NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 684

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / National Bureau of Standards

.

:

. .
Tm he National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The P Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a

basis for the nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and

government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is performed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National

Engineering Laboratory, the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, and the Center for Materials

Science.

The National Measurement Laboratory

Provides the national system of physical and chemical measurement;

coordinates the system with measurement systems of other nations and

furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical and

chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, in- dustry, and commerce; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies; conducts physical and chemical research; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Basic Standards2 Radiation Research Chemical Physics

Analytical Chemistry

The National Engineering Laboratory

Provides technology and technical services to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement

capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops

test methods and proposes engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The

Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics

Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 Manufacturing Engineering

Building Technology

Fire Research Chemical Engineering2

The Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

Conducts research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Government

operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing

the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP

voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and

Technology

Computer Systems

Engineering

The Center for Materials Science

Conducts research and provides measurements, data, standards, reference

materials, quantitative understanding and other technical information funda- mental to the processing, structure, properties and performance of materials; addresses the scientific basis for new advanced materials technologies; plans

research around cross-country scientific themes such as nondestructive

evaluation and phase diagram development; oversees Bureau-wide technical programs in nuclear reactor radiation research and nondestructive evaluation; and broadly disseminates generic technical information resulting from

its programs. The Center consists of the following Divisions:

Inorganic Materials Fracture and Deformation3 Polymers

Metallurgy Reactor Radiation

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address

Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

! Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303. 'Located at Boulder, CO, with some elements at Gaithersburg, MD.
Report of the

69th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1984

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials from the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Boston, Mass., July 29-August 3, 1984

Report Editors: Albert D. Tholen

Louis E. Barbrow

Ann P. Heffernan

0F % United States Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Ernest Ambler, Director

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

Issued January 1985

Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 684, 339 pages (Jan. 1985) CODEN: XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1985

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
ABSTRACT

The 69th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures was held at the Westin Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts, during

the week of July 29, 1984. Attendance totaled 396 (341 paid registrants

and 55 guests) from forty-six (46) States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The

theme of the meeting was "Transferring Technology for Trade: A Team

Effort." Adoption of a NCWM Constitution and By-laws and a new Scales Code

were major actions taken by the membership. The new Scales Code,

which will be effective January 1, 1986, represented a significant advancement for device control. Other items addressed included such issues as labeling of gasoline-alcohol blends and national type evaluation.

Special meetings included those of the Task Force on Package Control,

Metrologists' Workshops, the Associate Membership Committee, the Scale

Manufacturers Association, the Industry Committee on Packaging and

Labeling, the State regional weights and measures associations, and OIML

Pilot Secretariat 20 (Prepackaged Products).

Reports by the several standing and annual committees of the Conference

comprise the major portion of the publication. Also included are the

addresses and technical papers delivered by Conference officials and other

authorities from Government and industry.

Key words: legal metrology; specifications and tolerances; training; type

evaluation; uniform laws and regulations; and weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766

Note: Opinions expressed in non-NBS papers are those of the authors and

not necessarily those of the National Bureau of Standards. Non-NBS

speakers are solely responsible for the content and quality of their

material.

2
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract 2 Officers, Officials, & Committees of the Conference 5 General Session 9 Standing Committee Reports 46

Executive Committee

Final Report 47 Appendix A - Constitution and Bylaws 62

Appendix B - National Type Evaluation

Program,Policy and Procedures 82

Appendix C - Certificate of Conformance 97 Committee on Laws and Regulations

Final Report 98

Appendix A - Comparison of State Regulations

With the Uniform Packaging and

Labeling Regulation 138

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Final Report 170

Appendix A - Draft Belt-Conveyor Scale

Systems 197

Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs

Final Report 209

Attachment 1-Directors Roundtables 214

Attachment 2-OWM Newsletter 215

Attachment 3-Proposed Module on Electronic

Weighing and Measuring Systems 216

Attachment 4-Proposed Training Modules 217

Attachment 5-Production Schedule 219

Attachment 6-National Weights and Measures

Week House of Representatives Joint

Resolution 220

Attachment 7-Survey Results 224

Attachment 8- NCWM Uniform Procedures

for Certification of Officials 227

Committee on Liaison

Final Report 230

Appendix A - Proposed Changes to NBS Handbook 133 244

Appendix B - U.S. Borax Presentation 269

Appendix C - I-Mark Program Description 277

Appendix D- Summary Survey Results 299

3
Annual Committee Reports

Nominating Committee 304

Resolutions Committee 305

Auditing Committee 307 Treasurer 308

Miscellaneous

Appointments by Chairman 310

Report on State Laboratory Metrology Workshops 313

Organization Chart 314

Scheduled Events - 69th Annual Meeting 316

State Voting Representatives 318

Registration List 319

4
OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND COMMITTEES OF THE CONFERENCE

5
OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

(July 16, 1982 - July 21, 1983)

(Elected)

Chairman:*

Chairman-Elect:*

Immediate Past Chairman:*

Vice Chairmen:

Sam Hindsman, Arkansas

Ezio Delfino, California

Charles Greene, New Mexico

John Bartfai, New York

Barbara Boddicker, South Dakota

Lacy DeGrange, Maryland

Joseph Swanson, Alaska

Executive

Committee:

Treasurer:*

Chaplain:

President:*

Executive

Secretary:*

Sergeants-at-Arms

:

Parliamentarian:

Assistant Treasurer:

James Blackwood, Texas

Edward Heffron, Michigan

Lyman Holloway, Idaho

Eugene Keeley, Delaware

Norman Ross, Nebraska

Robert Walker, Indiana

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Francis Daniels, Wayne County, IN

(Ex-officio) Ernest Ambler, NBS

Albert Tholen, NBS

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

John Henlon, Chelsea, MA

William Vinci, Medford, MA

Sydney Andrews, Florida

James Akey, Kansas

Ex-officio members of the Executive Committee

6
STANDING COMMITTEES

Laws and Regulations

Wesley Mossberg, Chairman, Los Angeles, CA (Retired)

Edward Skluzacek, Minnesota

Don Stagg, Alabama

George Mattimoe, Hawaii

Trafford Brink, Vermont

Technical Advisor: Carroll Brickenkamp, OWM/NBS

Specifications and Tolerances

Sidney Colbrook, Chairman, Illinois Darrell Guensler, California

Fred Gerk, New Mexico

Robert Probst, Wisconsin

Kenneth Butcher, West Virginia

Technical Advisor: Otto Warnlof, OWN/NBS

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Joseph Swanson, Chairman, Alaska

Thomas Geiler, Town of Barnstable, MA

Bruce Niebergall, North Dakota

Philip Stagg, Louisiana

Stan Darsey, Florida

Technical Advisor: Joan Koenig, OWM/NBS

Liaison N. David Smith, Chairman, North Carolina

Charles Cavagnaro, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

Technical Advisor: Steve Hasko, OWN/NBS

7
ANNUAL COMMITTEES

Auditing

Gaylon Kennedy, Maine, Chairman

John Berquist, City of Minneapolis, MN

WiUiam Sullivan, City of Seattle, WA

Credentials

Eugene Keeley, Delaware

John Chohamin, Middlesex County, NJ

Arthur Hershbein, Dade County, FL

Nominating

Charles Greene, New Mexico, Chairman

Sydney Andrews, Florida

Edward Heffron, Michigan

James Lyles, Virginia

John O'Neill, Kansas

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Richard Thompson, Maryland

Resolutions

Thomas Kelly, New Jersey, Chairman

Sharon Abercrombie, Georgia

Steve Malone, Nebraska

Catherine Pittman, Tennessee

Edison Stevens, Utah

Charles Tandy, Jr., Alaska

Fred Thomas, Pennsylvania

Associate Membership

Anthony Ladd, A. J. Ladd Systems, Chairman

Art Kroll, Gilbarco, Inc., Vice Chairman

Neal Peterson, General Mills, Treasurer Robert Fonger, Bennett Pump Co.

Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. Walter Kupper, Mettler Instrument Harvey Lodge, Dunbar Manufacturing Co.

Andrew Moore, Grocery Manufacturers of America

Robert Nelson, General Mills Raymond Wells, Seraphin Test Measure Co.

8
GENERAL SESSION

Tuesday Afternoon, July 31, 1984

9
AGENDA

SAM F. HINDSMAN

Conference Chairman. Presicir.c Call to Order

Presentation of Colors and National Anthem

Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance

REV. FRANCIS W . DANIELS

Conference Chaplain, Weights and Measures

Administrator, Wayne County, IN

Address: "Transferring Technology for Trade: A Team Effort"

SAM F. BONDSMAN

Conference Chairman

Welcoming Remarks

PACLA W. COLD

Secretary of Consumer Affairs and

Business Regulations. State of Massachusetts

Address: "Future Stock To Avoid Future Shock"

ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

Director. National Bureau of Standards

Address: "The Tower Of Babel"

STANLEY I. WARSHAW

Director. Office ::' Product Standards Policy.

National Bureau of Sta.nci.rcs Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation

SAM F. HINDS MAN

Conference Chairman

Honor Awards Presentation

ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

Address: "State Metrology Lab-oratories: Perceotions and Reality"

ROSS J. ANDERSEN

MetroiO'glst. State of New Yock

Address: "'Benefits and Action Plan for Establishing a Complaint Handling

System"

JOHN A. GOODMAN

President, Technical Assistance

Research Programs. Inc.
TRANSFERRING TECHNOLOGY FOR TRADE - A TEAM EFFORT

Sam F. Hindsman,

Chairman, National Conference on Weights and Measures

The theme of the 67th Annual Meeting of the Conference on Weights and

Measures in 1982, "Crossroads for Weights and Measures", was appropriate

because of the challenges facing the National Bureau of Standards, the

Office of Weights and Measures, and the National Conference on Weights

and Measures. Dr. Ambler, Director of NBS and President of the NCWM,

and Dr. Ed Heffron, Chairman of the 67th NCWM, recognized the united

effort that would have to be exerted by all interested parties in order to meet those challenges. The key parties were the National Bureau of

Standards, the Office of Product Standards Policy, the Office of Weights

and Measures, and the National Conference on Weights and Measures, as

well as the manufacturers and users of weighing and measuring

equipment. They are working more closely together than ever before to meet the challenges.

Many of you will recall that Dr. Ambler highlighted in Atlanta in 1982

the roles that were clearly NBS responsibilities:

1. to sponsor the NCWM,

2. to insure the basic capabilities of the State laboratories,

3. to coordinate the development of the National Type Approval

Program, and

4. to support the Conference in the development of training

materials in response to the introduction of electronic

technology in the marketplace.

All activities related to these responsibilities are on schedule as planned.

The theme of the 68th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures in 1983 was "Progress in Professionalism". Dr. Charles Greene recognized, in his comments to the 68th Conference in Sacramento, California, that the commitment of NBS to Weights and

Measures and to the Conference was real and as promised by Dr. Ambler.

The additional resources applied to the National Type Evaluation Program,

the National Training Program, and the Laboratory Accreditation Program

provide the basis for a quality laboratory and a more professional

employee.

The theme of the 69th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, "Transferring Technology for Trade - A Team

Effort", is appropriate because of the many changes we have witnessed in our everyday lives as both consumers and weights and measures

professionals. I believe that we really have a team effort going to deal

with these changes.

11
The membership of the NCWM will be called on at the 69th Annual

Meeting to approve programs and actions that will demonstrate continued

support of the recent outstanding progress that has been made in bringing

the technical and legal basis up to date for the weights and measures community. Evidence of this progress can be found in the final reports

of the committees and task forces dealing with several subjects. I will briefly report on the status of the following:

1. The Final Draft of the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP).

The Task Force on National Type Evaluation, under the leadership of Ezio

Delfino, has been working since 1976 on this project. Approval of the

remaining steps toward development will permit implementation of the

program in October, 1984, as planned. Of equal importance is the need

for the States to adopt the uniform State regulation for NTEP; we should

all work toward the establishment of the legal and administrative basis

for involvement in the program by every State.

2. The Final Draft of the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws.

The membership will be called on to consider the final draft of the

NCWM Constitution and Bylaws structured formally and based on the

existing informal conference procedures.

3. A Permanent Code for Grain Moisture Meters for Handbook 44. The Task Force for Grain Moisture Measurement Assurance, under the

leadership of your Chairman, has worked on this project since 1976. The

conference membership will be called on to consider the S & T

Committee recommendation for a permanent code for Handbook 44.

4. The Second Draft of the New Tolerance Structure for the Scale Code.

The new tolerances greatly simplify the inspectors' job in the field. It has been under development for several years and enjoys broad support by

weights and measures officials as well as the Scale Manufacturers

Association. I am confident that you have developed the understanding

necessary for the membership to vote confidently on the Scale Code.

5. The Task Force on Belt-Conveyor Scales has submitted its first draft of a proposed new code for belt conveyor scales for consideration by the

Conference. Fred Gerk, Chairman, and the Task Force are to be

commended for their efforts.

6. The Task Force on Package Control has addressed several important

aspects of package control in the USA. The result will be increased

uniformity and technical validity, as well as decreased cost to regulatory

officials and industry alike in the regulation of consumer packaged

commodities. A key step that the Conference will be addressing this week will be the second draft of Handbook 133. The Final Draft may be

recommended for approval by the Conference in 1985.

12
7. The National Training Program. The National Bureau of Standards,

through the Office of Product Standards Policy (the home of OWM), has

assumed significant fiscal and technical responsibilities for the continued

development of the training program. It is up to the NCWM to carry its full share of responsibilities through its committee structure, including the

special working groups being formed to draft initial modules. The program

is a bit behind the original schedule because of the decision to terminate

the contractual relationship with the Texas Engineering Extension Service

(TEEX); however, OPSP assigned a full time professional to the staff of

OWM who will spend most of her time on this program. Through the

additional staffing, selection of new contractors, and the recent increase

in offers of voluntary assistance from industry, I believe that, within the next year, the program will return to the original schedule. Some

training modules will be available for use during 1984.

Hopefully, the National Training Program will become the vehicle through

which the transfer of technical information to each weights and measures employee will become a reality.

8. Task Force on Motor Fuels. Because of recent complaints regarding

the quality of certain motor fuels in several States, the Executive

Committee of NCWM has authorized the establishment of a task force

whose mission will be to identify information and resources that are

available and that will aid in the uniform evaluation and testing of motor

fuels. Members of the Task Force are N. David Smith, Chairman, North

Carolina; Sidney Andrews, Florida; George Mattimoe, Hawaii; Barbara

Bloch, California; Curtis Williams, Georgia; Dave Karlish, Arkansas; and

Frank Nagele, Michigan. The Task Force will work with the standards

organizations, professional societies, industry, and trade groups for the

resolution of the problems related to regulation of motor fuels. It will support the efforts of the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) in modifying the ASTM D-439 gasoline standard to include

oxygenated fuels - alcohol blends. The ASTM standard will serve as a

national specification for adoption by the States. Summary

The NBS, through the technical assistance that it provides to the standing

committees and task forces, is meeting its commitment of responding to the needs of the weights and measures community.

The Conference has also faced up to its responsibilities by approval of the

details of a National Type Evaluation Program, National Training

Program, Grain Moisture Meter Code, new tolerance structure for the

Scale Code, and cooperating in the development of a second draft of Handbook 133. We have seen a great spirit of cooperation and mutual

support by the State officials and industry in accepting the challenge of advancement and the related implementation of the resulting advances.

We have seen a great team effort from Dr. Ernest Ambler - NBS, Dr. Stan Warshaw - OPSP, Al Tholen -OWM, and his staff in the Weights and

Measures Office. I am confident that the necessary team effort will continue through the completion of these initiatives and their full implementation by the States and industry.

13
The real job of implementation is now in our laps. We have the

opportunity to:

1. develop a sound, comprehensive training program,

2. initiate the operation of a National Type Evaluation

Program,

3. make major advances in the area of device inspection

through the new scale code,

4. adopt a moisture meter code for Handbook 44, and

provide the necessary follow-up to establish tolerance

for other grains,

5. adopt a Constitution and Bylaws for the Conference,

which is needed to remove questions regarding our

goals and operational procedures, and

6. strengthen the Conference by increased membership

and participation.

Based on our accomplishments recently, I am confident that we will collectively meet these challenges and that the implementation of the

actions that we have designed and adopted will be on schedule during the next few years.

In closing, I am pleased to give special recognition to our Executive

Secretary, Al Tholen. The accomplishments of the NCWM in the past few

years are a direct result of his ability to plan and organize the activities of the NCWM. Al, would you please come forward. I am pleased to present this plaque which bears the following statement:

"Albert D. Tholen

In appreciation of

Outstanding Service to the

National Conference on Weights and Measures

69th Annual Meeting

July 28 - August 3, 1984

Sam Hindsman

Chairman"

14
FUTURE STOCK TO AVOID FUTURE SHOCK

Dr. Ernest Ambler

Director, National Bureau of Standards

It is a pleasure for me to speak again at this annual meeting of the

NCWM. It is particularly gratifying this year, as indeed it has been on two previous occasions. The main reason is that together, the National

Bureau of Standards and the National Conference on Weights and

Measures have made significant progress in the new programs launched

three years ago. Through commitment and hard work, we are seeing results in five major

areas:

- Strengthening of the State laboratories,

- Updating of handbooks

- Supporting the Conference,

- Establishing the National Type

Evaluation Program, and

- Drafting several modules of the training program.

I feel so confident of the quality of our progress that I do not intend to say much about these matters this year. The results speak for themselves.

I would like to mention a couple of loose ends that need to be tied. These "loose ends" are the responsibility of members of this conference

and involve actions needed to insure the reality of the NTEP, and reduce

the complexity of device control. Before the NTEP can function in fact, the States need to adopt the

"Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation" in order to establish

the legal basis for the program and reciprocity among the States. Several

States have either adopted or are in the process of adopting the

regulation.

However, the majority of States have not yet initiated action toward

adoption. I hope, after this Conference, when they return home, the

members of those States will be convinced of the importance to initiate and pursue vigorous action towards adopting this "Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation."

The other "loose end" that needs attention will greatly simplify the job

for the field inspector in testing devices. I am referring to the new

tolerance structure proposed for inclusion in handbook 44, which should be

adopted by the conference at this meeting.

15
With those two important matters taken care of, I want to restate that we feel that things have gone well, and I expect that the rest of the

pieces will "fall into place" on schedule.

A Broader Look at NBS Research

Today, I am going to devote the bulk of my time to describing, by

illustrations, other parts of the NBS program. In the first place, I believe

much of our work offers potential benefits to the Weights and Measures

community. But, just as it is true that we take our support of the

weights and measures constituencies seriously, so we also take our

responsibilities to our other numerous constituencies. In fact, the statute

establishing NBS, known as the organic act, states the following:

"The Bureau is authorized to exercise its functions for the Government of the United States and for international organizations of which the United States is a member; for governments of friendly countries; for any

State or municipal government within the United States;

or for any scientific society, educational institution,

firm, corporation, or individual within the United States

or friendly countries engaged in manufacturing or other

pursuits requiring the use of standards or standard

measuring instruments".

As you can imagine, providing services to such a broad constituency

demands extensive programs and wide-ranging interactions with the people

involved.

While many of our constituents know something about NBS in a limited

way, few seem to know the full breadth of NBS activities, nor the

potential importance of them. Indeed, one of the major criticisms I get is that NBS is one of the most versatile and useful of all the federal

laboratories, and few people know much about it. If this is so, then it is very appropriate for me to take this occasion to help rectify this deficiency. I want to bring you up to date on work of immediate use to you as well as related activities that you will, I believe, find of interest, even though they are aimed at broader or other constituencies.

NBS, as a research institution, must plan its program in spite of the

great uncertainties associated with "looking ahead". We must conduct

research within the framework of our mission; that is, to further the

responsibilities assigned to us. The present emphasis is in five areas:

- Support the U.S. economy through services that improve

quality control, innovation, and productivity.

- Improve measures for domestic and international trade

and confidence in U.S. standards, practices, and

technology.

- Promote U.S. science and the use of science through

precision measurements and evaluation data.

16
- Serve as an authoritative reference for other agencies

of government — including State and local officials and distributors, consumers, engineers, and scientists. - Perform measurement-intensive research for other agencies.

Some Statistics The following statistics will give you a general idea of the magnitude of our job:

Annual information exchange

1,500 technical publications

2,500 technical talks 600 seminars held

15,000 attendees at NBS workshops and conferences

Annual services

7,000 instruments calibrated

40,000 standard reference materials produced

47,000 technical information inquiries

5,000 standards information inquiries

Personnel exchange

135 industry research associates

250 guest workers

115 foreign guest workers

37 visiting faculty and students

42 postdoctoral research associates

92 cooperative education

DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED NBS RESEARCH PROJECTS

MASS

Earlier, research at NBS in the area of mass has been a key to much of your work in device and package control, as well as in providing

calibration services to your local industry. More recent research at NBS

holds the promise of advancing the state-of-the-art significantly. the

results of this work will provide the basis for advancing technology used

in the marketplace by both industry and regulatory officials. Current research in mass is in three areas:

1. Development and automation of mass comparators;

2. Simplified density measurements (immersed balances);

3. Better precision at the national and international level.

17
Mass Comparators

Many of you are familiar with the portable load-cell mass comparator

developed by NBS. The comparator in Figure 1 is weighing the New York

State weight dolly. This is a significant advance in highly precise

weighing technology. It is electrical rather than mechanical in principle,

and, therefore, can be interconnected with computers.

Computer compatibility (something you've seen in commercial weighing for many years) is in fact a major trend in the area of high-accuracy and

high-precision weighing, it provides the basis for:

- Reduction in systematic errors, and

- Great labor savings in the laboratory of the future. Although a major manufacturer agreed to continue production of a laboratory analytical balance that is the workhorse of many mass

laboratories, including your weights and measures labs, laboratory

automation is moving rapidly, and I predict that the analytical balance

shown in Figure 2 will change dramatically.

The introduction of a simple servo-motor in the balance design as shown

in Figure 3 will permit faster weighings and hook-up to computers.

This NBS prototype design of such a balance (See Figure 4) shows "weight

exchangers" that place weights on the pan and remove them, eliminating

human contact with (and transfer of body heat to) the weights.

Immersed Balance

The immersed balance shown in Figure 5 represents the culmination of

several years of work that will permit NBS to actually measure the

density of customers' kilogram weights (rather than assume a nominal

density).

In fact, immersed weighing has already permitted NBS to offer a new

standard reference material — silicon — as a density standard.

Super Balance

In 1970, NBS developed, designed, and built a balance that is now "the" balance used to inter compare national kilograms at the International

Bureau of Weights and Measures (otherwise known as the BIPM) in Paris. Today, NBS is working on what I might call a "super balance" that will permit special studies such as: - Mass comparison in a vacuum, and

- The study of the surface of weights themselves.

18
Figure 1 Mass Comparator Weighing New York's Weight Dolly

Figure 2 Laboratory Balance

19
Figure 3 Balance with Servo-Motor

Figure 4 Prototype Design

20
Figure 5 Immersed Balance
KNIFE EI 3ES

The knife edge is crucial to the performance of this new balance and has

required NBS scientists to extend their knowledge of the design and

manufacture of Knife edges. Figure 6 shows the ;ig that is used to grind the knife facets to a fine polish, leaving tne edge in a condition far closer to "perfect*1 than we have ever been able to achieve before.

In summary, our research m mass comparators has already Drought

benefits tc the weights and measures system:

1. Work at NBS is now incorporated in manufactured

products and used in many State laboratories.

Added capabilities will be emerging in the future

tnat will s_:ee: m tolerance testing an: -.ass calibration in State and industry laboratories.

2. Development of the new kilogram oalance has the potential ;: upgrade tne entire system. It promises

to provide the basis for increased accuracy at all levels of the measurement chain, incorporating

several new technolog-.es. Furthermore, it may

establish a::ed capability in me N'TZr an: device

evaluation areas. COMPUTER NETWORKS

I mentioned the trend towards connecting a computer to laboratory

balances. You and 1 know computers are becoming part of everything we

buy or do — from operating our cars to running our offices. And we know that they can help us to be more efficient in what we do —something that is especially important at a time when we all are under

tight budgets. Computers can be use: most effectively when they can :e connected tc each other — when they can "'talk*' to each other. Users of computer systems want t: interconnect mem t: snare expensive

data bases and computer hardware. with the advent of smaller and

smaller computer systems used in laboratories, factories, offices, and

homes, the ability to interconnect or "network" becomes even more

critical. Smaller systems and me increasing power

effective when coupled with large system

process large amounts of data. Toda; expensive to compose a network of of: different vendors, so ^ s e : s seeking ne purchasing suffer,

Tms compatibility dilemma extends t: local networks, long-distances networks, a

The demand for interconnection — n development of special protocols that de: among computer systems. These networi

they bring to tne user are most s that perform calculations and

it _s zenerallv difficult and

22
communicate with one another. Both users and industry are supporting

efforts to develop standard protocols so that interconnections can be made

more easily and at reduced cost. NBS has been a leader in this effort, working with industry and other

government agencies as well as international standards organizations. Using

our special facilities, we have been instrumental in developing the

specifications for network protocols, and the associated measurement

methods that ensure the correctness and performance of products that

implement those specifications. NBS-developed measurement methods are now used by communications and computer manufacturers in developing

their products and services for network users. Just two weeks ago at the national computer conference in Las Vegas,

NBS, Boeing Computer Services, and General Motors successfully

completed a series of tests and demonstrations with 13 computer

manufacturers and communications companies to implement a set of networking standards that are or will become standards of the ISO

(International Organization for Standardization). Many months of testing

and cooperative research at NBS preceded the demonstration.

This effort will contribute to your ability as computer users to intermix

brands of computers, selectively update parts of your computer hardware,

and help you to get different computers — in different States, in different offices — to "talk" to one another.

AUTOMATED FACTORY AND QUALITY CONTROL

We read about factory automation and the related subject of quality

control almost every day in the newspapers and magazines. There is a

direct relationship of these subjects to weights and measures, as you well

know.

Spinoffs in these areas have direct benefits to food processors, packagers,

and device manufacturers, and indirect benefits to the weights and measures official and public in general.

There are parallels, for example, in the advances in manufacturing quality

control (moving from inspection of final product to real time, on-line,

in-process control) to weights and measures package control (moving from

inspection of packages at retail, to in-plant, in-process control). Combining

modern packaging techniques and package compliance philosophy holds the

promise of greatly improving compliance rates and reducing enforcement

headaches.

Improved quality control by packagers should ultimately lead to smaller

tolerances. Improved quality control by device manufacturers will make

the NTEP and inspectors jobs easier. Everyone will benefit. Post Production Inspection and Process Control

The trend away from traditional product inspection (after production)

towards greater use of process control may be seen in some examples

taken from projects in the NBS Center for Manufacturing Engineering

23
(CME). The work involves controlling the dimensions of manufactured

metal products made by cutting and machining techniques using computer

controls. The traditional approach to maintaining dimensional compatibility in mechanical manufacturing is through comparison of products with model

artifacts, or prototypes, such as gauge blocks, thread gauges, or wire

gauges.

This approach, however, is incompatible with new directions in manufacturing technology, particularly with flexible automated

manufacturing where:

- Product batches tend to be small

- Production time is short

- The value added is large, and

- Little opportunity exists for product inspection

during intermediate steps in the manufacturing process. We believe that a better approach to control of product dimensions

involves process control. An example of on-line, real-time process

control is the use of sensors built directly into production machinery for on-line detection of spindle runout in metal turning operations. The

sensors detect the unwanted lateral motion, or wobble, of the cutting

tool. Computer-controlled settings detect any change in the machine part

that could lead to a defective product.

Engineers refer to their sensor-equipped turning machine as a "smart

machine." No downtime is required for adjustments. Scrapping the

product and reworking defective products are avoided.

Another example at NBS is a milling machine, which is run under

computer control, and automated work stations, which combine materials

handling via robot with smart machines. We are also working on the

problem of quality control in the interface process of robots and smart

machines.

These items are some of the building blocks of the NBS flexible automated manufacturing research facility, which is now being put to work even while it is under construction. This is a research effort proving the concept of "making it right the first time."

STANDARD REFERENCE iMATERIALS

Another program of the National Bureau of Standards that seeks to anticipate the future has a history as old as that of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

In 1905, the American Foundrymen's Association asked NBS for assistance

with measurements used for quality control during the production of cast

iron. The principal objective was to improve control over the amount of carbon and sulfur in iron to meet quality specifications.

24
NBS responded by producing a set of four gray east iron standards of

different compositions — and the standard reference materials program was born. NBS standard reference materials (or SRMs) are of three major types,

dealing with:

o Chemical composition, such as gases used in monitoring pollution o Physical properties such as the silicon SRM for density that I mentioned earlier in reviewing

NBS's mass measurement program, and

o Engineering properties, such as a linewidth SRM

needed in integrated circuit manufacturing.

In the 79-year history of the program, NBS has certified nearly 2,000

different SRMs with a current catalog offering of 900. About 40,000

SRMs are sold each year to 10,000 customers. Our customers include the

steel, chemical, rubber, and plastics industries, nuclear energy and electric

power companies, and the semiconductor, electronics, and computer

industries. One automobile manufacturer uses hundreds of different SRMs to control

the quality of everything from raw materials to finished product.

The future trends in the standard reference materials program seem

clear:

- Increasing complexity of materials, and

- a demand for better reference methods that

will measure components or constituents to parts per million or billion accurately and precisely.

These trends are well illustrated by looking at the health industries.

- Four billion clinical tests in hospitals and

laboratories cost consumers more than ten

billion dollars each year. The old familiar

"blood test" can today produce a computer-generated

report of at least 30-50 pieces of data, each

having significant diagnostic value to our doctors.

NBS has developed over 50 standard reference materials (SRMs) for use

in: - Determining the accuracy of clinical data and

methods, as well as for evaluating commercially

produced reference materials;

- Calibrating instruments and testing their performance; and

25
- Comparing clinical data from laboratories

using different methods and instruments.

COOPERATIVE EFFORT

A number of standards organizations, trade associations, and other private sector groups have supported research associates at NBS to assist in the

certification of SRMs. These organizations include ASTM, the Atomic

Industrial Forum, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and the

College of American Pathologists.

Dating back to the inception of the Bureau in 1901, the NBS research

associate program offers individuals from private companies and

organizations an opportunity to conduct cooperative work at NBS on

projects of mutual interest. Sponsoring organizations provide salaries for the research associates, while NBS makes facilities and staff available to the associates.

This program has proven to be an excellent vehicle for transferring the

results of NBS research to those who can make the best use of such

information. I would welcome — in fact, urge — you to sponsor a research associate from the weights and measures community, or encourage others to do so, to join with us at NBS on the solutions to a weights and measures problem. I think that such a program would

strengthen our already strong ties. SUMMARY

I have tried to give you some of the more important examples of what we at NBS are doing for you and for some of our other constituencies.

You know, the future always brings surprises. What we are attempting to do today is develop the technical stock — the know-how — that you and

others will need to counter the future shock that rapidly advancing

technology brings. Working together, towards the same goal, we can

continue to be prepared for the promise of the future.

26
THE TOWER OF BABEL

Stanley I. Warshaw

Chief, Office of Product Standards Policy

National Bureau of Standards

It is a great pleasure for me to be here today to address this 69th

annual meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

especially since Boston is my native city and it is always nice to come

home.

NCMW ACHIEVEMENTS

Since this is my first address to the Conference, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize your continuing accomplishments.

Along with Dr. Ambler, I believe that the Conference has made impressive

advances in a number of key areas in the past several years. Your

initiative in developing plans for and implementing development of the

type evaluation and national training programs as well as a number of

administrative reforms is a sign of organizational health and progress. There is a strong sense of planning for the future, rather than being content to live in the past.

Another action by this Conference confirms my belief in your progressive

leadership.

In 1983, the Western Weights and Measures Association Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs, in its final report to the

26th Annual Technical Conference of the Association, recommended that

efforts be made to coordinate information about computerized inspection

programs.

The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs, when reviewing this recommendation at its interim meeting in January, agreed that having some data bases at the national level was a good idea. The committee

also envisaged the NCWM playing a broader role in helping weights and measures jurisdictions develop data base capabilities for their

requirements.

OPSP EXPERIENCE

Based on my personal experience and the data base work in our office, I believe that you can derive significant benefits, using computers in routine State tasks, by developing your own data base capabilities. If done

carefully and cooperatively, the results will be rewarding in terms of

efficiency and upgrading of your programs.

27
Before dealing with the specific questions raised by the Western and the

National Conferences, I would like to share some of our recent experience

in OPSP and our firsthand knowledge of benefits.

NVLAP

Our laboratory accreditation group used the data base capability of our new word processing equipment to create an automated information system

that helps them keep track of the status of some 250 laboratories

participating in the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NVLAP). The processes of accrediting a lab and periodically

re-evaluating it are complex and involve a number of different steps. By

using the automated information system, project managers ensure that

projects stay on schedule and critical actions are not overlooked.

The laboratory accreditation group also uses data processing equipment to maintain a large mailing list. They can now easily make changes to the

list, print out labels to simplify large mailings, and even merge their

mailing list with standard letters to automatically print personalized

copies of the letters, which saves time and results in a better quality

output.

OWM

Many of you are aware of how the National Conference has benefited

from OWM's use of data processing systems. About three years ago, OWM

began using word processing equipment to produce Handbooks 44 and 130

and the Conference proceedings. As a result, they are now able to issue

all three of these documents within a few months after the NCWM

annual meeting; whereas, before automation of the data, it had sometimes

taken a year to publish the proceedings and six months or more to issue change pages for Handbook 44. The improvement has been dramatic,

especially if you consider that making changes to the documents now

takes only a few days (all the rest of the time is taken up by reviews

and printing). Just recently, OWM completed an update of the index to the Conference

proceedings through last year's meeting. Since this information is now

automated, OWM will be able to quickly incorporate this year's

proceedings references and publish an up-to-date index this fall. In the

future, they will update the index each year. As OWM explores other capabilities of the word processing system, you

can expect additional improvements in productivity and increased services.

Only recently, OWM found it could use the telecommunications capability

of our equipment to transmit a draft of an NCWM training module to a

contractor's microcomputer using telephone lines. I am sure this capability will have other applications within the Conference.

23
A VISION

Of course, we must move carefully, making sure that what is proposed is worth doing. As you know, it is sometimes easy to get carried away.

Speaking of being carried away, Al Tholen came into my office the other

day to talk about this subject. He said to me: "Stan, I had the most

fantastic dream. I dreamt it was the year 1994 and all the weights and measures jurisdictions in the country were linked together by a vast computer network. At the touch of a key on their computers, they had

instant access to the latest information from the NTEP program or the

legal case precedent file; in seconds they could send messages to any

jurisdiction; they could call up and print out the most up-to-date version

of an NCWM training module or examination procedure outline." "And that's not all. The jurisdictions used their computers to record

device inspection data and print out reports that pinpointed problem

areas." "The computers did all of the number crunching for laboratory calibrations

and eliminated time-consuming paperwork leaving the weights and measures officials more time to ensure equity in the marketplace. How

about that?"

Well, I told Al that I thought he might have had one too many

Manhattans before he went to bed, but I was only partially kidding. It is a scary thing about Al; he has had dreams like this before (like NTEP and

the training program) and as you know, he is the kind of guy who likes to make dreams come true. These are some examples of the benefits that OPSP has derived from its data processing system and dreams. Al's visions for the future may be

exaggerated, but the point is that we are on the threshold of some pretty

exciting and useful possibilities.

STATE SURVEY

As a first step in determining exactly what those possibilities might be,

the education committee decided to survey the States and a selected

group of county and city jurisdictions to get their views on the subject

and learn more about existing data processing systems as applied to the

administration of weights and measures programs.

Let me begin with some general results obtained from the survey. What

will be potential benefits of using newer data systems, word processing,

and computer capabilities across the board at the State level (first), and

beyond that, among the States and with the National Bureau of Standards?

The potential benefits identified in the survey are: Increased Productivity Faster data retrieval & dissemination

Reduced paperwork & filing

Increased data handling capability

29
Better Quality Output

Reduced human error More organized data

Better Management

More informed decision making

More objective performance evaluation

Easier identification of problem areas More effective planning/resource allocation

As you can see, the respondents broke out these benefits in a little more

detail. I think you will agree with me that these are excellent reasons

for moving ahead on this project; however, what we are still dealing with

is the notion that benefits sought are computer dependent.

Now we can get a little more specific. The responses to another question on the survey suggest a starting point. Groups having automated data

files were asked to indicate the types of records they keep on weights

and measures activities. The types of records cited most frequently are

as follows: Equipment Inspection Data - 34%

Weights 3c Measures Device Businesses - 29%

Devices Tested by Inspectors - 27%

Devices Rejected & Approved by Inspectors - 25%

Packaged Goods Inspection Data - 19%

Calibrations Completed - 19%

At the top of the list are records on weighing and measuring equipment

inspections. More than a third of the respondents said they keep such

records in automated files. Even more significant, out of 23 State respondents who said they had at least some information in automated

files, 18 (or 78%) said they keep inspection data in these files. The second type of records frequently kept in automated systems is closely related to the first. Lists of all businesses having commercial

weighing and measuring devices are kept in automated form by 29 percent

of the respondents (or 60% of the States having automated files). Another question concerned possible roles for the NCWM.

The responses to this question indicate that weights and measures

jurisdictions at all levels would welcome NCWM involvement in this area. Over 70 percent of the respondents thought the Conference should play a

role in developing standard formats for automated information exchange

and standard software systems. Over 50 percent felt the Conference

should develop a centralized mail/message processing system. The only area in which there seemed to be a lack of interest was coordination of common hardware acquisition. This may be because the purchasing

procedures of some groups prohibit or discourage such arrangements.

30
If, as the survey results indicate, the NCWM does have a role to play,

where should it begin?

NEW CHALLENGE

That is why I chose to present you today with a new challenge:

How can the NCWM and its members use computer age technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of weights and measures

programs?

I realize that some State and local jurisdictions have been dealing with

this questions for a number of years and have purchased equipment and

developed extensive data bases in response; however, the majority of weights and measures offices either do not have such equipment or do not

use the equipment they have to its fullest potential. I think the time is right to answer the question of how to use data processing technology to our mutual advantage.

LACK OF COMPUTER UNIFORMITY

One real problem is well known by almost everyone in the computer

systems business. How do we get different makes of computers to "talk to each other?" There is very little uniformity when it comes to computer equipment (or hardware) used by the jurisdictions responding to the survey.

In the first place, respondents indicated that they have access to equipment with widely different capabilities - from word processors with

slow speed and limited information storage to mainframe computers with

great speed, vast information storage capabilities, and the power to accommodate a large number of terminals. If you take a closer look

within each of these different categories, you find a bewildering variety

of manufacturers and models.

This variety may be a tribute to our free enterprise system, but it becomes a nightmare for anyone struggling with the job of developing

standard software or linking the devices together in a communications

network.

One way to keep the problem from growing completely out of hand might

be to focus on the current mix of equipment in the various jurisdictions,

and attempt to identify a smaller group of devices as candidates for procurement by those jurisdictions not yet possessing computers. This course of action would be based on the assumption that, if you address

the problem now while the majority of weights and measures jurisdictions

do not have equipment or computer programs, it may be easier to find a

solution; if you wait, the variety will continue to grow and become more

unmanageable. I do not recommend this course of action; it has many

potential procurement and technical twists that could cause more

problems that it might solve. Additionally, I question whether we have

the knowledge to do that evaluation and make the suggested choices.

31
What we now have among the Weights and Measures jurisdictions is a modern day tower of babel with many different machines speaking many

different languages. Certainly, the Weights and Measures administrators

will find computers more useful in their activities if the current barriers

to communicating are reduced. It is a tough problem.

You might say it is a "can of worms." It is a problem that the NCWM

would not be able to resolve on its own. If the facts ended here, I might recommend that the Conference put this issue on the back burner.

Help Is On The Way.

Actually, there is good reason to believe that this technical problem, that

is how to get different models and makes of computers to "talk with each

other," is being addressed by those who have technical expertise to solve

it. For example, as Dr. Ambler told you, NBS is actively involved in efforts

to develop computer standards. The demonstration of new "open systems

interconnection standards" in which NBS participated this month at the

National Computer Conference in Las Vegas showed that equipment of

different computer manufacturers could be linked together using the

standards. That is an important beginning, but there is still a lot to be

done.

Fortunately, the industry is motivated to make progress on this issue. Over 9,000 computer experts, users, and manufacturers attended the

conference in Las Vegas. In a July 10 news article reporting on the

conference, Washington Post writer Michael Schrage reported "- the talk of more than 710 computer companies showing their hard and soft wares

at the annual National Computer Conference is the sound of computers

talking to each other." His article continues, "the trend that has captured much of the attention

at the Las Vegas Convention Center is the effort to have computers from

different companies communicate with one another. Computers - whether

the small personal variety or the giant mainframes - are being viewed as parts of larger networks rather than as standalone devices." The key

statement in the article is: "the ability to have computers talk to one

another is the hottest item in the show."

A similar technical barrier faces thousands of computer users worldwide.

The computer companies and professionals have concluded that this problem needs to be resolved for the good of the users and for the future

of the computer industry.

The efforts through the International Organization for Standardization

(ISO), mentioned by Dr. Ambler, are gaining a very broad acceptance.

The computer professionals have taken on the technical challenge.

32
TO DEVISE A PLAN

I want to return to the survey: the committee distributed 71 data

processing profile forms and received 59 completed forms for a response

rate of 83 percent. During this week, the Education Committee will be

reviewing the responses to the survey and drafting recommendations for the conference.

There are many interesting user statistics I could cite in addition to those

I have already discussed. However, I want to make the point that, if the

NCWM decides to get involved in adopting standard software or formats

for data base information exchange, information now exists that can be

useful in setting priorities for software and designing formats.

I believe that your leadership has been wise in its timing. Your task

should be one of tracking progress by the computer experts, rather than

trying to become computer experts.

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that a special study group of three or four State directors

be established to develop a plan for proceeding with this initiative, "to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of weights and measures programs through the use of computer age technology." They would need

to assemble the information I have noted, decide how to track technical

advances, and describe the degree to which they envision the use of

computers over time.

There is considerable information available to you:

- Information from the survey

- Software already developed and used by individual States

- Results of State program reviews

- The administration module being developed under the NCWM grant

I recommend that the subject be explored in two segments.

First uses at the State level that would be beneficial to most the States

internally; that is, uses most efficient for State or jurisdictional

requirements.

Second, the special study group needs to examine the extent to which

data bases can be established and made accessible to states or other

interested parties (updates of Handbook 44 or 130; legal precedents;

specifications for laboratory or field equipment; laboratory protocols;

device testing procedures; researching through the past NCWM

proceedings, etc.).

If such a study group is established, NBS can provide the weights and measures program with additional staff time of a systems analyst and

computer scientist to provide technical support in its activities.

33
In summary, the Conference has both a challenge and an opportunity. The

challenge is to find common useful applications of data systems and

computers at the State level that can be standardized and shared. The opportunity has already begun to evolve since many States are already developing operating capabilities that hold promise of wide

application.

I believe that this is the time to capitalize on this opportunity.

34
CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION

The Conference Chairman presented Certificates of Appreciation to members of the Standing Committees who had completed their tenure on each committee:

Sidney A. Colbrook, Illinois Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Wesley R. Mossberg, Los Angeles County, California

Laws and Regulations Committee

Charles R. Cavagnaro, Office of Consumer Affairs, The White House

Liaison Committee

Joseph L. Swanson, Alaska

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

Dr. Ambler presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference who,

by attending the 68th Conference in 1983, reached one of the attendance

categories for which recognition is made - attendance at 10, 15, 20, 25,

and 30 meetings.

HONOR AWARDS PRESENTATIONS

10 YEARS

Carroll Brickenkamp,

Louis D. Draghetti,

Sam F. Hindsman,

Fred H. Katterheinrich

Raymond J. Lloyd

Neal D. Peterson Joseph Petrelli John B. Rabb

National Bureau of Standards

Town of Agawam, Massachusetts

State of Arkansas

Hobart Corporation

Scale Manufacturers Association

General Mills, Inc. Mobile Oil Corporaton

State of Alabama

15 YEARS

Frank L. Brugh

David P. Leahy

Indianapolis, Indianna

Kroger Company

20 YEARS

Stephen Hasko

Daniel I. Offner

John L. O'Neill

National Bureau of Standards

St. Louis, Missouri State of Kansas

William R. Sevier Princeton, Indianna

35
At the Interim Meetings of the National Conference held at the National

Bureau of Standards January 16-20, 1984, the Executive Committee

approved the presenting of Honor Award Certificates during the annual

meeting at which the delegate qualified. Dr. Ambler presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference who,

by attending the 69th Annual Meeting this year, reached one of the at- tendance categories for which recognition is made - attendance at 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 meetings.

10 YEARS

Sidney Colbrook

Joseph Jones

Harvey Lodge

Charles Smith

Edward Stadolnik

Carl A. Taubert

Daryl Tonini

State of Illinois Riverside, California

Dunbar Manufacturing Company

State of South Carolina

State of Massachusetts (Retired)

Pillsbury Company

Scale Manufacturers Association

15 YEARS

Sydney Andrews

Donald L. Lynch

Joseph Silvestro

Kendrick Simila

Philip Swanson

20 YEARS

State of Florida

Kansas City, Kansas

Woodbury, New Jersey

State of Oregon

Smith Meter Company

Lacy DeGrange

Richard Southers

Robert Walker

Otto Warnlof

Eric Vadelund

Sam Valtri

State of Maryland

American Petroleum Institute State of Indianna

National Bureau of Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

25 YEARS

George Franks Bridgeton, New Jersey

30 YEARS

Richard Smith National Bureau of Standards

36
STATE METROLOGY LABORATORIES: PERCEPTIONS AND REALITY

Ross J. Andersen

Metrologist, New York State Bureau of Weights and Measures

Thank you Mr. Chairman, fellow delegates, and honored guests. It has

been a number of years since a State metrologist addressed this body.

Since then the Weights and Measures laboratories have seen some

changes, but people's perceptions of the laboratories have remained much

the same. The laboratories are mystical places where only the most

precise measurements are made. Metrologists are perfectionists or to some, nit-pickers, and always out of touch with the "real world". It is a shame that these perceptions persist because metrologists are important

members of the Weights and Measures team and we all work toward the same goals.

In the next few minutes I will talk about what is really happening in State metrology laboratories. What is the role of the laboratory and how

does it fit in with the rest of our Weights and Measures system? What

are the capabilities and limitations of our laboratories? I will also review

the Regional Measurement Assurance Programs (MAP's), how they work,

and their benefits not only to the metrologist but also to our Weights and

Measurements Programs. I hope to encourage your support for Regional

Measurement Assurance Programs involving every State metrologist in this country.

To start, it is helpful to take a step back and put the laboratories in perspective. The purpose of Weights and Measures is to assure the

accuracy of commercial measurements, in the form of weighing or measuring devices or as packaged commodities. This is accomplished

through a system of standards which link the commercial measurements to the US standards that define our basic units of measure. This system is called the standard hierachy. (See Figure at top of next page.) In the

US, the hierarchy is shown at the top of the next page. Beginning at the

commercial measurement, the field inspector verifies its accuracy against

his field standards. The field standards are verified by the State

metrologist, against either the State primary standards or the State laboratory standards. State laboratory standards are in turn verified

against the State primary standards. The State primary standards were

calibrated at the National Bureau of Standards, against the NBS laboratory

standards, before they were given to the States. The NBS standards are

of course maintained accurate relative to Kilogram 20 or the appropriate

US standards.

While the role of NBS is greatly simplified in this diagram, the functions

of the State laboratory and the field program are accurately portrayed. For me there are two important features of the hierarchy.

First, this system of standards is essentially a chain - - a chain that is only as strong as its weakest link. If commercial measurements are to be

accurate and uniform across this country, then each group, from the

37
THE STANDARDS HIERARCHY

US Standards ^

NBS Lab Standards

>v State Primary Standards

State Lab Standards

-is 4, Field Standards

Commercial Measurements

technicians at NBS, to the State metrologists, to the field inspectors,

must be doing their part. To ascribe more importance to one group over another is to miss this interdependence.

The second feature is the decrease in accuracy as you move down the

hierarchy, away from the US Standards. This presents for the laboratory

metrologist some problems that make his job unique. Let me expand on

this by contrasting the field inspector with the laboratory metrologist.

A field inspector is equipped with field standards certified by the

laboratory metrologist. His main concern is the accuracy of the

commercial measurement. Beyond caring for his standards and using them

properly, the field inspector does not have to concern himself with the

accuracy of his standards. Unlike the field inspector, the State metrologist must question the accuracy of his standards. First of all, he

calibrates his own laboratory standards so he must be confident of their accuracy. Secondly, since the State primary standards are no longer

recertified at NBS on a 10-year cycle, the State metrologist is also responsible for maintaining their accuracy and traceability to NBS.

38
The field inspector has an advantage over the laboratory metrologist in another respect; he has the Notes sections of Handbook 44. Together

with standard EPO's, the Notes section tells what tests should be applied

to a given device. A laboratory metrologist has no such aid. He is equipped with a large assortment of test procedures to choose from, but

which procedure and also which standard to use are left up to him. I do

not think it is possible to write a manual that would make these choices

for the laboratory metrologist. In fact, it is this choice that makes the

job interesting to me, and also makes relevance and significance much

more important than perfection. The question then is, how is the

metrologist equipped to make these choices?

Before a metrologist is certified, he needs proper training which is provided by the Office of Weights and Measures. This begins with a two-week basic course conducted at the OWM training facility in Gaithersburg. The training combines classroom and practical, hands-on

instruction on the proper use of the State standards and measuring

devices, and on the procedures used to tolerance test field standards. The

training also covers the principles of accurate measurement so the

metrologist is prepared to make those choices I spoke of. When basic training is completed, the metrologist returns home to begin

the first ten exercises in the Laboratory Auditing Program (LAP). These

give him an opportunity to familiarize himself with his equipment and

provide estimates of their accuracy. From here, the LAP program jumps

to advanced measurement assurance programs and control charts. These

provide estimates of the random measurement uncertainty for those

measurement procedures used in the calibration of high precision weights.

Only recently has an exercise been added to look at the testing of glass

volumetric field standards.

The advanced measurement areas are covered in the Regional Training

Seminars that are held regionally at one of the State laboratories. This

is a classroom course that deals primarily in the area of calibrations. The

measurement areas of mass, volume, and length are all covered with

special attention to the considerations and corrections required to make

high accuracy measurements. The homework assignment to complete the

course gives the metrologist the opportunity to practice all the various

calculations and actually use some of the new procedures he has learned.

I must commend the staff at OWM for the overall quality of this training

program. Over the last five years the program has improved greatly with

the development of a solid curriculum and the preparation of lesson plans

and training handbooks.

A metrologist is also equipped with standards and precision measuring

devices. These come primarily from the State Standards Program. It is now over 15 years since the first State received its standards, and it is easy to look back at that program with 20/20 hindsight. There were

mistakes, of course, such as the length bench and the 30-kilogram mass

comparator, which only see use in a small number of labs. However, it

is also easy to see that the bulk of the equipment is still

39
state-of-the-art, and is still working out very well in Light of the basic

premises of the program. If you consider that the idea was to support

the State Weights and Measures Programs first and then provide

calibrations to industry, you can see that the program has been a great

success. One problem that I see is the lack of information on the capabilities and

limitations of our laboratories. Because the standards and devices are state-of-the-art, people assume that they can do the job easily. A

comparison of the capabilities at 10 pounds and 5 gallons will illustrate what I mean. The 10-pound primary standard has an accuracy of around

one part per million, or roughly 0.0001%. From there the metroI: = .:: calibrates his lab standards to an accuracy of about 0.001%. It is important to note that in the steps leading to the field standard, the

standards are all ten times more accurate than the weight being

calibrated.

The 5-gallon primary standard is a slicker plate measure which is only accurate to 0.04%, quite a contrast to the mass standard. Because of

this relatively low accuracy we cannot incorporate a lab standard in the chain of standards. In fact, great care must be exercised by the

metrologist to meet the 0.06% accuracy (3/4 cubic inch) required in the

field standard. In this case the standard is only one and one-half times more accurate than the object under test. My point here is, while a simple tolerance test can be used to certify a

field test weight, it takes what amounts to a calibration to certify a test measure. This has even greater ramifications when you look at large

volumetric standards. The metrologist begins with a 10-gallon slicker to calibrate his 100-gallon lab measure. The accuracy limitation of 0.05% in the field standard requires each step to be a calibration. This converts

to about a 9-cubic inch accuracy at 100 gallons, and about 100 cubic

inches at 1000 gallons. There is no room for allowance of a tolerance in this system.

The same type of comparison can be made with the precision balances; in particular, those used to test small weights. The 100-gram balance

the most precise balance provided with the State standards. It has a resolution of 0.01 milligram. This balance has a basic accuracy of 0.10 milligram which was fine for testing field weights under the original

Handbook 105-1, where the smallest tolerance was one milligram.

However, in 1S76 the Office of Weights and Measures published a revised

tolerance chart. This action has made a microbalance a necessity for testing weights under 100 milligrams. The 0.015-milligram basic accuracy

of the microbalance allows the metrologist to make valid decisions

regarding conformance of the small weights with the new tolerances. I can also point out that calibration of these small weights for industry is possible only with the microbalance.

What we have is an excellent training program and quality standards and

devices, but there are gaps. When I look at our laboratories I see fifty

separate islands, all isolated from each other. The metrologists operate

essentially in a vacuum, with each metrologist doing his own thing.

What's more, we have had these standards for upwards of 15 years and we

40
still do not know that much about their accuracy. What is missing is some realistic evaluation and some constructive feedback. It may not have been expressed this way when the MAP's were set up, but this is what they were designed to provide.

The goals of the Regional Measurement Assurance Programs are to promote accurate measurement at the State laboratories and to share

experience and knowledge among metrologists. The idea is to break the

metrologist out of his vacuum and bring the laboratories together as a system rather than as separate islands. The means to this end is a program of evaluation and continuing training.

When you speak about MAP's people immediately think of round robin

testing. While the round robins are a major part of the MAP activities,

it must be stressed that they are only tools for evaluation and that they

provide limited information. Let us look at the results of two round

robin experiments. This graph is called a Youden Plot and is a graphic

Youden Plot 20 g Mass

/

/

/

/ \

\

\

\

j

\

1 f----

\

\

* y

/ —1—,— /

\

\\

/

/

o o a a o

<\j — d — r\J

means for displaying the results of interlaboratory tests. The objects

being measured are two 20-gram mass standards. The procedure is the

direct reading procedure used by most State laboratories to tolerance test

field weights. Each laboratory measures and reports values for the two

objects, X and Y. The two results are plotted on the graph as a point

(X, Y) in cartesian coordinates. The focal point of the graph is the point

defined by the accepted values of X and Y, in this case based on an NBS

calibration. Laboratories making accurate measurements will have points

falling close to this focal point. To give the graph some perspective a

circle is drawn with its center at the focal point to define an area of

41
measurements accurate within 25% of the applied tolerance. This

suitability criterion is taken from the Fundamental Considerations sections

of Handbook 44. As you can see, all seven laboratories were making

measurements that were within the circle and were accurate enough for

their intended purpose. This plot shows how things should look. This plot is based on measurements of two, 1-quart glass measuring

flasks. The procedure is the volume transfer procedure used by most State

(

1

1 V

1

.

i a a a ' o o a _ a a o a

laboratories to tolerance test these flasks. Again the circle defined an area of measurements that are accurate within 25% of the applied

tolerance. A problem now becomes readily apparent. Only four of the

laboratories were making accurate measurements. In fact, the laboratory

whose point is in the lower left corner was in error by more than the

tolerance applied to the glass flask. Other than size, there is no real difference between a glass flask and a metal test measure. Consider how

these large errors in field standards can affect your enforcement

program.

