out of a

basic belief in the free market economy, in the consumer's being a

critical element in that, and an informed consumer's being a very

effective force in a free market economy.

The fact that the information is not requested by all consumers or

the fact that the information is not used constantly or effectively by

even a majority or a minority of the consumers is not the issue. Put in

another way, we do not confuse the consumer's right to know with the

use made of the information, and this is a very helpful distinction to

make.

Operating under this basic philosophy, the Grand Union Company,

on an experimental basis, voluntarily introduced price comparison

information on some 1 ,800 items in 36 of our stores in New York City

in mid 1970. In May of 1971, still on a voluntary basis, we expanded

our program to additional items in some 200 additional stores and

three divisions of the company operating in three states. Late in 1971

and early this year, and on a continuing basis, the number of items

and the stores using or instituting price comparison information

programs were expanded, until now I would hazard a guess there are

from 5,000 to 7,000 items in some 300 or more of our stores and five

divisions of the company in eight states that have unit pricing. The

program is a computer based shelf ticket program, because this has

been found the most feasible, both from the consumer viewpoint and

the operational viewpoint.

Part of our consumer philosophy at Grand Union is that it is not

difficult to proliferate consumerism programs. However, we feel it

necessary, when we do institute a program, to then consumerize it as

we say —that is, to take the steps which are both meaningful and

feasible to help consumers become aware of the information's

existence, to understand it once aware of it, and how to use it once

understood. Then it is their determination whether to use it and

whether to use it effectively in their own interest.

In accord with this, we have been supporting and continue to

support our unit pricing program with in-store signs, customer

leaflets or handouts, and, in ad information, demonstrating the

system. Challenges of these educational efforts, which I feel are

important to backstop any program like this, are compounded by a

proliferation of laws, each with somewhat different requirements and

compliance features. We have had, on occasion, to rescind an ongoing

94
education program in order to redesign because the ticket base had to

be changed.

In the matter of open code dating, again as a matter of corporate

policy, the Grand Union Company has felt that its customers have a

right to know something of the freshness of its private label products,

particularly what we define as perishable and semiperishable. By our

definition, these are the products with a year or less of total product

life from point of manufacture or pack to the determination of the life

of the product in the home.

The date we are using currently is the pull date or the off-sale date.

According to our policy, the desired and the preferred style we are

working toward is, in the case of today's date, JUL 13. It is a fact of

life that, when you are dealing with a variety of suppliers of various

sizes, you cannot have instant agreement or facility for this sort of

thing, so on a temporary basis, where it is not mandated otherwise, we

are on a short term base permitting 7/13 for today's date until the

conversion can be made to ultimately open date in terms clearly

understandable. In addition, in our consumerizing philosophy, as

labels are changed and products are changed to be brought into conformity, we are trying to include home care information on the label,

since product freshness in the mouth is the critical and ultimate

product freshness test, and care of the product from the point of

purchase to the point of consumption is equally critical in this system.

I think open dating is a critical and important program both for the

consumer and the food industry. I do not in any way want to minimize

its complexity, its challenge. It is not easy. There are many views and

many differing opinions in and out of government, in and out of

education, and in and out of industry; but nonetheless, enough of our

customers have indicated, and consumers in general, that this is

information they feel they have a right to, and we agree and we will

try, to every possible extent, to provide it.

I wish I could stand here and say that everything I say and

everything corporate policy says is, in fact, in effect 100 percent of the

time in every single case in every single Grand Union store. You and I both know this is not the case. We are, as every organization is, an

organization of many thousands of human beings, of human employees, each capable of human error or errors in judgment.

Recognizing this fact, we are attempting to strengthen our employer

education relative to programs such as this, and increasingly will

merchandise directly to our customers the information and policies

that should be available to them in our stores, and urge them to let us

know if the system is broken down.

Increasingly, I believe, food retailers are reestablishing themselves

in the role of the buying agent for the American family, and I believe

that it is a logical and correct role. I would like to wind up with

something I read because I think it is critical in the time in which we

95
are, whether we are sitting where you are or sitting where I am. Many

aspects of today and tomorrow, neither good nor bad in themselves,

depend upon what we do with them. William James, the historian has

pointed out that the basic difference between people is not the difference between liberal and conservative, rich and poor. Republican or

Democrat (even this year). Christian or Jew, Black or White, consumer advocate, government advocate, or industry advocate. They

are all relevant, but the crucial difference is between what he called the

tough minded and the tender minded. He defined the tough minded

person as one who recognizes the reality principle in the world around

him, and a tender minded person as one who, when confronted with

reality, sees not what is there, but what is inside his own head and

what he has brought with him in order to console himself.

What we would like to cope with is not enough. We must cope with

what is there. In this era of the right to know (and I think it is the

hallmark of the age in which we live), I believe the tough minded

requires of each of us, whether in government, industry, or education,

to realistically identify real consumer needs and wants, and then lend

all our talents to meeting them in the most efficient, effective, and

economical way in our own mutual and independent interests.

REMARKS BY MR. H. J. STERN

I have brought along with me, from New

York, Andrew Freedman, who is the Counsel to

the Department of Consumer Affairs and who

has primary responsibility for the preparation

of regulations, conferences with industry, and

the legal aspects of unit pricing and open

dating. Moe Greenspan, who is one of your

delegates, is our Chief Inspector, and he has the

job of enforcing unit pricing and open dating in

our city. Our fair city is the largest and most

populous jurisdiction in which unit pricing and

open dating are in effect.

I think the last three speakers have told it well in terms of what it is

and how it came to be. In effect, these are reactions. Unit pricing was

a reaction to the abuses of proliferation of packages, the confusing

package, the snail and giraffe shapes, slack fill— all of those things

which make less appear to be more— the fragmentation of sizes, and

the increasing complexity of people being able to tell how much they

were getting; also such things as packaging to price, the famous

shrinking Instant Coffee jars, which went from six to five inches, and

96
then to four, the soda bottles going from 32 ounces to 28 —all the

stories of a similar nature to the examples of packaging to price. All

this led to a sense of annoyance on the part of consumers and the

desire for reliable information.

Now, in our case, we passed unit pricing by regulation, and we were

greeted by the food industry with a law suit. We had a very limited

program of unit pricing in perhaps four or five categories, staggered to

go into effect one by one, so we could explore it and see how it worked,

and iron out the bugs in the system. The first category, I think, was

dry cereals, and we did this in our sort of tentative manner and were

greeted with a law suit by our local food stores, food merchants, and

their trade association.

The law suit prevailed, and it was held that we were without power

to do this. So we went to the City Council, which passed a local law

much stronger than anything we had in mind before, providing for

mandatory unit pricing of practically all commodities, which is what

we have now in New York City. And who can tell, it happens very

often in life and in politics, and I guess in weights and measures, that

when you lose . . and vice versa.

At any rate, we have this in New York. During the first year we

really learned a great deal that was right with it and a lot that was

wrong with it, because the supermarkets came out with their own

labels, and some of the labels were incredibly bad.

For one thing, everything came out in IBM computer type, which is

called Pica, but was really less than a tenth of an inch in size. They

listed on the labels such things as the lot number, the code name for

the food, abbreviations for the food, the size of the package, and all

sorts of irrelevant extraneous information to the unit price. When

people looked at the price, they could not really single it out or tell

what it was.

Secondly, it was often done on a black and white background, so

you could not really tell one set of things from the other. Then the unit

price was called different things. Some called it unit price, super price,

value price, price per measure, CPM for cost per measure. The retail

price was called retail price, market price, you pay, or just plain price

or selling price. Each one appeared on different places on the label,

and it was really extremely difficult for most people to use the thing

effectively.

A conference was held with Professor Leed's leadership, and also

the leadership of the Massachusetts Consumer Council, Dermot

Shea— it was the great Amherst meeting on March 13, 1972, I believe,

and the Treaty of Amherst was arrived at by the various jurisdictions.

We worked out solid improvements. For one thing, the term unit price

was to be used as opposed to any other term which means the same

thing. For a second thing, the unit price was always to appear in

orange, and orange was to be the color of unit pricing. This is an

97
enormous standardization to measure, because now, whatever color

the rest of the label may be (that is up to the discretion of the stores),

the unit price will be the orange price. So people will differentiate from

the regular price and know what to look for.

There were also minimal size requirements. In placement, it was

agreed that the unit price was to be to the left, and the selling price

was to be to the right. This is the reverse of the way A & P does it, but

it is the way most of the stores have been doing it: We worked out

these items of standardization, and we adopted them in regulations in

New York City which go into effect July 10, with extensions to be

granted at the discretion of Counsel Freedman until December 31 to

enable stores to use up their own labels.

One provision of the regulations requires the stores to submit labels

to us for approval prior to their issuance, so we can go over them and

see that they do conform and that no store goes to the unnecessary

expense of printing a nonconforming label.

When our inspectors go out in the field, they come back with about

a 10 percent violation rate, and we serve violation notices on those

stores where unit pricing is incomplete. We try to be reasonable in

enforcement because, if there are thousands of items in the store, it is

quite likely that some will not be unit priced. In some cases the unit

price has not come in from the factory, the computer isn't ready yet, it

is a new shipment, or the label has been torn off by a kid. One cannot

expect 100 percent compliance in something as difficult and complicated as this. We have reasonably high standards of compliance.

When companies fall below that, they receive multiple summonses

and are fined. The fines collected have run into thousands of dollars in

toto. Individual firms have been fined up to several hundred dollars

for failing to post unit prices.

We find that, in general, compliance is fairly good, and compliance

is increasing. We set a floor of two million dollars in volume for the

unit pricing requirement. This eliminates the mom and pop stores, the

smaller merchants, but there are still many hundreds of supermarkets

in our city which meet the two million dollar test and have gone into

unit pricing programs. We also met regularly with the industry and

the New York State Food Merchants and a committee consisting of

the top executives of the largest chains.

Open dating is a related matter and one which has stirred much

more public attention and pubhc outrage than unit pricing. People are

simply getting tired of getting rotten food and moldy sour cream and

dairy products and having to pinch each food and poke each bread, of

having to open each thing and sniff and hold it up to the light, and try

to do research in the stores to determine freshness. What an outrage it

is that manufacturers can publish secret codes, printing this information for their own benefit in a code which keeps it from the

consumer.

98
The study at Rutgers University thought that this system was just

fine and recommended that manufacturers be allowed to print secret

codes and not reveal this information to the public. I think that it will

go down as a nineteenth century relic in an age of consumerism that

academics could conclude that it was legitimate to keep this information secret. It is a basic disclosure. A person has a right to know

whether his food is fresh and how fresh it is. It is true that there are

other factors, like storage and method of treatment and so on, which

determine freshness as well as age. If there were some way to publish

storage conditions, we would publish that, but there is a way to

publish age and that is now required by local law in the City of New

York.

Open dating applies to a wide variety of dairy and bakery products,

and under the law we have to hold hearings whenever we expand it.

We are expanding it, for example, to include muffins, which were

previously omitted. We do not open date butter or margarine, because

those items are, in fact, originally forms of milk which has been

modified to those fats in order to be able to be stored. Every time we

consider a new product we call in the manufacturers of the product,

the processors. They bring samples of the product and we

exhaustively determine whether it is appropriate to open date. In the

future we are headed for open dating of processed meats. Some

companies like Oscar Mayer do it voluntarily now. People know it is

just good business and good sense to have a date on the product,

because people feel more confidence in the date. The date is usually a

month or two in the future anyway if it is a pull date. People at least

have the security of knowing that the stuff has not been lying around

for three or four months. So open dating is very much with us, and we

will be using it even more so. We have had problems in compliance because there are a lot of small

bakeries. In unit pricing, the burden of compliance falls on the retailer,

the retail chain. In open dating, the burden of compliance falls on the

manufacturer, and there are some small manufacturers and processors

who have had difficulty in compliance. But it has been explained to

them that, if they cannot do anything else, they can always buy

pressure sensitive labels with dates on them and affix those dates to

the plastic of the package. One good thing is that a number of bread

companies which sell at fixed prices, like Arnold and Pepperidge

Farm, are putting the unit price and the selling price on the package

themselves. In other words, they are preprinting unit pricing, and this

will become increasingly widespread.

To conclude, this is, in general, a relatively new area and New York

is in the lead. We have had very little resistance from industry since

the initial law suit, which turned out so badly for them. The line is not

really drawn between business on the one hand and government on

the other, because there are a lot of people within government who do

99
not live up to their responsibilities and a lot of people in industry who

do. Concerning the tough minded and the tender minded, it is more or

less the people who move forward and who are not afraid who will do

new things, and the people who find one reason after another to hang

back. It is between the people who say yes and the people who say no.

We like to think of ourselves as people who say yes. We like to think of

ourselves as the most vigorous and militant consumer jurisdiction in

the country. At any rate, we are the largest.

DISCUSSION

Mr J. Donaldson (National Bureau of Standards): I take it that

unit pricing is a consumer program. I have heard the corporate view

and the government view, but I have not heard how the people who

are on the other end of it are reacting to it.

Miss Judge: I assume you mean the consumers. There is a small

but growing use of it as it is increasingly available in the market. It is

a fact of life, no matter how much we might wish it otherwise, that

price is not and never has been a prime per se motivator of consumers,

even at the lowest income. A new piece of price information will not by

its very presence automatically be clutched. I think this is true with

any piece of new information. I don't know that it will ever be the tool

used most in a store. We are learning day by day and hopefully doing

a better job of explaining it, its presence, what it is, and how to use it.

Mr. Stern: An interesting thing that we have learned in the consumer business is that, if something is substantially better than

something else, there is a certain limited number of people that will

use it. For instance, savings bank life insurance is about 10 percent

cheaper than ordinary life insurance and provides identical benefits,

yet the experience in Massachusetts for many years and in New York

is that it achieved about a 5 to 6 percent market penetration rate, and

there it stood. Even if something is demonstratively better, there is a

limited number of people who will take the trouble to use it and take

advantage of it.

With regard to unit pricing, this is a substantial change in people's

buying habits, looking for a second price and allowing it to influence

them. In general, more young people use unit pricing than older

people. More college educated people use unit pricing than people with

a lesser degree of education. It is the kind of thing that picks up with

repetition, with promotion by the stores, with the new standardization

of unit pricing signs, and we expect the usage of unit pricing to

become substantial.

Mr Donaldson: Could you cite any imperical references of work

done to indicate the extent to which people are using unit pricing? I assume some studies must have been done, because a lot of people

would not be putting a lot of time into it if they have not studied it.

100
Miss Judge: I cannot give the exact figures. Studies made at

Cornell University on the usage and the degree of understanding

showed a small percentage. That this is what consumers want may or

may not be an accurate statement. There are some consumers who do

want and need and request this information, not a majority and not

the very ones who we would hope would make greater use of it.

Mr Donaldson: One of the things I am concerned about is that

government is going to tell too much to the people about what is good

for them. At this point I may think it is good, you may think it is

good. But if 3 percent or 5 percent of the people are using it, we are

still telling them what is good for them.

Mr. Adamy : The evidence at hand from the studies that have been

made during this first year period would run from 5 to 6 percent, to 20

percent for some companies. The members of NAFC tell me that,

despite the low utilization, none of them plan to take it out, because it

has an intangible value in that apparently a great many consumers

are pleased that it is there. It has a trust confidence factor.

Mr. L.W. Vezina (Alexandria, Virginia): Mr. Stern, how could unit

pricing give you the quality of merchandise you want, especially ice

cream, when our laws require ice cream to weigh 4 1/2 pounds per

gallon and you can get ice cream to weigh 3 pounds per gallon?

Mr. Stern: Unit pricing is no determinant of quality. It is purely a

determinant of price. It enables you to know the cost per pound of a

cheaper product compared to the cost per pound of a more expensive

product, and to decide whether you want to pay the premium price for

quality. There is no evidence that unit pricing has caused people to

buy lower quality goods. It is just a measure of price and a standard of

comparison. In New York City ice cream is sold by volume, I believe,

and is not unit priced.

Mr. Vadelund: I would think that would be true in any jurisdiction.

Ice cream, by and large, is required by state and local laws to be sold

in standard units. It is, by its nature, unit priced.

Mr. V.J. Dei GuiDicE (Armour & Company): Miss Judge, did you

say the consumer was not motivated by prices?

Miss Judge: The consumer is concerned about prices. Price is one

among several factors that determines a consumer's decision to buy.

It is not the sole determinant in many cases. I say this, having spent

fifteen years of my life working with low income consumers. That is

what makes a democracy.

Mr. S.D. Andrews (Florida): I don't oppose unit pricing, but I do

oppose mandatory unit pricing. I think that unit pricing should be on

a voluntary basis, as recommended in our Model Regulation. I oppose

unit pricing if it is going to take time away from the more important

duties of the regulatory officials. If it is so important, everybody will

adopt it on a voluntary basis as a competitive tool, so why should we

force it as a mandatory requirement?

101
Mr. Leed: I feel unit pricing should be required because the consumer has the right to know what she is paying for a commodity, and

it is not possible to have this knowledge without some kind of

standardization, either in packaging or in unit pricing.

Mr. Andrews: We as weights and measures officials are requiring

that the statement be accurate. Where do we stop giving additional

information?

Miss Judge: The purpose of unit pricing is to give relative price,

and that is the ability to make price comparisons within a category

brand and between the same size of differing brands. The guidelines

just recently published by the Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee

of the Department of Commerce Committee on Consumer Affairs

incorporates the whole spectrum of labeling information that can be

accomphshed on a voluntary basis. I would wholeheartedly hope that

it be done universally on a voluntary basis, because I think that when

you begin to mandate, then you build all kinds of traps. Where it is

not necessary to mandate, I would certainly concur that it not be done

that way.

Mr. Stern: We tend to believe that things like seat belts in

automobiles and packaging and labeling standards come out much

better when everyone is required to adhere to the same standard.

These are minimal standards, and certainly companies can go beyond

these if they want to provide more information, but I certainly would

not want to allow some company to say that their food cost less

because they didn't bother with unit pricing.

You say that the price and the contents both have to appear on the

label. All we are doing is going one step further and doing the division

and telling the housewife the cost of the product per unit. Nor does it

occupy a substantial amount of time of our inspectors. Since it is

limited to the largest chains, it is to a great extent self-executing. We

have received excellent cooperation from industry on it.

Mr. Andrews: I just cannot let that last statement go unchallenged.

It requires a terrific amount of time for an inspector to go into a

supermarket and check whether they are unit pricing accurately or

not.

Mr. Stern: We do not check the division. In the year we have been

doing this, we have never had a single case where the computers gave

out a false unit price. All the inspectors have to check is whether the

posters are up there, which is not so time consuming.

Mr. Adamy : It would be physically impossible and unreasonably

costly to unit price without the benefit of computers; therefore, New

York City's stipulation in exempting small companies is both wise

and effective.

Mr. Stern: We went beyond the law. The law as passed in New York

City set the floor at $250,000 in annual volume, but we went to $2

million because we even wanted to exempt the middle sized com102
panies. It really applies to those companies which have computer

capability.

Mr. M. Greenspan (New York City, N.Y.): What originally started

the whole furor about unit pricing was the fact that, within products,

the various manufacturers did not standardize their packages. A

single item could be found in 12 1/2 ounces, 13 1/8 ounces, 14 3/4

ounces, so it was impossible to make any kind of value comparison

between the identical product manufactured by different companies.

One problem that has yet to be resolved is what type is legible and

useful to the consumer, as the IBM runoff is just a wee bit too small

by about one-sixteenth of an inch.

Mr. G.L. Johnson (Kentucky): Does unit pricing discourage special

sales?

Miss Judge: It hasn't in our case, because the specials are specially

ticketed with the unit price and the sale price. We have had, to my

knowledge, no fewer specials by virtue of having unit pricing than we

had before unit pricing.

Mr J.C. Mays (Dade County, Florida): The State of Florida

Legislature passed a law on unit pricing which gives uniformity by

adopting and making it necessary to conform to the code that was

originated here at this National Conference. If they voluntarily go into

unit pricing, then it is mandatory, of course, that they conform to the

uniform standard established here. I believe the law goes into effect

January 1 of next year. Actually what the state did was to pass as a

law what we recommended in the Model State Unit Pricing

Regulation.

Mr. D.I. OFFNER(St. Louis, Missouri): Mr. Stern, I have some

reservations about the practice of having the factory imposing the

unit price, as in the case of bread, because it would tend to discourage

the merchant from selling that product at a lower price. Frequently in

St. Louis some merchants will traditionally sell an item at a price

lower than the factory printed price. To encourage the processor to

put on the unit price would tend to maintain the price at a somewhat

higher level.

Mr. Stern: Our experience in New York City has been that prices

are preprinted by the manufacturer only on baked goods, bread and

special cakes from large bakers such as Arnold and Pepperidge. They

include the price of the product as well as the unit price. I have never

seen the items marked down unless they are a day or two days old.

Mr. Offner: Missouri is one of three states that historically has

never adopted fair trade pricing legislation, so it is a common practice

for many merchants to mark down the preprinted price.

Mr R.L. Thompson (Maryland): In Maryland the unit pricing law

is under the Attorney General's Office, and not under weights and

measures. Weights and measures inspectors generally find the

greatest percentage of violations in the smaller stores who need not

103
comply with unit pricing. It seems to me that we perhaps are inadvertently placing the consumer in double jeopardy in these areas.

Mr Stern: We seem to be involved in a two-class system of

regulation, with one set of laws for the big companies and another set

for the small companies. This was perhaps most noticeable in the rules

set out by President Nixon's Price Commission, where large companies were subject to strict regulations on procedures they had to

follow to apply for price increases, and then 20 percent of the economy

(all the small businesses) were told they could charge whatever they

felt like. It is a new kind of economic enforcement— enforcement on

the big people where most of the business is done and taking your

chances if you decide to go to a smaller shop.

The reason for this is due to the difficulty of compliance on the part

of the small stores, when you do need a computer to set up unit

pricing, and secondly the difficulty of enforcement, of sending your

inspectors into thousands of these tiny places and getting them to

stick to the standards. The change that you have alluded to goes far

beyond unit pricing. It applies to standards of equal employment

opportunity and fair hiring, and in some cases to certain health and

safety standards, which are stricter for larger firms. I do not know

what the result it will be except to say that I also observe the

phenomenon. Most people have the option of using either the larger

firm or the smaller firm. If they choose the convenience, the credit, or

the availability of the corner store, they then, by making that choice,

sacrifice some of the legislative advantages they would receive in the

larger store.

Mr D.K. Forbes (District of Columbia): I was happy to hear Mr.

Stern say that only the educated use unit pricing because my experience with it has been not too good. In a large number of instances

where there is liquid measure involved, such as Hghter fluid, rubbing

alcohol, shaving lotion, which is normally sold by the fluid ounce, they

unit price it by the pound. I am sure you have to have a college

education to figure that one out.

Miss Jan Schakowski (National Consumers United): Is baby food

one of the items required to bear an open date?

Mr Stern: Baby food is not required to be open dated. The reason is

that baby food is, in a sense, hermetically sealed, and open dating

primarily applies to baked goods, dairy goods, goods that have to be

stored at specific temperatures to avoid deterioration. Bottled baby

food would be in the same category as canned food and, therefore, is

not subject to that standard at this time.

Miss Schakowski: Our experience as a consumer organization has

been that consumers are quite interested in a date on baby food. They

have written us a number of letters, and we in turn, when we were

publishing a booklet translating code dates, went to the baby food

companies imploring them to give us this information. Gerber and

Heinz absolutely refused, and we do find this absolutely outrageous.

104
Mr. Stern: Well, I agree with you. In fact, in many cases the baby

food is older than the baby.

Miss Schakowski: For those of you who may think that open dating

is not vital information, we found in the codes that we have broken

such things as luncheon meats that were sitting on the shelves six

months beyond the date that they should have been off the shelves.

Other items were two years beyond the date that they should have

been sold. These code dates were the ones determined by the companies. Tough minded business men will understand that consumers

are going to demand open dating and eventually we will get it.

Mr. Stern : Under the New York law, the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs has the authority to determine, after public hearing,

which items should be included. I can tell you that these items increase month by month, but, in the order of need, one starts with

those goods which are sold fresh as opposed to those which are sold in

sealed containers.

Mr. W.S. Bussey (Interim Study Committee on Consumer

Protection, Texas State Senate): I know that, when the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act first went into effect, there was considerable activity and several reports on the progress that was being

made in standardization of packages. Is any progress being made?

Mr Vadelund: Yes, progress has been made. There are voluntary

quantity standards for 44 product categories, making up something in

excess of 80 percent of those products subject to the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act. They are not the total answer, however, to

resolving the problems of making value comparisons. You still have

the density problem, for example. While you may provide enough of a

standard to permit a consumer to make what might be termed

horizontal comparisons from company A's product to company B's to

company C's, it is oftentimes still difficult to make vertical comparisons within a brand. This is, as you know, a voluntary program.

We think basically that some combination of package quantity

standardization and unit pricing is probably the answer to providing

value comparison information.

Mr. Bussey: There have always been many arguments pro and con

on standardization, but when an industry wants to standardize

something it does a pretty good job, like in regular coffee, butter,

dairy products, ice cream. The industry wanted it done and they did

it.

Where retail food stores advertise certain prices on package

commodities on special sale where the unit price is already marked to

conform to the regular selling price, how do you go about correcting

the unit price?

Mr. Adamy : The common practice is to unit price on the shelving or

on a sign near the item. Changing the price on a prepriced item is

merely a matter of putting the new price on it.

105
I am totally opposed to any form of retail sales price maintenance.

We as an industry do not, in fact, encourage prepricing of items for

that and other obvious reasons.

Mr. Bussey: In many instances my observation has been that the

pricing is not changed except in the newspaper. The item is already

prepriced and, if there is a price on the shelf, that is left the same.

Mr. Stern: We have had experience with that m tictitious specials.

We have found that in some chains which advertise specials, up to 50

percent of the items advertised are either unavailable or are actually

marked at the original higher price and have not been marked down

for the special. We serve violations when we find such instances. The

extent to which this practice is carried out by the large food chains,

whicli should do better, is incredible.

Mr Bussey: One chain in Austin, Texas, did quite a bit of advertising about their unit pricing, saying that this is what the consumer wanted. However, evidently the consumers did not know it

because they did not pay any attention to it, and the practice was

abandoned. I was told by some of the store managers that nobody was

paying a bit of attention to it, it was costing them some money to do

it, and was a good deal of trouble, and therefore they abandoned the

program. I think there are chains in other parts of the state that are

still following through on the program, but I don't think that the

consumer has been convinced that this is actually what he wants and

what he needs, because he has not paid too much attention to it where

it has been done voluntarily.

Mrs. Jacqueline Kendall! National Consumers United): It seems

kind of ridiculous to hear everybody going to such lengthy discussions

about how you would lower the price for sale. Obviously the same

problem exists in raising the price, and I notice that the supermarkets

manage to raise prices quite frequently, and I think they could lower

them the same way they raise them. Take it off and change the label.

Mr J.M. Chohamin (Middlesex County, New Jersey): Mr. Stern,

have you every instituted an action on the store level, rather than on

the manufacturer's level where you found that the pull date affected

the shortage in that the rotation process was ignored? You cannot

hold the manufacturer responsible beyond a point, where rotation is

one of the factors contributing to the shortage.

Miss Judge: We do not hold manufacturers responsible for

something that has occurred by virtue of malperformance in a store.

Mr. Stern: We proceed against the retail store. If the citation is

short weight of prepackaged items and the item was prepacked by the

manufacturer, the store impleads and collects back from the

manufacturer whatever fines are levied against it if the manufacturer

wants to continue selling to that store.

Mr Chohamin: Where a manufacturer has a shelf life testing

procedure program for his particular product and tells the super106
market that he will not be responsible for the shortage, it is unfair for

us, as weights and measures officials, to cite that manufacturer.

Mr Stern : You are absolutely right. We always cite the store,

whether it is the fault of the store or the manufacturer, because the

store is the business that sells to the consumer and the business over

which we have jurisdiction.

FDA -h FTC -H USDA-REGULATORY NEWS AND VIEWS

REMARKS BY MR. JOHN GOMILLA

As you are aware, the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act gives the Food and Drug Administration the authority to draft regulations,

if they are needed, to prevent nonfunctional

slack fill. Historically, every time the Food and

Drug Administration has sought to take some

action against a product by virtue of its being

slack filled, we lost in court, and our actions

were taken under the authority of the Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, one section of which

says that a package may be misbranded by

virtue of the way it is formed, or filled or made. Everytime we tried in

court, we lost.

With the advent of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and this

new section which gave us the authority to get into the slack fill area,

we thought we would have a new lease on life, but we did not have a

sufficient repository of data upon which to base the issuance of new

regulations, even though we knew there was a need for these

regulations.

It so happened about the time that we decided that we needed to

gather such data to support the issuance of these regulations that we

came into some money from the Congress, and we decided to utilize

that money in the form of contracts with eleven states. We decided

also to make these contracts twofold in nature. We asked the states to

gather data on the presence of nonfunctional slack fill in six broad

categories, and also do some work on package size characterization for

us, since they were going to be in the stores anyway. In the process we

contracted with mostly weights and measures officials or other

regulatory agencies in the States of Alabama, Florida, Idaho,

Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas,

Washington, and Wisconsin.

