ML20045F928
| ML20045F928 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/22/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Dingell J HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9307090192 | |
| Download: ML20045F928 (25) | |
Text
f I
, y " N.,
t f
,T UNITED STATES
[k.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg f
WASHWGTON D C 20555 0001 h,,,[.#
June 22, 1993 The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce United States l'ouse of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-6115 Dear Mr. Chairnan-In your May 24, 199*, leurr to the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), ; a div, ed the application ri the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, as tmended, c.4 C eut 've Order 12770, tt independent regulatory agencies and the entitic
%,.'.,11 ate.
You also indicated an interest in having the Committee on Eneoy c.-
Commerce receive comments from organizations who represent ent,tles regulated by the FERC. A copy of that letter was provided to Chairman Selin, and to heads of other Federal regulatory agencies. On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I would like to comment briefly on these matters.
The NRC supports and encourages the use of the metric system of measurement by its licensees.
To this end, the NRC oublished a policy statement on metrication (enclosed) on October 7, 1992 (57 FR 46202), in response to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (the ?ct), and began publishing rulemakings and certain guidance and information t aments in dual units on January 7, 1993.
In addition, although not an exu;tive agency, the Commission has been responsive to provisions of Executive Order 12770, which directs all executive branch departments and agencies to undertake specific activities to carry out metrication in accordance with the Act.
For example, the NRC developed a metric conversion plan, which was articulated in the above-noted policy statement.
Further, the NRC has provided appropriate staff training in the metric system, and has pledged to work with and encourap the licensed nuclear industry to employ the metric system.
The NRC also continues to be a participant in the Interagency Council on Metric Policy and in its Metrication Operating Committee, and, as required by the Act, annually reports to the Congress on its metrication activities for the preceding year and plans for the coming year.
nowever, in developing its metrication policy, the NRC did not view the Act or its predecessor as requiring the Agency to compel its licensees to convert to the metric system of measurement. Moreover, the Agency decided against promulgating regulations requiring licensees to convert to metric. As stated in the Policy Statement, no corresponding improvement in public health and safety would result from the use of metric by NRC licensees, but costs would be incurred by those licensees for whom metric offers no commercial benefit.
Presumably, if the Agency permits and encourages the use of metric, those licensees who see economic benefit in using metric will <fo so. Hence the i
9, 9307090192 930622 PDR ORG NE ED v
i PDR
l' c,
The Honorable John D. Dingell 2
Commission took the position of encouraging and facilitating licensee use of metric by publishing its own documents in dual units (metric followed parenthetically by inch-pound), but not requiring licensees to use metric.
(Documents specific to an individual licensee will continue to be in the system of units employed by that licensee.)
There is an exception to the NRC's general encouragement in the use of metric.
Because unfamiliarity with metric units may prove detrimental in emergency situations, the NRC requires all event reporting and emergency response communications between licensees, the NRC, and State and local authorities continue to be in the inch-pound system of measurement. The logic for this position is simple.
Evaluating events and responding to possible emergencies are high-stress activities, involving many individuals in different i
organizations at many levels.
Decisions must be made and communicated quickly and correctly.
Introducing a largely unfamiliar measurement system into such situations could lead to confusion, delay, and possibly adverse consequences.
Nonetheless, the NRC will assess the state of voluntary metrication by the licensed nuclear industry, and the public at large, in 3 years to determine whether revision to its metrication policy is appropriate, j
Should you require any additional information on NRC's metric program, please i
contact Mr. Eric S. Beckjord, the NRC's Metric Executive, at (301) 492-2700.
Sincerely,
,/
g J nes M.
ylor
~
xecutive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Federal Register l
cc w/ encl.:
Elizabeth A. Moler
/
Chairman, FERC i
,,n, n-.,.
,e,,,,.w-,,
-,w, m,--,,r-pr
4 46202 Federal Regist:r / Vol. 57. No.195 / Wednesday. October 7.1992 / Notices a
cpplicants,is designed to cllow them to respond to market forces in determining the extent and timing for their use of the metric system of measurement. %e policy also affects the NRC in that the NRC will adhere to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the General i
Services Administration (CSA) metrication program for its own i
purchases. The policy affirms that use of the metric system of measurement by Commission licensees is in accordance i
with protection of the public health and safety.
EnscTrva oATE: October 7.1992.
ADN Documents referenced in this policy statement are available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street. NW., (lower level).
1 Washington. DC between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm.
Post PuerneER ledPOsttAATbO88 CoorTACT:
Dr. Frank A. Costanzi. Chairman. NRC Metrication Oversight Committee. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington. DC 20555. telephone: (301}
492 3780.
SUPPLeasestTARY 80ePonssAT1oec:
j
Background
On August 10.1968. Congress passed the Ocmibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (the Act). (19 USC
'901 et seq.), which amended the Metnc Conversion Act of1975. (15 USC 205s et seq.).Section 5164 of the Act(15 USC 205e) designates the metric system as i
the preferred system of weights and measurse for United Statcs trade and commerce.He Act also requires thet a!!
Federal agencies convert to the metnc system of measurement in thetr procurements, grants. and other business.related activities by the end of fiscal year (FY).1992 *except to the extent that euch use is impractical or is l
likely to cause significant ineffic>enoes I
orloss of markets to United States firm such as when foreign competitors are producing competing products m ncm metnc units. " (section 5614(b)(2)1 l
Summary of Public Comments Cortversion to the Metric System in response to the Act. the NRC Aeoecy: Nuclear Regulatory pubhshed a metrication pohcy statemer.t Commission, for comment in the Federal Register on ACTiosc Policy statement.
February 10.1992 (57 FR 4891) Ae a result, comments were provided by sussesAny:ne Nuclear Regulatory twelve responde.rs. including fh e po=er Commission (NRC) is issuing its policy reactor liceneces, three standards on metncation.This action is in organizations, one comment esch from o response to the Omnibus Trade and reactor vendor, a matenals Lcensee the Competitiveness Act of 1968. Executive Nuclear Management and Resourene Order 12770 of July 25.1971, as well as Council (NUMARC), and a joint lenar concerns of certain NRC licensees and submitted by three individuals. All other interested parties. Re policy, commenters supported the pohey which affects the NRC's licensees and However. the materials licensee otronety
f.
~ A*!
- Federal Respiar / Vol !L No.185 /.Wedn>< day. Octsber 7, 2S92 / Notices wit 3 advocated miemaking to require could demonstra te that the action liarmees to use the metric erstem of provided a safety or other benent to provicle more or all ofits technical hterature and standards in metric (50 measurement.De analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of a commensurate with the cost.The NRC tmits and that the decinfon will be does not believe that to be the case, and policy statement versus a rutembg again beBeves that the market forces are heavily inRuanced by the destres of th was presented in the Fedecaj Ragnster notice issumg the draft policy statement the best guides for this type of action.
users ofits standards. such as the NRC for comment. The bas!s of the NRC's A tax incentive for licensees and el.rctric utility Udustry.
position was that no corresponding converting to the metric system before None of the stand mds organizations commented on the availabibry of the year :000 was also suggested by hardware.
g improvement in the pub!!c health and safety would result, but costs would be these individuals. nis recommendation incurred without benefit,if metncation is not possible for the NRC to pursue ANSI did not respond and when because the NRC does not have taxing contacted by telephone indicated that it were made mandatory by a rulemaking. a uthority.
did not intend to comment.
