Appendix B

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Grain Analyzer Sector

**August 23 - 24, 2006, Kansas City, Missouri**

### Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

[1. Report on the 2006 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings
B2](#report-on-the-2006-ncwm-interim-and-annual-meetings)

[2. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations and OCP (Phase II) Testing
B2](#report-on-ntep-type-evaluations-and-ocp-phase-ii-testing)

[3. Review of On-going Calibration Program (Phase II) Performance Data
B3](#review-of-on-going-calibration-program-phase-ii-performance-data)

[4. Proposed Change to Publication 14 -- Bias Tolerances for Test Weight
per Bushel
B3](#proposed-change-to-publication-14-bias-tolerances-for-test-weight-per-bushel)

[5. Proposed Amendment to Handbook 44 Section 5.56.(a) to Address
Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations for Multi-Class Grain Moisture
Calibrations
B7](#proposed-amendment-to-handbook-44-section-5.56.a-to-address-minimum-acceptable-abbreviations-for-multi-class-grain-moisture-calibrations)

[6. Proposed Changes to Handbook 44 and Publication 14 to Address
Multi-Class Calibrations (other than moisture) for Near Infrared Grain
Analyzers
B8](#proposed-changes-to-handbook-44-and-publication-14-to-address-multi-class-calibrations-other-than-moisture-for-near-infrared-grain-analyzers)

[(a) Proposed Changes to Section 5.57 of NIST Handbook 44:
B8](#a-proposed-changes-to-section-5.57-of-nist-handbook-44)

[(b) Proposed Changes to the NIR Grain Analyzer Chapter in the 2006
Edition of Publication 14:
B9](#b-proposed-changes-to-the-nir-grain-analyzer-chapter-in-the-2006-edition-of-publication-14)

[7. Proposed Change to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Avoid
Reducing a Previously Evaluated Approved/Pending Moisture Range Due to
Lack of Data
B13](#proposed-change-to-the-gmm-chapter-of-publication-14-to-avoid-reducing-a-previously-evaluated-approvedpending-moisture-range-due-to-lack-of-data)

[8. Proposed Changes to Handbook 44 Section 5.56.(a), Paragraph S.4. and
to the GMM Checklist of Publication 14 to Modify Operating Instruction
Requirements
B16](#proposed-changes-to-handbook-44-section-5.56.a-paragraph-s.4.-and-to-the-gmm-checklist-of-publication-14-to-modify-operating-instruction-requirements)

[9. Report on "Basis of Determination" in Official Grading Standards
B16](#report-on-basis-of-determination-in-official-grading-standards)

[10. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 IR 59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains
and Oilseeds"
B18](#report-on-oiml-tc-17sc-1-ir-59-moisture-meters-for-cereal-grains-and-oilseeds)

[11. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Protein Draft Recommendation
B18](#report-on-oiml-tc-17sc-8-protein-draft-recommendation)

[12. Report on OIML TC 5/SC 2 Document D-SW, "General Requirements for
Software Controlled Measuring Devices" and NTEP Software Sector
Activities
B18](#report-on-oiml-tc-5sc-2-document-d-sw-general-requirements-for-software-controlled-measuring-devices-and-ntep-software-sector-activities)

[13. Time and Place for Next Meeting
B19](#time-and-place-for-next-meeting)

[14. Encouraging Participation by State Weights and Measures Personnel
B19](#encouraging-participation-by-state-weights-and-measures-personnel)

[15. Questions Regarding NIR Calibration for Enhanced Nutrient Corn
B19](#questions-regarding-nir-calibration-for-enhanced-nutrient-corn)

# 

**Details of All Items**

(In Order by Reference Key Number)

# 

# Report on the 2006 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings

The 91^st^ Interim Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and
Measures (NCWM) was held January 22 ‑ 25, 2006, in Jacksonville,
Florida. Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, reported that the NTEP Committee
accepted the Sector\'s recommended amendments and changes to the 2005
edition of the Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) chapter of Publication 14.
These changes appear in the 2006 edition. For additional background,
refer to *Committee Reports for the 91^st^ Annual Meeting,* NCWM
Publication 16, April 2006.

+----------------------+---------------------+------+-----------------+
| **Amendments and     |                     |      |                 |
| Changes to the 2005  |                     |      |                 |
| Edition**            |                     |      |                 |
|                      |                     |      |                 |
| **of the Grain       |                     |      |                 |
| Moisture Meter       |                     |      |                 |
| Chapter of           |                     |      |                 |
| Publication 14**     |                     |      |                 |
+----------------------+---------------------+------+-----------------+
| **Section Number**   | *                   | **Pa | **Source**      |
|                      | *Amendment/Change** | ge** |                 |
+----------------------+---------------------+------+-----------------+
| Section IV.          | Correct language    | G    | 08/05 GMM       |
| Tolerances for       |                     | MM-7 | Sector Item 8   |
| Calibration          |                     |      |                 |
| Performance          |                     |      |                 |
+----------------------+---------------------+------+-----------------+
| Section V. Criteria  | Add language for    | G    | 08/05 GMM       |
| for NTEP Moisture    | Multi-Class         | MM-9 | Sector Item 8   |
| Calibration Review   | Calibration in      |      |                 |
|                      | Case VIII           |      |                 |
+----------------------+---------------------+------+-----------------+
| Appendix D. Sample   | Correct table       | GM   | 08/05 GMM       |
| Temperature          |                     | M-44 | Sector Item 9   |
| Sensitivity          |                     |      |                 |
+----------------------+---------------------+------+-----------------+

The 91^st^ Annual Meeting of the NCWM was held July 9 ‑ 13, 2006, in
Chicago, Illinois. No Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) or Near Infrared (NIR)
Grain Analyzer items were presented for consideration by the NCWM at the
2006 Annual Meeting.

Steve Patoray reported that the Board of Directors, on behalf of NCWM,
Inc., had signed a Declaration of Mutual Confidence (DoMC) with the
International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) as a "utilizing
participant" for OIML R 60 (Load Cells). He explained that a DoMC is an
agreement, signed by various bodies in charge of legal metrology
activities in different countries, by which a signing country declares
it will voluntarily accept test results of type evaluations conducted
according to the OIML Recommendations for a specific category of
instruments. A "utilizing participant" accepts OIML Evaluation Reports
validated by OIML Certificates but does not issue any OIML Test Reports
or OIML Certificates under the DoMC. While this specific action does not
directly affect grain analyzers, Mr. Patoray pointed out it does show
why the harmonization of International Standards (OIML) and U.S.
Standards (NIST Handbook 44 and NCWM Publication 14) is increasingly
important. Instrument manufacturers may eventually be able to facilitate
the type approval of their instruments in various countries, using the
"one-stop testing" concept.

# Report on NTEP Type Evaluations and OCP (Phase II) Testing

Number range CHAPTERCathy Brenner of the Grain Inspection, Packers, and
Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), the NTEP participating laboratory for
grain analyzers, reported on NTEP type evaluation activity. In addition
to regular grain moisture meter calibration updates, evaluations are
currently underway for two additional devices: one for test weight per
bushel (an add-on to a currently approved grain moisture meter); and one
for a new grain moisture meter. She also reported that the following
device types would be enrolled in the OCP (Phase II) for the 2006
harvest:

\[Note: Models listed on a single line are considered to be of the same
"type".\]

DICKEY-john Corporation GAC2000, GAC2100, GAC2100a, GAC2100b

DICKEY-john Corporation OmegAnalyzer G

Foss North America Infratec 1241

Foss North America Infratec 1227, Infratec 1229

Seedburo Equipment Company 1200A

The Steinlite Corporation SL95

Ms. Brenner noted that there are now six devices, and the cost to
manufacturers for Phase II has increased from \$ 5,300 to \$ 7,730 per
meter type.

+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
| **NTEP |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| On     |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| -Going |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| Calib  |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| ration |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| P      |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| rogram |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| Fee    |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| Sche   |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| dule** |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
|        |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| **For  |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| Fiscal |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| Years  |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| 2005-  |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| 2009** |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
| *      | **(  | **    | **    | **Fu  |       |             |       |
| *(1)** | 2)** | (3)** | (4)** | nding |       |             |       |
|        |      |       |       | Co    |       |             |       |
| *      | **Me | *     | **    | ntrib |       |             |       |
| *Total | ters | *Cost | Total | ution |       |             |       |
| Me     | in   | per   | Pr    | from  |       |             |       |
| ters** | NTEP | NTEP  | ogram | Part  |       |             |       |
|        | Po   | Pool  | C     | icipa |       |             |       |
| **(inc | ol** | Me    | ost** | nts** |       |             |       |
| luding |      | ter** |       |       |       |             |       |
| of     |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| ficial |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| me     |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
| ter)** |      |       |       |       |       |             |       |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
|        |      |       |       | **    | **    | **(7)**     | **    |
|        |      |       |       | (5)** | (6)** |             | (8)** |
|        |      |       |       |       |       | **Manu      |       |
|        |      |       |       | **N   | **GI  | facturers** | *     |
|        |      |       |       | IST** | PSA** |             | *Cost |
|        |      |       |       |       |       | **(total    | per   |
|        |      |       |       |       |       | funding     | Meter |
|        |      |       |       |       |       | from        | T     |
|        |      |       |       |       |       | mfg\'s)**   | ype** |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
| 2      | 1    | \$    | \$    | \$    | \$    | \$ 6,625    | \$    |
|        |      | 1     | 1     | 6,625 | 6,625 |             | 3,315 |
|        |      | 9,875 | 9,875 |       |       |             |       |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
| 3      | 2    | 1     | 3     | 1     | 1     | 13,250      | 4,415 |
|        |      | 9,875 | 9,750 | 3,250 | 3,250 |             |       |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
| 4      | 3    | 1     | 5     | 1     | 1     | 19,875      | 4,970 |
|        |      | 9,875 | 9,625 | 9,875 | 9,875 |             |       |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
| 5      | 4    | 1     | 7     | 2     | 2     | 26,500      | 5,300 |
|        |      | 9,875 | 9,500 | 6,500 | 6,500 |             |       |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
| 6      | 5    | 1     | 9     | 2     | 2     | 46,375      | 7,730 |
|        |      | 9,875 | 9,375 | 6,500 | 6,500 |             |       |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
| 7      | 6    | 1     | 11    | 2     | 2     | 66,250      | 9,465 |
|        |      | 9,875 | 9,250 | 6,500 | 6,500 |             |       |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
| 8      | 7    | 1     | 13    | 2     | 2     | 86,125      | 1     |
|        |      | 9,875 | 9,125 | 6,500 | 6,500 |             | 0,765 |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+
| 9      | 8    | 1     | 15    | 2     | 2     | 106,000     | 1     |
|        |      | 9,875 | 9,000 | 6,500 | 6,500 |             | 1,775 |
+--------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------+-------+

# Review of On-going Calibration Program (Phase II) Performance Data

At their August 2005 meeting, the Sector agreed that comparative OCP
performance data identifying the Official Meter and listing the average
bias for each NTEP meter type should be available for annual review by
the Sector. Accordingly, Cathy Brenner, representing GIPSA, the NTEP
participating laboratory for grain analyzers, presented data showing the
performance of NTEP meters compared to the air oven. These data were
based on the last 3 crop years (2003 ‑ 2005) using calibrations updated
for use during the 2006 harvest season. Noting that the X‑axis for Durum
Wheat covered a range of 8 % to 18 % moisture although no samples had
been received in the 16 % to 18 % interval, Ms. Brenner explained that
the moisture intervals (ranges) shown for each grain are the same as
those listed on GIPSA Program Directive 9180.61 for the Official Meter.
Using a fixed X‑axis for individual grain types makes it easier to make
meaningful visual comparisons in the results for successive 3‑year
periods.

In response to a question of why the "sustained bias" rule hadn\'t been
applied to the Official Meter\'s calibration for corn, Dr. Richard
Pierce, GIPSA, explained that as long as the meters are within the
allowed tolerance for "sustained bias" there is no requirement to change
the calibration.

The Sector acknowledged the effort that had gone into the compilation
and presentation of the comparative performance data and thanked Cathy
Brenner for a job well done.

# 

# Proposed Change to Publication 14 -- Bias Tolerances for Test Weight per Bushel

**Background:** This is a carry-over item from the Sector\'s August 2005
meeting; see the summary of that meeting for additional information.

The Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Chapter of Publication 14 calls for
testing the automatic test weight per bushel (TW) measuring feature of
GMMs for accuracy, repeatability (precision), and reproducibility using
12 selected samples of each grain type (for which the meter has a
pending or higher moisture calibration). The two tests for accuracy
between the meter and the standard reference method are bias (meter
versus the standard reference method) and the standard deviation of the
differences (SDD). Publication 14 states that, "The manufacturer may
adjust the calibration bias to compensate for differences from the type
evaluation laboratory in reference methods or sample sets."

Recent NTEP tests revealed that the results of the bias test, which uses
only 12 selected samples, are sample set dependent. Because of this, the
NTEP Lab did not list specific bias terms for each grain type on the
Certificate of Conformance (CC) for instruments recently evaluated for
test weight (TW). Instead, the CC simply indicated that the meter is
approved for test weight per bushel measurements for each grain type
verified for test weight.

NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters Code,
stipulates:

> **S.2.4.3. Calibration Transfer** - *The instrument hardware/software
> design and calibration procedures shall permit calibration development
> and the transfer of calibrations between instruments of like models
> without requiring user slope or bias adjustments.*

This requirement applies to both moisture and TW calibrations. In
devices where grain-dependent TW calibration coefficients are imbedded
in the CC listing of grain moisture calibration coefficients, there is
no problem. Any change in coefficients affecting TW will require a
change in the moisture calibration and an amendment to the CC. The
concern is with devices that do not treat grain-dependent TW
coefficients as part of the moisture calibration. In that case, unless
TW coefficients are listed on the CC, there is no way for field
inspectors to know if the most recent adjustment coefficients are being
used for test weight. The Sector agreed that if TW calibration
coefficients are not part of the moisture calibration coefficients then
they must be listed on the CC.

The Sector was in general agreement that TW data from the On-going
Calibration Program (OCP), (Phase II, was the best measure of how
closely a meter is biased to the standard quart kettle method. In
response to a question of whether or not Phase II TW data for corn for
the entire moisture range or for a restricted (and lower) moisture range
should be used, Dr. Pierce replied that TW data above 20 % moisture
would not be used.

At its August 2005 meeting, the Sector agreed that the Grain Moisture
Meter chapter of Publication 14 should be amended using the following
guidelines:

1.  The bias test for TW accuracy will be retained.

2.  Data from the Phase II On-going Calibration Review Program may be
    used at the manufacturer\'s discretion to support a grain-specific
    TW bias-adjustment change in a TW calibration. TW data for corn will
    be limited to samples with oven moistures not exceeding 20 %.

3.  A new Phase I evaluation is NOT required for a grain-specific TW
    bias-adjustment change in a TW calibration supported by Phase II
    data.

4.  Any change in a grain-specific TW calibration must be reflected on
    the CC in a manner obvious to field inspectors.

5.  The bias results for TW accuracy for each of the two instruments of
    like-type submitted for evaluation must agree with each other by the
    same tolerance that they must agree with the reference method.

The Sector\'s co-technical advisor, Mr. Jack Barber, was directed to
draft proposed wording for the amendment for consideration by the Sector
at its August 2006 meeting.

**Discussion:** The Sector reviewed the proposed amendments to
Section VII of Publication 14 to address criteria for TW calibration,
which was provided in the 2006 meeting agenda. Cathy Brenner,
representing GIPSA, the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Grain
Analyzers, reported that based on historical data, meters passing the
existing Phase I Test Weight per Bushel (TW) test for bias also passed
the proposed test for ∆ bias (see guideline 5, above). Furthermore, the
majority of the times a meter failed the existing test for TW Bias they
passed the test for ∆ bias. The few times when a meter also failed the
proposed ∆ bias test, there was a problem with one of the instruments.
The Sector concluded that the proposed test for ∆ bias was both
redundant and ineffective. Portions of the proposed amendment related to
∆ bias were deleted.

One sector member questioned if it was really possible to identify how a
meter was configured to measure TW or if there was an identifiable TW
calibration on a meter. Mr. Barber explained that the steps involved in
arriving at a TW value include: 1) measuring the weight of the grain in
the meter\'s test cell (or separate test "cup"); and 2) converting the
measured weight into an equivalent pounds per bushel figure assuming
that the test cell volume is constant. Unfortunately, the conversion
step is grain specific. The packing density of grain is influenced by
the size and shape of the kernels of grain; by the size and shape of the
test cell; by the surface condition of the grain; by the distance the
grain drops as it loads into the cell; and by the size of the sample
being dropped. Additionally, the effective volume of grain being weighed
will vary by grain type due to the way the device "strikes off" or
removes excess grain from the top of the test cell. As a result, meters
use empirically determined grain-specific constants to convert the
measured weight into pounds per bushel. The constant is typically a
"slope" term in the TW calibration. An additional grain-specific
constant, a "bias" or "intercept" term, is sometimes used to provide a
"best fit" over the range of available samples.

Answering manufacturer\'s questions concerning how to handle
device-specific adjustments/parameters that were also grain specific,
the co-technical advisor, Diane Lee, cited the following paragraphs from
Section 5.56.(a) of NIST Handbook 44, noting that the code
differentiates between "grain calibrations" (typically the grain
specific constants that are identical for all devices of like type) and
"standardization adjustments" (the device specific adjustments or
software parameters that make all devices of like type respond
identically to the grain being measured when using the same
calibrations.)

> **S.2.4. Calibration Integrity**
>
> **S.2.4.1. Calibration Version.** - A meter must be capable of
> displaying either calibration constants, a unique calibration name, or
> a unique calibration version number for use in verifying that the
> latest version of the calibration is being used to make moisture
> content and test weight per bushel determinations.
>
> (Added 1993) (Amended 1995 and 2003)
>
> **S.2.4.2. Calibration Corruption.** - If calibration constants are
> digitally stored in an electronically alterable form, the meter shall
> be designed to make automatic checks to detect corruption of
> calibration constants. An error message must be displayed if
> calibration constants have been electronically altered.
>
> (Added 1993) (Amended 1995)
>
> ***S.2.4.3. Calibration Transfer. **- The instrument hardware/software
> design and calibration procedures shall permit calibration development
> and the transfer of calibrations between instruments of like models
> without requiring user slope or bias adjustments.*
>
> *\[**Note**: Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer\'s designated
> service agency may make standardization adjustments on moisture
> meters. This does not preclude the possibility of the operator
> installing manufacturer-specified calibration constants under the
> instructions of the manufacturer or its designated service agency.\]
> Standardization adjustments (not to be confused with grain
> calibrations) are those physical adjustments or software parameters
> which make meters of like type respond identically to the grain(s)
> being measured.*
>
> *\[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1999\]*
>
> (Added 1994) (Amended 1998)

The Sector engaged in a lengthy discussion. One faction was of the
opinion that the Type Evaluation for TW (Phase I) was a one-time
evaluation and should not be extended into Phase II with a required
annual report. They suggested that manufacturers be permitted to make TW
calibration changes at their own discretion supported by existing
Phase II or manufacturer-supplied data. Field-testing of TW could be
used to determine if individual devices were in compliance. The opposing
faction was equally firm in believing if it was important enough for a
manufacturer to change a TW calibration, it was important enough to set
tolerance limits for performance based on the largest set of data
available and to ensure that it could be verified in the field that the
calibration changes have been made to all devices of like type in use.

An attempt was made to find a common ground between these two positions.
The compromise proposal eliminated performance tolerances but retained
the following paragraphs:

> Test-weight-per-bushel data from Phase II may be used at the
> manufacturer\'s discretion to support a grain-specific bias adjustment
> change in a test weight per bushel calibration. A repeat of the basic
> instrument tests and the accuracy, precision, and reproducibility
> tests cited previously is not required for a grain-specific
> bias-adjustment change in a test weight per bushel calibration
> supported by Phase II data.
>
> Any change in a grain-specific test-weight-per-bushel calibration
> (including changes in grain-specific bias adjustments) must be
> reflected on the CC in a manner obvious to field inspection personnel.

Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, pointed out that as far as NTEP
Publication 14 was concerned, Phase II TW data doesn\'t exist.
\[Editor\'s note: The TW data currently being supplied to manufacturers
along with Phase II moisture results are being collected by GIPSA as an
internal matter and are being provided to manufacturers as a courtesy.\]
Consequently, the compromise proposal cannot refer to
"Test-weight-per-bushel data from Phase II." With that revelation the
Sector agreed by consensus to the original proposal modified only by
reducing the tolerances of paragraph III.C.b. to 0.40 for corn and oats;
0.25 for wheat; and 0.35 for all other grains.

It was suggested that CCs include a note telling field inspectors how to
determine if the most recent TW calibration had been installed. For
example, should the inspector be looking for a specific calibration
identifier, or were TW calibration coefficients embedded in the listed
moisture calibration coefficients?

**Recommendation**: Amend Section** **VII.  Additional Type Evaluation
Test Procedures and Tolerances for Grain Moisture Meters Incorporating
an Automatic Test Weight per Bushel Measuring Feature of the 2006
edition of the GMM chapter of NCWM Publication 14 as follows, to define
calibration performance requirements on the basis of data collected as
part of the on-going national moisture calibration program.

> **VII. Additional Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances for
> Grain Moisture Meters Incorporating an Automatic Test Weight per
> Bushel Measuring Feature**
>
> **A. Basic Instrument Tests:**
>
> **B. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility**
>
> **C. Tolerances for Test Weight per Bushel Calibration Performance**:
>
> In addition to the Basic Instrument Tests and the Accuracy, Precision,
> and Reproducibility Tests cited previously, test weight per bushel
> calibration performance will be monitored using test weight per bushel
> data collected as part of the on-going national moisture calibration
> program (Phase II). Evaluation of test weight per bushel performance
> for corn will be limited to data collected on samples with moisture
> content not exceeding 20 % as determined by the USDA air-oven
> reference method.
>
> For up to 3 years of available test weight per bushel data:
>
> a\. The difference between the average bias to quart kettle for all
> samples in a given year and the average bias to quart kettle for any
> other year shall not exceed 0.80 for corn and oats; 0.50 for wheat;
> and 0.70 for all other grains.
>
> b\. The average calibration bias with respect to quart kettle shall
> not exceed 0.40 for corn and oats; 0.25 for wheat; and 0.35 for all
> other grains calculated using the most recent calibration and all
> available raw data collected within the last 3 years for the entire
> moisture range (data for corn samples above 20 % moisture will be
> excluded.)
>
> Failure to meet the requirements in either item a. or b. above will
> cause removal of test weight per bushel approval status for the
> affected grain type(s) on the NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) for
> that instrument.
>
> Test weight per bushel data from Phase II may be used at the
> manufacturer\'s discretion to support a grain-specific bias adjustment
> change in a test weight per bushel calibration. A repeat of the
> [b]{.underline}asic [i]{.underline}nstrument [t]{.underline}ests and
> the [a]{.underline}ccuracy, [p]{.underline}recision, and
> [r]{.underline}eproducibility [t]{.underline}ests cited previously is
> not required for a grain-specific bias-adjustment change in a test
> weight per bushel calibration supported by Phase II data.
>
> Any change in a grain-specific test weight per bushel calibration
> (including changes in grain-specific bias adjustments) must be
> reflected on the CC in a manner obvious to field inspection personnel.

# Proposed Amendment to Handbook 44 Section 5.56.(a) to Address Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations for Multi-Class Grain Moisture Calibrations

**Discussion:** **NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.56.(a)**
**paragraph S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection and
Recording** requires that, "The means to select the kind and class of
grain or seed shall be readily visible and the kind and class of grain
or seed selected shall be clearly and definitely identified." The GMM
chapter of NCWM Publication 14 was recently amended to allow multi-class
moisture calibrations. A multi-class grain calibration that includes all
the NTEP classes of that grain type (e.g., two-rowed barley and
six-rowed barley) can clearly and definitely be identified by a single
type name (e.g., barley). Similarly, both long grain and medium grain
rough rice could be identified unambiguously as "rough rice". However, a
multi-class grain calibration that does not include all of the NTEP
classes of a grain type may not be clearly and definitely identified
using a single grain type name (e.g., wheat). For example, a calibration
for "all wheat except durum" cannot be labeled "wheat" because the grain
type "wheat" does not include "durum wheat." The acceptable
abbreviations (and grain names) in Table S.1.2. of Handbook 44 do not
address the groupings and the names that might be used for selecting and
recording multi-class calibrations.

**Conclusions and Recommendation:** The Sector decided that the
originally suggested multi-class groups (soft wheat, hard wheat, red
wheat, and white wheat) were thought to be confusing and subject to
potential misuse. Only the following multi-class groups should be
considered for type evaluation:

> All-class Wheat
>
> Wheat excluding Durum
>
> All-class Barley
>
> All-class Rough Rice

A poll of manufacturers present at the meeting revealed that increasing
the four-character display requirement of paragraph S.1.2. to eight
characters would not be a problem with instruments in current
production; therefore, up to eight characters could be used for
multi-class group abbreviations. The Sector decided that the sentence
specifying the display capacity was not needed because the necessary
display capacity was obvious from the number of characters in the
longest minimum acceptable abbreviation listed in Table S.1.2.

The Sector agreed that the above multi-class groups should be added to
Table S.1.2. and that paragraph S.1.2. should be modified as necessary
to accommodate multi-class grain moisture calibrations.

The Sector agreed to recommend the following modifications to
paragraph S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection and Recording
and Table S.1.2. of Section 5.56.(a) of NIST Handbook 44 to include
minimum acceptable abbreviations for multi-class grain moisture
calibrations.

> **S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection and Recording.** --
> Provision shall be made for selecting and recording the kind and class
> *or multi-class group* (as appropriate) of grain or seed to be
> measured. The means to select the kind and class *or multi-class
> group* of grain or seed shall be readily visible and the kind and
> class *or multi-class group* of grain or seed selected shall be
> clearly and definitely identified. Abbreviations for grain types *and
> multi-class groups* indicated on the meter must meet the minimum
> acceptable abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2.~~Meters shall have the
> capability (i.e., display capacity) of indicating the grain type using
> a minimum of four characters in order to accommodate the
> four-character abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2.~~
>
> (Amended 1993, ~~and~~1995, and 2008)

+--------------------+------------+--------------------+--------------+
| ***Table S.1.2.    |            |                    |              |
| Grain Types and    |            |                    |              |
| Multi-[            |            |                    |              |
| C]{.underline}lass |            |                    |              |
| Groups Considered  |            |                    |              |
| for Type           |            |                    |              |
| Evaluation and     |            |                    |              |
| Calibration***     |            |                    |              |
|                    |            |                    |              |
| ***and Their       |            |                    |              |
| Minimum Acceptable |            |                    |              |
| Abbreviations***   |            |                    |              |
+--------------------+------------+--------------------+--------------+
| ***Grain Type***   | ***Minimum | #### *Grain Type*  | ***Minimum   |
|                    | Acceptable |                    | Acceptable   |
|                    | Abbre      |                    | Abb          |
|                    | viation*** |                    | reviation*** |
+--------------------+------------+--------------------+--------------+
| *Corn*             | *CORN*     | *Soybeans*         | *SOYB*       |
+--------------------+------------+--------------------+--------------+
| *Durum Wheat*      | *DURW*     | *Two-rowed Barley* | *TRB*        |
|                    |            |                    |              |
| *Soft White Wheat* | *SWW*      | *Six-rowed Barley* | *SRB*        |
|                    |            |                    |              |
| *Hard Red Spring   | *HRSW*     | *All-class         | *BARLEY*     |
| Wheat*             |            | Barley\**          |              |
|                    | *HRWW*     |                    |              |
| *Hard Red Winter   |            |                    |              |
| Wheat*             | *SRWW*     |                    |              |
|                    |            |                    |              |
| *Soft Red Winter   | *HDWW*     |                    |              |
| Wheat*             |            |                    |              |
|                    | *WHEAT*    |                    |              |
| *Hard White Wheat* |            |                    |              |
|                    | *WHTEXDUR* |                    |              |
| *All-[             |            |                    |              |
| C]{.underline}lass |            |                    |              |
| Wheat\**           |            |                    |              |
|                    |            |                    |              |
| *Wheat excluding   |            |                    |              |
| Durum\**           |            |                    |              |
+--------------------+------------+--------------------+--------------+
|                    |            | *Oats*             | *OATS*       |
+--------------------+------------+--------------------+--------------+
| *Sunflower seed    | *SUNF*     | *Long Grain Rough  | *LGRR*       |
| (Oil)*             |            | Rice*              |              |
|                    |            |                    | *MGRR*       |
|                    |            | *Medium Grain      |              |
|                    |            | Rough Rice*        | *RGHRICE*    |
|                    |            |                    |              |
|                    |            | *All-class Rough   |              |
|                    |            | Rice\**            |              |
+--------------------+------------+--------------------+--------------+
| *Grain Sorghum*    | *SORG      | *Small oil seeds   |              |
|                    | [or]{.u    | (under             |              |
|                    | nderline}* | consideration)*    |              |
|                    |            |                    |              |
|                    | *MILO*     |                    |              |
+--------------------+------------+--------------------+--------------+
| \[Note: Grain      |            |                    |              |
| Types marked with  |            |                    |              |
| an asterisk (\*)   |            |                    |              |
| are "Multi-class   |            |                    |              |
| Calibrations"\]    |            |                    |              |
|                    |            |                    |              |
| *\[Nonretroactive  |            |                    |              |
| as of January 1,   |            |                    |              |
| 1998\]*            |            |                    |              |
|                    |            |                    |              |
| (Table Added 1993) |            |                    |              |
| (Amended 1995,     |            |                    |              |
| ~~and~~1998, 2008) |            |                    |              |
+--------------------+------------+--------------------+--------------+

\[Editors Note: In preparing this item for the NCWM S&T review it was
determined that the term "Multi-class" is not a widely used term. The
Sector may want to consider developing a definition for multi-class
calibrations.\]

# Proposed Changes to Handbook 44 and Publication 14 to Address Multi-Class Calibrations (other than moisture) for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers

**Background:**  The GMM chapter of NCWM Publication 14 was recently
amended to allow multi-class moisture calibrations. In conjunction with
agenda Item 5, the Sector recommends modifications to the GMM Code of
Handbook 44 to specify allowed multi-class groupings when user selection
of a multi-class group is performed using the group name or an
abbreviation of the name. The NIR Grain Analyzer program allows for
either individual-class calibrations or "all-class" calibrations for
constituents other than moisture, but does not have any provisions for
multi-class calibrations for those constituents.

**Conclusions/Recommendation:** The Sector agreed that modifications
should be made to the NIR Grain Analyzer Code of Handbook 44 and the
corresponding sections of Publication 14 to correspond with changes
recommended in agenda Item 5 in order to cover multi-class moisture
calibrations.

The Sector recommends the following modifications to item (a) below in
paragraph S.1.2.** ***Selecting and Recording Grain Class and
Constituent* and Table S.1.2. of Section 5.57 of NIST Handbook 44, and
to item (b) to amend Section III. Accuracy, Precision, and
Reproducibility Requirements in the 2005 edition of the GMM chapter of
NCWM Publication 14 to add criteria applicable to "multi-class"
calibrations. Proposed additions and changes are shown below:

## (a) Proposed Changes to Section 5.57 of NIST Handbook 44:

> ***S.1.2. Selecting and Recording Grain Class and Constituent. -**
> Provision shall be made for selecting and recording the type or class
> of grain and the constituent(s) to be measured. The means to select
> the grain type or class and the constituent(s) shall be readily
> visible and the type or class of grain and the constituent(s) selected
> shall be clearly and definitely identified in letters (such as HRWW,
> HRSW, WHEAT etc. or PROT, etc.). A symbol to identify the display of
> the type or class of grain and constituent(s) selected is permitted
> provided it is clearly defined adjacent to the display. Minimum
> acceptable abbreviations are listed in Table S.1.2.~~Meters shall have
> the capability (i.e., display capacity) of indicating the grain type
> using a minimum of four characters in order to accommodate the
> abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2.~~*
>
> *\[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003\]*
>
> *If more than one calibration is included for a given grain type, the
> calibrations must be clearly distinguished from one another.*
>
> *\[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004\]*

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > ***Table S.1.2. Grain Types     |                                   |
| > Considered for Type Evaluation  |                                   |
| > and Calibration***              |                                   |
| >                                 |                                   |
| > ***and Minimum Acceptable       |                                   |
| > Abbreviations***                |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***Grain Type***                  | ***Minimum Acceptable             |
|                                   | Abbreviation***                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > *Durum Wheat*                   | > *DURW*                          |
| >                                 | >                                 |
| > *Hard Red Spring Wheat*         | > *HRSW*                          |
| >                                 | >                                 |
| > *Hard Red Winter Wheat*         | > *HRWW*                          |
| >                                 | >                                 |
| > *Hard White Wheat*              | > *HDWW*                          |
| >                                 | >                                 |
| > *Soft Red Winter Wheat*         | > *SRWW*                          |
| >                                 | >                                 |
| > *Soft White Wheat*              | > *SWW*                           |
| >                                 | >                                 |
| > *All-[C]{.underline}lass        | > *WHEAT*                         |
| > Wheat\**                        | >                                 |
| >                                 | > *WHTEXDUR*                      |
| > *Wheat excluding Durum\**       | >                                 |
| >                                 | > *SOYB*                          |
| > *Soybeans*                      | >                                 |
| >                                 | > *TRB*                           |
| > *Two-rowed Barley*              | >                                 |
| >                                 | > *SRB*                           |
| > *Six-rowed Barley*              | >                                 |
| >                                 | > *BARLEY*                        |
| > *All-[C]{.underline}lass        | >                                 |
| > Barley\**                       | > *CORN*                          |
| >                                 |                                   |
| > *Corn*                          |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| \[Note: Grain Types marked with   |                                   |
| an asterisk (\*) are "Multi-class |                                   |
| Calibrations"\]                   |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| *\[Nonretroactive as of January   |                                   |
| 1, 2003\]*                        |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| (Table Amended 2001 and 2008)     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

> (Amended 2003 and 2008)

## (b) Proposed Changes to the NIR Grain Analyzer Chapter in the 2006 Edition of Publication 14:

# 

> III\. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Requirements
>
> Grain analyzers will be tested for accuracy, repeatability
> (precision), and reproducibility over the applicable constituent
> concentration ranges shown in Table 1. Instrument and calibration
> performance will be individually tested for each grain type and
> constituent.

+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| > Table 1.          |            |                |        |        |
| > Constituent       |            |                |        |        |
| > Ranges for Type   |            |                |        |        |
| > Evaluation        |            |                |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Grain Type          | C          | Constituent    | Low    | High   |
|                     | onstituent | Range (%) at   | Mo     | Mo     |
|                     |            | Moisture Basis | isture | isture |
|                     |            | (M.B.) Shown   | Range  | Range  |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Durum Wheat         | Protein    | 10 to 18 at    | 10 % - | 13 % - |
|                     |            | 12 % M.B.      | 12 %   | 15 %   |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Hard Red Spring     | Protein    | 10 to 19 at    |        |        |
| Wheat               |            | 12 % M.B.      |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Hard Red Winter     | Protein    | 8 to 18 at     |        |        |
| Wheat               |            | 12 % M.B.      |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Hard White Wheat    | Protein    | 9 to 16 at     |        |        |
|                     |            | 12 % M.B.      |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Soft Red Winter     | Protein    | 9 to 12 at     |        |        |
| Wheat               |            | 12 % M.B.      |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Soft White Wheat    | Protein    | 8 to 15 at     |        |        |
|                     |            | 12 % M.B.      |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| "All Class" Wheat   | Protein    | 8 to 19 at     |        |        |
| Calibration\*       |            | 12 % M.B.      |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Wheat Excluding     | Protein    | 8 to 19 at     |        |        |
| Durum\*             |            | 12 % M.B.      |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Two-rowed Barley    | Protein    | 8 to 17 at 0 % | 10 % - | 13 % - |
|                     |            | M.B.           | 12 %   | 15 %   |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Six-rowed Barley    | Protein    | 8 to 17 at 0 % |        |        |
|                     |            | M.B.           |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| "All Class" Barley  | Protein    | 8 to 17 at 0 % |        |        |
| Calibration\*       |            | M.B.           |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Corn                | Protein    | 8 to 12 at 0 % | 11 % - | 14 % - |
|                     |            | M.B.           | 13 %   | 16 %   |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
|                     | Oil        | 3 to 9 at 0 %  |        |        |
|                     |            | M.B.           |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
|                     | Starch     | 67 to 73 at    |        |        |
|                     |            | 0 % M.B        |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| Soybeans            | Protein    | 30 to 40 at    | 10 % - | 13 % - |
|                     |            | 13 % M.B.      | 12 %   | 15 %   |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+
|                     | Oil        | 16 to 21 at    |        |        |
|                     |            | 13 % M.B.      |        |        |
+---------------------+------------+----------------+--------+--------+

\[Note: Calibrations marked with an asterisk (\*) are "Multi-class
calibrations.\]

  ----------------- ------------- ------------- ----------- --------------- -----------------
  Table 2.                                                                  
  Tolerances                                                                

  Grain Type        Constituent   Sample        Accuracy    Repeatability   Reproducibility
                                  Temperature   Tolerance   Tolerance       Tolerance
                                  Sensitivity                               
                                  Test                                      
                                  Tolerance                                 

  Durum Wheat       Protein       ± 0.35        0.30        0.15            0.20

  Hard Red Spring   Protein                                                 
  Wheat                                                                     

  Hard Red Winter   Protein                                                 
  Wheat                                                                     

  Hard White Wheat  Protein                                                 

  Soft Red Winter   Protein                                                 
  Wheat                                                                     

  Soft White Wheat  Protein                                                 

  "All Class" Wheat Protein                                                 
  Calibration\*                                                             

  Wheat Excluding   Protein                                                 
  Durum\*                                                                   

  Two-rowed Barley  Protein       ± 0.45        0.40        0.20            0.25

  Six-rowed Barley  Protein                                                 

  "All Class"       Protein                                                 
  Barley                                                                    
  Calibration\*                                                             

  Corn              Protein       ± 0.45        0.50        0.25            0.30

                    Oil           ± 0.45        0.50        0.20            0.25

                    Starch        ± 0.45        1.0         0.30            0.35

  Soybeans          Protein       ± 0.45        0.55        0.25            0.30

                    Oil           ± 0.45        0.45        0.20            0.25
  ----------------- ------------- ------------- ----------- --------------- -----------------

\[Note: Calibrations marked with an asterisk (\*) are "Multi-class
calibrations.\]

Two instruments will be tested using test sets consisting of no less
than 50 samples for each grain type to be used on the instrument
submitted for type approval. (Note: In cases where grain types have
multiple constituent calibrations, more than 50 samples may be required
to satisfy the range requirements for each constituent associated with
that grain type.) The sample set will be screened using the GIPSA
official instrument model and reference method. Samples where the
official instrument model disagrees from the reference method by more
than the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance will be deleted and another
sample will be selected to replace it. No sample set will be used where
the standard deviation of the differences between the GIPSA official
instrument model and the reference method exceeds one-half the
Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance applied to individual samples. Finally,
any sample result not within three standard deviations of the mean for
the test instrument will be dropped before analysis of the data.

Three replicates will be run on each instrument for each sample,
resulting in a minimum of 300 observations per constituent calibration
(2 instruments x 50 samples \[minimum\] x 3 replicates).

**Accuracy.** The first replicate for each sample will be used to
calculate the Standard Error of Performance (SEP) for each instrument
with respect to the reference method. Each instrument will be tested
individually. The equation to calculate SEP is:

> where
> $\text{SEP} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{n}{(yi - \overline{y})^{2}}}{n - 1}}$
>
> $x_{i}$= predicted constituent concentration for the first replicate
> of sample *i*
>
> $r_{i}$ = reference constituent concentration for sample *i*
>
> $y_{i} = x_{i} - r_{i}$
>
> $\overline{y}$ = average of $y_{i}$
>
> $n$ = number of samples in the test set for the constituent
> calibration being evaluated
>
> ($n$ = 50, see Note 1 below regarding "all class" calibrations.)
>
> The tolerance for SEP is shown in Table 2.
>
> If requested by the applicant, data from a 20‑sample slope set will be
> provided for adjusting calibration slope and bias prior to the start
> of type evaluation testing. No further standardization adjustments
> will be made during type evaluation testing.
>
> Note 1: ~~"All-class"~~"Multi-class" calibrations will be tested using
> full test sets for all included classes (50 x number of classes). In
> addition to meeting accuracy requirements (SEP) for the test sets of
> each individual class, for publication ~~"all class"~~"Multi-class"
> calibrations must meet the accuracy requirements (SEP) when the data
> from all included classes are pooled.
>
> Note 2: A single slope and bias will be used for ~~"all-class"~~
> "multi-class" calibrations.
>
> **Repeatability.** The Standard Deviation (SD) of the three replicates
> will be calculated and pooled across samples for each class. Each
> instrument will be tested individually. The equation used to calculate
> SD is:
>
> where
> $\text{SD} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{n}{\sum_{j = 1}^{3}{(P\text{ij} - \overline{P}i)^{2}}}}{2n}}$
>
> $P_{\text{ij}}$ = predicted constituent concentration for sample i and
> replicate j
>
> ${\overline{P}}_{i}$ = average of the three predicted constituent
> concentration values for sample i
>
> $n$ = number of samples in the test set for constituent calibration
> being evaluated ($n$ = 50, see Note below regarding "all class"
> calibrations.)
>
> The tolerance for repeatability is shown in Table 2.
>
> Note: ~~"All-class"~~"Multi-class" calibrations will be tested using
> full test sets for all included classes. ~~"All class"~~"Multi-class"
> calibrations must meet the repeatability requirements (SD) for the
> test sets of each individual class.
>
> **Reproducibility.** The results for each of the three replicates
> obtained for samples in the test set will be averaged for each
> instrument and the Standard Deviation of the Differences (SDD) between
> instruments will be calculated using the following equation:
>
> where
> $\text{SDD} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{n}{(d_{i} - \overline{d})^{2}}}{n - 1}}$
>
> $d_{i}$ = ${\overline{P}}_{1i} - {\overline{P}}_{2i}$
>
> ${\overline{P}}_{1i}$= average of three replicates for sample *i* on
> instrument 1
>
> ${\overline{P}}_{2i}$= average of three replicates for sample *i* on
> instrument 2
>
> $\overline{d}$ = average of $d_{i}$
>
> $n$ = number of samples in the test set for constituent calibration
> being evaluated ($n$ = 50, see Note below regarding "all class"
> calibrations.)
>
> The tolerance for reproducibility is shown in Table 2.
>
> Note: ~~"All-class"~~ "Multi-class" calibrations will be tested using
> full test sets for all included classes. ~~"All class"~~"Multi-class"
> calibrations must meet the reproducibility requirements (SDD) for the
> test sets of each individual class.

# Proposed Change to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Avoid Reducing a Previously Evaluated Approved/Pending Moisture Range Due to Lack of Data

**Background:** At the Sector\'s August 2005 meeting, Dr. Richard
Pierce, GIPSA (the NTEP laboratory), mentioned that the NTEP laboratory
is having problems increasing and decreasing "approved" or "pending"
ranges of grain moisture meters depending on the data available in the
most recent 3 year period. Most Sector members agreed that it didn\'t
seem logical to reduce a range solely because data previously used to
justify the range classification had to be dropped from the most recent
3 year period. Further discussion of the issue at that time was dropped
because of time constraints.

The present system for determining the range of 2 % moisture intervals
eligible for "approved" status uses only the most recent 3 years of NTEP
data. An "approved" range cannot be extended by including manufacturer
data. When the "approved" and "pending" moisture ranges were originally
proposed, it was believed that after a meter had been in the Phase II
on-going calibration program for 3 years the "pending" classification
would go away because there would always be sufficient data in the 2 %
intervals at the end of the calibration data range. Experience has shown
that this is not the case. In fact, to maintain even a "pending"
classification at the ends of the calibration data range, manufacturers
often have to supply archived Phase II data to supplement the most
recent 3 years used for the initial NTEP calibration report. With that
data, moisture intervals listed as "not approved" on the initial
calibration report can be upgraded to "pending" if the bias to air oven
is within the approval tolerance for that moisture interval. Confidence
intervals are not applied to approval tolerances for use in determining
"pending" ranges when manufacturer data are used.

For calibration performance comparison purposes, it seems logical to
continue using data from the most recent 3 year period. As new models
are added to the On-going Calibration Program (Phase II), comparisons
between meters become meaningful sooner than they would have if a longer
period had been chosen.

