NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 566

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

Report of the

64th National Conference

on

Weights and Measures

1979
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities2 — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology 2 — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods. THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234. 'Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
NATIONAL BUREAU

OF STANDARDS

LIBKAEY

Report of the APR 1 7 1980

Hot a-CC.-Kef,

64th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1979 'm^^

/wo

I

I

j Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials from the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S. Government,

j Industry, and Consumer Organizations

\Portland, Oregon, July 23-27, 1979

Report Editors: Harold F. Wollin

Louis E. Barbrow

Ann P. Heffernan

United States Department of Commerce

Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

»p) ^1 € National Bureau of Standards

**»"" 05 * ** ° Ernest Ambler, Director

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 566, 313 pages (Mar. 1980) Issued (March 1980)

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

Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $7.00

Stock No. 003-003-02147-4
Abstract

This is a report of the proceedings (edited) of the Sixty-fourth National Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, held in Portland, Oregon, July 23-27, 1979, and attended by State, county, and city weights

and measures officials, and representatives of the Federal Government, business, in- dustry, and consumer organizations.

Major issues discussed at this conference included metric conversion in the United

States, particularly the conversion of gasoline dispensers, problems relating to the quantity fill of packaged commodities, especially as affected by moisture loss, statistical approach to package checking, Federal grain inspection, and a legal metrology control system.

Key words: Consumer affairs; education; electronic devices; International Organization

of Legal Metrology; legal metrology; measurement assurance; metrication; model laws and regulations; moisture loss; packaging and labeling; specifications and tolerances; weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 26-27766

ii
CONTENTS

(Note: The reports of the standing and annual committees and the treasurer's

report, which were presented on Thursday, have been arranged together be- ginning on page 156 for easier reference.)

Officers of the Conference iv Standing Committees - v Annual Committees -- vii Open Committee Hearings, Monday and Tuesday, July 23-24, 1979 viii MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, July 24, 1979

Planning for the 1980 International Conference on Legal Metrology, by

David E. Edgerly, National Bureau of Standards 1 Statistics Made Uncomplicated, by Edward E. Wolski, Colgate-Palmolive

Company 3 Confidence in Package Checking Results, by Stephen Hasko, National Bureau of Standards 20 AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, July 24, 1979

Equity on the Move, by Kendrick J. Simila, Department of Agriculture, State

of Oregon 26 Equity Beyond the Marketplace, by Donald R. Johnson, National Bureau of Standards - 32 Committee Appointments 37

Assisting the Conference in Meeting New Challenges in Measurement, by

William T. Cavanaugh, American Society for Testing and Materials 39 National Conference of Standards Laboratories, Its Roles and Mission,

by Ronald E. Kidd, Microwave Associates 45

Tradition in Transition, by Albert D. Tholen, National Bureau of Standards 49 MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, July 25, 1979 A Legal Metrology Control System Applicable to the United States, by

Kenneth F. Hammer, Fairbanks Weighing Division, Colt Industries 58 Metric Update—USA, by Sydney D. Andrews, Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, State of Florida 89 Metric Update—Canada, by John D. Buchanan, Department of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, Ottawa, Canada 99 Standards—Love Them or Leave Them, by Rodney E. Leonard, U.S Office

of Consumer Affairs 102

Metric: Now or Later, by John A. Stitzell, Amoco Oil Company 106

Association's Spot Reports: American Petroleum Institute, by Richard Southers 111 Northeastern Weights and Measures Association, by Sidney A. Colbrook 113 Northwest Weights and Measures Association, by Alden M. Lemke 114 National Scale Men's Association, by William V. Goodpaster 116 Scale Manufacturers Association, by Raymond J. Lloyd 119 Southern Weights and Measures Association, by John L. O'Neill 122 Western Weights and Measures Association, by Joseph W. Jones 123
AFTERNOON SESSION—WEDNESDAY, July 25, 1979

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, by James A. Graham, North Carolina Department of Agriculture 124 Weighing Programs of the Federal Grain Inspection Service, by Richard

R. Pforr, Federal Grain Inspection Service 126 Net Weights, Part II, by Sydney J. Butler, U.S. Department of Agriculture . 131 Net Weight Labeling Regulations, by Taylor M. Quinn, Food and Drug

Administration 138 National Net Weight or Federal "Rule of Thumb?", by Jerry Scribner, California Department of Food and Agriculture 142 The Need for an Equitable and Practiced Net Weight System, Dr. Mahlon

A. Burnette, Grocery Manufacturers of America 147 Working of the Intergovernmental Affairs Office of U.S. Department of

Agriculture, by Roger Sandman, U.S. Department of Agriculture 154 REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

List of State Voting Representatives 156 Report of the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination, Presented by Kendrick J. Simila, Committee Chairman 158 Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations, Presented by Robert W. Probst, Committee Chairman 173 Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, Presented by

James R. Bird, Committee Chairman , 192 Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs, Presented by Stephen A. Malone, Committee Chairman 223 Report of the Committee on Liaison, Presented by Charles H. Greene, Committee Chairman 238 REPORTS OF THE ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Report f the Executive Committee, presented by Kendrick J. Simila, Conference Chairman 254 Report of the Resolutions Committee, presented by Edward C. Heffron, Commi ^ee Chairman 261 Report of the Nominations Committee, presented by James F. Lyles, Committee Chairman 265

List of Former NCWM Chairmen 267 Report of the Auditing Committee, presented by George S. Franks, Committee Chairman 269 Report of the Treasurer, presented by James H. Akey, Treasurer 270

Conference Registration List 274 Weights and Measures Publications 303

OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

President: Ernest Ambler, Director, National Bureau of Standards Executive Secretary: Harold F. Wollin, Assistant Chief, Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards Chairman: Kendrick J. Simila, Administrator, Weights and Measures, Oregon De- partment of Agriculture

Vice Chairmen:

Elvin R. Leeman, Standards/Measures Officer, State of Wyoming Department of Agriculture

iv
Norman M. Ross, Chief, Weights and Measures Division, Nebraska Public Safety

Department

John V. Pugh, Director, Metrology Division, South Carolina Department of Agriculture Edward H. Stadolnik, Assistant Director of Standards, Massachusetts Division of Standards Treasurer: James H. Akey, Inspector, Weights and Measures, State of Wisconsin

Chaplain: John H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture, State of Washington

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

John T. Bennett, Connecticut Adin Helgeson, North Dakota

Francis W. Daniels, Wayne County, Indiana

Gaylon M. Kennedy, Maine

John C. Mays, Dade County, Florida W. R. Mossberg, Los Angeles County, California Billy W. Sullivant, Arkansas

A. B. Moody, Richmond, Virginia

John O'Neill, Kansas Sam F. Valtri, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

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

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Sergeant at Arms:

Max L. Clark, Supervisor, Packaged Products Programs, Oregon Weights and Measures William C. Sullivan, Supervisor, City of Seattle Weights and Measurts

Parliamentarian:

David L. Griffith, Director, Consumer Protection Division, West Virginia Depart- ment of Labor

STANDING COMMITTEES

The number of years each committee member has remaining to serve on the committee as of the 64th Conference is shown in parentheses. Also noted are the new

appointees and newly designated committee chairmen.

NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND COORDINATION

Kendrick J. Simila, Chairman

James R. Bird, Chairman, S & T Committee

Robert W. Probst, Chairman, L & R Committee

Steven A. Malone, Chairman, Education Committee

Charles H. Greene, Chairman, Liaison Committee

Harold F. Wollin, Executive Secretary, NCWM

James F. Lyles, Representative, OIML—Virginia

Sydney D. Andrews, Representative, U.S. Metric Board—Florida Ezio F. Delfino, Chairman, Task Force—California (The members of this committee include the presiding chairmen of the other four standing committees and the Conference chairman who serves as the chairman of this committee. Mr. Vincent will serve as chairman next year.)

V
SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

James R. Bird, Chairman, New Jersey

Lacy H. DeGrange, Maryland (4) Gary L. Delano, Montana (2) Darrell A. Guensler, California (1) Frank C. Nagele, Michigan (3) Otto K. Warnlof, Staff Assistant, NBS

(Sidney A. Colbrook, State of Illinois, was appointed for a 5-year term to replace James R. Bird whose term expired. Mr. Guensler replaced Mr. Bird as chairman.)

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Robert W. Probst, Chairman, Wisconsin (1) John T. Bennett, Connecticut Sam F. Hindsman, Arkansas (3) Daniel I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri (2) John J. Bartfai, New York (4) Jeffrey V. Odom, Staff Assistant, NBS

Eric A. Vadelund, Staff Assistant, NBS

(W. R. Mossberg, City of Los Angeles, was appointed for a 5-year term to replace Mr. Bennett whose term expired. Mr. Offner replaced Mr. Probst as chairman.)

EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Steven A. Malone, Chairman, Nebraska (2) Anthony J. Ladd, Akron, Ohio (1) Robert W. Walker, Indiana (3) Joseph L. Swanson, Alaska (5) Stan J. Darsey, Florida (4) Richard N. Smith, Staff Assistant, NBS

(J. Swanson, State of Alaska, was appinted for a 5-year term to replace Mr. Helmick,

whose term expired. Mr. Darsey, State of Florida, was appinted for a 4-year term to replace Mr. Junkins who has found it necessary to resign from the committee. Mr. Ladd replaced Mr. Malone as chairman.)

LIAISON

Charles H. Greene, Chairman, New Mexico (1) Jane S.Wilson, Federal-State Reports, Inc. MerrillS. THOMPSON.Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings, Ltd. (3) Terry A. Hocin, Chicago, Illinois (4) Charles E. Forester, Texas (2) Sam F. Hindsman, National Task Force Coordinator—Arkansas

Stephen Hasko, Staff Assistant, NBS

(Charles R. Cavagnaro, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, was appointed for a 5-year term to replace Ms. Wilson, whose term expired.)

vi
ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Nominations

James F. Lyles, Chairman, Virginia

Richard L. Thompson, Maryland

Sydney D. Andrews, Florida John H. Lewis, Washington

George L. Johnson, Kentucky

Kenneth R. Adcock, Ohio

Elvin R. Leeman, Wyoming

Resolutions

Edward C. Heffron, Chairman, Michigan

Patricia M. Fullinwider, Arizona

Sidney A. Colbrook, Illinois Maria A. Maldonado Garcia, Puerto Rico Joseph L. Swanson, Alaska

Robert M. Reeves, Tennessee Tom W. Scott, North Carolina

Auditing

George S. Franks, Chairman, Cumberland Co., New Jersey

Eugene Keeley, Delaware

Fred A. Gerk, New Mexico

Credentials

John M. Chohamin, Chairman, Middlesex County, New Jersey James C. Blackwood, Dallas, Texas Lyman D. Holloway, Idaho

Associate Membership

Eric Allen, Chairman, The Measuregraph Company

Walter F. Gerdom, Tokheim Corporation

Ralph W. Miller, Jr., Jewel Companies, Inc. William N. Shannon, III, Berkel Incorporated

Richard Southers, American Petroleum Institute Raymond R. Wells, Seraphin Test Measure Company

Edward E. Wolski, Colgate-Palmolive Company

Thomas M. Stabler, Toledo Scale Company

Alfred E. Johanson, CPC North America

Austin Rhoads, Milk Industry Foundation/International

Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers

vii
REGISTRATIONS

Ann Heffernan Evelyn Tallerico

LADIES' ARRANGEMENTS

Virginia Wollin

Margaret Tholen

Irene Warnlof

METROLOGY WORKSHOPS

There were three metrologist's workshops scheduled during Conference week. The

purpose of these workshops was primarily to train State and local metrologists in laboratory calibration procedures and techniques.

MANUFACTURERS' EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCT DISPLAY

An informal display of new equipment and products by manufacturers and suppliers was held on Monday evening from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. for the education of the conference

delegates.

A film, Electronic Weighing Comes of Age, was shown at 8:00 p.m. on Monday by

Transducers, Inc.

MONDAY, JULY 23, 1979 and

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1979 OPEN COMMITTEE HEARINGS

Monday and Tuesday were set aside for hearings of the five Conference standing committees. Notices of these hearings were carried in the Conference Announcement

booklet, in all pre-Conference publicity, and in the printed Conference program. Many

delegates participated in the committee hearings and presentations were given by

representatives of weights and measures, industry, government, and consumer groups. The discussions which took place played an important role in guiding the committees

in their deliberations and preparations of their final reports. The final reports of the committees will follow later in this publication and will reflect the discussions that took place and the actions taken by the Conference at the time the final reports were

presented to the delegates.

viii
PLANNING FOR THE 1980 INTERNATIONAL

CONFERENCE OF LEGAL METROLOGY

Presented by David E. Edgerly, Chief, Office of Domestic and

International Standards, National Bureau of Standards

The United States will host the Sixth In- ternational Conference of Legal Metrology in

Washington, D.C. on June 14-20, 1980. On

behalf of Mr. Bernard Athane, the Director of

the International Bureau of Legal Metrology,

and Dr. Arthur McCoubrey, the U.S. Representative to the International Committee of

Legal Metrology, I am pleased to invite each

of you to participate as observers in the plenary sessions of this Conference. Generally

speaking, the International Conference is the

policy-making body of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). Its purpose is to sanction In- ternational Recommendations after they have been approved by the

OIML technical network, which is directed by the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) and which consists of some 200

technical committees called Pilot and Reporting Secretariats.

Presently, OIML consists of 44 member Nations, which include

virtually all of the U.S.'s major trading partners. These nations rep- resent almost all of the geographical regions in the world, with the

exception of South America, whose only member is Venezuela. However, it is hoped that Brazil and Peru eventually will join the list of

OIML members. By 1980, OIML expects its membership to increase

to 47 nations.

It is anticipated that some 150 delegates will assemble for the

Conference in Washington, D.C. Although most will be official rep- resentatives of the OIML Member Nations, others will be representing OIML Corresponding Member Nations, of which there are 17. A

typical delegation consists of from two to five government officials,

and the leader of each is usually the Director or Deputy Director of

each national metrology laboratory. The U.S. delegation will be composed of representatives from NBS, NCWM and private industry.

Other participants will include representatives of the 15 international institutions in liaison with OIML, such as the International

Organization for Standardization, the International Electrotechnical

Commission, IMEKO, BIPM, UNESCO, and UNIDO. The representatives of these organizations will be invited to participate in the

Conference as observers.

The Conference meetings will take place in downtown Washington

at the Department of State which has excellent facilities in terms of

meeting rooms, documentation capabilities, and translation services.

1
The official language of OIML is French and therefore much of the

Conference will be conducted in that language. However, the State

Department will provide interpreters for simultaneous translation

into English, Russian and French throughout the Conference.

The International Conference and the NCWM were planned in se- quence to encourage interaction between U.S. weights and measures

officials and those of other countries. Accordingly, Bud Wollin and

I are discussing the possibility of joint social functions as well as

several OIML guest speakers during the NCWM. These addresses

would be given by selected foreign delegates and would deal with

specific technical issues or informative subjects such as the differences

between U.S. and foreign weights and measures enforcement and the

question of training of officials. Furthermore, the Shoreham Hotel

will serve as the headquarters hotel for both Conferences. It is hoped

that you will plan to arrive early and participate in the OIML plenary

sessions and by the same token that the OIML delegates will remain

in Washington the following week to participate in the NCWM.

The two conferences differ in several respects. First, the International Conference devotes considerable time to the approval of the

OIML four-year budget, in this case 1980-1984. Second, one of the

major functions of the International Conference is to sanction Inter- national Recommendations which have been developed during the

previous four years by the various OIML Pilot and Reporting Secretariats. Approximately 15-20 of these technical documents will be

voted upon at the upcoming International Conference. Third, the In- ternational Conference adopts overall OIML policy. For instance, some of the policy issues under consideration will be an OIML Inter- national Certification Program, a change in the OIML Convention

to resolve problems associated with voting procedures, and assistance

to developing countries. Finally, whereas the National Conference

deliberates on specific technical issues during its annual Conference, no technical discussions are permitted during the International Conference. Basically, there are two reasons for this. Technical issues

upon which a vote will be taken have undergone approval at several

levels within the OIML working structure. By the time these documents reach the International Conference level, the technical experts

from the various Nations have agreed on their content and the only

remaining step is to attain the final approval of the official national

delegations to the Conference. Moreover, the technical experts are

rarely members of the Conference delegations. For these reasons, this

Conference in general is more formal than the National Conference

and proceeds at a slower pace. In any case, I hope that all of you will take advantage of this timely

opportunity to participate in this Conference and to meet the legal

metrologists of other nations. There is a lot to be gained from this

experience such as increased communication and cooperation and I assure you that you will find it quite interesting.

2
STATISTICS MADE UNCOMPLICATED

Presented by Edward E. Wolski, Manager, Quality Control,

Colgate-Palmolive Company

Statistics is a field of mathematics which

deals with probabilities. It is concerned with

methods of collecting, organizing, and analyzing data, and with drawing valid conclusions and arriving at sound decisions on the

basis of the facts. There are applications all around us. The gambling casinos are operated on the "odds". Our insurance premiums are determined on the probability of a loss. Sure,

it's a broad field, and some aspects are complicated, but its application to Weights and

Measures is anything but complicated.

Let's look at what it's all about. In order to evaluate the performance

of a packager, or to determine if a meat case is in compliance, for example, we need more than a small sampling and its average. We

would know whether the average of that sample is over or short, but

we haven't learned anything about the seller's intent, his performance, or how reliable his control system is. Let me tell you a little story. Once upon a time, a shipwrecked

sailor was washed ashore on a desert island. There was no vegetation, no water, and no animal life there. There was a supply of water in

the lifeboat, a shotgun with two shells, and enough food to keep him

alive for 28 days. But he knew he would surely starve because the

next ship scheduled to pass was not due for 29 days, too late to save him. But miraculously, with his time running out, on the afternoon

of the 28th day, a duck flew over his island. In his excitement, the

starving man fired both barrels of the shotgun. One charge passed

two feet in front of the duck, while the other passed two feet behind

the duck. He was overjoyed because he was surely saved; on the

average he had brought the duck down twice. But the duck didn't

know how much faith people have in averages, and it flew away.

That's what Statistics is about. It is a tool which permits us to evaluate the dispersion, or "scatter", of the sample values about their

average and to reach valid conclusions about the larger quantity from

which the sample was drawn. We can do this with comparatively

small samplings and can know how reliable our conclusions and as- sumptions are likely to be. This is because Statistics is based upon

the Mathematical Theory of Probability. But, as it is applied to Weights and Measures evaluations it is not at all complicated. Ordinary arithmetic will do the job for everything we study.

3
Now, let's look at some basics. Two fundamental facts must be

recognized and accepted, and they must be clearly understood. The

first of these is that no two things are exactly alike. If we look closely

enough, the differences are always there. For example, two auto- mobiles of the same make and model will differ in their performance.

Measure and inspect two peas from the same pod closely enough and

you'll find they aren't alike at all! The second of these facts is that this variation takes a predictable

pattern. The scatter may be great or it may be small, but the pattern

is predictable from previous data. In fact, if the pattern differs significantly from the predictable pattern, you can be certain that outside

factors are involved.

Let's look now at how this tool of Statistics is used. First, there are some terms which need to be understood. Like every other system,

Statistics has its language, but the vocabulary isn't extensive.

Population: The "Population" is the entire group, and it may be

large or small. It can be all of a given size and brand of a product in a retail store, or all of that size and brand in a warehouse. It can be

all of the random weight packages in a retail meatcase.

Sample: The "Sample" is that part of the Population which is col- lected and examined to obtain the statistical facts such as length,

weight, or volume. It is obvious that it is not usually practical to examine every individual unit. It is of utmost importance that sampling be done randomly. "Random" means that each individual sample is drawn without any set pattern, and in such a way that any unit

has the same chance as any other of being drawn. If the samples are not random, the conclusions reached from the data may not be valid.

Subgroup: A "Subgroup" is a small group of a sample. The total sample would be made up of a number of such subgroups. For example,

if our sampling plan called for 100 random packages to be drawn from

a large warehouse lot, the first five would be a subgroup of five; the

second five would comprise another subgroup of five, and so on. The

total sampling of 100 would consist of 20 such subgroups of five units

each. You will see later how this subgroup technique can be very

useful to you.

X: The letter "X" is used to designate the value measured for each

item examined. For example, if the first sample checked was found

to weigh I6V2 oz, then X1 is I6V2 oz. If the second package weighs

I6V4 oz, then X2 is I6V4 oz. The letter "X" simply denotes an individual

item fact. Numbering them Xl5 X2 , X3 , X4, X5 simply identifies which

item in the subgroup provided that fact.

4
n: The letter "n" is used to designate the number of items or subgroups

in a sample. If you have ten items, then "n" is ten; if you have 30,

then "n" is 30,and so on. We use "n" as convenient shorthand for "how

many".

X: The average of the items in the subgroup is called X (X-Bar). This

is just the average as we have always known it. You add the values

and divide by how many. Let's look at that in the Statistics shorthand

we've learned so far:

£ _ Xx + X2 + X3 + . . . Xn n

X: The overage of all the items which were measured is called "X

Double Bar", and written as: X. It can be determined by taking the

average of the X values for the subgroups, or by taking the average

of all the individual items. Either method gives the same result.

Range: The difference between the largest and smallest value in a subgroup is the "Range". Our shorthand designation for Range is the

letter "R". If, in a subgroup of five packages, the lightest weighed

15V2 oz and the heaviest weighed 16 oz, the range for that subgroup

would be V2 oz. If another subgroup had I6V4 oz as the lightest weight

and I6V2 oz as the heaviest weight, the range for that subgroup would

be V* oz. The Range is just the spread between the largest and the

smallest value in the subgroup. Later you will see how valuable this

Range information is in determining if a seller has control and is giving fair measure.

Average Range: The "Average Range" is just the average of all the

subgroup Ranges. If, for example, our sampling plan called for 30

units to be drawn and measured, we would have six subgroups of five,

and six Range values. We simply average these six Range values. We

use the term "R—Bar" to denote the Average Range, and write it as

R.

Frequency: The letter "f' is our shorthand for Frequency. The number of times any one value is observed out of all the observations

made is the "Frequency". For example, if we make 100 weighings

and find fifteen at 16 oz and twenty at 16V* oz, their Frequencies are 15/100 (or 15%) for 16 oz and 20/100 (or 20%) for 16V4 oz.

Frequency Distribution: A "Frequency Distribution" is simply a

tally of the number of times each value occurs, and illustrates the

5
pattern of variation. If we make 100 weighings and record them, the I tabulation really doesn't tell us very much. All we have is a mass of

numbers.

For standard pack items, Weights and Measures inspections usu- j ally consist of ten packages drawn from the lot at random, and the

item weights are usually recorded as plus or minus, to the nearest

Vie oz. If we took the values from ten inspections of a manufacturer's

product and tabulated them, they would look like this:

ABC COMPANY - PRODUCT "XYZ"

+9 +8 -6 0 +4 +8 -2 -6 -4 0 +6 +3 +4 +1 -2 +3 -2 +3 +2 -3

-2 +1 -1 +5 -5 +1 -4 +3 -3 -6 +7 0 0 -2 +5 0 -1 -1 -2 +4

-3 -1 +1 -7 -4 -1 +6 +2 -1 0

+1 -2 -1 -7 -2 -2 0 +2 +1 +3

-1 -3 +5 0 +1 -2 -2 -4 +1 +4

0 -1 -2 0 -3 -3 +5 0 +5 -2 -3 -1 -3 +3 +6 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

-1 -2 +3 +2 +4 -1 +2 +2 +1 +5

NET: +13 +2 0 -5 +4 +4 +3 +2 +1 +6

A tabulation of this sort lists all the facts, but not in a very useful

form. If we make a tally of these same facts, we can see a picture of

the pattern that looks like this:

X X X

X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X xxxxxxxxxxx

XX XXXXXXXXXXX X

XX xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -7 -6 ^5 ^4 ^3 ^2 Ti 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9

ABC COMPANY - PRODUCT "XYZ": FREQUENCY

DISTRIBUTION FROM TEN RETAIL STORE SAMPLINGS

This is easy enough. We've all made a tally at one time or another.

This lets us quickly see if the packages center at or above the stated

6
quantity, and whether the variation tends to be biased either toward

the heavy side or the light side.

Frequency Curve: If the Frequency Distribution included enough

items, it would show in a smooth pattern just what the packager is doing. If we were to connect the tops of the tallies with a smooth line,

we would have a "Frequency Curve". The Frequency Curve is a pic- ture of the packager's pattern of variation. The spread reflects the

overall result of variation in his product, machine variation, whatever

effect operators might introduce, and all other variables which are

part of his operation and can affect the uniformity of his measure.

For example in the case of bottle filling, the variation in size of the

bottles themselves will be one of the variables influencing the overall

spread.

FREQUENCY CURVE

To reduce this spread the packager must change either his equipment, his product, or his process to reduce the causes of variation.

Unless he makes a significant change, the amount of scatter and the

pattern it takes will remain the same. For example, raising the target

fill by one unit will only shift the whole population up one unit, with

the same pattern and scatter. The frequency curve is the fingerprint

of the packager's overall performance.

MOVING THE TARGET WILL NOT CHANGE THE SCATTER!

7
Normal Curve: The frequency curve which most often occurs in na- ture is symmetrical and bell-shaped. For example, the frequency curve for the heights of several hundred random U. S. men would

take the symmetrical, bell-shape shown below, and would be centered

at about five feet, ten inches. This would be true unless your sample

included midgets from a visiting circus or the players from the basketball tournament.

J I i I i i i_

58" 62" 66" 70" 74" 78" 82" DISTRIBUTION OF HEIGHTS OF U.S. MALES

There are some relationships about the spread and the pattern

which are very useful, since most processes approximate the normal

distribution closely enough for us to be able to make that assumption

without too much risk of major error. The better controlled the op- eration, the more closely the frequency distribution approaches the

normal distribution of values. We will discuss the normal curve in more detail later on. Standard Deviation: The "Standard Deviation" is designated by the

Greek letter "sigma", in our shorthand, written like this: a. The

Standard Deviation is just a relationship between the overall average

of all the values in the sampling (which we called "X—Double Bar"),

and how the individual values vary, or scatter, from that average. It

is a sort of average difference among the items, or put another way,

a measure of the scatter. It is one of the most useful of all statistical facts obtained by sampling. It permits us to measure a packager's

capability, and to determine his intent.

There are mathematical formulas for calculating the Standard Deviation which look complicated, but aren't. But it is made even easier

because the Statisticians have developed shortcuts which give very

nearly the same answer, and adequate for most evaluations. One of

these shortcuts takes advantage of the relationship between the Average Range R for subgroups, and the Standard Deviation. All you

8
have to do is determine the Average Range for the subgroups in your

sample, apply a factor the Statisticians have developed for subgroup

sizes, and you have a good value for Sigma. There is one factor for subgroups of four, another for subgroups of five, and so on. Most

weights and measures store inspections are of ten packages, so each

store inspection of a product could be considered to be two subgroups

of five. Ten such store inspections could be combined into one large

sampling of twenty subgroups. The factor for calculating Sigma from

subgroups of five is 0.43. You just multiply the Average Range by

0.43. Now, what will all this do? You will recall that the Frequency

Distribution is the fingerprint of a packager's performance, that most

distributions approximate the "normal" distribution, and that the

better a packager's control is, the more nearly normal the distribution

will be. Now, the "normal" distribution curve has some properties which

are very valuable in projecting the findings from sampling and in

making valid assumptions about the overall population, based on the

sampling. These properties are the same whether the production

yields product which tends to be quite variable, or whether it is quite

uniform. If the production is relatively uniform, the curve will be

narrower, and quite high, because the sample values are tightly

grouped, like this:

NORMAL CURVE-NARROW SCATTER

If the production is more variable, the curve will be flatter and wide

because of the scatter, but bell-shaped, like this:

NORMAL CURVE-WIDE SCATTER

9
Both of these examples are what you would expect, when you think

it out. If the product is more variable, the curve will spread out more

because of the scatter. If it is more uniform, it will have a narrower

pattern, and will group more toward the center. Now, let's talk about the normal curve and its properties. The first of its characteristic properties is that the individual values will most

frequently be near the average. Another characteristic is that there

will be approximately the same number of results above the average

as there are below the average, and they will be over and under by

about the same amount. Another important property is how they tend

to scatter and that is where the standard deviation comes in. If we calculate the standard deviation, and step off the scatter in

terms of the standard deviation, practically all of the normal curve

falls within plus or minus three sigma. About 95% will be between

plus or minus two sigma, and about two-thirds will be between plus

and minus one sigma. This is illustrated below:

s

95%

*-

2/3

V1 -3a -2a -1a *f +1a +2a +3a

HOW "NORMAL" POPULATIONS SCATTER Now, let's see what we do with this. First, we'll look at standard

pack goods, then later at random pack.

Weights and Measures Officials are concerned by two questions:

1) Which are the packagers who give fair measure, and who reli- ably control their operations?

2) Which packagers require enforcement action?

With the Statistical "Tool Kit", it is easy to determine which packagers have consistent, reliable control and which do not. If your in10
spection findings give you reason to suspect that enforcement action

is indicated, plot the sample data as a Frequency Distribution. If your

suspicions are based on fewer than ten store samplings, additional

store inspections should be made to obtain sufficient data. The data

can then be readily evaluated as follows:

1) Consider each store sampling often packages as two subgroups

of five. Determine the two range values for each, using the first five packages as one subgroup, and the second five as the second

subgroup.

2) Determine the overall average of all ten packages. 1 his is X

Double Bar.

3) Determine the average of the 20 range values. This is the av- erage range, or "R—Bar".

4) Calculate sigma: This is R—Bar multiplied by the factor of 0.43

for subgroups of five:

sigma = R x 0.43

(Remember! All ranges must be from subgroups of five. You cannot mix subgroups of different sizes.)

5) Step off plus and minus 1-sigma, 2-sigma, and 3-sigma on the

Frequency Distribution.

6) Evaluate:

A Is the overall average at or above the marked quantity? If

so, the packager gives fair measure.

B) Are about two-thirds of the values between plus and minus

two-sigma? If the answer is yes, he has control.

C) Are only a few outside plus or minus 3-sigma? If more than

a scattered few are outside the 3-sigma limits, his operation

goes out of control, or his reject system is not effective.

7) What is his intent?

A) If he averages the marked quantity or more, he obviously

has the intention of giving fair measure. If this is so, and

he has control as shown by the Frequency Distribution, he

is no problem to you unless he produces an excess of Unreasonable Minus Errors. In that case, he must raise his

average to control them.

B) If he averages the marked quantity or more, has control,

11
and limits the Unreasonable Minus Errors, he is no problem to you.

C) If he averages the marked quantity or more, but does not

have control, his intentions are good, but he needs assist- ance.

D) If he averages less than the marked quantity, and does not

have control, he is a problem to you. He either does not

know the law, does not control, or cannot control. Action

is indicated.

E) If he averages less than the marked quantity, but has control, he is the fellow you are really after. He knows what

he is doing, and knows how to do it, and is giving short measure. He merits a lot of your attention. A good place

to start would be a major warehouse or distribution point, so that the sampling would represent a large segment of

his goods. The Office of Weights and Measures of the U.S.

Bureau of Standards is publishing a Handbook which will

include the sampling plan information you need to obtain

evidence which will support prosecution of such violators.

The value of this statistical know-how is that it gives you the ability to identify the packager who deserves your attention, and then obtain

statistically sound sampling data for prosecution. As you become fa- miliar with it, you will find it to be one of your most valuable tools. Of course, it can't be really learned by reading through it once, or by

listening to it once. It needs to be studied out a little. It's worth the

small amount of time and effort. Anything worthwhile usually re- quires a little effort to master.

We've discussed standard packs, but what about random packs,

such as a typical meat case? Random packs are really easier, because

they are packaged at the store, and the whole population is right

there on the spot.

First, let's discuss the Sampling Plans being provided by the Office

of Weights and Measures. There are two: Plan "A", and Plan "B". Plan "B" is really a survey plan. It is a 50% Risk Plan, which means

that if a lot is in control, and averages the stated quantity, it will

pass 50% of the time and will fail 50% of the time. The value of such

a plan is that it does not require a large sample, and the consistent

failures are readily identified. Where a product consistently passes, you simply maintain this small-sample routine auditing. For those

in the "gray area", or which consistently fail, you apply Plan "A". Plan "A" is a larger sample, and consequently gives a more reliable

result. It's as simple as that. The more facts you have, the more

certain you are of what they are telling you. All the Statistics have

12
been worked out for you, and Plan "A" is a 95% Plan. The sample is of such size that you will be 95% sure of your result. You should use Plan "A" if you intend to prosecute, since 95% certainty, based upon

statistically sound sampling, certainly resolves the question of "rea- sonable doubt".

Now, let's look at a typical example. Plan "A" calls for 30 items to be drawn if the population consists of more than 30 and up to 800

items. The typical meat case falls in that bracket. You draw a random

sample of 30 from all varieties, and all sizes, across the whole meat

case display. You must be sure to remember the importance that the

sampling be random, with no set pattern, so that every package in

the display has the same chance as any other of being drawn for the

j sample.

First, the average tare is determined. Then all 30 are weighed net,

and the net weights tabulated, plus or minus, from the stated quantity. Any errors exceeding the Maximum Allowable Variation (MAV)

listed in the OWM Plan "A" should be circled. Statistically, a sample of 30 packages drawn from between 31 and

800 packages will have no more than one package outside the MAV

if the store's weighing system is properly maintained and is operated

to give correct weight. If more than one result is circled, you are 95%

certain that there is a violation. No further testing is necessary.

If fewer than two packages are found outside the MAV, determine

the average error for the sample. If it is plus, the meat case passes.

If it is minus, the sample data must be evaluated to determine if the result is within the statistical probability that it could reasonably

occur with the lot actually in compliance. All you do is mark off the

individual data into subgroups of five. You then determine the range

for each of these six subgroups (there are 30 packages in the total sample). You then determine the average range (R) from these six

values.

If you multiply R by 0.157 the answer will be the minus error which

could be observed in sampling even though it is in compliance, and

if your sample were only a very small fraction of the total packages

in the case. The factor 0.157 has been worked out by statisticians;

the sample average can vary that much about the true average for the population.

Let's digress just a bit. If you think it out, it is obvious that as you

examine more and more of the total packages, the more reliable the

sample results will be. If there had been only 30 packages, and you

had weighed them all, your results would be reliable, and no question

about it. With more and more packages in the population, the risk

of sampling variation becomes greater. The OWM sampling procedure

includes provision for this, and permits a Statistical adjustment to the calculated allowable error to compensate for this. This is necessary

to protect the validity of the findings as evidence for prosecution.

13
These factors are included in a table. All you do is determine what

percentage of the total packages in the meat case you actually

weighed, and obtain the factor for that percentage from the table. Now, all you do is multiply your value for R by 0.157, then multiply

the result by the factor from the table. If the average error is smaller

than that final result, the meat case passes. If it is larger, it is shortweight, and action should be taken against those responsible.

We started by saying that Statistics is not complicated. Taken bit

by bit, it really isn't. You will find that if you go over this a few times,

it all falls together and truly is uncomplicated. The real value is that

your samplings will be statistically sound, and truly meaningful when

it is necessary to institute action against violators. You have an ex- tremely valuable new tool, which will permit you to make an even

greater contribution in maintaining equity in the marketplace.

14
ABC COMPANY - PRODUCT "XYZ"

_|_Q T7 _i_o TM D n _i_o +6 +3 +4 +i -2 +3

-2 +1 -1 +5 -5 +1

_i_7 T /

r\U u _ 9 TJ u

0 - J

_ 11 T 1 _A

+ 1 - L - 1 7 o - Z - z

-

1

o - J

1 c TJ U

i 1 + 1 - z U - 1 - Z U

o - J

q -J

-3 -1 -3 +3 +6 +i

-1 -2 +3 +2 +4 -l

+13 +2 0 -5 +4 +4

j RANGES : 12 9 10 12 10 4 2 8 10 9

TM Z- " D

_/, ou -2 +3 +2 -3

-4 +3 -3 -6

~ L

_ 1

i D -1-9 _ 1 u

U tZ T J.

1 o TJ

— z — Aq.

I 1 T 1 +5 0 +5 -2 +1 +i +1 +1

+2 +2 +1 +5

+3 +2 +1 +6

9 10 9 6

(30 + 100 = 0.

4 7 6 4 7

^VERAGE RANGE = SUM OF RANGES + N: 158 + 20 = 7.9

pIGMA = R x 0.43: 7.9 x 0.43 = 3.397 (or 3.4)

CHEN: 1 Sigma = 3.4 (say, 3)

2 Sigma = 6.8 (say, 7) 3 Sigma = 10.2 (say, 10)

X

72 between + 1 Sigma

X X 97 between + 2 Sigma X X

None outside 3 Sigma

X X Overall is Plus

X X X X Conclusion: OK

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X'< X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8

15
PACKAGE CHECKING REPORT

an.

J. -J. * C. */^y«r

*ec Co.

/ -

i. 3f 9-*.

quantity statement

LABELED OUANTI"

SILLING PMCI STATEMENT

QovtnCHARGC

'3 / 3

To* ] LOT COOL

Y LOT APPROVED \

' LOT REJECTEO

' /owner

AGENT

PACKAGE CHECKING REPORT DEPARTMENT op licenses and inspections DURE&U OF WEIGHTS A NO MEASURES w->r' r

e QUANTITY STATEMl NT SELLIH ; PRICE STATEMENT

NO. L A IE LCD OUANTITV

ERROR IN '/IU LA- BELED

COM- PUTED

, > LABEL

1 1 ERROR

,—. OVER1 1 CHARGE """" c f\/fit.e 's 0 *

2 /

/JSC Co.

3 /o

5 '/ /

Gnu

To,. / - gj'/'t.

HEAVIEST J

v- J. »//«. S /

N.i / - J 'V/t / - f *A '/ /

S .V/ P. ivtun tirf

10 -I REMARKS TOTALS /» *JLm

TAL WEIGHING error no o f average —. -^ A7 (Ylot approved

LOT COOt

[71 >- OT REJECTED y

RECEIPT Of REPORT ACKNOWLEDGED (S ignmtUn) [Vf OWNER iTijjL^ CL . <?f(W^/^ [*" ] AGENT

16
PACKAGE CHECKING REPORT DC PARTMEHT OF LICENSES AMD INSPECTIONS BUREAU OF WEIGHTS A NO MEASURES

D»Tt 1 TIKI lltlNTI NtMl

<//.! \

\ QUANTITY STATIoll NT ITA TCMC HT

omnia 1 NO. LAtELED OUANTITT

4 re im

0 «

LA- BELED COM- MUTED

1—1 LABEL

1 1 ERROR

1—j OVER1 1 CHARGE

. UoV

2 /-» - v *y

*/

3 , ( /

sr.?.?:.;:. <4 ^ c 4 e

::

oo",'.v.,Vu.v."*" /vyc S /

Co..

To..

Lif.HTUT / - S" »/>L 1 - L

6

7

~9~

1 1 .r A V/..

Not / J 'V/4 3 j

j"'.

C V*5p1 ou « ST TO ItTLT-i"

10

REU1KKS TOTALS '3 '3 O IO O

. TAL WEIGHING CMOn NO OF AVERAGE '//(.

f* ond - . uneidrtotf) PK CI CttMOM . ^7 I f^LOT APPROVED Q"! LOT REJCCTEO ICtiPt OF «[POHT »C«NO«aD«lO fS»jn*tlur*,> f^foWNER J&f-Os,*M~~ £. LUOj&tJLy 1" 1 AGENT

11-532 (»•,. 10/76)

PACKAGE CHECKING- REPORT DEPARTMENT OP LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS BUREAU OF WEIGHTS A NO MEASURES .y,

|t.„

QUANTITY STATEMENT SELLIN S PRICE STATEMENT

OXNl* f NAME NO. LAICLEO OUANTITV

ERROR IN <//«. LA- COM1 1 LABEL

1 1 ERROR —j OVER1 1 CHARGE

uSoUr"" '3 0 • BELED PUTED

• co-m of (ITlll'lNMlNT O

i X/2- S" *SC *V «oo-mi of picx

O* OIlTHiauTQ* *t

\. it.HT[IT 6 ^> / - -T 7 O

To.o ' j 'fit. e '/ O

Not /- j »//«. 1- 9 3

5 .V/ P„ («y.L"i»M *CA L r. .W7.2 / -a */*

to

REMARKS TOTALS /«v //

/<5 0. <r

<//(.

. __.y_/J

LUI eooi —

f~ . LOT APPROVED U^LOT REJECTED

11.13? 1 Po . 10 'A'

"tc EiPT OF hepo»t * c K nO»i t OGEO (Sffnmi 777 a€> GA^jL^ f^OWNER

r 1 AGENT

17
PACKAGE CHECKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT OF BUREAU OF

LIClNSeS in

• EIGHTS A NO

D INSPECTIONS MEASURES 37* r i"

QUANTITY STATEMCHT

cnnc

»L.I»IR« ITATCMINT

i—i LABEL

1 1 ERROR

,—.OVER1 1 CHARGE

LA- BELED COM- PUTED »»»" "&'C H 'J A/f/t/t*rf. 7— - 0

AND • RAND .X' )/ 7_ Cfz PACKER OR /tec Co. y

Gross /- y V/t /

Tor* J '//<. Nai 1-3 "//«. /- £ »//<. c

S

. V/ P. Lit 9JU .2

REMARKS TOTALS /t

/<? Aat.S" 1

TOTAL WC1GHIF.C ERROR

(* and -coniirfmcfj

if ERASE

SUNT >N LOT .^.^L [Trtlot approved

LOT "I

! 1 See alttrr aid* [71 LOT REJECTED "J. HE c£iot of report ACKMowLCoaco fSfjtMfimj [VfoWNER r 1 AGENT

PACKAGE CHECKING REPORT DEPARTMENT OF LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS BUREAU OF WEIGHTS A NO MEASURES

QUANTITY STATEMENT SCLLIN C PRICE STATEMENT

1

NO. I ABE LEO QUANT. TY

ERROR IN '/'<»

BE LEO COM- PUTEO

1- 1 LABEL

L_ ! ERROR

r OVERL. 1 CHARGE 0 •

-? (0 /? vTo. "7

x/z. ABC <»

. / I Co, . Ton /- "jr /- 4 "/c. J */•<.

*

a

A.

U. J

N«i /- V »/«. 9 /" iff

V7"t{t nor

-2

10 1 /

REMARKS TOTALS J3L

/o

UMT -N LOT

/

"7 LOT rOTTT

,' T^^O T APPROVED OT REJf CTEO

91 SJ7 !Ra. 10 "A 1

' l^OW N E R AGEN T

18
PACKAGE CHECKING REPORT

J

yy z.

JL »/*<. I- 3_ '*/,<. S-V7 J /

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS BUREAU OF WEIGHTS A NO MEASURES

QUANTITY STATEMENT

LABELED OUANT.TT

ton in '//(.

//

SELLING PRICE STATEMENT

+ J /O a. 3

' |^.OT APPROVED LOT REJECTED

81 bV '0

' ir owner

PACKAGE CHECKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT OP LICENSES Al BUREAU OP WCIOHTS A NC

AillUTITV t T A TImVmT

ID INSPECTIONS MEASURES

HILLING PRICE STATEMENT

NO. LABELED OUAHTITY

ERROR IN LA- BELED COMPUTED

i—1 LABEL

I 1 ERROR

1—i OvER1 1 CHARGE

0 •

»oo«f o» _ - . « — CO

s

AND PI AND J{ V

PACK t A OR * £ y OI«T M ..uTOP> A O C t

»/ J

P» /

OR OUTRlBuTOR '/ -? 1TANDAAO P»CH

To..

L.r.MTCIT / - .S" "/*

6

7

e~i~

'/ ^ *//«. */ Nai /- 3 "//<, /- V '//«. »/ I q o a :_" ABU %ft\.T"r -SV7,*/ - ATTWTTtr TIRE

10 ff

REMARKS TOTALS //

1 — - 'A TAL weighing ERROPI MO OF AVERAGE

f* and -conaidrrvtfi «K4I ERROR

•MOUNT IN LOT 1

J [>«LOT APPROVED ' |5m BlAWf •rrfa lTI lot REJECTEO ^

'NIPEC TORI ~7rU^tr

RECEIPT Of AEPOWT ACRNOWLIDfID (SlgnmtUf) ftTf'owN E R

19
CONFIDENCE IN PACKAGE CHECKING RESULTS

Presented by Stephen Hasko, Engineer, Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards

In many conversations with weights and

measures officials on the subject of package

inspection the question has been asked "Why

do we need a new handbook for the determination of package net contents?" A simple re- ply to that question is that, when (in a matter

of time) there is considerably more information available on the subject outside of a handbook than there is in a handbook, it is time

to prepare a new handbook.

Let us go back in retail history a bit. Here we have an illustration of an old-fashioned

food store. Judging by the fixtures and products, and my own recol- lection as a child, I would say it is representative of the "Roaring

Twenties," give or take a decade. Most products were sold from bulk,

and weighed, measured, or counted at the time of sale. If you wanted

to purchase a pound of navy beans, the retailer would weigh out a pound of beans on his scale. There were a few packaged items, but

not many. All meats were cut and weighed at the time of sale. Milk was sold in bottles—a measure container. Even motor oil at the gasoline stations was measured and sold in lubricating oil bottles. Then along came the self-service stores with prepackaged products

and even prepackaged meats. That is when weights and measures became interested in package checking. The interest was primarily

centered on the prepackaged meat and dairy counters with their ran- dom packed meats and cheeses and prepackaged milk products. This was the basis for the development of Handbook 67, published in 1959.

Many other products were also put up in package form; the handbook,

however, was primarily directed toward the prepackaged meat and

produce counter and conventional standard-pack products labeled by

weight and volume.

Meanwhile, the packaging of products has expanded in all directions. In hardware—it is difficult to buy nails or screws in bulk an- ymore. In the pharmacy the prescription scales and measures are rapidly becoming collector's items. We have had the stone age, the

bronze age, the iron age, and now we are well into the packaging age. We have seen the Universal Product Code on so many items, who

knows where it will appear next?

Handbook 67 was a good start in checking the products of auto- mated packaging, in the same manner as the Model T Ford was a good start in the mass production of automobiles. Just how many of

20
you would be content with a Model T Ford today? Would you prefer a car you start by cranking with a hand crank, ventilate and air- condition by dropping the celluloid windows, heat with a bucket of

hot coals, and climb a hill by backing up—compared to what you have

today? Incidentally, they say that at times the Model T almost appeared human—especially when it would pin you up against the garage wall while you were starting it. The new handbook, like the new car, includes considerably more

and does considerably more for you. It is important to understand

that the basic principles of Handbook 67 are still an integral part of

the new package inspection handbook just as the basic principles of

the Model T are still a part of the modern automobile. The "heart"

of the automobile is still the basic fuel-driven internal combustion

j engine.

The "heart" of package checking, whether it is Handbook 67 or the

j new package checking handbook, is contained in the fundamental

. principles set forth in Section 12.1.1. of the Model State Packaging

and Labeling Regulation which states that:

"variations should not be permitted to such an extent that the

average ofthe quantities in the packages of a particular commodity,

or a lot of the commodity that is kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, is below the quantity stated and no unreasonable shortage

in any package shall be permitted."

The first part is the "average concept" which in plain everyday

language states that the average quantity of a lot, shipment, or delivery must equal or exceed the labeled weight. The second part is the basis for maximum allowable variations (MAV), also referred to as "unreasonable errors." You know that there is nothing more frustrating than finding yourself in a strange building that has directions for everything except

that room which is of vital interest to you. In the preparation of the

new handbook we have tried to anticipate all the needs and vital

interests in package testing of the prospective users. We feel that once you become fully acquainted with the handbook you will find it an indispensable tool and reference. The new handbook provides two

sampling plans identified as category A and category B.

It has been traditional in package checking in the U.S. to use sampling plans like category B. Such plans have a 50-50 risk of acceptance-failure for lots that average at label weight (and when individual

packages fit well within their allowed limits). It splits the risk between the packer and consumer. There is some evidence that category

B sampling plans are viewed as risky; some of the jurisdictions that

j have used them in the past added a safety factor in the form ofeither

j a tolerance or loosely designed auditing inspection parameters. The

category B sampling plans would make excellent auditing procedures.

21
The category A sampling plans are designed for situations where

the possible consequences for the packager are of relatively great

severity t i, for example, legal action. These plans actually have a

confidence limit greater than 95%—closer to 97%. A 97% confidence

limit means that you are 97% confident that the test results are

correct. Because of the high confidence level the category A sampling

plans eliminate the need for a safety factor such as has been used

with category B sampling plans.

The one thing about the category A procedure that seems to scare a lot of people is the use of the term "standard deviation." I must

confess that at one time it had me worried, too. However, the standard

deviation calculation using the range method is really quite simple.

It is simpler than completing a liquefied-petroleum gas meter report

form, or developing tolerance limit tables for taximeter measured

courses, or for that matter determining the applicable tolerances in

the scale code. I have always had problems with the scale code. The

reason why I have problems with it is that I do not work with it. Once

you get well acquainted with something that "bugs" you it really

becomes quite simple. Do not underestimate your abilities. While the new handbook will not materially affect the current

random pack procedures in use at the meat case, it does provide

methods of expediting such procedures so more time can be spent in

other areas of packaging.

The new handbook provides tables of maximum allowable variations (MAV) in inch-pound and metric units for packages labeled by

weight, volume, length or area, and count. It provides 14 pages of

comprehensive information pertaining to test equipment, including

specifications, such as:

1. Package checking scales in 5- and 20-pound capacities as well as similar designs in metric;

2. Test weight kits in inch-pound (31 lb) and metric units (15 kg), as well as smaller weight kits, and larger test weights (i.e., 25

and 50 lb and 10 and 20 kg);

3. Volumetric flasks and graduates in inch-pound and metric units; measures range from a 2-fl oz [50-mL] graduate to 1-gal [5-liter] flasks;

4. Density cups for volume measurement of viscous products such

as caulking compounds;

5. Plastic discs for volume measurement of glassware and disposable cups and containers;

22
6. Dead weight dial micrometers for measuring the thickness of

polyethylene sheeting;

7. Measuring boards for paper plates and sanitary paper products;

and

8. Test equipment for aerosol packaged products.

The new handbook provides many procedures for checking standard

pack packages labeled by weight and includes:

1. Conventional packages such as detergents, canned goods, cheese

and meat;

2. Frozen foods such as fruits, vegetables, and dinners;

3. Aerosol packaged products such as hair spray, shaving creams and paints;

4. Packages labeled by drained weight such as olives and mushrooms;

5. Separate drained weight procedures for frozen foods, and another

procedure for glazed raw seafood and fish; and

6. A detailed substitution weighing procedure for products exceeding the capacity of package checking scales. A section is also devoted to random pack packages labeled by

weight. The meat and dairy counters are the principal sources of

random packages.

There are procedures for standard pack products labeled by volume:

1. Products such as milk, cooking oils, juices, and beverages;

2. Paint, varnish, and lacquer products (These procedures also have

their own auditing procedures.);

3. Viscous products such as caulking compounds, pastes, glues, etc.;

4. Particulate materials sold by dry measure, as well as peat moss and containers labeled by volume.

Included also are procedures for:

1. Variable tare: Packages where the variation in tare weight may

be greater than "normal", such as aerosol packaged products or products packed in glass;

23
2. Packages labeled by count such as disposable cups and plates,

plastic bags, and stationery;

3. Packages labeled by linear or area measure such as waxed paper,

gift wrap, roofing shingles, and floor tile; and

4. Polyethylene sheeting packaged in rolls or cut sizes.

Other features incorporated into the handbook include:

1. A new report form and work sheet that have been developed to lead you through the test procedure.

2. Decision charts that outline a procedure in a flow-diagram style.

3. A complete listing ofall references cited in the handbook for those

desiring more background information.

Finally, there is also an appendix containing:

1 . Definitions—no handbook is complete without definitions for ter- minology employed. There are over 60 definitions.

2. Package Net Contents Regulations—This section includes the

NCWM model and Federal agency regulations.

3. Random Sample Selection Discussions—Several methods are

proposed.

4. Random Number Tables—These tables are provided to expedite

random sample selection. They are not, however, the only ap- proach to random number generation.

5. Average Range Calculation—This section is devoted to a simple

approach to standard deviation calculation.

6. Certain Equipment Tolerances—This section is devoted to tol- erances for field standard weights and measures.

We are also planning to develop training materials and to hold

regional training seminars geared to explain the use of the new package inspection procedures. Any of you who have participated in any

of our regional seminars know that the subject will be thoroughly

covered.

Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying that "The legitimate object

of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need

24
to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot do for themselves, in

their separate and individual capacities."

A noted engineer and administrator, Vannevar Bush, once said

"If men are to accomplish together anything useful, they must above

all, be able to understand one another. That is the basic reason for a National Bureau of Standards."

The National Bureau of Standards through the Office of Weights

and Measures is seeking to promote such an understanding through

I handbooks and publications such as the new package inspection handj book. These are standards to which all concerned can repair.

25
"EQUITY ON THE MOVE

Address by Kendrick J. Simila, Administrator, Weights and

Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, State of Oregon

sciousness has been raised in many areas. Movement has taken place on many fronts, including the economic sector where quantity meas- urements occur millions of times daily.

As described in the announcement booklet for this conference, our theme "Equity on the Move", was chosen to reflect the dynamic con- ditions that prevail in our nation's weights and measures system.

Changes affecting measurement accuracy and fairness in the marketplace are resulting from actions taken by the Federal, State, and

local government and by industries and businesses which serve the

public. Weights and Measures officials are facing serious challenges

to increase protection of buyers and sellers from inequities in commercial transactions; to expand into new areas of measurement activity; to improve the efficiency of their operation; and to maintain

a high quality of service even though their budgets are beingtrimmed

and resources are limited.

Nevertheless, we are collectively finding it possible to move equity

forward, when, through the National Conference, actions are taken

such as:

1) Adopting (1957) a Handbook 44 Scale Code user requirement

(UR.4.4.) that bans multiple draft or axle weighing of motor

vehicles for commercial purposes;

2) Adopting (1973) a Handbook 44 General Code provision (in GUR.4.1.) that enables an inspector to reject devices found within

tolerance but predominantly in a direction favorable to the device owner or operator;

Conference Members, Associates, Advisory

Members, Distinguished Visitors and Guests.'

26
3) Adopting (1977) a Model State Method of Sale of Commodities

Regulation Section (1.11) that provides minimum standards for identifying to the purchaser what they are receiving when buying meat by carcass, side or primal cut;

4) Adopting (1979) criteria against which our own state and local weights and measures agencies and programs can be objectively

evaluated, as a basis for improving and upgrading them.

These are just a few examples of how our actions during the week

of the National Conference assist equity to be on the move.

It is not sufficient, however, for us as state and local weights and

measures officials who comprise the ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP of

the National Conference, to assist the process of moving equity for- ward just one week each year during this annual meeting. More

important to the overall success of our efforts is what we do for equity

during the 51 weeks each year when the NCWM is not in session.

Let me illustrate this point by mentioning three areas where we can

observe wide ranges of behavior in the ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP,

after the annual NCWM meeting adjourns each July.

AREA ONE is the behavior of ACTIVE MEMBERS with respect

to Legally Adopting in their jurisdiction the "Products" (that can be

given such official sanction) of the NCWM. Recall now, these NCWM

products are in four categories:

1. Model state laws and regulations

2. Device technical requirements (Handbook 44) and test procedures Handbook 112, and Handbook 67

3. Educational and administrative programs to assist weights and

measures officials

4. Liaison efforts with other groups (Federal agencies, OIML, etc.)

Certainly the Model State Weights & Measures Law, the Model

Regulations, and Handbook 44 can be given such official sanction.

Some of the other products of NBS-OWM programs that are NCWM

endorsed may not be appropriate for legislative or executive sanction

(such as the "EPO's", Lab Auditing Program, Handbook 67, or the

"Home Study Program") but may be adopted in the context of a Division policy or other appropriate recognizing mechanism.

Successful "behavior" by ACTIVE MEMBERS in this area ("legal

adoption") is not easy. It involves many variables often beyond our

direct control. Getting a state legislature to modify the state's weights

27
and measures law each year or every other year is difficult . . . sometimes next to impossible. In most cases it means a massive selling

job first ... in our parent agency (often through 3 or 4 levels ofreview) even before it gets to the legislature. Legislative and executive agency

philosophies on who should initiate such law changes and how fre- quently vary widely, both around the U.S. and even from session to session in one state. The updating or adoption of the NCWM Model State Regulations

(Packaging and Labeling, Method of Sale, Registration of Servicemen,

and/or Unit Pricing, etc.) and Device Technical Requirements (Handbook 44) likewise is not easy. In many cases, however, this can be

done through agency rule-making without involving a legislative

body. In a limited number ofjurisdictions where automatic adoption

of technical requirements by reference (with a "latest edition" or an

"including additions or supplements thereto" clause) is possible, at

least the problem of legally recognizing Handbook 44 changes does

not exist. To change regulations in accordance with a state's Administrative Procedures Act, hold public hearings, etc. does require sus- tained, determined efforts. AREA TWO is the behavior of ACTIVE MEMBERS with respect

to implementing the NCWM model state laws, regulations and Handbook requirements to the extent a jurisdiction has succeeded in adopting them. Behavior that is successful in terms of adopting NCWM

"products" can be partially or completely nullified if subsequent fol- low-through and enforcement are neglected or ignored. A number of

factors can contribute to poor results by active members in implementation, including:

1) An inadequate Weights & Measures staff training and updating

program (need to communicate new requirements and educate

staff)

2) Lack of supervision, ("old dogs" reject new tricks)

3) Provincialism (selectively enforcing or applying requirements)

4) Politics (being forced to deviate from adopted requirements)

5) Insufficient resources (manpower, equipment, etc.)

Some of the above we can combat and overcome, some we must

endure and some we have to outlast. Again, the results of "behavior" in this area by ACTIVE MEMBERS of the Conference, although less measurable, are still observable. Our actions in implementing the model laws, regulations and

requirements as we have adopted them speak louder (especially to

28
industry) than our professed intentions to "be like" (or to do things

like) the NCWM recommends.

The THIRD AREA of observable behavior of the ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP of the Conference THROUGHOUT the year is the area

of accountability—accountability not only to the management of our parent state or local agency if we are part of one, but also to our

constituents. Being accountable to "Constituents" or those who pay

for our services means being accountable not only to the public or consumers, but to businesses as well, since they too pay state or local income, sales, and property taxes (and in some cases license fees)

which support our budgets. Our observable behavior is less than ac- countable if we do not (or feel no need to) provide an understandable answer to anyone with a legitimate request or question about our programs such as:

1) What is this particular scale inspection requirement or policy

based on?

2) What is the level of funding for packaged products inspections

and what degree of compliance is being achieved?, or

3) Where are bulk petroleum meter examinations least effective?

Behavior that isolates us from being accountable may provide short

range relief from unpleasant or difficult situations, but at the est of

much needed program support in the long run, . . . support that is very difficult to regain.

How, then, has the behavior of the active membership in the three

areas of: 1 Legal adoption of NCWM products, 2) Implementation and

enforcement, and 3) Accountability to constituents, assisted or defeated the mutual goals and purposes ofthe Conference to move equity

forward?

Let me cite some examples.

Example 1A SUCCESS—Our mutual goals of developing a con- sensus, promoting uniform requirements and fos- tering cooperation (among Weights and Measures,

business and consumers) were achieved in package

quantity work with respect to:

1. "the average of the lot concept" and

2. "reasonable variations."

That is for the most part active members have

through their behavior caused these concepts to be

29
A. legally adopted

B. implemented and enforced

C. accounted for (explained and defended)

Example 2

A STANDOFF OR DRAW—Our mutual goals were partially realized and partially defeated in the late

1960's when Congress enacted the "Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act". Some of the problems (e.g.,

preemption; vague Federal standards) we have

faced and are currently facing in package quantity

control directly relate to wording or powers granted

in this act. Suffice it to say, a failure of a sufficient

number of active members to have adopted the existing NCWM Model Packaging & Labeling Requirements in existence by 1966, was behavior that

has partially defeated our mutual goals.

Example 3

A MODERATE FAILURE—Not in legal adoption of an NCWM "product" . . . that has been done . . . but

in implementation and enforcement. The drafting

into the recent Grain Standards Act regulations by

FGIS, of certain specifications (minimum divisions), tolerances (V2 Handbook 44) and testing pro- cedures (Hopper Scale Corner testing) inconsistent

with the NCWM's Handbook 44 requirements for grain weighing equipment (including truck scales)

is directly attributable to actual implementation

and enforcement practices (behavior) in many jurisdictions by active members being different than

what was legally adopted in those jurisdictions.

The above are just three examples of how the behavior of the active

membership during the 51 weeks between National Conferences has

had a direct cumulative effect not only on the member's own jurisdiction, but on moving equity forward for the weights & measures

active membership as a whole.

I could cite other examples . . . one coming down the road for which

it is too early to predict the outcome is national device type approval.

If the active membership cannot reach a consensus, and formulate

and implement a workable system, Congress in its 535-member wisdom will provide one for us eventually. The need is clearly there.

Let me shift gears and conclude my remarks by indicating that I stand before you today harboring two different emotional states, both

enjoyable. As Administrator of the Weights and Measures Division,

Oregon Department of Agriculture, I am pleased that we are able to be your hosts this week. As Chairman of this 64th Conference, I am

30
honored that the Membership elected me to represent them the past

year. Both sets of responsibilities I have not taken lightly.