Errors come from one of three sources, human, random, and systematic.

Human errors are those blunders that plague all human endeavors. All metrologists make human errors; the trick is to discover them before they

leave your laboratory. In general we all build in a degree of redundancy

to catch these errors. The second type of error, random error, is really not an error at all. Random errors are a fact of nature that cannot be eliminated. Whenever

you measure something finely enough you will always get a scatter of

results. These random errors are predictable, and so we can control their

42
effects. As it turns out, the round robin results have shown that

metrologists do not appear to have a problem with either of these two

kinds of errors. Our nemesis turns out to be the third type of error, systematic error. This is the plot I just showed you with addition of a 45-degree line passing through the focal point. Random and human errors show up on

/

>—

i

—t-A— /

y

/

f- - /

/

/

/

/ /

/

ooooooooo

these plots as deviations away from this line. As you can see the points

tend to spread out along the line. This pattern is indicative of

systematic error or bias. Laboratories can repeat their measurements

very closely. The problem is that they are also repeating their

systematic errors. There are two basic sources of systematic error, error in the standard and

differences in measurements procedures. It should be obvious that any

error in a standard is directly transferred to an object calibrated against

it. The second source is much more subtle. Significant deviations from

standard measurement procedures can easily cause large systematic errors. We are relatively certain that this is the cause of the large errors in the

glass flask experiments. It is vital that this source of error be eliminated

before you can assess errors from the first source, the standards.

I must stress again that the round robins are only an evaluational tool,

and that the real benefit of MAP'S is the continuing education. A

metrologist operating in a vacuum will never see his systematic errors because his standard is himself. We must provide the metrologist with

the means to evaluate himself relative to other laboratories and

ultimately the National Bureau of Standards.

43
The Regional Measurement Assurance Programs have employed a number

of approaches to the continuing education goals. For example, wherever

possible the MAP's have tried to hold meetings at different laboratories,

both State and industry. Touring another laD and hearing the metrologist

describe his capabilities is very informative. Seeing how others cope with

limitations of equipment and surroundings can often give alternative

solutions to problems we have in our own labs. Another approach we employ is technical demonstrations. Those who

observe critically obtain a very personal evaluation by observing

differences between themselves and the demonstrator. This should not be

construed in the negative, as a competition, but rather as a positive

learning experience. I think it is important that every metrologist

participate as both instructor and as student.

Along the same lines, we use technical papers as educational tools. For each meeting of the Northeastern Measurement Assurance Program, we

ask that metrologists prepare a paper. These papers do not have to be

prize-winning essays, just a description of some procedure, policy, or technique that the metrologist uses to do his job. It is educational in that he must research and think through his subject in the preparation of

his paper. He must then present his paper to the group, not so much to read it but to highlight the important points.

The best of these papers are being assembled into a technical manual.

This manual is intended to be a reference source for the metrologist to turn to when he has a question or needs some technical information. One

of our goals is to share these papers among the other MAP's. Some of

them are also using this tool. We hope that this will be the beginning of many cooperative efforts among the active MAP's.

Logistically, the MAP's are still evolving. The present trend is to hold

longer sessions of four to five days about once a year. A major effort is being made to combine these sessions with formalized training from the

Office of Weights and Measures. Allowing for travel, a one-week seminar

would provide for four full days of training.

The first day might be devoted to the tour of the host laboratory and to the technical demonstrations. These always lead to interesting questions

and to open and lively discussions. The second day would center around

the technical papers and the discussion of the round robin experiments.

Here again the feedback is very informal and leads to a good exchange of

ideas. The final two days would be coordinated and conducted by the Office of Weights and Measures. The subject areas will come from the Basic and

Regional Training curriculums or the LAP program with the emphasis on

those measurements used in the round robin experiments.

4 4
We now have five MAP's set up in the northeast, southeast, midwest,

southwest, and west. The trick now is to get States to participate. The

MAP's offer a great potential to bring State labs together in that

cohesive system I spoke of. Indeed I hope that full participation in a Regional Measurement Assurance Program would become a requirement

for certification of a State laboratory. What mechanism could provide

better ways to evaluate metrologists and laboratories? The Office of

Weights and Measures will have regular contact with the metrologist to evaluate his knowledge and abilities, and the round robins will provide a

true measure of a laboratory's measurement capability.

We have a commitment to a national training program involving all the

parts of our Weights and Measures team. Let us not forget that the

metrologist is an important part of that team. In the regional

measurement assurance programs we have the vehicle to strengthen that

part of Weights and Measures.

In closing let me address the State directors. Speaking for my fellow

metrologists, I would ask two things. I ask first for your support of our

participation in the measurement assurance programs. More important,

however, I ask you to get involved. Find out how your laboratory is doing and where it could use improvement. I know that you will find the

MAP's to be well worth your support, and as a result you will get a

better metrologist, a better laboratory program, and a better Weights and

Measrves program.

45
COMMITTEE REPORTS

46
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Sam F. Hindsman, Chairman

Director, Arkansas Bureau of Standards

REFERENCE KEY

100 INTRODUCTION

The Executive Committee submitted its report to the 69th Annual Meeting

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report

consisted of a tentative report prepared as a result of the Interim

Meeting held during the week of January 16, 1984 as amended by the

final report developed as a result of the Annual Meeting.

After its component items were adopted, this report was adopted in

its entirety by the membership (State Representatives 44 Yea; 0 Nay: Delegates 60 Yea; 0 Nay).

Formal action was required and taken by the membership on the following

items:

The following items are informational and required no formal action by

the membership.

Voting Items

101-1

101-5

105-1

Constitution and Bylaws

Committee Appointments

Executive Committee Sitting as the Board of Governors

Informational Items

100-1

100-2 101-2 101-3

101-4

101-6

101-7

101-8

101-9

101-10

101-11

Actions of the Conference Chairman

Task Force on Motor Fuels

Incorporation

Administrative Policies and Procedures

Standing Committee Procedures and Reports

NCWM/Regional Association Relationships

Nominating Committee

Honor Awards

Proceedings Index

Issues File Electronic Mail

47
Informational Items (continued)

101-12 102-1 103-1 104-1 106-1

106-2 107-1 107-2

107-3 108-1

Missions of Weights and Measures Jurisdictions

National Training Program

OIML Status Report

Membership Incentives

Financial Report

Budget Review

The 69th Annual Meeting

The 70th Annual Meeting

Future Meeting Locations

NCWM Logo

******

DETAILS OF VOTING ITEMS

101-1 CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is currently governed

by "The National Conference on Weights and Measures -Its Organization,

Procedures, and Membership Plan". A draft Constitution and Bylaws, which

consists essentially of the material now contained in the current "Plan",

modified to reflect the organizational and procedural changes adopted by

the membership at its 68th Annual Meeting, was prepared by the

Organization and Procedures Subcommittee, reviewed and modified by the

Executive Committee, and printed in the Announcement Book for the 69th

Annual Meeting.

The resultant draft (Appendix A) was amended by the Committee on the

basis of comments received and discussed at the Annual Meeting.

The amended draft was adopted by the membership (State Representatives 42 Yea; 0 Nays Delegates 61 Yea; 0 Nay).

101-5 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS

The establishment of the position of Chairman-Elect suggested the consideration of changes in the policies by which appointments could be made

to the standing and annual committees.

Current Procedure

The present custom is for the Conference Chairman (incumbent) to appoint the new members to the standing committees at the general

session on Tuesday of the week of the Annual Meeting; this in effect

results in the "outgoing" Chairman appointing committee members who

will serve under succeeding Chairmen. One could conclude that this approach has the virtue that the incumbent has a better knowledge of

the capabilities of the candidates because of his year in office.

48
On the other hand, the appointments to the annual committees and to the

special committees and task forces are made by the "incoming" chairman

subsequent to the adjournment of the Annual Meeting (usually a month or two after the Annual Meeting) with at least two negative features: (1) the

appointees do not have the benefit of public recognition by their peers, and (2) delay in appointment slows down the work of particular committees. Proposal

With the new organizational feature of a Chairman-elect, that individual

has a year to consider appointments to committees (standing, annual, or

special). The incoming Chairman could be prepared to announce all of

his/her appointments at the General Session on Thursday of the week of the Annual Meeting. This approach has the advantage of affording public

recognition to the appointees, not only to the standing committees, but

also to the annual committees, special committees, and task forces. The Executive Committee recommended that the procedure be changed

so that the Chairman-Elect will appoint the new members to the Standing Committees and to the Annual Committees just subsequent to his succession to the Office of Chairman during the week of the Annual

Meeting.

The item was adopted by the membership (State Representatives 42 Yea; 0 Nay: Delegates 60 Yea; 0 Nay;.

105-1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SITTING AS THE BOARD OF

GOVERNORS

The Executive Committee is the Board of Governors for the National

Type Evaluation Program(NTEP). Concurrent with that change adopted by

the NCWM at its 68th Annual Meeting, the Task Force on National Type

Evaluation was discontinued and the responsibilities for the continued

planning and establishment of the NTEP transferred to the Executive

Committee when it functions as the Board of Governors of the NTEP.

Items discussed and dealt with included: (1) review of the current developmental status of the Handbook on Criteria and Procedures: (2) the criteria and procedures for laboratory authorization and, (3) the draft and further development of proposed administrative procedures including

definitions of "modifications", "changes", "term of approval", "validity",

"withdrawal of Certificate of Conformance".

(1) Test Criteria. The draft Handbook was originally

adopted by the NCWM at its 67th Annual Meeting; additional material

added to the handbook was adopted by the NCWM at its 68th Annual

Meeting. The two sets of material are being integrated through word

processing into a single volume. The goal is to complete the NBS review

by the end of August, 1984(see the report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances for details).Note: Copies of the integrated draft are

available for inspection.

49
(2) Laboratory Authorization. Part 2 of the draft NBS

Handbook for State laboratory certification has been completed following

the plan approved by the membership at the 68th Annual Meeting. It is currently undergoing review within the Office of Product Standards Policy

(OPSP) prior to submission for NBS editorial review. The goal is to complete the NBS editorial review by the end of August, 1984. Note: Copies of the draft are available for inspection.

(3) Administrative Policy and Procedures. Draft policy

and procedures for the administration of the NTEP were reviewed and

revised by the NCWM Executive Committee prior to the Annual Meeting.

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed commemts received prior to the meeting and presented during the Meeting. As a result of these

comments and discussions, the Committee revised the draft and presented

it for adoption as part of this item. The revised document is contained

in Appendix B.

(4) Certificate of Conformance. The Executive

Committee reviewed proposed formats for the Certificate of Conformance

including recommended accompanying information. The Executive

Secretary presented a mockup for review and for discussion by the

Executive Committee. As the format reaches final design, it will be sent

to the Board of Governors for review and modification as necessary prior to use. The current draft is contained in Appendix C. The goal of the NCWM is to initiate the operation of the National Type

Evaluation Program in October, 1984.

The Executive Committee recommended: (1) the endorsement of the

Laboratory Authorization Procedures and the Certificate of Conformance

and, (2) the adoption of the Administrative Policies and Procedures.

The item was adopted by the membership (State Representatives 44

Yea; 0 Nay: Delegates 61 Yea; 0 Nay).

******

DETAILS OF INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

100-1* IMPLEMENTATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND

PROCEDURAL CHANGES, APPOINTMENTS, STATUS OF

TASK FORCES AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

The following items, completed prior to the Interim Meetings, were

reported by the Chairman:

1. The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP). - The

Task Force on National Type Evaluation has been reorganized in confor- mance with the plan adopted by the NCWM.

50
A. The new Executive Committee is serving as the

Board of Governors for the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP).

Ezio Delfino, Chairman-Elect, was assigned the responsibility to serve as the Chairman of the Board of Governors because cf his long tenure as the

Chairman of the Task Force on National Type Evaluation. The NTEP will be administered by the Executive Secretary.

B. The industry members of the Technical Committee

for NTEP (which reports to the S & T Committee) are also serving as the

Advisory Committee to the Board of Governors of NTEP. The Advisory

Committee will represent the interests of industry to the NTEP.

2. Chairman-Elect. - Ezio Delfino has been involved in, or informed of, all Conference activities.

3. Budget Review Committee. - This Committee was appointed

within 60 days of the Annual Meeting as required and is made up of the

following persons:

Sam Hindsman, Chairman (ex officio), Arkansas

Charles Greene, New Mexico

Jim Lyles, Virginia

Bill Perry, Cardinal Scale Co.

Allan Nelson, ex officio, Connecticut

Al Tholen, ex officio, National Bureau of

Standards

4. Budget. - Two tentative budgets (an NCWM operating

budget and a Grant Budget) were prepared by the Executive Secretary and

sent to the Budget Review Committee within the required 120 days

following the Annual Meeting, and were reviewed by that Committee prior to the Interim Meetings.

5. An Organization and Procedures Subcommittee of the

Executive Committee was established with the following members:

Ed Heffron, Chairman, Michigan

Norman Ross, Omaha, NE

Eugene Keeley, Delaware

Sidney Andrews, Parliamentarian, Florida

6. A Membership Subcommittee of the Executive Committee was established with the following members:

James Blackwood, Chairman, Dallas, TX

Robert Walker, Indiana

Lyman Holloway, Idaho

7. Leo Letey (Colorado) was appointed Chairman of the

Advisory Committee on Grain Moisture Measurement, succeeding Sam F. Hindsman (Arkansas).

51
8. The Task Force on Package Control was assigned to the Liaison Committee because of the importance of coordinating its activities with other Federal agencies especially the USDA and the FDA.

9. The continuation of the Task Force on Belt Conveyor

Scales was confirmed with Fred Gerk (New Mexico) as Chairman. Richard

Hurley (Fairbanks) was appointed to the Task Force.

10. The slate of officers for the Associate Membership

Committee was confirmed as follows: Anthony Ladd, Chairman, A.J. Ladd Systems

Art Kroll, Vice Chairman, Gilbarco Inc. Neal Peterson, Treasurer, General Mills Richard Fonger, Bennett Pump Co.

Chip Kloos, Hunt Wesson

Walter Kupper, Mettler Instrument Harvey Lodge, Dunbar Manufacturing Co.

Andrew Moore, Grocery Manufacturers of America

Robert Nelson, General Mills Ray Wells, Seraphin Test Measure Co.

11. The Chairman attended the following meetings representing the NCWM:

The Western Weights and Measures Association meeting in Hawaii in August.

The Southern Weights and Measures Association meeting

in Nashville in October.

The meeting of the Scale Manufacturers Association in Dallas in November.

A meeting held at S.M.A. headquarters in December to

discuss the new scale code.

12. Auditing Committee - The following members were

appointed to the Auditing Committee within 60 days of the Annual

Meeting as required by the procedures adopted by the membership at the

last meeting:

Gaylon Kennedy, Maine

John Berquist, Minnesota

William Sullivan, Seattle, WA

13. Status of Task Forces and Special Committees. In most cases, the Chairman had taken action to continue the special

committees and task forces and had appointed necessary new members.

52
100-2* TASK FORCE ON MOTOR FUELS

Because of the introduction of gasoline-alcohol blends and the action of the NCWM at its 68th Annual Meeting calling for labeling, many State

directors have voiced interest in the establishment of motor fuel quality

standards and monitoring procedures and facilities. The Chairman, in response to the voiced need, established a Task Force

on Motor Fuels. Its mission is to assemble information and resources that are available from standards development organizations, professional

organizations, private companies, and trade associations and to provide

this information to interested State regulatory officials. The Task Force

will be compiling information on testing equipment, training programs,

inspection procedures, and the current status of State motor fuel laws and

regulations. By identifying information and activity in this area, the

Task Force will be able to provide a basis for uniformity in approach

among the States, and identify unfulfilled needs in terms of information,

resources, and knowledge.

The following members were appointed to the Task Force: N. David Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

Sidney Andrews, Florida

Barbara Bloch, California

David Karlish, Arkansas

George Mattimoe, Hawaii

Frank Nagele, Michigan

Curtis Williams, Georgia

101-2* INCORPORATION

The pros and cons of incorporation of the NCWM were discussed. Allan

Farrar, Legal Advisor to the Director of NBS, presented his views and

answered questions raised. It appears that there are not any compelling

reasons to incorporate. Lack of incorporation has not impeded the ability of the NCWM to function successfully since 1905.

It was also concluded that there is very little chance of personal or

collective liability risks to the members; the Executive Secretary will continue to monitor the legal climate and explore the cost of insurance

to cover the low possibility of risk. 101-3* ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The Executive Secretary compiled and put into a standard format all existing NCWM administrative policies and procedures previously adopted

by the membership that were reported in the reports on the proceedings

of the Annual Meetings. This compilation was reviewed by the Organization and Procedures Subcommittee and was the basis for discussion of

recommended formats and final contents for an NCWM standard refer- ence.

53
As a result of the review, the Executive Committee approved the

proposed format and instructed the Executive Secretary to proceed with

the task of deciding which of the policies and procedures should be

transformed into the approved format and then to compile those into a

draft NCWM ''Policy and Administrative Manual" for review at the Interim

Meetings in January, 1985. 101-4* STANDING COMMITTEE PROCEDURES AND REPORTS

Procedures . Various proposals have been made with the purpose of allevi- ating a perceived difficulty of the NCWM to comfortably attend to all of

the business included in the Committee agendas within the confines of one week. Such proposals include segmenting NCWM business; for example, a

suggestion had been made to handle L&R and S&T issues on a two-year

schedule so that both Committee agendas would not be on the program in the same year. Another recommendation was made to consider scheduling

Conference business on an 18-month cycle, as well as shifting the dates

of the Conference meetings. The use of more automated voting procedures was also being investigated.

The Executive Committee, upon reviewing the various recommendations,

decided against making any changes in the modus operandi at this time. It concluded that the introduction of the changes made at the 68th Annual

Meeting resulted in removing this concern as an issue. The grouping of items into the three categories (Information, Consent Calendar, and

Individual Voting items) worked smoothly and effectively; in fact, most of the Committee voting sessions were completed ahead of schedule.

Committee Reports. Under the current procedures of the Conference, the

results of the interim committee meetings in January are reported in the

form of standing committee "Interim Reports" (these reports are printed

in the Announcement Book for the Annual Meeting). Following discussions

of these reports at the Annual Meeting, the committees prepare "Final

Reports".

This process was reviewed in the interest of finding ways to improve the

handling of Committee business. The Executive Committee believes that

any change in the present system would result in foreclosing the opportunity of the larger number of interested persons normally in attendance at the Annual Meeting to discuss the issues prior to the establishment of

final positions by the Standing Committees. Therefore the Executive

Committee decided to retain the current procedures.

101-6* NCWM/REGIONAL ASSOCIATION RELATIONSHIPS

Coordination. The Executive Committee explored the desirability and

mechanisms for coordination of the activities among the four Regional

Associations and between the NCWM and the four Regional Associations.

Beginning in 1983, reports of the National Conference committees were

provided to the Regional Associations by the NCWM Executive Secretary

for use by their committees at the annual meetings of the Regionals.

In some cases, the Regionals sent their committee reports to the NCWM

Executive Secretary for consideration by the NCWM committees and dis- tribution to the other Regional Associations.

54
In anticipation of an agreement that the business of the regionals and of the NCWM should be coordinated, Mr. Richard Smith(NBS) has been

assigned to establish procedures for the cross-feeding of information. This

planning includes the maintenance of records, identifying the issues being

addressed collectively, incorporation of the mailing addresses of the

Regional Association officers and committee members into the NCWM

automated mailing list, and establishment of regular interchange of information for inclusion in the various newsletters printed by the

regionals and States. The Executive Committee indorsed the continuation of the efforts to coordinate the common interests of the NCWM and the Regional Associations. Realignment of Regional Associations. A suggestion was made that perhaps five Regionals would be an improvement on the the current alignment of four Regional Associations in dealing with common interests, travel restrictions, and management. The Executive Committee assigned

this subject to the Organizations and Procedures Subcommittee for exploration through informal discussions with the leadership of the

Regional Associations.

101-7* NOMINATING COMMITTEE

The Executive Secretary reported on plans to automate the attendance

and activities records of the individual members of the NCWM. These

data are used by the Nominating Committee during its deliberations, and

serve as the basis for the honor award program. Although work had not begun on this project, the Executive Committee restated its interest in the project.

101-8* HONOR AWARDS

Honor awards for attendance at the Annual Meetings of the NCWM are

currently presented to the honorees at the Annual Meeting following the one at which they qualified for the awards.

It is proposed that the awards be presented at the Annual Meeting at which the honorees have qualified. This procedure was instituted this year

at the 69th Annual Meeting in July 1984 (Boston). Honor Awards were

presented to those who qualified at the 68th Annual Meeting and to those

who qualified at the 69th Annual Meeting.

101-9* PROCEEDINGS INDEX

The Executive Secretary reported that the project to update and automate

the composite index of the reports on the proceedings of the Annual

Meetings of the NCWM is currently underway and is scheduled for completion prior to the Interim Meetings in January, 1985.

101-10* ISSUES FILE

The Executive Secretary reported that work began on establishing a computerized "Issues File". Each issue introduced to or being considered

55

with the NBS Grant was described. See the Report of the Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs for details. 103 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY

103-1* OIML STATUS REPORT

Mr. David Edgerly reported on OIML activities related to the NCWM. He

described the OIML committees on which the NCWM has participation or

interest and summarized the status of each committee and its schedule

for the future. Participation in OIML meetings, such as SP22/SR3 and SR6

dealing with pattern approval, initial and subsequent verification, and with

metrological assurance, were reviewed to update the Executive Committee prior to their planning regarding participation in upcoming OIML

meetings including decisions regarding the NCWM representation. See

Report of the Committee on Liaison for details. 104 MEMBERSHIP

104-1* MEMBERSHIP INCENTIVES

The Membership Subcommittee of the Executive Committee reported on

the discussions, recommendations, and actions taken regarding incentives

to increase the membership of the NCWM including:

(1) lists of addresses of State and local officials were obtained and

incorporated into the NCWM mailing list;

(2) integration of the mailing lists of the four Regional Associations

into the master multi-list of the NCWM is expected to be completed

prior to the January, 1985 Interim Meetings;

(3) discussion of variations in the classes of membership as well as related membership fees is continuing;

(4) a new NCWM brochure is being developed; and

(5) the plan for reduced registration fees for local weights and measures officials to attend the Annual Meetings was used for both

the 68th and the 69th Annual Meetings.

Special Registration Fee Waiver.

The Executive Committee approved, and the Chairman carried out the

following recommendation:

"The Conference Chairman should send a letter to the New

England States (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island) offering the opportunity to attend the 69th Annual

Meeting in Boston for the $35.00 NCWM Membership fee (waiving the

$50.00 Registration fee): this offer to be limited to Weights and Measures

Officials who have never attended an Annual Meeting of the NCWM.

Those who qualify and attend under this special offer will not have the

right to vote but will receive the following benefits:

57
- admission to all business meetings.

- receipt of all NCWM materials for the year, and

- observation of the workings of the Conference.""

Should an individual attending under this special arrangement wish to

participate in the voting, he/she must pay the $50.00 Registration Fee.

B::cnure. Work on the Brochure will progress in terms :: reflecting the : or mat anc content of the Constitution and Bylaws which was adopted at this Annual

Meeting. The existing brochure (yellow) is adequate for use in the short term. Conference Documents.

A proposal has been made to discuss ways of providing Conference

documents in quantity to a State for a pre-established price. Under this plan the NCWM would establish a ""State"' membership or technical

package. A version of this idea would be establishing a "'-pa ex age'

containing a fixed quantity of HB 44, HB 130, etc. available for an

established price; a State coulc purchase a package s t: provide each

member of the staff with the references needed for the year; the staff

members would be added to the NCWM mailing list and routinely receive

all other mailings including tech memos, and newsletters.

Summary.

Following discussion of the possible impacts on total membership arm on NCWM income and expenditures, the Membership Subcommittee plans to restudy the various ideas.

106 BUDGET AND FINANCE

106-1* FINANCIAL REPORT

The Treasurer reported on the status of the 69th Annual Operating Budget

(July 1,1983 to June 30,1984) including the investments of the monies

surplus to operational requirements. The Executive Committee endorsed

the actions taken and recommended that the Treasurer continue to follow

the current administrative procedures regarding the budget and investment

of NCWM funds. 106-2* BUDGET REVIEW

The 69th Annual Operating and Gran: Budgets, as modified : the Budget

Review Committee, were reviewed.

69th Annu

.".ace some cnanges

comments from the Bu

prepared a 70th Anni
the Budget Review and Executive Committees prior to the Annual

Meeting, (see Appendix E for the current year budget).

Grant Budget (69th NCWM Year). The Budget was reviewed

and accepted. The Executive Secretary prepared a grant budget for the

70th NCWM year for review by both the Budget Review and the

Executive Committees prior to the Annual Meeting, (see Appendix E for the current year budget).

107 MEETINGS

107-1* THE 69TH ANNUAL MEETING

At the Interim Meetings, the Chairman outlined his plans for the 69th

Annual Meeting including the theme "Transferring Technology for Trade: A

Team Effort", the format for the week, and a discussion of the General

Session including recommendations for speaker participation.

The meeting was held following the plans made at the Interim Meetings.

Format.

As a result of the realignment of the Conference Committees which

resulted in the discontinuation of the P&C Committee and the restructuring of the Executive Committee, the Executive Committee met at both

the Interim and Annual Meetings concurrently with the sessions of the

standing committees.

The General Session (Tuesday Afternoon) of the 68th Annual Meeting was

longer than in previous years because of the scheduling of a series of

technical papers immediately following the ceremonial activities. The

scheduling of technical papers was endorsed with the proviso that a break

be scheduled following the ceremonial activities. The Tuesday afternoon

General Session program was scheduled in two parts: Ceremonial and

Technical.

Speakers.

The following persons addressed the General Session-Ceremonial:

Dr. Ernest Ambler, President of the NCWM

Paula W. Gold, Secretary of Consumer Affairs and

Business Regulations for the State of Massachusetts

Dr. Stanley Warshaw, Director, Office of Product

Standards Policy, NBS.

The following persons addressed the General Session-Technical: Mr. John Goodman, President of TARP

Mr. Ross Andersen, State Metrologist (New York)

59
Special Activities.

The following special meetings were held: A description of the proposed new tolerance structure for the scale code, Handbook 44, given on Wednesday morning preceding the

meetings of the Regional Associations.

A seminar on "Temperature Adjustment of Petroleum Products",

held on Thursday afternoon following the Closing Ceremony.

107-2* THE 70TH ANNUAL MEETING

The Conference Coordinator reported on the status of planning for the

70th Annual Meeting to be held in Washington, D.C. Agreement has been

reached with the new (opened Feb., 1984) Marriott located at 14th and

Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

107-3* FUTURE MEETING LOCATIONS

The Executive Secretary reported on the status of planning for meetings

beyond the 70th. Cities currently bidding for consideration as meeting

sites include: Albuquerque or Las Cruces, New Mexico; Columbus, Ohio;

Denver, Colorado; Detroit, Michigan; Little Rock, Arkansas; New Orleans,

Louisiana; Charlotte, North Carolina; Nashville, Tennessee; and, Seattle,

Washington.

Presentations were made on behalf of Little Rock, Arkansas (Hindsman),

Grand Rapids, Michigan (Heffron), and Columbus, Ohio (Litzenberg and

Stabler) at the Interim Meetings. . The following possible sequence was

discussed, but no commitments were made:

71st Annual Meeting (1986) - New Mexico

72nd Annual Meeting (1987) - Little Rock, Arkansas

73rd Annual Meeting (1988) - Seattle, Washington

74th Annual Meeting (1989) - Grand Rapids, Michigan

75th Annual Meeting (1990) - Columbus, Ohio

The Executive Secretary was asked to review the proposals in terms of

his knowledge of NCWM requirements and to report back to the Executive

Committee as he develops further recommendations.

At the Annual Meeting, the Executive Secretary reported on his visits to Albuquerque, Little Rock, and Seattle. The Executive Committee voted to hold the 71st Annual Meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the 72nd Annual Meeting in Little Rock,

Arkansas. The Executive Secretary was authorized to proceed with the

planning for these two meetings.

60
108 GENERAL

108-1 NCWM LOGO

Supplies of the decal of the NCWM Logo are very low. The Executive

Secretary contacted the former supplier of the decals to reorder, and

discovered that the supplier had discarded the master die. The supplier

attempt to duplicate the original has not been successful either in color

or graphics.

At the Interim Meetings, the Executive Secretary showed the Executive

Committee the results of the attempts by the supplier to match the

original, and a mockup of a possible replacement. The possible

replacement portrays a two pan scale superimposed on a global image of

the United States, thus representing the national scope of weights and

measures. The Executive Secretary, after further exploration, brought to the

attention of the Committee that the NCWM Logo is identified in a Department of Commerce publication (Department Administrative Order

201-1) as a logo used for Department-related activities and organizations.

The Executive Committee reclassified this item as informational instead

of voting pending determination of the consequences if the NCWM

changed its logo. S.F. Hindsman, Arkansas, Chairman

E.F. Delfino, California, Chairman-Elect

C.H. Greene, New Mexico, Past Chairman

A.M. Nelson, Connecticut, Treasurer

J.C. Blackwood, Texas

E.C. Heffron, Michigan

L.D. Holloway, Idaho

E. Keeley, Delaware

N.M. Ross, Omaha, NE

R.W. Walker, Indiana

A.D. Tholen, Executive Secretary, NBS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

61
Appendix A

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

CONSTITUTION

AND

BYLAWS

INFORMATIONAL ITEM

Adapted from "The National Conference on Weights and Measures, Its Organization,

Procedures, and Membership Plan" modified only

to respond to the changes adopted by the

membership at the 68th Annual Meeting held in Sacramento, California, July 1983, and the

comments received and adopted at the 69th

Annual Meeting held in Boston, Massachusetts,

July 1984.

62
CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE I This Association shall be known as "The National Conference on Weights

and Measures" and is sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards under

the authority of that portion of the Organic Act (U.S. Code, Title 15,

Chapter 7, Section 272) authorizing the NBS to undertake "cooperation

with the States in securing uniformity in weights and measures laws and

methods of inspection".

ARTICLE n - OBJECTIVES

The objectives of The National Conference on Weights and Measures are: A. Forum. To provide a national forum for the discussion of all questions related to weights and measures administration as carried on by officials of the Federal Government and regulatory officials of the States, Commonwealths, Territories, and Possessions of the

United States, their political subdivisions, and the District of

Columbia.

B. Mechanism. To provide a mechanism to establish policy and

coordinate activities within the Conference on matters of national

and international significance pertaining to legal metrology.

C. Consensus. To develop a consensus on uniform laws and

regulations, specifications, and tolerances for weighing and measuring

devices, and on testing, enforcement, and administrative procedures. D. Uniformity. To encourage and promote uniformity of requirements and methods among jurisdictions.

E. Cooperation. To foster cooperation among regulatory officers

themselves and between them and all of the many manufacturing,

industrial, business, and consumer interests affected by their official activities. ARTICLE m - MEMBERSHIP

Membership consists of three classes: active, advisory, and associate.

ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP. - Active membership is limited to weights and

measures or measurement officers actively engaged in regulatory service

and in the employ of States, Commonwealths, Territories, or Possessions

of the United States, their political subdivisions, or the District of Columbia.

63
ADVISORY MEMBERSHIP. - Advisory membership is open to (1) representatives of agencies of the Federal Government who are concerned

in any way with regulatory weights and measures officers or their official activities or who are interested in the objectives and activities of the

Conference, and (2) persons who have retired from Federal, State, county,

or city weights and measures employment.

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP. - Associate membership comprises

representatives of manufacturers, industry, business, consumers, and other persons who are interested in the objectives and activities of the

Conference.

ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS

SECTION 1 - EX-OFFICIO OFFICERS

A. President. - The Director of the National Bureau of Standards is, ex-officio, the President of the Conference.

B. Executive Secretary. - The Director of the National Bureau of

Standards designates a senior member of the Bureau staff, who is thoroughly conversant with weights and measures nationally, to serve

the Conference as its Executive Secretary.

SECTION 2 - ELECTIVE OFFICERS

The Elective Officers of the Conference shall be: Chairman-Elect,

4 Vice-Chairmen,

Treasurer, and

6 members at large to serve on the Executive Committee.

The consecutive reelection of a Chairman-Elect is prohibited; the

Chairman-Elect shall not serve on any standing committee other than the

Executive Committee. Should the Chairman-Elect for any reason be

unable or unwilling to be installed as Chairman, his/her successor shall be

elected in the manner prescribed. In this event, the newly elected

Chairman-Elect shall be installed as Chairman.

A. Eligibility

1. Any active member in good standing shall be eligible to hold any office provided that the individual meets the other

requirements set forth in the Constitution and Bylaws.

2. The Chairman-Elect will be elected at the Annual Meeting

one year prior to the term of service as Conference

Chairman. After serving one year as Chairman-Elect, the

incumbent will succeed to the office of Conference Chairman.

64
B. Nominations and Elections

1. The Chairman shall appoint a Nominating Committee

consisting of the most recent active Past Chairman as Committee Chairman and six (6) active members. The

Nominating Committee shall submit one name for each

elective office and present its recommendation as a slate in

its report to the Conference.

2. Additional nominations for officers may be made from the

floor at the Annual Meeting provided that prior consent of trie nominee has been obtained in writing and presented to the

presiding officer at the time of the nomination.

3. Elections

Officers shall be elected during a designated session of the Annual Meeting by a formal recorded vote of the

members in attendance and eligible to vote on Conference motions.

See Bylaws, Article VI - Voting System

4. Terms of Office

(a) . The Chairman, Chairman-Elect, Past Chairman, Vice

Chairmen, and Treasurer, shall serve for a term of one

year or until their successors are respectively elected

or appointed and qualified.

(b) . The six Executive Committee members at large

shall serve for 3-year terms; two elected each year.

(c) . All officers shall take office immediately following

the close of the Annual Meeting at which they were

elected.

5. Filling Vacancies.

In case of a vacancy in any of the elective offices, the

Executive Committee shall fill the office by

appointment.

ARTICLE V - APPOINTIVE OFFICIALS

SECTION 1 - OFFICIALS, SPECIFIC

The Conference Chairman will appoint the following officials: Chaplain

Parliamentarian

Assistant Treasurer

65
SECTION 2 - OFFICIALS, OTHER

A. Appointment.

The Conference Chairman shall appoint other officials to conduct

Conference activities. See Bylaws, Article IV - Officers, and Article

V - Committees.

B. Assumption of Office. All appointive officials shall take office immediately following

appointment and will serve through the subsequent Annual Meeting of the Conference unless otherwise specified by the Conference

Chairman.

ARTICLE VI - MEETINGS OF THE CONFERENCE

A. Annual Meeting. The Annual Meeting of members shall be held each year at the

Annual Conference. The agenda for this meeting shall include the

election of officers, reports from the various committees, task

forces, study groups,and treasurer, and other items pertinent to the

Conference.

The Annual Meeting may include the presentation of technical

papers, discussions, displays, entertainment, or other events at the

discretion of the Executive Committee.

B. Interim Meetings.

The Interim Meetings of the Executive Committee and those

Standing Committees designated by the Chairman shall be held

annually, approximately 6-months prior to the Annual Meeting in order to develop the agenda and committee recommendations to be

presented to and acted on by the membership at the Annual

Meeting.

C. Special Meetings

1. The Conference Chairman is authorized to order a meeting

of the Executive Committee at any time such a session is deemed by the Chairman to be in the best interest of the

Conference.

2. Other Committees of the Conference are authorized to hold meetings at times other than the Annual Meeting or Interim Meeting provided that;

(a) such meeting or meetings have been provided for in the Conference budget approved by the Executive

Committee, or

66
(b) such meeting or meetings are approved by the

Chairman and funding is available within the approved

budget, or

(c) such meeting or meetings are approved by the

Chairman and the Executive Committee including

agreement to increase the budget to cover the cost of the meeting.

3. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the eligible voters. D. Rules of Order

The rules contained in Robert's Rules of Order shall govern

the Conference in all cases to which they are applicable, and

in which they are not inconsistent with the Constitution or Bylaws or the special rules of the Conference.

ARTICLE Vn - FEES AND DUES

The annual membership fees and the registration fees for the Annual

Meeting shall be established (and may be revised) by a majority vote of

the Executive Committee at any official meeting of that Committee.

ARTICLE Vm - AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

This Constitution may be amended, added to, or repealed at any Annual

Meeting of the membership under normal Conference procedures. Proposed

changes must be included in the Agenda of the Executive Committee for the Interim Meetings, published in the recommendations of the Executive

Committee in its Tentative Report (contained in the Announcement Book

of the Annual Meeting), and discussed at the general session of the

Executive Committee at the Annual Meeting at which said changes will be

voted on. Amendments to the Constitution must be approved by a minimum of a two thirds vote in both the House of State Representatives

and the House of Delegates.

ARTICLE IX- BYLAWS

SECTION 1 - SUPPLEMENTATION OF CONSTITUTION

This Constitution shall be supplemented by Bylaws which shall detail the

methods of operation of the Conference. Such Bylaws shall not be

inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.

SECTION 2 - AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND REPEALS OF BYLAWS

The Bylaws may be amended, added to,or repealed in the same manner as prescribed for the Constitution (See Article VIII).

87
SECTION 3 - RENUMBERING

The Executive Secretary is authorized to renumber the Articles and

Sections of the Constitution or Bylaws to accommodate any changes

made.

(THE REST OF THIS PAGE IS BLANK)

68
BY-LAWS

ARTICLE I - APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP

SECTION 1 - FORM OF APPLICATION

Each application for membership in this Conference shall be in the form

prescribed by the Executive Committee.

SECTION 2 - SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION

Each application for membership shall be submitted to the Executive

Secretary. The application shall be accompanied by the membership fee. Applications received by the Executive Secretary will be processed. The new applicants name will be added to the Conference membership mailing

list. ARTICLE n - FEES, MEMBERSHIP RECORDS

SECTION 1 - FEE

The fee for annual membership as well as the registration fee for the

Annual Meeting are established and subject to revision by the Executive

Committee.

SECTION 2 - MEMBERSHIP YEAR

Annual membership shall be payable by July 1 of each year and covers

the period July 1 to June 30 of the following year. SECTION 3 - BILLING

The Executive Secretary shall bill each member for yearly dues two

months prior to the expiration of the current membership year. SECTION 4 - EVIDENCE OF MEMBERSHIP

Membership certificates and cards of suitable design, bearing the seal of

the Conference, shall be issued to members. The Executive Secretary

shall advise the Treasurer of the count of new members and will forward

the membership monies for deposit in the Conference account. ARTICLE m - USE OF THE INSIGNIA

The insignia of the Conference may be used or displayed only by members

of the Conference, unless expressly authorized in writing by the

Conference.

69
The Conference Chairman is the principal presiding officer at the

of the Conference and of the Executive Committee, makes

:.; *. " t 5 c • A* A 5 A. AT A~ I AA~ - 3_ !

.* ~ ~ . ".

*. r t 3 3AA AT CO AAA

to serve during his or her term of office,

who accede to the office during the odd

for a 2-year term as the Confe

to the U.S. Public Advisory Committee for

ters of the

::' AtAa:aa ,OIML). The period of this appointment

:.~e - a *s Z

~ ~ a~ a~ : :a» :' : _

:

"« ' aa :L' si :~ : : - ' l-..:- -zi.z :t

I ~ l.~-EZ= :

:

A, Serve a i

:

aa£ A^fi:^ Z^aaaaa- a :.a A<erA aaa ;-e Chairman is unable to carry out the duties of that office;

3 A-:':;- ruAer iLAes A.rA a aa A'A-a:: : a=.a r_ £A.: C. Serve on the Executive Committee;

D. Sane as Chairman of the Executive Committee when it sits as

:a6 Zaa~: ::* Z-cverr-crs :':r >3:aca TA-f Zvaa =

fflOBT 3 - VICE CHAIRMIa

r the Conference Chairman and assist the

A'AAAA- A :A6 AA:fAAgA A Ai If AA' IA A rS

.

' i Z;re-.:.A'i Sec:e:a.*7 i: a A3 the executive officer of the Conference,

he .'AMMfiMny and executive officer of the Executive Committee, and

z AA.r 3t:a:a a y..i: a~ aa: a! :e",AA5 a

surim ir ( h'ini with tins arrangements for and the programs of the meetings,

eecs Ar 'amcas ::' :Ae proceedings of the meetings; manages the

lonferenee administration and finances as prescribed in its Administrative

Procedures; and certifies to the Treasurer the correctness of bills nfnaiSfffid to the Conference for ZZTTOV 5 - TREASURES

!he Treasurer leeefepes and accounts for all monies collected and pays all

: : a:A • t

-

: r : 3 :a. .:' aa : - Z • - Sec? = : a

1 a ::."a:,
SECTION 6 - CHAPLAIN

The Chaplain performs the customary duties of that office. SECTION 7 - ASSISTANT TREASURER

The Assistant Treasurer shall assist the Treasurer in the discharge of his or her duties. SECTION 8 - PARLIAMENTARIAN

The Parliamentarian shall assist in assuring meetings of the Conference

are conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order and any special rules adopted by the Conference.

ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES

SECTION 1 - ANNUAL COMMITTEES

The Annual Committees consist of the following: A. Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee shall consist of seven members;

B. Resolutions Committee.

The Resolutions Committee shall consist of seven members;

C. Auditing Committee.

The Auditing Committee shall consist of three members; and

D. Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee shall consist of three members; all of

whom are appointed by the Conference Chairman from the active

membership, and shall consist of one member each from a State,

county, and city jurisdiction, serving on a rotating basis for 3-year

terms(a new member is appointed each year to replace the member

whose term expires) and the senior member serves as Committee

Chairman.

B. Associate Membership Committee. The Associate Membership Committee shall consist of not less than

five nor more than ten members, appointed by the Conference

Chairman from the associate membership. This Committee shall represent a cross-section of interest within the associate

membership

71
sz:t::> : - 57 an din:- :ommitties

Standing Committees. The standing committees are: Executive Committee;

Committee on Specifications anc Tolerances:

Committee on Laws and Regulations;

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs;

7cr.rittee :r. Liaison: Finance [Committee; and

Credentials Committee.

A. "er.oership ctr.e: than Executive. Finance, and 7recentials

Z : m r it tees , The memrersru: :: each :: the standing co~r.it tees is 1 ncrral

20 rpie rent :: five members appointee by the 7onferer.ee "hair ran

from the active membership (except that the members of the

Committee on Liaison ray be appointee from the active or the

associate membership) on a rotating basis for 5-year terms, or until a successor is appointed.

When it is necessary to make an appointment to any of the standing

committees to fill a vacancy caused by the death, resignation, or retirement :ror. active service : y s. committee memoer. the appointment is for the unexpired portion of the member's terr. Except as noted, each standing committee annually selects one of its members, preferably its senior member, to serve as its chair ran. At his or her option, the Chairman designates one or more advisory

or associate members as consultants to a standing committee.

3. Executive 7:mm:ttee , The Executive Committee consists of the President, Executive

Secretary, the Conference Chairman, the Chair .man-Elect, the most

recent still active Past Chairman, the Treasurer, and six members

elected at large from the active membership to serve 3-year

staggered terms. 7ne President anc Executive Secretary c: not have votes on mittens

before the Executive Committee.

Insofar as possicle, the N:r mating 7ommittee, in recommending

candidates for the Executive Committee, shall consider regional

representation.

72
The term of the Executive Committee runs from the adjournment of

the Annual Meeting at which its members are elected through the

succeeding Annual Meeting of the Conference.

(Initially, the six at large members shall be elected for the following terms: two members to serve for one year; two members to serve

for two years; and two members to serve for three years

-thereafter, their successors shall serve for three-year terms, and

this parenthetical section deleted). C. Finance Committee. The Finance Committee, which shall also serve as the Budget

Review Committee, shall be appointed by the Conference Chairman.

It shall consist of him/her as Chairman, two weights and measures

officials as voting members, and the Treasurer and Executive

Secretary as ex-officio voting members. One associate member shall serve in an advisory capacity, without vote. D. Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee consists of three members; all of whom

are appointed by the Conference Chairman from the active

membership. The membership of the Committee shall consist of one member each from a State, county, and city jurisdiction, serving on

a rotating basis for 3-year terms (a new member is appointed each

year to replace the member whose term expires) and the senior

member serves as Committee Chairman.

SECTION 3 - SPECIAL COMMITTEES, TASK FORCES, AND STUDY GROUPS

Special committees, task forces, and study groups are appointed by the

Conference Chairman from the active, advisory, or associate membership,

in any combination, as the need arises or the Conference requests.

SECTION 4 - SUBCOMMITTEES

Upon recommendation of a committee, the Conference Chairman may

appoint a subcommittee(s) to assist the committee in carrying out its responsibilities.

SECTION 5 - DUTIES AND FIELDS OF OPERATION OF COMMITTEES

A. Executive Committee

The Executive Committee, subject to the overriding authority of the

Conference itself:

1. Selects the place, dates, and headquarters, and fixes the

registration fee for each meeting of the Conference;

2. Fixes the annual membership fee;

73
3. May at its option fill any vacancy in any elective office :: the Conference caused by death, resignation, or retire men: from active official regulatory service:

4. Advises the Executive Secretary with respect t: the prog-rams for the meetings of the Conference and its committees and makes recommendation? to the Conference,

the Conference officers, anc the cc~mi::ee chairmen.

The Executive Committee, in the interval between meetings cf the

Conference:

1. Authorizes interim meetings of Conference committees as needed,

2. Authorizes committee and other contingent

expendituresQneluding travel and subsistence expense? r: committee members and the Conference Chairman;, and

3. Acts for the Conference in all routine or emergency

situations that may arise. Each newly constituted Executive Committee joins the new chairmen

of standing committees in £ breakfast meeting* as guests of the

Conference) on the last day of the Conference, for general discuss: o: and for transaction of business by the Executive Committee.

Questions before the Executive Committee are decided, wr ether ry voice vote or ballot, on the basis of the majority of votes east. The Executive Committee:

1. serves as the Board of Governors for the National 7*ype

Evaluation Program (NTEP):

2. utilizes the technical committees of the N'CwM to resolve

technical issues regarding > 71?

3. utilizes the industry members

on National Type Evaluation, w

Advisory Committee and who wi

industry in advising the 7oarc cf The Committee serves as a polie of national and international si- areas as metrication, Inten

Metrology(OIML), American N; International Organization for Sts for Testing and^Materials(ASTM),

L-aoora: cries* N 751 an; su.*:- i~.tt The Committee annually presents a report tc the Conference or. its activities, which are subject to Conference ratification.

cnm cal ?-c — it tee
B. Committee on Laws and Regulations. The Committee on Laws and Regulations annually presents a report

for Conference action.

Its scope embraces all matters within the area of weights and measures supervision including:

1. The development and interpretation of uniform laws and

regulations;

2. The study and analysis of bills for legislative enactment; and

3. The establishment and maintenance of published guidelines

and other effective means of encouraging uniformity of interpretation and application of weights and measures laws

and regulations. C. Committee on Specifications and Tolerances.

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances annually presents a

report for Conference action.

Its scope embraces all matters dealing with:

1. Specifications, tolerances, and technical requirements of any kind relating to scales, weights, measures, and weighing

and measuring devices and accessories, including interpretation

of such material whenever necessary,

2. Standards and testing equipment for weights and measures

officials, and

3. Procedures for testing commercial equipment.

D. Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs.

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

annually presents a report for Conference action.

Its scope embraces all matters dealing with the:

1. Education and training of weights and measures officials,

2. Promotion of weights and measures principles and

techniques among the general public and the users of weighing

and measuring devices,

75
3. Development and recommendation of administrative

procedures and public relations programs, and

4. Identification of commercial weights and measures

practices and problems that are of concern to consumers.

E. Committee on Liaison. The Committee on Liaison annually presents a report for Conference

action.

Its primary mission is to represent the Conference to the Federal

Government; it considers and makes recommendations on matters

concerning relationships of the Conference and Conference members

with the Federal Government and particularly with the National

Bureau of Standards.

F. Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee annually presents a slate of nominees for

all elective offices. The names of these nominees shall appear in the

report of the Nominating Committee and be published in Conference

Announcement Booklet. G. Resolutions Committee. The Resolutions Committee annually presents for Conference action

such resolutions as it has been directed by the Conference to prepare, and such additional resolutions as are deemed appropriate by

the Committee.

H. Auditing Committee. The Auditing Committee annually audits the books of the Treasurer and reports its findings to the Conference.

L Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee administers the Conference voting

system, makes decisions concerning disputed rights of designated

representatives, and approves or certifies representatives to the

House of State Representatives.

J. Finance Committee. The Finance Committee shall oversee the financial responsibilities of the Conference and serve as the Budget Review Committee.

K. Associate Membership Committee. The Associate Membership Committee annually reports on its activities and makes recommendations to the Executive Committee.

76
The Committee provides coordination and participation of associate

members in all business and social affairs of the Conference.

ARTICLE VI - VOTING SYSTEM

All questions before a meeting of the Conference that are to be decided

by a formal recorded vote of the active members are voted on in accordance with the following voting structures and procedures.

SECTION 1 - HOUSE OF STATE REPRESENTATIVES

A. Official Designation.

This body of officials shall be known as the "House of State Representatives."

B. Composition. Each State is authorized one official to serve as its representative

at the Annual Meeting of the NCWM. The State weights and measures director, or his or her designee (State or local government

official), is the State representative.

The District of Columbia and the U.S. Commonwealths and

Territories that have weights and measures programs similar to those

of the States (for example, have followed the uniform laws and

regulations and have adopted Handbook 44) are also allowed

representatives. C. Method of designation. Each representative is specified annually to the Credentials

Committee 30 days before the NCWM annual meeting.

Accommodation may be made for exceptions to this deadline. An

alternate should be named prior to the NCWM annual meeting in case the designated representative cannot attend.

SECTION 2 - HOUSE OF DELEGATES

A. Designation. All other State and local weights and measures regulatory officials (those not sitting in the House of State Representatives) are grouped

as a body known as the "House of Delegates."

B. Requirements.

No other special requirements apply.

77
SECTION 3 - MINIMUM VOTES

A. House of State Representatives . A minimum of 27 votes in favor of, or 27 votes in opposition to, an issue must be cast for the vote to be considered official. B. House of Delegates . A minimum of 27 votes in favor of, or 27 votes in opposition to an

issue must be cast for the vote to be considered official. If more

than 54 total votes are cast, a simple majority rules. Should a tie vote occur, or if the minimum votes in support or opposition are not

cast, the issue is decided by the vote of the House of State Representatives.

SECTION 4 - VOTING RULES

A. Proxie Votes . Proxy votes are not permitted. Since issues and recommendations in the committees' interim reports are often modified and amended at the Conference, the attendance of officials at the NCWM Annual

Meeting and voting sessions is vital. B. Method . All voting is by a show of hands, standing vote, or machine

(electronic). No voice voting. No abstentions.

C. Timing. Voting by both Houses is simultaneous.

D. Recording. The voting system is designed to record the votes of the State

representatives whether an electronic system, show of hands, or standing vote is used.

E. Applicability . These procedures (rules) apply only to the plenary (general) sessions

of the NCWM.

SECTION 5 - COMMITTEE REPORTS

Alternatives that may be used in voting on the reports: A. Vote on the entire report

B. Vote on grouped items or sections

78
C. Vote on individual items:

1. at committee discretion

2. on request by voting delegate with support of ten others. SECTION 6 - FLOOR AMENDMENTS

A. Amendments.

Committee chairmen are allowed to offer amendments during the day

of voting to make editorial changes in their final reports.

B. Changes.

Substantive changes can be made at the request of weights and measures officials only, and

1. a majority of the voting delegates of each House must

vote favorably before a proposed amendment can be accepted

for debate.

2. a two-thirds favorable vote of each House on the

amendment is required for passage (the requirement for a minimum vote of 27 in both Houses also applies)

SECTION 7 - SEATING

A. Arrangement.

The seating arrangement for voting sessions is shown on the next

page.

B. Supervision. The members of the Credentials Committee will count votes and

control placement and movement of delegates.

SECTION 8 - VOTING

At the conclusion of debate (if authorized) on a motion, there shall be a call for the vote by a show of hands, standing, or electronic count. A. Motion accepted IF:

1. a minimum of 27 members of the House of State Representatives votes Yea. And if

79
From si Boon

Committee

Committee

House

of Representatives

i State Designated

Representatives)

House

of Delegates

(State and Local

Officials i

Non-Voting

Delegates

Associate Members, etc)

Figure L Seating Arrangement
2. a majority of the members of the House of Delegates votes Yea (a minimum of 27 Yea votes

required);*

B. Motion rejected IF:

1. a minimum of 27 members of the House of State Representatives votes Nay

And if

2. a majority of the members of the House of Delegates votes Nay (a minimum of 27 Nay votes

required);* C. Split Vote: When the two Houses split on an issue or the minimum

number of votes supporting or opposing an issue is not obtained in the House of State Representatives, the issue is returned to the standing committee for further consideration.

The committee may drop the issue or reconsider it for submission the following year. The issue cannot be recalled

for another vote at the same Annual Meeting.

SECTION 9 - PROCEDURES

The Conference officers and committees observe in all of their procedures

the principles of due process — the protection of the rights and interests

of affected parties; specifically, they (a) give reasonable advance notice

of contemplated committee studies, items to be considered for committee

action, and tentative or definite recommendations for Conference action, for the information of all parties at interest, and (b) provide that all interested parties have an opportunity to be heard by committees and by

the Conference.

SECTION 10 - CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE

Proposals for changes in organization or procedure of the Conference are

not acted upon until the Annual Meeting of the Conference following the

Annual Meeting at which such proposals are made.

* If the minimum number of votes required to pass or fail an issue is not

cast in the House of Delegates, the issue will be determined by the vote

of the House of State Representatives.

81
Appendix B

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

Policy and Procedures

82
CONTENTS

Page

A. Type Evaluation Process 84

B. Steps in the "Legal Metrology

Control System" 84

C. Definitions 85 D. Extent of Evaluation 86

E. Kinds of Type Evaluation 87

F. What Constitutes a Different Type 89 G. What Constitutes a Modified Type 90 H. Considerations Preceding Evaluation 90

I. Applicants for Evaluation 92

J. Period of Validity of Approval 92 K. Results of Evaluation 93

L. Certificate of Conformance 94

M. Letter of Nonconformance 95 N. Appeal Process 96

O. Distribution of Outputs of Evaluation 96

83
NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

A. TYPE EVALUATION PROCESS

The "type evaluation process" follows a sequence of major steps:

- Request for type evaluation

- Decision to accept or reject the request to conduct evaluation

- Conduct of the type evaluation

- Evaluation of the type evaluation results

- Preparation of the type evaluation report

- Decision on conformance or nonconformance

- Issuance of the Certificate of Conformance or letter of non- conformance

B. STEPS IN THE "LEGAL METROLOGY CONTROL SYSTEM"*

The type evaluation process is the first step of regulatory involvement in the legal metrology control system.

Commonly, the type evaluation process is initiated when a manufacturer

with an established manufacturing process submits production line instruments for type evaluation. Similarly an importer submits the device he

plans to import for evaluation.

A manufacturer will normally submit a prototype device for evaluation

before establishing an assembly line. (In some instances, a manufacturer

may confer even earlier in the design stages, making use of drawings,

schematics, etc.) It is not anticipated that a production unit will be

tested under NTEP unless the manufacturer submits such a unit. (Production units are also subject to initial and periodic inspection by State and

local officials.)

*See "An SMA Recommendation for a Legal Metrology Control System,"

NBS Special Publication 566, pages 64-87.

