AD-AIIM8 594 UNITE0 STATES METRI BOARD ARLINGTON VA F/G 13/8RESEAP H OVER V EW AND ANAL YSIS .(U)

UNCLSSIFIEDAP82N

UNCLASSIFIED4MTY QLMSSPSCAYSU ii iNS PANS awe shws

V.OR =PONTTTIO PAGEG - ATL

None 0 HS7 _________

Research overview and Analysis Final Report

9. PEN,.aMUN ONSANsZAVOK HANE AND ADMUG TS

U.S. Metric Board1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400Arlington, Virginia 22209 Nn

0I CflOLLING%@PPIC9 ISM* AD ADOR UAPRTDTOce ofResearch, U.S. Metric Board

1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400 i.wmaO AArlington, Virginia 22209_____________

14. 01OHerOPUN "ENCY H*A9E &ome *Ibe9# HI &Wm 70';'!Q ff0a;j ISW UIIUWY CLAE. W " 0"-0

UnclassifiedSame

WS. DISTIUTION STATEMENT (01 W~e Aww

Unlimited

17. DISTNISUTIO STATEMENT (fi Me 86WSW mlmd #0 SbS ISC N dVk"W bMn XW.Q

Unlimited

ft SUPPL90ENTAPIV HOTES

W. 116V *DIM (Goo. - so lem.aW& Naem 06080S Md Sbu* AVU 006

metric conversion, metrication, Metric Conversion Act of 1975,small business, labor, consumer, Standards Writing Organizations#Federal agencies, Statesf Nationai-product Accounts, internation 1trade, large business

0.ADSTRACT (CaN.fte doMW4 SM N UUI" Md 8~ V00 =0

The Research Overview and A~alysis report by the USMB's ResearchStaff provides a comprehensive review and analysis of metricresearch. As part of this effort, the project tatit~o4 allBoard research studies, the Ger.Iqral Accounting Office's study,the National Sureau of Staindaru S U.S. Metric Study, as wellas other metric studies and surveys.

SO ,O MVO OF7 1mmu low ofSSSSI ah~ SLS6?rIZN9l"l PNETm U

UNCLASSIFIED

spectives. The perspectives are: (1) Board Representationand Constitencies (2) Mandates of the Metric Conversion Mtiand (3) National Accounts (a structure grossly representingthe operations of the U.S. economy). Besides providing supIporting information for the Agency's summary report, the overviexamined in detail the .findings and conclusions of all theAgency's research effoDt to identify important matters thatremain to be examined.

The report shows that research has made an exhaustive coverageof most of the Board's constituencies and the 11 mandates ofSection 6 of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-168).The Naitonal accounts have been covered in a descriptive andmore qualitative fashion.

A major finding of the report was the lack of practical methodsas well as easily assessable, reliable and homogeneous datathat would allow for quantitative analysis"of-ithe effects of..mt i-cation on the national economy. However, single purpose studieson a sector basis would provide for an aggregation of resultsand projection of metric status in the U.S.

The report found that there were still unanswered issues con-cerning the impact of metrication on the economy and society,(e.g., the interactions of metrication on export trade, theeffects voluntary uetrication pose for near term business plan-ninq and investment decisions, and the effects and ivplicationsof voluntary metric'ation on the U.S. economy).

no" o

T° -7

gmwmY 6mfl~au~u F YgS P*m I

RESEARCH OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

OFFICE OF RESEARCHOF

THE UNITED STATES METRIC BOARD

Preparedby

United States Metric Board1600 Wilson Boulevard

Suite 400Arlington, Virginia 2209

April 1982

,Oh"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

1. INTRDUCTION -

!.A. OverviewI-

I.D. Perspective No. 1: Board Representation I - 7and Other Constituencies

I.C. Perspective No. 2: Functional Mandates of I -

the Metric Conversion Act of 1975

1.1). Perspective No. 3: National Income and I - 9Product Accounts

I.E. Overall Assessment and Additional Analysis I - 10

II. SINWARY I - 11

II.A. Mandate 1: Consultation I - 11II.A.1 Findings I - 11II.A.2 Conclusions I - 12II.B Mandate 2: Procedural Guidelines I - 12II.B.1 Findings I - 13II.B.2 Conclusions I - 13

II.C. Mandate 3: Public Hearings I - 13

II.D. Mandates 4, 5, and 6: Standards I - 13Conversion, Retention and Consultation

II.D.1 Findings I - 13I II.D.2 Conclusions I - 14

II.E. Mandate 7: Public Information and I - 15Education

II.E.1 Findings I - 15II.E.2 Conclusion I - 15

II.F. Mandate 8: Status Assessment I - 15II.F.1 Findings I - 16II.F.2 Conclusion I - 16

II.G. Mandate 9: Research o-'~Fr I- 1811.G.1 Findings I-111.0.2 Conclusions I- 10

IIlI:, on*'

-1i orDist cp jaj

II.H. Mandate 10: Annual Report - 21

11.1. Mandate 11: Federal Structural Mechanism I - 21°for Laws and Regulations

11.1.1 Findings I - 2111.1.2 Conclusions I- 22

III KEY GAPS AND REE ENDATIONS R e- 22

AppendiciesA - Perspective N4o. 1: Board Representation

and Other ConstituenciesB - Perspective No. 2: Functional Mandates of

the Metric Conversion Act of 1975C - Perspective No. 3: National Income and

Product Accounts

Ji

7 IN

RESEARCH OVERVII AND ANALYSIS

A. Overview

This paper is a detailed review of the research activi-ties of the United States Metric Board, carried out sincethe inception of the Board. The review consists of exa-mining the research from three different perspectives:

- Board representation and other constituencies.

- Mandates of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (Section6(1) through (11)).

- National income and product accounts (the nationaleconomy).

This paper serves two purposes:

- It compiles a comprehensive sumnary and the signifi-cance of the research findings and helps identifyimportant matters remaining to be examined.

- It provides the basis for the research portion of theBoard's final summary report to the President and theCongress.

The Research Committee allocated the USM8 researchpriorities in an effort to. be as complete as possible inaddressing the potential areas of concern--both thosespecified in the Metric Conversion Act (particularly,Section 6(9)), and those of emerging interest. The onlyconstraints beyond budget considerations were that largerstudies would have to be started early and divided intoreasonable, one-year components, so as to allow otherresearch studies to be conducted during the same time andthus provide a balanced range of topics -xplored in anyone year. Main examples of this policy are the workerand small business sequences of studies. The initialand principal guidance for the research program comesfrom the Act, wherein the Congress suggested a series oftopics of importance (i.e., workers, differentoccupations, industries, consumers, small business, theeconomy, international trade, federal procurement, tran-sition periods, national defense, and legal impediments).Certain activities conducted outside the Office ofResearch, but research-like, are incorporated into thediscussion (e.g., the legal studies directed by theOffice of the General Counsel, the consumer program

l. - ~ ~ ~""-'W 7.,i ,'' , .'..% .. ... ..'. .. ...

4-

assessment conducted by the Office of Public Awarenessand Education, and surveys of engineering standardswriting organizations by the Office of Coordination andPlanning).

Table 1 identifies the Board's research activities andthe status of each at this writing, divided by majortopics.

As can be seen from the table, the research activitieshave covered, or at least touched on, most of the origi-nal agenda.

The economic/econometric sequence of studies was ini-tiated in FY-82, with an econometric models and dataresources study. Because of limited resources, the areaof international trade was not explored but the topic wasincluded in the FY-83 planned program, Preliminary talksin late Fiscal Year 1981 were held with the U.S.Department of Connerce officials concerning a possibleinteragency agreement for joint research. However, dueto budgetary constraints, this activity was dropped forFY-82.

Assessment of the total research effort is best con-sidered in light of the Act, both directly as in Section6(9) ("... conduct research, including appropriate sur-veys ... ") and indirectly, as in Sections 6(1), 6(2),6(7), 6(8), 6(10), and 6(11), where research efforts arecomplementary to other efforts in the Agency. Theassessment of this paper derives from the threeperspectives: (1) the Board representation and otherconstituencies; (2) the mandates, as written in theMetric Conversion Act; and (3) the economic sectors ofthe country as a whole, as categorized in the NationalIncome and Product Accounts. The reason for the latterIs that it provides a potential for an exhaustive andnon-overlapping representation of the nation's economicinterests from both the supply and demand sides. Thisoisone way of assessing the extent of gaps in the coverageof the research efforts.

The reasons three perspectives are pursued are:

o the perspectives are each independently of con-* siderable interest and value, and

o the three complement each other.

1-2

1 -7

met WW . , W

TABLE 1

USMB RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

TOPIC RESEARCH PROJECT APPROXIMATE STATUS

Issue A Study of Metric Measurement $75,000 Completed (79)and Legislation (2 Vols.),Middlesex Research Center,Inc., September 1979.

Providing a Metric Option: Can (OGC)1 Completed (79)Laws and Regulations be Amendedin a Timely Manner?, U.S. MetricBoard, December 1979.

Antitrust: A Handbook for Metric $10,000 Completed (80)Planning and Conversion, U.S.Metric Board, May 1980.

The Impact of Laws on Metric $10,000 Completed (82)Conversion: A Survey of Selec-ted Large U.S. Corporations,Newnan & Hermanson Company,February 1982.

WorkersEffects of Metric Conversion on $70,000 Draft ReportMeasurement, Specification andProcess Sensitive Occupations,U.S. Metric Board.

Analysis of the Survey of Sel- (Res. Div.)2 Draft Reportected Occupations Sensitiveto Measurement Change, U.S.Metric Board.

Effects of Metric Change on $75,000 Completed (81)Workers' Tools and Training,Middlesex Research Center,Inc., July 1981.

Effects of Metrication on $75,000 Completed (82)Safety In the Work Placefor Selected Occupations,Middlesex Research Center,Inc., April 1982.

-3

i I - 3 -

SmallBusiness Survey of Small Business: $70,000 Completed (80)

Issues in Metric Planningand Conversion, DAMANSand Associates, Inc.,December 1980.

The Search for Small Business --- 3 Completed (81)with Investments in MetricProduction, J.F. Coates, Inc.,June 1981.

The Consequences of Metric $90,0003 Completed (82)Production for Small Manufac-turers (2 Vols), J.F. Coates,Inc., February 1982.

Going Metric: Is it for You - $85,000 In ProcessPlanning Models for SmallBusiness Manufacturers, Wholesaleand Retail Firms, and ServiceFirms, Birch & Davis Associates,Inc.

Small Business Productivity & $10,000 In ProcessMetrication, Small BusinessAdministration.

StatusXi 9es-s- U.S. Metric Board Survey of $10,000 Completed (80)ment Selected Large U.S. Firms and

Industries, King Research, Inc.,May 1980.

Conversion Data Project, U.S. $10,000 Completed (80)Department of Commerce, January1980.

Research Techniques for Assess- $10,000 Completed (81)ing Status of Metric Use,J.F. Coates, Inc., February 1981.

Metric Usage Study: A Look at (PAE)4 Completed (80)Six Case Histories, U.S. MetricBoard, 1980.

Consumers and the United States (PAE)4 Completed (81)Metric Board, U.S. Metric Board,August 1981.

1- 4

Survey of Consumer Attitudes --- 5 Completed (81)and Awareness of the MetricConversion of Distilled SpiritsContainers, Applied ConceptsCorporation, December 1981.

Supermarket Survey, U.S. $50,000 In ProcessDepartment of Agriculture.

Metric Use in the Machine $10,000 Completed (82)Tool Industry -- A StatusReport and Test of AssessmentMethodology, J.F. Coates,Inc., April 1982.

StandardsaLi- Status of Metric Conversion - (C&P Div)6 Draft Report

sations A Brief Survey of U.S.Standards Writing Organi

sations, U.S. Metric Board,in press (1982).

Status and Outlook for (C&P Div)6 Draft ReportMetric Conversion ofStandards: The Views ofNine Selected MajorStandards Development Bodies,U.S. Metric Board, in press(1982).A Study of Metric Conversion $75,0005 Completed (81)

Toiues of Distilled Spirits Containers:A Policy and Planning Evaluation,Final Report on Findings andLessions Learned, AppliedConcepts Corporation, October1981.

A Study of Metric Conversion of 5 Completed (81)Distilled Spirits Containers:A Policy and Planning Evaluation,Comprehensive Report on theConversion Process, AppliedConcepts Corporation, August1981.

The Conversion of Retail Fuel (RCP)7 Completed (79)Pump Computers to Sale bythe Liter, U.S. Metric Board,June 1979.

1-5

.. -..

A Survey and Assessment of $10,000 Completed (82)Econometric Models and DataBases for Their Applicabilityas Research Tools for theUnited States Metric Board,Applied Concepts Corporation,December 1981.

Federal Procurement Metrication: $65,000 In ProcessAppropriateness and Methods,Science Management Corporation.

1--Office of General Counsel2--Research Division3--Two Reports Developed under Contract AA-80-SAC-XB6044--Office of Public Awareness and Education5--Three Reports Developed under Contract AA-80-SAC-X86026--Coordination and Planning Division7--Office of Research, Coordination and Planning

1- 6

B. Perspective No. 1: Board Representation and Other

The specific designation of USMB Members as represen-tatives of selected constituencies has been combined withother constituencies identified as important subsequentto the enactment of the legislation. The list is shownin Table 2, with the constituencies presented in theorder of their citation in the Act.

Applying slightly different criteria than used to iden-tify research and research-related activities for Table1, 22 distinct activities have been defined forPerspective No. 1. In addition to USMB sponsored work,the analysis includes the basic GAO study (Getting aBetter Understanding of the Metric System ...), the NBSstudy (A Metric America ...) and a GAO analysis ofshipping containers. Some of the 28 USMB reports (Table1) have been combined to yield the 22 activities cited inTable 2. Appendix A contains the results of the applica-tion of this first perspective.

C. Perspective No. 2: Functional Mandates of the Metric]

The research activities have been related to the mandateparts of Section 6 of the Act. Two considerations areused to relate the research findings of the Act'smandates:

(1) the extent to which the planned results of theresearch are related to the mandates, and

(2) the extent to which serendipitous results of theresearch are related to the mandates.

Examples may help to clarify the application of thisperspective. With reference to the first consideration,Section 6(9) of the Act identifies particular social andeconomic categories as possible subjects for research.Thus, by conducting studies of those categories, theresearch activities respond directly to that mandate.

With regard to the second consideration, Section 6(7)refers to information and education programs. While noresearch activity was directed toward information and edu-cation eer se, research findings reinforced the obser-vation that iany people have had misconceptions aboutnational metric policy. Research surveys carried outunder Board's auspices have served to convey informationabout national metric policy and the role of the U.S.

1

TABLE 2

PERSPECTIVE NO. 1:CONSTITUENCIES* AND RESEARCH STUDY COVERAGE

Number of Studies(Out of 22)

Constituency Dealing with Constituency

Engineering 9

Science and Technology 9

National Association of Manufacturers 15

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Retailing and 8other Comnercial Endeavors

Labor 10

State and local government 7

Small Business 19

Construction 14

Weights and Measures, and Standards 9

Education 7

Consumers 9

Federal** 7

International** 9

* In the order of citation of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975.*. Not represented specifically on the Board.

1-8

I - 8

Metric Board. This dissemination of Information has theeffect of an information program, thus serving some ofthe needs of Section 6(7). Appendix B contains theresults of the application of the second perspective.

D. Perspective No. 3: National Income and Product Accounts

In the structure of the National Accounts, the nationalproduct is broken out two ways: the consumers of goodsand services (the household sector) and the producers ofgoods and services (the business sector). From theNational Accounts perspective most of the research isrepresented by surveys that elicited qualitative infor-mation rather than quantitative data. However, thequalitative analysis allows for strong inferences to bedrawn with respect to the specific studies. In mostcases, however, statements of a macroeconomic nature can-not be made as to the total U.S. economy.

The household sector is represented by the final consump-tion of goods and services. This consumption side(usually known as final demand) consists of personalconsumption, government purchases, investment, and netexports.

The business sector as producers supply goods and ser-vices to the household sector as well as tointermediates. The accounts for this production side(also known as supply side) are corporate and non-corporate entities. These entities are also categorizedby industrial sector as given, for example, on aninput/output table.

Most of the USMB research activities are relevant to thesupply side of the economy, both on the factor input sideas well as on the product output side. The worker toolstudy is an example of the former dealing as it did withthe business comnunity requirements for labor, tools, andtraining services. Tools and training services areexamples of "intermediate" demand, the requirement of oneindustrial sector for the output of another.

The Fortune 1000 and small business surveys relate to theproduct ide of the business sector, since they deal withthe prices and provision of the goods and services.Likewise, the studies in the area of laws and regulationsrelate primarily to the product side, dealing withmarketing and packaging. Building codes and antitrust I

regulations are on the input side of the business sector.Several industrial groupings are mentioned specificallyin the studies.

I -9

'I-

The demand side of the economy is represented In theresearch work of the Board =ore from a qualitative viewthan a quantitative aspect. In the household sector(consumption expenditures), there are the distilledspirit containers study with Its consumer surveys, theUSIB Consumer Program Report, and the USDA SupermarketSurvey. In the government sector, the Federal Procure-ment Study directly examines the metric implications ofthe Federal government's demand for goods and services.The demand side accounts of investment and net exportsare generally addressed qualitatively. Investments,incorporating as it does capital equipment such asmachine tools, is potentially a beneficial area forresearch, since it deals with both the household demandfor securities and the business demand for plant andequipment. A limited quantitative study of the machinetool industry has recently been completed.

On the supply side, many industrial groupings have notbeen studied from a quantitative macroeconomic level asto metric impact. This area is a chief candidate forexploration in the econometric program.

Appendix C contains the results of the application ofthis last perspective. Because of its broad nature andthe fact that the research program was designed to cri-teria other than those reflective of the nationaleconomy, the results of the third perspective are moregeneral and indicative than are those of the first twoperspectives. Thus, a primary product of the use of thethird perspective Is direction for the future--the defi-nition of unmet needs and questions that remain to beanswered (see Section III).

E. Overall Assessment and Additional Analysis

The research effort has covered a very wide field ofactual and potential impact of metrication activity,emphasizing workers, small business, and the status ofmetrication in the U.S. Computer software, internationalimpacts, and agriculture have not yet been examinedbecause of limited resources, although researchsuggestions have been made by interested parties as partof the research calls conducted by the Board and plannedprograms have incorporated such subjects. Gaps have notbeen due to inadvertanee, but to limited resources. Boththe GAO and the NBS reports play a role in the analysisof findings, to identify comparable and consistent, aswell as inconsistent, findings and to help define whatinformation gaps still exist.

The three perspectives are seen as complementary and,together, offer a structure for developing a more com-plete picture of metrication than each does alone.

I - 10

........ ..

SUM~ARY

The major findings of the Board's research and research-re-lated activities, as well as those from allied researchare presented here, using the mandates (Section 6(1)through (11)) of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 as aconvenient structure. The mandate format is one of thethree perspectives or viewpoints used to examine all theresearch activities and develop general findings. It isused in this summary section because it is convenient andprovides a recognizable frame for the majority of readersof this report. The contributory findings derived from theother two perspectives (the constituencies and the nationalaccounts of the economy) are integrated into the mandatestructure. General conclusions, developed from accumulatedfindings are identified and presented.

Each mandate is paraphrased here; the complete mandates arepresented in Appendix B, with the detailed findings. Thedetailed findings derived from the other two perspectives(constituencies and economy) are found in Appendixes A andC, respectively.

A. Mandate 1: Consultation

Consultation and consideration of the interests, viewsand conversion costs of conmnerce and industry, science,engineering, labor, education, consumers, governmentagencies, standards developing organizations, metricconversion planning and coordinating groups, and others.

1. Fnis

Little is seen in the way of sector planning andcoordination, particularly on the part of smallbusinesses and on the part of large firms makingunilateral conversion decisions in their own in-terests. The prevailing disposition among largebusinesses is a "wait and see" attitude; coor-dination on metric matters between supplfers andcustomers appears limited.

There are no major legal barriers to conversion,but the antitrust issues and building codes areconsidered carefully by firms contemplating conver-sion. The antitrust matter concerns some firmsostensibly interested in cooperative planning, inspite of available published guidelines containinginformation on how to carry out cooperative plan-ning without restraint of trade actions. Otherclasses of laws also of some concern are fairpackaging and labeling, and weights and measures.

I - 11

Small firms tend to make metric decisions as theymake most business decisions, in response tocustomer demand and then in accordance with theirown perceptions of the most personally beneficialapproach, without resorting to detailed planningand analysis. Firms with no conversion experienceexpect conversion costs to be high and the problemsto be many and major; experience shows these fearsto be unwarranted.

Specific classes of occupations (e.g., medical,health, mathematical, physical science, mechanics,and machinists), comprising about half of the occu-pations defined by the U.S. Department of Labor,are most susceptible to changes in the system ofmeasurement units. Some groups will requiretraining and reorientation. In addition, otherswill require new tools. In most cases training isprovided by and paid for by the employers; often,new tools are the responsibility of the workers.Experience to date suggests that workers do not orcannot avail themselves of tax deductions for newtools, when they have that right.

Because the decisions have been principally indivi-dual firm or industry decisions, consumer involve-ment in metrication decisions has been minimal todate. On the one major consumer product conversionexamined (that of distilled spirit containers),consumers were generally unaware of the contents ofthe containers normally purchased, but suchignorance for this conversion did not appear toconcern the consumers.

2. Conclusions

The driving force for conversion in the U.S. is thelarge, individual, multi-national manufacturingfirm; the decision is generally made by the in-dividual firm in its own interest, not in consulta-tion with others.

For small businesses, metrication is neither volun-tary nor forced; neither are there particular bene-fits from (other than keeping specific customers),or substantial costs of, metrication.

B. Mandate 2: Procedural Guidelines

Appropriate procedures to allow groups to formulate andsuggest specific conversion coordination programs.

1 - 12

1. "inins

Formal procedures and policies provide a mechanismfor the participation and encouragement of groupsin coordinative activities of conversion. However,there is little evidence that the groups at risk(e.g., consumers, labor, and small business) areaware of or Interested in the procedures andpolicies, or have been or are being involved inconversion planning.

2. Conclusions

As previously noted, the driving force for conver-sion is the large, individual, multi-national manu-facturing firms, which generally make unilateralconversion decisions in their own interests. Theothers involved (particularly small business, butalso consumers and workers) are required to followalong, not in a truly forced manner but not in atruly voluntary manner either.

C. Mandate 3t Public HearLnMs

Publicize proposed programs and provide opportunity foreomnent.

No direct research-related activity is associatedwith this mandate. The analysis of the gasolineretail dispenser computer conversion did result inthe wide sharing of conversion cost data among allgroups affected: distributers, retailers andconsumers. Similarly, the American National MetricCouncil's Chemical and Allied Products andInstruments Sectors' Conversion plans were publi-cized by the Board during its analyses and reviewof the plans.

D. Mandates 4 5 and 6: Standards Conversion, RetentionandCol~taiTlo

Encourage the conversion of engineering standards(mandate 4) and the retention of U.S. engineeringdesigns, practice and conventions (mandate 5), and con-sult and cooperate with domestic and foreign organiza-tions and agencies concerned with increased use ofmetric units and standards (mandate 6).

1. Finins

The lack of metric standards from traditional U.S.standards development organizations is at least an

I - 13

inconvenience, if not a costly matter to some firmsproviding metric sized products. Because marketdemand for metric dimensioned products is currentlylimited, there has been little movement in industryor government for metric standards development tosupport planned product conversions to metric.Most standards development organizations have notviewed foreign origin standards as displacing U.S.non-metric standards and the use of ineh-poundunits has not been a significant deterrent tointernational acceptance of U.S. inch-poundproducts. The major problems for developing andusing metric standards has been the lack of demandfor them which is in turn due to the lack of metricbasic materials and components. Other problems arepotential safety issues as well as consunerresistance in the form of lack of demand for metricdimensioned poducts. It is felt that the costs ofdeveloping new metric standards are about the sameas inch-pound versions. Should demand for metricstandards increase significantly, the standardsdeveloping organizations have an infrastructure inplace to respond to the increases.

The apparent dichotomy between the firm or industrystating a desire for more metric standards and thestandards writing organizations perception thatthere is nominal demand for metric standards may bedue to characteristics of the voluntary standardsprocess where perceived demands for a new or con-verted standard must raise above a certainthreshold in order to be recognized and initiated.It is probable that a particular industry alonemay not constitute sufficient demand where thedevelopment of a new or converted standard may beexpensive or time consuming.

2. Conclusions

Metric standards devalopment is neither a majorissue nor problem for the standards developingorganizations. The driving force for metric stan-dards is sufficient customer demand. Conversion byU.S. industry to metric is proceeding relativelyslowly. While some inconvenience may result fromlack of convenient and timely availability of new"hard metric" U.S. standards, other economic andsocial factors are far more significant con-siderations in the decision to convert or notconvert manufacturing processes or products tometric.

