Agenda of the Laws and Regulations Committee

Dennis Johannes

Chairman

California Weights and Measures

Reference

Key Number

**200 Introduction**

The Laws and Regulations Committee (Committee) will address the
following items at its Interim Meeting. Table A identifies agenda items
by Reference Key Number, title, and page number. The first three digits
of the Reference Key Numbers of the items are assigned from the subject
series listed below. The fact that an item may appear on the agenda does
not mean it will be presented to the NCWM for a vote, The Committee may
withdraw some items, present some items for information and further
study, issue interpretations, or make specific recommendations for
changes to the publications listed below. The recommendations presented
in this agenda are statements of proposal and not necessarily
recommendations of the Committee. The appendices to the report are
listed in Table B.

This agenda contains recommendations to amend National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 130, "Uniform Laws and
Regulations," 2003 edition, and NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net
Contents of Packaged Goods," Fourth Edition. Revisions proposed for the
handbooks are shown in **bold face print** by ~~crossing out~~
information to be deleted and [underlining]{.underline} information to
be added. Additions proposed for the handbooks are designated as such
and are shown in **bold face print**. Proposals presented for
information only are designated as such and are shown in *italic* type.
"SI" means the International System of Units. "FPLA" means the Fair
Packaging and Labeling Act. The section mark, "§," is used in most
references in the text and is followed by the section number and title,
(for example, § 1.2. Weight.) When used in this report, the term
"weight" means "mass."

#### [Subject Series]{.underline}

**NIST Handbook 130** - General 210 Series

Uniform Laws 220 Series

Weights and Measures Law (WML) 221 Series

Weighmaster Law (WL) 222 Series

Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection
Law (EFL) 223 Series

Uniform Regulations 230 Series

Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR) 231 Series

Method of Sale Regulation (MSR) 232 Series

Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR) 233 Series

Voluntary Registration Regulation (VRR) 234 Series

Open Dating Regulation (ODR) 235 Series

Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation (UNTER) 236 Series

Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation
(EFR) 237 Series

Examination Procedure for Price Verification 240 Series

Interpretations and Guidelines 250 Series

**NIST Handbook 133** 260 Series

**Other Items** 270 Series

**Table A**

**Index to Reference Key Items**

**Ref. Key No. Title of Item Page**

## [231 PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION 4](#packaging-and-labeling-regulation) {#packaging-and-labeling-regulation-4 .TOC-1}

## [231-1 Amend § 6.5.1. Symbols 4](#amend-6.5.1.-symbols) {#amend-6.5.1.-symbols-4 .TOC-2}

## [232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION 4](#method-of-sale-regulation) {#method-of-sale-regulation-4 .TOC-1}

## [232-1 Amend § 1.12. Ready-to-Eat Food 4](#amend-1.12.-ready-to-eat-food) {#amend-1.12.-ready-to-eat-food-4 .TOC-2}

## [232-2 Stored Tare Weights 5](#stored-tare-weights) {#stored-tare-weights-5 .TOC-2}

## [232-3 Scaling Methods for Trees, Sawlogs & Veneer Logs 8](#scaling-methods-for-trees-sawlogs-veneer-logs) {#scaling-methods-for-trees-sawlogs-veneer-logs-8 .TOC-2}

## [232-4 Temperature Compensation for Petroleum Products 9](#temperature-compensation-for-petroleum-products) {#temperature-compensation-for-petroleum-products-9 .TOC-2}

## [232-5 Cooking Oils 9](#cooking-oils) {#cooking-oils-9 .TOC-2}

## [236 UNIFORM NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION REGULATION 10](#uniform-national-type-evaluation-regulation) {#uniform-national-type-evaluation-regulation-10 .TOC-1}

## [236-1 Amend §§ 2.1. Active Certificate of Conformance, 2.2. Device, and 3. Certificate of Conformance 10](#amend-2.1.-active-certificate-of-conformance-2.2.-device-and-3.-certificate-of-conformance) {#amend-2.1.-active-certificate-of-conformance-2.2.-device-and-3.-certificate-of-conformance-10 .TOC-2}

## [237 ENGINE FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICANTS REGULATION 11](#engine-fuels-petroleum-products-and-automotive-lubricants-regulation) {#engine-fuels-petroleum-products-and-automotive-lubricants-regulation-11 .TOC-1}

## [237-1 Petroleum Subcommittee Agenda Items 11](#petroleum-subcommittee-agenda-items) {#petroleum-subcommittee-agenda-items-11 .TOC-2}

## [237-2 Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation 13](#engine-fuels-petroleum-products-and-automotive-lubricants-regulation-1) {#engine-fuels-petroleum-products-and-automotive-lubricants-regulation-13 .TOC-2}

## [237-3 Biodiesel Fuel 13](#biodiesel-fuel) {#biodiesel-fuel-13 .TOC-2}

## [237-4 E diesel 17](#e-diesel) {#e-diesel-17 .TOC-2}

## [237-5 Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel 17](#nozzle-requirements-for-diesel-fuel) {#nozzle-requirements-for-diesel-fuel-17 .TOC-2}

## [240 EXAMINATION PROCEDURE FOR PRICE VERIFICATION 18](#examination-procedure-for-price-verification) {#examination-procedure-for-price-verification-18 .TOC-1}

## [240-1 Amend § 6.2 Other 18](#amend-6.2-other) {#amend-6.2-other-18 .TOC-2}

## [260 NIST HANDBOOK 133, CHECKING THE NET CONTENT OF PACKAGED GOODS 19](#nist-handbook-133-checking-the-net-content-of-packaged-goods) {#nist-handbook-133-checking-the-net-content-of-packaged-goods-19 .TOC-1}

## [260-1 Edit MAV Tables 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, and 2-10 19](#edit-mav-tables-2-5-2-6-2-8-and-2-10) {#edit-mav-tables-2-5-2-6-2-8-and-2-10-19 .TOC-2}

## [260-2 Amend § 1.2, Package Requirements 19](#amend-1.2-package-requirements) {#amend-1.2-package-requirements-19 .TOC-2}

## [260-3 Amend § 2.3 Basic Test Procedure 21](#amend-2.3-basic-test-procedure) {#amend-2.3-basic-test-procedure-21 .TOC-2}

## [260-4 Amend § 2.3 Basic Test Procedure, and Table 2-5 24](#amend-2.3-basic-test-procedure-and-table-2-5) {#amend-2.3-basic-test-procedure-and-table-2-5-24 .TOC-2}

## [260-5 Amend § 3.2 Gravimetric Test Procedure for Liquids 24](#amend-3.2-gravimetric-test-procedure-for-liquids) {#amend-3.2-gravimetric-test-procedure-for-liquids-24 .TOC-2}

## [260-6 Amend § 3.11 and MAV Table 2-10 25](#amend-3.11-and-mav-table-2-10) {#amend-3.11-and-mav-table-2-10-25 .TOC-2}

## [270 OTHER ITEMS 25](#other-items) {#other-items-25 .TOC-1}

## [270-1 Enhanced Product -- USDA/FSIS Meat and Poultry Products 25](#enhanced-product-usdafsis-meat-and-poultry-products) {#enhanced-product-usdafsis-meat-and-poultry-products-25 .TOC-2}

##  {#section .TOC-2}

**Table B**

**Appendices**

**Appendix Title Page**

[**A Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants
Regulation A1**](../06-LawsRegAppdxA-Pub15-04-Z.doc#_Appendix_A)

[B Handbook 133 Appendix A.
Tables](../06-LawsRegAppdxB-Pub15-04-Z.doc#_Appendix_B) B1

**Daily Schedule**

**Sunday, January 25**

**1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Committee Working Session:** This session is
open to all NCWM members but participation in discussion is generally
limited to members of the Committee.

**Monday, January 26**

**8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Public Hearing:** Comments will be accepted on
the following topics:

231. Packaging and Labeling Regulation

232. Method of Sale Regulation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
236. Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation

237. Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants
     Regulation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
240. Examination Procedure for Price Verification

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
260. NIST Handbook 133

> 270 Other Items

**Tuesday, January 27**

**8:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Public Hearing (continued):** Comments will
continue to be accepted on the above topics.

**1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Committee Working Session:** This session is
open to all NCWM members but participation in discussion is generally
limited to members of the Committee.

**Wednesday, January 28**

**8:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. Committee Working Session:** This session is
open to all NCWM members but participation in discussion is generally
limited to members of the Committee.

**11:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Joint Session with all Standing Committees**

**Details of All Items**

**(In Order by Reference Key Number)**

###### 231 PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

####### 231-1 Amend § 6.5.1. Symbols

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** NIST Weights and Measures Division

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Amend the list of allowed symbols
for the quantity statement on a package or commodity by adding the
following:

> **6.5.1. Symbols.** - Any of the following symbols for SI units, and
> none other, may be employed in the quantity statement on a package or
> commodity:
>
> centimeter cm cubic meter m^3^
>
> cubic centimeter cm^3^ kilogram kg
>
> meter m gram g
>
> milligram mg millimeter mm
>
> liter L or l square meter m^2^
>
> milliliter mL or ml cubic decimeter dm^3^
>
> square centimeter cm^2^ square decimeter dm^2^
>
> micrometer µm **[microgram]{.underline} µ[g or mcg]{.underline}**

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has recently permitted the use of the symbol "mc,"
in addition to the traditional symbol "µ," for the word "micro" on
packages labeled by weight. This change came about because of
difficulties the pharmaceutical industry was experiencing with fitting
the symbol "µ" on their labels. The symbol "µ" requires additional
height that the extremely small labels found on prescription drugs
simply cannot accommodate. The symbol "mc" is intended to give
manufacturers a horizontal option for their quantity declaration.
Although there are very few commodities regulated by the weights and
measures community that would be affected by this change, it is being
proposed so that the state and local weights and measures regulations
remain consistent with federal packaging and labeling practices.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This is a new item.

###### 232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION

####### 232-1 Amend § 1.12. Ready-to-Eat Food

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Southern Weights and Measures Association
(SWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** To amend the definition of
"Ready-to-Eat" found in Section 1.12.1. of the Method of Sale Regulation
in Handbook 130 as follows:

> **1.12.1. Definition.** - "Ready-to-Eat Food" is restaurant-style
> **[or whole fresh]{.underline}** food offered or exposed for sale,
> whether in restaurants, supermarkets, or similar food service
> establishments **[like cafeterias or convenience
> stores]{.underline}**, that is ready for consumption, though not
> necessarily on the premises where sold. Ready-to-Eat Food does not
> include sliced luncheon products, like meat, poultry or cheese when
> sold separately.