84
The type evaluation process normally will be conducted in authorized

laboratories. However, certain circumstances, such as limitations in test

facilities, the estimated cost of test, or the complexity of the device to be evaluated, will make cooperation between the manufacturer and NTEP

advantageous. In some circumstances, testing in other laboratories might

be warranted as long as the testing is under the supervision of the

representative(s) of an authorized laboratory.

If a production device is submitted to the NTEP for evaluation, the

evaluation effort might be substantially less if the laboratory has had

preliminary data about the performance of the device, especially if new

technology or concepts are being used.

In the course of the process, the NTEP (and authorized laboratories) often

becomes privy to proprietory information related to the device, manufacturing techniques, etc. These agencies are bound to protect this information and must carefully limit access to it, or to data concerning the type

generated by these agencies, to properly authorized organizations or

individuals, e.g., the applicant or the manufacturer only.

C. DEFINITIONS

1. "NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM" A program of cooperation between the National Bureau of Standards,

the National Conference on Weights and Measures, the States, and

the private sector for determining, on a uniform basis, conformance

of a type with the relevant provisions of: National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44, " Specifications,

Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing

and Measuring Devices";

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-1, " Specifications

and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard

Weights and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Field

Standard Weights (NBS Class F)"; National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-2, "Specifications

and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard

Weights and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Field

Standard Measuring Flasks"; or National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-3, "Specifications

and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard

Weights and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards".

2. "TYPE EVALUATION" A process for the testing, examination, and/or evaluation of a type

by a Participating Laboratory under the National Type Evaluation

Program.

85
3. "TYPE"

A model or models of a particular measurement system, instrument,

element, or a field standard that positively identifies the design. A

specific type may vary in its measurement ranges, size, performance, and operating characteristics as specified in the Certificate of

Conformance.

4. "PARTICIPATING LABORATORY" A State Measurement Laboratory that has been certified by the

National Bureau of Standards, in accordance with its program for the

Certification of Capability of State Measurement Laboratories, to conduct a type evaluation under the National Type Evaluation

Program.

5. "CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE" A document issued by the National Bureau of Standards based on

testing in participating Laboratories, said document constituting

evidence of conformance of a type with the requirements of

National Bureau of Standards Handbooks 44, 105-1, 105-2, or 105-3.

6. "DIRECTOR" The Director means the of the Department of

D. EXTENT OF EVALUATION

The extent of type evaluation is as follows.

1. FULL TYPE EVALUATION

In general, type evaluation must be regarded as full or complete

despite the fact that any type is subject to a variety of conditions

that may limit the scope of the evaluation. These conditions may

be inclusive or exclusive as in "...for use in measuring the volume of

only water..." or "...not for use in measuring corrosive liquids..." The

possible conditions of approval are many and include:

- restricted application of the device

- requirements concerning installation, safeguarding, maintenance, recalibration

In those cases where a permanance field test is required under

NTEP, the 30-day test is a part of the "full" type evaluation.

2. PROVISIONAL EVALUATION

Under some circumstances, a type may be approved for legal use before evaluation has been completed. Such an approval is referred

to as provisional.

86
Granting of provisional approval shall be qualified in writing that the

manufacturer will modify or retrofit existing copies of the type if required.

Provisional approval will be granted with the understanding that further evaluation will take place before (full) approval can be

considered. Use of the Provisional Evaluation will be minimized, and

will be subject to authorization by the Board of Governors.

Provisional evaluation may, for example, be granted after only

partial or limited evaluation when an urgent need for use of the

device exists, and the NTEP is temporarily unable to carry out a complete evaluation.

E. KINDS OF TYPE EVALUATION

The kinds of type evaluation discussed in this section are distinguished

from each other primarily by the reason for the evaluation, and will in turn call for all or selected portions of the evaluation procedure to be

followed. They can be categorized as follows.

1. INITIAL EVALUATION

Initial evaluation is one of a device not previously evaluated under

the NTEP. While this will often be a complete evaluation, previous

experience with the manufacturer or with similar types of instru- ments may indicate that only a partial or a limited evaluation will suffice.

2. REEVALUATION

NTEP may, for good reason, decide to reevaluate a type that it has

previously evaluated. Such a type may or may not have previously

been approved. Reevaluation of a type is considered only for cause;

that is, when:

a. new regulations are issued or,

b. new, important information concerning the type or its evaluation becomes known.

Reevaluation may result in issuance of a certificate of conformance,

letter of non-conformance, an amendment of the previous certifi- cate, or withdrawal of the certificate.

3. AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

A type with a currently valid certificate of conformance may be

evaluated in order to extend application of the type. Such an

extension might, for example, be requested to recognize a change in the range of the measured quantity, or for the kind of commodities

that may be measured.

87
In most such cases, evaluation to determine the validity of amendment will be sufficient; that is, the evaluation(s) will not go

through the entire check list, but will test through the entire range

of performance.

4. EVALUATION OF A TYPE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY

PRE-NTEP JURISDICTION

A type that has already been approved in one or more jurisdictions

may be submitted for evaluation under NTEP.

Discussions with the approving jurisdiction(s) might lead to the

conclusion that the device meets all requirements of NTEP, in which

case, an NTEP Certificate of Conformance will be issued without

formal testing.

The NTEP may accept data obtained in or conclusions drawn from

prior evaluation.

The NTEP may conclude that partial or limited evaluation will suffice to check for differences in the requirements of the testing

jurisdiction and NTEP.

Prior to an NTEP evaluation, the report of the previous evaluation

and regulations under which the prior evaluation was made will be

examined, and a decision will be made to what extent the former

evaluation can be accepted. This decision may be based in part on

the similarity of requirements in the two cases and on the policies

and reputation for competence of the pre-NTEP jurisdiction.

5. EVALUATION OF A TYPE NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

Many devices in use have never undergone type evaluation either at the NBS or by a State. In such cases, request for evaluation under

NTEP is at the option of the manufacturer.

It is possible that some such devices would not meet the requirements of the NTEP; however the assumption is made that all devices

in use meet the requirements of Handbook 44 since they have

undergone testing in the jurisdiction of the State(s) in which they are

installed. The NTEP has no authority to change the status quo in these instances, even if inequities appear to exist.

6. DEVELOPMENT OIF NEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES

Type evaluation often deals with innovation and the application of new technology. It is anticipated, therefore, that the NTEP will en- counter features to be tested for which no criteria or procedures

have been developed. In such cases, the necessary criteria and/or

procedures will be developed, ad hoc, by the NBS and participating

laboratory representatives as expeditiously as possible.

88
These criteria and/or procedures will be submitted to the NTEP

Technical Subcommittee either by letter ballot, regularly scheduled

meeting, or at a specially called meeting, depending on the complexity or sensitivity of the material.

That material accepted by the Technical Committee will be introduced into the normal NCWM process through the S & T Committee

and subsequently submitted to the NCWM membership for adoption

as part of the NTEP Handbook on Criteria and Procedures.

Pending completion of the administrative process, the NTEP will issue a provisional Certificate of Conformance (provided the device

meets the requirements of the proposed criteria and/or test procedures).

It is conceivable that a new feature or technology incorporated in the device being evaluated might not meet current NTEP requirements but is appropriate for its intended commercial use. In such a

case, the NTEP can WAIVE or ALTER what is current practice, and

issue a Provisional Certificate of Conformance pending adoption of

the change(s) by the NCWM process.

If there is an NTEP consensus on the recommended criteria and

procedures, AND the device meets the new requirements, the fol- low-up process is administrative. If no consensus can be reached on

the criteria or procedures, but the device meets the requirements as proposed by the NBS, a provisional approval will be issued. If more

demanding criteria or procedures are subsequently proposed and

adopted, the device will be tested under these criteria or procedures. The costs associated with the development, testing, and adoption of the new criteria and procedures will be absorbed by the NTEP

program.

F. WHAT CONSTITUTES A "DIFFERENT" TYPE?

When two types(of a single manufacturer) are very much alike, a decision

must be made whether one or two separate evaluation processes must be

followed. Guidelines intended to help with such decisions follow.

1. SUPERFICIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEVICES

Different types produced by a particular manufacturer that are identical in design, materials and components used, and measurement

ranges, but that differ superficially in their enclosure, detailed size,

color, or location of non-metrological appointments (flasher lights,

display location, button locations, etc.) can normally be regarded as being of the same type and covered by a single evaluation.

89
2. COMPONENT VARIATIONS

Types with nominally identical components or materials produced by

a particular manufacturer that have been procured from different

suppliers, can usually be regarded as the same type and will be

covered by a single evaluation if the components or materials cannot be expected to affect the regulated metrological characteristics, reliability, or life of the devices.

When substitution of such components or materials may affect the

characteristics, etc., separate evaluations may be required. G. WHAT CONSTITUTES A "MODIFIED" TYPE

When a manufacturer makes changes related to an approved type, evaluation of the modification may be necessary. A type is considered

MODIFIED if change is made that alters some metrological or technical

characteristic. H. CONSIDERATIONS PRECEDING EVALUATION

Certain considerations that are not part of the type evaluation process

itself and that must precede it are discussed in the following paragraphs.

1. REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCESS

Reasons for initiating evaluation are listed below.

- new type

- existing type not previously evaluated for legal use or not evaluated by NTEP

- new application of an evaluated device

- modification of an approved device

- previous rejection or withdrawal of certificate of confor- mance coupled with newly presented facts concerning the

device, improvements to the device, or a change in regulations.

2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPORTING OCCURRENCE OF MODIFICATIONS

The manufacturer is responsible for reporting changes that might

require the attention of the NTEP; the decision to report must be

dictated by the significance of the modification. Admittedly, the

manufacturer will have to cope with the consequences in the

marketplace if he decides that the modification is not of any

significance and, in fact, it does prove to be significant. When

reporting a change, the manufacturer shall follow either (a) or (b) below:

90
a. Notification of Change.

The manufacturer notifies the NTEP that a change has been

made or is contemplated for an approved device. On the basis of the notification, the NTEP will decide whether to take no

further action, issue an approval of a modification, or issue a new approval. NTEP will inform the manufacturer accordingly.

b. Request for Acceptance of Modification.

The manufacturer may make judgments concerning the modification and request issuance of an approval of a modification

by citing the existing approval, detailing the changes, and

giving any data, analysis, and conclusions concerning the

technical or metrological consequences of the changes. Before

taking further action, the NTEP will review the request to confirm the manufacturer's judgment in deciding to request

approval of a modification as opposed to requesting a new

evaluation.

3. CHOICE OF TESTING LABORATORY

Normally, the manufacturer may select the testing laboratory

preferred. Usually the choice is expected to be based on location.

NTEP will try to honor the request. If another laboratory could

conduct the evaluation sooner, the manufacturer will be given the

opportunity to change the request. NTEP has the final authority to assign the testing laboratory.

When new technologies are applied to devices or when the NTEP is faced with evaluating categories of devices with which it has not

dealt previously, it may find that it lacks the facilities or knowledge

necessary to carry out some of the required evaluations. In such

cases, it will turn for support to organizations that have the necessary capabilities.

Organizations that may be considered in these cases are listed below. Not all of these categories or organizations will be available

in every case or for every type of device.

- other government laboratories

- laboratories of independent test organizations or of universities - facilities of a manufacturer with approval of the applicant.

A type may usually be evaluated in the laboratory to which the

subject instruments are taken. When devices or systems are not

portable and must be assembled at a user site, at least part of the

evaluation must take place in situ. Different aspects of a given

evaluation can be carried out at different sites for convenience, such

as at the factory, a laboratory, and a user location.

91
I. APPLICANTS FOR EVALUATION.

The certificate of conformance provides the evidence to be used by the

Director for permission to sell those devices that have been manufactured

to replicate the approved devices. Applicants for evaluation are therefore

implying that the instruments later sold will be manufactured to replicate

the approved device. The applicant must be, therefore, the manufacturer

himself or a representative properly authorized by him for purposes of

evaluation requests.

Examples of potential applicant for evaluation are:

- the manufacturer, including assemblers of systems comprised of

subsystems produced by various manufacturers

- manufacturer's sales representatives

J. PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF APPROVAL.

Approval may cease to be valid when predetermined conditions are either

met or not met (see Paragraph 1, below) or when approval is withdrawn

as the result of a specific determination by the NTEP (see paragraphs 2 and 3, below). The questions of when and why an approval may lose

validity is discussed in the following.

1. MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

Maintenance of approval depends on the performance of the device

in use and in the course of periodic field verifications. Maintenance

of approval may be made contingent on specific conditions; for example, minimum performance upon initial verification that devices

of the type must continue to meet.

2. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

Approval may be withdrawn for various reasons. These include:

a. identification of deficiencies in the type not discovered

before approval;

b. changes in regulations to take account of more stringent

needs;

c. advances in the state-of-the-art; or

d. new technologies.

Withdrawal of approval will, however, be a last resort action.

The decision for withdrawal must be clearly established on the basis of evidence assembled by the Program administrator (the Executive

Secretary). If the manufacturer agrees with the proposed withdrawal, notice of the action will be sent to each State Director.

92
3. FEEDBACK

The evaluation process under NTEP can generate only limited data. The data gathered during the initial and subsequent verifications of a

larger number of devices of a given model will, when systematically

analyzed, often yield information not available from the type evaluation. Such feedback can be used as the basis for revising the conditions of approval when the situation warrants this. Depending on circumstances, the experience gained during verifications may justify later changes in the approval; in extreme cases, it might result in withdrawal of the Certificate of Conformance.

K. RESULTS OF EVALUATION.

The results of evaluation include both a report of objective findings and a

report of conclusions and recommendations made concerning approval.

These may be given in a single document or in two separate documents

as indicated below. Separate documents are especially appropriate when

evaluation and approval are the responsibilities of different officials (for

example, when testing of the device is carried out in a State laboratory

and approval is issued by NBS). These reports will be retained permanently by the NCWM.

1. REPORT OF OBJECTIVE FINDINGS

The report will be a permanent, objective record of the evaluation process and its results, against which future evaluations can be

compared. It will identify the type, components and salient documents examined, personnel and laboratories that carried out the

evaluation, and any special procedures, standards, and equipment used

in the process. It will contain important data, ambient conditions,

and the time data were taken, or identify the repositories of such

data and the values of measured metrological characteristics and the

associated uncertainties. These characteristics will include all those

subject to requirements in regulations and those that will form the

basis for the definition of the type. To the extent that findings are not based on measurement, but on visual inspection, they will be as objective as possible in each instance.

2. REPORT OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM EVALUATION

The report giving conclusions and recommendations will be based on

the findings of the testing laboratory and will provide the basis for a

decision regarding approval or non-approval.

The recommendation can, for example, be one of the following:

- Certificate of Conformance

- Provisional Certificate of Conformance

- Rejection (unqualified); the main reasons for rejection should

be given

93
- Recommendation that the type be rejected, but that it be

approved in the future if specified modifications are made to satisfaction, as may be demonstrated by a partial revaluation

- Recommendation that the type be rejected, that the appli- cant be adequately informed about its deficiencies, and that

the type be accepted for a complete ree valuation in the

future, provided the applicant declares that the deficiencies

have been corrected.

3. DEFECTIVE EVALUATION

If a device has a significant area of non-compliance that was over- looked in a type evaluation under NTEP, costs of re-evaluation will be borne by the testing laboratory. Every effort will be made by

the NTEP to afford the manufacturer in such cases with adequate

time to meet requirements including time to modify and/or retrofit the devices in use.

If a device for which a Certificate of Conformance was issued is later found (in use) to have a feature that was not operational or present during the NTEP evaluation, the Certificate of Conformance

is subject to withdrawal whether or not the feature is believed to meet the requirements of Handbook 44. If the manufacturer

requests a re-evaluation with the new feature, and the device is approved, an amendment to the Certificate of Conformance will be

issued. If the device does not meet approval as a result of the new

feature, the Certificate of Conformance will be withdrawn.

Whether the device is approved or not, the manufacturer will be

responsible for reimbursing the NTEP for costs incurred in the re-evaluation.

L. CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

The Certificate of Conformance may include the following information:

1. APPLICATION OF THE TYPE

- approved ranges

- maximum capacity

- reference conditions

- normal conditions of use

- approved subjects of measurement: physical quantities,

commodities, materials, objects, or phenomena that may be

measured

- special restrictions on application

94
2. ACCURACY

- accuracy class

- nominal error(s); maximum permissible error(s) - required use of calibration charts, corrections, or instrument, constants

3. REQUIREMENT OF MANUFACTURER

- required name plate information and stamps, marks, and

seals affixed at the factory

4. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE

- installation requirements

- legally required auxiliary equipment and its minimum characteristics - in the case of approval of auxiliary equipment, identification of the measuring instruments in conjunction with which it may

be legally used

- Operating instructions

5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The summary lists the characteristics, attributes, and conditions of

the type that are subject to regulation.

M. LETTER OF NONCONFORMANCE

A letter of nonconformance will include the following information:

-applicant, manufacturer, manufacturer's type for which application was made

-applicable regulations

-specific components, and salient documents examined

-characteristics and the values of their parameters found to be

deficient as well as the corresponding acceptable values

-other conditions not fulfilled ( when there are many reasons for rejection, only the major reasons will be given)

When reasons for non-conformance are based on relatively small deficiencies or when deficiencies can be easily corrected, the letter may list changes that would make it acceptable ana, perhaps, invite resubmission

of the request after these changes have been made (see K.2).

95
N . APPEAL PROCESS.

If at any stage in the evaluation process, especially that involving a

decision to NOT issue a Certificate of Conformance or to WITHDRAW a

previously issued Certificate of Conformance, the manufacturer may

request review of the decision. The first level of review will be the NTEP Board of Governors. Tbe Board

will , if requested by the manufacturer, review the case and either

endorse the decision or pass it to the N3S for review. In their evaluation, the Board may request the advice of the Advisory Committee)

The second level of review will be the NBS. the issuer of the STEP

lertificates of Conformance. If the NBS confirms the recommendation of

tne NTEP. and the manufacturer disagrees at this stare, he may appeal

decision through the Federal 3-overnment t r : cess. 0. DISTRIBUTION OF OUTPUTS OF EVALUATION.

In all cases, a re::::: rite o: Conformance, a letter ::' n on cc-nt or m an ce

.

reports of evaluation and of conclusions and recommendations.

The Certificate of Conformance will also r>e sent t: all one States anc major jurisdictions. An Annual Rep- or: will oe puolishec in the proceedings of the NCWM. The content :f the report will also oe published

providing the following information:

1. Number assigned to the Certificate of Conformance

2. Date Certificate of Conformance is issued

4. Model designation

5. Brief description of model

6. Capacity

(END OF APPENDIX
APPENDIX C

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 20899 CERTIFICATE NO.

Page of (Ercttftntt? nf Qlnnformanr^

For Weighing and Measuring Devices

For: Submitted by:

Accuracy Class:.

Standard Features and Options

This device was evaluated under the NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

(NTEP) and founa to comply with the applicable technical requirements of NBS

HANDBOOK 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices". Evaluation results and device characteristics necessary for inspection and use in commerce are on the following pages. For further information, contact the National Bureau of Standards, address above, or telephone (301) 921-2401. NOTE: The National Bureau of Standards does not "approve", "recommend", or "endorse" any proprietory product or material, either as a single item or as a class or group. Results shall not be used in advertising or sales promotion to indicate explicit or

implicit endorsement of the product or material by the Bureau.

Date:

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures

97
REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

REFERENCE KEY

Presented by

Wesley R. Mossberg, Chairman

Director of Weights and Measures

County of Los Angeles, California

200 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Laws and Regulations submits its report to the 69th

Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM). This report is the amended interim report of the Committee

which was printed in the Conference Announcement.

The report contains the recommendations of the Committee formed on the

basis of written and oral comments received during the year.

All references are to National Bureau of Standards Handbook 130 "Uniform

Laws and Regulations". Paragraphs to be added or completely revised are

so identified. Partial changes to paragaraphs are shown as follows: wording to be deleted is shown lined out; wording to be added is underlined.

Abbreviations: UWML:

UPLR:

UMOSR:

URR:

UODR:

Uniform Weights and Measures Law

Uniform Packaging and Labeling

Regulation

Uniform Regulation for the Method of

Sale ofCommodities

Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary

Registration of Servicepersons and

Service Agencies for Commercial

Weighing and Measuring Devices

Uniform Open Dating Regulation

The report includes 20 Reference Key Items. Seven are recommendations

for specific action by the Conference and are to be voted on; they are

identified by printing their Reference Key Numbers and heading in bold

type. Thirteen are informational items only, not subject to vote;(although one information item was moved to a vote - see item 204-2); they are

identified by an asterisk next to their Reference Key Number. A complete

list of all items follows:

98
CONSENT VOTING ITEMS

These are voting items that were grouped in the final vote.

Handbook 130

201-1 References to Handbook 67 in UWML and UPLR

Uniform Weights and Measures Law

202-1 Section 13. Powers and Duties of Local Officials

Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

203-1 Sections 6.7.1. (d) Proviso and 6.7.2. Proviso - Random

Package Quantity Declaration

203-2 Multi-Unit, Combination, and Variety Packages - All Units

Clearly Visible Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

204-3 Peat, Peat Moss, Potting Soil, and Other Soil Amendments

SEPARATE VOTING ITEMS

These items were voted upon separately.

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

204-2* Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Combination Foods

204-5 Section 2.19. Gasoline-Alcohol Blends

Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of Seravicepersons and Service Agencies for Commeracial

Weighing and Measuring Devices

205-2 Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of

Servicepersons and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing

and Measuring Devices

(The results of voting appear at the end of each of these items.)

INFORMATION ITEMS

Handbook 130

201-2* Use of the term "Intrastate" in UWML and UPLR

Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

99
203-3* Section 7. Declaration of Quantity:

Nonconsumer Packages - Metric Only Labels

203-4* Survey on State Adoption of the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

204- 1* Section 1.5. Meat, Poultry, and Seafood

204-2* Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Combination Foods

204-4* Section 2.12. Polyethylene Products - Testing

in the Plant

204-6* Method of Sale of Petroleum Products

204-7* Review of the Uniform Regulation for the Method

of Sale of Commodities

Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of Service Persons and Service Agencies for Weighing and

Measuring Devices

205-1* Background and Discussion of URR

Uniform Open Dating Regulation

206* Uniform Open Dating Regulation

Other Items

207-1* Adoption of NBS Handbook 133

207-2* Policy and Guidlelines on Motor Fuel Deliveries

(Gas Pump) Price Posting Related to Cash

Discounts

(These items were adopted as part of the final report of the committee.)

201 HANDBOOK 130

201-1 REFERENCES TO HANDBOOK 67 IN UWML AND UPLR

(This item was carried over from the 68th NCWM, 1983, in which it was

Items 202-3 and 203-1.)

Section 11.13. of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law authorizes the Weights and Measures Director to "...employ recognized sampling

procedures, such as are designated in National Bureau of Standards

Handbook 67, 'Checking Prepackaged Commodities.' " Section 12.2 of the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation states that "the magnitude of variations permitted. ..shall be those expressly set forth in this regulation and those contained in the procedures and tables

of National Bureau of Standards Handbook 67, Checking Prepackaged

Commodities."

100
Progress towards transferring Handbook 133 from NBS to NCWM

responsibility is being made (see Item 207-1 in this report). Since the

NBS published Handbook 133, several States are using the procedures and

magnitude of variations set out in that document rather than

Handbook 67. Two proposals were studied:

1. Drop references to any handbook in both UWML and UPLR,

referring instead to "recognized sampling and testing

procedures."

2. Add references to Handbook 133 in both, i.e., "...in NBS

Handbook 67 or Handbook 133..." The Committee members do not favor the first proposal because

- "Recognized sampling and test procedures" raises the question of who

or what organization recognizes the procedures. Perhaps a trade

association could argue that their procedures are recognized and

thus represent the test against which packages must be judged.

- The need for national uniformity in test methods is not served by

recommending any recognized test methods.

Therefore, the Committee recommends the following addition to Section

11.13. of the UWML:

11.13. Weigh, measure, or inspect packaged commodities kept,

offered, or exposed for sale, sold, or in the process of delivery, to determine whether they contain the amounts represented and

whether they are kept, offered, or exposed for sale in accordance

with this Act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. In carrying out the provision of this section, the director shall employ recognized sampling procedures, such as are designated in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 67, "Checking Prepackaged

Commodities," or in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 133,

"Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods." The Committee further recommends the following addition to Section

12.2. of the UPLR:

12.2. MAGNITUDE OF PERMITTED VARIATIONS. — The magnitude

of variations permitted under Sections 12., 12.1., 12.1.1., and

12.1.2. of this regulation shall be those expressly set forth in this regulation and those contained in the procedures and tables of

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 67, "Checking Prepackaged

Commodities" or National Bureau of Standards Handbook 133,

"Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods." (Item 201-1 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

101
201-2* USE OF THE TERM "INTRASTATE" IN UWML AND UPLR

(This item was carried over from the 68th NCWM, 1983, in which it was

Item 201-4.)

Section 11.15. of the UWML (and Sec. 12.1.2. of the UPLR) recognize

reasonable variations from the stated quantity of contents "only after the

commodity has entered (is introduced into) intrastate commerce."

The Committee has been advised by the Special Study Group (see text of

item 201-4 in 1983 Report of the 68th NCWM) of an inconsistency with

Federal laws and regulations and of the possibility of undue burden on

interstate commerce if States enforce this part of the regulation, since

the quoted language is not part of the Federal requirements that

recognize reasonable variations for moisture loss. The changes recommended by the Study Group were: For the UWML:

11.15. Allow reasonable variations from the stated quantity of

contents, which shall include those caused by loss or gain of moisture

during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable

deviations in good manufacturing practice enly a&er the eemmedity has

ent-eped-ifttpastate-eem mepeer

For the UPLR:

Delete present wording in section 12.1.2. and replace with:

12.1.2. VARIATIONS RESULTING FROM EXPOSURE - The statement

of net quantity of contents as it is shown on a label shall not be false or misleading and shall express an accurate statement of the quantity

of the contents of the container exclusive of wrappers and packing

substances. Reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture

during the course of good distribution practices or by unavoidable

deviations in good manufacturing practice will be recognized. Variations

from stated quantity of contents shall not be unreasonably large.

(The proposed language for 12.1.2. is taken from Section 317.2 (h) (2) of

Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations as published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.)

The Committee discussed the Study Group's recommendations at some

length during the Interim Meetings. Several points were made:

Firstly, the Committee is agreed that there should be no inconsistency

among Federal and State laws and regulations governing the same

products; therefore, references to "only after the commodity has entered

(is introduced into) intrastate commerce" should be dropped.

102
Secondly, both the UWML and UPLR recommend an allowance for variations due to the loss or gain of moisture even though the Conference

is on record as supporting accurate net contents at retail. The

Committee members believe that the only way to resolve such an

apparent conflict is to acknowledge moisture loss only in those instances

when Federal laws and regulations make provision for moisture loss. The

State and local weights and measures agency has jurisdiction over packaged goods spanning both food and nonfood, consumer and nonconsumer products. Food, drugs, and cosmetics under such Federal laws

as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Wholesome Meat Act,

and the Wholesome Poultry Products Act require that moisture loss be

permitted. Pesticides under the Environmental Protection Act are not given allowances for moisture loss. Therefore, clarifying language to this effect is proposed for the UWML and UPLR.

Thirdly, recommended language for the UPLR proposed by the Study

Group would have given "variations resulting from exposure" (the title of

Section 12.1.2. of the UPLR) due to "unavoidable deviations in good

manufacturing practice." This, in the Committee members' opinions,

would permit moisture loss at point-of-pack — something the Committee

is strongly against.

Fourthly, the Committee members believe that references to "loss or gain

of moisture" as proposed for the UPLR is not broad enough to encompass

nonfood products under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission,

but that the present language of Section 12.1.2, "caused by ordinary and

customary exposure" is broad enough to include moisture loss or gain for food, drugs, and cosmetics, and can include solvent (not necessarily

moisture) loss for soaps and other similar consumer products under the

jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission.

Therefore, the Committee had planned to recommend the following

revision for Section 11.15 of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law:

11.15. Allow reasonable variations from the stated quantity of contents which shall include those caused by unavoidable deviations

in good manufacturing practice or by loss or gain of moisture

during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable

deviations in good manufacturing praetiee only a#ter the commodity

has entered intrastate eemmereey the latter variation only where

mandated by Federal law or regulation. The Committee further planned to propose the following revision of Section 12.1.2. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation:

12.1.2. VARIATIONS RESULTING FROM EXPOSURE. — Where

mandated by Federal law or regulation, reasonable variations from

the declared weight or measure shall be permitted when caused by

ordinary and customary exposure to conditions that normally occur

in good distribution practice and that unavoidably result in change

of weight or measure^ but eniy a£ter the commodity is introduced

into intrastate eemmereet Previdedy that the phrase "introduced

103
inte intrastate eemmefee- as asee in this ear-agrae-h sha£ be

eenstraed te define the time ana the aiaee at whieh the £i?at saie and aeitvepy el a aaekage is made wtthin the Stater the delivery

berfig-erthepr

(a-)—e^eetiy-te-the-etipahasep-ep-ta-his-agentT-ef

(e4 ta a earn men eaffiep lap shipment te the atLPahaaepy and

this paragraph shaiir be eenatfaed as req uiring thaty sa iang as a shipment? delivery? er iet e-f eaekages el a aaptiearap eemmeetty remains in the eessessien e-p yndep the eentrei el the aaekagep ep the aersen whe

intreatiees the eaekage inta intrastate eemmereer

e maesare - v ariatie ns- s hait- nat-be-aepmttt-e dr

During the Discussion Session of the Committee's report at the Annual

Meeting two issues were raised. First, the proposed terminology might be

interpreted as denying moisture loss to companies not shipping product

across State borders and therefore not under Federal jurisdiction. This

could unfairly burden local packers competing with packers doing

interstate commerce. Second, the deleted language in Section 12.1.2 of the UPLR had defined the point at which moisture loss co-old be

considered as beginning. Several Conference members expressed a desire

for the Committee to determine whether there could be some definition

reinserted as to when "good distribution practice" begins. Therefore, the

Committee recommends carrying this item over for further study and

review.

202 UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

202-1 SECTION 13. POWERS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL OFFICIALS

It has been brought to the attention of the Committee by Mr. D. Lynch,

Director of Weights and Measures Control for the City of Kansas City,

Kansas that Section 13 of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law

currently restricts the duties of local officials to those enumerated in Sections 11.9. through 11.13. of that law.

In fact, it may be necessary to delegate other responsibilities to local

officials as set forth in Section 11. For example, it may be necessary to establish open dating requirements (per Section 11.4.) for an urban area whereas such requirements are not seen as necessary in the rural State in which the urban area is located. The Committee members believe that Section 13 should be revised so as to permit delegating to local agencies

any power or duty not reserved to the State by law or regulation. Of

course, local agency ordinance or action may not in any way conflict with

State requirements. The Committee recommends the following revision: SECTION 13. POWERS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL OFFICIALS

Any weights and measures official appointed for a county or city

shall have the duties and powers enumerated in this act, excepting

t hose duties reserved to the State by law or regulation. Sections

104
llrdr through HdLd? and the powers enumerated in Seetien 42 of

this Aet? These powers and duties shall extend to their respective

jurisdictions, except that the jurisdiction of a county official shall not extend to any city for which a weights and measures official has been appointed. No requirement set forth by local agencies

may be less stringent than or in conflict with the requirements of

the State. (Item 202-1 was adopted as part of the consent calander.)

203 UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

203-1 SECTION 6.7.1. (d) PROVISO AND SECTION 6.7.2. PROVISO

- RANDOM PACKAGE QUANTITY DECLARATION

(This item was carried over from the 68th NCWM, 1983, in which it was

Item 203-2.)

It has been recommended that random package labels be permitted that would print label weights to three decimal places for pounds, for example, to 0.005 lb or to 0.002 lb. Scales indicating to 3 decimal

places in pounds are permitted in Handbook 44. The UPLR follows Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) regulations that permit declarations to no more than two decimal

places. The Committee has corresponded with both Federal agencies. The

FDA has responded saying that they do not see such labels as useful to the consumer. The USDA has responded that they do not oppose such a proposed change to the regulations but need data on the precision of such

devices and, of course, wish to move in a coordinated fashion with FDA.

In discussions at the Interim Meetings, the Committee was informed by

federal agency representatives that their interest in random package

labeling applied to packages moving in interstate commerce. Since

present applications of this weighing equipment are mainly in retail stores such as delicatessens and confectioners that wish to prepack packages

during slow over-the-counter sales periods, it is highly unlikely that such

random packages would enter interstate commerce. Therefore, the

Committee recommends changing the UPLR to permit random labels to three decimal places but adding information that this practice is prohibited if the packages enter interstate commerce (see recommended

footnote). The Committee believes there is valid reason to permit random

labels to be produced from these scales indicating to three decimal

places:

-Scales reading to three decimal places are more precise and

accurate than those reading to two, permitting better inventory

control for the scale user, and better resolution of tare and less money value error for the consumer. With many food items

approaching $20 per lb, the additional precision is warranted.

-It is inconsistent to permit better precision for direct sales but not

in prepackaged sales.

105
The recommended revision is as follows:

6.7. PRESCRIBED UNITS, INCH-POUND SYSTEM —

6.7.1. LESS THAN 1 FOOT, 1 SQUARE FOOT, 1 POUND, OR 1 PINT. —The declaration of quantity shall be expressed in terms of

(a) in the case of length measure of less than 1 foot, inches and

fractions of inches;

(b) in the case of area measure of less than 1 square foot,

square inches and fractions of square inches;

(c) in the case of weight of less than 1 pound, ounces and

fractions of ounces;

(d) in the case of liquid measure of less than 1 pint, fluid ounces and fractions of fluid ounces;

Provided, that the quantity declaration appearing on a random

package may be expressed in terms of decimal fractions of the

largest appropriate unit, the fraction being carried out to not more than two- three* decimal places.

6.7.2. WEIGHT: DUAL QUANTITY DECLARATION.—On packages

containing 1 pound or more but less than 4 pounds, the declaration

shall be expressed in ounces and, in addition, shall be followed by

a declaration in parentheses expressed in terms of the largest

whole unit: Provided, that the quantity declaration appearing on a random package may be expressed in terms of pounds and decimal

fractions of the pound carried out to not more than two three*

decimal places.

Add the following as a footnote:

Random packages entering interstate commerce are restricted by

Federal regulations to two decimal place quantity declarations. For

example, see 9 CFR 101.105 (j)(2) for meat and meat products, 21

CFR 101.105(j)(2) for non-meat and non-poultry foods and 16 CFR

500.9(b) for certain nonfood consumer commodities.

The Committee also seeks the assistance of the Committee on Liaison in continuing to recommend to Federal agencies changes of their regulations

to permit random labels to three decimal places.

(Item 203-1 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

203-2 MULTI-UNIT, COMBINATION, AND VARIETY PACKAGES

-ALL UNITS CLEARLY VISIBLE

It has been proposed to eliminate requirements for a total quantity

statement for multi-unit, combination, and variety packages (Sections

10.4., 10.5., and 10.6.) if the outer wrapping is completely transparent and

each individual item inside the outer wrapping is clearly visible and

106
complies with all labeling requirements. Such exemption already exists in FDA regulations for open multi-unit retail packages.

Relatively simple combinations of food or nonfood package combinations were shown to the Committee as examples of packages that were

individually labeled and clearly exposed in a rectangular gift box. The

industry spokesman argued that, if total quantity statements were not

required, changes could be made based on materials supply (substitution of tea varieties and weights, for example) without having to reprint the gift

package label. However, the Committee members were aware of

multi-unit, combination, and variety packages in which a total quantity of contents declaration was important:

-The principal display panels on individual units may become obscured

by decorative packing materials or because the units shift in the

package.

-More than three or four units in a package makes a value

comparison difficult because of the arithmetic required to add all the units' net weights (or other measure).

-Many gift packages are irregular in shape and require substantial

manipulation to determine all the individual units in the package.

The Committee members feel that requirements for a declaration of total quantity of contents for multi-unit, combination, and variety packages as

set out in Sections 10.4. through 10.6. of the UPLR are adequate and

should be retained. In addition, the Committee recommends adding the

following footnote to Section 10.4. Multi-Unit Packages:

Open multi-unit retail food packages under the authority of the Food

and Drug Administration that do not obscure the number of units or prevent examination of the labeling on each of the individual units are not required to declare the number of individual units or the

total quantity of contents of the multi-unit package if the labeling

of each individual unit complies with requirements so that it is capable of being sold individually. (See also Section 11.12.)

The Committee would like to emphasize that no changes are being

proposed to the sections on multi-unit, combination, and variety packages.

All that is being proposed is the addition of a footnote that would provide

information on existing regulations under FDA on open multi-unit food

packages.

(Item 203-2 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

203-3* SECTION 7. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY: NONCONSUMER

PACKAGES-METRIC ONLY LABELS

(This item was carried over from the 68th NCWM, 1983, in which it was

Item 203-3.)

The American National Metric Councils Chemicals and Allied Products

Sector Committee has made significant progress in planning for conversion

to the metric system. The Conference is on record as endorsing the

changeover to metric. Both the Federal government (FDA and FTC) and

107
many States require inch-pound labeling on consumer packages in order to provide full information and to reduce consumer confusion. The UPLR

would permit nonconsumer packages to appear with metric-only labeling.

As the result of a survey conducted by the Committee last year, it was

discovered that a few States would not permit nonconsumer packages to appear with only metric declarations.

The Committee members understand that there are nonconsumer packages

intended for institutional or small business use that find their way into the retail trade. It is also understood that the small businessman

deserves as much protection afforded by regulations as does the consumer. However, the Committee members feel that it should not be

the intent of the State packaging and labeling regulations to preclude the

sale between industries and sale for export of industrial chemicals and raw

materials with metric labeling only. Both the ANMC and the Committee

explored the possibility of better defining what is meant by ''nonconsumer

packages." No single definition was entirely satisfactory.

The Committee has decided to take up this issue with the individual States that reported in last year's questionnaire that they could not permit the use of metric-only labels on nonconsumer packages. The

Committee wishes to determine whether at the present time or in the

future industrial chemicals and products of a similar nature could be

shipped in commerce with metric-only labels. 203-4* SURVEY ON STATE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM

REGULATION

As part of its long range plan, a review of the Uniform Packaging and

Labeling Regulation is being undertaken by the Committee. The first step

in the review is the intercomparison of the UPLR with present State requirements. The Committee's technical advisor was asked to make this intercomparison. The text of this intercomparison appears as Appendix A

to this report. The Committee thanks all those weights and measures

officials who reviewed the material in the interim report and submitted

corrections including citations to the Committee.

204 UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF

COMMODITIES

204-1* SECTION 1.5. MEAT, POULTRY, AND SEAFOOD

The Southern Weights and Measures Association has recommended changes

to Section 1.5. of the UMOSR. The ''fast food'' industy is, to a

significant degree, in competition with retail grocery stores. ''Fast food'' outlets are specifically exempted from having to sell their meat, poultry,

and seafood products by weight if their products fall under Section 1.5.(b) and (c). In fact, weights and measures jurisdictions have generally not enforced method of sale requirements in the restaurant trade.

108
It has been observed that many retail grocery or convenience stores are

selling ready-to-eat chicken parts from delicatessen or similar counters. Because these grocery or convenience stores do not sell items for consumption on the premises (they do not have tables and chairs or restaurant licenses), they do not qualify for the exemption under Section

1.5(b). One State has received complaints trom grocery and convenience

store retailers that much of the food purchased at "fast food" outlets is not intended for consumption on the premises either, but is "carry-out" in nature. These retailers would like to enter into more direct competition

with "fast food" outlets by not having to sell their ready-to-eat items by

weight, since "fast food" outlets are so exempted. The State proposes

that a special exemption be provided for ready-to-eat chicken parts only

since this is the most common item found in direct competition with

"fast food" outlets, since ready-to-eat chicken parts are sold nationally by

count, and since it is important to avoid a generalization to other

delicatessen and convenience store items that could be considered

ready-to-eat.

In addition, it was pointed out to the Committee that the term "several"

in Section 1.5.(c) is vague in describing what comprises a ready-to-eat

meal.

It was also argued that Section 1.5.(d) only provides options for the sale of meat, poultry, or seafood in a sandwich but does not address the

method of sale of sandwiches in general. After study of the entire

section, the Committee has concluded that this latter defect is the

problem with Section 1.5.(b) and (c) as well; that is, that across the

nation items sold for consumption on the premises and ready-to-eat meals

are generally excluded from sale by weight even if meat, poultry, or seafood is not part of the item or meal.

Finally, the Committee notes that the title to Section 1.5. MEAT,

POULTRY, AND SEAFOOD should be broadened to include fish that may

be from fresh water. The term "seafood" only applies to marine fish and

shellfish. In order to accommodate all these issues, the Committee is planning to recommend revision of Section 1.5. and the addition of a new section

and footnote. However, the Committee invites comments by letter and

from the floor at the annual meeting on this complicated but important

subject. Therefore, the Committee will carry over this item in order to receive more input. The proposed changes are:

1.5. MEAT, POULTRY, FISH, AND SEAFOOD.* — Shall be sold by

weight, except that shellfish the #eiiewiftg7 whieh may be sold by

weight, measure, or county

i l np r>1 Ififih m \£XJ SrflwZXZ TSSTTj

(b)—items-sold-ler-eensumptien-en-the-pfemisest

109
(e) items se^d as ene en sevepai elements eem prisin g a Feadv-t^-eat meal sale as a unit fep eens-amatle-n eiaewftep-e

fcban-en-tfie-ppemises-whep-e-seldt

- -ite ms sold - as- p art- e£- a aondwic hr

1.5.1. In Combination With Other Foods

When meat, poultry, fish, or seafood is combined with some other

food element to form a distinctive food product, the quantity

representation may oe in terms of the total weight of the product

or combination, and a quantity representation need not be made for each element.

1.5.1.1. Stuffed Poultry or Meat Products

In the case of ready-to-cook stuffed poultry or meat products, the

label must show the total net weight of the stuffed poultry or meat product and the minimum net weight of the poultry or meat

in the product excluding the meat or poultry that may be part of the stuffing.

Add the following footnote:

*See Section 1.12. for additional exemptions for ready-to-eat food. Add the following newr section:

1.12. READY-TO-EAT FOOD. — The following may be sold by

weight measure, or count:

(a) items sold for consumption on the premises;

(b) items sold as one of three or more different elements.

excluding condiments, comprising a ready-to-eat meal sold

as a unit, for consumption elsewhere than on the premises

where sold;

(c) ready-to-eat chicken parts cooked on the premises but not packaged in advance of sale;

(d) sandwiches and sandwich-like commodities when offered or exposed for sale on the premises where packed or produced and not intended for resale. 204-2* ICE CREAM AND FROZEN DESSERT COMBINATION FOODS

(This item was carried over from the 63th NCWM, 1983, in which it was

Item 204-2.)

There have been questions about appropriate labeling and package test methods for ice cream and frozen dessert novelties such as sandwiches,

cones, etc. The Committee had hoped to convince the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) that frozen dessert foods comprised of a combination of items (ice cream, cookies, coatings, nuts, etc.) might be

classified as combination foods and thus be subject to a net weight

declaration. The FDA nas provided their opinion that there exists a firmly established trade custom for ice cream and other frozen dessert

foods to be sold in terms of fluid volume.

110
In addition, it was reported by Mr. John Speer, president of the

International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers (IAICM) at the

interim meeting that IAICM was unsuccessful in devising an audit test procedure (based on weighing) applicable to the broad array of frozen

dessert novelties in the marketplace.

Since the Committee was not successful in its efforts to require frozen

desserts to bear net weight declarations, it seems appropriate to transmit

the findings of the Committee for use by weights and measures enforcement officials as well as provide information on the examination

and testing of packaged frozen dessert novelties.

Net contents declarations: A fluid volume declaration (e.g., 3 fl oz) is acceptable for the ice cream or ice-cream-like portion of a frozen

novelty.

If flavorings such as nuts, chips, cookies, fruit, or similar materials are mixed with or are in such close association with the ice cream portion

that they cannot be separated from the ice cream portion (such as syrup

toppings or ice cream rolled in nuts or chips), these materials are included as part of the fluid volume declaration.

If cookies, cones, wafers, or other foods are part of a frozen dessert

novelty but can be separated from the novelty (such as an ice cream

sandwich or ice cream cone), these are not part of the fluid volume

declaration. The Food and Drug Administration considers a count of these

parts of the dessert novelty to be acceptable for declaration purposes

(e.g., 3 fl oz ice cream plus 2 cookies).

Net contents test procedure: Below are listed equipment and procedure

(as provided by the California Department of Measurement Standards) for testing ice cream in single serving sizes. Equipment:

1. One quart of kerosene.

2. One accurately graduated wide mouth glass tube graduated in fluid ounces, i.e., the mouth opening must be large enough to admit the

sandwich or bar.

3. One glass rod, pipette, or metal wire.

4. One deep freeze box, or available use of same.

Procedure:

1. Leave sandwiches or products in a deep freeze box, the colder the

better, until they are thoroughly frozen. This is the only way you

can remove the paper and cookie, if any, from the ice cream

portion.

Ill
2. Pour a sufficient amount of kerosene into your glass tube leaving room for six (6) fluid ounces of measurable overflow; e.g., if using a 32-fluid ounce tube, put in 26 fluid ounces of kerosene. Take an

accurate reading of the level of the kerosene.

Kerosene is recommended because it is the cheapest product

obtainable that ice cream will not emulsify or mix with.

3. Remove all tare material from the dessert including cookies, cones, and wafers that can be pried from the frozen dessert

ice-cream-like portion and gently drop the ice cream into the

kerosene. Make sure you scrape all ice cream from tare material

or cookies and also drop this into the kerosene.

4. You will find that the ice cream will float. Take glass rod,

pipette, or wire and gently submerge the ice cream below the

level of the kerosene.

5. Take an accurate reading of the new level of the kerosene in the

tube. The increase in level is the amount of displacement of the

ice cream or the "net contents" in fluid ounces. Caution: Kerosene test should be conducted in well ventilated area.

It was brought to the Committee's attention that its recommendations in this report will result in differences in compliance test results: o The ice cream portion cannot always be separated cleanly from

other components of the novelty. o One weights and measures official may decide that certain

components of a novelty can be separated from the ice cream and

another official may decide that they cannot be separated.

Based on information supplied to it by the IAICM, the Committee is persuaded of the need for a method of sale for ice cream and frozen

dessert novelties. The Committee believes that a total fluid volume

declaration (rather than fluid volume of ice cream plus count of cookies,

for example) should be recommended for inclusion in the Uniform

Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities. (The Committee

Chairman reported orally during the voting session that the Committee

felt limited by the FDA requirement that the ice cream portion be

labeled by fluid volume.)

However, because this approach would be a substantive change from the

Committee^ recommendation in its interim report, the Committee alerts the Conference to its intentions and recommends that this item be carried over at this time.

The Committee requests that weights and measures officials and industry

field test a total-fluid-volume test method and report their findings to the

Committee before the next interim meeting, January 1985. (This test procedure would be the same as the one printed as part of this report

deleting step 3 in that procedure.)

112
(A motion was made to debate this item; it did not receive a majority of votes to debate. The Committee offered to put the item before the

floor for debate. A split vote returned the item to the Committee for further consideration.)

204-3 PEAT, PEAT MOSS, POTTING SOIL, AND OTHER SOIL

AMENDMENTS

(This item was carried over from the 68th NCWM, 1983, in which it was

Items 204-3 and 204-8.)

At the 1983 annual meeting, arguments were made from the floor that the declaration of weight for soil amendment organics in general, and

especially for potting soil, peat humus, composted cow manure, and peat

moss, was not a meaningful declaration for the consumer who buys such

products by their expected coverage to a given depth or similar

volumetric usage. Permitting either volume declarations or weight

declarations, in fact, impedes value comparisons by consumers. Therefore,

it was proposed to eliminate weight as a permitted declaration (other than

supplemental) in Section 2.4.2. (PEAT AND PEAT MOSS) of the UMOSR,

and to add a new section to the UMOSR requiring sale by cubic measure

for potting soil, peat humus, and composted cow manure. Any method of sale requirement in this general area is complicated by

several factors: Existing State regulations require that fertilizers and products that make claims as to their nutrient value be labeled by weight. Packages

of composted cow manure generally claim nitrogen, phosphorus, and

potassium values, requiring that they be sold by weight. If a method

of sale by volume is proposed for all products not making nutrient

claims, the consumer would still be thwarted in making value

comparisons between products making claims and similarly used

products making no claims.

The terminology used to describe and distinguish these products is ambiguous. For example, one industry representative classified these

products as "single component organics" (peat humus, peat moss, composted cow manure, leaf mold), "composted organics" (peat moss),

and "combined component organics" ("complete" potting soils). Another

manufacturer of "soilless mixes and conditioners" mentioned

formulations containing peat moss, vermiculite, perlite, bark, and

granite sand. The Committee notes that the identity statements of these products is as varied: "growing medium", "redi-mix", "peat-lite

mix". An inspector will have a certain amount of difficulty

distinguishing what type of product is being testing since the identity statements are so irregular.

- According to potting soil industry spokesmen, volumetric fill is common

in the smaller sizes (4-8 quart), but filling by weight is the most

economic for larger packages. A representative from the West Coast

peat moss industry said that that segment of the industry would

113
oppose requirements for labeling by weight since the weight of a given volume of sphagnum peat is much less than an equal volume of peat humus. There appears to be some agreement among industry

representatives that the potting soil mixes are very easily compacted,

although at the time of pack the weight/volume relationship is well defined. Requiring potting soil mixes and "single component organics"

to be labeled by volume will require testing similar to that for peat

and peat moss — sifting through a mesh to "refluff" the product so that it becomes similar to its density at time of pack. Standard

methods of test do not now exist for soil mixes, but could probably

be derived from the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) Test Method D2978-71 "Standard Method of Test for Volume

of Peat Materials." The Committee must assume that weights and measures officials testing soil mixes and similar products already

labeled by volume are using the ASTM test method mentioned above,

but has no specific information to this effect.

In conclusion, the Committee members believe that this is a complicated

area requiring several issues to be resolved:

1. It is true that labeling of similarly used products by weight or by

volume impedes consumers from making value comparisons. However,

certain similarly used products must be labeled by weight

(fertilizers, cow manure). Therefore, requiring all similarly used

products to be labeled by volume will require two declarations in some instances. The Committee does not know if this would be

prohibited by other existing regulations in this area.

2. Although there is the possibility of adding water and sand in order

to add to the weight of certain products, no standards currently

exist for maximum moisture content or ash content for these

products (as has been established for peat and peat moss products).

3. If standardization in the method of sale is perceived as important, some standardization in identity will be necessary. It is not possible

at the present time to definitively distinguish these products solely

by their statement of identity.

In conclusion, no information as to the extent of the problem or background material such as specific test data or marketplace labeling

examples has been provided that will enable the Committee to make any

firm recommendations at this time. Last year, the Committee reported

that no weights and measures jurisdiction or other party indicated a problem with current labeling practices. Since then, one manufacturer

has recommended a volume labeling or volume plus weight labeling

requirement giving examples of possible soil mixes which all weighed the same but filled different volumes. One weights and measures official also spoke at the discussion session of the Annual Meeting in favor of volume

labeling. The Committee is still not convinced, based on the evidence

brought before it, that there is a serious enough problem to warrant the

many steps necessary to achieve standardization in this field.

114
Therefore, the Committee recommends no further action on these

products at this time.

(Item 204-3 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

204-4* SECTION 2.12. POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTS - TESTING IN THE PLANT

At the 68th annual meeting, representatives from California, Louisiana,

Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas (major polyethylene

sheeting manufacturers are located in these States) met informally with

two representatives of the polyethylene packaging industry. Since then, at least three industry representatives have written either the Conference or individual States requesting assistance to monitor the industry by testing

agricultural and construction polyethylene sheeting and film in the

manufacturing plant and warehouse. They contend that because of the

extremely competitive nature of their business and because few weights

and measures enforcement agencies are checking the accuracy of the

labels, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deliver accurately labeled

packages of polyethylene and successfully compete.

During the fall, four States collected information on polyethylene

packages. One State that tested sheeting by net weight found 81% of the

176 lots they checked to be short weight. A second State checked the

sheeting by length, width, net weight, and thickness. This State found

only three out of eleven lots to meet the labeled net weight, but none of the lots met the labeled thickness. Shortages in thickness ranged from -3 to -34% of the thickness declared on the package.

Obviously a serious situation exists. The Committee met with representatives of the Flexible Packaging

Association and other polyethylene sheeting representatives at the interim

meeting. These industry spokesmen requested in-plant inspection and

enforcement action on every manufacturer not meeting label requirements. They expressed their frustration that not every

manufacturer's product was being tested and that what testing was being

performed was infrequent, at best. The Committee wishes to call this problem to the attention of the entire

weights and measures enforcement community.

The Office of Weights and Measures will make available to anyone who

requests it a packet of materials that explains in greater detail the nature of the problem, how to test the product, where the major

manufacturers are located, and some of the preliminary test results. This

material will be sent to all those States in which manufacturers are located and their continuing assistance in testing this product will be

sought. Obviously, not every jurisdiction can test the gauge thickness of

the sheeting but even net weight tests will indicate serious shortages. The

Committee members believe that this is a unique opportunity to assist an

industry in stamping out unfair trade practices and that weights and measures enforcement agencies should help in every way they can.

115
Mr. S. E. Weary of the Flexible Packaging Association notified the

Conference at its Annual Meeting that the American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM) has just adopted a new standard, ASTM D4397, on

polyethylene, that will replace the old Voluntary Product Standard (VPS)

17-69 that was withdrawn several years ago. Although this change will not substantively affect the information in Section 2.12.7. of the Uniform

Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities concerning the net weight declaration of polyethylene products, it should be of great interest to the weights and measures community that there now exists a voluntary

standard for polyethylene sheeting. Plans for private laboratory testing

and certification of polyethylene sheeting as meeting this ASTM standard were also announced.

204-5 SECTION 2.19. GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLENDS

The NCWM adopted a one percent ethanol/methanol in gasoline labeling

guideline in 1983. The guideline is: All motor fuel kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold containing

at least one percent by volume ethanol or methanol should be

identified on the motor fuel dispenser as "with" or "containing"

("ethanol"), ("methanol") or ("ethanol/methanol") or similar wording.

It was proposed that the guideline adopted last year be made a section of

the UMOSR, and include minimum type size and wording for the pump

face label. It was also proposed that the Committee encourage the work

of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) to arrive at (1) limits for alcohol/gasoline mixtures based on performance tests and (2) test methods for determination of the overall quality of alcohol/gasoline

mixtures.

In discussions held and presentations made at the interim meeting, all parties generally supported labeling of alcohol-gasoline blends. They also generally agreed that the gasoline-alcohol blend to be most wary of was

methanol and gasoline with no cosolvent added to the blend. A proposal was made that the maximum amount of alcohol be labeled on the pump

face including information as to the presence of a cosolvent. Part of the

rationale behind this proposal is that reporting a maximum percentage

would permit the retailer to vary what is put into his storage tanks but

not beyond the labeled amounts. Another proposal was made that gasoline

without alcohol be so labeled. A third proposal was made that fuel approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or fuel meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) be so labeled. The Committee members believe that labeling as to the presence of ethanol or methanol in gasoline should be kept simple. The recommended

guideline sets a minimum level of alcohol for labeling purposes. Recommendations as to labeling the maximum alcohol content is no more

precise since the actual content may be somewhere between the minimum

and maximum. Labeling the maximum percentage of alcohol, or the

presence of cosolvents, or that the blend meets EPA or ASTM standards,

116
although important and to be encouraged, must be accompanied by consumer education as to what such figures or labeling mean and

information as to how a retailer can safely remain within the labeling

limits. The Committee does not believe that requirements should be added to label gasoline not containing alcohol as "contains no alcohol" because this may stifle the development and use of gasoline-alcohol blends by implying

that gasoline should not contain alcohol. Mr. L.M. Gibbs, of Chevron Research Company and Chairman of the

Oxygenated Compounds Study Group of ASTM Committee D-2 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants gave an update at the interim

meetings on the work of this group in developing a specification for gasoline-oxygenate blends. (Alcohols — such as ethanol and methanol —are "oxygenates.") He said that it is planned to incorporate the

necessary specifications into the existing specification ASTM D439 for "Automotive Gasoline," and retitle D439 "Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel." There is a great amount of work to be done towards this goal:

-Performance, including driveability, must be correlated with the

properties of these blends. -The test methods that have been developed must be tested,

-Several test methods have to be developed.