I - 14

Metrication may be used as a Justification forrationalization and simplification. Some completedmetric conversions (e.g., wine and distilledspirits containers) were, in truth, partially theresult of an industry desire for rationalization.

E. Mandate 7: Public Information and Education

Assist the public, through information and educationprograms, to become familiar with the meaning andapplicability of metric terms.

1. Findinj .

While considerable effort on the part of the Boardhas been devoted to this mandate, no specificresearch or research-related activities have beencarried out relative to it. All surveys and re-views (studies of small business, large business,consumers, workers, legal and policy issues) haveidentified the same phenomenon: the nationalpolicy on metrication, the significance and meaningof the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, and the roleand responsibility of the United States MetricBoard are, to varying degrees and with variableimportance, either misunderstood or not wellunderstood.

Studies of workers have identified a widespreadneed for tailored training for conversion, withemphasis on a need-to-know level of proficiency.There is duplication of training models and infor-mation for similar types of workers, implying addedand unnecessary costs. There is some evidence thata clearinghouse of metric training information(models, materials, and procedures) would be of useto the private sector.

2. Conclusion

Widespread dissemination (receipt and application'of the Board's research and research-relatedfindings, in particular to trade and business asso-ciations and labor unions, would have a beneficialinfluence on the level of understanding of theimplications of the metric system and conversion.

F. Mandate 8: Status Assessment

Collect, analyze and publish information about theextent of usage of metric measurements, evaluate thecosts and benefits of metric usage, and make efforts tominimize adverse effects of metric usage.

I - 15

1 Findings

The first and second clauses (collect, analyze andpublish information about the extent of use ofmetric measurements, and evaluate costs and bene-fits of metrication) are responded to by theresearch program. There is widespread, but shallowmetric capability and activity throughout theAmerican industrial community. Large, multi-national firms take the leadership in conversionand in some cases (e.g., automobile and farm machi-nery manufacturing) move towards essentially fullconversion. Costs, to the extent reliable data andinformation are obtained, are low, both in absoluteterms and in comparison with the other costs ofdoing business. Metrication is carried out by theprivate sector in a logical, least-cost manner.There is a striking difference of views of costsand benefits between those who have experiencedconversion and those who have not. Those who havenot, believe the costs will be large and unwar-ranted while those firms who have convertedgenerally have found the costs to be negligible.

At present, assessment of metric status at thenational economy level and specific Industry levelscannot be handled through econometric modeling orthrough aggregation of data because little metricdata exists. One of the reasons this data islimited is because it is considered proprietary bysome firms. In addition, there are problems withthe data which is available, one being a lack ofhomogeneity since these data were captured usingvarious metric status definitions.

While no specific research or research-relatedactivities have been devoted to the third clause ofthis mandate (minimizing adverse effects), allresearch findings and results have been consideredand integrated into the planning and coordinationefforts of the Board. These efforts are detailedelsewhere. (See the U.S. Metric Board's AnnualReports for 1979 and 1980, and the Board's summaryreport to the Congress and the President).

2. Conclusions

Metric status information is needed by companies sothat more informed decisions can be made concerningIndustry, suppliers, customers and the implicationsof that status for a company's or industry's com-petitiveness in domestic and world markets. At

I - 16

present corporate decisions about metrication aremade in the face of considerable uncertainty andlack of information.

The collection, collation and analysis of statusinformation for providing a national assessment ofmetrication activities is not a simple or inexpen-sive task. The information is not readily avail-able from easily accessed sources in forms directlyapplicable. There are many different audienceswith vastly different needs for status information.

However, surveys using in-depth discussions withindustry entrepreneurs, managers and workers,supplemented by qualitative analysis of the beha-vior of representative companies is an appropriateand relatively low cost approach to status assess-ment. Such studies on a sector by sector basisproduce information of practical value to theindustry and public sector decision makers.

While the costs and benefits of metrication havebeen assessed (the former to a greater extent thanthe latter), the larger question of the costs, tothe nation, of the present approach to metricationhave not been addressed. A beginning is discussedin Section III.

G. Mandate 9: Research

Conduct research, publish the results, and reconmnend tothe Congress and the President necessary action to dealwith unresolved problems.

This is the primary mandate justifying and guidingthe research effort of the Board. All researchactivity has been conducted in accordance with thismandate. Research findings of sufficient impor-tance were singled out and presented to theCongress and the President, as required by the Act.A particular case had to do with workers in con-verted industries who regularly buy their owntools. Many such workers cannot or do not takeadvantage of the tax deductions available to themfor tool purchases. The full cost of adding metrictools to their neossary array of tools was borne,and is being borne, by the workers. The Boardjudged the problem to be of the nature contemplatedby the Act and thus called attention to theresearch findings. Other findings have been iden-tified through the annual reports to the Congress,and the President, and through the distribution of

I - 17

specific research reports and summaries to theCongress, the President, and key persons in theExecutive Branch and the private sector. The fin-dings of the research program are presented invarious ways throughout this summary. To respondmore directly to the discussion of the ninthmandate, the research areas suggested by theCongress are presented with brief observationsabout each, resulting from the research activities.

1.Findings

a. Impact on workers and different occupations

While a considerable portion of U.S. occupationscan be affected by a change of measurement systems,an equally large portion of the occupations are notsensitive to measurement change.

Some workers required to purchase new tools as aresult of their employers' metrication absorb theentire costs of the new tools.

b. 1oact on different industries

For both large and small businesses, particularlymanufacturing firms, the costs of conversion areinconsequential and the decision to convert is madelike any other business decision.

Factors other than metrication, such as the generalstate of the economy and interest rates, are farmore important to the business firms.

There are no major legal barriers to conversion.Legal areas of greatest concern to firms con-templating conversion are antitrust matters andbuilding codes.

e. Possible increased costs to consumers

Consumers have played no significant role inlarge scale conversions initiated to date.

There is a potential for metrication to be used asdevice to justify price increases to consumers, notrelated to conversion, even when increases arejustifiable on other grounds.

d. Impact oh society and the economy

Efforts to examine the relationships between metri-cation and the economy were initiated only late in

I - 16isI

Y

ix

Board's existence. Only very general observationsare available. Most of the linkages between theresearch studies and the aggregates of the nationalaccounts are interesting but not in a systematic,comprehensive way. The reason is plain: theresearch program was not designed, at the outset,to address the issues of the national economy.

There is a need for further study, examining metri-cation in the context of the national economy par-ticularly by industry areas or sectors. Suchstudies would be a cornerstone for any attempt todraw nationally valid conclusions about the effectschange to metric measurements has on the U.S.economy. (The studies could also form the basis ofan examination of the effects of the economy on theprogress of metrication.)

e. Effects on small business

The direct costs of conversion, particularly ofmanufacturing firms, is insubstantial and in manycases not even identifiable.

Conversion of small businesses is neither voluntarynor forced, not a search for new business marketsor other benefits, not dictated by any onecompany, but rather a result of general industrytrends.

f. Impact on the international trade position of

With the exception oi large, multi-national firms,there is little evidence of conversion to takeadvantage of international markets. There has beena decline in the U.S. machine tools industry'sshare of the international market. This marketis four times the size of the domestic market.However, this decline has been masked by the infla-tionary impact on the dollar value of machine toolsales. The issue of the real potential and need toconvert to compete internationally has not yet beenfully assessed by the Board's research program.

g. Apo.£oriateness of and methods for usingree..eu r-dUoeerir ernmen t as a

means to effect conversion to the metrie stem

At this writing, the initial study of this topic isunderway. Information is to be provided in July1982.

I - 19I __ ___ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___

~ -

h. Proper conversion or transition periods

A variety of conversion periods have been cited asoptimal by different classes of firms; eight to tenyears seems to be the norm for a nationally coor-dinated program. No assessment has yet been under-taken to determine the costs, to the nation, ofalternative transition periods.

i. Consequences for national defense

With the exception of the Federal procurement ana-lysis now underway, no specific Board researchactivity has focused on national defense matters.

In addition to the work cited above, additional topics have beenexamined: legal constraints on metrication, discussed in connec-tion with mandate 11; status measurement and the development ofresearch methods to respond to mandates 8 and 9; and statusassessments of standards and standards writing organizations torespond to mandates 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9.

2. Conclusions

The research program was conceived to directlyaddress the issues cited by the Congress, becausethose issues are widely accepted as important. Theoverall conclusion that can be drawn from thecollection of findings and observations is that,under the present condition of private sector ini-tiation of metrication, conversion is taking placewithin the existing mores of the market place. Nowidespread trauma or dislocation is occurring.Those groups felt, by the Congress and others, tobe "at risk" under conversion (small business,workers, and consumers), are not being particularlyharmed or particularly benefited by the changesundergone and on-going. A small number have borneunexpected burdens (e.g., workers required to buynew tools and consumers being annoyed by gasoline,wine, and distilled spirits conversions), but thesehave been minor in a national, holistic sense.

The direct costs of conversion, under the presentprocess, is small and trivial, particularly in com-parison with other economic problems faced bysociety. The direct benefits of conversion, exceptto the large industrial firms generally initiatingmetrication, are also small and inconsequential(except to tht degree that conversion means keepingan important customer or a job).

I - 20

What is lacking is an understanding of the broaderrange of cost and benefits: the national costs ofmaintaining multiple measurement systems; the lostopportunity costs; the disutility (or utility) ofgradual, private sector initiated conversion,extending through many years, as compared with anationally planned and coordinated conversionprocess; the balance of payment benefits or costsresulting from conversion; in short, a nationalcosts and benefits picture.

H. Mandate 10: Annual Report

Submit an annual report to the Congress and thePresident.

All research and research-related activities havecontributed to the annual reports published todate. No specific observations need to be made tothose contributions; findings discussed in theannual reports are reviewed throughout this sum-mary.

I. Mandate 11: Federal Structural Mechanism for Laws andffef - ----- -s

Submit a report on the need for an effective structuralmechanism for converting customary units to metricunits in statutes, regulations and laws at all levelsof government.

1. Findin*

The specific actions in response to the last man-date were a comprehensive review and analysis oflaws, regulations and ordinances affecting measure-ment and the development of the Board's position onthe need for a structural mechanism for changingthe laws. The principal observation is that therewas no need for Congress to provide a new struc-tural mechanism. The observation was based on fin-dings that:

Existing laws and regulations at all levels ofgovernment do not constitute significant legalbarriers to voluntary conversion efforts.

Not all legal references to customary unitsrequire change.

Most of the required legal changes can beaccommodated through administrative rule-makingrather than legislative action.

I - 21

Voluntary conversion activity underway at the timeof the study was not of sufficient magnitude tostrain the effectiveness of existing mechanisms.The Board could not state whether voluntary conver-sion activity was being unduly inhibited by per-ceived legal barriers and perceived limitations ofavailable change mechanisms.

Early Board research provides data suggesting thatperceptions of legal barriers may inhibit conver-sion. Further study indicates that some percep-tions of inhibiting laws and regulations exist, butthat there is strong recognition of the suitabilityof available change mechanisms. Use of theUSMB-endorsed Uniform Metric System Procedure Actcould alleviate legal inhibition of metrication.Additional work in the general area of laws andregulations is represented by the Board's antitrustguidelines; see the discussion related to the 4th,5th, and 6th mandates (Section D, above,) for theobservations.

2. Conclusions

While perception of legal inhibitors of conversionexist, they are not widespread nor are they seriousinhibitors. Large firms contemplating conversionare sometimes particularly concerned aboutantitrust laws inhibiting coordination of plansamong firms. Such fears are unwarranted, given theproper use of existing guidelines and rulings.State and local building codes can impede metrica-tion in the construction and allied industries, butsuitable corrective mechanisms exist.

III. KEY GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The foregoing provides a systematic review of the contribu-tions of the Board's research program. The following com-ments are directed to the remaining research task--theunmet needs.

When the Office of Research was formed at the USMB, one ofthe areas of inquiry was to be a systematic and country-wide estimate of the effects of metrication on the U.S.economy, under both voluntary and mandated regimes.

A combination of factors delayed the program. First, therewas the recognition that such a study could absorb theentire research budget for a considerable period of time,without a guarantee of success. Second, there was a needfor a number of smaller, but critical projects, that could

I - 22

be carried out for considerably less cost than one largeeconometric study. It was felt the smaller studies wouldprovide valuable new knowledge to the Board for variouspolicy deliberations.

It has become clear from recent econometric models' reviewsthat much data gathering would precede the use of availableeconometric models. The cost of gathering homogeneous andin some cases proprietary metric data for all sectors ofthe economy may make such a macroeconomic analysisprohibitive. The exact costs would also depend upon themodel's sophistication, the extent to which outside expertswould be required and the degree of previous research (bothmetric and nonmetrie) in the sectors being analyzed. TheBoard need not necessarily subscribe to the host of fore-cast services available in the market place. Single pur-pose studies on a sector by sector basis would probably bea more cost-effective approach to conducting research, atleast for an initial period and until more is learnedthrough the sector-specific analyses.

However, in ideal form, the composition of the large scaleeconomic study would be of the following form.

In first order of importance would be a "metric goodsand services" input/output table. This would consistof the fraction of each industry's metric output whichwas shipped to other industries, and to final demand.Input/output tables range in size from less than 10 by10 to more than 400 by 400 cells. The larger, thebetter for the metric investigation, because of thedanger of missing metric effects in highly aggregatedata. The preparation of the table would proceed intwo stages: (1) specifying what the metric productsare, and (2) what the dollar traffic for them is. Theformer would require new methods, building on lists ofmetrology-sensitive products used in internationaltrade. The second phase could reasonably be carriedout by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, both of the Department of Commerce.

In order to predict prices and bottlenecks, metriccapacity estimates for the industries would berequired. The standard input/output table doubles as acapacity measure for total output, but would notaccurately reflect the abilities of the industries torespond to increased metric demand. Some assumptionwould be required, such as proportionality; that is,metric capacity might be assumed to take the same frac-tion as does metric output, for example.

I - 23

.. . .. . . . | . . . . ,

After the input/output table is created, it should berelatively routine to incorporate It into an existingmacro-model, such as those already reviewed by theBoard. A way would have to be found to portray theeffects of the smaller metric input/output tablewithout losing the interactions of the much larger non-metric input/output table. An Interactive scheme couldbe devised to "back into" the estimates desired.

An advantage of this approach is that various groupswould be interested in results generated at all stagesof the investigation, and might well be tapped forexpert advice, particularly in the first phase of thedata generation. Further, the composition of theinput/out table resulting from the study would giveapproximations to industry supply and demand models--themselves of interest.

The ability to perform macroeconomic analysis is dependentupon the availability, reliability and homogeneity of thedata for input to "drive" the models. At present, there isa scarcity of metric data to drive these models. For alldetailed sector models to analyze sector-specific metrica-

tion issues. The development of improved indicators andtechniques for evaluating metric conversion status of indi-vidual industries and sectors would allow for the aggrega-tion of results and provide a clearer national picture ofmetrication activities. This can be done through relati-vely simple and low cost techniques on an industry byindustry or sector by sector basis.

The questions that could be answered by this overallapproach would be such as:

" Is the nation losing substantial export trade byoperating under a mixed system of measurement?

o Does continuing the present voluntary system poseserious problems for the future by contributing tobusiness uncertainty in making planning and invest-ment decisions?

o Will the voluntary system eventually favor thosewho keep customary measurements and penalize thosewho convert to metrics?

o What are the costs and inconveniences of main-taining dual inventories--products measured inmetric and in customary units?

o Would a certain number of years to total metrica-tion cause extreme price (availability) pressuresin some sectors?

I - 24

A _ ________________

o Is there a "best" number of years for mandatedmetrication or, if not for the nation, for specificindustrial sectors?

o Does setting a target date for metrication causedislocations in the marketplace, such as priceincreases or product scarcities?

" Will metrication growth under the voluntary programstop, remain the same or Increase?

o Do money supply and interest rates affectmetrication?

Many industry leaders have expressed concern about whatthey perceive to be the increasingly uncertain direction ofmetric conversion in this country. For this reason,industry may hesitate to make major capital investmentdecisions that involve metrics in the absence of a clearsignal of intention from the Federal government. Beforeputting money on the line, business leaders want anddeserve a clear-cut position so they can order mills,systems and machine tools. A broad-based study of the eco-nomy and metrication could provide the Federal governmentwith solid answers to use in future deeisionmaking aboutthe course of metrics in the United States.

I - 25

APPENDIX A

dim~-~

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SlTCTION TITLE PAGE

A PERSPECTIVE NO. I t BOARD REPRESENTATIONAND OTHER CONSTITUENCIES

A-1 Approach A - I

A-2 Engineers and Organizations Representative A - Iof Engineering Interests

A-3 Scientists, the Scientific and Technical A - 2Comnunity and Organizations Representativeof Scientists and Technicians

A-4 The National Association of Manufacturers A - 3

A-5 United States Chamber of Commerce, A - 9Retailers and Other Commercial Organizations

A-6 American Federation of Labor and Congress A - 10of Industrial Organizations

A-7 National Governors Conference, the National A - 13Council of State Legislatures, andOrganizations Representative of Stateand Local Government

A-8 Organizations Representative of Small A - 16Business

A-9 Representatives of the Construction A - 18Industry

A-10 National Conference on Weights and Measures A - 20and Standards Making Organizations

A-li Educators, the Educational Comnunity and A - 22Organizations Representative of EducationalInterests

A-12 Consumers and Similar Constituencies A - 24

A-13 Federal and Related Constituencies A - 28

A-14 International and Related Constituencies A - 31

A- i

APPENDIX A

PERSPECTIVE NO. 1: BOARD REPRESENTATION AND OTHER CONSTITUENCIES

A-It Aproc

Each of the eleven areas of Board repoesentation listed inSection 5 of the Act are considered in turn in thisAppendix. In addition, two other constituencies arediscussed in Section A,-13 and A-14: (1) Federal RelatedConstituencies and (2) International and RelatedConstituoncies.

All of the research, research-related, and allied sourcematerial studied has been reviewed for this total of 13constituencies to determine:

(1) the extent to which the planned and focused resultsof the research relate to each of these constituen-cies of the Board; and

(2) the extent to which ancillary and fortuitous resultsof the research studied relate to these constituencies.

The studies used for this analysis are listed in thereference table at the end of this Appendix.

A-2: EnKineers and Organizations Representative of Enjineering*I t e re s t"s

In the materials studied, the interests of engineers appearto be addressed most directly under the heading "Engineer-ing Standards" in Chapter 6 of the GAO report (Ref. 1) andin "Engineering Standards" of NBS's U.S. Metric Study In-terim Report (Ref. 2). The conclusions, recommendations,and other items of interest noted in the four U.S. MetricBoard Office of Research reports related to all workers(Refs. 3, 4, 5, and 6) also are of significant interest tothe concerns of engineers. Finally, it should be notedthat the concerns of several of the other constituenciesnoted in P.L. 94-168 also impinge on the interests ofengineers, viz., scientists, the National Association ofManufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AmericanFederation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organiz-ations, small business, the construction industry, theNational Conference of Weights and Measures, educators andthe educational conmunity, and consumers. The additionaltwo constituencies that are not cited in P.L. 94-168(Federal and International) may also have components ofinterest to engineers.

A-i

Information relating to engineers and organizations repre-sentative of engineering interest as cited in P.L. 94-168,appears subsumed under the information presented below forthree other groups specified in the Metric Conversion Actof 1975, viz., (1) American Federation of Labor andCongress ofr Iustrial Organizations and by other organiza-tions representing labor, (2) the National Conference onWeights and Measures and standards' making organizations,and (3) educators, t.'e educational community, and organiza-tions representative of educational interests.

Consequently, information about the engineering constitu-eney is incorporated in discussions of the three groupsnoted above.

A-3: Scientists, the Scientific and Technical Community and Or-lan~atins entiv fVof1 cienflts and TeiiIans

As was the ease for engineers and organizations represen-tative of engineering interests, that specialized and high-ly trained subset of workers who are scientists, members ofthe scientific and technical comnunity, and organizationsrepresentative of scientists and technicians are indirectlycited in GAO (Ref. 1) and NBS reports (Ref. 2). They arealso relevant to the subject of U.S. Metric Board Officeof Research reports dealing with workers in metrology-sensitive occupations (Ref. 3). These include the 46 per-cent of the U.S. workforce which is sensitive to measure-ment change (i.e., making measurements, using measurementspecified items; and manipulating measurement specificinformation).

Occupations which are measurement sensitive account for30.5 percent of the workforce; occupations dimension (orspecification) sensitive comprise 12.3 percent of theworkforce; and occupations process sensitive comprise 19.2percent of the workforce. These percentages (when added tothe 54 percent of the workforce not sensitive to measure-ment change) total over 100 percent because of the exist-enee of occupations with more than one form of metrology-sensitivity.

Those occupational areas which include members of thescientific and technical comnunity (as well as engineering)that have occupational titles where more than 50 percent ofthe workers are involved in jobs that are measurement sen-sitive include: (1) medical and health workers (91 percentsensitive; 4.6 percent of the workforce), (2) mathema-tics and physical sciences workers (80 percent sensitive;0.5 percent of the workforce), and (3) architecture,engineering and surveying (95 percent sensitive; 2.8 per-cent of the workforce).

A- 2

As was the case for engineers and organizations represen-tative of engineering Interests, further Information re-garding scientists, the scientific and technical comnunity,and organizations representative of scientists and teehni-cians, within the perspective of the Constituency Framework,will be included in discussions of the AFL/CIO, NC4U, andEducators.

A-4: The National Association of Manufacturers

The NAM represents manufacturing companies of every sizeand type. It is concerned with all major governmentalactions involving business and takes the initiative inproposing, supporting, or opposing legislation and regula-tions which vitally affect how companies operate, whattaxes they pay, their employee relations, their safetystandards, their impact on the environment, and a myriad ofother government/business relationships. NAM has a policysupporting U.S. conversion to the metric system of weightsand measures. It strongly supported P.L. 94-168 as itpassed through the Congress and formation of the U.S.Metric Board. In a sample poll of nearly 1,000 NAM membercompanies reported upon in July 1979, 64 percent of respon-dents were in favor of the conversion compared to 27 per-cent against. The member companies polled covered the fullspectrum of company size and variety of manufactured prod-ucts.

The USMB study of research techniques for assessing thestatus of metric use (Ref. 7), concludes that the "Temp-tation is as great as it is misleading to concentrate onthe institutionally visible aspects of metric use (plan-ning, conversion budgets, grants for training). Mostimportant are business and industrial changes -- newcapabilities, marginal production changes, new supplier-customer relations--which may be relatively hidden fromview."

Both the GAO and NBS metric studies (Refs. I and 8)addressed themselves to those issues and concerns that arealso the province of the NAM. GAO reported that thestrongest support for converting to the metric system camefrom State education officials, State government officialsand the Fortune 500 industrial companies. Building andconstruct ion'associations supported conversion but not aswidely as the above groups. Small busineses were dividedwith slightly more being opposed to metrication than sup-porting it.

In GAO's survey of businesses' opinion on metrication, atotal of 1900 businesses were surveyed regarding theirviews on metrication. Five hundred of these companies were

A- 3

• " i: - ,. f ',

members of the Fortune 500, while the other 1400 wereclassified as small businesses. The information relatingto small businesses gathered by the GAO is not noted herebut referred to rather in The Small Business Constituency,Section (A-8).

GAO noted that the largest companies in each industryusually support conversion. The majority of companies inall industries viewed metrication as being inevitable fortheir respective industries. The large business respond-ents believed the Government should encourage conversionthrough purchase of metric goods. The large businessesgenerally supported conversion to the metric system al-though they were divided over the relative advantages anddisadvantages of conversion. Nevertheless, a majority ofthe large business respondents believed the advantages tobe greater than the disadvantages.

The conclusions reached in the NBS Manufacturing study(Ref. 8) appear to parallel those noted above from the GAOreport. The NBS report, however, appears more comprehen-sive and quantitative. This report indicated that in 1970about 10 percent of U.S. manufacturing companies made someuse of metric measurement units and/or metric measurementstandards. The proportion of large companies that used themetric system was substantially higher (over 30 percent)than the proportion of small companies (less than 10percent).

Metric users among manufacturing companies in the UnitedStates have experienced both advantages and disadvantagesof metric use. Simplified specifications, cataloguing, andrecords; improved intracompany liaison and records; andtraining of personnel were cited as the chief advantages.Difficulty in obtaining metric-sized parts and tools, dualdimensioning or duplication of drawings, training person-nel, and more production items in inventory were cited asthe most important disadvantages. About three-fourths ofthe metric user companies indicated that metric use wasneither advantageous nor disadvantageous.