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** Some state departments
of weights and measures have recently expressed confusion about whether
the definition of "Ready-to-Eat Food" allows for the sale of
single-serving bananas by count at food serving establishments like
cafeterias and convenience stores, where the sale of single whole fresh
produce commodities like bananas, apples, and oranges are common.
Amending the definition of "Ready-to-Eat Food" to clarify that whole
fresh and immediately edible products like bananas fall under the scope
of this definition would assist certain states in interpreting the
guidelines. Reasons for this change include: (1) The sale of
single-serving bananas by count in a food service establishment should
be an acceptable practice. It does not mislead consumers; consumers can
see, evaluate, and compare a single banana, apple, orange, etc., and
determine its acceptability prior to purchase. The guidelines should be
clear to permit the count method of sale for single serving bananas in a
food serving establishment by clarifying that whole fresh food are
indeed a "Ready-to-Eat Food". (2) According to the U.S. government
statistics, over half of adults in America are overweight or obese --
and today, obesity in children is rapidly becoming a major health
crisis. State governments should be promoting the consumption of
nutritious products like bananas, and departments of weights and
measures can play a role to ensure that such healthy food choices are
available to consumers by writing or amending the method of sale
guidelines that make these beneficial foods readily and conveniently
available in food serving environments. If the committee prefers a more
direct clarification, then simply adding the sentence "Ready-to-Eat Food
does include single servings of whole fresh produce commodities like
apples and bananas" would be an acceptable alternative.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This is a new item. First introduced
at the 2003 SWMA Meeting, concern was expressed that the phrase "whole
fresh" is overly broad and captures every possible type of produce as
well as sushi/seafood items. The SWMA voted to leave the definition of
"Ready-to-Eat Food" as is, and recommend that the following note be
added immediately after the definition:

> ***[NOTE: The sale of an individual piece of fresh fruit (like
> bananas, apples, and oranges) is allowed by count at food serving
> establishments like cafeterias and convenience stores.]{.underline}***

####### 232-2 Stored Tare Weights

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Southern Weights and Measures Association
(SWMA)

> [current proposal:]{.smallcaps} Add the following language to the
> Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation:
>
> [3.5. Vehicle Tare Weights - Whenever stored vehicle tare weights are
> employed, the following conditions and requirements shall
> apply:]{.underline}
>
> [3.5.1. All stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be determined to
> the nearest scale division. When stored tare weights are used, issued
> weight certificates shall identify that fact by placing words such as
> \"stored tare\" next to the tare weight. Abbreviations or symbols may
> be used, provided the terminology is defined elsewhere on the printed
> ticket.]{.underline}
>
> [3.5.2. Stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be verified at regular
> intervals at a frequency to be determined by the jurisdiction with
> statutory authority for the device, unless preempted by a more
> stringent guideline/requirement or modification of the
> vehicle.]{.underline}

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** Stored vehicle tare
weights are being used and have often been found to be incorrect. Errors
found in initial vehicle tare weight surveys range from weighing 8,900
pounds less than the stored tare to weighing 2,680 pounds more than the
stored tare. A load of sand or gravel at a cost of \$5.50 per ton with a
tare error of 750 pounds has a monetary value for each weighing error of
\$2.06. If this error occurs on four transactions per day for 240
working days, it results in an overcharge of more than \$1,977 per year.
Since the practice of using stored tare weights is followed by other
types of businesses (e.g., landfills and asphalt plants) where prices
may reach \$70 or more per ton, an error of 750 pounds in the tare
weight of a truck would equal \$26 per weighment. If this truck were
involved in four transactions per day for 240 working days, the
overcharge would total more than \$25,000 per year.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This item was originally submitted to
the Committee by the SWMA in 1999 as:

> 1\. Develop a method of sale regulation for stored vehicle tare
> weights. Require scale operators to maintain accurate and up to date
> tare weights. The SWMA submitted the following suggested requirements
> for a new method of sale.
>
> 3.5. Vehicle Tare Weights - Whenever stored vehicle tare weights are
> employed, the following conditions and requirements shall apply:
>
> 3.5.1. Allowable differences. - The difference between actual tare
> weight and stored tare weight must not exceed plus or minus 2 %.
>
> 3.5.2. All stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be accurately
> determined to the nearest scale division.
>
> 3.5.3. Stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be verified at regular
> intervals, not to exceed 3 months, unless pre-empted by a more
> stringent guideline/requirement.
>
> 2\. Adopt appropriate allowable difference between actual tare weight
> and stored tare weight.
>
> 3\. Develop an examination procedure outline and enforcement
> procedures.
>
> 4\. Collect data from States that have not yet responded to a survey
> conducted by the States of Maryland and North Carolina.

[In 2000]{.underline}: At the January Interim Meeting the Committee
received comments from the States of Maryland and Mississippi. Maryland
requested that this item be maintained as developmental and suggested
further work to be done by the Southern Weights and Measures
Association. Mississippi testified that stored tare weights are illegal
in its jurisdiction. The Committee decided to maintain this item as
Developmental, and asked that further work should be done on a regional
level to clarify this issue and fully develop the proposal.

-   The CWMA questioned the 600 lb. Tolerance. CWMA suggested that if a
    tolerance is to be allowed, it should be no greater than the
    maintenance tolerance for the tare weight.

-   The NEWMA supported continuing development of this issue. NEWMA
    reported that, while some states already prohibit stored tares in
    present enforcement programs, many feared that the practice is
    fairly widespread. NEWMA was supportive of the concept of timely
    verification of stored tare weights, but NEWMA felt that the time
    limit and tolerance proposals were not acceptable. NEWMA also
    expressed concern that stored tare weights may be inconsistent with
    the provisions of the Uniform Weighmaster Law in that the tare
    weight was not actually measured by the weighmaster and could
    invalidate any weight ticket issued.

-   The WWMA supported the further development of this item with the
    consideration of existing tare regulations in other states. WWMA
    also recommended consideration of the following:

    -   Allowable differences should be a percentage of the weight of
        the vehicle as opposed to a fixed weight.

    -   Limit the use of stored tare weights to specific commodities
        such as rock, sand or gravel.

    -   Certified weight tickets must also include a disclosure that
        reflects the use of a stored tare weight.

    -   Do not require a mandatory tare weight verification interval of
        3 months.

[In 2001:]{.underline} The Committee made this item Informational, and
considered several comments from the regional associations, including:
(1) Should the use of stored tare weights be limited to weighing in
certain applications, such as quarries and landfills; (2) Would it be
appropriate to develop a proposal for consideration by the S&T Committee
to require disclosure on the weight ticket that stored tare weights were
used in arriving at the net weights (as has been done with manual weight
entries); (3) Would it be appropriate to remove the mandatory
verification interval of three months because some jurisdictions may
prefer to verify the accuracy of a stored tare weight at their leisure,
and not provide the operator with a time frame during which
non-compliance may be permitted; (4) Is the 2 % tolerance too large --
should it be limited to the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance
for the value of the tare weight?

-   The CWMA opposed this item, expressing concerns that it would create
    a tolerance for tare weights when accuracy was possible. CWMA had
    further concerns that this allowance would open the door for
    proliferation into other areas of measurement.

-   The WWMA recommended that the item be amended to:

> 3.5. Vehicle Tare Weights - Whenever stored vehicle tare weights are
> employed for more than one weighment, the following conditions and
> requirements shall apply:
>
> 3.5.1. Allowable differences - It is the responsibility of the party
> for whom the stored tare weight was established to maintain the actual
> tare weight of the vehicle so that it at no time exceeds the stored
> tare weight.
>
> 3.5.2. All stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be accurately
> determined to the nearest scale division.
>
> 3.5.3. Weight certificates issued when stored vehicle tare weights are
> used shall identify that fact by placing the words "stored tare" next
> to the tare weight. The letters "ST" may be used in lieu of the words.
>
> 3.5.4. The use of stored vehicle tare weights shall be limited to
> vehicles moving earth, rock, sand, gravel, or asphalt paving material.

-   The SWMA recommended that the item be amended to:

> 3.5. Vehicle Tare Weights - Whenever stored vehicle tare weights are
> employed, the following conditions and requirements shall apply:
>
> 3.5.1. Allowable differences - The difference between the actual tare
> weight and stored tare weight must not exceed plus or minus 3 scale
> divisions.
>
> 3.5.2. All stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be accurately
> determined to the nearest scale division. Weight certificates issued
> when stored vehicle scale tare weights are used shall identify that
> fact by placing words such as "stored tare" next to the tare weight.
> Abbreviations or symbols may be used provided the terminology is
> defined elsewhere on the printed ticket.
>
> 3.5.3. Stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be verified at regular
> intervals at a frequency to be determined by the jurisdiction with
> statutory authority for the device, unless preempted by a more
> stringent guideline/requirement or modification of the vehicle.
>
> 3.5.4. The use of stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be limited
> to vehicles moving earth, rock, gravel, refuse, coal, or asphalt
> paving material.

[In 2002:]{.underline} At the January Interim Meeting the Committee
reviewed the information concerning this issue and decided to submit
this item to the NCWM for a vote using the language originally proposed
by the SWMA. The Committee heard comments from Jim Vanderwielen, USDA
Packers & Stockyards, that if this proposal is to be applied to poultry
that is weighed on a large capacity (vehicle) scale, a tolerance of 3
divisions (in the SWMA amended proposal) would conflict with their
requirements. At the July Annual Meeting, this item went before the NCWM
and did not receive enough votes to either pass or fail; it was returned
to the Committee.

-   The CWMA recommended that this item be withdrawn. CWMA is concerned
    that the item allows a tolerance for a weight that is (or can be)
    known. The State of Michigan presented an audit report of 77
    vehicles weighed with stored tare weights:

> Number of Trucks Weighed 77
>
> Number of Stored Tares Found in Error 77
>
> Percentage of Stored Tares in Error 100%
>
> Average Error "Stored Tare Weight" 988.3 lbs
>
> Number of Stored Tare Weights Favoring the Device Owner 34
>
> Number of Stored Tare Weights Favoring the Customer 43
>
> Total Error Weight Favoring the Device Owner 46,580 lbs
>
> Total Error Weight Favoring the Customer 32,500 lbs
>
> Economic Benefit to the Device Owner 14,080 lbs
>
> Estimated Annual Volume (Tons) 4,400
>
> Estimated Annual Sales \$26,500,000
>
> Average Estimated Number of Trucks Weighed: Company/Year 71,587

-   The NEWMA opposed this item as written, and recommended that it be
    amended to:

> 3.5. Vehicle Tare Weights - Whenever stored vehicle tare weights are
> employed, the following conditions and requirements shall apply:
>
> 3.5.1. All stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be determined to
> the nearest scale division. When stored tare weights are used, issued
> weight certificates shall identify that fact by placing words such as
> "stored tare" next to the tare weight. Abbreviations or symbols may be
> used, provided the terminology is defined elsewhere on the printed
> ticket.
>
> 3.5.2. Stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be verified at regular
> intervals at a frequency to be determined by the jurisdiction with
> statutory authority for the device, unless preempted by a more
> stringent guideline/requirement or modification of the vehicle.

-   The WWMA recommended that this item be withdrawn.

-   The SWMA recommended that this item be withdrawn. SWMA recognized
    that stored tare weights are in use in all of the states, and
    encouraged each jurisdiction to address these situations on a
    case-by-case basis.

[In 2003:]{.underline} At the January Interim Meeting the Committee
decided to amend this item using language provided by the NEWMA, and
submitted it to the NCWM for a vote. The Committee received an
additional proposal to amend this item as follows: In paragraph 3.5.1.,
in the first sentence, remove the word "determined" and replace it with
"accurate". The Committee decided to not make this amendment. At the
July Annual Meeting, this item went before the NCWM and did not receive
enough votes to either pass or fail; it was returned to the Committee.

-   The CWMA recommended that this item be withdrawn, and provided the
    following reasons: (1) Field data has revealed high errors; (2)
    Jurisdictions should not have to assume the responsibility of the
    user; (3) Non-uniformity of enforcement across jurisdictions; (4)
    Everyone should be enforcing net weight.