At the present time it is expected that modifications to D439 will be

advisory in nature concerning oxygenate blends. The Committee recommends that the new Task Force on Motor Fuel

consider close association or active participation with this vital activity. State and local officials need to be aware of the test method to detect

alcohol (methanol or ethanol) at the one percent level. The following

method will not detect what kind of alcohol is present. It is estimated

that if the procedure is carefully followed, it should be possible to detect

alcohol content close to the one percent level. The following method is derived from an appendix to "Proposed

Specification for Gasohol and Leaded Gasohol" (which has no status as an ASTM standard but is published on behalf of ASTM Committee D-2 for information only).

FIELD TEST FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL ETHANOL,

METHANOL, AND WATER CONTENT IN GASOLINE

This method was primarily developed as a field procedure to determine

the total combined ethanol, methanol, and water content of a fuel sample. Its applicability to blends containing higher alcohols has not yet

been established.

117
Summary of Method

A sample of fuel is shaken at room temperature with ethylene glycol. The

change in volume of the ethylene glycol layer is related to the amount of

alcohol (ethanol or methanol) and water in the fuel. Apparatus

Graduated Glass Mixing Cylinder, glass-stoppered, 100-mL with 1-mL

graduations. This must be capable of accepting a total volume of at

least 110 mL with the stopper in place.

Pipet, volumetric, 10 mL.

Pipet Filler or Bulb. Reagents

Ethylene Glycol, Specification D2693, or Reagent Grade, with 0.02 g/1000

mL methyl violet dye added (methylene blue or other water soluble dyes

may also be used). Note that commercially available "antifreeze" is not pure ethylene glycol and is not a suitable substitute or ethylene glycol.

Acetone, commercial grade.

Precautionary Statements

Gas-Alcohol Blend — Volatile and extremely flammable. Harmful or fatal

if swallowed. Keep away from heat, sparks, or open flame. Keep

container closed, use only in well-ventilated area. Avoid prolonged or repeated breathing of vapor or contact with skin or eyes. If swallowed,

do not induce vomiting. Call a physician immediately.

Ethylene Glycol — Harmful or fatal if swallowed. If swallowed, induce

vomiting immediately. Call a physician immediately. Wash thoroughly

after handling.

Acetone — Extremely flammable. May cause eye and skin irritation. Keep away from heat, sparks, or open flame. Keep container closed. Use

with adequate ventilation. Avoid prolonged or repeated breathing of

vapors. Avoid contact with eyes and skin. Preparation of Apparatus

Clean the graduated cylinder thoroughly before carrying out this test as

follows:-Remove traces of fuel and ethylene glycol from the graduated

cylinder and stopper by flushing twice with acetone and drain dry.

-Rinse twice with sample of fuel to be tested and drain. -Clean pipet by filling twice with acetone, drain, and air dry using

the bulb.

118
Procedure

Measure 100 mL of fuel sample to be tested into the graduated mixing

cylinder at room temperature.

Pipet 10 mL of ethylene glycol into the cylinder and stopper the cylinder.

(Caution—Draw ethylene glycol into the pipet using the pipet filler or

bulb. Do not suck with mouth.)

Invert the cylinder holding the stopper with a finger and shake the

cylinder back and forth for 15 s using about 10-in strokes for a total of

25 back and forth strokes. Immediately place the cylinder on a vibration-free surface, and allow the contents to settle undisturbed for 5 min.

Record the volume of the ethylene glycol/alcohol layer in the bottom of

the cylinder to the nearest 0.2 mL.

Calculation

Calculate the volume percentage of alcohol using a previously prepared

calibration curve. This should preferably be developed using appropriate

mixtures (that is 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 20%) of the specified denatured

alcohol and blended into the base gasoline. For field use, if the gasoline

or alcohol source is not known, an average of a number of such curves may be used. In case of dispute, chromatographic procedures will be

required.

Precision

Repeatability — Duplicate results by the same operator for fuel containing

10% denatured ethanol should be considered suspect if they differ by more

than 1.0 mL. Results for other blends should be of similar repeatability.

METHOD OF SALE REQUIREMENTS

Based on further discussions during the NCWM Annual Meeting, the

Committee is persuaded that invoicing requirements must be added to any

pump labeling requirement for posting of the presence of ethanol or methanol in gasoline.

The Committee still believes that recommending labeling of the maximum

amount of alcohol in a motor fuel is premature at this time:

o The field test method recommended in the Committee's report may

not be accurate enough for enforcement of a posting requirement as

to the maximum percent alcohol content. The majority of States must presently rely on this field test method as its only tool for compliance testing. o The Committee believes that the gasoline retailer will have an enormous variety of blends to select from very soon, making any

posting of alcohol content meaningless in terms of accuracy.

o The Committee's recommendation does not preclude additional

voluntary labeling information and consumer education efforts as to percentage amounts, meeting ASTM standards, etc.

119
The Committee recommends the following section be added to the

UMOSR:

2.19. GASOLINE - ALCOHOL BLENDS

2.19.1. Method of Retail Sale - All motor fuel kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, at retail containing at least one percent

by volume of ethanol, methanol, or a combination shall be

identified as "with," "containing," (or similar wording) "ethanol,"

"methanol" or "ethanol/methanol" on the dispenser front panel in a

position clear and conspicuous from the driver's position, in a type

at least one-half the size of the product identity but in no case

less than one half inch in height, 1/16 inch stroke (width of type).

2.19.2. Documentation in Wholesale Transactions - At any point in the wholesale distribution chain, there must be disclosed, at the

time of delivery of the fuel, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation, the presence and amount of

oxygenates (in terms of percent by weight) contained in the fuel; Provided that the term "oxygenates" means any oxygen-containing

compound (such as an alcohol or an ether.)

(A motion was made to amend this item by adding to Section 2.19.1. that

the "maximum volume percent of the ethanol or methanol and cosolvent"

be required to be posted. The Chair recognized a majority vote to debate. The motion to amend was defeated. A second motion was made

to change the size of lettering required by Section 2.19.1. by deleting

the requirement for it to be "one-half the size of product identity." The

Chair recognized a majority vote to debate, but the motion to amend was

defeated. A third motion was made to change the requirement for "percent by weight" to "percent by volume" in Section 2.19.2. The Chair

recognized a majority vote to debate, but the motion to amend was

defeated. A fourth motion was made to delete Section 2.19.2. The

Chair recognized a majority vote to debate, but the motion to amend was

defeated. Finally, Item 204-5 was adopted.)

204-6* METHOD OF SALE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

For several years, a great deal of controversy has accompanied proposals

emanating from the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) and

from the Committee on Laws and Regulations (L&R) pertaining to temperature adjustment cf petroleum products. The S&T Committee has

wrestled with the Vehicle Tank Meter Code of Handbook 44 (1979, 1980,

1982, 1983). The L&R Committee proposed a method of sale requirement

for home heating oil (1980). All proposals to change existing NCWM

Handbooks were defeated. The Western Weights and Measures Association

proposed that the L&R Committee again take up the issue of a method

of sale, requiring the sale of liquid petroleum products to be in terms of a gallon defined as 231 cubic inches at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

Everyone on the Committee recognizes the inherent physical

characteristics of liquids — that a given volume of liquid will change

when the temperature of the liquid is changed. What is not so well agreed upon is how to handle the economic and political aspects of this

issue. For example, LPG is usually sold today on a temperature adjusted

120
basis but there is great resistance to home heating oil being sold that way. Requiring automatic temperature adjustment by an entire industry

appears to be a major stumbling block; few favor the use of look-up

tables and manual corrections; and yet, there seems to be an obvious

inequity when some sales of a given amount of product in a given State

are on a temperature-adjusted basis and others not. The Committee had planned to study whether there were areas of agreement within the weights and measures community on the regulation

of certain commodities, as complicated by the status of certain

technologies, and on the cost-benefit of changing existing practices within

certain segments of the industry (LPG, gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, etc.). For example, the following questions were to be explored:

-Should a method of sale be applicable to only certain petroleum

products (e.g., LPG)?

-Should a method of sale be applicable only when temperature

adjustment can be made automatically (as opposed to table look-ups)?

-Should small delivery sizes (e.g., less than 30-50 gallons) be exempted

from temperature adjustment?

After discussion with representatives of the American Petroleum Institute and the National LP Gas Association, the Committee was persuaded that

temperature adjustment should be addressed as a whole (rather than

piece-meal), and that the entire Conference membership should be exposed

to the latest information and have the opportunity to debate the issues long before Committee action in this area (and that a position on such a

pervasive subject cannot be developed in a short time). It was pointed out that the Temperature Compensation Symposium held in 1979 was not

held as part of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM) annual meeting, and that many weights and measures officials were not therefore able to hear all aspects of the issue. The L&R

Committee therefore proposes to carry this item over, without making any

recommendation at the present time, in order for the entire Conference

to review alternative solutions, and to plan an NCWM approach to the

issues. The technical, legal, and economic issues, alternatives, and

constraints will be aired at the annual meeting this July and a consensus

will be sought by circulating a questionnaire during the meeting.

The Committee is aware that this issue may become part of the

deliberations of the newly established Task Force on Motor Fuel at some

future time. However, the focus of the new task force is presently

intended to be on gasoline and alcohol/gasoline mixtures only. The

Committee members believe that the issue of temperature adjustment of petroleum products in general should be aired before the NCWM

membership.

204-7* REVIEW OF THE UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD

OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

(This item was carried over from the 68th NCWM, 1983, in which it was

Item 204-1.)

121
Last year, as a result of the intercomparison of existing State requirements with the UMOSR, it was determined that fewer than ten

States had adopted more than 50% of the Uniform Regulation. The

Committee decided to review the UMOSR in order to determine whether

certain sections of the uniform regulation were still needed since so few

States had adopted these sections. After some discussion, the Committee

members agreed that the usefulness of the UMOSR cannot be gauged only

by how well or how poorly each section has been adopted across the

nation. Both Committee members and State representatives present at these discussions agreed that the NCWM UMOSR is a national standard to which most States refer when asked by packagers, retailers, and other

types of businesses as to how to sell any given commodity. States encourage packagers and manufacturers planning to market a product

interstate to refer to the UMOSR and UPLR for answers to their questions concerning proper methods of sales and package marking. Thus,

the UMOSR, although all sections have not been widely adopted as State

regulations, is a standard of practice that the Committee feels strongly

should be retained. Unfortunately, a voluntary standard of practice is not

enforceable. Therefore, the Committee members continue to encourage

individual States to consider when updating their weights and measures

law, the automatic citation provisions added to the UWML (see Item

202-1 of the Committee^ 1983 report). Alternatively, States should

consider adoption of the most recent version of the UMOSR,

205 UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION

OF SERVICEPERSONS AND SERVICE AGENCIES FOR

COMMERCIAL WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES

205-1* BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

(This item was carried over from the 68th NCWM, 1983, in which it was

Item 205.)

After several years of work, (see especially 1982 and 1983 Committee

Reports) the Committee is prepared to recommend a major revision of the

URR.

The major changes proposed for the existing regulation are: -Registration will explicitly depend upon the qualifications of each

applicant.

-Minimum equipment requirements are established by referencing the

NOTES sections of Handbook 44. -The certificate of registration will automatically expire at the end

of one year. -The responsibilities of the registered serviceperson are enumerated.

-Calibration of equipment by other State weights and measures

laboratories is recognized.

122
-Informal reciprocity with respect to other voluntary registration

programs has been dropped (due to the difficulty of managing

record keeping and operating procedures).

-What action or failure of action constitutes a violation of the

regulation is described.

The Committee was asked to retain registration of agencies (rather than

just persons). The Committee has responded by inserting in the

regulations the registration of agency and persons along with the

registration of persons. The Committee members believe that registration of the agency only (without regard to servicepersons employed by the

agency) will not permit monitoring of the quality of each individual's work, a key ingredient in successful operation of a registration program.

The Committee was asked to stagger the date of registration. This has

been accomplished.

The Committee was asked to add references to NBS Handbooks 105-1, -2, and -3. This has also been done.

Finally, it was proposed that this regulation be made mandatory rather

than remain voluntary. Arguments in favor of mandatory registration are: -The public is safeguarded by mandatory registration in the same way that traffic safety is maintained by means of mandatory

drivers' licensing.

-There is no way to prevent poor work quality if unregistered

servicepersons perform the work (i.e., you can't "pull their

license").

-With voluntary registration, there are two standards in effect, one

for registrants and one for everyone else. However, the Committee members believe that a strong registration

program depends on its voluntary nature: -A voluntary program is not a restraint of trade. A voluntary

registration regulation does not impede anyone's right to do

business, it only restricts the right to remove a rejection tag and

to place equipment into service.

-Higher standards for qualification and maintenance of registration can be imposed with a voluntary registration than can be instituted

with a mandatory registration.

-Withdrawal of registration under a mandatory program requires the

most careful administration of due process, because it will mean

putting a person out of business.

123
In addition to recommending adoption of the regulation itself, the

Committee recommends that each weights and measures jurisdiction

establish an administrative policy and document the operating procedures

that will accompany the registration program. Such operating procedures

may include:

- Specific Qualifications For Certification, for example:

-Application form and fee, if applicable

-Time in training, what qualifies as training

-Time in experience, what qualifies as experience

-Knowledge of regulations and handbooks

-Oral, written, or performance examinations

-Proof of suitable equipment and standards availability, and proof

of annual standards calibration

-Formal, signed agreement with weights and measures agency

concerning duties and responsibilities of registrant including the use of placed-in-service reports

- Assignment of Certificate of Registration

-Registration numbers for agency and person

-Establishment of historical file -Establishment of categories of authority (retail motor fuel dispensers, scales up to and including x pounds, etc.)

- Monitoring Program

-Tests, forms, and reports to be completed by serviceperson

Encluding number of readings, actual device performance, etc. -Tests, forms, and reports to be completed by weights and measures

official -Sampling period for field checks

-Keeping of historical record

Notification of Agency or Repairperson

-Improper repair

-Device that did not pass inspection

-Suspension of regisration

-Withdrawal of registration

The Committee recommends the following revision:

205-2 UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE VOLUNTARY

REGISTRATION OF SERVICEPERSONS AND SERVICE

AGENCIES FOR COMMERCIAL WEIGHING AND MEASURING

DEVICES

SECTION 1. POLICY

For the benefit of the users, manufacturers, and distributors of

commercial weighing and measuring devices, ift shall be the policy of the

Director of Weights and Measures, hereinafter referred to as "Director," to accept voluntary registration of (a) an individual and (b) an agency

that provideding acceptable evidence that he, she, or it is fully qualified

by training or experience to install, service, repair, or recondition a commercial weighing or measuring device; has a thorough

124
working knowledge of all appropriate weights and measures laws, orders,

rules, and regulations; and has possession of or available for use, and will use calibrated weights and measures standards and testing equipment

appropriate in design and adequate in amount. (An employee of

government shall not be eligible for registration.)

The Director will eheek the qualifications of each applicant. It will be

necessary for an applicant to have available sufficient standards and

equipment (see Section 5)»

It shall also be the policy of the Department to issue to qualified

applicants, whose applications for registration are approved, a

"Certificate of Registration.11 This gives authority to remove rejection

seals and tags placed on Commercial and Law-Enforcement Weighing and

Measuring Devices by authorized weights and measures officials, to place

in service repaired devices that were rejected, or to place in service

devices that have been newly installed. The Director is NOT guaranteeing the work or fair dealing of a

Registered Serviceperson or Service Agency. He will, however, remove

from the registration list any Registered Serviceperson or Service Agency

that performs unsatisfactory work or takes unfair advantage of a device owner.

Registration with the Director shall be on a voluntary basis. The

Director shall reserve the right to limit or reject the application of any

Serviceperson or Service Agency and to revoke his, her, or its permit to remove rejection seals or tags tor good causeT

This policy shall in no way preclude or limit the right and privilege of

any qualified individual or agency not registered with the Director to

install, service, repair, or recondition a commercial weighing or measuring device, (however, see Section 6.) SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

2.1. REGISTERED SERVICEPERSON. — The term "Registered

Serviceperson" shall be construed to mean any individual who for hire,

award, commission, or any other payment of any kind, installs, services,

repairs, or reconditions a commercial weighing or measuring device, and

who voluntarily registers applies for registration himself or herself as sueh with the Director of Weights and Measures.

2.2. REGISTERED SERVICE AGENCY. — The term "Registered

Service Agency" shall be construed to mean any agency, firm, company,

or corporation that for hire, award, commission, or any other payment of

any kind installs, services, repairs, or reconditions a commercial weighing

or measuring device, and that voluntarily registers itself as such with the

Director of Weights and Measures. Under agency registration,

identification of individual servicepersons shall not be required.

125
2.3. COMMERCIAL AND LAW-ENFORCEMENT WEIGHING AND

MEASURING DEVICE. —The term "Commercial and Law-Enforcement

Weighing and Measuring Device" shall be construed to include any weight

or measure or weighing or measuring device commercially used or employed in establishing the size, quantity, extent, area, or measurement

of quantities, things, produce, or articles for distribution or consumption,

purchased, offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award, or in computing

any basic charge or payment for services rendered on the basis of weight

or measure. It and shall also include any accessory attached to or used

in connection with a commercial weighing or measuring device when such

accessory is so designed or installed that its operation affects or may

effect the accuracy of the device. It also includes weighing and

measuring equipment in official use for the enforcement of law or for the collection of statistical information by government agencies.

SEenON-a*-RECIPROCITY

The Bireeter may enter inte an informal reciprocal agreement with any

other State or States that has or have similar voluntary registration

policies. Under such agreemen*? the Registered Servieepersons and the

ugis L<jr*ju ocrfivc A^cnciUo v7x xxic oxcixcts pttTtj to trie rcciprwai

agreement AdMAABAiii ffiAnid^ full ^^.*-±Z*-s.**^*-*.m*l w_ i n AA»naQflttJ arc greuiicu ran ruei^rwcn acttiiDi ilj j meiucnng rsciproccn

recognition ©I certification of standards and testing equipment? in all States- party- to-sueh-agreementv

SECTION 43. REGISTRATION FEE

There shall be charged by the Director an annual fee of $1tQQ ($ ) per Registered Serviceperson and $&t08 ($ ) per Registered Service Agency

to cover costs at the time application for registration is made, and

annually during-the- month-el- January thereafter.

SECTION 64. VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION

An individual or agency qualified by training or experience may apply for

registration to service weighing devices or measuring devices on an

application form supplied by the Director. Said form, duly signed and

witnessed, shall include certification by the applicant that the individual or agency is fully qualified to install, service, repair, or recondition

whatever devices for the service of which competence is being

registered; has in possession or available for use, and will use, all necessary testing equipment and standards; and has full knowledge of all appropriate weights and measures laws, orders, rules, and regulations.

An applicant also shall submit appropriate evidence or references as to

qualifications. Application for registration shall be voluntary, but the

Director is authorized to reject, or limit the scope of, any application. SECTION 5. MINIMUM EQUIPMENT

Applicants must have available sufficient standards and equipment to adequately test devices as set forth in the Notes section of each

applicable code in NBS Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and

Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices."

When applicable, this equipment will meet the specifications of National

126
Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-1, "Specifications and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures,

Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights (NBS Class F),"

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-2, "Specifications and

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and

Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Measuring

Flask," or National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-3, "Specifications

and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and

Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck Type

Volumetric Field Standards." See also Section 9. SECTION 6. CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

The Director will review and check the qualifications of each applicant.

Upon-reecipt- and-aeeeptanee- of-property- executed-application-form, t The Director shall issue to the applicant a "Certificate of Registration,"

including an assigned registration number if it is determined that the

applicant is qualified, which shall remain effective until either returned

by the applicant or withdrawn by the Director? The "Certificate of

Registration" will expire one year from the date of issuance.

JECTION 7. PRIVILEGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A VOLUNTARY REGISTRANT

A bearer of a Certificate of Registration shall have the authority to remove an official rejection tag or mark placed on a weighing or measuring device by the authority of the Director; place in service, until such time as an official examination can be made, a weighing or measuring device that has been officially rejected; and place in service,

until such time as an official examination can be made, a new or used

weighing or measuring device. The Registered Serviceperson or Service

Agency is responsible for installing, repairing, and adjusting devices such

that the devices are adjusted as closely as practicable to zero error. SECTION 8. PLACED IN SERVICE REPORT

The Director shall furnish each Registered Servicemanperson and

Registered Service Agency with a supply of report forms to be known as "Placed in Service Reports." Such a form shall be executed in triplicate, shall include the assigned registration number, and shall be signed by a

Registered Servicemanperson or by a servicemanperson representing a

Registered Agency for each rejected device restored to service and for each newly installed device placed in service. Within 24 hours after a

device is restored to service, or placed in service, the original of the

properly executed Placed in Service Report, together with any official rejection tag removed from the device, shall be mailed to the Director

at (address) The duplicate copy of the report shall be handed

to the owner or operator of the device, and the triplicate copy of the

report shall be retained by the Registered Servicemanperson or Agency.

JCTION 9. EXAMINATION AND CALIBRATION OR CERTIFICATION OF STANDARDS

AND TESTING EQUIPMENT

A registered Serviceperson and a Registered Service Agency shall submit,

at least annually biennially to the Director, for examination and

certification, any standards and testing equipment that are used, or are

127
to be used, in the performance of the service and testing functions with

respect to weighing and measuring devices for which competence is registered. A Registered Serviceperson or Agency shall not use in servicing commercial weighing or measuring devices any standards or

testing equipment that have not been certified by the Director.

Equipment calibrated by another State weights and measures laboratory

that can show traceability to the National Bureau of Standards will also be recognized as equipment suitable for use by Registered

Servicepersons or Service Agencies in this State. SECTION 10. REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

The Director is authorized to may lor good cause? after careful

-investigation and consideration suspend or revoke a Certificate of

Registration? for good cause which shall include but not be limited to; taking of unfair advantage of an owner of a device; failure to have test equipment or standards certified; failure to use adequate testing

equipment, failure to adjust Commercial or Law-Enforcement Devices to comply with Handbook 44 subsequent to service or repair.

SECTION 11. PUBLICATION OF LISTS OF REGISTERED SERVICEPERSONS AND REGISTERED SERVICE AGENCIES

The Director shall publish, from time to time as he deems appropriate,

and may supply upon request, lists of Registered Servicepersons and

Registered Service Agencies.

SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE

This regulation shall become effective on_

(Item 205-2 was adopted).

206* UNIFORM OPEN DATING REGULATION

(This item was carried over from the 68th NCWM, 1983, in which it was

item 206.) Last year the Committee printed in its report the Association of Food

and Drug Officials (AFDO) "Uniform State Open Dating Bill" for the

information of NCWM members. It had been proposed that the NCWM

uniform regulation be brought into conformity as much as possible with

the AFDO uniform bill. After careful study, the Committee members

were of the opinion that in most of the instances of variation between

the versions, the AFDO requirements were improvements on the NCWM

version.

At the 1983 annual meeting a comment was received that open dating

requirements did not fit into the bounds of weights and measures

responsibilities. This argument was raised at the time of the original

adoption of this regulation in 1973 and will probably continue to be a

point of contention between some jurisdictions for some time to come. As

the economy evolves and as the needs of the nation's citizenry change,

128
weights and measures will change. Open dating was perceived as a need

for the packaged retail food purchaser and began to be required in the

early 1970's. Since few other regulatory agencies operate so pervasively

as weights and measures at the retail food store level, in the interests of program efficiency, weights and measures jurisdictions were given open

dating requirements to administer at that time. Packagers have perceived

that consumers want this information and have generally voluntarily

supplied it following either the NCWM or AFDO requirements as

guidelines. Open dating requirements as standards of practice for packagers to voluntarily follow are unnecessarily complicated if there are two different standards covering the same practice. Moreover, as rural areas become urbanized, the Committee members believe open dating

regulations will become increasingly necessary and should be retained as a

voluntary standard for those jurisdictions that need such regulations.

The Committee therefore provides the following revision of the uniform

Open Dating Regulation for information. Some differences with the AFDO

uniform bill still remain: meat, poultry, and seafood are still excluded in the NCWM revision (the AFDO bill does not exempt these items); the

NCWM revision would permit "words of similar import" to "sell by" and

"best if used by"; and the NCWM revision requires a "sell by" date on

food spoiling within 60 days of packaging (the AFDO bill requires it on

all food spoiling within 90 days of packaging). The Committee will therefore continue to work with AFDO to achieve uniformity between the

two versions. The Committee intends to propose adoption of a revised

version next year.UNIFORM OPEN DATING REGULATION

SECTION 1. PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND APPLICATION

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this regulation is to cause certain foods

to be identified relative to physical sensory qualities for both use by the

user and rotation by the distributor(s).

(b) Scope. This regulation prescribes the method of posting and

identification date, date determination, required records, responsible

persons, and foods subject to the regulation. In addition, this regulation

provides for exemption of certain foods and for sale of foods after the

expiration of an identifying open date. Exeept for paekages and eem modifies in package form open dated in aeeerd with existing regulations? or specifically exempted there#rem7 any

open dating information provided or required lor any perishable and

semiperis-habie feed commodity shatt provide sueh information in the

manner-preseribed-hereinT

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 "SELL BY" DATE. — "'Sell by' date" means a recommended last date of sale that permits a subsequent period before deterioration of

qualities described in 2.2., 2.3., and 2.4.

129
2.2. PERISHABLE FOOD. — "Perishable food" means any food having a

significant risk of spoilage, loss of value, or loss of palatability within 60

days of the date of packaging.

2.3. SEMI-PERISHABLE FOOD. — "Semi-perishable food" means any food

with greater than 60 days, but less than 6 months after the date of packaging before having a significant risk or spoilage, loss of value, or

loss of palatability.

2.4. LONG SHELF-LIFE FOOD. — "Long shelf-life food" means any food

in which a significant risk of spoilage, loss of value, or loss of

palatability would not occur sooner than 6 months after the date of packaging including foods preserved by freezing, dehydrating, or being in a hermetically sealed container.

2.5. PREPACKAGED. — "Prepackaged" means packaged prior to being

displayed or offered for retail sale.

2.6. "BEST IF USED BY" DATE. — "'Best if used byT date" means a date

prior to deterioration of qualities described in 2.3. and 2.4.

2.7. PERSON. — "Person" means an individual, partnership, association,

or corporation.

2rir F00B GGMMGBfTY IN PAGKAGE FORM- - The term ^leed

eemmedity in paekage lerm11 shall be eenstraed te mean a leed

eemmedity pat ap er paekaged 4ft any manner m advance el sale m anits saitable fer retail saler Where the term ^eed package" is used in this Regulation it shall be eenstraed te mean "feed eemmedity in paekage

lermu-as-herein-delinedT

3t3t 6GNSUMER PAGKAGEt PAGKAGE GF CONSUMER GGMMQB1TY- — A ueensamer paekage11 er "paekage el eensamer eemmedity11 snail be

eenstraed te mean a leed eemmedity lerm that is eastemarHy predaeed

er distribated ler sale threagh retail sales ageneies er instramentalitios

i, A22 — ^AQQU HQ t^ 4- i /\ ti _ t t y% W i t ri W ti ftlrt tor consampttun oy iiiuiviUaMiis* 2t3t PERISHABLE- SEM1PER1SHABLE FGGB GQMMGBTTYt — The term

"perishable er semiperishable leed eemmedity11 shall mean any teed

eemmedity in paekage term whieh the manalaetarer er paeker determines

as having a significant risk el spoilage? Jess el va-kiey er less el

palatability within 69 days el the date el paekagingt Prevised? That the

term-dees-net include-meatsy-peultry, sealeeeV-and-lresh-predaeeT

3t4t PULL BATE- — The term upaH date11 means the last date en whieh

a perishable er se miperishablc leed eemmedity sheald be se4d witheat a

significant risk el speilagey less el vaiaey er less er palatabilityy il stered

by the parehaser alter that date ler the peried and in the manner whieh

saeh-eemmedtty-ean-reasenabty-be-expeeted-te-be-steredr

SECTION 3. SALE OF PERISHABLE FOOD AND DATE DETERMINATION.

3.1. "SELL BY" DATE. — A retail food establishment shall not sell or offer for sale prepackaged perishable food unless identified with a

"sell by" date.

130
3.2. SALE AFTER EXPIRATION OF SELL BY DATE. -

3.2.1. ADVERTISEMENT. -~ Perishable food shall not be offered

for sale after the "sell by" date unless it is wholesome and

advertised in a conspicuous manner as being offered for sale after the recommended last date of sale. The placement of a

sign, sticker, or tag is acceptable for such advertising if it is easily readable and clearly identifies the perishable food as having passed the recommended last date of sale.

3.2.2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADVERTISEMENT. - The retailer or final seller is responsible for the advertisement, described in

3.2.1., of a perishable food offered for sale after the

recommended last date of sale.

3.3. DETERMINATION OF SELL BY DATE. —

3.3.1. REASONABLE PERIOD FOR CONSUMPTION. - A

manufacturer, processor, packer, repacker, retailer or other

person who prepackages perishable food, shall determine a date

which allows a reasonable period after sale, for consumption of the food, without physical spoilage, loss of value, or loss of

palatability. A reasonable period for consumption shall consist of

at least one third of the approximate total shelf life of the

perishable food.

3.3.2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELL BY DATE. — A retailer who

purchases prepackaged perishable food may upon written

agreement with the person prepackaging such food determine,

identify, and be responsible for the sell by date placed on or attached to each package of such food.

3.4. MANNER OF EXPRESSING DATE. —

3.4 .1. MONTH AND DAY OR DAY OF WEEK. — A person

described in section 3.3.1. or 3.3.2. shall place or attach to each

package of perishable food a date by month and day. However,

bakery products with a shelf-life of not more than 7 days may

be dated with the day of the week representing the last recommended day of sale.

3.4.2. THE TERM "SELL BY". — The "sell by" date shall be

displayed with the term "sell by" or words of similar import

immediately preceding or immediately over the designated date

unless a prominent notice is on the label describing the date as a

"sell by" date and indicating the location of the date.

3.4.3. ABBREVIATION OF WEEKDAY. — If the day of the week

is solely designated as provided in section 3.4.1., the name of the

day may be abbreviated by the use of either the first two or

first three letters of the name of the day.

131
3.4.4. EXPRESSION OF MONTH AND DAY. - Except as provided for in section 3.4.1., the date shall be designated by the

first three letters of the month followed by a numeral indicating

the calendar day or designated by the month represented

numerically followed by a numeral designation of the calendar

day. The month and day designation shall be separated by a

period, slash, dash, or spacing. When a numeral designation of the

first nine days of the month is used, the number shall include a zero as the first digit; for example, 01 or 03.

3.4.5. EXPRESSION OF THE YEAR. — The "sell by" date may

include the year following the day if such year is expressed as a two or four digit number separated as described in section 3.4.4 SEGTIGN-St—BATJNG-REQU1REMENTS

Ne pepsen whe manulaetures paekages a perishable or semiperishable

leed eemmedity m paekage £epm may distribute? er eause te be

distributed £ep purposes el sale? sueh eemmedity unless sueh eensumer

paekages are labeled te shew the pull date m aeeerdanee with Seetiens &$

SECTION 4. SALE OF SEMI-PERISHABLE AND LONG SHELF-LIFE FOOD.

4.1. "BEST IF USED BY" DATE. — A manufacturer, processor, packer,

repacker, or other person who prepackages semi-perishable or long

shelf-life food may place upon or attach to the package an open date

providing it is designated by the "best if used by" date.

4.2. SALE AFTER EXPIRATION OF "BEST IF USED BY" DATE. — A

retail food establishment may sell or offer for sale food beyond the

designated "best if used by" date providing the food is wholesome and

the sensory physical quality standards for that food have not significantly

diminished.

4.3. MANNER OF EXPRESSING DATE. — The "best if used by" date as required by section 4.1. shall be placed upon or attached to each

container or package and be limited to the terms "best if used by" or words of similar import followed by or immediately over the date

designated by the month and year unless a prominent notice is on the

label describing the date as a "best if used by" date and indicating the

location of the date. The date shall be designated by the first three

letters of the month followed by a numeral indicating the year. The use

of the day of the month is permissible providing the day of the month is placed prior to the month; for example, 30 Jun 81. SEGT19N-4t—GGMMGBTOES-TQ-BE-BATEB

All perishable and se mipepishablc lesd esm meditics, when put up in eensumep paekages? are required te be dated with a pull date in aeeepdanee-with-this-RegulatioRT

132
SECTION 5. PLACEMENT OF THE DATE.

The date, whether a "sell by" or "best if used by," shall be printed,

stamped, embossed, perforated, or otherwise shown on the package, label on the package, or tag attached to the package in a manner that is easily readable and separate from other information, graphics, or

lettering so as to be clearly visible to a prospective purchaser. The

date shall not be superimposed on other required information or obscured

by other information, graphics, or pricing. Regardless of the type size used, the date shall be easily readable. These requirements do not preclude the serving of a supplemental notice elsewhere on a package

describing and/or indicating the location of the date. SE6T10N-&-S—BATE-REQU1REB

The date required by the Regulation shaH be eenstrued te mean the date

by whieh the eemmedity sheuid be remeved frem the ehannel for regular

sale (putt date}? The date may be aeeempanied by a statement

appropriately identifying it as- a putt date by the use ef sueh terms as "net-te-be-seW-a^er^-^eti-by^-er-werds-ef-si-milar-tmpertr

SEGT10N-£i—MANNER-9F-EXPRESS1NG-BATE

Gemmedities subjeet te this Regulation must be dated in aeeerdanee with

this seetienr The date must shew first the month and then the day ef

the month? followed by the year? tf usedr The month must be shewn by

letters that elearly identify the month or by digits u±

u through "la?" where ul

u signifies January? U2U signifies February? and so en through u12u whieh signifies Beeemberr The day ef the month must be shewn by the

digits ulu through "SI?" te shew the date within the month specified? The

digits fer the menth must be separated from the digit or digits for the

date wilthin the menth by a spaee? a dash? an asterisk or ether symbol?

Bakery preduets with a shelf life of 7 days or less and subjeet te this Regulation may be open dated with the days ef the week er abbreviation ef-samc, in lic u-ef-the-feregeing-requirementsy-as-fellewst

Sunday SU—SUN Thursday? TH—THU—THUR

Menday M0—M9N Friday FRy-FRl

Tuesday TU—TUES Saturday SA—SAT

Wednesday—WE—WEB

SEGT10N-7t—PEAGEMENT-0F-BATE

The date required er permitted by this Regulation must be plaeed on eaeh

paekage? made available te purchasers? The date shall be presented in a

size? manner? and style elearly and easily legible te the purchaser at the

time-ef-making-er-aeeepting-a-seleetion-fer-purehaseT

SECTION 6. FACTORS FOR THE DATE DETERMINATION.

A person who, as provided for in this regulation , places either the "sell by" date or "best if used by" date shall determine the date taking into

consideration the food quality, characteristics, formulation, processing

impact, packaging or container and other protective wrapping or coating,

customary transportation, and storage and display conditions. For

133
purposes of calculating this date, home storage conditions shall be

considered similar to the usual retail store except that refrigerated food

may be calculated using a home storage temperature standard of 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4.4 degrees Celsius).

SECTION 7. RECORDS

A person responsible for establishing the date for perishable,

semi-perishable, and long shelf-life food shall keep a record of the

method used for the determination of that date. A record revision is necessary whenever a factor affecting date determination is altered. Such

record shall be retained for not less than 6 months after the most

recent "sell by" or ''best if used by" date and be available during normal

business hours for examination upon request by (insert agency name).

SECTION 8. EXEMPTIONS

8.1. This regulation does not apply to fresh fruits and vegetables

offered for sale unpackaged or in a container permitting sensory examination, other non-packaged food and food products, salt, and

crystallized refined sugar.

8.2. This regulation does not apply to meat, poultry, fish, or seafood.

8.3. This regulation does not apply to an individually packaged food

item that is a component of a larger packaged food item if the larger

food item is identified with a date the same as or earlier than the date

of the component.

SECTION 9. PREEMPTION OF LOCAL, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

A municipality or county shall not adopt or impose standards or requirements other than those provided for in this regulation.

SE6TI-0N-&T- -PREEMPTION

Ne pers&a sublet %e %k±s Regulatio n shail Be pee^fctiped fce a£ftx any date

te any £eed eemme-dity m Baekage £epm exeep* as- B-pevtded f-e? by law ep

peg-ulatio R-e^-%he-UF^e6-S^a^es-ep-By-Mw-ep-pe^latiofl-ei-%Ms-S%a^eT

SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE

This regulation shall become effective on and after (insert appropriate

date).

SE6339N-9t— EFFEGTFr'E-BATE

FttH eemB4±aflee with %his Regulatio n by any manti#ae%tipep ep Baekep ghatt

be a%%a i ne d w4^hin i yeap a#fcep %tes Regulatio n? by its terms? beeemes

aBB^abie-^-e-stieh-maRtiraeftipep-el-BaekePT

134
207 OTHER ITEMS

207-1* ADOPTION OF NBS HANDBOOK 133

The Committee met jointly with the Liaison Committee and the Task

Force on Package Control during the Interim Meetings to review the

changes being proposed by NBS in preparation for a second edition of Handbook 133 (H-133) "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods."

(See Liaison Committee report for more details.)

H-133 was published in 1981. Since that time NBS has conducted several

workshops and seminars on the handbook in different parts of the country,

developed a field manual as a condensed version for the field inspector,

and begun development of a video cassette training course. Many weights and measures officials have had reservations about some

aspects of the handbook. Some are concerned about the more

complicated sampling procedures, especially Category A sampling plans.

Some believe the Maximum Allowable Variations proposed in H-133 are too large for random-pack packages put up in a retail store. Some had

hoped the handbook could provide more definitive procedures for handling

packages subject to moisture loss. The Committee has had the opportunity to review the NBS plan for changes being proposed for H-133 (see Liaison Committee report for

details). It should be noted, for example, that there is a very close

similarity between Category B plans in H-133 and Handbook 67 (H-67).

The Committee believes that the second edition of H-133 will go a long

way towards clarifying and simplifying package test methodology.

However, there are some aspects of package testing that cannot be solved

by the National Bureau of Standards alone. For example, NBS took a

simplified approach to the issue of the limits of reasonable package

variations by proposing a single set of figures called the Maximum

Allowable Variations or MAV for all types of packages. Exceptions to the

MAV's are noted in H-133 for textiles as set forth in the NCWM's Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation. The Committee believes that this sets a precedent for the NCWM to consider requests for deviations to the

MAV's for either easier-to-pack packages (such as perhaps store packed

random packages may be) or harder-to-pack packages (such as produce or other items may be). Last year the Committee reviewed a request from

the baking industry on this issue (request for a limit larger than H-133

MAV's) and determined that it was an appropriate subject to explore (see

item 203-5 in 1983 Committee report).

Another example is the issue of moisture loss. This issue is more than a

strictly technical one. The Conference voting membership is on record as favoring full net weight at retail. This position is in opposition to those

Federal and State regulations that permit variations due to exposure

during good distribution practices, and is probably opposed by a

substantial portion of the packaging industry. Here again, the Conference

is an ideal forum for reviewing and proposing solutions to the issue of moisture loss through negotiation and discussion by all affected parties,

either on a product-by-product basis or across the board.

135
During the interim meetings, a questionnaire was circulated concerning the

issue of adoption of the Second Edition of H-133. (See questionnaire

below.)

It should be made clear that the Conference did not adopt H-67 in the same sense that it adopted H-44, which was made a part of the ongoing

annual activities of the NCWM. The Committee is recommending

adoption of H-133 so that revisions and annual updates can be made by

the voting membership and so that the document can become a standard

of practice for the entire weights and measures community. The

Committee believes that one of the reasons there is a poor record in uniformity of testing by the States (see past years' Task Force on Package Control reports) is that H-67 was never updated as changes were

perceived to be needed. Out of 31 responding to the questionnaire, 23 recommended adoption at the 69th Annual Meeting and eight recommended

postponement. Although a clear majority favors adoption, the Committee,

upon reflection, believes that the entire Conference membership should

have an opportunity to study and discuss the Second Edition of H-133.

The Second Edition has not yet been published but was distributed in draft form at the 69th annual meeting to the State Directors. Therefore,

the Committee intends to recommend adoption of H-133 next year and to develop a list of priorities for action (MAVs, moisture loss, etc.). The

Committee requests information from the membership regarding these

priorities.

HANDBOOK 133 QUESTIONNAIRE

A great amount of effort has been devoted to provide a sound technical

basis for use by both regulatory officials and industry in the area of package control. This effort has culminated in the development of Handbook 133 by the NBS. The 1st Edition, published in 1981, has

provided an opportunity to actually test its approach, including statistical sampling plans, in the field, wholesale house and packaging plant. As a

result of the experience to date, a series of meetings have been held to discuss proposed changed and improvements in the Handbook. The NBS

will be publishing the 2nd Edition of Handbook 133 this year, incorporating

the improvements it believes are justified.

The Laws and Regulations Committee is seriously considering

recommending the adoption of the Handbook (2nd Edition) at the 69th

Annual Meeting in Boston,

Do You - Recommend proposing adoption at the 69th Annual Meeting? _ Recommend postponing adoption by the NCWM?

If you recommend postponement

Why?

136
207-2* POLICY AND GUIDELINES ON MOTOR FUEL DELIVERIES

(GAS PUMP) PRICE POSTING RELATED TO CASH

DISCOUNTS

On February 27, 1984, the credit-card surcharge prohibition in the Cash

Discount Act expired. The Committee is informed that the House voted

to extend the Cash Discount Act until May 31, 1985 but that the Senate

did not act on the House bill before its summer recess. The Senate is expected to act when it reconvenes in the Fall. The Committee will continue to keep informed on action by Congress and on sales practices in this area and will be prepared to recommend NCWM action, if necessary,

at the annual meeting to review or revise existing NCWM policy in this area (see Item 207-1 of the 68th NCWM, 1983 Report). Comments are

invited. W. R. Mossberg, Los Angeles, CA, Chairman

T. F. Brink, Vermont

G. E. Mattimoe, Hawaii

E. P. Skluzacek, Minnesota

D. E. Stagg, Alabama

C. S. Brickenkamp, Technical Advisor, NBS

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

VOTING RESULTS - COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Voting Key

House of State

Representatives

House of

Delegates

Yes No Yes No

201- 1 202-1 203- 1 203-2 204- 3

38 0 54 0

204-5-lst amendment

204-5-lst amendnent

204-5-lst amendment

204-5-lst amendnent

204-5

204-2

205

200

2338

2616

23

6 3339

19

1 1722

1330

4

0

II45

5344

49

14958

47

4

7 14

5 51

5

0

137
APPENDIX A

COMPARISON OF STATE RBJGLATICN5 WITH THE

INI RIM PACKAGING <3c LABELDC RH3XATICK

This corrparison was made by Dr. C.S. Brickenkarrp, NBS Technical Advisor

to the Coranittee, and Ms. Paula Boelke, Physical Science Aide, Office of

Weights and Measures, NBS.

SECTION/STATE AL AK AZ AR CA CO cr EE X r_ GA HI ID IL

NOTES x fully adopted z: : e: er.: '.' e : s : : r. -

tr £co?:ec in part

Sec t i on 1. Application

la. Inner wrap X X X X X X X X X X X X X

lb. Shipping X X X x X X X X X x

lc. Auxiliary X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Id. Tray Pack X X X X X X X X X X X X X

le. Open carriers X X X X X X X X X X X

Sec t i on 2. Definitions

2.1. Ccmnodity X X X X X X X X X X X

2.2. Consumer Pkg X X X X X X X X X X X X

2.3. Nonconsumer X X X X X X X X X X X

2.4. Random X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2.5. Label X X X X X X X X X X X X

2.6. Person X X X X X X X X X

2.7. Display panelx X X X X X X X X X X X X 2.8. ]\lilti-unit X X X X X X X X X X X

Sec t i on 3. Declarat ion of I dent ity: Zc r. s j~.»e : Package

3.1. Declaration X X X X X X X X X X X X X

3.1.1. Parallel X X X X X X X X X X X X

Section 4. Declaration of Identity: Nonconsumer Package

XXXXXX X xxxxx

Section 5. Declaration of Responsibility:

Consumer And Nonconsumer Packages

xxxxxxxx xxxxx

138
SECTION/STATE ALAKAZARG\(DCrDEDCELQ\HI ID IL

Section 6. Declaration of Quantity: Consumer Packages

6.1. General x x p p

6.2. Largest xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.2.a.l. In-lb xxxxxxxx 6. 2. a. 2. In-lb xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.2. b. Metric x x x x

6.3. Quantity xxxxxxx xxxxx

6.3.1. Net wt x x < xxxxx xxxxx 6. 3. 2. Lines/type xxxxxxx xxxxx

6.4. Terms xxxxxxxx xxxxx 6. 4.1. a. Weight xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.4„l.b. Measure x xxxxxx xxxx

6.4. I.e. Count xxxxxxxx xxxxx 6. 5. a. In-lb Wt. xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.5.b. In-lb Liq. xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.5.C. In-lb Lin. xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.5.d. In-lb Area xxxxxxxx

6.5.e. In-lb Vol. xxxxxxxx

6.5. f. In-lb Dry xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.5.1. Symbols pxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.5.2. "Ounce" xxxxxxxx

6.6. a.Metric Wt. xxxx x 6.6.b.Metric Liq. xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.6.c.Metric Lin. xxxx x 6.6.d.Metr ic Area xxxx x 6.6. e.Metric Vol. xxxx x 6.6.1. Symbols xpxpxxpp pxxpp 6. 6.1. a. Gramnar x x x x 6.6.1.b. L & mL x x x x

6.7. In-lb Prescr xxxxxxxx xxxxx 6. 7.1. a. Length xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.7.1.b. Area xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.7. I.e. Weight

6.7.1. d. Liquid xxxxxxxx

Proviso xxxxxxxx

6.7.2. Weight xxxxx

6.7.3. Liquid xxxxxxxx

6.7.4. Length xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.7.5. Area xxxxxxxx xxxxx 6. 7. 6. a. Length xxxpxxxx xxxxx

6.7.6.b. Area xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.7.6.C. Weight xxxxxxxx

6.7.6. d. Liquid xxxxxxxx 6. 7. 7. a. Bidimen. xxxxxxxx xxxxx

6.7.7.b. xxxxx

6.7.7.b.l.

6.7.7.b.2. xxxxxxxx

6.7.7.b.3.

6.7.7.C. xxxxxxxx

139
SECTION/STATE AL AK AZ AR CA cd cr EE DC FL VXl 111 IU TT. 1 Li

(5 7 7 *1 X YA X X X X X X X X X X X

ft 7 7 n 9 X X X X X X

fi 7 7 r» ^ A YA AY YA YA AY AY AY YA YA AY X X

fi 7 7 d AY YA AY AY YA YA YA YA AY YA YA X X

ft ft A/L2» + r» l /» Oti An/iw D.o.iVJcurHJ rlcalJI X x X x x x

fi 8 1 T,p«;<; than x x x x x

fi ft 1 o TfPncth A x x x YA YA

ft ft 1 h Apps x x x x x x

6. 8. I.e. Weight x x x x x YA

fi 8 1 d Linuid x x x x x x

IT I U V i SU VA x x x

fi 8 9 A T,pncrth YA x x x x x

fi ft 9 h Appa A YA AY YA YA YA

ft ft 9 /-» Wo i rrh t 0 . O • 4 . C . Wclglll X x x x x YA

fi ft 9 H T i n i i i H vA x x x YA YA

fi ft 3 fl X YA YA YA X X

fi ft ^ h vA x x x YA YA

fi ft ^ h 1 A x x x x x

fi ft ^ h 9 Av x x x x x

6 8 3 b 3 x x x x YA AY

fi 9 Cnnnt* Plv x x x x x X X x x x x x x

R Q q Ap Pfl U . 17 . CI . ill CCl YA x x x x X X x x x x x x

fi Q h Plv YA x x x x X X x x x x x x

ft Q r» Pnunt X x x x x X X x x x x x x X x x x x X X x x x x x x D.iu.a. rrdcuons X vA YA YA YA YA

c in k 0 . 1U . U

.

X AY YA AY YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA 6.10.b.l. x YA Av YA AY VA YA AY YA AY AY AY AY

fi 1 fi h 9 X YA AY YA AY YA YA AY YA 6.10.C. Common X x x x x X X x x x x x x

fi 1 fi d TiPf» irrw 1 YA

* x* x X* x x x x YA* 6.11.1. Supplem. X X X

* X X

* X X X X X X 6.11.2. Combined X x x x x X X x x x x x x 6.11.3. Rounding X X X X X X

fi 19 Phia 1 i f i n X X X X X X X X X X X X X

ftOilO. 1 ^ rWcl AuflPQfPO age ——————

X p X x p X X

Cart Oct fI

11 r\ry UI1 7( . Declaration of Quantity: Nonconsumer Packages

7 1 Hanopo

1

< . l . uenerai X X X X

! . Z « lA/CJd. L l on X X X X X X X X X AY AY X X X X X X X X YA YA

i.l.a.. Ill IU Wl X X X X X X X X X X YA x 7.4.b. Li an id X X X X X X X X X X x x 7.4.c. Linear X X X X X X X X X X x x 7.4.d. Area X X X X X X X X X X x x 7.4.e. Volume X X X X X X X X X X X X 7.4.f. Dry X X X X X X X X X X X X 7.4.1. Symbols X X X X X X X X X X X

7. 5. a. Metr ic-wt

.

X p X X X X X

140
SECTION/STATE ALAKAZARCACDCTEEDCFLGAHI ID IL

7.5.b. Liquid xx xxpx xxx

7.5.C. Linear p x x x x x 7.5.d. Area p x x x x x

7.5. e. Volume p x x x p x x 7.5.1. Symbols x x x p x x

7.6. Average p x x x xxx

Section 8. Prominence And Placement: Consumer Packages

8.1. General xxxxxxxx xxxxx

8.1.1. Location xxxxxxxx xxxxx

8.1.2. Style xxxxx

8.1.3. Color xxxxx

8.1.4. Free area xxxxxxxx xxxxx 8. 1.4. a. xxxxx

8.1.4. b. xxxxxxxx xxxxx

8.1.5. Parallel xxxxxx x

8.2. Area of PDP xxxxxxxx xxxxx 8. 2. a. Rectangle xxxxxxxx xxxxx

8.2.b. Cylinder

8.2.c. Other xxxxxxxx xxxxx

8.2.1. Minimum ht xxxxxxxx xxxxx 8. 2. 2. Proportions xxxxxxxx xxxxx

Table 1. xxxxx

Section 9. Prominence And Placement: Nonconsumer Packages

9.1. General xxx xx x xxxxx

Section 10. Requirements: Specific Consumer Commodities,

Nonconsumer Conmodities, Packages, Containers

10.1. Display card xxxxxxxx xxxxx

10.2. Eggs xxx xx x xxxxx

10.3. Aerosols xxx xxxx xxxxx

10.4. Multi-unit xxxxxxxx xxxxx 10. 4. a. Number xxxxxxxx xxxxx 10. 4. b. Quantity xxxxxxxx xxxxx 10. 4. c. Total xxxxxxxx xxxxx

10.5. Combination xxxxxxxx

10.6. Variety xxx xxxx

10.7. Cylinders xxx xxxx xxxxx 10. 8.1. Containers x x xx x xxxx 10. 8.1. a. Bags x x xx x xxxx

141
SECTION/STATE ALAKAZARG\CDCT' CEKFLQ\HI ID IL

10.8.1.a.l.In-lb x x 10,8.1. a. 2. Metric x

10. 8.1. a. 2.1. x x

10. 8.1. a. 2. 2. x 10.8. l.b. Oblong x x

10 .8. I.e. Circular x x

10.8 .1. d. Cups x x 10.8.2. Capacity x x

10. 8. 2. a. 1. In-lb x x 10. 8. 2. a. 2. x x

10. 8. 2. a. 3. x x 10.8.2. b. Metric p 10.8.3. Terms x x 10.9.1. Apparel x x 10.9.2. Textiles x x

10. 9. 2. a. Sheets x x 10.9.2.b, Flat * x 10.9.2.C. Pillow * x

10. 9. 2. d. Blanket x x 10.9.2.e.Tab.clo. x x 10.9.2. f .Drape x x

10. 9. 2. g.Carpet x x

10. 9. 2. h. Towel x x 10.9.2. i. Misc. x x 10.9.2. j . Odd x x 10.9.2. k. Rermant x x

10. 9. 3. a. Tex var. x x 10.9.3. b. x x 10.9.4. Exemption x x

10. 9. 4. a. x x 10.9.4.b. x x 10.9.4. C. x x 10.9.5. Threads x x

10. 9. 5. a. x x 10.9.5.b. Yarn x x x 10.9.5.C Symbol x x 10.9.5.d. Indus x * x

10. 10. a. Seeds x lO.lO.b. x 10.10.C. x

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

* * X X* X X

* * X X* X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X p X X X X X X

* X X X X

X X X X X X X

* X X

* X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

142
SECTION/ STATE ALAKAZARCAODCTDEDCFLGA.HI ID IL

Section 11. Exenptions

11.1. General

11.2. Random

11. 2. a. Weight

11. 2. b. Price

11. 2. c. Total

11.3. Confections

11.4. Indiv.Serv.

11.5. Tobacco

11.6. Glass Cont.

11.7. Cigarettes

11.8. Federal

11. 9. a. Dairy

11. 9. b.

11. 9. c. 11. 9. d. 11. 10. a. Juice

ll.lO.b.

11.10. c. 11.11. Soft-drink

11. 11. a. 11.11. b. 11.12. Multi-unit

11. 12. a. 11.12. b. 11.13. Butter

11.14. Eggs

11.15. Flour

11.16. Small Pkg

11.17. Decorative

11. 18. a. Combo pkg

11.18.b.

11.18. C. 11.19. Margarine

11.20. Corn flour

11.21. Drugs

11.22. Film

11. 22. a. 11.22.b.

11.22. C. 11. 23. a. Paints

11.23. b. 11.24. Antifreeze

11.25. Motor oil

11.26. Pillows

11.27. Var. wts.

x x x x x x x x x x x n nf x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

x x x

* x x x x x x x x x

X X x X x X X X x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Df x x x

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

YA x YA YA x x x x

X X X X X X X x

X X X

X X

p Xp

X X

X

X

p X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

143
SECTICN/STATE ALAKAZARCACDCTDEDCFLGAHI ID IL

11.28. Count X x X X X x x

11 9Q Fi <;h i ncr X X vA VA VA. X YA. VA

Sec t i on 12. Va p i fi t i on s To Be Allowed

12.1.1. Net X X X X X X X X X X X X 12.1.2. Exposure X X * X X X X X X X X

12. 1.2. a. X X X X X X X X X X X 12.1.2.D. X X X X X X X X X X X

12.2. Magnitude * * * * * * * * X

* *

Section 13. Retail Sale Price Representations

1 ^ 1 a C!pnt<;-f>f

f

lu • 1 ia»\>ClU3 \J L J AY

1 Q 1 K TTqp A YA YA

1 ^ 1 b 1 YA YA YA 13.1.D.2.