The attitude of manufacturers is mixed as to whether theincreased use of the metric system in their own industrywould be beneficial. More companies in total, by a smallmargin, are against increased use in their own industryrather than for it. However, larger companies, which tendto be more experienced with the metric system, are morefavorably disposed toward it so that a measure based on theeconomic importance of respondents in terms of value addedby manufacture would favor increased metric usage in theirown industry.

A- 4

Many of the research reports produced by the USMB relate toconcerns that are similar to those of the National Associa-tion of Manufacturers. The major conclusions and recommen-dations of these reports are summarized below. However, itshould also be noted that the information presented else-where in this research summary would be of interest to theNAM, especially the sections which deal with small busi-ness, workers, educators, and consumers.

The 1979 USMB status of the Fortune 1000 report (Ref. 9)indicated that 32 percent of _preise sales of the largestU.S. firms were of metric products, considerably more thanindicated at the times of the GAO or NBS reports. The GAOreport was undertaken in 1976 and completed in 1978 whilethe NBS studies were completed in 1971. The USMB reportindicated that limited planning and coordinating activitywas evident, not only within individual firms, but alsoamong the industry groups surveyed. Further, the pre-vailing disposition was found to be a "wait and see" atti-tude - coordination on metric matters between suppliers andcustomers appeared to be limited. Impediments continued tohinder some industries. This affected both the pace anddegree of metrication. The most frequently stated reasonsfor conversion related to international acceptance (seeSection A-14), and meeting customer demands. When therespondents were asked what a realistic time frame was fortheir companies' conversion, the median time frame wasfound to be ten years or less. Nevertheless, it was con-sidered likely that it might never be implemented over allindustries.

A similiar independent study (Ref. 10) published in theSpring of 1980 surveyed 750 corporate organizationsselected randomly from a population consisting of theFortune 1000 industrial firms. The report (MetricCeo-vrsion: Where We Are and Where We're Going) concludedthat lukewarm, go-slow attitude on the part of industrialfirms is evident. Although there is support for the con-cept of conversion, there is some lack of commitment to theaction. The impression one derives is that Americanindustry is waiting for some impetus. This presents adilemma for business and government policymakers: If con-version is left on a voluntary basis, as it is now, theprocess may be agonizingly slow and its completion uncer-tain. However, if conversion is made mandatory, the re-action may be so counter-productive that more problemswould be created than solved. Clearly, the road tometrics, while paved with good intentions, is turning outto be a slow and doubtful route.

The USMB's "Impact of Laws on Metric Conversion" study(Ref. 11) reached several conclusions and recommendations

A -5

.. . §:! . o_

related to the concerns and interests of the NAM. Inter-viewees believed that laws and regulations did not repre-sent meaningful impediments to metric conversion. However,they believed that at the Federal level the Fair Packagingand Labeling Act of 1966 represented the law of concern tomost industry groups. The study indicated that theantitrust laws cause concern to the extent that collaboa-tion among competitors in the development of industrymetric conversion is viewed as being in restraint of trade.

The study also concluded that there was no meaningfulcorrelation between a corporation's metric planning and thenature of its perception that legal impediments exist. Thestudy found that the laws that do concern representativesof the Fortune 1000 are evenly divided between the Federaland State/ocal levels of government. The firms par-ticipating in the study had not been involved in company orindustry-wide lobbying efforts concerning metric conver-sion, hence there was no relationship between lobbyingefforts and a perception of legal impediments. Most of thefirms surveyed said that they would support efforts byindustry to change the perception of legal impediments.

A finding in this study disclosed the perception that impe-diments really do not exist to any great extent. This con-firmed the earlier findings of the USMB's study of MetricMeasurement and Legislation (Ref. 12) which stated no legalbarriers to metrication exist. The two areas of greatestconcern were the antitrust laws and the building codes (seeSection A-9, construction constituency). In one instancethe problem maybe fear of the unknown; in the other it isthat the consideration is real. A number of corporationshave had excellent experiences in removing the perceptionsand, in some instances, the actual impediments to metricconversion. To help in alleviating the fear of antitrustissues, The Board produced an antitrust handbook for metricplanning and conversion (Ref. 13).

As a result of the Impact of Laws on Metric ConversionStudy (Ref. 12) and other studies addressing legal concerns(Refs. 11, 13 and 14), the Board felt that similarapproaches to the antitrust handbook should be exolored forsponsorship regarding the concerns with building codes,fair packaging and labeling, and weigits and measures.

In the Metric Measurement and Legislation study all as-pects of metric measurement and legislation were reportedupon including the U.S. metric environment, the legislativeand regulatory environment, possibilities for effectivemetric change mechanisms, and alternative metric changestrategies. A summary of the metric change options is pre-sented in Table A-i. The table also assesses the relative

A- 6

TABLE A-1

SM Y OF METRIC CONVERSION OPTIONS

OPTION APPROACH COMENT

OPTION 1 - Amend PL 94-168 to o Only one Legislativeallow for sector metric action required.plans effecting legal o Favored by Industrychanges at both Federal o Provides for consen-and State level. sus

o Provides for unifor-mity at Federal andState levels

o Most o Raises Federal Pre-Effective emption issues

OPTION 2 - Amend PL 94-168 to allow o One or two legisla-for sector metric plans tive actions requiredeffecting legal changes o Allows for consensusat only Federal level, at Federal and State

level- Congress enacts Federal o Provides for

version of Uniform uniformity at StateMetric System Procedure levelAct. o Reduces Federal

o Effective preemption issue

OPTION 3 - Amend PL 94-168 to allow o 51 legislativefor sector metric plans actions requiredeffecting legal changes o Allows for consensusat only Federal level, at Federal level

only- USMB encourages State to o No uniformity at

o Less adopt Uniform Metric State levelEffective System Procedures Act.

OPTION 4 - Case by case Federal o Unlimited Legislativelegislation, actions required

o No consensus- USMB encourages States o No uniformity at

o Least to adopt Uniform Metric State levelEffective System Procedures Act.

--I--------- --------- ----- ------- ----

A- 7

effectiveness of each option, summarizes each approach andprovides comments on the approach.

However in the USMB report to the Congress, Providing aMetric Option (Ref. 14), the Board found given the currentpace of voluntary conversion activity the available mecha-nisms were not sufficiently strained to require additionallegislative action. Further, the report found that therewas not a significant amount of existing laws and regula-tions at all levels of government to present legal barriersto voluntary conversion efforts.

Many of the reports published by the Office of Research arerelated either directly or indirectly to concerns of theNational Association of Manufacturer. These reports shallonly be referred to here in passing. Greater detailresulting from these research results will be notedelsewhere. For example, the small business studies (Refs.15, 16, 17, 18 and 19) of the U.S. Metric Board touch onthe concerns of small manufacturing enterprises. However,the relevant data dealing with small businesses will benoted in Section A-8, the small business constitue.cy ofthe Board.

Although the costs of workers' tools, training and theworker safety issues (Refs. 3, 4, 5 and 6) relating to bothsmall and large manufacturing concerns are tangentiallyrelevant to this constituency, these topics and the asso-ciated research results fall neatly and completely into theAFL-CIO constituency (Section A-6).

This approach is also pursued with the U.S. Metric Boardstudies related to consumers (Refs. 20, 21, 22 and 23).The consumer studies which relate to concerns of the NAMinclude (1) the metric conversion of distilled spiritscontainers, (2) the supermarket survey, (3) U.S. MetricBoard's consumer study and (4) the conversion of retailfuel pump computers to sale by the liter. These studiesare relevant to large and small manufacturing concerns.The factors relate to market concerns and perceptions,implications for international trade, the costs and savingsof the conversion process, etc. However, these topics aremore conisely and coherently covered in the consumerconstituency, Section A-12.

Finally, the Conversion Data Project, (Ref. 24) presents anextensive discussion of the status of metric conversionactivities for selected industries. This study is directlyrelated to concerns and interests of the NAM. This reportprovides an extensive information base on the progress,difficulties, and outlook for metric conversion of selectedtwo, three, and four-digit Standard Industry Classification

A -8

. L i.

industry groups. This information has and continues to beused by the Office of Research, others at the USMB, and thecommunity at large in preparing and implementing the USMB'sefforts to assist those industries needing informationregarding metric conversion. Data for each industry groupwas presented both separately and in a cross industry datasummary. More details regarding this study, including itsrelevance to interests and concerns of the NAM will befound in Appendix B under the mandate perspective ofassessing the status of metrication in the U.S.

A-5: United States Chamber of Commerce. Retailers and other

Discussion of research results relevant to this constitu-ency will be limited for the most part to large non-manu-facturing businesses which are represented by the U.S.Chamber of Commerce or other commercial organizations.Many of these businesses are in the retailing sector of theeconomy. This limitation is made to avoid repetition ofthe information presented since data related to manufac-turing concerns has been referred to in Section A-4, above(under National Association of Manufacturers) and resultsprimarily to small businesses are discussed in Section A-8.

The GAO report (Ref. 1) is not relevant to this sectionsince it only contains one section which surveys the opi-nions of businesses on metrication. The views of smallbusiness is treated in Section A-8. The large corporationssurveys were limited to members of the Fortune 500, the 500largest companies that derive more than 5 pFercent of theirrevenues from manufacturing and/or mining. These weredealt with in Section A-4.

NBS's U.S. Metric Study contains one volume dealing withnon-manufacturing businesses (Ref. 25). Among the non-manufacturing sectors of the economy addressed were whole-sale and retail trade. The total of all the non-manufac-turing industries surveyed by NBS includes about 65 percentof the total U.S. employment and represents a wide varietyof economic activities. The major conclusions of thisstudy were: (1) accurate knowledge of metric system char-acteristics was not universal; (2) there were few signifi-cant differences in opinion among companies grouped bythree size categories (the largest organizations tended tobe more favorable toward adoption of SI, to feel a need fora longer change over period, and more often to favor a man-datory national program of metrication established bylegislative action, than were smaller companies); (3) amajority of the respondents foresaw no particular dif-ficulty in converting to the metric system; and (4) about26 percent of the total sample was against increased metric

A- 9

usage within their own companies in ease of a nationalmetric changeover.

The USMB's Impacts of Laws on Metric Conversion study (Ref.11) indicated that for all of the businesses surveyed,including the large business retailers of interest in thissection, interviewees believe that laws and regulations donot represent meaningful impediments to metric conversion.Other conclusions and recomnendations derived from thisstudy that are related to large non-manufacturing businesswere previously noted in Section A-4 dealing with the NAM.Similarly, USMB's Metric Measurement and Regulations study(Ref. 12) also is applicable to large non-manufacturringenterprises. The results of the study have already beennoted.

The U.S. Metric Board's small business studies (Refs.15-19) are relevant to this constituency, especiallyretailers and other commercial organizations. These stu-dies will be treated at length, in Section A-8.

A-6: American.Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrialg~Kani-zat ions

The GAO report (Ref. 1) discussed briefly the issues oftraining and metric tools. The report concluded thattraining and metric tools would be required for workers ifmetrication should occur in the U.S. Further, the GAOconcluded that almost every worker would be affected tosome extent if the U.S. were to convert to the metricsystem. Although they felt that the full impact would notbe known until conversion occurred to a greater degree, themajor potential issues appeared to be metric training andtools for employees. Workers, to varying extents, wouldneed to learn a new measurement language, and some workerswould require tools. Worker productivity might also beaffected.

The GAO reported that the AFL-CIO also expressed concernthat metric conversion could have an adverse Impact onworker income and job security. The union believed thatlarge conversion costs, employee confusion, shortage andscheduling problems, increased imports, equipment adjust-ments, and difficulty in interfacing, mounting, and con-necting metric and customary equipment could increaseunemployment and temporary layoffs.

The National Bureau of Standard's reports do not treat spe-cifically the concerns of workers although they do discussissues that are of concern to workers such as internationalstandards, education and consumers.

A - 10

ILl

The U.S. Metric Board's Office of Research has conducted aseries of studies (Refs. 3-6) directly related to the laborconstituency. These reports address the topics of workertools, metrology sensitive occupations, and worker safety.In these studies little in the way of Federal assistancefor tool replacement or training was uncovered. The IRScode, however, can be used by employers, independentcraftsman and itemizing workers. It was observed that sixquantities (length, mass, volume, area, temperature, andpressure) were estimated to be used by more than 10 percentof occupations reviewed.

The results of the Metrology Sensitive report (Ref. 3) fellinto two groups. One was related to the metrology-sensitivity of U.S. occupations; the other related to thearea of legislation, regulation, assistance programs andCanadian experience relevant to metrication impacts on tooland training practices.

It was found that 54 percent of the workforce was not sen-sitive to measurement change (i.e., making measurements;using measurement specified items; and manipulating mea-surement specific information). Occupations which weremeasurement sensitive account for 30.5 percent of theworkforce; occupations dimension (or specification) sen-sitive comprise 12.3 percent of the workforce; and occupa-tions process sensitive comprise 19.2 percent of the work-force. These percentages added to more than 100 percentbecause of the existence of occupations with more than oneform of metrology-sensitivity.

All sensitive occupations are subject to possible trainingimpacts but are differentiated by tool cost impacts. Mea-surement sensitive occupations may be required to replaceor add measuring tools such as tapes, gauges, and scales.Occupations having dimension sensitivity may be required toreplace or add tools such as wrenches and cutting tools.Occupations which were purely process sensitive have nopotential tool impacts. Process sensitive occupations arelargely distinct from the other two types.

In the worker tool and training study (Ref. 5) it wasconcluded that workers' individual tool costs varied con-siderably ($100 to $1000). It was noted that often theemployer pays for metric tools although some employees mustpay for all of their own metric tools. Tax deductions wereoften not utilized by individuals. Workers who buy theirown tools (metric) typically purchase such tools incremen-tally over a number of years. Further, the methods used byindividuals to purchase personal tools vary considerably,depending upon the occupation, the employment situation,and habits of the individual. Because of the variety of

A 11

approaches taken in developing and presenting metrictraining programs, the cost varies substantially. Howeverthe employer usually pays for metric training.

Additional conclusions reported in the study follow. Thelength of metric training programs varies substantially;employees often experience anxiety prior to metric trainingprograms; some employees receive no formal metric training;and considerable duplication of training effort exists.Metric change has not impacted career issues. Elderlyworkers experience anxiety. Collective bargaining isaddressing metric topics. Some potential safety problemsexist. Productivity may be impacted by metric change.Confusion exists regarding the U.S. Metric Board's conver-sion activities. Dissemination of educational materials isminimal. Labor involvement in the metric conversion pro-cess is essential to its success.

As a result of the study's findings and recommendations,the Board informed the President and Congress of the une-quitable burdens and suggested possible forms of relief beconsidered. The study also found that potenial safetyhazards may exist when metric conversion occurs. Becauseof this potential problem, the Board initiated research toinvestigate the safety issues which may exist for certainoccupations (Ref. 6).

The safety study focused on identifying the possibility ofincreased safety hazards in specific job tasks that requirethe use of measurement units. In the study, no metrichazard experience was identified. In many instances,hypothetical scenarios were provided that characterized thepotential for hazard, but none of these could be substan-tiated with actual experience.

An increased exposure might occur when particular jobs andtheir job tasks are going through the transition fromcustomary measurement to metric measurement. Specificoccurrences related to the tasks include: (1) workerjudgment is exercised in using measurement; (2) communi-cation of a measurement value between two workers; and (3)conditioned response in emergency situations involvingmeasurement parameters.

Well planned metric change programs reduce hazardpotential. Industrial safety programs can reduce metrichazards. Involvement of professional safety experts inmetric planning, metric training programs, and proceduralanalyses can reduce the potential exposure to hazardsresulting from metric change.

Metric safety issues are unresolved in the avaiationindustry. At the present time, the aviation industry is

A - 12

experiencing increased usage of metric measurement at theinternational level. In many countries the use of metricinstrumentation is becoming commonplace. In contrast,within the United States, all the aviation industry isequipped with inch-pound instrumentation. This is leadingto increased requirements for airborne conversion as U.S.aviators fly in a metric measurement environment outside ofthe United States and as metric oriented aviators fly inthe U.S.'s customary measurement aviation environment.Many safety issues related to aviation's adoption of metricmeasurement can be identified in U.S. periodicals, butthese have not yet been resolved nor has a comprehensiveaviation conversion plan been developed and endorsed by theindustry.

The Worker Tool and Training study (Ref. 5) also recom-mended that the U.S. Metric Board should investigate thefeasibility of establishing a metric training materialsclearinghouse service. The value of this service in futureyears would be that it would reduce the continuous duplica-tion of effort that appears to be going on in the develop-ment of metric training matrials throughout the country.However, due to severe budgetary cutbacks this activity wasnot initiated.

A-7: National Governors Conference,.the National Council ofgff and OriregliiU-7an izatiToi Repreinit'i ofSate and Local Government

Both the GAO and the NBS addressed the interests and con-cerns of State and local governments as they relate tometrication. The GAO report stated (Chapter 23) that,while State governments support metrication activities,they generally remain inactive and that this support issomewhat tentative. The GAO concluded that the policyexpressed in P.L. 94-168, that of having the United Statescoordinate and plan the increasing use of the metricsystem, did not appear to be enough of a Federal metrica-tion comnitment to cause the States to convert their opera-tions.

The GAO further concluded that for the most part the Stateshave adopted a wait-and-see attitude. States agreed thatthe metric system might be good for multinational cor-porations in improving their world trade and an easier andmore logical system for everyone. However, their deepinvolvement in conversion would only come when the actionsof industry and the U.S. Government gave stronger and moreimmediate reasons for a change. At that time, GAO feltthat affected State laws and operations could be convertedas needed (see below for more recent USMB research resultsregarding state laws and metrication).

A -13

V,:rI

The GAO did not believe it was reasonable to expect Statesto initiate the imposition of a new system of measurementon intrastate affairs without strong incentives. In in-terstate affairs, GAO thought that careful coordination bythe Federal Government would be necessary to avoid confu-sion and disruption in the regulations of conmnerce andother matters. GAO believed, finally, that the States werelooking for some form of leadership from the FederalGovernment but had not yet received it, particularly withregard to a firm national commitment as to which system -metric or customary - the United States is to prtdominant-ly use.

In distinct contrast to the attention paid to State con-stituency by the GAO, the NBS report Testimony of Nation-ally Representative Groups (Ref. 26) deals with this grouponly superficially. It is not referred to at all in thesummary NBS report (Ref. 27) and dealt with only briefly inthe Testimony report. Among the many groups invited tosubmit inputs to the NBS study was the National GovernorsConference. No submission was made, however.

There were several submissions by organizations represen-tative of more local government, viz., (1) The Interna-tional City Management Association, 72) The National Leagueof Cities, (3) The U.S. Conference of Mayors, and (4) TheNational Association of Counties. In the case of the ICMAa report was based on a study of five typical cities, whilea survey of two typical urban counties was used to repre-sent the NAC. The consensus of the groups representingcities was that it would be difficult to identify benefitsof metrication for cities. The county group felt preparedto cooperate in the anticipated change, but not toinnovate. They viewed themselves as consumers, notproducers.

The USMB's Impact of Laws on Metric Conversion Study (Ref.11) confirmed GAO's, as well as other legal researchefforts (Refs. 12, 13, and 14), beliefs that laws and regu-lations do not represent meaningful impediments to metricconversion. This study found that, for a commodity pack-aged for export, the declaration of quantity in moststates' weights an measures laws may be expressed in termsof the metric system. This study observed that laws thatdo concern representatives of the Fortune 1000 are evenlydivided between the Federal and State/local levels ofgovernment.

Similarly, in the USMB's Report of Hearing on The Conver-sion of Retail Fuel Pump Compufers for Sale by the Liter(Ref. 23) it was found that there were no significant legalbarriers to the sale of fuel by the liter. Further, it was

A -14

1 _ _

noted that the interested parties were willing to partici-pate and contribute in the hearing process.

In the report, A Study of Metric Measurement and Legis-lation (Ref. 12), it was stated that legal barriers do notexist, based on the analysis of the nature of measurementunits as they are imbedded in legislative and regulatorymaterial. However, this study indicated that there weremany cases where measurement units in such material appearon the surface to present legal barriers to the use ofmetric units or to the introduction of metric sizes. Onesuch example cited was the Method of Sale laws enacted bymany states. These laws originated as a means of protect-ing the consumer against pricing deception by standardizingthe sizes of consumer products, typically dairy products,meat products, and other basic food stuffs. The study'slegal advisory panel, however, concluded that Method ofSale laws do not present legal barriers to the Introductionof metric sizes, an opinion that is supported by theDepartment of Justice. A Department spokesman has statedthat any state law which tended to limit the sizes of pro-ducts available to consumers was considered anticompetitiveby the Justice Department.

The study concluded that whereas no legal barriers tometric units exists, the need for an effective changemechanism still exists. If the thousands of legal deter-rents that exist at all levels of governmental laws andregulations are left to be changed on an individual basis,they would represent a significant potential impediment tothe voluntary conversion progream as defined by P.L. 94-168.The report recommended that the USMB provide guidance forFederal and state legislative bodies regarding the incor-poration of metric and customary units in all new legis-lation. The report indicated that state governments, inparticular, are interested in receiving positive guidancefrom the USMB regarding the appropriate use of metric unitsand the incorporation of metric units in legislative andregulatory materials.

In its report to the Congress - "Providing a Metric Option"(Ref. 14), the Board stated that there was no present needto provide a new structural mechanism. The report foundthat existing laws and regulations at all levels of govern-ment do not constitute significant legal barriers to volun-tary conversion efforts and most of the reqqired legalchanges can be accomnodated through administrative rule-making rather than legislative action. The report furtherstated that the voluntary conversion activity currentlyunderway is not yet of significant magnitude to strain theeffectiveness of available mechanisms.

A - 15

A-8: 2rlanizations Representative of Small Business

The General Accounting Office surveyed 1,400 small busi-nesses (Ref. 1). The GAO concluded that most of the smallbusiness respondents did not know the U.S. policy on metricconversion. In contrast, most large business respondentsdid know. Over 40 percent of the small businesses (incontrast to 13 percent of the large businesses, see SectionA-4) believed incorrectly that conversion is mandatory.

The largest percentage of the respondents, both large andsmall, saw little or no price changes in their products as aresult of metric conversion. A considerable number did seesome price increase, however.

Most of the respondents believed that the Federal role inconversion should be that of coordinator, planner, andcounselor, rather than enforcer. Whereas the large busi-ness respondents believed the Government should encourageconversion through purchase of metric goods. Of the smallbusiness respondents expressing an opinion, most opposedthis position.

Most of the small businesses believed they could convert tothe metric system within 10 years; a considerable numberindicated they could convert in less than 5 years. Anoverall time frame of 15 years would allow about 80 percentof the firms questioned to convert within an optionalperiod of time. Most respondents also helieved that theindustry should be involved in establishing target datesfor conversion.

More of the small business respondents believed they wouldnot need assistance to finance metric conversion than be-lieved they would. However, a considerable number did notknow.

The National Bureau of Standard's study, summarized in AMetric America (Ref. 27), does not treat specifically theconcerns of small businesses and the organizations repre-sentative of small business. However, two of the NBSreports do treat the concerns of the manufacturing industry

(see Section A-4) and non-manufacturing business (Ref. 25).

Research efforts by the U.S. Metric Board have includedmany studies of relevance to small businesses and organiza-tions representative of small business. These reports in-cluded: (1) the USMB's small business studies, some ofwhich are small manufacturing concerns (Refs. 15-19); (2)the Board's studies which address the topics of workertools and metrology sensitive occupations (Refs. 3-6); and(3) USMB studies related to consumers (Refs. 20-22), the

A - 16

ultimate purchaser and user of the end products of manufac-turing concerns. These directly related USMB studies arediscussed below. Those studies peripherally related suchas worker tools and consumers are discussed in Sections A-6and A-12, respectively.

The survey of small business study (Ref. 15) noted thatthere is a modest but significant amount of metricationwith more emphasis on hard metric products than soft orhybrid metric products. This study also noted thatalthough problems have been encountered by firms that haveconverted, the problems seem to have been overcome withinthe firm's resources. Further, trade or business asso-ciations are not seen at present as vehicles for metricconversion planning, nor does there appear to be any signi-ficant amount of metric conversion planning underway.Finally, the study noted that for the majority of busi-nesses, the cost of converted products is generally aboutthe same as the cost of customary products. Also, conver-sion has taken place principally because of demands fromcustomers, suppliers, or the particular industry as awhole. To the extent the following two recormnendationsrelate to small business engaged in manufacturing they arerelevant here: (1) because small business does not seeitself as well represented but feels it should be repre-sented, efforts should be made to provide information onthe costs and benefits of conversion to trade and businessassociations, especially those with small business con-stituencies; (2) many small businesses believe the U.S.Metric Board has the enforcement power in the conversionprocess. The Board therefore needs to clarify its role asa coordinator of a voluntary process.