The commenter's argument was not persuasive, and the NRC continues to Lastly, the com:nenters suggested that For clanty, the Commission has believe that rulem.abng is not the NRC make gants available to decided to hat which docurnents mil be appropnate at this time.
parties requinng financial help and who pubhshed in dual umts. These choose to voluntarily convert to the documents include new regulations, NUMARC argued that because most metric system. The NRC's grants are major amendments to regulations, of the analytical codes, refermen and research and development related and regulatory guides. NUREG-senes resource data. as weD as standanis for are meant to focus on new and documents, pobcy statements, component sizes Ite pipe sizes, improved technnlogies. The NRC information notices, genenc letters.
fa teners, etc.) still generally use the beheves conversion to metric is market bulletins, and all wntten English rystem in this country, the driven, and use of grant funda for this communications directed to the pubhc.
pnmary umts shown in regulatory purpose is not in keeping with the spirit
" ""-, Reduction Act Statement documents presentmg dual units abould be the measurement system in which the of either the NRC program or this action.
His pobey statement contains no parameter was denved. with the Upon p411 cation of the draft pdcy information collection requtrements and.
secondary unit clearly labeled and statement. the NRC sought e=n*=t therefore la not subject to the shown parenthetical!y.nree of the from several organisa tions involved in utihtles commenting endorsed the developtag national ran=*n===
requirements of the Paperwork NUMARC letter. However, the standards. Specifically, the NRC Reduction Act of1980 M4 USC. 3501 et inquired as to the impact of osetr6 cation seq.}.
Commission believes that the English on NRC regulatione as it relates to of Pdcy units should be provided in brackets Na tionel and Interwa tbna l Staadards.
after the use of the btemational System M-h he erW to which edbannt The NRC rupports and encourages the t
of Units ISO stoce the SI rystem has use of the metric syrti m cf measurement been mandefed by Congrees to be the gnidene= la presently avadable to facihtete the ese of the metnc system by preferred system of weights and licensees and prospective opphcanta en by Heensed nuclear industry. In order to
-t measures for U.S. trede and C-w the selection of ametric equivalenas of A Letter submitted by three en===an enerk=n'r=1 sued electrical beensees and applicants, begmamg conspoensts that have edety-related January y 29s3. the NRC mil pubhah the individuals also %W tba poBey functions. Letters were emot to the following documents in dual umts: New g
statement. While they.e W the Amencan National Standards lastitute regulatinns-major amendments to statement, they called for strong (ANSO, the American Society for existing regulations. regulatory g.udes.
incentives such es
% aB future Testing cod Materials (ASDdt the NUREG eenes documents. pohey liceneing of "new"+ applicants in the industry to be in metnc. For the NRC to American Society of" " W stat =ments, irJarmation nonces. g~nenc F.ng+n=ars (Amrk and the insert = of letters, bulletins, and all wntten require this type of action. it would need Electrical and Doctronia PnW=srs, bc. Documents s come-r=tions directed to tbs pablic.
to abow that the benefit of the action.
(IEEE).
such as the reduction of risk or improvement in admimstrative ASME and IEEB responded that they as inspect >co reports and dociewd efficiency, would octwergh its corts.b ogparted the pohey. Althesgh ASDd material dealing with a peruevier NRC believes that his ectivity is best soted that it coaki not erh*M= the license. will be in the system of unts determined by the mastet forces, and appropriate committees to meet and employed by the bcensee. Tius protoccl reflects a general approach thet only not by the NRC requirtog the action, discuss the NRC's policy until after the documents apphcable to all lacan cas. or especially if the action is not initfated in cornament period expired the AfrIM to all heensees of a given type m =Lch response to an issue bM.4 pub!!c indir=ted that it requires the inciesion of a liceau sy operate in the ametnc health and safety. Dese commenters metric (50 units in all 9.120 A534 sta ndards, allowing the techeimi rystem wih contain dual umts.
t also asked that any new self.espg,y enmmittees to decide whether SI or otherwise English or metric umts abne umts at existing plants be Ucensed only English ursta en the prefernd imit of the first unit presented will be in the are permissible. In dual-unit doci.sunta in the metric system. However, even if the self-supportmg amt were designed meacarement esed in the committee's International System of Umts mth the and built in metnc. the emergency docoment. If bod unita of measurement response activity is station-wide and.
are need in the document, the orderin Enchrh unit shown in braclets. De therefore, reest be in English units.
which they appear is determined by the NRC will mod:fy existing docweests These individuals also suggested that cornmittee preparing the b.4 and procedures as needed to taubtste the NRC only grant licenses to parties W IEEE stated that its policyis to use of the metric system by licenseen and applicants.In addition. the NEC opereting in metnc after the year 20:n provide technicalliterature end will provide staff training as needed standards in the meseurement ryttem Fitrther. through tta partiCpation na Agam. this type of requirement could that the 6dastry regatres. Fmthee, the national international. profesaM and orJy be accomplished by the NRC ifit IEEE rtated that it is studymg the need industry standards orgamzanons and y
46204 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No.195 / Wedn:sday. October 7.1992 / Notices commuttees and through its work with Rule oc4 contnues exemptive relief hecutve Office Buildmg. room 32c6 other industry organir.ations and groups, received by Commiuion order to certain Washington. DC 20503 the NRC will encourage and further the investment companies that respond to Dated: September n 1m use of the metnc system in formulating Revenue Rting 81-225 by orga Mwg end adopting standards and policies for new companies and substitutmg them n WFM the licensed nuclear industry. However. for existing companies without pnor D 'T * "
should the NRC conclude that the use of Commission approval. All of the p D c.12-a2-9 Pued 1>+st e 4s ami any particular system of measurement respondents, together incur an sa w caos w +4 w be d2tnmental to the pubbe health and estmated one tarden hour annually t
safety. the Qxmmwion will proscribe.
comply with the rule.
l 4
by regulaton. order, or other Rule 1 permits, under certain
% WRWbY NM appropnate means. the use of that conditons, purchases of secunnes from aM Wt system. In particular. all event reporting underwritmg syndicates whose Agency Clearance Officer Kenneth A.
cad cmergency response members include affiliated persons of Foga sh. (202) 272-2142.
communications between licecsees the the pun:hasing investment company.
NRC, and State and local authonties Each of the 600 respondents opends Upon Written Request Copy Avadable will be in the English system of about two houn per year complying From: Securities and Exchange mecourement. After 3 years, the with the rule.
Commtsaion. Office of Fding Commission will assess the state of Rule 17F1 furthers the ob.lective set Informaton and Consumer Semces-m2tnc use by the licensed nuclear forth in section 170) of the 1940 Act.