1 ^ 1 h ^ YA YA YA

1lO.l.U.'t. ^ 1 h A X X X 13.1.b.5. X X 13.1.b.6. X X

13. I.e. X X X 13.1.d. X X X

13. 2. a. Intro Off. X X X

13. 2. b. X X X 13.2.b.l. X X X 13.2.b.2. X X X 13.2.b.3. X X X 13.2.b.4. X X X

13. 2. c. X X X 13.2.C.1. X X X 13.2.C.2. X X X

13. 2. d. X X X

13. 2. e. X X X

13. 3. a. Economy X X X

13. 3. b. X X X 13.3.b.l. X X X 13.3.b.2. X X X 13.3.b.3. X X X

13. 3. c. X X X

13. 3. d. X X X

Section 14. Revocation Of Conflicting Regulations

144
STATE CITATIONS ID STATE REGULATIONS

AL Weights and Measures Regulation No. 3 (1981)

AK Alaska Status Chapter 75, "Weights and Measures Act"; Alaska

Administrative Code, Chapter 3, Section 33 (1974)

AZ Arizona Revised Statutes, Weights and Measures Rules and

Regulations, Title 41, Chapter 15, Article 3 (1981)

AR Circular 2A, Regulation No. 1 (1969)

CA California Code, Title 4, Chapter 8, Sub 6, Article 2 (1983)

CO "Measures and Standards Act of 1981" Colorado Revised Status,

35-14-121 to 35-14, 133 (1981); Section 43-45, Title 43,

Chapter 752, Weights and Measures

CT Rules and Regulations pertaining to Labeling, Packaging and

Sale of Comnodities, Section 42-115j-l through 42-115 j-8

(1968)

DE Regulations: Weights and Measures, Packaging and Labeling

(1972)

DC (None)

FL Rule of Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

(Chapter 5F-3) "Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation"

(1980)

GA Weights and Measures Rules and Regulations 40-15-3 through

40-15-5 (1984)

HI Hawaii Administrative Code, Title 4, Sub 7, Chapter 90 (1982) ID Regulations for Weights and Measures, Part 4 (1972)

IL "Weights and Measures Act of 1963" as amended, 111. Rev.

State, C2iap. 147; Rules and Regulations Article 1 "Packaging

and Labeling", 1970

145
UNIFCKVI PACKAGING & LABELING REGULATION

CGYTTnsJ ori^l ILIN/olAlri / QTATT 1IN T A KS KY LA ME BO .Vll A1SJ "VfQ .VIN .VD YT-\ ML HIS

Sect ion 1. Application

la. Inner wrap X X X X X X X X X X X

lb. Shipping X X X X X X X X X X

lc. Auxiliary X X X X X X X X X X X

Id. Tray pack X X X X X X X X X X X

le. Open carriers X X X X X X X X X X X

Section 2. Definitions

2.1. Carmodity X X X X X X X X

2.2. Consurer Pkg X X X X X X X X 2.3. Nonconsuner X X X X X X X X 2.4. Random X X X X X X X X X 2.5. Label x X X X X X X X X X X 2.6. Person X X X X X X X X X

2.7. Display panelx X X X X X X X X X X

2.8. Mil t i-uni t X X X X X X X X X

Section 3. Declaration of Identity: Consuner Package

3.1. Declaration xxxx xxxxxxxx

3.1.1. Parallel xxxxx xx

Section 4. Declaration of Identity: Nonconsuner Package

xxxxpxxxxxxxx

Section 5. Declaration of Responsibility:

Consumer and Nonconsumer Packages

xxxxpxxxxxpxx

Section 6. Declaration of Quantity: Consuner Packages

6.1. General x x x 6.2. Largest xxxx xxxxx xx

6.2.a.l. In-lb xxxx xxxxx xx

6. 2. a. 2. In-lb xxxx xxxxx xx

6.2. b. Met r ic x x x 6.3. Quantity xxxx xxxxxpxx

6.3.1. Net wt xxxx xxxxx xx

146
SECTION/STATE IN IAKSKYIAMEDM1 MSfMSMDMTNE

6. 3. 2. Lines/type x

6.4. Terms x

6. 4.1. a. Weight

6.4. l.b. Measure

6.4. I.e. Count

6. 5. a. In-lb Wt. x 6.5.b. In-lb Liq. x 6.5.C. In-lb Lin. x

6.5.d. In-lb Area

6.5.e. In-lb Vol. x

6.5. f . In-lb Dry x 6.5.1. Symbols

6.5.2. "ounce" x

6. 6. a.Metric Wt. x 6.6.b.Metric Liq. p 6.6.c.Metric Lin.

6.6.d.Metr ic Area x 6.6. e.Metric Vol. x

6.6.1. Symbols

6. 6.1. a. Grarrmar x

6. 6. l.b. L & mL

6.7. In-lb Prescr

6. 7.1. a. Length

6. 7. l.b. Area

6. 7. I.e. Weight x 6.7.1. d. Liquid x Proviso

6.7.2. Weight x 6.7.3. Liquid x 6.7.4. Length

6.7.5. Area

6. 7. 6. a. Length

6.7.6.b. Area

6.7.6.C. Weight x 6.7.6. d. Liquid x

6. 7. 7. a. Bidimen.

6.7.7.b.

6.7.7.b.l.

6.7.7.b.2.

6.7.7.b.3.

6.7.7.C.

6.7.7.C.I.

6.7.7.C.2.

6.7.7.C.3.

6.7.7.d.

6.8.Metric Prescr

6.8.1. Less than

6. 8.1. a. Length

6. 8. l.b. Area

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X p X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X p X X X X X p X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X p X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

* X X

X X X X X X X p p X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

p X p X p p p X p X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

* X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

* X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

147
SECTION/ STATE IN IA KS KY LA ME \D M\ MI m MS IVD MT NE

6. 8. I.e. "Weight X X X 6.8.1.d. Liquid X X X Proviso X X X

6. 8. 2. a. Length X X X 6.8.2.D. Area X X X 6.8.2.C. Weight X X X 6.8.2.d. Liquid X X X

6. 8. 3. a. X X X 6.8.3.b. X X X 6.8.3.b.l. X X X 6.8.3.b.2. X X X 6.8.3.b.3. X X X 6.9. Count: Ply X X X X X xx p X X

6. 9. a. Area X X X X X XX X X 6.9.b. Ply X X X X X XX X X 6.9.C. Count X X X X X XX X X 6.9.d. Dimension X X X X X XX X X

6. 10. a. Fractions X X X 6.10.b. X X X X X X X X X X X X 6.10.b.l. X X X X X X X X X X X X 6.10.b.2 X X X X X XX X 6.10.C. Common X X X X X X X X X X X X 6.10.d. Decimal X X X X X X X X X * X X C.ll.l. Supplem. X X x p X p x p X X 6.11.2. Ccrrbined X X X X X XX XX x 6.11.3. Rounding X X X 6.12. Qualific. X X X XXX X X X X X X X 6.13. Average * X X

Section 7. Declaration of Quantity: Nonconsumer Packages

7.1. General X X X 7.2. Location X X X X X XX X X 7.3. Terms X X X X X XX X X 7.4.a.In-lb wt

.

X X X X X XX X X 7.4.b. Liquid X X X X X XX X X 7.4.c. Linear X X X X X XX X X 7.4.d. Area X X X X X XX X X 7.4.e. Volume X X X X X XX X X 7.4.f. Dry X X X X X XX X X 7.4.1. Symbols X X X X X XX X X

7. 5. a. Metric-wt. X X X 7.5.b. Liquid X X X X X X X X 7.5.C. Linear X X X 7.5.d. Area X X X 7.5.e. Volume X X X 7.5.1. Symbols X X X

148
SECTION IN IAKSKYLAMEDMMI MSflVBlVDMTNE

7.6. Average

Section 8. Prominence And Placement: Consumer Packages

8.1. General xxxx xxxxxxxx

8.1.1. Location xxxx xxxxx xx

8.1.2. Style xx

8.1.3. Color xxxxx xx

8.1.4. Free area xxxx xxxxx xx

8. 1.4. a. xxxx xxxxx xx

8.1.4. D. xxxx xx

8.1.5. Parallel xxxx xx

8.2. Area of PDP xxxx xxxxx xx

8. 2. a. Rectangle xxxx xxxxx xx

8.2.b. Cylinder xxxx xxxxx xx

8.2.c. Other xxxx xx

8.2.1. Minimum htxxxx xx

8. 2. 2. Proportions xxxx xxxxx xx

Table 1. xxxxx xx

Section 9. Prominence And Placement: Nonconsumer Packages

9.1. General xxx xxxx xx

Section 10. Requirements: Specific Consumer Corrmodi t ies

,

Nonconsumer Conmodities, Packages, Containers

10.1. Display card x 10.2. Eggs x

10.3. Aerosols

10.4. Multi-unit x

10. 4. a. Number x

10. 4. b. Quantity x

10. 4. c. Total x 10.5. Combination

10.6. Variety

10.7. Cylinders x

10. 8.1. Containers

10. 8.1. a. bags

10.8.1.a.l.In-lb

10. 8.1. a. 2.Metric

10. 8.1. a. 2.1.

10. 8.1. a. 2. 2. 10.8.1.b. Oblong

10.8.1.c.Circular

10.8.1.d. Cups

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

149
SECTION/STATE IN IA KS KY LA ME MD M\ MI IVNM5MDMTNE

10.8.2. Capacity xxx xxxx xx

10. 8. 2. a. 1. In-lb xxx xxxx xx

10. 8. 2. a. 2. xxx xxxx xx

10. 8. 2. a. 3. xxx xxxx xx

10.8.2. b. Metric x x x 10.8.3. Terms xxx xxxx xx

10.9.1. Apparel xxx xx

10.9.2. Textiles xx

10.9. 2. a. Sheets xxx xxxx xx

10.9.2.b. Flat xx* x *** x * 10.9. 2. c. Pillow xx* x *** x*

10.9.2.d. Blanket xxx xxxx xx

10.9.2.e Tab.clo. xxx xxxx xx

10.9.2. f .Drape xxx xxxx xx

10.9.2.g. Carpet xxxx xx

10.9.2.h. Towel xxxx xx

10.9.2. i. Misc. xxx xxxx xx

10.9.2. j. Odd xxx xxxx xx

10.9.2. k. Remnant xxx xxxx xx

10. 9. 3. a. Tex Var. xxx xxxx xx

10.9.3. b. xxx xxxx xx

10.9.4. Exemption xxx xxx xx

10. 9. 4. a. xxx xxx xx

10.9.4.b. xxx xxx xx

10.9.4. C. xxp xx

10.9.5. Threads xxx xxxx x

10.9. 5. a. xxx xxxx x

10.9. 5. b. Yarn xxx xxxx x 10.9. 5. c. Symbol xxx x * x x 10.9.5.d. Indus xxx xxxx x

10. 10. a. Seeds xxxx x x lO.lO.b. xxxx xx

lO.lO.c. xx

Section 11. Exemptions

11.1. General xxx xxxx xx

11.2. Random xxxx xxxxx xx

11. 2. a. Weight xxxx xxxxx xx

11. 2. b. Price xxxx xxxxx xx

11. 2. c. Total xxxx xxxxx xx

11.3. Confections xxxx*xxxxx xx

11.4. Indiv. Serv xxxx xxxxx xx

11.5. Tobacco xxx xxxx xx

11.6. Glass Cont. xxx xxxx xx

11.7. Cigarettes xxx xxxx xx

11.8. Federal xxx xxxxx xx

11. 9. b. Dairy xxxx xxxxx xx

150
SECTION/STATE IN IA KS KY LA ME IVD MI m MS MD MT NE

11. 9. c. X X X X X X X X X X X

11. 9. d. X X X X X X X X X X X

11. 10. a. Juice X X X X X X X X X X X ll.lO.b. X X X X X X X X X X X ll.lO.c. X X X X X X X X X X X 11.11. Soft-drink X X X X X X X X X X X

11. 11. a. X X X X X X X X X X X ll.ll.b. X X X X X X X X X X X

11.12. Multi-unit X X X X X X X X X X X

11. 12. a. X X X X X X X X X X X 11.12.D. X X X X X X X X X X X 11.13. Butter X X X X X X X X X X X

11.14. Eggs X X X X X X X X X 11.15. Flour X X X X X X X X X X

11.16. Snail pkgs X X X X X X X X X X 11.17. Decorative X X X X X X X X

11. 18. a. Combo pkg X X X X X X X X

ll.lfi.b. X X X X X X X X 11.18.C. X X X X X X X X 11.19. Margarine X X X X X X X X X X

11.20. Corn flour X X X X X X X X X X 11.21. Drugs X X X X X X X X X 11.22. Film X X X X X X X X X

11. 22. a. X X X X X X X X X 11.22.b. p X X X 11.22.C. X X X X X X X X X

11. 23. a. Paints X X X X X X X X X 11.23.b. X X X X X X 11.24. Antifreeze X X X X X X X X X 11.25. Motor oil X X X X X X X X X 11.26. Pillows X X X X X 11.27. Var. Wts. X X X X X 11.28. Count X X X X x 11.29. Fishing X X X X X

Sec t i on 12. Variations To Be Allowed

12.1.1. Net X X * X X X X X X X X 12.1.2. Exposure X X X X X X X X X X

12. 1.2. a. X X X X X X X X X X 12.1.2.b. X X X X X X X X X X 12.2. Magnitude X

* X* * X

* X

*

Section 13. Retail Sale Price Representations

13.1. a. Cents Off x x x x x 13.1.b. Use xx x x x 13.1.b.l. xx x xx

151
SECTION/STATE IN IA KS KY U ME M) M MI WN IVB M3 MT NE

1 ^ 1 b 2 A.v YA AY A A inlutliUtUi b 3 vA YA YA YA A

13.1. b. 4. x x x YA AY

13 . 1 .b. 5

.

x YA YA YA 13.1.b.6. x x x x

13. I.e. x x x 13.1.d. x x x x x

13 2 a Tntro Off x x YA x YA YA YA YA 13.2.b.l. x x x YA AY 13 2 b 2 YA AY YA YA 13.2.b.3. x x x x x

1 1 9 h A VA A A VA A

1 3 9 o AY YA YA vA vA

13 2 r» 1 YA YA AY YA YA

13 2 e 2 Defin x x x x x

13. 2. d. x x YA

13. 2. e. x x AY YA YA

13. 3. a. Economy X X X

13. 3. b. X X X 13.3.b.l. X X X 13.3.b.2. X X X 13.3.b.3. X X X

13. 3. c. X X X

13. 3. d. X X X

Section 14. Revocation Of Conflicting Regulations

X XX

STATES CITATIONS TO STATE REGULATIONS

IN Indiana Code, Title 16, Chap. 29-31 (adopts Code of Federal

Regulations) (1978)

IA IVbdel State Packaging and Labeling Regulation, 1977 (no State

citation provided)

KS Kansas Statutes 83-150 to -153, "Weights and Measures Laws"

(1949); 1980 Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation

(no State citation provided) Adopted by reference from

legislature

KY Kentucky Administration Regulations Title 302, Chapter 75,

(1975)

LA Rules and Regulations Adopted by the Conmission of Weights and

Measures, State of Louisiana Regulations No. 203 (1953)

152
ME Maine Revised Status 1964, Title 10 (1979) (Automatic adoption

of most recent ]SO\M regulation)

MD Maryland Department of Agriculture Regulation, Title 15,

Subtitle 3, Chapter 2 (1973)

M\ Madel State Packaging and Labeling Regulation, 1971 (No State

citation provided) (1971) MI Michigan Department of Agriculture, Food Division,

Regulation No. 551, "Weights, Measures, Packaging and

Labeling" (1973)

WN Citation not provided; adopts code of Federal Regulations by

reference

MS Mississippi Weights and Measures Law, Chap 221, Laws of 1964

(1964)

MD Code of State Regulations, Title 2, Division 90, Chap 22.140

NBS Handbook 130 Model State Laws and Regulations (1984)

MT Administrative Rules of MDntana 8.5. 201 (1980)

153
-3EL I2C ?3XL

~ -* ~ - *«. - \ . R _

1 ~T-' Jr. Jr.

- - - : J - . ,-- • "-r r

- - ? i ~. 1 OQ

X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

1.1. X X X X X X X X

i.:. X X X X X X X

f.3- X X X X X X X X X

1.4. X X X X X X X X X X

1.3. X X X X X X X X p X 2.6. X X X X X X X X X X 2.T. -__._,-,„ - - - -

• X X X X X X X X X X X

2.S. X X X X X X X X X

1 6 2 . -. 5 j-.e X X

X X X X

Dili ty

res

X X X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X
SECTION/STATE NVNHNJMNYNCNDCHCKCRPAPRRI SC

6.4. Terms

6. 4.1. a. Weight

6.4. l.b. Measure

6. 4. I.e. Count

6. 5. a. In-lb Wt.

6.5.b. In-lb Liq.

6.5.c. In-lb Lin.

6.5.d. In-lb Area

6.5.e. In-lb Vol.

6.5. f. In-lb Dry

6.5.1. Symbols

6.5.2. "Ounce"

6.6. a.Metric Wt.

6.6.b.Metric Liq.

6. 6. c.Metric Lin.

6.6.d.Metric Area

6.6. e.Metric Vol.

6.6.1. Symbols

6. 6.1. a. Granmar

6. 6. l.b. L & mL

6.7. In-lb Prescr

6. 7.1. a. Length

6. 7. l.b. Area

6. 7. I.e. Weight

6.7.1. d. Liquid

Provision

6.7.2. Weight

6.7.3. Liquid

6.7.4. Length

6.7.5. Area

6. 7. 6. a. Length

6.7.6.b. Area

6.7.6.C. Weight

6.7.6. d. Liquid

6. 7. 7. a. Bidem.

6.7.7.b.

6.7.7.b.l.

6.7.7.b.2.

6.7.7.b.3.

6.7.7.C.

6.7.7.C.I.

6.7.7.C.2.

6.7.7.C.3.

6.7.7.d.

6.8.Metric Prescr

6.8.1. Less than

6. 8.1. a. Length

6. 8. l.b. Area

6. 8. I.e. Weight

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

# X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X p p X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X p X p X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X p

X X X

X X X

X X X

X p X X p p p p p

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

# X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

155
SECTION NY MI NJ NVI NY NC ND CH OK CR PA PR RI SC

6.8.1.d. Liquid X X X Proviso X X X

6. 8. 2. a. Length X X X 6.8.2.D. Area X X X 6.8.2.C. Weight X X X 6.8.2.d. Liquid X X X

6. 8. 3. a. X X X 6.8.3.D. X X X 6.8.3.b.l. X X X 6.8.3.b.2. X X X 6.8 .3. b. 3. X X X 6.9. Count: Ply X X X X X X X X

6. 9. a. Area X X X X X X X X 6.9.b. Ply X X X X X X X X 6.9.e. Count X X X X X X X X 6.9.d. Dimensions X X X X X X X X

6. 10. a. Fractions X X X

o -in u

6 .10 .b. X X X X X X X X 6.10.b.l. X X X X X X X X

Ct 1 rt K O 0 . 1U . D

.

L . X X X X X X X 6.10.C. Conmon X X X X X X X X 6.10.d. Decimal X X X X X X X X 6.11.1. Supplem. X X X X X X X X X 6.11.2. Combined X X X X X X X X 6.11.3. Rounding X p X

6.12. Qualific. X X X X X X X X X 6.13. Average X X X X

Section 7. Declaration of Quantity: Nonconsumer Packages

7.1. General X X X

7.2. Location X X X X X X X X

7.3. Terms X X X X X X X X

7. 4. a. In-lb wt X X X X X X X X 7.4.b. Liquid X X X X X X X X 7.4.c. Linear X X X X X X X X 7.4.d. Area X X X X X X X X 7.4.e. Volume X X X X X X X X

7.4.f. Dry X X X X X X X X 7.4.1. Symbols X X X X X X X X

7. 5. a. Metr ic-wt

.

X X X 7.5.b. Liquid X X X X X X X X 7.5.C. Linear X X X 7.5.d. Area X X X 7.5.e. Volume X X X 7.5.1. Symbols X X X 7.6. Average X X X X X X X X

156
SECTICN/STATE NVNHNJNVINYNCNDCHCKCRPAHIRI SC

Section 8. Prominence And Placement: Consumer Packages

8.1. General xx xx xxxx

8.1.1. Location xx xx

8.1.2. Style xx xx xxxx

8.1.3. Color xx xx xxxx

8.1.4. Free area xx xx xxxx 8. 1.4. a. xx xx xxxx

8.1.4. D. xx xx xxxx

8.1.5. Parallel xx xx xxxx

8.2. Area of PDP xx xx xxxx 8. 2. a. Rectangle xx xx xxxx

8.2.D. Cylinder xx xx xxxx

8.2.c. Other xx xx xxxx

8.2.1. Minimum ht xx xx xxxx 8. 2. 2. Proportions xx xx xxxx

Table 1. xx xx xxxx

Section 9. Prominence And Placement: Nonconsuner Packages

9.1. General x x x x x x x Section 10. Requirements: Specific Consumer Comnodities,

Nonconsumer QDmnodities, Packages, Containers

10.1

10.2

10.3

10.4

10.4

10.4

10.4

10.5

10.6

10.7

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

.Display card

. Eggs

. Aerosols

. Multi-unit

.a. Number

.b. Quantity

.c. Total

. Combination

. Variety

. Cylinders

.1. Containers

. l.a. bags

.l.a.l.in-lb

.l.a. 2. metric

.l.a. 2.1.

.l.a. 2. 2. .l.b. oblong

.I.e. circular

.l.d.cups

.2. Capacity

.2.a.l. In-lb

.2. a. 2. .2. a. 3. .2.b. Metric

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

157
SBCriCN/SrATE NV NH NJ NVI NY NC ND OH OK OR PA HI RI SC

10.8.3. Terms X X X X X X X X 10.9.1. Apparel X X X X X X X X 10.9.2. Textiles X X X X X X X X

10. 9. 2. a. Sheets X X X X X X X * 10.9.2.b. Flat X X X

# X 10.9.2.C. Pillow X X X

% 10.9.2.d. Blanket X X X X X X X X 10.9.2.e. Tab.clo X X X X X X X X 10.9.2.1. Drape X X X X X X X X

1 A AO — ^ 10.9.2.g. Carpet X X X X X X X X 10.9.2.h. Towel x X X X X X X X 10.9.2. i . Misc X X X X X X X X 10.9.2. j . Odd X X X X X X X X 10.9.2.k. Remnant X X X X X X X

10. 9. 3. a. Tex var. X X X X X X X X 10.9.3.b. X X X X X X X X 10.9.4. Exemption X X X X X X X

10. 9. 4. a. X X X X X X X 10.9.4.b. X X X X X X X

10 .9.4. C. X X X X X X X 10.9.5. Threads X X X X X X X X

10. 9. 5. a. X X X X X X X X 10.9.5.D. Yarn X X X X X X X X 10.9.5.C. Symbol X

* X X X X X X

10. 9. 5. a. Indus X X X X X X X X

10. 10. a. Seeds X X X X X X X lO.lO.b. X X X X X X X 10.10.C. X X X X X X X

Section 1 1 11Exemptions

11.1. General X X X X X X X X

11.2. Random X p X X X X X X X

11. 2. a. Weight X X X X X X X X X

11. 2. b. Price X X X X X X X X X

11. 2. c. Total X X X X X X X X X

ll.o. Coniections X X X X X X X X X 11.4. Indiv Serv X X X X X X X X X

ll.o. lobacco X X X X X X X X X

ll.o. Glass Cont

X X X X X X X X X

11.7. Cigarettes X X X X X X X X X 11.8. Federal X X X X X X X X X

11. 9. a. Dairy X X X X X X X X X

11. 9. b. X X X X X X X X

11. 9. c. X X X X X X X X X

11. 9. d. X X X X X X X X X

11. 10. a. Juice X X X X X X X X ll.lO.b. X X X X X X X X ll.lO.c. X X X X X X X X

158
SECTI CN/STATE NV NH NJ M NY C ND OH OK CR PA PR RI SC

11.11. Soft-drink xx xx xxxx x

11. 11. a. xx xx xxxx x

11.11. b. xx xx xxxx x 11.12. Multi-unit xx xx xxxx x

11. 12. a. xx xx xxxx x 11.12. D. xx xx xxxx x

11.13. Butter xx xx xxxx x 11.14. Eggs xx xx xxxx x

11.15. Flour xx xx xxxx x 11.16. Small pkg xx xx xxxx x 11.17. Decorative xx xx xxxx x

11. 18. a.Combo pkg xx xx xxxx x 11.18.b. xx xx xxxx x 11.18. C. xx xx xxxx x 11.19. Margarine xx xx xxxx x 11.20. Corn flour xx xx xx x x 11.21. Drugs xx xx xxxx x 11.22. Film x xx xxxx x

11. 22. a. x xx xxxx x 11.22.b. x p x 11.22. C. x xx xxxx x

11. 23. a. Paints x xx xxxx x

11.23. b. x xx xxx

11.24. Antifreeze x xx xxxx x

11.25. Motor oil x x x x x x x 11.26. Pillows x xx xx

11.27. Var. wts. x x x x x 11.28. Count x xx x x

11.29. Fishing x x x x x

Section 12. Variations To Be Allowed

12.1.1. Net * X X 12.1.2. Exposure * X X

12. 1.2. a. X X 12.1.2.b. X X

12.2. Magnitude X

X XXXX X XXXXX X XXXX X

X

x

* * * * *

Section 13. Retail Sale Price Representations

13.1. a. Cents Off x x x 13.1.b. Use x xx

13.1.b.l. x xx

13.1.b.2. x xx

13.1.b.3. x xx

13.1.b.4. x xx

13.1.b.5. x xx

13.1.b.6. x xx

159
SECTION/STATE NV NH NJ M NY I€ ND CH CK OR PA PR RI SC

13. I.e. x x x

13 . 1 . d

.

x x x

1^ 9 a Tntrn Off x x x

13. 2. b. x x x 13.2.b.l. x x x 13.2.b.2. x x x 13.2.b.3. x x x 13.2.b.4. x x x

13. 2. c. x x x 13.2.C.1. x x x 13.2.C.2. x x x

13. 2. d. x x x

13. 2. e. Defin. x x x

13 3 a Rponnrnv x x x

13. 3. b. X X X 13.3.b.l. X X X 13.3.b.2. X X X 13.3.b.3. X X X

13. 3. c. X X X

13. 3. d. X X X

Section 14. Revocation Of Conflicting Regulations

x x

STATES CITATIONS TO STATE REGULATION

NV Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 51, Chapter

581 (1983)

MH New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 359-A as inserted by

1969, 457.2 (adopts NOW! recomnendations by reference) (1969)

NJ New Jersey Administrative Code, Department of Law and Public

Safety, "Weights and Measures Rules" Title 13, Subtitle I, 1973 with revision to 1982

m (None)

NY New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, Chapter V, Weights and

Measures (1978)

NC North Carolina Administrative Code Title 2, Chapter 38,

Section .0300 (1984) (adopts 1984 Packaging and Labeling

Regulation in NBS Handbook 130 by reference with exeptions)

ND (None)

160
CH Ohio Packaging and Labeling Regulations, Regulation 901:6-3-01

to 6-3-12 (1977)

OK Regulation No. 1-A (1980 NOAM Packaging and

Labeling Regulation adopted)

CR Oregon Adninistrat ive Rules, 603-27-105 (1980)

PA Pennsylvania Code, Title 70, Part II, Chapter 21 (1980)

(adopted 1970 NOAM Packaging and Labeling Regulation)

PR Regulation Establishing the Form of Labeling Prepacked

Packages and Other Products for Use and Consumption, WVI-6

,

Comnonwealth of Puerto Rico Consumer Services Adninistrat ion

(1970) RI Rhode Island General Laws, Title 47 as amended, Chapter 165,

Public Laws 1966 (1966)

SC South Carolina Regulations 5-530 through 5-540 Code of Laws

of S.C. (1976)

161
IKIFQR.: PASSING i LA3ILING REGULATION

SECTION STATE S3 IN IX IT \T YA VI VCA ~<s\ \sl vsY

Sec t i on 1 . App 1 i ca t i or. la. Inner wrap x x x x x x lb. Shipping * x x x x lc. Auxiliary x x x x x x

Id. Tray pack x x x x x x

le. Oben carriers x x x x x

Sect i on 2 . De: ini t i or.s

1. Carrmocity x * x x x x x

2. Consimer Pkg x x x x x x x

3. Nonconsimer x x x x x x

4. Random x x x x x x x x

5. Label x x x x x x

6. Person x * x x x x x

7. Display panel x x x x x x

8. Mil ti -unit x x x x x x

Section 3. Declaration :: Identity: Consumer Package

3.1. Declaration x x x x x x 3.1.1. Parallel x x x x x x

Section 4. Declaration 01 Identity: Nonconsimer Package

XX XX XX X

Section 5. Declaration 0: Responsibility

Consimer And Nonconsiner Packages

Section 5. Declaration 0: Quantity: Consimer Packages

0 .

1

8.2

5.2

5.2

5.2

5.3

5 .

3

5.3

?neral p x irgest x xxx x x x

L. In-lb px xxx xxx !. In-lb px xxx

\fetric x x lantity x * x x xxx

Net wt x x x x x x

Lines tvbe x x x xxx

162
SECTION/STATE SD IN TX UT VT VA VI WA WV WI W

6.4. Terms

6.4.1. a. Weight

6.4.1.b. iMeasure

6.4. I.e. Count

6. 5. a. In-lb Wt.

6.5.b. In-lb Liq.

6.5.C. ln-lb Lin.

6.5.d. In-lb Area

6.5.e. In-lb Vol.

6.5. f. In-lb Dry

6.5.1. Symbols

6.5.2. "Ounces"

6.6. a.Metric Wt.

6.6.b.Metric Liq.

6.6.c.Metric Lin.

6.6.d.Metric Area

6.6.e.Metric Vol.

6.6.1. Symbols

6. 6.1. a. Grammar

6.6.1.b. L <5c mL

6. 7. In-lb Prescr

6. 7.1. a. Length

6.7.1.b. Area

6. 7. I.e. Weight

6.7.1. d. Liquid

Proviso

6.7.2. Weight

6.7.3. Liquid

6.7.4. Length

6.7.5. Area

6. 7. 6. a. Length

6.7.6.b. Area

6.7.6.C. Weight

6.7.6. d. Liquid

6. 7. 7. a. Bidimen.

6.7.7.b.

6.7.7.b.l.

6.7.7.b.2.

6.7.7.b.3.

6.7.7.C.

6.7.7.C.I.

6.7.7.C.2.

6.7.7.C.3.

6.7.7.d.

6.8.Metric Prescr

6.8.1. Less than

6. 8.1. a. Length

6.8.1.b. Area

6. 8. I.e. Weight

6.8.1.d. Liquid

p X

* X X X X X* X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

p X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

p X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

* X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X

* X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X p X X p p p p X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

163
SECTION/STATE SD TN TX UT VT VA VI WA. WV WI WY

Proviso x x

6. 8. 2. a. Length x x x 6.8.2.b. Area x x x 6.8.2.C. Weight x x x 6.8.2. d. Liquid x x x

6. 8. 3. a. x xx

6.8.3.D. x xx

6.8.3.D.I. x xx

6.8.3.b.2. x xx

6.8.3.D.3. x xx

6.9. Count: Ply x x x x x x x x

6. 9. a. Area xx xxx xxx

6.9.b. Ply xx xxx

6.9.C. Count xx xxx xxx

6.9. d. Dimensions xx xxx xxx 6. 10. a. Fractions x x x 6.10.D. xx xxx xxx

6.10.D.1. xx xxx xxx

6.10.D.2. x xxx xx

6.10.C. Common xxxxxx xxx

6.10.d. Decimal x**xxx *xx

6.11.1. Supplem. xx xxxxxx

6.11.2. Combined x x x x xxx

6.11.3. Rounding x x

6.12. Qualific. x x x x x x x 6.13. Average x * x

Section 7. Declaration of Quantity: Nonconsumer Packages

7.1. General X p X

7.2. Location X X X X X X

7.3. Terms X X X X X X

7. 4. a. In-lb wt X X X X X X X 7.4.b. Liquid X X X X X X X

7.4.c. Linear X X X X X X X

7.4.d. Area X X X X X X X 7.4.e. Volume X X X X X X X

7.4. f. Dry X X X X X X X 7.4.1. Symbols X X X X X X X

7. 5. a. Metr ic-wt

.

X X X 7.5.b. Liquid X X X X X X X 7.5.c. Linear X X X

7.5.d. Area X X X

7.5.e. Volume X X X 7.5.1. Symbols X X X

7.6. Average X X X X X X X

164
SECTICN/ STATE SDTNTXUTVTVAVIWAWVWIWY

Section 8. Prominence And Placement: Consumer Packages

8.1. General xx xxx xxx

8.1.1. Location xx xxx xxx

8.1.2. Style xx xxx xxx

8.1.3. Color xx xxx

8.1.4. Free area xx xxx xxx 8. 1.4. a. xx xxx xxx

8.1.4. D. xx xxx

8.1.5. Parallel xx xxx

8.2. Area of PDP xx xxx xxx 8. 2. a. Rectangle xx xxx xxx

8.2.b. Cylinder xx xxx xxx

8.2.c. Other xx*xxx xxx

8.2.1. Minimitn ht xx xxx xxx 8. 2. 2. Proportions xx xxx xxx

Table 1. xx

Section 9. Prominence And Placement: Nonconsuner Packages

9.1. General x x xxx x x

Section 10. Requirements: Specific Consumer Conrmodities,

Nonconsuner Corrmodi t ies , Packages, Containers

10.1. Display card xx xxx xxx

10.2. Eggs xx xxx

10.3. Aerosols xx xxx xxx

10.4. Mul ti -unit xx xxx xxx 10. 4. a. Number xx xxx xxx 10. 4. b. Quantity xx xxx xxx 10. 4. c. Total xx xxx xxx

10.5. Combination xx xxxxxxx

10.6. Variety xx xxx xxx

10.7. Cylinders x x x x xxx 10. 8.1. Containers x xxx x x

10. 8.1. a. Bags x xxx x x 10.8.1.a.l.In-lb x xxx x x

10. 8.1. a. 2. Metric x x x

10. 8.1. a. 2.1. x xxx x x

10. 8.1. a. 2. 2. x xx

10.8.1.b. Oblong x xxx x x

10. 8. I.e.Circular x xxx x x 10.8.1. d. Cups x xxx xx

10.8.2. Capacity x x x

10. 8. 2. a. 1. In-lb x xxx x x

10. 8. 2. a. 2. x xxx x x

10. 8. 2. a. 3. x xxx x x 10.8.2.b. Metric x x x

165
SBCriCN/STATE SD IN TK UT VT VA VI M W WI WY

10.8.3. Terms x X X X X X 10.9.1. Apparel X X X X X X 10.9.2. Textiles X X X X X X

10. 9. 2. a. Sheets X x x x x x 10.9.2.b. Flat x x x

* * * 10.9.2.C. Pillow x x x

* * * 10. 9. 2. d. Blanket x x X x x x 10.9.2.e.Tab.clo* x x x x x x 10.9 . 2. f .Drape x x x x x x

10. 9. 2. g. Carpet X X X X X X

10. 9. 2. h. Towel x x x x x x 10.9.2. i . Misc. x X X X x x

10.9.2. j . Odd x X X X x x 10.9.2.k. Remnant X X X X X X

10. 9. 3. a. Tex Var. X X X X X X 10.9.3.D. X X X X X X 10.9.4. Exemption X X X X X X

10. 9. 4. a. X X X X X X 10.9.4.D. x x x x x x 10.9.4.C. x x x x x x 10.9.5. Threads X X X X X X

10. 9. 5. a. X X X X X X 10.9.5.D. Yarn X X X X X X 10.9.5.C. Symbols X X X X X 10.9.5.d. Indus X X X X X X

10. 10. a. Seeds x x X X x x lO.lO.b. X X X X X X 10.10.C. X X X X X X

Sect ion 11. Exemption

11.1. General x x x X X x x X

11.2. Random x nf x X X x x

11. 2. a. Weight X X X X X X X X

11. 2. b. Price x x x X X x x x

11. 2. c. Total X X X X X X X X

11.3. Confections X X X X X X X X

11.4. Indiv. Serv x X

* x X X x x x

11.5. Tobacco x x x X X x x x 11.6. Glass cont

.

x x x X X x x x 11.7. Cigarettes x X x X X X X X 11.8. Federal x x x X X X x x X

11. 9. a. Dairy x x x X X x x x

11. 9. b. X X X X X X X X

11. 9. c. X X X X X X X X

11. 9. d. X X X X X X X X

11. 10. a. Juice X X X X X X 11.10. b. X X X X X X ll.lO.c. X X X X X X 11.11. Soft-drink X X X X X X X X

166
SECTION/STATE SD IN IX UT VT VA VI m WV WI W

11 11 A x x x x YA YA AY AY

11ll.ll.U. 11 h V"A YA YA YA X X X X

11 19 Mill t i -nn i" t AY YA X X X X X

11 1 9 a Av YA YA YA YA YA X X

11 19 h A YA AY YA YA AY AY X

1111. 1lO.<l Rnttpr DUl lei A YA AY YA YA X X

11.14. 11 14 T7<rrrc IliggS X X X X X X X X

11 1 ^ Flour A AY YA YA YA AY YA

11XX. 1XO.fi Qnft ClIKxl1 1I nkcr vA VA YA YA YA X X

X X . X i . JJcCUI ill 1 Vc VA AY AY YA YA YA YA

11 18 fl Combo Dker x x x x x x x x

11 18 h A. YA. YA YA YA YA YA YA 11.18.C. x x x x YA YA AY

11 1Q lVfarcpflrinp x x x x x YA

11 90 Corn flour x x VA YA YA YA

11X X • 91it X . TiPHOTG UL Ug a YA YA A AY YA YA YA YA

111 1 • 99 • Film 171 1111 AY YA YA YA YA X

11 99 fl YA YA YA YA YA YA

1 1 99 h YA P

YA 11.22.C. X X x X x x

11. 23. a. Paints X X X X X X 11.23.b. X X X X X X 11.24. Antifreeze X X X X X X 11.25. lVfotor oil X X X X X X 11.26. Pillows X X X X X 11.27. Var. wts X X X X X

11.28. Count X * X X X X 11.29. Fishing X X X X X

Section 12. Variations To Be Allowed

12.1.1. Net xxxxxx xxx

12.1.2. Exposure xxx xx xxx 12. 1.2. a. xx xx xxx

12.1. 2. b. xx xx xxx

12.2. Magnitude x** x* ***

Section 13. Retail Sale Price Representations

13.1.

13.1.b.

a. Cents-off

Use

xxx x x x 13.1.b.l.

13.1.b.2.

13.1.b.3.

13.1.b.5.

13.1.b.4.

xxx

xxx xxx x xxx

13.1.b.6.

13. I.e. xxx

167
SECT Ids;' STATE SD IN TX IT \T VA VI WA WV WI WY

13 . 1 .d. X X X

13 . 2 . a . Intro Oi i . X X X

1 3 . 2 . b

.

X X X

13 . 2 . b . 1

.

X X X

1 3 . 2 . b . 2 . X X X

13 . 2 . b . 3

.

X X X

13 . 2 .b . 4. X X X

13 . 2 ,c

.

X X X

1 3 . 2 . c . 1

.

X X X 13.2.C.2. X X X

13 . 2 . d

.

X X X

13 . 2 . e

.

X X X 13.3. Economy X X X X

13. 3. a. Defin. X X

13. 3. b. X X X X

1 3 . 3 . b . 1

,

X X X X 13.3.b.2. X X X 13.3.b.3. X X X X

13. 3. c. X X X X

13. 3. d. X X X X

Section 14. Revocation Of Conflicting Regulations

X X 0f

STATE CITATIONS TP STATE REGULATIONS

SD South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 39-4 (1979) and Regulation

No. 20.01.02.03 in process of adoption as of May 1984

TN

T Regulation Pertaining to Packaging and Labeling (Regulation

No. 1) (1970)

IX !rWeights and :*feasures Laws,'' Revised Civil Statutes of Texas,

1925 as Amended, Title 93, Chapter 7, (1980); Weights and

Measures Rules and Regulations 176 .44. 10 .001-. 006 (1980)

LT Regulations Governing the Packaging and Labeling of Conrnod i t i e s Promulgated Under Authority of Title 4, Chapter 9, Section 2, Utah Code Annotated 1953, As Attended A70-05-W3

\T Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 9, Chapter 73, Subchapter 4 (1973) (adopts >OVM Packaging and Laoeling Regulation by

reference)

VA Rules and Regulations for the Enforcement of the Virginia

Weights and Measures Law, Sections 3.1-919 through 3.1-969,

Code of Virginia 1950, Regulation No. 1 (1975)
VI Consline r Code of the Virgin Islands, Title 12 A, (1981)

W\ Washington Administrative Code 16-666-003 to -130 (1970) Order

No. 1135

WV West Virginia Adnini strati ve Regulations Chapter 21-2, Series

I (1976) WI Wisconsin Chapter Ag 53, (1975) Department of Agriculture

WY "Vfyoming Food and Drug Laws", Vfyoming statutes, Section 35-222

to -253 (1961)

169
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Presented by

Sidney A. Colbrook, Chairman

Weights and Measures Program Manager

Illinois Department of Agriculture

REFERENCE KEY

300 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances submits its report to the

69th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM). This report is the amended interim report of the Committee

which was printed in the Conference Announcement.

The report contains the recommendations of the Committee formed on the

basis of written and oral comments received during the year.

All references are to National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44

"Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices." Paragraphs to be added or completely

revised are so identified. Partial changes to paragaraphs are shown as

follows: wording to be deleted is shown lined out; wording to be added is underlined.

The report includes 28 Reference Key Items. Seventeen are recommendations for specific action by the Conference and are to be

voted on; they are identified by printing their Referenace Key Numbers

and headings in bold type. Eleven are informational items only, not

subject to vote; they are identified by an asterisk next to their Reference

Key Number. A complete list of all items follows: Section 2.20. Scales Code

301-1

301-2

301-3

301-4*

301-5*

301-6*

301-7*

301-8*

301-9

301-10

Scales Code Format and Tolerances

Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads for In-Service Tests

5.1.4.2. Values Displayed, Temperature Conditions

5.1.6.3. Customer's Indications

S.4.3. Multiple Load Receiving Elements

Performance Tests on Recording Elements

Railway Track Scales

Wheel-Load Weighers

Self-Operated Recycling Materials Devices and Systems

NTETC

302* Section 2.21. Belt-Conveyor Scales Code

170
Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

303-1 S. 1.4.4. Money-Value Computations

303-2 S.2.5. Zero-Set-Back Interlock

303-3 UR.1.1.1. Length of Discharge Hose/For Marinas

and Airports

303-4 Retail Motor Fuel Devices/Equipped with Large Capacity

Meters

303-5* Vapor Recovery

303-6* Artificial Heating of Petroleum Products

303-7 Non-temperature Compensated Wholesale Devices

303-8* Temperature Compensation

303-9* Agri-Chemical Meters

303-10* All Codes for Volumetric Measuring Devices

303-11 NTETC

Section 3.32. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

304-1 Computing Type Devices

304-2 Temperature Compensation

305 Section 3.33. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices Code

Section 4.43. Farm Milk Tanks Code

306-1 S.3.5. External Gage Assemblies

306-2 N. NOTES

307 Section 5.56. Grain Moisture Meters Tentative Code

* * * The following ten items have been placed on the consent calender and are

to be voted on in a single ballot: 301-10 304-1 306-2 1 303-1 304-2 307

303-7 305

303-11 306-1

301 SECTION 2.20. SCALES

301-1 SCALES CODE FORMAT AND TOLERANCES

The draft proposal included in the Report of the Committee to the 68th

Conference (1983) had been reviewed by Conference members and many

valuable comments and suggestions were received. During the Interim

Meetings, a joint meeting of all committees and attendees was held during

which a complete new draft was circulated, reviewed, and discussed. All present agreed that this draft proposal was a vast improvement over the

*On a request from the floor, Item 306-2 was removed from the consent

calendar. The remaining nine items were adopted.

171
present code, especially with respect to the simplification of the tolerance

section.

Concern with Two Concurrent Tolerance Sections

Agreement was reached that field personnel would have no problem in learning, with just a few hours instruction, the new tolerance structure and applying it to the those appropriate devices, which would be readily

identifiable in the field by the required markings applied by the manufacturer as to accuracy class and scale division value (d) or verification interval (e). The members of the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances had recommended adoption of the new

tolerance structure and the retention of the existing tolerances as the

only way adequate code recognition could be made for equipment

presently in use. Some in attendance expressed concern, however, about

the retention of the present tolerance sections applicable to existing

devices concurrent with the new tolerance structure to subsequently

installed devices. This does result in two sets of performance criteria. Assuming that field personnel are familiar with the existing requirements,

this would not present a problem since the new code is so readily learned

and applied. The major obstacle, then, is that new personnel would need

to learn both. Compatibility is Broad

This would not be a concern for most devices that the official deals with

in routine field work. Although the new tolerance structure is expressed

in a more simplified manner, the applicable tolerance values are

practically the same for all vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and railway track

scales (Class III L), the only difference being that new devices of Class

EI L are limited to 10 000 divisions. This is also true for other devices

when the number of scale divisions is from 2000 to 5000. Examples of scales falling within this category are as follows: Scale Capacity Value of d n 30 pounds 0 . 01 pound 3 000

30 pounds 1/ 4 ounce t 920

250 pounds 1 ounce 4 000

1 00 0 pounds 0. 5 pound 2 000

5 000 pounds X . 0 pound 5 000

10 000 pounds 2 pounds 5 000

100 000 pounds 10 . 0 pounds 10 000

i-or these devices, the new tolerance structure could be applied without

any significant change.

172
Potential Problems

Particular problems are small capacity scales (e.g., fan scales and counter

scales having significantly less than 2000 scale divisions) and larger

capacity scales other than vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and railway track

scales, with more than 5000 scale divisions. Alternatives for dealing with

this problem are to maintain existing parts T.I., T.2., and T.3. of the

code or to develop a simplified version of those parts.

Another area of concern was in dealing with wheel-load weighers. It is the Committee's opinion that the addition of a definition for portable

axle-load weighers and the tolerance application as provided in the new

sections adequately solve this problem.

Since the first publication of the proposed code, there has also been

considerable discussion of that particular paragraph of the Notes Section

specifying the amount of test weights to be used in the conduct of tests. Since this new recommendation has no specific impact on the proposed

code, it was decided that this part be removed from it and that it be

dealt with separately. Thus, this subject is a separate item in this report.

Conclusions

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances recommends adoption of the proposed code with the new tolerance structure and replacement of

the current T.I., T.2., and T.3. with the modification as presented

therein. The net result will be a single tolerance structure for the most

part, thus significantly reducing the concern related to operating with two

tolerance structures. It also recommends the redefinition of portable

axle-load weighers and the treatment of the issue on test weights as a separate item. The proposed code appears in its entirety at the end of

this Report as Appendix A. (Item 301-1 was adopted)

301-2 MINIMUM TEST WEIGHTS AND TEST LOADS FOR

IN-SERVICE TESTS

This subject had previously been dealt with as part of the proposed Scale

Code. As mentioned in the previous item (301-1) it was decided to deal

with this recommendation as a separate item. It is the view of the

Committee that the code should include a specified minimum test load so that the tests that are conducted are adequate to determine the

performance characteristics of the device, and ensure equity for device

manufacturers, service personnel, users, and consumers. It is recognized

that this could cause problems for jurisdictions not having the amount of

test weights specified; however, without such a recommendation, those same jurisdictions have another problem; i.e., convincing the responsible

parties to provide funds for obtaining the necessary standards.

173
Therefore, the Committee recommends the following addition to the Notes

Section:

N.2. Recommended Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads* For

In-Service Tests (Except Railway Track Scales).- The recommended

minimum test weights and test loads for in-service tests are as specified in the following table:

Device capacity

Recommended minimums

(in terms of device capacity) Recommended

(pounds) Test weights Test loads* (greater of) (where practicable)

0 to 100 105?

101 to 1 000 50? or 105?

100 lb

1 001 to 110 000

40 000 +

25$ or 50$ 500 lb 12.5$ or 25$

10 000 lb

Test weights to dial

face capacity, 1000d,

or test load to used capacity, if greater

than minimums

j specified

*The terms "test load" means the sum of the combination of field standard test weights and any other applied load used in the conduct of

a test using the substitution or build-up test methods.

Renumber N.2 to N.2.1. and N.2.1. to N. 2.1.1. (Item 301-2 was adopted.)

301-3 S.l.4.2. VALUES DISPLAYED, TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS

A recommendation was received to amend this paragraph to be consistent

with the criteria specified in the Handbook, "Type Evaluation

Examinations, Criteria and Test Procedures." In that Handbook it is stated that this requirement is not applicable to equipment when, after a normal installation, the power supply is intended to be supplied

continuously.

The Committee agrees with the proposal and recommends that paragraph

S.l.4.2. be amended by adding the following phrase at the beginning of

the paragraph:

"Except on devices installed with power normally supplied

continuously, and not equipped with an external power switch."

(Item 301-3 was defeated.)

174
301-4* S.l.6.3. CUSTOMER'S INDICATIONS

A recommendation was received to amend this paragraph to make it clear that multiplier keys can be incorporated in a computing scale. It is the

view of the Committee that computing scales equipped with multiplier

keys are acceptable, providing the device is not equipped with annunciator

lights or any other means that would indicate to the customer that any

unit price entry is on the basis of any terms other than the price per pound. It is also their view that any change in the wording of this paragraph could be less clear; the Committee therefore recommends no

change.

301-5* S.4.3. MULTIPLE LOAD-RECEIVING ELEMENTS

A comment was received that this paragraph should be amended by

deleting the exception for bench and counter scales, so that it would

apply to two digital computing scales interfaced with one printer. The

exception for bench and counter scales was included when this paragraph was adopted because the condition of the load receiving element is obvious to all parties concerned, there was no evidence of a problem with

this equipment, and it was not practical to require mechanical equipment

such as a bifurcated scale to be so designed. The original purpose of

this requirement was to correct a condition where it was not obvious

which load receiving element was in use for an indicated quantity and

specifically, a cabinet dial interfaced with a monorail scale and a dormant scale. It is the view of the Committee that the consumer and

users of systems with two computing scales and one printer have adequate

safeguards so that fraud is not facilitated and that code amendment is not necessary.

301-6* PERFORMANCE TESTS ON RECORDING ELEMENTS

It was brought to the attention of the Committee that certain recording

elements interfaced with vehicle scales were designed in such a manner

that, after a weight was recorded, additional recording of any values is inhibited until the load receiving element had been returned to a

zero-load. With this feature, it is not possible to record all test loads

during the conduct of an increasing load test as specified in H-112, EPO

#13. Manufacturers of this equipment stated that this feature was

incorporated at the request of users to prevent scale operators from

issuing duplicate tickets which could be used for fraudulent purposes.

It is the view of the Committee that this design is acceptable, and that the performance of a recording element can be determined adequately in an official test, with the application of any loads of different quantities.

To eliminate what seems to be a conflict between the Code and the

EPO, the Committee recommends that the EPO be amended stating that when a device is equipped with such a feature, at least four different

loads should be applied to determine the correct performance of the

recording element.

175
301-7* RAILWAY TRACK SCALES

Several comments were received concerning coupled-in-motion unit train

test procedures, and allowable differences between the static weights and

dynamic weights of individual cars. It is the Committee's view that further information and discussions with all interested parties is necessary

before any recommendation can be made. Therefore the Committee will request the Chairman of the Conference to appoint a task force,

consisting of representatives of manufacturers, users, and weights and measures officials, to resolve these issues and make recommendations to the Committee. This task force will be effective for two years maximum

and hopefully can complete its work by January 1986.

301-8* WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHERS

The committee received several recommendations regarding wheel-load

weigher tolerances and data concerning their performance capabilities.

Many comments were offered during the interim meeting from State Highway Weight Enforcement Officials, the Federal Highway

Administration, Equipment Manufacturers, and Weights and Measures

Officials. It is the Committee's view that these devices are necessary

and appropriate for use in Highway Weight Enforcement programs, that

the major problem with existing tolerances is the performance capability

of these devices at the low end, and that the proposed scale code if adopted will adequately care for this situation by providing an increased

tolerance at the low end of the weighing range. Since the scale has the

least use at the low end, this will not impact inequitably on truckers or

officials in the weight limit enforcement process. 301-9 SELF-OPERATED RECYCLING MATERIALS DEVICES AND

SYSTEMS

The committee reviewed further information available on this subject

since its Report to the 1983 Conference (Item 301-13). The committee is aware that recycling is continuing to grow and that there are many

devices and methods used to determine the quantity of the material being

sold. Certain of these devices are small bulk weighing systems, weighing

individual loads from 12 ounces to 12 pounds and others operate on a count principle. Other information indicates that many recycling centers are using conventional scales. Many of these conventional devices are of 1000- to 2000-pound capacity with scale divisions of 1 or to 2 pounds.

Loads weighed are from 3 to 5 pounds to 50 pounds or more. When

weighing unknown quantities on a device with 2-pound scale divisions, the

uncertainty is + 1/2 of that scale division or 1 pound. It is reasonable

to assume that the buyer will weigh to the closest scale division; therefore a 5-pound load on a 2-pound scale division device, will most

certainly be weighed at 4 pounds. This results in a 20% shortage to the

seller. The Committee offers the following guidelines to Weights and Measures

officials to aid in determining the appropriateness of a scale for these

applications.

176
(a) The smallest load to be weighed should be equal to or greater

than 20 scale divisions. Thus if the smallest load to be

weighed is 5 pounds (a plastic garbage bag filled with whole

aluminum cans) the value of the scale division should be 4 ounces or less. With that scale division the uncertainty in the weighing of a 5-pound bag of cans is 2 ounces, which is 2 1/2%, not 20%.

(b) The average draft should be at least equal to 100 scale

divisions (0.5% uncertainty) and preferably greater. The

following table illustrates the maximum weighing errors that can result (on a scale with zero error) due to the value of the scale division (d). Load expressed in d Relative error in 10 5 20 2.5 40 1.25 50 1 100 0.5 200 0.25 500 0.1 For those devices referred to by the Industry as reverse vending

machines, the Committee offers the following guidelines:

Machines Operating on a Multiple Count Principle:

Although there is no code for counting machines, these devices are

subject to weights and measures supervision and particular attention should

be given to the following requirements of NBS H-44, General Code.

G-S.l. Identification

G-S.6. Marking; Operational Controls, Indications, and Features

(proper and complete operating instructions should be

displayed to the customer)

G-S.7. Lettering (all markings shall be distinct and easily

readable and reasonably permanent)

G-UR.1.2. Environment

G-UR.2.1. Installation G-UR.2.3. Accessibility for Testing Purposes

G-UR.3.1. Method of Operation

G-UR.3.4. Responsibility; Money-Operated Devices (including a

posting of the price being paid in a clear and

conspicuous manner).

G-UR.4.4. Assistance in Testing Operations (supplying cans for testing material)

Machines Operating on a Weighing Principle:

Most of these devices are bulk weighing machines and should be

considered as such. However, since these devices are of a special design,

certain code provisions and requirements can be applied only with due

regard to that design, their intended purpose, and conditions of use. In

177
addition to those paragraphs of NBS H-44 referenced for machines

operating on a count principle, particular attention should be given to G-UR.1.1. Suitability of Equipment. In determining the appropriateness of the value of the scale division, the ratio of the average draft to the

value of the scale division should be at least 75:1 for small drafts (2 pounds or less) and approximately 150:1 for larger drafts. Thus, for devices with a hopper capacity or draft size up to 2 pounds, a 0.01-pound

scale division is appropriate, for devices with a hopper capacity of 3 to

6 pounds, a 0.02-pound scale division is appropriate, and for devices with

a hopper capacity from 7 to 12 pounds, a 0.05-pound scale division is appropriate.