Counting this Conference I will have attended 10 meetings, hearings, seminars, or conferences in my role as NCWM Chairman. These

ten events total 33 days away from my home and office. I am grateful

to my family and the Oregon Department of Agriculture for their

tolerant understanding of these absences from Salem. Certainly this

year I have not experienced the slow passage of time that our 5 year

old son, Mark, encountered on our recent ten-day vacation trip to Canada by car. The first 2 days went pretty well. By the 3rd day,

however, my wife Pat and I were continually responding to Mark's

inquiries of "Are we almost there?" or, "How much longer is it?" We

thought we had this problem solved when we forbad the asking of

those two nagging questions. For a long time after that Mark was

silent. He finally could stand it no longer, but avoiding the forbidden

language he quietly inquired, "Will I be alive when we get there?"

Equity is on the move. Will we be alive when it gets there? That

I don't know. I do know that for the rest of this week, in July, in

Portland you have the opportunity to guide it in the responsible

. . . the progressive . . . direction.

31
EQUITY BEYOND THE MARKETPLACE I

Presented by Donald R. Johnson, Deputy Director for Programs,

National Measurement Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards

\

It is a pleasure for me to represent Dr. Am- p bier, your Conference President, on the pro- ; gram here today. Dr. Ambler is involved in a planning meeting at NBS and regrets that

^ he is not able to be here in Portland with you. « He sends his greetings and best wishes for a s successful meeting. I appreciate very much

the opportunity to meet many of you for the \ first time and to set this Conference in action, f As we all know success always seems to | generate new demands. Therefore this Con- j) ference should not be surprised that it faces \ a wide variety of new challenges. Equity in the marketplace has been \ a very successful experience in this country. That success is a tribute s to you and to all those who have participated in this Conference for [\ the past 74 years. It is because of your efforts that the American \ public can make millions of transactions in a very complex retail } marketplace with confidence. Nevertheless, as Ken Simila has indicated, it is a challenge to keep equity on the move. And indeed equity ; is moving. It is moving beyond today's retail marketplace and pre- !j senting new measurement challenges. This afternoon I will describe one of the mechanisms that we at NBS have found to be particularly

effective in meeting these challenges.

Let me begin by focusing on the marketplace itself. First, let me

suggest a definition of a marketplace as a point of contact between

two parties where a decision is made. Of course, traditionally we

think of this in terms of the retail market where buyer and seller meet. Here a decision results in money changing hands. But, decisions

which affect equity in the market are actually made in a much larger arena beyond the retail marketplace.

What do I mean by equity beyond today's retail marketplace? Let

me try to explain. Step back if you will from the sales arena to the

point where products are being made—to the point where the quality

of the product is being determined—where precise amounts of ingredients are blended—where parts are accurately welded together or assembled. At this point, quality control of the product is of importance. Equity here, as anywhere, means fairness; it is the assurance

to both the producer and consumer that the future performance of the

product will match expectations. This assurance can only be based on accurate and reliable measurements.

32
The role of measurement in quality assurance is well illustrated

with a local example. The ESCO Corporation here in Portland is a producer of high alloy specialty steels. These special steels require

precise amounts of certain metals such as chromium and nickel in

| order to achieve their desired properties. Steels are of course produced

in discrete batches. Toward the end of each batch process a sample

j of the molten metal is dipped out and sent to a quality control laboratory for analysis. In this laboratory, measurements must be per- formed very rapidly while the bulk of the metal is held in a molten

state. Adjustments to the composition of the steel can then be made

to meet the desired specifications before the metal is allowed to cool

and harden.

The key to equity in this example is, of course, the reliable determination of the chemical composition of the sample in the laboratory. In the steel industry this determination is made via a direct comparison of the composition of the unknown steel sample with the

composition of a standardized reference sample following an agreed

upon test procedure. For specialty steels it is clear why direct analysis

of composition is required. But, special alloys represent only a small

component of the steel market and quality control is equally important for the large volume, low alloy steels used for auto bodies, girders

and pipelines. NBS has worked on problems of quality control with

' the steel industry for over 75 years and we have found that standard

reference materials are an effective way to transfer our measurement

technology to the industry. We now offer over 100 different steel reference materials covering a wide variety of important compositions.

As I indicated earlier it must be remembered that these standard

reference materials by themselves do not make a complete measure- ment system. They must be used with a standardized measurement

procedure which spells out how the comparison of the unknown sample with the reference sample should be carried out. In the case of

steel, these procedures reflect industry consensus and are developed

by voluntary standards organizations such as the American Society

for Testing and Materials. Industry consensus is also important here

for another reason since comparative tests like these are used by

purchasers ofsteel for acceptance testing. Acceptance testing of course

leads to a second decision point in the steel industry where equity

issues are raised. Penalties are sometimes written into contracts for small deviations from the specified quality and acceptance tests are the agreed upon means of assessing these deviations.

Measurements impact the quality of products in much more subtle

ways in other segments of our economy. Take the agricultural food

! industry, for example, where questions have recently been raised

j about contamination of fruits and vegetables grown near sources of

urban pollution. Leafy vegetables, such as lettuce and spinach, grown

33
near industrial plants or highways are reported to acquire potentially

harmful surface contaminations which are difficult to remove by

washing. Toxic contaminates such as heavy metals are also found in

the soil and may eventually be absorbed into the plant tissue itself. The quantitative determination of the extent of this contamination

requires accurate data on the trace element composition of fruits and

vegetables grown at various locations in both clean and polluted en- vironments. The problem is further complicated by the fact that cer- tain substances, such as chromium, are known to be toxic at one level but are essential nutrients at lower levels. Thus accurate analysis of

the plant or food product is critical. In response to this and other

related measurement challenges NBS has developed a series of bio- logical reference materials. One particular material offered as part

of this series consists of dried and pulverized spinach which has been

carefully analyzed for trace elements. The spinach samples are used

to calibrate analytical instruments that are in turn used for studying

the effects of the environment on the food products mentioned above.

Let me now turn your attention to a different marketplace where

personal services are bought and sold; in particular I would like to focus on the health care industry where medical decisions are made

based on the results of clinical laboratory tests. Nearly 4 billion in- dividual measurements are made annually in conjunction with these

tests in hospitals and clinical laboratories throughout the country.

The estimated cost to the consumer is $8 billion. The accuracy of such

measurements is of course of paramount importance to both the physicians and their patients since the analytical results form the basis

for an evaluation of the patient's health. NBS offers over 30

different Standard Reference Materials to clinical chemists to help

calibrate their instruments and thus improve the accuracy of these

critical measurements. These same Standard Reference Materials

along with companion reference methods help provide the basis for regulation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as

for proficiency testing of clinical laboratories.

Perhaps a very specific example will help to bring the importance

of proper measurement into perspective. There are approximately 2

million victims of epilepsy in the U.S. at the present time. In most

cases the epilepsy can be fairly well controlled with drugs. However,

in the past the accuracy of laboratory tests for drug dosage control was extremely poor and many doctors chose to simply rely on patient

reaction to determine the appropriate drug level. In the fall of 1978

NBS issued a new anti-epilepsy drug SRM which consists of a set of

4 vials of freeze-dried human serum. Three of the vials contain 4

important anti-epilepsy drugs at different concentration levels: toxic,

therapeutic, and sub-therapeutic. The 4th vial is a serum blank. With

this set of reference materials a clinical laboratory is able to analyze

a sample of a patient's blood with assured accuracy and thus assist

34
the physician in establishing the exact dose required for proper therapy. Thus the health care received by the patient can be optimized

with minimal side effects. There is still another decision point well beyond the marketplace

where the question of equity is raised. That is the point where reg- ulatory decisions are made. A host of new laws have been enacted in

the past decade that affect environmental regulation. By far the most

significant Federal laws are the Clean Air Act of 1969, the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and the Occupational Health

and Safety Act. The economic impact of these laws is enormous. The

Council on Environmental Quality estimates that the nation will

spend $486 billion in the period between 1975 and 1981 just to reach

the environmental objectives alone. An additional $25 to $30 billion

in capital costs will be associated with occupational health and safety

for the same period. As you well know, the regulatory measurement

system associated with these laws is also very large. It not only in- cludes Federal agencies and U.S. industry, but State and local governments as well. Standard Reference Materials can play a key role

here in helping to achieve equity between the regulators and those

who are being regulated. Over 80 NBS SRM's are currently being

used to assure the accuracy and compatibility of environmental measurements.

In the area of automobile pollution monitoring and mileage testing

alone 36 NBS gas SRM's are required to place the measurements on

a firm basis. In emission testing laboratories all over the country

exhaust gases are collected and analyzed to determine the amount

of each pollutant gas emitted per vehicle mile. The results of these

tests are tremendously important. First, they are used to determine

whether the vehicle meets the pollution emission standards required

by the Clean Air Act. But that is not the only application. They are

also used in an EPA formula to calculate the fuel economy value—or the gas mileage—for a particular make of automobile. These are the

fuel economy estimates you see posted on all new car windows. They

are required by law so that the consumer has an accurate basis for comparative shopping. There is a further fuel economy regulation

included in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. It re- quires that each car manufacturer achieve a certain weighted, av- erage fuel economy for his total product line in a given model year.

If the manufacturer's average is short of the standard, the law pre- scribes a penalty of $5.00 for each 0.1 mile per gallon his average

falls below the standard times the total number of cars produced in

that model year. For a company like Ford that is a potential penalty

of about $15 million for each tenth of a mile per gallon. From this

example alone, you can begin to appreciate the fact that accurate and

reliable measurements are essential to equitable regulatory decisions.

NBS SRM's are the primary calibration standards for these exhaust

gas measurements.

35
Regulatory decisions are, of course, still being made and significant

measurement problems remain. For example, urban dust is known

to be a harmful pollutant but it has not been characterized well

enough to establish a sound scientific basis for control. Over a twoyear period NBS collected 50 pounds of dust from the air over Saint

Louis, Missouri. After careful blending to insure homogeneous samples, the composition of the material was analyzed and the levels of

certain critical heavy metals in the dust such as lead, iron, uranium,

cadmium, chromium, copper and zinc were established. The resulting

urban dust SRM is now being used as a research tool to develop new

analytical techniques in anticipation of regulations on respirable

dust. In fact, lead is already being regulated and the urban dust SRM

is providing the measurement assurance for equitable compliance.

New measurement challenges are facing us even in areas much

closer to the marketplace. Waste disposal for large urban centers is rapidly becoming a serious problem, a problem where measurement

technology will play a significant role. The City of San Francisco

serves as an excellent example. Sanitary landfill sites within close

proximity to the city have been impossible to locate. The nearly 2000

tons of solid waste generated each day must be loaded on long-haul

vehicles and transported to a landfill located in the city of Mountainview, approximately 30 miles to the south of San Francisco.

Transportation costs are rapidly rising and the Mountainview Site

has limited capacity. The next suitable land fall site will require even

longer hauls.

Possibly of more importance in the long term is the fact that we

are wasting precious resources with our present disposal techniques.

Approximately 70% of municipal solid waste is usable as a fuel. In

addition other precious resources, such as ferrous metals and aluminum, are present in the waste stream in substantial quantities.

The technology for recovery of these materials is now available, but

serious market barriers exist. Large scale resource recovery facilities are exceedingly expensive. Thus before investments in recovery fa- cilities can be expected, markets for the recovered materials must be

assured. In order to assure these markets technical specifications

must be developed to classify the recovered products as to quality,

uniformity, and use. NBS is already heavily involved in developing

reliable measurement techniques to characterize such things as heat

and ash content of refuse-derived fuels. Again we expect Standard

Reference Materials to play a key role in assuring equity in many

aspects of this unique marketplace.

So you see equity appears in many places. Fairness must be

achieved at many points of contact where decisions are made. I rec- ognize that many things are needed to achieve equity but certainly an approach based on measurements is a vital component. One meas- urement mechanism we have found to be successful is built around

36
Standard Reference Materials—materials produced in quantity with

one or more chemical or physical properties measured and certified

I by NBS. More than 1000 different SRM's are now available from

NBS. The 1979 sales of these materials is expected to reach a total

volume of 38,000 units. These will be purchased by 10,000 different

laboratories, 25% of which are to foreign countries. Our highest vol- ume of sales in a single category has traditionally been in industrial

quality control. Our fastest growing categories in sales are in the

clinical and environmental areas. As you heard, in each of these

categories measurement plays a key role in the large arena beyond

the marketplace.

Standard Reference Materials are just one of the measurement

services that NBS offers to help you develop accurate and reliable

j measurement capabilities to meet the challenges of the future.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BY DR. JOHNSON

In accordance with the Organization and Procedures ofthe National

Conference on Weights and Measures, the Director of the National

Bureau of Standards, in his capacity as ex officio President of the

j Conference, has responsibility for announcing appointments to the

four standing committees. It is my privilege in behalf of Dr. Ambler,

Director of the National Bureau of Standards, to announce these

' committee appointments at this time.

We all know how important the work of the various committees is to the orderly and successful accomplishments of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. To the outgoing committee members we give thanks for your valuable contributions to weights and

I measures technology and administration in the United States. To

those new committee members who are taking on this vital responsibility, we offer our best wishes for an enjoyable and rewarding

experience.

The appointments to committees are as follows:

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Mr. Sidney A. Colbrook, Program Supervisor of Weights and Measures, Illinois Department of Agriculture, is appointed for a 5-year

Term to replace Mr. James R. Bird whose term is expiring.

Committee on Laws and Regulations

Mr. Wes R. Mossberg, Director of Weights and Measures, Los Angeles County, California, is appointed for a 5-year term to Replace

i Mr. John T. Bennett whose term is expiring.

37
Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs

Mr. Joseph L. Swanson, Chief, Weights and Measures Section,

Alaska Department of Commerce, is appointed for a 5-year term to replace Mr. Raymond H. Helmick who is no longer employed by the

State of Arizona and whose term expired.

Mr. Stan J. Darsey, Chief, Bureau ofWeights and Measures, Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is appointed for a 4-year term to replace Mr. Walter F. Junkins who is no longer

employed by the State of Pennsylvania.

(Note: Both Mr. Swanson and Mr. Darsey were appointed to serve during the 64th Conference by the Chairman to fill the vacancies

created during the year by the resignations of Mr. Helmick and Mr.

Junkins.)

Committee on Liaison

Mr. Charles R. Cavagnaro, Deputy Director, United States Office

of Consumer Affairs, is appointed for a 5-year term to replace Mrs.

Jane S. Wilson whose term is expiring.

Committee on National Measurement Policy and

Coordination

There are no appointments to this committee as the Membership

is comprised of the Chairman of each of the four standing committees

and the Conference chairman.

Again, Thank you and good luck!

38
ASSISTING THE CONFERENCE IN MEETING NEW

CHALLENGES IN MEASUREMENT

Presented by William T. Cavanaugh, Managing Director,

American Society for Testing and Materials

As ASTM continues its task of standards

development and maintenance to keep pace

with the needs of our nation's marketplace,

the evolution of new technology coupled with

new public- and private-sector demands have

dramatically changed the climate in which

standards-writing committees operate. A major factor affecting this change has been the

explosion of federal regulatory activity, which

has an impact to some degree or another on

virtually all areas of technical concern to ASTM committees. Actions taken by an es- timated 80 government agencies, which carry a price tag of well over

100 billion dollars, have increased the Code of Federal Regulations

to about 70,000 pages. But the significance to ASTM is that the reg- ulatory structure has become an integral part of the marketplace in

which ASTM standards are used. 1 As you are probably aware, the Federal Government is now considering the adoption of a policy on federal participation in and the

development and use of voluntary standards which sets forth two

basic principles: (1) Federal participation in standards related activities of voluntary bodies provides added incentives and opportunities

to establish standards that serve national needs; and, (2) Federal use

of voluntary standards, whenever practicable and appropriate, re- duces the cost of developing and using standards for procurement and

regulatory purposes and thereby serves the public interest. When and

if such a federal policy is finally adopted it will move the government

and the private sector standards bodies into a closer partnership in

the massive and important task of generating needed standards.

There are also happenings and new initiatives on the international scene that will impact this Conference and I will mention these a

little later. One important aspect of standardization is assuring ac- curate and reliable measurement. Thus, your Conference theme "equity on the move" is indeed a timely subject.

I raise this concept of a closer partnership between government and

private standards bodies in meeting national regulatory and pro- curement needs because I am convinced that the same needs exist at the state and local levels and I am concerned that major efforts are

'Paragraph quoted from Editor's comments, page 7, ASTM Standardization News, March 1979.

39
not underway to promote and accept the same principles ofcooperative

j j undertaking to produce needed standards at the state level. In the ] years that I have come to know the National Conference on Weights 1 and Measures, I have developed a profound respect for your mission

and I have followed with great interest the spirit of openness and ' cooperative give and take through which you arrive at the various

outputs of this Conference. ASTM's business is also conducted in an j atmosphere of "cooperative give and take" which, I think, is a compliment. Healthy controversy is a sign of vitality and commitment,

and to quote an unknown source: "It is better to debate a question

without settling it, than to settle it without debate."

Over the years ASTM has provided assistance to the measurement

community in many respects and I will cover just a few of these areas | with you. In the early 1960's the Federal Trade Commission—an \ organization whose name we seem to encounter frequently—informed I the peat moss industry associations that it intended to formulate

industry guidelines for peat moss classification and marketing language. The FTC's problem was with the large variety of weights and

volumes of peat moss commonly sold in local stores. The complaints

directed to the FTC were also directed to state officials, who expressed

their concern in your National Conference. The Conference asked the

National Bureau of Standards to develop a model commodity regulation for state use. These problems were then brought into focus by the peat moss trade

associations with a request to ASTM to form a standards-writing

committee to straighten things out. These issues were aired at an ASTM meeting and a committee was recommended. This committee was formed with the FTC as one of the 40 participating groups and

has produced eight test methods, a sampling plan, and a series of

pertinent definitions. Not only have all interests, including yours, been served, but the FTC was satisfied and has not pursued its original plan to issue peat moss guidelines.

Here's another example. Recently octane numbers have appeared on gasoline pumps across the nation, courtesy of the FTC. For the

first time, owners of new cars requiring lead-free gasoline found out

why their new car performance was lower than that of their former

car which used the less expensive leaded gasoline—the octane ratings

for the new higher priced lead-free "regular" gasoline are poorer than

the octane numbers for the lower priced leaded "regular"!

What are octane numbers? Where do they come from?

The octane number is a measure of the actual performance of gas- oline in a test engine. These engines developed in accordance with

ASTM standards are used by the entire petroleum industry to obtain

uniform data on gasoline quality. Every gallon of gasoline sold in the

40
United States must have as its pedigree a proven relationship to an

acceptable octane number measured by the ASTM tests. How do we know that the pedigree claims are valid?

There is within the ASTM Committee on Petroleum Products, a

long-established group called the "National Exchange Group." This

group is open to anyone running octane tests. Members include all gasoline suppliers, interested commercial laboratories and state laboratories that have the ASTM test engines. The program is conducted

by the U.S. Department of Energy, and before that department came

into existence, by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The program manager

circulates a gasoline sample every six months to participants, assembles their test data, and issues evaluated results. Each individual

laboratory then has an evaluation of how well that laboratory stands

in relation to the others. This voluntary self-checking program as- sures the public—and the FTC—that the values shown at the pump

are indeed correct. There is, of course, strong economic incentive for the gasoline pro- ducer to maintain good laboratory practices. Should his octane number be too high, he would be giving away value not reimbursed at the pump. On the other hand, should his octane number be too low,

he could expect one of your state inspectors to impound his product.

Without this kind of program there could be endless debate as to which of the contending parties had in fact been correct. Naturally the effort required to develop an ASTM standard test and its associated measurements is very large. But so are the benefits.

To review them again, the benefits are increased knowledge of the

technology, increased understanding of the issues, and increased validity of the results. The importance of this validity arises whenever

the results are used in the courts. There is yet another perception here that is important to you. That

is international activities in the standards field and particularly,

standards relating to measuring instruments and measurement

methods. You have undoubtedly heard of ISO, the Geneva-based vol- untary International Organization for Standardization, and IEC—the

International Electrotechnical Commission, which is ISO's electrical

counterpart. These two organizations are the principal international

voluntary standards bodies and have produced more than 4,000 in- ternational standards. ISO alone hopes to reach an annual output of

700 to 800 new or revised standards per year by the end of this year.

ASTM committees maintain an active interest in ISO and IEC and

in the case of 36 ISO committees, the U.S. consensus vote on standards

being developed within the working groups are developed within

ASTM. The success of the U.S. effort may be measured by the large

number of ASTM standards that have formed the basis of ISO stand41
ards. This has been particularly true in such activities as steel, plastics, petroleum, coal, rubber, and water quality. In just a minute I will explain why our international standards connections are becoming even more important.

There is another international organization concerned with meas- i urements whose influence is growing. This is the Paris-based Inter- national Organization of Legal Metrology with which you are familiar

because of its activities in developing model laws and regulations for measuring instruments that impact upon Handbook-44 and other

outputs of this National Conference. OIML's mission as an intergovernmental organization is very similar to your own—to achieve uniformity of mandatory requirements for measuring instruments and

methods among its 44 member nations. Recently, ASTM has been

working with Art McCoubrey and Dave Edgerly from NBS, who manage the U.S. program in OIML, to outline specific technical activities

within OIML and ASTM where there are common interests. There

is little question in my mind that the ASTM technical committee can

be as effective for the development of U.S. inputs to OIML as they

have been in ISO, which is a matter that will eventually be of some

importance to you.

Now you may be wondering why so much emphasis on the international arena and further, how international standards impact upon

what is going on in this Conference or what you are doing in your

state or city. Well, international standards are needed to support the

world's economy and this country must ensure that standards that are adopted internationally do not inhibit export opportunities. You

have probably heard of or recently read about the package of nine

international agreements under the General Agreement on Tariffs

and Trade (GATT) that were signed in Geneva in April by the United

States and 22 of our major trading partners. These agreements which

are now before the Congress for approval are intended primarily to ensure that the international trading system is both fair and open.

Among the nine agreements is a code for the prevention oftechnical

barriers to trade, more commonly referred to as the GATT Standards

Code. The bill (HR4537) to implement the standards code is now

before the Congress. Basically, it specifies that no federal agency may

engage in a standards-related activity that creates unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Further, federal

agencies, in developing standards of their own, shall take into con- sideration international standards and shall, if appropriate, base

their standards on international standards. The bill also says, for example, that as with federal agencies it is the desire of the Congress

that no state agency and no private person should engage in standards-related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to U.S. for- eign commerce and that states and private organizations (ASTM)

should use international standards as the basis for the standards we

42
develop. The bill covers the activities of ASTM and, as I see it, the

activities of this Conference as regards Handbook-44 and, perhaps,

other Conference model codes and test methods. What this new legislation will mean is that we will have to be sure that the standards

ASTM develops and that this Conference develops do not inhibit U.S.

products from competing in foreign markets. I am sure that you will

be hearing more about this legislation as time goes on. The point I want to make is that insofar as the outputs of this Conference affect intrastate and interstate commerce you must now also consider the

effect of your actions on foreign commerce. Now, finally, I should point out that your measurement concerns

are not entirely new to ASTM Committees. On the ASTM Books are standard methods for testing laboratory balances, specifications for laboratory precision mass standards, specifications for volumetric

flasks, specifications for a variety of thermometers, and calibration

procedures for various thermocouples. Additionally, numerous specifications for analytical equipment have been published. Many of

these have been developed in the ASTM "service" committees. This

is a feature of ASTM worth another moment here.

Within the ASTM system there are quite a number of specialty

"service" committees, which lend their expertise to our product and

materials standard-writing committees. These service committees in- clude experts on statistical problems, on setting up interlaboratory

test programs, on using specific kinds of instruments for chemical,

physical, and electrical tests, even experts on computerized laboratory

systems. All function as consultants to other ASTM committees, and

all contribute to the integrity of the ASTM system.

The consensus process used by ASTM has great value and has

enhanced the field of measurement technology by producing standards which enjoy general acceptability. Such standards extend into

almost every segment of the U.S. economy. My review has tried to show that the ASTM forum when applied to matters as earthy as peat moss or as volatile as gasoline can achieve results credible

enough to resolve government concerns without the need of costly

regulation. It has been shown that the influence of the concerned

citizen working in ASTM can extend far beyond the borders of the

United States. But most important, it shows that equity is a common

goal shared and sought by both your Conference and ASTM.

Unquestionably, ASTM can do more to assist the weights and measures community and I will take a few minutes to mention some of

the possibilities in this regard. Your Conference works very effec- tively to produce technical specifications and tolerances for commercial weighing and measuring instruments which you incorporate into

Handbook-44 and adopt as regulations within the states. Indeed, the

requirements laid down in Handbook-44 are the principal means for achieving uniformity of regulations covering commercial measuring

43
devices among the 50 states. In enforcing the requirements of Handbook-44 it is essential to have available standard test methods and

procedures for determining compliance with Handbook-44. ASTM has

worked successfully with many groups over the years to produce test methods for a wide variety of materials and products. You might

consider how ASTM could be of service to the National Conference

in this connection.

The scientific and measurement instrument industry is undergoing

a vast electronics revolution brought about by microprocessors and

solid state memory units. Measurements of greater accuracy are obtained with greater speed than formerly, and exceptional events are

easily noted, remembered, and displayed on command. Department

of Commerce industry predictions are that microprocessors and the

resulting so-called "smart" generation of instruments will continue

to penetrate the measuring device industry for at least 6 or 7 more

years. The result is a much more sophisticated family of measuring

devices. The weights and measures community and the National Conference will need to keep pace with these new technologies through

appropriate revisions of Handbook-44 and, perhaps, of other Confer- ence model laws and regulations. It seems to me that ASTM might

be of service by providing the forum through which specialized meas- urement committees could be established to provide information and

data on which the Conference might base recommended answers to

specific measurement problems.

In conclusion, ASTM is prepared to assist the Conference in meeting

new challenges in measurement. All you have to do is ask.

44
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS

LABORATORIES

IT'S ROLES AND MISSION

Presented by Ronald E. Kidd, Microwave Associates, Standards

and Calibration Laboratories

As President of the National Conference of

Standards Laboratories, I appreciate the in- vitation to speak at this 64th Annual National

Conference on Weights and Measures. I wel- come this opportunity to very briefly describe

to you the NCSL. I am hopeful that some of

you—if not all of you—will choose to participate in some manner in NCSL's activities.

The National Conference of Standards Laboratories is a non-profit management organization of some 400 standards laboratories,

calibration laboratories, organizations that

maintain such laboratories, or other organizations having related

interests in metrology, the science of accurate measurement.

Membership in NCSL includes representatives from every sector

of the measurement community. It includes laboratories from aca- demic, scientific, industrial, commercial, and governmental organizations.

Member organizations vary widely in size; measurement laboratories consisting of a couple of persons to a couple of hundred persons.

They have one common interest, metrology.

The genesis of the National Conference of Standards Laboratories was in a suggestion by Harvey Lance, a National Bureau of Standards

employee, to the effect that some sort of association of standards

laboratories could help in solving their common problems. He made

that suggestion while presenting a paper at a conference on standards

of electromagnetic measurement at the NBS Boulder laboratories in

June 1960. It was an idea whose time had come. During the discussion

that followed his paper, several attendees suggested a meeting to explore the formation of such an organization. The next morning 132

people showed up for an impromptu meeting on the proposal. They

chose from their number a steering committee; and the following

year, on September 15, 1961, the National Conference of Standards

Laboratories was chartered—essentially in its present form.

The National Conference of Standards Laboratories has only one

sponsor: The National Bureau of Standards of the United States. The

Director of the NBS designated one person to represent the bureau

in the NCSL organization. That person is called the Sponsors Delegate; and he has traditionally been someone from the upper echelon

45
of Bureau management who effectively acts as liaison agent between

the nation's principal standards laboratory and the working laboratories of commerce, industry, academia, the Department of Defense,

and other governmental organizations.

The current Sponsor's Delegate is Dr. Bascom W. Birmingham,

Director of the NBS Laboratories in Boulder, Colorado. NCSL members are a major constituency of users of NBS services and can significantly influence those services NBS will be offering a few years

hence. Dr. Birmingham has been doing an outstanding job of providing effective opportunities to effectuate said influence. One method

is a direct annual meeting of NCSL officers with Dr. Ernest Ambler,

Director of NBS. This year's meeting, held in April, covered several

topics which I will cover very briefly. The major topics were education

and training, Measurement Assurance Programs (the technique of

providing calibration laboratory management with methods for evaluating and/or improving the quality of measurements performed by

their laboratories); and the rapid growth of Automatic Test Equipment and the Computer industry. It is said that if the automobile

industry had experienced the same rate of technological change as the computer industry, a Rolls Royce now would cost fifty cents and

get sixteen million miles per gallon. A meeting with NBS staff in

Gaithersburg, Maryland led to a meeting with Albert Tholen and the

invitation to speak about NCSL at this conference.

A distinctive provision of NCSL bylaws provides that NCSL members are laboratories, organizations, or companies—not individuals.

Each member laboratory, organization or company then selects some- one from within its organization to represent it as a member of NCSL.

This person is called a "Member Delegate."

Member Delegates, in turn, elect from their ranks a Board of Directors to manage the National Conference ofStandards Laboratories.

The Board of Directors comprises the officers of NCSL—namely, the

President, Executive Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Immediate Past President, four Vice-Presidents, five Directors, and the Sponsor Delegate.

The high point of the National Conference of Standards Laboratories operation is its annual meeting, held alternately at the NBS

laboratories in Boulder, Colorado, and Gaithersburg, Maryland. This

meeting is traditionally held in the fall of the year, usually October.

This year's conference will be held in Boulder, Colorado on October

15, 16, and 17, 1979. The technical sessions of that meeting are often

workshops, and they are open not only to people from member lab- oratories but also to anyone else who is interested in furthering the

art and science of metrology. Though the annual meeting is the highlight of the NCSL organization, it is far from being the only function

of the organization. It may not even be the most important function.

46
The grass-roots strength of NCSL is in its regional organizations.

There are eight regions within the United States plus an international

region. Each region has a coordinator appointed by the Board of Directors. Member delegates within the regions are encouraged to meet

at least twice each year—more often if they wish. These meetings can

be particularly effective not only in solving common problems of a

regional nature, but in identifying the larger needs of the entire

membership. I know that several of the attendees at this conference

have participated at our regional meetings near their companies'

location. I invite you all to attend one of these meetings.

On the national scale, much of the important work of the NCSL is done by standing and ad hoc committees. These committees, appointed

by the Board ofDirectors, concentrate on finding solutions to problems

confronting member laboratories. Committees currently operating in

NCSL are: National Measurement Requirements, Laboratory Evaluating, Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Metrology, Calibration Systems Management, Measurement Assurance, Product Design and

Specifications, Educational and Training, and Recommended Practices. Other standing committees of NCSL take care of continuing housekeeping and communications responsibilities. These committees currently handle Meetings and Programs, Honors and Awards, Newsletter

and Information Directory.

NCSL coordinates its activities with those of other organizations

through liaison with those groups. Organizations that currently have

liaison delegates are: Government-Industry Data Exchange Program

Metrology Committee, the Measurement Science Conference, the In- ternational Organization of Legal Metrology, the Precision Measurement Association, the American Society of Quality Control, the

Instrument Society of America, the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation, and the American Society for Testing and Materials. In fact, I serve on two ASTM committees (E-36 Criteria

Evaluation of Test and/or inspection Agencies, and E-46 Quality Systems). I was voted by the NCSL Board of Directors at the last meeting

to be that liaison delegate to ASTM. I welcome this opportunity to personally meet Mr. Cavanaugh, Managing Director of ASTM, at this

conference.

When asked, "What are the advantages of membership in NCSL?"

members most often identify the NCSL Newsletter. It is a valuable

compilation of articles, reports, and comment that reflect the thinking

and that highlight the interests of the entire measurement community.

Recommended practices found in the NCSL members' "Information

Manual" are also mentioned. Currently recommended practices cover: "Evaluation of Measurement Control Systems and Calibration Lab47
oratories", "Established and Adjustment of Calibration Intervals",

"Preparation of Calibration Procedures", and "Calibration Systems

Specification."

The NCSL Directory of Standards Laboratories is also a popular

publication with both members and non-members. The directory lists more than 110 standards laboratories, indicates their calibration capabilities, and gives a mailing address and telephone number. There

is even a listing by zip code so you can quickly locate those laboratories

in your vicinity.

Another membership advantage often cited is the NCSL Training

Aids Library. This is a collection of video tapes, audio tapes, and 35

mm slides that is available to members at no charge. Less easily

identified are the less tangible advantages in NCSL: the good ideas

you got from the fellow member at the last Regional Meeting, the

opportunity to compare and contrast your laboratory's operation with

others—both small and large. Or perhaps it is just the satisfaction

of knowing that you are contributing to the overall effectiveness of

the National Measurement System. Or maybe it is the camaraderie

that is found among people who understand and appreciate the sat- isfaction of precision measurement. Maybe it isn't easy to identify the

most important reason for joining NCSL; but taken altogether, NCSL

membership is not only a bargain in today's world—it is also one of

the most cost-effective investments any organization can make if ac- curate measurements are important in achieving the goals of the

organization.

It is easy to join NCSL. I have brought two hundred green covered

NCSL brochures which have descriptions of the organization and

applications on the back. They are available on the rear tables and

describe the process. Please take one with you.

I hope that this briefreview ofthe National Conference ofStandards

Laboratories Roles and Mission has been of interest to the members

of this Conference on Weights and Measures; hopefully, if you express an interest, NCSL can provide the needed services.

48
TRADITION IN TRANSITION

Presented by Albert D. Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards

I believe that the title of my message "Tradition in Transition" and the theme of this

64th Annual Conference on Weights and

Measures "Equity on the Move" are a perfect

example of counterpoint.

I make this counterpoint to assure you that

I am in tune with you and in the hope that

you will find what I have to say to be harmonious with your theme song.

It is entirely appropriate that this confer- ence is here in the West. We in the East are

often told that breaks with tradition originate out here and are rapidly adopted in the East. The most recent proof of that is the current gasoline shortage. The

gasoline lines showed up first in California (breaking with the tra- dition of plentiful, cheap fuel) and rapidly spread eastward.

Then, odd/even days were adopted out here—breaking with the

tradition that any American has the right to buy anything, anytime,

as long as he or she can pay for it (or charge it). Now, folks in the

East are sorted out as odd or even. 1 happen to have a license plate

which is all letters—OWM NBS, which is my way of telling the world

I am proud to be with the Office of Weights and Measures of the

National Bureau of Standards (ergo OWM NBS).

I find that many people do not know about us—which, by the way

is one of the crosses you folks share with me. You do such a good job

of providing equity and uniformity that the public takes their protection for granted. (In fact, they often do not even know we exist.)

But, back to odd/even. Since my plate contains all letters, the State

regulation defines me as even. I find, however, that when I am in line

for gas on even days, a lot of the even folks in line are very odd.

I also read that Oregon, in its earlier days, was populated for the

most part by traders and missionaries. That seems to say a lot about

traders, doesn't it? I meant to ask Ken Simila whether there are more

or fewer missionaries in Oregon now that the traders have been re- placed with environmentalists. Yes, the great Northwest is trying to preserve its tradition of unspoiled nature. Exploring the origin of our traditions can be fun—often rewarding

with the insights that knowledge gives us. We all want to know how

it all began. We are anxious to understand why we do things as we

do, and why we possess the feelings, the convictions, we do; and why

we do things in certain prescribed ways.

49
The story of our traditions is not always easy to trace. Perhaps we, take our traditions on faith. In the musical of the 1960's "Fiddler on

the Roof tradition was the thread of continuity woven through every

facet of the lives of those who lived in the village of Anatevka. The

lead role, played by Zero Mostel, was the milkman Tevye. Tevye was

the Fiddler on the roof. As he sits precariously on the steeply pitched

roof of his house, he says:

"Tradition. Without our traditions, our lives would be as shaky

as—as a fiddler on the roof."1 Those of you who saw the show or know the story will share with

me the soul searching dilemma. The villagers were faced with transition all around them—a transition threatening their very exist- ence—an existence based on very strong tradition. In this case, the

outside transition was met by further retreat into tradition, until

their entire world flew apart.

Today, in 1979, in Portland, Oregon, the assembled representatives

of weights and measures programs of device manufacturers, of processors, of packagers, of service companies, of standards groups, of

consumers, meet as they have met on 63 occasions in the past, as they

have traditionally met since 1905. But, thank goodness, we are not

like Tevye, sitting precariously on a roof, fiddling away our future.

No! We are here assembled traditionally, but prepared to shape our

tradition to serve American society in transition, in a transition which

is challenging many of the traditions of our community:

A tradition based on mechanical measuring and weighing devices.

A tradition based on using inches and pounds.

A tradition using intuition and experience rather than statistical procedures.

A tradition of patronage-based staffing.

Oh, but you say, tradition has served us well in the past. Therefore,

it will serve us well in the future.

Yes, I am convinced that the weights and measures system in this

country has been a tremendous success. Our shoppers by the millions

shop every day and make tens of millions of purchases based on

weight, measure, and count. They shop in the well-placed belief that

they will not be cheated. You make confidence in the honesty of the

market a fact. Your predecessors built the heritage which makes the

slogan "Equity-in-the-marketplace" a proud and real tradition, a tra- dition in which every one of us should be proud.

The challenge today is not of defending our tradition against transition like Tevye, but to build on our tradition—to shape it, to embellish it, to automate it, to mechanize it. Again, in Fiddler on the Roof,2 with chaos all around them, the

'"Fiddler on the Roof Prologue

2 "Fiddler on the Roof Scene 4, Tradition. Reprise

50
villagers sang a song declaring their defense of tradition. Let me read

the words, paraphrased for us today:

"They gave each other a pledge

unheard of, absurd.

You gave each other a pledge?

Unthinkable.

Where do you think you are?

(In New York?) (In Hawaii?)

Where do you think you are?

(Portland?)

What do you think you are doing?

(You device maker. You inspector.)

Who do you think you are?

King Solomon?

This isn't the way it is done,

Not Here! Not now!

Some things I will not, I cannot, allow.

Tradition"

This week in dealing with tradition you are facing transition.

You are going to make some decisions based on your collective

perceptions of the proper balance of tradition in transition.

Let's not fiddle around.

Let's get the job done.

Between 1909 and 1911, inspectors from the Bureau visited

every State of the Union, testing over 30,000 scales, weights, and

dry and liquid measures in 3,220 different shops and stores. They

were not surprised to find that almost half the scales tested were

badly inaccurate, that 20 percent of the weights, half the dry

measures, and a quarter of the liquid measures were in error, or

that with remarkable consistency these scales and measures

favored the storekeeper. The Bureau estimated that in the case of

pre-packaged butter alone the annual loss to the consumer,

through rigged or faulty weighing devices, amounted to more than

$8,250,000. From the start, journalists and reporters followed the

track of the Bureau inspectors, and with the first disclosures of

what the journalists termed "the knavish distortion of weights and

measures," the crusade began. New York State's superintendent of

weights and measures, Dr. Fritz Reichmann, and Mayor Gaynor of

New York City soon launched investigations of their own and other

States followed. Over the next two years almost a hundred articles

in the periodical press reported the weights and measures campaign across the country.

51
As a result of the widespread demand for better laws and better

inspection of trade weights and measures in the wake of the survey,

first New Jersey and then other States enacted the model law pro- posed by the Bureau, and State after State exhumed and submitted

for verification to the Bureau the standards that had been furnished

them some fifty years earlier or purchased new equipment for their

State sealers. Answering urgent appeals, the Bureau drafted a model

weights and measures ordinance for municipalities, and detailed its experts to first one and then another of the States which requested

aid in setting up their inspection departments.

This kind of experience has been and can be repeated as individual

weights and measures programs pass through cycles of high and low

fundings. There is high payoff in terms of accuracy—in terms of eq- uity—in terms ofhonesty. Weights and measures programs are strong

when they are strong in management, inspection, and enforcement.

What is urgently needed is a reference document—a world almanac

of weights and measures facts. We need to know how many scales were tested, how many meters were examined, how many packages were checked. We need to know what compliance levels are, what the

trends in compliance are. We need to do the analysis which will

support your programs and justify your budget requests.

We intend to work in this direction. We expect to get a better handle on this challenge through use of the "National-Regional-State Telecommunication Exchange Network" operated by the FDA. This sys- tem provides two-way communications between the Federal

Government and all fifty States plus Puerto Rico for facsimile trans- mission as well as teletype. They (the FDA), as many of you know,

collect activity data from the States; this, together with reports you

send OWM, plus results expected from the program review plan being

developed by your Education Committee will serve as the basis for assembly of weights and measures program justification for defense

of local budgets.

A railroad problem came to the Bureau early in this century when

the Interstate Commerce Commission, aroused by mounting complaints, requested that a study be made of railroad, elevator, grainhopper, and other large-capacity scales used in determining freight

charges in interstate shipments. Few States inspected scales, the Bureau found, and many railroads maintained such scanty supervision over their freight scales that some were little more than "guessing

machines." As a result, railroad freight scales, upon which more than

$2 billion annually in revenues were determined, had long been a

source of bitter complaint and litigation. In 1913, with an appropriation from Congress of $25,000 for the

investigation, the Bureau had a special railway scale test car built,

hitched it to a series of slow freights headed north, and began testing

railroad scales in the States of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut,

52
and Vermont. The results matched the earlier experience with market

weights and measures. Allowing a fair tolerance for such scales, between 75 and 80 percent of the track scales tested were candidates

for outright rejection, some weighing short by as much as 3.9 percent

(1,349 pounds with a load of 35,000 pounds) and 3.5 percent (2,459

pounds with loads of 70,000 pounds). Acquiring another test car, the

Bureau extended its investigation of scales into the Midwest and the

South.

As the railroads, as well as manufacturing concerns and State

agencies, set up inspection procedures under Bureau direction the

large capacity scales began to register more nearly true (i.e., with a

tolerable error of 200 pounds in 100,000 pounds gross weight). The

Bureau test cars with their master scales still continued their rounds,

adjusting track scales and calibrating the scale cars that were ac- quired by the railroads.

If you will excuse my pun, we at NBS have been asking if we are "on the right track" regarding the railroad track scale calibration

activities. A program begun in 1913 as a research effort is still going on in 1979

66 years later. Certainly 66 years alone should not con- demn an activity. What is a fact is that this is an operation based on

the fruits of research. It should be in the hands of a regulatory or- ganization, not a research laboratory.

Here, an activity had become a tradition—period. We propose a

transition of this tradition. A transition in which the FGIS will op- erate the test cars and the metrology laboratory of the State of Illinois will calibrate the test weights and provide traceability to the National

Standards through their State standards. All involved parties have

agreed in principle with this plan to be effective by October 1, of this year. How about metrication? Here we are face to face with tradition;

face to face with resistance to transition.

Now I'm no Don Quixote. I have no intention of tilting with windmills. Although "The Impossible Dream" is an invigorating ballad,

I don't subscribe to all the lyrics, especially becoming "scorned and

covered with scars." The fact is, use of the metric system is growing

voluntarily and it is not necessary to charge out in front like Don

Quixote. It is necessary, however, to be prepared to protect and pro- mote uniformity and equity. In the change to the metric system, we

must be ready to protect the traditions of uniformity and equity-inthe-marketplace by being tuned into the transition of metrication

and away from the tradition of inch-pounds. Let me review our role

in this situation—a good example of "tradition in transition."

Weights and measures officials have a key role to play in the con- version process. NBS, through its Office of Weights and Measures

(OWM), is in a unique position to coordinate this activity. NBS or- ganized the National Conference on Weights and Measures in 1905

53
to achieve uniformity in weights and measures operations (tradition.)

The Conference has been so effective in this mission that PL 94-168

called on the NCWM to be active in metric conversion.

NBS itself has also been a key agency within the Federal Government with regard to metrication. The U.S. Metric Study was con- ducted by NBS from 1968 to 1971. Following the study, NBS

maintained a Metric Information Office until after the passage of PL

94-168 which created the U.S. Metric Board. The National Conference, recognizing its need to respond to the metric situation in the

country, formed a Metric Planning Committee in 1974.

The Metric Act does not add new responsibilities to NBS or OWM.

Rather, it simply calls upon them to continue to provide leadership

during one of the most important periods of weights and measures

in the U.S. To date NBS/OWM working with the NCWM has:

• Provided technical guidance for introduction of metric terminology and SI units into the Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation.

• Initiated work for introduction of metric terminology in: (1) Model State Regulations for unit pricing, open dating, and

method of sale of commodities; and (2) Handbook 44 "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices."

• Responded to the current issue of gasoline sales as the price moves to over $1 per gallon by working towards a coordinated

approach to metric as each State selected that solution.

• Kept weights and measures officials up-to-date on metric activity

by informal newsletters and memorandum as well as reports at national and regional meetings.

Even if the metric act had not mentioned NCWM and (indirectly)

NBS, OWM would have needed to be involved in this activity due to

its traditional and ongoing role in working with the Nation's weights

and measures officials. This activity is clearly compatible with the

NBS Organic Act (tradition) and reinforces long-running NBS pro- grams.

We are proud professionals. We know that our roots—our weights

and measures roots—go back to earliest history. We know that God

told the people in Israel in Leviticus, Chapter 19, Verse 36 that "Just

balances, just weights . . . shall ye have."

We also know that our Constitution speaks to weights and measures. Our lineage is long. Our lineage is respectable. But a long,

respectable lineage is no guarantee of a successful future. The future

54
depends on our planning—planning which: First, keeps each one of

! us up to date, keeps our skills in a transition of growth. We know

that technology is in transition. You cannot and I cannot handle the

new technology with traditional skills alone.

Second, we must bring new professionals into weights and measures who already have the basic educational skills needed tomorrow and

next year. We must get measurement training into transition:

• Training of inspectors using audio-visual technology

• Two year associate programs at junior colleges, and

• Introduction of measurement science into undergraduate and

graduate programs at selected universities.

Regarding the first item, OWM is procuring audio-visual equipment and had arranged for assistance from our media experts to begin

production of training sessions on audio-visual casettes. Our first product will be developed late this fall—and if successful—will be

reproduced and sent to each major jurisdiction. In the second area—we want to work with Yuba College and Alfred

Tech to develop more formal associations. In the third area—our goal is more challenging:

i To develop formal undergraduate and graduate programs in

measurement science at a leading university;

To establish a measurement science curriculum as: A minor in undergraduate degree programs;

A separate masters program; and,

A Ph.D. program

To accomplish this we must have support of:

• State and local weights and measures officials (and their parent

organizations);

• Industry and business decision makers;

• The National Bureau of Standards;

• The educational community—the universities.

55
The program will probably be under the direction of a School of

Engineering and will be a cooperative activity of the university, in- dustry, and government providing education, research, and service

programs related to measurement.

Measurement science is based on tradition but it is in a very challenging state of transition. We must recalibrate ourselves and our

organizations with new skills. Your Conference Education Committee is working diligently along

these lines.

I'd like to call your attention to a few facts:

• First, you had the printed proceedings of last year's conference

in your hands for use before coming to this conference

• Second, you have the report of the temperature compensation

seminar in hand—printed

• Third, you have a draft of HB 44 in the format recommended by

your committee

• Fourth, you have a draft of a new handbook (HB 130), a com- pendium of weights and measures laws and regulations complete

with adoption history and information on promulgation

• Fifth, you have a draft prospectus designed to aid in broadening

the participation in the NCWM as a professional society.

These documents are tangible evidence of hard work by your committees, of hard work by the staff in the Office of Weights and Measures, and are tangible evidence of the use of new management

techniques and word processing technology.

What are your committees looking for in the future? What is the

OWM looking for in the future?

We want to put more technical and administrative resources in

your hands, and do it in a more timely fashion. Prior to the interim

meetings, we want to get the proceedings out, we want to get the

updated Handbook 44, and we want to get the revised Model Laws

and Regulations out. Why? For two reasons: First, so that you can get the necessary

information to your legislatures. Second, so that weights and measures officials, industry, consumers, and other government agencies

will be better prepared for the interim meetings in January.

We had to break with tradition in putting these documents together.

We are making the transition. Now, there is another goal, another

potential payoff of this new procedure if you support a recommendation of your committees.

56
That goal, in addition to getting documents, handbooks, reports to you sooner, is to get the proceedings into the hands of not 500 weights

and measures officials only—although that is extremely important.

The goal is to get the proceedings into the hands of every inspector,

manager, serviceman, official, businessman, and tradesman who is involved in weights and measures anywhere and everywhere. Not 500

but 5,000, then 6,000, possibly even 15,000 and to do the same with

I Handbook 44, and with Handbook 130, and with any other profes-

| sional weights and measures reference.

This is possible, this is essential, if we are going to grow professionally in State programs, service companies, device marketing, device manufacturing, and consumer understanding.

Our tradition has limited our potential. Let's make a transition to

j bring all of our associates into the NCWM—a NCWM known and

accepted as a professional society—and without harming the marvelous, effective, mechanism for change—for uniformity—for equity,

which it has been—and is. Let's make it even more effective. Let's make it even more re- spected.

This is a busy week. Your committees have labored long and hard

in the weights and measures vineyards. They have wrestled with

bringing new ideas forward. Trying to sort out cumbersome tradition.

Mixing some solid transition.

Now, we ask for your contribution—a contribution based on a willingness to be a part of "Tradition in Transition." For if we choose

right we shall all benefit, all who are here, all who deal in the marketplace, every resident in this country.

Let me leave you with this promise, a quote from Lord Byron written in 1817:

"To do good for mankind is the chivalrous plan,

and is always nobly requited,

then battle for (progress) wherever you can, and, if not shot or hanged

you'll ket knighted"

Let's continue our good work for mankind, let's battle for progress

built on the best of our tradition—progress harnessing

transition.

Then, I'm confident that none of us will be shot or hanged, but

rather that all of us will be candidates for knighthood.

57
A LEGAL METROLOGY CONTROL SYSTEM APPLICABLE I TO THE UNITED STATES

I

I

Presented by Kenneth F. Hammer, President, Fairbanks Weighing

Division, Colt Industries

The Scale Manufacturers Association is what its name implies. Additionally, its members are exclusively U.S. manufacturers. The

Association was founded in 1945.

We are proud of the long history since that

time of legitimate reconciliation of our differ- ences as competitors and constructive contributions to the deliberations of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

I am privileged today to represent the Scale

Manufacturers. Since 1974, we have had the

benefit of professional association management leadership of our administrative and technical activities. That

leadership has allowed us to define issues, to identify motives, and

to quickly reach positions of constructive agreement or recognizable

situations of irreconcilable disagreement.

Most of our deliberations are addressed to issues affecting H-44.

Our principal contact with the National Conference has been through

its S & T Committee.

But of recent years the activity level has increased and the issues

have broadened. We hope the view we express today will be ofinterest

and significance to all of you. We ask that you consider it in the

intervening months between now and your next regional meetings.

We suggest that the subject of this address be given formal consideration by an appropriate committee at the 65th National Conference.

The world of commercial legal measurement has recently been and

will probably remain for another ten years, subject to dynamic change.

Using industries and measurement equipment manufacturers are in- troducing new technologies. Consumers and trade associations demand the consideration of ever-changing interests. Regulatory agencies

and sealers strive for ever-higher plateaus of cost effectiveness and

certainty regarding measurement assurance. At the same time,

underlying and fundamental concepts are changing which influence

the whole fabric of H-44 as in the case of the consideration of metrication of U.S. measurement and under the influence of European

ideas as fostered by the O.I.M.L. technocracy.

The resulting flood of change proposals to H-44 threatened to in- undate the SMA. We increased our capacity through substantial

58
member contribution of technical time and talent as well as the addition of permanent staffing which the Board of Directors again in- creased yesterday. But we found that consistent consideration of the

multiplicity of change proposals coming from sources of differing

motivations required a preconceived and common underlying philosophy.

That philosophy is expressed in a document adopted as a unanimous

SMA member position on November 14, 1978. It has been in use

within the Association since that time. We find it useful in determining whether we support the motivation of a proposed change. We

find it useful in determining whether the proposed change will pro- duce the desired effect. And we find it useful in reconciling the positions we take at different points in time. We present to you an SMA

recommendation for "A legal Metrology Control System Applicable

to the U.S." I hope that you all at this point in time have copies

available to you for your perusal during the balance of this presentation. [The recommendation appears as an appendix to this report]

The parties to a commercial transaction at the time of the transaction need confidence in the measurement upon which that trans- action is based. We agree that the object of commercial legal

metrology is to "achieve a specified accuracy with a specified degree

of assurance at the places of the commercial transaction." That a

gasoline pump, a scale, or a length-measuring device used in the

transaction was accurate at some time past is not sufficient. But we

also recognize that individual measurement by impartial referees is not economically possible nor politically tolerable.

So we begin with the examination of the entire process of measurement. Essentially this involves the creation at some point in our economy of a new measurement capability. Somewhere back in a Fairbanks laboratory is a new microprocessor-based measurement

device of which you have no knowledge. Ultimately that device will

be made available to the market and provided by sale to a particular

measurement location. The provision will include installation. The

measurement capability will then be used by its new owner in commercial transactions with others. At some point in time, it will require

maintenance and will be returned to use. Cost effective control of the quality of legal commercial measure- ment in the U.S. involves understanding that process and asserting

control at some points in it. Exhibits I, II, and III of the paper you hold define that process. Effectively they are a map of the process. I will not attempt to detail

it here, but hope only to facilitate your ability to examine the admittedly complex diagrammatic form on the appendices A4, A6, and

A8. Both dimensions represent time. Events to the right of the page

occur later than events at the left. Events at the bottom occur later

than those at the top.

59
In that fashion at the top of this Figure if we were to consider

submissions by manufacturers ofnew devices to a type approval office,

submissions by manufacturers one after the other appear from left to right as rendered.

SUBMISSIONS

TIME

TIME

1980 INSPECTION

1981 INSPECTION

1980 INSPECTION

1981 INSPECTION

In the middle of the Figure, we illustrate a 1980 Field inspection

of a particular installed device occurring again in 1981 lower on the

page.

At the bottom of the Figure, we show that 1981 inspection lower

and to the right as they actually appear in your Exhibits I, II, and

III.

60
The three Exhibits depict the phases of the process. Component

supply is the creation of the availability to the market of a piece of

measurement equipment. The second phase is component application,

the sale and installation of a measuring unit at a particular location

of intended use. And the third phase, of course, is the actual commercial use and maintenance of the measurement capability.

As the steps in the process are the subjects of Exhibits I, II, and III, the hazards to measurement confidence during that process are depicted on appendices A10, A12, and A14 in Exhibits IV, V, and VI. We in the SMA have found these diagrams of the measurement

process and of the hazards to measurement confidence of considerable

value in the evaluation of proposed changes in H-44.

Definition of the process and its hazards also contributed to the

establishment of some principles upon which later recommendations

were based.

You will find on appendix A22 a tabulation of the princiles which

are cryptically summarized as follows:

First, a desirable system attains specified standards in actual op- erating circumstances.

Second, reasonably available tests of small error must provide precise measurement to precise standards.

Third, Field testing is the required foundation for our purpose.

Earlier activity reduces system cost and workload. Contrary to early

O.I.M.L. thinking, type examination does not increase measurement

confidence at the point of use but reduces the amount of Fiela in- spection necessary to that purpose.

An acceptable control system for legal metrology must use per- formance standards. Design standards throttle innovation, stifle competition among suppliers, and deprive the marketplace of improvement

to measurement capability.

We believe federalization of the U.S. system of weights and measures is neither necessary nor desired. Previous federalization of meat

and recently grain has contributed to a proliferation of standards, a

duplication ofregulatory functions, and the dilution of knowledgeable

input to those regulatory processes. Consider the workload imposed

upon the scale manufacturers in trying to provide knowledgeable

technical input to the considerations of U.S.D.A., F.G.I.S., and the

National Conference on Weights and Measures, in addition to the

states and the regional conferences. Now we must also establish our

credentials with O.I.M.L. and the E.E.C., if those agencies affect U.S.

standards or if our members attempt international marketing.

We believe the National Conference on Weights and Measures can

provide the initiation of the legislative foundation and the coordination of the public and private resources required to improve the

U.S. system of weights and measures.

61
And we fully believe, especially in the post-Proposition 13 era, that

cost effective enhancement of commercial measurement confidence

must use the combined public and private resources available.

Such a system of assuring measurement confidence should be at

direct user cost. Private companies can check equipment, public agencies can verify the result of equipment used by people in the real

market.

That concludes my simplified restatement of the principles. I am

sure you will want to consider and debate them in the coming months

as they appear in more complete form on appendix A22 of our paper.

Referring again to the process of supplying commercial measure- ment we adapt O.I.M.L. terminology to the phases of control which

are necessary for economic achievement of confidence. First, and at the earliest stages, is pattern approval. Intended, as I indicated before,

not so much to provide measurement confidence as to reduce the cost of later Field inspections, this approval examines the characteristics

of a particular type of measuring equipment before it is introduced

to the market and in the expectation that it will be produced in

considerable numbers.

Second, is the initial verification of each installation of measuring

equipment. This assures proper installation, interfacing with other

equipment, instruction of using personnel, and freedom from adverse

local environment effects. Last is the stage of subsequent verification which is the periodic

examination of measurement confidence during the life of the particular installation. We add to the O.I.M.L. definition the recognition

of equipment examinations and the examination of the yield of the

process. By that we mean, does the equipment in combination with

its users at the place of use really deliver measurements in which we

can have confidence. One form of this is the package weighing you

accomplish at the retail market in the case of prepacked foods.

I've talked about a process by which the ability to measure in commerce comes into being. We talked about the hazards to confidence

and accuracy in that process and we have talked about some principles

of technology, of economics, and of political theory to which the members of the SMA subscribe. Ultimately, we are talking about a system

of quality control. But unlike the the classic industrial systems of quality control, we are speaking of one applied to a process involving

many elements of our society. Consumers, retailers, and industries,

large and small, may all be involved in the process affecting one scale or gas pump at the corner of one of our streets anywhere in the United

States. No such system can work without an agreed philosopy, in- volvement of many people, and considerable communication between

those people.

62
And so we propose, with some trepidation, the recommendation of

Exhibit XII on appendix A25 of the SMA recommendation which was

reprinted in the Conference announcement on page 43.

We portray here a block organizational relationship with proposed

resource assignments which appear appropriate to an evolving, co- ordinated system of weights and measures. Central to the diagram

is shown a verification office. That role we believe is assigned to the

states. There are, of course, a multiplicity of such offices. They are concerned with the initial and subsequent verification functions. Supporting them are private and their own resources conducting equipment and process tests of equipment as it goes into the Field in the

initial system and thereafter in the subsequent system.

Those offices are provided a framework of policy, model regulation,

and authority by the National Conference which receives feedback

and input from the states for the continuing evolution of policy and

regulation.

Similarly related to the National Conference is the pattern approval

subsystem which we believe is best managed by the National Bureau

of Standards. The Bureau of Standards, however, would go further

in the direction of its effort with California and use both state and

private resources in the conduct of appropriate tests. At the left side of the page is also shown a role of the National

Bureau of Standards in international coordination with O.I.M.L.,

E.E.C. and other organizations which are sure to come into being.

The SMA adopted this position on the fourteenth of November,

1978. We are providing to you this exposure now in July, 1979. We

would suggest that you study it, consider it at your regional conferences, and consider its refinement and adoption at the July, 1980,

65th National Conference.

We believe that your consideration and hopefully adoption will

result in these benefits to the system of weights and measures in the

United States. Better proposals will flow to the National Conference for its consideration. These considerations will be more consistent. All of the

many resources in the U.S. will have more defined roles and those

roles will be universally understood. We believe that that will lead

to economic management and that the results will be measurable in

terms of the confidence levels of measurement accuracy actually

achieved in commerce in the United States. Thank you.

63
(Al)

AN SMA RECOMMENDATION

FOR A

LEGAL METROLOGY CONTROL SYSTEM

APPLICABLE TO

THE U.S.A.

Approved as an SMA position by vote of members 11/14/78.

64
(A2)

INTRODUCTION

The object of any system for control of legal measurements in commerce

should be the specification of the accuracy required of such measurements

and a provision for assurance of the degree of certainty that such accuracies are attained in actual commercial measurement practice.

Control of the quality of measurements for legal use in commerce

requires an understanding of the process which yields the measurements.

We examine and define the process by which the capability for such measurements is created and used. The resulting "map" of the process to be controlled is useful in defining at the beginning the purposes of a regulation, and the zones of the responsibility/authority.

Exhibit I - Component Supply pg. 4 Exhibit II - Component Application pg. 6 Exhibit III - Commercial Use pg. 8

We then examine the hazards to quality measurements in commercial use which

remain, regardless of the degree of control asserted in each stage of the process. This "map" of hazards facilitates critical evaluation of proposed

regulations, authority delegations, and organizational relationships.

Exhibit IV - Hazards During Component Supply pg. 10 Exhibit V - Hazards During Component Application pg. 12 Exhibit VI - Hazards During Commercial Use pg. 14

We then define the efforts of verification and qualification which seem to be required

.

Exhibit VII - Subsequent Verification Sub-System pg. 16 Exhibit VIII - Initial Verification Sub-System pg. 18 Exhibit IX - Pattern Evaluation Sub-System pg. 20

We provide a summary of principles serving as a foundation for, and included

within, this proposal.