450 Fifth St. NW, Ws shmgton. DC industry in the United States to which makes it unlawful for any 20549.
determme whether this policy should be affihated person of a registered, New M * : Revisions of Currently modified. Lastly, the NRC will follow the investment company to engage in Approved C&Ws i
Feder.1 Acquisition Regulation and the certain types of fraudulent practices.
General Services AdmiMatration ne rule requires that companies adopt Form SB-1. File No. 2%374 i 1 metnc: tion program in execunny codes of ethics designed to prevent such Fonn SF1 File No. 24368 procurements.
fraudulent practices. %e 4.612 Form S-2. File No. 2440 n
eepen each incur an uhmated hMMhNN l
Dated et Rockvtlle. Maryland this 30th day of September m six hours annually complying with the Regulation A. File No. 2%110 For the Nuclear Regulatory Comenmon.
nile.
Form 10-SB. File No. 25367 w,- g Rule 1(c) and Form USS Implement Form to-KSB. File No. 25368
- M "M' C "*'"
section 14 of the Act. and require Form 10-QSB. File No. 253a9 p D c e2-am2 Filed im an an:]
registered public utihty holdm8 Form 6-K. File No. 2550 3
1 companies to file such armual and other "5 L'"* Coct ****
penodic and special reports as the N dce is hereby gh dat. punuant Commission may prescribe to keep to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 i
f RM M UNE urrent information relevant to (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). the Secunties i
i and Exchange Comnussion has i
r UN Pm ons tha Ea ot 4 resp submitted for OMB approval Fom SB-1.
1 Regusets Urtder Review try Office of annaijy I can an utmated 8E a form to register secunties for sale 1
Kanagemeert arW Budget to comph e 6 under the Securities Act of 1933 and for F
revisions of currently approved
{
I i
Agency Clearance OfBcer Kenneth A, The rules under 17 CFR part 257 coHectons in Forms SB-2. S-2. and S-4.
Foga sh. (202) 2*2-2142.
implement sections of the Act that f ms to gster secantes for sale j
4 Upon wntten request copies avadable require registered holdmg companies under the Securities Act. Regulaton A.
f from: Secuntes and Exchange and their subsidiary semce companies an exempton fmm de agistraton
_c Co=nussion. Office of Fthngs, to preserve records for periods specified mquirements of the Securmes Act of j
I informaton and Consumer Semces.
by Commiesion rule. ne 14 1933 and Forms 10-SB.10-KSB.10-QSB 3 j 450 Ftfth Street. NW., Washmgton. DC recordkeepers, together. incur about one and 6-K for registration of a class of I l 20549-annual burden hout to comply with secunties, annual, quarterly and I
n requirements.
penodic reportmg respectvely, under Rule sc-4 Fde No. 251eo The estimated average burden bours the Secunties hchange Act of 1934. The i
g Rule 10f-3. File No. 2%237 are made solely for the purposes of the new form and revisions to custmg 7 l Rule 17F1. File No. 2%239 Paperwork Reducton Act and are not forms construte changes to the Rule 1(c). Iorm U55. File No. 270-168 denved fmtn a comprehensive or even a integrated reg:strat on and reportmg g
Part 257. Fde No. 2~0-252 representatve survey or study c.f the system for small busmess issuers:
costs of SEC rules and forms revisions to other collectons are a result Notice is bereby given that pursuant Dtmet general comments to Gary of the use of this new system.
to the Paperwork Reduchon Act of1980 Waxman at the address below. Direct Each of the esumated 250 respondents s
p (44 U.S C. 3501 et seg ), the Secunties cnd Exchange Commission has any comments concernmg the accuracy using Form SB-1 incurs an average of the estimated average burden bours estimated 780 burden bours to comply S
submitted for extenstori of OMB for compliance with Secunties and with the Fonn requirements.
O approval Rules Sc-4.10f-3. and 17F1 Exchange Commission rules and forms Each of the 259 respondents usmg under the Investment Company Act of to Kenneth A. Fogash. Deputy Executive Form SB-2 incurs an average 925 burden A
R 1940 (1940 Act). Also submitted for Director. Secuntes and Exchange bours to comply with the Form extension of OMB approvalis Rule 1(c).
Co==ussion. 450 Fifth Street. NW.,
requirements.
s Form USS and part 257 under the Public We shington. DC 20549, and Gary Each of the 64 respondents using Fem 1
Utility Holding Company Act of1935 Waman Clearance OfDcer. OfSce of S-2 incurs an average 500 burden bours s
( Act).
Management and Budget. New to comply with the Form requirements.
t i
I
June 22, 1993 l
The Honorable John D. Dingell 2
Commission took the position of encouraging and facilitating licensee use of metric by publishing its own documents in dual units (metric followed parenthetically by inch-pound), but not requiring licensees to use metric.
j (Documents specific to an individual licensee will continue to be in the system of units employed by that licensee.)
There is an exception to the NRC's general encouragement in the use of metric.
Because unfamiliarity with metric units may prove detrimental in emergency situations, the NRC requires all event reporting and emergency response communications between lice.isees, the NRC, and State and local authorities continue to be in the inch-pound system of measurement.
The logic for this position is simple.
Evaluating events and responding to possible emergencies are high-stress activities, involving many individuals in different organizations at many levels. Decisions must be made and communicated quickly and correctly.
Introducing a largely unfamiliar measurement system into such situations could lead to confusion, delay, and possibly adverse consequences.
Nonetheless, the NRC will assess the state of voluntary metrication by the licensed nuclear industry, and the public at large, in 3 years to determine whether revision to its metrication policy is appropriate.
Should you require any additional information on NRC's metric program, please contact Mr. Eric S. Beckjord, the NRC's Metric Executive, at (301) 492-3700.
Sincerely, Original signed by James M. Taylor James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Federal Register cc w/ encl.:
Elizabeth A. Moler Chairman, FERC See next page for Distribution
- See attached sheet for previous concurrences.
OFFC:RDB:DRA RDB:DRA RDB:DRA DD:DRA D:DRA DD/GIR:RES NAME:BRichter:dm SFeld SBahadur FCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes DATE:6/8/93*
6/8/93*
6/8/93*
6/8/93*
6/8/93*
6/10/93*
, f g;
i,7 l
NAME:EBeckjord JMTa lor DRathbun l
DATE:
/ /93 j/
/93
(, /z 2-/ 93 j
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
a t
Dng ava.Dato *.ne0 CO8eGEllS
{
- [Dase D Decta m'CasCase taa<twam guay a manwase Cauf Deesa tantOS. wCOmmaap causband
~;E".7"JJP*r..C-,.,,
2f"'.'cJ9. 'l.;" "'" "'
E.6. Douse of Representatines
....,...c,.
-. < c..
,"o..,%.",,"a2"a' Committee on Cncrgy anb Commerce 0"t
%"f?'d!".J. ' =f'...
o
.,c,
. Lo.