The display of the weighed quantity to the customer is not considered

necessary, as it serves little useful purpose. The customer does have

possession of the cans and can either pre-weigh the lot or weigh out a sample of say 12 cans and count the remainder to determine the

approximate weight. The dispensing of the money is considered indication

enough of the quantity sold. There is ample precedent for this since a

taxi-meter indicates the cost of the product being measured in terms of

money, rather than miles. It is, of course, necessary to have some

internal means for displaying quantity in terms of weight for testing purposes.

It is also considered necessary that the design of the equipment be such

that it automatically assumes a zero-load reference before each draft is weighed. Thus any debris, moisture etc., remaining in the hopper after

each draft is automatically tared-out.

The device should also be designed so that a static test with test weights can be conducted. The tolerance values specified in the Scale Code

should be applied.

A dynamic or operational materials test should also be conducted with

available product. Since there are no performance criteria specified in the Code for a materials test, one should be established. As a result of

at least three years study, it has been determined that an equitable and

"state of the art" value is 5%. Last year's report also presented ample

justification for this value with respect to equity.

In order to provide adequate support for enforcement purposes, it is recommended that the Code be amended as follows: Add a new paragraph T.3.11. to read

T.3.11. TOLERANCE VALUES/FOR MATERIALS TEST ON

CUSTOMER-OPERATED BULK-WEIGHING SYSTEMS FOR RECYCLED

MATERIALS.- The maintenance and acceptance tolerance shall be

_+ 5 percent of the applied materials test load except that the

average error on 10 or more materials test loads shall not exceed

2 1/2 percent.

178
Add a new paragraph N.1.7. to read:

N.1.7. MATERIALS TEST - A materials test shall be conducted on

all customer-operated bulk weighing systems for recycled materials

using bulk material for which the device is used. Insert into the

device, in a normal manner, several accurately pre-weighed samples

(free of foreign material) in varying amounts approximating average

drafts. A motion was made to amend this item by including a requirement that these devices display weight values of the product and zero load. The

chair recognized a majority vote to debate. The motion to amend was

defeated.

(Item 301-9 was adopted.)

301-10 REPORT OF THE NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE (NTETC), SCALES AND WEIGHING

SYSTEMS SECTION

This Technical Committee met for a one-half day session during the

interim meeting. As a result, the Committee recommends Conference

adoption of the following additions to the Handbook, Type Evaluation

Examinations, Criteria and Test Procedures.

1. Add the following to paragraph 4 in that part headed G-S.l.

Identification:

On a scale or weighing element installed in a checkout stand, the

information required by this paragraph may be located under and

separate from the scale platter, providing the platter can be easily

removed without the use of a tool. This is considered appropriate, since the scale manufacturer cannot guarantee that the scale will not be recessed in the checkout stand. Further, it is consistent with the required location of the level indicating means, which also must be checked during an examination by the Weights

and Measures officials.

2. Add the following to that part headed Keyboard Tare:

3. If a device will accept a tare entry in excess of scale

capacity, a net weight indication must be a negative value, or the net display must be blank or display an error symbol.

3. Add to that part headed Recorded Representations under paragraph

5. dealing with random labels:

d. The symbol "$" or the word "dollars" is required with the total price and may be printed by the device or pre-printed on the

label. Defining the unit price in either manner is not

necessary.

179
4. Add a part as follows: Weighing Systems Equipped With a Single Indicating Element And

More Than One Weighing Element

1. An indication of any summed weight value shall include an over capacity indication, and a behind zero indication if any of the

weighing elements are in either of these conditions. This

applies whenever any or all of the weighing elements are empty or loaded. It does not apply to indicated negative

values for a behind zero balance condition.

2. Means shall be provided for setting each weighing element to a

zero balance indication. The zero-setting-mechanism shall not provide a summed weight indication.

3. The capacity by scale division value shall be marked adjacent

to the weight display in a manner dependent upon the

particular scale installation as follows:

a. When all weighing elements have the same capacity and

the load on each can be displayed independently and

summed, the marking shall be the capacity and scale

division value of an individual weighing element.

b. When all weighing elements have the same capacity and

only the summed weight values can be displayed, the

capacity and scale division value for the summed

capacity shall be marked.

c. When a summed value for all weighing elements and a summed value from any two elements can be displayed

independently, the capacity and scale division value shall be marked for both the total summed capacity and the

capacity of the two elements.

d. When the weighing elements have different capacities and

the load on each can be displayed independently, the

capacity of each shall be marked.

5. Include a test procedure for E.M.I, consistent with the test procedures outlined in the S.M.A. recommendation adopted by the

63rd NCWM (1978). The criteria for acceptability will be

consistent with the applicable paragraphs of the Pre-draft OIML

document on Electronic Weighing Instruments as developed by the

U.S. National Working Group for OIML PS7/RS2.

The meeting included discussions on subjects for which no decisions were

made. These subjects that will be included for further consideration at future meetings are as follows:

a. The security aspects on computer and data collection

equipment so designed that program or disc changes are

readily accessible to the user or operator.

180
b. Methods and evaluation criteria for electro-static

discharge tests.

c. International symbols for certain scale functions and

indications. (Item 301-10 was adopted.)

302* SECTION 2.21. BELT-CONVEYOR SCALES CODE

During the interim meeting, the Committee received a report from the

Chairman of the Belt-Conveyor Scale Code Task Force. The Task Force

has held three meetings and considerable work was done by

correspondence as well. As a result, a Pre-draft has been completed;

however, one more meeting is necessary to finalize the Draft.

The Committee expresses its appreciation to all those members of the

Task Force who worked diligently to accomplish so much in such a short period of time.

The Draft (Appendix A) is an informational item for review by the

Conference over the ensuing year. The Committee requests comments

from all interested parties for their review and discussion during its interim meeting in 1985 so that it may offer a revised code for Conference action in 1985.

303 SECTION 3.30 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES CODE

303-1 S.l.4.4. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATIONS

Over the last several years, the reports of the Committee have

referenced and offered many solutions to the problem of escalating motor

fuel prices. Code amendments have been made providing equitable criteria for the design and performance of retail motor fuel dispensers. Provision

has been made for increased money-value divisions necessary with higher

unit prices. An on-going problem has been an agreement between analog

money-value divisions on the dispenser and digital money-value divisions on

the console. It has been the view of the Committee, supported by

Conference action, that these must agree. Device manufacturers have

responded that this is too restrictive. Further compounding this problem

is the uncertainty in the readability of the indicated quantity values on an

analog dispenser when attempting to determine compliance with this paragraph.

It is the view of the Committee that the previous principles referenced

must be adhered to, but that certain amendments to the code can provide

equitable, yet less restrictive, design criteria to accomplish this. Therefore, the Committee recommends code amendments as follows:

181
Amend S. 1.4.4. Money-Value Computations to read:

S.l.4.4. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATIONS.- Money-value

computations on a retail device shall be of the full -computing type

in which the money value at a single unit price, or at each of a

series of unit prices, shall be computed for every delivery within

either the range of measurement of the device or the range of the

computing elements, whichever is less, fe a design evaluatieR The

test any analog money value indication shall not differ from the

mathematically computed money value (Quantity x Unit Price = Sales Price), for any delivered quantity, by an amount greater than one half the value e£ the meney value division fe a #ieW teat, the

diffcreRee shall Ret be greate? thaR the value &§ the meRey value

division—AmeRded-1982 the values shown in Table 1. TABLE 1.- Maximum Allowable Variations for Money-Value Computations

on Mechanical Analog Computers

Maximum

Allcwacle Variation Honey Value Design Field Unit Price Pi vision Test Test From To and Inducing

0 $ 1.00/gallon 1c _+ 1c _^ 1c 0.25/1 iter S-.00/gaIlon $ 3.00/gallon Ic cr 2c ^ 1 c 2c 0.25/liter 0.75/liter $3.00/gallon $10 .00/gallon is or 2c ^

1 c j* 2c 0.75/liter 2.:: liter 5c +2 1/2c * 5o

Amend N. 4.4.1. Money-Value Computation Tests/Laboratory Design

Evaluation Test to read: N. 4.4.1. LABORATORY DESIGN EVALUATION TESTS.- In the conduct of laboratory design evaluation tests, compliance with

paragraph S.l.4.4. shall be determined by using the cone gear as a reference for the total quantity delivered. The maximum allowable

variation of the indicated delivered quantity shall be an indication

with the index of the indicator in coincidence within the width of the graduation. The maximum allowable variation of the indicated

sales price shall be plus &e miftus eRe hal£ the value e4 the

smallest-meRey-value- divigioRT as shown in Table 1. Amend N.4.4.2. Money-Value Computation Tests/Field Tests to read: N. 4.4.2. FIELD TESTS.- In the conduct of field tests to determine

compliance with paragraph S.l.4.4. the maximum allowable variation

in the indicated sales price shall be plus ep mlRUs the value el the

mif^mum- meRey-va4ue- divisioftr as shown in Table 1. Renumber tables and table references that follow as necessary.

T.2.2., T.2.3., TABLE 1, TABLE 2. (Item 303-1 was adopted.)

182
303-2 S.2.5. FOR RETAIL DEVICES/ZERO-SET-BACK INTERLOCK

A comment was received that there is evidence in the field that operators are "hanging the nozzle" in a manner such that it appears to be

a normal position, but in fact it is not, thus bypassing the interlock and

resulting in short measure to customers. This condition is not evident to most consumers, and in some instances it is not difficult for an operator

to hang the nozzle in this manner. The Committee agrees that there is a need to correct this situation with an amendment to this paragraph. It recognizes that the change recommended can result in subjective

judgments but feels the problem is severe enough to warrant a change,

and that reasonable judgments will result. Therefore the committee

recommends that this paragraph be amended to read:

S.2.5. FOR RETAIL DEVICES ONLY, ZERO-SET-BACK

INTERLOCK.- A retail motor-fuel device of the meter type shall be so constructed that, after a particular delivery cycle has been

completed by movement of the starting lever to any position that

shuts off the device, an effective automatic interlock will prevent

a subsequent delivery being started until the indicating elements

and recording elements, if the device is equipped and activated to record, have been returned to their correct zero positions. Provision

shall be made for the starting lever to be in its designed shut-off

position and for the zero-set-back interlock to be engaged before

the discharge nozzle can be returned to its designed hanging

position or what appears to be its intended hanging position from

a reasonable customer position. In a system with more than one

dispenser supplied by a single pump, there shall be incorporated in each dispenser an effective automatic control valve which will prevent product being delivered by a dispenser until the indicating

elements on that dispenser have been returned to a correct zero

position. Amended 1981, 1984. The underlined phrase is non-retroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1985. (After agreement that in S.2.5 the phrase "; that is, any position where

the top of the nozzle is placed in its designed receptacle and the lock can be inserted." had been adopted by the 66th NCWM in 1981 but

inadvertently omitted in printing Handbook 44, item 303-2 was withdrawn;

the omitted phrase is to be added to the 1985 edition of Handbook 44.)

303-3 UR.1.1.1. LENGTH OF DISCHARGE HOSE/FOR MARINAS

AND AIRPORTS

A comment was received that to require hoses in excess of 18 feet to be

adequately protected from environmental factors was too restrictive. The

comment continued that measurement problems did not result when hoses

of 26 feet in length were used and not coiled and covered and that this paragraph should bmeasurement problems. The key is the performance of the

equipment at a given installation. When a device is equipped with a "hard wall hose" and there are no extreme temperature changes, and all other conditions of the installation and valve operation are good, hose

protection may not be necessary. Thus, it is difficult to specify any

183
particular hose length as the correct one. The test of a device "as found" without a double reset to correct any "computer jump" that

results in short measure can be a good indication of hose problems.

The Committee does concur with this comment and recommends that this section be amended by deleting "18 feet" and inserting "26 feet." Further, the Committee reminds the Conference that when measurement

problems are encountered at any installation, and the cause of the problem

is determined to be an inadequately protected hose of any length, hose

protection can be required under General Code, paragraph G-UR.2.1.

Installation. (Item 303-3 was adopted.)

303-4 RETAIL MOTOR FUEL DISPENSERS/EQUIPPED WITH

LARGE-CAPACITY METERS

The Committee received several comments that there are in use retail motor fuel dispensers (mostly non-computing types) equipped with

large-capacity meters installed at truck stops. These deliver at a rate in excess of 25 gal/min and up to 60 gal/min. The questions in need of answers in the enforcement process are:

a) what tolerances are applicable?

b) what are appropriate slow flow and fast flow test drafts?

c) should the delivery rates be marked on the device and, if so, where?

It is the view of the Committee that these devices serve a useful purpose; it makes the following recommendations:

1. Since these are retail motor fuel dispensers the appropriate tolerance

application is the same as for all other retail devices, that is T.2.1. Tolerance Values/On Retail Devices.

2. A slow flow test should be conducted at the minimum discharge rate marked on the device or the minimum discharge rate at which the

device will deliver when equipped with an automatic discharge

nozzle set at its slowest setting, whichever is less. The requirements of N.4.2.2. specify that a slow flow test should be

conducted at the two previous rates mentioned, but additionally "or at 5 gal/min., whichever is least." Since most of these devices operate at a

5:1 ratio between maximum and minimum flow rates (60:12, 50:10, 30:6), amendment to this paragraph is necessary. Therefore,

184
Add a new paragraph to read:

N.4.2.3. FOR RETAIL MOTOR-FUEL DEVICES WITH A MARKED

MAXIMUM DISCHARGE RATE OF 25 GALLONS PER MINUTE

[100 L/MIN] OR MORE.- A "special" test shall be made at a minimum discharge rate of

(a) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device, or

(b) the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver

when equipped with an automatic discharge nozzle set at its slowest setting, whichever is less. Renumber the paragraphs that follow.

3. To properly determine the performance characteristics of these

devices it will be necessary to conduct tests using equipment larger

than 5-gallon provers. Therefore amend N.3.4. to read:

N.3.4. TEST DRAFTS/FOR OTHER RETAIL DEVICES.- On devices

with a designed maximum discharge rate of less than 20 gallons per minute [80 L/min] , tests shall include drafts of one or more

amounts, including drafts of at least 5 gallons. On devices with a marked maximum discharge rate of 20 gallons per minute

[80 L/min] or greater, tests shall include drafts of one or more

amounts, including drafts of at least the amount delivered by the device in one minute at the maximum flow rate developed by the

installation.

4. It is considered necessary that these devices are marked with the

maximum and minimum flow rates; therefore add the following new

paragraph:

S.4.4. MARKING REQUIREMENT/FOR RETAIL DEVICES ONLY. - On a retail device with a designed maximum discharge rate of 25

gallons per minutes [100 L/min] or greater, the maximum and

minimum discharge rates shall be marked on the device, on an

exterior surface visible after installation. The minimum discharge

rate shall not exceed 20% of the maximum discharge rate. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1985)

(Item 303-4 was adopted.)

303-5* VAPOR RECOVERY

The Committee was informed that there is some consideration being given

to expanding the application of Stage II - Vapor Recovery (on retail motor fuel dispensers). Stage II has been in effect in California for several years, and as a result, the California Division of Measurement

Standards has had considerable experience in this area. If any jurisdiction

is faced with this problem, requirements and other data are available from

the California Division of Measurement Standards or the NBS Office of Weights and Measures.

185
303-6* ARTIFICIAL HEATING OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

This subject was addressed by the committee in its Report to the 1983

NCWM (Item 303-5). Since that time the Committee has received

information that this practice continues; specifically, at certain truck

stops fuel is being preheated prior to being measured. It is the view of the committee that this practice is unethical and certainly a fraudulent

marketing practice.

The Committee recommends that during the tests of retail motor fuel dispensers, the temperature of the product as dispensed should be

determined. If the results indicate that the temperature of the product

is warmer than it would have attained in a normal unheated storage

environment, legal action should be taken immediately.

For further information or aid, contact the NCWM S&T Committee, c/o

Technical Advisor, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234, telephone (301) 921-2401.

303-7 NON-TEMPERATURE-COMPENSATED WHOLESALE METERS

The Committee received a comment that paragraph N.2. specifies that

during tests of these devices care should be taken to reduce to a minimum, volume changes resulting from changes in temperature of the

test liquid, and N.5. requires that corrections be made for any changes in volume resulting from differences in liquid temperatures between the time

of passage through the meter and the time of volumetric determination in the prover. In the test of this equipment it has been found that the

temperature of the product in the prover is sometimes different than the

temperature of the product at the meter. If the cubical coefficient of

thermal expansion of the product being measured is 0.0005 per °F, a 5 °F

temperature difference is a change in volume equal to 0.0025 or 0.25%.

On a test draft of 500 gallons this is a change of 1.25 gallons or 288.75

cubic inches. The acceptance tolerance on this test is 137.5 cubic inches

and the maintenance tolerance is 275 cubic inches. Thus, a 5 °F

temperature differential is more than two times the acceptance tolerance

and also more than the maintenance tolerance.

Often these temperature differences are unavoidable in the testing process, consequently it is important that the temperature of the product

be determined at the meter and in the prover during the testing process. Since there is presently no requirement that means be provided for determining the temperature of the product at the meter, the Committee

recommends that the code be amended by adding the following new

non-retroactive paragraph:

S.2.6. DESIGN OF MEASURING ELEMENTS/FOR

WHOLESALE DEVICES/TEMPERATURE DETERMINATION.-

For test purposes, means shall be provided to determine the

temperature of the liquid either

186
(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) in the meter inlet or discharge line and immediately

adjacent to the meter. (Non-retroactive as of January 1, 1985)

Renumber the paragraphs that follow. (Item 303-7 was adopted.)

303-8* TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

Once again, the Committee received several comments on the subject as

it applies to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code and the Vehicle Tank

Meters Code. These comments included adding technical requirements

applicable to temperature compensating mechanisms to the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code, adding requirements to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

for temperature compensating means on wholesale devices in recognition

of the latest technology, and adding a definition for a U.S. petroleum

gallon.

The Committee has addressed all of these issues in years past, but there

has not been a sufficient majority vote for Conference adoption of most

recommendations made.

The Committee has not changed its view from that expressed in previous

reports, and is hesitant in repeating those recommendations which have

not been adopted. The basic underlying problem seems to be the

hesitancy on the part of the States to specify that petroleum products

must be sold at each specific level of distribution under a uniform

standard; that is, all "gross" or all "net" gallons.

It is apparent that problems have developed because of this, particularly

at the wholesale level, when certain dealers purchase on the basis of

"gross" gallons and others within the same marketing area purchase on the

basis of "net" gallons. When a temperature variation of 20 °F can result

in a volume differential of as much as 1%, inequity can prevail, and it becomes evident that a uniform standard is essential for equitable and

orderly marketing practices.

Thus, the Committee recommends that a symposium be held at this years Conference and that all interested parties present as much factual information as possible, so that a determination may be made as to what

definitive uniform standard is appropriate for each and every application.

303-9* AGRI-CHEMICAL METERS

At the interim meeting, the Committee received a draft code applicable

to devices used to measure these products from the Meter Manufacturers

Technical Committee (MMTC). This draft code includes those parts of

the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code and Vehicle-Tank Meters Code that would be applicable to both loading-rack and vehicle-tank meters, with

only minor changes. The only significant change is the recommended

tolerances. The MMTC has indicated that the major reason for the

187
r:clr.T. is :::.:a:. tri£t is,

7:.r recc-mersd

following lie -.lis: ferti

f^gtoites. :e:::„art5. 5 hiit : " € ~ . : L ir.O'jis tries.

Mi

1% of

ind 1 cs : e

:

vol0 . 5* of

: n c i c a t e c VOll

:::-::»

] Meters,
a. For computing systems, the date, quantity, unit price, and

total price shall be recorded and shall agree with the

indications on the dispenser.

b. For non-computing analog dispensers, when the billing is on

the basis of the individual quantities for each transaction

(non-cumulative), the value of the smallest unit of displayed

quantity for each transaction shall be not greater than 0.1 gallon providing the "pulser" and the recorded quantity used

for billing is equal to or less than 0.01 gallon. (Code

Reference also S.l. 4.4.2.)

6. On dispensers equipped with electronic digital indicating

elements, the system shall automatically stop delivery before

exceeding either the maximum quantity or maximum total price that can be indicated.

S.2.5. ZERO-SET-BACK-INTERLOCK

4. The use of the interlock shall be effective under all conditions

when any control on the console, except a system emergency

shut-off, is operated and after any momentary power failure. Add Section to Criteria Applicable to all Liquid Measuring Devices as

follows:G-S.5.1. INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS/GENERAL

6. Zero Indication.- The zero indication must consist of at least the following minimum indications as appropriate:

a. One digit to the left and all digits to the right of a decimal point.

b. If a decimal point is not used at least one active decade

plus any constant zeros.

c. A fixed or constant zero cannot appear after a decimal

point; i.e., all decades to the right of a decimal point must be

active.

NOTE: For Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers see also S.l.4.1. For Vehicle Tank Meters see also S.l. 1.5. For Liquefied Petroleum Gas/Liquid Measuring Devices see also

S.l.4.1. Add Sections to Specific Criteria For Vehicle Tank Meters as follows: G-S.5.1. INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS/GENERAL

5. Tax Computation.- Each tax shall be computed separately,

rounded to the nearest cent, and summed to obtain the total price of the sale.

189
The Committee is cognizant of this situation and has included in its five-year plan, as developed last year, a complete review of these codes

during 1985. As a result it is expected that the Committee will have a complete re-draft of these codes for consideration during its interim

meeting in January 1986 and finalized for 1986 Conference action.

303-11 REPORT OF THE NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE (NTETC), METERS AND

MEASURING SYSTEMS SECTION

This Technical Committee met for a one-half day session during the

interim meeting. As a result the Committee recommends Conference

adoption of the following additions to the Handbook, "Type Evaluation

Examinations, Criteria and Test Procedures."

Add sections to Specific Criteria For Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers as

follows:G-S.5.1. INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS/GENERAL -

1. Discount Pricing.- The unit price is pre-set in the dispenser by

the operator in the normal manner and all discounts for any

sale are computed on the basis of a) the pre-set unit price, or

b) the computed total price or c) the discount per gallon.

*a. A console interfaced with either an analog or a digital

indicating dispenser may recompute a total price displayed by

the dispenser, if the price to be paid by the customer is different from the value displayed.

*b. For a sale in a preset amount, either money or quantity,

discount may be offered to the customer either in terms of money returned or as additional product delivered provided

that the discount is extended on the additional product

delivered.

*c. A console shall be capable of switching back and forth repeatedly between the normal and discounted total prices.

d. The algorithms for computing a discounted price or a customer discount shall be one of the following:

(1) Q X (UP - discount) = new total price

(2) total price - Q X (UP - discount) = discount

Each rounded to nearest cent

(3) total price - (Q X discount) = new total price

Each rounded to nearest cent Existing checklist requirements.

190
2. Selectable Unit Price Capability - A device (console or dispenser) so designed that an operator or customer can select the unit price for a particular transaction at the time of

sale. *a. A dispenser may be equipped with means for selecting two

or more unit prices, provided that the unit price selected cannot be changed after the initial flow begins.

Any unit price selected may be continuously displayed on

the dispenser after the conclusion of a delivery and

sale, provided that any total price displayed is in mathematical agreement with the equation quantity X

unit price = total price.

After the termination of one sale, a unit price different

from that of the previous sale cannot be automatically

selected and displayed until the quantity and total sales values have been returned to zero.

*b. A console may be equipped with means for selecting two

or more unit prices, provided that the unit price selected cannot be changed after the operating mechanism at the

dispenser is in the "on" position.

3. Debit Card Transaction - A transaction in which payment is made directly from the purchaser's account by electronic funds

transfer.

a. A receipt must be available to the customer at the

completion of the transaction. The issuance of the receipt

may be initiated at the option of the customer.

b. The customer receipt must contain the following

information:

the identity of the seller, purchaser, and product purchased

(codes may be used); the date of the transaction, the quantity

purchased, the unit price, and the total price.

4. Cash Value Card - A card encoded with the cash value of the

initial purchase price which authorizes a customer to purchase

products up to the cash value of the card. The value of the

card is decreased in amounts equal to individual purchases.

Means shall be provided to the customer to determine the

initial cash value of the card and the remaining cash value

prior to and after each transaction.

5. Invoice Billing - A system where customers are billed for one

or more transactions at the end of a billing period.

Existing Checklist Requirements.

191
S.l.1.5. RETURN TO ZERO

2. Automatic or manual means shall be provided to assure that the system on the outlet side of the meter is pressurized before

recording an initial zero condition as required by UR.2.1.

3. A printer shall be so designed that the recording of zero shall reflect the actual initial condition of the meter prior to delivery.

During the meeting a lengthy discussion ensued concerning the criteria that were developed for electronic cash register receipts when interfaced

with a service station console. Agreement could not be reached;

therefore this criteria will be included on the agenda for the next meeting of this Committee. In the meantime, the criteria developed will serve on a tentative basis for evaluations of this equipment conducted by

the Office of Weights and Measures and the State of California. Future items will also include EMI and electro-static discharge test methods and performance criteria. (Item 303-11 was adopted)

304 SECTION 3.32. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS LIQUID-MEASURING

DEVICES CODE

304-1 COMPUTING TYPE DEVICES

The committee received a comment that the requirements of this Code

applicable to computing type devices have not been amended consistent

with the changes made in the Codes for Liquid-Measuring Devices and

Vehicle-Tank Meters. To correct this oversight, the committee

recommends that this code be amended as follows: Amend S.l.4.4. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATIONS to be consistent with

S.I.4.4., S.l. 4.4.1., S. 1.4.4.2., and S.l.4.4. 3. of the Liquid-Measuring

Devices Code.

Amend N. Notes to be consistent with N. 4.4.1. and N. 4.4.2. of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code.

(Item 304-1 was adopted)

304-2 TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

The Committee received a comment that the technical requirements of

this code applicable to temperature compensation apply only to automatic

temperature compensating mechanisms. These requirements do not apply

to wholesale sales of liquefied petroleum gas by means of calibrated

containers or by weight. The comment further stated that in some

instances, customers have received compensated deliveries from one

192
refinery, uncompensated deliveries from another refinery, but are billed by

the distributor. This results in the customer receiving conflicting statements between the refinery and the distributor. Some refineries also compensate using the specific gravity of the product at a temperature

other than 60 °F.

Another concern expressed was that Paragraph UR.2.4.2. Written Invoices

only applied when an automatic temperature compensator was used in the

delivery, and that the same principle should be applied to all compensated

volume sales. The Committee agrees with these comments and recommends the

suggested Code Amendments that follow: Add a new paragraph to read: UR.2.4.2.- TEMPERATURE COMPENSATED SALE.- All sales of

liquefied petroleum gas in a liquid state, when the quantity is determined by an approved measuring system equipped with a temperature compensating mechanism, or by weight and converted

to gallons, or by a calibrated container, shall be in terms of the

United States gallon of 231 cubic inches and the volume shall be

expressed at 60 °F.

Renumber UR.2.4.2. to UR.2.4.3. and amend to read: UR.2.4.3. WRITTEN INVOICES.- Any written invoice based on a the

reading of a device that is equipped with an automatic temperature

compensator or based on a weight converted to gallons, or based on the volume of a calibrated container , shall have shown thereon

that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 60 °F.

(Item 304-2 was adopted)

305 SECTION 3.33. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS VAPOR-MEASURING

DEVICES CODE

A comment was received that in this Code paragraph A.l. Application,

S.2.1. Pressure Regulation, and UR.2.2. Invoices should be amended

primarily for clarity purposes. The committee agrees and recommends

code amendments as follows: Amend A.l. to read: A.l.- This code applies to positive displacement ie-w-ppess-upe

£6 pst ei* less) devices used for the measurement of liquefied

petroleum gas in the vapor state.

193
Amend S.2.1. Pressure Regulation by adding the following paragraph:

Where vapor is being measured at a pressure of one pound per square inch or more, the delivery pressure shall be maintained

within + 0.25 pound per square inch. Pressure variations due to regulator lock off shall not increase the operating pressure by more

than 25%.

Add a new paragraph N.4.2.3. to read:

N.4.2.3. PRESSURE REGULATION TEST.- On devices operating at a

pressure of one pound per square inch or more, a pressure

regulation test shall be made at both the minimum and maximum

use load to determine the proper operation of the regulator and the

proper sizing of the piping and dispensing equipment. These tests may include a test of 24 hours during which the pressure is recorded.

Amend paragraph UR.2.2. Invoices by adding at the beginning of the

paragraph the following:

A customer purchasing liquefied petroleum gas measured by a vapor

meter shall receive from the seller an invoice for each billing

period. The invoice shall have shown clearly thereon the total charge for the billing period, the total quantity being billed, the

altitude correction factor, the last meter reading and the date of

that reading, and the rate schedule number at which the product is being billed. If the vapor meter is equipped with an automatic

temperature compensator, or any other means are used to compensate for temperature, the invoice shall have shown thereon

that the volume has been adjusted to the volume at 60 °F.

(Item 305 was adopted)

306 SECTION 4.43. FARM MILK TANKS CODE

306-1 S.3.5. EXTERNAL GAUGE ASSEMBLIES

The Committee received a comment that air locks could develop in these

assemblies and cause an incorrect reading. The Committee agrees and

recommends this part be amended by adding the following new paragraph:

S.3.5. 5. VENTING.- An external gauge tube shall be adequately

vented at the top, open to the atmosphere. Any attachment to the

gage tube shall not adversely affect the operation of this vent. (Item 306-1 was adopted)

306-2 N. NOTES

A comment was received that the information contained in the Report of

the Committee to the 1983 NCWM regarding meniscus readings should be

included in the notes section of this Code. The Committee agrees and

recommends this section be amended by adding the following paragraph:

194
N.6. READING THE MENISCUS - When a reading or setting is to be

obtained from a meniscus formed by milk or other opaque liquid, the index or reading line is the position of the highest point of the meniscus. When calibrating a device with water and the device is to be used with an opaque liquid, the reading should be obtained

accordingly; that is, the position of the highest point of the

meniscus.

(Item 306-2 was adopted)

307 SECTION 5.56. TENTATIVE CODE, GRAIN MOISTURE METERS

During its interim meeting, a meeting was held with the Grain Moisture

Meter Advisory Committee. As a result the Committee recommends that

this code be made permanent with the following changes:

Delete paragraph S.l.4.2. Digital Indications/Range of Moisture Content. Change paragraph S.l.6.2. Operating Range to non-retroactive.

Amend paragraph S.3.3. Conversion and Correction Tables, by

adding the following sentence.

f) Values exceeding any measurement range shall not be included.

(Item 307 was adopted)

In continuation of established policy, the listing of OWM Reports of test completed since last year is included at the end of this report. (Appendix

B.) The Committee expresses its sincere and grateful appreciation to all those

offering comments and suggestions. In most instances, the information was presented in an orderly and effective manner, which greatly

facilitated review of the information by the Committee and action thereon. It is only through such cooperative effort that the Conference

can continue to attain uniform and equitable measurement standards. The

Committee also expresses its appreciation to all those participating in the

Interim Meeting. The comments and suggestions greatly aided the

Committee in its deliberations.

S. A. Colbrook, Illinois, Chairman

K. S. Butcher, West Virginia

F. Gerk, New Mexico

D. A. Guensler, California R. W. Probst, Wisconsin

O. K. Warnlof, Technical Advisor, NBS

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

195
VOTING RESULTS - COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

House of State House of Representatives Delegates

REFERENCE

KEY Yes No Yes No

301-10

303-1

303-7

303- 11

304- 1 42 0 62 0 304-2

305

306-1

307

301-1 45

301-2 44

301-3 8 301-9* 19

301-9 36

303-3 36

303-4 40

306-2 39

300 42

motion of amendment

1 60 2

0 58 0 34 7 44

19 14 34

6 41 10

1 48 0

0 45 0

1 39 2

0 50 0

196
APPENDIX A

DRAFT

BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS

A. APPLICATION

A.I.- This code applies to belt-conveyor scale systems used for the

weighing of bulk materials. A. 2.- The code does not apply to:

(a) devices used for discrete weighing while moving on conveyors

(b) devices that measure quality on a time basis

(c) check-weighers

(d) controllers or other auxiliary devices except as they

may affect the weighing performance of the belt conveyor scale. A. 3.- See also General Code requirements.

S. SPECIFICATIONS

S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS

S.l.l. GENERAL.- A belt-conveyor scale system shall be

equipped with a primary indicating element in the form of a master weight totalizer and shall also be equipped with a recording

element and a rate of flow recorder. An auxiliary counter shall not be considered part of the master weight totalizer.

5.1.2. UNITS.- A belt-conveyor scale shall indicate and record

weight units in terms of pounds, tons, long tons, metric tons, or kilograms. The value of a scale division (d) expressed in a unit of weight shall be equal to:

a. 1, 2, or 5, or

b. a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5; or

c. a binary submultiple of an inch-pound unit of weight

5.1.3. VALUE OF THE SCALE DIVISION.- The value of the

scale division shall not be greater than 0.05% (1/2000) of the rated

capacity of the scale.

5.1.4. RECORDING ELEMENTS AND RECORDED

REPRESENTATIONS.-The value of the scale division of the

recording element shall be the same as that of the indicating

element. It shall record the units of measurement (i.e., pounds,

tons, etc.), the date, and time.

197
5.1.5. RATE OF FLOW INDICATION AND RECORDERS.- A

belt-conveyor scale shall be equipped with a rate of flow indicator

and a disc or strip chart recorder. An alarm system shall be

provided to help prevent underloading or overloading. The alarm

signal shall operate at not less than 35% and not greater than 98%

of the scale rated capacity and shall not be fitted with means to disconnect the signal. The type of alarm used (audio or visual) shall be determined on the basis of the individual installation.

5.1.6. ADVANCEMENT OF PRIMARY INDICATING ELEMENT

AND PRINTER.- The primary indicating element and recording

element shall advance only when the belt conveyor is in operation.

5.1.7. MASTER WEIGHT TOTALIZER.- The master weight

totalizer shall not be resettable without breaking a security means.

5.1.8. POWER LOSS.- In the event of power failure, the

accumulated measured quantity on the master weight totalizer of an electronic digital indicator shall be retained in memory during

the power loss.

S.2. DESIGN OF WEIGHING ELEMENTS.- A belt-conveyor scale system

shall be designed to combine automatically belt travel with belt load in order to provide a determination of the weight of the material that has

passed over the scale.

5.2.1. ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS.- An adjustable component

that can affect the zero load balance condition or the performance

of the device (except as prescribed in S.6.1) shall be held securely

in adjustment and shall not be capable of adjustment without

breaking a security means.

5.2.2. OVERLOAD PROTECTION.- The load receiving elements

shall be equipped with means for overload protection of not less than 150 percent of rated capacity. The accuracy of the scale in

its normal loading range shall not be affected by overloading.

5.2.3. TEMPERATURE EFFECTS.- The conveyor scale system

shall comply with the performance requirements at temperatures

from 150 °F to 115 °F. The conveyor scale (without the belt) shall comply with the

following: For a change in temperature of 20 °F (at a rate of less than 10 °F per hour), the master weight totalizer shall not change

by more than the value of two scale divisions when the system is operated at no load for a time period equal to the time required to deliver the minimum test load.

5.2.4. POWER SUPPLY EFFECTS.- The conveyor scale system

shall comply with the performance requirements without zero adjustment for variation of -15% to +10% of nominal voltage and

_+ 2% of nominal frequency.

198
5.3.- MARKING REQUIREMENTS.- A belt-conveyor scale system

shall be marked with the following: (See Also G-S.l)

a. The rated capacity in units of weight per hour (minimum and

maximum).

b. The value of the scale division.

c. The design speed in terms of feet or meters per minute at which the belt will deliver the rated capacity.

d. The design load in terms of pounds per foot or kilograms per meter.

e. Power supply requirements.

f. Operational temperature range.

g. National Weights <5c Measures type evaluation identification.

5.4. SPEED MEASUREMENT.- A scale system shall be equipped with a

belt speed or travel sensor so that there is no possibility that slip will occur whether the belt is empty or loaded.

5.5. ZERO SETTING

5.5.1. DESIGN OF ZERO-SETTING MECHANISM.- The range

of the zero-setting mechanism shall be not greater than 2 percent

of the rated capacity of the scale without breaking the security means. Automatic and semi-automatic zero-setting mechanisms

shall be so constructed that the resetting operation is carried out

only after a whole number of belt revolutions and the completing

of the setting or of the whole operation is indicated.

5.5.2. SENSITIVITY AT ZERO LOAD- (For Initial Verification) When the system is operated for a time period equal

to the time required to deliver the minimum test load and with a

test load equal to two scale divisions applied directly to the

weighing element, the totalizer shall advance not less than one or more than three scale divisions. An alternative test of equivalent

sensitivity shall also be acceptable. N. NOTES

N.l. GENERAL.- Belt-conveyor scales are capable of weighing bulk material accurately; however, their performance can be detrimentally

affected by the conditions of the installation. (See User Requirements).

N.1.1. MATERIALS TEST.- Official tests of the belt-conveyor

scale system shall be done by weighing, on a certified reference

scale (see T.l.l., paragraph d), the quantity of material that has

passed over the belt conveyor scale (or will pass over the scale if the material is pre-weighed) and adjusting the belt-conveyor scale

to the reference scale.

199
N.1.2. SIMULATED TESTS - Simulated loading conditions as recommended by the manufacturer and approved by the certifying

authority may be used to properly monitor the system operational

performance between official tests, but shall not be used for

official certification. N.2. CONDITIONS OF TESTS.- A belt-conveyor scale shall be tested

after it is installed on the conveyor system with which it is to be used

and under such environmental conditions as may normally be expected. It shall be tested at normal use capacity and may be tested at any other

rate of flow that may be used at the installation. Each test shall be not

less than 2000 scale divisions and at least three revolutions of the belt. In addition, one of the following must be met, whichever is applicable:

a. Ten minutes operation

b. A normal weighment not to exceed 1000 tons

c. Additional tests as deemed necessary by the

certifying authority to adequately determine the

performance of the device. N.3. ZERO-LOAD TEST.- If a belt-conveyor scale system has been idle for a period of two hours or more, the system shall be run under load for not less than 30 minutes or not less than one hour under a no-load

condition when the temperature is above 41 °F (5 °C). When the

temperature is below 41 °F additional warmup time is required before

beginning the zero tests. The totalizer indication shall not change more

than + one scale division when the instrument is operated at no load for a period equivalent to the time required to deliver the minimum totalized

load. The zero load test shall be conducted over a whole number of belt revolutions of not less than three revolutions or 10 minutes operation,

whichever is greater.

The totalizer shall not change more than + three scale divisions during

any portion of the zero test. N.4. MATERIAL-TEST PROCEDURE.- Use bulk material, preferably

that material for which the device is normally used. Either pass a preweighed quantity of material over the belt-conveyor scale system in a manner as similar as feasible to actual loading conditions, or statically

weigh (on a suitable scale as defined in T.l.l., paragraph d) all material

that has passed over the belt-conveyor scale during a material test. Means for weighing the material-test load will depend on the capacity of the belt-conveyor scale and availability of a suitable verification scale for the test. To assure that the test load is accurately weighed and

determined, the following precautions shall be observed:

a. The containers, whether they are railroad cars, trucks, or boxes, must not leak, and shall not be overloaded to the point

that material will be lost.

200
b. The actual empty or tare weight of the containers shall be

determined at the time of the test. Stencilled tare weight of railway cars or trucks shall not be used.

c. Gross and tare weights shall be determined on the same

verification scale.

d. When a test load is passed over the scale, the belt loading

hopper shall be examined before and after the test to assure

that the hopper is empty and that only the material of the test load has passed over the scale.

e. When a railway track scale is used to weigh the test load, not more than 24 hours should elapse between the test on the

belt-conveyor scale and the determination of the weight of the

test load. When other scales are used, the elapsed time should

be not more than eight hours.

f. The test shall not be conducted when it is raining or snowing

unless adequate precautions are taken to assure that the weight

of the test load is not affected.

g. A minimum of three individual tests shall be conducted for each official verification. T. TOLERANCES

T.l. APPLICATION.- Tolerances for commercial weighments of materials

measured on conveyor scale systems shall be as follows:

T.l.l. ON INITIAL VERIFICATION.- The acceptance tolerance

shall be + 0.25% of test load under the following conditions:

a. The installation of a device/system is for commercial use.

b. After major reconditioning, relocation, or after 3 months of non-use of the device/system.

c. After official rejection of the device/system by the certifying

authority and subsequent service.

d. The quantity of the applied load for a materials test shall be

verified by means of a reference weighing device (e.g., vehicle,

railway track, or hopper scale) which shall, concurrent with the materials test, be adjusted to an accuracy of _+ 0.05% of applied load. Where practical, the substitution method of

testing the verification scale to used capacity shall be

employed.

T.1.2. SUBSEQUENT VERIFICATION.- The maintenance

tolerance shall be _+ 0.5% of applied load. Maintenance tolerances are

applicable to materials tests when concurrent standards verification of the reference weighing device cannot be met.

201
T.2. REFERENCE STANDARDS - Verifying the accuracy of the reference

weighing device is the responsibility of the certifying authority.

UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. USE REQUIREMENTS.- A belt-conveyor scale system shall be

operated within the manufacturer's recommended operational range. UR.1.1. MINIMUM DELIVERY - Delivered quantities of less than

the minimum test load shall not be considered a valid weighment.

UR.l.2. SECURITY MEANS.- When a security means has been

broken, it shall be reported to the certifying authority.

UR.2. CONVEYOR DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.- In addition to the

requirements of UR.3.2., the scale accuracy can be affected by belt

tension, angle of inclination, total belt length, and belt speed. The

following guidelines apply, although some of these may be exceeded or excepted for certain installations after consultation with the scale manufacturer.

a. The scale conveyor should be less than 1000 feet, and more than 40

feet, from tail pulley to head pulley.

b. The scale conveyor should not contain vertical or horizontal curves.

c. The scale conveyor should have an inclination angle less than 10 degrees. Angles greater than 10 degrees require careful

consideration of the material to be weighed because rollback of the material will cause weighing errors.

d. Belt speed should not exceed 1000 feet per minute. In general,

lower belt speeds with larger belt loading are more desirable for accurate weighing.

e. Conveyors that have high belt tension because of length and steep

inclination angle require heavier belting that is less flexible. It is more difficult to obtain accurate weighing with conveyors that have

large tension variations. The conveyor scale must be located in an

areas in which low tension is sufficient.

f . Winged pulleys should not be used.

g. The conveyor stringers should be designed so that relative

deflection between any two adjacent idlers within the weigh area does not exceed 0.025 inch (0.6 mm) under load. UR.3. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.-

UR.3.1. PROTECTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.- The

indicating elements, the lever system or load cells, and the load

receiving element of a belt scale shall be adequately protected from

202
environmental factors such as wind, moisture, dust, weather, and radio

frequency interference (RFI) and electromagnetic interference (EMI)

that may adversely affect the operation or performance of the device.

UR.3.2. CONVEYOR INSTALLATION.- The design and installation of the

conveyor leading to and from the weigh scale is critical with respect to

scale performance. The following requirements shall be met:

a. Conveyor Belting- Conveyor belting shall be no heavier than

necessary for planned use. The belt shall contact the center or horizontal portion of the idlers under all conditions of loading. The

mass per unit length of the belting shall be as constant as

practical. Splices shall not cause any undue disturbance in scale

operation (see N.3.).

b. Take-Up Mechanism- The take-up mechanism shall be of the

free-moving type, and provide constant tension.

c. Training Idlers- Training idlers shall not be allowed within 40 ft (12m) or 10 idler spacings, whichever is greater, on either side of

the scale.

d. Conveyor Stringers- Conveyor Stringers shall be continuous in the

weighing area including the scale weigh idlers and at least four

idlers either side of the scale, to minimize deflection under load.

e. Conveyor Supports- A conveyor scale shall be so installed that neither its performance nor its operation will be adversely affected

by any characteristic of the foundation, supports, or any other

equipment. Supports shall be located at all weighing element

load-bearing points with additional supports to meet recommended

deflections. The span of such support shall include four idlers before and after the scale.

f. Weigh Idlers- Weigh idlers shall be matched, evenly spaced, and

normal (square) to the conveyor. At least four idlers on either side of the weighbridge shall be similarly matched, aligned, and properly

maintained.

g. Scale Location Identification- The scale and the four idlers on each

end of the scale shall be of a contrasting color, or other suitable means shall be used to distinguish the scale from the remainder of

the conveyor installation. The scale shall be readily accessible for maintenance purposes.

h. Guard Devices- All live portions of the scale shall be protected by

appropriate guard devices to prevent accidental interference with

the weighing operations.

i. Conveyor Loading- The conveyor loading mechanism shall be

designed to provide uniform belt loading. The distance from the

loading point to the scale shall allow for adequate settling time of

the material on the belt before it is weighed. Feeding mechanisms

203
shall have positive closing or stopping action so that material

leakage does not occur. Feeders shall provide an even flow over

the scale through the full range of scale operation. Sufficient

impact idlers shall be provided in the conveyor under each loading

point to prevent a deflection of the belt during the time material

is being introduced.

j. Belt Tracking- The belt shall not extend beyond the edge of the

idler roller in the weighing area.

k. Simulated Loading Device Storage- Suitable protection shall be

provided for storage of this equipment.

L Tripper and Movable Head Pulley- A conveyor scale system shall not be installed on a conveyor containing a tripper or a movable

head pulley.

UR.3.3. CERTIFIED REFERENCE SCALE.- A certified reference

scale shall be available and conveniently located to permit efficient

material testing of the belt conveyor scale system as required by the

certifying authority.

UR.3.4. BELT TRAVEL (SPEED).- The belt travel transducer

shall be so positioned that it accurately represents the speed of the

belt at the scale location for all flow rates between the maximum and

minimum values. The belt travel transducer shall be so designed and

installed that there is no slip.

UR.4. LOADING.- The feed of material to the scale shall be

controlled to assure that, during normal operation, the material flow is in accordance with manufacturer's recommendation for rated capacity.

UR.5. MAINTENANCE.- Belt-conveyor idlers and scales shall be

maintained and serviced in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and

the following:

a. Scale Maintenance- Periodic scale service shall be provided by

adequately trained personnel. At least two persons on site must be

thoroughly familiar with the scale and its operation. The scale

shall be kept clean and a history of scale maintenance and stability

shall be maintained to determine the frequency of cleaning and

maintenance.

b. Scale Alignment- "Wire line" alignment checks shall be considered

any time conveyor work is performed in the scale area or in accordance with manufacturer's recommendation.

c. Simulated Loading Equipment- Simulated loading equipment shall be

cleaned and properly maintained. A correction factor shall be

determined for the simulated loading equipment when material tests are conducted.

204
d. Records- Records of calibration and maintenance including conveyor

alignment shall be maintained for at least three years to develop a

history of scale performance. Copies of the report shall be mailed

to the certifying authority as required. The current date and

correction factor(s) for simulating loading equipment shall be

recorded and maintained in the scale cabinet.

e. Security Means- Breaking a security means on adjustable elements

or components shall be reported immediately to the appropriate

certifying authority.

UR.6. COMPLIANCE.- Prior to initial verification, the scale manufacturer shall certify to the owner that the scale meets code

requirements. Prior to initial verification and each subsequent

verification, the scale owner or his agent shall notify the certifying

authority in writing that the belt conveyor scale system is in compliance

with this specification and ready for material testing.

DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN CONNECTION WITH BELT CONVEYOR SCALES

Auxiliary Counter. An indicator in a location remote from the scale

indicating the weight of material that has been determined by the scale. Belt-Conveyor Scale. A device that employs a weighing element in contact with a belt to sense the weight of the material being conveyed,

and the speed (travel) of the material, and integrates these values to produce total delivered weight.

Certifying Authority. The authorized jurisdiction responsible for certifying

the accuracy of belt-conveyor scales. Chart Recorder. An element used with a belt-conveyor scale that

continuously records the rate-of-flow of bulk material over the scale. Conveyor Stringers. Support members for the conveyor on which the

idlers are mounted.

Feeding Mechanism. The gate, short belt, vibrator feeder, stroker feeder,

etc., that deposits material to be weighed on the belt conveyor.

Head Pulley. The pulley at the discharge end of the belt conveyor. The

head pulley is generally the drive pulley.

Idler Space. The center-to-center distance between idler rollers measured

parallel to the belt. Idlers or Idler Rollers. Freely turning cylinders mounted on a frame to support the conveyor belt. For a flat belt the idlers will consist of one

or more horizontal cylinders transverse to the direction of belt travel. For a troughed belt, the idler will consist of one or more horizontal

cylinders and one or more cylinders at an angle to the horizontal to lift the sides of the belt to form a trough.

205
Loading Point. The location at which material to be conveyed is applied

to the conveyor.

Master Weight Totalizer. An indicating element used with a belt-conveyor scale to indicate the weight of material that was passed over the scale. The master weight totalizer is the primary indicating

element of the belt-conveyor scale. Recording Element. A device used to print on tickets, tape, or other

papers, the weight of material that has passed over the scale in a given

time.

Rated Scale Capacity. The weight that can be delivered by the device in one hour of operations.

Simulated Loading. A loading method using means other than material to determine the performance of a belt-conveyor scale. Tail Pulley. The pulley at the opposite end of the conveyor from the

head pulley.

Take-Up. A device to provide sufficient tension in a conveyor belt ensuring that the belt will be positively driven by the drive pulley. A

counter-weighted take-up consists of a pulley free to move in either the

vertical or horizontal direction with dead weights applied to the pulley

shaft to provide the tension required.

Training Idlers. Idlers of special design or mounting intended to shift the

belt sideways on the conveyor to assure the belt is centered on the

conveying idlers. Tripper. A device for unloading a belt conveyor at a point between the

loading point and the head pulley.

Weighment. A single complete weighing operation.

Wing Pulley. A pulley, usually used as the tail pulley, made of widely

spaced metal bars in order to set up a vibration to shake loose material

from the underside (return side) of the belt.