We then conclude with a model organizational arrangement of the elements necessary for improved control of commercial metrology in the U.S. co- ordinated with developing international trends.

(A3)

Exhibit X Summary of Principles Pg. 22

Exhibit XI Exhibit XII

Control Systems Overlaid on Process

Suggested Roles in a U.S. System

pg. 24

pg. 26

In all following material, the graphic representation on a left page matches

the facing right page verbal amplification.
(A4)

66
(A5)

EXHIBIT I - COMPONENT SUPPLY

A. Invention and development of measuring equipment systems, and elements thereof, proceeds concurrently and continuously with

many companies in several nations.

B. Some of those developments show promise and continue further in development and test within the originating companies. Security

of intent remains a significant motivation. There exists today, great variations in company testing programs. Some companies

place greater reliance on "Regulatory Body Testing" than do others

for product evaluation.

C. "Prototypes," usually pre-production models built in engineering

laboratories, are submitted for regulatory testing and "blessing."

Such models are preferred by submitting companies because economic

investment is minimized and changes specified are more easily in- corporated into production designs.

D. Production design details are finalized, component sources and tooling are established, acceptance test procedures are established,

and a production "proof" lot is made.

E. The units of the "proof" and subsequent (E') lots are available for application to individual customer orders.
(A6)

68
(A7)

EXHIBIT II - COMPONENT APPLICATION

F. Sale is made to customer, by sales representative employed by manufacturer or by employee of an intermediary company(ies) to whom the manufacturer has sold equipment, for use in a particular

application.

G. The subject equipment is combined with other measurement elements,

i.e. displays and recording equipment. Such combination may occur

at manufacturing or application sites.

H. Associated equipment, i.e. conveyors, hoppers, grinders, mixers,

and equipment adjacent to and apparently unrelated to the measurement process is installed.

I. Tests for "initial verification" of the measuring equipment

accuracy, and repeatability are performed.

J. Personnel who will use the equipment in actual practice begin

operation.

K. The intended "commercial measurements" begin on the actual object

product. Assuring the quality of these measurements is the true purpose of any system of legal metrology.

69
(A8)

70
(A9)

EXHIBIT III - COMMERCIAL USE

K. The repetitious rendering of discrete measurements is interrupted

unpredictably by:

L. Repairs to the measurement system required by failure to function, failure to repeat, noticeable inaccuracy, or un- authorized/inadvertent intrusion.

M. Capability expansions ordered by the owner, i.e. display/reco

addition, remote/automatic operation, etc.,

N. Routine, periodic calibration and inspection,

P. Change/modification/addition of associated equipment,

Q. Further modification like M,

R. New operators replacing those originally trained/qualified.

S. Through time all of the above aberrations recur.
(A10)

72
(All)

EXHIBIT IV - HAZARDS TO COMMERCIAL MEASUREMENT DURING COMPONENT SUPPLY

A. Design objectives do not anticipate all environmental hazards. Design objectives do not 'anticipate all equipment combinations. Designs cannot anticipate parts obsolescence during life.

B. Tests do not replicate all conditions of use. Tests cannot anticipate future environmental hazards.

C. Prototype models are not duplicates of production units. Tests do not replicate all conditions of use. Tests cannot anticipate future environmental hazards.

D. Production units contain subtle design differences. Tolerances

create differences from the "approved" prototype.

E. Units are "customized" for sold order application. Production

tests do not fully replicate exhaustive "type" tests. Untested

part parameters differ from original characteristics. Changes

introduced in production create unanticipated/untested side effects. Process changes introduce unanticipated/untested side effects.

73
74
(A13)

EXHIBIT V - HAZARDS TO COMMERCIAL MEASUREMENT QUALITY INTRODUCED DURING COMPONENT APPLICATION

F. Salesman fails to perceive environment. Sells wrong model. Salesman sells untested combination of components.

G. Additional measurement elements interact. Cable interconnects

add antennas. Ambiguity created regarding proper operations.

H. Surrounding equipment adds mechanical/electrical influences. Interlocks insufficient to prevent unintended situations.

I. Tests seldom examine range of real environment. All surrounding

equipment may not be operating. Tests don't examine all modes

of operation.

J. Operators not trained. Operators fraudulent to own benefit. Operators fraudulent to owners benefit. Operators biased

toward speed rather than accuracy.
(A14)

i

o §E

«2 »

76
EXHIBIT VI - HAZARDS TO COMMERCIAL MEASUREMENT DURING COMMERCIAL USE

K. Random effects. Equipment, process, or operator.

L. Repairs introduce environmental sensitivity. Repairs affect

calibration.

M. Expansion violates - structural integrity. environmental sensitivity.

N. Field calibration introduces random errors. Field calibration ignores modes of true use. Calibration delayed past time of true need.

P. Modification of associated equipment changes measurement environment.

Q. Same as M and F.

R. New operators subject to same hazards as J with greater risk.

S. The foregoing events continue throughout equipment life.

77
(A16)

78
(A17)

EXHIBIT VII - SUBSEQUENT VERIFICATION SUB-SYSTEM

Process verification (1) of measurements actually made in commerce is the end-result of the whole system. New methodology is needed to provide

this "end-result" capability. Process verification requires random

surprise and the force and authority of law to be meaningful.

Equipment verification (2) and correction is becoming too complex for accomplishment by the generalist and can/must be accomplished as convenient to the process user. Periodic evaluation is a necessity. Periodicity is a function of equipment, use, and environment. Private sector employment is appropriate.

A network of communications providing reports of error (3 & 4) , changed

regulations and procedures (5), is required.

Analysis within the sub-system yields the changed local procedures (5)

,

and observations/recommendations (6) regarding performance/method

of the earlier sub-systems.

Persistent error and lack of durability (7) is reported to intensify

future initial verifications.

Notice of "initial verification" and appropriate methodology is provided (8)

.
(A18)
(A19)

EXHIBIT VIII - INITIAL VERIFICATION SUB-SYSTEM

Purpose is to shelter the subsequent verification system from excessive

failure incidents through startup of qualified process.

Equipment verifications (1) are a part of the process, may be done in field

or supply factory as specified in prior pattern approval, and may

be delegated to competent private sector entities.

Real verification (2) evaluates the process as actually used through new methods of output comparison measurement.

Acceptance yields report (3) to Subsequent Verification Office for later control.

Methodology and knowledge of pattern approval flows in from pattern approval

office (4) and repetitive failure reports flow back.

Policy and practice conclusions (5) flow to National Coordination Office

for consideration.

In some political jurisdictions, the Initial and Subsequent Offices may be

the same, but the separate functions must be recognized.

81
(A20)
(A21)

EXHIBIT IX - PATTERN APPROVAL SUB-SYSTEM

Paper and laboratory evaluations (1) may suffice.

Evidence of reproducibility (2) is highly desirable.

Most larger equipment requires a small number of application site demonstrations, (3), and process evaluations, (4), to verify

appropriateness of lab and paper examinations. Such field evaluations can utilize resources of verification sub-systems.

Regulations, (e) , and procedures, (f), must derive from policy of National Coordination Office (coordinated with International

bodies)

.

Reports of approval/rejection (g) flow through national offices for dissemination to local and international agencies.
(A22)

EXHIBIT X - SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES FOR COMMERCIAL METROLOCICAL CONTROL

1. The fundamental objective of a desirable system is attainment of specified standards in actual operating circumstances.

2. Standards are precisely defined. Compliance is determined by application of precisely defined measurements. Equipment and techniques

do not contain intrinsic measurement error greater than the standard

to be measured and can be made reasonably available to the item under

test.

3. Achievement of the objective (see ill) is attained by field testing

("Subsequent Verification"). Earlier stages of testing (such as "initial verification" and "pattern approval") enhance system cost effectiveness by serving to pre-screen and reduce workload at the field testing level.

4. Performance standards are used in preference to design standards. Performance standards focus directly on the fundamental objective

of the control system and admit technological advance with minimal

disruption to the control system.

5. U.S. federalization of weights and measures regulations is not mandatory or desirable in order to achieve the fundamental objective

of a coordinated national control system or to arrive at a working accommodation with O.I.M.L.

6. A concensus of informed public opinion, as provided by NCWM, can provide impetus for an optimum control system, including initiation

of required legislation and incorporation of appropriate public and private resources.

7. A combination of private and public resources (at several levels of

the control system) can be coordinated to achieve optimum system objectives, provided there is agreement on a coordinated system concept.

8. "Subsequent Verification," as required by law, could be provided by

public resources or private resources (at direct cost to user) with appropriate audit by public resources. A distinction between

"subsequent process verification" (public) and "subsequent equipment verification" (private) is useful in determining the best economic utilization of public and private resources.

84
(A23)
(A24)

Pattern Approval Sub-System: (See Exhibit IX for Expansion.)

Receives applications. Evaluates on paper. Decides extent of evaluation; i.e. paper, lab, and/or field and // units. Can use private or state capability for lab and field tests. Issues approvals/denials. Provides time/units duration protection.

Issues parameters and methodology for Initial and Subsequent Verification. Purpose is to protect verification sub-systems from excessive deficiency

situations and relieve requirement for environment/stability testing.

Initial Verification Sub-System: (See Exhibit VIII for Expansion.)

Verifies equipment and process performance of each production unit as applied at user site. Can substitute factory acceptance on units prescribed during pattern approval sub-system. Uses combination of state and private resources for process and equipment verification. Purpose is to protect Subsequent Verification Sub-System from excessive deficiency situations.

Subsequent Verification Sub-System: (See Exhibit VII for Expansion.)

Evaluates equipment performance. Evaluates process output for compliance to commercial trade intent. Purpose is to provide the commercial/legal system with accuracy

assurance.

86
(A25)

EXHIBIT XII

SUGGESTED ASSIGNMENT OR ROLES IN US SYSTEM

FIELD TESTS

NATIONAL COORDINATION & AUTHORITY

LAB &

PAPER

LAB

TESTS

PATTERN APPROVAL SUBSYSTEM

F ACTORY

EQUIPMENT

TESTS

FIELD PROCESS

TESTS

VERIFICATION

OFFICE

INITIAL VERIFICATION SUBSYSTEM

INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION

REGULATIONS PROCEDURES

TRAINING

STATISTICS GROSS FAILURES RECOMMENDATIONS

FIELD PROCESS

TESTS

FIELD EQUIPMENT

TESTS

SUBSEQUENT

VERIFICATION SUB-SYSTEM

NBS NCWM

Slate/Local

Private Sector

FIELD PROCESS EVALUATIONSFIELD EQUIPMENT EVALUATIONS

METRIC UPDATE—USA

Presented by Sydney D. Andrews, Director, Division of

Standards, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,

State of Florida

This is my first opportunity to give a report

to the National Conference delegates on my

appointment to the United States Metric

Board and the work in which we have been

engaged. We were privileged last year to have

Dr. Polk, the chairman of the United States

Metric Board, speak to the group. At the in- terim meeting of the standing committees I lL was privileged to give a brief report, and so Wk A' L I am quite proud at this opportunity to be able

to speak to all of the delegates on what is happening within the United States Metric

Board and to again express my appreciation for the honor you have

done me in the recommendation and ultimate selection to represent

you on the seventeen member United States Metric Board.

My serving on the board has really been quite a unique experience.

Other boards that I have served on are groups banded together for a common cause and we have no difficulty in setting our objectives

and agreeing on the method by which we will accomplish those objectives. Much to my surprise, I found that the United States Metric

Board is made up of a rather heterogeneous group, perhaps rightly

so, because it is obvious that the feeling of this country is not yet

unified on whether or not we should adopt the metric system, and

certainly some of the members of the board represent that thinking.

Some of them are very strong willed people representing this wide

diversification of interest and they do not hesitate to express their

opposition to virtually anything that would further the cause of metrication in this country. So it has at least slowed down the process

of the Board, but I hope that it will not completely bring to a halt the

efforts of this country to adopt the metric system. Some of the people on the Board appear to be quite knowledgeable regarding the metric

system and anxious to see conversion take place in an expedient manner within the framework of the law on a voluntary basis. Others

appear to know very little about metric, and certainly have no en- thusiasm for converting this country to the metric system of measure

and take every opportunity to express those thoughts.

I hope that each of you at one time or another will have an opportunity to sit in on one of the meetings to see exactly the make-up of

the Board and how we are trying to overcome the objections that are

offered to furthering the cause of metrication. I offer you this invi89
tation because I would like for you to know that all meetings of the

Board are open to the public, with the exception of those occasions

at which we are discussing the budget preparation prior to presenting

it to the OMB. Under the Federal system you are restrained from

making public this information until the OMB authorizes its release. Also, we have a closed session for the discussion of personnel matters,

and these are about the only two situations granted to the United

States Metric Board for closed meetings under the Government in the

Sunshine Act. At all other meetings you are welcome. As a matter

of fact, we have devoted a portion of each public meeting to a forum

for representatives from groups who wish to appear, as well as in- dividuals who would like to express their views of metrication or the

Board. I assure you that we have had some rather vivid expressions

of what some people think of the Board. I particularly hope that all of the members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

Weights and Measures officials, as well as our associate members and

those interested in the work of the National Conference will take

advantage of the opportunity to attend one of these open meetings

when it is in your area. If you wish to make a presentation to the

Board, you are required to notify our secretary well in advance so that time can be allotted for your presentation; also we must have at least some outline of what you plan to present.

I am pleased to report that we have now held two meetings of the

Board outside of Washington, one in Dallas, Texas, in February and

the other in June in Boston, and they have been very helpful in

getting input from various sections of the country. The Board has

plans to hold the remaining sessions for this year outside of Washington. Next month we will be meeting in San Francisco, in October

we will be in Detroit, and in December we will be in Orlando, Florida.

We are trying to avoid the image of being just another Washington

agency. We would like to be recognized as a citizens group trying to carry out the mandate of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975.

We now have had quite a few special meetings in between our

regularly scheduled sessions at which specific items are taken up. Perhaps the most important of these was the open hearing May 2 and

3 in Washington on the feasibility of the option to convert motor fuel dispensers to a metric mode, rather than the expense of converting

them to compute over one dollar a gallon. I am pleased to report that

this meeting was well attended by all interested parties, and most

especially am I happy to say that your representative from the National Conference on Weights and Measures made an excellent pres- entation on behalf of the Conference. Also there were several

individual states represented who stated their feelings on this particular issue. The participation on the whole was excellent and we

received a lot of useful information. The testimony was, as you can

well imagine, rather voluminous, coming from all of the affected sec90
tors and it has taken considerable effort on the part of the board's

staff and the members to digest this testimony and come forth with

any kind of conclusion; but after digesting this sea of testimony we

discussed the matter at the Boston meeting and the board approved

the following declaration:

"The petroleum retailing industry generally indicates a willingness

to dispense gasoline by the liter. Several States are taking independent action in requiring or recommending liter dispensing.

"Therefore, the U.S. Metric Board declares that this is an opportune

time for the development of a planned and coordinated volunteer

program of dispensing gasoline by the liter and the Board urges all affected parties to participate in the planning process. It called

attention to the need for adequate public information in connection

with liter dispensing.

"Without taking this action, metric usage is likely to proceed in a haphazard fashion, leading to public confusion, disparate end re- sults and the negation of the positive cost advantages that a nationally planned and coordinated program offers."

The National Conference on Weights and Measures had taken a

position on the conversion to metric mode retail fuel dispensers as

early as, I believe, 1974, and so I am not going to say that the Board's

action prompted our most recent work in this endeavor, but I do hope

that the Board at least set the tone for the resolution which is before

the Conference at this meeting. It is my further hope that before

leaving here this week, this Conference will have addressed this subject in the form of a resolution that will set the tone for metric con- version of motor fuel dispensers in this country.

Now back to the work of the board. The three principal duties of

the United States Metric Board as described under the act are to devise and carry out a comprehensive program of planning and co- ordinating metric conversion, to conduct a program of public education at all levels of society, and to conduct research and submit

recommendations to Congress and to the President. I am pleased to say that we are beginning to make progress in each of these areas. We have committee structured the Board to handle various aspects

of this work. In addition to an Executive Committee which acts on

behalf of the Board on matters of interest between meetings, subject

of course to the ratification of the full board at the subsequent meeting, we have a Research and Coordination Committee, a Private Sector Committee, an Administration and Budget Committee, and a Standards Liaison Committee. The latter, I am pleased to announce,

91
Dr. Polk has asked me to chair. I hope that within the area of this

particular committee those matters of concern to the National Conference, and other standards organizations which I represent on the

board, will be addressed to me so that I can express your needs and

your wishes adequately to the board.

In addition to those committees, we have an Annual Report Committee which like our P&C committee is made up of the chairmen of

all other committees, and this is the committee which is to put to- gether our first annual report to Congress which is mandated in the

act one year after funds are appropriated. Now at this point in time one of the most important needs is to remove obstacles from those

who choose to go metric. Laws and regulations must be amended or repealed which are now obstacles to those who voluntarily decide that

they would like to go metric. This is a tremendous job. I think that

we probably more than any other body recognize this, because in the

past the National Conference has made several attempts to identify

the many laws and regulations that need to be amended. We have

found it an extremely hard task to carry out; it is difficult to get the

handle on. It is a large job even to identify them, and an even larger

job to make the necessary changes through the legislative process. The Board has, in its first contract, awarded this to Middlesex Research Corporation as a project for identifying these many laws, reg- ulations, and ordinances that must be changed if we are to remove

the barriers to voluntary metrication. They have submitted to us their

first preliminary report which indicates that they are making progress in this area, and they will be asking many of you in this audience

for assistance in identifying those laws, regulations, and ordnances

withir your jurisdiction. Also, the contract calls for a recommended

procedure for bringing about these changes, because we recognize the

difficulty in dealing with various local legislative and promulgating

authorities. We feel this is absolutely essential if we are sincere about

providing for voluntary metrication. The final report from Middlesex

is due in time to be incorporated into our report to Congress, and

because of the difficulties that have been experienced in this, we are hoping that the Congress will allow us a slight extension of time. It

is virtually impossible now for us to meet the one year deadline which

would fall about September and for that reason I, as you will recall

if you were here on Monday, made a proposal to this Conference

through our Liaison Committee to pass a resolution from this Conference directed to the Board to include in that report the repeal of

those sections of the Federal Fair Package and Labeling Act which

do present very real obstacles for those that choose to go metric. It

is my hope that somehow within the mechanism of our committee

structure, or our resolutions, before we leave here this week, that

will be addressed to the Board, and the Board will see fit to incorporate

it in their legislative recommendation.

92
Now I would like to, at this point, say that using the popular expression, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that our

I most recent budget request for the coming year has been approved

by the Senate in its entirety. The request was for 3.3 million dollars

with an expanded staff which we feel is essential if we are to carry

out our mission. The bad news is we have learned that the house has

approved a budget calling for absolutely no increase over this year's

budget, in either funds or positions. This will now go to a Conference

committee and it is our sincere hope that the Senate's interpretation

of our needs will prevail. We solicit the help of all of you to influence

your Congressman to support the budget request of the United States

Metric Board.

Now on the subject of liaison with the state, county, and local

I governments, I am pleased to announce that we have assigned a full time staff man on the Board to work with the state and local jurisdictions in their metrication plans and programs. Larry Chisholm,

who for a time was employed by the National Bureau of Standards,

has been given that assignment as Director of State Programs. Larry

is here today and in case there are those in the audience who do not

remember Larry from his days at the Bureau I would like at this time

to ask Larry if he would stand and give everybody a chance to know

him. I encourage you to speak with Larry while he is here. I am sure he will be attending all future Conferences; between Conferences he

I will be at the disposal of states to assist them in any metrication

plans that they have. It is essential, in my opinion, that government

at all levels play a major part in metrication. Perhaps even a le; ding

role, but I do not believe that government at any level should be over

zealous in forcing metrication. We should be in the role of facilitating,

| rather than imposing metrication. I feel that it is especially important

that there be good cooperation between the United States Metric

Board and the Weights and Measures Officials. Those working offi- cials that are going to have the day to day responsibility of helping

to educate the public, I think need to be keved in to this program

from the very beginning, and I know of no better vehicle for developing

that liaison than the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The Act took special note of the importance of having input from the

National Conference on Weights and Measures by providing one of

the seventeen positions on the Board specifically assigned to the National Conference on Weights and Measures and other standards or- ganizations.

I am afraid that I still have considerable work to do in convincing some of the members of our Board how essential Weights and Measures Officials are in the metrication program within this country.

Many of them had never heard of the National Conference on Weights

i and Measures, and an even greater number do not thoroughly understand the role of the National Conference nor the officials and the

93
associate membership that make up the Conference. I hope to be able

to convince them in the future of the historical part that Weights and

Measures Officials have played in policing the marketplace in this rj country to prevent fraud and deception. Because some confusion is inevitable during metrication, I think the Weights and Measures

Official is going to have an even more prominent role in protecting ) both buyer and seller during this transition period. It It is my feeling that the ultimate measure of success of converting j this country to the metric system rests with its acceptance and proper 1 use in commercial weighing and measuring operations in the marketplace. I have no doubt about the conversion process within industry 1 because there is an economic incentive for them to convert to the fj metric system, especially if they are engaged in international com- f merce. We have not yet come up with sufficient economic incentive

in the marketplace to make the average housewife or the average

shopper anxious to convert. I think we are right now working on one

that can be demonstrated as at least a cost avoidance to the consumer

1

in our metric conversion of the fuel dispensers, because it has been

demonstrated on numerous occasions, including testimony before our meeting, that it is more cost effective to convert the gasoline dispenser

to the metric mode than it is to convert it to compute over a dollar a gallon. I think for this reason we need to capitalize on this opportunity because we may never get another opportunity to so dramatically show the consumer that it is to their advantage to go metric.

One of our really difficult roles is going to be converting the consumer,

and yet I think it can be accomplished principally through education.

The United States Metric Board has a commitment to the education

of the people in this country about the metric system so that they can \ make an intelligent decision.

There will be many problems in changing people because the av- erage person is not anxious to make the change. As a matter of fact, I I think that I can characterize it better by saying that most are j reluctant to do so, and realistically they will probably adopt the metric

system only when they have no other viable alternative. Opposition

to the metric system is growing in this country. I do not knowwhether

it is because we have awakened a sleeping giant, or whether people i are now learning that there are going to be some problems in making

the transition. This opposition ranges all the way from humorous

cartoons in the newspapers to the introduction of bills in Congress

to repeal the Metric Conversion Act. The latest that we have had was j the introduction of legislation in the Congress to deny all funds to the United States Metric Board. I am happy to report that that amendment to the Appropriations Act was defeated, but we must keep in

mind that opposition to metrication comes not from stupid people, but

from the uninitiated. Those of us who believe that metrication is in

the best interest of the country have an obligation to acquaint these

94
I people with the benefits, because it is only natural to resist change.

lj I find no fault with this. As I get older I find that I resist change more

vigorously than ever, but if we are to have success of the metric

j system in this country, we must familiarize people with it so they can

j, make an intelligent choice. The psychological aspects of the change

1 to metric, to me, are much more formidable than the technological,

j because it is often more difficult to get people to think differently

|; than it is to act differently. But it is a worthwhile goal, and I think

I we can accomplish it.

I I sometimes find myself in the dilemma that Ken Simila described

I yesterday of his young son. Often at night when I lie down after a

j hard day with the United States Metric Board I find myself asking

] the question, "Am I going to be alive when we get there?" At my age

I it is questionable, but it is a worthy goal and I am willing to fight for

!

! it. Since ours is a voluntary program it is necessary for us to avoid

I even the appearance of force, and especially by any branch of the

I government, federal, state or local. We must do it by persuasion, and

I since the Metric Act is very specific that it shall be a voluntary

I program, the progress is going to be slow, and we must be patient,

j We must be very careful not to be over zealous and offend those who

j are a little less enthusiastic.

1 In conclusion, I would like to plead with each of you, who I feel have gone on record at least collectively within the Conference as favoring the metrication of the weights and measures of this country.

We passed a resolution many years ago indicating our preference for

it, and I am assuming that you still feel that way. I solicit your earnest

j effort to help because it cannot be done by the United States Metric

Board alone. We are very limited in what we can do, the law is so

specific about the Board having no mandatory powers, and quite

frankly I do not think we want any. We are limited by the very make

up of the membership of the Board as to how forceful we can be, and

again I do not think we want to be too forceful. I hope that we can

serve as a focal point for incentives that will hasten metrication in

this country, but we must remember always that it is a voluntary

program. Many people have been awaiting the formation ofthe Board,

because as you know it took several years even after the Act was

passed to bring the Board into existence. Many people were thinking

that once the Board was appointed and in motion, they would wave

a magic wand and we would have metrication in this country. Well,

it is not going to happen that way. I can assure you after the description I gave you today of the Board, and their feelings individually,

the Board is going to be rather slow in their progress. We need your

help to convince those who are hesitant. We find ourselves in the

j position of a pilot coming on board a ship to help guide it through a very difficult reef to a safe harbor. We can provide guidance to those

95
who seek it, encouragement to those who need it, and enlightment

to those who still doubt very seriously the wisdom of this voyage.

DISCUSSION

Lyman Holloway (State of Idaho, Bureau of Weights and Measures):

Will there be available funds, time for travel, upon request from the

state to have Larry visit that state to cooperate and coordinate whatever question there may be from that state, or must it be through

communications?

Sydney Andrews: Within the limitations of our budget, Larry will

be traveling to individual states to help them develop their plans,

and certainly to serve in any capacity possible to provide a better

liaison between the board and the state organizations. I am happy to say that most states now do have some form of metric committee or metric council. Regretfully, very few of them are funded so they do

not have the money to do any traveling. It is all within their state. Larry has already made visits to several states and has developed

rapport with their metric committees. I hope, if we have a little more

liberal budget than we have had in the past, that we will be able to allow Larry to do this almost constantly. It is my hope, at least, that

he can serve almost full time in this capacity. I did not mention,

although I think I mentioned it in my report to the interim committees, that one of the casualties of our limited budget was our plan to have a west coast branch office in San Francisco. That was denied

us. For the foreseeable future, I think we are going to have to operate

out of Washington, although as I mentioned we will be meeting

around the country. Incidentally, I did not mention the fact that next

year's schedule has already been adopted and we do not plan to hold even a single meeting in Washington all next year. They will all be

out around the country and we encourage people to come and talk. Meanwhile, Larry will be at your disposal.

Larry Chisholm: In working out the budget at the staff level there

is a strong recognition that you cannot have a state program without

having travel money to go around to the states. We do hope that we

can do as much as possible for reasons of economy by phone and letter,

of course, but I think we all face that same thing. There are plans to have travel money for getting around to the states to work out any

metric problems that may be appropriate.

Lyman Holloway: Then upon request, this would be the main thoroughfare as to whether you would come to my state or wherever.

Sydney Andrews: I do not know if you have been identified as the

state representative or not, but a letter went out from the Metric

Board office some months ago to the Governor of each state asking

96
them to identify the contact between the state and the United States

Metric Board. Our plan is to work through that contact, whomever

the Governor designated. In many states I think the Weights and

Measures Director was designated as the liaison with the United

States Metric Board, in others perhaps the chairmen of the states' Metric Council, and so forth, but there will be one person that probably will serve as the focal point of contact for the state with the

United States Metric Board. If you are not that person and you have

an interest, I would suggest that you learn from Larry, or the Board,

who he is so that you can interface with that person and get your

message into the Board.

Dan Offner (City of St. Louis): It has been made rather clear that

the Board overall is not enthusiastic about a general and rapid con- version to the metric system. I would like to ask you this. Is there a

recognition on the part of the Board generally, or at least a significant

segment of the board, that metrication in all areas is not necessarily

equally possible, equally desirable? There are different paces at which

different segments of the economy may very well be converted to metrication without undue disruption of the wife buying porkchops

in the supermarket.

Sydney Andrews: I think the Board recognizes this fact. We have

discussed this on numerous occasions and I do not want my presentation here this morning to be characterized by my friends on the

Board as a dissertation against their viewpoints. They certainly are

entitled to those viewpoints. I am beginning to understand better the

United States Metric Board because as I pointed out earlier I expected

to serve with a group of people who were enthusiastic about getting on with the job. I now recognize the fact that this Board wasappointed

, to represent the varied interests in the country, and there are many

people who are not in favor of metrication and they are entitled to representation on the Board. We have to face the fact that it's a

democratic Board. Yes, we are well aware of the fact that the pace

will vary from sector to sector. Louis Sokol (U.S. Metric Association): I would just like to remind the

Conference members that one of the conclusions of the GAO Metric

Study was that the nation cannot continue to exist very long effi- ciently using two major measurement systems and, of course, they

implied that it has to go one way or the other. They did not say which

way one should go. It is uneconomical and wasteful to continue working with two different major measurement systems. You have to decide one way or the other which one will be predominant and go that

way in all sectors of the economy eventually.

J Sydney Andrews: You may be interested to know that on the agenda

i for the San Francisco meeting next month is what perhaps should be

characterized as a debate among members of the Board as to whether

or not the policy of this country is to go metric. This has been such

97
a controversial issue on the Board, we have decided to try once and

for all to settle that issue because it has been a stumbling block for us ever since we had our first meeting. I have never ceased to be

amazed at the number of interpretations there are of that one simple

sentence in the Metric Conversion Act as to what the purpose of this act is. It says to plan and to coordinate the increasing use of the

metric system in this country. You would not believe the number of

interpretations we get of that one simple statement. We are going to have it out at the San Francisco meeting. So if you are in that area and would like to hear the debate, please come. Ken Simila (Chairman, National Conference, Oregon): Just following

up on what Lyman mentioned, and what you alluded to earlier, I think it would be appropriate for any jurisdiction to write to their

Congressman, particularly if they have someone sitting on the House

or Senate Appropriations Committee, or one who will be on the Joint

Conference Committee on the United States Metric Board budget.

Whether or not they are enthusiastic, we need to have the Metric

Board functioning to coordinate what is going on. I was encouraged

to learn, because of the letters that were written on behalf of the

Conference to the delegation from Oregon, that both of our United

States Senators were supportive of the Metric Board budget. I think

in the next thirty days, or whenever that Conference Committee will

be meeting, if those of you that have State Metric Boards or Councils

or if you have a State Governors Task Force Representative, or whatever, if you can get some kind of letter of encouragement to them,

that will make a significant difference in the outcome of that decision on the Board budget.

Sydney Andrews: We certainly solicit that kind of support and this

is what it's going to take. I am not a politician, but I have had the

dubious distinction of operating a technical program in a political

climate now for forty-five years. One of the things I have learned is elected officials listen to the people who vote for them. I have absolutely no influence with anyone in the Congress except the congressman who represents me from the state of Florida and I encourage

you, if you are in sympathy with us, to contact those people who

represent you in the Congress and urge their support, or a favorable

consideration of the Metric Board budget request.

John Mays (Miami): The Conference Committee that is considering

the budget; I think it would be well for members that care to write

to have the names of the members of that conference committee. If they have senators or congressmen from their area that they can

write to personally on this, it might help.

Sydney Andrews: That is a very good suggestion. I am not sure who

the Conference Committee members are at this time. Maybe Larry

has some better information on that but I am sure we can get that

from the Board office.

98
METRIC—UPDATE—CANADA

Presented by John D. Buchanan, Departmental Metric

Coordinator, Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,

Ottawa, Canada

It is impossible in the time allowed to me

to cover all the progress that has recently been

made in Canada towards adopting the metric

system in everyday life. Metric units are now

being offered to Canadians in most domestic

situations and are increasingly being ac- cepted—albeit with more resignation than

enthusiasm. As the exposure to the units in- creases so the resistance to change seems to decrease.

I have chosen four topics that I think would

be of particular interest to the National Con1. Gasoline pumps. The conversion of gas pumps started on 1 January 1979 and in most areas at least half are now selling by

the litre. In one province (Nova Scotia) conversion has been slow

starting because of a peculiarity in the tax legislation. The con- version of provincial tax legislation has been the major legislative

problem. Conversions of tax rates that are both equitable and easily

expressed with a minimum of decimal places are generally not

possible. Dates for the beginning and end of conversion were set by

the federal government after discussion with the industry. Because

of anti-trust concerns by the oil companies, each company has set

its own plan within the overall start and finish dates. This means

that price-conscious consumers are faced with having to compare

price per gallon with price per litre over an extended period. Gas

stations where the price per (Canadian) gallon was at or over $1

have been the most eager to convert and this has caused some comments that prices have risen because of conversion. The technical side of conversion has proceeded very smoothly with both kits

and labour readily available. Many pumps were given metric ca- pability in advance of actual conversion by fitting a gearbox which

could be inserted irreversibly into the gear train to the computer

at the time of conversion by cutting a wire or pushing a button. All

new pumps for some three years before conversion were given this

metric capability. The conversion of terminal meters has been pro- ceeding on a voluntary basis at the same time as the retail pumps.

Thus the entire system from refinery to service station will soon be in metric units. Truck meters for heating oil deliveries are being

99
converted rather slowly because of the unwillingness of independent agents to make a commitment and, in some cases, a shortage

of the necessary parts.

2. Retail food scales. The conversion of three pilot areas started

at the beginning of July and it is too early to comment on any

problems or difficulties. The plan was devised by scale industry and

retail trade representatives and legislated under the federal

Weights and Measures Act. Canada was divided into 100 areas and

three dates wQre set for each area. After the first date, which can

be called the start of conversion, all advertising outside of the stores must include the price per kilogram if a price per pound is mentioned. Conversion of scales must be completed by the second date

and after the third date all advertising must be in metric units

alone. Learning from the Australian experience we believe that the

control of price advertising is a key element in a successful conversion. Dual price advertising should not be unduly prolonged, but

it is a necessity during the transition period in order to prevent

accusations that retailers are taking advantage of conversion to raise prices. The federal government has given an exemption from

sales tax for conversion parts and also a provision that enables

purchasers of new scales to set off the total cost against tax in a

single year.

3. Piece goods and home furnishings. This was not an area that was originally considered for legislation. The conversion of the retail sale of piece goods (formerly known as yard goods) began on

a voluntary basis in July 1978. By the end of 1978 it was clear that a minority of retailers were not intending to convert and the result was a confusion of prices for consumers. The majority of the trade

then requested a legislated cut-off date and this request was in- cluded with a similar request from the home furnishing retailers. However, the regulations on home furnishings have been delayed

because of continuing discussions regarding the dual labelling of

prepackaged goods but the cut-off date for the sale of piece goods

in traditional units has been set for 30 September 1979.

4. Prepackaged foods. The conversions of the previous three items

have all been assisted by legislation, but these are the only areas where this method has been used. The vast range of prepackaged

goods is being converted voluntarily. Of necessity this is a slower, more piecemeal approach and is resulting in some problems for manufacturers and consumers. Typically a product group chooses

a date to start conversion that is agreed by most or all of the major

companies in that group. However one or more companies (often

importers) decide to retain the former sizes which, for products sold

100
by mass, are usually 10% smaller than the new metric sizes. Consequently there is a duplication of sizes on the market—traditional

and metric. The only way to prevent this is to have legislation

available that can readily be used to limit the number of sizes if a situation leading to proliferation appears to be developing. This

conflicts with the principle of a voluntary conversion and a policy

decision has to be made as to which is the lesser evil—proliferation or compulsion. In Canada net quantity declarations in metric units are mandatory (any other units may be added voluntarily) and so a comparison is always possible between products of different sizes even if the soft-converted numbers are frequently far from round.

Many products in flexible packaging (paper, board, polythene, cel- lophane, etc.) are now in hard metric units, but rigid metal con- tainers and returnable bottles pose particular problems. Returnable

soft drink bottles are following a "compatible" conversion where

bottles of similar size are on sale side-by-side at the same price.

Gradually, by attrition, the old bottles are being replaced by the

new metric sizes, which are slightly larger. The number of complaints about this type of transition are very small. The majority

of complaints arise from a reduction in size and no reduction in

price. The conversion of rigid metal containers is ultimately dependent on the adoption of metric sizes by can manufacturers and

their customers in the United States. However rounded conversions

of existing can sizes are being considered as a possibility.

These four "case histories" represent four different approaches to the sale of commodities at the retail level. My ambition has been to give you an idea of the progress being made in Canada and, ofcourse, the different legislative backgrounds between Canada and the United

States preclude direct comparisons. Nevertheless I hope that you will

find my remarks of some interest.

101
STANDARDS—LOVE THEM OR LEAVE THEM

Presented by Rodney E. Leonard, Deputy Director, U.S. Office of

Consumer Affairs

It is a pleasure to be with you. I bring special

regards from Esther Peterson, who asked me

to extend her greetings. She has a warm place

in her heart for you and the Conference. She

spoke to the Conference a year ago in Washington, a town you will remember as a warm,

if not hot place. It still is, in several senses of

the word. For those of you from Washington,

let me assure you that your jobs are still there—and the people who have them want

you to know that they are taking good care

of them. I must admit it has been a bit con- fusing to some. We had to send a number of memos last week to Energy, Transportation, and HUD but we weren't sure the people we

knew would be there. My Secretary has been around Washington

long enough to know the solution—she addressed them to "occupant".

The standard in Washington is that change is the norm. That is good for some things, but change is not a very good standard

for standards making—at least not routinely. For the consumer,

standards are the consumer's best friend. They give consistency to our lives, and continuity to the economy. We love them and don't

leave them. At least not all the time.

When I was preparing for this speech, Al Tholen, who most for- tunately has come into the present and future of weights and measures, asked me for the title of my speech. That is like asking the name

of your new baby 10 months before birth. I said, "Love them but don't

leave them." "No," I said, "Love them or leave them." "No, that's not

always true. The title is 'Love them and leave them'."

I realized that all three phrases are true—some of the time. Standards—weights and measures—are as dynamic as our society. We love

them always, because society cannot exist, cannot function, without

them. Some we should not leave . . . some we cannot leave . . . and some we must leave.

One standard we must leave is the English or non-metric system

of weights and measures. We love our inches, yards, ounces, and

pounds, but the time has come when we must recognize that the

metric system is better. The point was brought home to me most

vividly when my daughter returned from a trip last week which took

her into Canada. The Canadians, she said, use metric measures on

gas pumps. Dad, they are so simple to use, and they are easier to understand. I really like them much better. When are we going to go

metric?

102
I said I wish I knew, and told her I was going to speak to a group

next week that could do something about it. You have a policy statement to consider on the conversion of gas

pumps to metric, and I hope you will endorse this. I was very enI couraged when the U.S. Metric Board after extended public hearings

on the matter, endorsed the conversion of gas pumps to metric. California has adopted metric units for gas pumps and has begun an

orderly conversion. Others will follow, and the acceptance of a model

standard by the Conference will not only encourage the orderly adoption of metric in gas retailing, but also contribute to broader public

support for and acceptance of metric conversion throughout our econj omy.

The Federal government can and should and will do more to support

metric weights and measures. President Carter, as you know, has

given his support to a strong interpretation of the Metric Conversion

Act, and a Presidential endorsement can be translated into a pro- gression of actions. The first among them is to change the current

regulations enforced by the Food and Drug Administration, by USDA,

by the Federal Trade Commission, and by other agencies which prohibit metric units. Regulations which protect consumers from fraud,

deceit, injury, and harm should not be used to prohibit the substitution of metric for avoirdupois. Syd Andrews referred to this problem

earlier.

I refer to the code of regulations issued by the Food and Drug

Administration which requires that food labels specify the type size and nomenclature in English units. Metric units may also be listed,

but only in addition to the conventional units. Similar mandatory use

of English units is required by the FTC. This condition illustrates one reason why standards go unloved. If the Government demonstrates minimal faith, how can the public have any faith in testaments

to the value of metric units ... or any other standards, for that

matter? The answer, quite clearly, is a careful assessment of how the

processes of Government may impede a useful program, and development of a methodical strategy to remove, or modify, those impediments. I am glad to hear from Syd Andrews that such an effort is under way. Our office, more than most, has some experience with

such impediments, and will assist the Metric Board, the Conference,

and the OWM in this direction.

Another area where improvement may contribute to a more loving

relationship toward standards is research and funding for research

to develop the technology of weights and measures, research to develop more precise tools and procedures of measurement, and research

to develop concepts for standards that will enable consumers to better

utilize the marketing system—or, to put it differently, to improve the

ability of the marketing system to better serve the economy.

103
For example, we are more aware today of the relationship between

food and health than ever before, but we are unable to effectively

relate the nutritional value of the food products we buy in the food

system to the cost of those products. The information that we place on food labels today, regardless of the unit nomenclature, does not

easily or effectively translate nutritional value into economic value.

The food label is a billboard for information which the seller wants

to convey to the buyer, but the quality standards—i.e., standards of

identity—we have long accepted, are meaningless to consumers who

seek to relate nutrition and health to cost. The problem is not whether

the billboard is partly or wholly public property, but whether we can

develop standards to convey these new concepts of quality—of nutritional values. Ingredient labeling is part of this new system of standards, as is nutritional labeling, but we only know enough now to proceed voluntarily toward a solution, and that is simply to say that

we are doing broad scale field research.

Another problem which causes the consumer to withhold love, if not affection, from standards is the confusion which has grown around

the process by which standards are adopted. It is not so much that a process exists as it is the lack of a process. Congress enacts the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, but not much

happens. Packaging sizes seem to continue to proliferate and to be

in confusing array. The Conference adopted the 1978 Model State

Packaging and Labeling regulation, the latest of several model packaging regulations. Thirty-Five States have adopted one of these

models, and fifteen have none. Diversity sometimes is a sign of

strength, but here it is only confusion.

There is also confusion when States develop standards for food

products, and for labeling criteria, only to be told by the courts that

Federal standards preempt the States. Further, the firms that market

interstate—and most do—are asking the Congress to preempt State

standard-setting authority more often than ever before. The situation can be framed as a States Rights issue, but that only begs the practical

questions. The problem is that Congress cannot legislate specific

standards without the danger of casting them in concrete; but neither

does the present process serve the legitimate needs of the economy.

Legislatures must authorize the development of standards, but they

should resist the temptation to develop standards. The temptation,

however, is minimized if there is an efficient, responsive, and effective

mechanism to develop standards and the technology to make them

work. The development of model statutes and regulations, in which

this Conference is engaged, is an essential part of that process; but

it does not assure the uniform and timely implementation of the

standard. The problem, in part, is implementation and follow through.

That in part is an aspect ofmanagement, but it also has organizational

elements which many agencies overlook.

104
I am referring specifically to citizen participation, to participation

in the planning and preparation for the work of the Conference as

well as in the adoption and implementation of model statutes and

regulations. The citizen should be in on the takeoff as well as the

landing.

We in government can easily lose touch with the people we serve

unless we establish active mechanisms to insure citizen participation

in the decision-making process. I urge you to reflect on this notion

and, ifyou are not already doing so, to explore and institute innovative

mechanisms to bring more consumers and citizens into the process

of standards development and implementation by State and local authorities. It will repay your efforts many times over in gaining

understanding and support for your programs, in identifying areas where new or improved standards may be needed in shaping a government procedure which will effectively serve the interests of all the

people. With the advent of metric coming directly into our lives, now

via gasoline dispensing, this may be a good time to establish or improve channels to seek and obtain consumer views on fitting the

standards to their lives. Gasoline conversion can be the first sustained exposure to metric

units which the American consumer will encounter. It should be a

positive experience in the use of metric symbols to practice consumer

skills, and to apply them in the consumer interest. The conversion

of liquor bottles to metric for example was a disaster because the consumer perceived the industry conversion as a campaign to raise

prices by reducing the volume of containers. It may have been a

conspiracy to drive the metric advocates to drink.

Some people contend that public participation is a sure way to drive

public employees to drink. The record, however, does not bear this

out; what it does show is the appearance of public acceptance, and

support for the program and its objectives. It may also lead to better

public education programs and activities.

If this project does not create love, then it leads at least to trust,

if not affection, and that is a standard for relationships we all seek.

As John Buchanan said: the important thing is to minimize confusion. In closing, let me assure you that the Office of Consumer Affairs

is willing to follow up on activities which I have mentioned in my

speech. We are willing to help on these, and on other projects you

may propose. We do not propose to love you and leave you.

105
METRIC: NOW OR LATER

Presented by John A. Stitzell, Manager, Planning & Economics,

Amoco Oil Company

On behalf of Amoco, I am happy to participate in this conference. Amoco's immediate

interest in metric conversion arises from the

fact that most of our current gasoline pumps

are not equipped to display and calculate to- day's product prices.

Like the song says, "something's gotta give."

Amoco has spent considerable time in trying

to find the most economical and socially ac- ceptable solution as to just what should give.

Under the broad question of conversion to metric, I'd like to discuss three considerations:

First, the cost differentials between alternate solutions; second, the

question of consumer acceptance of such a basic change in the mode

of gasoline marketing; and third, the issue of who might initiate such

a change. Today, I hope to show how the answers to these questions

point in the direction of a conversion to metric, even in the short run. With respect to alternate solutions, one assumption must be kept

in mind: Whatever the short run strategy, in the long run, Amoco

believes there will be metric gasoline dispensing in the United States. Two facts highlight the current situation: Fact one is that in many

parts of the country today, gasoline is now selling for a dollar or more

a gallon; fact two: this comes at a time when as many as 95 percent

of all the gasoline outlets in the country are not equipped to display

and compute a dollar or more per gallon price on their meters. What is the cost of converting to $1 per gallon pricing? Amoco's

estimates of the costs of the industry's alternatives are fairly consistent with the $200 per pump estimated by the U.S. Metric Board.

However, we estimate that our own cost penalty from postponing a change to metric is about one-third higher than industry numbers

would indicate. In current dollars, Amoco estimates its cost would be

about $13 million more to make a two-stage conversion—first to a

dollar or more a gallon, and then later to a metric system—than it would be to convert to metric now. The second consideration was that of the consumer's acceptance of a conversion to metric. Amoco's marketing research studies show that

70 percent of the population is very much aware that the U.S. shift to metric is going on. Because of the lack of familiarity with metric

units, however, there is a good deal of skepticism about changing the

mode of gasoline sales. In fact, attitudinally—and I stress the word

"attitudinally"—only 7 percent of the population is strongly in favor

106
of metrication. By contrast, 32 percent strongly oppose going metric

in gasoline sales. These attitudes, however, do not necessarily translate into actual

purchase behavior. To study actual purchase behavior, we examined

the purchase records of our National Motorist Diary Panel of 5,000

cards during the period April 1978—March 1979; the results of the

study are summarized in Figure 1. These motorists made 218,052

purchases of over 2 million gallons during the year. Only 33,387

purchases, or about 15%, were in exact, whole gallon amounts. 12,257

purchases were exact gallon purchases, which were also in exact dollar amounts. The remaining 10% or 21,130 purchases were made in

whole gallons at uneven dollar amounts. Purchases made in convenient five gallon multiples amount to only 6,503 purchases or 3 per- cent of all purchases. Of the 21,130 purchases in whole gallons at uneven dollar amounts, we found that by far the most common whole

gallon purchase was at the ten-gallon level with small but significant

peaks at five and fifteen gallons.

The point I wish to make is that no fewer than 85 percent and most

likely as many as 90 to 97 percent of all gasoline purchases are made

in dollar amounts or fill-ups.

The clear implication is that the gallon unit is not a critical or even

a significant volumetric consideration with motorists at the point of

purchase. These data strongly suggest there would be no serious problems for the public stemming from a conversion of gasoline dispensing

to metric units.

The third area I wish to address is how a change to the metric

system should be accomplished. In spite of our analysis of actual

motorist purchase patterns, Amoco believes the job is too big for any

one company to convert unilaterally. The problems could be quite

complicated when one considers the multiplicity of local and state governmental units—many of which are directly or indirectly in- volved with per-gallon tax revenues or monitoring weights and measurements. Dealing with customer resistance on one hand and with

the requirements of government units on the other requires coordination and centralized direction. No single company or industry as- sociation can provide such direction of the scope required. In the absence of such centralized coordination, companies such as Amoco will, of necessity, continue to implement higher cost interim

solutions. At present, for example, we are retro-fitting our pumps as needed with equipment that permits sales of gasoline at a dollar or more a gallon. The retro-fitted equipment also has the potential for later conversion to metric. Even this approach will present problems.

In many locations today, dollar per gallon gasoline is a reality. When

equipment to handle dollar per gallon pricing cannot be delivered and

installed in time, sales have to be made temporarily on a half-gallon

basis. Many of you, I'm sure, have noticed this solution in your home

areas or in traveling here.

107
The half-gallon pricing approach has problems with uniformity and

communication with the public.

Figure 2 is a photo of a set of dual Amoco pumps in the Chicago

metro area. This hand lettered information generally adheres to the

recommendations contained in the National Bureau of Standards

memorandum of May 9, 1979, pertaining to half-gallon pricing. In

spite of good intentions, the results are difficult to read, at best. The close-up view in Figure 3 shows that a service station operator

has to be ingenious to find someplace on the pump where half-gallon

pricing signs do not violate the intent of other posting regulations.

The half-gallon signage must also compete for the motorist's attention

with digital meters, the state weights and measures sticker, the FTC

octane posting, and the DOE ceiling price sticker.

The set of dual pumps in Figure 4 displays half-gallon pricing using

a decal kit provided by Amoco. The decals are printed and will en- hance uniformity, but many problems will remain. For example, the

double signage on the dual pumps adds extra confusion. The pump

face is more readable, but still remains cramped and cluttered. We

believe there must be a better way.

Amoco is aware of the formidable problems in converting to the

metric marketing of gasoline. Ultimately, we may have to change our

accounting procedures and install different metering equipment on

delivery trucks and at other locations. But we believe the time has come to make a decision.

Our recommendations are: The motoring public should be spared

paying inflationary, non-productive costs of converting to $1 a gallon

equipment. Therefore, Amoco recommends a timely, coordinated, centralized effort for metric conversion.

We would expect that a U.S. conversion to metric gasoline dispensing would be complex and not free of problems as the change is made.

But that would be the case whenever the change is made. Consequently, we believe the best course of action would be to do now

economically what we will otherwise do later at greater expense.

108
National Motorist Diary Panel

218,052 Gasoline Purchases

April 1978 through March 1979

100 100

80 -

Gasoline Purchases 6^3 PurcnaM,

In ai Attllnn 80

60 -

in 9 vxtuiun «*% Increments \ - 60

* 40 — 33,387 \

n i 19 9C7

21,130 _

DitrrhaeAa 40

20 -

in Whole Purchases \ at Uneven

Gallons £jf"ct \*>«« -

Dollar \Amounts

Amfttint i 20

miivuiii i

109

ASSOCIATION'S SPOT REPORTS

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

Presented by Richard Southers, Manager,

Operations and Engineering, API

It is my pleasure to be included in this new

item on this year's program. Bud Wollin is to be congratulated for coming up with his idea.

The American Petroleum Institute is a

trade association with membership from all segments of the industry. There are other

trade associations in the industry with more

narrow areas of interest such as refiners, pipeliners or independent marketers, but we are the only one with the broad coverage.

API was established in 1919 and one of the

objectives in the original charter included the

"The Institute should in all lawful ways afford a means of coop- eration with the Government in all matters of national concern."

Our participation in the National Conference on Weights and Measures is a means of fulfilling this obligation. We also have branch

offices in thirty-seven states which generally use the name of ( Ohio) Petroleum Council or Association. Their activity is strictly statewide

in nature. I hope that most of you not only know of the existence of

these organizations but also know some of the people staffing them.

They can be of particular use to you when you find the need to com- municate with our members in your area. Recently we sent to all states a copy of the temperature compensation study of retail gasoline marketing which was done for us by

the Radian Corporation. Harold Harris, chairman of our Weights and

Measures Task Force, presented a synopsis of this report at the recent

Symposium on Temperature Compensated Volumes in the Sale of

Petroleum Products. The report is not the type of document that every

official needs for personal reference. However, any jurisdiction who

would like a copy can secure one by either contacting me or Gary

Hirschl during the conference or by writing to me at our office in

Washington.

Currently, API is carefully monitoring the metric movement to see what our role might be in providing assistance to those marketers

who want to make the change. Because of the potential effect in the

market place that metric may have, the legal constraints of a trade

111
association have precluded any direct action. We are participating in

the activities of the American National Metric Council.

I hope that most of you know me, or at least who I am, and if you

feel that there is some way in which I can be of service to you please

don't hesitate to call upon me.

112
NORTHEASTERN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

ASSOCIATION

Presented by Sidney A. Colbrook, Chairman, NEWMA

The Northeastern Weights and Measures

Association is having their 8th Annual Conference in Springfield, Illinois, April 28th

through May 1st, 1980. I would like to take

this opportunity to invite all National Conference on Weights and Measures Members

to participate in our Regional Association

Meeting.

Our past Chairman, Allan Nelson, introduced the workshop concept of arranging various topics related to weights and measures

officials. The workshop consisted of representatives from industry and regulatory officials to discuss topics relative

to all. Subject matter included items such as net weight, temperature

compensation and weights and measures administrative problems.

The members of this workshop consisted of Al Tholen, Harold Wollin,

Robert Probst and John Bennett. Allan attempted to have all present

chairmen of the various regions serve on this panel so that an ex- change of ideas could be obtained from the different regions.

We were very fortunate to have Dr. Louis Polk, Chairman of the

U.S. Metric Board, address our 7th Annual Conference on the views

and goals of the board.

Veeder-Root provided our association with a tour of their Hartford

plant. This tour certainly was interesting, especially with the esca- lating costs of petroleum products.

Tom Geiler from Hyannis, Massachusetts, has agreed to host the

9th Annual Conference in 1981.

Again, I would like to take this opportunity to invite any National

Conference participants to Springfield for our 8th Annual Northeastern Weights and Measures Association Conference.

113
NORTHWEST WEIGHTS & MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by Alden M. Lemke, President,

Northwest Association

The Northwest Weights and Measures Association is one of the oldest regional associations in that we have just held our 42nd

Annual Meeting in Madison, Wisconsin, last March. The Northwest Weights and Measures

Association was formed by a splinter group

that left the Northwest Division of the National Scalemens Association because they

wanted to include gas pump and truck meter

people in the group.

The broad objective of our association is the same as that of weights and measures per- sonnel world-wide; i.e., that "Equity Prevails in the Marketplace."

However, we were more specific in our constitution and stated objectives that call for uniformity between jurisdictions, continued training and education for the inspector and the service agencies, realistic

and fair laws and regulations, and an informed educated consumer. While these are fairly noble objectives we feel they properly represent

the dedication of our members to their chosen profession.

The membership of our association consists of regulatory officials and industry personnel concerned with improving and gaining more

uniformity in the complete weights and measures field. This membership includes representatives from all parts of the United States

and even a few members from Canada but comes predominatly from

the seven northwest states of North and South Dakota, Nebraska,

Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. In 1978 our paid membership was 234 members.

Our constitution was changed in 1978 to more closely follow the

pattern of the National Conference in that the officers and board of

directors of our association consist of regulatory officials. At the pre- sent time I serve as President and the Vice President is Vince Meuwissen of Minnesota.

Our Secretary and Treasurer is Bruce Adams, also of Minnesota

Weights and Measures. The Seargent-at-Arms is Steve Malone of

Nebraska. He is also Chairman of our Education Committee. Robert

Probst of Wisconsin is the head of our L & R Committee, and Frank

Nagele of Michigan chairs the S & T Committee.

These committees have the task of screening input from the various

states and then submitting those changes or ideas that the Northwest

Association as a whole supports, to the National Conference committees. We, of course, do not always have the whole committee in

agreement on what is to be submitted but suggest, when an individual

114
state disagrees with the majority, that it act independently on that

issue.

Also, the committees have the responsibility to bring before our membership at our Annual Meeting those items from the interim

committee meetings ofthe National Conference that need explanation

and discussion.

Our meetings of the S & T, L & R, and Education Committees will

be held September 24-25-26 at Omaha, Nebraska. We would welcome

any input that you people in industry may have and if anyone wishes

to present an idea please contact one of the committee chairmen or me and we will make the necessary arrangements.

I also wish to inform you that we are returning our Annual Conference to the Twin City area next year and will be meeting March

3-4-5, 1980, at the Midway-Twins Motor Inns in Saint Paul. At this

time I would like to extend an invitation to all of you to join us in

what has always been a very informative and interesting meeting.

115
NATIONAL SCALE MEN'S ASSOCIATION

Presented by William V. Goodpaster, President, NSMA

The National Scale Men's Association is a

non-profit corporation incorporated in the

state of Illinois. It has approximately 2000

members made up of people from 14 countries

all involved in weighing.

The qualifications for membership as stated

in the NSMA constitution are:

"Any person engaged in the manufacture, construction, repair, installation, design, sale or use of scales, or who is engaged in weighing

or the direction of weighers, or who is a Weights & Measures official or deputy, or who is teaching or a student

of weights & measures."

I'm pleased to report that all of these classifications are well rep- resented in the membership.

The first of the four objectives stated in the NSMA constitution is: "To create a better understanding of the importance and scope of the

weighing industry by the public, thus furthering the welfare of those

engaged in weights and measures activities." We sponsor weights and measures week which is strongly supported

in the weighing and measurement field. Coverage by newspapers and

TV stations, special school demonstrations, and the display of emblems calling attention to this week of special emphasis, are used all over the country.

I would propose to you that the public still does not recognize the

importance of weights and measures activities, and our objective

should be to rectify this situation. If the proper priority is placed on

this objective, we would not see cuts in weights and measures budgets.

I am convinced that there is no sector of our government that has

such a far reaching effect on industry, agriculture, transportation,

and consumer protection as weights and measures. We know this

because we are involved in this special field. The public doesn't. It certainly seems to me that on this objective NSMA and the weights

and measures jurisdictions of this conference are in complete accord.

At a recent meeting with some California officials, the statement was made that the total budget for all of weights and measures activities in California was approximately 7 million dollars and that

the consumer protection agency had a budget of approximately 14

million dollars. I feel that weights and measures enforcement as a by-product does twice as much consumer protection. The public should

know this.

116
The second objective is: "To make available information on the

proper use and application of weighing devices which will help in- dustry and commerce achieve their goal of higher standards and

greater efficiency." Here is an area where a unique free exchange of

information regarding techniques that are often competitive is shared

by people. Almost all manufacturers of weighing equipment cooperate

by supplying application examples in written form, slide presentations, and lectures by top technical members of their organizations.

These presentations are made at the NSMA annual technical sessions.

Many of these presentations are now edited and narrated by the

original producer and are made available at no charge to NSMA local divisions. There are funds available now to supply top technical speakers to local divisions for their seminars. This presents an excellent

opportunity for all of us involved in weighing to increase our knowledge and, as a result, do our jobs better. Some of you are aware of

this but we could use a great deal more participation by weights and

measures officials. The third objective is: "To promote weights and measures work by

encouraging legislation which will produce better laws and better

recognition of weights and measures officials." I'm sure that most of you are aware that the NSMA does make its voice heard on issues when a consensus opinion can be reached. Due

to the structure of NSMA, it is generally not possible nor desirable

to lobby for or against an issue. However, the scope of our membership

allows an issue to be considered from several viewpoints. This will

enable individual members to establish their own position.

The fourth objective is: "To benefit the scale man by providing an

exchange of ideas, a common meeting ground for understanding and

cooperation, and an opportunity to keep abreast of technical advancements."

This is one of the most important contributions of NSMA to weights

and measures. A high school student can get courses in automotive

mechanics, machine shop, aeronautical service, etc, in his industrial

arts programs, but there are almost no courses dealing with weighing.

There are no text books written on this subject. Almost all knowledge

of weighing principles and applications comes from a person to person

exchange. The NSMA was responsible for the first formal study pro- gram in measurement science instituted at Alfred University in New

York State. A scholarship fund was established and financial assist- ance is available to students who are interested in a career in the

weighing field. NSMA was responsible for the measurement science courses introduced at Yuba College and several scholarships have

been issued to students there. A "Scales on Saturday" program where

a full day's training seminar is held at Yuba College is the result of

the Northern California division's interest in this objective to provide

education in the technical advancements of the industry.

117
The "Scales on Saturday" program is a composite of lectures, hands- on training with devices, application examples of how to apply new

device innovations, and inspection, testing and enforcement proce- dures. I'm pleased to report to you that this idea has now spread to NSMA divisions all over the U.S. Successful seminars are being held

in New England, New Jersey and the Southeastern and Northwestern

divisions. California was host to the 57th Technical Conference in

Los Angeles and will be host to the 61st conference in 1980 at San

Francisco. The theme of our 1980 conference will be education. Development of that theme will be accomplished by lectures from the

top experts in the world. Our lab classes will feature exhibits of devices used in our industry.

Weights and Measures officials are a vital part of the NSMA pro- gram. There is no other organization where all segments of our in- dustry can meet together for the exchange of information and ideas.

I wish to invite all of you to the 1980 conference. I will be president

at that time, and I need all the support I can get.

118
THE SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Presented by Raymond J. Lloyd, Executive Director, SMA

It is my privilege to introduce to you this

year's elected leaders of the Scale Manufacturers Association:

President: Robert M. Zweig, President of

John Chatillon & Sons, Inc., Kew Gardens,

New York:

Vice President: William J. Lifka, President

of Howe Richardson Scale Company, Clif- ton, New Jersey.

Other members of our Board of Directors

this year are: Kenneth F. Hammer, President of Fairbanks Weighing Division, Colt Industries, St. Johnsbury, Vermont.

Peter R. Perino, President of Transducers, Inc., Cerritos, California.