" ',*'J'.'. !j'f's "E*'s"2."s"Je "E"Jo'" '*'
Room 2125. Rapburn bouse @ffire Buttbing i
6LL 4*CMa#D,SO.4.mE.e utsiCD seE.D.UPTD.4 eseCeacAN Washington. BC 2051o,-o.11o.
t
..s s Co,s..i s..et.c.a.o*
_. sa....
n 1
.u
,0
"'."at'a'".O?a;; *
- W.t"."a
- s"J;1.
can, a ss =
Co==eCviCv, J aov eowlano cioec.4 cas -
voomas a wanto= =vw
..nes C sneenwoon es==svtva=.a (DOLPeeUS TO*ssi mie
- Des WetmAIL D CRA*O iDAMO
. i'C lA fff,"J."'/L*,'o","JJ"'
May 24, 1993 l
84Ases PAuC=f.4R **t* Jf R5tY cha G a wasseneGTDa TEmal i
6*me SCMEma Cauponesia
$wennOD.F0wn O*u0 usat RhtIDite *as.hG? Des M..AILJQ#it.pa4G.O.u..t,let V'.45.s.v PEhel*twased
.C..
t.
AL.af t.J.G.OT..,$TA.ff Da#EC*S.u,sso.C.a.'t8..CO.Cro.EL l
W AA Uh5
- c..o. z.
r i
The Honorable Elizabeth A.
Moler j
Chairman Federal Energy Regulatory Commission j
825 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20426
Dear Chairman Moler:
i t
Congratulations on your nomination as Chairman of the l
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
I look forward to working with you and the other Members of the Commission.
j On January 6, 1993, the former FERC Chairman replied to my inquiry concerning the application of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, as amended, and Executive Order 12770 to independent regulatory agencies, such as FERC, and the entities that they j
regulate.
r l
The reply includes a September 17, 1992 letter from the Office of the General Counsel at the Department of Commerce and a l
memorandum from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Both documents imply, at least, that the amended law and the Executive Order apply to independent agencies and their l
regulatory activities, although the FERC letter indicates that the Commerce Department personnel have informally said that the l
law and Order do not contemplate compelling industry conversion.
The FERC letter indicated that the Commission was advised by the Commerce Department.to begin informal contacts with the regulated industry to obtain their views on conversion.
The former chairman said FERC was considering the best approach to gain public input.
i Such a voluntary inquiry is certainly a good idea, assuming, I
of course, that it does not' consume too much time and effort on the part of the Commission.
At the same time, I believe the issue of application of the law and Order to independent regulatory agencies and the entities they regulate needs resolution.
Informal comments also are not satisfactory in l
l
The Hcncrable Ellrabeth A. Mcler Pac _e 2 resolvinc the matter.
The Commerce Department correspondence did not achieve that result.
I a...e.
.iding a copy
"# ~"'s letter to some of the organizations representing entities regulated by your agency so they can comment to this Ccmmittee on the effect of our conversion n their members, and I would appreciate your keeping me informed about the Commission's actions on this matter.
With every good wish.
Si.cerely, i
JOHN D.
DINGELL CHAIRMAN Enclosure cc:
The Honorable Carlos J.
Moorhead, Ranking Minority Member Committee on Enerc"5 and Commerce t
I The Honorable Philip R.
Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee cn Energy and Power The Honorable Gail Mcdonald, Acting Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission The Honorable Ivan Selin, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Honorable James H.
Quello, Acting Chairman Federal Communications Commission Mr. Thomas Kuhn, Executive Vice President Edison Electric Institute Mr. Larry Hobart, Executive Director American Public Power Association Mr. Michael Baly, III, President American Gas Association l
l Mr. Jerald V.
Halvorsen, President l
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Mr.
A.
Wayne Elkins, President National Hydrcpower Association i
l l
t
l F E DE C A L E NE DC ' 9E G v LATo A Y CO*OCD[7U.**
--v..i<(,U A A S-N G"C N O C 2 C d 2f, U.U J N ' l 2.s u - r -
- _..s January 6, 1993,7 Honorable John D.
Dingell Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S.
House of Representatives
!d, $
ll(f Washington, DC 20515 i
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to respond to your letter of Novembar 16, 1992, relating to metric conversion requirements.
The Commission has taken no position on whether the metric conversion requirements are legally binding on independent regulatory agencies.
At least one independent agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC"), has concluded that it is not strictly bound by the requirements because they apply only to j
executive agencies.
A copy of the ICC's decision is enclosed.
The FERC, however, has not focused on the general issue of legal obligation since we generally support Congress' declaration of policy to require Federal agencies to use the metric system of l
i measurement in their "procurements, grants, and other business i
related activities," except where this would be impractical or l
cause significant inefficiencies or market losses to U.S.
firms.
15 U.S.C.
5 205b.
We also generally support the goals of the President's Executive Order 12770 on " Metric Usage in Federal Government Programs," issued July 25, 1991.
At the same time, the Commission has a responsibility to make sure that serious l
economic burdens are not imposed on the public and the industry.
Accordingly, we expect to solicit public input into our process for considering metric conversion.
In sorting out our approach to metric conversion, a primary concern has been whether mandatory conversion requirements appry only to an agency's own business activities (e.o., procurements, Federal construction projects, government scientific research, etc.) or extend also to an agency's regulation of private l
industry.
For the most part, the industries we regulate use the English system of measurement in their own business operations and in their regulatory relationships with the Commission.
For example, in the hydropower industry all applications for Commission licenses, exemptions and permits, all engineering and other data submitted to ensure the safety of dams and other facilities and their conformity to environmental standards are l
expressed in terms of the English system.
The same is true of information provided to the' Commission in connection with the i
construction and operation of natural gas pipelines.
j i
-~
1 4
k l
t
! I
~
i our interpretation of the statutory language and the executive i
order is that government agencies are expected to encourage voluntary conversion to the metric system by private industry, where practical, but are not expected to impose the system on the i
private sector.
Assuming this interpretation is correct, and the mandatory requirements apply to our administrative activities l
rather than our regulatory responsibilities and policies, we believe the Commission's independence is not impaired by the executive order or Department of Commerce guidelines.
Administrative functions such as procurement are already subject i
to government-wide rules and guidelines.
i By letter of July 20, 1992, we consulted with the Department of Commerce as to the scope of the metric conversion requirements.
Copies of the Commission's letter and a brief response from the Depart =ent are enclosed.
While the Department has not provided us with a formal legal opinion, Department personnel have informally indicated their general agreement that the Act and the executive order do not contemplate that Federal agencies will use j
their regulatory authority to compel an otherwise unwilling private industry to convert to the metric system.
Department personnel have also advised the Commission to begin informal I
contacts with industry groups regulated by'the Commission to obtain their views on metric conversion.
As I have indicated, we
)
are now considering the best approach for obtaining public input.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
If I can be of further assistance to you in this or any other FERC matter, l
please let me know.
Yours truly, t VfM I
\\ Martin L. Allday l
i l
Enclosures cc:
Honorable Carlos Moorhead, Ranking Minority Member Committee on Energy and Power Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Honorable Barbara H.
Franklin, Secretary Department of Commerce l
1
i l
E INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM:SS:CN OEc:S:0N SERVICE DA*E EX PARTE NO. 505' TRANS:T:ON TO THE METRIC SYSTEM Decided: May 26, 1992 BY THE COMMISSICN:
Proceeding discontinued without prejudice to the consideration of more limited proposals on a case-by-case basis.