206
o o> O ON o o> o

o =t o ^

LO «-

>^3 C\i CO

4O X> CO H H bO bOH

*— ITl CT\ O CTv <T> o o>

o> o • CT

o o o o o

o o o o o

o o o o in m co on on -=r

0> o o o o 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O ON o o o o 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O

ON o o o o 0 0 O 0 O 0 O LO

LO co o CO oo CO 00 O 0 O 10. LO CO CM

CT .a .0 jO -Q 40 n O) 4O x> jQ 0> .—

i

rH rH rH rH rH rH rH

CTv o o 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O 0

CTv no o m v£> vQ 0 O O LO O 0

o> o =r O 0

-eg- CM O 0

L t, c CD <D CD 0 CO CO CD £-, S- £- s- C CO c C CD <D CD <D

CD O CD 4-3 4-> 4-3 4-3 cx

sp CO

sp E

IX CO is CO is L 4-3 <D bO bO bO O O CO O E- CD 0) cd CD CO 0) 4-3 OS os cr OS

CD rH H rH rH C 4-> Q CD CP <D <D 4J c £ jG s: £

3 C 3 3 E c CD CO CO CO CO

Ct, En Eb CD CD E CO CO CO CD C a> CD CO t- rH S CD O 0 0 O

O rH rH SX SX CD S- (D w <D rH

CO CO 0 O 4-5 O O Ed <D CD CD CD & O 0 4-3 CO 4-3 bO Ed C c C C

CO co O O > C 50 O 0 O O

3 bO £ S-, bO C rH cr «x CD 0) 4-3 C < <c < <

w CD CD rH PC rH CO CO £_

4-3 4-3 CO O !c 3 •a T3 C c CO CO s: CO Ci_ bO co c c c C

3 4-3 (0 CO 4-3 rH a CO CO CO CO O O CD 1—

1

CO cd CD c CD cd 4-> 4-3 4-3 O O PS 0 O p; CO r« £ CO CO co CO

<D L CD rH 3 2

CO CO O c0 -o CO CD ••-1 cO J- S 3 a cl

x. cr co

CD O -rH 4-3 JJ'H J £ CD C 5- O ^

3 .a a c o

o cd a. cd -h

4-3c

CDE (D

a) CD c0

4-3 O

CD C CO M

CO CD CD CD

4-3 4-3 4-3 DC bO C C C C

C -rH -rH -rH -rH ••H J_ fX, 4-3 •P Cu Q. &, cfl 3 O

CX CD CD 0 -rH E aaao O c0 CO CO C O E- E- E- M

4-3 4-> 4-> 4-> c c C C

CD CD CD CD 4-3 4-3 E E E E c C

CD CD CD CD CD CD rH E E

Ed Ed Ed Ed le lie bO bo C C

4-3 4-> CO CO o o

bO Ed Ed C

•h hO bO

4-3 C C

CO -H -H O £ jC H 60 bO

•O 'H nH C CD CD

O O <C t— OO CO o«=£ D-£

O 0 vO CO 0 OO 0 CM t— O OJ <o m

CO E-h O CO a

CO 2 CO Ed

CO o

LO CO

t- i>i v£) O LO O

ou o c\j c\j x < J ^ CO CO vD U

Ed I LO C\J LO C— 2: o

co

oo o

CD vO O

O O CO O

O O O I LO

t- CO CO O

Cu O CO LO 21

O ^

O O m VO T-r

I CNJ C\l t— t— CO I O C\l C\) CM CO I CO X H r- CAr-q- < 2: J

2: I I I I «- ^ o 1 o

COa.£X.CU(3C\lLOEdC---vO OHCCfHefiriirilXN O LO

E- CL

>> s_ C 0

cti 0 cx 0 0 O 0 c c cx L < c c c c 0 0 E L t. O hH •H O O O <D O co

4-3 4-3 O 4-3 C 4-3 CO cO O CO co E3

c_ -P 3 4-3 CO CO CO CO O 0 c •O bO c O c c c

cx cx CD c CD CD CD 0 0 0 O u SL e 0 C E 4-3 0 O cx 0 ro 3 CO 4J 4-3 4^ 4-3 0 O O £ t- E c0 CO co CO c 3 E T3 CO 4J O c C C c

CD CD D* CD C CD co 40 £- fx S-, rH rH Ed CO H O C 3 0 CD CD CD

CO CO <C 4J3 4-3 4-3 4-3 O O 0 O rH rH c C G C

co CO 0 S- f0 4-3 CD fc. co M I—

I

3 C c C CD c

CO CO CO £2 O CO O CD CO CO CO <0 3 3 jO T3 4-> cx -o a •O

CO (0 rH CD 4-3 Sh 4-3 4-3 cx CD CD CD

CD ct CD CO CD 0 O O O CO En £ ^ co CO co CO

CO CO co co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO CO 00 CO co CO \

LO \

LO 0^ \cr> \

CTv \LO \

LO \

CT\ \LO \

0 \

0 \

0 \0

\

O \O \CT> \ \O \

O \o> \

0 — \ \ \

CO CT\ 0 CM co =r LO <o I>- 00 o> 0

0 0 CM c— t— ts- r>_

c c

o o

4-3 4-> 4-3

c

CO • CX o

C E C

O O (-^

•rH O 4J

co r c

•c a o o cd -h

CX iX 4-3 L bO O O Hi s

O 5X3 O S CO L < CO O M CD -r-l

O £ W

S- bO CD C CD O ^ o

co H C

CO c o

C CO L O JO 4-3 rH C CO P -H W

co cO cO 2 Ijl, 5:

CO CO J- s_ o o

cx cx

s~ t. o o u o

4^> 4-3 c c

CD CD E E

CX cx 3 3

cr cr

Ed Ed O O L £-. 4-3 4-3 CD CD 2: S

COe

CD CO

CO>> 4-3 a o co CD O M O O -H

- c

4-3 bO O C C £- CD -rH 4-3 E 5- O

CX CD CD

•rH CD rH 3 C Ed CT -H

Ed bO rH C CO OWLCD

4-3 Q C

CD o» CD rH

T. <£. a Ed

CD

OOO c c c

>> >> bO bO bO C

O O "H H H £

O O bO C C --H x: jc cd 00:2

CD CD E- E- CD T3 >> -H c c ^

CO cO bO bO T3

CD CD rH

rH rH t. rH rH O

<£ <C "3

r-^r-CMCMCOCOCOCOCOoOCOCOCOCO \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ CMCMCMCVC\iC\ICMCMCMCMCMC\jCMOjCM

?— t— t~- c— e— t— tr^ c— t-- c— c— t—

207
o o o O 0 O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O

Q Q Q Q 0 0 0 O 0 O Q 0 O O O O O

c o o O O O O O in O O LO 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O

co _ LA — _ LO _ CM 00 00 <x>

. _

o*> 00 >x> OO CD ro _ 00 OO k£> LO O on m 0

CM 0^ vO CO

4_> X5 X> X) £} X) X> .Q X3 X) JO X5 x> X3 JD X3 XJ XJ XI XI X3 X) X3 XI Xi Xi X3 X) X> XI X3 x> o

,—

i

r—

|

r—

|

r-H rH r-H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH

cd Q Q Q LO Q Q LO 0 O 0 CT> O O Q Q O 0 0 Q O O O O O

ex o o LO r CM 00 00 0 o> OO O co 0 O OO 0 a cn 0 LO OO O on 0

co Q CM 0 O O >X) 0 CO =3" Q\ 0 Cr, O LO 0 O

o CM CT> CM 0 vO -=r CM -Cr>

4-5 CD r—

|

CD t, cO 4-5 4-> 4-5 E CU O C C C

o CD 4-5 00 0 0 0

CD E E E

_i_> W E 40 0 0 0

cx 00 rH 1—

1

s DO X <D w Cd Cd

j_ c CO E-h o -p E- DO DO bO

CO CO !c C c C c

0 >> 4-5 4-5 4-5 4-> 4-5 CD DO 4-5 O 4-5 4-5 4-5 4-5 4-5 0 0 -rH •rH 40 Q CO C c C C c rH •rH c C c C C CO C rH rH x: c

4-5 CD 0 4-5 CD CD CD CO CD 0 C CD CD CD CD CD CD cO CO DO b0 45 (D bO

4_5 4-> c e E C E CD E E O 0 E O CD E CD E E E CD O O E 0 0 •<—

1

C E **-' C CD CD CD CD CD rH 0) CD CO CD t. •H CD rH CD CD (D c CD CO CO 0 0 0 0 0

0 r_ 0 E rH E r_ CO r—

1

CO CD rH 4-5 CO rH CO r—

|

rH CO 03 CD rS E rH t- !S e 0 E 0 W w CD CD Cd O w W to O Cxi 0 O Ixl 0 Cd Cxi Cxi O r1

r1

[£| bO bO 0 Id 0

D, -L> 0) i—

1

4-5 co CD c CO cO CD CO CO CO CO cO C c 0 0 0 4-5 0

CO DO Cd bO DO Cd DO 1—

|

DO 00 •<H O DO rH DC bO DO to CQ O DO •r-l rH Ld DO rH CO 1—

1

as c c bO cO c bO DO CO c w to C bO c c c DO co C bO DO CO CO C CO •rH 03 CT to c DO to $_ O cO c c •rH c c CO CO CO O O DO -rH O DO O

Ld CD CO c 4J c Cu CO CD 4-5 4-5 j_> •rH J_ 4-5 X. CO CO C 4-> CO 0 CO

OS s: 03 cO H cO CO CO O 4-5 rH CO 03 CO 4-5 cO cO cO 4-5 CD CD CO 0 0 •rH CO OS

_c O 0 x: -3 x; O cO O O 4-5 3 O O 0 O 3 4-5 0 CO CO 0 0 X! O x: xi

X! CO DO bO <D 0 CX a •rH a CX c a CX c c tO -rH 0 £ 0

03 •rH X3 _o "O X) CD E SZ a to s t3 E "D "O E •0 CD 0 cd CO •rH T3 c CO c

CO cO 0 C C CD cO 0 CD O CD c 0 C O c O CD 0 C j- L C s- 0 C 0 03 0

C_) Q 3 M ,1 CJ CQ Ou J> M Q 0 1 O O 1-3 0 CL CL O 0 S rH CQ O CQ

t O O CM CM O O OL

<T» o> O CO O

Q LO 00 O LO 0 CO CM CO j-j- O 0 O

O 1 O t

VO 0 O LO < CM O *\ \ 0 O •rH O CM Cx. CD CM O M ro 10 1 0 OS LO Ed 0 0 CTi 0 0 VO LO <— O

LO O =r 1 S- CO Cu 0 =r E-< Sh 0 0 LO O 0 LO 0 1 Cd O O LO o CO 1 Ol- j ^_ | 0 O 0 4-5 < O r_j 0 LO ^3" vX> OO CO CO <- CL on cm CT> O LO lO § J CO ^_ CM 4-5 CL O 00 C co 4-5 CM Ld Cd CL O 0 CO OS 1 00 O

Q C— Q CO co LO t

0u CO CM CD 0 CO *r 2£ CO p , E-1 a 0 on vo CQ Cd 0 LO CM E t. 0 H 0

O O O 4J 0 C3 CO

4-> CO M c <X on W CD CO

is

nc C c CO 0

O 0 0 0 0 O 0 CX O J_

CO 4_3 4J CO O J- 0 . E 0 a O

cO cO 4-5 O CD CX CX CD c c

> C J, > CO E J_ f^, 4^ H 0 0 o O 0 0 <C co 0 0 CO 0 c Q Cl ca Q CL O Q—

1

rH 0 0 >> n

O 4-5 t. u a 3 <4H O O O CO >> >, co rH

to CO O 0 DO 0 C 0 $_ 40 4_J rH 0 to bO DO 40 cO T3 C S-. O 0 c 0 O CO O 4-5 1—

1

c c DO 4-> -H O O 0 c co C

C O 0 O 4-5 c 0 CD C c CO rH rH rH 0 rH O O !c a c d d CD c g g M O O O O E O •rH

>-> o DO t. £ "§) "g

CO CD c s- H Cx. CD CD x; CO c C C 3 4-5

cj; 0 CP CD CD O rH M 0 DO ^ X x: j- 4-5 CO s CD 0 0 g CD g 0 CO 0 a O jrj "cO j 1 •r-H O to 0 0 0 40 C C 0

cx CD rH p, 0 D. 5L O c CD O O CO to CO CD c 0 0 0 CO O L 1—! g CO CO cO x: O CD CO CO CD <£. E- 1

•> 00 co 0 c •rH H E- E- C O 0 CO CO o U DO CO E CD C •rH co to 4-5 O o i—

1

co CO 5-. a* cr cr O < rH >> CO O •O c c s- C C CO >> >> >> rH C CO

CO c CD CD Cd w - c w 0 CO 03 -O c 0 0 CD O 3 ^ C C C L CO c CO o E CO c O O 3 0 E CD CO S- O CO cO CO 0 c 0

o -Q •a 0 < O 0 CD 0 CO 4-5 CO CO 0 03 O 4-5 4-5 <t! rH CQ CO DO bO DO rH 0 CO -0 L 0} CD X s_ £-. £) O •a 4-5 0) CO JO CO co co 4J 4-5 S- CX 0 0 0 4-> •a 0

rH CD O 4-5 4-5 4-> w O C5 cc C CD O co CQ O 4_3 1

1

0 rH rH rH 4-5 4J 0 iH

CO CO o O Cd CD CD CD CO CD 00 rH 3 CO CQ CD O E rH cO cO W CD O 0 J- rH rH rH 0 CO O b E- E- CQ Cx, 0 O O OS O <C O O S E- s CL < < < S CO Ero m m 0O 0O 0O 00 00 0O CO

CO CO co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO =r -=3- =r j-r ^3- =r •=r ^3- -=r =3- ^3- -=3" .=3- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 00 CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 CT) ^3- ^3- CO CO CO CO 00 co 00 00 CO 00 0 o O o O O 0 0 0 O 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 00 CO \ s s \ \ \ \ \ \ 4-5 on OO OO 00 CO OO 00 00 00 00 VO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO O 0 O \ \ LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO

CO \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 00 00 on OO t— Q CM CM CM CM CM CM CM Cvl CM CM \ \ \ \ \ \ \ V. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CM CM CM OO on =r ^3- ^3- LO LO LO VO VO vo vo VO VO vO vo VO

f- 00 cr> O CM 00 LO vO

-=r CO t- 00 a> O CM on =f LO vO t— 00 o> O CM 00 =r LO vo t— CO O^ O

O ro co oo .=r =r -=T G> -=r LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO vo >£> vO VO vo vo vo vo VO tt— t- E-- t-- t— t— t- r- t>- c~- t— t- t— f— t- c- t- t— t>- t— t- 208
O N) e X X o c 1 o O cd X X C\J cd Oo

CMO

LPl CU w oOO oCO o

CM o WO LO m CM CM O o CM O O CO

in o 0\J OO CM OO oo O O o o

LO o D— 1 00 O CO O OO CM o CM CM LO < cc CO CM CO ac <

COHO\ c c w o o o p p

CO cd

t- o o o <

cx a c c c

sx o < o o o o a E o o te 13 afdL O SX o o co > £-

CD CD O o c c >> O p P rH a. p 1—

co a CX

co co o L o SX c o c bO bO o

bO bO co n o T3 co o CO C c o CD CD 1—

o C o rH

vc K o c p o p o s: x: p

SX cd c o c cd Eh bO bO c

J2 £ 4-5 c CD o sx P •rH CD

CO CO c o e E CD o c CD CD E

cd cd o cd* N cx CD p rH p CX o 3: CX O O o o CO o cd o i- o

S- CD o o o co co *3 1—

i-H rH L < a* rH CO cc o i-H cr

cd cd cd CD w cd w cd C c W c C c B c c o Em p c cd cd o o o < o O o c X) CD Ed o X3 o

t, j- o CD P cd Eh sx Eh P p p O E- p p J- rH CD .a p

cd cd cd W CD cd E o CD o cd cd cd CD 2 2: H o E- > LX,

oo OO oo OO OO

OO OO OO OO co CO OO =t =r

CD \ OO CO \ \ \ \ CO CO co OO CO CO CO CO P \ \ o o o o \ \ \ \ \ \ \

as CM cn CM OO OO CM LO LPl LO OO o> o> o Q \ \ \ \ \ OO CM CM CM OO

Csl OJ CM CM CM CM \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

=T LO LO LO LO

CM c—

tr~- CM oo vo

LO WO OO LO O CO WO o CM Owl t— o CM CT> O O vr> WO WO LO OO wo WO LO LO LO LO

208a

REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Presented by

Joseph L. Swanson, Chairman

Director, Division of Measurement Standards, State of Alaska

REFERENCE KEY

400 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

submits its report to the 69th Annual Meeting of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is the amended interim

report of the Committee which was printed in the Conference

Announcement.

The report contains the recommendations of the Committee formed on the

basis of written and oral comments received during the year.

All items are informational and require no formal action of the NCWM.

Reference

Key Subject

401* National Weights and Measures Week

402* Reports from Regional Education Committees

403* OWM Weights and Measures Newsletter

404* National Training Program

404-1* Training Modules Under Development

404-2* Proposed Training Modules

404-3* Program Contractors

404-4* Production Schedule

404-5* Certification Procedure

The Chairman moved adoption of the entire report with editorial privileges to the Executive Secretary. The motion carried as follows: Yes No

State Representatives 45 0 Delegates 50 0 401 NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

The Committee appoints Phil Stagg of Louisiana and Peggy Adams of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, as Co-chairpersons for National Weights and

Measures Week 1985. The Committee would like to thank the Scale Manufacturers Association,

the American National Metric Council, Hobart Corporation, Fairbanks

Weighing Division, and the Institute for Weights and Measures for the

excellent promotional materials provided for Weights and Measures Week

1984.

209
Co-chairperson Peggy Adams reported to the Conference that House Joint

Resolution #623 (Attachment 6) had been introduced by Congressman

Peter Kostmayer, 8th Congressional District, Pennsylvania, on June 29,

1984, designating the week beginning March 1, 1985, as "National Weights

and Measures Week." Ms. Adams reported that it takes 218 co-sponsors to move the joint resolution through Congress. The Committee urges that

all members of the Conference utilize the letter format provided by the

Committee to request the co-sponsorship of H. J. Res. 623 by their Congressional delegation.

Ms. Adams also reported that she was developing a slide presentation on

all weights and measures functions for use by Conference members. She

requested that anyone who had slides that might be appropriate for such a presentation send them to her at the following address: Bucks County

Department of Consumer Protection and Weights and Measures, Annex

Building, Broad and Union Streets, Doylestown, Pa., 18901.

402 REPORTS FROM REGIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEES

The Committee reviewed the following reports:

1. The final report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs to the 26th Annual Technical Conference of the Western

Weights and Measures Association (July 24-29, 1983).

2. The final report of the Education Committee to the 38th Annual

Conference of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (October

24-27, 1983).

3. The 1984 Final Report of the Committee on Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs to the Northeastern Weights and

Measures Association.

In the report of the Education Committee of the Western Weights and

Measures Association, it was suggested that there was a need to catalog

computerized weights and measures inspection programs. As an initial step in addressing the need cited by the Western committee, members of

the National Education Committee decided to send a questionnaire to all jurisdictions for the purpose of identifying computer hardware and

software currently being used. For the results of the questionnaire see Attachment 7. After having reviewed the results of the survey, the

Committee recommends that the leadership of the Conference appoint a group to make an in-depth study of electronic information processing

capabilities and their benefit to Conference members.

Members of the Western Education Committee also suggested that time be

provided at each annual meeting of their Conference for a mutual

discussion of administrative problems, new approaches, new enforcement

philosophies, or other material related to the administration of weights

and measures programs. This topic was addressed during the National

Committee's discussion of a proposal to establish Directors Roundtables

(see Attachment 1). Members of the Committee endorsed the concept of

having Directors Roundtables at the regional conferences and agreed to recommend:

210
(1) that each regional association put an item on the agenda of its next meeting to consider establishing a program such as the one described

in Attachment 1;

(2) that the experiences of the regional associations should be taken

into consideration before deciding whether to recommend the initiation of Directors Roundtables at the National Conference.

The Committee is pleased to report that the Western and the Southern

Weights and Measures Associations have scheduled Directors Roundtables

for their fall meetings and will report their results to the Committee for discussion at its Interim Meeting.

403 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES NEWSLETTER

Joan Koenig reported to the Conference that the NBS Office of Weights

and Measures has started publication of a newsletter for the weights and measures community (see Attachment 2). The Committee urges that Conference members support the newsletter by sending to OWM

newsworthy items of information.

404 TRAINING PROGRAM

404-1 TRAINING MODULES UNDER DEVELOPMENT

During the 69th Annual Meeting, the Committee took the following

actions concerning the training modules under development:

a. Reviewed the final working draft of Module 1, Mechanical Retail

Computing Scales, with Landvater Associates, and agreed to begin

field testing September 1984.

b. Reviewed the final working draft of Module 27, Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring Systems, prepared by ConsulTrain,

Inc., and agreed to begin field testing September 1984 with the

assistance of OWM.

c. Began reviewing the first draft of Module 23, Weights and Measures

Administration, prepared by Landvater Associates.

d. Began reviewing the final draft of Module 5, Vehicle and Axle-Load

Scales, prepared by Working Group C.

e. Continued its review of Module 6, Monorail and "Meat Beam" Scales,

and Module 7, Livestock and Animal Scales, prepared by Working

Group D. The Committee formulated a method of field testing and evaluating the

draft training modules and will implement it during the field testing of

modules 1 and 27.

211
404-2 PROPOSED TRAINING MODULES

The Committee:

a. Reconsidered its approach to developing the elective technical modules

(26-37) and decided that the first module in the series should be an

introduction to electronic weighing and measuring systems as outlined by

Chairman Joe Swanson (see Attachment 3).

b. Revised the list of proposed training modules to reflect the new

approach to the elective technical modules and to add new modules such

as Linear-Measuring Devices, Test Equipment, Theory of Scale Tolerance,

National Type Evaluation Program, and Laboratory Administration (see

Attachment 4). The list is subject to further change.

404-3 PROGRAM CONTRACTORS

The Committee had originally contracted with the Texas Engineering

Extension Service (TEEX) to develop all of the modules into professional

training documents. On September 21, 1983, the NCWM terminated its contract with TEEX for mutual convenience. At the Interim Meeting, the

Committee selected the following contractors to work on specific training

modules:

Contractor Modules

Landvater Associates 1 - Mechanical Retail Computing Scales

Summit, New Jersey 2 - Electronic Retail Computing Scales

23- Weights and Measures Administration

ConsulTrain, Inc. 27- Introduction to Electronic Weighing

Rockville, Maryland and Measuring Systems

404-4 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

The Committee updated the training module production schedule as shown

in Attachment 5. The Committee is seeking the support and assistance

of Conference members to serve on working groups for the following

modules:

Module 21, LPG Meters

Module 20, Vehicle Tank Meters

Module 11, Prescription and Jewelers' Balances

Module 13, Hopper Scales

Module 19, Loading Rack Meters

Anyone who would like to volunteer to serve on one of these working

groups should contact Joan Koenig, Office of Weights and Measures,

National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.

The Committee would like to express its thanks to members of the

Conference and the OWM staff who have contributed to the development

of the modules.

212
404-5 CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE

The Committee will discuss the attached procedure (see Attachment 8) with the expectation that it will be recommended as a voting item at the

70th Annual Meeting of the NCWM. Comments are requested.

J.L. Swanson, Alaska, Chairman

T.F. Geiler, Hyannis, MA

B.R. Niebergall, North Dakota

P.A. Stagg, Louisiana

S.J. Darsey, Florida J.A. Koenig, Technical Advisor, NBS

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

213
ATTACHMENT 1 DIRECTORS ROUNDTABLES

Proposal: It is proposed that the Regional Weights and Measures

Conferences set aside time for State Weights and Measures Directors to meet and discuss common problems or exchange information about

successful new programs.

Format: It is suggested that two to three hours be set aside for each

roundtable meeting. A committee of three or four directors should be

appointed to establish the theme of the roundtable prior to the meeting.

The committee should notify all State Directors of the theme chosen and

should encourage them to come prepared to discuss the topic chosen from

the point of view of their particular State program.

Possible themes might be: Implementation of the New Scale Code

Public Relations Programs

Interactions with the Media

Cost-Cutting Measures

The Impact of Rapidly Changing Technologies on State Weights

and Measures Programs

The Politics of Weights and Measures Administration

Reporting Program Accomplishments

How to Adopt NCWM Model Codes and Regulations

The Proper Mix of Programs - Devices, Packages, Complaint

Handling, Undercover

Buying and Selling

New Equipment for Weights and Measures Use

Benefits: Provide a forum for the exchange of valuable information

among directors, and promote the establishment of personal relationships

among the participants that could lead to greater cooperation and pooling

of resources. New directors especially should benefit from the

opportunity the roundtables will provide to make valuable contacts and

learn from the experience of others.

214
ATTACHMENT 2 OFFICE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

NEWSLETTER

Name: W&M Today (Weights and Measures Today)

Purposes:

1. To keep the weights and measures community (enforcement officials at the State and local levels, manufacturers of weighing and measuring

devices, equipment users, and others) informed about activities of the

National Bureau of Standards Office of Weights and Measures (NBS/OWM)

of possible interest to them;

2. To publicize the activities of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures (NCWM), which develops uniform weights and measures laws and

regulations; and

3. To provide a forum for the informal exchange of information among

members of the weights and measures community.

Contents:

1. Publications announcements

2. Schedules of OWM training seminars

3. Schedules of NCWM meetings

4. Updates on the development of NCWM's National Training Program

5. News on the certification of State measurement laboratories

6. News of NCWM activities

7. Information on the National Type Evaluation Program

8. News about NCWM members and OWM staff

9. Information on the latest technical developments in the weights and measures area. Regular Features:

1. "Conference Clips"

2. "For Good Measure"

3. "Calendar"

Frequency of Issuance: To be published 4-6 times a year

Distribution: 1200 copies

- News notes related to the NCWM

A readers forum column with

questions/answers and comments from

individuals in the weights and measures field A listing of weights and

measures-related meetings, seminars,

and training programs.

215
ATTACHMENT 3 PROPOSED MODULE ON ELECTRONIC WEIGHING AND MEASURING SYSTEMS

Intended Audience

All weights and measures officials Purpose

1. To provide an awareness of the electronic systems in the

marketplace; their complexity, capabilities, and component

interrelationships as they relate to weighing and measuring in commercial transactions.

2. To provide an introduction to the language required to understand

the functions of integrated systems.

3. To identify and provide a brief discussion of the components that make up an integrated system.

Content Parameters

1. The approach to be taken is to take representative samples of weighing systems (retail grocery scales and vehicle scales),

volumetric systems (retail petroleum dispensers), measuring systems

(taximeters); and provide a history, origin, and evaluation of both the

systems and Handbook 44f s attempts to regulate each of these

systems.

2. Provide an introduction to the language used to describe and discuss

the modern electronic systems and their functions.

3. In block diagram format, discuss the components that comprise a modern integrated system and the interrelationship of the

components: input device (scale, petroleum, meter, keyboard, etc.); processing unit (CPU); storage (disk, chip, etc.); and output (display,

tape, etc.).

216
ATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSED TRAINING MODULES

Module No. Subject

1 Mechanical Retail Computing Scales (Cylinder,Fan

Computing, and Prepackage)

2 Electronic Retail Computing Scales (Digital Electronic

Computing and Electronic Cash Registers)

3 Bench, Counter, and Hanging Scales (Automatic and

Nonautomatic Indicating)

4 Dormant and Industrial Medium-Capacity Scales

(Portable, Floor, Built-in, and Crane; Automatic and

Nonautomatic Indicating

5 Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales (Mechanical and

Electronic)

6 Monorail Scales and Meat Beams

7 Livestock and Animal Scales (Mechanical and

Electronic)

8 Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers and Consoles (Single

Product, Blend and Twin Motor Fuel Dispenser;

Mechanical and Electronic)*

9 Linear Measuring Devices (Taximeters; Odometers;

Fabric-, Wire-,and Cordage-Measuring Devices)*

10 Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

(Random, Standard Mass, Liquid, Linear, Special

Products)

11 Prescription and Jewelers' Balances

12 Dairy Product and Grain Test Scales

13 Hopper Scales (Automatic Grain and Construction

Material; Mechanical and Electronic) 14 Wheel-Load Weighers (Mechanical and Electronic)

15 Belt-Conveyor Scales (Mechanical and Electronic) 16 Weights (Equal Arm and Counterpoise)

17 Hand-Crank Fuel Pumps

18 Lubricant Devices and Motor Oil Bottles 19 Loading-Rack Meters

20 Vehicle-Tank Meters (Power-Operated and Gravity;

Compensated and Uncompensated)

21 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid and Vapor Meters and

Motor Fuel Devices (Retail and Wholesale)

22 Labeling of Packaged Products (Net Contents

Statement, Responsibility, Method of Sale)

23 Weights and Measures Administration (Functions,

History, Organization, Legal Authority Including

Uniform Laws and Regulations, and Penalties) 24 Handbook 44 (Organization and Use and Related

References)

25 Communications (Weights and Measures Officials

Relationships with Device Owners and Operators,

Industry and Consumers)

217
26 Test Equipment, Use and Calibration*

27 Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring

Systems*

28 Solid State Circuits and Applications

29 Load Cells and Analog-to-Digital Conversion*

30 EMI, RFI, Electrostatic Discharge*

31 Statistics as Applied to Weights and Measures*

32 Variable Frequency Inspection*

33 Environmental Testing*

34 Systems/Computer/Administration*

35 Theory of Scale Tolerances*

36 National Type Evaluation Program*

37 Laboratory Administration

* Changes or additions

218
O t- r219

«~ CO wo. o

o o

o

s i

bO O

HI cu

»-> £ o

e -h cd E CO i-t O C 3

O Vh •o o

CD CD bO O t. CD

(0 <U —

i

2£ i—I H

O t. 3 IS

4-> o -o -o 5 O

4-) Z 4-> 4-i CO CO

ft) (1) CO CD L 4-> £_ 4->

CJ -o

CD O O O CD O

0) *J *J <D 4J

4-> O O CO J-> o

O O O 1) o o O O O C£ O O

co (V 3 O c\j + «- i- <M C\J C\J Q + + + + + Q q o O Q

I. CO o s~ 3 CD C

> o n an

o. o c

3 S. O CD o a

t. •*-» C X 5~ O

C-."DO

bO t, j-> -H Q. —

I

J- E

O 60 E

c o

CD -h

J= C CO 4J -rl C O

rj O H

3 S- ~-« O

O *J J->

CD

O CO

CO o

•a x:

CD CO j-> Id 0! o

C CD E

C CJ J-5 CD

3 O -h O <H -O

CD 3 C

x: -c E O CD CO JC c

CD CD O CO CD CD X>

CO CD —1 E CD > O >

CD CO CO t. x: E 3

E 4J O 3

C XJ O H

!) Jf O O

bo x:o

co co

•a c o o cd

C\J X) +> —i
ATTACHMENT 6

DEPARTMENT of CONSUMER PROTECTION

and WEIGHTS and MEASURES

Annex Building, Broid & Union Su., Doylettown, P». 18901 - 215-348-291

Ccuntu, of Bucks

County Commissioners CARL F. FONASH, Chairman LUCILLE M. TRENCH, Vice-Chairman ANDREW L. WARREN

Peggy H. Adams

Director

July 16, 1984

Memorandum

From:

Philip A. Stigg, Director

Weights and Measures Louisiana Department of Agriculture

Co-chairmen, National Weights and Measures

Week, 1984

Sub j ect : Weights and Measures Week Joint Resolution - 1985

Congressman Peter Kostmayer, 8th Congressional District, Pennsylvania

has reintroduced the 1984 Weights and Measures Week Joint Resolution with

some changes. The new resolution #623 (enclosed) was introduced on June 29, 1984 and referred to the Post Office and Civil Service Committee of the United States Congress.

We need your help in contacting your congressman to be a co-sponsor. Ask your congressman/woman to place his or her name on the Joint Resolution

as a co-sponsor (218 are needed) so that the resolution will move from the committee to the full house for voting purposes. After passage, it will

be sent to the Senate. Do not only ask for support but request sponsorship. The following names were listed as co-sponsors for HB #443 and must be contacted again:

32 Co-sponsors:

As introduced. . .Borski, Edgar, Foglietta, Gray, Williams (OH), McCloskey, Anthony, Fuqua, Boland, Edwards (AL) , Barnard,

Levitas, LaFalce, Hammers chmid t , Murtha, Mavroules, Heftel,

Bethune, Kennelly, Roe, Hortonk Wolpe, Hughes, Albosta, Conte, Shumway, McHugh, Lundine, Ray, Erreich, Burton (IN) , Carr. The following names are already co-sponsors of HB #623:

220
page 2. W/M Week Joint Resolution

1985

5 Current Co-sponsors:

Borski, Edgar, Foglietta, Akaka, Fuqua

If you have any questions, please contact Peggy H. Adams at (215) 348-7442

or Bucks County Consumer Protection/ Weights and Measures, Broad and Union

Streets, Doylestown, Pennsylvania, 18901.

PHA:fb

221
The Honorable (Fill in Name)

United States House

of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative (Fill in Name);

I am writing to request that you become co-sponsor of House Joint

Resolution #623 which was introduced by Congressman Peter Kostmayer,

8th Congressional District, Pennsylvania.

House Joint Resolution #623 is a request for a Presidential Proclamation

in support of National Weights and Measures Week, March 1-7, 1985. Uniform weights and measures form the cornerstone of commerce.

Weights and measures regulation is a service of government dedicated to providing equity in the marketplace. Officials engaged in this activity

protect both the buyer and seller in the millions of daily transactions that occur throughout this country and, in fact, the world. Weights and measures officials inspect and certify the accuracy of weighing,

measuring, and timing devices such as scales, gasoline dispensers,

taximeters, and oil truck meters. They also ensure the accuracy of net weight declarations on packaged commodities. The increasing complexity

of today's technology increases the importance of weights and measures

officials, as both industry and the consumer rely on them for accuracy. The National Conference on Weights and Measures, an organization of enforcement officials of the States, counties, and cities of the United

States and officials of the Federal Government, representative of manufacturers, industry, business, consumers, and other interested persons, has sponsored National Weights and Measures Week during March 1-7 each

year in an effort to focus attention on the weights and measures officials

at all levels of government who perform important services with respect

to accuracy and uniformity of commercial weighing and measuring.

There are approximately 4,000 weights and measures officials in some 800

jurisdictions in the United States. Their work is unknown to most

American consumers. Thus, a Presidential Proclamation would assist in focusing public awareness on this most important service.

As 218 Representatives must co-sponsor House Joint Resolution #623 so that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service can act on it, it is important that you become a co-sponsor. Favorable Congressional action

is necessary for the President to issue an appropriate proclamation.

I am enclosing a copy of the Resolution with the hope that after you

read it, you will co-sponsor this Resolution and lend your support to it by

asking other members of Congress to do likewise.

Sincerely,

(Fill in your name and title) Enclosure

222
98th Congress

2d Session H. J. RES. 623

Designating the week beginning March 1, 1985, as "National Weights and

Measures Week".

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 29, 1984

Mr. Kostmayer (for himself, Mr. Borski, Mr. Edgar, Mr. Foglietta, Mr. Gray, Mr. Akaka, and Mr, Fuqua) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning March 1, 1985, as "National

Weights and Measures Week".

Whereas there is a need to better acquaint the public with the

services provided by Federal, State, county and city governments to protect consumers and businesses with respect

to weights and measures; Whereas with the advent of the Universal Product Code, the metric

system, and electronic devices, weights and measures

officials nationwide will be the principal persons called upon

to assist the public in understanding their use; and

Whereas the public will increasingly rely on the skills of weights and measures professionals to provide instruction, maintain accuracy of devices and packages, and improve the proper use of the myriad of technological

devices in business and commerce: Now, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the week of March 1-7, 1985, is designated "National

4 Weights and Measures Week". The President is requested to

5 issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United

6 States and interested groups and organizations to observe

7 that week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

223
ATTACHMENT 7 SURVEY RESULTS

21 Respondees (36^) have

no DP equipment

33 Respondees (64%) at least have access to some

type of DP equipment

DATA PROCESSING PROFILE

Agency Name

Date_J

Agency Contact

(Individual who may be contacted for further information)

1. Does you organization use any of the following equipment to support its activities? (Please check all that apply.) 20 (34%) a. Dedicated word processors. Do you own or control them? Yes_ No

Please specify manufacturer and model:

13 (31%) o. Microcomputers

Do you own or control them?:

Please specify manufacturer and

Yes

model:

No

9 (15%) c. Minicomputers

Do you own or control them?: Yes _ No

Please specify manufacturer and model:

21 (36%) d. Mainframe computers

Do you own or control them?:

Please specify manufacturer and

Yes

model:

, No

2. If you do not have data processing equipment, out plan to acquire such equipment in the next two years, please indicate

what type of equipment you plan to get (see above list):

3. If you keep automated data files, what types of records related to weights and measures activities are kept? (Please check all that apply in the list below or attach a list of the specific

data items you record.)

Total Surveys Mailed: 71 Total Responses: 59 (83% return)

224
Compliance Testing

20 (34%) a. Weighing and measuring equipment inspection data

11 (19%) b. Packaged goods inspection data

17 29%) c. List of all weighing and measuring device businesses

Laboratory Metrologists

11 (19%) d. Data on number and types of calibrations completed

5 ( 8%) e. Control chart files

5 ( 8%) f. Control charts - range charts

4 ( 7%) g. Weighing design calculations

5 ( 8%) h. Air buoyancy calculations

5 ( 8%) i. Volume calibration calculations

1 ( 2%) j. Youden plots

Inspector Performance

16 (27%) k. Data on the number and kinds of devices tested by each

inspector

15 (25%) 1. Data on the number and kinds of devices rejected and

approved by each inspector

Service Personnel and Agencies

7 (12%) m. Compliance records of new and repaired devices installed or serviced by service agency personnel. Test Reports

4 ( 7%) n. Reports of Test by the National Bureau of Standards or other States (device type approval)

Other

13 (22%) o.(Please specify)

4. Do you have electronic data communications capability? (Please

check all that apply.) 11 (19%) a. Asynchronous (teletype compatible - many microcomputers

have this capability).

8 (14%) b. Synchronous (high speed data communications - for example,

ANSI X.24, IBM 3780)

225
5 (8%) c.Other (Please specify)

5. What benefits have resulted from your use of a computer system?

6. What problems (if any) have you experienced in using a computer

system?

7. Do you think the National Conference on Weights and Measures

should play a role in any of the following areas? (Please check all that apply):

44 (75%) a. Development of standard formats for automated information

exchange

33 (56%) b. Centralized mail/message processing

42 (71%) c. Development of standard software systems

18 (31%) d. Coordination of common hardware acquisition (or actual contact negotiation)

7a. Could you contribute resources to any of the above activities?

Yes 12(20%) No 22(37%) Maybe 4(7%)

7b. Could you serve as a pilot site? Yes _19(32%) No H(29%)

Maybe 5(8%)

It would be appreciated if you could attach to this profile a list of the

programs you use, sample reports, or other information that would provide

a better understanding of the data processing system you use.

226
ATTACHMENT 8 NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR

CERTIFICATION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES OFFICIALS

These procedures provide a vehicle through which the National Conference

on Weights and Measures may certify that a weights and measures

official is competent to inspect and test weighing and measuring devices,

and determine net content on package goods in accordance with the

model laws and regulations adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The purpose of the program is twofold. First, to enhance uniform

enforcement of weights and measures laws and regulations within the

National Conference on Weights and Measures member jurisdictions and

second, to provide a national recognition through the issuance of a

certificate to the individual weights and measures official. LETTER OF AGREEMENT

The (Name of Jurisdiction) will participate with the

National Conference on Weights and Measures in the training of weights

and measures officials.

The (Name of Jurisdiction) agrees to:

1. Train its officials in accordance with, and utilizing the training

modules published by, the National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

2. Adhere to the procedures of the "Uniform Administrative Procedures

for the Certification of Weights and Measures Officials."

3. Have the undersigned serve as a certifying officer in accordance with

the "Uniform Administrative Procedures for the Certification of Weights and Measures Officials."

(Signed by individual responsible for weights and measures enforcement in the jurisdiction)

227
PROCEDURES

A. Responsibilities of the certifying officer of the jurisdiction:

1. Provide training in accordance with the training officers guide

in each individual training module.

2. Establish a training file on each participant to include:

a) schedule of training:

b) test scores;

c) evaluation of training;

d) letter to National Conference on Weights and Measures

Executive Secretary requesting participants certification; and

e) copy of certificate issued by the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

3. Submit an annual report of certification to the Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to include:

a) Attestation that all training records are current and in accordance with the "Uniform Administrative Procedures

for the Certification of Weights and Measures Officials."

b) Training was provided in accordance with the 'Training

Officers Guide" for each individual module for which a certificate was issued.

q) Statement outlining the jurisdictions training program to include:

1) Type of individual selected to perform training: and

2) What procedures are used to assure that individuals are performing in accordance with training provided

or that the training was effective.

d) Attestation that individuals holding certification of an

individual module have received training on any changes

in the module in that calendar year.

e) Number of individuals that have received certification that calendar year.

f) Upon an individual weights and measures official's successful completion of a training module, submit the name of the official and attest and verify that the

official has completed the required training and is fully

qualified to perform the procedures within the specific

module.

g) Report due by January 15 and will cover activity for the previous calendar year.

228
B. Responsibilities of the Executive Secretary of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures:

1. Will issue a certification in the name of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures for each weights and measures official for whom he receives an attestation of

successful completion of a module from the participating

jurisdiction's certifying officer.

2. Will maintain, in alphabetical order of participating

jurisdictions, a roster to contain the name of the certifying

officer for each jurisdiction and the name of each official who

has received certification, identifying the modules for which

he/she has been certified.

3. Will submit a report to the Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs Committee at the interim meeting each

year that lists the participating jurisdictions, the certifying

officer, and the number of certificates that were issued in the

previous calendar year. C. Responsibilities of the Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs Committee:

1. Review the annual reports of the certifying officers to assure compliance with these procedures.

2. Request Office of Weights and Measures staff and officers and

standing committee members of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures who are visiting participating

jurisdictions to review files and procedures and report any

variances to the committee.

3. Where a variance in procedure has been detected by the

committee, instruct the Executive Secretary to remove that

jurisdiction from the active list of participating jurisdictions

and withhold issuance of all certifications until the variance can be corrected.

4. Report annually, to the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, the names of participating jurisdictions and number

of officials holding certification.

229
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

Presented by

N. David Smith, Director

Consumer Standards Division

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

Raleigh, North Carolina

REFERENCE KEY

500 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Liaison submits its report to the 69th Annual Meeting

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This

report is the amended interim report of the Committee which was printed

in the Conference Announcement.

The report contains the recommendations of the Committee formed on the

basis of written and oral comments received during the year. Item 506, Packaged Products Net Contents Variations Resulting From

Exposure, is the only voting item; all other items are informational. The

Chairman moved approval of Item 506. The motion carried:

Yes No

State Representatives 39 0 Delegates 50 0 The Chairman moved adoption of the entire report with editorial privilege to the Executive Secretary. The motion carried as follows: Yes No

State Representatives 44 0 Delegates 57 0 A complete list of all items follows: 501 OWM PROGRAM

502 PROGRESS TOWARD DEVELOPMENT OF A SECOND EDITION

OF HANDBOOK 133

503-1 FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE

503-2 NET WEIGHT - USDA/FDA

503-3 AEROSOL NET WEIGHT LABELING

503-4 NET WEIGHT LABELING OF MARGARINE

503-5 CASH-CREDIT PRICING

504 RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR STENCILLED TARE WEIGHTS

505 OIML ACTIVITIES

506 PACKAGED PRODUCTS NET CONTENTS VARIATIONS

RESULTING FROM EXPOSURE

230
507 508

509

CONSUMER COMPLAINT HANDLING

TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

OTHER

The report includes 13 Reference Key Items. One is a recommendation

for specific action by the Conference and is to be voted on; it is identified by printing the Reference Key Number and heading in bold

type. Twelve are informational items only, not subject to vote; they are

identified by an asterisk next to their Reference Key Number.

501 OWM PROGRAM

Mr. Tholen reported on the status of the OWM program within the Office

of Product Standards Policy (OPSP). The funding of the weights and measures program is remaining essentially constant at $1,200,000 per

year. The major change reported was the assignment of Ms. Joan Koenig to the program for a one-year period to manage the development of the

National Training Program including the administration of the Grant to the NCWM and the coordination of technical support to the NCWM

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs. This

assignment has, in turn, made it possible to institute a new task which

had been identified in the Long Range Plan—coordination of programs of the NCWM and the regional weights and measures associations; the

standing committees of these groups will be provided with the reports

(and the results of deliberations) of their counterparts in the interest of

bringing more knowledge to the issues as well as "weeding out" issues that do not need national attention.

With the acquisition of word processing capabilities in the OWM and the NCWM, the Office is able to get documents out more rapidly (note the

earlier publication dates of the 1984 Editions of HB 44, and HB 130, and

the Proceedings of the 68th Annual Meeting). Development of the

manuals under the National Training Program will be enhanced by the use

of the new equipment.

The Office staff is currently working on updating the "Case Book" and the proceedings "Index". This work is being done by several college students,

following varying schedules, under the supervision of OWM staff members.

The Index is expected to be completed (in word processing) ready for review and publication by the end of October 1984. The Case Book will take much longer because of the difficulty of searching for precedents by

State. OPSP is using a character reader to read existing documents into the

word processing system (this avoids the cost and delay in keying large

numbers of pages). It is anticipated that this system will enable other

handbooks to be updated sooner (e.g., Handbook 82).

231
502* PROGRESS TOWARD DEVELOPMENT OF A SECOND EDITION OF

HANDBOOK 133

The material in Appendix A provides an explanation of and illustrates the

changes proposed by OWM. The material reflects the comments contained

in the July 1, 1983, NBS memorandum which was made available at the

National Conference on Weights and Measures in Sacramento and those

received from the survey questionnaire sent to State and local directors on August 30, 1983. During a review of these proposed changes to HB 133 at the Interim

meetings in January, several points or comments were made. These

include: Moisture Loss -moisture loss allowances are not required for all products — for example, EPA does not provide for them.

-a spokesman from the American Meat Institute recommended that

for meat and poultry products: moisture loss is that lost to the

atmosphere; moisture seepage into the tare materials is also moisture loss; and free flowing moisture is part of the product.

-"moisture loss" is not all that could be involved. The FTC

regulations specifically mention "variations due to exposure." This

could mean solvent loss, not necessarily water loss, for products

under FTC jurisdiction (e.g., soaps and detergents).

Why there are two categories of Sampling Plans

Several comments at the first meeting were made that more information is desirable as to when to use category A or B

plan. At the second meeting, the task force proposed wording to provide this guidance, but it was not satisfactory to those

attending. The general consensus was to let the jurisdictions become

familiar with the procedures and let experience "shake-out" a

position on this problem at a later time.

Maximum Allowable Variations

Two problems remain:

-random pack packages put up at the retail store have fewer

variables contributing to individual package variations than other

types of packages. They may need special tighter MAV's than HB

133 recommends. -some packages are more difficult to pack and need larger MAV's. The Conference provides an ideal forum for addressing these problems on

a product-by-product or other basis.

232
A draft of the Second Edition has been prepared and is in internal review

at NBS.

503 FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

503-1 FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE

Representatives of the FGIS, Richard Pforr, Chief, Scale Testing and

Weighing Branch, and Ben Banks, Program Manager, reported a successful year of operation for the Railroad Track Scale Program. The following

list summarizes their past year's activities. -15 master scales were tested. The Laramie, Wyoming; Topeka,

Kansas; and Oakland, California master scales are out of service. -88 tests were performed on 44 official grain railroad track scales. -5 grain-industry owned test cars were field calibrated and put in service as monitor cars. -27 railroad-owned test cars were calibrated at the Clearing facility

in Chicago and 11 railroad-owned test cars were field calibrated.

Ten railroad-owned track scales were tested as part of the field calibrations. -3 State and other-industry owned test cars were field calibrated. -11 railroad track scales owned by other industries were tested. -32 pairs of loadometers were tested for the State of Iowa. According to the FGIS, they will continue to respond to requests from

other industries and States on a total cost recovery basis with priority

being given to the testing of grain-industry and master track scales. However, the FGIS reports that in the absence of additional resources few, if any, additional non-grain track scales can be tested. The members of the conference are reminded that, except for grain-industry scales, the FGIS is not an official testing agency;

therefore, it is essential that weights and measures officials certify the

testing by the FGIS of non-grain scales. The committee urges cooperation

by the States with the FGIS on this most important matter. The FGIS reports that the traditional east/west itineraries for the two

test cars have been changed. It is the expectation of the FGIS that the change will result in more efficient operation of the test cars. The FGIS continues to work towards national uniformity. As a result of the acceptance by the Conference of the Automatic Bulk Weighing Code

developed by the NCWM Committee on Specifications and Tolerances,

FGIS regulations have been changed to allow FGIS to adopt applicable

provisions of Handbook 44.

233
503-2 NET WEIGHT - USDA/FDA

Mr. John McCutcheon, USDA, stated that the agency's net weight

proposal published in 1980 was still under consideration. Mr. Howard

Pippin, FDA, stated that his agency's net weight proposal which was

published jointly with USDA in 1980 was also under consideration and that the FDA decision to adopt or withdraw the proposal would be predicated

upon the USDA's decision. No date was given by either agency as to when a decision would be reached.

503-3 AEROSOL NET WEIGHT LABELING

Howard Pippin representing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

advised that final action on this proposal was still pending.

The NCWM petitioned the FDA on May 4, 1979 to change their regulations to require food and cosmetic aerosol products to bear

declarations of quantity in terms of net weight only. In the meantime,

section 10.3 of the NCWM Uniform State Packaging and Labeling

Regulations does require most aerosol package labelers to comply with the net weight labeling position espoused by the Conference.

503-4 NET WEIGHT LABELING OF MARGARINE

Action is no longer pending or anticipated on the Committee's 1982

request to the FDA to seek repeal of the Federal one-pound (maximum)

limit on the size of the margarine packages sold at retail. The following additional developments are noted, however, since the

Committee's July 1983 report (item 502-4) to the Conference.

1. Opposition to the one-pound limit repeal within the margarine industry itself appears to be based on a continuing concern that there would be an undue proliferation of package

sizes, notwithstanding the NCWM's Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities (section 1.3) which specifies permitted margarine

sizes.

2. Margarine packages continue to be knowingly produced

and distributed for retail sale in violation of both Federal and State laws pertaining to permitted sizes. The ongoing violations of

Federal law involve the open and direct marketing of 5-lb packages

of margarine at retail stores. The violations at the State level involve the marketing of 12-ounce margarine packages by two or more manufacturers.

3. The trade association for the margarine industry, the

National Association of Margarine Manufacturers, has indicated to the Committee that at the present time their Association has no

policy position for removing the one-pound limit, although it may

be discussed later this year.

234
503-5 CASH-CREDIT PRICING

On February 27, 1984, the credit-chard surcharge prohibition in the Cash

Discount Act expired. Legislative activity with respect to the credit-card

surcharge prohibition is in a state of flux. The two Houses of Congress

have not at the present time come to an agreement on the subject. The

House passesd a bill extending the Act to May 31, 1985, and the Senate

sent to the House legislation that would authorize business to impose

surcharges of up to 5 percent on purchases made with credit cards if the

fees are clearly advertised.

The NCWM in 1983 voted to support dropping the credit surcharge

prohibition when it expired. The Liaison Committee had urged the

Conference to adopt this position because of the disruptive effect of the

credit surcharge ban on the orderly dispensing of motor fuels at retail through single price computing pumps. The Liaison Committee urges members of the Conference to express their opinions to their Congressmen.

504 RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR STENCILLED TARE WEIGHTS

In a July 1982 letter to the Executive Secretary, Mr. J.J. Robinson of the

Association of American Railroads, indicated that the AAR is in the process of entering into a computerized data base the tare weight and

stenciled dates of the national railroad freight car fleet. The AAR feels that this program will be of tremendous benefit in identifying rail cars with overdue stenciled dates. The members of the Conference were

reminded, however, that the railroads' mechanical interchange rules specify

restenciling whenever the tolerance is exceeded but not to exceed every

60 months. This requirement applies to most freight cars. At the

present time, covered hopper cars and several other special car types can

only be reweighed and restenciled by the car owner or its authorized

representatives. The AAR is considering placing this car type under the general provisions of the interchange rule that requires restenciling by any

railroad whenever the tare weight of such car is found to exceed the

specified tolerance. A letter dated March 1, 1984, from Mr. Robinson reads as follows: "At the January 1984 Interim Meetings of the NCWM, the Committee on

Liaison requested an update on the status of freight car tare weights. As

I indicated some months ago, the AAR has expanded its UMLER

(Universal Machine Language Equipment Register) file, which is a computerized register of the national freight car fleet, to include the tare weight and date weighed for all freight cars. Since the additional fields are relatively new, we are still in the process of increasing the

completeness and accuracy of this data. "We have, in the meantime, developed a special program to analyze each

car owner's tare weight data on an annual basis. This program was

implemented in January of this year, and all car owners were recently

furnished a printout of their respective car fleets. This report segregates

the general service fleet by car type (i.e., box, hopper, gondola, etc.) and

lists the number of cars not weighed within the past 60 months, as well

235
as the number of additional cars that should be lightweighed during the current calendar year. The expiration of 60 months does not necessarily

indicate that a car's tare weight is inaccurate, but does increase the

possibility of error.

"It should be noted that there are still some discrepancies between the

tare weight reflected in the U.MLER file and the weight actually

stencilled on the car. These discrepancies are being corrected. "As you know, the railroads, along with many other industries, experienced

a significant decline in business activity during the past several years due

to the general economic recession that prevailed nationwide. It was only

during the fourth quarter of 1983 that carloadings finally began to gradually increase. During 1982 and most of 1983, over 20% of the total ear fleet was out of service as surplus or bad ordered equipment. Since

most of these cars were stored and not needed, it was neither practical nor economical to switch such cars out of storage solely for the purpose

of lightweighing them.

"You will recall that certain car types (i.e., equipped box cars, refrigerator cars, covered hopper and tank cars, etc.) are ''exempt" from

the 60-month periodical reweighing provisions of the railroads' Interchange

Rules. In addition, as set forth in Paragraph 3.4.5 of Section 3.4., RAILROAD CAR TARE WEIGHTS, of the Model State Regulation For The

Method Of Sale Of Commodities, such cars must be reweighed only when

they bear no lightweight stencilling or when repairs/alterations result in a change of weight in excess of the permissible lightweight tolerance. It is not known how many of these cars have not been weighed within 60 months or which, if any cars, do not meet the permissible tolerances. However 58,895 or 6% of these exempt cars were reweighed during 1983.

'Tn addition, 106,823 or 12% of the "non-exempt" general service fleet cars were reweighed during 1983. As of January 1, 1984, 24.3% of the serviceable "non-exempt" freight car fleet tare weights or some 179,775

cars have not been reweighed within the past 60 months. We are concerned about these overdue cars which could possibly have inaccurate

stencilled lightweights and have urged the railroads to verify their accuracy. With the increase in freight carloadings, it is anticipated that the railroads' lightweight activity will also increase substantially. We are monitoring this situation closely, plan to generate the UMLER tare weight

summary report at least annually, and will keep you advised of the rail carriers' progress."

The NCWM recognizes and supports the efforts of the AAR in computerizing the stenciled dates of the national car fleet since this program will facilitate the identifying of cars whose stenciled dates go back more than 60 months.

505 OI ML ACTIVITIES

The committee met jointly with the Executive Committee to receive a status report concerning Conference and NBS participation in activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML).

236
Mr. David Edgerly, manager of the NBS Standards Management Program,

reported that, as in previous years, U.S. participation in the OIML

remains active. Highlights of U.S. initiatives taken within OIML during

1983 that are of direct interest to the National Conference include: Cryogenic Meters - NBS worked with the Compressed Gas Association and

the National Conference on Weights and Measures in the development of a

draft OIML International Recommendation on cryogenic meters for use in measuring nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. The draft includes provisions of the measurement standard used within the European Industrial Gases

Committee. The first international meeting on the draft was held in December.

Electronic Weighing Instruments - Work on the draft OIML

Recommendation on electronic scales continued in 1983. NBS, in cooperation with the Scale Manufacturers Association and a U.S. Working

Group of scale manufacturers, produced a 3rd draft Recommendation.

The draft was circulated to OIML member nations for review and was the subject of an international meeting in September. The work is important

in that it will establish internationally uniform requirements for electronic

scales used in trade. Weights - NBS developed a draft OIML Recommendation which

consolidates five existing Recommendations covering various types and

classes of mass standards used in trade and industry throughout the world.

It will soon be circulated for comment.

Materials Testing Machines - NBS, in cooperation with a U.S. Working

Group consisting of manufacturers of materials testing equipment, has

completed work on two draft OIML Recommendations dealing with general

performance requirements for testing machines and with requirements for tension and compression testing machines. These drafts are now out for balloting within OIML. The Recommendations are important in that they

are the first international standards dealing exclusively with the testing

machine itself. Work going on within ISO, for example, deals with

materials tests and not with the machines themselves. A third Recommendation on verification devices for calibrating testing machines

has been developed and is now undergoing review within OIML member

nations. This work is expected to be completed in 1984. Prepackaged Products - NBS, in cooperation with a U.S. Working Group

consisting of manufacturers and government representatives, developed a

draft OIML Recommendation covering the labeling of consumer type

prepackaged products. The draft is intended to establish internationally

uniform requirements for the labeling of prepackaged products and is important to international trade. After presentation, review, and revision of the U.S. draft at two international meetings, agreement was reached in June 1984 to submit a third draft of the document to all member nations

of the OIML working group for balloting, the next step in the process toward acceptance as an international standard.

Metrological Controls - NBS completed work on three draft OIML

Documents pertaining to methods by which legal metrology officials assure

the correctness of instruments and measurements covered by regulation.

The drafts establish general principles for conducting pattern evaluation

237
tests and for carrying out tests to determine an instrument's correctness

for use after installation and during its period of use in trade. The

drafts are important in that they seek to introduce new means of control such as manufacturer self-certification or third party accreditation as alternatives to traditional government only testing programs. 3ased upon

the comments received at an April international meeting, the drafts have

been revised and sent back to the U.S. Working Group.

International Measurement Vocabulary - An international working group

consisting of representatives of the OIML, IEC, and BIPM has completed

work on the first edition of a joint international vocabulary of fundamental measurement terms. NBS participated in the work through

OIML and IEC. The new vocabulary will soon be published by ISO and

will be available for purchase through the four Organizations at a cost of about 100 FF (S12). 506 PACKAGED PRODUCTS NET CONTENTS VARIATIONS

RESULTING FROM EXPOSURE

General

The committee reported to the 63th National Conference in Sacramento in July 1983 that this subject was on its agenda as a future work item. At

the 1984 interim committee meetings consideraole discussion was

generated on the subject. While no conclusions were reached, the following breakdown of specific problem areas within the broad topic were

agreed on within the Committee:

1. Several legal bases exist in the United States that recognize in differing degrees variations from the declared net contents

of packaged products based on exposure associated with "good distribution practices."

2. Problems exist with respect to State and local enforcement involving exposure variations to be applied. Uniform

Standards or a comprehensive information base for variations with "good

distribution practices" are not available to assist regulatory officials. The

tendency, in the past, has been to apply different allowances on a case-by-case basis. This is sometimes justified by climatic differences

but leads to non-uniformity.

3. A oasis should be established where legitimate

variations do occur and are legally recognized to determine appropriate

allowances, which include in each type of situation:

- method of determining moisture content

- establishment of the appropriate type of allowance/jurisdiction for variations (dependent on the range of exposure conditions that reasonably

occur).

4. The relationship between the need to recognize exposure

variations and any proposed "I-Mark Program" or other quantity control system should be defined. Thus, the development of a method of treating

variations resulting from exposure can be estaolished independently of the quantity control system proposal. Allowances for variations must work in

238
any package quantity control system but the details of how should be

evolved as a related but separate activity. A separate working group

within an expanded Task Force on Package Control is probably the most

feasible way to tackle this problem.

5. Resolution of the concerns of the weights and measures

jurisdictions and industry regarding variations in package net contents

resulting from exposure, while dealing broadly with consumer packaging

and products, will have little or no direct impact on consumers. A Specific Example

The Committee received information on a specific example of a problem

being experienced in a commodity by an individual company.

The problem concerns borax, an inorganic, hydrated product, which,

subsequent to being packaged as a powdered laundry type

cleanser/whitener, can lose up to 23.6% of its weight. The effectiveness

and efficiency of the product when used by consumers on a volume basis,

is not affected by this decrease in net weight. A presentation on this specific problem was made at the 69th Conference. (See Appendix B). The Committee supports efforts for resolution of this borax problem by

appropriate NCWM and FTC action; it exemplifies the moisture variation

problem resulting from exposure of hydrated compounds.