-   The WWMA recommended that paragraph 3.5.1. of this item be amended
    to:

> 3.5.1. All stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be ~~determined~~
> [verified]{.underline} to the nearest scale division. When stored tare
> weights are used, issued weight certificates shall identify that fact
> by placing words such as \"stored tare\" next to the tare weight.
> Abbreviations or symbols may be used, provided the terminology is
> defined elsewhere on the printed ticket.

-   The SWMA supported the change proposed by the WWMA.

####### 232-3 Scaling Methods for Trees, Sawlogs & Veneer Logs

[source:]{.smallcaps} Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

[current proposal:]{.smallcaps} Amend the Method of Sale Regulation in
Handbook 130 by adding the following:

> 2.xx. Trees, Sawlogs & Veneer Logs -- Scaling Methods. The
> requirements of this section provide for unbiased and consistent
> estimates of timber volumes offered for sale across regions and for
> different timber types.
>
> 2.xx.1. Definitions

a.  Tree: Woody plant having one erect perennial stem or trunk at least
    3 inches (7.5 cm) in diameter at breast height (dbh).

b.  Sawlog: A roundwood product of a tree, usually 8 feet (2.4 m) in
    length or longer, processed into a variety of sawn products such as
    lumber, ties, cants, and timbers.

c.  Veneer Log: A roundwood product of a tree, usually 8 feet (2.4 m) in
    length or longer, either rotary cut, sliced, or sawn into a variety
    of veneer products such as plywood, panels, and veneer.

d.  Firmwood: The content of a tree or log that is sound.

> 2.xx.2. Quantity. Representations for trees and logs shall be in terms
> of cubic foot (or cubic meter) representing the net firmwood content
> of a saw or veneer log. It is obtained from such a log's two end
> diameters (inside the bark) and its gross length using Smalian's
> formula (with appropriate deductions for rot, holes, char, and missing
> wood):
>
> Volume = [Length(Area of small end + Area of large end)]{.underline}
>
> 2

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** In the U.S. we generally
use traditional product yield-based board-foot scales to measure trees.
These scales were developed in the 19^th^ century according to practices
and tree sizes prevalent then. Since that time our forests have
transitioned to a 2^nd^ growth, smaller diameter, resource and those
antiquated scales have become grossly inaccurate in estimating true
yield potential. To compound the matter, different states and regions of
the country use different board-foot scales to estimate yield. The lack
of a standard U.S. tree/log scaling system confounds volume and value
comparisons across regions. The various current scales based on board
feet contain biases for longer length and smaller diameter logs that
distort volume estimates of such logs. The current product yield based
scale systems were derived nearly two centuries ago based on the type of
resources and technology then available. They have not been changed or
updated to reflect changes in technology and resource size, making them
outdated and inaccurate in the contemporary context.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This is a new item. First introduced
at the 2003 CWMA Interim Meeting, the CWMA recommended adoption of this
item. The SWMA also considered this item at their 2003 meeting and
recommended that this item remain developmental until interested
industry members can be notified and involved.

####### 232-4 Temperature Compensation for Petroleum Products

[source:]{.smallcaps} Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

[current proposal:]{.smallcaps} Amend the Method of Sale Regulation in
Handbook 130 by adding the following:

> 2.20.3. Petroleum Products - Petroleum products shall be sold with the
> volume adjusted to 60 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the distribution
> system except for retail motor fuel dispensers.

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** Selling fuel by
adjusting the volume to 60 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the
distribution system is the equitable way that fuel can be sold without
the buyer or seller gaining a competitive advantage. By allowing a
distributor to buy product on gross volume at the wholesale level and
sell it by net gallons retail, where he can manipulate the method of
sale depending on the time of year, is not equitable. A single method of
sale should be required so that a prospective customer can make a value
comparison. There is no practical way the average customer can make a
value comparison when some locations sell product temperature
compensated and other locations sell un-compensated.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This is a new item. First introduced
at the 2003 SWMA Meeting without the exception for retail motor fuel
devices, for political reasons the SWMA recommended adoption of this
item with the exception in place. A similar item was proposed in 2000 by
the NEWMA. This 2000 proposal was intended to mirror a proposal made to
the S&T Committee to add temperature compensation to the Vehicle Tank
Meter Code and recognize it for all devices in the Liquid Measuring
Device Code. The NEWMA wanted the Method of Sale Regulation changed to
permit compensated sales of petroleum products, and noted that
Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, and Canada all permit compensated
sales in some applications. This item remained Informational in 2000,
and was withdrawn in 2001.

##  {#section-1 .TOC-1}

####### 232-5 Cooking Oils

[source:]{.smallcaps} Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Amend the Method of Sale Regulation
in Handbook 130 by adding the following:

> **1.xx. Cooking Oils. All cooking oils shall be sold by liquid
> measure.**

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** At one time, larger
containers of peanut oil were packaged primarily for institutional use
and were often labeled by weight. Smaller packages for consumer use were
labeled by liquid volume, as has been customary with all cooking oils.
But with the more recent increase in popularity of turkey fryers that
are designed to fry whole turkeys in peanut oil, large containers of the
commodity have become common in the retail market as well. Some
manufacturers label these containers by weight (i.e., 35 lb or 50 lb).
These conflicting methods of sale frustrate consumers\' ability to make
value and price comparisons.

Handbook 130 Weights & Measures Law, Section 17 seems permissive in
allowing liquids to be sold by liquid measure or by weight. However,
this law was amended in 1989 to stress the importance of providing
adequate information that permits the buyer to make price and quantity
comparisons, opening the door for more stringent requirements where
necessary. As stated in the 1989 NCWM report, the Packaging and Labeling
Regulation and Method of Sale Regulation are subsets of the Weights &
Measures Law. Certain labeling or method of sale requirements in those
regulations may appear to be in contradiction to the Weights and
Measures Laws, but are really simply more specific to types of packages
or commodities.

It would seem appropriate to add a method of sale requirement for
cooking oils to Handbook 130 that will give the consumer the information
intended by the 1989 NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee when they
amended the Weights & Measures Law.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This is a new item. First introduced
at the 2003 CWMA Interim Meeting, CWMA recommended adoption of this
item. A similar item was proposed in the early 1980s, which led to the
1983 adoption of the language in Handbook 130, Interpretations and
Guidelines § 2.3.13.

###### 236 UNIFORM NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION REGULATION

####### 236-1 Amend §§ 2.1. Active Certificate of Conformance, 2.2. Device, and 3. Certificate of Conformance

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Northeast Weights and Measures Association
(NEWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Amend §§ 2.1 Active Certificate of
Conformance, 2.2 Device, and 3. Certificate of Conformance, of the
Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation as follows:

> **2.1. Active Certificate of Conformance.** - A document issued based
> on testing by a Participating Laboratory, which the certificate owner
> maintains in active status under the National Type Evaluation Program
> (NTEP). The document constitutes evidence of conformance with a type
> with the requirements of this document and the NIST Handbooks 44,
> 105-1, 105-2, or 105-3. By maintaining the Certificate in active
> status, the Certificate ~~owner~~ **[holder]{.underline}** declares
> the intent to continue to manufacture or remanufacture the device
> consistent with the type and in conformance with the applicable
> requirements. For manufacturers of grain moisture meters, maintenance
> of active status also involves annual participation in the NTEP
> Laboratory On-going Calibration Program, OCP (Phase II). A device is
> traceable to an active Certificate of Conformance if **[it is of the
> same type identified on the Certificate of Conformance
> and]{.underline}** it was manufactured during the period that the
> Certificate was maintained in active status. (Amended 2000, 2001,
> **[200x]{.underline}**)
>
> **2.2. Device.** - ~~Device means any weighing and measuring equipment
> as defined in § 2.15. Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment.~~ **[A
> piece of commercial or law enforcement equipment as defined in § 2.15.
> Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment. A device may be a single
> unit or a combination of compatible, separate main elements. This
> shall include, at a minimum, those parts of the device that perform
> the measurement and process the measurement signals up to the first
> indicated or recorded value of the final quantity on which the
> transaction is based. (Amended 200x)]{.underline}**
>
> **Section 3. Certificate of Conformance.** - The Director shall
> require a device to be traceable to an active Certificate of
> Conformance prior to its installation or use for commercial or law
> enforcement purposes. **[If the device consists of compatible,
> separate main elements, each separate main element shall be traceable
> to an active Certificate of Conformance.]{.underline}**

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** The change in Section
2.1. changes the word \"owner\" to \"holder\". The Board of Directors
believes that this term best describes the nature of the relationship.
For example, NTEP issues a Certificate and may withdraw it or make it
inactive if the holder fails to meet certain obligations under the
Administrative Policy. The nature of the incorporation of the NCWM
prevents the corporation from transferring things of material value. The
term \"owner\" would imply that in issuing the Certificate the NCWM had
transferred something of value to the manufacturer. In addition, the
Certificate may be thought of as being in the public domain since its
use is currently not restricted, and certainly state and local
jurisdictions freely copy and distribute it in the course of enforcing
the W&M regulations. The term \"holder\" still carries the important
rights and privileges, such as ability to transfer the Certificate if
company assets to produce the device are sold and the authority to
determine if a device is not traceable when metrological changes to the
device were made by some other party.

The amendments to the definition of \"device\" in Section 2.2. include
parallel changes to Section 3 to clarify that a device (i.e., an entire
weighing or measuring instrument) may be a single unit or a combination
of separate main elements. The other part of the change to this section
goes on to clarify what devices or elements must have Certificates
consistent with current NTEP policies. This is clearly stated in NTEP
Administrative Policy but deos not have a parallel statement in the
regulation. While we are making changes it seems appropriate to fix both
things.

A state has noted that language of the present NTEP Regulation may not
permit the mating of separate main elements unless the combination has a
separate Certificate. The language in Section 3 uses the singular form
(i.e., \"a\" Certificate of Conformance), which could be interpreted to
mean that every device must have \"one\" Certificate. The U.S. has
permitted mixing and matching compatible main elements since before the
NTEP program began. All actions of the NCWM in setting up NTEP support
that position as the term \"element\" is consistently included with the
term \"device.\" Up until now there were no challenges to the mating of
separate components to produce a weighing or measuring \"device.\" The
amendment to Section 3 would formally state that policy in the
regulation. It also clarifies that the single unit may have a
Certificate of its own , or that each separate main element must have
its own Certificate.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This is a new item. First introduced
at the 2003 NEWMA Interim Meeting, NEWMA recommended adoption of this
item.

###### 237 ENGINE FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICANTS REGULATION

####### 237-1 Petroleum Subcommittee Agenda Items

##  {#section-2 .TOC-1}

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Petroleum Subcommittee

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Based on proposals from and
Subcommittee, and comments received from the NCWM membership, the
Committee has an ongoing agenda for the Subcommittee that includes the
following projects:

-   **Federal Kerosene Dye Information** - It was suggested that
    information on the new Internal Revenue Service kerosene dye
    policies be distributed to the States. The Subcommittee will
    distribute this information.

-   **Update the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants
    Laboratory Guideline** - This guideline is contained in the
    Interpretations and Guidelines Section of NIST Handbook 130 and was
    last updated in 1994. Since that time, the cost of equipment has
    changed and new test methods have been developed. The Subcommittee
    proposes to revise and update the guideline.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This item was originally submitted to
the Committee by the Petroleum Subcommittee as the Subcommittee's
1999-2000 work plan. This work plan originally included the following
item:

-   **Automotive Lubricants** - The Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products,
    and Automotive Lubricants Regulation (EFR) implies that the document
    covers lubricants. When the regulation was developed, the
    Subcommittee gave developing engine fuel requirements priority. The
    Subcommittee has proposed requirements for lubricants (see item
    237-2).