The six broad categories that we looked at were macaroni and

noodles, candies, crackers and cookies, dry cereals and dry grain

products, dry mixes such as cake mixes, and dry desserts such as

pudding mixes. We confined our activities to those areas, and the

107
states, in the course of a year looked at abovit 11,000 samples of

packages within these groups, consisting of approximately 55,000

individual packages.

Some of the findings I am going to relate to you now are quite

interesting, and I want to caution you as to what I am going to say.

These figures are the amount of space in the package that is not oc- cupied by food. The space is occupied either by air or maybe by filling

material, cardboard or wrappers, or what have you. These figures represent the amount of space in a given package which is not occupied

by the food. These figures do not represent the amount of slack fill,

because that has to be determined later. They just represent the

amount of space in the package that is not occupied by food. Some of

this space is unavoidable, and we recognize that, but some of it, we

feel, can be avoided by some more judicious manufacturers processes,

or perhaps package design.

We do know, for example, that one major firm reduced the size of

their cereal package, one in particular, by about six cubic inches

during the year, and they did not disturb the quantity of contents at

all. So we know that it can be done.

The greatest degree of slack fill that we found, or the greatest

degree of empty space that we found, was in the dry dessert mixes.

When you deal with the numbers of packages that we dealt with and

the numbers of manufacturers it represented, these figures represent

pretty valid observations. For example, we looked at the dry dessert

mixes of some seventeen different manufacturers, and we found that

the average percent of empty space in these packages ranged about 47

percent.

Forty-seven percent of the packages were not occupied by food.

This space was occupied by either air or something else. We are not

talking about slack fill per se. We have not determined how much of

that 47 percent had to be, but we feel that a good portion of it could be

eliminated. I will explain later what we are going to get into to draw

some conclusions as to how much of this empty space should be

eliminated and how we are going about it.

Gelatin types, flavored, about 36 percent of the package was not

occupied by food. Pudding mixes, 35 percent. Mint candies, 29 percent. Vermicelli products, 29 percent. Spaghetti products, 29 percent.

Potato chips, 27 percent. Cookies, filled or iced type, 25 percent.

Prepared mixes not elsewhere classified, about 25 percent. Pretzels, 23

1/2 percent. Plain cookies, 23 percent.

I can go on and on, but these give you an idea of the work that the

administration has cut out for us during the next couple of years, to

try to ascertain how much of these figures that I have quoted really

represents a true slack fill, how much of it is functional, how much of

it is nonfunctional.

In order to ascertain how much of this slack fill is functional or

108
nonfunctional, we have embarked now on our own field program

wherein the Food and Drug Administration goes into the plants to

make the necessary investigations and inspections to ascertain what

the filling practices are, how full a manufacturer can actually fill his

package, and how he might redesign his package so that these spaces

are not just air, so that the product is filled to the maximum capacity.

We decided to look at these particular areas based on these findings

that I just related to you. We are going to be conducting inspections

of manufacturers of dry dessert mixes, pudding mixes, vermicelli and

spaghetti products, potato chips, gelatin desserts, mint and hard

candies, cookies, and prepared mixes.

The states also examined these products for short weight and found

a significant amount of short weight. In the overall picture of the

11,000 samples that were examined, we found 5.6 percent to be more

than 1 percent short weight. Now, I am going to caution you here

again, these samples consisted only of five packages each. When the

states found that they were short weight, they often went back and

collected a more representative sample, so as to base a determination

on the actual amount of short weight, and they found a significant

amount of short weight still.

Once we finish our inspections, we will then be in a position to have

a greater shot at how much of these packages should be occupied by

food and set some standards by regulation, of course, as to what level

we feel the fill should be. At this point, it is very difficult to state

whether this is going to be on a product-by-product basis or on a

group of products basis. This will have to be determined by the

evidence later this year when we finish these inspections.

REMARKS BY MR. E. W. JOHNSON

» I am going to speak to you on the Federal

Trade Commission's request to Congress

recently that the FTC jurisdiction be expanded

to cover all other consumer commodities under

the authority of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Of course, other consumer comI _ modities exclude the food, drug, cosmetic, and

medical device products, which are under the

jurisdiction of the Food and Drug AdministraThe Commission's request was contained in

the last fiscal year's report to Congress, and it reflected very briefly

the ambiguities contained in both the FPLA and the legislative

history of the Act. In the Act is a statement that it should cover

household products only. Well, what is a household?

109
Then we have the legislative history. There are several broad

categories of typically packaged products, such as durables, textiles,

wearing apparel, paints and kindred products, garden and lawn

supplies, pet care supplies, stationery and writing materials, and

these were all named as specifically not to be included in the Act. The

Commission noted that such omissions appeared inconsistent with the

declared policy that packages and labels should enable consumers to

obtain accurate information, as to the quantity of the contents, and

should facilitate value comparisons. Now, when I say packages and

labels, I think it includes all packages and labels.

Thereafter, based upon the desires to resolve any ambiguity of

definition and to further the broad concept of assistance to consumers

and manufacturers alike, it was recommended by the Commission

that all packaged and labeled commodities, distributed for retail sale

at least, be included under this Act.

Now this is not a new effort on our part by any means. It is one that

originated from as far back as the initial challenges made by industry

to our initial effort to encompass all other consumer commodities, and

that is the way our regulations were written to begin with. Obviously,

the identity of the commodities that are durable and not durable, or

that are ordinarily carried in supermarkets or drug stores, as opposed

to variety stores and hardware stores, is a monumental task of

clarification, and it still is not totally clear. The big issue, however,

should not be what is included under this act on a commodity-bycommodity basis, but what is the purpose of the Act and should it

apply equally to any product which is sold in packaged or labeled

form, and we think so. It is the Commission's opinion that basic affirmative disclosures —and I use that term advisedly— on every

package should include identity, net quantity, and at least the name

and place of business of a responsible party.

To mandatorily require this information necessitates a law backed

by regulation, and we have that law for certain commodities. Of

course, the Commission can prevent deception in any single case of

misstatement of this information, but this entails a long, tedious

process of case-by-case proof of deception, and was one of the main

reasons for enacting this Act. Now, on the practical side of this

request for expansion is the consideration to assist both the consumer

and the manufacturer/packer alike.

I think we are all experiencing day-to-day requests from the consumer to improve or correct label information. As expressed several

times over in the Laws and Regulations Committee meeting on

Tuesday of this week, there must be teamwork effort at all

jurisdictional levels if we are going to accomplish this job at a

minimum cost to everybody. If we are all working toward one common

goal with identical coverage, there is a concert of effort. This is a very

commendable goal now embodied in the Model State Packaging and

110
Labeling Regulation, but until that is adopted by every state, or

something similar to it, there remains a void which we can fill at the

federal level, where interstate commerce is concerned.

With today's methods of manufacture and distribution, it is not

uncommon, as we know, to find a single product sold in all fifty states,

nor is it uncommon to find a problem affecting several members of

industry in large segments of the country. I recall to your mind again

Tuesday's meeting, in which the marking of polyethylene sheeting in

the Northeast was discussed. These are problems where we, at the

federal level, can render assistance to totally eliminate the problem,

provided we have the jurisdiction.

Turning to the manufacturers for a minute, and you have a very

exemplary group sitting here today who seek to serve the consumer,

they want to know what the various governments desire. The more

uniformity of requirement, the better service we provide to them, and

ultimately to the consumer, I believe. Once these uniform guidelines

are laid out, we will have fair competition as well as fair packaging and

labeling, because all jurisdictions can turn their efforts to the few who

choose to test these rules. Under the theory of fair competition, industry will and does police themselves in the interest of staying within

the boundaries, rather than chance following the competitor across

the lines set in the regulations. This enables all of us to quickly

recognize the problem areas and effect a cure with more time left for

areas not now attended to, and there are a lot of those.

In summary, over the past few years, the Commission has

recognized the need for consumer protection at every jurisdictional

level. As a consequence, we have established regional offices which

have the ability to take action in their assigned areas. In addition,

they have organized consumer protection centers in conjunction with

local authorities to channel all matters to appropriate authorities for

handhng.

We have advocated that the various states adopt some consumer

protection laws similar to those of the FTC Act. Now, all of these

efforts are aimed at creating a team composed of all government levels

which can logically and economically respond to valid consumer

complaints at every level. Ergo, we have asked to expand our consumer commodity list.
REMARKS BY DR. JOHN C. DeHOLL

In 1970 the U.S. Department of Agriculture

j issued regulations on meat inspection, which

I included regulations on meat inspection, which

j included regulations on net weight labeling. At

I that time, before the regulations became efj fective, a section within the regulation dealing

I with random weight meat products was adI ministratively set aside, because of the fact

" that many of these meat products do undergo

quite a bit of shrinkage from the time of

packaging at the processor until they are sold

at retail to the consumer.

We have been working in some areas to come up with some new

regulations and to define what is a random package. We have not

completed those regulations. We have been working with Mr.

Vadelund and some of his people in trying to develop these

regulations. The poultry regulations were issued in May and become

effective the 17th of this month. They do have regulations with

respect to random weight products. The consumer size packages will

not have to have a net weight on them. However, the shipping container will have to have a total net weight and tare weight of the individual consumer size packages.

I am sure some of you have heard about the problem with respect to

the bacon package out in California. It is quite a problem. We are

looking into it to see what is the real answer, and will probably work

with the representatives of the Conference in trying to find some

solution.

I am not sure what we are talking about when we refer to fanciful

names on meat products. I guess we are talking about California

steaks, Kansas City steeiks, and New York steaks and Manhattan

steaks, and things of this kind. We generally do not go for fanciful

names. We do have some that have fanciful names on them, but there

is also a descriptive name on the label.

Judging from the quantity of consumer complaints we get about

fanciful names, I would say most of this is done at the retail level. We

have no jurisdiction at the retail level. This is strictly a matter up to

the states. Some of the states have come up with some regulations on

common names for various meat cuts. It would appear to me, though,

that if each state goes its own way we are going to have a lot of names.

I believe that the action taken by the National Meat Purveyors

Association and their institutional users several years ago would be a

good approach. They came up with specifications for what a name

means, so that an institutional buyer in New York, when he orders a

roast ready rib from a purveyor in New Jersey, in New York, or in

California, knows what he is buying.

112
It would be a tremendous job to define all of the appropriate names

for retail cuts, but I think it could be done over a long period of time.

DISCUSSION

Mr. M. Greenspan (New York City, N.Y.): Dr. DeHoll, I am not

sure whether the tare weight will be marked on the shipping container

or on the individual package.

Dr DeHoll : Currently the poultry regulations require the total net

weight on the shipping container and the tare of the individual

consumer size packages. The tare is on the shipping container.

Mr. D.I. OFFNER(St. Louis, Missouri): I have noticed, in connection

with some meat products and, even more, in some fish products,

packed in New England at random weight, there is a label inserted

inside the package under the plastic film which informs the weigher

how much tare to allow for the package. Frequently these tares are in

fractions of an ounce, whereas the actual weighing is done on a scale

that reads in hundredths of a pound. I think that, where a tare weight

is furnished, it should be in the system that will conform to the scale

on which the package is most likely to be weighed.

Mr H.J. Stern (New York City, N.Y.): I think we are all right

essentially in unit pricing and open dating, but we are really in the

dark ages as to federal responsibility having to do with consumer

protection. This is not the fault of the civil servants who are here. It is

really the fault of the congressional and leadership attitude. I think it

is incredible, for example, that we do not have nutrient labeling, and

even more so that we do not have quantity labeling. For instance, on

an 11 -ounce can of beef stew the net weight is required, but not the

quantity of beef, whether it is 2 ounces or 4 ounces. We have written to

the FDA about this, and have contended that you can get much more

information from a can of dog food. Perhaps the reason for it is that a

dog cannot read and, therefore, it is safe to identify the dog food.

We are behind in the area of slack fill, quantity labeling, and

nutrient labeling. And we are particularly behind in labeling of

drained weight. There is more to tare weight than the can itself. There

is also the packing medium. It is just incredible to me that even the

most minimal labeling requirement should not require a can of

peaches to say that the can contains 6 ounces of peaches and 5 ounces

of syrup, and whether the syrup is light or heavy.

I predict that there is going to be a labeling revolution, in the same

way that there has been an auto safety revolution. I wish the federal

officials a great deal more power and real authority to promulgate

straightforward labeling standards.

Mr. J.R. Bird (New Jersey): Dr. DeHoll, what consideration is

being given to evaluating the labels on T.V. dinner packages where

the graphics that are on the package do not actually depict what is in

it?

113
Dr. DeHoll: Quite a bit of consideration is being given to it now,

and we are developing some more regulations with respect to those

illustrations.

Mr. Stern: That is a great issue— the phony picture of the big piece

of fatback pork on the can of pork and beans, which is not at all

realistic. The pork is simply dragged through the pork and beans.

Dr. DeHoll: I am glad to say that is a Food and Drug problem.

Mr. Stern: We had a complaint about cans of snap beans, where the

label showed ten snap beans mixed in with the regular beans, whereas

the can never contained more than three or four. The classic

misrepresentation is the picture on cans of mixed nuts, which shows

all kinds of cashew nuts and almonds and filberts, whereas the inside

contains essentially peanuts. Misrepresentation also occurs in the

coloring of food products shown on the label. For instance, the beans

shown on the can will be green, but are pallid inside. I would like to see

the Department of Agriculture and FDA move on deceptive

illustrations.

Mrs. Jacqueline Kendall (National Consumers United): Dr. De

Holl, is water injected into chickens?

Dr. DeHoll: No. The chickens are immersed in water. The only

amount absorbed is that which is necessary to chill the chickens

immediately after slaughter.

Mrs. Kendall: Are the chickens that come wrapped into the retail

outlet supposed to be weighed again before sale?

Dr. DeHoll : Those that come prepackaged are not supposed to be

weighed again.

Mr Stern : Didn't we have this thing about 3 percent to 6 percent oil

and water being injected into chickens?

Dr. DeHoll: That was turkeys. There is a regulation which limits

the amount of basting compound that can be used, and there has to be

a prominent statement identifying the composition of the solution

that is injected.

Mr. Stern: Wasn't the disclosure requirement just suspended by

the FDA?

Dr DeHoll : There was no suspension of the disclosure. The

disclosure is still there, and the quantity is limited to 3 percent.

Mr L.D. DRAGHETTi(Agawam, Massachusetts): What amount of

pickle is permitted in packages of corned beef?

Dr. DeHoll: Actually, there should be no free pickle in there. Of

course, corned beef itself has quite a bit of pickle in it. If the product

becomes a little bit warm in these retail stores, some of the pickle will

leak out. The corned beef may contain up to 10 percent pickle and the

brisket 20 percent.

Mr. Stern: Pickle is water, isn't it?

Dr. DeHoll : It is brine— curing ingriedients in a water solution.

Mr.Draghetti: In the curing of hams I understand there is some

kind of device that injects water into them, is that right?

114
Dr. DeHoll: It is a curing solution. The purpose is to get the curing

solution to all surfaces within the ham. We have two classes of ham. A

product labeled ham cannot weigh any more than it did in a green

state. A product labeled "ham, water added" may contain up to 10

percent.

Mr. Draghetti : Do USDA people check the scales inside the factories producing hot dogs and meat products?

Dr. DeHoll : Yes.

Mr. Draghetti : Are the weights used to check these scales ail

certified back to the National Bureau of Standards?

Dr. DeHoll: No.

Mr. Draghetti: How are tolerances figured on package lots of hot

dogs?

Dr. DeHoll: That is not within my area. It is within the area of our

plant inspection activity. There is a specific instruction in our inspector's manual of procedure which outlines all this.

Mrs. Kendall: Dr. De Holl, in the Chicago area the majority of the

chickens are reweighed in the store because they do have the store

labels over them. They come in chill-packed, so the water that is in

there is not frozen, it is just chilled. If you weigh the package, it

weighs more than it does after the chicken has thawed out and the

wather has run off, as much as 23 hundredths of a pound in some

cases.

Dr. DeHoll: A lot of that type of poultry goes out in large size

containers. The chickens are packaged at the retail level.

Mrs. Kendall: Is it legal for chickens to be weighed in the

semifrozen state?

Dr. DeHoll : Poultry that is frozen is usually weighed prior to

freezing.

Mrs. Kendall: No, it is sold as fresh. It is not sold as frozen. They

call it chill-packed.

Dr. DeHoll: I am not really familiar with this. I will look into that.

Mr.T.E. Kirby (Georgia): Dr. De Holl, a little less than a year ago 1

checked a weight that belonged to a representative who was checking

the fishing industries in Georgia. That one-pound weight had rusted

to the extent that it weighed a little less than 12 ounces. Also, over a

period of two years I tried to check a kit of weights, about 150 pounds,

belonging to the Grain Section of USDA, but was never able to check

them. My experience with the weights sealed out by this factory is

that they are not necessarily within what we would think of as Class F

tolerance. I wonder if the standards used in the various sections of

USDA are being properly tested. The only agency that I know of

where the weights are being tested is the Packers and Stockyards

Administration.

Dr DeHoll : With respect to fish, we have nothing to do with that. I have been talking only about meat and poultry products, I will be glad

to call this other matter to the attention of our Grain Division.

115
Mr. A.J. Ladd (Akron, Ohio): Mr. Gomilla, why are not soaps and

detergents included in your slack fill survey?

Mr. Gomilla : Because they are not under our jurisdiction.

Mr. Vadelund: They are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade

Commission.

Mr. Ladd: Why does not the Federal Trade Commission look into

slack fill in soaps and detergents?

Mr Johnson : As Mr. Gomilla outlined to you, the FDA did have an

amount of money given to them by Congress to check slack fill. I would like to look at it as being most important to look into the food

factory first.

It is hard to pick up samples and to weigh them and check them out

without the absolute technology of these gentlemen in this audience.

We do not have that yet, unfortunately. However, if you find

anything outlandish, we would appreciate having it brought to our

attention. We have not had that brought to our attention by anybody

to date. We have been asked why we have not been in the slack fill

field. Essentially, we are in the retail price maintenance—

nonmaintenance if you will — field, such as retail sale price concepts of

"cents off" and the like. We feel from the economic side that this is

another important factor, and so our emphasis has been placed there.

116
MORNING SESSION-FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1972

(Warren E. Czaia, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

FORUM ON TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

TO AID CONSUMERS

O.K. Warnlof, Office of Weights and Measures, Moderator

Our forum this morning is divided into three

parts, each concentrating on technical

developments in specific areas which aid

consumers and affect weights and measures

enforcement.

DIGITAL DESIGNS-WEIGHING

The participants for the first portion will be

Don Kendall, Chief Scale Engineer, Toledo

Scale Company, and Tony Cattell, Supervisor

of Standard Product Engineering, Fairbanks Morse, Inc.

REMARKS BY MR. D. B. KENDALL

fgS^ Digital indication is certainly evident that

* I scale manufacturers and merchants are trying

to help the consumer. The analog customer

indication on cylinder or drum scales is

somewhat difficult to read and is of little value

to the customer in determining whether she is

being charged the correct unit price and total

price.

The new digital display of the quantity of

decimal pounds should be more understandable

to the housewife. However, it appears that a

little more education is necessary. We believe that a homemaker

should be able to understand 1.41 pounds more readily than 1 pound 6

1/2 ounces. Since she knows that 41 cents is 9 cents less than 50 cents,

so 1.41 pounds then bears the same relationship to 1.50 pounds as

$1.41 does to $1.50. This quantity indication, with the unit price and

total price, presented digitally provides all the information to the

customer in a readily understood manner.

There has been a lot of discussion about adjustment of the scale at

zero with digital displays. These scales can be improperly adjusted,

but it should be quite evident to the housewife that the scale is not

117
properly adjusted because it will be blinking an occasional plus one

interval if it is set fast. On a scale graduated in hundredths of a pound,

a plus interval is about the equivalent of a fifth of a graduation of a

cylinder scale graduated by half ounces. So it is our feeling that, when

this scale with the resolution of 2,500 graduations indicates zero, it

means zero just as closely as the cylinder scale it supersedes.

The matter of how to indicate zero or how to know that the scale is

close enough to zero to be satisfactory for use is a new problem in

connection with digital indication, and I do not believe that there

should be any one positive way to solve the problem. I agree that, if

there are only 500 digits in the capacity of the scale, just the indication of a zero is too broad. This problem is going to have to be

addressed by the Conference, and there will be a solution sometime in

the future.

One of the solutions could be a requirement for twice as many digits

as there are analog graduations. For instance, if you require 1,000

graduations on an analog scale, requiring 2,000 increments for a

digital scale means that, if the digital scale indicates zero and has been

adjusted as propsed by the S & T Committee to plus or minus a half

digit, when it reads zero it is at least as close as a quarter of the

corresponding analog graduation. If it blinks plus once in a while, it is

not properly adjusted.

I think further consideration is going to have to be given to this

possible broad zero. With the negative action of the 57th Conference

on the S & T Committee recommendation, I think the only solution in

the interim is that the Office of Weights and Measures in their

prototype examinations will have to determine whether a device, in a

particular application, is appropriate.

It is my proposal that the method of establishing a narrow enough

zero indication is to require at least 2,000 digits in the nominal

capacity of the scale. There are other ways of doing it. One is to expand the resolution at zero only. For instance, in the case of a 1,000-

pound by 1 -pound dial, some manufacturers have a switch which

permits reading the scale to a tenth pound for setting zero. The intent

of this proposed regulation was that, when this is done, the zero is

adjusted so that it is in middle of this 1-pound band.

Another way is to just press a button which increases the sensitivity of the scale so that a digital indication would be magnified by

some factor such as five, to permit a finer resolution at zero. I feel this

is necessary if you only have 1,000 graduations —that the resolution of

1 pound in 1,000 is not fine enough for zero establishment. A weights

and measures official can always tell when a digital scale is properly

adjusted at zero by putting a weight equal to half of the digit on it.

The indication should then blink between zero and the first digit.

Questions have arisen concerning the appropriate indication of an

out-of-balance condition behind zero. It is my view that the indicator

should not display any zeros when the device is out of balance behind

118
zero, even if it is in conjunction with a minus sign or a red light labeled

to indicate an out-of-weighing range condition. If the scale is in a

behind-zero balance condition (that is, more than one-half digit behind

zero), it should indicate that with a signal light or with a minus sign

and the zeros blanked out, or the minus sign could be activated and

negative values displayed.

Another method would be to indicate complements. That is, if a

scale is one pound behind zero, the display would be 999. This method

could only be used when these complements exceed the capacity of the

scale.

Since in some instances digital scales can indicate far beyond the

capacity of the weighing element, it becomes necessary to indicate in

some manner an overload condition. This can be accomplished by

flashing the figures or activating a signal light labeled ''overload" or

"out-of-weighing range."

It would be preferable, in my opinion, to turn on a signal light

indicating overcapacity and blank out the weight figures. It would

eliminate the possibility of the operator's saying, "Well, I may be just

a little bit over and I am going to record that anyway," because it is

possible that you may be grossly over.

If this is a scale with a load cell and a steelyard and conventional

lever system, for instance, you may be overloaded enough to be

against the stop, so you may read 200 or 300 pounds over nominal

capacity, but the load may be 2,000 or 3,000 pounds over capacity. So

my own feeling is that you either flash the figures or turn on a signal

light indicating overload and turn the weight figures off.

Concerning the need for a power switch and whether it is necessary

for it to be readily accessible by the operator, there must be some

means of disconnecting power to the device. It is possible that a short

could develop and start a fire. If the device is connected to the power

system with a line cord, the receptacle is readily available to the

operator so he can pull it out in a hurry. This is an acceptable

disconnect. Many of these devices with digital indicators are small

devices mounted on a desk, smaller than typewriters. If the device is

permanently wired to the line, a separate disconnect on the wall would

be acceptable.

I feel that, if the device has a switch on the face of it, it should be

protected from being accidentally turned off. The toggle switch can be

guarded so that, if you brush your hand by it, your hand will be

guided away from the handle by wings so that you actually have to

make an effort to turn if off. If you do turn a load cell scale off and

immediately turn it back on, you may get some random figures until

those figures are updated, or if you leave it off for an hour or so, you

may find that the load cell temperature has to be reestablished.

I feel that there should be a pilot light on the device indicating that

power is connected to the device, not only that the switch is on, but

that a fuse has not blown.

119
REMARKS BY MR. TONY CATTELL

My comments are directed to the hold and

tare capabilities on digital instruments. I think

most of us are familiar with a manual hold

function on servo mechanized dials, particularly those incorporating several ranges. A

manual hold function holds a scale in the anticipated weight range. This is a user orientated

function switch, and it speeds the weighing

process by eliminating the need for the scale to

range with each weighing.

As an example of that, if several containers

which are approximately the same weight are being weighed, in order

to reach the weight of the first container the indicator may need to go

through several ranges. If a manual range switch is used, the scale

may be held in the anticipated weight range, thus eliminating the need

for ranging in subsequent weighings.

With digital instruments, the weight cycle time is, by comparison,

very short, thus making the manual hold switch a redundant function,

except possible in the areas of special custom engineered systems. In

general weighing applications, utilizing digital electronic instruments,

I see no requirement whatsoever for a manual hold function switch.

Concerning the taking of tare weight, basically there are three

methods of calibrated tare most often associated with electronic

digital weighing instruments. I will define these as digital tare, pre-set

tare, and automatic tare.

Digital tare systems employ one or more decades of rotary or

thumb-wheel switches, or even microdials, into which tare value is

manually entered by the operator for each weighing or series of similar

weighings. By definition, digital tare systems must provide a visual

readout of the tare value entered, so that the operator can observe the

tare entry. Both switches and their associate readouts must be clearlymarked as tare entries. The effect that the tare entry has on the digital

indicator varies from instrument to instrument by both instrument

and application. We can show either a negative readout or a complement readout on the indicators.

When a tare of 2,000 pounds is entered on an instrument equipped

for negative data display and the scale platform is unloaded, the

indicator shows an indication of 2,000 pounds minus. By applying a

2,000-pound container to the platform, the indicator comes up to zero. When the container is filled, the net weight indication on the display is

10,000 pounds. It is not necessary for this indication to be marked as a

net weight because the tare is visible to the operator and to any

bystander. This is the same condition that exists on a mechanical

scale with a tare bar. The one important feature is that, when the tare

is initially entered, the indicator has a minus indication.

120
Instruments that are not capable of displaying negative numbers

will show either a complement of the tare entry or some other ar- bitrary fixed value. With the same tare entry of 2,000 pounds, the

indicator reads behind zero, and it is necessary to indicate, either by a

pilot light or a brighted up display, that a behind zero readout exists.

Again, by adding a container weighing 2,000 pounds to the platform, the indicator comes up to zero. By adding 10,000 pounds of net

weight to the platform, the display reads 10,000 pounds, and the tare

entry is sufficient to indicate that it is a net weight display.

Both of these examples of digital tare are designed to facilitate

operating speed and flexibility of appHcation. We must be careful not

to place restrictions on such digital weighing instruments which

would in any way defeat the aims, purposes, and accompHshments.

The contract for buying and selling is very often made on the

printed record rather than on the displayed weight. In this area the

buyer must also be protected. To guarantee the integrity of the

printed record, two conditions have to be met. The system should be

equipped to prevent printout when the scale is out of range, and the

printed record should define whether the printout is net, gross, or tare.

Preset tare is the one most commonly used in custom engineered

systems. This method operates on the same principle as digital tare,

except that, instead of individual decade entry switches, a single

selector switch is used to enter a particular channel of preset tare

values. Where several entry units are provided, a reference chart

relating to switch position to the selected tare values must be included

and clearly visible to the observer.

In switch position one, this could be a tare weight of 20 pounds,

position two could be 60 pounds, and position three could be 90

pounds. There is no way, by just glancing at it, to know precisely

what the tare entry is, and there should be a chart associated with this

equipment mounted where it is clearly visible which relates switch

position to the actual tare entry.

Automatic tare is perhaps seen less frequently than either of the

other two. This may be considered as an automatic return to zero

function, and it is standard to the Fairbanks Morse line of digitruck

and dyno instruments. Here the tare value is applied by effectively

moving the instrument zero position to the appHed weight, so that,

when additional weight is applied to the platform, the displayed

weight is a positive net indication.

In the operation of a truck scale using this method, the instrument

is set at zero and the first axle of the truck rolls onto the platform and

its weight is displayed. If necessary, a printed record of the axle

weight is made. When the automatic tare switch is operated, the

instrument returns to zero, in effect counterbalancing the initial

applied weight.

This procedure is repeated for each axle until the entire truck is on

the scale and the weight of each separate axle has been recorded or

121
noted. When the truck leaves the platform, the instrument will

display the total gross weight as a negative quantity. Before the next

weighing, the automatic tare is again operated, and this resets the

scale to zero. In this system, the automatic tare switch may be a tool

uprighted switch or a key switch to reduce the possibility of its being

used for fraud.

DISCUSSION

Mr. C.G. GEHRiNGER(Hobart Manufacturing Co.): As far as the zero

balance is concerned, I think we must recognize that it is impossible to

measure anything accurately, whether it is linear, mass, or

volumetric, without a definite reference starting point. How we are

going to get this definite starting point needs to be resolved.

Also, concerning double graduations, isn't this going to require a

revision of Handbook 44 so that you can get specifications for digital

different from the specifications and tolerances for the analog type of

indicators which we now have?