William H. Perry, President of Cardinal Scale Manufacturing

Company, Webb City, Missouri.

Joseph R. Schaeffer, Vice President of Thurman Scale Company,

Columbus, Ohio.

Guy W. Wilson, Corporate Manager of Marketing Development,

Analogic Corporation.

We appreciate this opportunity to tell you about SMA's programs

and activities, and we commend the leadership of the National Conference for this innovation on your program.

The National Conference on Weights and Measures provides one

of the most effective, productive vehicles for cooperative effort between industry and government in America today.

The Scale Manufacturers Association commends and congratulates

you for that. We thank the weights and measures community and the

Office ofWeights and Measures for this opportunity to exchange views

and information. It benefits everybody!

SMA has never been stronger or more active in its 34-year history

than it is today. Representing the greatest concentration of weighing

industry expertise in the world, the 24 member companies of SMA

are working together to develop consensus industry positions in many

important areas. Following is a brief review of our recent and current activities:

1 . Metrology Control Plan

You heard Kenneth F. Hammer, immediate past president of SMA,

119
discuss one of the important results of this cooperative effort this

morning in his presentation on, "A Legal Metrology Control System

Applicable to the United States."

2. NCWM

You also heard from SMA at this Conference—as you have in the

past and will at future National Conferences and interim committee

meetings—in connection with S & T Committee proposals and other

matters.

3. Weights and Measures Week

You are familiar with our efforts to help you make National

Weights and Measures Week a meaningful recognition of the important role of weights and measures officials in every jurisdiction

in America. I have heard from several of you in recent weeks about

your success in using the SMA press kit this year.

4. Weighing Industry Tolerances

A blue ribbon Tolerance Subcommittee of the SMA Technical Committee is working hard on a comprehensive review of tolerance

provisions in various scale codes, including Handbook 44. The objectives are simplification and consolidation of these provisions,

along with compatibility with OIML.

5. International Standards

SMA has taken the lead in such major OIML initiatives as the

drafting of proposed International Recommendations on load cells and electronic weighing. Our representatives also have been very

active in the National Working Group for Pilot Secretariat 7 on Measurement of Mass.

6. Federal Grain Inspectional Service

The Scale Manufacturers Association has commented in considerable depth on scale standards proposed by the Federal Grain In- spection Service and continues to follow this situation closely.

7. Metric Conversion

SMA has provided the secretariat for the Weights and Measures

Sector Committee of the American National Metric Council since

the committee was organized several years ago. Although the com120
mittee presently is reconsidering its future direction, SMA contin- ues to monitor developments closely, not only in the U. S. but in

Canada and elsewhere in the world.

8. Publications

Another SMA activity of significance to the weights and measures community is our publications program. You are familiar, I'm sure, with SMA documents endorsed by the National Conference—last year's RFI/EMI Field Test Procedures, for instance.

Our newest publication is a new edition of Load Cell Terminology

and Test Procedure Recommendations, published within the last few

weeks. These two and six others are shown on a new list of SMA

publications. Copies are available at this Conference.

In closing, I want to reconfirm SMA's commitment to uniformity

in weighing industry regulations and our support of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures to that end.

121
SOUTHERN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by John L. O'Neill, Director,

Southern Association

It is my pleasure to invite you to the 34th

Southern Conference on Weights and Measures to be held October 21-25, 1979 in Kansas

City, Kansas.

The association, a 34-year old organization,

is made up of weights and measures officials at all levels of work from the inspector up to the Commissioner of a department of State

Government. Officials come from eighteen

states, the District of Columbia and numbers

of city and county jurisdictions.

Each of our jurisdictions has its own problems, many unique, not necessarily all weights and measures problems, but we have found that most, if not all, can be solved more

easily working cooperatively with our neighbors and friends within

the association. Along the way we have found all problems could not

be solved on a regional level so we have developed strong ties with

other regions in our working within the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Over the years our Southern Division leaders

have staffed the many offices and committees of the National Conference, providing strong support, leadership and direction throughout the National Conference's much longer history.

Concerned counsel and support offered by the affiliate membership

composed of industry, business, professional and consumer interests

have provided us with a vital tie to reality. The Southern Weights

and Measures Association invites your membership in the associa

tion and continued participation in its activities.

122
WESTERN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by Joseph W. Jones, Director, Western Association

I have the pleasure of adding my welcome

to those already expressed. I welcome you here

and also to the Western Weights and Measures Association Territory. As outstanding as

this meeting place is, it is just one of many in

the Western Association region. We wish you

a happy time while you are here and say hurry

back to visit us again.

The Western Association will be holding its annual meeting August 5-10, which is a week

after next in Scottsdale, Arizona. We invite

you to stay over and join us. In the last year we have lost, by retirement, two of our most able

members: Fred Morgan of Utah and Earl Prideaux of Colorado. They

are missed but have been replaced by able men who are in attendance

at this conference. We have added to our association the State of

North Dakota and the Navajo Nation.

The Western Association is an active entity, taking an active part

in this Conference by serving when asked, by presenting weights and

measures problems and their possible solutions to the National Conference's several committees, and by actively advocating our position

in open committee meetings and in writing.

By vote we have decided that the new format of Handbook 44 is not as good as the old and would suggest additional intercourse between NBS and the States to resolve these apprehensions. I feel that

there is nothing static about weights and measures, that everything can be changed for the better and this, I find, is the view of the

Western Association membership. With proposition 3 in California

and its impact in other jurisdictions, new methods of accomplishing

our goal "that equity may prevail" must be found. Some of us are

trying different methods and I am sure you are seeking and trying

new programs. Sharing of information is one of the major reasons for meetings such as this. Hopefully we can exchange ideas as we meet

to conduct the business for which we have gathered. What has happened before is history. We should study and learn from history but

we cannot relive it. We must be moving forward and the Western

Association does plan on progressing.

123
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF

AGRICULTURE

Presented by James A. Graham, President, NASDA, and

Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, State of North Carolina

Thank you for inviting me to be here with

you for the Annual Meeting of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures. As

President of the National Association of State

Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) this

year I am becoming increasingly aware of the

importance of the job you people do in guaranteeing fair weights and measures in our

country's marketplaces.

As the costs of goods and commodities con- tinue to rise across the country, the job that

the people in weights and measures do be- comes more and more important. It is vital that representatives from

each state get together at meetings such as this to compare notes and

air problems which we all share. The information and insight gained

at meetings such as these help all of us do a better job.

Your National Conference Meeting is the place to thrash out problems you have in weights and measures regulation and I understand

our man Marion Kinlaw often does this. The important thing is to leave this meeting completely unified

and in agreement with final positions taken by this national confer- enceDo j our disagreeing here and not when you get back home on the

job.

O .e of the things I was asked to comment on today is how weights

and measures and NASDA can work more effectively together.

My first response was "How can we improve on the great relationship we already have?" But then I started thinking "If it's good now,

imagine what it could become!" Communication is one of the most

important aspects of good relationships and the Conference onWeights

and Measures is quickly moving toward better communication with

NASDA because the weights and measures NASDA meeting is now

scheduled on Wednesday afternoon. This makes it a more integral

part of the Conference Meeting rather than just being incidental to the program.

This change to make the NASDA meeting more a part of the pro- gram is a big step toward working together more effectively.

Another way NASDA and the National Conference on Weights and

Measures can work together more effectively is to require regional

weights and measures organizations to approve any resolutions before

they are presented to the National Conference. The objective here is

124
to allow resolutions to originate as close to the people as possible.

Local people experience things first hand and have a better grasp of

problems than do those sitting in offices somewhere completely re- moved from a situation.

One of the biggest complaints I hear when I am traveling is that

the people in Washington, or the people in a State Capital, are trying

to force things on the local people without any first hand knowledge

of the problem.

Somehow I've always had this strange notion that Government was

developed to serve the people—to solve problems rather than cause them. Well, this is the point, if resolutions and changes originate

locally and evolve through the system, they stand to solve problems more effectively.

Another point that needs mentioning is that the Office of Weights

and Measures in the National Bureau of Standards should be enlisted

to a greater extent by tne States and State Weights and Measures

officials as a permanent sounding board to NASDA. The Bureau of

Standards is the last word in standards in our country and through

them, the States, individually and collectively, can have a greater

voice. I encourage more meetings and more communications between

the Office of Weights and Measures and the Conference officials and

the NASDA Board of Directors.

I also feel NASDA can serve as a helping hand to weights and

measures in getting national legislation across to Congressmen. The

reason for this is that NASDA is made up of elected and appointed

representatives from each state in the nation. Congressmen gent -ally can identify with them more than with weights and measures employees because they are coming from the same place. For example,

Congressmen are elected and many Commissioners of Agriculture

are elected. A Congressman might be more inclined to accept another

elected official's opinion than to blanketly accept the opinion of a Government employee who does not have to answer directly to the

people every four years.

Weights and Measures can work through NASDA to gain Congressional support which can help resolve major National Weights and

Measures issues. In closing, I would like to say that from all the information I am

getting, Weights and Measures jurisdictions throughout the country

need more personnel and equipment to continue doing the kind ofjob

we need. The marketplace is ever-changing and progressing and we

need to stay on top of that change.

As the unit price increases, as has been the case, the incentive to defraud the public is increased and we can't allow that. NASDA, working with each state, is willing to do whatever we can

to help the National Conference on Weights and Measures do the best

job possible. Thank you.

125
WEIGHING PROGRAMS OF THE FEDERAL GRAIN

INSPECTION SERVICE

Presented by Richard R. Pforr, Chief, Scale Testing and Weighing

Branch, Weighing Division, Federal Grain Inspection Service

It is indeed a pleasure for me to have the

opportunity to address this joint session this

afternoon. Although I think the subject of my

presentation titled "Weighing Programs of

the Federal Grain Inspection Service" to be

rather broad, I will endeavor to provide you

with as much detail as possible in the time

allowed. You will find that many of the pro- grams developed or being developed by FGIS

are very compatible with the policies and pro- grams of both NASDA and the NCWM. We

have many common goals.

I think perhaps a brief profile of FGIS would be appropriate prior

to detailing our weighing programs in order to give you an overview

of the whole Service.

The FGIS, under the direction of its Administrator Dr. Leland Bartelt, is presently headquartered in the Department of Agriculture

building in Washington, D.C. I indicate "presently headquartered"

because there is a feasibility study being made to determine whether

FGIS should be moved closer to the grain belt. Kansas City is one of a number of locations being considered.

Our operations are conducted through forty field offices and five

regional offices in twenty-three states and Canada. Conducting these I operations, as of March of this year, were 1,663 full-time permanent

employees and 262 part-time employees. When completely staffed, we

j will have approximately 1980 full-time employees with 87 percent,

or approximately 1720, assigned to field locations.

The cost of all field services, except supervision, is financed from

j fees charged for service performed. Headquarters functions and field

J supervision are financed from Federal appropriations.

Directly under Dr. Bartelt is our Deputy Administrator, David R. i Galliart who headed the old Grain Division which was replaced by

FGIS in late 1976. Reporting to Mr. Galliart are two Assistant Deputy

Administrators. One is David C. Mangum who is in charge of field I operations. And the other is Leslie E. Malone who heads up the four

staff divisions in Washington. These Staff Divisions are the Standardization Division, the Compliance Division, the Inspection Division,

and last but not least, the Weighing Division.

It is the programs of the Weighing Division which I will further

describe in more detail.

126
The Weighing Division, which is directed by Mr. George Lipscomb,

consists of 36 staff employees making up four branches. These are, the Policies and Procedures Branch, the Scale Testing and Weighing

Branch, the Grain Monitoring Branch, and the Program Analysis

Group.

The Policies and Procedures Branch, which is the largest of the

four branches, has as it's primary objective the development and implementation of a nationwide, uniform, officially supervised weighing

program. This includes the issuance of all instructions and establishment of standard field weighing policies for the two classes of weighing supervision that FGIS provides. These two classes are:

1. Class X Weighing which includes 100 percent supervision and

is mandated by the U.S. Grain Standards Act to be performed on

all inbound and outbound weighing at export port locations.

2. Class Y Weighing which includes a minimum of 25 percent su- pervision of weighing and is offered as a service for a fee to any

inland facility requesting it. The Policies and Procedures Branch also works closely with all Delegated States and Designated Agencies to assure implementation

of uniform procedures for weighing.

All official policies and procedures are being issued in the form of a Weighing Handbook which will cover all phases of the weighing

program. Interim chapters 1. and 2. of the handbook have been issued

covering proper weighing procedures and proper documentation of

weighing records. I think few people realize the complexities of developing nationwide, uniform, compatible instructions when dealing

with weighing involving the normal carriers such as ships, trucks,

railroad cars, and barges, and special situations such as containers,

lash barges, sacked grain, and floating elevators.

Another program which supports the main thrust of the Policies

and Procedures Branch is the development of custom or specially

designed Official Weight Certificates for inbound weighing. Through

the use of specially designed weight certificates, grain facilities can make use of a wide variety of custom weighing equipment as well as

all kinds of data processing equipment which provides for faster

weighing and processing of weight information.

Also this branch has developed a presentation on the potential uses

of closed circuit television for reduction of manpower in the supervision of the weighing process. Closed circuit television is presently

being tested in some facilities. In an effort to provide a means of internally reviewing the Weighing

Supervision Program, a number of unscheduled and unannounced

visits are made to Field offices to review their methods of operation

and how well they are complying with Official policies and procedures.

We refer to these group visits as (E.R.T.) Export Review Teams and

127
(D.R.T.) Domestic Review Teams. The feedback from these teams

provides input on problem areas that require correction. In addition to the internal review teams, FGIS has an International

Monitoring Program to investigate and review foreign complaints

with regard to quality and quantity of grain delivered. Regular over- seas trips are made, working closely with the Department's Foreign

Agricultural Service.

Described above are the main programs of the Policies and Pro- cedures Branch. The Scale Testing and Weighing Branch directs an- f other area of the overall Weighing Program which we feel is i extremely important. Its primary function is to develop a nationwide,

uniform, scale testing and certification program along with all nec- f essary support functions. To implement scale certification, the FGIS ' presently has approximately 25 Scales and Weighing Specialists lo-

{ cated in major field offices and regional offices. More of these types

j of specialists are expected to be hired.

Present proposed regulations require Official testing and certifi- cation of all scales under the jurisdiction of FGIS to be performed

twice annually at approximately six-month intervals. It is the job of f the Scales and Weighing Specialist to attend every Official test to assure compliance with FGIS regulations.

The Scale Testing and Weighing Branch will add its instructions [ and procedures to the Weighing Handbook. An interim Chapter 3, has already been distributed. I'm sure that most of you here today are aware that some portions [ of the proposed regulations pertaining to Specifications, Tolerances, I and Technical Requirements do not agree with the Handbook 44. Specifically in the areas of minimum division size and tolerances. I

'

! would like to comment on this subject only to this extent. Just as the

NCWM receives input and opinions from many sources prior to de-

' termining its recommendations, FGIS feels it must do the same before \ finalizing the regulations. There have been many regulatory groups

' involved in the weighing of grain, some going back to the years when fi j the NCWM was beginning. We feel we must receive and review input I from all sources prior to finalizing the regulations.

Another area in which the Scale Testing and Weighing Branch is involved is the development of a Test weight reverification program.

A fairly high percent of export terminal elevators own their own large i block test weights. Many of these weights were not being reverified on a regular basis, in some cases for good reasons such as the inability f, to remove the weights from the elevator. But there were also many

instances where there was no program to assure that the weights . were periodically checked.

In an effort to provide the grain industry with the means to comply i with the proposed regulations on field standards, we are testing a

prototype of a beam which we hope will give us the ability to at least '

j

128
tolerance test these large block weights in the elevator. Harry Johnson, who comes to FGIS from the National Bureau of Standards, is presently developing this capability.

Early in the development of our scale testing program, we ran into a problem with which I'm sure many of you are familiar; that is the

testing of Railway track scales. As you are aware, with the exception

of a few state programs, the railroad companies have been the primary

source of getting railway track scales tested.

Because the U.S. Grain Standards Act mandates that FGIS must

certify all scales used for Official weighing, we began to look into how

we might accomplish this mandate. Fortunately at about that time,

the Office of Weights and Measures was looking for a new home for the Master Scale Program. With the patient help of Mr. Tholen, Chief

j of the Office of Weights and Measures, and Mr. John Robinson of the

' Association of American Railroads, we have pretty much finalized a Railway Track Scale testing program that will include the testing of

all Master Scales annually and all railway track scales under the

jurisdiction of FGIS. This will be accomplished by using two NBS

type test cars, one of the old cars that is being refurbished and a new

test car that will be ordered shortly. We have received strong support

for this program.

A tentative date of October 1, 1979 has been set to officially begin

the program. We are presently advertising for two Scale specialists

to operate the test cars and perform the testing. Supervision of the

program will come from Ben Banks who comes to FGIS from the

Office of Weights and Measures and was involved with the Master

Scale Program for many years.

Another program which we will be developing during the next year

is an equipment approval program. I hesitate at this time to call it a prototype evaluation program but it will include requirements to be assured that all weighing equipment used for Official weighing

complies with FGIS regulations.

And finally, the Scale Testing and Weighing Branch has the re- sponsibility of overseeing theAgencies Radio Communications

Program. Presently FGIS has in excess of 1.5 million dollars in VHF

and UHF radio equipment in the field. This figure is made up primarily of the cost of portable hand-held radios but also includes base

stations, repeater stations, and mobile equipment. We have dedicated

frequencies for use by Delegated States and FGIS only. One full-time

Communications Technician works in this area. These are the main

programs that make up the majority of this year's annual work plan

for the Scale Testing and Weighing Branch.

Portions of the U.S. Grain Standards Act require inventory monitoring of exporting elevators. The Grain Monitoring Branch has the

j responsibility of developing instructions and procedures for monitoring elevator inventories. This is a new branch and a relatively new

129
program. They are presently developing plans for performing inventories annually at approximately 88 export facilities presently under

FGIS jurisdiction.

And finally let me briefly mention the work of the remaining branch

of the Weighing Division which is the Program Analysis Group. The

Program Analysis Group performs a wide variety of studies and proj- ects in areas that are not covered by the other branches. Some ex- amples of the work being performed by this branch are:

1. A study on the accuracy that can be expected in performing draft

surveys on exporting ships.

2. A nationwide volume reporting system.

3. The determination of allowable grain dust particle size.

That Ladies and Gentlemen covers the four branches of the Weighing Division and all the major Weighing Division programs.

Being a relatively new agency, we realize we have a long way to

go. However, looking back over the past year, I believe we have ac- complished much.

130
NET WEIGHTS, PART II

Presented by Sydney J. Butler, Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Food and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Good afternoon. I'm pleased to be here.

Some of you may remember that just over a year ago I addressed this conference on the

subject of USDA's proposed net weight regulations. This year I've been asked to speak on

the same subject. After this past week in

Washington, I'm happy not only that you'll be

hearing about the same subject, but also that

you'll be hearing from the same speaker you

heard from last year. There's a story in Washington—apocryphal

I'm sure—about a government official who

was able to make a good living for many years giving the same speech

j on the same subject. Every two years a particular bill would be in- troduced in Congress, and the official would be called upon to testify.

He happened to know more about the bill than anyone else. The bill

I never passed, but every time a new Congress convened, the process

would repeat itself. After several years, the official even began to branch out and deliver speeches on the bill at annual meetings of

various trade groups and associations of government officials. He

made a career out of a bill that never became law.

This sort of thing is not about to happen on our proposed net weight

regulations. We do plan to have final net weight regulations on the

books, in the foreseeable future. I would like to give you a precise

date, but I'm not in a position to give you an exact deadline, or to tell you what the final regulations will look like. But I do want you to know that we are acutely aware of the need for state and local officials to have enforceable Federal standards in place. I also want you to know that we have not been spinning our wheels this past year. A

great deal has transpired since I spoke to you last July in Washington.

I would like to use this opportunity this afternoon to bring you up to date.

Most ofyou are familiar with the proposed regulations we published

in December, 1977. We discussed them at some length last year. These

regulations were in part a response to a petition from the State of

California and cosigned by 47 other States. State officials felt they

had been disarmed by the Supreme Court decision in Rath, which

kept States from imposing net weight standards different from those

prescribed by USDA. The USDA standard was—and is—based simply on "reasonable variation." Since the Department had not spelled out

131
a clear standard, States felt they were unable to perform a valuable consumer protection service. The proposed USDA net weight regulations were intended to remedy this situation.

When I spoke to you a year ago, the proposed regulations had been

out for comment for more than 6 months, and we had received more

| than 3,000 comments. We realized that some changes would have to be made in the proposal, but quite frankly, I was optimistic about

being able to publish final regulations within a year. We soon dis- covered, however, that the issue of net weight was more complicated 1 than we had thought. The complications fall roughly into three main

areas: political, economic, and, for lack of a better word, inter-Departmental.

Let me begin with the political complications. By "political" I am

simply referring to the free play of the forces that make our constitutional system work. In this sense, the main political complication

had to do with the interest of Congress in the proposed net weight

regulations. The Congress, of course, has a very legitimate interest

in such matters, by virtue of its responsibilities to oversee vigorously

the actions of the Executive branch.

There has been a particularly intense interest recently in regulaj tion. This interest has been fueled over the past year or two by the

intense desire on the part of elected officials to do something about

inflation. In fact, when it comes to putting a stop to sky-rocketing

prices, it sometimes appears that we have exchanged a pro-regulatory

bias for an anti-regulatory fervor. It was not too long ago that gov-

} ernment-imposed wage and price controls were considered the cure

to inflation. Now, government regulations of any sort are thought by some to be the root of the problem. Neither of these attitudes is wholly

defensible, but regulatory officials must obviously come to terms with

the present concern over potentially burdensome regulations.

Congress has not been alone in its concern over the inflationary

impact of excessive regulation. One of the primary goals of this

| Administration has been regulatory reform. Quite clearly, regulatory

reform can lead to lower costs for government and lower prices for consumers. The deregulation of the pricing and route structure in the

airline industry offers a prime example.

Given the climate of regulatory reform and given Congress's ov-

'

ersight responsibilities, it is quite understandable that Congress

would take a rather high degree of interest in our proposed net weight

regulations. As you know, industry has contended from the outset that these regulations would result in significant new costs for packers and higher prices for consumers. This type of argument created some active concern on the Hill. Last July, when Assistant Secretary

Foreman appeared before the Livestock and Grains Subcommittee of

the House Agriculture Committee, the members had a number of

132
questions concerning the impact of the proposed net weight regulations. There was a full and frank discussion, and a number of legitimate issues were raised.

Soon after the hearing, the subcommittee asked the General AcI counting Office to do a study of the proposed regulations. We told the

Congress that we would not go ahead with final regulations until

receiving the report from the GAO study. The GAO report was published in December. The report reached the conclusion that our pro- posed regulations were based on insufficient data, and raised particular concern over the possible inflationary impact of the regulations.

This leads to the second area where we have encountered some

complications: the economics of the proposed regulations. In response

to the issues raised in the GAO report, we went to the Department's

Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service last December and

! asked them to review the evidence on the potential impact of the

regulations. The Department's economists concluded that indeed additional data and analyses were needed prior to making final decisions. ESCS then embarked on a careful study in an attempt to pinpoint the exact economic impact of the proposed regulations. The

study is now nearing completion, and will be published in the near

future. Like most careful, objective studies, it presents us with some

difficult regulatory decisions. Preliminary findings indicate that the

' world is not quite what we had thought it to be. For that matter, it is not what many industry or consumer groups have thought it to be. The most controversial portion of our proposed regulations has been

the provisions relating to drained weight. Under our proposal, free

liquid as well as juices, fats and solids absorbed by packaging material

would no longer be counted as part of a product's net weight. Net

weight would, therefore, equal drained weight. In addition, the pre- sent allowance for moisture loss due to evaporation would be eliminated.

Producer groups have argued that these provisions would result in

the need for significant additional over-packing, which in turn would

mean higher costs for industry and higher prices for consumers. Many

consumer groups, on the other hand, have said that drained weight

labeling is necessary to assure that consumers are not paying meat

prices for water.

The study indicates weaknesses in both sides of this argument, and

I'm afraid it leaves us right in the middle looking for somewhere to

go. Costs to industry of the proposed regulations do not seem to be

nearly as great as some of their representatives have contended. The

American Meat Institute, for example, estimated the additional cost

for a limited number of red meat products to be $380 million. The

National Broiler Council estimated $177.5 million for their industry.

The National Turkey Federation estimated $88 million. These esti- mates seem to be vastly overstated.

133

I
Indications are that the real price to consumers for meat and poultry

products would remain the same under the new regulations. Very

little overpacking would be necessary to compensate for evaporation,

since this type of moisture loss is slight for meat and poultry products.

It is true that some "overpacking" would be necessary to compensate

for the exclusion of free liquid from the net weight and that these

costs would be reflected in higher labeled prices per pound. However,

these higher labeled prices would be offset by the fact that consumers would be receiving more usable product per pound because of the

exclusion of free liquid.

The pre-drained weight economic arguments of consumers seem to fare no better under analysis than the anti-drained weight arguments

of industry. Findings thus far show that the economic benefits often

attributed to a drained weight system would probably not occur. Under the present regulations, for example, there is little or no evidence to indicate that consumers are receiving a significant amount

of short weight product. It is true that under a drained weight system,

a labeled pound would include more usable product. However, the

price per pound would increase by a corresponding amount. Again,

the real price would remain the same. The consumer would come out

about even. Where does this leave us? I believe there are some clear advantages

as well as some clear disadvantages to a drained weight system. What

is not yet clear is just where the edge lies. I think it is a very close

call. Let me enumerate the advantages as well as the disadvantages.

First, the plus side of a drained weight system. The main benefit

to consumers would be increased ability to make accurate comparisons at the market place based on the price of usable product. Because

the labeled weight of some products now includes an unspecified

amount of the liquid, it is difficult to determine the value of these

products. In addition, some consumers may not even realize that the

present labeled weight of these products refers to usable product plus

free liquid.

Secondly, the drained weight portion of the proposal would provide

incentives for industry to reduce the amount and variability of moisture loss in their products. This would increase the accuracy of the

labeled weight on meat and poultry products. Let's say a particular

product now loses between 4 and 8 percent of its weight as drained

liquid. Under the present system, the packer has no economic incentive to reduce the amount of drain because all of it can be counted as part of the net weight. Under a drained weight system, however, the

packer would have to reduce the labeled weight by a full eight per

cent to make certain the product remained in compliance. He therefore would have an incentive to reduce the variation to, say, four to

six per cent, and thereby gain 2 per cent in the amount of labeled

weight.

134
On the minus side, there may be an additional cost for new equipment to enable state and local governments to enforce the drained

weight inspection procedures. State and local agencies would have to purchase a stainless steel sieve and two receiving pans for each ini spector. Most officials surveyed said they believed that these additional costs would have to be absorbed out of current budgets. Only

about 10% felt their states might appropriate new funds for net weight

inspection.

There may also be some additional labor costs because drained

weight procedures are more time consuming. States and local agencies

might also incur costs resulting from the need to purchase more pre- packed packages for weighing. As you know, a drained weight system

! requires that packages be opened and the product drained before

\ weighing. Costs for such a procedure probably would have to be abj sorbed out of current budgets.

One of the main disadvantages involves a somewhat nebulous problem of "perceived inflation." The problem in this: Even though the

real price per pound for meat and poultry products would remain the

same, the labeled price per pound would go up. Many consumers, not

j realizing that they were receiving more usable product at the higher

price, may look upon the apparent price increase as a real one. To

I make matters worse, this apparent price increase would have an effect

I on the Consumer Price Index, simply because the CPI does not take

into account such esoterica as wet tares, dry tares, and drained

weight. Over at the Bureau of Labor Statistics a pound of chicken is a pound of chicken. If the labeled price goes up because the free liquid

has been excluded, then so does the CPI. And I am sure you know

when the CPI goes up, so do many wages, benefits and other costs that contribute to inflation.

This all may sound a little like Alice in Wonderland. We must,

however, face the fact that there is now a great burden of proof upon

any new regulation that contributes even a small amount to infla- tion—whether perceived or real. ESCS estimates that the drained

weight portion of our proposed regulations may add as little as 4 one hundredths of one percent to the CPI. That seems small, but we'd

better be able to show a pretty clear benefit to justify even that

amount. I've mentioned the benefit to consumers of enhanced ability

to make value comparisons at the market place and the incentives

to industry for increased accuracy in net weight declarations. Do these

benefits outweigh the costs? Arguments on both sides will be long

and loud.

Whatever we decide to do on drained weight labeling, I should

emphasize that we will shape an objective Federal net weight standard that the States will be able to enforce. The main problem with

enforcement at the retail level has been that a standard based on

"reasonable variation" is not sufficiently objective.

135
To overcome this serious limitation in the present Federal standard, j the proposed USDA regulations provide: that the present allowance

for moisture loss due to evaporation would be eliminated; that average | weights for products from the same lot be required to equal or exceed i the labeled net weight, and that single packages be permitted to fall below the labeled weight, but only by an amount specified in the

regulation (which is called the "maximum allowable variation"). I These provisions are logically independent of the drained weight provisions. Both the average weight of products and the maximum al- lowable variation can be determined on the basis of dry tare, wet tare, or drained weight.

The ESCS study notes that the averaging provisions and the max- imum allowable variations are both in line with the recommended

procedures in the National Bureau of Standards' revised Handbook

67 on checking prepacked commodities. These changes would have

only a minor effect on industry. With respect to eliminating the al- lowance for evaporation loss, by far the largest moisture loss for meat

and poultry products is due to seepage into the package rather than

shrinkage or moisture loss to evaporation. Therefore, eliminating the

allowance for moisture loss due to evaporation would require only a small additional overfill or underlabeling beyond that already re- quired.

So I believe that, regardless of the outcome of the drained weight

issue, USDA will soon establish objective standards based on minimum averages for products from the same lot, and a quantifiable

maximum allowable variation for single packages from a lot. The

very notion of quantifiable variations, however, leads to the third area of complications. These complications arise from the fact that

USDA's net weight jurisdiction extends over only meat and poultry

products, while FDA has responsibility over most other food products.

Obviously, the standards that might reasonably apply to some products may not make sense for others. For example, meat and poultry

products are known to lose very little weight due to evaporation in

the course of distribution and marketing. Therefore, it may be rea- sonable for USDA to propose elimination of any allowance for shrinkage due to evaporation. FDA, on the other hand, must set net weight

standards for flour, which can lose a significant amount of moisture

from evaporation. For such a product, it may be reasonable to allow

at least a quantifiable amount of moisture loss due to evaporation.

Because of these differences in the products each agency regulates,

and also because of the difficult position of the States after the Rath

decision, USDA decided in late 1977 to go ahead with its own net weight regulation for meat and poultry products. FDA would proceed

separately to develop its own approach for the products under its jurisdiction. However, in the time since we published our proposed

net weight regulations, it has become apparent that there is a great

136
deal to be gained from a complementary approach. Consumer understanding would be enhanced if the net weight standards for all food

products were as consistent as possible. Enforcement by state and

local officials would be simplified with greater congruence of standards and procedures. And the task of compliance on the part of the

food industry would be made easier if the two agencies were to develop

similar approaches.

For these reasons, we have been meeting with FDA this past year

in an effort to reach as many points of agreement as possible. I can

report that we have reached tentative agreement in a number of

areas, and at the time USDA next publishes its regulations or proposal, FDA will probably be ready with a companion proposal. The

two sets of regulations will reflect a common effort and set of agreements between the agencies.

It may be necessary to have different allowable variations because

of differences in the properties of the products being regulated. These

variations will be based on a common, explicit rationale. There pre- sently are differences between the two agencies in such technical areas as the definition of lot and the statistical criteria for sampling.

I think we should be able to arrive at a common approach in these

areas, and this should make life a bit easier for both industry and for state weights and measures officials. Finally, FDA has agreed to address the issue of a drained weight for some products, such as fresh

fish and seafood, assuming that is the approach USDA ultimately

decides to take for meat and poultry.

That should, I think, just about bring you up to date on our proposed

regulations. There has been a great deal of activity since I talked

with you a year ago. For the most part, that activity has been entirely

beneficial. We may not have been able to proceed as quickly as we

would have liked, and we still will have to make one or two additional

decisions, particularly with respect to the drained weight issue. But

I believe we now are in a much better position to establish sound,

workable regulations based on the best information available.

137
NET WEIGHT LABELING REGULATIONS

Presented by Taylor M. Quinn, Associate Director for Compliance,

Bureau of Foods, Food and Drug Administration

Your theme "Equity on the Move" is an al- together fitting and proper focus not only for this national conference but for non-safety

regulatory action emanating from the Food

and Drug Administration. As you have stated

in the program, "equity is subject to interpretation. . . ." and its meaning changes as our

collective perception of what is fair and rea- sonable changes. Equity is dynamic, and government regulations based on equity are

therefore dynamic. The topic of net weight la- beling functions is an excellent example of the

dynamic nature of federal regulations.

As we examine FDA's current activities directed toward amending

the net weight labeling regulations, it is apparent that the stimulus

for such alterations was the Rath Supreme Court decision in March

1977. At that time the Court said, as you are undoubtedly aware,

that federal regulations on declaration of quantity of content of food

preempt state and local regulations when differences or conflicts exist. Feeling unarmed from an enforcement standpoint, the State of California petitioned the federal agencies responsible for net weight la- beling practices to amend the existing regulations.

At an early stage both FDA and USDA recognized the merits of a coordinated resolution to the net weight issue. However, the sense of

urgency prompted USDA to publish its own proposal in December

1977. Formal joint discussions were suspended. Resulting at least in

part from discussions with officials from the State of California and

from unsolicited comments from individuals and consumer groups,

two public hearings were convened in December 1977 to air, on a broader scale, the feelings and perspectives on net weight labeling.

Based on the testimony, data, and opinions received from state and

local government officials, weights and measures associations, several consumers and consumer groups, and various industries, FDA identified areas of concern that should be addressed more fully because

of the impact on the development of the net weight labeling proposal.

The various areas of concern and accompanying proposals can be

summarized into two principal areas:

(1) consumer protection from short weight practices, and

(2) enforcement of the net weight labeling regulations.

138
Let's address each of these topics separately. Not surprising, those

most vocal regarding actual or potential short weight practices as- sociated with "reasonable variations due to moisture loss" are con- sumers or their representatives. Most of these individuals claim that

such practices are deceptive to the consumer and that adequate label

representation is needed or that consumers are not receiving the full food value for their purchase. Not all consumers, however, share this

] view. Some expressed concern that food costs would increase unnecessarily if required changes were instituted. In response to this concern over short weight packages, FDA ex- amined both state and nationwide survey data on actual net weights

versus declared net weights dating from 1959 through mid- 1977.

j These surveys indicate that no chronic shortweight problem has exi isted for food commodities for well over a decade and that compliance

j levels were high, exceeding 97% in most cases. Furthermore, con- sumers, on the average, receive 104% of the declared label weight

with the range consisting of 102% to 108%. In other words, the average

package was overfilled by 4%. Therefore, the available evidence per- taining to net weight labeling compliance fails to substantiate the

claim that consumers have been subjected to sustained or intentional

short weight practices.

Why are compliance figures high for net weight labeling regulations? In all likelihood, a combination of two factors is responsible.

(1) technological developments, including sophisticated automatic

filling machinery and checkweighing equipment, and

(2) government enforcement operations, particularly state and lo- cal enforcement of quantity of contents requirements in retail stores. The on-going surveillance by state and local agencies

provides an incentive to businesses to comply with the regulations.

This leads us directly into the second major area of concern that

surfaced as a result of the hearings-enforcement operations. Regardless of the effectiveness of the enforcement operations prior to the

Rath decision, FDA is aware that an acute enforcement dilemma has

been precipitated by the Supreme Court ruling. At the present time,

inspectors must address the question of whether or not moisture loss may be the basis for detected weight shortages. Once such packages

are identified, the inspector must then assess whether or not the

extent of moisture loss was "reasonable." Because the regulations

have not quantitatively defined "reasonable variations," the subjective nature of this operation places a very difficult burden on the

j inspector. The inspector recognizes that his judgment may very well

be challenged and overturned in court.

139
Regarding enforcement procedures, state and local officials pointed

out that valid procedures that are explicitly defined and lend themselves to rapid and accurate determinations would be particularly

beneficial. For example, the use of scales in retail stores would be

much preferred over laboratory analyses for water content. In developing a net weight labeling proposal, it is apparent that

the lack of enforcement capability represents a significant deficiency

in the net weight labeling regulations. Our proposal will attempt to remedy this deficiency by either incorporating or reinforcing statistical validity and practicality while affording public protection from

unscrupulous practices. Along these lines, careful examination is being given to the sampling plans and procedures outlined in the

NBS Handbook 67. The proposed regulation should address such is- sues as desired lot sizes, tare definitions, number of tares, maximum

allowable variations, and other pertinent topics.

Other areas of concern were detailed in two petitions submitted to FDA, FTC, and USDA regarding net weight labeling. One petition

submitted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture,

which was supported by many other states, proposed to require a minimum declared weight, suggesting either overfilling to compensate for moisture loss or improved food packaging to impede moisture

loss. Such an approach would insure a minimum weight of food at any point during distribution, including the retail store. GMA's petition, which was supported by several other industries

and industry groups, included a proposal establishing a list of foods

subject to moisture loss along with identifying acceptable levels of

moisture loss for these foods; fostering the determination of net weight

compliance through periodic inspections at the time of packaging;

and developing procedures for cooperative inspections and the ex- change of enforcement data between federal and state officials. GMA

contends that retaining an allowance for "reasonable variations" due

to moisture loss is essential and that consumers are actually receiving

full value based on nutritional food "solids." In addition, GMA maintains that the suggestions to overfill packages or improve food packaging would result in higher food costs. The FDA has been reviewing the legislative background in order

to determine and implement the intent of Congress in passing the

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act.Thus, there are several points of interest to be considered in for- mulating the proposed regulation on net weight labeling. Careful

scrutiny is being given to these arguments. In addition, during the

past several months, discussions have resumed with USDA regarding

coordination of respective net weight proposals. Concerted efforts have been and are being made to make the two respective Government

proposals identical, when possible, or at least mutually compatible.

140
Both agencies do recognize that fundamental differences in food characteristics exist with regard to the food products regulated by the

respective agencies. This shows up most dramatically with the con- cern over free flowing liquid that is found in some meat and poultry

I products. On the other hand, most foods subject to FDA net weight

labeling regulations do not have free flowing liquid. While every

effort has been made to coordinate our strategies, however desirable

that may be for the food industries and enforcement efforts, a single

proposal encompassing the view of both agencies may not be possible.

We are well along in our discussions. We have both received pre- liminary drafts of proposed regulations and are in the process of re- vising the drafts to take care of the problems that surfaced during

! the discussions. I hope that we can resolve the remaining problems

i and publish proposed changes in the regulations in the near future.

I The results of all this will be published as a proposed regulation

in the Federal Register. Let me emphasize the document will be just

that, a proposal, not a final regulation. We hope that all of you will

study it very carefully and give us constructive suggestions for mistakes or problems you see.

i

141
NATIONAL NET WEIGHT OR FEDERAL "RULE OF

THUMB"?

Presented by Jerry Scribner, Deputy Director, California

Department of Food and Agriculture

Good afternoon! I am pleased to be here in

Portland. My wife was born in Portland and

nearly all of her family still reside here. They

are not residing here this week, however, be- cause they all are down in Sacramento having

a family reunion at our house.

This is a distinguished panel and I am honored to particpate and to once again have an

opportunity to rail against the drift toward

the 15-ounce pound and 35-inch yard. After

this morning's discussion, I should probably

say the 950-milliliter liter and the 950-millimeter meter; each of which is, by the way, only five percent below

stated measure.

I have entitled my remarks "National Net Weight or Federal 'Rule

of thumb'?" which I think accurately describes the critical choice

before us this year. As I was typing a draft of these remarks, I hit the

letter "W" instead of "T" on the word net in net weight. It came out "National New Weight" which may even more aptly describe some

of the proposals quietly being drafted in Washington.

It sounds like I am biased in favor of maintaining net weight as just that, rather than the FDA standard of variations not being "un- reasonably large." I may not be scrupulously neutral, but I am a lawyer and so I can usually see both sides of an issue—mine, the

right, just and proper view; and the other person's, the wrong or misguided view.

Seriously, what drives me nearly crazy on this issue is that I can't honestly, rationally understand why anyone would really favor

throwing away the public's confidence in honest weights and measures, nor can I comprehend the reasoning behind trading in the enforceability and reliability ofour present full weight at retail standard

for an invariably variable and unenforceable standard of full weight

at time of pack; or, is it time of introduction into interstate commerce;

or time of arrival at port of entry? Actually, the point of inspection

may not be too important because the truth is that there is little or no Federal net weight enforcement at any of these points. In these cynical days, I suppose the obvious retort to my concern about public confidence is: What public confidence? Have you seen

the look on people's faces when they read on the cereal box about how

the large empty space between the top of the box and the point where

142
the cereal starts is the result of "settling during shipment"? A little settling, yes . . . but, one third of the box? When the Government

says it's safe, do people really believe it is? If the labels begin to read

". . . This package of flour (or dried fruit, or whatever) may be five

j to eight percent less than the net weight shown on the package due

to unavoidable moisture loss ..." Do you think the public will have

the same feeling? Or will they feel "They're doing it to us again"?

I think the public will feel as I do, that what they are being asked

to bear is not the burden of an impossible situation; not the burden

of unavoidable loss, just the burden of being powerless to stop those

with more power from shifting their burdens and responsibilities in

j the marketplace to those who have no choice but to take it. There are a lot of things that can and do happen to products between

the time they are packed and the time someone buys them. Trucks

and trains have accidents. Butterfingered clerks drop boxes and sometimes whole pallets off the loading dock. Bugs get into the packages,

as does dirt. Most foods start spoiling the minute they are picked and

continue to deteriorate all through the distribution chain. Nearly all these situations are unavoidable, at least to some degree.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that moisture loss, like

these other situations, is a fact of life, and that it imposes some

economic burden on someone, then as a society we have to decide how

' to most fairly allocate the responsibility or economic burden involved.

We in California have noted with respect to other aspects—safety, for example—that the most efficient societal mechanism for maintaining

the quality and safety all the way down the commercial chain is to place some responsibility on the person or entity that introduces the

I product into commercial trade. Those of you in the audience who are

] lawyers know that for many years persons injured by defectively

manufactured automobiles could not sue the manufacturer because

there was no privity of contract between the purchaser and the manufacturer, inasmuch as the purchaser had bought the automobile from

a local dealer, and since the local dealer did not cause the problem,

while he could be sued, he had no liability. The courts, and I think

the legislatures, over the years have seen both the unfairness and

unworkability of allowing the manufacturer, or packager in this case,

to shift the burden of errors or lack of safety or lack of quality to people who have, in many cases, no control over that. To graphically

illustrate this, if you had on one side of the chart the manufacturer

and then a long chain going across the page and on the other end the

ultimate purchaser, and you assume that a product will lose moisture

over this chain, the question becomes: "Who should take the responj sibility for this problem?" The ultimate purchaser has no control over how the package is filled, how it is stored, to whom it is shipped, or when it is sold. The packager generally has control over some of these factors and,

143
in some instances, virtually all of them. To the extent compliance

with the standard imposes economic burdens or risks, these costs can

be allocated to the product.

Reputable businessmen have historically stood behind their products all the way to the dining room table. Now, suddenly, the argument is: Hey, I can't be responsible for what happens to Scribner's

cheese pizza or Scribner's bacon after it leaves my factory gate. Let

the buyer, whoever he or she may be, bear the burden of all that may

go wrong between this day and the day they have to go to the store and buy it. In the past, when American business seemed less intent on technological corner-cutting, a baker's dozen was 13. For the last several

years, weights and measures officials have been attempting to hold

the line at 12, despite charges that all they really cared about was

protecting their turf, and that accurate labeled weight was impossible

or, at least, economically unjustified. Now, FDA stands ready with

proposals to, in effect, make the baker's dozen 11 or IIV2. That is a

4- to 8V2-percent allowance for less than stated weight. I think it is crazy. It is crazy for business to think this makes sense. It is incomprehensible that public officials can find such a step in the best in- terests of the citizenry.

What does industry gain by a switch to moisture loss variable net

weight? They don't have to overpack. Great! Think of all the product

you can save. But for what? It doesn't change your position with

competitors, they no longer have to overpack either. Over time, the

momentary something-for-nothing feeling of a reduction in raw prod- uct cost per unit will wash out so there is no long-term benefit there

either. It is like a hundred-yard dash with the finish line artificially set at 95 yards. You have everything you had before, except now it's a 95-yard dash.

And how about those competitors? With a squishy standard like

variations that are not "unreasonably large" can you be sure their

not unreasonably large is not larger than your not unreasonably

large? Unless there is a dramatic increase in Federal in-plant net

weight enforcement, the competitors may not be inspected at all. Even

if there is an increase, what about the overseas competitors? Who's

inspecting them? What's four or five or even eight percent? I'll tell you what it is . . . It's a lot of people's profit margin that's what!

Well, all this is speculation because we will have state inspectors

inspecting at the plants and also at retail, and they can use the new j net weight loss tables to calculate any egregious short-weight situj ations.

I have one of the new tables with me. It is not too hard to use. First, , look for your product in the table of the thousands of products which

are hygroscopic. Use the index if you need to. Then you find where

in the world it was packaged and what its original moisture content

144
should have been or probably was when packaged and on what date.

Then, you check the temperature and humidity conditions chart for that day and location. Next, you plot the distribution pattern cor- recting as you go for temperature and humidity at various points

along the way. You may need to write a few letters to get this information. Finally, you determine how long it has been on the shelf and

compare that with the temperature and humidity of your own local community over time. Then, you feed all this into a computer for the

final result.

Is this crazy or am I? Obviously, the only real intelligent solution

is to forget about moisture loss and simply allow the maximum possible moisture loss as a tolerance. I believe that is exactly what FDA

j is proposing to do. Once you do that, then the new moisture loss line

1 is the standard. If you are packing and shipping locally, you pack to that line. If your product has to go far away then you have to overpack

so that it will weigh out at not more than five percent (or whatever

the tolerance is) below stated weight at the time of sale. Net result: You have all the same problems with overpack you have

now.

The whole point here, the bottom line, as Governor Brown is fond

of saying, is: No measurement is perfect. You have to draw the line

I somewhere. We feel and I sincerely believe the public feels that the

most rational and logical place to draw the line is at the point stated on the label. If it is a hundred-yard dash, let the finish line be at 100

yards, rather than at 95. If we are going to allow hygroscopic products

to be sold at 95% of what they were packed at then simply relabel

I them as weighing 95% of what they formerly weighed.

Without packaging, the rule is "What you see is what you get."

With packaging, the rule should be "What you see on the label is what you get inside."

I would like to close with one further thought on this subject, and

that is the question of enforceability.

One of the real tragedies of the net weight dialogue has been the

tendency of some participants to see it as a turf battle between Federal

inspection and State inspection. That it could be seen this way is surprising since, in reality, there is very little Federal inspection,

period. What we should be talking about is a Federal-State inspection,

rather than Federal or State inspection.

Symptomatic of the disarray among enforcement agencies is the

fact that local weights and measures officials recently learned from

industry that our Federal counterparts in FDA were readying net

weight proposals for hearing without the slightest communication or

I consultation with local officials who ultimately must enforce them,

i Our understanding is that these proposals will allow fixed percentage

reductions below labeled weight for various products.

145
I sincerely believe that standards which are enforced are in the

best interests of the industry itself, as well as the public generally.

America is one of the few countries in the world where we have

believable standards and honest officials. We need to hold on to these standards and we need to work together

as state and local officials and with industry to develop solutions that

bring together, rather than set apart, our differing enforcement agencies. We're spread thin as it is. We have a proven and reliable standard and an effective, but improvable, network of Federal-State inspection. The standard of full weight is not without its burdens, but neither is it without its benefits.

It has served us well for 40 years. Discarding this standard and the

enforceability and public confidence that go with it would be a step

backwards for commerce in the United States. President Carter the other night touched eloquently, I thought, on

the terrible and debilitating cynicism and distrust which is eating

like cancer on this country's historical self-confidence and faith in the

future.

A Governmental decision to allow five percent or so slippage between what is represented and what is delivered in products which

Americans buy every day can only erode further the trust the public

has in American business ethics and in American Government in- i tegrity.

146
THE NEED FOR AN EQUITABLE AND PRACTICED NET

WEIGHT SYSTEM

Presented by Dr. Mahlon A. Burnette, Director, Scientific Affairs,

Grocery Manufacturers of America

Good Afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen. It

is a pleasure to be back here at the National

Conference on Weights and Measures. I think

everyone in the room is familiar with the history of the net weight compliance debate, so these remarks will be brief. The first net weight law was passed by the

United States Congress in 1913. The Congressional committees which acted on that legislation gave every indication of having known

exactly what they were doing when they wrote

in the report language: "It being apparent to everyone that it is impossible to make packages of exactly the same

size or to pack them with exactly the same quantity of contents, and

it being also apparent that the exact weight and measure of the

contents of a package may undergo slight changes from natural

causes, it is also apparent that legislation requiring similar packages

to contain the same exact quantity in terms of weight or measure,

without allowing for any variation, would be destructive and would

prevent the putting of food in packages."

It is obvious from this Committee record that the United States

Congress intended for manufacturers to do the best possible job of

labeling accurate net weight on their products and it is also clear

that the United States Congress intended that these manufacturers

be allowed certain reasonable variations for machine filling differ- ences and also variations for the loss or gain of moisture during

distribution. It is primarily this latter variation which has been the

subject of our discussion for the past eight years. The issue of machine variation has been dealt with admirably

through the cooperative efforts of manufacturers, this National Conference on Weights and Measures and the National Bureau of Standards in revising the statistical procedures used in Handbook 67. It is to the detriment of all parties involved that we have not had a similar

cooperative effort in dealing with gain or loss of moisture during

distribution, and it is that subject which we are addressing here today.

The proposed net weight regulations issued by the United States

Department of Agriculture late in 1977 contain issues which pertain

to moisture. The first is the absence of an allowance for moisture loss or gain during distribution of products. This resulted from the petition

to the Department of Agriculture from the State of California which

many of you in this room cosigned.

147
The second issue is the use of wet tare/drain weight, which is an

issue that neither the California Department of Agriculture nor Weights and Measures officials brought before the United States

Department of Agriculture but, rather, one which various consumer

groups over the years have attempted to impose upon national net

weight standards.

The ironic part of the first issue is that the United States Congress

discussed the issue of variation for gain or loss of moisture 63 years

ago, and the Supreme Court decided in 1977 that not allowing for moisture loss or gain in net weight compliance would in fact be in- herently misleading, since the consumer would have no way of comparing products. When products are all of a similar composition, the

products should be of comparable weights. Reasonable allowances for the variations that occur subsequent to that packing should be taken

into account in net weight compliance so that the consumer is assured

ofa system ofcomparability between the weights ofdifferent packages

in the supermarket. Notwithstanding the sense of Congress and the

findings of the Supreme Court, the California Department of Agriculture petition was filed in 1977 and USDA issued its regulations.

On the second issue in the USDA proposal, that of wet tare/drained

weight, many of the states in this country, the General Accounting

Office, the Consumer Federation of America, and, I expect, the Economic Stabilization and Conservation Service of USDA, all either

find that this system is very expensive without providing any substantial benefit to the consumer or question the cost/benefit relationship ofsuch a method of determining net weight compliance. However,

because the United States Department of Agriculture published its proposal, and because many of the states supported that part of the

proposal which deals with allowances for moisture loss or gain, Sylvia

Porter of the Washington Star implied that state weights and measures officials want a system of wet tare/drained weight in order to stop the practice of short-weighting. In a column entitled "Short

Weighting Drives Consumer Costs Higher," she states that when the

natural biological fluids from a packaged chicken or a piece of beef

liver are counted as part of the net weight, this practice is called

j short-weight. And this Miss Porter says and I quote, "Vaguely worded

federal regulations permit this and if they aren't corrected soon, wor- j ried state officials fear they'll end up costing shoppers, wholesalers

and retailers as much as $1 billion." While there may be officials in

this room who feel that way, the predominance of the comments at the United States Department of Agriculture does not support that

finding. Such a finding is a deliberate misstatement of the situation j to try to confuse the net weight issue and to try to prevent you and , the food industry from reaching a fair solution to net weight compli- ance systems.

I am sure there are many of you who will contend that the proposal

j

148
which you asked USDA to accept was in fact not a change in net

weight standards but was, in fact, a change in the regulations to be

commensurate with existing practices. For those of you who were not

in attendance at the NCWM interim meetings in January, I think

you would be interested in knowing that a United States Department

of Agriculture official told the National Conference on Weights and

Measures Liaison Committee that, in fact, the USDA proposal was

a change in the definition of net weight. I think, therefore, that you

should not find it surprising that there was such a flurry of activity

when this proposal was published.

When the General Accounting Office held interviews on the net

weight issue with Food Safety and Quality Service officials of the

United States Department of Agriculture, they found that these of- ficials did not have, and I quote, "any knowledge or data on the extent

of moisture loss under various conditions." This is rather disconcerting when you consider that this proposed change in net weight reg- ulations was not an innocuous change at all. USDA, in its initial economic assessment, estimated costs upwards of $97 million a year,

and there has been general agreement by everyone, from the meat

and poultry industries to the Consumer Federation of America, that

that estimate was much too low. The combined estimate of the cost of this system for just meat and poultry alone from the American

Meat Institute and the National Broiler Council is that this proposal

would cost the American consumer in excess of $600 million per year

just for packaged meat and poultry.

Now let's look at the alleged problem that these regulations were

intended to solve. In December of 1977, before the Food and Drug

Administration hearings in Atlanta, Georgia, on net weight which

were attended by Mr. Butler, Mr. Scribner stated that over 98% of

all products were in compliance at retail with net weight standards.

When the Consumer Federation of America questioned state weights

and measures officials, fully two-thirds of the states that responded

stated that the Supreme Court decision had little or no effect on their net weight programs. It is no surprise then that even after Assistant

Secretary Foreman went on national television to request consumer comments on the net weight proposal that well over two-thirds of the

comments that USDA received were opposed to USDA's changing the

net weight regulations. Most of those negative comments were based

primarily on the increased costs in food. In fact, the report of the

Consumer Federation of America discusses the increased costs that

state and local officials would have to incur and the additional costs which CFA states that industry would absorb. We all know that there

is no place that additional costs go other than on to the food bill or the tax bill of the American consumer, and so even the Consumer

Federation of America report proves that food prices would rise if the

USDA proposal was implemented.

149
There is in the USDA record a National Family Opinion poll of

5000 homes in which homemakers were asked if they would be willing

to pay more in order to guarantee that the delivered weight at retail of packaged chicken would equal or exceed the amount stated on the

label. 75% of the respondents said that they would not be willing to pay anything for a change in the net weight system. 12% of the

respondents said they'd be willing to pay no more than 1 to 2 cents per pound. 6% of the respondents said that they would not be willing

to pay more than 3 cents per pound, which leaves only 5% of the

respondents who said they would be willing to pay 4 cents or more

per pound. Thus, it is not important for us to determine whether or not the increase in the cost to the consumer would be 1 cent, 2 cents,

3 cents, 5 cents, or 10 cents per pound; 75% of those households said

they were not willing to pay any additional costs in order to change

the existing net weight system. It is for this very reason that 30 of

the 46 members of the United States House of Representatives Agriculture Committee requested that USDA delay any further activity on net weight regulations until more data on the economic impact

and the need for any change in existing regulations could be determined.

The results of all this concern over the proposed change in the

National Net Weight Standards has resulted in a series of questions,

both within the USDA itself and from the General Accounting Office.

At the end of 1978 the Economic Conservation and Stabilization Service of USDA recommended to Assistant Secretary Foreman that there were three additional studies which needed to be done in order to assess the potential impacts of the Department's proposals to change

the net weight regulations.

The first of these was to measure the variability of free liquid across processors of fresh poultry products. This study would be needed in

order to determine a need in the definition of tare. The second was to develop an estimate of the impact of the proposal on state and local inspection costs and, to date, no one has come

forward with firm estimates of what it would cost you at the state and local level to change the net weight compliance system.

The third recommendation was to assess the costs and benefits of

the mandatory industry quality control program which was included

in the USDA proposal, particularly since there is a significant dif- ference between the estimates of the industry and the estimates of

USDA.

The General Accounting Office in its report has suggested that

there is insufficient data to justify changing the National Net Weight

Standards and suggests that there are four areas in which better data

must be determined.

The first area is information which would support the need for making any change in existing regulation.

150
The second area would be to decide how to deal with the very real

and natural problem of moisture loss or gain during shipping and

distribution of a product. Within this area GAO asks five subquestions:

A. Will industry be able to make a practical determination of anticipated moisture loss for each shipment and package so that

net weight compliance will be achieved under varying circumstances, or will it have to overpack each product for each shipment to comply with net weight requirements under the worst

possible variables? What would be the effect of each of these

practices on the product's retail price and on industry competition?

B. Will the benefit to the consumer of possibly receiving more prod- uct per package outweigh the increased cost resulting from ov- erpacking?

C. Do consumers use the free liquid in the package in food preparation? If most consumers use the liquid in food preparation,

should the liquid's weight be included in the product's net

weight?

D. Will frozen meat poultry products—many of which contain at

least the same moisture level as fresh products—have a price

advantage because their moisture will not seep out until the consumer defrosts or cooks the product?

E. Will the meat and poultry industry find it more practicable to produce frozen products if the proposed regulations are final- ized? What effect will such a move have on energy use and

product cost? The third need was for data to determine the actual economic impact of proposed changes in the net weight system.

The fourth, and the one which I hope will be the subject of the

remainder of our discussions, is to comparatively evaluate all alter- native net weight compliance systems.

I am not going to stand up here this afternoon and say that the

National Net Weight Assurance Program which GMA proposed is a

perfect system or is the one against which all other possible alter- natives should be measured. However, when the GMA plan was first proposed at the hearings in December of 1977, it was perhaps wisely

stated that it would take two to four years to see if it was a reasonable

alternative. I am forced to point out that it is now two years later,

and we are still in the same situation in which we were in December

of 1977.

151
The Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures this year has stated that any system which would rely on in- spectors monitoring net weight compliance systems at the point of

pack in the plant would automatically result in a hands-off attitude

by state and local measures authorities, even if the products were

short-weight at retail, because there would not be any method for these inspectors to protect the public. I must contend that this is simply not true on at least three counts. One, there is nothing to prevent the host state from inspecting

those same net weight systems at the plant, and we pointed out sev- eral instances in our original petition where states are willing to trust the health and safety of their citizens to inspections performed

in other states. Therefore, I do not believe that net weight compliance

cannot be handled in the same fashion.

Secondly, we have proposed a system in which local inspectors could

test products to determine whether they had undergone normal and

reasonable moisture loss or gain, or whether or not in fact the product

had been incorrectly labeled or packaged at the plant.

And thirdly, we have proposed a system whereby state and local weights and measures inspectors could cross check one another to determine if in fact a particular lot of product had been tested by

mutually acceptable net weight compliance procedures.

It has also been said repeatedly that any system such as the one

proposed by GMA which necessitates a moisture determination of

products would be time and manpower prohibitive and, therefore, of no value at the state and local level for net weight enforcement. Well,

I would like to quote a statement if I may: "In order that inspectors

utilize their time most effectively, California has employed an audit

sampling procedure for years. The use of surveillance tares in small

samples expedites this screening process and requires full sampling

only on those lots which the audit indicates as suspect." That state- ment, made by Mr. Richard Rominger, Director of the California

Department of Food and Agriculture, was intended to support the fact that you could use an expensive wet tare/drained weight system be- cause you wouldn't really have to inspect very many products. (In fact we already know that we are working with less than 2% of the

products to start with.) Well, if an audit screening procedure, such

as was proposed in our petition, can help save money and make a wet

tare/drained weight system workable for the inspector, then that same

audit screening procedure can be used for the few products in which

it would be necessary to run a very quick and very simple moisture

analysis for legal action. I do thank Mr. Rominger for putting this

statement in the record of the United States Department of Agriculture. We have all of the state and local officials right here in this or- ganization available to work with the food industry on net weight

152
compliance systems. We know this can work, since we have seen it work on statistical procedures in revising Handbook 67. All of the concern in net weight is caused by the fact that the law

of the land uses the word "reasonable" in identifying the variations

which should be part of our net weight compliance systems. I honestly

believe that our time would have been better spent over the last eight

years trying to arrive at a consensus on the meaning of the word

"reasonable" and developing workable systems for testing "reasonableness." I hope today's conversation will put us on the road toward

that type of cooperation and I look forward to the day when the

National Conference on Weights and Measures, the food industry and

the four agencies of the Federal government that are involved in net

weight can sit down and start working on an equitable and practical

system.

153
WORKING OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

OFFICE OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Presented by Roger Sandman, Deputy Director, Intergovernmental

Affairs, U.S. Department of Agriculture

I would like to thank all those responsible

for inviting me to be with you. I believe that

this is the first time that the Office of Inter- governmental Affairs of the United States

Department of Agriculture has been involved

in a National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

First of all I would like to explain a little bit about the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs so you realize our function and then go

into a few details on what I think we can do

for you. We are part of the Governmental Public Affairs Office of the USDA which is located in the Secretary's

Office. There are three basic branches to GPA, these being Intergovernmental Affairs which I run, then Congressional Affairs and Public

Affairs. We become the external arms of the Secretary's Office and

these very important areas of the operation of the USDA.