[In 2000:]{.underline} At the January Interim Meeting the Committee
added the following item to the Subcommittee's agenda:

-   **Publication 21:** The Western Weights and Measures Association
    recommends that the Petroleum Subcommittee also revise the sampling
    procedures and container requirements in NCWM Publication 21 -
    *Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual* to
    provide adequate precautions regarding the use of clear glass
    containers for product specification conformance testing. This
    recommendation is based on data presented to the NCWM by Chevron
    Products Company and Tennessee.

At the July Annual Meeting the Committee submitted a budget proposal to
the NCWM Board of Directors requesting funds to allow the Subcommittee
to complete their assigned tasks.

[In 2001:]{.underline} At the July Annual Meeting the Committee received
information from the NCWM Board of Directors that monetary support for
the Subcommittee's work would be provided. The Committee approved the
Subcommittee agenda items, and prioritized them as: (1) Federal Kerosene
Dye Information; (2) Publication 21; (3) Update the Engine Fuels,
Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory Guideline; and (4)
Automotive Lubricants.

-   The CWMA heard from Mike Belue, Belue Associates, who spoke on
    behalf of the American Petroleum Institute (API). API recommended
    that references to additional standards be included in the
    Automotive Lubricants item where such standards do not conflict. For
    example: API 1509 references ASTM D 4485 and SAE J183. API 1509
    describes API's Engine Oil Licensing Program; ASTM D 4485 provides
    the specifications for current API engine oil categories, and SAE
    J183 provides the specifications for obsolete categories. The CWMA
    supports the recommendation of the WWMA regarding the prioritization
    of Subcommittee agenda items.

-   The SWMA recommended splitting this item into separate items.

-   The WWMA recommended that this item be split into four individual
    proposals and prioritized as follows:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Update the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants
    Laboratory Guideline item is currently being worked on by California
    and Tennessee. This update should strive to be completed and
    provided to the NCWM by the 2002 Interim Meeting.

-   The Federal Kerosene Dye Information item should be addressed at a
    later date.

-   For the Automotive Lubricants item, the WWMA received information
    from Chevron suggesting the following amendments to this regulation:

    -   In Appendix A, remove the current § 2.12(a) and replace it
        with: (a) It shall meet the engine oil requirements established
        in the latest revision of the American Petroleum Institute
        Publication 1509 *Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System*
        and American Society of Testing and Materials Standard ASTM D
        4485 or the Society of Automotive Engineers Standard SAE
        J183. (b) It shall identify the API Service Category or
        Categories that it meets. Refer to API Publication 1600 for
        current category descriptions and SAE J183 for obsolete
        categories. (c) It shall meet the engine oil viscosity
        requirements established in SAE J300.

    -   In Appendix A, amend § 2.13(a) as follows: [(a)]{.underline} It
        meets the service requirements contained in the latest revision
        of SAE Informational Report on axle and manual transmission
        lubricants SAE J308[; and lubricant service designations
        described in API Publication 1560.]{.underline}

-   For the Publication 21 item, the WWMA recommended amending § IV. B.,
    Types of Sample Containers, as follows: Sample containers may be
    clear or brown glass bottles, or metal cans. The clear bottle is
    advantageous because it may be examined visually for cleanliness,
    and also allows visual inspection of the sample for free water or
    solid impurities. The brown glass bottle should be used for samples
    in which the octane is a concern because it affords some protection
    from light, which can alter the characteristics of the sample.
    Plastic coated bottles are available which provide protection from
    shattering. The only suitable metal cans are those with the seams
    soldered on the exterior surface with a flux of rosin in a suitable
    solvent, which is easily removed with gasoline. The WWMA also
    recommended that this publication be eliminated as a stand-alone
    document, and instead be included in NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Laws
    and Regulations, under the Interpretations and Guidelines section.

[In 2002:]{.underline} At the July Annual Meeting the Committee decided
that each item on the Subcommittee agenda should be addressed
separately. Based on comments received, the Committee decided that two
of the items required immediate attention, while two could wait. The
Committee separated the items for immediate attention into individual
agenda items: 237-2 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and
Automotive Lubricants Regulation (the Automotive Lubricants item); and
237-3 Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual (the
Publication 21 item). The remaining two items: Engine Fuels, Petroleum
Products, and Lubricants Laboratory Guideline; and The Federal Kerosene
Dye Information, would be addressed at a later date.

-   The SWMA recommended that the item be separated into four individual
    agenda items:

(1) Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory
    Guideline;

(2) The Federal Kerosene Dye Information;

(3) Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants
    Regulation; and

(4) Publication 21, Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety
    Manual.

[In 2003:]{.underline} At the January Interim Meeting the Committee
received an update from Subcommittee Chair, Ron Hayes, MO. Ron reported
that the "Federal Kerosene Dye Information" would be addressed in a new
section to be added to a future version of ASTM D 3699 Standard
Specification for Kerosene. The Committee had concerns about the
effectiveness of the EFR since it is impossible to keep the document up
to date. The Committee considered two possibilities: (1) continuously
revising this guideline to include additional equipment for testing
premium diesel, and updating equipment costs; and (2) removing the
guideline from NIST Handbook 130 and posting it on the internet where it
can be updated on a more frequent basis. The Committee solicited
comments concerning the proposed options. At the July Annual Meeting the
Committee received no comments on this issue.

-   The WWMA recommended that this be removed from the Agenda and
    Handbook 130, and posted on the internet where it can be updated on
    a more frequent basis. NIST has agreed to post it on their website
    if that is what the committee wants.

-   The SWMA recommended that this item remain Information until it is
    more fully developed.

####### 237-2 Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Western Weights and Measures Association
(WWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Modify the Uniform Engine Fuels,
Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as shown in
Appendix A.

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** The title "Uniform
Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation,"
(or EFR) implies that the document covers lubricants. When the
regulation was developed, the Subcommittee made developing engine fuel
requirements a priority, with the understanding that in the future they
would address lubricants. The uniform law gives broad authority to
regulate lubricants; however, the regulation has no requirements. The
Subcommittee proposed developing requirements for lubricants for the
Committee's consideration.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** The WWMA had received numerous
comments stating the need to update the Engine Fuels, Petroleum
Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation. This regulation had not
been updated since 1994, and the WWMA recommended an update based upon
data presented by Chevron Texaco Corporation. This item was originally
one of the four items on the Petroleum Subcommittee's Agenda under 237-1
(proposed in 1999).

[In 2002]{.underline}: The Committee broke this item out as an
independent item on its agenda, and the Subcommittee proposed the
language found in Appendix A (for the history of this item prior to
2002, please see item 237-1). Randy Jennings, Tennessee, reported that
California (Dave Lazier and Dennis Johannes) and the Petroleum
Subcommittee members from Chevron Texaco had taken the lead on this
issue. Mike Belue, Belue and Associates, reported that the State of
California and Chevron Texaco had worked together to include the latest
specifications and definitions in the document. The Committee
recommended that the proposed changes be studied at the regional
meetings, and comments be submitted at the 2003 Interim Meeting.

-   The WWMA heard comments from David Heck that the American Petroleum
    Institute (API) supported the latest changes to the Engine Fuels,
    Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation. The WWMA
    recommended that the Committee move this item forward as a voting
    item.

-   The SWMA supported the draft, and recommended that the Committee
    consider this item.

[In 2003:]{.underline} At the January Interim Meeting the Committee
announced that the changes proposed by the WWMA in 2002 had been
published in Appendix A of the Committee's 2002 report. The Committee
recommended that these changes be studied at the regional weights and
measures association meetings, and comments be submitted at the 2004
Interim Meeting. The Committee took no action on this item during the
July Annual Meeting.

-   The WWMA recommended that this item go forward as a voting item in
    2004.

-   The SWMA heard comment from Mike Belue, Belue and Associates, that
    lubricants other than motor oil have not been fully addressed yet.
    The SWMA recommended that this item remain informational.

####### 237-3 Biodiesel Fuel

##  {#section-3 .TOC-1}

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Central Weights and Measures Association
(CWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Amend the Handbook 130 Engine Fuels,
Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows.

> 1\. Strike § 1.8. Biodiesel:
>
> ~~1.8. Biodiesel. -- means a blend consisting of diesel fuel and a
> substantial amount of esterfied animal fats and/or vegetable oil(s).~~
>
> And replace it with the definition from ASTM D 6751:
>
> **[1.8. Biodiesel. - means a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of
> long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats,
> designated B100 *(Source: Standard ASTM D 6751)*.]{.underline}**

2.  Add the following to the definition of Biodiesel:

> **[1.8.1. Biodiesel Blend. - A fuel comprised of a blend of biodiesel
> fuel with petroleum-based diesel fuel, designated Bxx.]{.underline}**
>
> **[1.8.2. In the abbreviation Bxx, the xx represents the volume
> percentage of biodiesel fuel in the blend.]{.underline}**

3.  Adopt a definition for a Biodiesel Blend consistent with ASTM D 6751
    by adding:

> **[2.13.1. B100 biodiesel shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D
> 6751, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for
> Distillate Fuels.]{.underline}**
>
> **[2.13.2. Biodiesel and diesel blends shall meet the following
> requirements: the base diesel fuel shall meet the requirements of ASTM
> 975, and the biodiesel blend stock shall meet ASTM D
> 6751.]{.underline}**
>
> **[2.13.3. Exception - biodiesel may be blended with diesel fuel whose
> sulfur or aromatic levels are outside Specification ASTM D 975 Grades
> 1-D, 2-D, and low sulfur 1-D and 2-D, provided the finished mixture
> meets pertinent national and local specifications and requirements for
> these properties.]{.underline}**

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** Laws and regulations
require that accurate and adequate information be placed on commodities
allowing consumers to make price and quantity comparisons. For our
economy to function properly consumers must also be able to rely on
manufacturers product "claims". Products must meet manufacturer
specifications and claims.

When ASTM first developed the biodiesel specification in 1993, it
proposed a specification for biodiesel use as a pure fuel, called B100.
Through the ballot process, several engine companies expressed
reservations that they had no experience with using biodiesel in blends
over 20 % with diesel fuel (B20). B20 has now been used successfully in
over 40 million on-road miles over the last 10 years with no changes to
the fuel systems on conventional diesel engines. With the higher cost of
biodiesel, very few customers used blends higher than B20, and neither
the biodiesel industry nor the engine industry was interested in
investing the money and resources needed to meet a B100 standard.

Since B20 was the highest level product envisioned with commercial
potential, and since the engine community would not support inclusion
higher than 20 % without further testing, the ASTM standard was changed
from an independent B100 standard to a blend stock standard. The ASTM
Biodiesel Task Force developed D 6751 as the set of properties that B100
must meet before being blended into diesel fuel up to 20 % biodiesel by
volume. For blends higher than B20, the user should consult with their
engine company prior to use. The major questions with blends over B20
are related to costs, rubber and gasket compatibility with high blend of
biodiesel and cold flow properties of high blends.

As a blend-stock standard, the ASTM Biodiesel Standard was developed in
a manner similar to that of 1-D and 2-D diesel fuel, which are also
frequently blended in the commercial marketplace as a means to improve
the cold flow properties of 2-D in winter months. If the parent fuels
meet their respective specifications, they can be blended and there is
no separate set of specifications for the blended mixture. The current
requirement of the biodiesel specification is as follows: if biodiesel
meets D 6751 and diesel meets D 975 (either 1-D or 2-D), then the two
can be blended up to 20 % biodiesel and there is no separate set of
properties required for the B20 mixture. For example, as with 2-D,
blends of B20 can contain higher levels of 1-D for improved cold flow
properties in winter. This method has served industry and consumers
well, especially in the formative stages of biodiesel development.

