Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

stated that they are little affected by measurement usage: the Social and Rehabilitation Service in HEW, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Trade Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office of the President.

Six agencies, although endorsing U.S. metrication under either plan, stated an explicit preference for "going all the way" and bringing engineering standards into line with the metric measurement units. These included the Department of Agriculture, the Veterans Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the Patent Office and the National Science Foundation. The Office of Telecommunications Policy (Executive Office of the President) "believes that it is impossible to adopt metric units without adopting metric-based engineering standards in the field of electronics." Several individual respondents in other agencies oppose metrication under Assumption II but favor it under Assumption III, including: the Office of Design and Construction in the General Services Administration and the Letter Mail Equipment Branch in the U.S. Postal Service. The Kansas City Division of Bendix Corporation (AEC contractor) believes that change to metric measurement units without a corresponding change of standards would prove confusing. The Bonneville Power Administration stated that "metrication in both measurements and standards should proceed together."

A total of 32 individual respondents answered "no" to a U.S. metrication effort under one or both of the Assumptions. As mentioned above, three of these do not favor adoption of metric measurement units alone, although they endorse the more comprehensive change in which engineering standards are also revised. It is worth noting that 15 of the other 29 respondents opposed to metrication provided no indication in their entire questionnaire as to why they oppose U.S. metrication with regard to their internal operations. Twelve of these 15 estimated no impact on their internal operating costs during a transition period, one estimated $500, and one - $800 annual cost. The Disbursing Office in the Government Printing Office, which stated that its mission is "the collection and disbursement of all monies . . .," estimated $8,000 annual costs, due to "greater inefficiency."

The following are in the category of subunits opposed to metrication and forecasting no cost impact: the Commodity Exchange Authority in the Department of Agriculture stated that its role is regulatory, it is indifferent to the measurement units used, it foresees no costs, no problems for itself, and some advantages, although “ignorance can be more easily offered as an excuse for failing to observe regulations, particularly during the initial stages of the transition period." In the National Communicable Disease Center of the Health Services and Mental Health Administration: the Kansas City Laboratory already "uses metric in all lab work," would have to make “no changes," and observed that, "any changeover of engineering standards should be gradual over 10 years;" the Computer Systems Branch reported "no foreseeable appreciable effect of a coordinated national program." In the Social Security Administration: Printing and Records Management in the Division of Operating Facilities stated "all equipment is replaced within 10 years due to obsolescence;" and the Management Services Branch ob

served "the metric system is not applicable to these operations." The Bureau of Financial Analysis in the Federal Maritime Commission is concerned with "financial information relating to domestic offshore carriers." Two respondents in the Small Business Administration stated that measurements are "not related to [their] internal operations." In the U.S. Postal Service, Law Enforcement Science and Technology would have to do "practically nothing to change over," and would have "easier engineering calculations." Evidently these respondents, though they would not be affected negatively by U.S. metrication, would on the other hand derive no tangible benefits therefrom.

Eight of the 394 total respondents stated clear-cut reasons for being opposed to U.S. metrication with regard to their internal operations. The National Center for Mental Health Services, Training and Research in the National Institute for Mental Health cited problems in engineering-type activities, adaptation of people including craftsmen and supply clerks, and conversion of records. Five of these eight respondents are involved with the construction, operation and/or maintenance of physical structures: the Buildings and Grounds Department of the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital, Staten Island; the Office of Housing Management in the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Buildings Management Department of the Smithsonian Institution; the Utilities Design Division in the U.S. Postal Service; and Plant Planning in the Government Printing Office. The Office of Engineering Services in the National Institutes of Health would have problems of dual tooling, replacement parts for equipment, and training. The Burlington Plant of the Atomic Energy Commission would have problems typical of any high-technology manufacturing operation, such as conversion or replacement of scales and gauges, adaptation of fabrication machinery, and retraining of skilled craftsmen.

All told, on an individual respondent basis, 258 of the 394 Federal agency subunits (72% of the 358 answering the question) favor metrication under Assumption II, and 30 (8.4%) are opposed. For metrication including the revision of engineering standards, the corresponding figures are 231 (65% of 354 answering) in favor and 25 (7%) opposed. (The rest of the respondents, in each case, answered "don't know.")