The responsibilities of Intergovernmental Affairs are quite varied,

but the one and the most important that I know that you want to

f hear about is the work we have with various agencies of state and,

local government. We are responsible to keep local, county, and state governments aware of activities within the USDA that could affect them. We also act as problem solvers and issue directors. If a local, or state government needs an issue looked into either we follow up; on it ourselves and determine the answer, or we direct it to the local

official of the various agencies within the USDA that has jurisdiction..

Even if we do direct these particular problems or issues we will follow,; up to insure that local government official that a satisfactory conclu-l sion has been reached. We maintain a very close relationship wit^

all organizations involved in state and local government. Of course,! on the top of our list is the National Association of State Departments

of Agriculture.

From time to time Commissioner Jim Graham and I talk on issue^

that affect State Departments of Agriculture which many of you ir}

this room are affiliated with. Beyond that we also work very closely

with the National Association of Governors, the National Association

of State Legislatures, of which I amjust returning from their national

meeting in San Francisco, and the National Association of County

Officials. I
Each and everyone of you has a different problem, has a different

set of situations you work under. We in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs in Washington can help you if a problem does come

up within the USDA. At times it seems easier to work with one of

your national organizations. That does not preclude us from working

i directly with you as state, local, or county officials. One service that

J we provide, which is basically new within the USDA, is the publij cation of the semi-annual agenda of rules and regulations. This document is issued every six months. I know your Commissioners of

Agriculture and your Governors' Offices have copies, or if you need

them we can get them for you. This document is a list of all proposed

rules and regulations that will be coming out of the USDA during

j the next six months. It is important because it includes not only the

1 rules and regulations that have been set for hearing and those that

j are open for comment at that particular time, but it also includes the

rules and regulations that will be coming up. So by going through

that document and finding areas that are of interest to you, you will

be able to determine in advance when some of them are even written.

You may have comment or have contact with the various agencies

that are working on them so that your input can have the greatest

amount of meaning. The USDA started this process approximately

eight months ago. We just published the second semi-annual agenda.

| As I said, if you would like a copy of this we would be happy to provide

it for you.

I think Jim Graham had the right idea when he hit on a very

important issue that faces each and everyone of us, and that is communication. Communication can be the link between us that brings

I about a stronger relationship, that can bring about a better situation

for the people that we all serve, and that is the public. I hope that my

presence here and the continued presence of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs can bring about a new era of communications between the Weights and Measures Officials, whether you are county

oriented, State Departments of Agriculture, or officials at the USDA.

Now by no means do I mean to say that we wish to preclude a rela- tionship that you have already established with people like Sid Butler,

the grain inspection people. I think we can add to that. Many times

issues will come up that cross all boundaries within the USDA and

I think that is when we can be of assistance to you.

We are basically a service oriented organization within the USDA.

We are one of the very few totally service groups within that organization, and we can only be as good and as effective as you allow us

to be. So if you have a problem or see an issue you feel we can help

you with, my name and address are in your program; feel free to

' contact us and one of us at the office will be able to help you with

j whatever your particular situation is. Again, thank you for the op- portunity to be here. Thank you.

155
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

The following is a list of designated State representatives who were

present and voting on the reports presented by the Conference standing and annual committees:

State Representative Alternate

1. Alabama (AL) John B. Rabb —

2. Alaska (AK) Joseph L. Swanson —

3. Arizona (AZ) Pat M. Fullinwider D.W. Sorensen

4. Arkansas (AR) Sam F. Hindsman —

5. California (CA) Ezio F. Delfino Darrell A. Guensler

6. Colorado (CO) Leo Letey —

7. Connecticut (CT) John T. Bennett Guy J. Tommasi

8. Delaware (DE) Eugene Keeley —

9. District of Columbia (DC) Absent —

10. Florida (FL) Sydney D. Andrews Stan J. Darsey

11. Georgia (GA) Thomas E. Kirby John Peacock

12. Hawaii (HI) Absent —

13. Idaho (ID) T TV IT n Lyman D. Holloway Allen D. Hurd

14. Illinois (ID Sidney A. Colbrook Wayne W. Behrns

15. Indiana (IN) n 1 j TIT TIT 11 Robert W. Walker Francis W. Daniels

16. Iowa (IA) James O'Connor Kermit L. Toland

17. Kansas (KS) John L. O'Neill Donald L. Lynch

18. Kentucky (KY) George L. Johnson Ron Egnew

19. Louisiana (LA) William H. Daniels —

20. Maine (ME) Gaylon M. Kennedy Marshall White

21. Maryland (MD) Lacy H. DeGrange —

22. Massachusetts (MA) T~l 1 1 TT ft . 1 1 • 1 Edward H. Stadolnik —

23. M'^higan (MI) Edward C. Heffron Frank C. Nagele

24. Mir .esota (MN) Edward Skluzacek George W. MacDonald

25. Mississippi (MS) Gene Williams Mark Freeman

26. Missouri (MO) Bob Merrick Louis Stephens

27. ? lontana (MT) Gary L. Delano —

28. Nebraska (NE) Steven A. Malone —

29. Nevada (NV) Absent —

30. New Hampshire (NH) Absent —

31. New Jersey (NJ) James R. Bird John M. Chohamin

32. New Mexico (NM) Charles H. Greene Fred A. Gerk

33. New York (NY) John J. Bartfai Ken Gridley

34. North Carolina (NO Marion Kinlaw Thomas W. Scott

35. North Dakota (ND) Elvin Skaarvold

36. Ohio (OH) Kenneth R. Adcock James C. Truex

37. Oklahoma (OK) Absent

38. Oregon (OR) Raymond Fleischmann Leo Weber

39. Pennsylvania (PA) Fred A. Thomas

40. Puerto Rico (PR) Maria A. Maldonado GarciaJuan A. Rios

41. Rhode Island (RI) Edward R.Fisher

42. South Carolina (SO John V. Pugh

43. South Dakota (SD) Bruce Farus Allen L. Christie

44. Tennessee (TN) Robert M. Reeves Robert G. Williams

45. Texas (TX) Charles E. Forester Charles H. Vincent

46. Utah (UT) Edison V. Stephens Daniel Mays

156
State

47. Vermont (VT)

48. Virginia (VA)

49. Virgin Islands (VI)

50. Washington (WA)

51. West Virginia (WV)

52. Wisconsin (WI)

53. Wyoming (WY)

Representative

Trafford F. Brink James F. Lyles

Absent

John H. Lewis

David L. Griffith Robert W. Probst Elvin R. Leeman

Alternate

Marion W. Cain

Gunnar Magnuson

Alden Lemke
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL

MEASUREMENT POLICY AND COORDINATION

Presented by Kendrick J. Simila, Administrator, Weights and

Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, State of Oregon

(Thursday, July 26, 1979)

VOTING KEY

100 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on National Measurement

Policy and Coordination (P & C Committee)

submits its final report to the 64th National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM).

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.

101 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MATTERS

The P & C Committee included in its agenda for the interim meetings several items that were referred to the Executive Committee for action during the 64th NCWM. Consideration of these items at this

time by the P & C Committee, and in joint session with members of

other standing committees who attend the interim meetings, allows

for the development and reporting on such items in the committee's

tentative report and for publication in the Announcement Booklet.

The items referred to the Executive Committee were (1) Revision of

Voting System Requirements to Debate and Adopt Amendments to Committee Final Reports, (2) Recognition of Weights and Measures

Jurisdictions Under the Auspices of Indian Tribes, (3) Appointments

to Standing Committees, and (4) Future Conference Plans. The rec- ommendations and actions on these items are included in the report

of the Executive Committee.

(Item 101 was adopted)

102 CONFERENCE RESPONSE TO FEDERAL NET WEIGHT

LABELING DEVELOPMENTS

The issue of developing a Conference response or position on the

December, 1978 General Accounting Office (GAO) Report on the

USDA's Net Weight Labeling Proposal was examined by the P & C

158
Committee. It was generally held that the Conference definitely

should make a response as lack of response could be interpreted as

lack of interest. It was initially decided that the States represented on the committee would, after analyzing the GAO report, provide some suggested questions that could be used in a survey questionnaire

to all States. The thrust of the questionnaire would be to bring out

points missed or errors that could be raised in support of the USDA

Net Weight proposal.

Since the interim meetings, it has been announced by USDA that

its Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service will evaluate during

the next 6 months not only the GAO report but also the original

hearing record and Consumer Federation of America's report on the

proposal's economic impact. This action has apparently extended the

time in which a Conference response or position can be developed.

During the open hearing at the Conference the Chairman reported

that instead of a written response, he met with Mr. Charles Handy,

USDA Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service (ESCS), who is responsible for the economic evaluation of the USDA's Net Weight

Labeling Proposal in Sacramento, California in March, and was able

to present NCWM viewpoints at that time. ESCS has contacted many

individual States for additional information. The ESCS Report has

not yet been released by USDA.

(Item 102 was adopted)

103 REPORT ON THE U.S. METRIC BOARD

The Committee was pleased to have Mr. Sydney D. Andrews, Director, Division of Standards, State of Florida, and NCWM Representative on the United States Metric Board, attend the interim

committee sessions and provide valuable input on metric matters. A

Summary of his report on the plans and progress of the U. S. Metric

Board follows:

The organizational meeting of the U. S. Metric Board was held May

10, 1978, in Washington, D. C. All seventeen members have now been

confirmed by the Senate and sworn in by the President. Dr. Malcolm

O'Hagan, former President of the American National Metric Council,

has been employed as Executive Director, and other key staff members are now on the job also. Temporary office space has been provided

at 1815 Lynn Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209. (Telephone No. 703-

235-1933.)

A schedule has been adopted for regular meetings of the Board on

the third Thursday and Friday of even numbered months. The first out-of-Washington meeting is planned for Dallas, Texas in February.

After that, it is planned to alternate meetings out of Washington on

a regional basis.

159
Cuts in the budget request for Fiscal Year 1979 authorize only 25

positions and approximately $1.6 million which will prevent employing the staff hoped for and entering into work contracts tentatively

planned. Also, it will not be possible to open the West Coast office in

San Francisco that was planned. A contract has been entered into

with Middlesex Research Corporation to develop a plan for identifying

laws and regulations at the Federal, State, and local levels which

prevent those who choose to go metric voluntarily from doing so and

for amending or repealing them.

The Chairman of the United States Metric Board is now chairing a new Interagency Committee on Metric Policy. This is a committee

of high level representatives of Federal agencies to plan and coordinate metrication of their activities. In addition to an Executive Committee, several standing committees of the Board have been formed.

They are Standards Liaison (Syd Andrews is chairman of this one),

Research Coordination, Administration and Budget, Public Infor- mation, Private Sector Coordination, and Annual Report. The Annual

Report Committee is made up of the persons chairing the other standing committees.

The Board has adopted a policy of openness and hopes to make an

open forum a part of future meetings. It has expressed a special con- cern over the needs and interests of consumers, and some thought is being given to forming a standing committee on Consumer Affairs.

Mr. Andrews provided an update on the work of the U. S. Metric

Board during his presentation to the Conference at the July 25 general session.

(Item 103 was adopted)

104 NCWM PARTICIPANTS IN OIML MEETINGS

The National Conference on Weights and Measures has been called

upon to increase its participation in the work programs of the Inter- national Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). Funding will be

made available to support the cost of travel by State and local weights

and measures officials to OIML meetings in the United States and,

in some cases, to foreign countries as well. Since the NCWM is the

principal mechanism for adopting the outputs of OIML which impact on the U. S. commercial measurement system, the Committee feels that it is extremely important for weights and measures regulatory

officials to be involved in the technical activities of OIML. Such activities are being accelerated at this time and will continue to grow

over the next few years—primarily because the United States will

host the next plenary meeting of the International Conference of

OIML in June of 1980 in Washington, D. C. Several important meetings have already been held and steps were

taken to have representatives of NCWM participate in these meetings

160
that were held in Paris, France, last fall and that will be held in

London, England in the spring of 1979. These meetings involved the

work of the NCWM Committee on Specifications and Tolerances and,

therefore, members of that Committee were selected for these as- signments.

With the increase in activity on OIML matters, the time has come

to develop certain guidelines and policy for the selection of participants in OIML meetings and work programs. Obviously, officials should be well qualified to represent the NCWM in such meetings

and specific work programs. It is also advisable to provide for close

coordination between the scope and work of NCWM Committees and

those activities which are similar in OIML.

The following criteria were developed for the selection of NCWM

representatives to the meetings previously mentioned. The Committee recommends the adoption of these criteria as the policy of the

Conference in the future:

CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF NCWM REPRESENTATIVES TO

OIML MEETINGS

1. The NCWM Chairman, NCWM Representative to U. S. Advisory

Committee for International Legal Metrology ( ACILM) and Executive Secretary shall jointly receive, coordinate, and manage

all invitations or requests for Conference participation in OIML

meetings and work programs. They will refer such requests to the appropriate standing committee of the Conference.

2. The standing committee will select the member who they feel

is fully qualified to handle a particular assignment. The Committee will have the prerogative to select someone who is not a member of the committee but who is particularly knowledgeable

and expert in a certain area or on a specific subject.

3. These selection criteria apply primarily to State and local weights and measures officials who are active members of the

NCWM. Officials from other Federal agencies and industry rep- resentatives will also participate but they generally will be rep- resenting their own agency or company (or industry association)

and their selection, travel expenses and the like are matters

which will be coordinated through the Office of Domestic and

International Measurement Standards of NBS. The Chief ofthat

office has responsibility for administering the activities with

OIML by interested parties in the United States.

4. Insofar as possible, participants will usually be limited to one meeting outside the continental limits of the United States per

161
Conference Year (August 1—July 31), to allow for the participation of as many weights and measures officials as possible.

5. The role of the NCWM representative to the U. S. Advisory

Committee for International Legal Metrology is not affected by

the above criteria. He and the NCWM Chairman may well attend

and participate in OIML meetings in line with their overall

Conference responsibilities.

6. The Chairman of a standing committee shall advise the NCWM

Chairman by letter whom his committee has selected to repre- sent the NCWM in an OIML meeting. The NCWM Chairman,

in consultation with the ACILM representative and the Executive Secretary, shall be responsible for the final approval and

notification of the official selected. Participants will be formally

accredited as a member of the U. S. delegation by the Office of

Domestic and International Measurement Standards of NBS.

7. Recognizing that foreign travel is appealing to many persons,

we believe the criteria set forth here will provide for the fair and

orderly selection of qualified participants.

In 1976, the Conference approved a recommendation of the Executive Committee to appropriate $2,000.00 each year to cover expenses

by NCWM representatives in the work programs of the International

Organization of Legal Metrology. The Committee recommends that

the appropriation be increased to $8,000.00 annually to cover the

expanded activities in OIML.

(Item 104 was adopted)

105 OIML UPDATE

Mr. James F. Lyles, NCWM representative to the U. S. Advisory

Committee for OIML, presented the following report to the Committee

on the highlights of OIML activities since the last National Confer- ence in Washington:

Since the last National Conference in July there have been seven meetings of OIML Technical Pilot and Reporting Secretariats. These were as follows:

Sept. 1978—PS21/RS1, 2, 4, & 5—Standardization of the Metrological Characteristics of Measuring Means (Instruments) —Strain Gauges —PS19/RS6

162
Oct. 1978 —PS5/RS16 —Water Meters

PS16/RS2 —Secondary Standards Dosimetry Laboratories

PS30 —Physico-Chemical Measurements

PS5/RS13 —Measuring Systems for Liquids Other

Than Water

Nov. 1978 -^Joint PS7/PS8—Measurement of Mass/Weights

The meetings of principal interest to the weights and measures community were PS5/RS13 on fluid measurement and the joint PS7/

PS8 meeting on mass and weights. Both of these meetings were at- tended by OWM and by a member of the NCWM Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. A discussion of the meeting results is included in the Tentative Report of the S & T Committee.

It is expected that 1979 will be a very active year in OIML as many

secretariat committees are trying to complete work on draft Inter- national Recommendations for presentation to the International Conference of Legal Metrology scheduled for June 1980 in Washington.

Since the interim meetings in January, OWM has received the fol- lowing schedule of OIML meetings for 1979. The list includes eleven

meetings of interest to the weights and measures community. These

are indicated by an asterisk:

Pilot and Reporting Secretariats

and Other OIML Working Groups Dates Places

SP.4/SR.1 End measures of length

SP.4/Sr.4 Hierarchy schemes for Mar. 20-22 Leningrad

length measuring instruments

SP.22/Sr.2 Principles of the choice of Apr. 25-26 Berlin

parameters and characteristics to be verified

*SP.7/Sr.5 Automatic weighing instru- May 8-11 London

ments

*SP.7/Sr.8 Load cells June 5-8 B.I.M.L. 1

SP.12/Sr.8 Thermal energy meters June 12-14 Hanover

'The International Bureau of Legal Metrology—Paris, France

163
*SP.7/Sr.4 Non-automatic weighing in- Sept. 18-21 Braunstruments schweig

*SP.18/Sr.l Instruments for measuring Oct. 24 Paris

the moisture content of cer- eal grains and oilseeds

SP.23 Methods and means used October B.I.M.L.

for certification of verifica- (provisional)

tion devices

SP.12/Sr.7 Clinical thermometers Oct. 22-23 Braunschweig

SP.26 Measuring instruments Oct. 24-26 Braunused in the field of public schweig

health

*SP.5/Sr. 16Water Meters October

(provisional)

*SP.25/Sr.3Equipment necessary for Nov. 13-16 Riga

the operation of a National

Service of Legal Metrology

*SP.5/ Meters for liquids other November Paris

Sr. 13-19 than water with measuring (provisional)

chambers and turbines

Electronic devices applied

to the measurement of liquid quantities

SP.l Terminology

SP. 1/Sr. 1 Vocabulary of legal Metrology. Fundamental terms

SP.l/Sr.2 Vocabularies of various

measurement fields

*Developmental Council June 11-12 B.I.M.L. *Ad hoc Group "OIML Mark" June 13-15 B.I.M.L. *Presidential Council Sept. 25-27 B.I.M.L.

164
During the Conference, Mr. David Edgerly, Chief of the Office of

Domestic and International Measurement Standards, National Bureau of Standards, described the planning for the 1980 International

Conference of Legal Metrology which will meet in Washington, D.C.,

I June 16-20, the week preceding the 65th National Conference on

I Weights and Measures also to be held in Washington in 1980.

Mr. Wollin, Executive Secretary of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures (NCWM), described the plans for conduct of

the 65th NCWM.

Mr. Lyles, NCWM Representative to the U.S. Advisory Committee

for OIML, reported that Dr. Carroll Brickenkamp of the NBS has

been asked to head the delegation to the OIML meeting of SP.18/Sr.l

in Paris, October 2-4, 1979, and that an NCWM delegate to that

meeting has been chosen by the Liaison Committee. Mr. Sam Hindsj man, National Coordinator for the Task Force on Grain Moisture

Measurement, has been asked by the Liaison Committee to represent

the NCWM at this meeting. Additional representation by industry

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will supplement the U.S.

delegation to this meeting.

On September 18-21, 1979, there will be an important meeting of

PS7/RS4 Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments in Braunschweig,

Federal Republic of Germany. The subjects for discussion will be draft

! amendments to IR #3 and IR #28. Mr. Edgerly has indicated that

funds are available from his office to assume one-half of the expenses

of a NCWM delegate. It is requested that the NCWM assume the

remaining half and select an appropriate representative.

(Item 105 was adopted)

H

I

106 NATIONAL TYPE APPROVAL TASK FORCE

Task force members under the chairmanship of Ezio Delfino, Chief,

Division of Measurement Standards, State of California, met on January 22 and again on January 23 with members of the S & T Committee. The task force recommends that its immediate goals be to work toward reciprocity between type approval jurisdictions to accept

the examination results of other jurisdictions concerning type approval. This will require establishing uniform criteria and test pro- cedures to be used during prototype examination. The task force

suggests a pilot program be established to develop the mechanics of

such a system.

Plans are underway for NBS and California to begin a pilot program

for specific devices. The NBS and California plan to enter into an

j agreement whereby each would accept the other's prototype examination results. Uniform checklists for prototype examination of elec- tronic scales and cash registers have been developed and were

165

1
distributed during the interim meetings. The checklists reflect most

of the existing requirements being applied by California and NBS.

Copies are available from either agency.

It is likely that a field test for equipment will be required to demonstrate a minimum degree of permanence. In this case an initial examination of the equipment will be conducted and if the device

complies with NBS Handbook 44, a temporary certificate of compli- ance will be issued pending the result of the field test. A final report

would be issued after all the tests are completed. The actual parameters of the field test have not yet been established.

It is suggested that weights and measures officials review the cri- teria and determine if they have requirements in addition to or dif- ferent from the checklists. Suggestions for changes to the checklist

will be reviewed by the S & T Committee.

All States are encouraged to change their laws to permit cooperative

prototype agreements between their States and NBS and other

weights and measuresjurisdictions. As the pilot program is developed,

it is the intention of the task force to encourage other jurisdictions

to participate in the program.

Mr. Delfino provided the following update to the Task Force report

at the open hearing of the Conference.

Following the January 22-23, 1979, meetings of the Task Force,

NBS and California developed an agreement whereby each accepts

the other's prototype examination results, initially involving elec- tronic scales and cash registers.

Currently the agreement is at NBS for final drafting and submission to California for their approval.

Highlights of the agreement are:

1. Draft examination checklists for both Electronic Digital Scales

and for Electronic cash registers have been developed and are available through either NBS or California.

2. Field endurance testing will initially be conducted under the

auspices of NBS for the eastern part of the country and by California in the west.

3. Initially, payments for the tests will be made to NBS by companies

requesting the service. NBS in turn will reimburse California for their work performed under the agreement.

4. Each agency will accept each other's prototype examination and

provide each other with complete documentations of approvals

awarded.

All States are encouraged to change their laws to permit cooperative

prototype agreements between all jurisdictions.

166
California currently has such a law change being considered by

their legislature. The law would permit California to:

1. Accept the testing and sealing of devices by other States.

2. Enter into agreements with NBS and other weights and measures jurisdictions to accept the certification of each other for pro- totype examinations.

3. Charge and collect fees directly from persons submitting devices

for approval.

4. Compensate county sealers, other weights and measures jurisdictions or private laboratories for furnishing equipment or assisting

in conducting type approval activities.

TASK FORCE PERSONNEL CHANGES

Since the appointment of the Task Force in 1976 there have been

several personnel changes in both weights and measures and industry

representation. On July 12, 1979, your Chairman appointed the fol- lowing as Task Force members:

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Albert D. Tholen

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Harold F. Wollin

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

DEVICE INDUSTRY

SCALES AND WEIGHING

William V. Goodpaster (NSMA)

Murphy Cardinal Scale Company

1610 North "C" Street

Sacramento, California 95814

Raymond J. Lloyd (SMA)

Scale Manufacturers Association

1000 Vermont Avenue, NW.

Washington, D.C. 20005

LIQUID METERING

Walter F. Gerdom (GPMA)

Tokheim Corporation

1600 Wabash Avenue

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801

Emmett F. Wehmann (NMTC)

Neptune Measurement Company

P.O. Box 792

Greenwood, South Carolina 29646

167
LINEAR/OTHER

Eric Allen

The Measuregraph Company

4245 Forest Park Boulevard

St. Louis, Missouri 63108

Robert E. Nix

Veeder-Root Company

70 Sargeant Street

Hartford, Connecticut 06102

AT-LARGE

Kenneth F. Hammer

Fairbanks Weighing Division

711 East St. Johnsbury Road

St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819

Thomas M. Stabler

Toledo Scale Division

P.O. Box 1705

Columbus, Ohio 43216

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES JURISDICTIONS

WESTERN

Ezio F. Delfino (TASK FORCE Kendrick J. Simila (NCWM

CHAIRMAN)

Division of Measurement Stand

ards

Department of Food and Agricul

ture 8500 Fruitridge Road

Sacramento, California 95826

SOUTHERN

CHAIRMAN)

Weights and Measures Division

Department of Agriculture

Salem, Oregon 97310

Richard L. Thompson

Weights and Measures Section

Department of Agriculture

Symons Hall, Room 3205

College Park, Maryland 20742

Sam F. Hindsman

Division of Weights and Measures

Department of Commerce

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, Arkansas 72209

NORTHWESTERN

Dr. Edward Heffron

Food Inspection Division

Department of Agriculture

Lewis Cass Building, Box 30017

Lansing, Michigan 48909

Edward Skluzacek

Division of Weights and Measures

Department of Public Service

1015 Currie Avenue

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403

NORTHEASTERN

John J. Bartfai Fred A. Thomas

Bureau of Weights and Measures Bureau of Standard Weights and

Department of Agriculture Measures

1220 Washington Avenue Department of Agriculture

Albany, New York 12235 2301 North Cameron Street

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

168
AT-LARGE

Marion L. Kinlaw

Consumer Standards Division

Department of Agriculture

P. O. Box 26056

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

George E. Mattimoe

Division of Measurement Standards

Department of Agriculture

P. 0. Box 22159

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

(Item 106 was adopted)

107 POLICY STATEMENT ON METRIC CONVERSION OF RETAIL

MOTOR-FUEL DEVICES (GAS PUMPS)

107-1 BACKGROUND OF THE STATEMENT

The 94th Congress of the United States passed Public Law 94-168

on December 23, 1975, that is cited as the "Metric Conversion Act of

1975". This Act declared a national policy of planning and coordinating the increasing use of the metric system in the United States,

and established a United States Metric Board to coordinate the vol- untary conversion to the metric system.

A principal function of the U.S. Metric Board is to devise and carry

out a broad program of planning, coordination, and public education,

consistent with other national policy and interests, with the aim of

implementing the policy set forth in the Act. The U.S. Metric Board in carrying out its programs under the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 is directed to:

1. Consult with government agencies at the Federal, State and local

level,

2. Provide appropriate procedures whereby various groups may for- mulate and recommend specific programs for coordinating con- version in an industry,

3. Encourage activities of standardization organizations to develop

standards, and take advantage of opportunities to promote improvement of design and increases in economy, and

4. Assist the public through information and education programs,

and one such program calls for consultation by the Secretary of

Commerce with the National Conference on Weights and Measures

in order to assure that State and local weights and measures of- ficials are (a) appropriately involved in metric conversion activities

and (b) assisted in their efforts to bring about timely amendments

to weights and measures laws.

169
The National Conference on Weights and Measures, an organization comprised of State and local weights and measures regulatory

officers, and other officials of Federal, State, and local governments,

and representatives of manufacturers, industry, business, and con- sumer organizations has taken a positive stand in support of metric

conversion in the United States as called for in the Act. The National Conference on Weights and Measures has provided

the basis for national uniformity of weights and measures laws and

regulations and has been a major factor in serving the interests of

industry and consumers who need reliable standards of measurement

in the marketplace.

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is interested

in providing the necessary leadership and guidance to the States and

all others who seek a solution to the problems of price computation

by retail motor-fuel devices as prices rise to a level (over 99.9<Z per

gallon in most cases) that exceeds the computing capability of devices

now in service.

The U.S. Metric Board conducted hearings on May 2-3, 1979, to determine the feasibility and practicality of converting retail motorfuel devices to compute prices on the basis of metric measurement

and on June 21, 1979, issued a declaration which stated that this is an opportune time for the development of a planned and coordinated

voluntary program of dispensing gasoline by the liter, and noted that

without taking this action metric usage is likely to proceed in a haphazard fashion, leading to public confusion, disparate end results and

the negation of the positive cost advantages that a nationally planned

and coordinated program offers.

107-2 Statement of Conference Policy

The National Conference on Weights and Measures as assembled

during its 64th annual meeting in Portland, Oregon on July 22-27,

1979, adopts as its policy the recommendation that each state, county

and city in the United States implement a three-phase general plan

and timetable for the eventual metric conversion of all retail motorfuel devices. In establishing this plan and timetable, it is recognized

that the conversion time within any jurisdiction will be dependent

upon such factors as: local area price increases, existing device computing capabilities, replacement parts availability, and availability

of "pump" repair or service personnel. It is recommended that each

jurisdiction:

107-2-1 Phase I—Up to January 1, 1982

• Allow gallon measurement and price computation per gallon. • Allow liter measurement and price computation per liter.

170
• Allow "half-pricing per gallon" wherever devices are not capable

of computing in whole gallons and total dollars. In each jurisdiction

the duration of half-pricing should be held to a minimum period

determined by economic and other factors in that jurisdiction.

• Require each establishment to use exclusively only one of the meas- urement methods of sale (gallon, liter, or "half-pricing"). A change

from one method to another must be carried out for all devices

dispensing motor fuels in the establishment.

• Require all roadside signs and similar advertisements of motor fuel offered for retail sale to be by the price per gallon or price per liter.

• Require in the case of liter sales suitable posting of per gallon and

per liter prices at the device, service island, and premises of the

establishment in accordance with State and local laws, regulations,

and ordinances, and in a manner which facilitates consumer comparisons between the per gallon price and the per liter price.

107-2-2 Phase II—From January 1, 1982 Through December

31, 1982

• Allow gallon measurement and price computation per gallon.

• Allow liter measurement and price computation per liter.

• Discontinue "half-pricing per gallon" methods still in use effective

j January 1, 1982.

• All other requirements remain unchanged.

107-2-3 Phase III—On January 1, 1983 and Thereafter

• Encourage only liter measurement and price computation per liter.

107-3 Further Policy Considerations

In adopting this policy, the National Conference on Weights and

Measures recognizes:

1. That the U.S. Metric Board is the logical entity to act as the focal point for the coordination and planning of all necessary details for the orderly and efficient transition to liter measurement in the

sale of motor fuels at retail, and

I 2. the advice and assistance ofthe American National Metric Council,

the American Petroleum Institute, the North American Gasoline

171
Tax Conference, State Metric Councils and/or Boards, and such

other organizations as may be interested in participating in the

effort are essential in addition to that of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, and

3 . that comprehensive and appealing public education programs must

be conducted by both government and industry to fully familiarize

the public with the changeover to metric measurement in motor

fuel dispensing.

(Items 107 through 107-3 were adopted)

K. SlMlLA, Oregon, Chairman-NCWM

J. Bird, New Jersey, Chairman-S & T Committee

R. Probst, Wisconsin, Chairman-L & R Committee

S. Malone, Nebraska, C/ia/rmcm-Education Committee

C. GREENE, New Mexico, Chairman-Liaison Committee

H. Wollin, NBS, Executive Secretary-NCWM

Committee on National Measurement Policy and

Coordination

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination voting key items 100 through 107-3 was

adopted in its entirety by the Conference. The results of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system

are totalized in the table that follows. The Conference also authorized the executive

secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, provided that the requirements thus adopted are strictly adhered to.) VOTING RESULTS

Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination

House of State Voting Key Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

100 42 0 70 0

101 102

103 104

45 0 75 0

105 106

107 107-1 107-2 107-2-1 \ 40 1 75 1 107-2-2 1 107-2-3 I 107-3

172
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND

REGULATIONS

Presented by Robert W. Probst, Director, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer

Protection, State of Wisconsin

(Thursday, July 26, 1979)

VOTING KEY

200 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Laws and Regulations

submits its report to the 64th National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report

consists of the tentative report as offered in

the Conference Announcement and as amended

by this 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.

201 METRIC CONVERSION OF MODEL REGULATIONS

The National Conference on Weights and Measures remains committed to the support of metric conversion as called for by the Metric

Conversion Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-168). The Conference in this

regard continues to pursue its goal of removing barriers for those

wishing to go metric and making such decision in a voluntary manner

as prescribed by the Metric Act. In 1978, the Conference adopted a joint metric/inch-pound version

of its Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation as an initial step to removing barriers in its model State laws and regulations. At

that same 63rd National Conference first drafts of the remaining

models with significant metric impacts, the Model State Regulation

for the Method of Sale of Commodities and Model State Unit Pricing

Regulation, were distributed. Recipients of these drafts were encour- aged to provide input for consideration by the Committee concerning

the details ofthe recommendations. The Committee received a limited

amount of such input and has revised the drafts accordingly.

173
201-1 Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation

The Committee amends its Tentative Report to include an effective

date of January 1, 1982, in all Sections of the draft Model State

[ Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation wherein specified quan- 1

tities in the metric system are set forth—Section 1., Subsections

l.l.(b), 1.2.(b), 1.3.(b), 1.4.(b), 1.6.(b), 1.6.(c), 1.7.(b), and 1.7.(c). Further, the Committee amends its Tentative Report by spelling

|j out the term "milliliter" in Section 1.1. (b) of the Regulation and notes

that all other Sections contain full spellings of metric terms.

0! (Items 201 and 201-1 were adopted)

I 201-2 Unit Pricing Regulation

The Committee amends its Tentative Report by withdrawing the

recommendation for adoption of the revision of the Model State Unit

Pricing Regulation. At the open meeting, the Committee received the

first substantive comments on this proposal and feels there is suffi- cient merit to reconsider the units selected for many of the commodities listed. The Committee was also made aware of the fact that

certain categories of products designated to be sold by weight in the

metric system are sold by both weight and fluid measure in the inchpound system.

To clarify these matters and to make available additional time for input, the Committee proposes to keep this item on its agenda for the

next Conference.

(Item 201-2 was adopted)

202 MODEL STATE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

REGULATION

202-1 Baler and Binder Twine

The Committee amends its Tentative Report to specifically delete

Section 2.1. This will have the effect of removing the previously es- tablished tolerance of 5 percent of the declared length.

The Committee also wishes to point out that knot strength in terms

of pounds or kilograms is an element of product identity and not

quantity. The standard submitted by the Cordage Institute to the

Conference has been reviewed and found to be appropriate. The

method of test incorporated in the standard for determination of knot

strength may be employed by those jurisdictions wishing to check

this element of product identity.

174
The Committee also requests that the National Bureau of Standlards, in its work on the handbook, Checking Prepackaged CommodI ities, recognizes in an appropriate manner the 5 percent variation in

I length for agricultural twines.

(Item 202-1 was adopted)

1 202-2 Insulation

In 1977, the Conference adopted a guideline for the sale of insulation. In 1978, the Southern Weights and Measures Association and

the State of California requested that a provision be added to the

i Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities in

! 1979.

Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the guidelines be

accepted as a part of the Model regulation, as follows:

SECTION 2.X. Insulation

2.X. 1. Packaged Loose Fill Insulation.—Packaged loose fill insulation shall be sold on the basis of coverage in square feet or square

meters, the recommended installed thickness, the insulation resist- ance "R" value obtained, and net weight.

Example: Contents will cover 26 square feet when installed at a thick- ness equal to 6V2 inches with a resistance value of R-19. Net Weight

30 lb. 2.X.2. Batt or Roll-Type Insulation.—Shall be sold on the basis of

coverage in square feet or square meters, the designated "R" value

and the width and length of the batt or roll. Example: Covers 26 square feet and provides a value of R-19. Roll

is 12 inches wide by 26 feet long.

2.X.3. Installed Insulation.—Installed insulation shall be sold on

the basis of coverage in square feet or square meters, and the insulation resistance obtained; the seller or applicator shall provide the

purchaser with an application statement.

Example:—Insulation covering 120 square meters of area has been

installed in conformance with manufacturer's recommendations to provide a value of R-19.

The effective date of this regulation for insulation shall be January

1, 1980. [1979]

(Item 202-2 was adopted)

202-3 Mail Order Shipping

The report of the Committee from the 63rd National Conference

requested all weights and measures jurisdictions to provide infor175
mation if the problem of inaccurate catalog package weights, when

a shipping charge is based on indicated rather than actual weight,

is of concern to them. Only the city of Chicago provided any such

data. However, the Mail Order Association of America, in response

to a request from the Committee in its 1978 report, provided a position

paper that described the problems that would be caused by requiring

every package shipped to be individually weighed. The Association

also stated:

"All members of the Mail Order Association of America herewith

express their commitment towards refinement of their systems

within all practical limitations—so that they yield the most precise

shipping weight information feasible."

The Committee appreciates the cooperation of the Association and

accepts this statement as an indication of the industry's concern about

this problem. It calls upon the Association to advise the Conference

in one year of the progress their members have made towards meeting

this commitment.

(Item 202-3 was adopted)

202-4 Produce

The report of the Committee from the 63rd National Conference

also requested weights and measures jurisdictions to supply information about current regulations pertaining to the sale of produce.

Several states have provided such data and the Committee plans to recommend acceptance of the following Method of Sale Guideline, in

1980, to be distributed as one of the Conference's "Guidelines and

Interpretations." During the next year, the Committee solicits com- ments from all parties about the specific details in this proposal. The

Committee will consider recommending adoption as a part of the

Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities after a period of testing in this form.

Guideline: Method of Retail Sale for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

Commodity Method of Sale

Apples Weight or Count, or by Dry Measure in Units not less than 1 peck

Apricots Weight

Artichokes Weight or Count

Asparagus Weight or Bunch

Avocados Count Bananas Weight Beans Weight or Dry Measure, in units not less than 1 peck

176
Method of Sale

Weight or Bunch

Weight or Measure

Weight or Bunch

Weight

Weight

Weight or Count Weight or Bunch

Weight or Bunch

Weight or Count Weight or Measure

Weight or Count

Count Weight or Measure

Weight or Count Weight or Measure

Weight

Weight or Count Weight or Bunch

Weight

Weight or Count

Weight or Count Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight or Count

Weight or Count

Weight or Count

Weight or Count

Count Weight

Weight or Measure

Weight or Count

Weight

Weight or Bunch

Weight

Weight or Count

Weight or Count Weight or Bunch

Weight

Weight or Count, or by Dry Measure in Units not less than 1 peck

Weight or Count, or by Dry Measure in Units not less than 1 peck

Weight

Weight or Count

Weight or Count

Weight or Dry Measure, in units not less than 1 peck

Weight or Count

Weight or Count

Weight

177
Commodity Method of Sale

Tomatoes (Cherry) +

Turnips

Tangerines Tomatoes

Prunes Pumpkins

Radishes

Rhubarb

Rutabagas

Spinach

Weight

Weight or Count

Weight or Bunch

Weight

Weight

Weight or Bunch

Weight or Count

Weight or Dry Measure, in units not less than 1 peck

Weight or Measure

Weight or Bunch

+ Commodities sold by measure must be sold in containers standardized by the Berry Basket and Box Code inNBS

Handbook 44.

202-5 Tolerances on Paper and Plastic Products

The Committee withdraws this item from its Tentative Report. The

Federal Trade Commission has pointed out that packaged plastic bags

and wraps are subject to the requirements of the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act. The establishment of tolerances for products covered

by that Act conflicts with Section 12 which preempts State laws and

regulations that are less stringent than or require information dif- ferent from the FPLA.

The Committee suggests that the industry provide appropriate data

for incorporation in the handbook, Checking Prepackaged Commodities. Additionally, the Committee proposes to reexamine those sections

of the Regulation wherein tolerances were established for specific

products to determine if there is any conflict with the requirements

of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

202-6 Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products

The Commonwealth of Virginia raised the question of the method

of sale of frozen yogurt. This product is similar to ice cream but the

Model regulation in Section 1.7, Other Milk Products, provides for the

sale of yogurt by weight only. To remedy this situation, the Southern

Association recommends the addition of a new section 1.7.1 that specifies that frozen yogurt be treated as an ice cream and also that brings

ice cream and other frozen products under the Model State Method

of Sale of Commodities Regulation for the first time. The Committee

agrees and recommends the adoption of the following addition to the

model, with the note that the term "packaged" refers to commodity

(Item 202^1 was adopted)

(Item 202-5 was adopted)

178
put up in a package form in advance of sale and not at the time of

sale.

1.7.1 Prepackaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products

Ice cream, ice milk, frozen yogurt, and similar products shall be packaged for sale in terms of fluid measure.

(Item 202-6 was adopted)

202-7 Softwood Lumber

The Committee received a request from the State of New Jersey to revise the method of sale for softwood lumber (Section 2.9). The New

Jersey proposal would effect these changes:

A. Extend the regulation from softwood lumber to cover all types

of lumber.

B. Require mandatory grading in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce Voluntary Product Standard 20-70.

C. Require grade stamping of each piece of lumber by independent

agency grader at the mill.

D. Require that the quantity, grade and species be listed on the

delivery ticket.

The Committee heard a thorough presentation by the State of New

Jersey and reviewed testimony from several lumber and forest product associations as well.

The Committee appreciates the extensive effort on the part of the

State of New Jersey in this area but feels that no action should be

taken on such wide-reaching proposals until much careful study is given to this issue by all concerned parties. The Committee would

welcome comments from all weights and measures jurisdictions on

the need for the proposed changes as outlined above.

(Item 202-7 was adopted)

202-S Wallcoverings

The Committee received a request from the Guild of Professional

Paperhangers to standardize the size of a roll of wallcovering through

a provision in the Model Regulation. An old U.S. Department of Commerce Voluntary Product Standard (VPS) had called for a standard

36 square foot roll. This was withdrawn in 1972 due to an indicated

lack of need. Since that time, the paperhangers have experienced

confusion and problems since wallcoverings are now sold in roll sizes

1 nc\
from 27 ¥2 to 36 square feet. They also stated that they have problems

due to split or pieced rolls not allowing full usage of a given roll. They

therefore also requested that the regulation specify that the coverage

labeled be for usable area. During the interim meeting the Committee heard from the Guild

of Professional Paperhangers, who displayed samples of pieced wall

coverings and various wrappers with a variety of roll sizes. A rep- resentative from the Wallcovering Manufacturers Association pre- sented their position that a clear, affirmative disclosure of roll size by all manufacturers would alleviate the problem. Further, they op- posed the adoption of a standard roll size because they believe it would

reduce the choice of products available.

The Committee also heard from a representative of the Department

of Commerce's Voluntary Product Standards program. He stated that a new wallcovering standard is in the process of being developed and

that this work should be completed in the next year. Both the paperhangers and manufacturers will participate in this process. The Committee is quite sympathetic with the Guild of Professional

Paperhangers' request and agrees with the need for a standard size for rolls of wallcovering. However, the Committee prefers to wait for one year for the development of the VPS now in the works. If the

problem is not resolved by that process, the Committee will consider

adoption of a method of sale in 1980.

(Item 202-8 was adopted)

202-9 Solid Fuel Products

The State of Maryland proposed, and the Southern Weights and

Measures Association concurred, that a provision be added to the

Model regulation to cover the sale of packaged solid fuel products.

The Committee agrees and recommends the adoption of the following

regulation:

SECTION 2.X.—Solid Fuel Products—Anthracite, Semi-Anthracite, Bituminous, Semi-Bituminous, or Lignite Coal, and any other

natural, manufactured or patented fuel not in liquid or gaseous form,

except fireplace and stove wood, shall be offered, exposed for sale or

sold by net weight when in package form.

(Item 202-9 was adopted)

202-10 Fence Wire

The Southern Weights and Measures Association proposed that a

provision be added to the model regulation to cover the sale of fence

180
wire products. The Committee agrees and recommends the adoption

of the following regulation:

SECTION 2.X. Fence Wire Products—Rolls of fence wire products

shall be sold by:

(a) Identity in terms of gauge

(b) Height in terms of inches or centimeters, if applicable

(c) Length in terms of rods, meters or feet

(Item 202-10 was adopted)

i

j 202-11 Railroad Car Tare Weights

The Western Weights and Measures Association requested, by res- olution, that the National Conference on Weights and Measures seek more compliance with the requirement of the Model Regulation, Section 3.4, that all railroad freight cars be stenciled with tare weight

by January 1, 1978. Data received from the Association of American

Railroads indicate that by that date, approximately 86% of all freight

j cars have been appropriately stenciled with tare weight. The Committee urges the Association to continue its efforts at reaching total

compliance, and wishes to remind weights and measures officials that

they can take legal action against cars that do not meet the requirements of Section 3.4.

(Item 202-11 was adopted)

202-12 Fast Food Sold by Count

The Western Association also raised the issue of prepared food such

as fried chicken being sold by count in groceries and fast food takeout restaurants rather than by weight. The Committee feels that this

is covered as adequately as possible by Section 1.5 of the model regulation. For further clarification, it suggests the adoption of a guideline based on a Wisconsin regulation, as follows:

Ready-to-Eat, Carryout Foods and Delicatessen Items

Pre-prepared ready-to-eat, carryout foods and delicatessen items

not in liquid form shall be sold by weight; provided, that food items

offered for sale and sold in separate and distinct units as a single

i ready-to-eat meal, or part of a meal for consumption off the premises

where sold, are exempted.

EXPLANATION: Except for situations wherein restaurants, "fast

food" operations, or similar establishments offer individual meals "to
go," ready-to-eat carryout foods must be sold by weight just as they

would be if they were in their unprepared form. The preparing of food

is a merchandising option taken by the food retailer and should not

alter the manner in which food is sold to the buyer. There is no reason

to permit items packaged in a store to be sold by the piece or by the

pint or quart, for example, and to require factory-packaged items of

the same type to be sold by weight.

(Item 202-12 was adopted)

202-13 Wiper Blades

The Committee received a request from a manufacturer of auto- mobile wiper blades that had a problem with one state concerning

the measurement of length as labeled on their packages. The state

felt that the proper designation should be the length of the blade

itself; the manufacturer said that traditionally the industry measured

the length of the metal backing or vertebra.

The Committee, after some discussion, determined that since there was no intent to mislead customers, the traditional measurement of

the metal backing or vertebra was acceptable. A guideline to this

effect will be issued.

(Item 202-13 was adopted)

202-14 Butter and Margarine: 2-oz size

The Committee received a request from the manufacturer of butterand margarine-packaging equipment to amend Section 1.3 of the

model regulation to allow a 2-ounce and 62.5-gram size. They also

suggested that it be amended to allow other sizes so long as they are not deceptively packaged.

The Committee noted that simply because the technology exists to package a given commodity in a new size is not reason enough to allow that new size. On the basis of the information received, the

Committee is not convinced there is any need for this new size and

therefore recommends no change to the model.

(Item 202-14 was adopted)

202-15 Fishing Sinkers

The Committee received a request from the State of New Jersey

concerning the sale of fishing sinkers. They found the weight refer- ence on blister cards to be inaccurate and that the numbers cast into

the sinkers to have no consistent meaning from one manufacturer to another.

182
The Committee notes that the problem of inaccurate weights on

packages is simply an enforcement problem. On the issue of the numbers cast into the sinkers, the American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association indicated that they would be willing to explore the

idea of a standard if it is needed. The Committee invites weights and measure officials to inform it if they see such a need or are having

any related problems.

(Item 202-15 was adopted)

203 MODEL STATE PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

203-1 Aerosols

The Committee received several communications on the subject of

the content declarations of aerosol products. Most of the discussion

relates to the use of weight or volume as the labeled quantity. Much

of the present confusion is related to a Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) requirement that allows either weight or volume, while all Conference requirements specify weight only.

The Committee joined the Liaison Committee to discuss this issue

with a representative of FDA. The FDA spokesperson indicated that

they would be happy to receive a petition from the Conference re- questing a change in their requirements to bring them into conformity

with current conference policy. The Committee is encouraged by this

indication and supports the efforts of the Liaison Committee as they

pursue this effort. This activity was supported by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association which continues to be on record

as favoring a weight only approach.

On a separate matter, the State of California requested a change

in the Model regulation to bring aerosol commodities labeled "for professional use" under the weight only provision by amending Section 7.3. The Committee feels that Section 7.3. is a general requirement

applying to all non-consumer products and that Section 10 was in- tended to deal with exceptions to the general requirements set forth

in Sections 6.4. and 7.3. The Committee notes that the heading of

Section 10 is ambiguous and wishes to remove the ambiguity by

amending the heading. It should also be noted that Section 10 already

includes a reference to non-consumer packages in Section 10.9.5(d).

Amend Section 10 heading as follows:

SECTION 10. Requirements: Specific Consumer Commodities, Non-Consumer Commodities, Packages, Containers.

(Item 203-1 was adopted)

183
203-2 Definition of "Entertainment Value"

J The State of California also requested that Section 11.22(b) be

amended by adding a definition for the entertainment value of ex- posed movie film. The Committee agrees and recommends that Section 11.22(b) be amended as follows:

(b) The net quantity of contents on packages of movie film is expressed

in terms of the running time of the exposed film for that portion of

film which is of entertainment value.

"Entertainment value" is defined as that portion of a film that com- mences with the first frame of sound or picture, whichever comes first after the countdown sequence and ends with either: (a) the last frame

of credits; or (b) the last frame of the phrase "The End", or (c) the end

of sound, whichever is last.

(Item 203-2 was adopted)

203-3 Additional Sizes for Ice Cream

The Committee met jointly with the Specifications and Tolerances

Committee to consider a request to allow the sale of both a 5-quart

and a 6-quart container of ice cream. The Committees agreed that

any multiple of either a quart or a liter should be permitted. Accordingly, the Specifications and Tolerances Committee is recommending

appropriate changes in the Measure Container Code of Handbook 44. The Committee amends its Tentative Report by deleting the rec- ommendation to change labeling requirements on ice cream packages

through amending Section 11.9. It has been determined that the pro- posed labeling changes cannot be effective unless the Food and Drug

Administration first recognizes the proposed exemptions under the

Fair Packaging and Labeling Act because of the preemption provisions of the Act.

(Item 203-3 was adopted)

203-^4 Multi-Unit, Variety, and Combination Packages

At the request of the Committee and with the concurrence of Conference, the Committee on Liaison undertook to review and compare

the Model Packaging and Labeling Regulation and the regulations

of the Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission,

and U.S. Department of Agriculture pertaining to quantity declarations on multi-unit, variety, and combination packages. The purpose was to be the promotion of a uniform federal-state regulatory scheme.

184
The need as expressed by the Laws and Regulations Committee was

to "distill order from the suggested regulatory chaos and to react responsibly to a plague of frustrating and frustrated letters and petitions suffered" by that committee.

The Liaison Committee completed this review and developed pro- posed changes to Sections 2.8, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 11.12 and 11.18 of the

Model regulation. They also noted that there was no real indication

of need to enact these changes at this time. The Laws and Regulations

Committee appreciates this thorough study by the Liaison Committee

and agrees with their recommendation of no action at this time. The

recommendations are available from the Committee upon request,

and they will be kept on file for future use as necessary.

(Item 203-4 was adopted)

203-5 Correction to Section 6.8.1(a)

The Committee notes that in the 1978 revision of the model reg- ulation, subsection 6.8.1(a) was amended to include metric but that

by oversight the centimeter as a prescribed unit was omitted. Accordingly, the Committee recommends amending Section 6.8.1(a) as

follows:

6.8.1 (a) in the case of length measure of less than 1 meter, cen- timeters or millimeters;

(Item 203-5 was adopted)

204 OTHER ITEMS

204-1 Resolution on Spelling of Metric Units

The Committee metjointly with the Liaison Committee to consider

adoption of a resolution that would indicate the support of the Conference of the "modification and interpretation" of the International

System of Units by the Department of Commerce. The text of such

a proposed resolution and a supporting statement appears in the re- port of the Liaison Committee.

(Item 204-1 was adopted)

204-2 Model Grain Measurement Regulation

The Southern Weights and Measures Association offered the National Conference a proposal for a Model State Regulation for Grain

Moisture Measurement Program. At the interim meeting, the Task

185
Force on Grain Moisture Measurement Assurance met and modified

that proposal. The Laws and Regulations Committee includes that

amended proposal as a part of its report and requests comments on

the following draft for future action:

MODEL STATE REGULATION FOR GRAIN MOISTURE j MEASUREMENT PROGRAM

1978

SECTION 1. POLICY.—It shall be the responsibility of the Director of Weights and Measures, hereinafter referred to as "Director," I to administer the regulations for commercial grain moisture determination within this jurisdiction.

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS.

I

2.1. Grain Sample.—The term "Grain Sample" shall be conj strued to mean that portion of grain, seed, or other agricultural

commodity taken for the purpose of moisture content determination from the bulk of grain, seed, or other agricultural com- modity to be bought or sold. 1

2.2. Grain-Test Scale.—The term "Grain-Test Scale" shall be

construed to mean such devices as are necessary to be used to determine accurate weight for any grain sample for the purpose

of determining moisture content.

2.3. Moisture Content.—The term "Moisture Content" shall be

construed to mean the percentage content of moisture on a wet

basis in a grain sample or official grain sample.

2.4. Moisture Meter Chart(s).—The term "Moisture Meter

Chart(s)" shall be construed to mean charts and tables used to J interpret, interpolate or extrapolate value indications on a particular moisture-determining device into moisture content val- , ues.

i 2.5 Moisture Testing Device.—The term "Moisture Testing

Device" shall be construed to mean all equipment and accessories j required for determining the moisture content in a grain sample.

2.6 Official Grain Sample.—The term "Official Grain Sample"

shall be construed to mean that portion of grain, seed, or other

agricultural commodity which the jurisdiction shall use as the

186
official transfer standard to test the accuracy of commercial grain

moisture meters. The moisture content of the official grain sample shall be determined by reference to the USDA official laboratory method.

2.7 Placement in Service.—The term "Placement in Service"

shall be construed to mean placing in use any new, used, or previously rejected device which is being returned to service after

repair.

SECTION 3. REGISTRATION OF COMMERCIAL MOISTURE TESTING DEVICES.—The Director shall be notified of

placement in service in the State of within

24 hours of such placement. Written notice for registration shall

be completed as soon as practical by the owner/operator, giving

full information as to make, model, serial number and other

identifying information. Each device shall require a separate registration.

SECTION 4. THERMOMETERS.—A laboratory thermometer,

or electronic temperature measuring device, accurate to within

2 °F (and possessing at least 1-degree graduations) for the full range of the thermometer scale, shall be used for making temperature determinations if necessary for making compensations

or adjustments to grain moisture meter indications.

SECTION 5.TENTATIVE DEVICE-TOLERANCE LIMITS.—

A tentative tolerance of four hundredths, plus or minus, ( ±0.04)

of the moisture content. Examples: at 10% tolerance is ± 0.4%; at 15%, ±0.6%; at 25%, ±1.0%.

SECTION 6. WEIGHING AND WEIGHTS.—The scale or bal- ance used to weigh the sample, if this determination is necessary

for obtaining a moisture content, must meet current National

Bureau of Standards HANDBOOK 44 requirements. The weights

used with a grain-test scale must meet the requirements of H44.

SECTION 7. TABLES, CHARTS AND OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS.—The operator of the moisture meter equipment

shall be responsible for having and using current editions of ta- bles, charts and operating instructions pertaining to the grain

moisture determination equipment in use. SECTION 8. SAMPLING.—Sampling procedures recognized by

USDA shall be used to obtain grain samples for moisture content

determination from the bulk of grain to be bought or sold.

187
SECTION 9. BULK DENSITY APPARATUS.—Those moisture measuring devices that require bulk density correction, shall i be equipped with either (a) an automatic bulk density (test

weight) compensator or (b) a bulk density (test weight) apparatus

and charts having the applicable correction factors. This apparatus shall consist of a scale, with which to measure weight, and

a dry measure container, with which to measure volume. The

basic maintenance tolerances for the scale and the dry measure

container are those stated in NBS Handbook 44.

SECTION 10. LICENSED OPERATORS AND DEPUTY OPERATORS.—The manager and one full time operator shall be

licensed by the Director and shall register on forms provided by

the Weights and Measures Division. Deputy operators may be

employed on a seasonal basis; however, the responsibility for operation shall remain with the licensed operators. Lists of op- erators shall be available to State officials. SECTION 11. VIOLATIONS.—The employment of unlicensed

operators, the operation of rejected grain weighing equipment or a rejected moisture testing device, the use of inaccurate thermometers or outdated charts, and the employment of improper

operational procedures shall be prohibited. Punishment for these

violations shall be of the same range of severity as for violations

of other sections of the Model State Weights and Measures regulations.

1

SE TION 12. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT.—

The Director of the Weights and Measures Division may designate other employees of the Division to perform necessary duties

or to represent him in the carrying out of the enforcement of

these regulations.

(Item 204-2 was adopted)

204-3 Model State Laws and Regulations Handbook

The Committee noted with interest the plans of the National Bureau of Standards to issue annually a handbook of all model laws and

regulations adopted by the National Conference on Weights and

Measures and as amended that year. Each model would be preceded I by a map showing the extent of adoption by State. The Committee

endorses this proposal and looks forward to receiving the first edition > in 1979.

(Item 204—3 was adopted)

188
204-4 Standard Barrel Legislation and Regulation

The Committee is of the view that there is little, if any, need for the existing Standard Barrel Acts and implementing regulations. The

Committee recommends that this matter be referred to the Policy and

Coordination Committee for study and possible final action next year.

(Item 204-^1 was adopted)

204-5 Temperature Compensation

The Committee wishes to acknowledge receipt of recommendations

from the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances on the matter

of temperature compensation. The Committee proposes to place this

particular recommendation on its agenda and to explore the need for method-of-sale requirements for home heating oils.

(Item 204—5 was adopted)

204-6 Adoption By Citation

It has been recommended to the Committee that it consider pro- viding some method that would permit adoption of the National Conference on Weights and Measures model regulations by citation.

Adoption by citation has been a feature of the process by which Handbook 44 has achieved wide acceptance. The Committee would lik 3 to explore the possibility of providing the same mechanism for adoption

of the other models developed by the Conference.

Accordingly, the Committee is proposing consideration of the fol- lowing:

Amend the Model Law to include the following language:

The methods of test, inspection procedures, moisture determinations,

measurement system changes, units, terms and other requirements

for the packaging, labeling, method of sale, unit pricing, and open

dating of commodities, as adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures and published in the National Bureau of

Standards Handbook 130, and supplements thereto or revisions

thereof, shall apply to all commodities kept, offered, or exposed for sale in this State except insofar as specifically modified, amended, or

rejected by a regulation issued by {insert appropriate authority).

You will note that the proposed amendment is very similar to the

language of Section 4 in the Model Law. The Committee will place

this matter on its agenda for the next interim meeting. We would

appreciate receiving your comments on the approach and the suggested language.

(Item 204—6 was adopted)

189
R. W. Probst, Chairman, Wisconsin

J.J. Bartfai, New York

S.F. Hindsman, Arkansas

D.I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri

J.T. Bennett, Connecticut

E.A. Vadelund, Staff Assistant, NBS

H.F.Wollin, Exec. Secy., NBS

Committee on Laws and Regulations

(On motion by the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on Laws and

Regulations voting key items 200 through 204—6 was adopted in its entirety as amended

by the Conference. The results of the voting in the House of State Representatives and

the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows. The Conference also authorized the Executive Secretary to make any

appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, provided

that the requirements thus adopted are strictly adhered to.)

190
Voting Results—Committee on Laws and Regulations

House of State Voting Key Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

200 42 0 70 0

201 \ 201-1 i 49 nyj fin

201-2 ou ft fi<l DO nyj

202-1 41 1 62 1

202-2

j 202-3

[ 42 o fi^ ft 202-4 j

202-5 49 n\j fiQ ft

202-6

202-7

202-8 49 ii DO ft 202-9

202-10

202-11

202-12

202-13 43 0 69 0 202-14

202-15

203-1 49 u 69 0

203-2

203-3

203-4 42 i 61 0 203-5

204-1

204-2

204-3 44 0 66 0 204-4

204-5 42 0 66 1

204-6 41 0 72 0

191
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND

TOLERANCES

Presented by James R. Bird, Deputy State Superintendent, Office

of Weights and Measures, Division of Consumer Affairs,

Department of Law and Public Safety, State of New Jersey

(Thursday, July 26, 1979)

VOTING KEY

300 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Specifications and Tol- erances submits its report to the 64th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The report consists of the tentative report as

offered in the Conference Announcement and

as amended by this 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."

NOTE: Except where paragraphs are to be added or completely

revised as indicated, changes are shown as follows: that which is to be deleted is shown lined out, and that which is to be added is underlined.

301 GENERAL CODE

301-1 G-S.5.2. Graduations, Indications, and Recorded

Representations

The committee received several comments recommending changes to two paragraphs of this section. In all instances the committee decided

that a code change was not necessary and that interpretations of the

existing requirements would resolve the issues mentioned.

(Item 301-1 was adopted)

192
301-2 G-S.5.5. Money Values, Mathematical Agreement

During last year's interim meeting the committee had discussed a

suggestion that this paragraph be amended to require mathematical

agreement consistent with the criteria expressed in Handbook 44

Fundamentals paragraph 10.2(d). This paragraph establishes the

methodology used in rounding off when the next figure beyond the

last figure to be retained is 5 and there are only zeros beyond this 5. This principle is commonly referred to as "the odd-even method" and

is used to eliminate any rounding bias. During the year the committee

had continued to explore this possibility and had received comments

from many interested parties. It is the view of the Committee that

this method is entirely feasible on those devices utilizing micro-processor technology; the committee will continue to carry this item in

anticipation of recommending that this principle be adopted on a nonretroactive basis in 1982.

(Item 301-2 was adopted)

I 301-3 G-S.6. Marking, Operational Controls, Indications,

and Features

A suggestion was received that standard abbreviations or symbols be

established for specific functions on weighing and measuring equip-

! ment. The committee agrees that this may seem desirable, but cannot

agree that it is necessary to attain the ultimate end (e.g., are the

symbols used in each application clear, definite and easily understood

under any conditions of normal operation?). This item was also in- cluded in the tentative report of last year (see 63rd NCWM Announcement, pages 15 and 16). The Scale Manufacturers Association

has established a subcommittee to deal with this issue. The committee

recommends no code amendment at this time and that all interested

parties from all segments of the industry consider the possibility of

uniform symbols and maintain communications with the committee

as to any progress made.