There are two issues that come up from time to time. The first issue is
that since biodiesel costs more than conventional diesel, there is the
possibility that fuel distributors will advertise that they are putting
in more biodiesel than they are delivering and, thus, derive undue
profits. If a distributor claims that they are selling B20 or B2 and
they are putting in less than one half of one percent, the distributor
is misrepresenting the product. The biodiesel industry claims this is
not a pump labeling issue but an enforcement issue.

The second issue is the claim that biodiesel is being blended with
diesel fuel when products such as raw vegetable oil or other oils, which
do not meet D 6751, are blended with diesel fuel. The biodiesel industry
claims this is an enforcement issue. The National Biodiesel Board has
established a quality control program (BQ-9000) that oversees producers
and suppliers of biodiesel. Use of BQ-9000-certified suppliers is an
effective means to mitigate this potential issue, as is requiring that
the distributor provide proof of EPA biodiesel registration. To obtain
an EPA registration for biodiesel the supplier must commit to meeting D
6751. Again, aggressive competition, as well as the educational and
promotional activities by the industry, have mitigated the requirement
that biodiesel must meet D 6751. NCWM adoption of the D 6751 language
will help in those efforts.

While B20 and lower levels of biodiesel fuel are considered "Fill and
Go" and require no changes to the engine or fuel system, levels of
biodiesel higher than B20 may need to have different gaskets and hoses.
While blending biodiesel greater than 20 % does not readily occur in
today's market place, it may in the not too distant future. Therefore,
the biodiesel industry supports accurate labeling for all fuel
dispensers and encourages the NCWM to adopt these recommendations.

As the price of biodiesel moves closer to the price of diesel fuel and
biodiesel ceases to be a niche product blended into diesel for the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) compliance (cleaner air and superior
lubricity and cetane), it becomes just one of the myriad compounds which
could make up conventional diesel fuel. Refiners could blend in
biodiesel to reduce the sulfur content or aromatic content of the
finished blend. They could use it to replace their existing lubricity
additives. If the price of biodiesel was more equal to diesel, they may
add 1 % today, 5 % the next day, and 20 % the next day. As long as the
finished blend meets the D 975 "Fill and Go" specification, the level of
biodiesel could range as high as 20 %.

The proposed pump labeling requirement (requiring that pumps containing
over 2 % biodiesel be labeled with the blend percentage) would
essentially eliminate that flexibility and could significantly reduce
the amount of biodiesel that is eventually used and consumed. ASTM is
currently developing a Biodiesel "Fill and Go" specification for D 975
that is not based on the parent fuels, but on the finished fuel and what
is satisfactory for operation in a diesel engine. This may also mean
changes to D 6751, which is a stand-alone specification. The current
thinking is that the upper biodiesel concentration limit for the D 975
"Fill and Go" specification will be 20 % although it is possible that it
could be higher or lower. Whatever the concentration of biodiesel, if
the finished blend meets the D 975 "Fill and Go" specification, the fuel
is D 975-grade diesel fuel and would have to be labeled such. According
to industry, existing labeling contained in NIST Handbook 130 is
sufficient.

If the NCWM adopts the future D 975 "Fill and Go" specification and any
changes required for D 6751, then it appears prudent to place the pump
labeling exemption at 20 % biodiesel at the present time, with the
understanding that it might be higher or lower in the future based on
the outcome of the ASTM "Fill and Go" recommendations.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This item was originally submitted to
the Committee by the CWMA in 2002 as:

1.  Strike § 1.8 Biodiesel :

> ~~1.8. Biodiesel. means a blend consisting of diesel fuel and a
> substantial amount of esterfied animal fats and/or vegetable oil(s).~~
>
> And replace it with:
>
> [1.8 Biodiesel. - means a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long
> chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats,
> designated B100. (*Source Standard ASTM D 675.)*]{.underline}
>
> and:
>
> [1.8.1. B20 Biodiesel. - means a blend of biodiesel and diesel fuel of
> which the biodiesel portion is nominally 20 volume
> percent.]{.underline}

2.  Add two new sections:

> [2.13.1. B100 biodiesel shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D
> 6751, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for
> Distillate Fuels.]{.underline}
>
> [2.13.2. Biodiesel and diesel blends shall meet the following
> requirements: The base diesel fuel shall meet the requirements of ASTM
> 975 and the biodiesel blend stock shall meet ASTM D 6751.]{.underline}
>
> [2.13.3. Exception - biodiesel may be blended with diesel fuel whose
> sulfur or aromatic levels are outside Specification D 975 Grades 1-D,
> 2-D, and low sulfur 1-D and 2-D, provided the finished mixture meets
> pertinent national and local specifications and requirements for these
> properties.]{.underline}

3.  Add the following two sections:

> [3.13. Biodiesel]{.underline}
>
> [3.13.1 How to identify Biodiesel. - Biodiesel shall be identified by
> the capital letter B followed by the numerical value volume
> percentage. (Example: B20)]{.underline}
>
> [Retail Dispenser Labeling. - Each retail dispenser of biodiesel shall
> be labeled with the capital letter B followed by the numerical value
> volume percent biodiesel and ending with the word "biodiesel."
> (Example: B20 biodiesel)]{.underline}
>
> [Exception. - Diesel fuel containing twenty or less percent biodiesel
> is exempted from requirements 3.13.1 and 3.13.2.]{.underline}

Ron Hayes, Missouri, recommended adding a section requiring fuel
suppliers to disclose the biodiesel content on delivery tickets or bills
of lading, if the biodiesel content exceeds the appropriate level for
dispenser labeling requirements.

[In 2003:]{.underline} At the January Interim Meeting the Committee
heard testimony from Steve Howell, MARC-IV, representing the biodiesel
industry, testified on each of the three proposed section changes. Mr.
Howell is the technical director of the National Biodiesel Board (NBB)
and serves as chairman of the ASTM Biodiesel Task Force.

The biodiesel industry supports the proposed new definition that is the
equivalent to ASTM's definition, and also recommends adding an
additional definition for biodiesel blends. "Biodiesel Blends" are
blends of biodiesel and diesel fuel. Mr. Howell stated that the current
biodiesel definition contained in NIST Handbook 130 is incorrect and
should be changed. ASTM, along with the biodiesel industry, has worked
to define what biodiesel is and is not. ASTM standards also define the
difference between pure biodiesel, or B100, and blends of biodiesel with
petroleum diesel. The ASTM specification for biodiesel has been
developed to ensure satisfactory engine operation with B20 (20 %
biodiesel) blends and blends of less than 20 % biodiesel. Adopting the
definitions that ASTM has developed for biodiesel will eliminate
confusion between industry standard biodiesel and other materials that
have been inappropriately called biodiesel (e.g., coal slurries, raw
vegetable oils, partially reacted oils, etc.) that can cause serious
engine problems. It will also assist in minimizing confusion on the type
of product a consumer purchases, such as biodiesel B100 or a blend of
biodiesel with petroleum diesel.

At the July Annual Meeting the Committee kept this item as
informational, and included the following comments:

Unlike other fuels, there is no specification for biodiesel contained in
Section 2 or NIST Handbook 130. This proposed change would adopt the
current language contained in ASTM specification D 6751. The proposed
amendment would help ensure that the customer receives fuel that meets
ASTM specifications.

The ASTM specification for diesel fuel D 975, containing biodiesel in
blends of B20 or below, is likely to change very soon. This new group of
fuels is being termed a "Fill and Go" category of D 975. Separate "Fill
and Go" specifications are also being considered for other fuels such as
water-emulsified and ethanol-emulsified diesel. The anticipated change
is to place specifications on fuels, which require no engine
modifications but are different than conventional petroleum-based diesel
fuels, which include different parameters than those currently contained
in D 975. The D 975 "Fill and Go" specifications may also impact
biodiesel specification D 6751 as it relates to the properties that
either parent fuel must meet prior to blending biodiesel B20 or below.
If ASTM adopts new specifications, it is hoped that the NCWM would
consider similar adoption.

Assuming that the NCWM will adopt ASTM changes or modifications to D 975
or D 6751, adopting the language in the current ASTM specification seems
to be the prudent course of action.

####### 237-4 E diesel

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Central Weights and Measures Association
(CWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Have the Petroleum Subcommittee
develop specifications and retail dispenser labeling requirements for E
diesel.

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** E diesel is a blend of
Standard Number 2 diesel fuel containing up to 15 % ethanol by volume.
The blend may also contain proprietary additives from 0.2 to 5.0 % by
volume to maintain certain fuel properties and blend stability. E diesel
is being sold commercially for off-road applications and is being used
in several on-road demonstration fleets. Currently there is no consensus
on specifications that E diesel must meet. There are also no labeling
requirements for retail dispensers selling E diesel.

A group of E diesel stakeholders have formed the E Diesel Consortium to
address the technical and regulatory issues with this fuel. The
Consortium has also approached ASTM about developing an E diesel
specification. The Consortium is concerned that, without a detailed
minimum specification, it could be possible to sell diesel ethanol
blends with are of insufficient quality for their intended use.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This item was originally submitted to
the Committee by the CWMA in 2002. At its Interim meeting in the fall of
2002, the CWMA heard from E diesel Consortium representative Robert
Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds provided an update on the activities of the E
diesel Consortium and requested that E diesel be put on the NCWM
Committee's agenda as a "Developing Item." No action was taken on this
item in 2003.

####### 237-5 Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Central Weights and Measures Association
(CWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Add the following to § 3.3 of the
Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive
Lubricants Regulation:

> **[3.3.X. Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel. - Each dispensing
> device from which diesel fuel is sold shall be equipped with a nozzle
> spout having a terminal end with an outside diameter of not less than
> 23.63 mm (0.930 in).]{.underline}**

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** Consumers are dispensing
diesel fuel into non-diesel vehicles despite the proper labeling of
retail motor fuel dispensers. Adding this text to Handbook 130 will help
eliminate the problem.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This item was originally submitted to
the Committee by the SWMA in 1996.

[In 1997:]{.underline} At the January Interim Meeting the Committee
heard testimony from the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association
(AAMA) that the recommended fill pipe diameter was compatible with
current diesel powered vehicles, as well as all those on the drawing
board for the future. The AAMA expressed support for this item. At the
July Annual Meeting the Committee heard testimony indicating that this
requirement would be widely supported if it were amended to permit
industry time to replace diesel dispenser nozzles as they wore out or
were broken. The Committee recommended this item for vote with a delayed
enforcement date of 12 months after its effective date (i.e., if adopted
in July, 1997 and effective in January, 1998, it would not be enforced
until January, 1999). The NCWM voted on this item in 1997; it failed and
was not adopted.

[In 2000:]{.underline} The SWMA again submitted this item to the
Committee.

[In 2001:]{.underline} The Committee voted to withdraw this item at the
July Annual Meeting.

[In 2002:]{.underline} The CWMA again submitted this item to the
Committee.

[In 2003:]{.underline} At the July Annual Meeting the Committee heard
testimony that not all diesel passenger cars manufactured before 1996
may be able accommodate the larger nozzle size, although no supporting
data was provided. The NCWM voted on this item in 2003; it did not
receive enough voted to either pass or fail, and so was returned to the
Committee.