The Search for Small Business with Investments in MetricProduction study (Ref. 16) related to the costs and bene-fits of conversion to small businesses. Although thisstudy listed no recommendations, many major conclusionswere reached. Most small businesses, for example, convertpart of their production to metric because of customerdemands. It was also noted that few companies convert morethan a small percentage of their production to metric.

The report concluded that most companies respond to metricrequests by converting the requests into customary units andproducing, using conventional machines. The study foundthat conversion has cost small businesses very little.Costs have ranged between $1,000 and $5,000. Conversionoccurs on the margin as changes occur, and metric is oftenspurred by the need to repair, modify, or replace foreignmachinery. It was considered noteworthy that metric acti-vity is greatest in the machine and fabricated metal pro-ducts industries, which make products for other industries.

A -17

Large corporations often assist their small business sup-pliers in meeting their metric demand. Also it was con-eluded that there was little interest or awareness insector planning related to metric conversion.

Legal impediments to metric conversion have been discussedpreviously in the subsections above dealings with theNational Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamberof Commerce, retailers, and other conmnercial organizations.Of special interest to the constituency here addressed isthe conclusion reached that interviewees believed that lawsand regulations do not present meaningful impediments tometric conversion. Also, most of the firms interviewedwould support efforts by industry to change the perceptionof legal impediments. Where impediments are perceived, thetwo areas of greatest concern are the antitrust laws andthe building codes. In the first instance the problem isfear of the unknown; in the other it is that the consider-ation is real.

A-9: Representatives of the Construction Industry

The GAO report (Ref. 1) devoted a significant amount ofattention to the construction industry. The building andcontruction industry is one of the largest contributors toour gross national product (9 percent in 1976) in additionto the large amounts spent yearly for maintenance and re-pair. In January 1978, four million workers were employedin construction performed under contract.

Metric conversion in the industry was observed by the GAOto be taking place at a slow rate, if at all. The reasonscited were: (1) no compelling reasons for converting; (2)uncertainty in the industry toward national policy andFederal commitment to conversion; (3) concern in parts ofthe industry about the costs and lack of benefits; and (4)the difficulty of individual firms or segments of the in-dustry to act alone in metric endeavors. Much of the in-dustry is passive toward metrication.

The reasons cited why the industry has no compelling needto convert were fourfold: (1) since it is primarilydomestic, there is no need to export and the industry doeslittle export trade; (2) there is no difficulty obtainingcustomary materials, (3) customers are not demandingconstruction in metric; and (4) conversion is voluntary.

The GAO concluded that although much of the industry con-siders metric conversion to be inevitable, it probablywill not convert, at least not In the near future, unless.it is mandated or the Federal government establishes aclear national policy to convert and plays a greater rolein the conversion.

A - 18

The NBS study for nonmanufacturing firms (Ref. 25) refersto the construction industry with much less emphasis thandoes the GAO. This NBS report gives a broad perspective ofthe kinds of problems which might arise in metrication,based on opinions from people in many different kinds ofeconomic activity. However, it does not deal at greatlength with the contract construction industry.

It should be noted, that the construction industry isextremely fragmented and, for the most part, its membersare relatively small businesses. Thus, the data presentedfor the Small Business Constituency (A-8) also pertains tothe construction industry. Similarly, Section A-6 relatingto workers would be related to those workers in theconstruction industry. This section, however, relates spe-cifially to the construction industry and its workers.

The report, the Impact of Laws on Metric Conversion (Ref.11) noted that the perception of those interviewed is thatlaws and regulations do not represent meaningful impedi-ments (barriers or deterrents) to metric conversion. How-ever, they acknowledged that certain laws are taken intoconsideration by firms as a factor in the planning process.For the industry-perceived laws impacting conversion, thebuilding industry's only concern was with building codes.Building codes are designed primarily to protect the publicfrom fire and other safety hazards. The codes consist ofstandards and specifications. Often the codes are admi-nistered by local governments, but are in fact formulatedand enforced through state governments (see Section A-7 forrelated information regarding this constituency). Thetypes of standards and specifications covered in the codesrelate to the type of construction, acceptable loads andstresses, and the quality of materials. The requirementsare almost always expressed in customary units.

The report concludes that the building codes are one of thetwo areas of greatest concern (the other is the antitrustlaws), but were not viewed as legal barriers per se. Themajor concern about the various requirements of thebuilding codes is based on real circumstances. It is con-ceivable that major changes in building codes will becostly.

The USMB's study of metric measurement and legislation(Ref. 12) made broad mention of building codes and theconstruction industry and, reinforces the cormnents from theImpact of Laws Study (Ref. 11).

A - 19

ws, ..

A-1O: National Conference on Wejht s and Measures and StandardsMaking__OK anizat ions

The General Accounting Office report (Ref. 1) contains anentire chapter dealing with engineering standards,including the views of standards writers such as AmericanNational Standards Institute, the American Society forTesting and Materials, the American Society of MechanicalEngineers, and several other groups.

The GAO concluded that metrication was not considerednecessary to increase standardization, rationalize existingstandards, enable reviews of existing standards to seewhich are outmoded and should be eliminated or revised, andimprove technology. Metrication could cause standardsorganizations and industry to take a more penetrating lookthan they othewise might, but other events could causethese to occur under the customary measurement system.

GAO further concluded that metric conversion would requirean evaluation of measurement-sensitive standards. In somecases soft conversion would be made because it was notpractical to make dimensional changes to the items in-volved. Soft conversion is considered by some lo be apotential waste of resources becaus, no physical changeoccurs in the standard or eventual product.

A few standards in use in the U.S. have been converted, andmost of the standards organizations contacted by GAO haveestablished policies and are moving slower than originallyplanned because conversion is not occurring as fast as somegroups had expected.

The NBS' U.S. Metric Study Commercial Weights and Measures(Ref. 28) explored the probable effects of a metric change-over on conrnercial weights and measures activities. Aspart of this study the effects of metrication on state andlocal weights and measures jurisdictions were assessed.

The report strongly suggests that, in the event the U.S.should decide to convert to the metric system in coyiercialweights and measures, a coordinated program of metricationfor this area should be established with a required date(or dates) for ending the use of customary units on packagelabels and commercial weighing and measuring devices.Leadership for the program, it was suggested, should comefrom the Federal Government and be coordinated through theNational Conference on Weights and Measures (NCKM).

Some conclusions and recommendations resulting from severalU.S. Metric Board research studies have related to the NCW6and standard's making organizations. The Impact of Laws

A - 20

study (Ref. 11) indicates that, at the Federal level, theFair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966 represents the lawof concern to some industry groups. Further, the studynotes that most states provide in laws for a commoditypackaged for export, that the declaration of quantity maybe in terms of the metric system; otherwise customary unitsare required.

Two specific metric conversions (distilled spirits and gaspumps) provide information relevant to the NCWM and also tostandards making organizations. Research studies con-cerning these two conversions were conducted by the Board.The metric conversion of distilled spirits containers stu-dies (Refs. 20, 29, and 30) discuss the standards and rulesrelating to sizes and quantities. Because the alcoholicbeverage industry is a regulated industry, the determi-nation of acceptable metric sizes for new bottles was coor-dinated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms(BATF).

The Conversion of Retail Fuel Pump Computers to Sale by theLiter study (Ref. 23) reports on the participation of theNCWM in the USMB hearings. The NCWM testified as being onrecord as recommending that the long-range solution toretail motor fuel dispensers with obsolete unit price-computing capability is conversion to, or replacement with,metric equipment. The NCWM noted that hurdles will beencountered in converting to metric. These hurdles in-clude: (a) planning and agreement on timetables to ac-complish changeover, (b) education of all parties to thechangeover, (c) coordination to minimize confusion and theduality period, (d) the need for a short-range solutionwith ai appropriate cut-off date, and (e) possible Federallegislation to bring the long-term solution closer toimplementation.

The NCWM stated that conversion would help allay inflationand that economic considerations on this issue were clearcut. However, it was noted that since the NCWM is a con-sensus organization, there are those within NCWM who differwith this consensus. NCWM noted that they have been onrecord as supporting voluntary metric conversion since1971, when the metric study authorized by Congress wascompleted (The NBS Study; see Ref. 28).

In the USMB report Providing A Metric Option (Ref. 14),the National Conference of Weights and Measures was listedas one of a number of independent organizations which deve-lop and promulgate uniform state codes addressing varioussubjects, including those which might relate to metric ver-sions of model state laws. The report also discusses theway the NCWM might be of assistance in working with stategovernments.

A - 21

The Metric Measurement and Legislation Study (Ref. 12)indicates that, while no legal barriers to metric unitsexist, the need for an effective change mechanism stillexists. If the thousands of legal deterrents that exist atall levels of governmental law and regulations are left tobe changed on an individual basis, they represent a signi-ficant potential impediment to the voluntary conversionprogram as defined in P.L. 94-168.

An example of the implications of the legal deterrent pro-blem can be seen in the recent move to convert retail saleof gasoline to the liter, referred to above. This changerepresents only one element of the petroleum industry andis not representative of an industry-wide conversion plan.

However, as a result of this change retailers who convertto sale of gasoline by the liter (at the pumps) will befaced with a continuing requirement to report monthly salesstatistics, taxes, and other data on a gallon basis tosatisfy the laws in 50 states. This represents a burden onthe retailer that the whole petroleum industry would befaced with should they desire to convert the whole industry(refiners, wholesalers, distributors and retailers) to theuse of liters and other metric units. Such problems can beanticipated and ameliorated with corrective, anticipatedactions by the NCWM.

A-11: Educators, The Educational Community±_andOrKanizationsReeentative-ol- uca tonal Interests

The most comprehensive information available regardingeducators, the educational community, and organizationsrepresentative of educational interests is presented in theGAO report (Ref. 1) and Volume 6, Education, of NBS's U.S.Metric Study Interim Report (Ref. 31). Both of these re-ports discussed formal, school-based education in theUnited States.

In this context, NBS concluded that the advantages of goingmetric in education are significant but not overwhelming;and, on the other hand, that the costs are not prohibitiveand can be met largely out of normal expenditures. A con-version period of ten years was suggested as close to theoptimum, but for that a national leadership and sense ofpurpose would be needed to completely benefit from metricconversion.

The GAO concluded that while some State and local educatorswere preparing to teach metric, many other sectors did notknow if or when they should convert. When or if the needfor metric education as the predominant system will arise,they further concluded, no one knew. They concluded,finally that timing was an issue which needed to be care-fully coordinated.

A - 22

l~

The GAO felt that before additional funds for metric educa-tion are considered, the education effort should be furtherexamined and put into phase with whatever metrication plansand efforts exist in industry, government, recreation,merchandising, and other sectors.

It should be noted, however, that outside of the formaleducation Co.;Lunity much informal education, on-the-jobtraining, and outreach learning takes p'ace in Americansociety. The USMB research reports make copious referencesto the capabilities of workers, consumers, homemakers, andothers to acquire necessary metric information in theseless formal educational contexts.

The Metric Usage Study (Ref. 32) makes reference to twocases where, for one company " . . . [no] personnel famil-iarity problems [were experienced] in its conversion tometric." Another company reported that" . . . no problems[were found] in training operators to use metric instrumen-tation and none had previously been anticipated."

!n the survey done on the distilled spirits conversion(Ref. 20), the findings indicated both awareness and igno-rance on the part of the consumers. For instance, while 73percent of all spirit purchasers showed at least some evi-dence of an awareness of the existence of metric sizes, themajority of spirits purchasers were unaware of (1) theamount of contents in the containers they purchase, (2) anyof the six allowable metric container sizes, or (3) thenames of the six allowable metric container sizes.

In the survey of small business study (Ref. 15) the largestproblem cited in converting to the metric system was makingoperational adjustments, (e.g., employee training). Thestudy findings point to the need for an educational programaimed at informing the small businesses of the Federalgovernment's responsibility in coordinating the conversionprocess. Again, this is an educational problem (small "e")- informal and not school related. Somewhat contrary tothis conclusion was one reached in the Metric Usage Study(Ref. 32) which states that "working to metric presents noexceptional problems or benefits for small manufacturers."

The worker studies of the U.S. Metric Board (Refs. 3-6)also are related indirectly to educators and education -but informally for the most part. The main educationalrelated conclusion of metrology sensitive occupations study(Ref. 3) was that 54 percent of the workforce are not sen-sitive to measurement change (i.e., making measurement,using measurement specified items, and manipulatingmeasurement specific information). Also, all metrologysensitive occupations are subject to possible trainingimpacts.

A - 23

The Workers' Tools and Training study (Ref. 5) showed thatthe cost of metric training varies considerably, dependingon whether existing training programs are available, whatmaterials are used, and the time involved in conducting atraining program. Many workers who were interviewed notedanxiety about having to learn and use the metric system.This is usually dispelled by the training programs. A con-siderable amount of duplication of metric trainingmaterials exists, caused by a lack of information regardingsources of such materials. This latter situation led tothe recommendation that the U.S. Metric Board investigatethe feasibility of establishing a clearinghouse servicethrough which sources of metric training materials can bemade known to the private sector. As previously noted,this activity was not initiated due to severe resource cut-backs in fiscal year 1982.

Of significance to the formal/informal aspects of metriceducation is a conclusion reached in the ResearchTechniques study (Ref. 7). The report states that "Thetemptation is as great as it is misleading to concentrateon the institutionally visable aspects of metric use (plan-ning, conversion budgets, grants for training). Mostimportant are business and industrial changes - - newcapabilities, marginal production changes, new supplier- customer relations - - which are relatively hidden fromview."

The Consumer Report (Ref. 22) indicated that considerableeffort had been expended by the Board in developing soundeducational materials and to establishing practices andprocedures which permit consumer participation.

A-12: Consumers and Similar Constituencies

The GAO report (Ref. 1) devoted parts of several chaptersto matters of concern to consumers. Such materials relatedto weather reporting, home appliances, and such matters.It also devoted one chapter of its report exclusively tothe general public and consumer products.

The GAO concluded that consumer acceptance was one of themost crucial, if not the most crucial, areas involved inachieving a metrication program. They determined that fewconsumers had a clear understanding of the metric termsthey would use in their daily lives. This was found to beespecially true for persons who were older, had a lowerincome, were without much education, or belonged to aminority.

GAO further concluded that a majority of consumers did notfavor converting to the metric system. Many saw no bene-

A - 24

fits in converting. The GAO felt that if the U.S. were toconvert, the Government would need to undertake publicawareness programs. It was felt that these should be coor-dinated with conversion and promotional activities thattake place in the public and private sectors. Both sectorsshould share the burden and would need to work together.

The GAO noted that metrication of many products could notbe done on a voluntary basis. For example, many stateshave laws and regulations which require the use of custo-mary sizes for products, such as bread, flour and butter.Most states also have weights and measures laws or regula-tions that tend to limit use of metric measurements. Thesematters have been referred to in other sections, especiallySection A-10.

The NBS devoted an entire publication to discuss TheConsumer (Ref. 33), a portion of the broad U.S. MetricStudy. NBS's consumer study was directed to effects asthey apply to the individual American. A portion of theconsumer study involved a survey of attitudes and opinionsof consumers and their level of knowledge of both thecustomary and metric systems of measurement. In anotherportion, experts presented views on the present impact ofmetrication on selected consumer activities and the possi-ble future effects with no national program to increasemetric use; or, alternatively, with a planned program ofmetrication.

The sample survey disclosed that a majority of consumersare satisfied with the customary system, that they knowvery little about the metric system, and that they could beexpected to react with apathy and indifference to anyplanned conversion program. Those who did not reactfavorably to metrication gave as reasons, "inconvenience ofa change," and "satisfaction with the present system."However, many of them admitted that metrication did havesome advantages. Those who thought it was a good idea tochange explained, "It is used by most other countries," and"It is a decimal system and easier to use."

The fact that a majority of the respondents were unable toname a single metric measure, and relatively few were fami-liar with either the relationships within the metric systemor the relationship of metric units to customary units,suggests that much of the resistance to possible conversionstems from a lack of knowledge of the metric system. Thiswas corroborated by the fact that those who were familiarwith the metric system generally favored conversion, empha-sizing the advantages and minimizing the disadvantages.

The level of knowledge of the metric system was apparentlyrelated to the educational level and to the age of the

A -25

respondent. Young people and highly educated peoplegenerally were more knowledgeable. Respondents seemed morefamiliar with prefixes and the relationship of base unitsand subunits in the metric system than with the relation-ship of metric measures to customary measures.

F'perts submitting papers in selected areas of consumerconcern verified that customary units and standards areused almost exclusively in consumer activities. They re-ported that the consumer is generally satisfied with thecustomary system and is little affected by the increasingworldwide use of the metric system. In many situations theconsumer is totally unaware of the fact that a purchaseditem may involve metric language, components, or standards.

In the report, particular emphasis was directed to the lackof standardization in areas such as retail clothing andfoods, and the promulgation of unsystematic and confusingpractices, especially in consumer product information. Tosome consumers this situation is confusing and frustrating.For example, ready-to-wear clothing is offered to the con-sumer in a proliferation of illogically conceived sizes,and, similarly, processed foods are packaged in such avariety of sizes as to make price comparison almost im-possible.

The experts almost unanimously agreed that conversionproblems and costs would be confined to the transitionperiod, and once completed, the advantages would outweighthe costs and inconveniences of the changeover.

Some of the direct advantages mentioned were simplifica-tion of calculations, elimination of ambiguities in mea-surement units (e.g., dry and liquid pints and ounces), andincreased facility in foreign travel. Metrication was alsovisualized as the opportunity and possibly the incentive tointroduce improved stanards for clothing sizes, simplifica-tion of package and can sizes, elimination of confusingpractices in consumer product information, and possiblestandardization at the international level.

There was unanimous agreement that the major disadvantageof planned metrication would be a psychological one ofadjustment. Successful conversion would require a massiveprogram of public education.

Although many efforts of the U.S. Metric Board relatedindirectly or referred obliquely to consumer matters, fourstudies touched more directly on the metric effects onconsumers.

The USMB's study of metric conversion of distilled spiritscontainers, reached several conclusions relevant to

A - 26

. . " - :

consumers (Ref. 30). Those conclusions not noted earlierinclude: (1) the most effective options for USMB are thosewhich elicit the positions of interested and affected par-ties and publicize the results; (2) USMB's planning guide-lines are essentially adequate to support USMB's optionsfor safeguarding the interests of all parties in conversionplanning; and (3) conversion is an activity which occurswithin the context of the market place and private inter-ests.

The supermarket survey of metric labeling (Ref. 21) hasjust recently begun and no results, conclusions, orrecommendations related to this constituency are yetavailable. It is clear, of course, that results of thisstudy will be quite relevant to this constituency.

USMB's report of retail fuel pump computers (Ref. 23) isalso relevant to consumer interests. To the extent majorconclusions related to consumers have not been noted pre-viously in this report they are as follows: (1) theremust be adequate information at the pump to allow unitprice comparisons; and (2) the interested parties in theconversion of retail fuel pump computers to sale by theliter are willing to participate and contribute in thehearing process.

The USMB consumer report (Ref. 22) concluded that USMB'sresponsibility to serve consumers' needs has beenacknowledged in every guiding document defining theagency's mission, from the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 tothe Private Sector Metric Conversion Planning Guidelinesand Principles and to the Final Consumer Program. TheBoard's ideological commitment to full public participationis also apparent in its willingness to meet with consumersin public forums for a free exchange of ideas.

It further stated that while USMB has devoted considerableeffort to developing sound educational materials and toestablishing practices and procedures which permit consumerparticipation, the agency still lacks a mechanism forserving consumer needs in a consistent, focused and well-coordinated manner. Having developed a sound consumerprogram, the next essential step is to allocate the staffand financial resources necessary to carry it out.Experience to date demonstrates that an ad hoe approach isnot adequate to bring consumers into theadclisionmakingarena.

The USMB consumer report presented a total of 32 reconimen-lations and were discussed in greater detail in SectionsIII through V of the consumer study. Six of these recom-mendations related to the identification of and keeping a

A - 27

list of knowledgeable consumer participants. Specificmethods for doing this were listed. Five of the recommen-dations dealt with consumer participation in the conversionplanning process and three with consumer participation atBoard meetings and public forums. The remainder related toresponding to public mail (seven), the adequacy of educa-tional materials (ten) and organizing for consumer par-ticipation (one).

A-13: Federal and Related Constituencies

The GAO report devotes an entire chapter to the activitiesof the Federal Government as they impact on metric matters(Ref. 1). The GAO concluded that Federal Government metri-cation activities varied widely, but noted no consistentapproach to conversion. GAO stated that metrication didnot appear to be a high-priority item with the Federalagencies. Only 12 of the 26 agencies contacted by GAO hadformalized metric policies, and these policies generallycalled for the agencies to respond to industry demands andnot to lead.

The GAO felt that officials of the Federal Government agen-cies generally expected no specific benefits frommetrication. If industry benefited from conversion it wasassumed that the Government would benefit. Further, theGAO believed that a vast array of laws, regulations, andother requirements would have to be reviewed to ascertainthe impact and type of change. Several agencies indicatedthat they were looking to the Congress, the President, orthe U.S. Metric Board for guidance on what metricationactions they should take.

Further the study noted that some agencies, such as theDepartment of Agriculture, believed that metrication ismandatory and have taken aggressive steps to convert someoperations which the public has disapproved. They findthat the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 does not requireanyone, Government agencies or the private sector, toconvert. The Metric Act does not alter existing laws orregulations, and agencies must have existing authority orseek authority to require conversion.

Metrication by the Department of Defense is being driven bya desire for standardization, particularly with NATOcountries, and a belief that metrication is inevitable. Itis being impeded by a policy of nonadvocaey and a firmresolve by Defense not to pick up industry's total costs ofconversion.

Measurement is an integral part of many activities and pro-jects within Government. Without specific direction to

A - 28

convert its activities, the GAO found that the Governmentmay be frustrating industry plans. Other nations which arecommitted to conversion found that a strong government com-mitment was necessary to accomplish conversion.

The GAO recommended that the Office of Management andBudget:

(1) Clarify for Federal agencies what they are expectedto do in regard to planning and coordinating any in-creased use of the metric system;

(2) Ensure that Federal agencies establish policies con-sistent with the intent of the Metric Conversion Actof 1975 and inform the private sector of Federalmetrication plans whenever appropriate;

(3) Ensure that Federal agencies convert regulations ormount other metrication activities when the initia-tive comes from the sectors which will be affected--industry, the states, and the general public. Fed-eral agencies should only initiate action when theycan demonstrate that such action is in the Nation'sbest interest; and

(4) Require Federal agencies to inform the public of theimpact of those conversion actionE that affect themand hold public hearings to obtain their commentswhich should be considered in any final determinationon such actions.

Two of the NBS U.S. Metric Study reports relate directly tothe Federal constitlency. These reports are Federal Govern-ment: Civilian Agencies (Ref. 34) and Department ofDefense (Ref. 35).

The civilian agencies report found substantial expectationof increasing problems in the Federal establishment withcontinuation of a laissez-faire policy toward metrication,and widespread feeling that a coordinated national effortto increase the use of SI measurement units and engineeringstandards in the U.S. is desirable. A broad consensus ofthe Federal agencies and responding subunits expect thatthe long-term advantages of such a move would clearly out-weigh any short-term disadvantages, even Including thesubstantial costs that would be involved during the conver-sion period.

The study noted further that the conversion level of metricsystem use in this country had already seriously affectedtwo areas of responsibility of the Federal establishment;the functions of the U.S. Coast Guard with respect to ship-

A -29

building (verification of compliance with safety and otherstandards), and the area of automobile safety. In thelatter case the influx of metric-dimensioned foreignvehicles and components is requiring special tools for ser-vicing and special blueprints for safety standards.Slightly over one-third of the 57 agency responses in the"area of national responsibility" part of the study ex-pected increasing measurement-related problems, which, inthe absence of a concerted national metrication effort,would range up to substantial or serious with regard totheir area of responsibility.

Of these 57 agency respondents, 28 saw U.S. metricationfacilitating the activities within their areas of respon-sibility and their interactions therewith, 31 favoredincreased U.S. metrication (most endorsing a coordinatednational program), and only one opposed any national pro-gram.

The Department of Defense study (Ref. 35) reached two majorfindings:

(1) The added cost to maintain constant mission capabili-ty while converting to the metric system is estimatedto be approximately $18 billion. The major financialimpacts of converting to metric measurements willinvolve additive costs associated with the areas ofdesign, development, procurement and support of newsystems, publication of technical data, training ofpersonnel, and storage generated by metrication.