BACL",ROUND Section 5164 of the canibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1107, 1451), which amended the voluntary metric conversion provisions of the Matric Conversion Act of 1975 ( P. L. 9 4-16 8, 89 Stat. 1007), declared the policy of the United States to designate the metric system of weights and measurement as the preferred system for United States trade and ccamerce. The Act provided that each aracutive Federal agency, by date certain prior to the and of fiscal year 1992, shall use the setric systas in its procurements, grants, and other business-related activities excant to the artent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms. Executive agencies are required to report to Congress, as part of annual budget submissions for each fiscal year, actions taken to implement provisions of this section.
On July 25, 1991, the President signed Executive Order 12770 on " Metric Usage in Federal Government Programs." (56 FR 35801)
The purpose of the executive order was to give impetus to the existing legislation on metric usage. The Executive order declared that Federal departments and agencies shall "... use to the artent economically feasible by September 30, 1992... the metric system of measurement in Federal Government procurements, grants, and other business-related activities." The U.S.
Department of Commerce (DOC) was designated as the lead Federal agency for astrJe conversion. DOC issued its guidance for Federal agencies on January 2, 1991, at 54 FR 150 (15 CFR Part 19), and, on December 20, 1990, issued its interpretation of the International System of Units for the United States at 55 FR 55242. Essentially, Federal agencies are required to (1) establish metric conversion plans and dates for use of the metric system in procurements, grants, and other business-related activities: (2) coordinate with other Federal agencias, State and local governments, and the private sectors (3) assist in the removal of barriers to metric system transitions and (4) provide for full public involvesant and timely information about significant metrication policies, programs, and actions.
Further, Doc guidance calls for Federal agencias to give censideration to the effects of their actions on State and local governments and the private sector, with particular attention to i
the ef fects on small business. Although not strictly bound by the Metric Conversion Act or DOC's guidelines, the Commission instituted this proceeding to consider conversion to the metric system in order to foster a uniform scheme of Federal regulation.
ovtRVIEW In July 1990, the Commission completed an internal survey
)
8 This proceeding was previously docketed as Ex Parta No.
202.
i i
Ex Parta No. 505 1
to identify activities that sight to amenable to metric I
conversien. The survey results suggestad that procurament, i
tariff filings, and publicatiens intended for ccamercial use were for potential application.
In addition, certain historical areas data bases, such as tne Rail Waybill Sample, and certain filing and reporting requirements mandated by the Cennissicn, would need to be caanged to reflect zetric measurements.
Although the Matric Conversion Act, by its terms, only applies to executive agencies, we issued an Advance Notice of 4
Preposed Rulemaking (ANFR) to consider whether to convert to the metric system to achieve a uniform scheme of Federal regulation consistent with our sandate to fester sound econcaic conditions in transportation (49 U.S.C. 10101(a) (1) (c) and 10101a(4)]. The purpose of this ANPR was to solicit ccaments and suggestions en
{
hcw the Cesaission should proceed in defining the scope of its activities subject to metric conversion and to seek guidance on the apprcpriate tiastable for the com ersion process.
The ANFR was published in the Federal Register on August 15, l
3 3
1991, (56 FR 40592). It requested comments from carriers, j
shippers, and other interested parties on a wide range of issues including: the scope and timing of thh onversion process:
appropriate metric standards for use. by the Commission:
conversion of forms used by the Commission: and ways that the f
Ccmaission could assist carriers, shippers, and the public in i
using the metric system.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES a
I We received 33 comments in response to our Notice.
While a few of the submissions were supportive of matric t
conversion, the vast majority were opposed. The essence of the arguments presented in opposition is that, while individuals are generally supportive of the positive effects of transition to the metric system on our Nation's position in global markets, this program is likely to result in suknrtantial costs and few, if any, benefits for carriers and shippers inv'elved in the domestic transportation industry. Further, several of the respondents
.noted that this proposal comes at a time (during a recession) when carriers can least afford such a burdensome expense.
i Several indicated that any future conversion to metric should be market driven based on customer needs and desires rather than
)
imposed by government.
United Parcel Service (UPS) notes that its primary competitor, the US Postal Service, is exempt from mandatory metric conversion. UPE states that the Postal Service wi*i not j
convert, thus placing UPS at a competitive disadvantage. The Chicago Soard of Trade states that the Commission should nt t pursue conversion in any respect regarding grain commodities until those Fedaral agencies with a more direct interest in the a
commerce of grain, such as the Department of Agriculture and the Ccamodities Futures Trading Corporation, take action. The Association of Transportation Practitioners suggests that i
conversion is not practical now given the limited current usage of metric by shippers and the present econoalc difficulties.
T Although the U.S. Treasury Department alone supported a i
mandatory conversion to a metric system, at least six other parties urged a voluntary conversion. These parties cited the ICC's current permissive rules that allow the publication of matric tariffs. Several comments supported a dual system to permit an orderly transition, while several others urged against a dual system due to the potential for confusion and duplication.
Seven respondents stressed the need for a phase-in period if metric conversf.on is adopted by the Commission. Tour respondents stated that there should be separate rulemakings for specific 2
i
i
)
l Ex Parto No. 505 issues rather than one giant rulemaking attempting to cover all aspects of metric conversion. Two parties urged the ICC to lead 1
the way by using metric data in our decisions, reports, and other i
pumlicatichs.
There was scae limited and conditioned support tot the i
conversion. The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) favors l
l conversion, but does not believe the ICC should be the agency that imposes such a significant change on the transportation j
industry: CMA recommends the perlaissive use of both the metric j
and English systems of weights and measures. The National i
Industrial Transportation Imague (NITL) also endorsed conversion, i
4 but only in cooperation with other organizations, and in an orderly and cost effective manner. NITL suggests that the j
conversion process be market driven and fully implemented by the year 2000.
DOT endorses a flexible conversion, with phase-in and separate rulemakings for each related issue. Admiral i
Transportation stated that the problem can be solved if shippers convert to metric. This would force carriers to follow their customers. While Dupont states that conversion will " level the 3
playing field" to compete globally, it states that the proposal 4
contains no benefits for domestic carr$ers and shippers, and will likely do substantial harm to them.
Dupont also raises a midcile ground by suggesting that if conversion is done, the Commission 4
i could use the American National Netric Council tariff conversion 1
tables that have been in existance for some time.
The Distilled j
Spirits Council points out that its industry uses the matric system and urges the ICC to coordinate closely with other j
agencies during the process. While ATA is not opposed to the metric system per se, it suggests that the Commission should not i
mandate a conversion because that would impose substantial and unjustifiable costs on carriers and shippers alike. Rather, it believes that the current policy of permitting voluntary use of j
metric measures is the proper approach.
i DISCUSSION AND CONCIUSIONS i
convernien to the Matrie svatam of Weiehtm and Mammurns in j
3 j
the United States was niaterica11v nean a voluntary m eans.
The movement toward use of metric weights and measures in j
the United States has been a voluntary process.
he Matric i
conversion Act of 1975, Public Law 94-168, for avample, indicated that the policy of the United States would be to coordinate and plan the use of the metric system and to establish the Metric Beard to coordinats the voluntary conversion to the metric 1
system. In the Canibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, j
Public Iaw 100-418, Congress declared metric the preferred systes of weights and measurse. Finally, the Executive Order issued in j
July of 1991, referred to the metric system as the "preferted i
system" for United States trade and commerce. Further, the executive order states that " metric usage shall not be required to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause i
significant inefficiencies or loss of markats to United states j
firms." (54 FR 35802). As discussed below, we have taken steps to allow the voluntary and permissive use of the metric systaa.
1 Trnamition to the Matrie system Ts Tntanded to Naka the j
Nation Mara r* - titive in clobal Markata.
However. Use of i
Matric fer n==mtic Surface Trananortation Will Recruire Substantial Inves*= ant with Little or No manafit.
4 As stated by the AAR, " Congress has not endorsed ultimate conversion to the metric system as an and in itself, but rather as a means to an and - enhanced competitiveness of American 4
businesses in world markets."
Respondents to the ANFR almost universally recognized the potential benefits of the metric system for internationni transactions. However, frca their j
3 4
4
Ex Parto No. 505 cessants it also appears quite clear that these benefits are not likely to accrue to the desestic surface transportation industrf er to domestic shippers.
Further, the conversion process is not without significant cost to the transportation sector. The folleving estimates were provided by respondents of the initial conversion cost and increased annual cost of using metric rather than r.nglish weights and seasures:
Carolina Freight Carriers estimates that reprogramming of computers would require 12 staff years and cost approximately $1.1 million dollars.
Schneider National indicates that a conservative estimate of its cost of conversion would be $700,000 for computer applications programs alone.
The Household Goods Carriers Bureau stated that data i
+
from selected Household Goods Carriers projected the cost of converting to metric from $1-516 million for each larger bureau carrier.
CW estimated that it would have to spend $4.65 million Jonvert computer prograns and an additional $1.3 N
ion to convert pricing information.
C j
4 Roadway Package Service suggested that it would require j
40 staff years and cost $2 million to convert its tariff library.
j UPS projected its minimum cost of converting to metric to be $155 million. This figure does not include the cost for UPS's 1.1 million daily pick-up accounts to convert its internal systems.
Based on these estimates, which we believe to be representative, the cost to surface freight transportation companies of converting to metric measures will be hundreds of millions of dollars. These costs are likely to be passed on to shippers and ultimately to the American consumer, since all modes and all firms will be equally affected.
But, since whatever action we take will not extend to private or esempt carriage, these unregulated segments may gain a competitive advantage because ICC regulated firms will incur a substantial additional cost. Finally, mandating use of the metric system will place a consequential cost burden on the shippers using regulated carriers who will have to modify or redesign accounting, rating, and inventory control systems that are linked to the transportation network as part of their overall logistics programs.
While it may be consistent with good management to incur ccets today that may result in future savings or not benefits, the recert gives no indication of short-term or long-ters savings or benefits from forced conversion of the domestic transportation industry to the metric system.
9hm -
immian man Taken semitive B**=
Toward valuntary matrie cc-.semias' -
Pur*har Action shauld be am..a en the M*=de af carriarm and thinears in maananam to Markat Fareas.
The current regulatory environment relies largely on market forces, resorting to government intervention only where there is an indication of market failure. Government mandated metric conversion is regulatory in nature and counter to the axion that in the great majority of cases markets work. There has been no demonstrated market danand for metric conversion on the part of carriers, shippers, or the general public.
4
l 4
~
Ex Parte No. 205 he Commission has taken scue positive steps in facilitatinq voluntary use of the metric systaa. In a notice served July 6, 1976, entitled Metric Cenversien of Units of Measurement, we permitted carriers to file tariffs using metric units rather than custcaary units of measure.
In addition, in 1982, we adopted a l
standard reference conversion table for metric units (Standstd i
Referente Tables for Watric Conversion of Transportatica Tariffs,
, American Metric Council) and permitted carriers or their agents to refer to this publication in converting all or a portion of their tariffs to metric.
(Special Tariff Authority No. 82-10600, t
Matric cenversion, August 12, 1982 and Special Tariff Authority No. 82-10600, Matric Cenversion, September 24, 1982).
These t
actions were intended to facilitate a voluntary conversion to metric units.
If shippers or carriers desire further such l
changes we would consider them.
1 S.a Actions of Other Asancias Within the Erneutive Branch Preamet the Necommity of C W eaien Mandated conversien There are two potential areas where the Constission could mandate conversion to a metric system. First, we could convert to metric measure in procurement, contzacting, and day-to-day J
operations and administration. In most instances, however, we must comply with directives and issuances from the General Services Administration regarding these issues. Therefore, there appears to be 11ttia need for us to develop separate policies addressing these concerns. The second area deals with the substantive regulatory responsibilities of the Commission.
Indications are that the U.S. Department of Transportation has l
initiated a very detailed and structured plan for converting to metric. To the extent that the Commission and DOT both have
)
responsibilities regarding the transportation sector, DOT i
initiatives make Commission action redundant. For all other commission areas of authority or responsibility, a voluntary j
rather than a mandated approach appears preferable. However, we will consider other, more limited proposals on a case-by-case i
basis on a showing of good cause to initiate a proceeding.
ENERGY AND ENVIRolOENTAL CONSIDERATIONS i
This action will not have a significant impact upon the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy j
resources, a
REGUIATORY FLEXIBII.ITY ANALYSIS This action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
It is ordered!
1.
Specific metric conversion proposals of carriers or shippers will be entertained on a case-by-case basis and in
}
response to a demonstrated need.
i i
2.
This proceeding is discontinued.
t 3.
This decision is effective on June 2, 1992.
4 By the Commission, Chairman Philbin, Vice Chairman Mcdonald, ccmaissioners Simmons, phillips, and Emmett.
i l.
(SEAL)
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.
Secretary 5
l 3
l l
.w
i e
l FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY CCMMISSION WASNNGTON O O 2926 JUL 2 01992 j
OFFICE OF TNE CENE A AL CCUNSEL Bradford Brown, Esq.
Chief Counsel for Technology l
Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.
I Washington, DC 20230
Dear Mr. Brown:
l of Commerce has adopted a Metric As you know, the Department Conversion Policy for Federal Agencies, implementing the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.(codified at 15 U.S.C.
l The Metric Conversion Policy, adopted January 5 205a er seg.).
2, 1991 (56 F.R. 160), requires Federal agencies to develop plans in their for the use of the metric system of measurement and other business related activities, "procurements, grants, to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to f
except cause significant inefficiencies or loss of sarkets to United 15 C.F.R. 5 1170.3.
The Policy defines States firms.
the term "other business-related activities" to mean " measurement sensitive commercial or business directed transactions or -
i.e., standard or specification development,
- programs, l
publications, or agency statements of general applicability and 7
future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the procedure or practice requirements of 15 C.F.R. 5 1170.2.