-   The CWMA submitted comments stating that this item should be
    voluntary; a recommendation not a law. The CWMA does not support
    this item going forward.

-   The NEWMA recommended that this item be withdrawn.

-   The WWMA recommended that this item be withdrawn.

-   The SWMA supports this item and recommends that it go forward as a
    voting item.

###### 240 EXAMINATION PROCEDURE FOR PRICE VERIFICATION

####### 240-1 Amend § 6.2 Other

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Western Weights and Measures Association
(WWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Add the following to § 6.2 of the
Handbook 130 Examination Procedure for Price Verification:

> **[(x) A cash register or computer monitor used to list and total
> customer purchases must be positioned so that its indications may be
> observed from a reasonable customer location and/or have a remote
> indicator display so that its indications may be observed from a
> reasonable customer location.]{.underline}**

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** While the definition of
a point-of-sale system includes a requirement for a weighing and
measuring device and requires indications to be visible in a direct sale
(NIST Handbook 44, G‑UR.3.3.), cash registers and computer monitors that
do not incorporate a weighing or measuring device are not subject to the
requirement that the indication be visible to a consumer. The WWMA
recommends that the practice of consumers having access to price
information as the transaction is in progress be standardized. Consumers
would then be able to instantly confirm prices, businesses could correct
incorrect prices during the transaction, and the benefit of correct
prices and time saved would help everyone involved. Many businesses that
use cash registers or computer monitors currently have remote indicators
that meet the requirements, and for the ones that do not, technology and
equipment is available to provide such indications at an affordable
price.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This item was originally submitted to
the Committee by the WWMA in 2002. The SWMA considered this proposal
that same year, and expressed concern about whether or not this is a
weights and measures problem. The SWMA believed that the scope of this
requirement is very broad and would impact a wide range of retail
establishments, many of which may not come under the jurisdiction of
weights and measures authority since the systems may not be attached to
a scale or meter. The SWMA also questioned whether or not Publication 19
is the appropriate place to put this requirement if it is considered a
weights and measures problem.

[In 2003:]{.underline} At the January Interim Meeting the Committee made
this item Informational, and decided that it did not believe that this
item should be placed in the Handbook 130 Examination Procedure for
Price Verification. The Committee believed that, if this item moves
forward, it should be placed in the Handbook 130 Weights and Measures
Law, Section 22, Prohibited Acts. At the July Annual Meeting the
Committee decided to keep this item as Informational.

-   The CWMA was split on this item. Some states wanted it withdrawn,
    while others wanted to see it adopted. One state suggested that the
    word *display* be added so that the item would read as follows:

> [(x). A cash register or *display* computer monitor used to list and
> total customer purchases must be positioned so that its indications
> may be observed from a reasonable customer location and/or have a
> remote indicator display so that its indications may be observed from
> a reasonable customer location.]{.underline}

-   The WWMA supported this item as proposed, but recommended a delayed
    enactment date to allow industry time to adjust to its requirements.

-   The NEWMA recommended that this item be placed in the Handbook 130
    Weights and Measures Law, Section 22, Prohibited Acts.

-   The SWMA remained concerned that a "cash register" is not a weighing
    and measuring device. The SWMA believed this item needed additional
    work, and that affected industries must be contacted and involved
    before moving forward.

###### 260 NIST HANDBOOK 133, CHECKING THE NET CONTENT OF PACKAGED GOODS

####### 260-1 Edit MAV Tables 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, and 2-10

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Central Weights and Measures Association
(CWMA); NIST Weights and Measures Division.

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Amend MAV Tables 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, and
2-10 in Handbook 130 so that the metric values are more closely aligned
with the corresponding inch-pound unit values. The new proposed tables
can be found in Appendix B.

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** The inch-pound units and
metric units in parts of tables 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, and 2-10 do not match.
This creates instances where it is unclear what MAV applies to a given
package. All Handbook 133 documents ought to be mathematically correct
on issues of weight and mass.

Ken Butcher, NIST, provided some additional background information:
These tables were developed in the 1970's with the inch-pound units as
the original values. The metric counterparts were subsequently
calculated based on what was then believed to be "reasonable" package
sizes. Over the course of the ensuing 30 years, the "reasonable" package
sizes envisioned in the 1970's never developed in the marketplace.
Instead products are sold in a wide variety of sizes, which makes the
1970's metric conversions in this chart inaccurate and obsolete.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This is a new item. First introduced
at the 2003 CWMA Meeting, the CWMA recommended adoption of this item.
The WWMA voted to grant NIST editorial privileges to make the necessary
changes. The SWMA recommended that this item remain Informational, and
that NIST be granted editorial privileges to make the appropriate
corrections.

####### 260-2 Amend § 1.2, Package Requirements

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Northeastern Weights and Measures Association
(NEWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Amend the discussion section "**Why
do we allow for moisture loss or gain?"** in Handbook 133, Section 1.2,
Package Requirements (page 4) as follows:

[]{.mark}

> ![](media/image1.png){width="2.888888888888889in"
> height="1.645138888888889in"}**Why do we allow for moisture loss or
> gain?**
>
> Some packaged products may lose or gain moisture and, therefore, lose
> or gain weight or volume after packaging. The amount of lost moisture
> depends upon the nature of the product, the packaging material, the
> length of time it is in distribution, environ­mental conditions, and
> other factors. Moisture loss may occur even when manufacturers follow
> good distribution practices. Loss of weight "due to ex­posure" may
> include solvent evaporation, not just loss of water. **[Note that
> allowances for loss or gain of moisture only apply to packages of
> commodities where the moisture has no value to the consumer (See Jones
> vs Rath).]{.underline}**
>
> []{.mark}
>
> ![](media/image2.png){width="2.888888888888889in"
> height="1.636111111111111in"}For loss or gain of moisture,
> **[you]{.underline}** apply the moisture allowances to the maximum
> allowable variations permitted for individual packages and to the
> average net quantity of contents be­fore determining the conformance of
> a lot. **[You may apply the allowance before measuring the package
> errors or after. When applying the allowance before the measurements,
> you essentially correct each package back to theoretical weight at
> time of pack, see Figure 1 at right. When applying the allowance after
> measuring the package errors, you correct the MAV and SEL to recognize
> the moisture loss as in Figure 2 at right. You can find specific
> directions for applying the allowances in tests in Section
> 2.3.]{.underline}**
>
> This handbook provides "moisture allowances" for some meat and poultry
> products, flour, and dry pet food (see "Moisture Allowances" in
> Chapter 2). These allowances are based on the premise that when the
> average net weight of a sample is found to be less than the labeled
> weight, but not by an amount that exceeds the allowable limit, either
> the lot is declared to be within the moisture allowance or more
> information must be collected before deciding lot compliance or non
> compliance.

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** In the fall of 2003,
NEWMA provided the following written justification, which applies to
both this item and the next item (260-3: Amend § 2.3 Basic Test
Procedure):

The issues involved are complex and highly interrelated. This made it
difficult for many to understand this item as originally proposed. The
specific issues are identified below with some justification for the
changes that were proposed to the Handbook.

1.  What products are covered by the requirement to recognize loss/gain
    of moisture in distribution? The reference to the [Rath vs.
    Jones]{.underline} case in Chapter one was a stab at an answer.
    NEWMA believes this may be premature and should be removed from the
    item for the short term to help it move. However, this is a battle
    that will have to be fought somewhere in the future, since
    regulators get claims of moisture loss from diverse packers as an
    excuse for packages that fail to have labeled net weight. The claims
    have ranged from windshield washer fluid in plastic jugs to canned
    tomato sauce. Where can the official turn to get an answer if not to
    this Handbook? If the committee believes there is a better way,
    NEWMA would like some guidance.

2.  When do you apply the moisture allowance in the test process? Within
    the Handbook itself, the method is either not clear or some of the
    text is wrong. In Chapter 1 the text indicates that you must apply
    the allowance before the test (i.e., adjusting by using box 13a and
    thus lowering the NGW in box 14). In Chapter 2, the text appears
    otherwise. You are directed to add the moisture allowance to the MAV
    on Page 18. You are further directed to compare the difference
    between sample average and SEL to the moisture allowance on Page 19.
    Both of these instructions can only make sense if the value in box
    13a was not included in the nominal gross weight calculation in
    box 14. At the very least these sections fail to provide clear
    guidance. The proposal attempts to clarify that you can make the
    correction either before or after and attempts to provide procedures
    to do that in each case. Before works great for products with
    established moisture allowances, but it is not possible to apply a
    correction before the test when dealing with other products. For
    these other products, you must do additional investigation to
    determine the magnitude of the loss and you must apply it after the
    field official has completed the testing. It may also be beneficial
    to do the adjustment afterwards for products with established
    moisture loss allowances. Since both before and after methods can
    provide equivalent results, they should both be recognized in the
    Handbook. The proposal does this in changes for both Chapters 1 and
    2.

3.  Shouldn't all the established moisture allowances be listed in one
    place, rather than being listed as separate items? The proposal
    changes the question from one of how you apply the allowance for a
    specific product to one of what products have established
    allowances. This brings these all together in one section that is
    easily found by an inspector.

4.  How do you establish moisture allowances for products not in the
    list in 3 above? The Handbook provides no guidance whatsoever! In
    the last line at the bottom of page 17, the text directs the
    inspector to follow steps if the product is listed, but says nothing
    about products not listed. This is a huge omission that has many
    officials wondering what to do? The result is that some packers
    bluff by playing the moisture loss card even when not entitled to a
    loss (e.g., canned goods) and many officials back away from these
    products for lack of direction. The proposal included the provision
    for comparing time of pack data with actual field data for moisture
    content that was in the 3^rd^ Edition. It also would permit using
    data from a scientific study provided by the manufacturer in support
    of any claim of moisture loss.

5.  Why do we have a different method of evaluating the test results for
    products with moisture loss than for other products? The basic
    procedure for evaluating test results calls for evaluating the
    individual packages against the MAV, and evaluating the sample
    average against the SEL. On page 19, that procedure is not longer
    used and instead you have to look at a difference between the sample
    average and the SEL and not compare it to the moisture allowance.
    Recently we changed the method of calculating the R~c~ for tare
    variability to avoid having different methods for different types of
    packages. Consistency helps inspectors apply the standard uniformly.
    NEWMA believes that we should always compare sample average to the
    SEL and this can be accomplished easily be adjusting the SEL rather
    than looking at differences. Thus we would follow the same process
    in evaluating the results in all cases. The only difference is in
    how we arrive at the SEL and MAV when applying the moisture loss
    allowance after the test. If you use box 13a before the test, this
    is done automatically. If you follow the proposed procedure after
    the test, you calculate a moisture-corrected MAV and a
    moisture-corrected SEL and simply reevaluate the original test data.
    While you might get the same result using the procedure on page 19,
    it uses a different evaluation process and is difficult to
    understand particularly in how box 13a is or is not used in the
    calculation of NGW.

The issues of moisture loss is complex and many components have to work
together for a regulatory official to properly evaluate compliance of an
inspection lot. The proposed changes affect five interrelated components
of the issue. Officials in NEWMA believe that the issues must be tackled
as a whole and not piecemeal because the components are so dependent on
each other. We hope that these explanations provide sufficient
background to help the Committee, industry and W&M officials understand
the need for action and how the need is addressed in the proposal.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This item was originally submitted to
the Committee by the NEWMA in 2002. At the 2003 January Interim Meeting
the Committee heard testimony that this proposal was incomplete, and
that additional language would be developed and presented on this item
by NEWMA. As a result, the Committee decided to keep this item as
Developmental. At the 2003 July Annual Meeting the Committee did not
receive anything additional from NEWMA, so the item remained
Developmental.