The agencies were asked what would be an appropriate transition period for a coordinated national metrication effort with regard to their internal operations. A consensus of the respondents endorsed a 10-year transition (167 of 231 who expressed an opinion on this question). Of the 54 favoring a shorter period, some are offices already significantly using metric, while others could convert more efficiently over a shorter number of years (for example, offices maintaining statistical time series). Of the 10 subunits advocating a 15- to 25-year transition, several are special cases involving longlife equipment such as buildings or ships, while three (1.3% of those replying to the question) feel "it would take that long to familiarize the populace with the metric system." (Other respondents suggested that a transition period longer than 10 years probably would prove unsatisfactory, since it would encourage delay in making changes.) It appears that all reasonable variants of an "optimum" transition period can be accommodated in a coordinated 10

year program of metrication. The country would not be 100 percent metric at the end of such a period, but could be substantially so.

The agencies submitted the following suggestions regarding implementation of a metrication program in the nation at large:

(1) widespread publicity of the advantages of metric usage and a wellplanned program of education and training, including revision of instructional media at all levels;

(2) a joint government-industry-academic-technical society group to conduct detailed studies on implementation;

(3) adoption of a clear, positive U.S. policy, including a unified target date, with specific phases or stages delineated and scheduled - said policy to be achieved by a consensus among government, industry and labor;

(4) preparing as far as possible the paper basis for transition to metric system usage before commencing actual changes;

(5) required use of metric early on for Government publications, regulations and programs, and Federal procurement in metric as and where feasible:

(6) use of dual terminology in Government laws and codes where appropriate;

(7) requiring dual dimensioning on commercial products;

(8) legislation making use of metric units and standards by government and industry mandatory.

The provision of tax incentives or other means of financial assistance was suggested, particularly with regard to small businesses, although it seems clear that in general a subsidized program probably would be less efficient and more costly to the nation as a whole than would a metrication program that relies on the pressures of the market place.

The Council of Economic Advisors submitted several noteworthy suggestions pertaining to implementation of metrication: (1) Although considerable weight in a metrication decision should be given to the opinion of industry, since it should be best informed about immediate benefits and costs, the appropriate role of government is to coordinate conversion if this path is taken. (2) The government also has a role in the decision to convert where those who would benefit (e.g., consumers) are less vocal than others likely to incur larger costs. (3) Additionally, the government should help determine the rate of discount of future benefits from metrication - important since short run costs will undoubtedly appear large relative to expected benefits, but the latter accrue indefinitely in the future (also, industry may be inclined to discount future benefits at a higher rate than the society would deem appropriate). (4) Most weight "should probably be given to the resulting increase in foreign trade," and in this regard, "the volume of trade, not the balance of payments, should be used as a measure of the impact.”

Thus, although there would be some problems and significant costs involved, the survey found strong support in the Federal civilian agencies for concerted national action to increase the use of metric measurement units and SI-based engineering standards in the United States. There is a solid ex

421-813 O-71-3

pectation in the Federal civilian establishment that long-term advantages of such a move would clearly outweigh any possible disadvantages. A wide consensus regards 10 years as a reasonable time frame for transition to be substantially completed. Although estimates of dollar costs and savings which the effort would impose on Federal agency internal operations are subject to some uncertainty, it is believed that a good indication of their expected magnitude has been obtained.

IV. METRIC EFFECTS
EFFECTS ON
ON AREAS OF

NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

To summarize Federal agency views as to the effects of growing worldwide metric usage on their areas of national responsibility is, in a sense, to assess the effects on the entire nation, since there is no significant activity in the nation which is not in some way an area of Federal responsibility. Nevertheless certain salient facts have emerged from this part of the survey of Federal Government Agencies. Current metric usage in these areas understandably ranges from zero to 100 percent. Impact of the present level of metric usage on these areas of activity varies from negligible1 to moderate, except for two fields (shipbuilding and highway safety) which have already experienced substantial to severe impact. Of the 57 agency inputs to this portion of the Survey, 26 reported some trend of increasing metric system usage in their particular area of national responsibility. With no concerted national metrication effort, 12 of these respondents foresee little or no effect in their area of national responsibility, and 21 expect increasing disadvantages, costs and/or problems, ranging up to substantial or serious in the areas of air transportation, shipbuilding, highway safety and small business. Twenty-eight of these 57 respondents stated that U.S. adoption of metric usage would have a positive impact on their area of responsibility and/or improve their effectiveness or ability to perform their assigned missions. Three stated that their effectiveness would be impaired during the conversion period. In all, 31 of these agency inputs favor some sort of metrication action, most endorsing a nationally coordinated program to convert the U.S. to the metric system. One respondent2 opposes any metrication efforts.

1 See "Classification of Intensities of Impact," app. 3, p. 79.

2 Federal Aviation Administration with regard to Aviation Safety.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »