Appendix A

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC)

Grain Analyzer Sector

> **August 24 - 25, 2005 -- Kansas City, Missouri**

### Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

[1. Report on GIPSA/NIST Interagency Agreement -- Fee Increase
A1](#report-on-gipsanist-interagency-agreement-fee-increase)

[2. Report on the 2005 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings
A2](#report-on-the-2005-ncwm-interim-and-annual-meetings)

[3. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations and OCP (Phase II) Testing
A3](#report-on-ntep-type-evaluations-and-ocp-phase-ii-testing)

[4. Proposed Change to NCWM Publication 14 - Bias Tolerances for Test
Weight per Bushel
A3](#proposed-change-to-ncwm-publication-14---bias-tolerances-for-test-weight-per-bushel)

[5. Comparative NTEP On-going Calibration Program (OCP) Performance Data
A5](#comparative-ntep-on-going-calibration-program-ocp-performance-data)

[6. Review of On-going Calibration Program (Phase II) Performance Data
A6](#review-of-on-going-calibration-program-phase-ii-performance-data)

[7. Effective Dates for NTEP and GIPSA Calibration Changes
A7](#effective-dates-for-ntep-and-gipsa-calibration-changes)

[8. \"All-Class\" Moisture Calibrations
A8](#all-class-moisture-calibrations)

[9. Editorial Correction to GMM Chapter of Publication 14 -- Table in
Appendix D
A9](#editorial-correction-to-gmm-chapter-of-publication-14-table-in-appendix-d)

[10. Evaluating GMM Moisture Accuracy as a Continuous Function across
the Entire Moisture Range
A10](#evaluating-gmm-moisture-accuracy-as-a-continuous-function-across-the-entire-moisture-range)

[11. Prescreening Grain Samples for GMM Type Evaluation
A11](#prescreening-grain-samples-for-gmm-type-evaluation)

[12. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Assigning Sample Data to
Moisture Ranges for GMM Type Evaluation
A13](#proposed-change-to-publication-14---assigning-sample-data-to-moisture-ranges-for-gmm-type-evaluation)

[13. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 IR59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains
and Oilseeds"
A13](#report-on-oiml-tc-17sc-1-ir59-moisture-meters-for-cereal-grains-and-oilseeds)

[14. Report on OIML TC 5/SC 2 Document D-SW, "General Requirements for
Software Controlled Measuring Devices"
A14](#report-on-oiml-tc-5sc-2-document-d-sw-general-requirements-for-software-controlled-measuring-devices)

[15. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Protein Draft Recommendation
A15](#report-on-oiml-tc-17sc-8-protein-draft-recommendation)

[16. Naming Conventions for Near-Infrared Analyzer Calibrations
A16](#naming-conventions-for-near-infrared-analyzer-calibrations)

[17. Time and Place for Next Meeting
A18](#time-and-place-for-next-meeting)

# 1. Report on GIPSA/NIST Interagency Agreement -- Fee Increase

The Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) and
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) signed an
updated Interagency Agreement in March 2005 that provides funding for
the Grain Moisture Meter On-going Calibration Program (OCP) for fiscal
years 2005 through 2009. Under the terms of the updated agreement NIST
and GIPSA each will contribute one-third the cost of the program subject
to an annual maximum of \$26,500 each. The balance of costs is borne by
manufacturers and depends on the number of meter models in the NTEP
\"pool\" according to the fee schedule shown below. Implementation of
this fee schedule became effective at the start of FY2005
(October 1, 2004). The fee schedule shown below was developed about two
years ago using a modest estimate of likely increases in GIPSA\'s costs.
Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, reported that GIPSA\'s hourly rate for NTEP
evaluations has risen to \$83.20 and the fee for air oven moisture
determinations has increased to \$13.00 each. In spite of these
increases, the OCP Fee Schedule is expected to remain as shown below
through FY 2009.

+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+
| **NTEP |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| On     |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| -going |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| Calib  |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| ration |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| P      |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| rogram |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| Fee    |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| Sche   |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| dule** |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
|        |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| **for  |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| Fiscal |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| Years  |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| 2005 - |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| 2009** |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
+========+=====+======+======+======+======+=============+=======+
| *      | *   | **(  | **(  | *    |      |             |       |
| *(1)** | *(2 | 3)** | 4)** | *Fun |      |             |       |
|        | )** |      |      | ding |      |             |       |
| *      |     | **   | **T  | Cont |      |             |       |
| *Total | **  | Cost | otal | ribu |      |             |       |
| Me     | Met | per  | Pro  | tion |      |             |       |
| ters** | ers | NTEP | gram | from |      |             |       |
|        | in  | Pool | Co   | Pa   |      |             |       |
| **(inc | N   | Met  | st** | rtic |      |             |       |
| luding | TEP | er** |      | ipan |      |             |       |
| of     | Poo |      |      | ts** |      |             |       |
| ficial | l** |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| me     |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
| ter)** |     |      |      |      |      |             |       |
+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+
|        |     |      |      | **(  | **(  | **(7)**     | **    |
|        |     |      |      | 5)** | 6)** |             | (8)** |
|        |     |      |      |      |      | **Manu      |       |
|        |     |      |      | **NI | *    | facturers** | *     |
|        |     |      |      | ST** | *GIP |             | *Cost |
|        |     |      |      |      | SA** | **(total    | per   |
|        |     |      |      |      |      | funding     | Meter |
|        |     |      |      |      |      | from        | T     |
|        |     |      |      |      |      | mfg\'s)**   | ype** |
+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+
| 2      | 1   | \$19 | \$19 | \$6  | \$6  | \$6,625     | \$    |
|        |     | ,875 | ,875 | ,625 | ,625 |             | 3,315 |
+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+
| 3      | 2   | 19   | 39   | 13   | 13   | 13,250      | 4,415 |
|        |     | ,875 | ,750 | ,250 | ,250 |             |       |
+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+
| 4      | 3   | 19   | 59   | 19   | 19   | 19,875      | 4,970 |
|        |     | ,875 | ,625 | ,875 | ,875 |             |       |
+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+
| 5      | 4   | 19   | 79   | 26   | 26   | 26,500      | 5,300 |
|        |     | ,875 | ,500 | ,500 | ,500 |             |       |
+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+
| 6      | 5   | 19   | 99   | 26   | 26   | 46,375      | 7,730 |
|        |     | ,875 | ,375 | ,500 | ,500 |             |       |
+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+
| 7      | 6   | 19   | 119  | 26   | 26   | 66,250      | 9,465 |
|        |     | ,875 | ,250 | ,500 | ,500 |             |       |
+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+
| 8      | 7   | 19   | 139  | 26   | 26   | 86,125      | 1     |
|        |     | ,875 | ,125 | ,500 | ,500 |             | 0,765 |
+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+
| 9      | 8   | 19   | 159  | 26   | 26   | 106,000     | 1     |
|        |     | ,875 | ,000 | ,500 | ,500 |             | 1,775 |
+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+-------------+-------+

# 2. Report on the 2005 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings

The Interim Meeting of the 90^th^ National Conference on Weights and
Measures (NCWM) was held January 23 - 26, 2005, in Santa Monica,
California. At that meeting, the NTEP Board of Directors accepted the
Sector\'s recommendation to merge the Grain Moisture Meter Sector and
the Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Sector into a new Sector to be called
the Grain Analyzer Sector. The NTEP Committee accepted the Sector\'s
recommended amendments and changes to the 2004 Edition of the Grain
Moisture Meter chapter of Publication 14. These changes appear in the
2005 Edition of NCWM Publication 14. For additional background refer to
*Committee Reports for the 90^th^ Annual Meeting,* NCWM Publication 16,
April 2005.

+-------------------+------------------------------------------+-------+
| **Amendments and  |                                          |       |
| Changes to the    |                                          |       |
| 2004 Edition of   |                                          |       |
| the Grain         |                                          |       |
| Moisture Meter    |                                          |       |
| Chapter of        |                                          |       |
| Publication 14**  |                                          |       |
+===================+==========================================+=======+
| **Section         | **Amendment/Change**                     | **P   |
| Number**          |                                          | age** |
+-------------------+------------------------------------------+-------+
| Section IV.       | Add item c. to establish an overall      | GMM-5 |
| Tolerances for    | calibration bias requirement based on up | th    |
| Calibration       | to three years of available data. Change | rough |
| Performance       | wording in paragraph preceding item a.   |       |
|                   | and in paragraph following item c. to    | GMM-6 |
|                   | reflect addition of item c.              |       |
+-------------------+------------------------------------------+-------+
| Section VII.B.    | Change the Minimum Test Weight per       | G     |
| Accuracy,         | Bushel Ranges in the Table in §VII.B. to | MM-11 |
| Precision, and    | facilitate selection of test-set         |       |
| Reproducibility   | samples.                                 |       |
+-------------------+------------------------------------------+-------+
| Section VII.B.    | Change tolerances for repeatability      | G     |
| Accuracy,         | (precision) for Corn and Oats to more    | MM-13 |
| Precision, and    | realistic value.                         |       |
| Reproducibility   |                                          |       |
+-------------------+------------------------------------------+-------+

The 90^th^ Annual Meeting of the NCWM was held July 10 - 14, 2005, in
Orlando, Florida. No Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) or Near-Infrared (NIR)
Grain Analyzer items appeared in the Specifications and Tolerances (S&T)
Committee Interim Report for consideration by the NCWM at the 2005
Annual Meeting.

Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, expressed concern about declining
attendance at the NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings. He encouraged Sector
members to attend future meetings. At least one state weights and
measures representative related that a lack of state funds (and
withdrawal of NCWM travel support) had severely limited out-of-state
travel to meetings.

Steve reported that an electronic version of NCWM Publication 14 is now
available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format on compact disk (CD). Single CDs
are priced at \$135 plus postage and handling. Because of copyright
issues, the PDF file is locked so it is not possible to print a hard
copy of the document. It is possible, however, to add comments and
highlight text. All four sections of Publication 14 are included on the
CD. Order forms can be found on the updated NCWM website,
<http://www.ncwm.net/>. Search capabilities for NTEP certificates have
been greatly improved on the updated site. Steve cautioned that users
must delete existing \"bookmarks\" to the old certificate data base
search page. The new certificate database cannot be reached using the
old \"bookmarks.\" The new database can be accessed easily from the new
home page.

Steve briefed the Sector on the Verification Conformity Assessment
Program (VCAP) under development for weighing devices or components of
weighing devices. Initial verification will not repeat NTEP testing, but
will involve field checking of model numbers and markings and will
include some general testing to verify that the devices meet type.
Additionally, there will be a third-party assessment of the
manufacturer\'s quality system. The manufacturer must have a sampling
plan and documented evidence to show that it is being used. The
manufacturer must also comply with a sub-set of ISO/IEC 17025,
***General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration
laboratories***, demonstrating that all the factors that may contribute
to errors in the calibration process have been taken into account.

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

Cathy Brenner, 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 three additional devices: one for test weight per
bushel (an add-on to a currently approved grain moisture meter); one new
grain moisture meter with test weight capability; and one new NIR grain
analyzer for miscellaneous constituents including moisture. Cathy also
reported that the following devices would be enrolled in the OCP
(Phase II) for the 2005 harvest:

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

DICKEY-john Corporation GAC2000, GAC2100, GAC2100a, GAC2100b

Foss North America Infratec 1241

Foss North America Infratec 1227, Infratec 1229

Seedburo Equipment Company 1200A

The Steinlite Corporation SL95

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

**Background:** 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 are bias (meter versus the standard reference method) and
the Standard Deviation of the Differences (SDD) between the meter and
the standard reference method. 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. The following table
illustrates this dependence. No changes were made to the meters between
the tests using Sample Set 1 and Sample Set 2. The table also shows how
those same meters compare against the most recent three crop years of
Phase II test weight (TW) data.

+-----------+------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|           |      | **Test    |        |        |        |        |
|           |      | Weight    |        |        |        |        |
|           |      | per       |        |        |        |        |
|           |      | Bushel    |        |        |        |        |
|           |      | Bias**    |        |        |        |        |
+===========+======+===========+========+========+========+========+
| **Grain   | **G  | **Based   | **     |        | **     |        |
| Type**    | MM** | on Phase  | Sample |        | Sample |        |
|           |      | II**      | Set    |        | Set    |        |
|           | *    |           | 1**    |        | 2**    |        |
|           | *Mod | **TW      |        |        |        |        |
|           | el** | Data**    |        |        |        |        |
|           |      |           |        |        |        |        |
|           |      | **(3      |        |        |        |        |
|           |      | crop      |        |        |        |        |
|           |      | -years)** |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|           |      |           | *      | *      | *      | *      |
|           |      |           | *Meter | *Meter | *Meter | *Meter |
|           |      |           | "A"**  | "B"**  | "A"**  | "B"**  |
+-----------+------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Corn      | 1    | --0.20    | --0.02 | +0.01  | --0.36 | --0.24 |
+-----------+------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|           | 2    | +0.09     | +0.79  | +0.13  | +0.82  | +0.32  |
+-----------+------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Oats      | 1    | --0.27    | --0.06 | +0.04  | --0.29 | --0.24 |
+-----------+------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|           | 2    | --0.14    | --0.04 | +0.03  | --0.14 | --0.16 |
+-----------+------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Six-Row   | 1    | --0.21    | --0.01 | --0.05 | --0.01 | --0.02 |
| Barley    |      |           |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Sunflower | 1    | --0.10    | --0.02 | --0.09 | +0.10  | +0.13  |
+-----------+------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Because of the above-observed differences, the NTEP Lab did not list
specific bias terms on the Certificate of Conformance (CC) for
instruments recently evaluated for TW. Instead, the CC simply indicates
that the meter is approved for Test Weight per Bushel measurements.

**Discussion:** The NTEP Lab proposed eliminating the bias tolerance
requirement for test weight per bushel from the accuracy tests of the
GMM Chapter of Publication 14. The test would still be conducted, and TW
bias results would be provided to the manufacturer as is currently done
with NIR grain analyzer protein and oil bias results.

Dr. Charles Hurburgh, Iowa State University, pointed out that, based on
data taken on only 12 samples, the bias differences between Sample
Set \"1\" and Sample Set \"2\" did not appear to be statistically
significant and asked if this might be a reproducibility issue. For
these tests, Publication 14 specifies that samples will be dropped three
times through each of two meters. He asked if more than three drops
might be needed. He noted also that for corn there was an unusually
large difference in biases between Meters \"A\" and \"B\" of Model 2 for
both sets of samples. He suggested that the Sector consider adding a
requirement to Publication 14 to specify that the difference in bias
between the two instruments submitted for evaluation must not exceed the
individual instrument tolerances for bias.

Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, explained that there is a difference between
the sample sets used for Phase I moisture evaluations and Phase I Test
Weight per Bushel (TW) evaluations. Sample sets for moisture evaluations
are carefully pre-screened. As a result, they have produced very similar
results from year to year, although the individual grain samples that
comprise a set vary from year to year. Conversely, the process for
selecting samples for TW evaluations is somewhat random (except for
moisture distribution criteria and the requirement that samples
represent a distribution of TW that minimizes the correlation between TW
and moisture). There is no reason to expect two different sets of TW
samples to agree and there is no way to determine if one set is better
than another. Consequently, bias data obtained using a TW sample set is
not suitable for determining what adjustment should be applied to
minimize bias error on a large population of samples.

One Sector member asked if there might be a better way to pre-select TW
samples to obtain a more reproducible sample set. Dr. Pierce replied
that pre-screening is very difficult. Adding additional criteria to the
selection of TW samples will make sample selection even more difficult.
The fact that in many years very low TW samples are not available
further contributes to this difficulty.

Sean Bauer, Steinlite Corporation, mentioning that TW can change with
time, asked if there was a significant time interval between
determination of TW by the standard kettle method and the measurement of
TW on the meters. Cathy Brenner, GIPSA, stated that these tests were
conducted on either the same day or the next day. She added that
operator uniformity had been verified and that data obtained by check
test operators had been compared with data taken on the same samples for
Phase II tests. It was determined that the procedures used did not
contribute to the observed differences between the two TW test sets.

Jack Barber, Co-Technical Advisor to the Sector, expressed concern about
not listing grain-dependent bias adjustment coefficients on the CC. He
pointed out that 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.
\[*Editor\'s note:* For further background on the Sector\'s original
intent regarding calibration transfer between grain moisture meters of
like type, see Agenda Item 9 in the Grain Moisture Meter Sector March
1997 Meeting Summary.\] In devices where grain-dependent TW calibration
coefficients (including bias adjustment 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 a grain-dependent TW bias adjustment
coefficient as part of the moisture calibration. In that case, unless
grain-dependent bias adjustment 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
the bias adjustment term is not part of the moisture calibration
coefficients then it must be listed on the certificate.

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 Phase II TW data for corn for the
entire moisture range should be used or only data for a restricted (and
lower) moisture range, Dr. Pierce replied that TW data above 20 %
moisture would not be used.

The proposed use of Phase II TW data raised several questions:

1.  What grain-dependent bias correction coefficient should be specified
    before the meter has been in the OCP for at least one year?

2.  Should a TW calibration that has not been verified in the OCP be
    classified as \"pending?\"

3.  Should the most recent three years of available data be used to
    determine if a bias adjustment is necessary? If so, what tolerance
    should be applied?

In the ensuing discussion, the Sector agreed that the manufacturer
should specify the grain-dependent bias correction coefficients to be
used initially, provided the devices could pass Phase I tests using
those coefficients. Although no vote was taken, there wasn\'t
enthusiastic support for classifying the initial TW calibration as
\"pending,\" and no one suggested what tolerance should be applied after
the device had been in the OCP for a year or more.

**Conclusion:** The Co-Technical Advisor was requested to develop
suggested wording for changes to Publication 14 to reflect the
following:

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.

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 (including changes in
    grain-specific bias adjustments) 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.

If possible, the proposed changes will be submitted to the Sector by
letter ballot for approval in time to forward the item to the NTEP
Committee for consideration at the NCWM Interim Meeting in January 2006.

# 

# 5. Comparative NTEP On-going Calibration Program (OCP) Performance Data

**Source:** Seedburo Equipment Company

**Background:** At the Sector\'s August 2004 meeting Dr. Richard Pierce,
GIPSA (the NTEP Laboratory), presented graphical data showing the
comparative performance of all NTEP meter types vs. the air oven. These
data were based on the last three crop years (2001 - 2003) using
calibrations updated for use during the 2004 harvest season. Because of
the proprietary nature of OCP data, individual meters (including the
Official Meter) were not identified by model or by manufacturer. There
were lengthy discussions on these results, speculation about which
instruments were which, and questions of whether calibration
verification analysis was actually being conducted by some
manufacturers. Some comments suggested that a meter manufacturer might
not be aware of their relative position based on these comparisons.
Examination of the comparative performance data led the Sector to
recommend changes to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to set a limit on
average calibration bias (with respect to air oven) to improve alignment
between meter types.

**Recommendation:** To assist manufacturers in improving NTEP grain
calibrations and to achieve better uniformity between meter types, the
sector should annually review comparative OCP performance data
identifying the USDA-GIPSA Official Meter and containing average bias
data for each meter type on each grain.

**Discussion:** Some meter manufacturers have since expressed concern
that the Official Meter was not identified in the presentation of
comparative performance data. Even though the air oven is the standard
reference against which NTEP meter performance is measured in the OCP,
the Official Meter is the de-facto standard for the grain trade. Other
manufacturers want to know how their meters compare with the Official
Meter.

Regular review of comparative OCP performance data by the Sector has
definite advantages:

-   Calibration performance problems not addressed by existing
    requirements are exposed.

-   Manufacturers can see how their instruments compare with others.

To be of greatest value to manufacturers, the comparative OCP
performance data must identify the Official Meter and list the average
bias for each meter type on each grain. Accuracy of the Official Meter
(average differences between the GAC 2100 and Air Oven as percent
moisture) based on the U.S. nationwide sample set, 3 years\' data, and
most recent review, is already being published annually by USDA
GIPSA/FGIS in Directive 9180.61. This is the OCP performance data for
the Official Meter, so there should be no proprietary/confidentiality
issues regarding identifying the Official Meter in the presentation of
comparative OCP performance data.

**Conclusion:** The Sector agreed that the proposed comparative
performance data should be available for annual review by the Sector. In
the event that the Sector does not hold a formal meeting in any year,
the data for that period can be distributed by e-mail for review. Note:
The OCP data presented in Agenda Item 6 for 2002 - 2004 does
specifically identify the official meter.

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

**Background:** This item was included on the Sector's agenda to provide
information to the sector on the OCP meter performance data with
calibrations updated for the 2005 grain season. Cathy Brenner of GIPSA,
the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Grain Analyzers, presented data
showing the performance of NTEP meters compared to the air oven. These
data are based on the last three crop years (2002 - 2004) using
calibrations updated for use during the 2005 harvest season. The
Official Meter is the only meter specifically identified. The numerical
identifiers were assigned randomly to the remaining meters except for
sunflowers where, because only three devices are approved, the remaining
meters are identified by the letters A and B. Meter 1 is the same
instrument for all grains, etc. The moisture range covered by these
graphs is the same moisture range listed on USDA GIPSA/FGIS in
Directive 9180.61. As an example of the data presented, the graph for
corn is shown below. The number in parentheses following the meter
identification in the box beneath the graph indicates the average bias
for that meter across the full moisture range represented by the graph.
A PDF file with graphs of all NTEP grains is available from Co-Technical
Advisor, Jack Barber. Send requests to <jbarber@motion.net>.

# 7. Effective Dates for NTEP and GIPSA Calibration Changes

**Background:** Grain Industry representatives have repeatedly stressed
the importance of keeping NTEP calibration changes synchronized with
GIPSA calibration changes. In the past, calibration changes for the
Official Moisture Meter were made on a staggered schedule typically
between May 1 and August 1, with dates chosen to coincide with the time
at which stocks would be at their lowest level to minimize economic
impact. Several years ago GIPSA reduced the number of dates for changing
calibrations to two: May 1 for the NTEP grains wheat, barley, sorghum,
rice, and oats; and August 1 for NTEP grains corn, soybeans, and
sunflowers. These dates represent a compromise between making
calibrations available prior to harvest and to ensure that grain stocks
will be at their lowest levels. The present timeline for NTEP Phase II
activities lists July 1 as the latest date for re-issuing annual
Certificates of Conformance (CC\'s). However, because a July 1 date
would miss the wheat harvest in many states, the CC for the Official
Moisture Meter is now re-issued no later than May 1 for all NTEP grain
calibrations. The CC notes the effective dates for the calibrations to
indicate when they will be put into use in the Official System.

When this issue was discussed at the Sector\'s March 1998 meeting, one
W&M representative wondered how to handle meter inspections performed in
July, asking which calibration should be used, the one effective
August 1 or the existing one. Opinions were divided on the best way to
handle this situation. In one state, old calibrations may be used until
the effective date of the new calibration, after which the device is
re-inspected to verify that the new calibration has been installed.
Others felt that this method of enforcement was not realistic, because
it could result in requiring two or more trips per year to the majority
of meters in their jurisdictions. They favored having the user install
the new calibration at time of inspection. A manufacturing
representative pointed out that the only purpose of specifying
\"effective dates\" on a CC was to match the dates on which the new
calibrations would be used in the official system. He suggested that W&M
inspectors tell the user that the new calibration must be installed on
the effective date if they want their meter to be in closer agreement
with the official meter. It was recognized that the use of effective
dates wasn\'t a new concept. Prior to the NTEP program, manufacturers
had revised calibrations at various dates, sometimes without much
warning, and often after a significant number of meters had already been
inspected for the current season. States with inspection programs had
already figured out how to deal with this situation. At that time, the
Sector decided that the details of enforcement should be left to each
state to decide based on their individual needs.

The issue of CCs showing only the current calibration details for
calibrations with delayed (August 1) effective dates (when used on
Official Meters) has come up again, this time in the case of
cross-utilized meters. Under GIPSA\'s cross-utilization program,
elevator or official agency-owned instruments can be \"cross-utilized\"
between official inspection and commercial applications. Problems have
arisen when such meters fail State inspections but fully comply with
GIPSA directives and requirements. In April, an Illinois weights and
measures inspector checked, and rejected, an official agency meter. The
inspector correctly used the most recent CC that had been re-issued in
February to reflect the addition of test weight per bushel testing
features. Although the moisture measurement calibration constants
remained the same as on the previous version of the CC, constants
relating to Test Weight had been revised. The official agency meter
contained the constants from the previous certificate, matching the
constants of the then current GIPSA Program Directive. Although this
situation was unique arising from the addition of NTEP approval for test
weight and a February CC revision, there is still a problem when there
is a difference between the issue date of a CC and the implementation
dates for calibration changes shown on the CC. For example, this year
the new CC (issued prior to May 1, 2005) for the Official Meter listed
constants for soybeans that weren't scheduled for implementation until
August. The soybean calibration constants shown on the 2005 CC didn\'t
agree with those shown on GIPSA Program Directive 9180.61 (dated
May 1, 2005) until GIPSA reissued the Program Directive with the new
soybean constants on August 1, 2005.

**Recommendation:** The CC for the Official Meter is issued on May 1,
but GIPSA introduces changes (if required) in the official system on two
different dates: May 1 (for all grains except corn, soybeans, and
sorghum) and August 1 for corn, soybeans, and sorghum. Unnecessary
rejections of cross-utilized meters could be avoided if State inspectors
retained a copy of the previous CC that lists the calibration constants
for corn, soybean, and sorghum approved for use prior to August 1. To
eliminate the burden of having to retain copies of old certificates and
the possibility of using an old certificate by mistake, the NTEP
Laboratory proposed an addition to the Certificate showing the constants
from the previous, superceded Certificate for any grains with an
implementation date later than May 1 (corn, soybean, and sorghum). Rich
Pierce, GIPSA, commented that the FGIS Technical Services Division had
proposed that all changes to the official system affecting NTEP grains
be complete by May 1, so that calibration changes for any NTEP grain on
the Official Meter are issued at the same time the CC is issued for the
Official Meter.

> **Conclusion:** The Sector rejected the proposal. Weights and Measures
> representatives were of the opinion that this was not a big issue in
> practice, and that it may be a training issue.

# 8. \"All-Class\" Moisture Calibrations

**Background:** The Grain Moisture Meter type evaluation program is
currently structured to deal with individual class calibrations for
moisture. The NIR Grain Analyzer program allows for either individual
class calibrations or \"all-class\" calibrations for constituents other
than moisture. One currently certified grain moisture meter uses an
\"all-class\" Barley calibration that is listed separately on the
certificate under Two-Row Barley and Six-Row Barley with different
approved and pending moisture ranges for each of those classes. Two
other instruments currently certified for grain moisture list the
barleys, rough rices, and wheats separately on the certificate and have
the meters set up with individual class calibrations. These two meters
have a single equation and bias term for all classes of barley; another
equation and bias term for all classes of rough rice; and a third
equation for all classes of wheat with separate bias terms for all soft
classes, all hard classes, and durum.

A grain moisture meter currently being evaluated has a single wheat
(excluding durum), which may be called an "all type" calibration because
the calibration covers something other than all the grains in a class,
single rice, and single barley calibration with a common equation and
separate bias terms for each grouping. Another instrument being
evaluated uses a single calibration and bias term for wheat (excluding
durum).

**Recommendation:** Cathy Brenner, GIPSA (the NTEP Participating
Laboratory for Grain Analyzers), asked the Sector to consider the
following questions regarding the evaluation of Grain Analyzers using
\"all-class\" or combined-grain moisture equations:

-   How should such devices be evaluated?

-   What should be placed on the Certificate for approved and pending
    moisture ranges?

For type evaluation purposes, she suggested treating \"all-class\"
moisture calibrations in a manner similar to the way \"all-class\"
calibrations for other constituents are handled on NIR Grain Analyzers.
\"All-class\" moisture calibrations would have to meet the accuracy,
precision, and reproducibility requirements for the test sets of each
included class in addition to meeting the \"all-class\" accuracy
requirement when the data from all the included classes is pooled. For
example in the case of an \"all-class\" wheat moisture calibration
covering 5 classes of wheat, the basic 6 % moisture range for evaluating
a Hard White Wheat calibration is 8 % to 14 % moisture content while the
basic 6 % range for evaluating calibrations for the other classes of
wheat is 10 % to 16 %. Thus, an \"all-class\" wheat calibration would be
tested over an 8 % moisture range of 8 % to 16 % rather than the
standard 6 % range.

The "approved" moisture range for an \"all-class\" moisture calibration
would cover the range from the absolute lower to the absolute upper 2 %
moisture interval for which the meter meets individual class tolerances.
If an individual class does not have samples available in a given 2 %
moisture interval to meet the approved tolerances, the meter must meet
the pending tolerances in order for that moisture interval to be listed
as "approved" on the certificate.

The "pending" moisture range for an \"all-class\" moisture calibration
would cover the ranges from the absolute lower to the absolute upper 2 %
moisture interval for which the meter meets the individual class
tolerances. If an individual class does not meet either the approved or
pending tolerances in a given 2 % moisture interval, then the next lower
or upper moisture interval for which the meter meets either the
"approved" or "pending" tolerances for each individual class is listed
as the "pending" moisture range on the certificate.

Rich Pierce, GIPSA, reminded the Sector that Phase I testing was
originally intended to evaluate basic meter capability -- to check
permanence, accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility. Soybeans, hard
red winter wheat (HRWW), and corn were chosen as representative test
media to demonstrate basic meter capability. These three grains could
still be used to evaluate devices having an \"all-class\" or
\"all-wheat\" calibration. NCWM Publication 14 stipulates that grains
other than corn, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat will be checked for
calibration bias before they can be listed on the Certificate of
Conformance (CC). This implies that grains in an \"all-class\" or
\"all-wheat\" calibration would be individually checked for bias against
air oven prior to being listed on an original CC.

**Discussion:** The issue of \"pending\" and \"approved\" ranges for
\"all-class\" or \"all-type\" calibrations led to a lengthy discussion.
The Sector struggled with how to handle cases where Phase II data
resulted in different approved or pending ranges on the individual grain
types included in an \"all-class\" or \"all-type\" calibration. What
range should appear on the CC? Again, the general opinion was that
ranges should not be reduced due to lack of data. If one class of wheat
had insufficient samples in a 2 % interval to support a \"pending\"
rating for that interval while another wheat class had samples
supporting a \"pending\" rating for the same 2 % interval, it seemed
logical to allow the interval to have a \"pending\" rating in the
\"all-class\" or \"all-type\" calibration. One member reasoned that the
2 % interval with insufficient Phase II samples to support a \"pending\"
rating was also unlikely to see many market samples in that moisture
interval.

In a related issue, Rich Pierce mentioned that the NTEP Laboratory is
having problems increasing and decreasing ranges of the meter depending
on the data available in the most recent three-year period. Most Sector
members agreed that it didn\'t seem reasonable 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.

**Conclusion:** A final decision on this issue was postponed until
specific wording for Publication 14 could be developed to address the
handling of cases where Phase II data resulted in different approved or
pending ranges on the individual grain types included in an
\"all-class\" or \"all-type\" calibration. The Sector agreed that
existing Phase I test methodology was adequate for \"all-class\" and
\"all-type\" calibrations. Phase I testing will be performed only with
corn, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat (HRWW). If an \"all wheat\"
(except durum) calibration is submitted, HRWW will be used for the
Phase I tests. Until one or more years of Phase II data are available,
grains other than corn, soybeans, and HRWW will be checked for
calibration bias before they are listed on the Certificate of
Conformance (CC).

Diane Lee, NIST, Co-Technical Advisor to the Sector, agreed to send
manufacturers a request for additional suggestions/comments on this
issue. Comments are due by the end of October. Co-Technical Advisor,
Jack Barber, will consider these comments in developing wording for
changes to NCWM Publication 14. A letter ballot on the final wording is
to be circulated in time to be considered by the NTEP Committee at the
NCWM Interim Meeting in January 2006.

# 9. Editorial Correction to GMM Chapter of Publication 14 -- Table in Appendix D

**Background:** At its August 2003 meeting the GMM Sector recommended
changing the Hard White Wheat moisture range from "10 % to 16 %" to
"8 % to 14 %" in the table **Moisture Ranges and Tolerances for Sample
Temperature Sensitivity** in Appendix D of the 2003 Edition of the GMM
Chapter of Publication 14. The Sector also noted that missing quotation
marks needed to be added in the table's heading and that Medium Grain
Rough Rice with a moisture range of 10 % to 16 % and tolerance limit of
0.45 (as approved at the Sector\'s September 1997 meeting) needed to be
added to the table; this entry to the table was inadvertently omitted
from the 2001 and 2002 editions of Publication 14.

The 2004 Edition of the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 incorporated the
following changes to the Table in Appendix D:

-   The missing quotation marks were added to the table heading in
    Appendix D

-   The Hard White Wheat moisture range in the table was changed to
    \"8 % to 14 %\".

-   Medium Grain Rough Rice with a moisture range of 10 % to 16 % and
    tolerance limit of 0.45 was added to the table.

However, the row for Long Grain Rough Rice was mistakenly deleted from
the table. This error was addressed at the Sector\'s August 2004 meeting
and the Sector was advised that because this was an editorial error, it
could be corrected without making the issue a formal Agenda Item.
Unfortunately, the error was not corrected in the 2005 Edition of the
GMM Chapter of Publication 14.

**Recommendation:** Correct the **Moisture Ranges and Tolerances for
Sample Temperature Sensitivity** Table on page 43 of Appendix D of the
2005 Edition of the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 by inserting a row for
Grain Type Long Grain Rough Rice (with Moisture Range 10 % to 16 % and
Tolerance Limit 0.45) between the rows for Oats and Medium Grain Rough
Rice.

**Conclusion:** The Sector agreed unanimously to the proposed correction
as shown in the following table.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| []{#Tabl              |                       |                       |
| e_from_GMM_Appendix_D |                       |                       |
| .anchor}Moisture      |                       |                       |
| Ranges and Tolerance  |                       |                       |
| for Sample            |                       |                       |
| Temperature           |                       |                       |
| Sensitivity           |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| (for the \"Other 12\" |                       |                       |
| NTEP Grains)          |                       |                       |
+=======================+=======================+=======================+
| Grain Type            | Moisture Range        | Tolerance Limit       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | for Test              | (Bias at Temperature  |
|                       |                       | Extremes)             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Durum Wheat           | 10 % to 16 %          | 0.35                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Soft White Wheat      | 10 % to 16 %          | 0.35                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Hard Red Spring Wheat | 10 % to 16 %          | 0.35                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Soft Red Winter Wheat | 10 % to 16 %          | 0.35                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Hard White Wheat      | 8 % to 14 %           | 0.35                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Sunflower seed (Oil)  | 6 % to 12 %           | 0.45                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Grain Sorghum         | 10 % to 16 %          | 0.45                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Two-rowed Barley      | 10 % to 16 %          | 0.35                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Six-rowed Barley      | 10 % to 16 %          | 0.45                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Oats                  | 10 % to 16 %          | 0.45                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Long Grain Rough Rice | 10 % to 16 %          | 0.45                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Medium Grain Rough    | 10 % to 16 %          | 0.45                  |
| Rice                  |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

# 10. Evaluating GMM Moisture Accuracy as a Continuous Function across the Entire Moisture Range

**Source:** Charles R. Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State University

**Background/Discussion:** Section III of the Grain Moisture Meter (GMM)
Chapter of *NCWM Publication 14* calls for testing device accuracy over
a 6 % moisture range using 10 samples selected from each 2 % moisture
interval. The two tests for accuracy are bias (meter versus oven) and
the Standard Deviation of the Differences (SDD) between the meter and
the air oven for each of the 2 % moisture intervals. The bias of all
samples in each 2 % moisture interval of the full moisture range is also
the basis for evaluating GMM calibration performance annually using data
collected as part of the on-going national calibration program.

The evaluation of accuracy (for moisture) in two percentage point
intervals, with an independent evaluation in each interval, assumes that
the performance of a device is not continuous and can be adjusted in
each of the increments independently of the others. This is not a true
assumption, and so the individual increment evaluations, particularly in
cases where fewer than 20 samples (not enough to encompass the full 95 %
confidence interval \[CI\] that the tolerances are based upon) become
partially dependent on the properties of the samples in the increments.
Naturally all samples cannot be tested in all increments, so there is
automatically a nested design. Instrument performance is a continuous
function. As an alternative to the present evaluation method, data
interpretation (not the design of the lab work) could require that the
overall bias (across all samples) not be statistically significant
(p = 0.05) and that there be no significant slope (Δ error / Δ oven
moisture) across the range of data. The variability test (sd of
differences) could remain the same as it is now. The NIR program is
essentially this way now, because there are no ranges for the
constituents. A second alternative for consideration is to use a moving
average (across ranges) to test bias and standard deviation.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="3.35in"
height="2.147244094488189in"}![](media/image2.wmf){width="3.47007874015748in"
height="2.122047244094488in"}

Figure 10.1 shows typical moisture error patterns (meter minus air oven)
for three device types based on 2004 corn crop data. Figure 10.2
illustrates the continuous nature of meter performance when measured
over the full range of operation.

Dr. Hurburgh commented that the study of error functions was mostly
applicable to Phase II evaluations, but because of the small number of
samples involved in Phase I testing, the study might provide suggested
improvements for interpreting Phase I data.

**Recommendation:** The Sector was asked to review this issue and
consider making it a work project for the coming year with formation of
an *ad hoc* study group composed of interested Sector members and
non-member statistician(s).

**Conclusion**: Dr. Hurburgh volunteered to chair an *ad hoc* study
group to review the issues outlined in Agenda Items 10 and 11. He will
send a questionnaire to Sector members and interested parties to
determine who is interested in joining the group.

# 

# 11. Prescreening Grain Samples for GMM Type Evaluation

**Source:** Charles R. Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State University

**Background:** Grain samples used in the accuracy, precision, and
reproducibility tests of Section III. **Accuracy, Precision, and
Reproducibility Requirements** in the Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Chapter
of *NCWM Publication 14* are selected according to the following
procedure:

> The sample set will be screened using the FGIS official meter model
> and the air oven. Samples where the official meter model disagrees
> from the air oven by more than the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance
> will be deleted and another sample selected to replace it. No sample
> set will be used where the standard deviation of the differences
> between the FGIS official meter model and the air oven for the 10
> samples in a moisture interval exceed one-half the Handbook 44
> acceptance tolerance minus 0.1, (i.e., in the 12 % to 14 % interval
> for corn, the standard deviation of the differences should not exceed
> (0.4 to 0.1) = 0.3). Finally, any sample that is not within three
> standard deviations of the mean for the test meter (for either the
> 2 % or 6 % moisture interval) will be dropped before analysis of the
> data.

**Discussion:** The prescreening of samples to eliminate poor predictors
is an attempt to remove outliers in advance, so that the test lab does
not have to make judgments about outliers. The problem is that samples
prescreened on one device will likely have larger rather than smaller
variability in the device under test. Error patterns of devices, even
when accurately calibrated on average to the reference, will not be the
same on individual samples and often will be in opposite directions. The
effect is to increase the chances of outliers on the tested device and
effectively lessen the chances of the second device passing.
Multivariate NIR units are especially prone to this problem. In test
categories that have few samples (10 or less) with low tolerances, the
impact is quite large and drives calibrations to model the NTEP data
rather than the universe of samples.

The following figures illustrate this problem. Figure 11.1 shows air
oven moisture vs. meter moisture for two different device types based on
data from the 2003 corn crop covering typical market-range moistures.
Figure 11.2 shows the error patterns for the two devices, and
Figure 11.3 shows that there is no relationship between the two devices
on an individual sample error basis.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.25in"
height="2.1283464566929133in"}![](media/image4.wmf){width="3.25in"
height="2.12992125984252in"}

![](media/image5.wmf){width="3.25in" height="2.130708661417323in"}

To overcome this effect, the following options might be considered,
recognizing that there has to be a tradeoff between \"fairness\" and lab
procedure complexity:

-   Choose the test samples randomly and use statistical outlier tests
    that incorporate the variability of the reference method data as
    well as the device data.

-   Choose the special set samples (temperature stability) after the
    accuracy test so these samples can be reasonable predictors on the
    device being tested. The purpose of temperature samples is to test
    response to temperature only.

-   Choose field inspection samples based on all approved devices.

Dr. Hurburgh remarked that this is an emerging problem that will become
more acute as more instruments of different technologies are introduced
into the system.

Rich Pierce, GIPSA, reported that the present method of prescreening
samples has worked well with test set results agreeing well over time.
He said that virtually no samples can be found that will fit all
instruments. He has concerns that the topics of Agenda Items 10 and 11
are too general and wonders what impact they might have on NTEP
evaluation procedures.

**Recommendation:** The Sector is asked to review this issue and
consider making it a study item for the coming year with formation of an
*ad hoc* study group composed of interested Sector members. Because this
issue has a major effect on type evaluation, especially when alternative
technologies are involved, manufacturers are urged to seriously consider
becoming an active participant in this *ad hoc* group should the Sector
decide to form one.

**Conclusion**: Dr. Hurburgh volunteered to chair an *ad hoc* study
group to review the issues outlined in Agenda Items 10 and 11. He will
send a questionnaire to Sector members and interested parties to
determine who is interested in joining the group.

# Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Assigning Sample Data to Moisture Ranges for GMM Type Evaluation

**Source:** Charles R. Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State University

**Background:** Many of the tests specified in the Grain Moisture Meter
chapter of NIST Publication 14 require using a defined number of samples
in each of three 2 % moisture intervals. For ease of selection, the
samples are tested on the Official meter and are assigned to the 2 %
moisture intervals based on the Official meter\'s moisture result. It is
simpler to assign ranges in advance based on prescreening because the
sample set is defined before the test; however, assignment of sample
data to moisture ranges can be a critical item for device evaluation, in
that one sample shifted from one range to another can actually affect
the pass/fail status of the device in both ranges, depending on the
performance of the device on the other samples in the two ranges.
Assigning the samples to 2 % moisture intervals based on air oven
moisture results (or, in the case of sample temperature sensitivity
tests, based on moisture determined at room temperature by the device
under test) will reduce sample set dependence and lessen the impact of
individual sample properties resulting in a more realistic test of
device characteristics. Assigning samples to 2 % moisture intervals
based on their air oven moisture values also matches the basis on which
sample data are grouped for analysis in the Phase II On-going
Calibration Program.

**Recommendation:** Dr. Hurburgh proposed an amendment to the Grain
Moisture Meter chapter of NIST Publication 14 to specify that test
sample sets are to be selected based on air oven moisture values or, in
the case of sample temperature sensitivity tests, based on moisture
determined at room temperature by the device under test.

**Discussion:** A question was raised regarding what basis would be used
to decide which samples to discard in the event that all extra samples
were not needed. Dr. Hurburgh suggested that one possibility was to use
only the first 10 samples that fell within the range.

Rich Pierce, GIPSA, was not in favor of changing the existing laboratory
procedure. He explained that deliberately selecting samples that are
distributed across each 2 % range provides for a better test set. The
NTEP Laboratory was not eager to change a procedure that has worked well
for years. Dr. Pierce did not see a problem with what is being done
procedurally at the present time.

**Conclusion:** The Sector failed to reach a consensus on the proposed
change.

# 13. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 IR59 "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, a
TC 17/SC 1 work group has been meeting to review revision to OIML R 59.
The most recent meeting of the TC 17/SC 1 work group was held on
September 20 - 21, 2004, at the Laboratory National D'Essais (LNE) in
Paris, France.

**Discussion**: The most recent draft of OIML R 59 is the
3^rd^ Committee Draft of OIML R59 \"Moisture Meters for Cereal Grain"
dated April 2005. This has been submitted by the Secretariat to
participating and observing countries for review, comment and approval
of the changes. Copies of the 3^rd^ Committee Draft of OIML R59 and the
minutes of the TC 17/SC 1 September 2004 meeting can be found on the
NIST Weights and Measures Division website at:
<http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/R59draft.htm>.

Diane Lee, NIST Weights and Measures Division, reviewed some of the
changes included in the draft and asked Sector members to forward
comments to her by September 8, 2005. She reported that concerns
relating to the temperature requirements were addressed by inserting the
following sentence into Paragraph 5.7.1.:

> If the moisture meter is not able to measure sample temperature, then
> the operating temperature range shall be defined by national
> responsible bodies.

And Paragraph 5.7.2. was modified by inserting the sentences:

> The moisture meter shall be able to take into account a temperature
> difference of at least 10 °C. If the moisture meter is not able to
> measure sample temperature, the maximum allowable temperature
> difference between the meter and the sample shall be defined by
> national responsible bodies.

To address the concerns relating to sample size requirements,
Paragraph 6.1.5. was modified to remove the explicit minimum sample size
requirements, leaving only the sentence:

> "Meters shall be designed to measure the moisture content of
> representative size grain samples."

A Test Section Check List has been added to the draft. It is not a
detailed \"check list\" like the one in Publication 14.

Ms. Lee also reported that China (the Secretariat of TC 17/SC 1) has
indicated that a meeting of TC 17/SC 1 would not be held in 2005. A date
for a future meeting has not yet been set.

Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, answered Sector concerns that changes in
the 3^rd^ Committee Draft might ultimately allow approval of grain
moisture meters that didn\'t meet current Handbook 44 requirements. Mr.
Patoray stated that these differences could be dealt with when (and if)
the United States enters into a mutual acceptance agreement (MAA) with
OIML, the EU or other body.

# 14. Report on OIML TC 5/SC 2 Document D-SW, "General Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring Devices"

**Background:** This item was included on the Sector's agenda to provide
a summary of the activities of OIML TC 5/SC 2. In December 2004 the
Secretariats, Germany and France, for OIML TC 5/SC 2 submitted a
pre‑draft of the OIML Document "General Requirements for
Software-Controlled Measuring Instruments." The Document is intended as
guidance for technical committees when addressing software requirements
in future OIML Recommendations for software-controlled measuring
instruments.

According to the Secretariat, the pre-draft was developed based on
responses of OIML TC 5/SC 2 members to a questionnaire, the analysis of
existing OIML Recommendations and Documents, the analysis of existing
regional software requirements (including the European Measurement
Instrument Directive and U.S. Food and Drug Guidance Documents), and
ISO/IEC software standards.

Noting that Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the pre-draft document were
incomplete, Wayne Stiefel, NIST, Weights and Measures Division,
solicited comments on the pre-draft. United States interested parties
were asked to review the document in terms of the general approach being
proposed and what is practical and applicable in a type approval setting
and to also provide detailed comments on specific sections. NIST was
particularly interested in comments related to the general and specific
requirements for measuring instruments in Section 5, and the type
approval examination and evaluation procedures in Section 6. Comments
were to be returned to Mr. Stiefel by February 1, 2005, to allow NIST to
prepare a collated set of comments by February 28, 2005, for the
Secretariat.

The pre-draft document prescribes in Section 5 general requirements for
measuring instruments, including:

1\. Information display;

2\. Means of fraud protection;

3\. Hardware features supporting fault detection and durability
protection; and

4\. Specific requirements for:\
a.      Design of interfaces;\
b.      Separation of software models performing functions subject to
legal control from other functions;\
c.      Display or printouts;\
d.      Storage of data and transmission via communication systems;\
e.      Compatibility of operating systems and hardware portability;\
f.      Conformity of production-line devices and software with approved
type;\
g.      Verification of software updates; and\
h.      Procedures for loading updated software and maintaining audit
trail.

In addition, the document provides in Section 6 type approval procedures
to be used in examination and evaluation of the software including the
following items:

1.  Software documentation to be supplied;

2.  A set of validation methods for software examination, which a
    Recommendation may use to specify the details of the procedure to
    assure that the instrument complies with the Recommendation.
    Software specific validation methods include: examination of the
    software documentation and specification and validation of design;
    functional testing of metrological features; functional testing of
    software features; data flow analysis; code inspection walk-through;
    and software module testing.

The pre-draft software document, the Secretariat\'s Response to
TC 5/SC 2 Member Comments, and electronic forms for submitting comments
are still available on the web at:
<http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/TC5-SC2.htm>.

**Discussion**: Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that a first working draft
Recommendation is being prepared by the Secretariats to address comments
received on the outline draft. Another meeting of TC 5/SC 2 has
tentatively been scheduled for the end of 2005. Commenting on the
possible impact of the proposed Recommendation, one manufacturer stated
that his company would be opposed to the recommendation if it meant that
calibration parameters would need to be made available. Sector members
are asked to review this document, especially in terms of its possible
impact on OIML R59 \"Moisture Meters for Cereal Grain" and with emphasis
on what is practical and applicable in a type approval setting.

# 15. 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. Australia, secretariat
of TC 17/SC 8, developed an outline of the Recommendation on Protein
Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain (March 2004) that was circulated
to participating nations (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic,
Germany, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russia, and the United
States) for comments. In the United States the document was circulated
to the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for comments. OIML TC 17/SC 8,
charged with developing an International Recommendation (IR) for Protein
Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain, held its first meeting
May 31 -- June 1, 2004, in Sydney, Australia. Representatives from
Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States attended the
meeting. Comments received from the United States and Germany were
discussed at the TC 17/SC 8 meeting in Australia. The comments for the
most part were accepted. The scope was expanded to include wheat,
barley, corn, soybeans, and rice, and changes were made to allow the
national measurement authority to determine moisture basis, reference
method, instrument monitoring process, and whether or not to test
non-indirect measuring devices.

A revised outline of the Recommendation on Protein Measuring Instruments
for Cereal Grain, incorporating the changes agreed upon at the 2004
meeting in Sydney, was distributed with the agenda for the Near-Infrared
Grain Analyzer Sector\'s August 2004 meeting for further review and
comment. The U.S. work group members provided limited comments to this
draft. The comments that were provided to the Secretariat related to
parts of the document that appeared to be in conflict with U.S.
metrological practice and procedures.

**Discussion:** A meeting of TC 17/SC 8 was hosted by PTB in Berlin,
Germany, June 27 - 28, 2005, to review the May 2005 version of the
\"Outline of the Recommendation on Protein Measuring Instruments.\"
Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that the first working draft may be
available by end of September 2005. Diane will distribute the draft to
the sector members along with a request for comments when the first
working draft is available. Diane also requested that the Sector review
the tolerances in the current draft and provide comments as soon as
possible.

# 16. Naming Conventions for Near-Infrared Analyzer Calibrations

**Background:** Both the Grain Moisture Meters Code and the
Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Code of NIST Handbook 44 specify that a
device must be capable of displaying either calibration constants, a
unique calibration name, or a unique calibration version number. The
relevant paragraphs are shown below:

**Sec. 5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters**

> **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)

**Sec. 5.57. Near‑Infrared Grain Analyzers**

> ***S.2.5.2. Calibration Version. ‑** An instrument 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 constituent
> determinations, and that the appropriate instrument settings have been
> made for the calibration being used.*
>
> *\[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003\]*
>
> (Amended 2001)

Because the constituent calibrations used on near-infrared (NIR)
instruments typically consist of many multi-digit constants,
manufacturers of these devices normally elect to identify the
calibration version by means of \"a unique calibration version number.\"

Some devices currently use a combination of terms to identify the
calibration. For example, the Foss Infratec 1241 uses two levels of
calibration identification. At the most basic level, a prediction model
(PM) identifier is used for each individual constituent calibration. The
PM contains the coefficients used to actually determine constituent
content. Prediction models for various constituent calibrations are
combined to form application models (AM). AM identifiers appear on the
analyzer screen and are also the calibration identifiers used in the
audit trail. The AM identifiers may be different for each instrument
based on the customer\'s requirements (e.g., the AM may include
constituents not covered by NTEP, such as wheat gluten, or possibly an
alternate moisture basis.) The PM identifiers, which may be displayed by
moving deeper into the menu system, are the same for all instruments.

Two other Foss instruments, Infratec 1227 and Infratec 1229, also make
use of AM identifiers which may be different for each instrument
depending on the specific combination of prediction models they contain.
However, the PM identifiers cannot be displayed on these two
instruments.

**Discussion/Recommendation:** GIPSA implemented the NTEP wheat protein
calibration in May and the NTEP barley calibration in July. Foss
Infratecs are being used in both the official system and the commercial
system. Anticipating that the uniqueness of AM identifiers based on user
requirements could lead to field inspection problems on cross-utilized
instruments, GIPSA met with Foss last December to discuss how \"unique
calibration version numbers\" might be listed to meet the needs of both
the NTEP program and GIPSA, with the objective being to make it obvious
that the current NTEP protein and moisture calibrations are being used.
The proposed solution would first appear on Foss Certificates of
Conformance: 95-063A9 and 01-063A5.

The solution proposed by GIPSA is to list the calibrations using the
following code:

> ABYYMMxx

where AB is the grain identifier

> YY is the year the calibration is issued
>
> MM is the month the calibration is issued
>
> xx would be a \"version\" number from 00 to 99

The ABYYMM part of the calibration would be the unique identifier to
ensure that the current calibrations listed on the Certificate of
Conformance (CC) for moisture, oil, and protein are being used. The xx
would then be customer specific and it could include constituents not
covered by NTEP such as wheat gluten or possibly an alternate moisture
basis.

For example, the calibration for durum wheat protein and moisture would
be listed as WU050101. The unique identifier of the calibration would be
WU0501 to let the field inspector quickly see on any Infratec 1227,
1229, or 1241 that it has the current NTEP moisture and protein
calibrations. The 01 would be a version number that is assigned from
00 to 99 that is customer specific and it includes constituents not
covered by the NTEP such as wheat gluten or possibly an alternate
moisture basis.

The ABYYMMxx is the designation the user and field inspector would see
when they walk up to the instrument. The field inspector could go into
the instrument menu structure to see the specific moisture equation
name, protein equation name, etc., that are bundled together to make up
the ABYYMMxx calibration version on the Infratec 1241 with the xx suffix
unique to each instrument.

The Sector was asked to consider if there would be any pitfalls or
problems with using the above GIPSA proposal to list the calibrations on
the CC by the AM number, using this scheme, e.g. WU0501xx, with the note
that xx can be any number between 00 and 99.

One Sector member pointed out that the PM calibrations making up the
bundle had been approved, not the AM bundle itself. Several members
favored using the proposed naming convention, listing only PM
identifiers on the CC for the Infratec 1241 and listing both the AM
identifier and, if possible, the included PM identifiers on the CC for
the Infratec 1227 and 1229. The Foss representative noted that the
Infratec 1227 and 1229 were NTEP approved only for moisture and had not
been available for sale for a number of years. It was also pointed out
that the AM contains metrologically significant instrument set-up data
(the number of replicates for example), so it must appear on the CC in
addition to the PM\'s.

**Conclusion:** The CC for the Infratec 1241 will list both AM
identifiers and the identifiers of all NTEP-approved PM\'s included in
each AM. The CC for the Infratec 1227 and 1229 will list only the AM
identifier (in this case called \"Calibration Version\"). For all of
these models, the AM identifier will appear in the form proposed above
with only the last two digits, shown as "xx," varying. Examples of the
listings for Hard Red Spring Wheat and Corn as they appear on the CC\'s
are shown below.

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **From CC 01-063A5 (Infratec      | **From CC 95-063A9 (Infratec 1227 |
| 1241)**                           | & 1229)**                         |
+===================================+===================================+
| **Hard Red Spring Wheat**         | **Hard Red Spring Wheat**         |
|                                   |                                   |
| Designation: HRS WHEAT            | Designation: HRS WHEAT            |
|                                   |                                   |
| Application Model: WS0501xx       | Calibration Version: WS0501xx     |
|                                   |                                   |
| Moisture Prediction Model:        | Moisture Range - Approved: 8 % to |
| WBMO0024                          | 20 %                              |
|                                   |                                   |
| Moisture Range - Approved: 8 % to | Moisture Range - Pending: 6 % to  |
| 20 %                              | 24 %                              |
|                                   |                                   |
| Moisture Range - Pending: 6 % to  | Subsamples: 10                    |
| 24 %                              |                                   |
|                                   | Path Length: 18 mm                |
| Protein Prediction Model:         |                                   |
| WBPR0028                          | Slope: 1.0 for all instruments    |
|                                   |                                   |
| Native Moisture Basis: 0 %        | Intercept (Bias): Varies by       |
|                                   | instrument                        |
| Subsamples: 7 (or more)           |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Slope: 1.0 for all instruments    |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Intercept (Bias): Varies by       |                                   |
| instrument                        |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Corn**                          | **Corn**                          |
|                                   |                                   |
| Designation: CORN                 | Designation: CORN                 |
|                                   |                                   |
| Application Model: CO0501xx       | Calibration Version: CO0501xx     |
|                                   |                                   |
| Moisture Prediction Model:        | Moisture Range - Approved: 8 % to |
| COMO0011                          | 44 %                              |
|                                   |                                   |
| Moisture Range - Approved: 8 % to | Moisture Range - Pending: 8 % to  |
| 40 %                              | 46 %                              |
|                                   |                                   |
| Moisture Range - Pending: 8 % to  | Subsamples: 10                    |
| 46 %                              |                                   |
|                                   | Path Length: 30 mm                |
| Oil Prediction Model: COOI0006    |                                   |
|                                   | Slope: 1.0 for all instruments    |
| Protein Prediction Model:         |                                   |
| COPR0007                          | Intercept (Bias): Varies by       |
|                                   | instrument                        |
| Native Moisture Basis: 0 %        |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Subsamples: 7 (or more)           |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Slope: 1.0 for all instruments    |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Intercept (Bias): Varies by       |                                   |
| instrument                        |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

# 17. Time and Place for Next Meeting

The next meeting is tentatively planned for Wednesday, August 23, and
Thursday, August 24, in the Kansas City, Missouri, area. Sector members
are asked to hold both these days open pending determination of exact
meeting times and meeting duration. Meetings will be held in one of the
meeting rooms at the National Weather Service Training Center if
available. Final meeting details will be announced by late April 2006.

If you would like to submit an agenda item for the 2006 meeting, please
contact Steve Patoray, NTEP Technical 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 1, 2006.

**Change Summary**

+-----------+-----------------------------------------+------+--------+
| **Re      |                                         |      |        |
| commended |                                         |      |        |
| A         |                                         |      |        |
| mendments |                                         |      |        |
| and       |                                         |      |        |
| Changes   |                                         |      |        |
| to the    |                                         |      |        |
| Grain     |                                         |      |        |
| Moisture  |                                         |      |        |
| Meters    |                                         |      |        |
| Chapter** |                                         |      |        |
|           |                                         |      |        |
| **in      |                                         |      |        |
| the**     |                                         |      |        |
|           |                                         |      |        |
| **2005    |                                         |      |        |
| Edition   |                                         |      |        |
| of        |                                         |      |        |
| Publica   |                                         |      |        |
| tion 14** |                                         |      |        |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------+------+--------+
| **Section | **Amendment/Change**                    | **Pa | **So   |
| Number**  |                                         | ge** | urce** |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------+------+--------+
| A         | Correct the Table titled: **Moisture    | GM   | [08/05 |
| ppendix D | Ranges and Tolerances for Sample        | M-43 | Grain  |
|           | Temperature Sensitivity** by inserting  |      | An     |
|           | a row for Grain Type Long Grain Rough   |      | alyzer |
|           | Rice (with Moisture Range 10 % to 16 %  |      | Sector |
|           | and Tolerance Limit 0.45) between the   |      | Item   |
|           | rows for Oats and Medium Grain Rough    |      | 9](#ed |
|           | Rice ([see corrected                    |      | itoria |
|           | Table](#Table_from_GMM_Appendix_D)).    |      | l-corr |
|           |                                         |      | ection |
|           |                                         |      | -to-gm |
|           |                                         |      | m-chap |
|           |                                         |      | ter-of |
|           |                                         |      | -publi |
|           |                                         |      | cation |
|           |                                         |      | -14-ta |
|           |                                         |      | ble-in |
|           |                                         |      | -appen |
|           |                                         |      | dix-d) |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------+------+--------+