(Item 301-3 was adopted)

301^4 Marking/Non Commercial and Other Special Purpose

Devices

j The committee once again received a suggestion that equipment manufactured not in compliance with Handbook 44 codes be permanently

and conspicuously marked with the term "Not Legal for Trade." Another condition referenced was the marking sometimes found on

scales which do not meet the requirements of Handbook 44, "Legal

193
for Fruits and Vegetables." All of the ramifications were discussed

throughout the interim meetings by all interested parties. It is the

view of the committee that any reference such as "Legal for Fruits

and Vegetables" is clearly inappropriate under the existing code and

that action should be taken by the States to eliminate this condition.

The committee does feel that there are situations in which it is clearly appropriate to mark devices which are designed for specific

applications. This philosophy is expressed in Scale Code paragraph

S.6.2. Marking/For Prepackaging Scales Only. A particular design

the committee has in mind are those devices designed to classify

applied loads into predetermined rate or weight increments.

(Item 301-4 was adopted)

302 CODE FOR SCALES

302-1 Sl.l. Zero Indication

A comment was received that an indication of a negative balance

condition on an electronic digital indicator by means of inhibiting the

display of any values was not clear, and this paragraph should be

amended to read "positively indicate an out of balance condition on

both sides of zero." It is the committee's view that in certain applications it is appropriate to inhibit the display to indicate a negative

balance condition and on others it is not. The key in making the

decision is based on General Code paragraph G-S.5.1 which requires

primary indications to "be clear, definite, accurate and easily read

under any conditions of normal operation."

(Item 302-1 was adopted)

302-2 S.2.1.3. Zero-Load Adjustment/For Scales Designed

with Automatic Means to Maintain a Digital Zero Balance

Indication.

The committee discussed at length the comments received and the

technology used for "automatic zero maintenance" (AZM). One

method indicates either no displayed weight values or only a mo- mentary display and then an almost immediate zero indication. Another method is that which displays the total value of out of balance

and then returns to zero in increments equal to one-half or whole

scale divisions. It is the view of the committe that any technical

constraint should apply equally to both technologies, that this present

requirement should be amended to more appropriately reflect weighing applications and that the varying methods of zero-setting should

be defined and used in the specification paragraphs. To accomplish

194
this the committee recommends that the following definitions and

non-retroactive paragraphs be considered over the ensuing year for action by the 65th NCWM.

Zero setting mechanism—means provided to attain a zero balance

indication with no load on the load receiving element.

Manual zero setting mechanism—means provided to attain a zero balance indication requiring the intervention of an operator.

Semi-automatic zero setting mechanism—means provided to attain a zero balance indication by the manual operation of an electronic

control.

Automatic zero setting mechanism—means provided to maintain

a zero balance indication without the intervention of an operator.

Amend S.2.1.2. to read:

5.2.1.2. On Scales Used in Direct Sales.—A manual zero setting

mechanism shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of

and entirely separate from this mechanism or enclosed in a cabinet.

A balance ball shall either meet this requirement or shall not itself be rotatable.

A semi-automatic zero setting mechanism shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of and entirely separate from this

mechanism or enclosed in a cabinet, or shall be operable only when

the indication is stable within:

(a) plus or minus one scale division (dd) for all scales other than

axle load, railway track, and vehicle scales.

(b) plus or minus three scale divisions (dd) for axle load, railway

track, and vehicle scales.

Amend S.2.1.3. to read:

5.2.1.3. On Scales Equipped with an Automatic Zero Setting

Mechanism.—Scales equipped with an automatic zero setting

mechanism shall have a clear indication when this mechanism is in operation.

Under normal operating conditions, the maximum load, when

placed immediately on or removed from the platform, which can be

"rezeroed", shall be:

195
(a) For bench, counter and livestock scales—0.6 scale division

(b) For axle load, railway track, and vehicle scales—3.0 scale di- visions

(c) For all other scales—1.0 scale division.

(Item 302-2 was adopted)

302-3 T. Tolerances

The committee received many comments concerning tolerances.

Among them are:

(a) Add more illustrative tables.

(b) Clarification is needed to determine the tolerance application to devices equipped with more than one indicating element, and

especially one equipped with both an analog and a digital in- dicator.

(c) The entire tolerance section should be amended to provide a

clearer understanding and to eliminate the problems caused by

minimum tolerance value determinations, digital tolerances, and

tolerances applied to decreasing load tests.

(d) Digital scales should not be allowed larger errors than analog

scales.

The committee appreciates the time and effort spent by those submitting these suggestions and agrees with them for the most part.

The Scale Manufacturers Association has established a task force

to attempt to develop clearer tolerance requirements. OIML PS II RS 4 is in the process of developing amendments to IR #3, which

will include a revision of the tables in that document.

The committee solicits comments from everyone and will carefully

review all information available. The committee intends to offer its recommendations to the 1980 NCWM.

However, the committee feels that a certain code amendment is needed at the present time and recommends the following for clar- ification purposes.

Amend paragraph T.1.2. to read:

T.1.2. To Scales with Multiple Elements.—Tolerances shall be ap196
plied independently to each separate indicating and recording ele- ment of a scale. However, the following requirements pertaining

to analog and digital elements within the same element shall also

apply.

With respect to the application of this paragraph, the committee

wishes to remind the Conference that, in an instance where a scale

is equipped with two indicators, one analog and one digital, and the

operator, to gain an advantage, could be using one indicator for buying

or determining gross loads and the other for selling or determining

tare loads, enforcement action should be taken to preclude this practice. The S & T Committee will work cooperatively with the recently

formed SMA Tolerance Subcommittee to develop specific recommendations for revising scale tolerances and anticipates proposals for action by the 65th NCWM.

(Item 302-3 was adopted)

302-4 T.3.6.3. Basic Tolerance Values/For Railway Track

Scales/Weighing Coupled in Motion

To clarify misunderstandings that have developed in the interpretation of this paragraph, the committee recommends it be amended

to read:

T.3.6.3. Weighing Coupled in Motion.—The basic maintenance and

acceptance tolerances shall be as follows:

(a) The difference between the motion gross weight value and the

static gross weight value of the test train shall not exceed two

pounds per 1,000 pounds (0.2 percent).

(b) The difference between the motion gross weight values and

the static gross weight values on 100 individual car weights

shall meet the following conditions.

(1) At least 70 percent of the individual car weight differences

shall be within plus or minus 0.2 percent.

(2) Not more than 5 percent of the individual car weight differ- ences shall exceed plus or minus 0.5 percent.

(3) No individual car weight difference shall exceed plus or minus

1.0 percent.

This means that at least 70 of the car weights must be within plus

or minus 0.2 percent, that 25 car weight differences can be more

than plus or minus 0.2 percent up to and including plus or minus

197
0.5 percent, and that 5 car weight differences can be more than

plus or minus 0.5 percent up to and including plus or minus 1.0 percent.

(Item 302^4 was adopted)

302-5 UR.1.1.6. User Requirements/Selection Requirements/

For Vehicle Scales and Axle-Load Scales Used in

Combination

To clarify the issues raised during last year's conference and in

response to the suggestions received since that meeting the committee

recommends the following:

Amend paragraph UR.1.1.6. to read:

UR.1.1.6. For Vehicle Scales and Axle-Load Scales Used in Combination—The value of the smallest division on a scale or scales used

to determine the weight of a vehicle shall be not groator than 20

pounds as follows:

(a) For Scales with a capacity up to and including 200 000 lb, not

greater than 20 lb. (b) For Scales with a capacity greater than 200 000 lb, not greater

than 50 lb.

Change the definition of Vehicle scale to read:

Vehicle Scale.—One- A scale adapted to weighing highway, farm or other large industrial vehicles, (except railroad freight cars), loaded

or unloaded.

Amend paragraph UR.4.4. by striking the word highway in the

first and second lines. (See also item 302-7.)

(Item 302-5 was adopted)

302-6 UR.3.2. Minimum Load on Vehicle Scales

The committee received two communications recommending amendment to this paragraph. The committee had listened carefully to the

comments made on this item during the presentation of its final report

at last year's Conference. The committee believes that the Conference

is not prepared to "bite the bullet" on this issue and refuses to compromise what it considers to be the only logical and technically correct interpretation. That is, a vehicle scale should not be used to weigh

net loads less than 1000 pounds or 50 scale divisions, in spite of the

198
problems which this may cause the Boy Scouts when selling newspapers. Therefore the committee does not recommend code amendment.

(Item 302-6 was defeated)

302-7 UR4.4. Single-Draft Vehicle Weighing

The committee received a communication that the present wording

of this paragraph would not preclude the two-draft weighing of farm

tractors and trailers. The committee agrees that this could cause a problem and feels that the amendment to this paragraph recom- mended in item 302-5 will clarify this issue.

(Item 302-7 was adopted)

302-8 Code Revision for Electronic Devices

The committee received a recommendation that a new section be

established in Handbook 44 applicable only to electronic digital

scales, and that requirements applicable to this equipment on temperature effects, stability, return to zero etc., be developed. The committee is not in favor of establishing a separate section applicable

only to electronic digital scales, but is studying the possibility of

developing requirements addressing the other factors referenced. This

will be included in the overall tolerance study along with the review

of OIML documents and the committee solicits comments from all interested parties.

(Item 302-8 was adopted)

302-9 "Warm up" Time

The committee received a recommendation concerning this problem

and also reviewed the results of last year's report in which action was

delayed on this issue. It is the view of the committee that any value

displayed on any device at any time which appears to be valid, should

in fact, be valid. Although the problem seems to center around scales,

it is the view of the committee that there is a possibility of a similar

situation with other measuring equipment. For the present, the committee recommends amendment to the Scale Code as indicated below,

but is considering recommending that this become a General Code

paragraph in the near future.

Add the following non-retroactive paragraph:

S.l.4.2. Values Displayed, Temperature Conditions.—A digital

indicating or recording element shall not display or record any

usable values until the operating temperature (warm-up time)

199
necessary for accurate weighing and a stable zero balance condition has been attained. (Non-retroactive and effective January

1, 1981.)

(Item 302-9 was adopted)

302-10 On-board Weighing Systems for use in the

Household Moving Industry

The committee received a request to develop requirements applicable

to systems which may be considered appropriate for weighing household goods for tariff purposes. These systems, although their perform- ance capabilities are not as good as those presently required in

Handbook 44, do have other characteristics that may offset this seemingly detrimental effect. There are a number of agencies interested

in such a project since there is some indication that fraudulent practices do exist in weight determinations of household goods. At the

present time the committee does not have sufficient information to present to the Conference on the availability of, or the design and

performance capabilities of, such equipment. The committee will con- tinue this item for study, with the probability ofhaving more complete

information to present in its tentative report of next year.

(Item 302-10 was adopted)

302-11 Counting Scales

The committee discussed the necessity of including specific requirements in Handbook 44 for counting scales. With the approval of the

Conference the committee will develop specific code requirements for action by the 65th NCWM.

(Item 302-11 was adopted)

302-12 Grain Test Scales

As indicated in last year's tentative report (63rd NCWM announce- ment, pages 17-18) the committee has developed what it considers

to be appropriate requirements for these devices. The background

information and philosophy considered is presented in last year's an- nouncement.

The committee recommends amendment to the code as follows:

Change all present code references to, and the definition of"moisture test scale" and "cream test scale" to, "dairy product test scales," and combine these definitions to read as follows: Dairy product test scale—A scale designed to determine the

200
moisture content of butter and/or cheese or to determine the

butterfat content of milk, cream, and butter.

Delete the code reference to and the definition of "grain-moisture

scale" and add the following definition:

Grain test scale—A scale adapted to weighing grain samples

used in determining moisture content, dockage, weight per unit

volume, etc.

Amend SR.2. General to read:

SR.2 General.—Except for equipment specified in paragraphs

SR.3 through SR.8. the SR on a nonautomatic-indicating scale

shall be twice the value of the minimum graduated interval on the weighbeam, 0.2 percent of the nominal capacity of the

scale, or 40 pounds, whichever is least.

Amend SR.5. and SR.6. to read:

SR.5. For Dairy Product Test Scales

SR.5.1. For scales used in determining butterfat content the

SR shall be 0.5 grain (32 milligrams)

SR.5.2. For scales used in determining moisture content the

SR shall be 0.3 grain (19 milligrams)

SR.6. For Grain Test Scales.—The SR shall be the value of the

minimum graduated interval or 0.05 percent of the capacity

of the scale, whichever is less.

Amend T.2.1. General to read:

T.2.1. General.—Except for equipment specified in paragraphs

T.2.1. 1. through T.2.9., the maintenance tolerance and the ac- ceptance tolerance applied to a scale shall be not smaller than

the appropriate value shown in Table 3 or one-half the value

of the minimum graduated interval, whichever is less.

Change the title of T.2.4. to read:

T.2.4. For Dairy Product Test Scales.

Delete T.2.5. For Grain Moisture Test Scales

Renumber paragraphs T.2.6., T.2.7., T.2.8., T.2.9., and T.2.10. to

T.2.5., T.2.6., T.2.7., T.2.8., and T.2.9 respectively.

201
Change the title of Table 3 to read:

Table 3—Minimum Tolerance Values for Scales Except for Equipment Specified in Paragraph T.2.1.1. through T.2.9.

Change the title of T.3.4. to read:

T.3.4. For Dairy Product Test Scales.

Change the title of Table 5 to read:

Table 5—Basic Tolerances for Scales Indicating or Recording

in Either Apothecaries or Metric Units Except for Equipment I Specified in Paragraphs T.3.2. through T.3.10.

Add a new paragraph and a new Table 6 as follows:

T.3.5. For Grain-Test Scales.—The basic maintenance and ac-

| ceptance tolerances shall be as shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6Basic Tolerance Values for Grain Test Scales. (Applicable to increasing and decreasing load tests.)

Test Load

Maintenance

Tolerances

Acceptance

Tolerances

from

to and

including

in scale div (d)

in scale div (d)

min

500d

2000d

500d

2000d

lOOOd

12

3

0.5

1.0

1.5

Renumber paragraphs T.3.5. through T.3.8. to T.3.6. through j T.3.9.

Add the following new User Requirement:

UR.1.2. For Grain Test Scales Only.—The design of a scale

selected for use as a grain test scale shall be:

Scale Division

(d)

Number of Divisions

(n = Max/d) Minimum Capacity

(Min)

Minimum Maximum

O.lg < d < 0.5g 500 10,000 20d

Change the title of N.l.3.2. to read:

202
N.l.3.2. On Dairy Product Test Scales.

Change S.2.5. to read:

S.2.5. For Dairy Product Test, Grain Test, Jewelers and Prescription Scales Only.

S.2.5. 1. Balance Indicator, A dairy product test, grain test, jewelers, and prescription scale shall be equipped. . .

.

(Item 302-12 was adopted)

302-13 Postal Scales

After two years of study and deliberation during which the committee

attempted to consider all of the ramifications of the design and use

ofPostal Scales (see Conference Reports 1977 and 1978) the committee

recommends the following:

All of the existing applicable requirements of Handbook 44 apply

except as follows:

Add a new tolerance paragraph to read:

T.3.10. For Postal and Parcel Post Scales. The basic mainte- nance and acceptance tolerances shall be as specified in Table

4 except:

T.3. 10.1. For Postal and Parcel Post Scales Designed and/or

Used to Weigh Loads Less Than 2 Pounds. The basic and minimum, acceptance and maintenance tolerances shall be:

Test load

from

to and

including grains grams ounces pounds

0

2 lb

2 lb Max.15 1 (see tc1/32

ible 4)

0.002

(Item 302-13 was adopted)

302-14 Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS)

Since the last Conference, the committee prepared a response to the

recommended tolerances and test procedures published by FGIS. Copies of this response were circulated to all State offices and certain

203
other interested parties. Representatives of the Service were in at- tendance at the interim meeting and reported that their final rec- ommendations would be published in the Federal Register in the near j future with a 60-day comment period. The committee and all others

| in attendance urged the service to recommend those tolerances and

procedures now included in Handbook 44 and other weights and meas- \ ures publications.

The final recommendations, which were published in the Federal ! Register of March 2, did not reflect the recommendations made at the I interim meeting. The committee responded, taking exception with I these proposals once again, and the principles and philosophy which ] formed the basis of the recommendations of the Service.

Copies of the committee's response are available on request, and

the committee urges the Service to reconsider and publish final rules

consistent with the requirements of NBS Handbook 44.

(Item 302-14 was adopted)

302-15 S.1.8. Provision for Sealing Adjustable Components

on Electronic Devices

Since the adoption ofthis requirement last year, a number of problems

concerning its application were brought to the attention of and dis- cussed by the committee.

One of the first problems is that the paragraph requiring adjustable

components not to be adjustable from outside the scale is in the section

entitled "Weighing Elements." Since Handbook 44 considers a scale

to be composed ofan indicating element, a recording element, a weigh- I ing element and a load receiving element, how is this requirement

applicable to the adjustable components located within the indicating

element? This paragraph references components such as a nose-irons, \ pendulums, springs, or potentiometers, which for the most part are generally located within or on an indicating element.

Other questions are since the title of S.1.8. states specifically | "Electronic Devices" is the paragraph applicable to electromechanical

scales? Is it applicable to electronic cash registers? What about span

adjustment by means of a key board? '; The committee did recall that this amendment was adopted last year with only a one-vote majority and therefore is not certain that

the views of the Conference are still the same; the committee itself has mixed opinions on this issue.

It was the committee's intention, in recommending this amendment

last year, (1) to make it clearly evident whenever a serviceman adjusted a scale and (2) to prevent any fraudulent adjustment on the

part of the scale user. It is the committee's view that these are valid concerns and recommends the definition of security seal in the General Code to read:

204
security seal. A lead-and-wire seal, a sufficiently permanent pres- sure sensitive seal or similar device means, attached to a weighing

or measuring device for protection against or to indicate access to, removal of or adjustment of the device.

(Item 302-15 was adopted)

302-16 Uniformity of Interpretations and Prototype

Examinations

Since NBS Handbook 44 is basically a field manual and a cooperative

prototype examination program may develop, it is the view of the

committee that a prototype manual and a methodology for arbitrating

conflicting interpretations are necessary.

The committee intends to begin work on the development of such

a manual and solicits the aid of all interested parties. As this work

progresses, it will be widely circulated for comment.

The committee also feels that the proper resource for interpretations and arbitration is the committee itself and recommends that

the committee be contacted whenever necessary.

(Item 302-16 was adopted)

303 CODE FOR LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

Impact of Rapidly Escalating Petroleum Product Prices.—The committee reviewed the events which took place several years ago when

the retail price of gasoline exceeded $0,499 per gallon. The interim measure recommended was to set the variator at the price per V2 gallon, require the price per gallon to be separately posted, and to multiply the displayed total price by 2 and so indicate on the face of

the dispenser. At that time the $0,499 unit price capability existed on only 200,000 of the 1,500,000 dispensers in the U.S. The problems

confronting the petroleum industry at the present time are of a far

greater magnitude.

It is the committee's view that the most cost-effective solution to those technological problems and many others is a change to metric.

The committee strongly urges that immediate steps be taken toward

that conversion.

To facilitate this change, the committee recommends the code be

amended by adding the following new paragraph:

S. 1.1.2.1. Units/On Retail Motor Fuel Devices.—A retail motor

fuel device shall indicate, and record if the device is equipped to record, its deliveries in terms of liters or gallons and decimal subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof.

The committee has recommended this change with the view that

it is not wholly necessary because of paragraph G-A.4. Metric Equip205
ment. It is the opinion of the committee that this paragraph is in- j tended to eliminate any technical constraint to any change to metric i and is not superseded by paragraph G-A.2. Code Application. This

decision was made on the basis that if paragraph G-A.2. was intended

to supersede G-A.4., paragraph G-A.4. would be meaningless. Therefore, paragraph G-A.4. should be applied whenever necessary.

The committee has referred to the P & C Committee the responsibility of resolving all of the logistics with respect to short-term j solutions and time frames in the conversion of petroleum dispensers

not capable of computing on the basis of the correct unit price. (See

Report of the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Co- j ordination.) In the event that it becomes necessary to test retail dispensers with | a 5-gallon test measure, the committee recommends a test draft of

19 liters, which is 5 gallons plus 4.5 cubic inches, and apply the

existing tolerances of ± 3.5 cubic inches and ± 7 cubic inches. Thus,

the acceptance tolerance band would be + 1 cubic inch to + 8 cubic ! inches and the maintenance tolerance band would be - 2.5 cubic

inches to + 11.5 cubic inches, as per Figure 1. During the ensuing year the committee will review the present

Table 1, Tolerances for Retail Devices, and recommend tolerances for a 19-liter draft for action by the 65th NCWM.

19-LITER TEST

USING 5-GALLON FIELD MEASURE

5-GALLON STANDARD

CUSTOMARY GAGE PLATE

CU in -

15

10

19.0-LITER DELIVERY:

+8 ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCE

+11.5

MAINTENANCE

TOLERANCE -"0"-

-2.5

206
A motion was made and seconded to amend this item as follows:

Add the words "if legal" after the word "liters" in the recom- mended paragraph S. 1.1. 2.1.

In a lengthy discussion during the hearing it was clearly brought

out that the recommended amendment was not necessary, since if metric were "in fact" illegal in a particular State, then the reference

to liter in this paragraph would not be applicable.

(The amendment was defeated)

(Item 303 was adopted)

304 TENTATIVE CODE FOR WATER METERS

Since this code has been tentative since 1975 and no criticism or comment has been received, the committee recommends this code be

changed to a permanent status.

(Item 304 was adopted)

305 CODE FOR LPG LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

305-1 S. 1.4.4. Money-Value Computations

See Code for Vehicle-TankMeters, Item 307-2

(Item 305-1 was adopted)

305-2 Printed Tickets

The committee received a suggestion that this code should be

amended to be consistent with other codes dealing with this situation.

The committee agrees and recommends amendment as follows:

Delete paragraph UR.2.5. Printed Ticket

Renumber UR.2.6. to UR.2.5.

Add the following new paragraph:

S.l.1.6. 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 the total volume of the

delivery in terms of gallons and the appropriate fraction of the

gallon and the price per gallon.

(Item 305-2 was adopted)

207
306 CODE FOR CRYOGENIC LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

S.l.4.2. Money-Value Computations.—See Code for Vehicle-Tank

Meters, Item 307-2.

(Item 306 was adopted)

307 CODE FOR VEHICLE TANK METERS

307-1 Since automatic temperature compensators that interface

with vehicle-tank meters are apparently readily available from several manufacturers, it is the view of the committee that this technology should be recognized in the Code for Vehicle-Tank Meters. It

is also the committee's view and intent that this action neither re- quires this equipment to be used, nor does it make its use entirely

voluntary. It merely removes an obstacle if, in the sale of any product

measured by a vehicle-tank meter, it is considered appropriate and

legal to compensate for temperature variations. In order to provide for the sale of products at a reference temperature, further changes to weights and measures laws and/or regulations will be required. The committee offers the following as a guide

when this action is to be taken.

The gallon is defined as being equal to 231 cubic inches. Providing

for the measurement of volume at specified temperatures can be done

in a manner similar to that followed in the Model State Packaging

and Labeling Regulation which specifies reference temperatures for various kinds of commodities. An example of a suggested regulation

is: TERMS: LIQUID MEASURE, HOME HEATING OILS.—Whenever home heating oil is sold or delivered to a consumer by liquid

measure, the volume sold and delivered shall be in terms ofthe United

States gallon of 231 cubic inches and the volume shall be expressed

at 60 °F. This may be accomplished through the use of an approved

meter equipped with an automatic temperature compensating mechanism, or the use of an appropriate volume correction table. This regulation will result in equitable, efficient and uniform marketing of fuel oil in that all buyers and sellers will be on the same

basis at all times.

The specific changes recommended for adoption in the Code are as

follows:

S.2.4. THERMOMETER WELL.—Means shall be provided for in- serting, for test purposes, a mercury-in-glass thermometer either

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

208
(b) in the meter inlet or discharge line and immediately adjacent

to the meter.

S.2.5. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.—

A

device may be equipped with an adjustable automatic means for adI justing the indication and registration of the measured volume of

product to the volume at 60° F.

5.2.5.1. PROVISION FOR DEACTIVATING—On a device

eqipped with an automatic temperature compensating mechanism

I that will indicate or record only in terms of gallons compensated

| to 60° 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.

5.2.5.2. PROVISION FOR SEALING.—Provision shall be made

for applying security seals in such a manner that an automatic

temperature-compensating system cannot be disconnected and that

I no adjustment may be made to the system.

3 S.5.5. TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.—If a device is equipped

with an automatic temperature compensator, the primary indicating

elements, recording elements, and recorded representation shall be

clearly and conspicuously marked to show that the volume delivered

| has been adjusted to the volume at 60 °F.

! N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS.—The "normal" test of a device shall be

made at the maximum discharge rate that may be anticipated under

the conditions of installation. If the device is equipped with an au- tomatic temperature compensator, this test should be conducted with

the compensator deactivated.

N.4.1.2. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.—

If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator,

the compensator shall be tested by comparing the volume indicated

or recorded by the device with the compensator connected and op- erating, with the actual delivered volume corrected to 60 °F.

N.5. TEMPERATURE CORRECTION.—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

i of volumetric determination in the test measure.

UR.2.4. TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.

UR.2.4.1. USE OF AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATORS.—If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature

209
compensator, this shall be connected, operable, and in use at all times. Such automatic temperature compensator may not be re- moved, 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.2.4.2. WRITTEN INVOICES.—Any written invoice based on

a reading of a device that is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator shall have shown thereon that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 60 °F.

UR.2.4.3. NONAUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.—If the volume of the product delivered is adjusted to the

volume at 60°F, the product temperature shall be taken during the

delivery in the liquid chamber of the meter or in the meter inlet or discharge line adjacent to the meter. The accompanying invoice

shall indicate that the volume of the product has been adjusted for temperature variations to a volume of 60°F and shall also state the

product temperature used in making the adjustment.

(After a lengthy discussion, a motion to table the entire Item 307-1 was made,

seconded and passed.)

307-2 S. 1.4.3. Money Value Computations

The committee reviewed this paragraph and decided that it was

directed primarily to mechanical analog equipment and did not properly respond to electronic digital devices. Their concern centered

around that part requiring 1-cent money value graduations. It is the

committee's view that a digital electronic vehicle-tank meter which

indicates quantity values to the nearest tenth gallon, and then multiplies this quantity by the unit price in obtaining a total price value

which is mathematically correct to the nearest one cent is an appropriate design. To recognize this technology the committee recom- mends code amendment as follows

Add the following sentence to paragraph S.l.4.3. Money Value Computations:

On electronic devices with digital indications, the total price may

be computed on the basis of the quantity indicated when the value

of the smallest division indicated is equal to or less than 0.1 gallon.

(Item 307-2 was adopted)

307-3 S.2.1. Vapor Elimination

The committee received a comment that this requirement, although

it referenced the permanence of the vent line, neglected to consider

210
the fact that if the vent opening was readily accessible, the effec- tiveness of the air eliminator could be completely negated by placing

a finger or other object over the vent line opening. It is the view of

the committee that there is no need for code amendment to control

this situation and that the determination as to the appropriateness

of the accessibility or location of the vent opening could be made on

the basis of G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud.

(Item 307-3 was adopted)

308 CODE FOR FARM MILK TANKS

308-1 Quantity Charts

The committee received three suggestions that this code be amended

to provide for charts with quantity values in pounds. These comments

included three different suggestions as to how this should be accomplished. The committee agrees that a weight chart is useful, but since

the measurement process is determined on the basis of fluid meas- urement the official or primary chart should be in gallonage values.

So that an auxiliary chart with weight values can be used, the committee recommends the code be amended by adding the following new

paragraph:

UR.3. Weight Chart.—An auxiliary weight chart may be provided, on which shall be prominently displayed the pounds per gallon

value used to derive the weight values from the official gallonage

chart.

(Item 308-1 was adopted)

308-2 Capacity

The committee was informed that milk tanks are being calibrated

for capacities greater than the manufacturers' rated capacity. It is the committee's view that although the values may be correct at the

time ofcalibration, there is no guarantee that it will remain so. Filling

the tank with product above the manufacturers' rated capacity may

result in tank distortion or metal fatigue and cause errors after the

tank has been in use. Since the manufacturer must have a valid reason for establishing and marking the rated capacity, it is the committee's view that the tank should not be calibrated beyond that

amount and recommends the code be amended as follows:

Add the following new nonretroactive paragraph:

S.2.4. Capacity.—A farm milk tank shall be clearly and permanently

marked on a surface visible after installation with its capacity as de211
termined by the manufacturer. The capacity shall not exceed an amount

which can be agitated without overflowing and which can be measured

accurately with the liquid at rest, (nonretroactive as of 1979)

Add the following new paragraph:

UR.4. Use. A farm milk tank shall not be used to measure quantities

greater than an amount which can be agitated without overflowing.

(Item 302-2 was adopted)

309 CODE FOR MEASURE CONTAINERS

The Specifications and Tolerance Committee and the Laws and

Regulations Committee received requests from the private sector that

all codes and regulations be amended to allow for five-quart and six- quart measure containers in the sale of ice cream, and to provide

metric sizes. The committees, in a joint meeting, discussed this re- quest at length and considered all of the ramifications impacting on

the change. It was the view of these committees, that the principal reason for restricting sizes is to facilitate value comparisons for con- sumers; further, that quantities based on multiples or binary submultiples of a quart or a liter rather than on the present one gallon

basis, do not make value comparisons more difficult. Therefore, the

Specifications and Tolerances Committee recommends code amendment as follows:

Amend S.l. Units to read:

S.l. Units. The capacity of a measure container shall be a multiple

of or a binary submultiple of a quart (in inch-pound units) or a liter (in metric units), and the measure shall not be subdivided. However,

for prepackaged measure-containers, any capacity less than V2 liquid pint or Vi liter shall be permitted.

Delete present paragraphs S.l.l. and S.l. 2.

Amend the title and first sentence of paragraph N.2.2.1. as follows:

N.2.2.1. For Rectangular Containers of One Quart or One Liter or Less. Bulging of the sides of a rectangular measure container

of one-quart or one liter capacity or less may be. . . . Amend the title and first sentence of paragraph N.2.2.2. as follows:

N.2.2.2. For Rectangular Prepackaged Measure-Containers

of One Half Gallon Two Quarts or Two Liters or Greater.—

A

212
rectangular prepackaged measure-container of one half gallon twoquart or two-liter capacity or greater. . . .

i Delete present T.l. and Table 1 and insert the following new par-

| agraphs T.l., T.2., and Table 1:

T.l. Tolerances on an Individual Measure. The acceptance tol- erances in excess and in deficiency on an individual measure shall

be as shown in table 1.

TABLE 1.—ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES, IN EXCESS AND IN DEFICIENCY,

FOR AN INDIVIDUAL MEASURE-CONTAINER

Tolerance

INUlIllIlcU CdpdClly In excess In deficiency Fluid Cubic Fluid Cubic

drams inches drams inches

Vz pint or less 3 0.6 1.5 0.3

1 pint 4 1.0 2.0 0.5

1 quart 6 1.4 3.0 0.7 2 quarts 9 2.0 4.5 1.0 3 quarts 10 2.4 5.0 1.2 4 quarts 12 2.8 6.0 1.4 Over 4 quarts Add per Add per Add per Add per quart

quartquartquart

3 fluid 0.7 cubic 1.5 fluid 0.35 cubic drams inch drams inch

Milliliters Milliliters

V* liter or less 10 5.0

Vi liter 15 7.5

1 liter 20 10.0 add per liter

add per liter

over 1 liter 10 mL 5 mL

T.2. Tolerance on Average Capacity. The average capacity on a random sample of ten measures selected from a lot of 25 or more shall

be equal to or greater than the nominal capacity.

Amend UR.l. as follows:

j UR.l. Limitation of Use.—The use of a measure-container -of- with

; a rectangular cross section of a capacity of V2 gallon two quarts or

I two liters or over greater shall be limited to the packaging, in

advance of sale, of ice cream, sherbet, or other similar frozen desserts.

(Item 309 was adopted)

213
310 CODE FOR LUBRICATING OIL BOTTLES

(The committees recommendations on this code was deleted from its final report)

311 CODE FOR TIMING DEVICES

S. 1 . 1 . 1 . Primary Elements/General.—A comment was received that f certain laundry driers are not equipped with an inservice light in- i dicating the device is in operation; however, this presented no problem

since the devices are equipped with a glass door through which the

operation of the device is readily observable. It is the view of the

committee that the intent of this paragraph is to clearly indicate to users that devices are in operation. The committee also agrees that

in the instance mentioned above, users could readily determine when

the equipment was in operation. On that basis, the committee rec- ommends S. 1.1.1. be amended to read:

S.l.1.1. General.—A timing device shall be equipped with a primary indicating element, and may also be equipped with a primary

recording element. However, A readily observable in-service light or other equally effective means that automatically indicates that

when laundry driers, vacuum cleaners, and car washes are in op- eration shall be deemed an appropriate primary indicating element.

(Item 311 was adopted)

312 CODE FOR BERRY BASKETS AND BOXES

T.l. Tolerances.—The tolerances on berry baskets and boxes were

reduced in 1976 because measures submitted for prototype examination were found to be consistently short within the tolerance limits, j The latest technology used to form berry baskets, i.e., formed plastic,

could apparently produce measures more accurately than the original

wooden ones on which the tolerances were based. Since the publication j of those new tolorances by the State of California, three manufacturers of berry boxes sent letters to that State indicating that there i is a variability in raw materials and wear in molds that can cause &

; greater variations in accuracy than the new tolerances allowed.

The tolerance reduction in 1976 was simply an elimination of the I1 tolerance in deficiency. On the basis of the comments made by those

manufacturers, the committee is recommending tolerance amend- f ment. To provide a clear understanding of this recommendation, the j tolerance table as it appeared prior to 1976, the tolerances adopted i in 1976 and the new recommendation are as follows:

214
Nominal

Tolerance

In Excess

cu in

In Deficiency cu in 1975 &

Before

V2 pint

1 pint

1 quart

123

0.5

1.0

1.5

V2 pint 11 U 1976 1 pint 2 0

1 quart 3 0

Recommended amendment:

T.l. Tolerances on Individual Measures.—Maintenance and

acceptance tolerances in excess and deficiency on an individual measure shall be as shown in table 1. (NOTE: Table 1 as it was in 1975.)

T.2. Tolerances on Average Capacity.—The average capacity on a random sample of ten measures selected from a lot of 25 or more shall be equal to or greater than the nominal capacity.

(Item 312 was adopted)

313 OTHER ITEMS

313-1 National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44

The committee has received numerous helpful suggestions for a new format for the next edition of Handbook 44. On the basis ofthose

suggestions and the committee's own ideas the committee is pleased

to recommend a new format.

The Handbook will be divided into five sections numbered 1 through

5. Each code or part of each section will be numbered sequentially.

Thus the outline of contents will appear as follows:

215
Outline of Contents

Section 1 1.10. Introduction

1.11. Fundamental Considerations

1.12. Units and Systems of Weights and Measures

1.13. Tables of Weights and Measures

1.14. General Code

Section 2. 2.20. Scales

2.21. Belt-Conveyor Scales

2.22. Weights

Section 3. 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices

3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters

3.32. LPG Liquid-Measuring Devices

3.33. LPG Vapor-Measuring Devices

3.34. Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices

3.35. Milk Meters (tentative)

3.36. Water Meters (tentative)

Section 4. 4.40. Vehicle Tanks Used as Measures

4.41. Liquid Measures

4.42. Lubricating-Oil Bottles

4.43. Farm Milk Tanks

4.44. Milk Bottles

4.45. Measure Containers

4.46. Graduates

4.47. Dry Measures

4.48. Berry Baskets and Boxes

Section 5. 5.50. Fabric-Measuring Devices

5.51. Wire- and Cordage-Measuring Devices

5.52. Linear Measures

5.53. Odometers

5.54. Taximeters

5.55. Timing devices

A few of the advantages of this format are:

1. Each Section is a grouping of similar or related subjects. It is likely that most private-sector users will need only two sections.

216
2. Each paragraph will have an individual identity. For example,

scale code paragraph S.l.l. can be identified as 2.20.S.1.1., and

liquid-measuring device paragraph S.l.l. can be identified as

3.30.S.1.1., etc.

3. The size 8V2" x 11" will provide more information per page,

in a clear and easily readable manner.

4. The use of modern word processing techniques may enable an

annual reprinting of Handbook 44, thus eliminating replacement sheets and assuring the possession of an up-to-date Handbook 44 when the date on the cover is the same as the year of

the last NCWM.

5. Illustrations and S & T Committee interpretations are planned

to be included.

6. New Codes can be added easily. For example, if a code were to be developed for electric meters, it would be numbered 5.56.

All of these changes will not take place immediately. It is anticipated that each change or changes will take place when it is most

efficient and economical to do so. The committee wishes to express its appreciation to all those of- fering comments, which aided them greatly in the development of

this recommendation.

(Item 313-1 was adopted)

313-2 OIML

Since the Conference last year, resources have been made available

for NCWM participation in certain OIML activities and meetings.

The criteria for the selection of NCWM participants are included in

the Report of the Executive Committee.

Two members of the S & T Committee had the privilege of participating in recent OIML meetings. A brief report of each follows.

James Bird, Chairman, attended a meeting of the International

Working Groups for PS 7, Measures of Masses, and PS 8, Weights.

The results of that meeting are as follows:

The review and acceptance by the International Working Group for PS 7 of two draft documents to be submitted for action by the 6th

International Conference to be held in the United States in 1980.

They are, "Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Machines"

and "Automatic Check Weighing and Weight Grading Machines".

217
The review and acceptance by the International Working Group for PS 7 of certain amendments to IR #28, "Technical Regulations for Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments". This draft revision is to be

circulated to the collaborators of PS 7/RS 4 for vote and, ifapproved,

will be submitted for action by the 6th International Conference.

A decision by the PS 7 International Working Group that IR #3,

"Metrological Regulations for Nonautomatic Weighing Instru- ments", should be revised and a request that the PS 7/RS 4, Co-RS,

France and the Federal Republic of Germany, begin work immediately.

A decision by the PS 7 International Working Group that a need

exists for an IR applicable to electronic devices and that this work

should be carried out by PS 7/RS 2, a responsibility of the United

States.

The review and acceptance by the International Working Group for PS 8 of the draft document, "Hexagonal Weights-Accuracy Class

M3—100 grams to 20 kilograms", to be submitted for action by the

6th International Conference.

A decision by the PS 8 International Working Group that all of the

IRs applicable to weights be combined, if possible, into one IR. This

is the responsibility of the U.S.

Daryl Guensler, attended a meeting of the International Working

Group for PS 5, "Measures of Liquid Volumes". The results of this

meeting are as follows:

A decision to submit to PS 5/RS 13 collaborators for vote certain

revisions to IR 5, "Meters for Liquids (other than water), with measuring chambers". The U.S. position on this revision is to "abstain"

for the following reasons:

(1) A refusal on the part of the Co-RS, France and the Federal

Republic of Germany, to accept an amendment to the scope of

this document to include electronic devices. The Co-RS refused

to accept this amendment on the basis that electronic technology reliability has not yet been proven, consequently more study

and data are necessary to determine if electronic equipment

should be included or if new and different requirements need

be developed.

(2) A recommendation of the U.S. that meters for certain measuring applications need only be designed to operate over a 5:1

218
flow rate ratio rather than the all inclusive 10:1 ratio was not

accepted by the Co-RS.

The review and acceptance by PS 5 International Working Group

of a draft document, "Measuring Assemblies for Liquids, other than

water, Equipped with Volume Meters". This draft is to be circulated

to the PS 5/RS 13 collaborators and if accepted, submitted for action

by the Sixth International Conference.

The U.S. position on this revision is to "abstain" because a field test for the performance evaluation of an air separator, submitted

by the U.S., was not accepted by the Co-RS.

Both S & T members expressed the view that there is a tremendous

resource of knowledge and information in OIML and the NCWM

participation in OIML should prove mutually beneficial.

(Item 313-2 was adopted)

313-3 SMA Recommendation for a Legal Metrology Control

System Aplicable to the U.S.

The committee received this 26-page document, but time did not

permit a complete review and consequently the committee cannot

offer any comments on it. The committee feels that this material

should be reviewed by all Conference members and has requested the

author to present this paper at this Conference.

(Item 313-3 was adopted)

313-4 Nonretroactive Requirements to be Reviewed

In accordance with the rules stated in the Introduction, Part 6. Classification of Requirements, each nonretroactive requirement is to be reviewed after it has been effective for a period of 10 years or more to determine the appropriateness of changing that status to retroactive. This 10-year interval is provided to prevent any severe economic hardship on device manufacturers and owners, and is generally considered to be a sufficient time for those devices in use at the time of the adoption of a nonretroactive paragraph to be replaced

by normal attrition. This is not always the case, however; therefore

it is imperative that all persons with information which can aid the

Conference in determining the appropriateness of a change in status

of any of these paragraphs provide the committee with that information as soon as possible.

The following is a list of nonretroactive requirements which have

been in effect for 10 years or more:

219
313-4.1 General Code

G-S 1. Identification.—That part of this paragraph requiring a

nonrepetitive serial number has been nonretroactive since 1968.

313-4-2. Code for Scales

S.2.3. Level Indicating Means.—That part of this paragraph re- quiring a level indicating means on portable scales has been nonretroactive since 1969.

313-43. S.4.3. Multiple Load Receiving Elements.—This paragraph has been nonretroactive since 1969.

313-4.4 S.6.3. Marking Requirements/For Livestock, Vehicle

and Railway Track Scales Only.—This paragraph which

requires the marking of the sectional capacity has been

nonretroactive since 1969.

313-4.5 Code for Liquid Measuring Devices

S.2.2. Provision for Sealing.—That part of this paragraph re- quiring the adjusting mechanism to be readily accessible for affix- ing a security seal has been nonretroactive since 1965.

313-4.6 Code for Vehicle-Tank Meters

S.2.2 Provision for Sealing.—(The same as S.2.2. above.)

313-4.7 Code for Farm Milk Tanks

S.2.2.1. Level Indication Means/On a Stationary Tank.—Certain portions of this paragraph dealing with spirit levels have been

nonretroactive since 1969.

313-4.8 Code for Milk Bottles

S.4.1. Marking Requirements/Capacity.—That part of this paragraph regarding the location of this marking has been nonretroactive since 1969.

313-4.9 S.4.2. Identification.—This paragraph requiring the

year of manufacture to be marked has been nonretroactive since

1966.

313-4.10 Code of Wire- and Cordage-Measuring Devices

220
S.3.3. Design of Measuring Elements/Accessibility.—This paragraph concerning the accessibility of the measuring elements for cleaning purposes has been nonretroactive since 1969.

The committee recommends items 313-4.2 (S.2.3) and 313^.4 (S.6.3.) to be made retroactive.

(Item 313-4 was adopted)

313-5 Code for Belt-Conveyor Scales

Interest has been expressed in obtaining input relative to the per- formance of belt-conveyor scales and the possibility of reducing tol- erances. All interested parties are requested to provide data to the

S & T Committee prior to December 15, 1979, and the Committee

will include its recommendations in the next tentative report for action by the 65th NCWM.

(Item 313-5 was adopted)

The committee expresses its appreciation to all who have contributed to and participated in the development of this report. It is only

through this cooperative effort that the Conference can continue to attain uniform and equitable model standards.

J. R. Bird, Chairman, New Jersey

D. A. Guensler, California

G. L. Delano, Montana

F. C. Nagele, Michigan

L. H. Degrange, Maryland

O. K. Warnlof, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. Wollin, Executive Secretary, NCWM

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

(On motion by the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on Specifications

and Tolerances voting key items 300 through 313-5 was adopted in its entirety as amended by the Conference. The results of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized

in the table that follows. The Conference also authorized the Executive Secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference,

provided that the requirements thus adopted are strictly adhered to.)

221
Voting Results—Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

House of State Voting Key Representatives House of Delegates

Yes INO Yes XNo

300 44 o 61 o 301-1 ) 301-2 > 44 1 76 o 301-3 j 301—4 44 0 75 o 302-1 45 0 76 o 302—2 45 o 76 o 302-3 ) 302-4 > 44 1 75 1 302-5 ) 302-6 15 30 20 55 302-7 ) 302-8 > 45 o 81 o 302-9 ) 302-10

302-11 302-12

44 1 77 0 302-13

302-14 42 1 77 0 302-15 39 o 76 o 302-16 42 1 80 o 303A 9 33 7 70 303 36 2 69 4 304 1 305--1 1 305-2 I 40 0 75 0 306 ) 307-1T 32 9 58 12 307-2

307-3

43 0 72 0 308-1 308-2

37 0 45 3 309 I 311 I 312 I 313-2 > 42 o 72 o 313-3 I 313-4 I 313-5 / 313-1 39 4 70 2 A = AmeiNIment T = Tabled

222
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Presented by Stephen A. Malone, Administrator, Division of

Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, State of

Nebraska

(Thursday, July 26, 1979)

VOTING KEY

400 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs submits its final

report to the 64th National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report consists of

the tentative report as offered in the Confer- ence Announcement, and as amended by the

final report. The report represents recommendations of the committee that have been

formed on the basis of written and oral com- ments received during the year and oral presentations made during

the open meeting of the committee.

401 NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

Mr. Anthomy Ladd of Akron, Ohio, who served as the national

chairman for the week, is sincerely commended by the committee for the outstanding display of leadership that he portrayed in his very

successful effort to secure promotional materials. Also a special salute

to Mr. Ladd for his work in gaining recognition by the U.S Congress

and other high government officials of this week that is so important

in the furthering of weights and measures work.

Mr. Ladd has been in contact with Mrs. Esther Peterson, Special

Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, eliciting her support

in having the President of the United States issue a proclamation

officially proclaiming March 17, National Weights and Measures

Week. Mr. Ladd also contacted all of the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and many of the larger cities and

counties, plus the four regional conferences, concerning weights and

measures week.

The committee gives special recognition and thanks to the four

regional coordinators, namely, Mr. Elwood Corson, of Cape May, New

Jersey, representing the Northeast Conference; Mr. Bruce Adams of

223
St. Cloud, Minnesota, representing the Northwest Conference; Mr.

James Blackwood of Texas, representing the Southern Conference;

and Mr. Joseph Jones of Riverside, California, representing the Western Conference.

The committee would like to personally thank Tom Stabler of Toledo Scale, Fred Katterheinrich of Hobart Corporation, Bob Callihan

of Fairbanks Weighing Division, Colt Industries, and Ray Lloyd of

Scale Manufacturers Association, not only for their individual efforts and help, but also for the excellent promotional materials they pro- vided for all of the coordinators for National Weights and Measures

Week.

Due to the resignation from State service of Mr. Walter Junkins

and in order to assure the continuity of future successful "Weights

and Measures Week" the committee is happy to announce that Mr.

Robert Walker of Indiana has very graciously accepted the chairmanship for "National Weights and Measures Week" for the year of

1980. In recognition of the outstanding acceptance of the theme "Weights

and Measures is Consumer Protection," the committee voted unanimously to continue this theme for 1980.

(Item 401 was adopted)

402 PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES

1. The committee's supply of Conference neckties was completely

sold out at the 63rd NCWM. The committee appreciates the

support of the Conference members on this project.

2. Approximately half of the committee's supply of Conference

membership plaques were sold during the 63rd National Conference. The remaining 100 plaques will be offered for sale at $5.00 each during the 64th Conference in Portland.

(Item 402 was adopted)

403 NEW WEIGHTS AND MEASURES FILM

Since the release of the film, "The Marketplace", over 1200 loan

requests have been honored which resulted in a total audience of over 46,000 people. It has also been viewed nationally on commercial and

education television. Many requests have been received by local and

State jurisdictions for purchase of the film.

The committee wishes to call attention to a change in the company

and address for the loan requests for the film. Beginning September

1, 1979, all loan requests for "The Marketplace" should be directed

to:

224
Modern Talking Picture Service

5000 Park Street North

St. Petersburg, Florida 33709

This change applies to loan requests only; purchase information

remains the same.

(Item 403 was adopted)

404 NATIONAL CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP PROPOSAL

In furtherance of our goal of professionalism in weights and measures, the committee has reviewed a new membership proposal for this

Conference.

The objective of this proposal is to offer membership in the Conference to all weights and measures officials, interested industry and

government officials, users and consumers, and other persons interested in the objectives and activities of the Conference.

In addition, this proposal will provide a mechanism to insure that

all of the members of the Conference, whether in attendance or not,

will receive an appropriate membership card and all yearly outputs

of the Conference, including a new NBS Handbook 44, copies of the

Model Laws and Regulations, Conference proceedings, tentative committee reports and any other appropriate material.

It is the committee's sincere belief that this proposal, by providing a much wider dissemination of Conference information, will create the basis of increased nationwide uniformity and professionalism of

the membership.

The committee strongly endorses this proposal and urges that the

necessary steps be taken by the Conference to implement these

changes as soon as possible.

(Item 404 was adopted)

405 HANDBOOK OF STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES

Mr. Ed Wolski of Colgate-Palmolive Company met with the committee and discussed at length the need for a pamphlet dealing with

Basic Statistical Data to be used as a resource for weights and measures officials in conducting enforcement activities. At the committee's request, Mr. Wolski developed a pamphlet entitled "Statistics Made Uncomplicated" which was reviewed by the

committee and briefly discussed by Mr. Wolski during the committee's

open hearing.

In this same area, an informative slide presentation was given by

Mr. Steve Hasko of the NBS Office of Weights and Measures entitled

"Confidence in Package Checking Results." Both Mr. Wolski and Mr.

Hasko conducted an open meeting on new package control procedures

at which time the pamphlet was distributed and questions answered.

225
The committee commends Mr. Wolski and Colgate Palmolive and

Mr. Hasko of NBS for their important contributions to this project.

(Item 405 was adopted)

406 PROPOSED OWM NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

The Committee has long recognized the need for a uniform nationwide training program for weights and measures officials. Education

is the cornerstone of professionalism. With this truth in mind, it is the intent of this committee to foster professionalism by establishing

the basis for continuing education and training.

The committee has reviewed and endorses the following proposed

OWM Training Program. The success of this program depends upon

its acceptance by, and the full cooperation of, the members of the four

regional weights and measures conferences.

History

The U.S. is the only country in the world in which weights and

measures enforcement is not a Federal function but a State and local responsibility. With this system, the need for central coordination

and direction is obvious. The National Bureau of Standards (NBS),

through its Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), serves State and

local weights and measures officials much as a trade association serves its membership. Weights and measures officials must rely on NBS to furnish needed interpretations and explanations of National

Conference Laws and Regulations which serve as the basis for uniform

control throughout the U.S. The OWM staff members serve as staff assistants to the various standing committees of the Conference and

consequently this information is not available elsewhere. New technology in the form of electronics, digital indicators, and computers

facing the weights and measures officials today makes assistance

from NBS essential.

All of the States today have weights and measures laws, most of

which are patterned after the Model Weights and Measures Law

developed by the National Conference. Mississippi was the last State

to enact their law in 1966. The enactment of uniform laws and reg- ulations are the direct result of the OWM training effort. The training

program serves as a catalyst for adoption of uniform laws and pro- cedures and has been cited as an outstanding example of FederalState cooperation in a vital area of commerce. The benefactors of the program in addition to the more than 3,000

weights and measures officials include manufacturers, service per- sonnel, users, and consumers since the objective of the program is to attain a fair and equitable marketplace.

226
In recent efforts to broaden the impact of the program and to spread our limited resources further, industry service personnel have been

invited to participate in our seminars, both as instructors and stu- dents. An effort is also being made to group adjoining States together

where possible to form regional training groups. Six such regional

groups exist today in the Northeast, Northwest, South, and West.

Under this plan a different State in each group hosts the seminar

each year with all of their field staff participating and as many of- ficials as possible from the other States in the region. Industry officials with National responsibility have been willing to participate in as- signed specific areas as instructors in our regional seminars.

Objectives

1. To develop and conduct a nationwide training program that will

offer OWM training on a completely equitable basis to all of the

State and local jurisdictions. In the past OWM training has been

conducted on an "as requested" basis with some of the jurisdictions receiving training each year and others receiving little or no training. This type of program is not considered to be making

the best use of our resources and has not produced the desired

results on a nationwide basis.

2. To seek the help and support of the National Conference Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs in

implementing and gaining Conference endorsement of this pro- gram.

The OWM training program is of vital interest and concern to the

Committee and has been discussed at length during recent Committee

meetings. All involved agree that OWM can spread their resources

further by grouping States together into regional groups for the purpose of training and including local scale and meter service personnel

as participants. The Committee has also endorsed the practice of

including industry officials as instructors in certain specific areas.

3. Seek the help and support of the four regional conference committees on education on a continuing basis to implement and

improve the program. Each of the regional committees (Northeast, Southern, Northwest and Western) will be asked to develop

as a continuing program the implementation of this program.

4. Promote a much closer working relationship between the National Conference Committee on Education and the four regional

conference committees in all areas of mutual interest such as the National Training Program, Weights and Measures Program

Evaluation, and National Weights and Measures Week.

227
The regional committees can provide a valuable and necessary service

to their respective memberships and assist in promoting uniformity

nationally by working closely with the National Conference in these

important areas.

Implementation and Timetable

Beginning in 1979, Mr. R. N. Smith, Manager of OWM Training

and Staff Assistant to the National Conference Committee on Education, Administration and Consumer Affairs will attend each of the

four regional conferences for the purpose of outlining the program

and asking for assistance in the following areas.

1. Ask each State in the region to name a State Training Officer or other person to act as coordinator of training in the State and

be the OWM and Conference contact on all matters related to training. This person would also manage continuing in-house

training for State and local officials in the State.

2. Assist OWM in forming regional State groups in those areas where they do not already exist. See the attached list of existing

and proposed groups. Under this plan one State in the regional

group agrees to host the training school each year on a rotating

basis, affording the opportunity for all of the host State officials and supervisory personnel from the other States in the group to j attend. This plan will guarantee the opportunity for all officials in each State in the group to attend periodically depending on

the size of the group.

3. Assist OWM in setting up training sessions for the training

officials during the regional conferences and workshop sessions

at the National Conference similar to the Metrologists' Workshop. This phase of the program is targeted to start during 1981.

4. Assist OWM in developing State "Profiles" for each State in the

regional conference. These "Profiles" would contain information

regarding number of inspectors, level of enforcement activity,

testing standards and equipment, program areas, needs, and

levels of training. This phase of the program will, of necessity,

be conducted on a continuing basis.

! 5. Work with OWM and National Conference in developing uniform "in-house" training programs for both new and experienced

officials.

228

1
Conclusion

The total program, with expected cooperation from all involved,

will be completely operational by 1984 and should do much to upgrade

and standardize commercial weights and measures activity in the

U.S. Rapidly changing new technology and merchandising methods,

ever changing and expanded legal requirements, and the fact that we

have over 700 independent weights and measures jurisdictions in this

country, make imperative the development of a uniform level of training for all officials.

Attachment

List of existing and proposed regional training groups.

Existing Regional Groups

1. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont

2. Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida

3. Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado

4. Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota

5. Utah, Arizona, New Mexico

6. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska

Proposed Future Regional Groups

7. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island

8. Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio

9. Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia

10. North Carolina, South Carolina

11. Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky

12. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois

13. Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana

14. Hawaii, California, Nevada

15. Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands

16. New Jersey, Delaware, District of Columbia

(Item 406 was adopted)

229
407 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PROGRAM EVALUATION

In accordance with the timetable approved by the 63rd NCWM, the

committee submits the following criteria for program evaluation.

1. Laws and Regulations

1.1 National Conference on Weights and Measures models. Is jurisdiction's law comparable to the Model State Weights

and Measures Law or the Model Weights and Measures Ordinance, as the case may be, and does it contain the basic

provisions found therein?

A. Does the law provide for uniformity with other jurisdictions by adopting NBS Handbook 44 for Commercial

Weighing and Measuring Devices and does a recognized

package control program exist?

B. The law must also provide adequate enforcement provisions.

1.2 Regulations of the jurisdiction should be evaluated on an

individual basis to see if they provide the Department with

the tools needed to enforce the requirements of the law that

are not spelled out.

A. These regulations must provide for uniformity; therefore, they should be comparable to the model regulations

adopted by the National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

B. All other regulations adopted by the jurisdiction must

provide for good weights and measures enforcement;

however, they must not restrain new technology.

1. What type of review program does the Department

have to update regulations to allow for new technology or inadequacy in regulations?

C. Does a complex library of weights and measures publications exist?

2. Standards

2.1 Laboratory

230
A. Are all NBS-provided standards maintained and handled in accordance with NBS requirements?

B. Is the laboratory enrolled in the NBS laboratory auditing program and maintaining a Class A Rating?

C. Does the laboratory provide the service to the weights

and measures offices?

D. What type and amount of service is provided to business

and industry in the jurisdiction?

E. Are other calibration services provided in addition to mass, length, and volume?

2.2 Field Standards

A. Do adequate field standards to perform the jurisdiction's

responsibilities exist?

B. Are field standards maintained and handled in a proper

manner?

C. Do field standards meet the specifications and tolerances

of NBS Handbook 105-1, 105-2 and 105-3?

D. Are standards traceable? Frequency of calibration?

Personnel—Are all weights and measures positions career positions?

3.1 Administrative

A. Is the administrator a full-time position whose prime

duties are weights and measures?

B. Does the administrator have a thorough knowledge of

all laws and regulations enforced by the Department?

C. Does the administrator coordinate all Department ac- tivities?

D. Does the administrator provide supervision and training

for all field staff?

E. Does the administrator regulate the budget, hire per- sonnel, set policies, etc.?

231
F. Qualifications?

3.2 Clerical

A. Is staff sufficient to handle duties?

B. Does clerical staff have a basic knowledge of the weights

and measures activities?

C. Qualifications?

3.3 Field Staff

3.3.1 Number

A. Are positions full-time?

B. Is staff sufficient to accomplish mission?

C. Does staff include a competent full-time metrologist?

3.3.2 Qualifications

A. Weights and measures employees

1. Minimum of high school education?

2. Mechanical aptitude?

3. Physically qualified?

4. Ability to deal with the public?

5. Communication ability, oral and written?

6. General management skills?

B. Weights and measures supervisors

1. All of the above?

2. Adequate weights and measures field ex- perience?

3. Thorough knowledge of area of responsibility?

232
3.3.3 Training

A. Does an adequate in-house training program

exist?

Budget

4.1 Is Department adequately funded?

4.2 Salary

A. Does salary paid to employees reflect adequate remuneration for that type ofjob based upon the cost of living

for that area?

B. Is the salary adequate to attract qualified people?

C. Is the salary adequate to keep employees on, or is there a large amount of turnover?

4.3 Physical Plant

A. Is the physical plant (lab/office space) adequate enough

to house the weights and measures functions?

B. Is the physical plant in good repair in order to protect

the laboratory standards?

C. Are environmental conditions adequate in order to pro- vide good laboratory and working conditions?

4.4 Supplies

A. Are adequate supplies maintained to keep the field staff

supplied?

B. Are supplies adequate in nature to reflect the work per- formed?

4.5 Equipment

A. Is equipment adequate to perform the duties required

by the laws and regulations?

B. Is equipment in good repair, necessary to handle the

duties required and maintain proper image?

233
5. Administration

5.1 Policy

A. Does the program have a policy statement for:

1. Program conduct (inspection conduct, device adjustment, etc.)?

2. Inaccurate devices and associated equipment?

3. Reinspection policy?

4. Package inspection policy (off-sales, hold, administrative hearings and legal action)?

5. Work policy (planning work areas, travel time, etc.)?

6. Lab policy (scheduling of work)?

7. Type approval?

8. Enforcement?

9. Public education?

5.2 Records

A. Are adequate records maintained?

B. Are they easily accessible?

C. Are records from inspectors properly maintained?

D. Are all other records maintained and complete so as to reflect the activities of the program?

(General correspondence, NBS prototype examination

reports, OIML recommendations, metric activities,

NCWM correspondence and activities, and all other in- formation that may be required.)

5.3 Planning

A. Does the Department have a comprehensive plan which

sets goals and objectives for the Department?

234
B. Do these goals and objectives correspond with budget

request information in order to provide for personnel,

salaries, equipment, expenses, etc.?

C. Does the Department's field staff have a work plan for their individual areas?

D. Does the administrator review these plans?

Training

A. Does the Department have a written training program

for the new employees? Does the program include:

1. Laws and regulations?

2. Departmental policies?

3. Personal conduct and appearance?

4. Handbook 44 and all other technical information

necessary for the position?

5. Type and amount of field training using the above

requirements?

B. Are all employees given group training dealing with new

technology, specifications and tolerances, problem areas, departmental policies, etc.?

C. Does the Department have an independent training pro- gram where individual employees may advance themselves through education in the weights and measures

field?

D. Is training uniform?

E. Is NBS training conducted?

Enforcement

A. Does the Department follow its enforcement?

Test Procedures

A. Does the Department follow recognized test procedures?

235
5.7 Supervision

A. Does the Department provide the needed supervision to the personnel to insure adequate training and uniformity of department activities?