At first glance, it also appears logical to recommend, provided a
calibration has not changed, that moisture ranges previously evaluated
as "pending" or "approved" not be reduced due to lack of data in
subsequent 3‑year periods. However, hard to find samples are only one
issue. The NTEP laboratory has reported instances where there were quite
a few samples in a moisture interval with the samples coming from only
one or two growing locations. This resulted in meter to oven biases that
varied from year to year depending on the source of the samples. In one
meter and one moisture interval, the meter was out of NTEP tolerance
using the last 3 years of data but biased within 0.08 of air oven result
when using the last 5 years of data.

When it comes to determining how to set operating limits for an
individual meter, one would think that using 5 years of available
Phase II data would increase the number of samples across the entire
moisture range and reduce the number of inadequately represented
moisture intervals. However, for some grains no samples have been
received in some moisture ranges within the last 3 years or even the
last 5 years. There are cases where only one sample is available in a
2 % interval.

Eliminating or even reducing the problems encountered in determining
"approved" or "pending" calibration ranges may require not only using
more than the most recent 3 years or even 5 years of Phase II data but
also limiting the moisture range over which an "approved" or "pending"
rating can be granted. In practice, the present distinction between
"approved" and "pending" classifications is lost to the user. The upper
and lower moisture limits for a device are set using the "pending"
range, so any "out-of-limits" warning printed or displayed appears only
when the "pending" range is exceeded. Limiting the use of "pending" to a
new device that has not been evaluated in Phase II could simplify the
administration of Phase II and the annual re-issuing of CCs.

**Discussion:** The Sector discussed recommending major revisions to the
GMM Chapter of Publication 14 that would be based on the following
points:

1.  Redefine "Pending" to read: A new calibration that has not been
    validated by on-going calibration data collected as part of the
    national calibration program.

2.  The upper and lower moisture limits for a new device are to be set
    using the standard 6 % moisture ranges used in device evaluation.

3.  Retain the present GMM comparison report based on the most recent
    3 years of Phase II data. This report will be used for comparison
    purposes and for review by the Sector.

4.  Limit the use of manufacturer data to the initial type evaluation
    and first complete season while enrolled in Phase II.

5.  Prepare a second calibration report using all available Phase II
    data on file at GIPSA. This report is to be used to determine
    "approved" ranges. "Approved" ranges are to be used to set the upper
    and lower moisture limits for a GMM.

6.  The maximum upper moisture interval and the minimum lower moisture
    interval that can be given "approved" status will be defined for
    each grain. These upper and lower limits are to be fixed values that
    do not change from year to year.

Consideration of the above points prompted a lively discussion. Although
most Sector members were generally in favor of either redefining or
eliminating the "Pending" classification, this approach implied that
another method had to be found to determine operating ranges, because
"Pending" moisture ranges have traditionally been used to set the upper
and lower moisture limits (operating range) for each calibration.
Manufacturers objected to using a single fixed range for all types of
devices, noting that some technologies were more accurate than others at
high moistures. They preferred an option that would allow them to extend
competitively the operating range and objected to being restricted by
limitations in the Phase II sample collection system. The suggestion
that CCs carry the notation, "Evaluated over the moisture range of
\_\_ % to \_\_ %, and certified for use over the range of \_\_ % to
\_\_ %," was rejected on the grounds that an NTEP certificate was not
intended to be a marketing tool. The Sector was also of the opinion that
a 6 % operating range was too restrictive for a new device.

The question of how operating limits should be determined was
temporarily set aside to consider fixed ranges for
certification/verification of moisture calibrations. There was general
agreement that the ranges had to be wide enough to encompass the
moisture ranges used in the market, but there was concern that choosing
ranges that were too wide would lead to the present problem of
insufficient samples. Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, distributed a page from
the USDA/GIPSA Moisture Handbook that listed the moisture ranges
supported by GIPSA for each grain type, suggesting that these moisture
ranges might be considered for use as the fixed ranges for NTEP Phase II
verification. Many Sector members believed that these ranges were too
wide to be supported by 3 years (or even 5 years) of NTEP Phase II data.
Durum Wheat, with a "GIPSA supported" range of 7 % to 20 %, had only
four samples in the 6 % to 8 % moisture interval and only one sample in
the 18 % to 20 % interval for the most recent 3 years of Phase II data.
Similar sample shortages were noted for most of the other NTEP grains. A
decision on the specific fixed ranges to be used for
certification/verification of moisture calibrations was left for further
study.

Several "what if" questions were asked regarding how fixed
certification/verification ranges might work under certain
circumstances. These questions and the Sector's response are outlined
below.

Question: What "Certified/Verified" range should be listed for a new
device?

Answer: New devices would be certified/verified over the basic 6 %
moisture ranges listed for Phase I tests.

Question: What happens if not enough samples are available to certify
the new device for the full range after one year in Phase II?

Answer: The certified/verified range remains at 6 % until enough samples
have been collected in a 3‑year period to certify the device for the
full range.

Question: Will confidence intervals still be used?

Answer: Yes, a 95 % confidence interval will be added to the maximum
tolerance for each 2 % moisture interval outside of the basic 6 %
moisture range.

Question: What happens if a meter is outside of tolerance (even with the
confidence interval) on any of the upper 2 % moisture intervals of the
full range? Does the whole calibration get rejected?

Answer: Yes, the manufacturer must submit a new calibration with
re-predicted moistures showing that tolerances are met for all 2 %
intervals in the full range.

Question: What happens to an existing calibration if not enough samples
are available in any of the upper 2 % intervals?

Answer: A previously verified calibration would not be forced to
re-calibrate due to lack of samples.

With these questions answered, it was suggested that the manufacturer
should specify the operating moisture range for each grain. This range
would NOT be listed on the CC, but would be used to determine when
warnings would be displayed and printed to indicate that the
displayed/printed moisture content of a sample being measured was beyond
the operating range of the device. \[See NIST Handbook 44,
Section 5.56.(a)., paragraphs S.1.1.(f) and S.1.3.(c).\] Steve Patoray,
NTEP Director, noted that there was a precedent for evaluation ranges
that differed from operating ranges. There are devices that are tested
by the NTEP lab over one range of conditions but used over a wider range
of conditions. The Sector agreed that allowing individual manufacturers
to specify the operating moisture ranges for their devices would make
adoption of fixed evaluation/verification ranges for all CCs more
acceptable.

**Conclusion:** The Sector decided that additional study was needed
before a final recommendation could be made on this issue. This item
will be carried over to the Sector\'s August 2007 meeting. The following
points summarize the Sector\'s thinking at the close of the August 2006
meeting:

1.  The "pending approval" classification will be eliminated. Operating
    ranges (upper and lower moisture limits) will be specified by the
    manufacturer. Operating ranges will NOT be listed on CCs.

2.  The three most recent years of Phase II data will continue to be
    used to evaluate calibration performance.

3.  Certificates will list a single "standard" moisture range for each
    grain calibration. These ranges will not vary from year to year.
    They will be the same for all instruments. (See exception for new
    instruments.) The "standard" ranges have to be wide enough to
    encompass the moisture ranges most commonly used in the market (to
    be determined) but narrow enough to assure sufficient Phase II data
    will be available (over a 3‑year period) to:

    a.  permit a new meter\'s calibrations to be "verified" over those
        ranges by the end of its third year in Phase II; and

    b.  permit existing NTEP certified meters\' calibrations to be
        "verified" over those ranges using the most recent 3 years of
        Phase II data when the new rules are first adopted.

4.  Once a calibration has been "verified," a recalibration will not be
    forced due to lack of samples.

5.  New instruments will be "evaluated" over the basic 6 % moisture
    ranges for corn, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat. Certificates
    for new instruments will continue to list the 6 % moisture ranges as
    the "evaluated" or "verified" ranges until sufficient Phase II data
    has been collected to allow the new instrument to achieve "verified"
    status for the full moisture range.

6.  Outside the basic 6 % moisture range, tolerances used to require a
    change in calibrations will continue to include the application of a
    95 % confidence interval to the maximum tolerance for each 2 %
    moisture interval.

# Proposed Changes to Handbook 44 Section 5.56.(a), Paragraph S.4. and to the GMM Checklist of Publication 14 to Modify Operating Instruction Requirements

**Background:** Item (d) of paragraph S.4. in Handbook 44,
Section** **5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters requires that operating
instructions for the device specify "the kinds or classes of grain or
seed for which the device is designed to measure moisture content and
test weight per bushel." Item (e), which requires declaring a device\'s
"limitations of use" in the operating instructions, includes "kind or
class of grain or seed" in the list of limitations to be declared and
also requires that the "moisture measurement range" be shown,
presumably, for each grain or seed. These requirements are redundant,
considering paragraph S.1.3. Operating Range specifies that "A meter
shall automatically and clearly indicate when the operating range of the
meter has been exceeded," and with Item (c) of that paragraph further
stating, "Moisture and test weight per bushel values may be displayed
when the moisture range is exceeded if accompanied by a clear indication
that the moisture range has been exceeded." The requirements of
paragraph S.4. are also unnecessarily burdensome to manufacturers
selling their GMMs in markets outside the United States. In those
markets, the kinds and classes of grain or seed for which the GMM is to
be used may not be the same as in the United States and may include
non-NTEP grain or seed. In the United States, information pertaining to
the kinds and classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed
to measure moisture and TW are included in the NTEP CC along with the
moisture measurement range of each NTEP grain or seed. Furthermore, the
kinds and classes of grain are listed on the device\'s "menu" of
included calibrations.