(2) The metrication process will impact the operationalcapability of the military forces. For example,changes or revisions would be needed for

a. Computer programs for data systems,

b. Installed equipments, supporting equipments, anddocumentation for operational systems

c. Comnunications procedures pertaining to weather,navigation, and takeoff/landing instructions, and

d. Observations and weather reports.

The report may be sunmarized by the following statements:(1) in a directed conversion to the metric system, the DODtransition will have a significant impact on mission capa-bility unless sufficient additional resources are madeavailable for the total task and a national conversionschedule is adhered to by industry; (2) the total addi-tional funds for computed costs that will have to be made

A - 30

available for transition to the metric system are estimatedto be approximately $18 billion; (3) during the period oftransition there will be no major advantage to the DOD andmajor disadvanatages will occur; (4) the conversion of thecountry to the metric system could adversely impact theability of the United States to support its military forcesduring the proposed transition period: (5) the militaryadvanatages expected following transition are the day-to-day use of an inherently simpler system and the com-patibility of U.S. and foreign equipment; and (6) shouldmetrication be directed, a full-time and continuing staffwithin DOD will be required to prepare a detailed implemen-tation plan, including contingency plans; and to implementand administer the metric system plan as appropriate.

The USMB research that discusses the Federal sector is pre-sently underway. The Federal Procurement study (Ref. 36)is expected to be completed in the third quarter of fiscalyear 1982. This study is designed to provide the USMB witha clearer understanding of the basic relationships betweenthe Federal procurement process and private sectorsuppliers. This is being done to gain an understanding ofthe ways in which Federal procurement can encourage andacconmnodate initiatives of the private sector and to ensurethat the effects of conversion on the Federal and privatesectors are understood prior to implementation of procure-ment decisions and actions.

The study is being accomplished through the development andevaluation of classification schemes for products andservices. These schemes will be based on the intrinsiccharacteristics of the products or services, as well astheir effect and appropriateness of conversion consideringboth the Federal and private sectors. The intent of thisstudy is not to examine each product or service that theFederal government procures. Rather, the ultimate goal ofthe study is to devise a meaningful and manageable classi-fication scheme from which the appropriateness and methodsfor metric procurement can be derived.

Other USMB studies that related to the Federal and relatedconstituencies are the distilled spirits conversion studies(Refs. 20, 29 and 30) which have been discussed at length invarious sections in this report, and the gasoline pumpconversion (Ref. 23).

A-14: International and Related Constituencies

The GAO report (Ref. 1) devoted parts of several sectionsto metricatlon and international trade in a chapter oftheir report entitled "Impact on U.S. Trade Uncertain."

A -31

The following conclusions, greatly condensed, were reachedby the GAO: (1) companies in the forefront of metricationappear to be pursuing conversion for reasons other than apossible favorable impact on trade; (2) the frequentlycited dollar losses in exports due to the United States notbeing on the metric system are often based on assumptionsand estimates with questionable validity or reliability;and (3) the effect of metrication in promoting or deterringtrade would appear to be relatively insignificant when com-pared to such factors as reliability, technology, quality,prices, and tariffs.

Two NBS U.S. Metric Study reports that relate to theInternational and Related Constituencies are the Inter-national Standards (Ref. 37) and International Trade (Ref.36).

The conclusions and reconinendations of the standards reportreflected a substantial concern about the need tostrengthen the effectiveness of the United States in inter-national standards activities. The most important conclu-sions are summarized here: (1) the international standardsissue lends some support to a metric conversion in theUnited States, but other important issues must also be con-sidered and weighed before an overall judgment can be made;(2) if the U.S. wished to see the maximum amount of itsengineering practices and standards included in the cominginternational standards, it must quickly participate effec-tively in international standards negotiations; (3) relati-vely modest changes in the import-export pattern ofmeasurement-sensitive goods can have a serious impact onthe U.S. balance of payments; (4) SI usage in internationalstandards as a language does not of itself pose any seriouscomplications for the U.S.; and (5) product certificationemerges as a primary consideration in the utilization ofstandards.

The major recommendation of this report was that theDepartment of Commerce take appropriate action to determinewhether the economic impact of agreements such as theTripartite Agreement can be expected to affect the U.S.balance of payments significantly.

The major findings in NBS's International Trade report arebriefly summarized as follows: (1) U.S. export tradevolume in product classes judged to be measurement standardsensitive (MSS) amounted to $13.9 billion in 1969, a gainof 47.1 percent over 1965; (2) Canada is the largest marketfor MSS products shipped by the U.S.; (3) the notion thatthe U.S. is losing exports to metric countries because itsproducts are not designed and manufactured in metric unitsand standards appears to be ill-founded; and (4) mostexports of MSS products involve machinery and equipment.

A - 32

1

The USMB research studies relating to large corporationshave discussed international and related constituencies.In the "Status of the Fortune 1000" study (Ref. 9) it wasnoted that the most freque-"T'fy stated reason for conversionrelated to international acceptance. Other major conclu-sions of this study have been previously noted.

The Impact of Laws on Metric Conversion study's (Ref. 11)conclusion and recommendations have been referred to atlength above. Those laws that do concern representativesof the Fortune 1000 (the most internationally oriented ofthe companies involved in metric conversion activities inthe U.S.) were found to be evenly divided between theFederal and state/local levels of government. No majorrecommendations from this study related to the inter-national or related constituencies.

In the consumer-related studies of the USMB the inter-national and related constituency was not often notedeither in study conclusions or recommendations. One excep-tion to this observation is for Distilled SpiritsContainers studies (Refs. 29 and 30) referred to throughoutthis report. Therein it was concluded that the implica-tions of a conversion for international trade were notfully considered.

The study on the machine tool industry (Ref. 39) providesvaluable information on the international tradeimplications. The study is described in more detail in thesecond perspective under the eighth mandate (Appendix B).The major finding relative to the international arena showsa serious decline of the U.S. share of the world market.This share has been somewhat masked by the fact that thedollar volume of overseas sales has increased. The U.S.now ranks sixth in the share of foreign sales. The worldmarket is four times as large as the domestic market. Themachine tool industry is begining to look to the inter-national arena with renewed interest since the largebacklog of domestic orders has largely disappeared.

A - 33

_________________________________________

APPENDIX A - REFERENCES

1. Getting a Better Understanding of the Metric System --

Implications If Adopted by the United States, U.S. GeneralAccounting Office, October 1978.

2. U.o. Metric Study Interim Report: Engineering Standards,National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Corrunerce,July 1971.

3. Effects of Metric Conversion on Measurement, Specificationand Process Sensitive Occupations, U.S. Metric Board, Inpress.

4. Analysis of the Survey of Occupations Sensitive toMeasurement Change, U.S. Metric Board, In process.

5. Effects of Metric Change on Workers' Tools and Training,Middlesex Research Center, Inc., July 1981.

6. Effects of Metrication on Safety in the Work Place forSelected Occupations, Middlesex Research Center, Inc., April1982.

7. Research Techniques for Assessing Status of Metric Use, J.F. Coates, Inc., February 1981.

8. U.S. Metric Study InterimReport: The Manufacturing Industry,National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Coramerce,July 1971.

9. U.S. Metric Board Survey of Selected Large U.S. Firms andIndustries, King Research, Inc., May 1980.

10. Lawrence P. Ettkin et al, "Metric Conversion: Where We areand Where We're Going", S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal,

The American Management Sciety--ro t- e Advincement ofManagement, Spring 1980.

11. The Impact of Laws on Metric Conversion: A Survey ofSelected Large U.S. Corporations, Newman & HermansonCompany, February 1982.

12. A Study of Metric Measurement and Legislation (2 Vols.),Middlesex Research Center, Inc., September 1979.

13. Antitrust: A Handbook for Metric Planning and Conversion,U.S. Metric Board, May 1980.

14. Providing a Metric Option: Can Laws and Regulations beAmended in a Timely Manner?, U.S. Metric Board, December1979.

A - 34

15. Survey of Small Business: Issues in Metric Planning andConversion, DAMANS and Associates, Inc., December 1980.

16. The Search for Small Business with Investments in MetricProduction, J. F. Coates, Inc., June 1981.

17. The Consequences of Metric Production for SmallManufacturers (2 Vols.), J. F. Coates, Inc., February 1982.

18. Going Metric: Is It for You - Planning Models for SmallBusiness Manufacturers, Wholesale and Retail, and ServiceFirms, Birch and Davis Associates, Inc., In process.

19. Small Business Productivity and Metrication, Small BusinessAdministration, In process.

20. Survey of Consumer Attitudes and Awareness of the MetricConversion of Distilled Spirits Containers, Applied ConceptsCorp., December 1981.

21. Supermarket Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Inprocess.

22. Consumers and the United States Metric Board, U.S. MetricBoard, August 1981.

23. The Conversion of Retail iuel Pump Computers to Sale by theLiter, U.S. Metric Board, June 1979.

24. Conversion Data Project, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980.

25. U.S.Metric Study InterimReport: NonmanufacturingBusinesses,National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce,July 1971.

26. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: Testimony of NationallyRepresentative Groups, National Bureau of Standards, U.S.Department of Comerce, July 1971.

27. A Metric America: A Decision Whose Time Has Come, NationalBureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1971.

28. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: Coumercial Weights andMeasures, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department ofCommerce, July 1971.

29. A Study of Metric Conversion of Distilled Spirits Contain-ers: A Policy and Planning Evaluations, ComprehensiveReport on the Conversion Process, Applied Concepts Corp.,August 1981.

A - 35

30. A Study of Metric Conversion of Distilled SpiritsContainers: A Policy and Planning Evaluation, Final Reporton Findings and Lessons Learned, Applied Concepts Corp.,October 1981.

31. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: Education, NationalBureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1971.

32. Metric Usage Study: A Look at Six Case Histories, U.S.Metric Board, 1980.

33. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: The Consumer, NationalBureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1971.

34. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: Federal Government:Civilian Agencies, National Bureau of Standards, U.S.Department of Conmerce, July 1971.

35. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: Department of Defense,National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce,July 1971.

36. Federal Procurement Metrication - Appropriateness andMethods, Science Management Corporation, In process.

37. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: International Standards,National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce,December 1970.

38. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: International Trade,National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce,July 197 .

39. Metric Use in the Machine Tool Industry -- A Status Reportand Test of Assessment Methodolgy, J. F. Coates Inc., April1982.

A - 36

APPENDIX B

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

B. PERSPECTIVE NUMBER 2: FUNCTIONAL MANDATESOF THE METRIC CONVERSION ACT OF 1975

B-1 Approach B - 1

B-2 Mandate 1: Consultation B - 1B-2a Small Business Studies B - 2B-2b Large Business Studies B - 4B-2c Worker Studies B - 5B-2d Consumers B - 7B-2e Legal Issues B - 7B-2f Policy Issues B - 8B-2g Research Methods Studies B - 11

B-3 Mandate 2: Procedural Guidelines B - 11B-3a Small Business Studies B - 12B-3b Large Business Studies B - 12B-3c Worker Studies B - 12B-3d Consumers B - 12B-3e Legal Issues B - 13B-3f Policy Issues B - 13

B-4 Mandate 3: Public Hearings B - 14

B-5 Mandates 4, 5 and 6: Standards Conversion, B - 14Retention and Consultation

B-Sa Small Business Studies B - 15B-5b Large Business Studies B - 16B-5c Consumers B - 16B-5d Legal Issues B - 16B-Se Policy Issues B - 18

B-6 Mandate 7: Public Information and Education B - 25

B-7 Mandate 8: Status Assessment B - 27B-7a Small Business Studies B - 27B-7b Large Business Studies B - 28B-7c Workers B - 28B-7d Consumers B - 29B-7e Legal Issues B - 29B-7f Policy Issues B - 30B-7g Broad Industrial Picture B - 30B-7h Comprehensive Look at the U.S. Machine B - 31

Tool IndustryB-7i Assessment of Selected Econometric Models B - 33B-7J Other Surveys B - 34

B -i

B-8 Mandate 9: Research B - 37B-8a Impact on Workers and Different Occupations B - 38B-8b Impact on Different Industries B - 38B-8c Possible Increased Costs to Consumers B - 38B-8d Impact on Society and the Economy B - 39B-8e Effects on Small Business B - 39B-8f Impact on the International Trade B - 39

Position of the United StatesB-8g Appropriateness of and Methods of Using B - 40

Procurement by the Federal Governmentas a Means to Effect Conversion to theMetric System

B-8h Proper Conversion or Transition Periods B - 40B-Si Consequences for National Defense B - 40B-Sj Legal Constraints on Metrication B - 40B-8k Status Measurement B - 41

B-9 Mandate 10: Annual Report B - 41

B-10 Mandate 11: Federal Structural Mechanism B - 41for Laws and Regulations

B - ii

APPENDIX B

PERSPECTIVE NUMBER 2: FUNCTIONAL MANDATES OF THE METRICCONVERSION ACT OF 1975

B-1: Approach

Each of the 11 mandates comprising Section 6 of the Act areconsidered in turn. All the research, research-related andallied source material has been reviewed to determine:

(1) the extent to which the planned results of theresearch relate to the mandates, and

(2) the extent to which serendipitous results relate tothe mandates.

The process is not particularly elegant, nor can it guaran-tee that all relationships have been found. However, itsvery "brute force" nature provides reasonable assurance ofcompleteness. The results of the review are presented bymandate. In analyzing each mandate, the review of USMBresearch studies are discussed under the appropriate topi-cal headings.

B-2: Mandate 1: Consultation

The first mandate reads:

"the Board shall consult with and take into accountthe interests, views, and conversion costs of UnitedStates conmerce and industry, including smallbusiness; science; engineering; labor; education;consumers; government agencies at the Federal, Stateand local level; nationally recognized standards deve-loping and coordinating organizations; metric conver-sion planning and coordinating groups; and such otherindividuals or groups as are considered appropriate bythe Board to the carrying out of the purposes of thisAct. The Board shall take into account activitiesunderway in the private and public sectors, so as notto duplicate unnecessarily such activities."

The relevant language of direct interest to research acti-vities is that referring to the "interests, views, and con-version costs" of a wide range of groups and organizations.Surveys conducted to elicit views and studies looking atcost provide the most inmmediate source of information.

B -I

B-2a: Small Business Studies

(1) A probability survey of five types of businesses (Ref.1) (representative of construction, manufacturing, re-tail and wholesale trade, and transportation) yieldsthe following observations:

- There does not appear to be any significant amountof metric conversion planning underway.

- Trade or business associations are not seen asvehicles for metric conversion planning.

- For the majority of small businesses, the cost ofconverted products is generally the same as thecost of customary products.

- Small business feels that it should be representedin the conversion planning process.

- Lack of demand from customers and suppliers is themajor reason for a lack of conversion planning.

- Demand from customers and suppliers, or conversionby the particular industry, are the primary reasonsfor conversion.

- Although problems were encountered by convertingfirms, the problems seem to have been overcomewithin the firms' own resources.

- If businesses were forced to metricate underextreme pressure, a strong need for governmentassistance is projected.

- Firms with no plans to convert envisage consider-able difficulty in converting, associated with highcosts; converted firms indicate problems and costsare minimal.

- The role and responsibilities of the USMB are notwell understood.

(2) A cost-benefit analysis (Refs. 2 and 3), focussing onfirms that have converted to identify significantcosts and other problems of conversion, yields thefollowing:

- Manufacturing firms generally convert only a por-tion of their production to meet specific customerdemand; and much conversion takes place by con-verting metric specifications into customary units

B -2

for production and then re-converting for qualityinspection and delivery.

Conversion generally costs very little, both inabsolute terms (less than $10,000) and in relativeterms (insubstantial,in the eyes of the convertingfirms' management). The investments can bedescribed as routine, insubstantial and difficultto isolate from other business costs; the costs ofmetrication pale in comparison to concerns over in-flation, interest rates, energy and material costs,and the general economic situation.

Large corporations often assist their small busi-ness suppliers in meeting the larger firms'demands. However, large businesses seeking metricproducts treat large and small businesses alike;that is, requests for metric products are matter-of-fact and not considered extraordinary. Metricfits comfortably into established relations amonglarge manufacturers and small suppliers.

- Conversion, as it occurs at present (gradually andat low cost), neither hurts nor benefits smallbusiness; working to metric presents no exceptionalproblems or benefits for small manufacturers.

- There is little awareness of or interest in sectorplanning for conversion; conversion occurs on anindividual company level and few companies know ofothers in their area or industry that have con-verted.

- While often an important consideration, metric con-version is rarely a primary concern in a manufac-turer's business decisions. The decision toconvert, driven principally by customer demand, isneither voluntary nor forced.

- The role and responsibilities of the USMB are notwell understood.

(3) A series of six case histories (Ref. 4), two of whichconcern small business firms, provide the followingobservations:

A machine tool manufacturer sought foreign marketsas a source of business for new growth; partialconversion to metric was to help reach the newcustomers; no problems with domestic customersoccurred.

B- 3

- Anticipated high costs of buying new taps, drills,reamers and fasteners, and re-tooling, led to adecision to postpone conversion of all equipment;also, management feared that skilled machinists,required to buy new personal tools, would choose toleave the company ins.ead.

- The firm expressed the hope that the Federalgovernment will take a more active role in conver-sion, to assure that similar small businesses arenot placed at an economic disadvantage.

- A paint manufacturer was forced to return tocustomary-sized containers after converting becauseof difficulties with the supply of containers.

- The conversion to metric encountered few problemsand no important customer resistance; nor was costa significant factor. Re-conversion (to customarysizes) also did not face any important problems.Sales were not affected by either measurementsystem.

B-2b: LarKe-Business Studies

(1) A probability survey of the largest U.S. manufacturingand mining firms, designated as the Fortune 1000 (Ref.5) yields the following:

- The principal reasons for converting are meetinginternational standards (or because the metricsystem is internationally accepted) and meetingcustomer demand.

- Limited conversion planning and coordination acti-vity is evident, not only within individual firms,but also among industry groups. A very modest in-crease in the extent of internal (to the firm)planning and coordination activities over thatobserved by the General Accounting Office earlier(Ref. 6) is noted.

- The prevailing disposition is a "wait and see"attitude; suppliers wait for customers to demandmetric products while customers wait for suppliersto make the first move. Coordination between sup-pliers and customers, at both the individual andindustry levels, appears limited.

- Impediments (real or imaginary, legal and non-le-gal) hinder, if not discourage, some firms fromconverting, affecting both the pace and degree ofmetrication.

B- 4

t __________________________________

- The role and responsibilities of the USMB are notwell understood.

(2) Four of the previously cited six ease studies (Ref. 4)deal with large business firms. Observations from thecase reviews are:

- The reasons for conversion vary among the fourlarge firms: (1) interest in international pro-duction, sales and services; (2) conversion in aFederally regulated industry, at the request of theindustry, in an attempt to standardize productsizes and reduce the number of sizes in which theproduct is packaged; (3) demand for metric sizes ofthe raw material (steel) by large convertedcustomers; and (4) a feeling that metric sizing(soft conversion) would be useful in a society (theU.S.) where metric use was on the increase (e.g.,in schools).

- No significant problems were encountered or extra-ordinary costs incurred by the conversions.

- The planning process was entirely self-contained(within the firms) for three of the conversions,and industry-wide for the regulated firm.

B-2c: Worker Studies

(1) An analysis of metrology sensitive occupations (Ref.7) reveals that:

- Workers are not usually required to replace custo-mary tools with metric tools all at one time;metric tools of equivalent quality cost about thesame as customary tools.

- Based on a probability sample, more than half ofthe occupations defined by the U.S. Department ofLabor are not metrologically sensitive.

(2) Purposive surveys of workers in metrology sensitiveoccupations (Refs. 8 and 9) provide the following:

- Most often employers pay for metric tools andtraining; for some specific occupations (e.g.,automotive mechanics and senior tool and diemakers), workers are expected to buy the necessarytools. Tools are generally purchased incrementallyover a number of years.

B -5

- Anxiety with respect to metrIc conversion Isexperienced by workers, particularly elderly onesand workers scheduled for metric training.

- There is confusion about U.S. policy regardingmetric conversion.

- Labor involvement in metric conversion isessential; collective bargaining processes arestarting to address metric matters.

(3) A purposive survey and review of occupational jobtasks and duties was performed to assess the potentialexistence of occupational safety hazards when metricconversion occurs (Ref. 10). The study provides thefollowing:

- No metric hazard experience was identified. Inmany instances, hypothetical scenarios were pro-vided that characterized the potential for hazard,but none of these could be substantiated withactual experience.

- An increased exposure might occur when particularjobs and their job tasks are going through thetransition from customary measurement to metricmeasurement. Specific occurrences related to thetasks include: (1) worker judgment is exercised inusing measurement; (2) comnunication of a measure-ment value between two workers; and (3) conditionedresponse in emergency situations involving measure-ment parameters.

- Well planned metric change programs reduce hazardpotential. Industrial safety programs can reducemetric hazards. Involvement of professional safetyexperts in metric planning, metric trainingprograms, and procedural analyses can reduce thepotential exposure to hazards resulting from metricchange.

- Metric safety issues are unresolved in the aviationindustry. At the present time, the aviationindustry is experiencing increased usage of metricmeasurement at the international level. Manypotential safety issues related to aviation's adop-tion of metric measurement can be identified inU.S. periodicals, but these have not yet beenresolved nor has a comprehensive aviation conver-sion plan been developed and endorsed by theindustry.

B - 6

V.; , ., ..

B-2d: Consumers

(1) An analysis of the gasoline retail dispenser computerconversion (Ref. 11) provides the following:

- From a dollar cost standpoint only, conversion tothe dispensing of gasoline by the liter is con-siderably less expensive than conversion of thesystems to account for gasoline at prices greaterthan $1 per gallon. However, consumer opinion ofthe conversion was not assessed and reaction toconversion is only sampled unsystematically.

- There are no important legal barriers to the dis-pensing of fuel by the liter.

- Information to allow price comparisions must beavailable at the pump.

(2) An internal review of the USMB's own consumer activi-ties (Ref. 12) indicates that:

- The agency lacks a mechanism for servicing con-sumers in a consistent, focussed and coordinatedmanner. This is true in spite of the fact thatconsiderable effort has been devoted to developingsound educational materials and to the establish-ment of practices and procedures which permit con-sumer participation in agency proceedings.

(3) A probability survey of consumers, related to an eva-luation of USMB procedures regarding conversionplanning (Ref. 13), provided the following:

- Consumers are generally aware of the conversion ofthe product used as the case for the evaluation(distilled spirits containers).

- While consumers generally are not knowledgeableabout the amount of contents (of distilled spirits)they buy, they are reasonably satisfied with theavailable sizes.

- The most common means for learning about the conver-sion was from reading the size information on thecontainer or the label.

B-2e: Legal Issues

(1) An extensive review of legal barriers, deterrents andnuisances affecting conversion (Ref. 14) and a USMBreport on the requirements for legislative correctiveaction (Ref. 15), yield the following observations:

B- 7

- No legal barriers to the use of the metric systemexist.

- However, if the thousands of legal deterrentsexisting at all levels of governmental-Iaws aregulations are left to be changed on an individualbasis, a significant potential impediment tovoluntary conversion exists.

- Method of sales laws do not present legal barriersto the introduction of metric sizes.

(2) An antitrust handbook, developed by the USMB (Ref.16), provides guidelines for the participation oforganizations in defining the interests and views ofbusinesses considering metric conversion. Excludedfrom discussions among firms planning conversions areprices, costs, inventories, production data, marketingplans, and boycotts.

(3) An examination of the perceptions of some large in-dustrial firms with respect to legal barriers to con-version (Ref. 17) indicates that:

- Antitrust considerations still influence the waysome businesses view cooperative sector planningfor conversion.

- The other principal legal area of concern to con-version is that of building codes.

B-2f: Policy Issues

(1) An extensive study conducted by the Department ofCommerce in response to a Congressional Act led to themost recent national consideration of the issues ofmetrication, and, ultimately, to the Metric ConversionAct of 1975. That study (Ref. 18) provides the fol-lowing observations:

- Within the broad framework of a national conversionprogram (recommended by the Comrnerce Department) anda Federal central coordinating body, industries,the educational system, and other societal segmentsshould work out specific timetables and programs,dovetailing them with programs of other segments.

- The Government would have a special responsibilityto ensure that small businesses, including self-employed crafts workers are properly informed andtheir interests adequately represented.

B -8

- Some accommodations wotld be necessary to permitcost-saving coordination while avoiding illegalrestraints on trade.

(2) An equally extensive study by the General AccountingOffice (Ref. 6), also in response to a Congressionalrequest, essentially rebutted the observations andrecommendations of the Commerce report. Among otherfindings, the GAO report stated that:

- The specific effect conversion would have on theU.S. economy is undeterminable (sic) but the impacton U.S. society would be great.

- Actually achieving the benefits believed by many toaccrue from metrication is questionable and thevalues of the benefits are generally undeterminable(sic).