We seek guidance on whether the an agency."
phrase "other business related activities" refers only to an agency's own business-related functions (such as procurement and Federal acquisitions, grants and entitlement programs, scientific research, etc.) or whether it construction projects, extends also to an agency's regulation of the behavior of private industry.
is an The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) independent regulatory agency responsible for the licensing or certification of hydropower projects and interstate natural gas pipelines and for regulating pipeline and electric utility rates and consolidations.
Our basic mission is to protect consumers in some areas of our jurisdiction, the environment and
- and, public safety as well.
For the most part, the industries we regulate use the in their own business operations English system of measurement For and in their regulatory relationships with the Commission.
example, in the hydropower industry all applications for Commission licenses, exemptions and permits, all engineering and t
other data submitted to ensure the safety of dams and other facilities and their conformity to environmental standards are The same is true of expressed in terms of the English system.
l i
. j
)
information provided to the Commission in connection with the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines.
The statutory language and the language of the Commerce 1
Depart =ent's Policy suggest that while the metric system is the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce, the Government should encourage but not mandate its use by private industry.
("The Federal Government has a responsibility to develop procedures and techniques to assist i
industry, especially small business, as it voluntarily converts to the metric system of measurement."
15 U.S.C. 5 205a(6)
(emphasis added))
(Each agency should require " maximum practical use of =etric" where Federal procurement and activity represent a,
" predominant influence" on industry gtandards (e.c., weapons systems and space exploration), but should "strongly encourage"
=etrification where Federal procurement and activity are not the predominant influence, 15 C.F.R. I 1170.4)
This language implies that =etric conversion as a mandatory requirement is meant to apply, where practical, to an agency's own business related activities or to private sector activities "predominantly influenced" by the Government's needs (e,q.,
space exploration).
No metrification recuire=ent would seem to apply to private industry activities that are not carried out on behalf of the Govern =ent (or predominantly influenced by its needs) even if the Govern =ent regulates those private sector activities to protect consu=ers, the environ =ent or public safety.
However, since the scope of the Metric Conversion Policy remains somewhat unclear, we would appreciate written clarification whether the Commission is required to develop a i
plan to incese the metric system on the industries we regulate if the Commission determines =etrification would not be impractical.
Specifically, must the Commission come up with a plan to (a) mandate metrification in the regulated industries' own business activities and operations and (b) in their requests for com=ission authorization or in compliance and other informational filings with the Commission.
As a practical matter, requiring private industry to use the metric system in its regulatory filings with the FERC would probably compel metrification in their business operations as well.
If you need further information, please contact Michael Schopf, Associate General Counsel, Enforcement and General &
Administrative Law at 208-0457.
Thank you in advance for your help and cooperation.
Sincerely,
/
/
i l
(i v
< William S..Scherman l General C,o'unsel,
I UNIT'ED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the General Counsel l
l
%,/
Washington, D.C. 20230
(
l l
b@ I 7 l992 Date:
l l
William S.
Scherman i
General Counsel Federal Energy Regulatory Commission l
Washington, DC 20426
Dear Mr. Scherman:
In your letter dated July 20, 1992 you asked for guidance in interpreting the omnibus Trade and competitiveness Act of 1988
("the Act") codified at 15 U.S.C 205 and the Metric Conversion Policy for Federal Agencies ("the Policy") codified at 15 CFR 1150.
I have consulted with Gary Carver of the Metric Program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology regarding.this matter and he has advised me of the status of the Government's implementation of the Act and Policy.
Please see the attached memo.
f Executive Order 12770 requires that a metric transition plan be formulated for each agency.
In formulating your plan, you may wish to contact the NIST Metric Program Office at (301) 975-3690.
1 Should you have any questions or need further information, please l
feel free to call me at (202) 377-1984.
Sin 1
F radford Brown Chief Co el for Technology 1
i l
l
l
/
\\
UNITED CTATEQ DEP AATMENT D A COMME ACE
~
National Institute of Stander de and Technology 7
1
+
c.c. su;;. v.m acess
\\.%n,/
V Septem::er 15,1992 i
MEMORANDUM FOR Bradford Brown Chief Council for Tecbnclogy f! l' t
Through: Donald R. Johnson i pMw C
Director, Technology Shrece '
1 From: Gary P. Carver Technology Services
Subject:
Regulatory agency participation in the federal agency metric transition.
I am happy to provide the following information in response to your question about govemment agency metric transition policy, especially the participation of regulatory agences.
The Metric Conversion Act (as amended) and Executive Order 12770 make no specific reference to regulatory agencies or to the regulatory activities of departments and agencies. The activities cited in the Act and the Order are "procurements, grants, and other business-related activities." The Executive Order defines "other business-related activities" to include " all use of measurement units in agency programs and functions related to trade, industly, and commerce."
There is no differentiation among those business-related activities that affect the way firms and other clients interact directly with federal agencies and those activities that affect the way firms and other clients interact with each other within areas over which federal agencies have regulatory authority. Some regulatory agencies have published Federal)
Register notices of proposed rulemaking for public comment.
No federal agency has exempted its regulatory activities from the Act or the Executive Order. Regulatory and non-regulatory agencies alike have participated equally in metdc transition efforts. Both types of agencies are equal members of the Interagency Council on Metric Poney (ICMP) and of the Metrication Operating Committee (MOC). The ICMP acceptance of the Commerce Department guidelines for June 30,1992, progress reports to the Secretary of Commerce, as required by the Executive Order, is a recent example of the equal treatment of regulatory agencies and activities. The ICMP members voted to l
accept the guidelines with the stipulation that the Steering Group of the MOC modify the wording in the guidelines to more clear 1y include the metric transition activities of the regulatory agencies.
l
Ch. wumo8ED S.Como C0ssC.ESS aos== 0. OlhC.La. WicmC m Cowausaas EjU,,'5,6%^
E,55:35:;r, 5.6. Douse of Representatines
.n
-a, u en.e,
-e
~~
^=."ct:T'4 "oi.
",.o"r ".=*r =
Committee on Energy anb Commerce c"a"3.=1.-
- ="!'o='o o me m 2125. menn m.ua ema maaing E" E do.
!EN$'5*I""'
alasbington, BC 20515 6115 20=".".10 "***
"ll"M'.m L
%l"#f;"A"rt"*
='.""=?a".'
%'c'EhEu'
-November 16, 1992 M'OO Toi 2
=^,0.0",74 "
c e
E. E I "i fo"ol"m"u O s S$
l2'M. =...??..c.2.".,O" l"
?M Si
~
C-o
=a 4
CMI.P SGL E9 2:
The Honorable Martin L.
Allday 3'.6 [
I G[o $
E Chairman Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20426
Dear Mr. Chairman:
An article in the Octoler 5, 1992 edition of Inside F.E.R.C.
indicates that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as an independent regulatory agency, is considering whether it must comply with an Executive Order regarding the conversion to the metric standard of measurement or seek an exemption from the Commerce Department.
The article states:
The FERC spokesman said the commission sent a letter to the Commerce Dept. seeking clarification of just what the order required, but the response, too, needed further study and clarification.
"We are still reviewing the matter," the Ferc spokesman.said.
One source said it isn't clear yet 'whether 1) the requirement applies to Ferc; 2) if so, if it applies only to the commission's internal procedures; or 3) if it also applies to Forc's regulation of industry.
Gary Carver, the Commerce Dept. official in charge of the metric program, confirmed that Ferc has neither filed a conversion plan nor requested.an exemption.
While Forc's conversion to the metric system may not be a critical matter, "any time a federal agency is not doing what it should be doing according to its responsibility under the law and executive order, that's a concern," Carver said.
DOE and the Interior Dept. filed compliance plans, as did 32 other federal agencies.
A top Ferc official reportedly told a group of industry representatives that the commission has determined it need not comply with Bush's order
The Honorable _ Martin L. Allday Page 2 implementing the Metric Conversion Act because of its status as an independent agency.
Ferc Executive j
Director George Pratt referred questions about that i
assertion to the commission's spokesman, who said he had no knowledge of any claim to exemption as an independent agency.
Carver said that as an independent agency Fere would be entitled only to an exemption from making annual reports on its operations to Congress.
"They're a federal agency.
Look in the code," Carver said.
Last spring, a spokesman said Fere would be considering a proposal for metric conversion "in the near future" and "should be able to meet the Oct. 1 deadline for implementation" (IF, 27 April, 4).
Representatives of two major pipeline companies said i
they had never heard anything from Ferc as to how, when or whether it will require them to denominate their tariffs and pipeline operations in metric measurements.
" Frankly, we're glad they haven't done anything," a spokeswoman for one pipeline said.
"We've really got our hands full as it is, trying to comply with order 636.
But let me add that when Ferc gets around to doing this, we will comply fully."
As you know, this Committee is interested in ensuring that the Commission remain independent.
Thus, I request information about this requirement and its impact on the Commission and its functions.
What is the legal basis for applying the above requirements to an independent regulatory agency?
What is the effect of the requirement on FERC and its activities?
Why is it a problem for FERC?
l I request your reply within 30 days after receipt of this letter.
With every good wish Si
- erely, JOHN D. DINGELL CHAIRMAN Enclosure
=
The Honorable Martin L. Allday Page 3 cc:
The Honorable Norman F.
Lent, Ranking Minority Member Committee on Energy and Commerce i
The Honorable Philip R.
Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power i
i The Honorable Carlos J.
Moorhead, Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Energy and Power The Honorable Barbara H.
Franklin, Secretary Department of Commerce i
i 4
l 1
e l
l l
1
o i
s 1551DE F E.R.C. Octane 5.1992 AN EXECUTIVE ORDER REQUIRING ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES TO study" by Fere, a spokesman said, even though the deadline for comphance was Oc order signed by President Bush in July 1991, aD federal De only other option was to request an exempdon from the order's requirements t Dept., which has been delegated the task of implementing just what the order requsred,but the response, too, needed further study an
- 1) the require-l reviewing the maner," the Fere spokes nan said. One source said it isn't encer yet whe ment applies to Fere: 2) if so,if it applies only to the umbsion's imenal procedure apples to Ferc's regulation of indrJtry. Gary Carver, the Commerce Dept. o neither filed a conversion plan nor r-q"raad an exemption. While Ferc's conversion to th may not be a entical rnauer,"any time a federal agency is not doing what it responsibility under the law and executive order, that's a concern " Carver said.
~
filet compliance plans, as did 32 other federal agencies.
A top Fere offcial reportedly told a group of industry representatives that the comm mined it need not comply with Bush's order imple r cating the Metric Conversion Act beca as an tndependent agency. Ferc Execudve Director George Pratt referred quesdons abo id d t the commission's Macnan, who said he had no knowledge of any claim to exemption as an agency. Carver said that as an independent agency Fere wouldf makmg annualreports on its %
Last spring, a Wa===a said Fere would be canaderms a proposal for meanc conv futurt" and "should be able to meet the Oct. I deadlane for impicmentation" (IF,27 April,4).
tives of two major pipeline cc-. ;a; said they had never heard anythms from Fere as to ho t
whether it will require them to denominate their tardfs and pipeline %.Scrs in metric measure "Frmkly, we're glad they haven't done anythmg," a spokeswoman for one pipchn our hands full as it is, trymg to comply with order 636. But let me add that when Fe this, we willcomply fully."
a f
9
G:n:ral S:rvic s Administration L,.
l Information Resources Management Service T.45;j-g;g;~
Washington, DC 20405
,u.. n t.
II32 O I9 An ll: OF Mr. George L.
B.
Pratt Executive Director Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20426
Dear Mr. Pratt:
This is to remind you that your agency should now be using metric measures when acquiring Federal information processing (FIP)
The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (Pub.L.94-168), as resources.
amended, requires Federal agencies to use the metric system in grants, procurements, and other business-related activicies to the extent economically feasible by September 30, 1992.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 10.003 implements these statutes and places the responsibility for. establishing guidance implementing metrication policy in formulating l
requirements for acquisitions on the requiring activities.
The Federal Information Resources Management Regulation (FIRKR)
Bulletin C-31 supplements the FAR by providing guidance regarding the use of the metric system in the acquisition of FIP resources.
The designated senior official of each agency should ensure that all documents related to the acquisition of FIP resources express requirements and specifications in metric units of measurement whenever feasible.
In addition to using metrics in acquisitions, agencies should be taking steps to implement metrication in other related areas.
For example, GSA's Standard and Optional Forms Management Program is requiring that metric units of measurement be used in all standard and optional forms by June 30, 1994.
l Federg R$cyclang Prografft {
Prmted
~
-2 All requests for new forms must expra'ss measures in metric units.
Other forms will be converted to metrics as the forms are revised.
The Standard and Optional Forms Facsimile Handbook, which will be reissued in December 1992, will contain a metric conversion table that will assist forms managers in facilitating the transition to metric.
Sincerely,
~
w Fran is A. McDonough 1
l Assistant Commissioner for l
Federal Information l
Resources Management l
r
}
s
- - ~ -
I i
1 3
d CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM j
DOCUMENT PREPARATION CHECKLIST 1
j This checklist is be submitted with each document (or group of 3
Qs/As) sent for.
ing into the CCS.
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S)
V ~Ibl M
'? [L s e /
l
/
l 2.
TTPE oy DO N Correspondameen Isariagem(GS/&ab 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (NRC Only)
Non-Semeitive j
4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCOMMITTEES (if applicable) l Congressional Committee Subcommittee i
)
5.
SUBJECT CODES j
(a) i i
j (b)
J (C) l l
6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS i
{
(a) 5520 (document name (b) scan.
(c)
Atlachmente (d)
Rakey (a)
Cther 7.
SYSTER LOG DATES I
(a) 3'1k "I 3 Date OCA seat document to CCS 3
(b)
Date CCS receivees document L
I (c)
Date returned to OCA for additional information j
(d)
Data resubmitted by-OCA to CCS
~
(e)
Data entered into CCS by 4
(f)
Date OCA notified that document is in CCS a-CoxxEwTs 080041 1