**Discussion:** The Sector considered the amendments and changes
proposed in the agenda. Ms. Cassie Eigenmann, Dickey-john, was concerned
that the above requirements applied to the "Instruction Manual." A
review of the Grain Moisture Meter code in Handbook 44 indicated that
the handbook mentions only "operating instructions" and makes no
reference to an "Instruction Manual."

**Conclusion:** The Sector concluded that the "operating instructions"
referred to in Handbook 44 could take many forms, including those
displayed on the device\'s menu of installed calibrations. No change to
Handbook 44 was deemed necessary.

# Report on "Basis of Determination" in Official Grading Standards

**Discussion:** The principles governing application of official grain
grading standards include definitions of the "basis of determination" to
be used for each of the individual official tests. The "basis of
determination" identifies whether a measurement will be made on the
whole grain sample, also referred to as the entire or original grain
sample, or on a grain sample after dockage has been removed and/or after
the sample has been cleaned.

The various "basis of determination" requirements are part of the U.S.
grain grading standards and most have not been changed since USDA began
implementing official standards in 1916. Current standards require that:

-   official moisture measurements be made on the whole (uncleaned)
    grain sample;

-   test weight measurements be made on the whole grain sample for some
    grain types while for other grain types test weight measurements be
    made on grain samples with dockage removed; and

-   protein and oil determinations be made using clean grain samples.

Largely because conflicting "basis of determination" requirements are a
barrier to adoption of multi-use instruments in official inspections,
GIPSA is investigating the potential for establishing a common "basis of
determination" for determining moisture, test weight, protein, and oil.
Also, there is concern that moisture and test weight measurements on
uncleaned grain samples may yield results that are not accurate for
either the grain portion of the sample or the dockage in the sample.

Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, presented a brief historical overview of
inspection practices; a review of the levels of foreign material (FM),
dockage, etc. measured in samples officially inspected in recent years;
and preliminary data indicating how moisture and test weight
measurements are affected as different levels of dockage are added to a
clean sample.

Early test results on corn found no major effect on either moisture or
TW as up to 12 % BCFM (broken corn and foreign material) was
re-introduced in increments of approximately two percentage points to a
clean sample from which the BCFM had been removed.

Soybeans were tested for the effects of added Splits (soybeans that are
split/broken) and added FM.

Effect on Moisture and TW

-   Moisture results showed negligible change with up to 10 % added
    Splits.

-   Beyond 10 % Splits, moisture increased with added Splits.

-   At 35 % Splits, percent moisture had increased by 0.8 %.

-   Moisture results appear to be more variable with added Splits.

-   TW decreases (2.0 lbs/bu) with 35 % added Splits.

> Although moisture results seemed to be more variable with added FM, a
> recognizable pattern for moisture due to added FM was not found. Test
> weight decreased almost linearly with added FM to a loss of 5.5 lb/bu
> at 10 % added FM.

Wheat was tested for the effects of added SHBN (shrunken and broken
kernels) and added DKG (dockage).

Effect on Moisture and TW

-   Added SHBN below 3 % had no major effect on either moisture or TW.

-   Levels of SHBN above 3 % were virtually nonexistent in the database.

-   Percent moisture decreased with increasing DKG (--0.6 % with 2 %
    DKG).

-   Moisture results seemed to become more variable.

-   TW also decreased with increased DKG to a loss of 2 lb/bu at 2 %
    added DKG.

Dr. Pierce stressed that this study was in the early stages. Test
procedures will be refined and additional data will be obtained on the
effects of testing unclean grain samples. Although the early results
seem to indicate that moisture results may not be greatly affected by
moderate levels of dockage, the Sector agreed unanimously that clean
samples must always be used for NTEP evaluations, calibration
development, and state field-testing.

As additional data become available on the effects of testing unclean
grain samples, and as GIPSA considers possible changes in "basis of
determination" requirements, the Sector may want to discuss the possible
implications for state-regulated commercial transactions.

# Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 IR 59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds"

**Background:** This item was included on the Sector's agenda to provide
a summary of the activities of OIML TC 17/SC 1. Since June 22, 2001, an
international work group (IWG) of TC 17/SC 1 has been meeting to review
revision to OIML R 59. The most recent meeting of the TC 17/SC 1 work
group (WG) was held on September 20 - 21, 2004, at the Laboratory
National D'Essais (LNE) in Paris, France.

**Discussion**: Ms. Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that the 4 CD, dated
July 2006, along with U.S. comments on the 3 CD had been distributed to
the United States National Work Group (USNWG). The USNWG is for the most
part a subset of the NTEP Grain Analyzer Sector. Ms. Lee asked Sector
members to review the changes included in the latest draft and forward
comments to her by November 1, 2006. To assist in identifying and
locating changes that have been made to the 3 CD for inclusion in the
4 CD, a copy of the collated comments to the 3 CD from all participating
countries has been requested and will be forwarded to the USNWG upon
receipt. \[Editor\'s note: A copy of comments to the 3 CD from all
participating countries was e-mailed to the USNWG on
September 5, 2006.\] The USNWG comments on the 4 CD of OIML R 59 will be
collated and forwarded to the TC 17/SC 1 secretariat for inclusion in
the next draft of the document.

# Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Protein Draft Recommendation

**Background:** This item was included on the Sector's agenda to provide
a summary of the activities of OIML TC 17/SC 8, the subcommittee
responsible for developing a Recommendation for Grain Protein Measuring
instruments. Since May 2004, an IWG of TC 17/SC 8 has been meeting to
develop a new OIML Recommendation for instruments that measure grain
protein. The most recent meeting of the TC 17/SC 8 WG was held in
June 2005 in Berlin, Germany to discuss the latest round of comments on
the 3 WD of the Recommendation.

**Discussion:** Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that a 1 CD of "Protein
Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds" dated May 1, 2006,
addressing comments received on the 3 WD had been distributed to the
USNWG and related parties for comment. A meeting of the IWG was held in
Ottawa, Canada, September 25 - 26, 2006, to discuss the comments to the
3 WD and the resulting 1 CD. The TC 17/SC 8 secretariat will make
changes to the 1 CD according to discussion during the September 2006
meeting and develop a 2 CD that will be forwarded to the USNWG for
comment when it is available.

# Report on OIML TC 5/SC 2 Document D-SW, "General Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring Devices" and NTEP Software Sector Activities

**Background:** This item was included on the Sector\'s agenda to
provide a summary of the activities of OIML TC 5/SC 2. In 2004, all OIML
TCs and SCs that were revising an OIML Recommendation were contacted to
ensure that software aspects are considered in revised Recommendations.
All OIML Documents and Recommendations published since 1990 were
reviewed for terms and requirements related to software. A pre-draft of
the document "Software in Legal Metrology" was circulated in
October 2004 by the Secretariats (Germany and France). When complete,
this document will serve as guidance for OIML technical committees
addressing software requirements in Recommendations for
software-controlled instruments. NIST submitted U.S. comments on an
early draft in February 2005. The 1 WD of this document, titled "General
Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring Instruments," was
received in February 2006, after which comments from U.S. interested
parties were solicited. U.S. comments on this draft were sent to the
secretariat May 30, 2006. The 1 WD and the U.S. comments can be viewed
on the NIST/WMD website at
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/TC5-SC2.htm.

**Discussion**: After the report on OIML TC 5/SC 2, Steve Patoray, NTEP
Director, called the Sector\'s attention to the recently formed NTETC
Software Sector. This new Sector held its first scheduled meeting
April 5, 6, and 7, 2006, in Annapolis, Maryland, where several
subcommittee WGs were formed to focus on various aspects relating to the
use of software in today's weighing and measuring instruments. Mr.
Patoray mentioned that the Software Sector\'s work initially would not
affect the Grain Analyzer Sector because grain analyzers, at present,
are "built-for-purpose" devices. Looking to the future, however, a
system in which a local instrument obtains optical data on the sample to
be measured, transmits it to an off-site computer that calculates the
result and transmits the result back to the local instrument for display
and printout would most likely have to comply with standards developed
by the Software Sector. Interested parties wishing to participate in
this Sector should direct their requests to Steve Patoray who will see
that they are forwarded to the appropriate individual for processing.

# Time and Place for Next Meeting

The next meeting is tentatively planned for the week of August 20, 2007,
in the Kansas City, Missouri, area. Meetings will be held in one of the
meeting rooms at the National Weather Service Training Center if
available. The meeting room will be reserved for Wednesday and Thursday,
August 22 and 23. Sector members are asked to hold both these days open
pending determination of agenda items, exact meeting times, and meeting
duration. Final meeting details will be announced by late April 2007.