- The total cost of metrication is likewiseundeterminable (sic), in spite of various estimatesthat have been cited. The estimates vary widelyand often are not based on detailed analysis of thefactors involved. They generally are low or highdepending on the conversion experience of thoseproviding the figures and their position on con-version.

- Based on the limited cost data available and theinput from representatives of a wide spectrum oforganizations, the cost will be significant (in thebillions of dollars).

(3) An evaluation of the USMB policy and procedures withregard to metric planning (Ref. 19) yields thefollowing:

- Regardless of the planned timetables and originalmotivation, actual implementation of metricationwill be controlled by perceived market factors.

- Regardless of the adequacy of the planning, theactual implementation will uncover problems whichhad not been foreseen. The plan should includeprovisions for resolving such unanticipateddifficulties.

- Industry, even when working with a regulatoryagency, cannot be relied upon to explore the impactof the conversion on consumers very deeply orinvest time and money on finding and implementing jways of minimizing the impact.

B - 9

i6:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Conversion is an activity which occurs within thecontext of the market place and private interests.It must, the'efore, be expected that all evidencesubmitted, including economic and technologicalevidence, will support the market or private posi-tion of the originator. Hence, when the evidenceappears to deprecate the interest of one or theother party in the conversion, it should be care-fully examined for completeness.

Some features of conversion may tend to favor thecompetitive position of certain participants overthat of others. Within the restrictions of theantitrust laws, this is part of the marketmechanism. However, in planning, there may beimportant impact areas to highlight, particularlyfor small business.

The implications of a conversion for internationaltrade are apt not to be fully considered. Whilethe immediate trade position of participants, bothas regards export opportunities and importcompetition, are likely to be fully analyzed, theopportunity of bargaining about related tariff andnon-tariff matters is likely to be lost.

While the planning for metrication is made at thehighest corporate levels, the technical planningfor implementation and the actual implementationare performed at the operating level.

The actual costs and savings of the conversion aresmall fractions (less than one percent) of totalcosts or revenues.

The USMB planning guidelines are essentiallyadequate to support the Board's options for safe-guarding the interests of all participants andaffected parties in conversion planning.

- In exercising its role, the most effective optionsfor the USMB are those which elicit the positionsof interested and affected parties and publicizethe results.

Much of the USMB's role is based on the concept ofreviewing industry-provided documentation. It wasfound that such documentation is likely to be frag-mentary and incomplete. This is due to the factthat:

-- much information will be company confidential;many contacts are informal, and not carefullyrecorded; and

B - 10

-- negotiations and "horsetrading" that occur arecomplex and illusive. Even if the final de-cisions are recorded, the key positions of par-ticipanls may not be.

B-2g: Research Methods Studies

(1) In the process of assessing methods of measuring thestatus of metrication (Ref. 20,) it was found that:

- Metric use is so diverse in type and importance forindustry, government and daily life that a singlemeasure of use is impractical. A profile of metricuse is more appropriate.

- The temptation is as great as it is misleading toconcentrate on the institutionally visible aspectsof metric use (planning, conversion budgets, grantsfor training). Most important are business and in-dustrial chang , new capabilities, marginal pro-

duction changes, new supplier-customer relations--which are relatively hidden from view.

- The conversion of the industrial base paces theconversion of other institutions and daily life.

B-3: Mandate 2: Procedural Guidelines

The second mandate reads:

"the Board shall provide for appropriate procedureswhereby various groups, under the auspices of theBoard, may formulate, and recommend or suggest, to theBoard specific programs for coordinating conversion ineach industry and segment thereof and specific dimen-sions and configurations in the metric system and inother measurements for general use. Such programs,dimensions, and configurations shall be consistentwith (A) the needs, interests, and capabilities ofmanufacturers (large and small), suppliers, labor,consumers, educators, and other interested groups, and(B) the national interest."

The language of direct relevance to the Board's researcactivities is that referring to "provide for appropriateprocedures (so that) groups . . . may formulate . . . pro-grams for coordinating conversion." Further, the identifi-cation of manufacturers, suppliers, labor, consumers, andeducators, as groups of particular concern is also ofrelevance. There is close association between the firstmandate (above) and mandate 2, and much discussion inthe above Section holds here as well.

B - 11

B-3a: Small Business Studies

Both the probability survey of small businesses (Ref. 1)and the cost benefit analysis (Refs. 2 and 3) found thatsmall business does not participate in coordinativeactivities. Such is particularly true with regard tometrication planning, seen as a reactive rather than aninitiative event. Small business feels that it should berepresented in the conversion process and, therefore, beless likely to be required to respond to the needs ofcustomers unwarned. However, in fact, small firms aregenerally unaware of metrication activities around them,both geographically and industrially.

B-3b: LargeBusiness Studies

The survey of the Fortune 1000 firms (Ref. 5) found limitedconversion plann nT--oo rdination both within the firmsand across industries.

B-3c: Workcr Studies

The studies of metrology sensitive occupations (Refs. 7, 8,9, and 10) did not yield any indications of involvement ofworkers in the conversion process, although it was observedthat labor involvement is essential and that the collectivebargaining processes are starting to address metric matters(Ref. 9).

Board procedures provide for worker participation in theconversion planning process.

B-3d: Consumers

Although a formal process for serving consumers in a con-sistent, focussed and coordinated manner is lacking at theBoard (Ref. 12), consumer participation of contemplatedconversions is managed in two ways. First, by invitedtestimony at hearings. For example, during hearings re-lated to gasoline retail dispenser computer conversion(Ref. 11), the Board invited representatives of majornational interest groups. Accepting and providing testi-mony were: the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, the Inter-national Association of Machinists, the New York CityDepartment of Consumer Affairs, the Conference of ConsumerOrganizations, the Suffolk County (NY) Department of Con-sumer Affairs, and the Consumer Association of Canada.Advertisements, announcing the hearings and soliciting com-ments from consumers, were placed in newspapers in majorcities throughout the U.S. Travel funds were available toassist consumer representatives to attend the hearings.

B - 12

The second way of introducing consumer involvement in theconversion process is through the Board's Private SectorMetric Conversion Planning Guidelines. The Guidelinessuggest, in a number of places, the involvement of con-sumers (as well as labor and small business) in theplanning process (initial working groups defining objec-tives and in conversion committees engaged in detailedplanning).

A review and analysis of a major conversion (that ofdistilled spirits containers (Ref. 19)) observes that con-sumers, with the rare exception of a few individualspeakers (at hearings) and writers (of comments for therecord), did not participate in the conversion planningprocess -- nor were they specifically invited by theresponsible Federal agency (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobaccoand Firearms, Department of the Treasury) or the industry'sprincipal representative, the Distilled Spirits Council ofthe United States. The analysis concludes with the obser-vation that industry cannot be relied upon to explore theimpact of the conversion on consumers very deeply or investtime and money on finding and implementing ways of minimi-zing the impact.

B-3e: Legal Issues

All of the assessments and guidelines (Refs. 14-17) indicatethat there are no legal barriers to conversion and thatconversion planning, if carried out openly and with regardfor restraint of trade matters, can be a cooperativeeffort. More emphatically, if all who can be affected bythe conversion are included, fully and openly, in theplanning, restraint of trade behavior is less likely tooccur and be subject to antitrust actions.

B-3f: Policy Issues

The evaluation of the USMB policy and procedures (Ref. 19)suggests a series of steps or actions that would help pro-vide the appropriate procedures for coordinating conver-sions:

- Conversion plans should include provisions for dealingwith unanticipated consequences.

- When evidefice is provided that deprecates the interests ofother parties in the conversion, it should be carefullyexamined for completeness.

- One should be alert to features of conversion that tendto favor the competitive positions of certain partici-pants over that of others. As long as restraint of

B - 13

A

trade actions are absent, such advantages may be a func-tion of market behavior. In planning, impact areasshould be highlighted so that groups, such as smallbusiness, are not unduly affected.

- The most effective options for the USMB in participatingin conversion planning, are those which elicit the posi-tions of interested and affected parties and publicizethe results.

B-4: Mandate 3: Public Hear*ins

The third mandate reads:

"the Board shall publicize, in an appropriate manner,proposed programs and provide an opportunity forinterested groups or individuals to submit cominents onsuch programs. At the request of interested parties,the Board, in its discretion, may hold hearings withregard to such programs. Such coments and hearingsmay be considered by the Board."

In holding the Hearings on retail dispensing of gasoline bythe liter and subsequent report (Ref. 11), the analysisshowed that a dollar cost savings of approximately $90million would accrue by dispensing by the liter. Researchand costs studies were not performed by the Research stafffor the hearings of the chemical and instrument sectors'plans.

B-5: Mandates 4. 5. and 6: Standards Conversion, Retention, andNEF iTT;FTon

The fourth, fifth and sixth mandates, all relating tostandards, are discussed together. The fourth mandatereads:

"the Board shall encourage activities of standardiza-tion organizations to develop or revise, as rapidly aspracticable, engineering standards on a metric mea-surement basis, and to take advantage of opportunitiesto promote (A) rationalization or simplification ofrelationships, (B) improvements of design, (C) reduc-tion of size variations, (D) increases in economy, and(E) where feasible, the efficient use of energy andthe conservation of natural resources."

The fifth mandate reads:

"the Board shall encourage the retention, in newmetric language standards, of those United Statesengineering designs, practices, and conventions that

B - 14

are internationally accepted or that embody superiortechnology."

The sixth mandate reads:

"the Board shall consult and cooperate with foreigngovernments, and inter-governmental organizations, incollaboration with the Department of State, and,through appropriate member bodies, with private inter-national organizations, which are or become concernedwith the encouragement and coordination of increaseduse of metric measurement units or engineering stan-dards based on such units, or both. Such consultationshall include efforts, where appropriate, to gain in-ternational recognition for metric standards proposedby the United States, and, during the United Statesconversion, to encourage retention of equivalentcustomary units, usually by way of dual dimensions, ininternational standards or recommendations."

While research efforts have not specifically focussed onstandards matters as a major consideration, a number ofstudies have dealt with standard-related matters.

B-5a: Small Business Studies

(1) In the probability survey of small businesses (Ref.1), firms not now designing, manufacturing or provid-ing a product or service in metric measurements wereasked for reasons for their non-involvement in metrics.Slightly less than 20 percent said that the changingof codes and standards was a reason for not under-taking metric action.

(2) The GAO analysis of modularization of shipping con-tainers (Ref. 21) emphasizes the desirability, re-sulting efficiencies, and reduced costs attendant toconversion of the myriad food shipping container sizesto a geometrically related set. While metric dimen-sions are not necessary for such a conversion, the GAOcharged the USMB with consideration of modularizationin any metrication actions to change package sizes inthe food industry. No such actions have been proposedfor the Board to consider.

(3) The cost-benefit analysis (Refs. 2 and 3) identifiesas a plaguing matter the failure of the domestic auto-mobile manufacturing industry to agree on metric stan-dards for fasteners and fastener-related items (e.g.,washers).

B -15

(4) In one of the small business case studies, from theset of six (Ref. 4), the matter of standards Is ofconcern. The paint manufacturer who returned tocustomary sizes for the product, did so because theindustry was unwilling to accept metric sized con-tainers as standard for general use in the paint in-dustry.

B-5b: Larze Business Studies

(1) The probability survey of the Fortune 1000 firms (Ref.5) included a query regardinig"-i'idards; the firmswere asked to state the extent to which they developmetric design and engineering standards. Of companiesworking in metric measurement to some extent, slightlyless than half indicated that they were doing nothingin the standards area. Slightly more than half in-dicated they either had plans to design to metricstandards or were into such designs.

(2) Two of the four large business case studies (Ref. 4)deal with standards. In one situation (a major farmmachinery manufacturer), metric standards for faste-ners have not been introduced (even though the firm'sproducts are converted) to avoid carrying a dualinventory in fasteners; the product line's longevityis of the order of 50 years. The firm feels that thecurrent lack of acceptance of uniform worldwide metricstandards for fasteners eliminates the usual argumentfor standardization, and that good availability ofcustomary sizes of screws, nuts and bolts existsthroughout the world, partly because they are producedaround the world for sale in the United States.

The second case concerns alcoholic beverage containerswhich is discussed more completely below (Section B-5e.(3)).

B- : Consumers

The results of the distilled spirits container study (Ref.19) indicate that the standardization did not particularlybenefit consumers, but the negative effect was moderate andincidental to the conversion.

B-5d: Le&al Issues

(1) The review of laws (Ref. 14) and the Board's reporton the requirements for mechanisms to eliminate legalbarriers to conversion (Ref. 15) indicate that thedesignation of standards in laws, regulations andordinances in customary terms represents a deterrent

B - 16

...... .. .. .. .. [1 .. ... . l I .... I II ... .. .. ... .. . - - .. . .z . . . . .. .. .. . ...'

(making it costly, cumbersome or difficult) to the useof metric terms and sizes. Setting aside the numberof times units of measure are cited in laws, regula-tions and ordinances in general and legal descriptiveways, standards citations represent about 14 percentof the remaining deterrents. The implication of thisobservation is that to remove the deterrent, consider-able administrative effort would have to be expended.

(2) The antitrust guidelines (Ref. 16) discuss the matterof standards at length. With respect to cooperativemetric conversion planning, the risk of antitrustliability (i.e., unnecessarily placing some firms at acompetitive disadvantage, raising barriers to entry,or stifling product improvement or innovation) is notinherently greater than the risk associated with nor-mal standardization activity. Antitrust violationsassociated with standardization activities have beenfound only when the challenged activity has been, orhas closely resembled, a per se violation (e.g., pricefixing or group boycotts. Guidelines (metrication"do's and don't's") are established in the standardsmaking context:

- Any industry meetings to discuss conversion (orstandards) should be well publicized and open toany person.

- A written agenda of issues to be discussed shouldbe published or circulated to interested parties inadvance of meetings.

- Complete and accurate records of meetings and allactivities should be maintained.

- Written procedures for metrication planning couldbe useful; in the case of standards developmentthey may be required.

- Prior to any formal decision to adopt target dates,standard metric sizes, etc., members of the in-dustry should be given written notice of the pro-posal.

- Any information developed relating to metric conver-sion should be made available to suppliers, pur-chasers, and the general public at the same timeit is made available to industry members.

- Target dates should be reasonable.

- Conversion plans and target dates should be vol-untary.

B - 17

- Persons and companies should have an opportunity to

air complaints.

- Discussion of prices should be avoided.

- Discussion of specific costs should be avoided.

- Discussion of existing or anticipated inventorysize should be avoided.

- Future production plans should not be discussed.

- Discussions favoring or urging boycotts should nottake place.

- Establishing product standardization and rationalsizes should be approached with care.

- Active involvement with the U.S. Metric Board isencouraged.

- Consultation with antitrust counsel should be thewatchword if any issues are raised that could beseen as in restraint of trade.

B-5e: Poliev Issues

(1) The Bureau of Standards' study (Rcf. 18) resulted intwo supporting reports dealing directly with standardsmatters: International Standards (Ref. 22) and Eni-neering st aniTAe?-ST-. - i-evant conelusions Tthe International Standards report are:

- The international standards issue lends support toa U.S. metric conversion, but other importantissues must also be considered before an overalljudgment can be made.

- If the U.S. wants to see the maximum amount of itsengineering practices and standards included ininternational standards, it must, without delay,take steps for effective participation in inter-national standards negotiations.

- If the U.S. increases and makes more effective Itsparticipation in international standards makingactivities, the degree of incompatibility betweenU.S. domestic standards and international recommen-dations would be reduced, and a U.S. metricationprogram would be facilitated, if one were under-taken.

B - 18

7'

- Relatively modest changes in the import-export pat-tern of measurement sensitive goods can have aserious impact on the U.S. balance of payments.Hence, the relation between standards, standards useand trade should be carefully studied to developthe policy base for U.S. participation in inter-national standards development and use.

- SI use in international standards as a languagedoes not of its.lf pose any serious problems to theU.S.

- Product certification emerges as a primary con-sideration in the use of standards.

- Some product certification schemes for exports willprobably be required to maintain a competitiveposition if European plans are successful. Theplans can be either compatible with those now deve-loping in Europe or distinctively U.S. approaches,conceived to provide assurance that U.S. exportproducts meet a set of explicitly stated standards.

If the U.S. elects to certify products in terms ofIEC-ISO (International Electro Technical Commision- International Organization for Standards)standards, it must recognize that the criticaldecade of standards development is here and takethe necessary steps for participation. (The reportwas written about 1970).

The Engineering Standards (Ref. 23) study resulted in 21conclusions, many of which are not relevant to the presentconcerns. The recommendations more succinctly imply thekey findin-F and are therefore used here:

- The highest priority should be given to reviewingand revising engineering standards in anymetrication program, whether evolutionary, plannedor mandatory.

- International standardization should be fostered toachieve the greatest ecronomic benEfit (see above).

- Any metrication program should be used to effect areduction in the number of product s~ies, conserva-tion of materials, and product quality improvement,through international standardization.

- The use of SI units, alone or with customary units,in U.S. standards should be promoted to foster theinternational acceptance of the U.S. standards; the

B - 19

standards should be drafted in such a form as topermit easy use in metric countries.

Standardization of new practices and technologies,requiring standardization beyond the company level,should begin at the international level to avoid thehigh cost of international standardization afternational practices are established.

Except for the inclusion of SI units, no change indomestic standards should be made when the cost ofthe change is very large compared to the benefits(e.g., the standard for railway gage of existingrailroads).

Special attention should be given to the admi-nistrative process of standardization to assureadequate U.S. participation in international stan-dards groups, and to the development and issuanceof national standards required by the consumer,industry and government.

(2) The GAO study (Ref. 6) also examined the standardsissue and concluded that:

- Metrication of U.S. engineering standards is notnecessary to increase standardization, rationalizeexisting standards, remove outmoded standards,revise standards, or improve technology. Thesecould be done under the customary system. Metri-cation could cause standards writers and industryto take a penetrating look at standards. Otherevents could also cause this to occur. (The GAOdid not suggest what the other events might be.For an alternative view of the role of metricationin the standards activity, see B-5e(3), below.

- The overall cost to convert or develop metric stan-dards has not been specifically estimated but isbelieved to be significant by those involved instandards development--several billions of dollars.The data supporting this observation are vague.

However, as seen in previous discussions of Boardresearch, business has stated that most new pro-ducts that have been designed and manufactured tometric dimensions costs about the same as a newcustomary product (Refs. 1, 2, 3 and 5). TheBoard's two surveys of standards writing organiza-tions (Refs. 24 and 25) found the costs of deve-loping or revising standards to be about the sameas an inch-pound standard. Therefore it should be

B - 20

remembered that the "several billions of dollars"estimate for metric standards development or con-version is predominantly the costs of developingiew metric standards where no inch-pound standarsexisted before and should not be considered as acost of converting existing standards to reflectmetric measurements or thresholds.

The GAO pointed out that conversion of standardscould take place during the periodic review or up-date of standards, an event that occurs every threeto five years. If such reviews are normal practiceat a somewhat lower cost than that of developmentof standards then the cost of conversion carriedout during the review time should be less thansuggested by the GAO. Also, the GAO indicated thatdevelopment of international standards would taketwice as long as the development of domesticstandards, by assuming that introduction of can-didates for international standardization wouldoccur only after acceptance as domestic standards.Such an assumption is contrary to the suggestion ofthe NBS (see (1), above), which was that standar-dization of new practices and technologies beyondthe company level should belin at the internationallevel to avoid the high cost of waiting until afternational practices were established. On the otherhand, expediting may not be possible if domesticstandards organizations need to "sign-off" before astandard can become a candidate for internationalstandardization.

(3) The policy and planning study, using conversion ofdistilled spirits containers as a case example (Ref.19), observed an opposing point of view from that ofthe GAO (Ref. 6):

- Metrication was a necessary as opposed to merely aconvenient mechanism to increase standardization.It was not possible to standarize sizes signifi-cantly without addressing the metric question,since BATF refused to require imports to convert toU.S. measure and such a large share of the market(about 15 percent) was taken by imported bottledspirits.

- The distilled spirits industry publicly statedreasons for the conversion were: cost savings fromincreased standardization, elimination of the com-petitive advantage and potential consumer deceptionposed by undersized imported products, and the pro-motion of international trade. (Two other objec-

B - 21

-1

tives, not publicly stated, were to restructureprices and eliminate unprofitable sizes.)

BATF supported metrication because of: the possi-bilities for inter-industry (the wine and distilledspirits industries) standardization with poten-tially large cost savings; other cost savings tobe passed on to consumers; and the resultingrequirement that imported liqueurs and specialtyitems comply with U.S. standards of fill without arequirement to convert to U.S. measure.

- The conversion failed to use its potential in nego-tiations with European nations, particularly toeffect concessions on product standards, labellingrequirements, or reductions in high import dutieson U.S. distilled spirits products.

- Many suppliers took advantage of the changes tostandardize aspects of their packaging, resultingin substantial recurring savings. Bottles, labelsand caps were often standardized and bottles recon-figured to use less glass.

(4) The Board surveyed over 400 standards writing organi-zations to assess metrication activities (Ref. 24).The mail survey achieved a response rate of 67 percent(283 out of 420 organizations). The major findingswere as follows:

21 percent have a formal policy on metrication.Most of the policies support the Metric ConversionAct and voluntary metrication. Metric trends willbe monitored. Also the policies state how metricunits will be used in the organizations' standardsand publications.

11 percent of the organizations have publicationsdevoted to metrication.

About 42 percent of the organizations primarily useEnglish units in their technical publications, 5percent use metric, and 38 percent use dual units(several more report other combinations).

About 41 percent of the organizations use Englishunits primarily in their standards, 6 percent usemetric, and 31 percent use dual (again, severalmore report other combinations).

When asked how many years will elapse before theconstituencies they serve will be converted to

B - 22

metric, 4 percent said they are now converted, 28percent estimate 10 years, 16 percent estimate 25years, 3 percent estimate 50 years and 20 percentestimate other periods (a few years) or state thatit depends on their constituencies.

(5) As a follow-up to the mail survey of standards organi-zations (Ref. 24), the Board performed indepth personalinterviews with selected standards writing organiza-tions (Ref. 25). The study was conducted with ninemajor standards organizations that have historicallydeveloped a predominant proportion of U.S. voluntaryconsensus standards. The major findings of the studywere as follows:

Metrication is neither a major issue nor problemfor standards developing organizations.

Several barriers to the development and use ofmetric standards exist and have been cited by stan-dards developers. At present, the greatest barrieris simply the lack of demand for such standards. Asignificant barrier to metrication is competitivelypriced items or systems, whether in government orindustry. Costs of metric standards may be higherthan for inch-pound standards when first developed.Safety problems were cited as barriers. Presentuse of inch-pound standards by regulatory agencieshas not served as a significant barrier to thedevelopment and use rf "metric" versions ofstandards.

- Standards development organizations react to marketdemand for their standards. Although theDepartment of Defense has announced a target dateof 1990 for having necessary military metric stan-dards available, there is at present no clearlyarticulated pressing demand for metric standardsfrom industry, government agencies, or other usersof standards.

- Standards developing organizations acknowledge theneed for raising awareness among both the standardsusers and standards writing organizations of theadvantage of continuous attention to considerationof hard metric in new product design, and espe-cially in new technology areas.

- While standards work generally follows technology,it is feasible to manage metric standards develop-ment to support planned product conversion tometric. Since there is little perceived market for-

B - 23

metric dimensioned products, there is little sup-port in industry or government for such anticipa-tory conversion of standards to metric.

For Federal agencies to have a real impact on thepace of metric standards development, agencieswould have to specify metric in procurement.

Some organizations are concerned about the threatof foreign origin standards displacing U.S. non-metric standards but most standards writing organi-zations do not view this as a major problem. Thestandards bodies cited no cases where "foreignorigin" international standards have replaced U.S.originated defacto or recognized internationalstandards because these U.S. standards are notmetric. Other factors, such as different powersystem voltage and frequency requirements, are farmore important considerations for internationalacceptance of U.S. standards than whether or not astandard is in metric units.

- All of the interviewed standards organizationsindicated that as yet, the fact that U.S. standardsare not metric, has not been a deterrent to inter-national acceptance of U.S. inch-pound standards.

Standards developers generally felt that they havethe infrastructure in place to respond to a signi-ficant increase in demand for the development ofmetric standards should such a demand develop.

Because of the wide variety of industry economicfactors and technology, a single strategy forencouragement of anticipatory conversion of stan-dards is difficult to develop.

There is mixed feelings about the value of anational metric "log" or status report on coaver-sion of standards. There is a feeling that ifmetrication is merely drifting along as it is now,such a log would not be of much value except in theaerospace area. However, in the event of anational conversion or an industry-wide decision tr

go metric, a metric log would be useful.

(6) The status assessment of the U.S. machine tool in,,,(Ref. 26) observed the following:

One of the forces retarding the introd .'metric designed and capable tools wa' ,metric standards.

B - 24

AD-All'A 594 UNITED STATES METR BOARD ARLINGTON VA F/G 13/8

RESEARCH OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS (U)APR 82

NCLASSIFIED NL

EN*EEEEEEEEE82//

- Limited domestic demand for machine tools retardedthe introduction of metric products.

- As seen in the surveys of the standards writingorganizations (Refs. 24 and 25), an apparent lackof 'demand of metric standards has been a majorproblem. This apparent dichotomy is explained bythe vertical and horizontal spread of the Americaneconomy. Standards writing organizations respondto their customers' demand. While a particularindustry or segment of an industry may desire ametric standard, the demand for standards develop-ment is not sufficient for the standards writingorganization to undertake the development. Thestandards arena is similar to the marketplace,i.e., when there is enough demand to make it"profitable" or "my customers want it" then metricproducts are produced.

B-6: Mandate 7: Public Information and Education

The seventh mandate reads:

"the Board shall assist the public through informationand education programs, to become familiar with themeaning and applicability of metric terms and measuresin daily life. Such programs shall include --

(A) public information programs conducted by theBoard, through the use of newspapers, magazines,radio, television, and other media, and throughtalks before appropriate citizens' groups, andtrade and public organizations;

(B) counseling and consultation by the Secretary ofHealth, Education, and Welfare; the Secretary ofLabor; the Administrator of the Small BusinessAdministration; and the Director of the NationalScience Foundation, with educational assoeia-tions, State and local educational agencies,labor education committees, apprentice trainingcommittees, and other interested groups, in orderto assure (i) that the metric system of measure-ment is included in the curriculum of theNation's educational institutions, and (ii) thatteachers and other appropriate personnel are pro-perly trained to teach the metric system of mea-surement;

(C) consultation by the Secretary of Commerce withthe National Conference of Weights and Measuresin order to assure that State and local weights

B - 25

and measures officials are (I) apprepriately in-volved in metric conversion activities and (if)assisted in their efforts to bring about timelyamendments to weights and measures laws; and

(D) such other public information activities, by anyPederal agency in support of this Act, as relateto the mission of such agency."

While considerable effort on the part of the Board has beendevoted to this mandate, no specific research or researchrelated activities have been carried out relative to it.However, all surveys and reviews (studies of small busi-nesses, large businesses, consumers, workers, and legal andpolicy issues; see Refs. 1, 2, 5, 8, 90 10, I1l 13, 14, 15,17 and 19 particularly) have identified the samephenomenon:

- the national policy on metrication, the signifi-cance and meaning of the Metric Conversion Act of

1975, and the USMB's role are, to varying degreesand with variable import, either misunderstood ornot well understood.

- The studies of workers, tool and training issues(Refs. 8 and 9) showed training is usually providedby the employer with costs ranging from $30 to $150per person. However, It was found that there isduplication of effort in developing training byindividual firms, technical schools, educators andtrade associations. As a results of this study, afeasibility study was to be initiated to determinethe appropriateness of establishing a centralizedmetric industrial training and safety awarenessmaterials clearinghouse. However, due to severebudgetary cutbacks, this project was not under-taken.

- The metrology sensitive occupations study (Ref. 7)showed while approximately 55 percent of the work-force was not sensitive to measurement change, 45percent was. This implies metric training will berequired to some degree to those affectedoccupations. It does not, however, imply that theother 5 percent will not require at least fami-liarimation of the basic metric measurement units.

The work place safety study (Ref. 10) found thatindustrial safety programs involving professionalsafety experts in metric planning, metric training

B - 26

. * _ ,- .i i- . , l - -

and procedural analyses can reduce the potentialexposure of the workforce to hazards when metricchange takes place.

B-7: Mandate 8: Status Assessment

The eighth mandate reads:

"the Board shall collect, analyze, and publish infor-mation about the extent of usage of metric measure-ments; evaluate the costs and benefits of metricusage; and make efforts to minimize any adverseeffects resulting from increasing metric usage."

While no specific research or research-related activitieshave been devoted to the third clause of this mandate(minimizing adverse affects of metrication), all researchfindings and results have been considered and integratedinto the planning and coordination efforts of the Board.These efforts are detailed elsewhere; see the Board's finalreport to the Congress and the President.

The first and second clauses (collect, analyze and publishinformation about the extent of use of metric measurements,and evaluate costs and benefits of metrication) areresponded to in the research program by the surveys and re-views of industries.

B-7a: Small Business Studies

- About one-quarter of small business (as representedby manufacturing, construction, transportation,wholesale trade, and retail trade firms) are usingmetric measurement in some of their activities(Ref. 1).

- Metric activity is greatest in the machine andfabricated metal products industries (industriesmaking products for other industries). Metricunits have made fewer inroads to the highly diffuseconsumer industries, such as food, apparel, leathergoods, and furniture (Ref. 2).

- The capability of small manufacturers to producemetric goods toe widespread; the depth of the capa-bility depends directly on the extent of customerdemand for metric products (Ref. 3).

- bnall manufacturers are flexible; they use a richrepertoire of management and manufacturing prac-tices to produce metric products (Ref. 3).

B - 2?

.1N

-7-.

- Small manufacturers usually produee metric productsfor several large eustomers (Ret. 3).

- Manufacturing firms see metric products and ser-vices as being more expensive than customary sitedgoods, while retail and wholesale trade firm seethe costs as essentially the same (Ref. 1).

- The actual costs of conversion among small busi-nesses are routine, insubstantial and difficult toisolate from other business costs (Ref. 2 and 3).

- Small businesses only convert part of their pro-duction to metric because of customer demand.Usually, the customer is a large firm that has con-verted (Ref. 2).

- The decision to convert is neither volun'ary norforced; small businesses have not particularlybenefited from metrication, nor have they been par-ticularly hurt (Ref. 3).

B-7b: Large Business Studies

- About one-third of the sales of the nation'slargest firms are of metric (hard, soft, andhybrid) products (Ref. 5).

- About half the export sales of the largest U.S.firms are of metric products (Ref. 5).

- About 60 percent of the largest U.S. firms produceat least one metric product (Ref. 5).

- Detailed cost data are very difficult to obtainfrom the large firms; they are unwilling to sharecost experience information (Refs. 2, 3, and 5).

B-To: Workers

- About half of the occupations defined by the U.S.Department of Labor are sensitive to measurement;correspondingly, about half are not (Ref. 7).

- Workers in particular converted or converting in-dustries (e.g., automobile repair and maintenance)who typically buy their own tools have generallypurchased the required metric tools and have nottaken advantage of the tax deduction allowed (Ret.9).

- Some workers experience anxiety when faced withconversion in the work place (elderly and others

B - 28

A mT~-

scheduled for training, for exmpt). Aftertraining, anxiety decreases; in some eases workersbecome highly enthused about the now sills (Ref.0).

- No metric hazard experience was identified. Inmany instances, hypothetical scenarios were pro-vided that characterized the potential for hazard,but none of these could be substantiated withactual experiences (Ref. 10).

- An increased exposure might occur when particularJobs and their job tasks are going through thetransition from customary measurement to metricmeasurement. Specific occurrences related to tasksInclude: (1) worker judgment is exercised in usingmeasurement; (2) comunication of a measurementvalue between two workers; and () conditionedresponse in emergency situations involving measure-ment parameters (Ref. 10).

- Well planned metric change programs reduce hazardpotential. Industrial safety programs can reducemetric hazards. Involvement of professional safetyexperts in metric planning, metric trainingprograms, and procedural analyses can reduce thepotential exposure to hazards resulting from metricchange (Ref. 10).

- Metric safety issues are unresolved in the aviation

industry (Ref. 10).

B-7d: Consumers

No cohesive and responsive assessment of consumers'abilities to cope with conversion of retail gaso-line dispenser computer has been undertaken, be-cause of the use of research resources on othermatters and problems (Ref. 11).

B-7ee Legal Issues

- Comprehensive analyses demonstrate that no seriouslegal barriers prevent metrication (Refs. 15 and17). However, perceptions of legal barrierspersist, particularly among the largest of the U.S.firms who have not started to convert (Re. 5 and14).

- Antitrust matters also concern large firms (Ret.17) inspite of clarifieation of Postralat of tradebehavior in metrication and standardization plan-ning (Ref. 16).

3 - 21

i _

B-?ft PoijflcyIjj r

The GO study (Ref. 6) gathered exper.enee and opinioninformation from surveys of a wide variety of sourees.Specific status and cost data are not easily summarised.Generally speaking:

- Large businesses are divided on whether advantagesof metrication outweigh the disadvantages for theirfirms.

- Both small and large firms believe advantages ofmetrication outweigh disadvantages for the nationas a whole.

- The total cost of metrication is undeterminable,in spite of various estimates cited. The estimatesvary widely and often are not based on detailedanalyses. They are high or low depending on theconversion experiences and metrication positions ofthose making the estimates. However, based on thelimited data available to the GAO and other input,the cost is Judged by the GAO to be significant--inthe billions of dollars.

B-7g: Broad Industrial Picture

A review if industry groups, carried out by Department ofComnerce -Ialysts, under an interagency agreement with theUSW (Ret. 27), provides the following summary. Analysisof industries were done at varying levels, using theStandard Industrial Classification codes, ranging frommajor groups (given two-digit identifiers), to Industrygroups (identified by three digits), to specific industries(four digits).

(1) Industries essentially fully converted:

- Radio and TV receiving equipment (hard conversion).

- Comununication equipment (soft conversion).

() Industries partially converted, both hard and soft,and to widely varying degreess Pood and kindredproducts, Textile mill products, Furniture andfixtures, Pulp mills, Paper mills (except buildingpaper), Miscellaneous converted paper products,Paperboard containers and boxes, Building paper andboard mills, Book publishing, Blank books and bookbinding, Chemicals and allied products, Glasscontainers, Iron and steel fouwdaries, Cutlery, handtools and hardware, Bolts, nuts, rivets and washers,

B- -0

Farm and garden machinery, Construction and relatedmachinery, Metalworking machinery, Special industrymachinery, General industrial machinery, Office andcomputing machinery, Refrigeration and beating equip-ment, Household appliances, Electronic eomponents andaccessories, X-ray apparatus and tubes, Tires andinner tubes, Transportation equipment, Engineering andscientific instruments, Optical instruments andlenses, Medical instruments and supplies, Ophthalmicgoods, Photographic equipment and supplies, andWatches, clocks and watch cases.

(3) Industries planning for conversion: General buildingcontractors, Heavy construction contractors, Specialtrade contractors, Lumber and wood products, Paper-board mills, Cement, Hydraulic, Structural clay pro-ducts, Gypsum products, Fabricated structural metalproducts, Valves and pipe fittings, and Turbines andturbine generator sets.

(4) Industries in which no metric headway is seen: Metalmining, Bituminous coal and lignite mining, Appareland other textile products, Newspapers, Periodicals,Book printing, Miscellaneous publishing, Comnercialprinting, Manifold business forms, Greeting cardpublishing, Printing trade services, Asphalt feltsand coatings, Leather and leather products, Vitreousplumbing fixtures, Concrete block and brick, Concreteproducts not elsewhere classified, Mineral wool, Metalcans, and Plumbing and heating except electrical.

B-7h: Corehensive Look at-heU.S. Machine Too l Industry

The Metric Use in the Machine Tool Industry--A StatusReport and Test of Assessment Methodology study (Ref. 24)served a dual purpose of testing the most promising methodsof assessing metric status in the United States while pro-viding an assessment of the current status and progress ofthe metrication activities of the machine tool industry.The machine tool industry provides capital equipment forother manufacturing industries including the automotive,aerospace, construction, and farm machinery industry. Itis a small but critical segment of the national economy.

There have been a number of studies of industrialmetrioation, but they dealt with broad categories ofindustry and provided little detailed information aboutspecific industries or about the process. This study drewdirectly on the experience of industry companie and ondata from many public and pr'ivate sources. It emphasisedthe present and potential interactions of metrication withother issues and problems facing the machine tool industry.

531

~:~'r;-.~;2 -. - ~ B -- $

The major findings of the study have been grouped under twoheadings due to its dual purpose. The headings are Statusand Methodology Assessment.

Status

- Companies need better information on the statusof metrication within their industry, the statusof metrication in supplier and customerindustries, and the implications of the statusfor the industry's competitiveness in domesticand world markets. At present, corporate deci-sions about metrication are made in the face ofconsiderable uncertainty and lack of information.

- The lack of explicit Federal policy regardingmetrication is a source of confusion and dissa-tisfaction for procurement activities, especiallyprocurement policy of the Department of Defense.

- Metrication is progressing slowly but steadily.The machine tool industry is strongly orientedtoward meeting customer-defined needs, Its majorcustomers are pulling the machine tool industrygradually into metrication.

- Other important factors are the desire of multi-national corporations to have U.S.-producedmachine compatibility in their overseas subsid-iaries, and the recognition that the U.S. shareof the overseas market is eroding. Imports,especially Japanese imports, are also makinginroads on domestic markets.

- Metrication is not a primary factor in thegrowing problems of the machine tool industry,but actions calculated to deal with theseproblems are likely to provide an impetus towardfurther metrication.

- Overseas demand and the small domestic demand formetric tools are met by building metric-capablemachines. About ten percent of total sales nowinvolve metric-capable products. The demand isperceived to be growing, but to be growing veryslowly.

- The spread of new technologies may speed up con-version to metric use. New manufacturing tech-nologies do not necessarily entail an aceletatedtransition to use of the metric system. Butadoption of these technologies my be acempanied

B - 2'

by a simultaneous adoption of the metric systemin new product lines.

- The major inhibiting factors are the large stockof machine tools already on hand, the long life-time of these tools, which are generally majorcapital investments, and the very large customerdemand for machine tools built to customary units.

- The U.S. machine tool industry has a decliningshare of the overseas market, which is four timesthe size of the domestic market. The decline inoverseas market share has been partially maskedby the fact that the dollar value of machine toolexports has continued to rise.

- The general effect of a stronger world marketorientation would likely be to spur metrication.Several large U.S. manufacturers have recentlyintroduced metric-capable product lines aimed atthe world market and one major company has intro-duced a hard metric product line.

- Machine tool manufacturers do not see conversionto metric use as a highly important issue. Itdoes not promise to solve their problems, butmuch of the early fear of and resistance tometrication has faded.

Methodology Assessment

- Because of the paucity of metric status data andthe lack of clearly defined definitions of theelements for determining metrication status, theuse of econometric modeling or aggregation ofmassive statistical data bases is not feasible atthe present time.

- Surveys using in-depth discussions with prac-titioners in the business place, supplemented byqualitative descriptive analysis of the behaviorof representative companies, are an appropriateand relatively low cost approach to status as-sessment. Such studies can produce informationof practical value to the industry and to publicsector decision-makers.

B-71: Assessment of Selected Econometric Models

The objective of the survey of econometric models and databases (Ref. 28) was to assess the applicability of existingeconometric models for investigating impacts and implica-

B - 33

tions of metrication in the United States. A parallelobjective was to identify data bases which could facilitatethe use of attractive econometric models, or be used inother productive ways. Econometric models and data basesat various levels of economic activity--the firm, sector,inter-industry, and aggregate level--were of interest.

The study's findings were as follows:

- Most government agencies that use econometricmodels and data base services use Data Resources,Inc., Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associatesand Chase Interindustry Forecasting Model.

- No macroeconometric models in the Federalestablishment were identified which the USMBcould readily utilize at present.

- At present, there appears to be no realistic wayto analyze large economic issues of metricationusing econometric models because of the insuf-ficient and inadequate body of economic knowledgeand data bases concerning metrication issues.

- USMB need not subscribe to a host of forecastingservices. Single-purpose studies would be a morecost-effective approach to conducting research,at least for an initial period and until more islearned through sector-specific analyses.

B-?j: Other Surveys

A large number of surveys have been conducted over recentyears by business and trade associations, industrialmagazines, university faculties, and private firms. Often,they do not qualify as properly designed and implementedprobability surveys, so extension of the survey findings tothe populations sampled is suspect. On occasion, theinstruments are biased, also leading to questionableextrapolations. A number of surveys that have beenreviewed and partially used by the USMB are listed, forcompleteness.

(a) Holo-Krome Company surveyed a probability sampleof 1000 subscribers to a Maeazine InJanuary 1981. About 29 percent (288 responded.The focus of the survey was on the fastenermarket. About 42 percent of the firms were pro-ducing metric products. Respondents predictedthat in less than two years about 20 percent ofall fastener production will be in metric units.

B - 34

(b) The National Tooling and Machining Associationsurveyed its members attending its annual con-ference in Freeport, the Bahamas, January 1981;the results were published in May 1981. Thenumber attending was not provided; 101 companiesresponded. About 90 percent were performing somework to metric specifications; the firms wereprimarily in the automotive, electrical,electronic, and aerospace fields.

(W) The Council of Engineering and Scientific SocietyExecutives surveyed its membership in January1980. The sample process was not specified.Sixty-six percent (89 of 134 surveyed) responded.About half the associations represented have aformal policy on the use of metric measures.

d) Three faculty members of the University ofTennessee at Chattanooga surveyed a probabilitysample of 750 members of the Fortune 1000 firms.About 38 percent (285) responge'F-. "he responseswere categorized, after receipt, by company salesvolume and type of industry. The resuls werepublished in the Advanced Management Journal,Vol. 45, No. 2 (Spring TT0-Jthe date of thesurvey is not cited. The results are similar tothose from the USMB survey of Fortune 1000 firms,(Ref. 5), carried out in 1979.

(e) Pressure magazine, the quarterly of the FluidP roeiety, invited comnents from about 200company executive (subscribers said to be pickedat random, but with wide geographic and productranges). The comments were to cover metric plansand philosophies. Eight executives responded;their comments were published in the December1980 issue.

(f) The American Supply and Machinery Manufacturers'Association surveyed its membership in October1979; results were published in AssemblEngineerin magazine, September 1980. Therewere 361 responses, said to be about two-thirdsof the membership. The maximum number of usableresponses (for any particular question) was 320(or about 60 percent of the membership, by extra-polation).

(g) The Smaller Business Association of New Englandsurveyed its approximately 1600 members in thespring of 1979. Less than 10 percent (about 150)responded. The questions referred to awareness

B - 35

ji_

of national metric policy, problems with metricconversion, and possible benefits of metriea-tion.

(h) The Millers' National Federation carried out asurvey in 1980 with regard to metric packagingfor milled products (e.g., flour). One hundredseventy questionnaires were sent out; 77 respon-ses (about 45 percent) were received.

(i) In 1970, a NASA staff agency reviewed over 13,000NASA reports produced between 1966 and 1969.About 22 percent contained metric units only, 32percent contained engineering units (possiblycustomary), 30 percent contained both, and 16percent contained no measurement units. In com-parison with a previous review of publications of1962 through 1965, there was a growth in the useof metric measurements (alone and combined) from33 percent to 53 percent.

(j) The Electronic Industries Association MetricStudy Panel conducted a survey, undated but pre-sumably in the fall of 1980 (the results werepubished in December 1980). The focus was onstandards, status and problems. No indication isgiven of population or sample sizes; there were52 responses.

(k) The National Federation of Independent Businesses(NFIB), through its publication Mandate, a news-letter produced every six weeks, surveys its over600,000 members on a variety of topics. Thequestions (usually five disassociated ones ineach issue) are presented with pro and conarguments. Regularly, responses range from 10 to30 percent of the recipients. In January 1979,the Mandate asked if the membership favored oropposieirinational policy on conversion to themetric system. The responses totaled 55,401(about 10 percent of the membership at thattime). About a quarter were in favor, about 70percent opposed, and the balance were undecided.An earlier (1973) similar survey yielded thefollowing: about 50 percent for, abot't 40 per-cent opposed, and the balance undecided.

A final observation is that when executives are questionedabout problems facing business now and expected in thefuture, the metric issue is conspicuous by its absence.Foreign competition is cited by a few, but alternatives,such as conversion for competition's sake, are not sur-

B - 36

faced. Broad surveys such as that by the Chemical Bank ofNew York, looking at small and medium-sized firms in theNew York area, and the NFIB quarterly economic survey(which asks for the most important problem facing eachrespondent and which includes an open-ended opportunity foranswer) are typical. In other words, the metric issue isnot a burning one, except when attention is directlyfocussed on it--and then only among a small portion ofsociety.

B-8: Mandate 9: Research

The ninth mandate reads:

"the Board shall conduct research, including appro-priate surveys; publish the results of such research;and recommend to the Congress and the President suchaction as may be appropriate to deal with any unre-solved problems, issues, and questions associated withmetric conversion, or usage, such problems, issues,and questions may include, but are not limited to, theimpact on workers (such as costs of tools andtraining) and on different occupations and industries,possible increased costs to consumers, the impact onsociety and the economy, effects on small business,the impact on the international trade position of theUnited States, the appropriateness of and methods forusing procurement by the Federal Government as a meansto effect conversion to the metric system, the properconversion or transition period in particular sectorsof society, and consequences for national defense."

This is the primary mandate justifying and guiding theresearch effort of the Board. All research and research-related activity has been conducted in accordance with thismandate. On one occasion, research findings were of suf-ficient importance to single them out and present them tothe Congress and the President, as required by the mandate.The case had to do with workers in converted industries whoregularly buy their own tools. Many such workers cannot ordo not take advantage of the tax deductions available tothem for tool purchases. The full cost of adding metrictools to their necessary array of tools was borne by theworkers. The Board judged the problem to be of the naturecontemplated by the Act and thus called particular atten-tion to the research findings. All other findings havebeen identified through the annual reports to the Congressand the President, and through the distribution of specificresearch reports and summaries to the Congress, the Pre-sident, and key persons in the Executive Branch and theprivate sector.

B - 37

The findings of the research program are presented invarious ways throughout this summary paper. To respond tothe discussion of the ninth mandate, the research areassuggested by the Congress are presented with the researchand research-related activities that respond to the areas.

B-8a: Impact on Workers and Different OecupatioL.

- Effects of metric conversion on measurement, speci-fication and process sensitive occupations (Ref.7).

- Analysis of the survey of selected occupationssensitive to measurement change (Ref. 8).

- Effects of metric change on workers' tools andtraining (Ref. 9).

- Effects of metrication on worker safety (Ref. 10).

B-8b: Impact-on Different ndustries

- Survey of small businesses: issues in mttrieplanning and conversion (Ref. 1).

- Costs and benefits of conversion to small business(Refs. 2 and 3).

- Going metric: is it for you - planning models forsmall businesses (Ref. 29).

- Metric usage study: a look at six ease histories(Ref. 4).

- Survey of selected large U.S. firms and industries(the Fortune 1000) (Ref. 5).

- Conversion of retail fuel pump computers to sale bythe liter (Ref. 11).

- Study of metric conversion of distilled spiritscontainers: a policy and planning evaluation (Ref.19).

- Conversion data project (Ref. 27).

- The impact of laws on metric conversion (Ref. 17).

B-Se: Possible Increased Costs to Consumers

- Conversion of retail fuel pump computers to sale bythe liter (Ref. 11).

B - 38

- Consumers and the UNS (Ret. 12).

- Survey of consumer attitudes and awareness of themetric conversion of distilled spirits containers(Ref. 13).

- Study of metric conversion of distilled spiritscontainers: a policy and planning evaluation (Ref.19).

- Supermarket survey of metric labeling (Ref. 30).

B-Sd: Impact on Soeiety and the Economy

- Survey and assessment of econometric models anddata bases (Ref. 28).

- All the other studies citel.

B-Se: Effects on Small Business

- Survey of small businesses (Ref. 1).

- Costs and benefits of conversion to small busi-nesses (Refs. 2 and 3).

- Going metric: is it for you - planning models forsmall businesses (Ref. 29).

- Metric usage study: a look at six case histories(Ref. 4).

- Conversion of retail fuel pump computers to sale bythe liter (Ref. 11).

- Conversion data project (Ref. 27).

- Impact of metrication on productivity of smallbusinesses (Ref. 31).

B-Sf: Impact on the International Trade Position of the UnitedStates . .. . . . . . . . .

- Metric usage study: a look at six ease histories(Ref. 4).

- Standards writing organizations surveys (Refs. 24and 25).

- Survey of small businesses (Ref. 1).

- Costs and benefits of conversion to small busi-nesses (Refs. 2 and 3).

B - 89

- Survey of seleeted large U.S. firms and industries(the Fortune 1000) (Ref. 5).

- Study of metric conversion of distilled spiritscontainers (Ref. 19).

- Study of the U.S. machine tool industry (Ref. 26).

B-8g: Appropriateness of and Methods for Using Procurement b theFederal Government as a Means to Ifect conversion to eMetric System

- Standards writing organizations surveys (Refs. 24and 25).

- Federal procurement metrieation--appropriateness

and methods (Ref. 32).

B-Sh: Proper Conversion or Transition Periods

- Survey of small businesses (Ref. 1).

- Costs and benefits of conversion to small busi-nesses (Refs. 2 and 3).

- Going metric: is it for you - planning models forsmall businesses (Ref. 29).

- Metrie usage study: a look at six ease histories(Ref. 4).

- Survey of selected large U.S. firms and industries(the Fortune 1000) (Ref. 5).

- Study of metric conversion of distilled spiritscontainers (Ref. 19).

B-8i: Consequences for National Defense

- With the exception of the Federal procurement ana-lysis now underway, no specific Board researchactivity has focussed on national defense matters.

In addition to the work cited above, additional topics havebeen examined:

B-8J: Legal Constraints on Metrication

- Study of metric measurement and legislation (Refs.14 and 15).

- Antitrust issues (Ref. 16).

B - 40

- . --

- The impact of laws on metric conversion (Ref. 17).

B-Sk: Status Measurement

- Research techniques for assessing the status ofmetric use (Ref. 20).

- Study of the U.S. machine tool industry (Ref. 26).

B-9: Mandate 0:. Annual Report

The tenth mandate reads:

"the Board shall submit annually to the Congress andto the President a report on its activities. Eachsuch report shall include a status report on the con-version process as well as projections for the con-version process. Such report may include reconmnenda-tions covering any legislation or executive actionneeded to implement the programs of conversion accept-ed by the Board. The Board may also submit such otherreports and recommendations as it deems necessary."

All research and research-related activity has contributedto the two annual reports published to date. No specificobservations need be made to those contributions; findingsdiscussed in the annual reports have been reviewed above.

B-10: Mandate 11: Federal Structural Mechanism for Laws and

The eleventh mandate reads:

"the Board shall submit to the Congress and to thePresident, not later than 1 year after the date ofenactment of the Act making appropriations for carry-ing out this Act, a report on the need to provide aneffective structural mechanism for converting custo-mary units to metric units in statutes, regulations,and other laws at all levels of government, on acoordinated and timely basis, in response to voluntaryconversion programs adopted and implemented by varioussectors of society under the auspices and with theapproval of the Board. If the Board determines thatsuch a need exists, such report shall inciude recom-mendations as to appropriate and effective means forestablishing and implementing such mechanism."

The specific actions in response to the last mandate were acomprehensive review and analysis of laws, regulations andordinances affecting measurement (Ref. 14) and the develop-ment of the Board's position on the need for a structural

B - 41

mechanism for changing statutes, regulations and other laws(Rot. 15). The principal observation relevant to the l1thmandate is that the Board concluded that there was no needfor Congress to provide a new structural mechanism. Theobservation was based on findings that:

- Existing laws and regulations at all levels ofgovernment do not constitute a significant legalbarrier to voluntary conversion efforts.

- Not all legal references to customary units requirechange.

- Most of the required legal changes can be accoumo-dated through administrative rule-making ratherthan legislative action.

- Voluntary conversion activity underway at the timeof the study was not of sufficient magnitude tostrain the effectiveness of existing mechanisms.The Board could not state whether voluntary con-version activity was being unduly inhibited by per-ceived legal barriers and perceived limitation ofavailable change mechanisms.

The survey of large U.S. firms (Ref. 5) provided data sug-gesting that perceptions of legal barriers may be inhibit-ing conversion. Further study of the matter, among largefirms (Ref. 17), indicates that some perceptions on in-hibiting laws and regulations still exist, but that thereis strong recognition of the suitability of availablechange mechanisms. Additional work in the general area oflaws and regulations is represented by the Board's anti-trust guidelines (Ref. 16); see Section B-5d(2), above, fordetailed observations.

B - 42

REFERENCES

1. Survey of Small Business: Issues in Mettle PlanningConversion, DAMANS and Associates, Inc., December 1080.

2. The Search for Snail Businesses with Investments in MetricProduction, J. F. Coates, Inc., June 1981.

3. The Consequences of Metric Production for SmailManufacturers, (2 Vols), J. F. Coates, Inc., February 1982.

4. Metric Usage Study: A Look at Six Case Histories, U.S.Metric Board, 1980.

5. U.S. Metric Board Survey of Selected Large U.S. Firms andIndustries, King Research, Inc., May 1980.

6. Getting a Better Understanding of the MetricSystem--Implications If Adopted by the United States, U.S.General Accounting Office, October 1978.

7. Effects of Metric Conversion on Measurement, Specificationand Process Sensitive Occupations, U.S. Metric Board, inpress.

8. Analysis of the Survey of Occupations Sensitive to Mea-surement Change, U.S. Metric Board, In process.

9. Effects of Metric Change on Workers' Tools and Training,Middlesex Research Center, Inc., July 1981.

10. Effects of Metrication on Safety in the Work Place forSelected Occupations, Middlesex Research Center, Inc.,April 1982.

11. The Conversion of Retail Fuel Pump Computers to Sale by theLiter, U.S. Metric Board, June 1979.

12. Consumers and the United States Metric Board, U.S. MetricBoard, August 1981.

13. Survey of Consumer Attitudes and Awareness of the MetricConversion of Distilled Spirits Containers, AppliedConcepts Corp., December 1981.

14. A Study of Metric Measurement and Legislation (2 Vols.),Middlesex Research Center, Inc., September 1979.

15. Providing a Metric Option: Can Laws and Regulations behended in a Timely Manner?, U.S. Metric Board, Deeember1979.

B - 43

-M " II .. . III I 1. . . .. .... MI * ~ . . . . . . .

16. Antitrust: A Handbook for Metric Planning and Conversion,U.S. Metric Board, May 1980.

17. The Impact of Laws on Metric Conversion: A Survey ofSelected Large U.S. Corporations, Newman & HermansonCompany, February 1982.

18. A Metric Americat A Decision Whose Time Has Came, NationalBureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, July1971.

19. A Study of Metric Conversion of Distilled SpiritsContainers: A Policy and Planning Evaluation, Final Reporton Findings and Lessons Learned, Applied Concepts Corp.,October 1981.

20. Research Techniques for Assessing Status of Metric Use,J.F. Coates, Inc., February 1981.

21. Redesigning Shipping Containers to Reduce Food Costs, U.S.General Accounting Office, April 1978.

22. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: International Standards,National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commeree,December 1970.

23. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: Engineering Standards,National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce,July 1971.

24. Status of Metric Conversion - A Brief Survey of U.S.Standards Writing Organizations, U.S. Metric Board, Inpress.

25. Status and Outlook for Metric Conversion of Standards: TheViews of Nine Selected Major Standards Development Bodies,U.S. Metric Board, In press.

26. Metric Use in the U.S. Machine Tool Industry: A StatusReport and Test of Assessment Methodology, J. F. Coates,Inc., April 1982.

27. Conversion Data Project, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980.

28. A Survey and Assessment of Econometric Models and DataBases for Their Applicability as Research Tools for theUnited States Metric Board, Applied Concepts Corp.,December 1981.

29. Going Metric: Is It for You - Planning Models for SmallBusiness Manufacturers, Wholesale and Retail, and ServiceFirms, Birch and Davis Associates, Inc., In process.

B - 44

4%

30. Supermarket Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Inprocess.

31. Small Business Productivity and Metrication, 8all BusinessAdninistration, In process.

32. Federal Procurement Metrication - Appropriateness andMethods, Science Management Corporation, In process.

3B- 45

t

APPENDIX C

TABLE OP CONTENTS

C. PERSPECTIVE NtIER 3: NATIONAL INOMEAND PRUT AC:OUNTS

C-I Approach C- 1

C-2 Metric Board Constituencies C - 5

C-3 USM? Research Studies C - 5C-$a Gross National Product Account C - 7C-$b National Income Accounts C - 10

C-4 Sumnary C- 11

C-

APPENDIX C

PURSPCTIVE NUMBER 3: NATIONAL IN(OME AND PRODUCTS ACOUNTS

C-I, Approach

The USMB research effort has touched many areas of the U.S.economy. Because the USMB mandate to study the status ofmetrication was from a very broad view, no attempt was madeto collect a coherent body of purely economic data, aswould be required for a more narrowly defined economicstudy. Consequently, the types of information gatheredvary from opinions and preferences of executives, infor-mation from services such as Dun and Bradstreet, andStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) of firms sampledin several of the USMB studies. A list of research studiesthat are used for analysis is provided at the end of thisappendix as references.

Looking at the Research Office accomplishments from theperspective of the national accounts requires someexplanation, both as to what this means and why it shouldbe done. An important objective of a research programis exhaustiveness. The national accounts, consisting ofseveral non-overlapping breakdowns of the U.S. economy,provide an approach to assessing the extent of coverage ofthe research program. Even though the national accountsare defined ultimately by flows of dollars reported togovernments, they provide a framework for most of the areasof interest to the USMB.

The system of national accounts is built around the GrossNational Product (GNP) and the National Income. Theseaccounts measure different aspects of a nation's economicactivity. They differ by capital consumption allowancesand indirect business taxes. The latter is not of directinterest to this research overview. Table C-i is a schema-tie of the two account systems.

The following table, Table C-2, taken from the StatisticalAbstract of the United States 1980, shows two ways the GNPis conmonly broken out: by consuming sector and by pro-dueing sector (data are for 1979). The first vertical barin Table C-i is represented by the consumption sector inTable C-2.

Table C-3 shows a break out of the National Income corre-sponding to the third vertical bar on Table C-1.

These three tables incorporate the Interests and consti-tuencies of the UMB. For example, consumers are repre-sented by the line," personal consumption expenditure," onTable C-2. The labor force is represented in Table C-3 by

C-1

C-

. * -_ ...... .....

TABLE C- IRELATION BETWEEN GROSS NATIONAL PROICT AND NATIONAL INCOME

(1979 Billions of Dollars)

Gross NationalProduct

Investment387.2

Net Exports- 4.6 National Income

Rental IncomeGovernment and Net InterestPurchases 156.6476.4

CorporateCapitol Profits

Personal Consumption 178.2ConsumptIon 243Expenditures -

Indirect1,509.8 Business Proprietor's

Taxes Income201 130.8

Compensationof Enployees1,459.2

7ITAL TOTAL2,368.8 1,924.8

C- 2

.,A l 01-

TAB3LE C- 2

GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT- SUMM~iARY (1979)

ffTTUTVTons ofT ollarsl)

Gross National Product 2.368.8

(B CnupinSect or)

Personal Consumption Expenditures------------1,509.8

Gross Private Domestic Investment-------------387.2

Net Exports------------------------------------4.6

Government Purchases------------------------ -476.4

2_3 6 8.L8

(BL Poductive Sector)

Business------------------------------------ 2,017.9

Households & Institutions----------------------77.2

Government------------------------------------248.4

Rest-of-World ------------------------------ -- 25.3

C-

TABLE C-3

NATIONAL INCOME BY TYPE OF INCOME

Compensation of Employees

Wages and Salaries ----------------------- 1,227.4

Supplements ------------------------------ 231.8

Proprietor's Income 130.8

Farm -------------------- 2---------------- 32.8

Non-Farm --------------------------------- 98.0

Rental Income of Persons 26.9

Corporate Profits 178.2

Net Interest 129.7

National Income 1,924.8

C -4

"compensation of employees." Business interests are repre-sented as to organization, (corporate, non-corporate, etc.)and sector (agriculture, mining, manufacturing, etc.) inTable C-2, in its disaggregated form.

C-2: Metric Board Constituencies

The constituencies as defined by the Metric Conversion Actrepresent several aspects of the National AccountingSystem: supply of factors (labor, capital and land) to thebusiness sector, an- vment for these factors (Table C-3);value added by the bu-sT-ness isetor M'ae--2) and demandfor business output, by household component and tyjioproduct.

Table C-4 shows the distribution of the Metric Boardconstituencies throughout the various accounts representingthe economy.

It can be seen from Table C-4 that each column relates toat least one of the constituencies, except the householdand institution, rental income, net interest, and rest-of-world production sectors. The X's in the table onlysignify inclusion of the constituency in the economicaggregate, not comprehensive representation. Nevertheless,this table shows that the Board constituencies, which wereselected with metric issues in mind, are surprisinglycomprehensive with respect to the economic classifications.

C-3: USMB Research Studies

For the purposes of surveying the contents of the USMBresearch and classifying it by its relevance to the econo-mic aggregates mentioned above, the classifications in thecolumns of Table C-4 will be used. Columns 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,and 10 have direct relevance to the research: columr.s6,9,11,12 and 13 are not applicable. The reasons for nen-applicability are as follows. Proprietors (6) were notidentified as such during the surveys. Undoubtedly, someof the firms questioned were proprietorships, but thisinformation was not gathered by this categorization. Netinterest (9) is interest paid into the household sector,beyond what is paid to other business establishments.Information on business from the organization standpoint(i.e., corporations vs. proprietorships and others) was notcollected by this categorization. Household, government,and rest-of-world, (11, 12, and 13) as producers, have notbeen addressed. The remaining eight groupings form thebasis of the discussion.

C- 5

II ... .,

4'

id* .

1 a

A 4 -4

-i 4

10

.3u W 11,u

0.

a

G 46 4

a..-ON

K K4

hi ~ ~ C - .0 t

Table C-5 displays the research studies and the interac-tion with Demand (by Sector), Income (by Type) and Supply(by Standard Industrial Classification).

C-3a: Gross National Product Accounts

C-3al: Consumption Expenditures

Table C-5 shows that several USMB research studies areconcerned to some extent with consumers. Most of thesecitations are indirect, through business' eyes, such as inthe "Six Case Studies" report (Ref. 1). The most impor-tant consumer study in a direct sense is the consumer sur-vey found in the Distilled Spirits Study (Ref. 2). Therethe somewhat contradictory nature of consumer studies wasdisplayed. For example, 58 percent of distilled spiritspurchasers report little or no difficulty in making pricecomparisons while another 26 percent do not make pricecomparisons. Yet 78 percent of such purchasers had noawareness of the quantity of product in the bottles theybought. Few complaints were registered. This showsclearly that metric conversion does not necessarily killconsumer demand.

Another interesting consumer survey commissioned by theUSMB is due in late sumner 1982 (Ref. 3). Consumers willbe surveyed indirectly by examining the state of metriclabeling on the packages they buy in supermarkets. Salesfigures will be available for these product classes, so itmay be possible to examine the extent to which metriclabeling helps or hinders sales. This study is being per-formed in cooperation with the U.S. Department ofAgriculture.

C-3a2: Net Domestic Investment

Investment means construction, durable goods andinventory. As such, the latter two categories have beenmore involved in metrication than the former, althoughsuch things as building codes are very much of interest inUSMB legal studies (Refs. 4,5,6 and 7). Firms are verymuch concerned with building codes as potentiallyaffecting attempts to invest in metric construction.Firms see no real barrier to conversion, however.

In the area of producers' durables, considerable work hasbeen done in the small business sector (Refs. 8,9,10,11and 12) where it was found that a variety of situationsexist: totally metric operations; firms with potentialmetric markets but little interest in developing them orexporting; and firms with low levels of metric investment,primarily manufacturing in conventional units. Anongsmall manufacturers, none was found with as much as$50,000 invested in purely metric capability. Generallythe Investments ranged from $1,000 to $5,000.

C- 7

.. . . ..II I" i II ' ... '

60

: w

o~ I m

0 0

bO

.1 W411

0

hii

A

a..

-l< ~l~i *I.i < N<II

0. a 0 .... m $ I

i -- _"sgo

_o

. U

& f- " pop 0u

I0 H is ilI lif 2 M UMbIl l I II l

so ali w l 0 I a I a l a 0. Owe n. .0. 11 .0ii 1.0 .0 10-0 .0. 10I. 00 01 .0U. 8

U 77

_ I t~l,-em -.. - iL D 'IiI ;d hj, I,,,.h ._~ A,-Il l I1. l l.- IOi.me ll l l lm l l ,m* l i i

liaiiI i• • Oaa,.a&mE aai--, ,-fllSl@lUll.4.o,. oem-o e,, ,

Llm ill,"*'tll C-S i i im i,

I"i l lll ~ i 'l - ' tII i l l

N I llll I II I I illll ll II I .,.

Inventory Is sometimes overlooked as a demand of invest-ment. Inventory management is very important especiallyfor small business (Refs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) wheninterest. rates re high. Inventory practices are alwayssubject to scrutiny when metrication Is being studied orplanned. Reduction of inventory costs was a major con-sideration In the distilled spirits conversion, (Refs. 13and 14) where a main result was fewer sizes and styles tostock. It is also possible that duplication due to dualstocking can raise the prices of both metric and customaryitems, particularly in highly variable or slow movingstock.

C-3a3: Not Exports

Net exports is just exports minus imports, i.e., a"leakage" of output. USMB research has addressed the per-eeived effects of metric change on firms' abilities toexport, but the obverse side of the coin, imports, has notbeen addressed. The Fortune 1000 study, (Ref. 15) as wellas the small businesss lTies (Refs. 8,9,10,11, and 12)have taken pains to understand the factors that determinea firm's ability to export to foreign markets. USMBresearch has taken two indirect routes: asking executivesof the firms what effect they think metrication would haveon their exports, and compiling the numbers and charac-teristics of firms that do export. The survey of smallbusiness (Ref. 8) found that 12 percent of the firms hadsome level of exports - manufacturers led with 26 percentengaged In exporting. Metrication clearly has a positiveconnection with exports since 23 percent of all smallbusiness deal in metric products, 40 percent of exportingfirms deal in metric products.

The findings for Fortune 1000 (Ref. 15) firms are that ofall responding frm, 57 percent have foreign metricsales, while of responding firms who consider themselvesto have metricated, 91 percent have some combination(soft, hybrid or hard converted) of metric exports. Apossible conclusion is that for large firms, exports andmetric activity are much more closely tied than for smallbusiness.

As seen in the Machine Tool Status Assessment (Ref. 16),this industry has a declining share in the internationalmarket which is four times the size of the domestic. Italso points out the increase of imports into the U.S.especially from Japan.

C-3a4: Goverment Purchases

The government (Federal, State and local) as a demander ofgoods and services has been treated indepth by only one

C -

..... i

study, the Federal Procurement study (Ref. 17). Thisstudy is nearing completion, and will be a comprehensivestatement on the role of metrication in non-defensegovernment procurement. Other studies (Refs. 4-6) havediscussed the Federal, State and local government andregulatory roles.

C-Sb: National Income Accounts

C-$bl: Dnployees

The work done by the USMB Research Office in the directeffects metrication has on the income of individuals was aseries of studies in the area of metrology-sensitive occu-pations (Refs. 18, 19, 20 and 21). It was found thattransportation mechanics and tool and die makers combinedlarge requirements for metric tools and large personalexpenditures. Most tools in most other occupational areasare provided by the employer, whether private orgovernment. Training is provided by employers almostentirely, both metric and non-metric, with small excep-tions in clerical and programing areas. These exceptionsmay not be statistically significant.

C-3b2: Rental Income

The only connection with renter's income and metric changethat has been dealt with in USMB research is in the areaof building codes. This is mentioned above under NetDomestic Investment (C-3-a). Land and construction aretwo areas with only miminal metric activity. If metriea-tion starts, there may be an immense impact on standards,laws and regulations of building codes and on thebuilders.

C-3b3: CorporateIProfits

Profits for a firm is revenues minus costs. To increaserevenues a firm must sell more; to decrease costs firmsmust become more efficient with respect to its productionand finance structures. Metric issues are involved in theformer, briefly: (I) areas of consumer and industrialresistance to metric products and (II) attempts to expandexports. Both these subjects were discussed in the con-sumption and net exports accounts mentioned above. Metricissues involved In decreasing costs are: (i) potential taxbreaks for metric investment, (ii) more efficient capitalequipment incorporating metric units and (iii) measures tocontrol inventory costs. These, too, were mentioned inthe investments account above, but very little of asubstantive nature is known of actual economic Impacts ofmetric change in these areas.

C 10

C-3c: Supply Side_(Business Only, By Industrial Sector)

This classification holds the biggest potential for *Gono-mic analysis, narrowly defined. The Fortune 1000 study(Ref. 15), The Survey of Small Businedses-Mf. 8), TheImpact of Laws on Metric Conversion (Ref. 7), TheConversion Data Study (Ref. 22), The Machine Tool StatusAssessment (Ref. 16), and The Search for Small Businesseswith Investment in Metric Production (Ref. 9) have allsurveyed or addressed the business community according tothe Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of theiroutput. Over 100 SIC (and SIC related) classificationshave been investigated.

C-4: 8uinafl

A chart (Table C-5) has been completed relating theresearch studies to the aggregates chosen for thisappendix. Most of these are of interest but not in asystematic, comprehensive way. Those that are have beenmentioned in the text. Most of the information has beenof a qualitative nature and not quantitative, which isnecessary to truly assess the impact of metrication on theU.S. economy and society.

There are many opportunities for further study - primarilyin the industry or SIC areas. A comprehensive study ofthese industrial classifications would be the necessarycornerstone of any attempt to draw nationally validconclusions about the effects metric change has on theU.S. economy. It would also form the basis to study theeffects of the economy on the progress of metrication.

C -it

m ....

APPE DIX C - REFERMCES

1. Metric Usage Study: A Look at Six Case Histories, U.S.metric Board, 1980.

2. Survey of Consumer Attitudes end Awareness of the MetricConversion of Distilled Spirits Containers, Applied ConceptsCorp., December 1081.

3. Supermarket Survey, U.S. Department of Agricul' e, Inprocess.

4. A Study of Metric Measurement and Legislation (2 -:)ls.),Middlesex Research Center, Inc., September 1979.

5. Providing a Metric Option: Can Laws and Regulation.. ti

Amended in a Timely Manner?, U. S. Metric Board, December1979.

6. Antitrust: A Handbook for Metric Planning and Conversion,U.S. Metric Board, May 1980.

7. The Impact of Laws on Metric Conversion : A Survey ofSelected Large U.S. Corporations, Newman & Hermanson Company,February 1982.

8. Survey of Small Business: Issues in Metric Planning andConversion, DAMANS and Associates, Inc., December 1980.

9. The Search for Small Business with Investments in MetricProduction, J.P. Coates, Inc., June 1981.

10. The Consequences of Metric Production for Small Manufacturers(2 Vols.), J.F. Coates, Inc., February 1982.

11. Going Metric: Is It for You - Planning Models for SmallBusiness Manufacturers, Wholesale and Retail, and ServiceFirms, Birch and Davis Associates,lnc., In process.

12. Small Business Productivity ans Metrication, Small BusinessAdministration, In process.

13. A Study of Metric Conversion of Distilled Spirits Containers:A Policy and Planning Evaluation, Comprehensive Report on theConversion Process, Applied Concepts Corp., August, 1981.

14. A Study of Metric Conversion of Distilled Spirits Containers:A Policy and Planning Evaluation, Final Report on Findingsand Lessons Learned, Applied Concepts Corp., October 1981.

15. U.S. Metric Board Survey of Selected Large U.S. Firms andIndustries, King Research, Inc., May 1980.

C -12

16. Metric Use in the Machine Tool Industry - - a Status Reportand Test of Assessment Methodology, J. F. Coates, Inc., April1982.

17. Federal Procurement Metrication - Appropriateness andMethods, Science Management Corporation, In process.

18. Effects of Metric Conversion on Measurement, Specificationand Process Sensitive Occupations, U.S. Metric Board, Inpress.

19. Analysis of the Survey of Occupations Sensitive to Measure-ment Change, U.S. Metric Board, In process.

20. Effects of Metric Change on Workers' Tools and Training,Middlesex Research Center, Inc., July 1981.

21. Effects of Metrication on Safety in the Work Place forSelected Occupations, Middlesex Research Center, Inc., April1982.

22. Conversion Data Project, U.S. Department of Cornierce, 1980.

23. Research Techniques for Assessing Status of Metric Use, J.F.Coates, Inc., February 1981.

24. The Conversion of Retail Fuel Pump Computers to Sale by theLiter, U.S. Metric Board, June 1979.

25. Consumers and the United States Metric Board, U.S. MetricBoard, August 1981.

26. A Survey and Assessment of Econometric Models and Data Basesfor Their Applicability as Research Tools for the UnitedStates Metric Board, Applied Concepts Corp., December 1981.

27. A Metric America: A Decision Whose Time Has Come, NationalBureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Conmnerce, July 1971.

28. Getting a Better Understanding of the Metric System --Implications If Adopted by the United States, U.S. GeneralAccounting Office, October 1978.

29. Redesigning Shipping Containers to Reduce Food Costs, U.S.General Accounting Office, April 1978.

30. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: International Standards,National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Conhnerce,December 1970.

31. U.S. Metric Study Interim Report: Engineering Standards,National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Comnerce,July 1971.

C -13

C-II