B. Is supervision at a level to assure that the laws and j regulations are being enforced as prescribed?

C. Does supervision encompass the education of industry,

users, and the general public concerning the weights and

measures laws and regulations, as well as the benefits

of the weights and measures activities?

5.8 Cost Benefit

A. Does the Department utilize cost benefit data?

B. Has the Department researched new methods of inspection to see if the cost of the program can be used to provide more benefits to the consumer and industry?

5.9 Public Education

A. Does the Department follow its public education policy?

The committee feels that the above criteria will provide the basis

for a much needed resource tool for program review and improvement.

Conference members are urged to give careful consideration and

support to this program.

The committee appreciates the many oral and written suggestions

for improving the Program Evaluation Criteria. However, the committee would like to stress that this is a pilot program. The Criteria

developed is not set in concrete, it is subject to continual change and

review as the need arises. The committee continues to solicit the

comments and recommendations for improving the present criteria. Following the first pilot run, several changes and additions will probably be necessary.

(Item 407 was adopted)

236
S. A. Malone, Chairman, Nebraska

S. J. Darsey, Florida

R. W. Walker, Indiana

A. J. Ladd, Ohio

S. L. Swanson, Arkansas

R. N. Smith, Staff Assistant, NBS

H. F. Wollin, Exec. Secy., NCWM

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs, voting key items 400 through 407 was adopted

in its entirety by the Conference. The results of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are

totalized in the table that follows. The Conference also authorized the executive sec- retary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, provided that the requirements thus adopted are strictly adhered to.)

Voting Results—Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Voting Key

House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

400 36 0 47 0

401 33 0 49 0

402 37 0 50 0

403 ) 404 I 405 )

36 0 52 1

406 35 1 48 2

407 37 0 50 0

237
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

Presented by Charles H. Greene, Chief, Division of Consumer and

Marketing Services, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, Las

Cruces, New Mexico

(Thursday, July 26, 1979)

VOTING KEY

500 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Liaison submits its re- port to the 64th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The report

consists of the tentative report as offered in

the Conference Announcement and as amended

by this final report. The report represents rec- ommendations 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.

501 PACKAGING

501-1 Multi-Unit, Variety, and Combination Packages

The committee undertook an intensive review of Federal agency

regulations and the NCWM Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation. While the existing regulations do seem to reflect a multiple approach to draftmanship, they also appear to be basically functional if followed with care. The subject regulations of the Model, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) have been in place now for almost ten years. During that time, they have been administered (interpreted) by nu- merous Federal, State, and local officials. Many thousands of labels

have been designed with reference to them and hundreds of millions

of packages have been sold bearing those labels. Since only two jurisdictional disputes have surfaced during the same period of time,

it appears that we are not faced with a need for an amendment of

any of the regulations.

It is the consensus of the Laws and Regulations (L&R) and Liaison

Committees that no changes to the Model State Packaging and La238
beling Regulation be undertaken at this time in relation to this subI ject.

(Item 501-1 was adopted)

501-2 Aerosol Package Labeling

A review of aerosol package labeling regulations was held jointly

with the L&R Committee. Differences between the Model Packaging

j and Labeling Regulation and the FDA interpretations of the Fair

I Packaging and Labeling Act were reviewed with James Taylor of

j FDA. Mr. Taylor indicated that a petition from the NCWM concerning

' this issue may stimulate action on the part of FDA. A suggestion was

also made that such a petition would have more impact if backed up

by petitions from individual States. The committee prepared the fol- lowing petition to FDA by the NCWM concerning the quantity state- ment labeling of aerosol packaged products:

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES' PETITION TO

THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) petitions the Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) to make a change in its regulations pertaining to

i the labeling of aerosol packages of food and cosmetic products and to revise the FDA

Fair Packaging and Labeling Manual Guide (FPLMG) 7563.7, Interpretations of 101.105(g), Quantity of Contents Declarations on Aerosols. We request that the mandatory quantity declaration on the principal display panel of aerosol packaged

products and on similar pressurized packages be limited to statements in terms of net weight only. The National Conference on Weights and Measures was established in 1905 by

the National Bureau of Standards for the purpose of securing and maintaining

uniformity among State weights and measures laws, regulations, and methods of inspection. The Bureau, which is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce,

has continued its sponsorship of the Conference over these many years. The Conference is an organization of State, county, and city weights and measures

officials from throughout the United States. Meetings of the Conference bring to- gether the weights and measures regulatory officials and representatives from business, industry, trade associations, and consumer organizations to hear, discuss, and

take action on matters that relate to weights and measures technology and administration. The actions of NCWM provide the legal and technical basis for our system

of weights and measures in the U.S., and the Conference has been cited on numerous

occasions as a most effective example of Federal/State cooperative effort. In 1961, at the request of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA), a trade association representing most of the aerosol packagers, a change was made in the NCWM Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation specifying that aerosol packaged products be labeled by weight (including the propellant as part of the product). Reasons advanced at that time were that it was the only method

of sale that is practical and can be used successfully in both the filling operation by

the packer and the checking of quantity of contents by regulatory inspection officials. This weight only requirement for aerosols subsequently was adopted into law in many States. Thus, the labeling of aerosol packaged products by weight has been an industry-wide practice since then. About three years ago when the "ozone con239
troversy" was at its peak, a few of the packagers changing over to a less dense

(fluorcarbon-free) propellant decided to label their products by volume. It is safe to assume that this caused confusion in the marketplace because the consumer could not compare quantities labeled by volume (fluid ounces) with those labeled by weight

(avoirdupois ounces). A product labeled as 14 fluid ounces by volume may be only

11 ounces by weight, thus giving undiscerning consumers the impression that they

are getting more product for their money with a package labeled by volume than an

identical product in a package labeled by weight.

While the consumer can verify the net quantity statement of an aerosol packaged

product labeled by weight with a simple scale, there is no practical way for him or a regulatory official to verify the net quantity statement of such a product when

labeled by volume.

Thus, the NCWM petitions the FDA to make the necessary changes to their reg- ulations and interpretation of § 101.105(g), FPLMG 7563.7 pertaining to the quantity

of contents declaration on aerosol packaged products. It is requested that the net quantity statement on aerosol packaged products or similar pressurized packages

be made in terms of net weight only. The reasons for recommending such changes

are as follows:

1. Net quantity labeling of aerosol packaged products in terms of net weight is a firmly established trade practice for such products.

2. Net quantity labeling of aerosol packaged products in terms of volume is dif- ficult (if not impossible) to verify with consumer verification methods or by

conventional package inspection methods. State or local enforcement action is discouraged by such labeling.

3. Since the labeling of aerosol packaged products by volume cannot be compared

with the labeling of such products in terms of net weight, labeling in terms of volume and weight inhibits value comparisons and causes consumer confusion with respect to the quantity of product the consumer is buying; in effect it can

be a form of deceptive labeling.

4. Uniformity between all State and Federal regulations is highly desirable both from the standpoint of enforcement and for purposes of fair competition in the marketplace. The Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation and the Federal Trade Commission and Environmental Protection Agency Regulations

require net quantity labeling of aerosol packaged products in terms of net

weight.

(Item 501-2 was adopted)

502 FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

502-1 Octane Posting Regulations

At the interim meeting, it was anticipated that on April 1, 1979,

the FTC would require the certification of octane by distributors and

the posting of octane ratings on all gasoline pumps. The requirement

and the date are both set in Public Law 95—297, the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), passed in June, 1978. These require240
ments will exist whether or not the FTC succeeds in the attempt to finalize its proposed regulations. The regulations will specify the specific means of complying with the law. Although the octane posting

rule has no effect on most programs administered by State weights

and measures officials with respect to checking gasoline dispensing

devices for accuracy or octane numbers as they relate to gasoline

grades, the Liaison Committee feels that the conference should be

generally informed about the law and the anticipated FTC rule, if only to be prepared to answer inquiries about it or for some possible

future enforcement demands. Keeping apprised of developments as- sociated with the rule may be advisable. In addition, it will impact on States which have octane certification and posting programs.

The preemption section of PMPA (204) reads as follows:

Sec. 204. To the extent that any provision of this title applies to any act or omission, no State or any political subdivision thereof may adopt, enforce, or continue in effect any provision of any law or regulation (including any remedy or penalty applicable

to any violation thereof) with respect to such act or omission, unless such provision

of such law or regulation is the same as the applicable provision of this title.

It is said to have been so written because States which have pro- grams employing other octane numbers (usually research octane

numbers), which are somewhat higher than those arrived at by using

the (R + M)/2 Method will be forced to change their test methods.

There will be an effect upon State and local jurisdictions having

octane labeling requirements which are not the same as those in this

law. Section 204 prohibits States and other political subdivisions from

enforcing requirements which are not the same as the applicable

provisions of this law. Jurisdictions having octane requirements

should carefully review with their legal advisors the effect of this law.

Notice of availability of the FTC staffs report and recommended

rule was published in the Federal Register in December 1978. The

rule was published in final form on March 30, 1979, in the Federal

Register (Vol. 44, No. 63, Part V, pp. 19160-19172). The rule became

effective June 1, 1979.

The law requires that refiners determine octane ratings of their

products, and certify them to their distributors. The distributor must

pass along the certification to the retailer, unless he blends the gas,

in which case he may have to certify his blend.

A similar procedure, using the labels required to be passed along

by the refiner or the distributor, or recalculating after blending, is set forth for the retailer.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for en- forcement with respect to the accuracy of the certified ratings. The

FTC is also empowered to check records which must be retained for one year by each link in the distribution chain. Neither FTC nor EPA

is in a position to easily enforce the law.

241
Another section of the law requires that in 1980 automobile owners manuals show octane requirements arrived at by the same formula.

The FTC is in need of help from the State and local jurisdictions

in the area of surveillance and testing. Such assistance could occur

at a number of levels. The simplest would be for weights and measures

officials to report to FTC any instances of failure to post octane ratings

by service stations. These would most likely occur during routine

inspections of service station gasoline dispensers. Reports should be

made to the appropriate FTC regional offices as listed: FTC Regional Offices, Addresses, and Telephone Numbers:

2001 Bryan Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 749-3056 11000 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90024

(213) 824-7575 450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

(415) 556-1270 915 Second Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98174

(206)442-4655

Central Office: 6th Street & Penn. Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 523-3598

150 Causeway Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114

(617) 223-6621

26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

(212) 264-1207

118 St. Clair Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

(216) 522-4207 1718 Peachtree Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(404) 881-4836

55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 353-4423

1405 Curtis Street Denver, Colorado 80202

(303) 837-2271 Other levels of assistance would concern jurisdictions that have

octane testing programs and would be interested in cooperating with

FTC in testing or in reporting discrepancies in octane rating.

Mr. Mills offers his assistance in answering any questions con- cerning the FTC rule on octane posting, possible Federal-State co- operation, possible future State octane posting regulations, or any

other related activity. Such communications should be directed to James Mills, Attorney, Division of Energy and Product Information,

Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC, Washington, D.C. 20580, Telephone: 202-724-1491.

502-2

(Item 502-1 was adopted)

NET WEIGHT

502-2-1 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

In a report to the committees in joint session at the 1979 Interim

Meetings, representatives of the USDA indicated that the Depart242
ment was preparing a response to a report by the General Accounting

Office (GAO) to Congress on their Department's 1977 proposed regj ulations. The GAO reported lack of sufficient data to substantiate the

need for the regulation, and requested further study before USDA

promulgated their regulation.

The Liaison Committee recommended that the GAO report be made

j available to all member jurisdictions. It further recommended that

the conference chairman, on behalf of the conference, communicate

NCWM's continued support of the USDA proposed regulations re- quiring net weight at time of sale. As a part of our recommendations, it was suggested that a survey

I approach be used. The survey, to be directed to member jurisdictions,

I would serve two purposes. It would inform members of the current

situation regarding the proposed regulations. It would also provide

a medium for collecting the kind of data USDA says it needs to answer

the GAO report.

All member jurisdictions are urged to analyze the GAO report and

review their own position regarding the proposed USDA net weight

regulations and respond appropriately to the NCWM survey or di- rectly to USDA. Communications to USDA should be directed to

I Charles Handy of the USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative

Services. Contact with Congressional members is also deemed advisable. After the preparation ofthe tentative report, the Committee became

aware of two developments that should be brought to the attention

j of the Conference. The first is that USDA is making a survey of States

to develop a response to the GAO report. The second item is the

availability of a "Net Weight Issue Paper" authored by FDA and

USDA personnel.

(Item 502-2-1 was adopted)

502-2-2 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

A representative of FDA reported that the agency is reviewing its net weight labeling regulations. The review is in the internal draft

stage and not yet available for public information and comment. The

present draft proposal does include recognition of deviations attributable to moisture loss. Representatives of NCWM and the Office of

Weights and Measures (OWM) have met with agency officials since

I the 63rd Annual Conference, expressing the Conference's desire for

| uniformity among Federal and State regulations on net weight, and

emphasizing that regulations should provide for net weight at time

of retail sale.

(Item 502-2-2 was adopted)

243
502-2-3 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) A

[4 An FTC representative informed the committee that the agency | presently perceived no problem and is taking no action. The Liaison

| Committee will continue to keep the conference informed on devel-

| opments in this area. n

(Item 502-2-3 was adopted)

|

502-3 Federal Grain Inspection Service

The Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) is a relatively new

Federal agency of the USDA, charged with overall responsibility for j supervision of grain inspection and weighing. The U.S. Grain Standards Act of 1976 mandates certain courses of action by the Service,

and specifies some areas of permissive activity.

The FGIS consists of four major divisions: Inspection, Weighing,

Compliance, and Standardization. The responsibilities and programs

of the Weighing Division impact directly on many weights and measures jurisdictions. The Specifications and Tolerances Committee of | the NCWM is working with the Weighing Division with respect to [ the Division's development of standards for grain weighing scales. Grain marketing is a complex activity. The exchange functions are mostly carried out in the private sector. The public sector becomes * involved in supervising, monitoring or performing certain functions, pj A number of State agencies are involved in such activities as in- fj spection of grain, testing of scales, certification of testing standards,

or providing other services. Agencies other than the State or local weights and measures offices are often involved within any one State j or local area. Concerted efforts to achieve and maintain interagency

cooperation are needed. \ The committee met with George Lipscomb, Director ofthe Weighing ( Division, Dick Pforr, Chief of the Scale Testing Branch, and Ben

Banks, Industrial Specialist of the Scale Testing Branch, of the Fed- | eral Grain Inspection Service (FGIS). |j The FGIS representative indicated that they have essentially » adopted NBS Handbook 44 with the exception of tolerances and min-

[ imum division size. In addition, they have expanded in some areas \ such as minimum test requirements where the problem has not been ; addressed. They also stated that NBS Handbook 112, Examination | Procedure Outlines for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices, and NBS Handbook 94, the Examination of Weighing Equipment, were the foundation for the development of their procedures. % The Weighing Division would like very much to cooperate with the

NCWM and its active members in areas ofcommon concern and would

welcome the opportunity to meet individually with those States or \

244
jurisdictions that are concerned or have a problem with the FGIS

program. Such meetings have already been held with six States. They

apologize for the confusion caused by letters sent to weights and

measures jurisdictions. It is their feeling that they do not truly reflect the objectives of the FGIS program. The committee appreciates these assurances and will strive to foster cooperation on the part of the

conference. Member jurisdictions are urged to maintain open lines of

communication with FGIS and its various divisions. It would be most

unfortunate ifjurisdictional disputes were to hamper development of

uniformity to grain weighing and handling.

The Weighing Division (FGIS) is making an effort to attend and

participate in all meetings of the NCWM as well as meetings of the

regional weights and measures associations and the International

Organization for Legal Metrology (OIML). They also indicated that

the FGIS program will be a valuable source of weights and measures

data on a national basis and are willing to share this information

with all concerned.

(Item 502-3 was adopted)

502-4 Sphygmomanometers (Blood Pressure Measuring

Devices)

The committee continues to monitor the situation with regard to sphygmomanometers. Increasing availability of these devices as con- sumer products is of concern to some weights and measures officials. Of special concern are the automatic, coin-operated sphygmomanometers found in public places.

As of now there is no simple, reliable field test method for determining the accuracy of automatic sphygmomanometers. The National

Bureau of Standards Product Performance Engineering Division is preparing a proposal for funding by the National Institutes of Health

to develop physical reference standards and testing methods.

The Association for Advancement of Medical Instrumentation is developing standards for sphygmomanometers. These standards for construction, accuracy, use, and testing will cover consumer and medical applications, both nonautomatic and automatic.

The committee will continue to monitor this area and be prepared

to recommend Conference action when warranted by new developments.

(Item 502-4 was adopted)

502-5 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has

developed a Federal Safety Standard, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

245
No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. The committee met with

Kevin Cavey (NHTSA) concerning the impact of this standard on NBS Handbook 44 (H-44), Code for Odometers. There are differences

in device and test specifications that should be resolved. The committee expressed concern that no effort was made by NHTSA to work

cooperatively in developing uniform device and test specifications.

Mr. Cavey stated that they were unaware of the H-44 code on odometers. He suggested that a memo to the NHTSA administrator stating

the committee's concerns would be the most appropriate approach to follow. The following memo was sent to the NHTSA administrator.

Memorandum for Joan Claybrook, Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

From: Charles Greene, Chairman, Committee on Liaison, NCWM

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and

Odometers

Thank you for the assistance provided to our organization by Mr.

Kevin Cavey who answered many questions at a meeting with the

Liaison Committee ofthe National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Since one objective of our Conference is to assure uniformity, we are

gratified to learn that your Speedometer and Odometer Standard

§571.27, Standard No. 127, is consistent with NBS Handbook 44,

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices, Code for Odometers,

in most areas except as follows:

S4.2.2 states in the first sentence "Each odometer shall be capable

of indicating distance traveled either, at the manufacturer's option,

(1) from 0 to not less than 99,999 miles in 1-mile units, or (2) from

0 to not less than 99,999 kilometers in 1-kilometer units, or (3) both."

It is the use of 1-mile or 1-kilometer units as the minimum unit of measure that is not in agreement with NBS H-44 standards. This

lack of uniformity could be eliminated by amending S4.2.2 to read

as follows:

"Each odometer shall be capable of indicating distance traveled either, at the manufacturer's option, (1) from 0 to not less than 99,999 in 1/10 mile units, or (2) from 0 to not less than 99,999 kilometers in 1/10 kilometer units, or both."

It is our opinion that the 1/10 mile or 1/10 kilometer indication on an odometer is essential to permit calibration of odometer distance measurements. The failure to require 1/10 mile or 1/10 kilometer indications on odometers will increase by a magnitude of 10 any distance which must be traveled in order to perform cali- bration. This could result in enormous waste of energy, time, and money.

246
The test procedures specified in the Code for Odometers (H—44) are a result of many years of weights and measures experience in automotive vehicle odometer

proving. They have been used successfully by many State and local weights and

measures officials in the examination and test of rental vehicle odometers. We are greatly interested in promoting uniformity in areas impacting on weights

and measures activities and would like to cooperate with your agency whenever

possible. We would be happy to share our information and experience in subject areas covered by this standard or any future standard concerned with commercial

measuring devices.

(Item 502-5 was adopted)

503 METRIC SPELLING ISSUE

The committee met jointly with the L & R committee to develop

the following consensus and resolution concerning the spelling of

meter and liter.

The NCWM favors the adoption and implementation of the In- ternational System of Units of weights and measures (metric con- version) in the United States in accordance with a national policy.

Furthermore, the Conference is convinced that the conversion to the International System will be facilitated and encouraged by the

standardization of the vocabulary used.

For this reason the Conference has in past years formally urged a

national policy of using the "re" rather than "er" spelling in words

such as "metre" and "litre." The "re" spelling is used by most and

possibly all English speaking weights and measures communities

outside the United States.

In addition to the advantage of international uniformity, the "re" spelling of "metre" serves to differentiate the term from the phonetically identical word ("meter") which describes a common measuring device.

However, after due deliberation the United States Department of

Commerce and the United States Metric Board have officially

adopted the "er" spellings of "meter" and "liter," thereby creating a conflict with the policy of the Conference.

Though the Conference respectfully disagrees with the decisions

of the Department and the Board, the Conference remains committed to uniformity and believes that uniformity within the United

States is even more important than uniformity in relation to the

vocabulary used by other countries.

247
For the stated reason the Liaison committee and the L & R committeejointly recommend that the following resolution be presented

to the next annual Conference for adoption.

"Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures

has preferred the use of the "re" spelling of "metre" and "litre" to serve the objectives of international uniformity and to differ- entiate between the unit of measure and the metering device;

and

whereas, the United States Department of Commerce and the

United States Metric Board have officially adopted the "er" spelling of "meter" and "liter," thereby creating a conflict with the

policy of the National Conference; and

whereas, the National Conference believes that progress in the

adoption of the International System of Units will be impeded if such conflicts are not held to a minimum

it is therefore resolved, that the National Conference on Weights

and Measures will hereafter use the "er" spelling rather than the

"re" spelling of International Units such as "meter" and "liter" so long as the objective of national uniformity is served; provided,

however, that for purposes of the application of model laws and

regulations of the National Conference, the use of the "re" spelling in trade shall continue to be permissible."

(After considerable discussion on this item, a motion was made to amend the item

as follows:) The NCWM favors the adoption and implementation of the Inter- national System of Units of weights and measures (metric conversion) in the United States in accordance with a national policy.

Furthermore, the Conference is convinced that the conversion to the International System will be facilitated and encouraged by the

standardization of the vocabulary used.

For this reason the Conference has in past years formally urged a national policy of using the "re" rather than "er" spelling in words

such as "metre" and "litre." The "re" spelling is used by most and

possibly all English speaking weights and measures communities

outside the United States.

In addition to the advantage of international uniformity, the "re" spelling of "metre" serves to differentiate the term from the phonetically identical word ("meter") which describes a common measuring device.

248
The Conference takes note of the fact that the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Metric Board have

officially adopted the "er" spellings of "meter" and "liter," thereby

creating a conflict with the policy of the Conference.

The Conference respectfully disagrees with the decisions of the

Department and the Board. It remains committed to uniformity

and believes that in English speaking countries uniform spelling,

like uniform usage, is important if we are to achieve the ultimate

goal of a uniform international system of measurement.

For the stated reasons, the Conference recommends that the fol- lowing resolution be adopted:

"Whereas, the National Conference onWeights and Measures has

preferred the use of the "re" spelling of "metre" and "litre" to serve the objectives of international uniformity and to differentiate between the unit of measure and the metering device; and

whereas, the United States Department of Commerce and the

United States Metric Board have officially adopted the "er" spelling of "meter" and "liter", thereby creating a conflict with the

policy of the National Conference; and

whereas, the National Conference believes that progress in the

adoption of the International System of Units will be impeded if such conflicts are not held to a minimum

now, therefore, be it resolved that the National Conference on Weights and Measures respectfully request that the Department

of Commerce and the United States Metric Board reconsider their

adoption of the "er" spelling, in the interest of uniformity in this

country and with other English speaking countries; and

be it further resolved that the Department of Commerce be pe- titioned to use the "re" spelling of the word metre (and litre) in

all printing of documents published on behalf of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures."

(Item 503 was adopted as amended)

504 TASK FORCE ON GRAIN MOISTURE MEASUREMENT

ASSURANCE

Pursuant to a recommendation of the committee adopted by the

63rd NCWM, a Grain Moisture Measurement Assurance Task Force

249
(GMMATF) was formed. The initial meeting took place during the

Southern Weights and Measures Conference in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The second meeting was convened during the Interim Committee

Meetings in January. > Regional Coordinators have been named: Sydney Colbrook, Illi- f nois, representing the Northeastern Weights and Measures Associ- , ation (NEWMA); Jim O'Connor, Iowa, representing the Northwest

Weights and Measures Association (NWMA); Charles Greene, New j Mexico, representing the Western Weights and Measures Association

(WWMA); and Sam Hindsman, Arkansas, representing the Southern

Weights and Measures Association (SWMA). Mr. Hindsman was

C

elected national coordinator by the group during the interim meetings.

The Task Force has recommended to the L & R Committee a model

State regulation on grain moisture meters. (See the L & R report for [ details.)

Input regarding the above proposal, or any other matter which

ought to concern the Task Force, is earnestly sought from member

jurisdictions, other State and Federal agencies, users and manufacturers of moisture meters. Anyone who has an interest in this vitally

important area is encouraged to participate in Task Force meetings.

A second meeting was held during the 64th NCWM at Portland, j, Oregon, July 24, 1979.

The Task Force set the following priorities for action:

• the evaluation of the reference standard for moisture content,

especially for corn and soybeans;

• the establishment of laboratory and field standard procedures to , be used to test grain moisture meters;

! • the evaluation of the capabilities of the grain moisture meters

j in order to set reasonable tolerances at the national level.

The task Force will:

• issue a letter to the appropriate Federal agencies requesting immediate evaluation of the reference standard for moisture es- pecially for corn and soybeans;

j • conduct workshops to demonstrate and discuss the lab and field testing procedures and data collection required in order to eval- i uate the capabilities of the grain moisture meters. All interested

parties will be invited to attend and participate. A Task Force

250
meeting is scheduled in Washington, D.C. during the week of

January 14-18, 1980.

(Item 504 was adopted)

505 OTHER ITEMS

505-1 Ice-glazed Seafoods

The agreement of FDA and the National Marine Fisheries Service on test procedures is a prerequisite before further action is contemplated.

(Item 505-1 was adopted)

505-2 Political Action

The Conference continues to meet challenges on which positions

should be taken on behalf of its members. For example, the entire area of Federal regulations on net weight labeling is of broad concern. The committee is proposing that a mechanism or program be initiated

by which a systematic and thorough approach to developing such

positions can be undertaken. A proposal will be circulated when available.

(Item 505-2 was adopted)

505-^3 U.S. Metric Board

Conference members have urged this Committee to initiate action

whereby the Conference would approve the filing of a petition on

behalf of the Conference requesting the United States Metric Board

to include in its first report to Congress a recommendation that legislation be introduced to amend federal laws to permit labeling in

metric units only, in accordance with an orderly and voluntary conversion.

The Committee believes that such a petition would be consistent

with previously adopted policies ofthe Conference and therefore offers the following resolution for adoption:

Resolution to the U.S. Metric Board

on Amendment of Federal Laws

Whereas, existing federal statutes such as the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act have been cited as legal barriers to the voluntary use

of labels declaring quantity of contents in metric units only; and

251
whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures does

support an orderly and voluntary conversion to the use of the metric

system in the United States; and

whereas, the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 created the United

States Metric Board for the purpose of pursuing and implementing

such a conversion; and

whereas, it is the responsibility of the Metric Board to make rec- ommendations to the Congress and the President of the United

States to initiate legislation which may be appropriate to facilitate conversion to the metric system:

Now therefore, be it resolved that the National Conference on Weights and Measures does hereby petition the United States Metric Board to include in their first report to Congress and to the

President a recommendation that all federal statutes governing the

expression of quantity declarations in connection with the distribution and sale of articles in commerce, such as the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act, be amended to permit such declarations in metric

units only pursuant to an orderly and voluntary conversion.

(Item 505-3 was adopted)

C.H. Greene, Chairman, New Mexico

C.E. Forester, Texas

T.A. Hocin, Chicago, Illinois M.S. Thompson, Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee, &

Hastings, Ltd.

J. Wilson, Federal-State Report, Inc.

S. Hasko, Staff Assistant, NBS

H.F. WOLLIN, Executive Secretary, NCWM

Committee on Liaison

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on Liaison voting key items 500 through 505-3 was adopted in its entirety and as amended by

the Conference. The results of the voting in the House of State Representatives and

the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows. The Conference also authorized the executive secretary to make any

appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, provided

that the requirements thus adopted are strictly adhered to.)

252
Voting Results—Committee on Liaison

L 1UUOC v/1 La LC Voting Key Representatives House of Delegates Yes No Yes No

500 38 0 63 0

501-1 ) 501-2 j 41 0 58 0

502-1

502-2—1 J 502-2—2 > 42 A 60 1 502-2-3 )

502-3 ) 502-^

[ 41 0 62 1 502-5 )

503 34 6 64 6 503A 34 8 63 8

504 42 0 59 0

505-1 \

505-2 {

43 0 58 0

505-3 38 1 52 4

\—amendment.

253
REPORTS OF THE—ANNUAL COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ,

Presented by Kendrick J. Simila, Conference Chairman, , Administrator, Weights and Measures Division, Department of , Agriculture, State of Oregon ,

(Thursday, July 26, 1979)

VOTING KEY

600 INTRODUCTION

'

The Executive Committee submits its final

report for consideration by the 64th National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

601 NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND

COORDINATION COMMITTEE ITEMS I)

The following four items were referred from the Committee on

National Measurement Policy and Coordination (P & C) as detailedrj

in the tentative report of the P & C Committee.

The P & C Committee included these items on the agenda for the! interim meetings so that consideration of the items at that time by,

the Committee, and in joint session with members of other standing;

committees who attend the interim meetings would allow for the!; development and reporting on such items in the Committee's tenta|

tive report and publication in the Announcement Booklet.

9 601-1 REVISION OF VOTING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS TO \i DEBATE AND ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO COMMITTEE FINAL REPORTS,

1 The P & C Committee reviewed and discussed proposals from ay regional association to modify the Conference voting system require-;,

ments with respect to debating and adopting amendments to com-r miteee final reports. The proposals were to reduce the % majority^

requirement of those voting in each case down to a simple majority.

A number of points were brought out in the discussion which sup- ported each side of this issue. Principal arguments for the proposals were based on concerns that, (a) the will of a majority of the states and delegates to debate and adopt an amendment can now be thwarted

254
by the % requirement, and, (b) the % requirement results in extraorI dinary power residing with a committee to change the sense of an

I item after the open meeting, since such a change is then protected

' by a % vote to undo it. Principal arguments against the proposals were based on concerns

that, (a) the current % requirements are still so new, having been

used only at the last conference, that it is too soon to evaluate their true validity, and, (b) the % requirements are appropriate and nec- essary to prevent unwise and spur-of-the moment amendments from

I being adopted when emotions run high.

The Committee unanimously supported the proposed change for a

' simple majority of the voting delegates to approve debating a proposed

amendment to a final committee report. In a split vote, the Committee

also favored a change from the % requirement for passage of amendments to the present voting requirements of each House on motions.

The Committee recommends the adoption of these proposals for imj plementation next year.

(During the voting on this item an amendment was made to retain the % requirement

| for passage of amendments. The amendment passed and Item 601-1 was adopted as amended)

601-2 RECOGNITION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

JURISDICTIONS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF INDIAN TRIBES

| The unique situation of lack of specific guidance in Conference

j voting procedures for U.S. Indian Tribes, such as the Navajo Nation, was brought before the P & C Committee for discussion. It was mentioned that in the case of the Navajo Nation, (a) they do operate their own weights and measures programs, (b) they are separate from and

not governed by the weights and measures laws of the three States

within which their reservation lies, and (c) they are not a Federal

agency (the Bureau of Indian Affairs does not run the reservation).

Moreover, a tribal weights and measures representative has been

registering at and attending the National Conference. The Committee, after extended discussion of what the unique status of U.S. Indian

Tribes means and implies, supported by a split vote a proposed change

to the Conference Voting System that would specifically recognize

representatives of U.S. Indian Tribes that have weights and measures

responsibilities as having voting privileges within the House of Del-

| egates. The Committee recommends the adoption of this proposal for

' implementation next year.

i (Item 601-2 was adopted)

601-3 APPOINTMENTS TO STANDING COMMITTEES

The P & C Committee thoroughly discussed a proposal from one of

the regional associations that the four regional associations be given

255
responsibility for appointing or selecting members to serve on the

Conference Standing Committees. Arguments in favor of this role for 3 the regional associations centered on the need for each region to, (a)

f be represented on each Committee, (b) democratically select its own

best representative, and (c) assume a more significant role in NCWM f matters.

Arguments in opposition to the proposal pointed out that, (a) on the

[ whole, the Committee assignments have pretty well been spread out |

{ by OWM to cover each region already, (b) some very good Committee

members, who are unable because of finances to attend the regional

meetings, would be left out of the selection process, and (c) in the case

of the Liaison Committee with only three weights and measures of- ficials, it is not possible for all regions to be represented simultaneously.

To close discussion on the issue, a motion was made to recommend f that the current NBS-OWM based Standing Committee appointment f system be retained. The motion was adopted. It was also the expressed p feeling of the Committee that the Bureau's track record in regard to 1 balancing out Committee assignments was excellent. Moreover, there f is nothing to preclude any regional association which wishes to play

a more active role in the selection process from suggesting or rec- ommending a slate of candidates it would like to see serving on Committees. OWM would welcome such input. 5

The Committee takes this opportunity to remind the Conference

membership of the schedule and plan for the 65th NCWM that will ' be held at the Shoreham-Americana Hotel in Washington, D. C. on June 21-27, 1980. Delegates who attend the Conference next year

1

will have the unique privilege of meeting with weights and measures I officials from the forty-three member nations of the International

| Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) which has scheduled its n International Conference in Washington, D. C. on June 16-20, 1980,

| the week prior to the NCWM. We anticipate that officials from OIML jj will attend and participate in the NCWM sessions and members of

NCWM will likewise be involved in the OIML Conference. This may r well be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity as the OIML holds its con- ference plenary meeting only every four years and the United States

is not likely to host the Conference for many years to come. An update on plans and arrangements for the 1980 OIML/NCWM Conferences f will be provided this summer at the 64th NCWM in Portland.

Because of the earlier meeting of the 65th NCWM in June of 1980,

the Interim Meetings of the Conference Standing Committees have

(Item 601-3 was adopted)

601-^ FUTURE CONFERENCE PLANS

256
been moved up to January 14—18, 1980. All individuals and organizations who plan to attend or provide input to these committees are

j urged to make their reservations and submit proposals or information

I by no later than December 1, 1979.

The Committee heard proposals to hold the 66th NCWM in St. Louis, Missouri on July 12-17, 1981, and the 1982 Conference in

Atlanta, Georgia. Both of these sites met with the approval of the

Committee and others who attended the interim committee meetings

at NBS.lt is recommended that further information be gathered and

plans be developed to hold the NCWM in these cities as proposed.

J The Committee reports that rates have been established for the

| 65th NCWM and the OIML meetings in Washington, D.C., June,

j 1980, at $40-single; $45-double.

Because of the size of the NCWM, arrangements with hotels and

other organizations must be made very far in advance. The Committee

recommends that the 1981 and 1982 locations be made firm so that

negotiations with hotels and other groups may be begun for these

: conferences. The Committee also recommends that the Executive Secretary prepare for presentation to the next conference plans for the

I NCWM five years in advance.

I i (Item 601—4 was adopted)

602 REPORT OF THE ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

(Eric Allen: Chairman—The Measuregraph Co.)

The Associate Membership Committee held its annual meeting

July 22, 1979, at which time items which were to be presented to the

open meeting of the Associate Membership were discussed.

Since there has always been some confusion as to who should attend

the meetings of the Associate Membership Committee it has been

determined that there should be an open meeting of the Associate

Membership, in addition to the Committee meeting.

The committee feels that the conference still does not make full use

of the expertise which is represented by the Associate Membership

and pledges its cooperation to make this expertise available.

The committee expresses its thanks to all who contributed generously in support ofthe Associate Membership sponsored Salmon Bake.

We hope that all those who attend will enjoy the outing in the mountain air.

(Item 602 was adopted)

i

603 OLD BUSINESS

There is no old business on which to report.

257
604 NEW BUSINESS

604-1 Suspension of the Voting Rules J

I Mr. Griffith, NCWM Parliamentarian, reports that a suspension1 ! of the voting rules may be voted upon by the NCWM in order to save ] time in the adoption of certain non-controversial annual committee tj reports (all such committees except Resolutions.) The text of his report

J follows:

Parliamentary Procedure for Orderly Conduct of Business }

As in any deliberative assembly, there are a number of minor or

routine administrative matters, as well as non-controversial issues, I that must be submitted to the main assembly in the forms of motions ''

for subsequent voting and eventual adoption or rejection. In the m-\

terest of dealing with such matters expediently and when it is desired i that the assembly take up a question or do something that would be B in violation of a rule that applies, it can be proposed to Suspend the 1 Rules to permit accomplishment of a desired purpose.

A motion to Suspend the Rules may be made at any time when no

question is pending, or while a question is pending provided it is for a purpose connected with that question. The reason for asking for suspension must be stated. Meeting these criteria, a motion to Suspend the Rules is classified as an Incidental motion.

Incidental motions take precedence over all other motions according

to the following principle: An incidental motion is in order only when

it is legitimately incidental to another pending motion, or when it is legitimately incidental in some other way to business at hand; it then

takes precedence over any other motions that are pending.

Rules that can be suspended are: Priority of Business, Procedure

of Business and Admission to Meetings.

The Presiding Officer or Chairman prior to a grouping of several

minor routine matters or issues or in connection with a main motion i on a specific issue may entertain a motion to Suspend the Rules or

\ any voting member may make a motion to Suspend the Rules. j Once the motion to Suspend the Rules has been made, it:

1. Requires a second.

2. Is Undebatable.

I 3. Is Unamendable.

4. Requires % vote.

5. Cannot be reconsidered.

258
If the motion to Suspend is passed by the required majority then

a Main Motion on the matter or group of matters is in order to properly

dispose of the issue or issues.

If the motion to Suspend is defeated then there is no choice but to handle each individual matter or issue by proper motion, second,

debate and vote.

(Item 604—1 was adopted)

604-2 Assistant Chaplain

In the event either the Conference Chaplain or the Conference

Treasurer may not be able to attend the annual conference, there

would be no one to serve in either of these capacities. Therefore, the

committee recommends the appointment of an Assistant Chaplain.

Reverend Francis Daniels, Indiana, is recommended as Assistant

Chaplain. The NCWM Organization and Procedure brochure will be

modified to reflect this recommendation.

(Item 604—2 was adopted)

604-3 Assistant Treasurer

The Committee also recommends the appointment of an Assistant

Treasurer. The selection of an Assistant Treasurer will be referred

to the incoming Executive Committee. The NCWM Organization and

Procedure brochure will be modified to reflect this recommendation.

(Item 604—3 was adopted)

K. J. Simila, Chairman

E. R. LEEMAN, ViceChairman

N. M Ross, Vice Chairman

J. V. PUGH, Vice Chairman

E. H. Stadolnik, Vice Chairman

A. H. Akey, Treasurer

J. H. Lewis, Chaplain

H. F. Wollin, Exec. Sec.

J. T. Bennett, Connecticut

A. Helgeson, North Dakota

F. W. Daniels, Wade County,

Indiana

G. M. Kennedy, Maine

J. C. Mays, Dade County, Florida

W. R. Mossberg, Los Angeles

County, California

B. W. Sullivan, Jr., Arkansas

A. B. Moody, Jr., Richmond,

Virginia

J. L. O'Neill, Kansas

S. F. Valtri, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania

Executive Committee

259
(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Executive Committee voting'

key items 600 through 604-3 was adopted in its entirety by the Conference. The results of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under

the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows. The Conference)

also authorized the executive secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, provided that the requirements thus adopted

are strictly adhered to.) 1

Voting Results—Executive Committee

House of State Voting Key Representatives House of Delegtes Yes No Yes No

600 43 0 78 o

60 1-1

A

39 4 66 6

601-1 43 0 75 2

601-2 \

601-3 1 601-4 1 602 I 603 / 44 1 78 2 604-1

\

604-2 I 604-3 /

A = Amendment.

260
REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

Presented by Dr. E. C. Heffron, Chairman,Chief, Food Inspection

Division, Department of Agriculture, State of Michigan

Thursday, July 26, 1979 VOTING KEY

700

The following resolutions are presented for consideration of the Conference:

701 RESOLUTION ON THE CONFERENCE

POLICY CONCERNING THE

METRIC CONVERSION OF RETAIL

MOTOR-FUEL DEVICES (GAS PUMPS)

Whereas, the 94th Congress of the United States passed Public Law

94—168 on December 23, 1975, that is cited as the "Metric Conversion

Act of 1975" and which declared a national policy of planning and

coordinating the increasing use of the metric system in the United

States, and established a United States Metric Board to coordinate

the voluntary conversion to the metric system, and

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures, an

organization composed of State and local weights and measures reg- ulatory officers, and other officials of Federal, State, and local governments, and representatives of manufacturers, industry, business,

and consumer organizations has taken a positive stand in support of

metric conversion in the United States as called for in the Act, and

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures has

provided the basis for national uniformity of weights and measures

laws and regulations and has been a major factor in serving the

interests of industry and consumers who need reliable standards of

measurement in the marketplace, and

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures is interested in providing the necessary leadership and guidance to the

States and all others who seek a solution to the problems of design

and price computation of retail motor-fuel devices as prices rise to a

level (over $1.00 per gallon in most cases) that exceed the computing

capabilities of devices now in service, and

Whereas, the U.S. Metric Board conducted hearings on May 2—3,

1979, to determine the feasibility and practicality of converting retail

motor-fuel devices to compute prices on the basis of metric measure- ment and on June 21, 1979, issued a declaration which stated that

261
this is an opportune time for the development of a planned and co- ordinated voluntary program of dispensing gasoline by the liter, and

noted that without taking this action metric usage is likely to proceed in a haphazard fashion, leading to public confusion, disparate

end results and the negation of the positive cost advantages that a

nationally planned and coordinated program offers: Therefore, be it Resolved, that the 64th National Conference on Weights and Measures as assembled during its annual meeting in

Portland, Oregon, on July 22-27, 1979, recommends the encouragement and promotion of the Conference policy concerning the metric

conversion of retail motor fuel devices.

(Item 701 was adopted.)

702 RESOLUTION ON THE CONFERENCE POLICY CONCERNING

THE SPELLING OF THE WORDS METER AND LITER

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures has

provided for uniformity and progress in the use of the metric system

and

Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures has

recognized the necessity to act as a body in a uniform manner:

Therefore, be it Resolved that the 64th National Conference on Weights and Measures act to assimilate and promote the policy of

this Conference concerning the spelling of the words meter and liter.

(Following considerable discussion regarding voting procedures to amend this item, Item 702 was adopted.)

703 SPECIAL THANKS

The Resolutions Committee wishes to express the appreciation of

the 64th National Conference on Weights and Measures to each and

every one who contributed their time and talents towards the ar- rangements for, the conduct of, and participation in this National

Conference. A special vote of thanks goes to:

1. All speakers of the Conference for their expertise, information,

and contributions to the program.

2. All officers and appointed officials of the 64th National Confer- ence on Weights and Measures for their assistance and service

towards a very successful Conference.

3. All committee members for their time and efforts throughout

the past year to prepare and present their reports.

262
4. The governing officials of the State and local jurisdictions for their interest and support in weights and measures administration in the United States.

5. Representatives of business and industry for their cooperation,

assistance, and hospitality.

6. Consumer representatives, members of the public media, and

other participants who have shown their interest and support

for the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

7. The Conference hosts: State of Oregon, City of Portland, and

Ken Simila and his staff of the Oregon Department of Agriculture for their hard work and many hours devoted to insuring a

successful Conference and extremely enjoyable visit to their

beautiful city.

8. The Portland Chamber of Commerce and Convention Bureau for their help at the Registration Desk and assistance on many

Conference details.

9. The staff of the Red Lion Motor Inn for their fine facilities,

assistance, and courtesies which contributed to the enjoyment

and comfort of the delegates.

10. To the National Bureau of Standards and the Office of Weights

and Measures for planning and conducting the work and pro- gram of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

E.C. Heffron, Chairman, Michigan

P.M. Fullinwider, Arizona

S.A. Colbrook, Illinois M.A. Maldonado Garcia, Puerto Rico

J.L. Swanson, Alaska

P.M. Reeves, Tennessee

T.W. Scott, North Carolina

H.F. WOLLIN, Executive Secretary, NCWM

Resolutions Committee

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Resolutions Committee,

voting key items 700 through 703, was adopted in its entirety by the Conference. The

results of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows. The Conference also authorized the executive secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference, provided that the requirements

thus adopted are strictly adhered to.)

263
v UTiwu insults

nesoiuuons i^ommuee

Voting Key

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Yes No Yes No

70U 34 0 43 0

I7A1 7U1 31 0 42 0

lOZ 30 1 48 0

33 0 42 0

264
REPORT OF THE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE

Presented by James F. Lyles, Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Section, State of Virginia

(Thursday, July 26, 1979)

VOTING KEY

800 INTRODUCTION

The Nominations Committee met during

the Conference 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 Nominations Committee submits the following names in nomination for office to serve during the ensuing year and at the 65th

National Conference on Weights and Measures:

Chairman: Charles H. Vincent, Dallas, Texas

Vice Chairmen:

1. James R. Bird, New Jersey

2. Edward Heffron, Michigan

3. Eugene Keeley, Delaware

4. William Sullivan, Seattle, Washington

Treasurer: Allan M. Nelson, Connecticut

Chaplain: John H. Lewis, Washington

Executive Committee:

1. Kenneth R. Adcock, Ohio

2. Marion W. Cain, Virginia

265
3. Robert J. Cord, Prince Georges County, Maryland

4. Ezio F. Delfino, California

5. Patricia M. Fullinwider, Arizona

6. Maria A. Maldonado Garcia, Puerto Rico

7. Robert M. Reeves, Tennessee

8. Edward P. Skluzacek, Minnesota

9. Daniel R. Smith, Santa Clara County, California

10. Fred A. Thomas, Pennsylvania

(There being no further nominations from the floor, the chairman declared nominations closed and requested the Executive Secretary to cast a unanimous ballot for

all nominees).

J.F. Lyles, Chairman, Virginia

R.L. Thompson, Maryland

S.D. Andrews, Florida

J.H. Lewis, Washington

G.L. Johnson, Kentucky

K.R. Adcock, Ohio

K.R. Leeman, Wyoming

Nominations Committee

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Nominations Committee,

voting key item 800, was adopted in its entirety by the Conference. The results of the voting in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Confer- ence voting system are totalized in the table that follows.)

Voting Results—Nominations Committee

Voting Key

House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

800 44 0 79 2

266
LIST OF FORMER NCWM CHAIRMEN

National Chairman

Conference

43rd (1958) J. P.McBride, Director of Standards, Massachusetts

44th (1959) C. M. Fuller, County Sealer of W & M, Los Angeles,

California

45th (1960) H. E. Crawford, Inspector of W & M, Jacksonville, Florida

46th (1961) R. E. Meek, Director, Division of W & M, Board of

Health, Indiana

47th (1962) Robert Williams, County Sealer of W & M, Nassau

County, New York

48th (1963) C. H. Stender, Deputy Commissioner, Department of

Agriculture, South Carolina

49th (1964) D. M. Turnbull, Director, Division of Licenses and

Standards, Seattle, Washington

50th (1965) V. D. Campbell, Chief, Division of W & M, Department

of Agriculture, Ohio

51st (1966) J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of W & M, State Board

of Agriculture, Kansas

52nd (1967) J. E. Bowen, City Sealer of W & M, Newton, Massachusetts

53rd (1968) C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of W & M, Gary, Indiana

54th (1969) S. H. Christie, Deputy State Superintendent, Division

of W & W, Department of Law and Public Safety, New

Jersey

55th (1970) R. W. Searles, Sealer of W & M, Medina County, Ohio

56th (1971) M. Jennings, Director of Marketing, Department of

Agriculture, Tennessee

57th (1972) E. H. Black, Director of W & M, Ventura County, California

58th (1973) George L.Johnson, Director, Division of W & M, Department of Agriculture, Kentucky

59th (1974) John H. Lewis, Chief, W & M Section, Department of

Agriculture, Washington

60th (1975) Sydney D. Andrews, Director, Division of Standards,

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,

Florida

61st (1976) Richard L. Thompson, Chief, W & M Section, Division

of Inspection and Regulation, Department of Agriculture, Maryland

62nd (1977) Earl Prideaux, Chief, W & M Section, Division of In- spection and Consumer Services, Department of Agriculture, Colorado

267
i 63rd (1978) James F. Lyles, Supervisor, W & M Section, Division

of Product and Industry Regulation, Department of

Agriculture and Commerce, Virginia

64th (1979) Kendrick J. Simila, Administrator, W & M Division,

Department of Agriculture, Oregon

268
REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Presented by George S. Franks, Superintendent, Weights and

Measures and Consumer Protection, Cumberland County, New

Jersey

(Thursday, July 26, 1979)

VOTING KEY

900 INTRODUCTION

The Auditing Committee met on Wednesday morning, July 25, for the purpose of re- viewing the financial records of the Conference

Treasurer, Mr. James H. Akey. The Committee finds these records to be in accordance with

the Conference procedure and correct. The Committee recommends that in the fu- ture the small transmittal checking account

balance in the Union Trust Bank at NBS be

included in the Treasurer's Annual Report. Also, we suggest that

steps be taken for the Treasurer to be bonded both for his and the

Conference's protection.

George S. Franks, Chairman,

Cumberland County, New Jersey

Fred Gerk, New Mexico

Eugene Keeley, Delaware

Auditing Committee

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Auditing Committee, voting

key item 900, was adopted by the Conference. The results of the voting in the House

of Representatives and the House of Delegates under the new Conference voting sys- tem are totalized in the table that follows.)

Voting Results—Auditing Committee

Voting Key

House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

900 35 0 41 0

269
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER

Presented by James H. Akey, Inspector,

Weights and Measures, State of Wisconsin

(Thursday, July 26, 1979)

VOTING KEY

1000 INTRODUCTION

It is my pleasure to report to you today on

the financial status ofthe Conference treasury

as follows:

Balance on hand, July 1, 1978 $ 9,467.45

General Account Balance $ 5,193.45

Medallion Account Balance 306.90

Necktie Account Balance (229.25)

Membership Plaque Account Balance (803.65)

Certificate of Deposit 5,000.00

Total $ 9,467.45

General Account balance on hand, July 1, 1978 $ 5,193.45

RECEIPTS

Registration, 360 @ $50.00 $18,000.00

Ladies Events tickets sold 270.00

Certificates of Deposit redeemed,

January 22, 1979 10,000.00

Interest on Certificates of Deposit

redeemed 140.56

Temperature Compensation

Symposium registration 2,254.25

Metrologist's Dinner tickets sold .. 300.00 30,964.81

$36,158.26

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

U.S. Metric Board hearing expenses 2,070.00

Total $38,228.26

270
DISBURSEMENTS

Hillwood Ladies Tour

2-90 day Certificates of Deposit

purchased

Registration desk & operating

expenses (cash)

Shoreham Americana Hotel,

Conference expenses

Howard Devron Orchestras,

Conference orchestra

Franklin Press, Consumer

Pamphlets & stationery

Darrell Guensler, OIML meeting

expenses

Ken Simila, Chairman, Travel

expense, 3 meetings

James F. Lyles, OIML & Interim

Meeting expenses

OWM, Interim Meeting expenses

Education, Administrative &

Consumer Affairs Committee . Liaison Committee

S & T Committee

L & R Committee

Robert W. Probst, Temperature

Compensation Symposium

Treasurer's Conference

Transportation

U.S. Metric Board hearing

expenses

Franklin Press, Conference

announcements & receipts

Harold F. Wollin, Conference

planning trip

Temperature Compensation

Symposium expenses 2,286.76 33,881.22

$ 450 00

10,000 00

1,474 00

4,318 16

800 00

331 55

580 10

1,996 50

275 59

377 50

2,065 28

1,455 35

1,508 68

1,937 80

176 00

822 10

2,070 00

501 85

A C A 454 .00

2,286 .76

General Account balance on hand & receivable,

July 1, 1979 $ 4,347.04

90 day renewable Certificate of Deposit No. 7467 .. 5,000.00

Total $ 9,347.04

MEDALLION ACCOUNT

Balance on hand, July 1, 1978 $ 306.90

271
RECEIPTS

Sale of Decals and Medallions $ 117.23

DISBURSEMENTS

Anthony J. Ladd, Weights &

Measures Week postage $ 30.00

Medallion Account balance on hand, July 1, 1979 $ 394.13

NECKTIE ACCOUNT

Balance on hand, July I, 1978 $ (229.25)

RECEIPTS

Sale of 114 Neckties (5 $6.50 $ 741.00

Necktie Account balance on hand, July 1, 1979 $ 511.75

MEMBERSHIP PLAQUE ACCOUNT

Balance on hand, July 1, 1978 $ (803.65)

RECEIPTS

Sale of 92 Plaques (a $5.00 $ 460.00

Membership Plaque Account balance on hand,

July 1, 1979 $ (343.65)

RECAP

Balances on hand, July 1, 1979

General Account $ 4,347.04

Medallion Account 394.13

Necktie Account 511.75

Membership Plaque Account (343.65)

Net balance on hand, July 1, 1979 $ 4,909.27

Certificate of Deposit 5,000.00

Total $ 9,909.27

Depository: First Wisconsin National Bank of Wausau

(Signed) James H. Akey, Treasurer

(On the motion of the Treasurer, the report of the Conference Treasurer, voting

key item 1000, was adopted in its entirety by the Conference. The results of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows.)

272
Voting Results—Conference Treasurer

V ULlUg XVCJ'

House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

1000 33 0 43 0

273
REGISTRATION LIST

64th NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES

July 22-27, 1979

Red Lion Motor Inn, Portland, Oregon

ALABAMA

STATE John B. Rabb, Weights and Measures Laboratory

Supervisor, State of Alabama, Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3336, 1445 Federal Drive,

Montgomery, Alabama 36109 (Tel. (205) 832-3750)

ALASKA

STATE Sharon L. Ferrara, Weights and Measures Inspector, State of Alaska, 2263 Spenard Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (Tel. (907) 279-0508)

James E. Snyder, Metrologist, Alaska Weights and Measures Section, 2263 Spenard Road, Anchorage,

Alaska 99503 (Tel. (907) 279-0508)

Joseph L. Swanson, Chief, Weights and Measures

Section, Alaska Section of Weights and Measures, 2263 Spenard Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503

(Tel. (907) 279-0508)

ARIZONA

STATE Patricia M. Fullinwider, Chief of Weights and

Measures, State of Arizona, 3039 West Indian

School, Phoenix, Arizona 85017 (Tel. (602) 255- 5211)

ARKANSAS

STATE --- Sam F. Hindsman, Director, Arkansas Weights and

Measures, 4608 West 61st Street, Little Rock, Ar- kansas 72209 (Tel. (501) 371-1759)

CALIFORNIA

STATE Herbert L. Cohen, Department Counsel, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1220 N

Street, Sacramento, California 95831 (Tel. (916) 445-6429)

274
Ezio F. Delfino, Chief, Division of Measurement

Standards, State of California, 8500 Fruitridge

Road, Sacramento, California 95826 (Tel. (916) 366-5119)

Darrell Guensler, Assistant Chief, Division of Measurement Standards, State of California, 8500

Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California 95826

(Tel. (916) 366-5119)

Jerry Scribner, Deputy Director, Department of Food and Agriculture, 1220 N Street, Room 100-

112, Sacramento, California 95814 (Tel. (916) 445- 8226)

Patrick E. Nichols, Director of Weights and Measures, Alameda County, 333 — 5th Street, Oakland, California 94607 (Tel. (415) 874-6736)

M. Hugh Handley, County Sealer, President, California Association of Weights and Measures Officials, 280 Campus Drive, Hanford, California 93230 (Tel. (209) 582-3211 Ext. 2830)

W. R. Mossberg, Director, Los Angeles County De- partment of Weights and Measures, 11012 Garfield Avenue, South Gate, California 90280 (Tel. (213) 922-8921)

Joseph W. Jones, Director of Weights and Measures,

Riverside County, 2950 Washington, Riverside, California 92504 (Tel. (714) 787-2620)

H. E. (Tiny) Sandell, Director, Department of Weights and Measures, County of San Bernardino, 777 East Rialto Avenue, San Bernardino, Califor- nia 92415 (Tel. (714) 383-1411)

Daniel R. Smith, Director of Consumer Affairs, County of Santa Clara, 1555 Berger Drive, San

Jose, California 95112 (Tel. (408) 299-2105)

Jack Simmen, Director of Weights and Measures, Santa Cruz County, 1430 Freedom Boulevard,

Watsonville, California 94576 (Tel. (408) 724- 1149)

Jack A. Huey, Director of Weights and Measures,

Yuba County, 921 W. 14th Street, Marysville,

California 95901 (Tel. (916) 674-6376)

COLORADO

George E. Lamb, Director, Inspection and Consumer

Services Division, State of Colorado, 2331 W 31st

275
Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80211 (Tel. (303) 839- I 2833)

Leo Letey, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, j Department of Agriculture, 3125 Wyandot, Denver, Colorado 80211 (Tel. (303) 839-2845)

CONNECTICUT

John T. Bennett, Chief, Weights and Measures, | State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer

Protection, State Office Building, Room G-17, i Hartford, Connecticut 06115 (Tel. (203) 566-4778 ; or 566-5230)

Allan M. Nelson, Metrologist, Department of Con- sumer Protection, Weights and Measures Division, State Office Building, Room G-17, 165 Capitol

Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06115 (Tel. (203) 566-4778 or 566-5230)

Guy J. Tommasi, City Sealer, President, Connecticut j Weights and Measures Association, City Hall, Middletown, Connecticut 06457 (Tel. (203) 347- 4671 Ext. 215) DELAWARE

Eugene Keeley, Supervisor, Delaware Weights and

Measures, Drawer D, Dover, Delaware 19901 (Tel. (302) 678-4824)

FLORIDA

Sydney D. Andrews, Director, Division of Standards, Florida Department of Agriculture and Con- sumer Services, Mayo Building—Lab Complex,

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (Tel. (904) 488-0645)

Stan Darsey, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Florida Department of Agriculture and Con- sumer Services, Laboratory Complex, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (Tel. (904) 488-9140)

John C. Mays, Director, Dade County Consumer

Protection, 140 W. Flagler Street, Room 1604, Miami, Florida 33130 (Tel. (305) 579-4222)

GEORGIA

Thomas E. Kirby, Director, Weights and Measures

Laboratory, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Atlanta Farmers Market, Forest Park, Georgia

30050 (Tel. (404) 363-7611)
Martin T. Coile, Assistant Director, Weights and Measures Laboratory, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Atlanta Farmer's Market, Forest Park,

Georgia 30050 (Tel. (404) 363-7611)

John J. Peacock, Section Chief, Georgia Fuel and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Capitol

Square, Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (Tel. (404) 656- 7057)

HAWAII

George E. Mattimoe, Deputy Director, Measure- ment Standards, State of Hawaii, 1428 South King

Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 (Tel. (808) 548-

7151-2-3)

Charles G. Bockus, Supervising Metrologist, State

of Hawaii, P. O. Box 226, Captain Cook, Hawaii

96704 (Tel. (808) 323-2608)

IDAHO

Lyman D. Holloway, Chief, Department of Agriculture-Weights and Measures, 2216 Kellogg Lane,

Boise, Idaho 83702 (Tel. (208) 384-2345)

ILLINOIS

Wayne W. Behrns, Bureau Chief, Illinois Depart- ment of Agriculture, Emmerson Building, State Fairgrounds, Springfield, Illinois 62706 (Tel. (217) 782-3817)

Sidney A. Colbrook, Program Supervisor, Illinois Department of Agriculture, Emmerson Building, State Fairgrounds, Springfield, Illinois 62706 (Tel. (217) 782-3817)

Steve McGuire, Lab Tech II, Illinois Department of Agriculture, 531 E. Sangamon Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62702 (Tel. (217) 782-7655)

Bradley R. Eidmann, Jr., Consumer Service Officer, City of Chicago, 121 N. LaSalle, Room 808, Chicago, Illinois 60602 (Tel. (312) 744-4006)

Joyce M. Palmer, Consumer Service Supervisor,

Consumer Service—Chicago, 121 N. LaSalle, Chicago, Illinois 60601 (Tel. (312) 744-4092)

Karen Petitte, Deputy Commissioner, Department

of Consumer Services, City of Chicago, 121 N.

LaSalle Street, Room 808, Chicago, Illinois 60602

(Tel. (312) 744-4007)

277
INDIANA

STATE Robert W. Walker, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, State of Indiana, 1330 West Michigan Street, Room A-120, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 (Tel. (317) 533-0352)

COUNTY

Clark - - Harold D. Bradshaw, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Clark County, City-County Building, Room

314, Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130 (Tel. (812) 283- 4451 (Sta. 53)

Floyd James M. Moreillon, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Floyd County, 627 E. Fourth Street, New

Albany, Indiana 47150 (Tel. (812) 944-1677)

Gibson --- William R. Seiver, Gibson County Inspector, Weights

and Measures, Court House Annex, Princeton, In- diana 47683 (Tel. (812) 795-2532)

Greene - Edwin Goodman, Greene County Weights and Measures, 130 West Spring Street, Bloomfield, Indiana 47424 (Tel. (812) 384-4266)

Johnson Wayne E. Handy, Inspector, Weights and Measures,

Johnson County, Johnson County Courthouse,

Franklin, Indiana 46131 (Tel. (317) 736-5774)

Lake Albert M. Mysogland, Lake County Sealer, De- partment of Weights and Measures, 2293 N. Main,

Crown Point, Indiana 46307 (Tel. (219) 663-2896

or 738-2020 Ext. 301 or 302)

Laporth Edwin Hanish, Inspector, 119 Tilden Avenue, Michigan City, Indiana 46360 (Tel. (219) 879-9480)

Porter Richard H. Claussen, Sealer, Porter County, 1401 North Calumet (Room 105), Valparaiso, Indiana 46383 (Tel. (219) 766-2323)

St. Joseph Chester S. Zmudzinski, Inspector, Weights and

Measures, St. Joseph County, 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard, South Bend, Indiana 46619 (Tel. (219) 284-9751)

Tippecanoe Webster McMurry, Inspector, Tippecanoe County

Weights and Measures, Court House Annex, P.O. Box 444, LaFayette, Indiana 47902 (Tel. (317) 423- 9229)

Vigo Robert J. Silcock, Inspector, Vigo County Weights

and Measures, Room 5, Courthouse, Terre Haute, Indiana 47802 (Tel. (812) 533-2955)
Wayne - - Francis W. Daniels, Administrator, Wayne County

Weights and Measures, 50 North 5th, Richmond,

Indiana 47374 (Tel. (317) 935-4813)

CITY

Anderson Earl Gadberry, Anderson City Inspector, Anderson

Department of Weights and Measures, City Building, P. 0. Box 2100, Anderson, Indiana 46011 (Tel. (317) 646-5814)

Gary John Nastav, City Acting Sealer, 1100 Mass. Street, Gary, Indiana 46407 (Tel. (219) 944-6566)

Hammond -- Dean Brahos, City Sealer, Room 104, 741 Michigan

Street, Hammond, Indiana 46320 (Tel. (219) 853- 6377)

Indianapolis Russell V. Brown, Deputy Inspector, City-County

Building, Room G6, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

(Tel. (317) 633-3733)

Frank L. Brugh, Administrator, Division of Weights

and Measures of Indianapolis, City-County Building, Room G6, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (Tel. (317) 633-3733)

Mishawaka George Staffeldt, Inspector, City Hall, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544 (Tel. (219) 259-5265)

South Bend Bert S. Cichowicz, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City of South Bend, Municipal Services Facility,

Room 113, 701 West Sample Street, South Bend,

Indiana 46621 (Tel. (219) 284-9273)

IOWA

STATE Jim M. O'Connor, Supervisor, Iowa Department of Agriculture, Wallace Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (Tel. (515) 281-5716)

Kermit L. Toland, Metrologist, Iowa Department of Agriculture, Wallace Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (Tel. (515) 281-5716)

KANSAS

STATE John L. O'Neill, State Sealer and Director, State Board of Agriculture, P. O. Box 678, Topeka, Kansas 66601 (Tel. (913) 296-3846)

KENTUCKY

STATE Ronald C. Egnew, Laboratory Supervisor, State of Kentucky, Division of Weights and Measures, 106 W. 2nd Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (Tel. (502) 564-4870)

279
George L. Johnson, Director, Department of Agriculture, Division of Weights and Measures, 106 West Second Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

(Tel. (502) 564-4870)

LOUISIANA

STATE - William Hawk Daniels, Director, Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Division, P. O. Box 44456, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 (Tel. (504) 342-7011)

MAINE

STATE Gaylon M. Kennedy, Deputy State Sealer ofWeights

and Measures, Maine Department of Agriculture, State House, Augusta, Maine 04333 (Tel. (207) 289-3841)

Marshall White, Metrologist, Maine Departmem

of Agriculture, State House, Augusta, Maine 04330

(Tel. (207) 289-2751)

nt

30

MARYLAND

STATE --- -- Lacy H. Degrange, Assistant Chief, Maryland De- partment of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, Room 3205 Symons Hall, University of Maryland,

College Park, Maryland 20742 (Tel. (301) 454- 3551)

MASSACHUSETTS

STATE -.- Edward H. Stadolnik, Assistant Director of Standards, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division

of Standards, Room 1115, One Ashburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (Tel. (617) 727-3480)

CITY

Barnstable -- Thomas F. Geiler, Sealer, Town of Barnstable, 397 Main Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 (Tel. (617) 775-1120)

Pittsfield Ralph J. Massaro, Inspector of Weights and Measures, City of Pittsfield, City Hall-Room 149, Pittsfield, Massachusetts 01201 (Tel. (413) 442-7202)

Plymouth David A. Montanari, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City of Plymouth, 35 Davis Street, Plymouth,

Massachusetts 02360 (Tel. (617) 746-0556)

280
MICHIGAN

Leo Gagnon, Supervisor, State of Michigan Weights

and Measures, 1120 W. State Fair, Detroit, Michigan 48203 (Tel. (313) 368-0280)

Edward C. Heffron, Chief, Food Inspection Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 30017, Lewis Cass Building, Lansing, Michigan 48909 (Tel. (517) 373-1060)

Frank C. Nagele, Weights and Measures Specialist,

Michigan Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box

30017, Lewis Cass Building, Larsing, Michigan

48909 (Tel. (517) 373-1060)

MINNESOTA

Edward P. Skluzacek, Director, Minnesota Weights

and Measures, 1015 Currie Avenue, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55403 (Tel. (612) 341-7205)

MISSISSIPPI

William P. Eldridge, Consumer Protection (Scales), Mississippi Department of Agriculture P. O. Box

1609, Jackson, Mississippi 39205 (Tel. (601) 354- 6258)

Mark Freeman, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Agriculture

and Commerce, P. O. Box 1609, Jackson, Mississippi 39205 (Tel. (601) 354-6569)

MISSOURI

Bob Merrick, Director, Weights and Measures Division, Missouri Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 630, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 (Tel. (314) 751-4278)

Jack Pierce, Program Supervisor, Weights and

Measures Division, Missouri Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 630, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 (Tel. (314) 751-3440)

Louis Stephens, Program Supervisor, Weights and

Measures Division, Missouri Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 630, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 (Tel. (314) 751-4992)

281
CITY

St. Louis Daniel I. Offner, Commissioner of Weights and

Measures, City of St. Louis, 1220 Carr Lane Av- enue—Room 145, St. Louis, Missouri 63104 (Tel. (314) 622-3252)

MONTANA

STATE --- Gary Delano, Administrator, Montana Division of Weights and Measures, 805 N. Main, Helena,

Montana, (Tel. (406) 449-3163)

NEBRASKA

STATE Steven A. Malone, Assistant Director, Department

of Agriculture, Nebraska Division of Weights and

Measures, Box 94757, State House Station, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 (Tel. (402) 471-2875)

Norman M. Ross, Chief, Weights and Measures Division, Public Safety Department, Omaha Douglas

Civic Center, 1819 Farnam, Omaha, Nebraska

68183 (Tel. (402) 444-5368)

Richard C. Suiter, Metrologist, Nebraska Standards Laboratory, Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Division of Weights and Measures, Box

94757, State House Station, Lincoln, Nebraska

68509 (Tel. (402) 471-2875)

NEW JERSEY

STATE James R. Bird, Deputy State Superintendent, New

Jersey Weights and Measures, 187 West Hanover

Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (Tel. (609) 292- 4615)

COUNTY

Camden --- A.J. Francesconi, Superintendent, Camden County

Weights and Measures, Room 416, Camden, New

Jersey 08101 (Tel. (609) 757-8196)

Cumberland George S. Franks, Superintendent, Weights and

Measures and Consumer Protection, Cumberland

County, 788 E. Commerce Street, Bridgeton, New

Jersey 08302 (Tel. (609) 451-8000 Ext. 369 & 370)

Gloucester Joseph Silvestro, Deputy County Superintendent

of Weights and Measures, County of Gloucester, 49 Wood Street, Woodbury, New Jersey 08096

(Tel. (609) 845-1600 (Ext. 252))

282
Middlesex John M. Chohamin, Superintendent, Middlesex

County Department of Weights and Measures, 841 Georges Road, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 (Tel. (201) 745-3298)

Salem Robert B. Jones, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Salem County Court House, Salem,

New Jersey 08079 (Tel. (609) 935-7510 Ext. 368)

NEW MEXICO

STATE Fred A. Gerk, Associate Chief, Weights and Measures, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3170, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003 (Tel. (505) 646-1616)

Charles H. Greene, Chief, Division of Consumer

& Marketing Services, New Mexico Department

of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3170, Las Cruces, New

Mexico 88003 (Tel. (505) 646-1616)

NEW YORK

STATE Ross Andersen, Metrologist, New York State Bureau of Weights and Measures, Building 7-A,

State Campus, Albany, New York 12235 (Tel. (518) 457-3449)

John J. Bartfai, Director, New York State Bureau

of Weights and Measures, Building 7-A, State Campus, Albany, New York 12235 (Tel. (518) 457- 3452)

Kenneth R. Gridley, Weights and Measures Specialist II, New York State Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Building 7-A, State Campus, Albany,

New York 12235 (Tel. (607) 962-0444)

COUNTY Louis P. Romano, Director, Monroe County Weights

and Measures, 1157 Scottsville Road, Rochester,

New York 41624 (Tel. (716) 436-1330)

NORTH CAROLINA

STATE - James A. Graham, Commissioner, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 27647, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (Tel. (919) 733-7125)

Marion Kinlaw, Director, Consumer Standards Division, North Carolina Department ofAgriculture,

P. O. Box 26056, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

(Tel. (919) 733-3313)

283
Tom Scott, Chief, Measurement Section, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Consumer

Standards Division, P. O. Box 26056, Raleigh,

North Carolina 27611 (Tel. (919) 733-3313)

NORTH DAKOTA

STATE Alvin M. Skaarvold, Inspector, North Dakota

Weights and Measures, State Capitol, Bismarck,

North Dakota 58505 (Tel. (701) 567-2179)

OHIO

STATE Kenneth R. Adcock, Chief, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Division of Weights and Measures, 8995 E. Main Street, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068

(Tel. (614) 866-6361)

COUNTY Roy K. Peck, Deputy Inspector—Clark County, Clark - Clark County Building, Springfield, Ohio 45502

(Tel. (513) 324-5871)

CITY Anthony J. Ladd, Superintendent, City of Akron

Akron Weights and Measures-Consumer Protection, 1420

Triplett Boulevard, Akron, Ohio 44306 (Tel. (216) 375-2878)

Cincinnati Thomas Prager, Supervisor, City of Cincinnati Weights and Measures, 2147 Central, Cincinnati,

Ohio 45211 (Tel. (513) 352-3135)

Dayton Leon Miller, City Sealer, Ohio Weights and Measures Association, 960 Ottawa Street, Dayton, Ohio

45402 (Tel. (513) 225-5304)

OREGON

STATE - Walter S. Arima, Heavy Capacity Weighing Specialist, Oregon Weights and Measures, Agricul- ture Building—635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem,

Oregon 97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

David G. Casner, Weights and Measures Specialist,

Oregon Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Division, Agriculture Building—635

Capitol Street, N.E., Salem Oregon 97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

Max L. Clark, Supervisor—Packaged Products Pro- grams, Oregon Weights and Measures, Agricul- ture Building—635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem,

Oregon 97301 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

284
James F. Clifford, Standards Lab, Supervisor, Or- egon Weights and Measures, Agriculture Build- ing—635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon

97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

Ralph Curtis, Weights and Measures Inspector, Oregon Weights and Measures, 606 S.E. 9th, Port- land, Oregon 97214 (Tel. (503) 238-8364)

Elmer H. DeHaas, Weights and Measures—LPG

Inspector, Oregon Weights and Measures, Agriculture Building—635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem,

Oregon 97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

Ray Fleischmann, Weights and Measures Division

Supervisor, Oregon State Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Building—635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

Harry Garabedian, Weights and Measures Inspector I, Oregon Weights and Measures, Agriculture

Building—635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem, Ore- gon 97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

Chuck Hilliker, Weights and Measures Inspector, Oregon Department of Weights and Measures, 606

S. E. 9th, Portland, Oregon 97214 (Tel. (503) 238- 8364)

Toni Hodge, Secretary, Oregon Weights and Measures, Agriculture Building—635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

Donald W. Hylton, Packaged Products Specialist,

Department of Agriculture—Weights and Measures Division, Agriculture Building—635 Capitol

Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 (Tel. (503) 378- 3792)

Ron Johnsen, Packaged Products Specialist, State

of Oregon Weights and Measures Division, Agriculture Building—635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem,

Oregon 97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

Gene Kunkle, Assistant Director, Oregon Depart- ment of Agriculture, Agriculture Building—635

Capitol Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 (Tel. (503) 378-4666)

Benson R. Lamonte, Weights and Measures Inspector, Route 2, Box 69-A, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123

(Tel. (503) 238-8365)

Henry G. Lasher, District Device Specialist, Weights

and Measures Division, Department of Agricul285
ture—3905 North E Street, Springfield, Oregon

97477 (Tel. (503) 741-0545)

John McClure, Weights and Measures Inspector I, Oregon State Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Building—635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem,

Oregon 97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

William D. Nesbit, Weights and Measures Inspector

I, Oregon Weights and Measures, 606 S.E. 9th

Street, Portland, Oregon 97214 (Tel. (503) 238- 8364)

John Reid, Packaged Products Specialist, Oregon

Weights and Measures, Agriculture Building

635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310

(Tel. (503) 378-3792)

James Ross, Package Products Specialist, Oregon

Weights and Measures, Agriculture Building

635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310

(Tel. (503) 378-3792)

George Shefcheck, Inspector I, State of Oregon

Weights and Measures, 3990 Foots Creek Road, Gold Hill, Oregon 97525 (Tel. (503) 582-1430)

Kendrick J. Simila, Administrator, Oregon Weights

and Measures Division, Agriculture Building

635 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310

(Tel. (503) 378-3792)

William K. Todd, Weights and Measures Inspector, State of Oregon, Box 585, 169 W. Chestnut, Union,

Oregon 97883 (Tel. (503) 562-5266)

Leo E. Weber, Weights and Measures Supervisor,

Oregon Weights and Measures, 606 S.E. 9th

Street, Portland, Oregon 79214 (Tel. (503) 238- 8364)

PENNSYLVANIA

Fred A. Thomas, Director, Bureau of Standard

Weights and Measures, Pennsylvania Department

of Agriculture, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (Tel. (717) 787-6772)

Sam F. Valtri, Chief, Weights and Measures, Room

636, 801 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (Tel. (215) 686-3475)

PUERTO RICO

Maria A. Maldonado Garcia, Assistant Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, P. O. Box 41059,
Minillas Station, Santurce, Puerto Rico 00940

(Tel. (809) 726-7585)

RHODE ISLAND

STATE Edward R. Fisher, Administrator, State of Rhode

Island, Mercantile Division Weights and Measures, 470 Aliens Avenue, Providence, Rhode Is- land 02905 (Tel. (401) 277-2758)

SOUTH CAROLINA

STATE John V. Pugh, Director, Metrology Division, South

Carolina Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box

11280, Columbia, South Carolina 29211 (Tel. (803) 758-2130)

SOUTH DAKOTA

STATE Allen L. Christie, Administrative Assistant, South

Dakota Department of Commerce, Division of Commercial Inspection and Regulation, State

Capitol Building, Pierre, South Dakota 57501 (Tel. (605) 773-3696)

Bruce Farus, Director, South Dakota Department

of Commerce, Division of Commercial Inspection

and Regulation, State Capitol Building, Pierre, South Dakota 57501 (Tel. (605) 773-3696)

TENNESSEE

STATE Robert M. Reeves, Deputy Director, Tennessee De- partment of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, Box 40627, Nashville, Tennessee 37204 (Tel. (615) 741-1411)

Bob Williams, Technologist, Tennessee Department

of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, Box 40627,

Nashville, Tennessee 37204 (Tel. (615) 741-1530)

TEXAS

STATE Charles E. Forester, Supervisor, Texas Weights

and Measures, Texas Department of Agriculture, Box 12847, Austin, Texas 78711 (Tel. (512) 475- 6577)

CITY

Dallas James C. Blackwood, Weights and Measures Administrator, City of Dallas, 1500 West Mockingbird, Room A-19, Dallas, Texas 75235 (Tel. (214) 670-6414)

287
Charles H. Vincent, Director, City of Dallas De- partment of Consumer Affairs, Room 2B-North,

City Hall, 1500 Marilla, Dallas, Texas 75201 (Tel. (214) 670-4433)

Fort Worth -- - David Watson, Consumer Affairs Director, City of Forth Worth, 1800 University Drive, Room 208, Fort Worth, Texas 76107 (Tel. (817) 870-7572)

UTAH

STATE - Edison J. Stephens, Supervisor, Weights and Measures, 5757 South—320 West, Murray, Utah 84107

(Tel. (801) 533-5459)

VERMONT

STATE - - - Trafford F. Brink, Director, Weights and Measures and Retail Inspection, Vermont Department of Agriculture, 116 State Street, Montpelier, Ver- mont 05602 (Tel. (802) 828-2436)

VIRGINIA

STATE Marion W. Cain, Metrologist, Virginia Weights and

Measures Section, 1 North 14th Street, Room 032, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (Tel. (804) 786-2476)

James F. Lyles, Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Section, Virginia Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, 1 North 14th Street, Room

032, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (Tel. (804) 786- 2476)

WASHINGTON

STATE John W. Allen, Weights and Measures Inspector, 406 General Administration Building, Olympia,

Washington 98504 (Tel. (206) 753-5059)

Linden Bahnsen, Weights and Measures, Inspector, Washington State Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 186, Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 (Tel. (206) 336-5542)

James H. Cammel, Inspector II, Washington State Weights and Measures, 406 General Administration Building, Olympia, Washington 98504 (Tel. (206) 753-5059)

George J. Gerber, Weights and Measures Inspector

II, 409 General Administration Building, Depart- ment of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Section, Olympia, Washington 98501 (Tel. (206) 753- 5059)

288
M. Richard "Spud" Hardin, Weights and Measures

Inspector, 4704 W. Prasch Avenue, Yakima,

Washington 98908 (Tel. (509) 966-9124 or 575- 2754)

Larry Joe Kanouse, Weights and Measures Inspector I, Department of Agriculture, 2510 N.W. 299th

Street, Ridgefield, Washington 98642 (Tel. (206) 887-4874)

G. N. Magnuson, Weights and Measures Supervisor,

406 General Administration Building, Olympia,

Washington 98504 (Tel. (206) 753-5059)

John R. Martin, Weights and Measures Inspector

I, Department ofAgriculture, 406 General Administration Building, Olympia, Washington 98504

(Tel. (206) 753-0277)

Robert L. Schlegel, Weights and Measures Inspector, 406 General Administration Building, Olympia, Washington 98504 (Tel. (206) 753-5059)

Milton N. Smith, Weights and Measures Inspector, N. 4213 Bessie Road, Spokane, Washington 99206

(Tel. (509) 924-3108)

John H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures, Room

406, General Administration Building, Olympia,

Washington 98504 (Tel. (206) 753-5059)

CITY

Everett Fred K. Latchaw, Inspector, City ofEverett Weights

and Measures, City Hall 3002 Wetmore, Everett, Washington 98201 (Tel. (206) 259-8845)

Seattle William C. Sullivan, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures, 805 South Dearborn Street, Seattle, Washington 98134 (Tel. (206) 625-2712)

Spokane Gilbert R. Allen, City Sealer, North 221 Wall

Street, Spokane, Washington 99201 (Tel. (509) 456-4306)

WEST VIRGINIA

STATE David L. Griffith, Director, Consumer Protection

Division, West Virginia Department of Labor, 1900 Washington Street, East, Charleston, West

Virginia 25305 (Tel. (304) 348-7890)

WISCONSIN

STATE James H. Akey, Inspector, Weights and Measures,

289
718 Jackson Street, Wausau, Wisconsin 54401

(Tel. (715) 842-3789)

William Burkhardt, Metrologist, 4702 University

Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53705 (Tel. (608) 266-2761)

Gerald F. Burr, Weights and Measures Inspector,

P. O. Box 14, Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701 (Tel. (715) 874-6163)

Alden M. Lemke, President, Northwest Weights and Measures Association, Wisconsin Bureau of Weights and Measures, 801 W. Badger Road, Box

8911, Madison, Wisconsin 53708 (Tel. (608) 266- 0608)

Robert Probst, Director, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, 801 West Badger Road, Box 8911, Madison, Wisconsin 53708 (Tel. (608) 266-7241)

WYOMING

STATE Elvin R. Leeman, Standards/Measures Officer, Agriculture Products, State of Wyoming Department

of Agriculture, 2219 Carey Avenue, Cheyenne,

Wyoming 82001 (Tel. (307) 777-7321)

MANUFACTURERS, INDUSTRY, AND BUSINESS

A-l SCALES

Ron R. Premo, Sales Manager, P. O. Box 256, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 (Tel. (503) 640-3014)

ACME SCALE & SUPPLY COMPANY

Ray Canfield, President, 5427 Butler Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201

(Tel. (412) 782-1808)

AMERICAN CAN COMPANY

William H. Marks, Senior Quality Associate, 1915 Marathon Avenue, Neenah,

Wisconsin 54956 (Tel. (414) 729-8106)

AMERICAN FROZEN FOOD INSTITUTE

Howard H. Weatherspoon, Assistant Director Research and Technical Services, 1838 El Camino Real, Burlingame, California 94010 (Tel. (415) 697-6835)

AMERICAN NATIONAL METRIC COUNCIL (ANMC)

Michael F. Thompson, Program Manager, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. (202) 232-4545)

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

Gary Hirschl, Marketing Assistant, 2101 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (Tel. (202) 457-6370)

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API)

Richard Southers, Manager Operations and Engineering, 2101 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20037 (Tel. (202) 457-7014)

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS

Samuel F. Etris, Special Assistant to Managing Director, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (Tel. (215) 299-5524)

290
William T. Cavanaugh, Managing Director, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19103 (Tel. (215) 299-5524)

H. C. Zweifel, Director, ASTM Western Activities, 8553 Verdosa Drive, Whittier, California 90605 (Tel. (213) 693-2212)

AMOCO OIL COMPANY

John A. Stitzel, Manager, Planning and Economics, 200 East Randolph Drive,

Chicago, Illinois 60601 (Tel. (312) 856-5782)

AMSTAR CORPORATION

Walter Zielnicki, Quality Control Coordinator, 1251 Avenue of the Americas,

New York, New York 10020 (Tel. (212) 489-9000)

ANALOGIC CORPORATION

Guy Wilson, Product Marketing Manager, IDS, Audubon Road, Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880 (Tel. (617) 246-0300)

APT—PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY

J. L. Stevenson, Operations Coordinator, 390 AB, Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004

(Tel. (918) 661-7012)

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

John J. Robinson, Executive Director—O-T Division, 1920 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. (202) 293-4144)

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY

Nicholas D. Babic, Metric Coordinator, AP^i0103, 515 S. Flower Street, Los

Angeles, California 90071 (Tel. (213) 486-1564)

T. J. MacWilliams, Maintenance Engineer, 515 S. Flower Street, Los Angeles,

California 90071 (Tel. (213) 486-1247)

BASIC RESOURCE SERVICES, INC.

D. J. Hine, Manager—Systems Calibration, P. O. Box 40594, Washington, D.C. 20016 (Tel. (202) 389-8346)

BENNETT PUMP COMPANY

John P. Hauet, Manager, Field Service, P. O. Box 597, Muskegon, Michigan

49443 (Tel. (616) 733-1302)

BERKEL, INCORPORATED

John J. McLellan, Region Manager, 428 North Buchanan Circle, Pacheco,

California 94553 (Tel. (415) 676-2688)

B.L.H. ELECTRONICS

Martin C. Spoor, Manager of Engineering, 42 Fourth Avenue, Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 (Tel. (617) 890-6700)

BRINKMANN INSTRUMENTS

D. F. Schluter, Vice President, Sartorius Balance Division, Cantiague Road,

Westbury, New York 11590 (Tel. (516) 334-7500)

BROOKS INSTRUMENT DIVISION—EMERSON ELECTRIC

Barrie Bloser, Chief Engineer, P. O. Box 450, Statesboro, Georgia 30458 (Tel. (912) 764-5471)

BURDITT AND CALKINS

George M. Burditt, Attorney, 135 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603

(Tel. (312) 641-2121)

CARGILL, INCORPORATED

John A. Johnston, 3444 Dight Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406

(Tel. (612) 371-4897)

Luke Renzi, Senior Project Leader, Grain Research Lab, 3444 Dight Avenue,

South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406 (Tel. (612) 371-4897)

CARDINAL SCALE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

W. Terry James, Vice President, Engineering, Box 151, Webb City, Missouri 64870 (Tel. (417) 673-4631)

291
CHADWELL, KAYSER, RUGGLES, McGEE AND HASTING, LTD.

Merrill S. Thompson, Attorney and Vice President, 8500 Sears Tower, 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606 (Tel. (312) 876-2163)

CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.

R. B. Feldman, Engineer, Maintenance, 575 Market Street, Room 2614, San

Francisco, California 94105 (Tel. (415) 894-4703)

CITIES SERVICE COMPANY

W. M. Kittle, Engineering and Construction Manager, P. O. Box 300, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74102 (Tel. (918) 586-3747)

COCA-COLA COMPANY

R. A. Lester, Attorney, P. O. Drawer 1734, Atlanta, Georgia 30301 (Tel. (404) 898-2530)

A. Lee Turner, Public Affairs Department, P. O. Drawer 1734, Atlanta, Georgia 30301 (Tel. (404) 898-2623)

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE

Edward E. Wolski, Manager—Quality Control, 300 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10022 (Tel. (212) 751-1200)

CORDEMEX

Victor M. Barredo, President, 3555 Sunset Office Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63127 (Tel. (314) 821-7373)

CORDEMEX S.A. DE C.V. Jorge Carlos Lopez, Counselor, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, c/o 3555 Sunset Office Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63127 (Tel. (314) 821-7373)

Jose Palomeque, Regional Sales Manager, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, c/o 3555

Sunset Office Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63127 (Tel. (314) 821-7373)

CORN REFINERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Lucien D. Agniel, Jr., Director, Scientific Activities, 1001 Connecticut Avenue,

N.W., Washington, DC 20036 (Tel. (202) 331-1634)

CPC NORTH AMERICA

ALFRED E. Johanson, Senior Counsel-Regulatory Affairs, International Plaza, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 (Tel. (201) 894-2383)

J. B. DEE & COMPANY, INC. Miles D. Fishman, Vice President, 1722 W 16th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 (Tel. (317) 635-5548)

DETECTO SCALES, INC. Michael V. Visconte, Sales Manager, Industrial Scale Division, 103-00 Foster Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11236 (Tel. (212) 272-4500)

DICKEY-JOHN CORPORATION

David B. Funk, Senior Design Engineer, Box 10, Auburn, Illinois 62615 (Tel. (217) 438-6181)

DIMEAWEIGH

Dennis S. Phares, P. O. Box 243, Ogden, Utah 84402 (Tel. (801) 392-0994)

DRESSERWAYNE

Warren J. Dubsky, Chief Engineer, Fuel Dispensing Products, 124 W. College

Avenue, Salisbury, Maryland 21801 (Tel. (301) 546-6688)

DUNBAR MANUFACTURING, INC. Harvey M. Lodge, Vice President, 307 Broadway, Swanson, Ohio 43558 (Tel. (419) 244-3021)

David G. Dunbar, Sales Representative, 307 Broadway, Swanton, Ohio 43558

(Tel. (419) 244-3021)

DUNNINGTON, BARTHOLOW & MILLER

Michael B. Weir, Attorney, 161 E. 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017

(Tel. (212) 682-8811)

292
ELECTROSCALE CORPORATION

Joseph F. Geisser, N.E. Sales Manager, 3 Genoa Street, North Providence,

Rhode Island 02904 (Tel. (401) 728-0044)

ELDEC CORPORATION

Donald E. Kelso, Staff Engineer, 20215 Cedar Valley Road, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (Tel. (206) 775-6471)

EMPIRE SCALE COMPANY

Al Stoler, President, 301 South Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California 90013 (Tel. (213) 629-3311)

EXXON COMPANY U.S.A. Harold E. Harris, Technical Advisor, P. O. Box 2180, Houston, Texas 77001

(Tel. (713) 656-6170)

EXXON CORPORATION

Raymond A. Hartmann, Advisor, 1251 Avenue of Americas, New York, New

York 10020 (Tel. (212) 398-3764)

EXXON CHEMICAL

John B. O'Neil, Manager, Twine Technology, Highway 78 West, Summerville,

South Carolina 29483 (Tel. (803) 873-5800)

FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIVISION OF COLT INDUSTRIES

Kenneth F. Hammer, President, 711 East St. Johnsbury Road, St. Johnsbury,

Vermont 05819 (Tel. (802) 748-5111)

Robert E. Callihan, Vice President, Engineering, 711 East St. Johnsbury Road,

St. Johnsbury, Vermont 95819 (Tel. (802) 748-5111)

Dick Hurley, Manager, Engineering Services, 711 East St. Johnsbury Road, St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 (Tel. (802) 748-5111)

FAIRBANKS SCALES

Ellis Fitzgerald, Service. Manager, 2934 Fleetbrook Drive, Memphis, Tennessee 38116 (Tel. (901) 332-8002)

FLEXIBLE PACKAGING ASSOCIATION

Thomas J. Dunn, Technical Director, 12025 Shaker Boulevard, Cleveland, Ohio

44120 (Tel. (216) 229-6373)

FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE

Todd S. Mann, Research Manager, 1750 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006

(Tel. (202) 452-8444)

FRANKLIN ELECTRIC COMPANY

John Young, Product Distribution Manager Exact Weight, Box 666, Levittown,

Pennsylvania 19058 (Tel. (215) 949-2400)

Bert M. Messerschmitt, Western Regional Manager, 6677 E. 26th Street, Los

Angeles, California 90040 (Tel. (213) 722-7787)

GENERAL MILLS, INCORPORATED

Donald B. Colpitts, Technical Manager, Weights and Measures, 9000 Plymouth

Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427 (Tel. (612) 540-2729)

Neal Peterson, Attorney at Law, 1730 M Street, N.W., #907, Washington, DC

20036 (Tel. (202) 296-0360)

William C. Mailhot, Director, Quality Control, Sperry Division, 9200 Wayzata

Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 (Tel. (612) 540-2354)

GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY

Lyle Littlefield, Director, Government Relations, 445 State Street, Fremont,

Michigan 49412 (Tel. (616) 928-2264)

GETTY REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY

W. C. Grosshauser, Coordinator Construction and Engineering, 1437 South

Boulder, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 (Tel. (918) 560-6753)

293
GILBARCO INCORPORATED

John S. Grose, Chief Experimental Engineer, 7300 Friendly Road, Greensboro,

North Carolina 27420 (Tel. (919) 292-3011)

Claude R. Parent, Director, National Accounts, 1020 Aileen Street, Lafayette, California 94549 (Tel. (415) 284-1810)

THE GILLETTE COMPANY

Ralph Levine, Corporate Quality Assurance Manager, Prudential Tower Building, Boston, Massachusetts 02199 (Tel. (617) 421-7371)

GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, INC. Mahlon A. Burnette, III, Director, Scientific Affairs, 1010 Wisconsin Avenue,

N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20007 (Tel. (202) 337-9400)

GUILD OF PROFESSIONAL PAPERHANGERS

Sid Benjamin, Co-Chairman, Wallcovering Standard Commission, Box 25, Carle

Place, New York 11514 (Tel. (516) 249-3358)

Isadore Gecker, Co-Chairman, Wallcovering Standard Commission, Box 25, Carle Place, New York 11514 (Tel. (516) 249-3358)

HARDY SCALE

Emil Micono, Product Manager, 1001 E. Touhy—Suite 95, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 (Tel. (312) 299-8070)

HOBART CORPORATION

Edwin Boshinski, Director, Research, Hobart Corporation, Troy, Ohio 45374

(Tel. (513) 223-0452)

Fred H. Katterheinrich, Manager, Weights and Measures, Hobart Corporation, Troy, Ohio 45374 (Tel. (513) 278-9496)

John H. Nielsen, Weights and Measures Representative, 325 Phelan Avenue,

San Jose, California 95112 (Tel. (408) 297-4209)

HOWE-RICHARDSON SCALE COMPANY

John W. Aquadro, Vice President Engineering, 668 Van Houten Avenue, Clif- ton, New Jersey 07470 (Tel. (201) 471-3400)

Gerald J. Devine, Consultant, 680 Van Houten Avenue, Clifton, New Jersey

07015 (Tel. (201) 471-3400)

HUNT WESSON FOODS, INC.

Chip Kloos, Section Head—R & D, 1645 W. Valencia, Fullerton, California 92634 (Tel. (714) 871-2100 Ext. 1098)

INTERFACE, INC. James Butcher, Sales Manager, 7401 E. Butherus Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona

85260 (Tel. (602) 948-5555)

INTERNATIONAL WEIGHING SYSTEMS

Billy Joe Click, President, 313 N. Dexford, Colton, California 92324 (Tel. (714) 824-0880)

JEWEL COMPANIES, INC. Ralph W. Miller, Jr., Vice President, Regulatory Research and Planning and

General Counsel, Jewel Food Stores Division, 1955 W. North Avenue, Melrose

Park, Illinois 60160 (Tel. (312) 531-6104)

THE KROGER COMPANY

David P. Leahy, Technical Consultant, 1240 State Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio

45204 (Tel. (513) 244-3829)

LIQUIDS CONTROLS CORPORATION

Howard Siebold, Vice President—Technical Services, P. O. Box 784, Fort Bragg,

California 95437 (Tel. (707) 964-4171)

294
LOCKHEED ELECTRONICS COMPANY

Joseph F. Devitt, Service Manager, U.S. Highway 22, Plainfield, New Jersey 07061 (Tel. (201) 757-1600)

LUFKIN RULE COMPANY

Don Oltz, Vice President Marketing, "The Cooper Group", P. O. Box 728, Apex,

North Carolina 27502 (Tel. (919) 362-7511)

MARATHON OIL COMPANY

Lem McManness, Manager, Marketing Engineering Department, 539 South

Main Street, Findlay, Ohio 45840 (Tel. (419) 422-2121)

MARTIN-DECKER COMPANY

Fred Conley, Manager of Scale Design, 1928 South Grand Avenue, Santa Ana,

California 92705 (Tel. (714) 540-9220)

E. I. "Jim" Shelley, Industrial Sales Manager, 1928 South Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, California 92705 (Tel. (714) 540-9220)

THE MEASUREGRAPH COMPANY

Eric Allen, Chairman, Associate Membership Committee, 4245 Forest Park

Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63108 (Tel. (314) 533-7800)

MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL

John B. Gannon, Director of Marketing, 580 South Lucile Street, Seattle, Washington 98108 (Tel. (206) 767-7433)

METRON CORPORATION

Fred Gresovic, National Sales Manager, 928 West 9th Street, Upland, Califor- nia 91786 (Tel. (714) 981-4981)

METTLER INSTRUMENT CORPORATION

Don Miller, Marketing Manager, Box 71, Hightstown, New Jersey 08520 (Tel. (609) 448-3000)

METTLER INSTRUMENTE AG

Hans Eigenmann, CH-8606 Greifensee, Switzerland, c/o Mettler Instrument

Corporation, Box 71, Hightstown, New Jersey 08520 (Tel. (609) 448-3000)

MILK INDUSTRY FOUNDATION/INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ICE CREAM

MANUFACTURERS

Austin Rhoads, Administrative Assistant, 910 17th Street, N.W., Washington,

DC 20006 (Tel. (202) 296-4250)

MILLERS' NATIONAL FEDERATION

John J. Sherlock, Vice President, 1776 F Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006

(Tel. (202) 452-0900)

MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING

Kenneth S. Jensen, Manager, Reliability Assurance and Technical Service, Box

33331, Building 42-3E #52, St. Paul, Minnesota 55133 (Tel. (612) 778-5282)

MISSOURI FARMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. William M. Baker, Supervisor, Weights and Measures, 3501 Berrywood, Co- lumbia, Missouri 65201 (Tel. (314) 874-5440)

MOBAY CHEMICAL CORPORATION

Frank L. Stribling, Quality Control Coordinator, 8400 Hawthorn Road, Kansas

City, Missouri 64120 (Tel. (816) 242-2461)

MOBIL CHEMICAL—PLASTICS DIVISION

Bob Wiseman, Quality Control Manager, Technical Center, Macedon, New York

14502 (Tel. (315) 986-6419)

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION

J. A. Petrelli, Manager, Marketing Operations—Engineering, 150 E. 42nd

Street, New York, New York 10017 (Tel. (212) 883-5204)

JOHN MORRELL & COMPANY

V. J. Del Giudice, Quality Control Director, 208 South LaSalle Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60604 (Tel. (312) 443-3075)

295
MORRIS SCALE COMPANY

Clifford V. Morris, President, 1537 S.E. Morrison Street, P. O. Box 14306,

Portland, Oregon 97214 (Tel. (503) 232-5339)

NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Eldon White, Director of Marketing Programs, P. O. Box 569, Denver, Colorado 80201 (Tel. (303) 861-1904)

NATIONAL CONFECTIONERS ASSOCIATION

Lester L. Bettes, Senior Consultant—Societe Candy Co., 11959 Northrup Way,

Bellevue, Washington 98005 (Tel. (206) 544-8400)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

Ronald E. Kidd, Manager, Microwave Associates, South Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 (Tel. (207) 272-3000)

NATIONAL CONTROLS, INC. Bob E. Prince, 3220 Airport Boulevard, Santa Rosa, California 94504 (Tel. (707) 527-5555)

Frank C. Rock, Vice President R&D, 2300 Airport Way, Santa Rosa, California 95404 (Tel. (707) 527-5555)

NATIONAL SCALE MEN'S ASSOCIATION

William V. Goodpaster, President, 1610 North C Street, Sacramento, California 95814 (Tel. (916) 441-0178)

Sylvia T. Wagner, Executive Director, 214V& South Washington Street, Naperville, Illinois 60540 (Tel. (312) 355-4788)

NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

John E. Martin, National Marketing Support Manager, 1130 Kifer Road, Sunnyvale, California 94086 (Tel. (408) 737-6258)

John Page, Manager of Training, 3605 Kifer Road, Mail Stop 11-1000, Santa

Clara, California 95051 (Tel. (408) 737-6254)

NRC CORPORATION, WORLD HEADQUARTERS

A. R. Daniels, Director, Industry Standards and Relations, Dayton, Ohio 45479

(Tel. (513) 449-6655)

NEPTUNE HARDY SCALES

James A. Beaton, Sales Manager, 3565 Corporate Court, San Diego, California 92123 (Tel. (714) 565-7701)

NEPTUNE MEASUREMENT COMPANY

Emmett F. Wehmann, Assistant Chief Engineer, P.O. Box 792—Emerald Road,

Greenwood, South Carolina 29646 (Tel. (803) 223-1212)

NEW BRUNSWICK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Louis P. Bonapace, President, 5 Greek Lane, Edison, New Jersey 08817 (Tel. (201) 287-2288)

NORTHEAST PETROLEUM INDUSTRIES, INC. John G. Buckley, Vice President—Director, 100 Federal Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (Tel. (617) 884-7570)

PEABODY COAL COMPANY, ARIZONA DIVISION

Ray Helmick, Manager, Weighing Systems, 1638 E. Cinnabar Avenue, Phoenix,

Arizona 85020 (Tel. (602) 943-3837)

PEABODY COAL COMPANY

Stanley L. Cisiewski, Director—Weights and Measures, 301 N. Memorial Drive,

St. Louis, Missouri 63102 (Tel. (314) 342-3469)

J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. Joseph R. Krajci, Attorney, 1301 Avenue of Americas, New York, New York

10019 (Tel. (212) 957-0242)

296
PENNSYLVANIA SCALE COMPANY

William J. Kautter, Jr., Manager-Electronic Engineering, 21 Graybill Road,

Leola, Pennsylvania 17540 (Tel. (717) 656-2653)

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY

H. M. Faulconer, Technical Representative, Seneca Building, Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004 (Tel. (918) 661-6334)

PHILLIPS SCALE COMPANY

0. Brick Phillips, 3130 Elliott Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98121 (Tel. (206) 284-6090)

THE PILLSBURY COMPANY

Carl A. Taubert, 608 2nd Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 (Tel. (612) 330-8009)

PITNEY-BOWES

RUTHERFORD H. Fenn, Director Corporate Standards, Walnut and Pacific Streets, Stamford, Connecticut 06904 (Tel. (203) 853-2031)

POWERINE OIL COMPANY

Paul Samsing, Retail Sales Manager, 12354 Lakeland Road, Santa Fe Springs, California 90670 (Tel. (213) 944-6111)

PRESTO PRODUCTS, INC. Marvin A. Lambert, Quality Control Director, P.O. Box 2399, Appleton, Wisconsin 54953 (Tel. (414) 739-9471)

TonyZeller, Director of Packaging, Box 2399, Appleton, Wisconsin 54913 (Tel. (414) 739-9471)

PROCTER AND GAMBLE

WILLIAM H. Braun, Packaging Section Head, 6100 Center Hill Road, Cincinnati,

Ohio 45224 (Tel. (513) 977-5233)

J. D. Wallace, Packaging Section Head, ITC Building, Cincinnati, Ohio 45217

(Tel. (513) 763-5172)

John P. Siegfried, Counsel, 301 East Sixth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (Tel. (513) 562-4400)

Arthur L. Smith, Technical Services Manager, P.O Box 13220, Sacramento,

California 95813 (Tel. (916) 383-3800)

PETROLEUM METER AND PUMP COMPANY

Rich Allen, Sales Manager, P.O. Box 422, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (Tel. (203) 677-9656)

THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY

Fred A. Dobbins, Director, Quality Assurance—Compliance, 617 West Main,

Barrington, Illinois 60010 (Tel. (312) 381-1980 Ext. 2256)

RAMSEY ENGINEERING COMPANY

Max C. Casanova, Manager, Field Service, 1853 W. Country Road South, St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 (Tel. (612) 633-5150)

S. H. RASKIN CORPORATION

S. H. RASKIN, President, P.O. Box 402426, Dallas, Texas 75240 (Tel. (214) 742- 2727)

RATH PACKING COMPANY

Merlin J. Andera, Director of Quality Assurance, Waterloo, Iowa 50704 (Tel. (319) 235-8703)

REVERE CORPORATION OF AMERICA

John J. Elengo, Jr., Vice President—Engineering, North Colony Road, Wallingford, Connecticut 06492 (Tel. (203) 269-7701)

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL/AUTONETICS

Rolf B. F. Schumacher, Department 120 HC02, 3370 Miraoma Avenue, Anaheim, California 92803 (Tel. (714) 632-5981)

297
SAFEWAY STORES, INC. Robert L. Winslow, Manager Food Technology Division, Oakland, California 94660 (Tel. (415) 891-3250)

SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Robert M. Zweig, President, (President-John Chatillon and Sons, Inc.), 83-30 Kew Gardens Road, Kew Gardens, New York 11365 (Tel. (212) 847-5000)

Raymond J. Lloyd, Executive Director, 1000 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. (202) 628-4634)

Daryl Tonini, Technical Director, 1000 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, ! D.C. 20005 (Tel. (202) 628-4634)

SCHWAN'S SALES ENTERPRISE, INC. Don Wichmann, National Retail Marketing Manager, 115 West College Drive,

Marshall, Minnesota 56258 (Tel. (507) 532-3274)

SERAPHIN TEST MEASURE COMPANY

Raymond R. Wells, Vice President Sales, 30 Indel Avenue, Rancocas, New

Jersey 08068 (Tel. (609) 267-0922)

SHELL OIL COMPANY

Matthew B. Harrington, Marketing Engineering Manager, #1 Shell Plaza, Houston, Texas 77077 (Tel. (713) 241-2701)

R. D. Mueller, Retail Commercial Engineering Manager, Box 3105—Milam

Building, Room 739, Houston, Texas 77001 (Tel. (713) 241-2901)

Charles L. Van Inwagen, Staff Engineer, P.O. Box 3105, Houston, Texas 77001

(Tel. (713) 241-6973)

SINGLE SERVICE INSTITUTE

Joseph W. Bow, Director of General Services, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. (202) 347-0020)

Robert W. Foster, Executive Vice President, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (Tel. (202) 347-0020)

SMITH METER OPERATIONS, GEOSOURCE INC.

Philip E. Swanson, Senior Engineer, 1602 Wagner Avenue, Erie, Pennsylvania 16512 (Tel. (814) 899-0661)

SOUTHERN WEIGHING AND INSPECTION BUREAU

M. R. Gruber, Jr., Supervisor of Weights, 151 Ellis Street, N.E., Room 306, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (Tel. (404) 659-6266 Ext. 266) SWEDA INTERNATIONAL

H. Warren Gross, Product Line Management, 34 Maple Avenue, Pine Brook

New Jersey 07058 (Tel. (201) 575-8100)

TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY

W. B. Jones, Professor and Head Electrical Engineering Department, College

Station Texas 77843 (Tel. (713) 845-3429)

THATCHER GLASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY

William N. Arduser, Design Assurance Manager, P.O. Box 265, Elmira, New

York 14845 (Tel. (607) 737-3194)

THRUMAN SCALE COMPANY

Joseph R. Schaeffer, Vice President, 1939 Refuge Road, Columbus, Ohio 43216

(Tel. (614) 443-9741)

TOKHEIM CORPORATION

Bob Anderson, Western Sales Representative—Meters, 35 S. Bayshore (P.O Box

5046), San Mateo, California 94401 (Tel. (415) 342-9795)

Walter F. Gerdom, Manager—Technical Services, 1602 Wabash Avenue, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801 (Tel. (219) 423-2552)

William D. Key, Chief Engineer, 1602 Wabash Avenue, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801 (Tel. (219) 423-2552)

298
TOLEDO SCALE

T.M. Stabler, Manager—Weights and Measures, P. O. Box 1705, Columbus,

Ohio 43216 (Tel. (614) 438-4548)

Mike G. Lewis, Arga Manager, 8208 Capwell Drive, Oakland, California 94621

(Tel. (415) 569-5980)

TRANSAMERICA COMPUTER COMPANY

Richard Staff, Regional Director, 2446 Estand Way, Pleasant Hill, California 94523 (Tel. (415) 798-3680)

Jim Corzine, Director of Weighing Systems, 2446 Estand Way, Pleasant Hill, California 94523 (Tel. (415) 798-3860)

TRANSDUCERS, INC. Bob Nordstrom, Regional Manager, 14030 Bolsa Lane, Cerritos, California 90701 (Tel. (714) 739-1991)

Peter R. Perino, President, 14030 Bolsa Lane, Cerritos, California 90701 (Tel. (714) 739-1991)

James R. Story, Director of Marketing, 14030 Bolsa Lane, Cerritos, California 90701 (Tel. (714) 739-1991)

TRINER SCALE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY

James R.F. Woods, Director of Government Sales, 3857 Chain Bridge Road,

Fairfax City, Virginia 22030 (Tel. (703) 691-0076)

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

W. L. (Lew) Johnson, Manager, Quality and Specifications, Home and Auto- motive Products Division, 55 Haul Road, Wayne, New Jersey 07470 (Tel. (201) 694-8800)

UNION OIL COMPANY

Kenneth L. McGINNIS, Operations Engineer, Union Oil Center, Los Angeles,

California 90017 (Tel. (213) 486-6108)

W. J. Myers, Manager of Marketing Equipment, 1650 East Golf Road, Schaumberg, Illinois 60196 (Tel. (312)885-5144)

VEEDER ROOT COMPANY

Tom McLaughlin, Western Regional Manager, 1049 Grand Central Avenue,

Glendale, California 91201 (Tel. (213) 245-0161)

Robert E. Nix, Manager, Customer Services, 70 Sargeant Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06102 (Tel. (203) 527-7201)

Ron C. Pugh, Petroleum Sales Engineer, 70 Sargeant Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06102 (Tel. (203) 527-7201)

WALLCOVERING MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Robert E. Hebda, 1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006

(Tel. (202) 783-0800)

WEIGHING AND CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC. Daniel J. Cockrell, President, P.O. Box 1483, Brandon, Florida 33511 (Tel. (813) 689-8791)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Benjamin Banks, Scale Testing and Weighing Specialist, Federal Grain In- spection Service (FGIS), Weighing Division, Auditors Building, 3117, 201 14th

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447-8529)

299
Sydney J. Butler, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services, 14th and Jefferson Streets, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447- 4691)

Edward L. Jones, Scale Specialist, Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS), P. O. Box 3837, 606 9th Street, Portland, Oregon 97209 (Tel. (503) 221-2807)

Chuck Merkhofer, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Packers and Stockyards,

9370 S.W. Greenburg Road, Suite E, Portland, Oregon 97223 (Tel. (503) 246- 3395)

Charles H. Oakley, Chief of Scales and Weighing Branch, Packers & Stock- yards—AMS, 14th and Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 22050

(Tel. (202) 447-3140)

Richard R. Pforr, Chief, Scale Testing and Weighing Branch, Weighing Division, Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS), 201 14th Street, S.W., Room

3117 Auditors Building, Washington, D.C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447-8529)

Roger Sandman, Deputy Director-Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of Govern- mental and Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447-6643

Clifford A. Watson, Branch Chief, Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Bldg. 221, Grandview, Missouri 64454 (Tel. (816) 926-6680)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Taylor M. Quinn, Associate Director for Compliance-Bureau of Foods, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration Washington, D.C. 20204 (Tel. (202) 245-1243)

Charles H. Pogue, Food and Drug Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration,

HEW-FDA-Division of Federal/State Relations, State Services Branch (HFO310), Parklawn Building Room 15-A-19, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 (Tel. (301) 443-6200)

Roger L. Lowell, Supervisor, Portland Resident Post, Food and Drug Administration, Room 694, Federal Building, 511 N.W. Broadway, Portland, Oregon

97209 (Tel. (503) 221-2031)

Allan Schurr, Federal State Liaison Officer, Region X, Food and Drug Administration, 5003 Federal Office Building, 909 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98174 (Tel. (206) 442-5304)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

James G. Mills, Attorney, Division of Energy—Product Information, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580 (Tel. (202) 724-1967)

U.S. METRIC BOARD

L. J. Chisholm, Director, State Programs, 1815 N. Lynn Street, Arlington, Vir- ginia 22209 (Tel. (703) 235-2583)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Manager, Research and Development, Office of Weights and Measures, Room A211, Building 220, Washington, D.C. 20234

(Tel. (301) 921-2403)

David E. Edgerly, Chief, Office of Domestic and International Measurement

Standards, Room A353, Building 221, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921- 3307)

300
Allen J. Farrar, Legal Adviser, Administration Building, Room A1128, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2425)

Joanne Hall, Packaging and Labeling Coordinator, Room B364, Building 220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3751)

Stephen Hasko, Engineer, Office of Weights and Measures, Room A211, Build- ing 220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2402)

Ann P. Heffernan, Conference Coordinator, Office of Weights and Measures,

Room A211, Building 220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2403)

Donald R. Johnson, Deputy Director for Programs, Washington, D.C. 20234

(Tel. (301) 921-2822)

Blayne C. Keysar, Engineering Technician, Office of Weights and Measures,

Room A211, Building 220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401)

Joe Kim, Electronic Engineer, Office of Weights and Measures, Room A211,

Building 220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401)

Arthur O. McCoubrey, Associate Director for Measurement Services, National Measurement Laboratory, Room A363, Building 221, Washington, D.C. 20234

(Tel. (301) 921-3301)

Henry V. Oppermann, General Physical Scientist, Office of Weights and Measures, Room A211, Building 220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401)

H. Steffen Peiser, Chief, Office of International Relations, Room A511, Administration Building, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2463)

Charles C. Raley, Public Information Specialist, Office of International Relations, Room A511, Administration Building, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2779)

Richard N. Smith, Technical Coordinator, Office of Weights and Measures, Room

A211, Building 220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 931-2401)

Evelyn Tallerico, Secretary, Office of Weights and Measures, Room A211,

Building 220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3677)

Albert D. Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, Room A211, Building

220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3677)

Eric A. Vadelund, Program Manager, Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, Center

for Consumer Product Technology, Room B364, Building 220, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3751)

Otto K. Warnlof, Manager, Technical Services, Office of Weights and Measures, Room A211, Building 220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401)

Harold F. Wollin, Assistant Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, Room

A211, Building 220, Washington, D.C. 20234 (Tel. (3g01) 921-3677)

U.S. OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Rodney E. Leonard, Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, Room

301
435, Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503 (Tel. (202) 456- 6226)

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

W. Clent Crocker, Acting Manager Systems and Procedures Branch, U.S. Postal Service, Office of Mail Classification, Washington, D.C. 20260 (Tel. (202) 245-4353)

U.S. METRIC ASSOCIATION

Valerie Antoine, Vice President, 10245 Andasol Avenue, Northridge, Califor- nia 91325 (Tel. (213) 363-5606)

Louis F. Sokol, President, Sugarloaf Star Route, Boulder, Colorado 80302 (Tel. (303) 442-3342)

OREGON JOURNAL

Philip Adamsak, Reporter, 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, Oregon 97201 (Tel. (503) 221-8391)

RETIRED REGISTRANTS

Everett Black, 2282 Foster Avenue, Ventura, California 93003 (Tel. (805) 648- 3434)

William A. Kerlin, Chief, California Bureau of Weights and Measures (Retired), 5509 Valerie Way, Sacramento, California 95841 (Tel. (916) 332-4882)

FOREIGN REGISTRANTS

CANADA

John D. Buchanan, Departmental Metric Coordinator, Department of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs, Place DuPortage, Ottawa Hull KIAOC9, Canada

Eugene Gosh, Executive Director, B.C. Metric Conversion Office, 300—777

Broughton Street, Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E3, Canada (Tel. (604) 387-3601)

EGYPT

M. Ammar Mohammed, Director, National Institute for Standards, P.O. Box

2343, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt

HONDURAS

Guillermo Rivera, Engineer, Department of Engineering and Standardization, General Direction of Industry, Ministry of Economy, Tegucigalpa, Honduras

INDIA

Debabrata Sen, Scientist-in-Charge, Length Standards, Dimensional Metrology

and Mass Metrology Sections, National Physical Laboratory, Hillside Road,

New Delhi 110012, India

302
LIBERIA

J. KlEMUE Kollie, Assistant Director, Bureau of Standards, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Transportation, P.O. Box 9041, Monrovia, Liberia MEXICO

Julian Basurto, General Direction of Standards (DGN), Tuxpan No. 2, 8 Piso, Mexico 7 D.G., Mexico

NIGERIA

Y.A. Balogun, Deputy Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Policy and

Management Division, Federal Ministry of Trade. P.M. P ^n 12514, Lagos,

Nigeria

j SAUDI ARABIA

Jewell H. Eastman, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,

U.S. Rep/JECOR, APO New York (Saudi Arabia) 09038

! SRI LANKA

A.P.H.G. De Waas Gunawardena, Assistant Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Weights and Measures Division, Park Road, Colombo 5, Sri Lanka

SUDAN

Babiker Abu El Hassan, Assistant Director, Weights and Measures Administration, Ministry of Cooperation, Commerce and Supply, P.O. Box 194, Khartoum, Sudan

THAILAND

WlCHlAN Pratoommas, Commercial Counselor, Royal Thai Embassy (Thailand),

i 5 World Trade Center, Suite 3443, New York, New York 10048 TUNISIA

Mohieddine Ben Larbi, Chief, Laboratory of Food Processing, Weights and

Measures Control Division, Laboratoire Central, Montfleury, Rue Dr. Bra- quehaye, Tunis, Tunisia

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PUBLICATIONS

The following publications may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents,

U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Remittance must accom- pany order. NBS Handbook 44, 1979 Edition—Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices SN003-003-02143-1 $6.00

NBS Handbook 112—Examination Procedure Outlines for Commercial

Weighing and Measuring Devices SN0303-01162 1.70 NBS Handbook 117—Examination of Vapor-Measuring Devices for Liquefied

Petroleum Gas

SN003-003-01563-6 75 NBS Special Publication 304-Metric Chart

SN003-003-0 1072-3 65

l NBS Special Publication 304A—Brief History of Measurement Systems

! SN003-003-1713-2 35 NBS Special Publication 330—The International System of Units (SI) (1977

Edition)

SN003-003-01784-1 1.60 NBS Special Publication 345—A Metric America—A Decision Whose Time

Has Come

SN003-003-00884-2 2.70

303
NBS Special Publication 447—Weights and Measures Standards of the United

States, A Brief History

SN003-003-01654-3 1.00 NBS Handbook 105-3—Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck

Type Volumetric Field Standards SN003-003-02044-3 1.20

Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures:

NBS Special Publication 377-Index to the Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (1905-1971)

SN003-003-01 107-0 $.85

NBS Special Publication 391—Report of 58th Conference (1973) SN003-003-01260-2 2.50 NBS Special Publication 407—Report of 59th Conference (1974) SN003-003-01379-0 3.75 NBS Special Publication 442—Report of 60th Conference (1975) SN003-003-01614-^ 3.30 NBS Special Publication 471—Report of 61st Conference (1976) SN003-003-01806-6 3.75 NBS Special Publication 517—Report of 62nd Conference (1977) SN003-003-01966-1 4.25 NBS Special Publication 532—Report of 63rd Conference (1978) SN003-003-02045-1 4.25

The following publications may be obtained from the National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Remittance must ac- company order. The prices listed are for paper copies. NBS Handbook 94—The Examination of Weighing Equipment

(COM No. 73-10635) $9.25

NBS Handbook 98-The Examination of Farm Milk Tanks

(COM No. 72-10619) 4.00 NBS Circular 593—The Federal Basis for Weights and Measures (COM) No. 75-10234) 4.00 NBS Handbook 99—The Examination of Liquefied Petroleum Gas LiquidMeasuring Devices 4.00 NBS Handbook 105-1—Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights

(COM No. 72-50707) 3.50 NBS Handbook 105-2—Specifications and Tolerances for Field Measuring

Flasks (COM) No. 71-50065) 3.50 The following publications may be obtained from the Office of Weights and Measures,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234, at no charge:

Mission of the Office of Weights and Measures

National Conference on Weights and Measures—Its Organization and Procedure Model Weights and Measures Ordinance (for cities or counties)

List of State, Commonwealth, District, and Local Weights and Measures Offices of the United States NBS Special Publication 430—Household Weights and Measures Card

NBS Circular 1035—Units and Systems of Weights and Measures—Their Origin,

Development, and Present Status

304
NBS Circular 1056—Guidelines for Use of the Metric System

NBS Circular 1070—References on Metric Information NBS Circular 1071—Factors for High Precision Conversion

NBS Circular 1078—The Metric System of Measurement (SI)—Federal Register Notice of October 26, 1977 NBS Circular 1098—Preferred Metric Units for General Use by the Federal Gov- ernment

305
NBS-114A ire., s-7.,1

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET NBS SP- 566

No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Report of the 64th National Conference on Weights and Measures 1979

7. AtwaSJW) Editors: Harold F. Wollin. Louis E. Barbrow, and Ann P. Heffernan

}. Recipient's Accosted No.

5. Publication Date March 1980

t. Performlni Organization Code

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. Pro|ect/Tast«/Worii Unit No.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, city, sum, ZIP)

Same and Item 9

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 26-27766

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or leea tactual aummery ol moat i nt Information. It document includes t algnlllcanl bibliography c literature survey, mention It here.) This is a report of the proceedings (edited) of the Sixty-fourth National Conference

on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, held in Portland, Oregon, July 23-27, 1979, and attended by State, county, and city weights

and measures officials, and representatives of the Federal Government, business,

industry, and consumer organizations.

Major issues discussed at this Conference included metric conversion in the United

States, particularly the conversion of gasoline dispensers, problems relating to the quantity fill of packaged commodities, especially as affected by moisture loss, statistical approach to package checking, Federal grain inspection, and a legal metrology control system.

17. KEY WORDS (alx to twelve entrlea; alphabetical ardor; capitalize only the tlrat letter ol the llret key word unleea a proper .name; ..pararedtyeem/coror..) consumer affairs; education; electronic devices; International Organization of Legal Metrology; legal metrology; measurement assurance; metrication;

model laws and regulations; moisture loss; packaging and labeling; specifications

and tolerances; weights and measures.

18. AVAILABILITY [Q Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Hot Release to NTIS

r—t Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washi ngton, DC 20402, SD Stoik No. SXO03-O03-O2147-4

I

| Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

313

22. Price

$7.00

USCOMM-OC

ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1980 306-833/608
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of [he National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization.

Also included from time to lime are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service lo subscribers each issue contains complete

citations lo all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic

SI7; foreign $21.25. Single copy, $3 domestic; $3.75 foreign. NOTE: The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical

Sciences." DIMENSIONS/NBS—This monthly magazine is published lo in- form scientists, engineers, business and industry leaders, teachers,

students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and

technology, with primary emphasis on work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution abatement,

health and safety, and consumer product performance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs in measurement

standards and techniques, properties of mailer and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and

automatic data processing. Annual subscription: domestic $11;

foreign $13.75. NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions lo the technical literature on

various subjects related lo the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial

practice {including safely codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and olher special publications

appropriate lo this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical lables, manuals, and

studies of special interest lo physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative

dala on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by N BS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act {Public Law

90-396),

NOTE: The principal publication outlet for Ihe foregoing dala is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics {AIP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS. 1 1 55 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves bul restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement lo the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington. DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FlPS and NBSIR's—from

the National Technical Information Services. Springfield, VA 22161

.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 1 1717 (38 FR 12315, dated May II, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by ihe sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey bibliographies

are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service. A literature sur- vey issued biweekly. Annual subscription: domestic $25; foreign

$30. Liquefied Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly. Annual

subscription: $20.

Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature survey issued

quarterly. Annual subscription: $30. Please send subscription or- ders and remittances for the preceding bibliographic services lo the National Bureau of Standards, Cryogenic Data Center (736) Boulder. CO 80303.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM-215

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK