shipments was about $27 million. This represented about 2.8 percent of the total aggregate value of shipments, (i.e., $967.0 million), for the entire scale and balance industry for that period of time. (2) The low average value (col. 5) apparently indicates that the vast majority of the postal scales produced are of the inexpensive type. From information received from various scale companies, it appears that field adaptation for the inexpensive devices is not very economical; that is, new devices could be purchased for what it would cost to adapt the old ones. Of course, for the expensive scales (i.e., fan computing type) it would be more economical to adapt; adaptation for these devices will require the same, or similar, types of changes as mentioned early in the report for commercial scales, e.g., metric charts, beams, poises, etc. (See app. 1-2, p. 45 for more details.)

Finally, no attempt has been made to determine the total metrication (replacement and/or adaptation) cost for postal scales. Such a determination would be questionable, since as already noted, sound data on the types and number of devices in use are not available. However, it is highly unlikely that such costs would exceed the total replacement cost for these scales. At the present time, such a replacement cost is estimated to be $30 million. This estimate excludes the replacement cost of devices older than ten years, as these scales are probably obsolete and should be replaced anyway, and, therefore, their replacement cost should not be considered a cost of metrication.

Note: The reorganization of the Post Office Department into the U.S. Postal Service, a type of public corporation, (P.L. 91-375, 84 Stat. 719), may have ended that agency's immunity to state and local weights and measures law enforcement. A recent court case in Great Britain will illustrate the point as Britain's post office is now such a corporation. On May 14, 1970 in the Poole Magistrates' Court a plea of guilty was entered by the post office to the charge that one of its scales was incorrect. (From the Monthly Review, Nov. 1970, published by the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration, Great Britain, Vol. 78, No. 11, p. 298, Title: "Post Office- Unjust Scale.") Apparently, in Great Britain, the post office is now being treated, at least in some respects, as if it were a private corporation. Whether or not the U.S. Postal Service can be so treated (at least with respect to device testing) is difficult to say at this time, and a court test may well be required to establish whether or not that agency is subject to state and local weights and measures laws.

Comment 6-Cost of Adapting Scales for the US. Postal Service. Because the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is probably the largest single user of scales in the country, it was thought desirable to determine the approximate cost of scale metrication upon that agency alone. This cost data has been segregated from the other statistical data, because postal scales, as already noted in Comment 4, are not considered commercial devices.

Even though most of the Postal Services' scales are of the postal type, SIC Code 3576051, it should be pointed out that some devices used by the USPS

may not fall within this SIC classification, for example, 10 ton capacity vehicle scales.

The chart below was prepared from data submitted to the National Bureau of Standards by the U.S. Postal Service and various scale companies. It should be understood that metrication unit costs are approximate averages only.

'Retail price. Through contract bidding, this unit price may be significantly reduced.

Finally, since many postal scales will be replaced due to obsolescence, and so forth, new metric ones could be purchased in their place. Since the cost of replacement is really not a metrication cost and since the number of scales to be replaced may be as high as 25 percent of the total number (mostly small capacity scales which have a short life), the total metrication cost estimate is probably higher than should be expected. Note: It is estimated that at least 5 years will be required in order to complete postal scale metrication.

GENERAL STATISTICS

INTRODUCTION

The statistics for this appendix (as well as for I-7) were based on a 75 percent return on questionnaires as sent to twenty (20) manufacturers of weighing and measuring devices chosen by a judgment sampling process.19 The questionnaires for each of the three industries surveyed (scale, meter, and fabric measuring) were not perfectly identical since certain technical information needed from each of these industries would obviously vary. However, the format of the questionnaires was basically the same, and certain general information questions (some results of which appear in this appendix) were the same. Finally, the comments section of this appendix also incorporates information obtained from interviews with various industry and trade association personnel.

It has been estimated that scale (SIC Code 3576) and meter (SIC Code 3586) manufacturers, responding to the industry questionnaires, represented approximately 50 percent of the yearly value of shipments for each of these industries.

Estimates of the increase in service personnel that would be needed if device adaptation were required.20

19 Nine (9)s scale and balance companies, ten (10) meter manufacturers (two of these companies merged), and one (1) fabric measuring device manufacturer. See also I-1 for the organizations who helped prepare the judgment samples.

20 Sixty-three percent of the scale and 50 percent of the meter companies indicated that they would have to increase service personnel due to a metric adaptation program.

Strongly against...

No opinion......

Total......

0

0

100

Courses of action to be taken in the event that the United States should decide to increase the use of the metric system:

Opinion

No national program of metrication......

A coordinated national program based on voluntary metrication......

A mandatory program based on legislation...

Total.......

0

33

67

100

COMMENTS

From respondent questionnaires and from interviews with industry representatives (company and trade association personnel) the following areas of concern became apparent:

1. The problems of retraining or educating plant and field personnel to understand the metric system. Note: Considering the fact that thousands of people would have to be involved in metric education programs, it is not difficult to see that man-hours lost from regular work for such new training, computed in dollars and cents, could be substantial.

2. The problems of planning and coordinating any metrication program. Before any metrication program could begin, careful planning would have to take place. For adaptation, especially field adaptation, to be accomplished efficiently, all of the elements of the weights and measures system (industry, service agencies, and enforcement jurisdictions) would have to work smoothly together. For example, (1) A scheduling plan would have to be established so that devices could be adapted conveniently. Such a schedule would probably have to be approved by device manufacturers and owners and service agencies or departments. Weights and measures jurisdictions would, no doubt, also have to approve such a schedule, since adapted commercial devices would have to be retested for accuracy and resealed for commercial use. (2) The necessary infra structure would have to be in existence before adaptation could begin. This would include (this is not meant to be all-inclusive); (a) new test weights and measures for service agencies and enforcement jurisdictions; (b) the proper metric education programs; (c) revision of tolerance tables and similar publications such as NBS Handbook 44; and (d) the publication of instructions describing how to adapt particular devices. (3) Manufacturers would need time to prepare (design and produce the necessary parts for adaptation; and (4) Parts inventories for service agencies would have to be increased at the proper time to include the necessary materials for adaptation.

3. The feeling that chaos might result in the adaptation of devices. Such confusion would almost certainly lead to higher metrication costs.

4. The cost of buying new metric testing equipment for plant and service personnel. It should be understood that such testing equipment is expensive. For example, one company sells a metric test weight kit ranging from 20 kg

to 1 g for $1375. In fact, one scale company estimated new metric testing equipment for field personnel only, would require an investment of at least $200,000. It would, therefore, be reasonable to project that the aggregate costs for metric field equipment for scale companies alone would be over $1 million. Whether or not similar costs would exist for meter companies is unknown since no meter manufacturer advanced cost figures for this area. However, it is felt that such costs for these companies should not be anywhere near those for scale manufacturers. The reason being that meter servicemen do not need a lot of testing equipment in their work, maybe only one or two provers. In the case of service agencies that use large capacity provers, these may be adapted to indicate in metric units with very little cost.21

5. Independent service agencies, usually under contract to scale or meter companies would, of course, face the same cost problems in purchasing metric testing equipment as company operated ones. However, for the most part, they would have less monetary resources to purchase such equipment and thus metrication may cause them severe economic hardships. Also, given the reasons as mentioned before, the scale repair agencies would, no doubt, face far higher costs than the meter ones.

21 See II., pp. 66-67.