the technical committees that develop the recommendations (standards). The productivity of the IEC and ISO committees established before 1965 and of those with the U.S. as Secretariat is as follows: These data show that a few committees have been very active and that many have been almost inactive. The performance of committees with the U.S. as secretariat is no better than that of other committees. Admittedly, counting standards is a poor basis for evaluation of committee performance, but the numbers indicate that the less active committees do have the potential ability to double the rate of development of international standards. Another factor in the disparity is indifference. U.S. participation is illustrative. A rough estimate of 50% participation can be made on the basis of the following information for ISO: Participation in IEC cannot be readily ascertained since each national committee is automatically included as a participating member of each technical committee and subcommittee. Information on participation at the working group level is not available, but members of the U.S. National Committee have made rough estimates of 50%. Effective representation is probably less than indicated by the above figures, since U.S. delegates do not attend many IEC and ISO meetings of groups on which there is nominal participation. It is at IEC and ISO meetings, particularly at the working group level, that the international recommendations are developed and the practices of countries represented are naturally given greatest consideration. Counting memberships is at best a hazardous means for assessing the effectiveness of U.S. participation. The alternative of subjective assessment, committee by committee and member by member, would be very difficult. Quantitative evaluations do not exist. A part of the apparent indifference may be an inability to foresee the effect that IEC and ISO recommendations will have on national standards and international trade. In the past, the effect has been very small, primarily because of the few recommendations issued. However, this situation should change rapidly during the next 10 years. The cost of sending delegates overseas to meetings is an important deterrent to participation in many international committees. The travel expenses of a delegate to an overseas meeting average about $800. Thus, to send two delegates to each of the estimated 1100 meetings of committees, subcommittees, and working groups of IEC and ISO each year would cost nearly $2,000,000. This cost does not include salaries of delegates for time spent at meetings and committee activities between meetings; nor does it include costs of administration. The American National Standards Institute estimates the cost of administering U.S. participation in an international standards committee at $5000 per year. Supporting a committee secretariat adds sizable additional expenses, bringing the cost, according to ANSI estimates, to about $15,000. In contrast, the travel costs of participation for European nations are obviously much less. In any case whether travel cost or indifference is the reason for the relatively low level of participation by the United States, the fact is that the U.S. supports only 50 secretariats of technical committees and subcommittees of ISO and IEC, compared with about 100 each for England and France. Appendix 5 SELECTED QUESTIONNAIRES BEING EMPLOYED IN THE U.S. METRIC STUDY (1) Manufacturing Industry Survey Information and Instructions ●General Data (Part A) Cost Data (Part B) (2) International Trade Survey Impact of Metrication on U.S. Imports (3) Federal Government Survey Areas of National Responsibility (4) Survey of Nonmanufacturing Firms ●Initial Contact Interview Second Interview (Part A) Second Interview (Part B) Existing Measurement System U. S. Department of Commerce BOB # 41-S70016 Approval expires June 30, 1971 U.S. METRIC STUDY Additional information or copies of the questionnaire may be obtained from: U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Washington, D. C. 20234 Phone: (301) 921-2658 U.S. METRIC STUDY- MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE INTRODUCTION Public Law 90-472, August 9, 1968, copy attached, authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a program of investigation, research, and survey "to determine the impact of increasing worldwide use of the metric system on the United States" and to "appraise economic . . advantages and disadvantages of the increased. use of the metric system in specific fields and the impact of such increased use on those affected". By the time of the enactment of the Law practically all of the countries of the world had adopted the metric system of measurement, with the British Government, in 1965, announcing their intention of converting all manufacturing and other sectors of their economy to the metric system with a planned completion data of 1975 and with the South African Government in 1967 deciding to follow suit. In 1969 the New Zealand Government announced their intention of making the metric system their national system of weights and measures and in January 1970, the Australian and the Canadian Governments announced the same intention. The data collected in this survey will be presented in the Department of Commerce Report to Congress on an industry-wide basis and in such form that individual company data cannot be isolated. SCOPE AND PURPOSE The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information that will assist in determining what course of action with respect to metrication the United States should follow. This questionnaire is on a Company-wide* basis for one 4-digit product group regardless of how many establishments of your company participate in the manufacture of that product group. It has two parts: Part A, which pertains to general facets of metric usage, and Part B, which deals with the subject of “added costs" that would be attributable to increased use of the metric system. Much of the information requested in Part A is conjectural rather For purposes of this survey "Company" is defined to include the parent firm and all domestic subsidiaries it owns or controls. than factual, while the data requested in Part B requires an extensive in-depth and relatively expensive internal study by the respondent. All recipients are requested to complete Part A; the completion of Part B is optional. If you plan to respond to Part B please communicate with the Manufacturing Survey Team (address and phone number on front cover page) for further background. Your replies will be of great value in enabling the Secretary of Commerce to propose an appropriate course of action for consideration by the United States. However, the questions and assumptions do not imply what course of action may be recommended by the Secretary in his report to the Congress. This questionnaire is based on the 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) as defined in the Bureau of the Budget SIC Classification Manual. A separate form should be used for the group of products constituting each 4digit SIC to be reported. If you require information regarding the products classified within each SIC industry, please consult with your Comptroller or your nearest Department of Commerce Field Office, or the U.S. Metric Study Manufacturing Survey Team (address on front cover page). DEFINITIONS The following definitions are applicable to Parts A and B: (1) Domestic production: your production in the United States, including Puerto Rico. (2) Customary system: the system of measurement units (yard, pound, second, degree Fahrenheit, and units derived from these) most commonly used in the United States. Synonyms "English system", "U.S. system". These are not to be confused with "Imperial system", which describes a related but not completely identical system currently in use in the United Kingdom and other English-speaking countries. (3) Metric system: the measurement system based generally on the meter as a unit of length, the kilogram as a unit of mass, the second as a unit of time, the kelvin or the degree Celsius (formerly degree Centigrade) as a unit of temperature and units derived from these. This system has evolved over the years |