And what are we going to do about the units or resolution? What

happens when the minimum tolerance is less than a half graduation,

as presently provided in T.2.1. and Table 3 of Handbook 44? We still

have a problem, where the increment of weight is much greater or

more than double the tolerance, that is not covered by just doubling

the graduations. Would it be possible to specify on digital, because of

this half graduation change, that the minimum increment would not

be greater than twice the applicable tolerance?

Mr. Kendall: At the present time Handbook 44 permits an additional half digit tolerance over the basic tolerance for digital indications. The minimum tolerance for a digital indication on that basis

would be one digit, and on an analog scale only a half graduation is

permitted. My suggestion will help both tolerance application and

zero-setting accuracy, and would require certain modifications to the

handbook.

If you try to set a digital scale half a digit off, the scale will blink

between zero and one. To avoid a plus indication, quite frequently you

will have to set it to less than a half graduation ahead of zero. If you

have twice as many digits, that means you are setting it to a fifth of a

graduation as your maximum deviation from zero, and that is not out

of range for the present requirements for analog scales.

Nobody expects an analog scale to split the graduation every time it

is reading zero. You set it as close as you can, and when you apply a

load it does not always come back to split that zero graduation. You

have to have a little leeway there. If you have 2,000 digits on the scale,

you will find in practice that you are setting your zero just as ac- curately on the digital scale as you are on the analog scale.

122
Mr S.J. Darsey (Florida): Handbook 44 presently requires that the

value of the minimum graduated interval on a scale used for the retail

sale of foodstuffs should not exceed one ounce. If a digital automatic

prepackaging scale were produced with a minimum interval of 0.06

pound in accordance with this requirement, the uncertainty at zero

would be plus or minus 0.03 pound. This 1/2 ounce uncertainty would

have a significant economic effect. What is the possibility of such a

scale being produced?

Mr. Kendall: As I see it, this one-ounce (0.06 pound) interval would

not be practical if the device has at least 2,000 intervals. Also the least

significant active digit would be in ones or twos, not sixes.

Mr. Warnlof: Since existing technology provides scales with a

minimum interval of 0.01 pound, an official would not allow the use of

a device with a minimum interval greater than that. The basis for this

decision is provided in Handbook 44 General Code, Suitability of

Equipment.

Mr. Darsey: In certain weighing applications, repeated weighings

of large trucks with heavy loads are necessary. Has there been an

effective hold button developed for a mechanical dial so that the

device does not have to return to zero after every load?

Mr. Kendall: Not for a purely mechanical dial, as far as I know.

Mr. L.D. DRAGHETTi(Agawam, Mass.): Would vibrations or sudden

changes in temperature affect the zero indications on electronic

scales?

Mr Kendall: This is a possibility. As I mentioned before, there are

several ways of determining what the zero indication is. I still feel that

either of the two that I mentioned would solve this problem. If 2,000

digits were required, you know that a zero indication will be 1/4 of

what would be the analog graduation. Or you can expand the sensitivity of zero by activitating another decade, for example, from 0.01

pound to 0.001 pound, and by so doing you can determine whether

zero has moved part of an increment. It may be necessary to make a

zero adjustment with quite an extreme change in temperature.

DIGITAL DESIGNS-MEASURING

The participants for this portion are Walt Gerdom, Manager of

Customer Service, Tokheim Corporation, and Chairman of the

Technical Committee of the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association; Bob Nix, Assistant to the Manager of Engineering, Gilbarco,

Inc.; and Tom McLaughlin, Product Sales Manager, Veeder-Root,

Inc.

123
REMARKS BY MR. W. F. GERDOM

My comments will be directed toward

existing requirements that either affect the

design of or need special interpretations when

applied to digital equipment. If the existing

analog indications in a petroleum dispenser

were to be replaced with a digital display, it

would require, without question, a 0.01 gallon

minimum increment.

To determine the accuracy of the measuring

device, it is necessary to define the

measurement much more closely than 1/10

gallon, since 1/10 gallon is approximately 23 cubic inches. A digital

display designed with only 1/10 gallon increment would provide an

uncertainty of plus or minus 11 1/2 cubic inches. Reducing the

minimum increment to 0.01 gallons, the uncertainty would be plus or

minus 1.15 cubic inches, which is sufficient for testing purposes.

Another reason for this finer increment is to provide a mathematical

agreement of the quantity with the total price to the closest cent.

There has been some discussion concerning the application of code

requirements to digital indicators used in conjunction with existing

dispensers with analog indicators. It was not the intention of the

manufacturer of the equipment that these digital indicators were to be

primary elements, although they can be used as such.

My interpretations of specific code requirements as applied to these

digital indicators are as follows: ( 1 ) G-UR.3.2. Position of Equipment.

It is my view that the analog indicators on the pumps on the island

are the customer indications, and it is not necessary that the digital

display intended for use by the operator of the equipment be visible to

the customer. (2) Since the digital display can be a primary element,

because it may be used in a normal commercial use of the device, it

would be necessary that this display meet the requirement of S.2.5.1.

Zero Setback Interlock.

The Conference has been asked to study the matter of what

agreement is necessary between the analog indications and the digital

indications. It is my view that, if the existing analog indications meet

the requirements of the code, the digital display need only display

values to the nearest indicated analog graduations.

124
REMARKS BY MR. R. E. NIX

With respect to digital indicators used in

conjunction with existing analog dispensers, it

is apparently not necessary to indicate both

money values and quantity values, because

there are many consoles on the market which

I

indicate only the dollar value and others which

I

indicate only the quantity value. Our primary

concern is to provide for mathematical

agreement when both values are displayed

digitally. The question, then, is what resolution

is required for the quantity value? The

following is an example of a delivery of gasoline at 40 cents a gallon.

The delivered quantity is 10 gallons plus a half tenth, and the total

computed price is $4.02, which is indicated on the dispenser on the

island. With the understanding that all the computation takes place in

the analog dispenser on the island, I want to transmit these values to

a digitial remote readout console. If I choose to indicate digitally only

tenths of gallons, the device must select the closest graduation. Since

we are exactly halfway between tenths, the device selects the lower

value and indicates 10.0 gallons and, with no selection necessary,

indicates a total price of $4.02. Mathematically, 10.0 gallons X $0.40 a

gallon equals $4.00. Now, is this mathematical agreement or not?

Apparently one way of overcoming this would be to provide a

minimum increment of 0.01 gallon rather than 1/10 gallon. Then, with

an analog indication of half a tenth, we will display 10.05 gallons on

the remote console. Mathematically, 10.5 X $0.40 does equal $4.02.

Our company addressed itself to this problem a couple of years ago

and contacted the Bureau for interpretation. Upon their advice, the

company chose to provide 0.01 gallon minimum increment.

We wrote letters to many jurisdictions asking them to review this

matter and advise us as to the requirements in their jurisdictions

when displaying digitally both money and gallon values. We asked,

"Can the gallons indicated be shown in tenths of gallons or must the

value be shown in hundredths?" The following are some of the replies

we received:

The answer to your question as to whether gallonage indications are required to

be shown in tenths of a gallon or hundredths of a gallon when both money and

gallon values are shown on the s£ime remote readout device, we feel that, in order to

insure fuU compliance with paragraph G-S.5.5. of the National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44, the gallon indication must be in the hundredths of a gallon.

125
Our requirements indicate the necessity of having the gallon registering in the

hundredths when displaying digitally so that mathematical agreement of within one cent can be attained between the anedog and digital computers.

It would appear to conform to this specification that digital quantity

representations would require indications in terms that would be in units less than

one-tenth gallons. The use of digital quantity representation in terms of hundredths of a gallon would appear to meet this criteria.

REMARKS BY MR. T. J. MCLAUGHLIN

With respect to printed receipts issued by

retail petroleum dispensing equipment, I think

we are a little bit ahead of our time, although

some equipment of this type has been manufactured. We do know, of course, the standard

ticket issued by a top mounted printer.

However, a remote digital display that prints

tickets is another ball game.

An example of relating the quantity value

only to a printed receipt would be at a truck

stop, where a pulse transmitter takeoff from an

island dispenser is accumulated electromechanically and printed out

on demand at the end of a delivery.

In this instance, there are two requirements of the handbook that

are applicable. The first is section G-S.5.6. of the General Code, the

application of which is self-explanatory. The second is in the LMD

Code UR.3.3, which states that, when one of the values is printed,

the other two values must necessarily be shown also. These values can

be printed or handwritten. These sections of Handbook 44 also apply

to the recording of money values only.

However, when both money and gallons are printed, this gets a

little more difficult, principally because it appears you must meet the

Handbook 44 requirement of mathematical agreement stipulated in

G-S.5.5 of the General Code. Fortunately, at this time I do not know

of any remote printers of this type, but certainly we are going to have

to cope with them in the future.

At Veeder-Root we do manufacture a printer that is a slave to the

computer at the island, and mathematical agreement is achieved by

stepping up the gallon shaft ten times and printing gallons in hundredths of gallons. On receipts of this type, the price per gallon is

handwritten in, and, of course, this would comply with UR.3.3. of the

LMD Code.

126
DISCUSSION

Mr. S.D. Andrews (Florida): I think there is something here that

transcends weights and measures enforcement. There will be a

tremendous customer concern if he finds that he has one reading on

the remote and another on the island dispenser. I would think the

retailers would be equally concerned with that, if not more so, than

whether we weights and measures officials are going to give them a

broad interpretation.

Mr. Gerdom : The situation exists where oil companies are

requesting remote indicators with both total price and quantity

display. They would prefer the quantity representations in tenths

gallons, since it represents less expenditure in terms of the equipment.

If this equipment, which does not comply with Handbook 44, were

installed, it would create a difficult situation. However, there seems to

be an inconsistency, since a console of this type, displaying only

gallons to the nearest tenths or only money values to the closest cent,

would comply with the requirements of the handbook.

CLOSED FILL SYSTEMS-FOR ECOLOGY'S SAKE

The participants for this portion are Dick Southers, Coordinator of

Operations and Engineering, American Petroleum Institute; Glenn

Moore, Vice President of Engineering, OPW Division, Dover Corporation, and Vice Chairman of the SAE Fuel Supply Systems

Committee; and Joe Hine, API Research Associate, National Bureau

of Standards.

REMARKS BY MR. R. SOUTHERS

Closed fill systems have happened in San

Diego, County. Any new station that is built

there must have totally enclosed systems. In

other words, no vapors must be vented to the

atmosphere. This requirement is not only for

stations, but for all petroleum handling installations. We will see the spread of this type

of regulation across the country.

People who are interested in this will be

talking about the tremendous amount of

hydrocarbons that are put into the atmosphere

from these facilities. The figures that you will probably see quoted will

state that a station doing a thousand gallons a day will recover

through a tight system approximately a gallon and a half a day. They

may come back as aggregate figures saying that there are some

350,000 service stations in the country, so we are looking at better

127
than a half million gallons a day that are being taken back into the

pockets of service station operators.

What I would like for you to think about at this time if the latter

type of figure is given to you is to be aware that it does come out to

about a gallon and a half a day. This then breaks down into about 90

to 100 customers, with an average fill of 11.3 gallons, so the amount

per individual customer is very small. There are many unanswered

questions at this point as to whom this product even belongs to. I would hope that, through the National Conference, we will be able to

work out these problems together.

I know many of you are concerned with other considerations in the

merchandising of petroleum products, such as product quality. This

spring API has published and made available for distribution a

pamphlet titled "Gasoline, Questions and Answers." This publication

provides answers to many of the common questions people are asking

today.

REMARKS BY MR. G. E. MOORE

The Fuel Supply Systems Committee of the

Society of Automotive Engineers has within its

scope all technical investigations pertaining to

fuel systems, safety, and air pollution of automobiles, trucks, and buses. Most recently, our

activity has been with the dispenser nozzle

spout for leaded and nonleaded fuel which

would be required in 1974-75.

The recommended practice of the SAE group

has been utilized by the Environmental

Protection Agency and has been published in

the Federal Register, and comments have been solicited and are

waiting finalization right now by EPA.

This committee of the SAE is made up of a number of individuals,

serving voluntarily as individuals supplying engineering expertise

and technical knowledge. These committee members work for

automobile companies, oil companies, service station equipment

manufacturers, EPA, underwriters laboratories, automotive

equipment suppliers, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the API. We have had, from time to time, personnel

from the National Bureau of Standards attend meetings of this

committee.

Vapor recovery during refueling has been under consideration for

some time by this committee. In the past six months it has received a

great deal more attention because of the San Diego requirements

mentioned earlier by Dick Southers.

128
The SAE Fuel Supply Systems Committee held its symposium

meeting on May 23 to discuss and handle presentations on the state of

the art in vapor recovery during refueling. At that time the Scott

Research Laboratories presented a report on work they are doing for

the Coordinating Research Council. Scott is presently concluding a

second-year study to determine the quantity of vapor loss and spillage

during refueling. The study to date indicates that these refueling

losses are less today than the 1975 exhaust standards, which, of

course, we know are extremely stringent. The refueling losses are in

the range of four-tenths of a gram per mile, or about two ounces

during the average refueling at today's standard. Also at the meeting,

Mr. R. J. McCoy, Gilbarco, Inc., presented a study that his company

is making on vapor emission control and has made on automotive

refueling. Other reports were given by Dr. Joe Summers of EPA and

Dick Southers of API.

The primary responsibility of the SAE Committee with regard to

vapor recovery during refueling is to determine a recommended

practice for the interface between the vehicle, fill pipe, and service

station nozzle. One of the things uppermost in everyone's mind that

must be considered is cost versus effectivensss. For new automobiles

there should be a minimum redesign to accommodate the standard.

For existing automobiles consideration should be given to the retrofit

of these automobiles, which, of course, may prove to be impossible.

With regard to vapor recovery refueling from the standpoint of

weights and measures enforcement, a number of questions are yet

unanswered and will probably remain unanswered until field experience is gained.

For instance, when the fuel tank is full, will the fuel back up into the

vapor recovery system and be returned to the service station? Perhaps

it will become necessary to provide some type of shutoff means to the

nozzle to prevent the reversal of flow. Since little is known in this area,

we must determine how much fuel in the form of vapor (that

previously went into the air as pollution ) will be returned and to whom

it belongs. If the customer is to be reimbursed, how can it be measured

and what concentration is it? This will vary with temperature and

vapor pressure and other components of the gasoline.

Another proposal is to use a vacuum source to recover these vapors.

Since the reduced pressure will increase the likelihood of fuel

vaporizing, it is possible vapors will be drawn back. If so, will the

customer be compensated for this quantity that perhaps is recovered?

If vapor control is required in future automobiles and the SAE Fuel

System Committee is successful in coming up with a standard connection, vapors could be retained in the automobile, which will reduce

weights and measures considerations.

In conclusion, there are a number of unanswered questions that

must be faced in the future if we are to meet the requirements of air

129
pollution control bodies in the fight to clean up our environment. I would like to extend an invitation to the National Bureau of Standards to have a representative attend future meetings of the committee, since we are now into the heart of the problem of tight fill and

vapor recovery during refueling.

REMARKS BY MR. D. J. HINE

The Research Association Program of the

National Bureau of Standards is one in which

the Bureau cooperates with private

organizations to advance technology. Twentyseven months ago I was selected to represent

the API in a program with the National Bureau

of Standards to investigate and evaluate 1, 5,

and 10-gallon graduated-neck test measures.

We thought when we entered into this program

that we would be leading the technology rather

than having to follow it. After hearing the

presentations of Mr. Southers and Mr. Moore, it now appears that a

followup program will be necessary to solve any problems brought

about by closed fill systems.

Our proposed followup program in which we are now launched is

going into the closed fill system. We are going to design and fabricate

four provers of field size. Extensive studies will be made of their

actual field operation. These devices will be designed to accommodate

open or closed fill systems, bottom loading or top loading, and have a

vapor recovery capability. By the end of the year there will be

available to you a report of our two years of progress. This report will

include our recommendations for quality and procedural activity in

the calibration of field test measures.

DISCUSSION

Mr S.D. Andrews (Florida): Should weights and measures officials

be concerned with what the pump measures or what the customer

receives? Couldn't we divide this thing into two parts and let the

weights and measures officials be concerned with the accuracy of the

pump measurement and let the consumer affairs people take it from

there and be sure the customer gets what he is supposed to receive?

Mr. Warnlof: I disagree with that view. I think that weights and

measures responsibility extends beyond the performance of the

device. It includes a supervision of the actual operation of the device

to the point that the customer receives full measure.

130
REPORTS OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Presented by M. Greenspan, Chairman, Chief Inspector,

Department of Consumer Affairs,

New York City, New York

(Wednesday, July 12, 1972)

The Committee on Liaison with the Federal

Government submits its report to the 57th

National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The report consists of the tentative report,

transmitted in April as part of the Conference

announcement, as amended by the final report.

The report represents recommendations of

the Committee that have been formed on the

basis of written comments received during the

year and oral representations made during the

open meeting of the Committee. The Committee intends to maintain the line of communications already

established with federal agencies and to aggressively pursue all

matters involving federal and state relations in the weights and

measures field.

Advisory to NBS

Office of Weights and Measures

As reported to the National Conference last year, the Committee

has accepted as one of its principal activities the responsibility of

serving in an advisory capacity to the NBS Office of Weights and

Measures. In this regard the Committee represents the interests of all

groups comprising the National Conference on matters relating to the

programs of OWM.

The Committee has viewed with great concern a reduction of the

OWM budget and staff over the past several years. Such reduction

has placed serious constraints on the operations of OWM and occurs

at a time when its service to the states and guidance to industry are

needed more than ever to maintain an efficient and effective weights

and measures system in our nation.

Meetings have been held with top management of NBS on this

problem and the Committee has encouraged interested officials in

government and industry to communicate their views and support to

131
the Committee as well as to NBS. The tremendous response to this

call was most encouraging and hopefully has put an end to further

reductions.

In looking to the future the Committee is of the opinion that OWM

should receive a substantial budget increase and should expand

program capabilities to meet its growing technological and administration responsibilities. In this regard the Committee during its

interim meeting prepared and sent the following letter to Dr. Lewis M.

Branscomb, Director, NBS, and President, NCWM:

Dear Dr. Branscomb:

The Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government, National Conference on Weights and Measures, has encouraged the Office of Weights and Measures to

develop a budget for Fiscal Year 1974 which would be substantially larger than that

currently allocated. It is a unanimous resolution of the Committee that OWM fully

support the NCWM both directly and indirectly, and therefore a minimum budget of

750 K per year is required for necessary overall support. In addition, the needs of the

NCWM can best be met if the allowing priorities for program elements within OWM

are recognized:

Program Elements

1. National Conference on Weights and Measures

2. Technical Education

3. Engineering Studies

4. National Prototype Examinations

5. Standards, Laboratories, Calibrations

6. National Standardization (Models)

7. Packaging and Labeling

8. Railway Track Scale Testing

9. Metrication

10. Management Information and Assistance

11. International Standardization Activities (OIML; ISO)

All items of lesser concern to the National Conference on Weights and Measures have

been deleted from this list. The Liaison Committee, in a recent meeting with Dr. F. Karl Willenbrock, Director,

I AT, felt that both a reasonable estimate of future support, as well as a preferred

ordering of priorities, would be valuable to him and, in turn, to you. Dr. Willenbrock

indicated firm concepts on his part would be forthcoming in July. However, we wish

to set forth these opinions well in advance of NBS budgetary review for Fiscal Year

1974. We would also urge that this resolution be a prime factor in determining the

final allocation of funds within the Institute for Applied Technology for Fiscal Year

1973.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Moe Greenspan, Chairman

Committee on Liaison with the Federal Government

National Conference on Weights and Measures

132
Relations With Federal

Regulatory Agencies

1. FDA and FTC:

The Committee was advised that the Office of Weights and

Measures has sent to each state copies of the cents-off regulations

issued by the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade

Commission under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. This matter

is now under consideration by the Committee on Laws and

Regulations who plan to prepare and recommend a composite centsoff regulation for inclusion in the Model State Packaging and

Labeling Regulation as soon as confirmation orders are published by

FDA and FTC.

2. USDA:

(a) Meat Inspection Regulations:

The Committee received correspondence from several state officials

concerning the suspension of regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture which required the labeling of random weight

meat packages shipped in non-consumer containers. This matter was

also considered by the Committee on Laws and Regulations during its

interim meeting and will be covered in its Tentative Report.

(b) Proposed Procedures for Determining Net Weight of Food

Products:

This matter was referred by the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs. The Committee is in agreement

with the Education Committee that one set of procedures should be

the goal of USDA and the National Conference. Therefore, the

Committee has directed correspondence to appropriate officials within

USDA asking that all efforts be made to cooperate with NBS in the

development of a uniform sampling plan and package checking

procedure that would be acceptable to all parties.

Programs with Department of

Defense and U.S. Postal Service

1. Department of Defense:

The cooperative program of weights and measures inspection on

military installations became effective with the pubUcation of

program guidelines in the Final Report of the Committee to the 56th

133
National Conference. In accordance with the guidelines, weights and

measures officials were requested to forward copies of all inspections

to OWM. Since July 1971 the following data have been received:

No. Installations No. States Scales

Inspected

22

Reporting

7

Insp. %Rej.

89 18%

Meters Packages

Insp. % Rej.

43 1%

Lots Insp. %Rej.

241 41%

NOTE : Reasons for rejection include lable errors in addition to short weight.

2. U.S. Postal Service:

The Committee is continuing its effort with officials of the Postal

Service to achieve a voluntary inspection program similar to that with

the Department of Defense. A representative of the newly reorganized

U.S. Postal Service met with the Committee to discuss steps being

taken within the Service to raise standards of accuracy in postal

scales. The Postal Service is planning to develop a program of scale

testing and maintenance by their own personnel that would preclude

the need for cooperative testing by weights and measures officials. As

a first step, NBS Handbook 44 is being studied by postal authorities

to incorporate applicable provisions into a postal scale code. Subsequent plans for scale testing and maintenance are expected prior to

the Conference. The Committee has instructed OWM to act in its

behalf by reviewing the intended postal program and recommending

what further steps the Conference should take in ensuring the ac- curacy of postal scales and weighing practices.

Imports

The problem of incorrectly labeled or inaccurate quantity

declarations in imported packaged products continues to exist. The

problem, the Committee feels, can be temporized by stern enforcement measures at state and local levels, but can best be solved by

initiating direct representation in the Organization of International

Legal Metrology (OIML) to effectively confront weights and

measures officials representing the exporting countries. Furthermore,

134
such an effort will be in support of the proposed General Agreement

on Tariff and Trade (GATT) Code of Conduct, which attempts to

harmonize national or central model laws or standards of foreign

countries which purchase commodities from the United States.

Under the proposed code, domestic penalty for improper weight or

measure may result in the claim of a non-tariff restraint to trade, and,

therefore, could adversely affect the U.S. balance of payment including the ability of U.S. exporters to remain internationally competitive in adopting the weights and measures, and packaging

requirements of potential markets overseas.

Unanimously agreed by the Committee on Liaison with the Federal

Government.

NBS Enabling Act

As a result of discussions during the 56th National Conference

concerning programs with federal agencies, the Committee urged the

National Bureau of Standards to amend its Enabling Act to assume

the responsibility for federal weights and measures enforcement on

federally controlled activities such as military commissaries and

postal offices. Meetings have been held with appropriate NBS officials, and the feeling is that NBS should not actively seek to gain

regulatory authority in any area.

New Standards for Major Cities

In accordance with the Committee's recommendation last year, the

Committee received a status report from the Chief of the Office of

Weights and Measures on the study that has been undertaken to

determine the need and feasibility of furnishing new standards to

weights and measures departments serving large metropolitan areas

Although officials in several cities have expressed an interest in this

matter, there is not yet sufficient information and data to formulate a

definite plan for the implementation of such a program. The Committee will continue to explore the ways and means by which a

program of this nature could be established to effectively serve those

for whom the need exists.

Surplus Property

Correspondence was received from the State of Nebraska asking

that NBS review the Federal Surplus Property Act to determine if

weights and measures agencies are eligible for surplus property. A

meeting was held with the Chief, Personal Property Division,

Property Management and Disposal Service, General Services Administration, concerning this matter.

135
The Federal Property and Administration Services Act of 1949, as

amended, and related statutes, authorize the Administrator of

General Services to donate surplus property to:

1. Educational, public health, and civil defense organizations.

2. Public airports.

3. Educational activities of special interest to the armed services.

4. The American National Red Cross.

5. Public bodies.

Weights and measures agencies, as well as other municipal, county,

or state regulatory activities are considered non-eligible

organizations. It appears that the only way to make weights and

measures agencies eligible is to introduce legislation to have the

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act amended. The

Committee does not feel that such action is warranted at this time.

M. Greenspan, Chairman, New York City, N.Y.

L.D. HoLLOWAY, Idaho

A. Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Assn.

W.N. Seward, American Petroleum Inst.

E.E. WoLSKi, Colgate-Palmolive Co.

T.M. Stabler, Staff Assistant, NBS

H.F. Wollin. Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Liaison with the Federal

Government

(Mr. Greenspan 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.)

136
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Presented by G.E. Mattimoe, Chairman, Deputy Director,

Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture,

State of Hawaii

(Thursday, July 13, 1972)

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs submits its

final report to the 57th National Conference on

Weights and Measures. The report consists of

the tentative report, transmitted in April as

part of the Conference Announcement, as

amended by the final report. The report

represents recommendations of the Committee

that have been formed on the basis of written

and oral comments received during the year

and oral presentations made during the open

meeting of the Committee.

The Committee, under its broadened role, considers its purpose as

one of investigating, taking action on, or reporting on matters affecting the following fields:

1. The technical training and education of weights and measures

officials.

2. The education of the general public in matters of weights and

measures.

3. The education of owners and users of devices.

4. The administration of weights and measures programs.

5. The relationship of weights and measures to the interests of the

consumer.

The Committee assumes its broadened role with a dedication to

enhancing weights and measures programs on a nationwide basis.

Education

1, National Weights and Measures Week

The Committee commends Mr. James Stewart of Virginia,

Chairman of National Weights and Measures Week, for his efforts in

promoting the Week. Appreciation is also offered to Mrs. Margaret

Dana for her singular efforts in promoting the Week and to many

state and local weights and measures jurisdictions for their support of

the Week. The Committee intends to pursue plans initiated during the

course of the year for a 1973 Presidential Proclamation of Weights and

137
Measures Week and for issuance of a commemorative stamp in 1974

to signify the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Weights and

Measures Act of March 2, 1799.

The Committee was pleased to receive a communication and

literature pertaining to the celebration of National Weights and

Measures Week from the National Conference of Standards

Laboratories. It is gratifying to have this worthy organization join

weights and measures officials in the promotion of the Week. Such

combined effort and recognition will surely be beneficial to all concerned.

2. Home Study Course

The Office of Weights and Measures has completed a revision of the

Weights and Measures Home Study Course. The Committee concurs

with the revision and has asked the Executive Secretary to submit the

Home Study Course to the Executive Committee for Conference

endorsement.

3. State and Local Weights and Measures Activity Summary

The Committee is grateful to the twenty-three state officials and

seven local officials who submitted activity summaries. However, the

Committee is disappointed that more jurisdictions did not respond to

the request for material. The Committee strongly urges officials to

support this endeavor in the coming year.

4. Metrication

The National Conference on Weights and Measures has a

responsibility under current pending national legislation on

metrication to speak in a unified voice in support of adopting the

metric system. This Committee sent correspondence to 535 members

of Congress to voice its support of metrication. A surprising few of

these communications were answered. Therefore, the Committee

requests the Executive Secretary to refer the matter to the Committee

on Liaison with the Federal Government so that further steps may be

taken to voice the intent of the National Conference with respect to

metrication.

The Committee has become aware of random efforts throughout the

country to develop education programs dealing with metrication.

Such a program is currently under development in Hawaii. The

Committee urges the continued efforts on the part of OWM to develop

education material on the metric system. It also expresses its appreciation to Mrs. Evelyn Czaia, representing the Southeast Alter138
natives, a group of schools in Minneapolis, Minnesota, dedicated to

offering alternatives in education styles, for her communication. The

Committee has directed a request to the Resolutions Committee that a

resolution be forwarded to the National Education Association advocating that schools begin this fall in teaching the metric system as a

regular part of the math curriculum.

5. Handbook 44 User Requirements

A recommendation was received from industry that a publication be

put together by the National Bureau of Standards containing user

requirements and information of interest to device owners and

operators. The Committee endorses the concept but feels that such a

publication could be best pursued by industry with cooperation from

the Bureau.

Administration

1. Weights and Measures Evaluation and Certification Program

During the 56th Conference the idea was presented for a program to

evaluate weights and measures jurisdictions in light of standards set

by the National Conference. OWM has established the initial

parameters for such a program. These will be discussed during the

Conference.

2. National Information and Data Bank

In order for the Committee to serve weights and measures officials

in matters relating to the overall administration of enforcement

programs, data must be gathered on the current operation of these

programs. In gathering such data, the Committee can identify

problem areas, define the overall investment of weights and measures

resources, and lay the foundation for a much advanced system of

information retrieval for use by all officials. To this end, the Committee has directed OWM to begin plans on a national survey of

weights and measures enforcement. The format and content of the

survey will be discussed during the Conference.

The immediate intent of a national survey is to develop a data base

from which decisions can be made as to current and future weights

and measures priorities. However, long-range possibilities include the

operation of a clearinghouse to disseminate up-to-date information on

current inspections of goods and services throughout the United

States.

139
3. Subcommittee on Computer Technology

The Committee wishes to recognize the efforts of the Subcommittee

on Computer Technology in the development of the first of a series of

publications dedicated to the use of automatic data processing in

weights and measures. The publication entitled, "Weights and

Measures Enforcement— Part 1 —An Approach to a Difficult Task" is

currently being distributed for comment. It is planned to offer a final

docimient to the 58th National Conference for endorsement. The

Subcommittee has completed its two year tenure and is dissolved as of

this year.

4. Handbook 67 Revision

In accordance with the general plan described in the Introduction to

the various Tentative Reports of the Conference Standing Committees, the Committee will cooperate with OWM in the finalization of

a revision to NBS Handbook 67 "Checking Prepackaged Commodities." The Committee has reviewed and commented on a

preliminary draft of the revision prepared by OWM. Additional study

of the revision by weights and measures officials, representatives of

the packaging industry, and others is anticipated in the months

ahead.

5. Meeting with USDA Representatives

The Committee met with officials of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture to discuss the proposed procedures that were recently

published by USDA for determining the net weight of food products.

The Committee expressed its concern over the nonuniformity that

would be brought about should the new USDA procedures differ

substa^>tially from the procedures being considered in the revision of

NBS Handbook 67. The Committee, therefore, asked OWM to

cooperate with USDA in settling questions of uniformity so that one

set of procedures for all agencies might be the final goal. Additionally,

the Committee referred the matter to the Committee on Liaison with

the Federal Government for its study and action.

The Committee is pleased to learn of recent efforts on behalf of

USDA, HEW, FTC, and NBS to cooperate in the development of a

sampling plan to serve all agencies. The Committee wholeheartedly

endorses this approach and sees it as a significant step forward in

promoting the National Conference aim of uniformity in methods of

test.

140
Consumer Affairs

The Committee has no specific recommendations to the Conference

in this area at this time. However, it should be recognized by all officials that the position of weights and measures vis-a-vis consumer

protection is increasingly at issue in many jurisdictions. The Committee, therefore, feels a sense of urgency in bringing this matter

before the Conference in the hope that a unified position may be

developed so that weights and measures can properly deal with the

implications of the consumer protection movement. Any comments or

suggestions on this matter would be welcomed.

G. E. Mattimoe, Chairman, Hawaii

D. I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri

E. Prideaux, Colorado

J.C. Stewart, Virginia

R.T. Williams, Texas

D.E. Edgerly, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. Wollin, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs

(Mr. Mattimoe 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.)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND

REGULATIONS

Presented by S.D. Andrews, Chairman, Director, Division of

Standards, Department of Agriculture, State of Florida

(Thursday, July 13, 1972)

W&9KK^K^^.^l, The Committee on Laws and Regulations

submits its report to the 57th National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report

consists of the tentative report, transmitted in

April as part of the Conference Announcement,

as amended by this final report.

The report represents recommendations of

^ the Committee that have been formed on the

M basis of comments received during the year and

^

during the open meeting of the Committee.

141
Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation

1. Retail Sale Price Representations

The recent promulgation by the Food and Drug Administration and

the Federal Trade Commission under the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act of compatible requirements concerning retail sale price

representations indicates a need to develop similar requirements for

incorporation into the Model Regulation. Numerous weights and

measures officials have recommended that such requirements be made

available in the event that their particular jurisdictions have a need

for guidelines in this important area of retail marketing. Accordingly,

the following amendments to the Model Regulation have been

developed and are fully compatible with their federal counterparts.

The Committee recommends consideration and adoption of the

following amendments:

Section 13. Retail Sale Price Representations

13.1 "Cents-off Representations.

(a) The term "cents-off representation" means any printed matter consisting of the

words "cents-off or words of similar import, placed upon any consumer package or placed upon any label affixed to such package, stating or representing by implication

that it is being offered for sale at a price lower than the ordinary and customary retail

sale price

(b) Except as set forth in Sec. 13.2. the packager or labeler of a consumer commodity

shall not have imprinted thereon a "cents-off' representation unless:

( 1

) The commodity has been sold at an ordinary and customary price in the most

recent and regular course of business where the "cents-off promotion is made.

(2) The commodity so labeled is sold at a reduction from the ordinary and

customary price which reduction is at least equal to the amount of the "cents-off

representation imprinted on the commodity package or label.

(3) Each "cents-off representation imprinted on the package or label is limited

to a phrase which reflects that the price marked by the retailer represents the savings in

the amount of the "cents-off the retailer's regular price, e.g., "Price Marked is—Cents

Off the Regular price." "Price Marked is —Cents-off the Regular Price of This

Package" ; provided, the package or label may in addition bear in the usual pricing spot

a form reflecting a space for the regular price, the represented "cents-off and a space

for the price to be paid by the consumer.

(4) The commodity at retail presents the regular price, designated as the

"regular price," clearly and conspicuously on the package or label of the commodity or on a sign, placard, or shelf-marker placed in a position contiguous to the retail display

of the "cents-off marked commodity.

(5) a. Not more than three "cents-off promotions of any single size commodity

may be initiated in the same trade area within a twelve-month period;

b. At least 30 days must lapse between "cents-off promotions of any particular size packages or labeled commodity in a specific trade area; and

c. Any single size commodity so labeled may not be sold in a trade area for a duration in excess of 6 months within any twlvemonth period.

(6) Sales of any single size commodity so labeled in a trade area do not exceed in

volume fifty percent [50%1 of the total volume of sales, of such size commodity in the

same trade area during any twelve-month period. The twelve-month period may be the

calendar, fiscal, or market year provided the identical period is applied in this subparagraph and subparagraph [5] of this paragraph. Volume limits may be calculated on

the basis of projections for the current year but shall not exceed 50 percent of the sales

for the preceding year in the event actual sales are less than the projection for the

current year.

142
(c) No "cents-off ' promotion shall be made available in any circumstances where it is known or there is reason to know that it will be used as an instrumentality for

deception or for frustration of value comparison, e.g., where the retailer charges a price

which does not fully pass on to the consumers the represented price reduction or where

the retailer fails to display the regular price in the display area of the "cents-off'

marked product.

(d) The sponsor of a "cents-off promotion shall prepare and maintain invoices or other records showing compliance with this section. The invoices or other records

required by this section shall be open to inspection and shall be retained for a period of one year subsequent to the end of the year (calendar, fiscal, or market) in which the

"cents-ofr' promotion occurs.

13.2. Introductory Offers

(a) The term "introductory offer" means any printed matter consisting of the words

"introductory offer" or words of similar import, placed upon a package containing any

new commodity or upon any label affixed or adjacent to such new commodity, stating

or representing by implication that such new commodity is offered for retail sale at a

price lower than the anticipated ordinary and customary retail sale price.

(b) The packager or labeler of a consumer commodity may not have imprinted

thereon an introductory offer unless:

( 1 ) The product contained in the package is new, has been changed in a functionally significant and substantial respect, or is being introduced into a trade area for

the first time.

(2 ) Each offer on a package or label is clearly and conspicuously qualified.

(3) No commodity so labeled is sold in a trade area for a duration in excess of 6

months.

(4) At the time of making the introductory offer promotion, the offerer intends in

good faith to offer the commodity, alone, at the anticipated ordinary and customary

price for a recisonably substantial period of time following the duration of the introductory offer promotion.

(c) The packager or labeler of a consumer commodity shall not have imprinted

thereon an introductory offer in the form of a "cents-off representation unless, in

addition to the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) The package or label clearly and conspicuously and in immediate conjunction

with the phrase "introductory offer" bears the phrase "--cents-off the after introductory offer price."

(2 ) The commodity so labeled is sold at a reduction from the anticipated ordinary

customary price, which reduction is at least equal to the amount of the reduction from

the after introductory offer price representation on the commodity package or label.

(d) No introductory offer withib "cents-off representation shall be made available in

any circumstance where it is known or there is reason to know that it will be used as an

instrumentality for deception or for frustration of value comparison, e.g., where the

retailer charges a price which does not fully pass on to consumers the represented price

reduction.

(e) The sponsor of an introductory offer shall prepare and maintain invoices or other

records showing compliance with this section. The invoices or other records required by

this section shall be open to inspection and shall be retained for a period of one year

subsequent to the period of the introductory offer.

13.3 Economy Size

(a) The term "economy size" means any printed matter consisting of the words

"economy size," "economy pack,l[ "budget pack," "bargain size," "value size," or words of similar import placed upon any package containing any consumer commodity

or placed upon any label affixed or adjacent to such commodity, stating or representing

directly or by implication that a retail sale price advantage is accorded the purchaser

thereof by reason of the size of that package or the quantity of its contents.

(b) The packager or labeler of a consumer commodity may not have imprinted

thereon an "economy size" representation unless:

( 1 ) At the same time the same brand of the commodity is offered in at least one

other packaged size or labeled form.

(2) Only one packaged or labeled form of that brand of commodity labeled with

an "economy size" representation is offered.

(3) The commodity labeled with an "economy size" representation is sold at a

price per unit of weight, volume, measure, or count which is substantially reduced (i.e.,

at least 5 percent) from the actual price of all other packaged or labeled units of the

same brand of that commodity offered simultaneously.

143
(c) No "economy size" package shall be made available in any circumstances where

it is known that it will be used as an instrumentality for deception, e.g., where the

retailer charges a price which does not pass on to the consumer the substantial

reduction in cost per unit initially granted.

(d) The sponsor of an ''economy size" package shall prepare and maintain invoices or other records showing compliance with paragraph (b) of this section. The invoices or other records required by this section shall be open to inspection and shaU be retained

for one year.

2. Bi-dimensional Commodities

Final amendments to the Federal Trade Commission regulations

concerning certain bi-dimensional commodities have recently been

issued. These amendments permit several labeling options with

respect to certain roll type commodities. Similar regulations issued by

the Food and Drug Administration do not allow for options and

prescribe one method for stating quantity on certain roll type commodities.

Additionally, consultations with the Pressure Sensitive Tape Industry, one of the industries most directly affected, indicate an industry preference for one uniform method of sale. The establishment

of a single method of sale and the labeling of packages utilizing that

method will not cause manufacturers to violate Federal Trade

Commission regulations.

For these reasons, the Committee recommends the following

amendment to Section 6.6.7 of the Model State Packaging and

Labeling Regulation with appropriate renumbering of subsequent

sections:

Section 6.6.7.(c)(2).— Bi-dimensional commodities, with a width of 4 inches or less,

shall have the length expressed in inches followed by a statement in parentheses of the

length in the largest whole unit. [Example: 2 inches by 360 inches (10 yards)].

3. Paint Labeling

Newly developed technology in the paint industry has resulted in a

system of adding colorants to base paints with a high degree of ac- curacy. The use of the system permits the manufacturer to guarantee

a given volume of paint (e.g., quart or gallon) regardless of the

amount of colorant added to the tint base. Currently the system is in

limited use but will probably increase rapidly.

Representatives of the paint industry and the National Paint and

Coatings Association have requested that Section 11.23 of the Model

State Packaging and Labeling Regulation, dealing with paint and

kindred products, be amended to allow the users of such systems to

label their products with the after tinting volume. The after tinting

volume will always be in terms of standard whole units— quarts and

gallons. The industry representatives also requested that they be

permitted to label the before tinting contents primarily for the con144
venience of weights and measures officials in checking such containers.

It has long been established that containers of tint base paints

designed to have coloring added at the retail level be labeled to reflect

their actual contents. This position was clearly stated by the Conference in 1955 and again in 1956. The Conference took that position

since there could be no guarantee that the same volume would be

delivered to each and every purchaser because of the various amounts

of colorants added. Necessarily then, the only principle that could be

applied was to require that the before tinting quantity be stated on

the label.

It is the Committee's view that, with the development of new

technology, paint manufacturers, where possible, be allowed to label

in terms of after tinting volume on the principal display panel of the

package. It is felt that this is a reasonable approach when the individual manufacturer's system for adding tint:

(a) includes definite foreknowledge of how much is to be added,

(b) includes an absolute guarantee that the quantity received by

the customer is as stated on the label,

(c) provides on the label that tint bases are not intended to be sold

without colorant added,

(d) and the label also bears a content statement reflecting the

amount of tint base contained therein.

Accordingly, the following amendments are proposed:

11.23 Paints and Kindred Products

(a) Paints, varnishes, lacquers, thinners, removers, oils, resins, and solvents when

packed in one liquid pint and one liquid quart units shall be exempt from

dual quantity declaration requirements of Subsection 6.6.4.

(b) Tint base paint may be labeled on the principal display panel, as required by

this regulation, in terms of a quart or a gallon including the addition of colorant

selected by the purchaser, provided that the syst^i employed ensures that the

purchaser always obtains a quart or a gallon; and further provided that in

conjunction with the required quantity statement on the principal display

panel, a statement indicating that the tint base paint is not to be sold without

the addition of colorant is presented ; and further provided that the contents of

the container, before the addition of colorant, is stated in fluid ounces elsewhere on the label.

Whenever the above conditions cannot be met containers of tint base paint must be

labeled with a statement of the actual net contents prior to the addition of colorant in

full accord with all the requirements of this regulation.

4. Packaged Seed Labeling

At the Conference last year the Committee recommended an

amendment to the Regulation concerning the labeling of flower and

vegetable seed packages. It was recommended that the Conference

consider the adoption of labeling requirements for such packages

including a count statement, a metric weight statement, and a proviso

that the quantity statement appear in the upper thirty percent of the

145
principal display panel. Further consultation with weights and

measures officials and with industry members has shown that the

count statement requirement is inappropriate for many varieties of

flower and vegetable seed. We have been made aware that certain

varieties number in the hundreds of thousands of seeds per pound.

Accordingly, a count statement would be relatively meaningless to

the purchaser as well as to the enforcement official; therefore, the

following addition to the Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation is recommended:

Section 10.10 Packaged Seed. — Packages of seeds intended for planting shall be

labeled in full accord with this regulation except as follows:

(a) The quantity statement shall appetir in the upper thirty percent of the principal

display panel.

(b) The quantity statements shall be in terms of the largest whole unit of the

metric system for all weights up to one-fourth ounce, and in the avoirdupois

system for all other weights up to eight ounces; packaged seeds eight ounces or more shall not be subject to Section 10.10.

(c) The quantity statement for seed tapes, pre- planters, etc., shall be in terms of

count.

(d) Section 10.10 shall apply only to labels (1) revised after the effective date of

this Regulation, or (2) as of July 1, 1974, whichever occurs first.

Finally, to be consistent with the newly proposed seed labeling

requirements, removal of the word "seeds" from Section 11.8 of the

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation is recommended.

The Model State Unit Pricing Regulation

The Gift Wrappings and Tyings Association requested clarification

or amendment of Section 2 of the Unit Pricing Regulation with respect

to packaged gift wrap. The Association noted that gift wrap is sold in

much smaller quantities than other rolls of wrapping material and,

therefore, the price per fifty square feet would not be appropriate. The

Committee is sympathetic to this view and recommends that Section

2. Commodities —he amended by adding in parentheses after the

listing "Foil, Film, and Other Rolls of Wrapping" the phrase "except

gift wrap."

Methods of Sale

1. Wiping Cloths

The National Association of Wiping Cloth Manufacturers requested

the Committee to approve and recommend the sale of wiping cloths on

a gross weight basis or, in the alternative, to propose an exemption

from net weight requirements for such items sold in bales or cartons.

In its communication the Association noted that the wiping cloth

146
industry is an important segment of the nation's recycling effort. The

Association also contends that application of net weight requirements

to packaged wiping cloths will work an undue hardship on the industry.

We are sympathetic to the aims and purposes of the Federal

Resource Recovery Act and recognize the important contribution

made by the wiping cloth industry in this regard. It is also recognized

that it has been industry practice to sell packaged wiping cloths with

a gross weight designation while also specifying a percentage tare

weight allowance. This practice, in essence, is not sale by gross weight

but is more nearly a sale on a net weight basis.

Accordingly, it is not felt that either a recommendation to permit

sale by gross weight or an amendment excluding packaged wiping

cloths from net weight labeling requirements is warranted. Historically all packaged commodities have been required to be sold on

a net weight basis and net weight requirements are a basic feature

of weights and measures laws. Because of this long standing and

periodically reaffirmed net weight requirement, and because the industry practice also recognizes net weight, it is the recommendation of

the Committee that net weight requirements be applied to packaged

wiping cloths in the same fashion as they are applied to all other

packaged products.

2. Railroad Car Tare Weights

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances recommended that

consideration be given to the establishment of specific requirements

governing the use of stenciled tare weights on railroad cars. Several

weights and measures jurisdictions have indicated a problem with

respect to the accuracy of such stenciled tare weights when employed

in the sale of bulk commodities or in determining freight charges for

products shipped by rail.

A meeting with railroad industry representatives to explore the

need for such requirements was held. At this time insufficient data are

available to determine the degree of the problem and the railroad

industry was requested to supply information concerning weighing

practices throughout the industry. The Committee has also requested

that the Office of Weights and Measures gather such information and

also gather all available information from weights and measures

officials concerning the problems associated with the use of stenciled

tare weights in commercial weighing. At such time as sufficient data

are available, the Committee intends to make recommendations on

this matter and urges the cooperation of everyone concerned.

Since the interim meeting of the Committee, the Office of Weights

and Measures had collected extensive data from the railroad industry,

the Interstate Commerce Commission, and weights and measures

147
officials. The data from the three sources definitely establish that a

serious problem exists with respect to the accuracy and use of

stenciled tare weights on railroad cars of all types.

Preliminary analysis of the data indicates that no single element in

industry weighing practice can be isolated as the cause of the problem.

It has been determined tentatively, for example, that scale inaccuracy

is not a major contributing factor. The data also do not clearly indicate that the time interval between tare weight stencilings is the

single most important factor. More detailed analysis of the data inhand and, possibly, the gathering of more information will be

necessary before definitive remedies can be proposed.

On this point the Committee is pleased to report that a continuing

working relationship has been established between the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, Office of Weights and

Measures, Interstate Commerce Commission, and the affected trade

association, the Association of American Railroads. The first result of

this effort has been a proposal by the industry to alter current

weighing practices by changing certain operating rules to provide for

increased control over the time intervals by providing for a 60 month

maximum between tare weighings. Part of the proposal includes the

establishment of a greater plus and minus variation for cars of higher

weights than had heretofore been the practice. The proposed

procedure provides the following tare weight variations:

Car Tare Weight Permissible Variation

This contrasts with current practice of allowing a 300-pound

variation on all cars regardless of total weight. It is noted that the

industry established 300-pound limitation is of long standing and has

not been changed despite the advent of much heavier cars more

recently.

The Committee is encouraged by this first step but wishes to call to

attention the fact that it is a procedural step only and does not appear

to be the total answer.

Before the Committee can accept the new industry tare weight

variation, there must be some evidence of the need. The Committee

has not been made aware of the rationale for the new industry

proposed tare weight variations, and is equally unaware of the

rationale for the currently used 300-pound tare weight variations.

It is the Committee's intent to aggressively pursue this matter to

correct the existing conditions as soon as possible. We welcome the

continued cooperation of all interested parties.

Up to 50,000 lbs

From 50,000 to 60,000 lbs

Over 60,000 lbs

300 (lbs)

400 (lbs)

500 (lbs)

148
3. Polyethylene Sheeting

A request was received to develop specific requirements for the

method of labeling polyethylene sheeting and to develop a testing

procedure for checking this particular product. It is the Committee's

opinion that sufficient authority already exists in the Model State

Packaging and Labeling Regulation concerning the proper method of

sale for polyethylene sheeting in package form. Section 6.3 requires

that the quantity statement on packaged goods must be fully informative to the consumer and that if there is a firmly established

trade practice to sell a particular commodity in a particular way it

may be employed provided it is also fully informative. A firmly

established trade practice for the method of sale of packaged

polyethylene sheeting does exist in NBS Voluntary Product Standard

PS 17-60. It has been developed by the industry and it specifies that

such sheeting shall be labeled in terms of length, width, thickness, and

weight. Accordingly, the labeling requirements for this type of

product are established.

It is recognized that a uniform test procedure is necessary and the

OWM has been requested to develop the procedure and distribute it to

all weights and measures jurisdictions. The test procedure is to be

accompanied by recommendations concerning necessary equipment

and sources of supply for such equipment.

4. Combination Quantity Declarations

The Single Service Institute and the American Glassware

Association have suggested the adoption of recommendations for

paper and glass products sold on the basis of count and size or

capacity. Existing labeling requirements mandate that such things as

packaged disposable plates and cups and packaged glassware items

specify both count and size or capacity on the label. Difficulty arises

in attempting to apply the average concept utilized in package control

work to such types of packages.

The Single Service Institute has proposed that nominal dimensions

of paper plates in package form be acceptable if they fall within a

range of minus one-eighth inch to plus one-quarter inch. It was noted

that the only existing specification, published by the federal government, now requires that such items fall within a range of minus onequarter inch to plus one-half inch.

The basic problem arises because of the various configurations in

which single service plates are formed. The general practice is to use a

standard die that cuts over-size blanks from roll stock. These blanks

pass through forming dies which shape them into various patterns.

Although the blanks are all uniformly oversize, the forming process

yields different dimensions on the end product. Similar problems exist

149
with almost all types of products including paper, plastic, glass and

metal items.

The Committee wishes to explore this entire area in the hopes that

reasonable percentage variations from stated dimensions or capacity

can be uniformly estabUshed for all such products. In the interim, it is

recommended that paper plates be permitted a minus one-eighth inch

to plus one-quarter inch variation from label dimensions.

The Committee wishes to thank California weights and measures

officials, the Single Service Institute and the American Glassware

Association for their efforts in attempting to resolve this problem.

The item will be retained on the Committee's Agenda and the OWM

has been requested to develop suitable guidelines for all similar

products for action at the next Conference.

5. Vending Machine Items

The Southern Conference on Weights and Measures submitted

recommendations concerning product identity and quantity of

packaged products dispensed through vending machines. Information

was sought from the National Automatic Merchandising Association

concerning the proposals of the Southern Conference. The Association

noted that they are complying with all packaging and labeling

requirements for all packaged products dispensed by machine. The

vast majority of prepackaged vended items is national brand merchandise bearing the same label as like items sold at other retail

outlets.

The Association also noted that many state and local vending

sanitation regulations and ordinances require the posting of the name

and address and telephone number of the party responsible for

machines which was also suggested by the Southern Conference. They

support the need for machine ownership and servicing information.

Accordingly, the following amendment to the Model State Method

of Sale of Commodities Regulation is proposed with appropriate

renumbering of subsequent sections:

SECTION 15. MACHINE VENDED COMMODITIES.- All vending machines

dispensing packaged commodities shall indicate:

(a) Product identity,

(b) Net quantity, and

(c) Name, address, and telephone number of responsible party.

The requirements for product identity and net quantity can be met either by display

of the package or by information posted on the outside of the machine.

Other Items

1. Requests were received to consider appropriate packaging and

labeling or method of sale requirements for several other items including packaged yam, fresh fruit and vegetables, timber, and ran150
dom weight meat and poultry products. Insufficient information

concerning the nature of the problems associated with these products

was available. The Committee respectfully urges that all parties with

an interest in these particular items supply whatever information they

might have concerning possible problems and solutions.

On the matter of the labeling of random weight meat and poultry

products, several state officials have suggested the adoption of a

proposal that all such products be labeled by the packer at the time of

packing. It is noted that packers are or should be fully aware of the

nature of their product and estimated shelf life and shrinkage factors.

Currently, federal labeling regulations do not require the labeling of

net weight on individual random weight meat and poultry products

eventually destined for sale to consumers at retail if the wholesale

package is suitably labeled.

The Committee has also been made aware of opinions of other

weights and measures officials who feel that, because of the shrinkage

factor, random weight meat and poultry products should be weighed

as close to the ultimate point of sale to the consumer as possible. It is

also noted that the devices used to weigh at the packer level are not

the same as those used to weigh at the retail level. This inconsistency

presents a problem in that most retail sales are required to present net

weight, total price, and price per unit information at the time of sale.

The Committee feels it does not have sufficient information concerning the problems and possible violations in this area and urges all

weights and measures officials to submit any information on the

matter that they may have. The Office of Weights and Measures has

been requested to gather all available information from the meat

packing industry in an effort to ultimately resolve this difficulty.

Several requests have been received to explore the possibility of

requiring that viscous commodities, both food and nonfood, be

required to be sold on a net weight basis. There now appear to be

several methods by which viscous commodities are sold. Some

products such as mayonnaise are sold by volume: other products such

as mustard are sold by weight and volume; and nonfood products

such as toiletry items are sold by weight and volume. The Committee

has directed the Office of Weights and Measures to gather all

available information on these methods of sale and the reasons for

them. In its meeting with members of the Industry Committee on

Packaging and Labeling, the Committee enlisted the support of individual members of that Committee in exploring this area.

2. Section 12.1.2. of the Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation. Just prior to the open meeting of the Committee on Laws

and Regulations, the Committee has received a verbal request to

recommend the deletion of Section 12.1.2 from the Model State

Packaging and Labeling Regulation. It is the view of the Committee

that the question of removal or retention of Section 12.1.2 of the

151
Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation is of sufficient

import to be considered at length by the Committee, and it proposes

to place this item on its agenda. It will be considered by the Committee at the next interim meeting and will be reported to the next

Conference.

The Committee recommends that the Office of Weights and

Measures explore this matter and make available to all interested

parties the reasons for the request and the issues involved. It is

suggested that the information be published in the next Office of

Weights and Measures Tech Memo and that it be made available to all

weights and measures officials as well as all other interested parties

including industry members.

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. ^

S.D. Andrews, Chairman, Florida

G. L. Delano Montana

M.R. Dettler Washington

R.M. Leach Michigan

R.L. Thompson Maryland

E.A. Vadelund, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. WoLLiN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Laws and Regulations

(Mr. Andrews moved for adoption, and after a second from the floor, the report of the

Committee on Laws and Regulations was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by

voice vote.)

152
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND

TOLERANCES

Presented by D.E, Konsoer, Chairman, Director, Bureau of Weights

and Measures, Food Division, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture

(Friday, July 14, 1972)

The Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances submits its report to the 57th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The report consists of the tentative report,

transmitted in April as part of the Conference

Announcement, as amended by the final

report.

The report represents recommendations of

the Committee that have been formed on the

basis of written 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.

GENERAL CODE

1. G—A.2. Code Application. —It is the view of the Committee that

there is a need to clarify the application of General Code requirements

and specific code requirements in cases of conflict. Therefore, the

Committee recommends that this paragraph be amended to read as

follows:

G—A.2. Code Application. —This General Code shall apply to all classes of devices

as covered in the specific codes. The specific code requirements supersede General Code

requirements in all cases of conflict. [Amended 1972]

2. Digital and Analog Values.— The Committee received

suggestions from the State of Virginia and the USDA Packers and

Stockyards Administration that the Scale Code be amended to require

that automatic indicating scales equipped with printers be so

designed as to print to the nearest minimum graduation. In its

deliberations, the Committee recognized that there were instances in

other types of devices where both analog weight and money values

153
were presented digitally. In recognition of this fact and to provide a

guide to manufacturers in the design of equipment, the Committee

recommended the addition of the following specification in its tentative report:

G — S.5.4, Coincidence of Digital and Analog Values.— Any digital value shall

coincide with its associated analog value to the nearest minimum graduation. A

digital zero indication shall represent a zero condition within plus or minus one-half

the value of the minimum increment that can be indicated. /Added 19727

On the basis of comments received both prior to and during the

open meeting, the Committee recommended that this specification be

amended to read as follows:

G —S.5.4. Digital Zero Representations and Agreement Between Values. — A digital zero shall represent a zero condition within plus or minus one-half the value of the

minimum increment that can be indicated or recorded. A digital value shall coincide

with its associated analog value to the nearest minimum graduation. All digital

values shall agree with one another. /Added 1972/

In the application of this requirement and to recognize the difficulty

in precise rounding off of values midway between graduations or

increments, the Committee recommended that weights and measures

officials interpret this new specification as follows: To determine

whether a digital value is presented to the closest analog graduation

or increment, divide the minimum graduation or increment into ten

parts. In selecting the digital value, the first three parts should

present the lower value; four, five, and six parts could select either the

lower or higher value; and seven, eight, and nine parts should select

the higher value. For example, a retail petroleum dispenser equipped

with a minimum analog graduation of 0.1 (1/10) gallon when converted to a digital representation would present .01, .02, and .03

gallons as zero; an analog indication of .04, .05, or .06 gallons could be

represented digitally as either zero or 0.1 gallon; .07, .08, and .09

gallons should be represented digitally as 0.1 gallon.

(Following extensive discussion on the foregoing item by both

weights and measures officials and industry representatives and a

suggestion by the Committee Chairman that the specification be

clarified by editorial changes, a motion was made and seconded that

this item be tabled for one year for further study.