-   The CWMA recommended that this item remain Developmental until more
    information is provided.

-   The WWMA recommended that this item remain Developmental until the
    Northeast provides additional information. In addition, the WWMA
    disagrees with the last sentence (starting with the word 'Note') in
    the first paragraph of the NEWMA proposal, and recommends that this
    sentence not be added.

-   The NEWMA continues to support improvements to NIST Handbook 133 to
    assist in proper application of moisture loss. NEWMA finds that
    there are omissions and confusing parts of the Handbook with regard
    to the important issue of moisture loss that should be cleaned up.
    The proposal submitted last year (in 2002) was split into two
    proposals and moved to developing status. This proposal is complex,
    but NEWMA encourages the Committee to reconsider and move it forward
    for vote. The inclusion of the [Rath vs, Jones]{.underline} case in
    Chapter One may be premature, and should be removed from the item
    for the short term.

-   The SWMA recommended that this item be returned to NEWMA for further
    development.

####### 260-3 Amend § 2.3 Basic Test Procedure

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Northeastern Weights and Measures Association
(NEWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Delete the current "**Moisture
Allowances"** discussion in Handbook 133, Section 2.3, Basic Test
Procedure (pages 17 through 19), and replace it as follows:

> **[Moisture Allowances]{.underline}**
>
> What products have an established moisture allowance?
>
> Flour and dry pet food have a moisture allowance of 3 % of the labeled
> net weight. **Note**: Dry pet food means all extruded dog and cat
> foods and baked treat products packaged in kraft paper bags and/or
> cardboard boxes with a moisture content of 13 % or less at the time of
> pack.
>
> Meat and poultry products from a USDA-inspected plant are permitted no
> moisture allowance when tested under a Category A sampling plan with
> Used Dry Tare.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> Meat and poultry products from a USDA-inspected plant are permitted
> the following moisture allowances when tested under a Category A
> sampling plan with Wet Tare. Note: When there is free flowing liquid
> or absorbent packaging materials in contact with the product, all free
> liquid is part of the wet tare.

-   For packages of fresh poultry that bear a USDA seal of inspection,
    the moisture allowance is 3 % of the labeled net weight. For net
    weight determinations only, fresh poultry is defined as poultry
    above 3 ºC (26 ºF). This is a product that yields or gives when
    pushed with the thumb.

-   For packages of franks or hotdogs that bear an USDA seal of
    inspection, the moisture allowance is 2.5 % of the labeled net
    weight.

-   For packages of bacon, fresh sausage, and luncheon meats that bear a
    USDA seal of inspection, there is no moisture allowance if there is
    no free-flowing liquid or absorbent materials in contact with the
    product and the package is cleaned of clinging material. Luncheon
    meats are any cooked sausage product, loaves, jellied products,
    cured products, and any sliced sandwich style meat. This does not
    include whole hams, briskets, roasts, turkeys, or chickens requiring
    further preparation to be made into ready-to-eat sliced product.
    When there is no free-flowing liquid inside the package and there
    are no absorbent materials in contact with the product, Wet Tare and
    Dried Used Tare are equivalent.

> []{.mark}
>
> These allowances are based on the premise that when the average net
> weight of a sample is found to be less than the labeled weight, but
> not by an amount that exceeds the allowable limit, either the lot is
> declared to be within the moisture allowance, or more information must
> be collected before deciding lot compliance or noncompliance.
>
> ***How do you determine the allowance for products without an
> established moisture allowance?***
>
> For any product subject to moisture loss/gain, you may determine the
> appropriate moisture loss allowance based on a valid, scientific
> study. You may not use arbitrarily chosen allowances for moisture
> loss/gain. Many packers have conducted studies that they can provide
> in support of any claim that the product lost/gained moisture. Any
> such study should have included a variety of environments that
> simulate the potential distribution chains that could be encountered.
> You may use the moisture loss limits found in such study as an
> allowance in a compliance test.
>
> ***What is the accepted method to determine the actual moisture loss
> for a lot?***
>
> Where the packer measures and records the moisture content of product
> in each lot, you may request a copy of that data to be compared to the
> moisture content of the product offered for sale. You must select a
> random sample of the product offered for sale and have it tested for
> moisture content using a scientifically verified test procedure e.g.
> like those in the Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of
> Official Analytical Chemists (See Appendix D). The actual moisture
> loss is calculated as the moisture content (%) at time of pack minus
> moisture content (%) at time of sale. Use the difference obtained to
> calculate the actual moisture loss for the lot by multiplying it times
> the label quantity. Use this as the moisture allowance in the official
> test. In the case of moisture gain, this value will be a negative
> number.
>
> **[Calculations]{.underline}**
>
> []{.mark}
>
> ***How do you apply a moisture allowance when conducting a test?***
>
> Moisture allowances may be applied either prior to testing or after
> testing. These two methods are mathematically equivalent means of
> adjusting both the individual package errors and the sample average.
> It is common practice to apply the moisture correction prior to the
> test for those products with established moisture allowances like
> flour and dry pet food. In most other cases the correction is made
> after the test since moisture loss data will probably be obtained as
> part of the follow-up investigation after the initial test has failed.
>
> To compute the moisture loss allowance prior to testing, you correct
> the nominal gross weight in box 14 for moisture loss. Find the value
> of the allowance by multiplying the labeled quantity by the decimal
> percent value of the allowance. Enter this value in box 13a on the
> form. The nominal gross weight is found by adding the average tare
> (box 13) to the label quantity (box 1) and subtracting the moisture
> allowance (box 13a). Lot compliance is evaluated in the normal way
> using decision criteria in boxes 16 and 24 on the report form.

##  {#section-4 .TOC-1}

> **Example**: Labeled quantity of a bag of flour is 2 lb and average
> tare is 0.04 lb (box 13)
>
> Moisture Allowance is 3 % (0.03) of 2 lb = 0.06 lb
>
> *Nominal Gross Wt. = 2 lb + 0.04 lb -- 0.06 lb = 1.98 lb record this
> value in box 14.*
>
> []{.mark}
>
> To compute the moisture loss allowance after testing, you correct only
> the MAV and SEL for moisture loss. Perform your initial test with no
> moisture allowance in box 13a. When moisture loss data becomes
> available, find the value of the allowance by multiplying the labeled
> quantity by the decimal percent value of the moisture loss or
> allowance. Lot compliance is evaluated using decision criteria in
> boxes 16 and 24 on the report form and the moisture corrected MAV and
> SEL respectively.
>
> **Example:** Labeled quantity of a package of rice is 2 lb, average
> tare is 0.04 lb (box 13), MAV (box 3) is 0.07 lb, and SEL (box 23) is
> 0.023 lb.
>
> Moisture content at time of pack was 13.4 % (packer data)
>
> Moisture content at time of sale is 10.6 % (lab data)
>
> Moisture loss is (13.4 % to 10.6 %) = 2.8 %
>
> Moisture allowance is 0.028 x 2 lb = 0.056 lb
>
> Moisture Corrected MAV is 0.07 lb + 0.056 lb = 0.126 lb -- Compare
> each package error measured in the initial test to this moisture
> corrected MAV using criteria in box 16.
>
> Moisture Corrected SEL is 0.023 lb + 0.056 lb = 0.079 lb -- Compare
> the sample average error in the initial test to this moisture
> corrected SEL using criteria in box 24.

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** The products that have
an established moisture allowance should be clearly stated. Currently
the Handbook only poses the question "What is the moisture allowance for
flour and dry pet food?" It does not state if any other products have a
moisture allowance. In addition, the Handbook gives no guidance on what
to do for products that do not have an established moisture allowance.

The "Calculations" section on page 18 is confusing and does not
distinguish between applying a moisture allowance before or after
testing. NEWMA believes that the current method of comparing the
moisture allowance to the difference between the average error and the
SEL is confusing. Simply adjusting the SEL with the moisture allowance
is easier and more in line with how the MAV is corrected (see graphs on
first page).

[]{.mark}

The current Handbook does not address commodities that are packed in
sealed containers or how to treat commodities packed on the premises.
NEWMA requests guidance from the L&R Committee on these two items.

In addition, the comments provided on the previous item (260-2: Amend §
1.2, Package Requirements) apply to this item as well.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This item was originally submitted to
the Committee by the NEWMA in 2002. At the 2003 January Interim Meeting
the Committee heard testimony that this proposal was incomplete, and
that additional language would be developed and presented on this item
by NEWMA. As a result, the Committee decided to keep this item as
Developmental. At the 2003 July Annual Meeting the Committee did not
receive anything additional from NEWMA, so the item remained
Developmental.

-   The CWMA recommended that this item remain Developmental until more
    information is provided.

-   The WWMA recommended that this item remain Developmental until the
    Northeast provides additional information.

-   The NEWMA continues to support improvements to NIST Handbook 133 to
    assist in proper application of moisture loss. NEWMA finds that
    there are omissions and confusing parts of the Handbook with regard
    to the important issue of moisture loss that should be cleaned up.
    The proposal submitted last year (in 2002) was split into two
    proposals and moved to developing status. This proposal is complex,
    but NEWMA encourages the Committee to reconsider and move it forward
    for vote.

-   The SWMA recommended that this item be returned to NEWMA for further
    development.

####### 260-4 Amend § 2.3 Basic Test Procedure, and Table 2-5

[source:]{.smallcaps} Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Amend Handbook 133 § 2.3 as follows:

> ***Where are Maximum Allowable Variations found?***
>
> Find the MAV values for packages labeled by weight, volume, count, and
> measure in the tables listed below in Appendix A.

-   Packages labeled by weight **See Table 2-5**

-   Packages labeled by volume liquid or dry **See Table 2-6**

-   Packages labeled by count **See Table 2-7**

-   Packages labeled by length (width), or area **See Table 2-8**

-   Packages ~~labeled with~~ **[bearing a]{.underline}** USDA seal of
    inspection - Meat and Poultry **See Table 2-9**

> **[when labeled weight is provided by the USDA inspected
> facility]{.underline}**

-   Textiles, polyethylene sheeting and film, mulch and soil labeled by
    volume, **See Table 2-10**

> packaged firewood, and packages labeled by count with less than 50
> items
>
> Amend the Header of Table 2-5 as follows:
>
> Table 2-5. Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) for Packages Labeled by
> Weight
>
> ~~Do Not Use This Table f~~**[F]{.underline}**or Meat and Poulty
> Products ~~subject to USDA Regulations~~ **[When Labeled Weight is
> Provided By USDA Inspected Facility]{.underline}** -- Use Table 2-9
>
> For Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, see Table 2-10. Exceptions to the
> MAVs.

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** When packages of meat
and poultry are labeled with a net weight by a USDA inspected facility,
they are subject to the MAVs found in Table 2-9 as established by the
USDA. When packages from a USDA inspected facility are labeled with a
net weight after they leave the inspected facility (i.e., the meat
department at a supermarket), they are subject to the MAVs found in
Table 2-5. This is because the weighing and labeling was not done under
the supervision or inspection of the USDA.

The current guidance offered in Handbook 133 could be interpreted to
mean that packages bearing a USDA seal of inspection are subject to
Table 2-9 even if they were labeled with the weight after they left the
facility. This proposal will provide clarification in Handbook 133 for
uniform enforcement practices.

**[History of Item:]{.smallcaps}** This is a new item. First introduced
at the 2003 CWMA Interim Meeting, CWMA recommended adoption of this
item.

####### 260-5 Amend § 3.2 Gravimetric Test Procedure for Liquids

[source:]{.smallcaps} Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Amend Handbook 133 § 3.2 Gravimetric
Test Procedure for Liquids as follows:

> 3\. ~~For milk, select a volumetric measure equal to the label
> declaration. For all other products, s~~**[S]{.underline}**elect a
> volumetric measure that is one size smaller than the label
> declaration. For example, if testing a 1 L bottle of juice or soft
> drink, select a 500mL volumetric measure.

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** Currently, Handbook 133
can be interpreted to state that you must use a volumetric measure equal
to the label declaration when testing milk. The previous 3^rd^ Edition
Section 4.7. allowed for the use of a smaller sized measure. Milk should
not be excluded from all other products. This proposal would allow the
jurisdictions to continue to use the same measure so they would not be
required to purchase new equipment.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This is a new item. First introduced
at the 2003 CWMA Interim Meeting, CWMA recommended adoption of this
item.

####### 260-6 Amend § 3.11 and MAV Table 2-10

[source:]{.smallcaps} Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** Amend the application and header of
Handbook 133 Table 2-10 as follows to allow the MAVs that apply to Mulch
and Soil to also apply to similar products, such as Wood Shavings and
Animal Bedding:

> Table 2-10. Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations for
>
> Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, Mulch ~~and~~[,]{.underline}
> Soil**[, and Other Similar Products]{.underline}** Labeled by Volume,
> Packaged Firewood, and
>
> Packages Labeled by Count with Less than 50 Items

Amend Handbook 133 § 3.11 to read:

> 3.11. Mulch ~~and~~[,]{.underline} Soil**[, and Other Similar
> Products]{.underline}** Labeled by Volume

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** A manufacturer of wood
fiber products feels that their wood shavings, labeled by volume, should
receive the same MAVs as \"Mulch and Soils.\" The product could
conceivably be used in as many different applications as \"Animal
Bedding,\" \"Insulation,\" \"Mulch\" (A Horticultural Above Ground
Dressing), etc. The reasons for allowing expanded MAVs for Mulch and
Soil also apply to other similar products. Item 250-10, which was
adopted at the 83^rd^ National Conference on Weights and Measures in
1998, and was entitled \"Bark Mulch, and Other Organic Products --
Maximum Allowable Variations\" discussed the reasoning and the necessity
for the expanded MAVs. This reasoning also applies to other similar
products with irregular particle sizes and shapes, and that have poor
measurement repeatability because of inherent product characteristics.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This is a new item. First introduced
at the 2003 WWMA Meeting, WWMA recommended adoption of this item. The
SWMA recommended that this item be withdrawn because there was
insufficient data provided to justify further consideration.

###### 270 OTHER ITEMS

####### 270-1 Enhanced Product -- USDA/FSIS Meat and Poultry Products

##  {#section-5 .TOC-1}

**[source:]{.smallcaps}** Central Weights and Measures Association
(CWMA)

**[current proposal:]{.smallcaps}** The NCWM shall:

> \(1\) Establish a Working Group to study current market conditions for
> enhanced versus non-enhanced meat and poultry products, to determine
> the extent to which water and/or other added solutions are no longer
> retained in the product at the time of sale (i.e., are lost into the
> packaging material or are otherwise free-flowing) recognizing Federal
> regulations that are in place which govern labeling of such products;
> and

2.  Direct the Working Group to make recommendations to the L&R
    Committee based on findings of the study concerning what is to be
    considered "reasonable moisture allowances" when conducting Handbook
    133 inspections of enhanced meat and poultry products.

**[background and justification:]{.smallcaps}** Meat and poultry
processors have been marketing fresh meat and poultry items to which
water-based solutions of various compositions have been added,
ostensibly with the claim that the solutions "enhance juiciness and/or
flavor" and overall palatability. Wet tare testing in the State of
Michigan has revealed that those solutions leach into the soaker pads
and packaging material and are no longer contained in the product at the
time of sale. Thus, they do not accomplish the stated purpose. This
means that consumers are paying for water solutions: (1) at fresh meat
and poultry prices, and (2) that are no longer part of the product. This
causes economic harm to consumers and the marketplace.

In addition, fresh poultry has been processed for decades using a bath
chilling method which causes the carcasses to uptake water to the extent
that the USDA/FSIS has placed percentage limits on the amount of
additional water the poultry is allowed to absorb (8 % whole/12 % cut
up). Labeling on "enhanced products" that has been allowed by the
USDA/FSIS ranges from "contains up to 33 % of a solution" to "up to 33 %
of product weight is added ingredients." This labeling appears to be
ineffective at best, and misleading at worst.

Dry and/or dry-used tare testing of these products cannot:

(1) detect the levels of solutions claimed on packaging.

(2) detect to what extent the artificially added moisture has leached
    from the products and has been either absorbed in soaker pads, or
    remains free-flowing in the packaging material.

(3) yield data with which to determine "reasonable variations" from the
    stated net weight.

Recent laboratory tests on fresh, "enhanced" poultry products sold in
the State of Michigan have revealed moisture losses ranging from 2 to
6.5 ounces.

USDA estimates indicate that with respect to chilled poultry, in 1996
consumers paid for 1.5 billion pounds of retained water at a cost of
nearly \$1 billion. (USDA/FSIS, Retained Water in Raw Meat and Poultry
Products; Poultry Chilling Performance Standards, Docket #97-054P,
September 8, 1998, p. 48974.) Poultry with a processed water uptake of
up to 8 % (whole) or 12 % (cut up) of net weight is being sold "enhanced
with up to a 15 % of a solution," resulting in a product for which a
consumer is paying for 23 % water.

The initial thrust of the USDA/FSIS proposed rulemaking was to
accommodate legitimate water uptake claims on the basis of meeting food
safety requirements. However, comments have been submitted that
seriously challenge the poultry industry's assertion that batch chillers
are the preferred, best method to chill carcasses to enhance food
safety. On the contrary, according to several scientific submissions to
the proposed rulemakers, bath chillers may actually perpetuate and
facilitate the spread of pathogens. The USDA/FSIS as also found that
several poultry packers are "targeting" the upper water retention
limits, regardless of any food safety concerns.

Current labeling of products for added solutions is extremely vague and
potentially misleading to consumers. Consumers' economic interests are
not being protected without changes to the inspection system
requirements. The consuming public has not been fully informed of the
economic impact of paying meat and poultry prices for water. This will
eventually surface in the media, however, and weights and measures
officials must be able to address the "reasonableness" of this practice.

**[history of item:]{.smallcaps}** This item was originally brought to
the Committee by the CWMA in 2000. At that time the CWMA was
recommending that the Committee:

A.  In concert with the NCWM Administration and Public Affairs
    Committee, provide an opportunity for a Technical Demonstration at
    the NCWM 2001 Interim Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, on the economic
    impact on U.S. consumers due to moisture loss from fresh meat and
    poultry products that have been "enhanced" through the addition of
    "solutions" (water, sodium phosphate, etc.) or have otherwise gained
    moisture during processing (i.e., fresh poultry). It is requested
    that the Technical Demonstration, to be presented on behalf of the
    CWMA by the State of Michigan, be conducted during a joint session
    of the NCWM Standing Committees due to the nationwide scope and
    economic impact of this issue; and

B.  Establish a Working Group to begin a study, on a nationwide basis,
    if possible, to determine the extent to which consumers in the U.S.
    are paying for water and/or other added solutions that are no longer
    retained in the product at the time of sale (i.e., are lost into the
    packing material or are otherwise free-flowing); and

C.  Direct that the Working Group recommend a testing method that may be
    utilized by weights and measures jurisdictions to determine the
    amount and/or reasonableness of the moisture loss documented and
    what "gray area," if any, should be applied to these products; and

D.  Direct the Working Group to examine labeling of "enhanced" fresh
    meat and poultry (including fresh poultry that has gained weight due
    to water absorption as a result of processing) to determine if
    current labeling is sufficiently descriptive and uniform to allow
    U.S. consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and to
    recommend changes if the labeling is found to be non-uniform and/or
    otherwise deficient.

The CWMA requested that this item be given a high priority by the NCWM,
and that the goal be for the Working Group to report on its findings
during the 2001 NCWM Annual Meeting Technical Session.

[In 2001:]{.underline} At the January Interim Meeting the Committee
commented that it is difficult for weights and measures officials to
conduct net content inspection in accordance with NIST Handbook 133
procedures without defined reasonable moisture allowances. The Committee
therefore recommended that the NCWM establish a Working Group to study
current market conditions and recommend moisture allowances (the current
proposal). At the July Annual Meeting this item was adopted by the NCWM.

-   The CWMA formed a small committee to develop recommendations for the
    formation of the working group with the goal of providing those
    recommendations to the NCWM Chairman and the NCWM Laws and
    Regulations Committee Chairman in advance of the 2002 NCWM Interim
    Meeting. Henry Oppermann, Chief, NIST Office of Weights and
    Measures, provided copies of a previous NCWM Study Group protocol to
    assist in the development of this item.

-   The WWMA recommended that the Enhanced Product Working Group propose
    a plan and scope of action for consideration by the NCWM. The WWMA
    encouraged the working group to invite participants from USDA,
    industry, and other interested parties.

-   The SWMA echoed the WWMA's recommendation that USDA, industry, and
    other interested parties by invited to participate in the working
    group.

[In 2002:]{.underline} The Committee voted to maintain this item on the
agenda as Informational pending the proposed formation of an Enhanced
Product Working Group by the NCWM Board of Directors.

-   The CWMA reported that data collected by their committee had been
    forwarded to Kurt Floren, San Diego County, California, who they had
    been told had been appointed to lead this effort.

-   The WWMA recommended that this item remain Informational to give the
    NCWM Board of Directors time to determine the appropriate direction
    regarding this item.

[In 2003:]{.underline} The Committee voted to maintain this item on the
agenda as Informational pending the proposed formation of an Enhanced
Product Working Group by the NCWM Board of Directors.

-   The CWMA supports keeping this item as Informational until the NCWM
    Board of Directors appoints the Working Group.

-   The WWMA supports keeping this item as Informational until the NCWM
    Board of Directors appoints the Working Group. The WWMA heard from
    Dennis Ehrhart, NCWM Chairman, that he would be appointing a Work
    Group in the near future.

-   The SWMA heard comments that this really falls under USDA
    jurisdiction, and current USDA regulations permit the sale of these
    "enhanced products." With the limited resources available to the
    NCWM, the SWMA recommends that a Working Group not be formed, and
    the item be withdrawn.

[^1]

[^1]: ^^Dennis Johannes, California, Chairman

    Joe Gomez, New Mexico

    Edwin Price, Texas

    James Cassidy, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Vicky Dempsey, Montgomery County, Ohio

    Vince Orr, ConAgra Foods, Associate Member Representative

    Brian Lemon, Canada, Technical Advisor

    Doug Hutchinson, Canada, Technical Advisor

    Tom Coleman, NIST, Technical Advisor

    Kathryn Dresser, NIST, Technical Advisor

    **Committee on Laws and Regulations**