If you would like to submit an agenda item for the 2007 meeting, please
contact Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, at spatoray@mgmtsol.com; G. Diane
Lee, NIST Technical Advisor, at diane.lee@nist.gov; or Jack Barber,
Technical Advisor, at jbarber@motion.net by April 2, 2007.

\[Note: The following items were not on the original agenda, but were
added at the meeting on an "as time permits" basis.\]

# Encouraging Participation by State Weights and Measures Personnel

**Discussion:** Noting that only one state W&M representative was able
to attend the current Sector meeting, several Sector members wondered
what could be done to encourage additional states to send
representatives to Sector meetings. At present, five states are
represented on the Grain Analyzer Sector: Arkansas, Nebraska, New York,
North Carolina, and Missouri. Of those five states, only three
participate on a regular basis. For the current meeting, family illness
and travel budget restrictions cut the participation to one. Budget cuts
and a significant increase in travel costs (gasoline, airfares, and
lodging) seem to be the major underlying causes for the drop in
participation. With limited personnel and limited budgets, state W&M
administrators have had to make hard choices on how best to utilize the
people and dollars available.

It is current NCWM policy to provide funding for travel to a Sector
meeting to one participant from each state NTEP laboratory active in
evaluating the device type(s) which will be discussed at the particular
Sector meeting. Unfortunately, GIPSA is the sole participating NTEP
laboratory for grain analyzers. GIPSA is a federal agency not a state
agency; therefore, no state W&M representative receives funding from
NCWM, Inc., for travel to Grain Analyzer Sector meetings.

According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, the states of Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska grew 67 % of the corn and 60 % of
the soybeans grown in the entire United States. Only one of these states
is listed as having a representative on the Grain Analyzer Sector, and
it has been four years since that representative has attended a Sector
meeting.

The Sector took no action on this issue.

# 

# Questions Regarding NIR Calibration for Enhanced Nutrient Corn

**Discussion:** Dr. Stuart Kaplan, BASF Plant Science, explained that
BASF contracts with select area grain elevators to receive and store
BASF enhanced nutrient corn grown by farmers who are also under contract
with BASF. To verify that incoming BASF corn meets contract
specifications, elevators test the corn using Foss Infratec 1241 NIR
analyzers that BASF has placed in the elevators for this purpose.
Because the present NTEP corn calibration for the Foss 1241 does not
accurately measure the constituents of the BASF germplasm, BASF
developed a calibration specifically for their enhanced nutrient corn.
Dr. Kaplan was concerned that their NIR instruments might be "tagged" by
state W&M field inspectors. He asked the Sector what might be done to
avoid problems of this sort.

Sector members offered a number of suggestions. Steve Patoray, NTEP
Director, suggested that Dr. Kaplan contact the director of each related
state weights and measures division to see how this would be handled in
that jurisdiction. A state W&M member explained that his state had an
"implied use" regulation. If an inspector encountered a measuring
instrument in a location where buying and selling took place, it was
implied that the instrument was in "commercial use" and would be subject
to test. Another member suggested that notice be placed on the
instrument to indicate that it was the property of BASF and was to be
used exclusively for testing corn grown under contract with BASF. (Note:
Although an instrument may be used for contract sales, it is still
commercial and subject to weights and measures regulation.)

Noting that paragraph S.1.2. of Section 5.57. of Handbook 44 states, "If
more than one calibration is included for a given grain type, the
calibrations must be clearly distinguished from one another," Mr. Jack
Barber, the co-technical advisor, suggested that the BASF calibration be
installed on the NIR instrument with a name that clearly differentiated
their proprietary variety from common yellow dent corn. If the NTEP corn
calibration is also installed on the instrument, normal regulatory field
inspection of the instrument could be performed using the NTEP
calibration. Nothing in Handbook 44 prohibits using proprietary
calibrations for specialty crops grown under contract. Field inspection
of the instrument with standard corn samples could offer BASF assurance
that the instrument was functioning properly.

**Change Summary**

+----------------+------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| **Recommended  |                              |       |             |
| Amendments to  |                              |       |             |
| the 2006       |                              |       |             |
| Edition of     |                              |       |             |
| NIST           |                              |       |             |
| Handbook 44**  |                              |       |             |
+----------------+------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| **Section      | **Amendment/Change**         | **P   | **Source**  |
| Number**       |                              | age** |             |
+----------------+------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| 5.56.(a) Grain | Modify paragraph S.1.2. and  | 5-28  | [08         |
| Moisture       | Table S.1.2. to include      |       | /06](#propo |
| Meters         | minimum acceptable           |       | sed-amendme |
|                | abbreviations for            |       | nt-to-handb |
|                | multi-class grain moisture   |       | ook-44-sect |
|                | calibrations.                |       | ion-5.56.a- |
|                |                              |       | to-address- |
|                |                              |       | minimum-acc |
|                |                              |       | eptable-abb |
|                |                              |       | reviations- |
|                |                              |       | for-multi-c |
|                |                              |       | lass-grain- |
|                |                              |       | moisture-ca |
|                |                              |       | librations) |
|                |                              |       |             |
|                |                              |       | [Grain      |
|                |                              |       | Analyzer    |
|                |                              |       | Sector --   |
|                |                              |       | Item        |
|                |                              |       | 5](#propo   |
|                |                              |       | sed-amendme |
|                |                              |       | nt-to-handb |
|                |                              |       | ook-44-sect |
|                |                              |       | ion-5.56.a- |
|                |                              |       | to-address- |
|                |                              |       | minimum-acc |
|                |                              |       | eptable-abb |
|                |                              |       | reviations- |
|                |                              |       | for-multi-c |
|                |                              |       | lass-grain- |
|                |                              |       | moisture-ca |
|                |                              |       | librations) |
+----------------+------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| 5.57. Near     | Modify paragraph S.1.2. and  | 5-42  | [08/06]     |
| Infrared Grain | Table S.1.2. to add criteria |       | (#_4._Propo |
| Analyzers      | applicable to "multi-class"  |       | sed_Change) |
|                | calibrations.                |       |             |
|                |                              |       | [Grain      |
|                |                              |       | Analyzer    |
|                |                              |       | Sector --   |
|                |                              |       | Item        |
|                |                              |       | 6(a)]       |
|                |                              |       | (#_4._Propo |
|                |                              |       | sed_Change) |
+----------------+------------------------------+-------+-------------+

+-----------------+------------------------------+-------+------------+
| **Recommended   |                              |       |            |
| Ame             |                              |       |            |
| ndments/Changes |                              |       |            |
| to the Grain    |                              |       |            |
| Moisture Meters |                              |       |            |
| Chapter**       |                              |       |            |
|                 |                              |       |            |
| **to the**      |                              |       |            |
|                 |                              |       |            |
| **2006 Edition  |                              |       |            |
| of NCWM         |                              |       |            |
| P               |                              |       |            |
| ublication 14** |                              |       |            |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------+------------+
| **Section       | **Amendment/Change**         | **P   | **Source** |
| Number**        |                              | age** |            |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------+------------+
| VII\.           | Add paragraph C. Tolerances  | G     | [08/06](#  |
| Additional Type | For Test Weight per Bushel   | MM-16 | _4._Propos |
| Evaluation Test | Calibration Performance      |       | ed_Change) |
| Procedures and  |                              |       |            |
| Tolerances for  | \[Note: Paragraph C should   |       | [Grain     |
| Grain Moisture  | immediately follow the table |       | Analyzer   |
| Meters          | of tolerances for            |       | Sector --  |
| Incorporating   | reproducibility on page      |       | Item       |
| an Automatic    | GMM-16.\]                    |       | 4](#       |
| Test Weight per |                              |       | _4._Propos |
| Bushel          |                              |       | ed_Change) |
| Measuring       |                              |       |            |
| Feature         |                              |       |            |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------+------------+

+-----------------+------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| **Recommended   |                              |       |             |
| Ame             |                              |       |             |
| ndments/Changes |                              |       |             |
| to the Near     |                              |       |             |
| Infrared Grain  |                              |       |             |
| Analyzers       |                              |       |             |
| Chapter**       |                              |       |             |
|                 |                              |       |             |
| **to the**      |                              |       |             |
|                 |                              |       |             |
| **2006 Edition  |                              |       |             |
| of NCWM         |                              |       |             |
| P               |                              |       |             |
| ublication 14** |                              |       |             |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| **Section       | **Amendment/Change**         | **P   | **Source**  |
| Number**        |                              | age** |             |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| III\. Accuracy, | Amend to add criteria        | NIR-3 | [08/06]     |
| Precision, and  | applicable to "multi-class"  | thru  | (#_4._Propo |
| Reproducibility | calibrations.                |       | sed_Change) |
| Requirements    |                              | NIR-6 |             |
|                 |                              |       | [Grain      |
|                 |                              |       | Analyzer    |
|                 |                              |       | Sector --   |
|                 |                              |       | Item        |
|                 |                              |       | 6(b)]       |
|                 |                              |       | (#_4._Propo |
|                 |                              |       | sed_Change) |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------+-------------+

[]{#_4._Proposed_Change .anchor}