)

3. Money-Operated Devices. —The Committee received a recommendation from the Southern Weights and Measures Association

pointing out the need for a General Code requirement to provide for

the return of monies from coin-operated devices which were found

inoperative by a consumer and to preclude their use when found incorrect by a weights and measures official. It is the view of the

Committee that, when these devices are found incorrect or inoperative

154
by a weights and measures official, a rejection tag or notice should be

appropriately affixed to the device. To inform consumers of the

persons responsible for the operation of the device and to recognize

that devices now operate with currency as well as coin, the Committee

recommends the following amendments:

Add the following new user requirement:

G — UR.3.3. Responsibility — Money-Operated Devices. —A device of the moneyoperated type, except parking meters, shall have clearly and conspicuously displayed

thereon, or immediately adjacent thereto, adequate information detailing the method

for the return of monies paid when the product or service cannot be obtained. [Added

19721

Amend the definition "coin-operated type" as follows:

money-operated type. Refers to a device designed to be released for service by the

insertion of money, or to be actuated by the insertion of money to make deliveries of

product.

Amend the following code paragraphs to coincide with the above

amendments:

LMD Code S. 1.4.3.

LMD Code UR.3.2.

SCALE CODE

1. A. 1. General. —To coincide with the amendment as recommended in item 1 of the General Code, the Committee recommends

that this paragraph be amended to read as follows:

A. 1. General. —This code applies to all types of weighing devices other than beltconveyor scales. The code comprises requirements that are generally applicable to all weighing devices, and specific requirements that are applicable only to certain types of

weighing devices. [Amended 19721

2. Prepackaging Scales.— A manufacturer of prepackaging scales

has expressed his concern to the Committee regarding the use of

readily accessible and adjustable motion detect and delay means in

prepack scales found in today's marketplace. His principal point of

contention seems to center on the fact that, although motion detect

means are incorporated in most automatic prepack scale designs,

some are subject to misuse, which could result in inaccurate printout

of weight values.

155
After deliberation on this matter, it was the Committee's view that

existing code requirements of Handbook 44 are generally adequate

and that inaccurate weight determinations resulting from careless

operation of a scale or improper weighing practices are in violation of

weights and measures law and can be dealt with effectively through

appropriate enforcement procedures. However, the Committee rec- ommended in its tentative report the following amendment to

paragraph S.2.4. to clarify and strengthen requirements dealing with

this problem.

S.2.4. Damping Means. — An automatic-indicating scale, and a balance indicator,

shall be equipped with effective means (such as a dashpot or electronic motion

detection) for damping the oscillations whenever such means are necessary to bring

the indicating elements quickly to rest. [Amended 1972)

On the basis of several comments, the Committee reconsidered its

recommendation and, in recognition of the many methods for damping, recommends that this paragraph be amended by eliminating the

parenthetical included in the tentative report, so that it will read as

follows:

S.2.4. Damping Means. —An automatic-indicating scale, and a balance indicator,

shall be equipped with effective means for damping the oscillations whenever such

means are necessary to bring the indicating elements quickly to rest. [Amended

19721

3. S.6.1. Nominal Capacity.— \ comment was received from the

Western Association that sellers and installers of weighing devices

were supplying scales with indicating elements from one manufacturer and weighing elements from another manufacturer, and that the

capacities of these elements did not necessarily coincide. The Committee, therefore, recommended in its tentative report adding the

following nonretroactive amendment to paragraph S.6.1.

(e) On any load-receiving element not permanently attached to an indicating

element. [Added and nonretroactive as of 1972

On the basis of comments received, the Committee withdrew its

recommendation in the tentative report and recommends the

following new requirement:

S.6.4. Marking Requirements — Load-Receiving Elements. —On a load-receiving

element not permanently attached to an indicating element, there shall be clearly and

permanently marked for the purposes of identiHcation the name, initials, or trademark

of the manufacturer, the manufacturer's designation that positively identifies the

pattern or design, and the nominal capacity. [Added and nonretroactive as of 1972]

156
4. N.1.1. Increasing-Load Test. —The Committee received comment from the Northwest Weights and Measures Association that the

term "load-receiving element" in this section was being interpreted as

load-bearing. To clarify this requirement, the Committee recommends

the addition of the following definition:

load-receiving element. That element of a scale which is designed to receive the load to

be weighed. For example, platform, deck, rail, hopper, platter, plate, scoop.

5. Hopper Scales. —The Committee received two comments concerning tolerance application for hopper scales used to weigh specific

commodities such as fertilizer, sand, gravel, and cement. It is the

Committee's view that it would be more appropriate to apply a

maintenance tolerance value of 0.2 percent and an acceptance

tolerance value of 0.1 percent rather than one-half of these amounts as

now required in table 4. Therefore, the Committee recommended in its

tentative report the following amendments:

Amend the title of T.3.5. by adding the word "Hopper" so as to

read

T.3.5. Basic Tolerance Values for Animal, Livestock, Crane, Axle-Load, Hopper,

Vehicle and Railway Track Scales. [Amended 1972].

Amend the title of table 4 and table 5 correspondingly.

Amend UR.1.1.4. by deleting the word "Grain" in the title so as to

read:

UR. 1. 1. 4. For Hopper Scales Only. /Amended 19727

Delete the definition for "grain hopper scale." Amend the definition

for "hopper scale, automatic" to read as follows:

hopper scale. A scale designed for weighing bulk commodities whose load-receiving

element is a tank, box, or hopper mounted on a weighing element. See also automatic

hopper scale.

The Committee received several comments concerning the

recommendation in its tentative report. It is the Committee's view

157
that the requirements for hopper scales should provide for the

following:

1. The tolerance values for hopper scales, other than grain hopper

scales, should be 0.2 percent maintenance and 0.1 percent ac- ceptance.

2. The tolerance values for grain hopper scales should be 0.1

percent maintenance and .05 percent acceptance.

3. The value of the minimum graduation for grain hopper scales

should remain as indicated in the present UR. 1. 1.4.

4. The value of the minimum graduation for hopper scales, other

than grain hopper scales, should be covered under UR. 1.1. 8.— that

is, 0.1 percent of the nominal capacity of the scale, and in any case

not greater than 50 pounds.

Therefore, the Committee recommends the following amendments:

Amend the title of T. 3. 5. so as to read:

T.3.5. Basic Tolerance Values for Animal, Livestock, Crane, Axle-Load, Hopper (Other

than Grain Hopper), Vehicle, and Railway Track Scales. [Amended 1972]

Amend the title of table 4 and table 5 correspondingly.

Add a definition for hopper scale to read as follows

hopper scale. A scale designed for weighing bulk commodities whose load-receiving

element is a tank, box, or hopper mounted on a weighing element. See also automatic

hopper scale and grain hopper scale.

Amend the definition for grain hopper scale by deleting the word

''manual."

6. Retroactive Status. — In accordance with the policy of reviewing

all nonretroactive requirements that have been in effect for a period of

ten years, the Committee recommends that the following requirements be changed from nonretroactive to retroactive status:

S. 1.6.1. Value of Graduated Interval.

S. 1.6.2. Label Printer.

UR. 1.1.5. For Crane Scales Only.

158
7. Railway Track Scales and Weighing Practices. —The Committee

received several proposals concerning the requirements for railway

track scales and weighing practices. To clarify a misunderstanding

which seems to exist following the deletion of a number of specific

railway track scale testing procedures from the Third Edition of

Handbook 44, specifically the application of maximum indicated

percentage error in the conduct of a shift test, the Committee wishes

to reconfirm the action of the 50th National Conference in the

adoption of the Third Edition of Handbook 44. At that time it was the

intent of the Conference that, in the conduct of a shift test on a

railway track scale, the basic tolerance of plus or minus 0.1 percent

acceptance and plus or minus 0.2 percent maintenance are appUcable.

However, the Committee does recognize a need for a more appropriate

definition of the shift test and recommends the following amendments:

Amend the title of N. 1.3.4. by deleting the term "Railway Track

Scales" so as to read as follows:

N.l.3.4. On Vehicle Scales. |Amended 1972|

Add new N. 1.3.5. as follows:

N.l.3.5. On Railway Track Scales. — The shift test shall be conducted with at least

two different test loads, if available, distributed over, or to the right and left of, each

pair of main levers or other weighing elements supporting each section of the scale.

[Added 19721

Renumber present N.l.3.5. to N. 1.3.6.

With respect to new N.l.3.5. and the application of tolerances, the

Committee wishes to call attention to T. 1.4., which requires that basic

tolerances shall be applied to shift tests.

In response to the suggestion that paragraph UR.4.4. Single-Draft

Vehicle Weighing be applicable to railway car weighing as well, it is

the Committee's view that this is impractical. The individual axle

weighing of railway cars has been practiced for many years. The

approaches to these devices are controlled, since the level condition of

railroad tracks is a necessity. This is not the case with the approaches

and other factors in the weighing of motor vehicles. The present

method of weighing railway cars is also the only method for in-motion

weighing by the railroad industry.

In response to a recommendation concerning the use of stenciled

tare weights on railroad cars in commercial weighing, the Committee

referred this item to the Committee on Laws and Regulations.

Since the publication of its tentative report, the Committee has

received additional proposals and meetings have been held on matters

159
concerning the requirements for railway track scales and weighing

practices. With the accelerated effort by weights and measures

jurisdictions in the testing and control of railway track scales, it is

essential that the methods and procedures be uniform among the

jurisdictions and the private sector. The railroads have been using as

their guide a publication of the Association of American Railroads

entitled "Scales." The requirements in this handbook (first published

in 1921) were developed by the Engineering Division, AAR, with the

collaboration of the National Bureau of Standards, the National Scale

Men's Association, and the Traffic Department of AAR. This handbook makes reference to Handbook 44 and, for the most part, the

performance requirements of the two handbooks are identical.

It is the view of the Committee that weights and measures officials,

NBS, the scale industry, and railroad personnel participate in a study

to update the AAR Scales Handbook in the ensuing year, so that the

S & T Committee may recommend to the 58th National Conference an

official recognition of this handbook for use as a procedural guide in

applying H-44 requirements. Since there is an increased demand and

need for in-motion weighing, and since neither H-44 nor the AAR

Handbook presently contains requiremencs for these devices or

methods of test, the Committee recommends that this study extend

further to include the development of such requirements and methods.

The Committee has been informed that NBS has obtained appropriate test equipment and the railroads have pledged their support

in making scales and motive power available. Weights and measures

officials will be advised of test locations and invited to participate in

this study. The Committee urges that the states cooperate in this

effort and not take action individually.

A number of states are presently witnessing tests of railway track

scales conducted by railroad scale men with railroad test cars that

have been calibrated within the preceding year on an NBS approved

master scale and are exercising regulatory control accordingly. The

Committee endorses this action and encourages regulatory officials to

continue to work cooperatively with the railroad industry in improving scale accuracy and maintenance.

The Committee wishes to reconfirm its position as stated in the

tentative report concerning tolerance application for the shift test.

That is, to clarify a misunderstanding which seems to exist following

the deletion of a number of specific railway track scale testing

procedures from the Third Edition of Handbook 44, specifically the

application of maximum indicated percentage error in the conduct of a

shift test the Committee wishes to reconfirm the action of the 50th

National Conference in the adoption of the Third Edition of Handbook

44. At that time it was the intent of the Conference that, in the

conduct of a shift test on a railway track scale, the basic tolerance of

plus or minus 0.1 percent acceptance and plus or minus 0.2 percent

160
maintenance are applicable. However, the Committee does recognize a

need for a more appropriate definition of the shift test and recommends the amendments to the code as per the tentative report.

8. Prescription Scales. — Since the deletion of all reference to Class

B prescription scales, the Committee could see no reason for the

"Class A" reference. The Committee recommends deleting the term

"Class A" in paragraphs N.3., SR.3., T.2.2., and T.3.2.

9. Grain Moisture Test Scales. —Since a number of weights and

measures jurisdictions now have the responsibihty of testing the

accuracy of grain moisture meters, it is the Committee's view that

requirements should be added to Handbook 44 to cover those scales

used in conjunction with grain moisture meters. The Committee

suggests that the existing Scale Code requirements of Handbook 44

are applicable with one exception. Therefore, the Committee

recommends the following amendments:

Add the following definition for moisture-test scales:

grain moisture-test scale. One adapted to weigh samples of grain to be used in grain

moisture determinations.

Add the following new requirement:

T.2.5. For Grain Moisture-Test Scales. —The minimum tolerance shall be 250

milligrams. (Added 1972)

Renumber present paragraphs T.2.5. through T.2.8. as T.2.6.

through T.2.9.

10. Truck-Borne Feed-Weighing Systems. —In response to a

request for more definitive requirements relating to these new devices,

the Committee is of the opinion that the existing requirements of

Handbook 44, with the amendments for hopper scales as recommended in this report, are entirely appropriate. These devices, then,

and other similar devices would be considered hopper scales. In addition, the requirements of S.2.3. Level- Indicating Means would be

applicable, as these are portable scales.

CODE FOR LIQUID-MEASURING

DEVICES

1. S. 1.4.2. Return to Zero. —hast year the National Conference

recognized cumulative indicating elements on key-lock and other selfoperated devices by amending S. 1.4.2. Since these devices may be

equipped with cumulative printers, the Committee recommends that

161
this requirement be further amended by adding the words "or

recording elements" in the second sentence, so as to read as follows:

S. 1.4.2. Return to Zero. —The primary indicating elements, and primary recording

elements if the device is equipped to record, shall be readily returnable to a definite zero

indication. However, a key-lock or other self-operated device may be equipped with

cumulative indicating or recording elements, provided that it is also equipped with a zero-return indicating element. Means shall be provided to prevent the return of

primary indicating elements, and of primary recording elements if the device is so equipped, beyond their correct zero position. [Amended 1972]

2. S.2.6.2. Provision for Deactivating Automatic Temperature

Compensator. —To clarify this requirement, the Committee recommends the following amendment:

S.2.6.2. Provision for Deactivating. — On a device equipped with an automatic temperature compensating mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms of gallons

compensated to 60oF, provision shall be made to facilitate the deactivation of the

automatic temperature compensating mechanism so that the meter may indicate, and

record if it is equipped to record, in terms of the uncompensated volume. [Amended

19721

3. T.2.1. Tolerance Values on Retail Devices Except Slow-Flow

Meters. — In response to the suggestion that these tolerances be

reduced, it is the Committee's view that the existing tolerances are

entirely appropriate and should not be changed until such time that a

study could be conducted to prove conclusively that a change in the

present tolerances is necessary. The Committee recommends that this

item be referred to the Office of Weights and Measures and that, when

resources are available, a study be conducted in cooperation with the

API and the GPMA.

4. UR.1.1. Length of Discharge Hose. —The Committee received a

recommendation that the length of discharge hoses on retail motorfuel dispensers be increased. The following particulars were considered by the Committee: (a) That the length of the discharge hose

has an effect on the accuracy of the device; (b) that hoses are more

rigid now than they were at the time this requirement became a part of

the code; (c) that motor vehicles are ever increasing in length; and (d)

that a requirement of the Underwriters Laboratory states that the

hose shall not touch the ground when not in use. Because of these and

other factors, the Committee recommends that this requirement be

amended by increasing the permissible length of discharge hoses from

15 to 18 feet. The Committee also wishes to remind the Conference

that a hose longer than 18 feet is permissible where it is demonstrated

that such a hose is essential for proper deliveries to be made.

5. Marinas and Airports. —The Committee received comments

that, because of their special nature, a new code be developed for

162
liquid-measuring devices installed at marinas and airports. It is the

Committee's view that Handbook 44 cannot possibly recognize all

situations with special requirements and that existing requirements

applicable to such devices provide for adequate enforcement.

6. UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity. —The Committee

received a proposal for this requirement to be amended to also include

retail devices of the noncomputing type. The Committee agrees with

this proposal and recommends that this paragraph be amended to

read as follows:

UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity. —On a retail device there shall be displayed on each face of the device the price at which the product is offered for sale, and in the case of a computing type or money-operated type the unit price at which the device is set to compute and deliver. There shall also be conspicuously displayed on each face

of the device the identity of the product that is being dispensed. If a device is so designed as to dispense more than one grade, brand, blend, or mixture of product,

there shall also be displayed on each face of the device, at any time the device is in

service, the identity of the grade, brand, blend, or mixture which the device is set to

dispense. [Amended 1972]

CODE FOR VEHICLE-TANK METERS

1. Milk-Metering Systems. —The dairy industry has expressed a

need for a meter capable of accurately measuring milk. Meters of this

type have been developed and are now in use on a trial basis. In

recognition of the existence of these devices and the need to develop

appropriate code requirements, the Committee considered the

following points: (a) For sanitary reasons, the measurement system

must be completely disassembled routinely for cleaning purposes; (b)

for sanitary reasons, it is necessary that it be a dry-hose system; (c)

the effectiveness of the air eliminator is involved in every

measurement process; (d) since the product being measured is not

delivered, but rather is picked up, there are no discharge lines as such.

It is the view of the Committee that, with few exceptions, the

requirements of the Code for Vehicle-Tank Meters are applicable to

milk-metering systems. To cover these exceptions, the Committee

recommended in its tentative report the following amendments to the

Code for Vehicle-Tank Meters:

Amend S. 1.1.3. to read as follows:

S.l.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit.— The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery,

and recorded delivery if the meta* is equipped to record, shall not exceed the

equivalent of

(a) one pint of milk-metering systems and on meters used for retail deliveries of

liquid fuel for domestic use, and

(b) one gallon on other meters.

Amend S.2.2. to read as follows:

S.2.2. Provision for Sealing. —Except on devices for metering milk, adequate

provision shall be made for applying security seals in such a manner that no adjustment may be made of . . .

163
Add the following new paragraph S.2.2.1.

S.2.2.1. Milk Metering Systems. — Adequate provision shall be made for applying

security seals to the adjustment mechanism and sealing the register to the meter

chamber housing.

Amend the title of S.3. to read as follows:

S.3. Design of Discharge Lines and Discharge Line Valves (Not applicable to milkmetering systems).

Add the following new requirements:

S.4. Design of Intake Lines (For milk-metering systems).

5.4.1. Diversion of Liquid to be Measured. — No means shall be provided by which

any liquid can be diverted from the supply tank to the receiving tank without being

measured by the device.

5.4.2. Intake Hose. —The intake hose shall be

(a) of the dry-hose type,

(b) adequately reinforced,

(c) not more than 20 feet in length, and

(d) connected to the pump at horizontal or above to permit complete drainage of

the hose.

Renumber present paragraph S.4. Marking Requirements as S.5.

and add the following requirements to this paragraph:

5.5.3. Measuring Components. — Milk-Metering System—All components that affect

the measurement of milk which are disassembled for cleaning purposes shall be

clearly and permanently identified with a common serial number. {Nonretroactive as of 1972]

5.5.4. Flood Volume. — Milk-Metering System — The volume of product necessary to flood the system when dry shall be clearly, conspicuously, and permanently marked

on the air eliminator. [Nonretroactive as of 1972]

Add the following new paragraph N.4.1.1.:

N.4.L1. Milk Mettfs. —The '"normal" test shall include a determination of the ef- fectiveness of the air elimination system.

Amend the title of N.4.2. as follows:

N.4.2. Special Tests (except milk-meto-ing systems).

Add the following paragraph N.4.4.:

N.4.4. System Capacity. —The test of a milk-metering system shall include the

verification of the volume of product necessary to flood the system as marked on the air

eliminator.

164
Add the following user requirements:

UR. 1.3. Intake Hose. —The intake hose on a milk-metering system shall be so in- stalled as to po-mit complete drainage and that all available product is measured

following each pickup.

UR.2.3. Credit for Flood Volume. —The volume of product necessary to flood the

system as marked on the air eliminator shall be individually recorded on the pickup

ticket of each seller affected.

Amend paragraph T.2. as follows:

T.2. Tolerance Values. — Maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as shown in

table 1 and table 2.

Amend the title to table 1 to read:

TABLE 1. TOLERANCES FOR VEHICLE- TANK METERS EXCEPT MILK

METERS

TABLE 2. TOLERANCES FOR MILK

METERS

Indication Maintenance Acceptance

tolerance tolerance

(Gallons) (Gallons) (Gallons)

100 0.5 0.3

200 0.7 0.4

300 0.9 0.5

400 1.1 0.6

500 1.3 0.7

Over 500 Add 0.002 Add 0.001

gallons per gallons per

indicated indicated

gallon gallon

On the basis of comments received at the open meeting, the

Committee recommends the following changes to the tentative report:

S.2.2.L Milk-Metering System. —Adequate provisions shall be made for applying

security seals to the adjustment mechanism and the register.

S.4.2, Intake Hose. — The intake hose shall be

(a) of the dry-hose type.

(b) adequately reinforced,

(c) not more than 20 feet in length unless it can be demonstrated that a longer

hose is essential to permit pickups from a supply tank, and

(d) connected to the pump at horizontal or above to permit complete drainage

of the hose.

165
Delete nonretreactivity of S.5.3.

5.5.3. Measuring Components— Milk-Metering Systems. —All components that

affect the measurement of milk which are disassembled for cleaning purposes shall be

clearly and permanently identified with a common serial number.

Delete nonretreactivity of S.5.4. and amend to read as follows:

5.5.4. Flood Volume— Milk-Metering Systems. —When applicable, the volume of

product necessary to flood the system when dry shall be clearly, conspicuously, and

permanently marked on the air eliminator.

2. T.2. Tolerance Values. —The Committee received a suggestion

that the special test tolerances for vehicle-tank meters be eliminated

and that such meters meet the normal test tolerances under any

condition of test. It is the view of the Committee that the special test

tolerances are appropriate for slow-flow tests, but should be studied

with respect to their appropriateness for spKt-compartment tests. The

Committee intends to study this matter in the year ahead.

LPG LIQUID CODE

1. S.2.6.1. Provision for Deactivating. —Consistent with item 2 of

the LMD Code, the Committee recommends the following amendment

to clarify this requirement:

S.2.6.1. Provision for Deactivating. — On a device equipped with an automatic

temperature compensating mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms of

gallons compensated to GO^F, provision shall be made to facilitate the deactivation of

the automatic temperature compensating mechanism so that the meter may indicate,

and record if it is equipped to record, in terms of the uncompensated volume.

[Amended 19721

2. Outlet Hoses. —The Committee received conflicting suggestions

concerning the installation of two outlet hoses on LPG vehicle-tank

meter systems. It is the view of the Committee that the limitation of

only one hose on the outlet side of the meter is necessary. Although,

under certain circumstances, it may be convenient to have two outlet

hoses to accommodate various types of deliveries, the use of two hoses

could cause serious restrictions and other problems affecting the

accuracy of measurement.

LPG VAPOR CODE

The Committee received several comments concerning the Tentative Code for Liquefied Petroleum Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices.

166
In response to these comments, the Committee recommended in the

tentative report that this code be converted from tentative to permanent status with the following amendments:

Amend the following paragraphs to read as follows:

5. 1.1.2. Units.—A device shall indicate, and record if equipped to record, its deliveries

in terms of cubic feet or cubic meters, or multiples or decimal subdivisions of these

units. [Nonretroactive as of 1972. To become retroactive January 1, 1982. J

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 100 cubic feet or 1 cubic meter (1,000 cubic decimeters).

S.2.5. Corrections for Altitude. —An approved multiplier table of corrections shall be

used to correct for changes in the atmospheric pressure with respect to altitude. The

multipKer for a particular installation shall be affixed to the front of the device near the

badge.

N.4. Test Procedures. — If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator, the proving device reading shaU be corrected to 60oF, using an approved table, user requirement:

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.

The Committee received several suggestions and heard several

comments during its open meeting. On the basis of these comments

and suggestions, the Committee recommends the following changes

from the tentative report:

S. 1.1.2. Units.— In order to provide for an equitable, orderly, and

economical change to cubic feet or cubic meter indications, the

Committee wishes to recommend that this amendment be changed to

read as follows:

S. 1.1.2. Units. —A device shall indicate, and record if equipped to record, its deliveries

in terms of cubic feet or cubic meters, or multiples or decimal subdivisions of these

units. [Nonretroactive as of 1972. To become retroactive January 1, 1987, provided that

individual marketers shall bring into compliance existing equipment in service as of the

effective date of this requirement at the rate of 15 percent every two years.]

The Committee wishes to call attention to the fact that this new

requirement does recognize and provide for metric units.

The Committee also wishes to remind enforcement officials that this

requirement appUes to all new equipment. It is not intended to

preclude the installation of used or reconditioned equipment utilizing

an index that the user has customarily used in market areas that the

user is not then converting to cubic feet or cubic meter indexes. It is

the Committee's intention that, at least on the average, 15 percent of

each user's meters must be installed as or converted to approved

types of indexes every two years until all of the user's meters register

in approved units.

167
S.2.5. Corrections for Altitude. —Since this is a user responsibility,

the Committee is making an editorial correction by changing the

numerical designation of this requirement to UR.2.2.

UR.2.2. Corrections for Altitude. — An approved multiplier table of corrections shall

be used to correct for changes in the atmospheric pressure with respect to altitude.

The multiplier for a particular installation shall be affixed on the front of the device near the badge.

CODE FOR VEHICLE TANKS AS

MEASURES

1. Compartment Indications. —The Committee received a

suggestion that a limitation be placed on indicator depth due to the

difficulty in reading locating markers placed too deep within a

compartment. The Committee agreed with this suggestion and

recommended in the tentative report amending paragraph S.2.4. to

provide for depth and clearance requirements and to clarify existing

requirements.

S.2.4. Location. —An in.licator shall be located:

(a) Midway bf> een the sides of its compartment.

(b) As nearly a , practicable midway between the ends of its compartment, and

in no case offset by more than 10 percent of the compartment length.

(c) Adjacent to, but shall not extend into, that section of the compartment

define by a vertical projection of the fill opening.

(d) At a d':pth, measuring from the top of the dome opening, not lower than 18

inches for fill openings of less than 15 inches in diameter, or, if other than

circular, an effective area of not less than 175 square inches, and not lower

than 24 inches for larger fill openings.

(e) To provide a clearance of not less than 2 inches between indicators.

/Amended 19727

On the basis of written suggestions and comments received during

the open meeting, the Committee recommends the following changes

from its tentative report.

Amend S.2.2. Number of Indicators by changing the number of

indicators from 3 to 5.

Amend S.2.4. to read as follows:

S.24. Location. —An indicator shall be located:

(a) Midway between the sides of its compartment.

(b) As nearly as practicable midway between the ends of its compartment, and

in no case offset by more than 10 percent of the compartment length or 6

inches, whichever is less.

(c) Adjacent to, but shall not extend into, that section of the compartment

defined by a vertical projection of the fill opening.

(d) At a depth, measuring from the top of the dome opening, not lower than 18

inches for fill openings of less than 15 inches in diameter, or, if other than

circular, an effective area of not less than 175 square inches, and not lower

than 24 inches for larger fill openings.

(e) To provide a clearance of not less than 2 inches between indicators.

I Amended 1972

168
2. Bottom Loading.— The Committee received a communication

concerning the problems involved with vehicle tanks equipped for

bottom loading. Bottom loading cannot be accompHshed through a

manifold discharge line if the vehicle tank is equipped with check

valves to prevent the flow of Hquid from one compartment to another.

Problems also exist in calibration when the tank is calibrated to the

emergency valve. The Committee desired to resolve these problems

and recommended in the tentative report the addition of the following

specification paragraph:

S.4. Design of Intake Lines for Bottom Loading. —When a vehicle tank is equipped

with means for bottom loading, the intake lines shall be independent and entirely

separate from the discharge lines. /Added 19727

Renumber present paragraphs S.4. as S.5. and S.4.1. through S.4.3. as S.5.1. through

S.5.3.

It was the Committee's intention in the tentative report to call

attention to the problems associated with bottom loading. On the

basis of comments received, the Committee withdrew its recommendation in the tentative report and recommended the addition of a

new subparagraph S. 1.6.1. to paragraph S.1.6. as follows:

S.L6.L On Vehicle Tanks Equipped for Bottom Loading. —On equipment designed

for bottom loading, the compartment capacity may include the piping of a com- partment to the valve located on the upstream side of the manifold and immediately

adjacent thereto or, if not manifolded, to the outlet valve, provided that on or immediately adjacent to the marking as specified in S.4. the following words or a statement of similar meaning shall be affixed: "Warning: Emergency valves must be

open before checking measurement." (Added 1972)

The Committee is aware that bottom loading cannot be ac- complished through a common manifold equipped with one-way

check valves installed to prevent flow from a full compartment to an

empty one. It is the Committee's view that one-way check valves are

not necessary to comply with the requirements of S.3. Equipment

designed with either emergency valves or those valves located adjacent to the manifold that will allow discharge only from one compartment at a time or all compartments simultaneously is in compliance with this requirement.

The Committee was informed that there is equipment presently in

service that does not meet this requirement. The Committee

recommends that the enforcement officials consider this as a

nonretroactive requirement for the existing equipment and that all

new equipment placed in service after July 1, 1973, be designated to

meet this requirement. This effective date was added in order to

validate equipment for which orders had already been placed for

delivery in March or April of 1973 and which would still not have this

piping.

169
(Following extensive discussion on the foregoing item, a motion

was made and seconded to table this item until the API has had an

opportunity to work more extensively with the states that are actively

involved in the calibration of this equipment.)

LINEAR MEASURES

T.2. For Metal Tapes. — In response to a suggestion that this

paragraph exclude tension requirements for tapes not actually used

under tension, the Committee in its tentative report included a

provision for flexible metal tapes of 16 feet or less that are not normally used under tension, and in its final report amended the

paragraph to include flexible metal tapes of 25 feet or less.

T.2. For Metal Tapes. — Maintenance and acceptance tolerances in excess and in

deficiency for metal tapes shall be as shown in table 2. Tapes of 25 feet or over shall

be tested at a tension of 10 pounds. Tapes less than 25 feet shall be tested at a tension

of 5 pounds. However, flexible metal tapes of 25 feet or less that are not normally

used under tension shall be tested with no tension applied. All tapes shall be supported throughout on a horizontal flat surface whenever tested. [Amended 1972]

ODOMETER CODE

In response to a suggestion that paragraph A.l. be amended to

include ambulances, hearses, buses, and other such vehicles, the

Committee recommends the following amendment to paragraph A.l.:

A.l. —This code applies to odometers that are used or are to be used to determine the

charges for rent or hire of passenger vehicles and trucks and buses rated by the

manufacturer at 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight or less. (When official

examinations are undertaken on odometers that form the basis for the payment of

fees or taxes to, or the preparation of reports for, governmental agencies, and in

similar cases, the requirements of this code shall be applied insofcu* as they are applicable and appropriate to the conditions of such special uses. ) [Amended 1972]

In its tentative report, the Committee also added a definition for

passenger vehicles, and in its final report included the phrase

"recreational vehicles."

passenger vehicles. Vehicles such as automobiles, recreational vehicles, limousines,

ambulances, and hearses.

OTHER ITEMS

1. Conference Endorsement. —As announced in the Introduction to

the Tentative Reports, the Office of Weights and Measures has

referred to the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances the

170
following four documents for review and recommendation to the

Conference for adoption:

(1) NBS Handbook 105-1, Specifications and Tolerances for

Field Standard Weights

(2) NBS Handbook 105-2, Specifications and Tolerances for

Field Standard Measuring Flasks

(3) NBS Handbook 105-3, Specifications and Tolerances for

Metal Volumetric Field Standards

(4) Scale Manufacturers Association Recommendation on Pit

Type Scales for Weighing Vehicles, Axle Loads, and

Livestock

The first three documents represent a series of NBS handbooks

pertaining to weights and measures reference and field standards.

Handbook 105-1 was originally issued in 1969 and is now under

revision. Handbooks 105-2 and 105-3 were issued in 1971.

The SMA document was originally developed by this Association

for submission to NBS for consideration as a Voluntary Product

Standard.

Copies of all of these documents are available from OWM for

anyone interested in reviewing them prior to the Conference. Those

who review the documents should send in any comments or

suggestions they may have to the Conference Executive Secretary.

2. Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices.— The Committee

recommends that the following Code for Cryogenic Devices be included as a tentative code in Handbook 44. This code is the result of

extensive effort and cooperation by the State of California, the

Compressed Gas Association, the Cryogenics Division of the National

Bureau of Standards Boulder Laboratories, the NBS Office of

Weights and Measures, and others over the past several years.

1972

TENTATIVE CODE

CRYOGENIC LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

(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 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices.

A. APPLICATION

A. 1. —This code applies to devices used for the measurement of cryogenic liquids,

whether such devices are installed in a permanent location or mounted on a vehicle.

Insofar as they are clearly appropriate, the requirements and provisions of the code

may be applied to devices used for the measurement of other liquids that do not remain

in a liquid state at stmospheric pressures and temperatures.

171
A.2. —This code does not apply to the following:

(a) Devices used for dispensing liquefied petroleum gases (for which see Code for

Liquefied Petroleum Liquid-Measuring Devices).

(b) Devices used solely for dispensing a product in connection with operations in

which the amount dispensed does not affect customer charges.

(c) Devices used solely for dispensing liquefied natural gas.

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.

S.l.l.L General. —A device shall be equipped with a primary indicating

element and may also be equipped with a primary recording element.

5.1.1.2. Units. —A device shall indicate, and record if the device is equipped to

record, its deliveries in terms of gallons, cubic decimeters (liters), pounds,

kilograms, cubic feet of gas (NTP), or decimal or multiple subdivisions thereof.

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) For Small Delivery Devices

(1) One-tenth gallon

(2) One-half cubic decimeter

(3) One pound

(4) One-half kilogram

(5) Ten cubic feet of gas

(b) For Large Delivery Devices

(1) One gallon

(2) Five cubic decimeters

(3) Ten pounds

(4) Five kilograms

(5) One hundred cubic feet of gas

5. 1.1.4. Advancement of Indicating and Recording Elements. — Primary in- dicating and recording elements shall be susceptible of advancement only by

the normal operation of the device. However, a device may be cleared by advancing its elements to zero, but only if

(a) the advancing movement, once started, cannot be stopped until zero is reached. Or

(b) in the case of indicating elements only, such elements are automatically

obscured until the elements reach the correct zero position.

5.1.1. 5. Return to Zero.— Primary indicating elements shall be readily returnable to a definite zero indication. Means shall be provided to prevent the return

of primary indicating elements, and of primary recording elements if these are returnable to zero, 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 be not

less than 0.04 inch. If the graduations are not parallel, the measurement shall

be made

172
(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.

(See also S.1.3.6)

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 graduation.

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 ccise the distance between the end of the indicator

and the ends of the graduations, measured along the line of the graduations,

shall be not more than 0.04 inch.

5.1.3. 3. Width. —The width of the index of an indicator in relation to the series

of graduations with which it is used shall be not greater than

(a) the width of the widest graduation, and

(b) the width of the minimum clear interval between 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.

S. 1.3.5. Parallax.- Parallax effects shall be reduced to the practicable

minimum.

S.1.3.6. Travel of Indicator. — If the most sensitive element of the primary

indicating element utilizes an indicator and graduations, the relative movement

of these parts corresponding to the smallest indicated value shall be not less

than 0.20 inch.

S.1.4. Computing-Type Devices

5. 1.4.1. Printed Ticket. —Any printed ticket issued by a device of the computing type on which there is printed the total computed price shall have

printed clearly thereon also the total quantity of the delivery and the price per

unit.

5. 1.4.2. Money-Value Computations. — Money-value computations shall be of

the full-computing type in which the money value at a single unit price, or at

each of a series of unit prices, shall be computed for every delivery within either

the range of measurement of the device or the range of the computing elements,

whichever is less. Value graduations shall be supplied and shall be accurately

positioned. The value of each graduated interval shall be 1 cent.

5.1.4.3. Money Values. — Mathematical Agreement— Any digital money-value

indication and any recorded money value on a computing-type device shall be in

mathematical agreement with its associated quantity indication or representation to within one cent of money value.

S.2. Design of Measuring Elements.

5.2.1. Vapor Elimination. —A pressure activated (pumpless) metering system

shall be equipped with an effective vapor eliminator or other effective means to

prevent the passage of vapor through the meter where such vapor will cause

overregistration of or tend to damage or degrade the meter. Vent lines from the

vapor eliminator shall be made of metal tubing or some other suitably rigid

material.

5.2.2. Directional Flow Valves. — Valves intended to prevent reversal of flow shall

be automatic in operation.

173
5.2.3. Maintenance of Liquid State.— A device shall be so designed that the product

being measured will remain in a liquid state during passage through the meter.

5.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation. — A device may be

equipped with an adjustable automatic means for adjusting the indication and

registration of the measured quantity of product to the quantity at the normal

boiling point of the specific cryogenic product.

5.2.5. Provision for Sealing. —Adequate provision shall be made for applying

security seals in such a manner that no adjustment or interchange may be made of

(a) any measurement element,

(b) any adjustable element for controlling delivery rate when such rate tends to

affect the accuracy of deliveries, and

(c) any automatic temperature or density compensating system.

Any adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for purposes of affixing a

security seal.

5.3. Design of Discharge Lines and Discharge Line Valves.

5.3.1. 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, except that a manually controlled outlet that may be

opened for purging or draining, or for the purpose of precooling the metering system,

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.

5.3.2. Discharge Hose.— The discharge hose of a device shall be of the completely

draining dry-hose type.

5.4. Marking Requirements.

5.4.1. Limitation of Use. — If a meter is intended to measure accurately only liquids

having particular properties, or to measure accurately only under specific installation or operating conditions, or to measure accurately only when used in conjunction with

specific accessory equipment, these limitations shall be clearly and permanently

stated on the meter.

5.4.2. Discharge Rates. —A meter shall be marked to show its designed maximum

and minimum discharge rates.

5.4.3. Temperature or Density Compensation. — If a device is equipped with an

automatic temperature or density compensator, the primary indicating elements,

recording elements, and recorded representation shall be clearly and conspicuously

marked to show that the quantity delivered has been adjusted to the quantity at the

normal boiling point of the specific cryogenic product.

N. NOTES

N.l. Test Liquid.— A meter shall be tested with the liquid to be commercially measured

or with a liquid of the same genercd physical characteristics.

N.2. Vaporization and Volume Change. — Care shall be exercised to reduce to a minimum vaporization and volume changes. When testing by weight the weigh tank

and transfer systems shall be precooled to liquid temperature prior to the start of the

test to avoid the venting of vapor from the vessel being weighed.

N.3. Test Drafts.

N.3.L Gravimetric Test. —Weight test drafts shall be equal to at least the amount

delivered by the device in two minutes at its maximum discharge rate, and shall in no

case be less than 2,000 pounds.

N.3.2. Transfer Standard Test. —When comparing a meter with a calibrated transfer

standard, the test draft shall be equal to at least the amount delivered by the device

174
in two minutes at its maximum discharge rate, and shall in no case be less than 50

gallons or equivalent thereof.

N.4. Density.— Temperature and pressure of the metered test liquid shall be measured

during the test for the determination of density or volume correction factors when

applicable. Liquid Density and Volume Correction Factors (with respect to temperature

and pressure) published in NBS Technical Note 361, Revised, Liquid Densities of

Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon, and Parahydrogen, shall apply:

N.5. Testing Procedures.

N.5.1. Normal Tests.— The "normal" tests of a device shall be made over a range of

discharge rates that may be anticipated under the conditions of installation.

N.5.2. Special Tests.— Any test except as set forth in N.5.1. shall be considered a

special test. Tests shall be conducted, if possible, to evaluate any special elements or accessories attached to or associated with the device. A device shall be tested at a minimum dischcirge rate of

(a) 50 po-cent of the maximum discharge rate developed under the conditions

of installation, or the minimum discharge rate marked on the device,

whichever is less, or

(b) the lowest discharge rate practicable under conditions of installation.

"Special" tests may be conducted to develop any charact^istics of the device which

are not normally anticipated under the conditions of installation as circumstances

require.

N.6. Temperature Corrections.—Corrections shall be made for any changes in volume

resulting from the differences in liquid temperatures between time of passage through

the meter and time of volumetric detwmination of test draft.

T. TOLERANCES

T.l. Tolerances Values. — Maintenance and acceptance tolerances for cryogenic liquidmeasuring devices, whether or not a device is equipped with an automatic temperature

or density compensator, shall be as follows:

T.1.1. On Normal Tests. — The maintenance tolerance on "normal" tests shall be

four percent (4%) per indicated unit on underregistration and two percent (2%) per

indicated unit on overregistration. The acceptance tolerance on "normal" tests shall

be two percent (2%) per indicated unit on underregistration and one percent (1%) per

indicated unit on overregistration.

T.l. 2. On Special Tests. —The maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be four

percent (4%) per indicated unit on underregistration and two percent (2%) per indicated unit on overregistration.

UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. Installation Requirements.

UR.1.1. Discharge Rate.— A device shall be so installed that the actual maximum

discharge rate will not exceed the rated maximum discharge rate. If necesscu'y,

means for flow regulation shall be incorporated in the installation.

UR.l.2. Length of Discharge Hose. —The discharge hose shall be of such a length and

design as to keep vaporization of the liquid to a minimum.

UR.l.3. Maintenance of Liquid State. —A device shall be so installed and operated

that the product being measured shall remcun in the liquid state during passage

through the meter.

UR.2, Use Requirements.

UR.2.1. Return of Indicating and Recording Elements to Zero. —The primary in- dicating elements (visual) and the primary recording elements, if these are returnable

to zero, shall be returned to zero before each delivery.

175
UR.2.2. Condition of Discharge System. —The discharge system, up to and including

the meter, shall be precooled to liquid temperatures before a "zero" condition is established prior to the start of a commercial delivery, where vapor will cause

overregistration of or tend to damage or degrade the meter.

UR.2.3. Vapor Return Line. — No vapor return line from the supplier's tank to the

receiving container shall be used during a metered delivery.

UR.2.4. Drainage of Discharge Line. — Upon completion of a delivery, the vendor

shall leave the discharge line connected to the receiving container with the valve

adjacent to the meter in the closed position and the valve at the discharge line outlet

in the open position for a period of at least

(a) one minute for small delivery devices, and

(b) three minutes for large delivery devices,

to allow vaporization of some product in the discharge line to force the remainder of

the product in the line to flow into the receiving container.

UR.2.5. Conversion Factors of Values. — When the metered cryogenic liquids are expressed in terms of pounds, kilograms, or cubic feet in addition to gallons or liters,

liquid density, pressure, temperature, and unit conversion values of NBS Technical

Note 361, Revised, Liquid Densities of Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon, and Parahydrogen,

shall be used. For unit conversions:

(a) lb/gal values shall be used as the pound equivalent when converting from

gallons to pounds;

(b) NTP Volume Correction Factor Value shall be used as the gas equivalent at

NTP when converting from liquid volume (gallons) to the equivalent gas

volume (cubic feet); and

(c) Liquid Volume Correction Factor Values shall be used to adjust the

measured liquid volume to NBP.

UR.2.6. Temperature or Density Compensation.

UR.2.6.1. Use of Automatic Temperature or Density Compensators. — If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature or density compensator, this shall be

connected, operable, and in use at all times. Such automatic temperature or density compensator may not be removed, nor may a compensated device be

replaced with an uncompensated device, without the written approval of the

weights and measures authority having jurisdiction over the device.

UR.2.6. 2 Written Invoices. —Any written invoice or printed ticket based on a reading of a device that is equipped with an automatic temperature or density

compensator shall have shown thereon that the quantity delivered has been adjusted to the quantity at the normal boiling point of the specific cryogenic product.

UR.2.6. 3. Printed Ticket. — Any printed ticket issued by a device of the computing

type on which there is printed the total computed price, the total quantity of the

delivery, or the price per unit, shall have shown thereon also the other two values

(either printed or in clear hand script).

UR.2.6. 4. Ticket in Printing Device. — A ticket shall not be inserted into a device

equipped with a ticket printer until immediately before a delivery is begun, and in

no case shall a ticket be in the device when the vehicle is in motion while on a public

street, highway, or thoroughfare.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

The terms defined here have a special and technical meaning when used in the Code

for Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices.

cryogenic liquids. Fluids whose normal boiling point is below 123 kelvin (-238oF).

176
cryogenic liquid-measuring device. A system including a mechanism or machine of the

meter type designed to measure and deliva- cryogenic liquids in the liquid state by a

definite quantity whether installed in a permanent location or mounted on a vehicle.

Means may or may not be provided to indicate automatically, for one of a series of

unit prices, the total money value of the liquid meeisured.

cubic foot. A standard cubic foot of a cryogenic liquid in gaseous state is defined as that

volume of gas which, at a temperature of 70oF and under a pressure of 14.696 pounds

per square inch absolute, occupies one cubic foot.

dry hose type. A type of device in which it is intended that the discharge hose be

completely drained following the mechanical operations involved in each delivery.

large delivery device. Devices used primarily for single deliveries greater than 100

gallons, 1,000 pounds, or 10,000 cubic feet.

liquid volume correction factor. A correction factor used to adjust the liquid volume of a cryogenic product at the time of measurement to the liquid volume at NBP.

NBP. Normal boiling point of cryogenic liquid at 14.696 psia.

NTP. Normal temperature and pressure of 70oF and 14.696 psia, respectively.

NTP density and volume correction factor. A correction factor used to adjust the liquid

volume of a cryogenic product at the time of measurement to the gas equivalent at

small delivery device. Any device other than a large delivery device.

transfer standard. A measurement system designed for use in proving and testing

cryogenic liquid-measuring devices.

The Committee expresses its appreciation to all who have contributed to and participated in the committee deliberations. The

Committee urges all weights and measures officials and other affected

parties to promptly communicate with the Committee on all matters

of concern. It is only in this manner that the Committee can consider

all problems and fully evaluate all situations prior to issuing its

reports.

(Mr. Konsoer moved for adoption, and after a second from the floor, the report of the

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances as amended was adopted in its entirety by

the Conference by voice vote.

(On motion of the committee chairman, seconded from the floor, the Conference by

voice vote authorized the Executive Secretary to make any appropriate editorial

NTP.

D. E. Konsoer, Chairman, Wisconsin

T. F. Brink, Vermont

J. C. Mays, Dade County, Florida

K. J. SiMiLA, Oregon

W. S. Watson, California

O. K. Warnix)!- Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. WoLLiN, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

177
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Presented by E. H. Black, Chairman, Director of Weights and

Measures, Ventura County, California

^ (Wednesday, July 12, 1972)

The Executive Committee of the National ' Conference on Weights and Measures met in

open session on Monday, July 10, 1972, at

11 :00 a.m. Discussion was held on the following

items:

1. Plans for the 58th National Conference. —

The Executive Committee presented the

following general arrangements for the 58th

National Conference:

Site: Minneapolis, Minnesota

Hotel: Radisson

Dates: July 22-27, 1973

Rates: $17 single; $21 double; $50-up

suites

The Committee is in agreement with these arrangements and

recommends action accordingly by the Incoming Executive Committee.

2. Future Conference Sites —In line with the approved plan of

holding the Conference each even year in Washington and outside of

Washington each odd year, the Committee was advised by the

Executive Secretary that serious consideration is being given to

holding the Conference in San Diego, California in 1975. Texas, as well

as several other locations, is being considered for 1977. The Committee agrees with these preliminary plans.

3. Format for Conference Program. —The Committee feels that this

year's format of holding open forum sessions will greatly increase the

effectiveness of the Conference and urges all delegates to voice their

viewpoints by writing to the Incoming Executive Committee

Chairman during the year. Endorsement is given to the plan of inviting foreign weights and measures officials to attend and participate

in the Conference.

4. Home Study Course.— The Committee strongly recommends

that Conference endorsement be given to the new Home Study Course

and that weights and measures officials take advantage of the

availability of this material to improve themselves professionally.

178
5. Report of Associate Membership Committee. — Report given by

M. S. Godsman, Committee Chairman.

The Associate Membership Committee held three meetings during

the past year. The first meeting was during the Southern Conference

at San Antonio; the second at the time of the interim meeting of the

Specifications and Tolerances Committee at the National Bureau of

Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland; and the third on Monday of this

Conference week. Several items which will result in positive action by

the Committee were discussed at these meetings.

At the meeting in San Antonio during October, plans were made

and executed for a coordinated effort by industry to assist and

support the NBS Office of Weights and Measures in securing additional funds for future program expansion.

In November, the Committee, with the assistance of Everett Black

and Earl Prideaux, and other officials of the Western Weights and

Measures Association, assisted in the coordination of an industry

appeal for the Ray Rebuffo Educational Fund.

The meeting in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in February was primarily

for the purpose of discussing plans for a Conference reception on

Wednesday night, July 12, in accordance with new Conference format.

Arrangements for the Industry Equipment Display and plans for the

1973 Conference were also reviewed with Harold WoUin.

On May 3, the Chairman, M. S. Godsman, C. W. Campbell,

Secretary-Treasurer, and J. F. Speer met with Mr. Wollin and personnel of the Shoreham Hotel to make final plans for the Wednesday

night reception. Mr. Campbell corresponded with industry for appraisal of plans and to solicit funds. The Monday meeting at this

Conference was to finalize actions by industry hosts at the reception

and discuss other matters before the Committee. Recommendations

as to the membership of this Committee for next year will be

presented to the Incoming Executive Committee at its meeting on

Friday morning.

Special recognition should be given to Chuck Campbell, Toledo

Scale Company, for his outstanding contributions and effort in the

work of this Committee. Our thanks also to Everett Black and Harold

Wollin for their assistance during this past year.

6. Changes in Committee Structure. —In the interest of

strengthening the Conference's ability to serve its members, and to

bring about uniformity, it was suggested during the open meeting

that consideration be given to appointing subcommittees within the

Executive Committee that would be given responsibility in areas such

as policy, program finances, etc. The Committee would like to go on

record as highly endorsing this suggestion. To provide the necessary

continuity for the subcommittee structure, the Committee recommends that the Executive Committee be made a standing Conference

179
committee with membership increased to twelve members and put on

a rotation basis of three-year terms. The Committee further recommends that the Incoming Executive Committee be directed to take

the necessary action to properly structure the Conference

Organization and Procedures to reflect these changes.

The Committee wishes to thank those delegates who offered written

comments on the items under consideration and those attending the

open meeting for their comments and guidance.

E. H. Black, Chairman

E. W. Ballentine

V W. E. CZAIA

J. H. Lewis

H. K. Sharp

C. C. Morgan

J. I. Moore

: R. W. Buchanan

M. Dennis

G. L. Johnson

J. H. Johnson

W. B. Kelly

A. J. Ladd

J. L. O'NEILL

W. I. Thompson

C. WOOTEN

C. S. Zmudzinski

R. N. Smith, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. Wollin, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Executive Committee

(Mr. Black moved for adoption, and after a second from the floor, the report of the

Executive Committee was adopted in its entirety by the Conference by voice vote.

180
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS

Presented by Matt Jennings, Chairman, Director, Division of

Marketing, Tennessee Department of Agriculture

(Thursday, July 13, 1972)

The Committee on Nominations met on

Tuesday, July 11, for the purpose of selecting a

slate of nominees for all elective offices and for

the ten elective memberships of the Executive

Committee. In the selection of nominees from

the active membership, consideration 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 58th National Conference on

Weights and Measures:

Chairman: G. L. Johnson, Kentucky.

Vice Chairmen : J. R. Bird, New Jersey; G. L. Delano, Montana; R.

A. Tharalson, Minnesota; H. E. Smith, San Mateo County,

California.

Treasurer: C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana.

Chaplain: J. I. Moore, North Carolina.

Executive Committee: J. C. Blackwood, Arkansas; J. C. Boyd,

Iowa; W. T. Deloge, Fitchburg, Massachusetts; S. E. Favour,

Phoenix, Arizona; K. G. Hayden, District of Columbia; R. W.

Horger, Santa Clara County, California; M. L. Kinlaw, North

Carolina; C. B. Noblin, Mississippi; C. H. Vincent, Texas; R. W.

Walker, Clark County, Indiana.

Matt Jennings, Chairman, Tennessee

S. H. Christie, Jr., New Jersey

C. C. Morgan Gary, Indiana

J. E. BowEN, Newton, Massachusetts

J. D. Walton, Dallas, Texas

J. C. Boyd, Iowa

F. D. Morgan, Utah

Committee on Nominations

(There being no further nominations from the floor, nominations were declared closed

and the officers nominated by the Committee were elected unanimously by voice vote.)

181
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS

Presented by N. M. Ross, Acting Chairman, Chief Weights

and Measures Inspector, City of Omaha, Nebraska

(Friday. July 14, 1972)

The Committee on Resolutions wishes to

express the appreciation of the 57th National

Conference on Weights and Measures to all

who contributed in any way toward the conduct

of a successful meeting. A special vote of

thanks is extended to the following:

1. To the Honorable Robert W. Cairns,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and

Technology, Department of Commerce, for his

excellent keynote address and interest in the

concerns of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures.

2. To Dr. Lawrence M. Kushner, Acting Director of the National

Bureau of Standards, for his excellent presentation and his

recognition of the importance of weights and measures administration

in the United States.

3. To Dr. F. Karl Willenbrock, Director, Institute for Applied

Technology, National Bureau of Standards, for his participation in

and active support of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

4. To Everett Black, Conference Chairman, for his efforts over the

year.

5. To all participants in the forums of the Conference for their

valuable contributions to the program.

6. To all committees for having given generously of their time and

efforts in the preparation and presentation of their reports.

7. To the governing officials of all state and local jurisdictions for

their manifest interest in weights and measures work.

8. To Mr. David S. Hinton, Assistant Convention Sales Manager,

and the staff of the Shoreham Hotel for their many courtesies in

contributing to the enjoyment and comforts of the delegates.

9. To representatives of business and industry for their liberal

cooperation and hospitality.

10. To the staff of the National Bureau of Standards for planning

and administering the many details involved in the work and program

of the National Conference.

The following resolutions are presented in their entirety for consideration of the members of the Conference:

182
Resolution on OIML

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures, on behalf of its state,

county and local member officials, and associated representatives of business, industry,

consumer organizations and the Federal Government urgently recommends that the

United States become a member of the Organization of International Legal Metrology

(OIML), and

Whereas, in the view of the Conference, U.S. participation and leadership can greatly

assist in two specific areas: First, harmonization of weights and measures legislation

and technology will assist the private sector in competing internationally without

encountering non-tariff restraints to trade, based on national quantity regulations;

second, and equally important, our citizens may be assured that ever-increasing

amounts of imported goods are represented accurately and honestly at the point of

foreign manufacture or packaging, and

Whereas, it is our belief that cooperation with foreign weights and measures officials,

through membership in OIML. will yield positive results similar in effectiveness to

those we attribute to our own organization, the National Conference on Weights and

Measures: Therefore, be it Resolved that for this reason, we solicit the Senate of the United States of America to

favor the treaty authorizing U.S. membership in OIML.

Resolution on the Metric System

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures and its membership of

state and local weights and measures officials unanimously support the adoption of the

metric system as the legal system of measurement in the United States, and

Whereas, the legal adoption of the metric system by the United States is under active

consideration and that such adoption will necessitate a program of metric education at

all levels of our education system: Therefore, be it Resolved that the National Conference on Weights and Measures strongly urges the

National Education Association to encourage its membership to begin a program of

instruction in the metric system as a regular part of the curriculum at all levels of the

education system.

N. M. Ross, Acting Chairman, Omaha, Nebr,

J. M. Chohamin, Middlesex Co., N. J.

A. W. Fenger, Minnesota

L. A. Gredy, Indiana

D. L. Griffith, West Virginia

R. W. HoRGER, Santa Clara County, Calif.

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.)

183
REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Presented by R. J. Silcock, Chairman, County Inspector of

Weights and Measures, Vigo County, Indiana

" (Friday, July 14. 1972)

The Auditing Committee of the 57th

National Conference on Weights and Measures

met on July 11, 1972, for the purpose of

reviewing the financial records of the Conference Treasurer, C. C. Morgan. The Committee finds these records to be in accordance

with the Conference procedure and correct.

R. J. Silcock, Chairman, Vigo Co., Ind.

J. C. Blackwood Arkansas

T. A. CoNSiDiNE, Baltimore, Maryland

R. N. Smith, Staff Assistant, NBS

Committee on Auditing

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the report of the

Auditing Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

REPORT OF THE TREASURER

Presented by C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Gary, Indiana

(Friday, July 14, 1972)

Balance on hand July 1, 1971

184

$ 1,481.82
RECEIPTS:

Registration, 349 at $25.00 $8,725.00

Trade Party 2,230.00

Luncheon Tickets 1 ,603.00

Subtotal 12,558.00

Total $14,039.82

DISBURSEMENTS:

Franklin Press $ 21.00

Atwood Transport Lines, Inc 222.00

The Shoreham Hotel, Reception,

Luncheon, Dance, Executive

Committee, Breakfast, Speaker's

and Meeting Room Expense 5,908.25

C. W. Campbell, Associate Membership 300.00

Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances 1,502.00

Committee on Education, Administration and Consumer Affairs. . . . 1,361.85

Committee on Laws and Regulations . . 1,211.60

Committee on Liaison with the

Federal Government 632.40

Conference Chairman 325.00

Franklin Press, Printing 289.00

Dr. Shotzberger and Mr. Brooks,

Speaker's Expense 312.00

Ladies 4.00

Miscellaneous Registration and

Operating Expense, Cash 103.75

Bank Charges 6.94

Subtotal $12,199.79

Balance on hand July 1, 1972 $ 1,840.03

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.)

185
SUMMARY OF THE INCOMING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

MEETING

Presiding Officer, 0. L. Johnson, Conference Chairman, Director,

Division of Weights and Measures,

Kentucky Department of Agriculture

(Friday Morning, July 14, 1972)

The newly elected Executive Committee held

a breakfast meeting on Friday morning for the

purpose of considering plans for the 58th

National Conference on Weights and Measures

and to discuss and take action on matters

referred to it by the outgoing Executive

Committee. A summary of the discussion and

decisions that were reached follow:

1. The Committee was pleased to have Dr. F.

Karl Willenbrock, Director, Institute for

Applied Technology, NBS, attend the meeting

and participate in the discussion. Dr. W^illenbrock commented on

matters pertaining to the relationship of the National Bureau of

Standards to the National Conference and expressed his support of

the activities and objectives of the Conference. He discussed various

steps that were being taken at NBS to analyze weights and measures

programs and to determine improved ways and means by which the

states could be assisted in meeting program needs.

2. The Committee adopted a motion to hold the 58th Conference in

Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the Radisson Hotel on July 22-27, 1973.

3. The Executive Secretary was instructed to proceed with plans

and arrangements for holding the National Conference in

Washington, D. C, in 1974 and in San Diego, California, in 1975. The

Committee also discussed preliminary plans for the 1976 Conference

in Washington, D. C, and considered ways in which the Conference

program could correlate with the nation's bicentennial celebration. A

recommendation was made for the State of Texas to be considered as a

possible site for the 1977 Conference.

4. A motion was adopted to retain the present registration fee of

$25 for the 1973 Conference.

5. The Committee authorized the Executive Secretary to make

necessary arrangements for the interim meetings of the four Conference standing committees. The payment of expenses incurred in

holding the interim meetings and other committee expenses as approved by the Executive Secretary was also authorized.

6. The Committee was in agreement that the program for the 58th

National Conference should follow the general format of the past

186
several years. No decision was made on the selection of topics and

speakers or on the scheduling of events, as these will be determined at

a later date, depending on developments in the field of weights and

measures during the coming months. The Committee will encourage

members of the Conference to send in suggestions as to program

topics and speakers.

7. Mr. Lee J. Moremen, Chairman of the Associate Membership

Committee, met with the Executive Committee to discuss matters

relating to the affairs of the associate members of the Conference. He

stated that the associate membership is very pleased with the excellent cooperation and working relationship that exists between

industry members and weights and measures officials of the National

Conference. He offered the assistance of his Committee in working

with the Executive Committee in the development and conduct of the

Conference program for next year.

8. The Executive Committee supports the action that was taken

this year with respect to the endorsement by the National Conference

of various recommended publications such as handbooks, "standards," and other documents relating to subjects in the field of

weights and measures. The principal aim of such endorsement is to

foster nationwide recognition and acceptance of technical and administrative publications containing weights and measures

requirements and procedures. The Committee views this action as

another important step that should continue to be taken by the

Conference in promoting uniformity in weights and measures

programs.

9. In response to a recommendation by the outgoing Executive

Committee, the Executive Secretary was directed to study a change in

the Conference Organization and Procedures that would provide for

the Executive Committee to be made a standing committee of the

Conference and to establish subcommittees within the Executive

Committee to be responsible for such matters as policy, programming,

finances, etc. The Committee is to receive a report on this study in the

ensuing year for consideration and action at the next annual meeting

of the Conference.

187
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

State

State, City, and County

Weights and Measures Officials

ALABAMA

A. C. DisMUKEs, Inspector of Weights & Measures,

State Dept. of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3336,

Montgomery 36109 (205: 269-7721)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Birmingham 35203 W. B. Harper, Bur. of Weights and Measures, 710

20th St., N. (205: 252-0251)

V Howard Archer, Inspector

State

ARKANSAS

J. C. Blackwood, Director, Weights & Measures Div.,

Dept. of Commerce, P. O. Box 4506, Asher Station,

Little Rock 72204 (501: 371-1759)

B. W. SuLLivANT, Laboratory Metrologist, 4608 W.

61st St., Little Rock 72209 (501: 562-4384)

CALIFORNIA

State W. S. Watson, Chief, Bureau of Weights & Measures,

Dept. of Agriculture, 1220 N St., Sacramento 95814

(916: 445-7001)

County Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Alameda P- E. Nichols, 333 5th St., Oakland 94607 (415: 874-

6736)

San Diego • S. R. Miller, P. O. Box 588, San Diego 92112 (714:

239-7711, Ext. 336)

San Mateo U. E. Smith, 702 Chestnut St., Redwood City 94063 : (415: 369-1441, Ext. 2227)

Santa Barbara J. E. Wiley, Jr., 1108 Santa Barbara St., Santa

Barbara 93104 (805: 966-1611, Ext. 353)

Santa Clara R. W. Horger, 409 Mathew St., Santa Clara 95050

(408: 299-2105)

Solano S. Burk, 560 Fairgrounds Dr., Vallejo 94590 (707:

644-1133, Ext. 284, 285)

Ventura E. H. Black, 608 El Rio Dr., Oxnard 93030 (805: 487-

5511, Ext. 4460).

COLORADO

State E. Prideaux, Chief, Weights & Measures Section,

Div. of Inspection & Consumer Services, 3130 Zuni

St., Denver 80211 (303: 892-2845)

CONNECTICUT

State W. B. Kelley, Senior Inspector, Weights & Measures

Div., Department of Consumer Protection, State

Office Bldg., Rm. G-17, Hartford 06115 (203: 566-

4778)

188
J. Smutnick, Senior Inspector (203: 566-3388)

A. M. Nelson, Metrologist (203: 566-5230)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures

Hartford 06103

Middletown 06457

Nathan Kalechman, City Hall, 550 Main St. (203:

566-6457)

Guy J. ToMMASi, City Hall (203: 347-4671)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

District

Inspectors

K. G. Hayden, Chief, Weights, Measures & Markets

Branch, Bldg. Div., Bur. Building, Housing &

Zoning, Dept. Economic Development, 1104 U St.,

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20020 (202: 629-4661)

D. K. Forbes, Supervisor

J. T. Bennick

W. A. Matthews

E. E. Maxwell

W. W. Wells

FLORIDA

State S. D. Andrews, Director, Div. of Standards, Dept. of

Agriculture, Mayo Bldg., Km. 107, Tallahassee

32304 (904: 599-7333)

C. WooTEN, Chief, Bur. of Weights and Measures

Stan J. Darsey, Asst. Chief (904: 599-7339)

County Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Dade J. C. Mays, Consumer Protection Div., Justice Bldg.

Km 903, 1351 N. W. 12th St., Miami 33125 (305:

377-5111)

GEORGIA

State O. C. Mitchell, Asst. Director, Consumer Protection,

Dept. of Agriculture, 19 Hunter St., Atlanta 30324

(404: 656-3628)

T. E. KiRBY, Asst. Director, Weights & Measures Div.

Dept. of Agriculture, Atlanta Farmers Market,

Forest Park 30050 (404: 361-6764)

HAWAII

State G. E. Mattimoe, Deputy Dir., Div. of Weights &. Measures, Dept. of Agriculture, 1428 S. King St., P.

O. Box 5425, Honolulu 96814 (808: 941-3071)

IDAHO

State L. D. Holloway, Supvr., Wts. & Meas. Div., Dept. of

Agriculture, 2150 Warm Springs Ave., P.O. Box

790, Boise 83701 (208: 384-2345)

189
ILLINOIS

State J. P. KiRBY, Supvr., Feeds, Fertilizers, & Standards,

Dept. of Agriculture, 531 E. Sangamon, Springfield

62706 (217: 525-7655)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Chicago 60602 T. R. Heller, Consumer Services Supervisor, Dept.

of Consumer Sales, Weights & Measures, Rm. 808

City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle St. (312: 744-4008)

J. F. Nolan, Ass^. Comm'r (312: 744-4006)

INDIANA

State L. A. Gredy, Dir., Div. of Weights & Measures, State

Board of Health, 1330 W. Michigan St., In- dianapolis 46206 (317: 633-6860)

County Inspectors of Weights and Measures:

Clark R. W. Walker, Rm. 314 City-County Bldg., Jeffersonville 47130 (812: 283-4451)

Gibson W. R. Sevier, Court House Annex, Princeton 47570

(812: 385-2426)

Grant H.Cline,P. 0. Box 421, Marion 46952 (317: 664-5239)

Johnson W. E. Handy, County Court House, Franklin 46131

(317: 736-5774)

Lake N. Bucur, 119 E. 58th Ct., Apt. 56, Merrillville 46410

(219: 981-3261)

Laporte E. M. Hanish, 119 Tilden Ave., Michigan City 46360

(219: 879-9486)

Madison C. W. Moore, City Bldg., Anderson 46051 (317: 534-

3328)

Marshall G. W. Schultz, Rt. 1, Bremen 46506 (219: 546-2949)

Porter R. H. Claussen, Rm. 13 Court House, Valparaiso

(219: 462-5751)

St. Joseph C. S. Zmudzinski, County-City Bldg., South Bend

46601 (219: 284-9751)

Tippecanoe W. McMurray, County Court House, P. O. Box 444,

Lafayette 47902 (317: 742-0626)

Vigo R. J. Silcock, Court House, Rm. 4, Terre Haute 47885

(812: 232-5746)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Anderson 46011 E. Gadberry, P. O. Box 2100 (317: 646-5814)

Gary 46407 Cleo C. Morgan, 1100 Massachusetts St. (219: 944-

6566)

Indianapolis 46204 F. L. Brugh, Rm. G-6, City-County Bldg. (317: 633-

3733)

O. O. Buschmann, Dep. Inspector

W. Ross CoPELAND, Dep. Inspector

W. J. Roberts, Jr., Dep. Inspector

New Albany 47150 E.G. Silver, P. O. Box 362, City-County Bldg., Rm.

325 (812: 945-5357)

South Bend 46621 B. S. Cichowicz, 701 W. Sample St. (219: 284-9297)

IOWA

State J. C. Boyd, Chief, Standard Control, Weights &

Measures Div., Consumer Protection Service, Dept.

of Agriculture, Capitol Bldg., Des Moines 50319

(515: 281-5716)

190
KANSAS

State J. L. O'Neill, State Sealer, Div. of Weights &

Measures, State Board of Agriculture, State Office

Bldg., Topeka 66612 (913: 296-3846)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Kansas City 66101 D. L. Lynch, City Hall,805 N. 6th St. (913: 371-3300)

KENTUCKY

State G. L. Johnson, Director, Div. of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, 106 W.

Second St., Frankfort 40601 (502: 564-4870)

MAINE

State H. D. Robinson, Deputy State Sealer, Div. of Consumer Protection, Dept. of Agriculture, State Office

Bldg., Augusta 04330 (207: 289-3841)

Gaylon Kennedy, Metrologist

MARYLAND

State R. L. Thompson, Supt., Office of Weights & Measures,

State Board of Agriculture, 360 Symons Hall, Univ.

of Maryland, College Park 20742 (301: 454-3551)

L. H. DbGrange, Field Supervisor (301: 454-3552)

R. W. Glendenning, Inspector (301: 778-2237)

County Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Montgomery P. L, Peterson, Wts. & Meas. Unit, County Office

Bldg., 108 S. Perry St., Rockville 20850 (301: 279-

1443)

Charles D. Cooley, Inspector

W. Rice, Inspector

Prince George's R. J. Cord, County Service Bldg., Rm. 113, Hyattsville 20781 (301: 779-3850, Ext. 346)

R. O'Connor, Deputy Sealer

D. Savage, Deputy Sealer

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Baltimore 21202 T. A. Considine, Division of Tests, 1103 Municipal

Bldg. (301: 752-2000, Ext. 2845)

MASSACHUSETTS

State E. H. Stadolnik, Head Administrative Asst.,

Executive Office of Consumer Affairs, Div. of Stds.,

State House, Rm. 194, Boston 02133 (617: 727-

3483)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Agawam 01001 L. D. Draghetti, Town Administration Bldg., 36

Main St. (413: 786-0400)

Everett02149 L. L. Elliott, Rm. 2. City HaU (617:389-2100)

F'all River 02720 P. P. Sullivan, City Hall, North

191
W. T. Deloge, City Hall, Main St. (617: 343-7012)

J. E. BowEN, City Hall (617: 244-4700)

R. E. Clark, Municipal Bldg., Court St. (413: 736-

2710

MICHIGAN

State R. M. Leach, Chief, Food Inspection Div., Dept. of

Agriculture, Lewis Cass Bldg., 5th Floor, Lansing

48913 (517: 373-1060)

County Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Washtenaw R. A. Harter, 4133 Washtenaw Rd., Ann Arbor

48104 (313: 971-6054)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Dearborn 48126 J. A. Hughes, Dept. of Licenses, Weights &

Measures, 3951 Greenfield Rd. (313: LU 4-8501)

Grand Rapids 49502 T. P. McCarthy, 301 Market St., S.W. (616: 456-

3237)

. MINNESOTA

State W. E. Czaia, Director, Div. of Weights & Measures,

Dept of Public Service, 1015 Currie Ave., MinneapoUs 554C3 (612: 333-3249)

R. Tharalson, Supervisor

A. W. Fenger, Inspector

O. Lhotka, Inspector (612: 788-0783)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Minneapolis 55415 J. G. Gustafson, Dept. of Licenses, Weights &

Measures, City Hall, Rm. 101 A (612: 330-2080)

MISSOURI

State J. H. Wilson, Director, Weights & Measures Div.,

Dept. of Agriculture, Jefferson Bldg., Jefferson

City 65101 (314: 636-7166, Ext. 17)

County Sealers of Weights & Measures

St. Louis L. A. Rick, 7900 Forsyth Blvd., Clayton 63105 (314:

889-2078)

City Sealers of Weights & Measures:

St. Louis 63104 Daniel I. Offner, 1220 Carr Lane Ave., Rm. 145

(314: 453-3251)

MONTANA

State G. L. Delano, Administrator, Div. of Weights &

Measures, Dept. of Business Regulation, 805 N.

Main, Helena 59601 (406: 449-3163)

Dick Disney, Administrator of Centralized Services

NEBRASKA

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Omaha 68102 N. M. Ross, Permits & Inspection Div., Interim City

Hall, 908 S. 18th St. (402: 341-8122)

192

i

Fitchburg 01420

Newton 02159 . . Springfield 01 103
NEW HAMPSHIRE

State W. J. TusEN, Chief Inspector, Bureau of Weights &

Measures, Div. of Markets & Standards, Dept. of

Agriculture, Rm, 201, State House Annex, Concord

03301 (603: 271-3700)

NEW JERSEY

State S. H. Christie, Jr., State Supt., Office of Weights &

Measures, Dept. of Law & Public Safety, Div. of

Consumer Affairs, 187 W. Hanover St., Trenton

08625 (609: 292-4615)

J. R. Bird, Deputy Supt.

A. Del Tufo, Supvr. of Enforcement

F. ScARPELLi, Supvr. of Technical Services

C. P. Conrad, Jr., Senior Technician

County Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Bergen J. A. Pollock, 66 Zabriskie St., Hackensack 07601

(201: 646-2729)

Burlington E. D. Gaskill, 54 Grant St., Mt. Holly 08060 (609:

267-3300, Ext. 210)

Camden A. J. Francesconi, County Court House, Camden

08101 (609: 964-0242

Cape May A. D. Gidding, 6807 Seaview Ave., Wildwood 08260

(609: 522-4861)

Cumberland G. S. Franks, 1142 Landis Ave., Vineland 08360 (609:

691-0999)

N. DiMarco, Dep. Supt., 12M Weymouth PI., Bridgeton 08302 (609: 451-8000) ' Gloucester R. J. Morris, County Bldg., 49 Wood St., Woodbury

08096 (609: 845-1600, Ext. 252)

J. Silvestro, Asst. Supt.

Mercer R. M. Bodenweiser, County Administration Bldg.,

640 S. Broad St., Trenton 08607

Middlesex J. M. Chohamin, County Records Bldg., Kennedy

Square, New Brunswick 08901 (201: 246-6297, 98)

Monmouth W. 1. Thompson, Rm. 302, Hall of Records, Freehold

07728 (201: 431-4000)

J. A. Bovie, Asst. Supt.

W. G. Dox, Asst. Supt.

R. Tomasulo, Asst. Supt.

Ocean M. R. Burd, Jr., 11 Hooper Ave., Toms River 08753

(201: 244-2121, Ext. 257)

Passaic J. Vatasin, Administration Bldg., Paterson 07503

(201: 525-5000, Ext. 420)

Salem R. B. Jones, P. O. Box 24, Salem 08079 (609: 935-

3152)

Somerset J. A. Kriney, Jr., County Administration Bldg.,

Somerville 08876 (201: 725-4700, Ext. 268)

Sussex J. M. Heater, R. D. #3, Box 140, Newton 07860 (201:

948-5464)

Warren G. E. Connolly, Court House, Belvidere 07823 (201:

475-5087)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Kearny 07032 J. Pollock, Town Hall, 204 Kearny Ave., (201: 991-

2700)

Linden 07036 A. L. Eska, N. Wood Ave., (201: 486-8429)

Paterson 07505 W. J. Kehoe, Jr., 115 Van Houten St. (201 : 278-1329)

193
NEW YORK

State J. F. Tucker, Director, Bureau of Weights &

Measures, Dept. of Agriculture & Markets, State

Campus, 1220 Washington Ave., Albany 12226

(518: 457-3452)

County Sealers of Weights and Measures

Monroe L. P. Romano, 291 WestfaU Rd., Rochester 14620

(716: 473-8058)

R. G. Specht, Inspector

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Glen Cove 11542 E. T. Hunter, City HaU (516: 676-7877)

New York 10013 H.J. Stern, First Deputy Commissioner of Consumer

Affairs, Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 80 Lafayette St.

(212: 566-5817)

A. C. Freedman, Counsel (212: 566-0432)

M. Greenspan, Chief Inspector (212: 566-8776)

NORTH CAROLINA

State J. I. Moore, Supt., Weights & Measures Div., Dept.

of Agriculture, P. O. Box 27647, Raleigh 27611

(919: 829-3315) * M. KINLAW, Supervisor of Weights and Measures

T. W. Scott, Inspector

W. H. Perry, Liquid Fertilizer Specialist

NORTH DAKOTA

State A. Helgeson, Director, Dept. of Weights & Measures,

Public Service Commission, State Capitol,

Bismarck 58501 (701: 224-2412)

OHIO

State R. E. Bowers, Chief, Div. of Weights & Measures,

Dept. of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg 43068 (614:

866-6361)

County Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Auglaize F. Wellman, New KnoxviUe 45871 (419: 753-2021)

Clark J. S. Powers, County Bldg., Springfield 45502 (513:

324-5871)

Sandusky B. Neumeyer, Court House, Fremont 43420 (419: 332-

-4090)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Akron 44304 A. J. Ladd, 69 N. Union St. (216: 375-2612)

Cincinnati 45214 L. B. Frank, 2147 Central Ave. (513: 352-3135)

Youngstown 44503 A. C. Julian, City Bldg., Health Dept., W. Boardman

& S. Phelps St. (216: 744-8988)

R. CoRBETT, Asst. Sealer

OKLAHOMA ^

State H. K. Sharp, Asst. Director, Marketing Div., Dept. of

Agriculture, 122 Capitol, Oklahoma City 73105

(405: 521-3861)

194
OREGON

State K.J. SiMiLA, Supt. of Weights & Measures, Consumer

Services Div,, Dept. of Agriculture, Agriculture

Bldg., Salem 97310 (503: 378-3792)

PENNSYLVANIA

State J. L. Jones, Director, Bur. of Consumer Protection,

Standard Weights & Measures, Dept. of Justice,

Rm. B-130 Transportation & Safety Bldg.

Harrisburg 17120 (717: 787-6359)

Roy W. Buchanan, Supervisor, Weights & Measures

County Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Allegheny W. D. Scott, Director, Bureau of Weights &

Measures, Court House, Rm. 4, Pittsburgh 15219

(412: 355-4480)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Allentown 18101 A. L. Heilman, Jr., Weights & Measures Bur., Dept.

of Public Safety, 425 Hamilton St. (215: 434-9601,

Ext. 250)

Philadelphia 19107 S. F. Valtri, Bur. of Weights & Measures, Rm.622,

City Hall Annex (215: MU 6-3475)

RHODE ISLAND

State E. R. Fisher, Sealer of Weights & Measures, Dept. of

Labor, 235 Promenade St., Providence 02908 (401:

277-2756)

SOUTH CAROLINA

State E. W. Ballentine, Executive Asst., Dept. of

Agriculture, P.O.Box 11280, Columbia 29211 (803:

758-2426)

C. T. Smith, Director, Consumer Protection Div.,

Dept. of Agriculture

J. V. PuGH, Director, Metrology Div.

H. B. Alexander, Consumer Specialist

G. S. Hall, Consumer Specialist

TENNESSEE

State M. Jennings, Director, Div. of Marketing, Dept. of

Agriculture, Melrose Station, Box 40627, Nasnville

37204 (615: 741-1561)

TEXAS

State R. T. Williams, Director, Consumer Services Div.,

Dept. of Agriculture, John Reagan Bldg., Box

12847 Capitol Station, Austin 78711 (512: 475-

3140)

C. Vincent, Asst. Dir., 115 San Jacinto, Austin 78701

(512: 475-4304)

C.E. Forester, Suprv. of Weights & Measures

Section (512: 475-4357)

195
City Sealers of Weights and Measuresi

Dallas 75201 J. D. Walton, Weights, Measures, and Markets, City

Hall (214: 748-9711)

UTAH

State F. D. Morgan, Supervisor of Weights and Measures,

Dept. of Agriculture, Rm. 412, State Capitol Bldg.,

Salt Lake City 84114 (801: 328-5421)

VERMONT

State T. F. Brink, Director, Division of Standards, Dept. of

Agriculture, Agriculture Bldg., Montpelier 05602

(802: 828-2436)

VIRGINIA

State J- F. Lyles, Supervisor, Weights & Measures

Regulatory Section, Div. of Regulatory Services,

Dept. of Agriculture and Commerce, 1 N. 14th St.,

Rm 032, Richmond 23219 (703: 770-2476)

J. C. Stewart, Asst. Supervisor

O. T. Almarode, Field Supervisor

R. E. Bunch, Inspector

J. R. BusAcco, Inspector

G. E. Ferrell, Inspector

County Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Arlington J. P. Noonan, County Court House, Rm. 208,

Arlington 22201 (703: 558-2343)

City Sealers of Weights & Measures:

Alexandria 22313 L. W. Vezina, P. O. Box 178, City Hall, Room 227

(703: 750-6242, 6241)

Danville 24541 C. A. Shumate, P. O. Box 3300 (703: 792-9211, Ext.

310)

Newport News 23607 J. L. Davis. City Hall (703: 247-8618)

Norfolk 23501 W. C. Snell, City Hall Bldg., Rm. 804 (703:441-2409)

Richmond 23219 A. B. Moody, Jr., Rm. 130, 501 N. 9th St. (703: 649-

4208)

B. H. CuRLEE, Inspector

WASHINGTON

State J. H. Lewis, Chief, Weights & Measures Section,

Dairy and Food Division, Dept. of Agriculture, P. O. Box 128, Olympia 98504 (206: 753-5042)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Seattle 98104 M. R. Dettler, Asst. Director, Div. of Licenses and

Standards, Rm. 101 Seattle Municipal Bldg., 600

Fourth Ave. (206: 583-2950)

196
WEST VIRGINIA

State D. L. Griffith, Director, Div. of Consumer

Protection, Dept. of Labor, Capitol Complex,

Charleston 25305 (304: 348-2195)

WISCONSIN

State D. E. Konsoer, Director, Bur. of Weights & Measures

Food Div., Dept, of Agriculture, 801 W. Badger Rd.

Madison 53713 (608: 266-7243)

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Green Bay 54301 N. Tilleman, City Hall (414: 437-7611, Ext. 239)

197
Manufacturers, Industry, and Business

ACI Systems Corp.

M. J. BucHMAN, S. Holland, Illinois (215: 473-3083)

American Can Comany

W. H. Marks, Supervisor, Dixie Technical Service, 333 N. Commercial St., Neenah,

Wisconsin 54956 (414:722-4211, Ext. 5509)

American Frozen Foods Institute

A. T. Rhoads, Director, Government Relations, 919 18th St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20006 (202: 296-4080)

American Meter Division— Singer

T. J. Smith, Product Coordinator, 13500 Philmont Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19116 (215:673-2100)

American Oil Company

R. H. Berlind, Manager, Transportation Coordinaton, 910 S. Michigan Avenue,

Chicago, Illinois 60680 (312: 856-6228)

American Paper Institute

W. V. Driscoll, Manager, Tissue Division, 260 Madison Avenue, New York, New

York 10016 (212: 889-6200)

American Petroleum Institute

D. J. HiNE, NBS Research Associate, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (301: 921-2401)

W. A. Kerlin, Special Representative, 1801 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006

(202: 833-5643)

W. N. Seward, Assistant to Senior Vice President (202; 833-5661)

R. SouTHERS, Coordinator of Operations and Engineering (202: 833-5643)

American Seed Trade Association

H. W. ScHULER, Manager, Packet Seed, Northrup King & Co., Minneapolis, Minn.

(612: 789-3501)

R.J. Falasca, Assistant to the Executive Vice President, 1030 15th St., N.W., Suite

964, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202: 223-4080)

G. B. Weaver, President, Fredonia Seed Co., Fredonia, New York (716: 672-2174)

Amstar Corporation

R. P. Fremgen, Quality Control Supervisor, 1251 6th Avenue, New York, New York

10020 (212: 489-9000)

M.W. O'SuLLivAN, Attorney

Armour and Company

V. J. DelGiudice, Manager, Government Liaison & Sanitation Division, 8849 So.

Greenwood Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60619 (312: 734-3804)

Association of American Railroads

E. W. HoDGKiNS, Executive Director, Engineering Division, 59 E. Van Buren St.,

Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312: 939-0780, 81)

J. J. Robinson, Executive Director, Operating-Transportation Division, 1920 L

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202: 293-4144)

C. E. Taylor, Manager, Systems Studies Div., Research and Test Dept. (202: 293-

4084)

W. J. Harris, Jr., Vice President (202: 293-4182)

Atlantic Richfield Company

J. F. Straub, Jr., Performance Manager, 260 S. Broad St., Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19101 (215: 735-2345)

Bennett Pump Incorporated

M. S. GoDSMAN, Manager, Field Service, Broadway and Wood Streets, Muskegon,

Michigan 49444 (616: 733-1302)

Berkel Incorporated

F. W. Rabenhorst, District Sales Manager, 2813 12th Street, N. E., Washington, D.

C. 20017 (202: 526-1040)

Betts Machine Company

T. E. MooNEY, Vice President, Sales, P. O. Box 888, Warren, Pennsylvania 16365

(814: 723-1250)

Brooks Instrument Div. of Emerson Electric Co.

A.J. KoMicH, Product Manager, Liquid Meters, Box 450, Statesboro, Georgia 30458

(912: 764-5471)

Butler Manufacturing Co., Oswalt Division

W. R. Guthrie, P. O. Box 1038, Garden City, Kansas 67846 (316: 276-7681)

R. T. Nash, Scales Engineer

P. Thorpe

C. G. Systems Inc. W. H. Garner, Vice President, 313 Rexford Street, Colton, Calif. 92324 (714: 825-

2932)

198
CPC International Inc. A. E. JoHANSON, Attorney, International Plaza, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 07632 (201:

894-2383)

Cahners Publications

J. B. Wecksler, 869 National Press Building, Washington, D. C. 20004 (202: 628-

2773)

Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee, Hastings and McKinney

M.S. Thompson, Attorney, Room 2360, 135 South LaSalle St., Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312: 726-2545)

Chatillon, John & Sons

N. Lavenda, Sales Manager, 83-30 Kew Gardens Road, Kew Gardens, N.Y. 11415

(201: 847-5000)

Checchi and Company

F. A. Cassidy, Consultant, 815 Connecticut Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006

(202: 298-8630)

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association

A. A. MuLLiKEN, Executive Director, 50 East 41st Street, New York, N. Y. 10017

(212: 685-8722)

Chesapeake & Ohio RR/Baltimore & Ohio RR

V. H. Freygang, Application Engineer, P.O. Box 1800, O & H Bldg., Rm. 233,

Huntington, West Virginia 25701 (304: 525-0341, Ext. 5743 or 5744)

E. SzAKS, Assistant Chief Engineer

Cities Service Oil Company

R. C. Primley, Operation Manager, Field Engineer, 1207 Broad Street, St. Joseph,

Michigan 49085 (616: 983-3942)

Coca-Cola Company

R. L. Callahan, Attorney, P. O. Drawer 1734, Atlanta, Georgia 30301 (404: 897-

2092)

Colgate-Palmolive Company

E. E. WoLSKi, Manager of Quality Control, 300 Park Avenue, New York, New York

10022 (212: 751-1200)

Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. D. W. Determan, Vice President, Government and Legal Affairs, 1150 17th St., N.

W. Washington, D. C. 20036

Covington & Burling

P. M. Phillips, Attorney, 888 16th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006 (202: 293-

3300)

Dairy & Food Industries Association

W. A. Dean, Jr., Associate Technical Director, 5530 Wisconsin Ave., Washington,

D. C. 20015 (301: 652-4420)

D. H. Williams, Techniced Director

Dana, Mrs. Margaret, Consumer Relations Counsel, RR #1, Chalfont, Pa. 18914 (215:

249-9374)

Dee, J. B., & Co., Inc.

E. H. FisHMAN, General Manager, 1722 W. 16th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46207

(317: 635-5548)

DeLaval Separator Company

H. MuHLACK, Supervisor, Meter Department, 5724 N. Pulaski Road, Chicago, Illinois

60646 (312: 463-3020)

J. L. Raymond, Milk Process Department, Poughkeepsie, New York 12602 (914: 452-

1000)

Detecto Scale, Inc.

M. Rapp, Vice President, 103-00 Foster Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11236 (212: 274-

4500)

K. Schneider, Electronic Engineer (212: 272-4500, ext. 851)

Diamond International Corporation

Mrs. L. Waite, Director of Home Economics, 733 Third Avenue, New York, N. Y.

10017 (212: 697-2177)

Dover Corporation

G. E. Moore, Vice President, Engineering, OPW Division, 2735 Coleraine Ave.,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45225 (513: 541-5400)

Dresser Industries, Inc. -Petroleum Equipment Division

F. W. Love, Administrative Assistant, Engineering Department, 125 W. College

Avenue, Salisbury, Maryland 21801 (301: 749-6161)

DuPont, E. I., de Nemours & Co.

W. G. Caufield, Packaging Engineer, Engineering Department, Wilmington,

Delaware 19898 (302: 366-3669)

Eaton Corporation

T. Edmonds, Sales Engineer, 191 E. North Avenue, Ceirol Stream, Illinois 60187 (312:

682-8051)

199
Economics Laboratory, Inc.

R. B. Douglas, Manager, Equipment-Engineering Division, P. O. Box 1018, Beloit,

Wisconsin 53511 (815: 389-3441)

D. A. Seiberling, Assistant Vice President, Equipment-Engineering Div.

Electro-Numerics Corp.

R. LaFollette, Manufacturing Engineering, 2691 Corvin Drive, Santa Clara,

California 95051 (408: 738-1840)

R. D. Short, Sales Manager, Scale Products

Ellisco, Inc.

C. E. SiFTON, Jr., Manager, Product Development, American & Luzerne Streets,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140 (215: 223-3405)

Empro Products Company

H. C. Hopper, Sales Manager, 359 McLean Blvd., Paterson, N. J. 07513 (201: 271-

1100)

Peter DeKorte

Ethyl Corporation

A. Brown, Regionsil Manager, Vis Queen Division, 451 Florida Blvd., Baton Rouge,

Louisiana 70801 (504: 348-0131)

M. Havercamp, Sales Manager

A. W. Perry, Regional Manager

Ex-Cell-0 Corporation

C. E. Beaman, Engineer, 1200 Oakman Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48232 (313: 868-

3900)

Fairbanks Morse, Inc.

J. J. CoNNELL, Regional Manager, 9919 W. Roosevelt Rd., West Chester, Illinois

60153 (312: 626-6760)

T.G. SopER, Vice President, Marketing, 711 East St. Johnsbury Road, St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 (802: 748-2371)

A. A. Cattell, Supervisor, Standard Product Engineering

Fairchild Publishing

W. A. LiNDBERG, Reporter, 399 Press Building, Washington, D. C.

Federal-State Reports

S. A. Leber, Assistant Editor, PAL Newsletter, 2201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington,

Virginia 22201 (703: 525-4950)

J. S. Wilson, Editor of Consuming Interest, P. O. Box 986, Court House Station,

Arlington, Virginia 22216 (703: 525-4950)

Fischer and Porter

O. SoROKo, Marketing— Food Industry, 44 County Line Avenue, Warminster,

Pennsylvania 18974 (216: 675-6000)

Fleet Transport Co., Inc.

W. H. Livingston, Vice President, P. O. Box 90608, Nashville, Tennessee 37209 (615:

385-0500)

Food Chemical News

R. Galant, Managing Editor, 601 Warner Bldg., Washington, D.C. (202: ST 3-7472)

Foss America Inc.

R. J. Rutgerson, President, Route 82, Fishkill, New York 12524 (914: 897-5503)

Fuller, H. J. & Sons, Inc. W. S. Fuller, President, 1212 Chesapeake Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43212 (614: 486-

2921)

W. A. ScHEURER, Public Relations, 624 South 3rd Street, Columbus, Ohio 43206

(614: 221-4921)

Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association

R. M. Byrne, Technical Director, 331 Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10017 (212:

661-2050)

General Foods Corporation

L. J. Adams, Jr., Attorney, 250 North Street, White Plains, N. Y. 10625 (914: 694-

2372)

J. P. Fay, Manager of Quality Assurance

General Mills, Inc.

D. B. Colpitts, Technical Manager, Weights and Measures, 9000 Plymouth Ave.,

North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427 (612: 540-2729)

W. C. Mailhot, Director, Quality Control, Sperry Division, 9200 Wayzata Blvd.,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 (612: 540-2354)

Gerber Products Company

J. L. Littlefield, Government Relations Manager, 445 State Street, Fremont,

Michigan 49412 (616: 928-2264)

Gilbarco Inc. R. E. Nix, Assistant to Manager of Engineering, Friendly Road, Greensboro, North

Carolina 27420 (919: 292-3011)

200
Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

E. J. Mentz, Associate Technical Director, 330 Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y.

10017 (212: 682-5533)

Grand Union Company

Jean E. Judge, Director of Consumer Affairs, 100 Broadway, East Paterson, N. J. 07407 (201: 796-4800)

Gulf Oil Company

G. R. Davis, Director, Supply & Operations, P. O. Box 661, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135

(918: 587-2121)

R. G. Rutherford, Director, Registration & Labeling, 429 Seventh Ave., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 (412: 391-2400)

Halmor Services Inc. D. M. CoMSTOCK, 1120 N. Boston, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74106 (918: 587-4173)

Heltzel Company

R. K. Brughler, Vice President, Engineering, 1750 Thomas Road, Warren, Ohio

44481 (216: 395-9545)

Hobart Manufacturing Company

K. C. Allen, Vice President, Scale Operations, 216 S. Torrence Street, Dayton, Ohio

45403 (513: 254-8451)

M. E. Bone, Weights and Measures Representative, 216 S. Torrence St., Dayton,

Ohio 45403 (513: 254-8451)

C. G. Gehringer, Manager, Scale Industry Relations, World Headquarters Avenue,

Troy, Ohio 45373 (513: 335-7171)

J. Cavaliere, Assistant National Service Manager, 680 Van Houten Ave., CHfton,

N. J. 07015 (201: 471-3400)

Howe-Richardson Scale Company

H. S. Dalecki, Assistant National Service Manager, 91-31 121st Street, Richmond

HUl, N. Y. 11418 (212: 847-7995)

Jewel Companies, Inc. R. W. Miller, Jr., Senior Attorney, 5725 N. East River Road, Chicago, Illinois

60631 (312: 693-6017)

Johnson & Johnson

G. E. Heinze, Manager Scientific Standards, Medical Research Bldg., Route #1,

North Brunswick, N. J. 08903 (201: 524-5151)

Keene Corp.

F. M. Belue, Sales Manager, Meters, Pump & Meter Division, P. O. Box 250,

Greeneville, Tennessee 37743 (615: 638-8156)

KimberlyClark Corporation

W. W. Whitlinger, Director, Quality Assurance, 2001 Marathon Avenue, Neenah,

Wisconsin 54956 (414: 729-1212)

Kroger Company

D. P. Leahy, Manager, Technology & Quality Assurance, 1014 Vine St., Cincinnati,

Ohio 45201 (513: 381-8000, Ext. 310)

Label Manufacturers National Association, Inc. F. R. Cawley, Executive Director, Room 511, Wilson Plaza Building, 2425 Wilson

Blvd., Arhngton, Virginia 22201 (703: 528-8444)

Lehn & Fink Products Corp., Div. SterUng Drug

F. G. Taylor, Sr., Group Leader, Packaging and Aerosols, 225 Summit Ave.,

Montvale. N. J. 07645 (201: 791-8500)

Lever Brothers Company

H. R. MacDonald, Manufacturing Services Manager, 390 Park Avenue, New York,

N. Y. 10022 (212: 688-6000, Ext. 8343)

Liquid Controls Corporation

H. E. Siebold, Vice President, Technical Services, P. O. Box 101, North Chicago,

lUinois 60064 (312: 689-2400)

Lockheed Electronics Co.

J. F. Devitt, Service Manager, U. S. Route 22, Plainfield, New Jersey 07061 (201:

757-1600)

Louisville and Nashville Railroad

J. L. FiNNELL, General Scale Inspector, 908 West Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky

40201 (502: 587-1121, Ext 415)

Martin Decker Company

E. I. Shelley, Sales Manager, 1928 Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, CaUfornia 92705

(714: 540-9220)

Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Association, Inc.

J. D. Forbes, Traffic Manager, 1530 Wilson Blvd., Arlmgton, Virginia 22209 (703:

524-2300)

Mclntyre, John J., Sons, Inc. F. L. McIntyre, Sr., President, 514-16 Knorr Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19111 (215:

745-3304)

201
Measuregraph Company

G. P. Reis, Director, Sales and Service, 4245 Forest Park Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri

63108 (314: 533-7800)

P. B. Krieger, National Service Manager

S. SOMOGYE

Michigan Bean Company

C. H. Roth, Director, Packaging Operations, P. O. Box 2069, Saginaw, Michigan

48605 (517: 754-0471)

Midwest Scale Company

M. S. DeBo, Vice President, 1327 7th Street, Rockford, Illinois 61108 (815: 968-3731)

Milk Industry Foundation

J. F. Speer, Executive Assistant, 910 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006

(202:296-4250)

Miller, Byron & Associates

B. D. Miller, Owner, 7712 Georgia Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20012 (202:

829-3903)

Millers' National Federation

F. H. Mewhinney, Vice President, 1114 National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C.

20004 (202: 628-6291)

Mira-Pak, Inc. W. W. Mills, Vice President, Box 14049, 7000 Ardmore, Houston, Texas 77021 (713:

747-1100)

Mobil Oil Corporation

W. Zahn, Wholesale Plant Engineer, 150 E. 42nd Street, New York, N. Y. 10017

(212: 883-4739)

Modem Packaging Mageizine

H. Marder, Associate Editor, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N. Y. 10020

(212: 997-6259)

Monsanto Company

C. L. TiMMONs, Sales Representative, 611 E. Cerritos venue, Anaheim, California

92803 (714: 722-2190)

T. I. BiDGOOD, Eastern District Sales Manager, 200 N. 7th Street, Kenilworth, N. J. 07033 (201: 276-2900)

D. Levine, Manager, Marketing-Film Products, 200 N. 8th Street, Kenilworth, N. J. 07033 (201: 276-2900)

Morris Scale Company

C. V. Morris, President, 1537 S. E. Morrison Street, P. O. Box 14306, Portland,

Oregon 97214 (503: 232-5339)

Nationed Association of Food Chains

C. G. Adamy, Executive Director, 1725 I St., N.W., Suite 210, Washington, D. C.

20006 (202: 338-7822)

National Association of Wiping Cloth Manufacturers

E. L. Merrigan, Attorney, Smathers & Merrigan, 888 17th St., N. W., Washington,

D. C. 20006 (202: OL 6-7571)

D. Schapiro, Parkin & McHenry Streets, Baltimore, Maryland 21230 (301 : 539-3650)

National Automatic Merchandising Association

J. J. Zei, Eastern Counsel, 777 14th Street, N. W., Suite 1313, Washington, D. C.

20005 (202: 347-2110)

National Canners Association

R. ToLLEY, Head of Food Regulations & Standards, 1133 20th Street, N. W.,

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202: 338-2030)

T. K. Zaucha, Assistant Director of Government Industrial Relations

National Consumers United

Mrs. Jacqueline Kendall, Co-Director, 1043 Chicago Ave., Evanston, 111. 60202

(312: 864-1114)

Miss Jan Schakowski, Co-Director

National Controls, Inc. W. M. Evans, Vice President, Marketing, P. O. Box 1501, 930 Finer Road, Santa

Rosa, CaUfornia 95403 (707: 546-2734)

National Forest Products Association

W. C. HiTCHiNGS, Manager, Government Specifications Dept., 1619 Massachusetts

Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20036 (202: 332-1050, Ext. 233)

National LP-Gas Association

W. H. Johnson, Vice President, Technical Services, 79 W. Monroe St., Chicago,

Illinois 60603 (312: 327-5484)

National Milk Producers Federation

J. B. Adams, Director of Environmental & Consumer Affairs, 30 F St., N. W.,

Washington, D. C. 20001 (202: 393-8151)

202
National Paint & Coatings Association, Inc.

J. M. Montgomery, General Counsel, 1500 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington,

D. C. 20005 (202: 462-6272)

National Scale Men's Association

Mrs. Sylvia Pickell, Executive Secretary, 214 1/2 S. Washington St., Naperville,

111. 60540 (312: 355-4788)

National Soft Drink Association

T.A. Daly, Legal Counsel, 1101 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202:

833-2450)

National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. R. S. Reese, Jr., Assistant Managing Director, 1616 P Street, N. W., Washington,

D. C. 20036 (202: 269-3425)

Neptune Meter Company

E. F. Wehmann, Assistant Chief Engineer, Petroleum & Industrial Division, P. O.

Box 41263, 2606 Fortune Circle East, Indianapolis, Indiana 46241 (317: 247-1551)

J. C. Hart

Paperboard Packaging Council

R. R. Lovelace, General Manager, 1800 K Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006

(202:872-0180)

Pargas, Inc. W. H. HuLSE, Assistant Secretary, Box 67, Waldorf, Maryland 20601 (301 : 843-6119)

Penn CentrsJ

R. E. Park, General Scale Inspector, 6 Penn Center, Room 750, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19103 (215: 594-1664)

F. D. Day, Systems Engineer, Bridge and Building Maintenance

Penney, J. C., Company, Inc.

R. C. Sherman, Senior Attorney, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N. Y.

10019 (212: 957-6094)

Phillips Petroleum Company

J. L. Stevenson, Regional Manager, Construction and Maintenance, P. O. Box 4833,

Atlanta, Ga. 30302 (404: 934-7400)

Pillsbury Company

C. E. Joyce, Manager, Customer and Product Protection, 608 Second Avenue, So.,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612: 330-4424)

Procter & Gamble Company

G. Hopper, Attorney, P. O. Box 599, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513: 562-3696)

A. H. Every, Associate Director, Product Development, Ivorydale Technical Center,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45217 (513: 562-6524)

R. E. Trunick, Associate Director, Paper Product Development Dept., Winton Hill

Technical Center, P1S14, 6100 Center Hill Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45224 (513: 562-

7696)

Purex Corporation, Ltd.

L. O. Leenerts, Manager, Technical Copy Control, 24600 S. Main Street,

Wilmington, California 90744 (213: 775-2111)

Quaker Oats Company

F. A. Dobbins, Director, Quality Assurance, 345 Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago,

Illinois 60654 (312: 222-6764)

Ramsey Engineering Company

W. Harris, Manager, Application Engineering, 1853 W. County Road "C", St. Paul,

Minnesota 55113 (612: 633-5150)

Reading Company

T. Picton, Scale Inspector, Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 (215: 376-9711)

Republic Steel Corporation

D. R. Smith, Corporation Weighing Supervisor, 410 Oberlin Road, S. W., Massillon,

Ohio 44646 (216: 493-5565)

Revere Corporation of America

C. W. SiivER, Vice President, Engineering, Wallingford, Connecticut 06492 (203: 269-

7701)

Rex Chainbelt, Inc. R. W. Strehlow, Manager, Concrete Plants, 4701 W. Greenfield Avenue, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin 53214 (414: 384-3000)

I^6X. Pl&stics Inc

G. W. Urwick, Director of Marketing, P. O. Box 948, Thomasville, N. C. 27360 (919:

475-2176)

Rockwell Manufacturing Company

D. H. Shoemaker, Sales Manager, LPG & Industrial Sales, 400 N. Lexington

. Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15208 (412: 241-8400)

Safeway Stores Inc. (Washington Division)

M. F. Pond, Meat Operations Manager, 6700 Columbia Park Rd., Landover,

Maryland 20785 (301: 772-6821)

203
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

W. H, Rankin, Senior Structural Engineer, Supervisor Scales, 3253 E. Trafficway,

Springfield, Missouri 65802 (417: 862-2722)

St. Regis Paper Company

D. G. WoRDEN, Manufacturing Engineering Technician, 100 CP Avenue, Lake Mills,

Wisconsin 53551 (414: 648-8311)

D. C. RoAHEN Director, Technical Services (414: 648-8316)

Sanitary Scale Company

E. C. Karp, Vice President, 910 E. Lmcoln Avenue, Belvidere, 111. 61008 (815: 544-

2181)

J. V. Farwell, Sales Manager

L. L Wood, Lawyer, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006

(202: 298-6445)

Santa Fe Railway

L M. Hawver, Superintendent of Scales, 1001 East Crane Street, Topeka, Kansas

66616 (913: 234-0481)

Scale Journal

M. J. DeBo, Publisher, 1327 7th Street, Rockford, Illinois 61108 (815: 965-0015)

Scale Manufacturers Association

A. Sanders, Executive Secretary, No. 1 Thomas Circle, Washington, D. C. 20005

(202: 628-4592)

Scott, O. M.

H. C. Doellinger, Director, Government & Industry Relations, Marysville, Ohio

43040 (513: 642-4015)

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

N. A. Wilson, Supervisor of Scales and Weighing, 500 Water Street, Jacksonville,

Florida 32202 (904: 353-2011, Ext. 368)

Sealright Company, Inc.

F. J. Smith, Quahty Control Manager, Fulton, New York 13060 (315: 593-5311)

Sears, Roebuck & Company

J. E. Lehrer, Attorney, 925 S. Roman Avenue, Chicago, 111. 60607 (312: 265-5354)

Seraphin Test Measure Company

L. C. Schloder, Manager, 1314 N. 7th Street, Philadelphia. Pa. 19122 (215: 765-7731)

R. R. Wells, Sales Manager, 30 Indel Avenue, Rancocas, N. J. 08073 (609: 267-0922)

Single Service Institute

L. J. MoREMEN, Manager, General Services, 250 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y.

10017 (212: 697-4545)

M. Weir, Attorney, 161 E. 42nd Street, New York, N. Y. 10017 (212: 682-8811)

R. W. Foster, Executive Vice President, 250 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10017

(212: 697-4545)

Smith, A. O., Inc.

P. E. Swanson, Engineering Supervisor, 1602 Wagner Avenue, Erie, Pennsylvania

16512 (814: 899-0661)

Soap & Detergent Association

M. C. Ansbro, Editor, Water in the News, 475 Park Avenue South, New York, N. Y.

10016 (212: 425-1262)

Southern Weighing and Inspection Bureau

C. E. Pike, Manager, 151 Ellis Street, N. E., Suite 306, Atlanta, Ga. 30303 (404: 659-

6266, Ext. 266)

M. R. Gruber, Jr., Supervisor of Weights

Streeter Amet (Division of Mangood Corporation)

R. T. Brumbaugh, President, Slusser and Wicks Streets, Grayslake, Illinois 60030

(312: 223-4801)

E. J. MicoNO, General Service Manager

Suburban Propane

W. S. Bigelow, Secretary, Whippany, N. J. 07981 (201: 887-5300)

Swift & Company

H. L. Hensel, Attorney, 115 W. Jackson, Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312: 431-2631)

Thread Institute

W. F. Operer, Executive Director Emeritus, 22 Cambridge Ct., Larchmont, New

York 10538 (914: 834-4679)

J. J. Leahy, Jr., Executive Director, 1457 Broadway, Suite 510, New York, N. Y.

10036 (212: 354-0366)

Thurman ScEile Company

J. R. Schaeffer, Vice President, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio 43216 (614:

443-9741)

Tokheim Corporation

W. F. Gerdom, Manager, Customer Service, 1602 Wabash Avenue, Fort Wayne,

Indiana 46801 (219: 423-2552)

204
Toledo Sc£ile Company

D. B. Kendall, Chief Scale Engineer, 5225 Telegraph Road, Toledo, Ohio 43612 (419:

478-5811)

R. O. Bradley, Project Manager, P. O. Box 6757, Toledo, Ohio 43612

W. C. Prettyman, General Sales Manager

C. W. Campbell, Manager, Weights and Measures

Troemner, Henry, Inc. W. D. Abele, Marketing Manager, 6825 Greenway Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 19142

(215: 594-0800)

Tropigas Inc. of Florida

W. E. Cornell, Operating Manager, 7570 N. W. 14th Street, Miami, Florida 33126

(305: 885-8271)

Union Carbide Corporation

R. M. Hayford, Engineer (Linde Division), P. O. Box 44, Tonawanda, N. Y. 14152

(716: 877-1600, Ext. 8177)

C. C. Cooper, Market Specialist, 6733 W. 65th Street, Chicago, 111. 60525 (312: 735-

1234)

F. W. Tauber, Assistant to Vice President, Marketing

United Fruit Company

H. L. Stier, Director, Development and Product Supporting Services, Prudential

Center, Boston, Mass. 02199

U. S. Oil Week

M. Ray, Editor, 2534 K Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20037 (202: 965-9614)

Veeder-Root Company

T. J. McLaughlin, Manager, OEM Sales, 70 Sargeant Street, Hartford, Conn. 06102

(203: 527-7201)

Voland Corporation

B. Wasko, Vice President, Engineering, 27 Centre Avenue, New Rochelle, N. Y.

10802 (914: 636-2014)

Washington Post

N. Ross, Business Office & News Department, 1515 L Street, N. W., Washington, D.

C. 20005

Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau

C. G. Johnson, Assistant Manager, 222 South Riverside Plaza, Room 1256, Chicago,

Illinois 60606 (312: 648-7840)

Williams Energy Company

R. C. Harris, Consultant, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Wilson, William M., & Sons, Inc. C. J. Denney, Manager, Customer & Technical Service, 8th Street & Valley Forge

Road, P. O. Box 309, Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446 (215: 855-4631)

Winslow Government Standard SceJe Works

C. E. EHRENHARDT,President, P. O. Box 1523, Terre Haute, Ind. 47808

U. S. Government

DepEutment of Commerce

Hon. Robert W. Cairns, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Dr. Lawrence M. Kushner, Acting Director

Institute for Applied Technology

Dr F. Karl Willenbrock, Director

Dr. Ian R. Bartky, Scientific Assistant to the Director

Robert N. Alvis, Executive Officer

Dr. Bernard M. Levin, Operations Research Analyst

William E. Andrus, Program Manager for Enginering and Information

Processing Standards

George S. Chaconas, Administrative Intern

Joan Schneider, Secretary

William H. Furcolow, Housing Review Specialist, National Conference

States on Building Codes and Standards

Jeffrey V. Odom, Office of Invention and Innovation

S. Wayne Stiefel, Operations Research Analyst, Technical Analysis Division

Walter D. Urban, Operations Research Analyst, Technical Analysis Division

John L. Donaldson, Technical Analysis Division

Office of Weights and Measures

Thomas M. Stabler, Chief

Harold F. Wollin, Assistant Chief, and Executive Secretary, National

Conference on Weights and Measures

205
Eric A. Vadelund, Program Manager, Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

Richard N. Smith, Program Manager, Railway Track Scale Unit

Otto K. Warnlof, Program Manager, Weights and Measures Education

David E. Edgerly, Weights and Measures Coordinator

Stephen Hasko, Engineer

Harry K. Johnson, Engineering Technician

Blayne C. Keysar, Engineering Technician

Allen E. Banks, Engineering Technician

Benjamin F. Banks, Engineering Technician

Mrs. Frances C. Bell, Administrative Assistant

Mrs. Evelyn M. Burnette, Administrative Assistant

Mrs. Sandra J. Wilson, Secretary

Institute for Basic Standards

Dr. Robert J. Corruccini, Deputy Director

James F. Reilly, Technical Information

Germain J. Sonnichsen, Photographer

Brenda Umberger, Administrative Services, Secretary

Mrs. Betty Bay, Director for Federal-State Relations, Office of Consumer Affairs,

New Executive Office Bldg., Washington, D. C. 20506 (202: 395-3455)

Department of Agriculture, 14th & Independence, S. W., Washington, D. C.

Packers and Stockyards Administration

Scales and Weighing Branch

Robert D. Thompson, Chief, 14th & Independence, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20250 (202: 447-3140)

Charles H. Oakley,Assistant Chief

Morgan W. Stephens, Scales and Weighing Specialist

Durwood E. Helms, Scales and Weighing Specialist, 970 Broad St., Rm. 335,

Newark, N. J. (201: 645-3440)

Thomas C. Harris, Jr Scales and Weighing Specialist, Rm.601, B-RP-E, 1621

N. Kent St., Arlington, Va. 22209 (703: 557-0554)

Agricultural Marketing Service

Richard P. Bartlett, Jr., Director, Statistical Staff, Washington, D. C. (202:

447-7081)

Robert S. Elder, Mathematical Statistician, Statistical Staff (202: 447-7365)

Randall C Semper, Mathematical Statistician, Statistical Staff (202: 447-7318)

Walter Thompson, Chemist, Market Administrator, 2939 Overland Park, Kansas

66204 (913: 648-1050)

John C. DeHoll, Chief, Labels and Packaging Staff, Technical Services, APHIS,

Washington, D. C. 20250 (202: 447-4293)

K. E. Peterson, Head, Fresh Products Group, Labels and Packaging Staff

Federal Trade Commission

Robert R. Hannum, Attorney, 6th & Pennsylvania Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C.

20580 (202: 962-7733)

Earl W. Johnson, Attorney (202: 963-7677)

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

Food and Drug Administration

Robert E. Dickinson, Assistant to Director, Division of Federal-State Relations,

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852 (301: 443-3360)

Oliver H. McKagen, Food and Drug Officer

John Gomilla, Chief, Fair Packaging and Labeling Branch, Division of Regulatory

Guidance, Bureau of Foods, Washington, D. C. 20201 (202: 962-3211)

Bureau of Product Safety

Malcolm W. Jensen, Director, Westwood Towers Bldg., 5401 Westbard Ave.,

Bethesda, Md. 20016 (301: 496-7601)

Donald R. Mackay, Director for Engineering Standards

Rudolph A. Vignone, Counsel

Interstate Commerce Commission

Rupert L. Murphy, Commissioner, 12th & Constitution, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20432 (202: 343-6494)

Thomas J. Byrne, Chief, Section of Raib-oads, Bureau of Operations (202: 343-7288)

General Services Administration

Reuben T. Morgan, Director, Standardization Division, Federal Supply Service,

Washington, D.C. 20406 (202: 557-7876)

206
Other Guests

Irene I. Boone, Old York Road, Abington, Pa. 19001 (215: 887-0700)

William S. Bussey, Advisory Member, National Conference on Weights and Measures,

1511 W. 29th St., Austin, Tex. 78703 (512: 476-1740)

Evelyn Czaia, Community Liaison, Southeast Alternatives, Experimental Schools

Program, 3036 University Ave., S.E., Minneapolis, Minn. 55414 (612: 331-6252 or 612: 331-4132)

Patrick R. Folkes, Senior Standards Scientific Officer, Jamaican Bureau of Standards, 6 Winchester Road, Kingston 10, Jamaica, West Indies.

Edward D. Glass, Jr., Associate Professor of Food Science and Industry, Pennsylvania State University, 103 Borland Laboratory, University Park, Pa. 16802

(814: 865-5444)

William K. Jordan, Professor, Food Science, Cornell University, Stocking Hall,

Ithica, N.Y. 14850 (607: 256-3168)

William A. Keindel, Systems Analyst, Dept. of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,

Room 940, 219 Laurier St., Ottawa, Canada

Jim King, 205 Kemp Road East, Greensboro, N. C. 27410 (919: 299-7480)

Theodore W. Leed, Professor of Food Marketing, University of Massachusetts, Dept.

of Agricultural and Food Economics, Draper Hall, Amherst, Mass. 01002 (413:

545-2494)

Richard P. March, Professor, Cornell University Extension Service, 118 Stocking

Hall, Ithaca, N. Y. 14850 (607: 256-3262)

207
FORM NBS-114A (l-7t) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA NBS-SP-379

2. Gov't Accession

No.

3, Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Report of the 57th National Conference on Weights and

Measures

5. Publication Date May 1973

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHORCS)

Editors - H. F. Wollin; F. C. Bell

8. Performing Organization

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Proiect/Taslo'Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address

Same as 9.

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

This is a report of the proceedings (edited) of the 57th National Conference

on Weights and Measures, held July 10-14, 1972, at the Shoreham Hotel,

Washington, D. C. , and attended by state, county, and city weights and

measures officials, the Federal Government, business, industry, and

consumer organizations.

17. KEY WORDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons) Administration; Conference; laws; procedures; regulations; requirements;

technology; weights and measures.

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

rX| UNLIMITED.

1 1 FOR OFFIQAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NTIS.

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

216

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

$1.85 Domestic postpaid S1.50 G.P.O. Bookstore

USCOMM-OC 6S244.P71
SELECTED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PUBLICATIONS OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBS Handbook 44 Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical

1971 (Replacement Requirements for Commercial Weighing and

Sheets issued Measuring Devices. Looseleaf (binder not

annually) included

2.00

NBS Handbook 98 Examination of Farm Milk Tanks .35

NBS Handbook 99 Examination of Liquefied Petroleum Gas LiquidMeasuring Devices .35

NBS Handbook Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard

105-1 Weights .25

NBS Handbook Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard

105-2 Measuring Flasks .25

NBS Handbook Specifications and Tolerances for Metal Volu105-3 metric Field Standards .25

NBS Handbook 108 Weights and Measures Labeling Handbook 3.25

NBS CiRCULAE 593 Federal Basis for Weights and Measures .45

NBS Miscellaneous Units of Weight and Measure—Definitions and

Publication 286 Tables of Equivalents 2 25

REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1967 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 297 1.25

1968 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 311 1.25

1969 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 318 1.50

1970 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 342 1.75

1971 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 358 L50

Order above publications, with remittance, from the Superintendent

of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

20402.

Other publications available, at no charge, from the Office of Weights

and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C.

20234.

Organization and Procedure of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures

Mission of the Office of Weights and IMeasures

Model State AVeights and Pleasures Law

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation

Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation

Model State Unit Pricing Regulation

Model State Weighmaster Law

Model State Registration of Servicemen and Service Agencies

Regulation

Model City Ordinance
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington,D C. 20334

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

POSTAGE ANO FEES PAID

U.S. OEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-21S

Penalty for Private Use. $300
1I

i

I