507 CONSUMER COMPLAINT HANDLING

The Committee received a report from Charles R. Cavagnaro, U.S. Office

of Consumer Affairs (USOCA) concerning an educational presentation on consumer complaint handling systems presented at the Southern Weights

and Measures Association Conference on October 26, 1983 in Nashville, Tennessee. The presentation was jointly sponsored by the USOCA and the NCWM and

featured a national expert reviewing complaint handling research findings, the essentials of effective complaint handling systems, and the use of complaint handling data in management decision making. Weights and measures officials in attendance considered the information received

practical and immediately useful.

In recognition of the potential value of this information to weights and measures officials, the Committee recommended to the Conference

Executive Committee that a similar presentation be featured at the National Conference on Weights and Measures in Boston. Committee Chairman David Smith assisted by Mr. Cavagnaro conveyed

the Committee's recommendations to the Executive Committee.

508 TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

The task force met on two occasions during the interim NCWM committee

meetings at the National Bureau of Standards in January 1984. Additional

239
information was received on, and progress to date was shared concerning,

the ongoing activities of the task force's three working groups. These developments and results are reported to the conference

membership through the Liaison Committee. While no specific

recommendations are being made at this stage of the task force's work,

comments from interested parties are actively solicited concerning any of

the following items. Item 1 - Survey Report by the Subcommittee on NBS Handbook 133

On March 16, 1983, Albert Tholen, acting on behalf of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM), sent out a request for comments to improve or revise National Bureau of Standards Handbook

133 and its accompanying field manual version. Copies of the comments

received were summarized and sent to each State Director of Weights and

Measures on July 1. Copies were also made available at the NCWM in Sacramento. Unfortunately, only four (4) State and local regulatory

agencies responded.

It was the objective of the Subcommittee to obtain opinions and

comments from State and local regulatory officials. Acceptance of changes to Handbook 133 by weights and measures officials is crucial to NCWM acceptance.

Questionnaire

Consequently, a survey questionnaire was designed and sent out to all State and major local jurisdiction Weights and Measures Directors on August 30. A preliminary compilation of the survey results was made

available at the September 30, 1983 meeting on Handbook 133 at the

National Bureau of Standards. As of January 16, 1984, 38 responses were received with the results as summarized on Appendix D. Item 2 - Report on the California Statewide "Market Place Survey"

Approach

At the invitation of the Task Force, the State of California presented

information on an alternative method of monitoring package net content compliance that has been tried in that State on a limited basis. This new

approach, called the "Market Place Survey," is currently being tested and

evaluated in California.

The "Market Place Survey" approach ranks the packaged products being

offered for sale in that jurisdiction (California) by their total estimated

annual dollar sales volume. Specific commodities or types of packaged

products are then assigned to smaller units (counties) in the jurisdiction for testing from samples selected randomly from numerous retail outlets.

In this manner no one of the smaller jurisdictional units (counties) is overburdened and yet each commodity being checked can be adequately

sampled over the State. This approach also should focus the jurisdiction's

major effort on the key dollar volume items.

240
The results of each commodity type "Market Place Survey" are then used

to summarize the compliance level of each producer included in the

survey. While the vast majority of packagers do an excellent job of complying with net content labeling requirements, the few who do not can

reasonably be expected to be detected by this approach without the fear

that only one or two "underfilled" lots resulted in the negative action.

Moreover, this retail level inspection approach will detect types of shortweight packages that in-plant testing can never reveal. These are the

shortages resulting from exposure that are not permitted because: 1) they

are due to poor distribution practices,~~2] they are in products such as "economic poisons" under EPA, or 3) they are Federally inspected meat,

poultry, or other food products that were repackaged at the retail level. The "Market Place Survey" approach could possibly be expanded to a nationwide basis by assigning certain States the responsibility to survey

specific types of packaged products. However, since the mix of producers

and their product distribution will differ from State to State, commodity

coordination and adequate brand coverage could be difficult to achieve.

Also, because the individual States' resources available to implement the

"Market Place Survey" approach vary widely, the effectiveness of this type of program might be limited in certain areas. Nevertheless, the

concept of this approach does have elements that are close to the

existing patterns of package net contents compliance testing, while

offering improvements over the present methods. The "Market Place

Survey" deserves further study and evaluation to determine if, as a whole,

it is an alternative for or, if in part, it could serve as an adjunct to an

in-plant type of packaged products compliance testing program such as the

task force is exploring in its evolving "I-Mark" system concept. Item 3 - Report of the Working Group on the U.S. "I-Mark" Program,

Administrative Phase

In its 1983 report to the Conference (1983 Item 505), the NCWM Task

Force on Package Control included a discussion paper entitled TOWARD

A RATIONALIZED U.S. NATIONAL PACKAGE CONTROL SYSTEM. The

paper included a skeletal outline for a new concept or approach for U.S. package control called the "I"-Mark System. This approach is similar to the European Economic Community's "E"-mark program. The Task Force Working Group has now prepared a description of the essential elements

for a U.S. "I"-Mark System (as outlined in the Task Force's previously

mentioned discussion paper) in the form of a preliminary draft. (See

Appendix C). This draft consists of a program description with supporting

administrative and legal background documents. It was not part of the

tentative report because neither the Task Force nor the Liaison

Committee had an opportunity to review it during the interim committee

meetings in January. The preliminary draft was sent to all State weights

and measures directors and directors of major city jurisdictions. The

draft was reviewed and discussed at an open meeting of the Task Force

during the 69th Conference. A summary listing of the key concerns

expressed about the "I-Mark" program concept in both the oral and

written comments received by the Task Force is given below.

1. The enforcement required to identify and verify instances of short measure would be extensive and may result in defective products being

released before action can be taken.

241
2. Resources required to implement the I-Mark program would have to be increased to enable regulatory officials in the States where packers are located to audit each plant's quality control program and to examine and

evaluate production records in the event of potential short measure cases.

In the case of industry, if minimum quantity control standards are not met, companies may opt not to participate rather than increase their quality control efforts.

3. Discrimination between participating and nonparticipating packagers

may take place because of the implied exemption of participating

companies and the tendency for regulatory officials to focus their attention where direct action can be taken.

4. The proposal is in conflict with State laws and reguglations requiring

enforcement action on short measure products.

5. States will receive little in exchange for the suspension or delay of

their enforcement actions.

6. The monitoring of packaged goods can best be handled by retail inspections as opposed to limiting actions to individual short measure

cases or in-plant inspections. In-plant inspections ignore changes to products that occur during the distribution process. Also concern over the

accuracy and authenticity of plant records has been expressed.

7. If short measure is confirmed, it is not clear where the responsibility

lies, i.e., manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer.

In addition to this summary listing of key concerns expressed by weights

and measures officials, the Task Force has received several comments and

requests by others to make further comments on the draft "I-Mark"

concept. To facilitate that process the Task Force will hold open a

written comment period (to either Task Force Co-chairmen) until September 1, 1984. Subsequent to September 1984 the Task Force will issue a Final Report. This will include a more complete listing of the

pros and cons expressed about the "I-Mark" program concept. It will also offer to the NCWM, Task Force suggestions and recommendations for any

successor entities within the National Conference structure dealing with

simplifying or improving the enforcement of net content labeling of

packaged products.

509 OTHER

Peggy Adams, Co-Chairman of National Weights and Measures Week,

reported that information kits will be mailed to all jurisdictions. The

Institute for Weights and Measures, National Scale Manufacturers

x\ssociation, and Fairbanks Weighing Division will also mail promotional

materials. Congressman Peter Kostmayer, Pennsylvania, introduced Joint

Resolution 442 in the House of Representatives for a Presidential

Proclamation for National Weights and Measures Week. However, it did not receive the required 210 co-sponsors by March 1, 1984. Congressman

Kostmayer has since reintroduced the legislation as Joint Resolution 623. Members are strongly urged to have their Congressman contact Congressman Kostmayer? s office now to join as co-sponsors.

242
All jurisdictions are requested to send copies of their National Weights

and Measures Activities to Peggy Adams.

N. D. Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

P. H. Adams, Bucks County, PA

C. R. Cavagnaro, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs C. R. Kloos, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. K. J. Simila, Oregon

S. Hasko, Technical Advisor, NBS

COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

243
APPENDIX A

IDENTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO NBS HANDBOOK 133

\

1 %Tt UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. O.C. 20234

December 20, 1983

MEMORANDUM FOR National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM)

Committee on Liaison

Committee on Laws and Regulations State Weights and Measures Directors Interested Organizations and Individuals

From: Albert D. Tholen,

Office of Weights

Subject: National Bureau of Standards Recommended Changes to Handbook 133

and/Measures '

The attached material contains an explanation of our position (in th-3 left column), and the changes that we propose to make to Handbook 133 prior to reprinting the handbook in a second edition (in the right

column). Material to be deleted is either identifiea as such (i.e., delete the second sentence of tha third paragraph), or lined out (i.e.,

voluntary). Material to be added is shown in "bold" type (Allowances for moisture loss during the course of flood distribution practices must be provided).

Our intent is to address all of the comments contained in the July 1

,

1983 memorandum sent to you (Subject: Comments Received on Handbook

133). The attached compilation is in the same sequence as the material

in the earlier memorandum. A direct comparison between the two compilations should be the easiest way to evaluate the proposed

changes. The NCWM has scheduled time at its interim meetings in January 198 J

l to discuss the proposed changes. In addition to the substantive material addressed in the attachment, we will be making editorial changes to the handbook to correct minor error's and to incorporate improvements in the instructions and forms provided for use by the official during

inspection activities. Attachment

244
Prefaoe, Purpose, and Soope

It was suggested that the Preface Is misleading and lengthy. The Preface

and Purpose have been shortened and

updated. At the time of publication of the first edition, the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had

planned to update their regulations

and had proposed adoption of substantial parts of H-1 33 . Since

these proposals were never promulgated, it seems appropriate to delete references to the Federal

agencies and focus on the principal

audience, the State and local

weights and measures officials.

One comment indicated that the legal correctness of the handbook should

be doubted. We have no reason to doubt the procedures given in this

handbook a3 acceptable compliance

testing tools.

Delete Preface and Purpose and replace with the following: PURPOSE

This handbook has been prepared as a procedural guide for compli- ance testing of packaged goods.

Compliance testing of packaged

goods is the determination of the conformance of the results of the packaging, distribution, and

retailing process (the packages)

with specified legal requirements.

Although the handbook has been de- veloped primarily for use by

weights and measures officials of the State3, counties, and cities,

it will also be useful to commercial and industrial establishments

involved in the packing, distribution, and sale of packaged commodities.

Delete the first paragraph of Scope

and replace with the following:

As suggested by Virginia's Division

of Product and Industry Regulation,

the term "supersedes" has been

dropped and the term "predecessor"

used.

SCOPE The handbook differs from its

predecessor (NBS Handbook 67) in two significant areas:

1 . Two categories of sarap] ing

plans are presented for packages

subject to the average requirement.

(The sampling plans in Handbook 67 have been modified and appear as "Category B" sampling plans in Handbook 133.)

2. Comprehensive test procedures are provided in detail for a wide

variety of commodities.

245
Section 1.1.

One comment indicated that the In- troduction is misleading and that

the last sentence in Section 1.1. "suggests that the Handbook is compatible with existing regulations

at the Federal level and such has

not been demonstrated." The last sentence in Section 1.1. is merely

intended to warn the weights and measures official that Federal

regulations do change and that H-133

may not contain the most recent information in this area. It should

be said, however, that the handbook

has not been demonstrated to be incompatible with existing Federal

regulations. Therefore, no changes

are recommended for this section.

Section 1 .2.2.

It was recommended that the section

be omitted because it appeared that

the section introduced a new system

of net contents checking. The

wording in this section has been clarified to indicate that it applies only to pressed and blown

glass tumblers and stemware.

It was pointed out that the NCWM standards do not meet the definition

of "voluntary standards". The term

"voluntary'1 has been dropped.

Change to read

1.2.2. An Exception

The National Conference on Weights

and Measures (NCV.'M), an organization

of State and local weights and measures officials, has adopted

voluntary standards called "uniforw

laws and regulations" upon which

individual jurisdictions may model

their laws and regulations. Several States have adoptee that portion of the MCWM Hoaei State Uniform

Regulation for the Method of Sale

of Commodities that provides a tolerance for certain package labei

quantities pressed and blown glass

tumblers and stemware. In that regulation, such a tolerance is called an "allowable difference".

When packaged product quantities are given tolerances, the average and

requirements

apply. This

246

individual package

described above do n handbook provides procedures for testing these predect quantities

glassware in Section 5.7.
Section 1.3.1.

Comments Indicate that the section

is confusing especially if perceived

as a directive rather than general

guidance. The section has been

reworded and rearranged in order to provide clearer guidance to administrators of State and local weights

and measures programs as to the advantages and disadvantages of testing at various levels of production and distribution.

It was suggested in comments received on the handbook that product put up in the retail store should have moisture allowances

applied to it. We agree that variations due to loss or gain of moisture must be permitted during

the course of good distribution

practices. The question to be answered is: at what point in tne process does "good manufacturing

practice" end and "good distribution

practice" begin? We have used as our guide in the handbook the procedures of the FDA and the USDA. Product that has been packaged but

is still located in the manufacturer's plant is presumed to be under the control of the manufacturer. In such instances, a moisture allowance is not applied by

Federal inspectors. Similarly,

product packaged in a retail store

for sale in that store is still at the point of pack; a moisture

allowance at this point is, therefore, not appropriate.

1.3.1. Where to Test Package commodities may be tested in any location from packaging plant to retail outlet.

Point of Pack

Checking packages at the location

where they are packaged ("point of pack") has the greatest impact on the packaging process: From the viewpoint of efficieneyT the best location to test any individual

packaged product is at the location

where the product is packaged. The official can sample from the largest

number of packages of a single

product available at one place;

and, the manufacturer can immediately correct any problems found

before packages are distributed.

Small economies are also available

since the packager can often recover

and repackage the product from packages that must be opened fcr testing purposes and the official can immediately inform the manufacturer-of-the-test-results

.

When the product is packaged at the retail store (the supermarket meat counter being the classic example),

package inspection at retail is equivalent, to inspection at the production point. Many of the disadvantages of retail inspection

that-are-ncted-above-are7-of-course-; avoiried-in-this-instance-r-Aiiowances

for moisture loss are not appiiedT

and7-any-shortage-may-be-immediately

corrected.

Package testing at production point cannot entirely replace that at wholesale or retail outlets. Since

only manufacturing practices can be examined at production point,

testing of packages at wholesale and retail outlets must also be part of

a complete package inspection

program. The results of distribution practices, possible tampering

with the product, and environmental

247
effects can only be monitored by

wholesale and retail checking.

Thus, inspection resources should be divided, if possible, between

testing at the packaging location

and testing at wholesale and retail

locations

.

The effectiveness of package testing programs conducted by individual State and local agencies would be maximized if these agencies established reciprocity with other State,

county, and city jurisdictions to recognize results of tests carried

out by other agencies at packaging

plants

.

Wholesale

dust as checking packages at th*

point-cf-prodtaefcion-haa-the-greateat

impact upon packaging processes in terms-of-the-nur.Per-cf- packages- upon whieh decisions can be rrad*7 checking at wholesale has a grea-e- impaet than checking at retaii-r ThereforeT Warehouse-outlet package

testing is a good alternative,

wherever possible, to testing at the production point in terms of efficiency testing large amounts of product. There is a severe drawback

to checking at wholesale, however.

This is the problem of getting to the stacks of pallets, breaking devm

film-wrapped or wired skids, and finally opening sealed cartons. Labor costs, equipment, and time

requirements, including the time

needed to restack skids and pallets,

can be excessive. Because of the importance of wholesale testing to the follow-up of inaccuracies

discovered during retail checking,

guidelines are given in Appendix

C.6. to simplify selection of the package sample at wholesale outlets.

Retail

Package testing at retail checks the soundness of the manufacturing, distribution, and retailing processes

of the widest variety of goods

available at single locations.

248
Package testing at retail locations

checks the accuracy of the package

label at the locations where consumers purchase the product. It Is an excellent means for State and

local jurisdictions to monitor

problems and look for potential

problems.

Retail package testing does not permit checking very many lots of an individual product or a substantial amount of any single production lot. Thus, it is more difficult to detect generally good or bad packaging processes, and the impact

of a single inspection on a packager

and his/her process is small. Therefore, at the very least,

follow-up inspection of a particular

brand or code number at a number of retail and wholesale outlets is extremely important in any retail

checking scheme.

The greatest number of processes impinges on the quality or quantity

of the product at the point of sale,

such that the greatest number of causes is possible for any inspection lot being out of compliance. A shortage in weight or measure may be the result of mistreatment of the product in the store, of a failure

to rotate stock, of mishandling by a middle agent, or of failure of some part of the packaging process. Therefore, locating fault in order

to correct defects will be more difficult when retail testing is employed

.

Moisture Loss

The term "may" was used to distinguish hermetically-sealed packages

from other types of packages. The

paragraph has been revised and

highlighted as a separate section.

Allowances for loss of moisttare may have to be applied to packages and

commodities- when- tested- at- wholesale

and-retaii-iocationsT

Allowances for moisture loss during

the course of good distribution

practices must be provided.

Allowances for moisture loss are not applied at point of pack

testing or to hermetically sealed

packages.

249
Section 1 . H

It was recommended that references

to allowable differences be dropped. See Section 1.2.2. for further

information on this subject. The

second paragraph of this section

repeated what is contained in Section 1.6. and has been shortened

accordingly.

Reword the second paragraph of Section 1.1 as follows:

It is possible to test packages for compliance with package requirements

without using sampling teehniquesT

in such cas«S7 the quantity of contents of ail the package?

available-for-test-must-be-measuredr

averaged7~and- then-compared- with- the iabeied quantityT and the variation

from the iabeied quantity of each

individuai-package-compared- with- the maximum-allowable- variation-for- that

package type and size- if allowable

differences are estabiishedT the quantity inside every package is

compared against the iabeied

quantity-plus-or-minus-the-ailowabi*

difference the regulation citesT

This is a eostiy and time-consuming

technique for regulatory agencies

and7 in certain instancesT will

require opening all of the package.?

inspectedT See Section 1.6. on 100$ Testing for an explanation of

tests to be conducted.

Section 1.6.

Several comments were made that 100J testing is stricter than sampling

and is therefore inconsistent with

the sampling procedures given in the handbook. However, no revision is proposed fcr Section 1.6. The State

and local regulations are explicit

as to the requirements that must be met if an entire lot, shipment, or delivery is tested:

o the average of a lot, shipment,

or delivery must equal or exceed

the label; © no (zero) packages may be "unreasonably" short measure. Sampling is not required by the regulations ana Js only a tool of the inspection agency.

250
Section 1 .7.

Comments indicate that the general Delete 2nd, 3rd, and 5th paragraphs,

guidance as to when to use what

category of sampling plan was unclear and insufficient and that it cast doubt on Category B plans. It was the intent of the original

wording in this section to link the sampling plan categories in a very general way with enforcement

practices in the U.S. These

practices vary so much that specific

guidance is not possible at this

time. Therefore, additional

information on the differences

between Category A and B plans is provided (see Section 1.8.) and the very general guidance that Section

1.7. contained on choices of how to use the sampling plans is deleted.

This will provide the regulatory

agency with more information that should be helpful in making a reasoned choice between the categories of plans and provide the agency

the flexibility to select the inspection approach appropriate for

the particular circumstances.

Section 1 .8.

The original wording of this section

provides general contrasts between

Categories A and B without providing

a description of how a sampling plan

distinguishes between good and bad

lots. Comments suggest that the statistical meanings of "consumers

risk" and "producers risk" were not understood, and that Category B plans were somehow suspect in comparison with Category A plans.

Additional graphical information is provided that will help describe

these categories of plans.

Revise as follows:

1.8. Why There Are Two Categories

of Sampling Plans

Judgments based on sampling (less

than complete information) {samples-} cannot be made with complete accuracy. Inherent in sampling arc- risks of making wrong decisions.

There is they are the ri3k of accepting lots that do not conform

to the regulation ana there is the risk of rejecting fsiiing lots that do conform. Sampling plans can be designed-to-have-predeterminea-riaks

of-inaking-the-wrong-decf sion37

251
The figure^/ illustrates con- ceptually some of the differences

between Category A ana Category B sampling plans. Lots That Average at the Labeled

Net Contents

For lots that average at the labeled net contents (see the

dashed line): © Category B sampling plans would

be expected to accept such lots

50% of the time (point "a") © Category A sampling plans would

be expected to accept the lots more often (point n b*).

1 _/This description has been greatly

simplified by showing only lots

that have a variability tnat fits

veil within the MAV limits; these

lots all have the same relative

variability as compared with tne MAV. See G. H. Lauer r "Probabilities of Noncompliance for Sampling

Plans in NBS Handbook Ij3, n in the Journal of Quality Technology, Vol.

1*1, p. 162, July 1982, for probabilities for lots of differing

variabilities.
Lots That Average Below the Labeled

Net Contents

For lots that average less than the

labeled net contents (see the

dotted line): o The same relationship holds, that

is, Category A plans (see point

d) would pass such lots more often than Category B plans (see

point c), but e The probability of such lots

being passed in either Category

drops as one would expect ("b" versus n d

n and "a" versus "c"). Lots That Average Above the Labeled

Wet Contents

Similarly, for lots that average

greater than the labeled net contents (moving to the left on the

drawing): e The same relationship holds,

that is, Category A plans would pass such lots more often than

Category B plans, but e The probability of lots being

passed in either Category in- creases , as one would expect.

Although Category A sampling plans are provided in order to reduce the risk of failure when the lot average equals the labeled weight,

it has been traditional in package

testing in the U.S. to use sampling

plans like Category B. in the

drawing above, the comparison of

Category B with A has been made

only when the sample size is the same; Category A plans have been

designed with larger sample sizes

than Category B plans so as to better discriminate between

conforming lots and underweight

lots (then the curve for a Category

A plan would be 3teeper - more

vertical - than for Category B).

it has been traditional in package

checking in the HtSt to use sample

pians iike 6ategory St Such pians
have a 56-58 risk of aeceptanee-faiitsre for iota that do average at the labeled weight -(and when individual packages fit weii

within their aiiowed limits-)-: This

kind of pian in some way spiits the risk between packer and consumer-: For some possible consequences

•(eailed u of reiativeiy great

severity"-)-; however? the 5Q% risk may be excessive for the packer who

is indeed producing lots complying

with- regulation-:

Therefore-; other sampling plans

{those of Sategory A-) are given?

which-provide-a-much-smaller-risk-of

failure for the packer when the lot average does equal the labeled

weight- If smali sample sires were

used-; this kind of pian would not provide-suf ficient- protect ion- to- the consumer? Therefore? Sategory A plans are given with larger sample

sizes that will give better discrimination between conforming lots and-under weight- Io^st

A Sategory B failure is not as strong an indication of an underweight lot as is a Sategory A failure? however? a Sategory B pian

gives more consumer protection than

a-6ategory-A-plan-of- the- same-sample

size-:

Section 1 .9.

Some comments indicate that this

section does not properly recognize

the mandatory nature of permitting

moisture loss, Except for Table

1-1, which will be cross referenced

to Appendix B, no changes are proposed for this section. The handbook makes the point several

times that provisions must be made

for moisture loss in good packaging

and distribution practices. Until

all parties can agree on test methods or values to be applied(if

that is possible or practicable at all), the official will have to rely

254
on the general knowledge available

and apply good judgment. Provision

is made on the inspection forms to factor in values to provide for moisture loss.

Section 1.10.

This section has been clarified in order to indicate that no single

moisture loss value or test method

is being recommended or advised by

the handbook.

Revise as follows:

1.10. DECISIONS PRELIMINARY TO PACKAGE INSPECTION Prior to conducting package inspections, the package testing official

must, at the very least, be given

preliminary guidance by his or her supervisor or the program adminis- trator concerning:

- which sampling plan category is to be used under what circumstances

in the jurisdiction, and

- what moisture aiicwance is to be used under what circumstances in the-jurisdictionT

what procedures are to be followed when inspecting packages

susceptible to moisture loss.

Section 2.3.1

•

In order to avoid confusion with the Universal Product Code, the term

"lot code" will be used in this

section and elsewhere in the handbook.

In addition, a paragraph is added

that distinguishes product under the jurisdiction of FDA and US DA from

product under the jurisdiction of State and local agencies only.

Revise as follows:

2.3.1. The Inspection Lot of Standard Pack Packages

Standard pack packages are those packages which are put up with

identical labels and only in certain selected quantity sizes. An example

of a standard pack meat item would

be canned hams labeled "5 pounds."

255
The sentences in bold will also be added to Section 2.3.2. The Inspection Lot of Random Pack Packages.

© When the location of test is a retail store, the inspection lot must consist of packages with

identical labels. it is not necessaryT but may at times be desirabieT to segregate packages

according to the same manufac- turers lot symboi or codeT State and local regulations

apply to "lots, shipatents, or deliveries." Packages with

different codes comprising a shipment or delivery may be acted upon as a single inspection lot. However, for food,

drugs, and cosmetics under the jurisdiction of FDA or USDA,

segregation of lots by lot code

is necessary before final action

is taken. Follow-up inspection

also will require segregation of lots by lot codes. © When the location of test is a warehouse, the inspection lot must consist of packages with

identical labels and with the same manufacturer's lot symbol or lot code. © When the location of test is on-line at a packaging plant, the inspection lot must consist of packages With identical labels

and manufacturer's lot code, and

should not exceed one uninterrupted production run. As small

as one hour's production may be convenient for sampling purposes. Note that the inspection lot is not, in general, the same as the "production lot."

256
Section 2.3.3

This section explains that the size

of the inspection lot must be determined in order to refer to Tables

2-2 or 2-5 for selecting a sampling

plan. Comments were made concerning

the need to explain what is appropriate when only one or two packages

is available for test. We believe

this guidance belongs in Section

2.3. concerning the formation of the inspection lot.

Add the following introductory statement for cross reference: Refer to discussion on the definition of lot (Section 2.3.) for further information on forming the inspection lot from which a sample

will be drawn. Add the following paragraph at the end of Section 2.3. to address the question about small sample sizes: State and local regulations apply to "lots," "shipments," or "de- liveries." A shipment or delivery

will rarely be comprised of only one or two packages. When only one or two packages are found on retail

shelves, more packages should be sought in storerooms or cases. When only one or two packages are available for test in a single

location and it is evident that the shipment or delivery was larger,

the average net contents of the shipment or delivery cannot be determined. Only individual

package errors can be ascertained

and compared with the limits of reasonable variation (called

Maximum Allowable Variations). If shortages are found for one or two packages, records should be kept

and follow-up inspections conducted on larger lots or in other loca- tions.

Section 2.k

This section explains what a "package error" is. Comments were

made that advice on obviously

defective packages snould be given. We believe Appendix C already covers

this subject and that Appendix C should be referred to in Section

2.3.3., rather than in Section 2.H.

Add the following paragraph at the end of Section 2. 3-3-: Obviously defective individual

packages are not to be selected

from the inspection lot to becone

part of the sample (see Appendix C for guidance in this situation).

However, obviously defective

packages should not be reintroduced

into comaerce.

257
Section 2.6.

It was recommended that a smaller

sample size be added to the Category

A plans. No changes are proposed to the Category A sampling plans. A Category A sampling plan with a sample size of less than 30 will

permit too many nonconforming lots

to pass the inspection test. In addition, the average range method

that is part of the Category A plans

requires more than two or three

values of a range of five to get an adequate estimate of the inspection

lot variability.

Section 2.7.

It was recommended that Category B plans be dropped or only provided

for audit purposes. In our opinion,

Category B sampling plans remain

viable cools for the official to use and we choose to retain them. We

believe that the handbook differentiates between the characteristics

of the two categories so that the official can make an appropriate

choice in the selection of plans

for use in any given situation.

(See Section 1.8.)

Section 2.8.

It was recommended that wording in this section be changed so that it does not imply that action on single

packages is allowed. On the other

hand, there are some jurisdictions

that follow the average principle in testing for compliance but are legally restricted to citations on a package-by-package basis. Therefore,

only very general advice on defective packages can be given.

Revise wording as follows:

2.8. INDIVIDUAL PACKAGES Even if the lot complies with the package requirements using a sampling plan, individual packages

in the sample may be short by more than the maximum allowable variation

from the labeled quantity. However, any individual package that is short

by more than the MAV from the labeled quantity is considered

defective ar.d should be repacked?

reiabeled7 or otherwise handled or. an individual basis-: Defective

packages should not be reintroduced

Into cotmerce.

258
Section 2.9.2.

An explanation for the use of MAV/6

is provided.

Revise section as follows: 2.9.2. Choosing the Unit of Measure As a general rule, the official

should record package measurements

in units less than or equal to the MAV/6. This is a general extension

of the principle expressed in NBS handbook 44, page 1-9, that the error of standards used without cor- rection "should be not greater than 25% of the smallest tolerance to be applied when the standard is used"

.

Since packages are tested not only

against an individual package re- quirement, but also against the average requirement, the errors made in individual package measure- ments are added (and they do not cancel out). Therefore, the 1:1 principle is tightened to 1:6, a ratio that permits readily available testing equipment to be used.

Section 2.11.

It was argued that wet tare should

not be recommended for use in inspection. A letter from the USDA,

however, indicates that their

officials use wet tare. Nevertheless, a testing official must use what is available. Therefore, a rec- ommendation as to dry or wet tare

will not be made.

Change the first paragraph on page 2-14 to read: Wet tare shottid be used wherever

possibleT In some cases (e.g.,

canned or glass- or plastic- packed

goods), dry tare weights are equivalent to wet tare (within the measurement precision of field test scales). However, the net contents

value, which is obtained when a d^y tare value i3 substracted from the package's gross quantity, will net always represent the amount of product that can subsequently be obtained from the package. For example, oils or moisture from the product may be absorbed by the packaging material when in contact with the product, increasing the weight of the packaging material and

259
decreasing the weight of the product after packaging. Theref©re—eautior.

in the use of dry tare vaiues is adviaedT—(Mhen-it-is-avaiiabier-the

use of dry tare vaiue can be vaiuabie in audit testing-; however-; in order to iocate possibie vioia- tions without opening any packages ander-test-h

Section 2.1 m.

It was recommended that F-type cans

be included in the alternative tare procedure

.

Add the following sentence at the end of the 1st paragraph:

"F-Style" rectangular cans, of the type in which turpentine, mineral

spirits, and similar products are packaged are also likely candidates

requiring the use of this procedure.

Section 2.12.

This section is revised to reflect

changes that have been made throughout the document to clarify that allowable differences apply to glassware only.

Additional data on packages weighing

less than 1.28 oz (36 g) and over 50 pounds indicate that Table 2-8 should be changed as shown on the next pages. Because of changes to equipment re- quirements (see Section 5.6.1.),

preservation of the MAV/6 principle

enlarges the MAV to 3% for the labeled length of 0 to 1 yard.

Therefore, modify Table 2-11 as shown on the third following page Regarding the "difficult to fill" commodities, we will recommend that the NCWK Committee on Laws and Regulations study these questions and (working within the mechanisms of the Conference) seek a Conference

consensus position.

Revise last sentence of first paragraph as follows. Paekagc quantities Pressed and blown glass tumblers and stemware given a tolerance (or an aiicwabi*

difference — see Section 5.7.) are not compared with the MAV. Modify Tables 2-8 and 2-11 as shown

on the following pages.

260
Table 2-8. Maximum allowable variations for an individual package labeled by weight .

Avoirdupois units Metric units Labeled weight MAV Labeled weight MAV

Pounds or ounces

Decimal pounds

Fractional ounces Grams Grams

up to and including

0.026 lb

i up to and including

0.41 oz

0.002

1

up to and including

11.6 1

0.026+b to

C 0.08 lb

0. 41+ to 1 .co OZ 0.004 1/16 11.6 +

b to

C 36 2

0.08+ to 0.12 lb 1.28+ to 1.92 oz 0.008 1/8 36+ to 54 4

0.12+ to 0.18 lb 1.92+ to 2.88 oz 0.012 3/16 54+ to 82 5

0.18+ to 0.26 lb 2.88+ to 4. 16 oz 0.016 1/4 82+ to 118 7

0.26+ to 0.34 lb 4.16+ to 5.44 oz 0.020 5/16 118+ to 154 9

0.34+ to 0.46 lb 5.44 + to /.36 oz 0.024 3/8 154+ to 209 11

U. «rO+ to u. bo ID 7.3G+ to 9.23 oz

0. 028 7/16 209+ to 263 13

0.58+ to 0.70 lb 3.£0+ tO 11. OZ 0.032 1/2 263+ to 318 15

0.70+ to 0.84 lb 11.20+ to 13.44 oz 0.036 9/16 JXOT LO JOl lb

0.84+ to 0.94 lb 13.44+ to 15.04 oz 0.040 5/8 381+ to 426 18

0.94+ to 1.08 lb 15.04+ to 17.28 oz 0.044 11/16 426+ to 490 20

1.03+ to 1.26 lb 0.048 3/4 490+ to 572 22 1.26+ to 1.40 lb 0.052 13/16 572+ to 635 24 1.40+ to 1.54 lb 0.056 7/8 635+ to 698 25 1.54+ to 1.70 lb 0.060 15/16 698+ to 771 27

aApplics only to shortages in package weight (minus package errors)

0.026+ means "greater than 0.025"

c"to" means "to and including"

261
Table 2-8. (continued). Maximum allowable variations for an individual package labeled by weight.

Avoi rduoo 1

' s units Metric units Labeled weight KAV Labeled weight MAV

Pounds Decimal pounds Fractional

ounces Grams orKi 1 ograms Grams 1.70+ to 1.88 0 054 1 771+ to 652 29

1. 6-6+ to 2. 14 C70 1 1/8 852+ to 9" i 32 2.14+ to 2.48 O 078 1.1/4 971+ to 1 125 35 2.48+ to 2.76 0. 085 1 3/8 1.125+ to 350 40 2.75+ to 3.20 0. 094 1 1/2 1.350+ to 1. 600 45 3.20+ to 3.90 0 11 1 3/4 1.600+ to 1. 800 50 3.90+ to 4.70 0. 1.2 2 1.800+ to 2. 100 55

i 4,70+ to 5.80 o. 14 2 1/4 2.100+ to 2. 640 65 5.00+ to 6.80 0 15 2 1/2 2.640+ to 3. 080 70 6.80+ to 7. SO 0 17 2 3/4 3.080+ to 3 600 80 7.90+ to 9.40 0. 19 3 3.800+ to 4. 400 85

| 3 . s U + i O il./U 0. 22 3 1/2 4.400+ to 5. 200 j 11.70+ to 14,20 0. 25 4 5.200+ to S. 800 115

1

j 14.20+ to 17,70 0. 28 4 1/2 6.800+ to 8. 20 130 17.70+ to 23,20 0

31 5 8.20+ to 10. 60 145 23,20+ to 31.60 0. 37 6 10.60+ to 14 .30 170 31.60+ to 42.40 0. 44 7 14.30+ to 13 .25 200 42.40- to 54.40 0. 50 8 19.25+ to 24.70 230

5-4.40+ 2% 24. 70+ 2%

1

26?
263
Section 2.13.

The source for the MAV values for polyethylene sheeting will be footnoted.

Add footnote: *1978 communication from the National Flexible Packaging Association (how the Flexible Packaging

Association).

Section 2.1*4.

We do not intend to imply that there

is a single method or value that is to be used when allowing for moisture loss; however, a point in the procedure must be provided for taking moisture loss into account.

Delete this section in its entirety

and substitute the following: In those cases requiring allowance

for moisture loss, the allowance

value (converted to units of weight

if necessary) is subtracted from

the "nominal gross weight" (see

Section 2.11. and Section 3.5.) to obtain a corrected nominal gross

weight. This corrected nominal gross weight is then compared with

the gross weight of each unopened

package in the sample in order to determine individual package errors.

Section 3.1.

It was recommended that modern

equipment be referenced.

Insert the following paragraph just

prior to the paragraph beginning

" Commercial Scale-" ; Electronic Digital Scale. Elec- tronic digital scales appropriate

for package testing are available

with displays ranging from 0.0001 lb to 0.01 lb and capacities from 6 to 50 lb (and greater). The keys

to selecting appropriate equipment

for package testing purposes are: -The scale must meet all requirements of NBS Handbook UH, Scale Code T.3.1., except that the acceptance tolerance should be

1/2 that given in the Handbook

Table

264
- The scale should be equivalent to equal-arm scales in terms of sensitivity (for example, a minimum scale division of 0.002 lb or 1 g for weighing small packages down to 1.92 oz or 82 g). If the scale does not have appropriate sensitivity, weighing

by substitution must be employed.

- The scale must be portable and

rugged.

- Errors should not be introduced

by slight out-of-level conditions.

- For the convenience of the inspector (although not manda- tory) the scale should be battery powered.

Section 3» 12.

It v/as recommended that the term "drained" be changed to net throughout this Section. This will be done.

Section 3.13.

It was recommended that the second sentence in the fourth paragraph be reworded.

Delete paragraphs M and 5 and substitute the following:

Using the tare sample packages, the

official should weigh and record

the gross weight of the product-filled cans before and after

breaking the vacuum seal. Compute

the average gross weight difference

(open weight minus sealed weight).

Subtract the average gross weight

difference from the average tare. Record the average tare minus the average difference in gross weights on a worksheet and annotate on the report form as "corrected average

tare". The nominal gross weignt

is equal to: the corrected average

tare weight plus the labeled

weight.

265
Section H.H. Work is still in progress concerning

the equivalency of the displacement

method and the flask method cur- rently in the handbook. Therefore,

no change is proposed.

Table 4-2 This table is provided in order to make sure that any difference in weight observed from two different

weighings of the same quantity would

be due only to the repeatability of the weighing device. The blank space

will be filled in and other guidance

will be provided.

Section 5.2.

There appears to be some confusion

about the special sampling plans

provided for packages labeled by a count less than "50." Unlike the other sampling plans that contain a column headed "number of packages

allowed to exceed the MAV," these

sampling plans (Table 5-1, p. 5-4)

contain a column headed "number of packages allowed to contain fewer

than the labeled count." Since the MAV is not used directly in the sampling plan, individual packages

that are under the labeled count by more than the MAV are considered de- fective but will not necessarily

fail the lot. Thus, the manufacturer

is not being penalized by the provision that the MAV is zero for very low count. Therefore, no changes are planned for this

section.

266
Section 5.6

It has been recommended that weighing not be given as a method of determining compliance of sanitary

paper products. We concur.

Add the following to the first para- graph:

The count of sanitary paper prod- ucts cannot be determined ade- quately by weighing; variability in sheet weight and core weight

requires that official tests be made by actual count. Section 5.6.1

.

It has been recommended that the Delete first paragraph,

rule in Section 5.6.1. be modified

because of the difficulty in using Change third paragraph to read: such fine divisions. We concur. Rule 12 in [30 cm] in length, 0-rOi 0.02 in [0.5 mm] divisions.

Section 5.6.2.

It has been recommended that additional guidance be given in Section 5.6.2. because the sizes of individual sheets in a package may

vary

.

Add step 6 as follows:

6. Individual sheets within a package or roll may vary. If the above procedure indicates

lot non-conformance, measure at least 10 sheets selected at random from each package.

Average these to determine the dimensions and use these average dimensions in steps 4 and 5 above.

Section 5.7. The term "voluntary" will be deleted

in footnote 10 on page 5-11.

The term "plastic" will be deleted

from Section 5.7.1.

Change the first sentence of the first paragraph to read as follows: The package requirement that the average quantity of a lot (shipment

or delivery) meet or exceed the labeled quantity is not applied to that-eatesory-ot'-produets-to-which-a

"tolerance" or "allowable difference" has been provided by regulation pressed and blown glass

tumblers and st&tware.

267
Appendix A

It was recommended that "allowable

differences" and "tolerance" be deleted from Appendix A. These

definitions are required for the use

of selected portions of the handbook

and cannot be deleted.

Appendix B

It was recommended that a reference

to pickles be added to this appendix. Appendix 3 is intended to list

only net contents requirements, not other packaging and labeling and

method of sale requirements. A reference is added to one source for

this other information.

Add the following sentence to the first paragraph of the Appendix:

Additional information concerning

packaging and labeling and appropri- ate methods of sale is contained

in NBS Handbook 130.

268
APPENDIX B

U. S. BORAX PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

69th National Conference on Weights and Measures

Presented by

John M. Mann Senior counsel

United States Borax & Chemical Corporation Los Angeles, California

and

Dr. T. Scott Griffin Manager, Consumer Products Research

U. S. Borax Research Corporation

Anaheim, California

Coauthor: Donald J. Ferm

Research Chemist

U. S. Borax Research Corporation

Anaheim, California

BY MR. MANN

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Members of the Conference, honored

guests, United States Borax & Chemical Corporation, better known as U.S. Borax, and U.S. Borax Research Corporation, thank you for the opportunity

to make this presentation.

My name is John Mann. I am Senior Counsel for U.S. Borax, and joining me

in the presentation will be Dr. Scott Griffin, who is the Manager,

Consumer Products Research, for U.S. Borax Research Corporation.

Our presentation concerns the peculiar qualities of the mineral borax,

used in several of U.S. Borax's products, most notably in consumer

products made for use in the laundry, not as detergents but along with

detergents. U. S. Borax operates a mine and refinery in the Mojave Desert in California, where it mines and refines the mineral borax. The refined

borax is then shipped in bulk, some to industrial customers, some to our two plants, one at Burlington, Iowa, the other at Wilmington, California. At those plants, it is used in making the consumer products in question.

Incidentally, U.S. Borax and its predecessor companies have been selling

borax for use in the laundry for a hundred years.

269
Our consumer products are packaged at the plants in cartons in granular

form, and distributed nationwide, ultimately for sale to consumers at

retail. Federal and State regulations require us to state the net weight

of each carton on its label. However, a peculiarity of borax is that it can lose up to more than 23% of its weight due to moisture loss to the

atmosphere. The speed of dehydration depends on temperature and humidity.

Some moisture can be regained in rare conditions of temperature and

humidity, but in normal distribution the moisture loss is unavoidable.

The ironic part is that the borax does not decrease in volume because of the moisture loss. Since the consumer is directed to use the products by

volume, e.g., by cup or fractions of a cup, the weight loss does not

really matter to the consumer. Nor does the moisture loss affect the efficacy of the products.

Our difficulty in complying with Federal and State net weights labelling

regulations, and our hope to achieve some appropriate relief, bring us before you today.

Dr. Griffin will now provide you with more detailed background on the nature of the mineral borax and its tendency to lose moisture in various

conditions of temperature and humidity.

BY DR. GRIFFIN:

Borax is a naturally occurring hydrated salt with the chemical name

sodium tetraborate decahydrate. This form of borax has 10 moles of water associated with every mole of sodium tetraborate, and, under

certain conditions of temperature and humidity, water can be lost from

the crystal to the atmosphere. 1

, 2 Under normal conditions encountered in commerce, borax can lose up to a maximum of five moles of water

resulting in another form of borax, sodium tetraborate pentahydrate. This process of dehydration is depicted in Table I. It should be recognized

that the pentahydrate shown in Table I is the final result of complete

loss of five moles of water, and many intermediate states of hydration

between five moles and ten moles can exist depending on the extent of dehydration. Also, the equation shown in Table I is reversible, that is, partially dehydrated borax can absorb water from the atmosphere under

conditions of high humidity (to be described later). As is shown in Table I, the decahydrate form of borax contains 47.23%

water, and on dehydration to the pentahydrate, 23.62% of its original

The laundry products sold by U.S. Borax containing borax decahydrate are BORATEEM and 20 MULE TEAM Borax. The latter is essentially pure borax,

and BORATEEM contains over 98% borax. Hence, both products can be

expected to lose up to a maximum of slightly over 23% of their original

weight by dehydration.

weight is lost as water

270
Table I DFHYDRATION OF BORAX

Table II

WEIGHT LOSS OF BORATEEM PLUS WITH RESPECT TO TIME

Na2B

4 0

7 -10H2 0 * NA

2Bt) 0

7 '5H20 + 5H20 Initial 9 Weeks 8 feats 12 Weeks 21. Weeks Average Height Loss (grams) - 74.38 167.33 224.8 300.50

(Cumulative) M. W. 381.32 291.26 90.05

Average Percent Net Weight Loss - 5.33 11.13 15.25 20.50 % Contained Water 47.23 30.92 - (Cumulative) 2qf0r1ginalWt> . 76 . 38 23.62 ^r^o7 '* ^ iM "2

(1) Stored at 80-84°F, 45-501 Relative Humidity.

T kl TTT Tafc,1e 1113 Table III

BORATEEM BORATEEM - REPLICATED STUDY FFFFCT OF DEHYDRATION ON CARTON VOLUME

Before Vibration After Vibration

Z Wt Carton Percent Carton LOSS s/1000 cc VjjUiHE AV fiZIMLcx VfiUiHE 0 878 1327 +0.1 +6.5 730 1371 +3.6 +4.5 675 1371 +2.9

+2.5 675 -1356 +0.4

+3.0 668 1359 +1.0

1322 0 881 1322 1329 14.5 707 1416

1333 21.1 664 1393

1350 23.0 661 1384

1346 23.6 653 1387

EFFECT OF DEHYDRATION ON CARTON VOIUMF4 ' 8

Bfforf Vibration Af ER VlbRATION

: Wt. Carton Percent Carton Percent

Voiiimf (cr.) Loss g/MOO cc Volume (cc). AV G/100n cr VOLUMF (CC) AV

1354 0 875 1354 0 873 1357 +0.22

1359 7.1 774 1428 +5.08 787 1404 +3.31

1357 17.4 688 1425 +5.01 697 1408 +3.76

1357 22.4 644 1431 +5.45 654 1410 +3.93

40 oz. BORATEEM cartons were stored for 29 days at 100-104°F and 21.9-51.5: relative

humidity (60.51 initial reading).

B All results are an average of 6 replications.

Table 1 1 1

b

20 MULE TEAM BORAX - REPLICATED STUDY

EFFECT QF DEHYDRAT IO N QN CARTON VOLUME*'

8

Bfforf Vibration After Vibration

Initial I Wt. Carton

Volumf (cc) Loss g/1000 cc Volume (cc) 2892 0 838 2892

2890 10.0 745 2931

2879 13.2 692 3029

2894 22.7 587 3194

Borax cartons (5 lb , 4 oz ) were stored for 34 days relative humidity.

All results are an average of 3 replications.

Carton Percent g/1000 cc Volume (cc) V_

830 2921 +0.99

737 2958 +2.35

691 3032 +5.31

617 3040 +5.04

100-104°F and 39.5-56,91

4 Weeks

8 Weeks

12 Weeks 21 Weeks

Table IV

THE EFFECT OF DEHYDRATION OF BORAX

Avfragf I I mprovement Over Detergent Alone Stain Removal

N/A

5.33 11.43

15.25 20.50

Fabric Whiteness

128

146

140

149

127

Enzyme Spfcific

160

158 167

168

146

Sfnfrai 112 109

108 108

108

270a
Fl§ure 1 Figure 2

270b
The results of a controlled laboratory study of the dehydration of BORATEEM are summarized in Table II. 3 Cartons of BORATEEM PLUS* 1 (3 lb) were stored under conditions of 45-50% relative humidity at a temperature of 80-84 °F. It can be seen that approximately 11.4% of the

original weight was lost after only eight weeks, and 20.5% after 21 weeks. The degree of hydration of the borax was determined (by

chemical analysis) at each time interval. It can be seen that the number

of moles of water per mole of borax decreased in correspondence to the weight loss to 5.32 moles after 21 weeks. 3 The weight loss in BORATEEM cartons stored at 100 °F in 30% relative humidity is depicted graphically in Figure 1. Under these conditions,

weight loss is very rapid, reaching approximately 18% in only 30 days and

leveling at 20% weight loss after 40 days. Further weight loss to the

theoretical maximum of slightly over 23% takes place only very slowly.

Shown in Figure 2 are the weight losses from three BORATEEM cartons

stored for over one year in an air-conditioned laboratory at the U.S. Borax manufacturing facility in Burlington, Iowa. 2 The two cartons that stood alone on the shelf lost approximately 11% of their initial weight

after four months and 15 to 20%, respectively, after six months. In contrast, BORATEEM, which remained packed in a case (12 cartons/case),

lost weight more slowly. After six months, approximately 8% of the

original weight had been lost, and about 17% after one year had elapsed.

It appears that cartons packed together in a case lose moisture more

slowly, possibly due to reduced air flow through the cartons. Based on

these results, it can be predicted that BORATEEM cartons stored together on a retail shelf will show difference degrees of weight loss - depending

on how long they were in the case, their position in the case, and how

they are packed on the shelf. Results of theoretical calculations of the relative rate of evaporation of water vapor from borax versus temperature are plotted in Figure 3.4 The

data are plotted along lines of constant relative humidity. It can be seen

that at relative humidities of 50% or below, the relative rate of evaporation increases with increasing temperature. At 60% relative humidity, only above 85 °F will there be any weight loss due to loss of moisture. At relative humidities of 70% or more, a weight gain is predicted at all temperatures, increasing as the temperature is increased.

The same data are presented in Figure 4, but with the relative rates of evaporation plotted against % relative humidity along lines of constant temperature.1* These show that for a given temperature the relationship

between humidity and rate of evaporation is linear, and at all temperatures the rate of evaporation increases as the % relative humidity

decreases. It can also be seen that at 60-65% relative humidity, the rate

of evaporation is essentially zero, and below 55% relative humidity weight

losses will occur at 50 °F and above. Under conditions of modern

l*BORATEHM PLUS is the former name of BORATEEM: The products are essentially identical.

271
commerce, with dehumidified warehouses and air-conditioned retail outlets,

borax products will spend a significant time in environments conducive to weight loss by dehydration. Thus, it is not surprising that shortweight

packages are frequently found on retail shelves, 5 despite stringent controls taken at the manufacturing plants to ensure that BORATEEM and 20 MULE TEAM Borax are packed at or above the stated label weight. 6 Packaging materials other than cardboard boxes have been investigated to reduce moisture loss during storage. However, measures such as lining the cartons with moisture barrier coatings increase the tendency of borax to cake. Caking of borax products causes a severe inconvenience to the consumer who must break up large lumps in order to remove product from the box and measure is for use in the washing machine. 2 Packaging of BORATEEM

in a moisture barrier has also been shown to cause more rapid

deterioration of the enzymes contained in the product. ? Enzymes are important stain removal ingredients and their loss diminishes the efficacy

of the product.

It has been suggested occasionally that U.S. Borax should dry the borax

down to a stable moisture level before packaging it. As a matter of fact, U.S. Borax does make 5 mole borax for industrial uses. But tests have

proved that our processed 5 mole is not suitable for consumer products

since it does not dissolve well in water, but rather forms hard lumps. We

simply do not know of any alternative and technically feasible process for drying 10 mole borax, in any significant quantity, down to 5 mole borax in a way that will result in a material suitable for our present 10 mole

products.

Despite the relative ease with which water is lost by dehydration, the

size of the borax crystal does not decrease during this process. 1 Numerous

studies have been done that show that the volume of borax or BORATEEM in a given carton does not decrease when the product loses weight by

dehydration. 9 Results of one of these studies are summarized in Table

HI.* Cartons of BORATEEM were placed on a 110 °F oven with recirculating

air in order to effect rapid dehydration. Bulk density and volume

measurements were taken at various increments of weight loss. As

expected, the bulk density decreases with weight loss, but in no instance

does the volume decrease below that of the initial, undehydrated volume.

In the above study, each data point represents a single carton of product.

However, in a recently completed test, a sufficient number of BORATEEM

cartons were stored in a 100-104 °F oven to allow six replications (each

full carton is one replication) to be removed and measured at each weight

loss interval. 14 Results of this study are summarized in Table Ilia. As

in the previous experiment, the bulk density decreases with weight loss, but there is no decrease in the volume. Instead, there is approximately

5% volume increase.

272
A similar replicated study was carried out with 20 MULE TEAM borax, except

that three replications per weight loss interval were used due to the much

larger size of these cartons ( 51b 4oz each). !4 The results of this study

are summarized in Table Illb. It can be seen that up to 22.7% weight loss by dehydration there was the expected decrease in the bulk density. As

with BORATEEM, there was no decrease in volume but rather a volume

increase. At 22.7%, the volume increase was surprisingly large (+10.40%

before vibration, +5.04% after vibration), but could be related to the

rapid rate of dehydration under the oven conditions. A long-term,

replicated weight loss experiment (BORATEEM and 20 MULE TEAM Borax) under

ambient laboratory conditions is in progress. Studies have also been done that show that the jostling and shaking

expected to be experience by packages in transportation and handling will not lead to a reduction in the volume of the contents as measured by the

method discussed below. 9 The results of vibration of cartons (for 60 minutes on a platform shaker) are shown in Tables in, Ilia, and mb. It can be seen that in no case are carton volumes diminished below the

initial volume after dehydration followed by vibration. The product bulk density and package volume are obtained by a procedure

that is a modification of an ASTM Standard Test Method for free-fall bulk

density determination. 1 ^ In the procedure, the powdered product is allowed to fall freely from a funnel into a tared receiver of known

volume. After determination of the product bulk density, the volume of the package contents can be calculated from the measured net weight and

the bulk density.^ The equipment required for the procedure is not

elaborate, and the measurements can be done with excellent repeatability.

In a volume determination of BORATEEM, the average of six measurements was

842.2 mL, with a standard deviation of 1.576 mL and a 95% confidence

interval of 6.956 mL.

Repeated measurements using the above free-fall bulk density method

have shown that results are sensitive to minor dimensional differences in the equipment. 15 To limit variability in results due to the equipment, it is recommended that standard apparatus be adopted for use in measuring

the bulk density of products containing borax. ASTM Method E727-80

mentions the use of a Cox funnel in the procedure.10 A standard

apparatus utilizing a Cox No. 29 metal, slide gate funnel and an O'Haus

No. 104 density cup (1 dry pint) are readily available from a commercial

supplier. 16 This method is currently in use at the U.S. Borax refinery, 15 and the commercial availability of this apparatus as well as any

dimensional changes that might be introduced will be monitored carefully

by U.S. Borax.

Instructions printed on the labels of the BORATEEM and 20 MULE TEAM Borax

cartons inform the user that the products are to be measured out by volume

(1/2 cup units). As discussed above, the contents of a given carton do

not diminish in volume with loss of weight by dehydrations. Thus, the

user receives no reduction in the number of cups (or 1/2 cups) regardless

273
of the state of product hydration. 12 The active ingredients in BORATEEM

(borax, flourescent whiteners, enzymes, etc.) are not volatile and do not escape from the product when water is lost. The user receives the same

weight of active ingredients per carton of product no matter what weight

of water has been lost. The effect of dehydration of borax in BORATEEM on product efficacy in actual washing tests has been thoroughly studied. 3>13 Some of these results are summarized in Table IV. Data are shown as %

improvement in washing a fabric with detergent plus BORATEEM over washing

the fabric with detergent alone. It can be seen that weight loss of BORATEEM at various time intervals did not result in a diminishing of the efficacy of the product as indicated by four cleaning parameters - fabric whitening, soil removal, removal of enzyme specific stains (such as

blood), and the average removal of 12 standard stains. 3>13

In summary, data have been presented showing that borax and BORATEEM lose weight by dehydration under many environmental conditions. However, the volume of the product in a package is not reduced with the weight loss, and the consumer has no reduction in the number of volumetric units (1/2

cups) available for use regardless of the weight loss. Furthermore, the

efficacy of the product as a laundry additive is not diminished in any

way. The procedures and references cited in this report are available on

request to weights and measures jurisdictions. Testing of the conclusions

reported herein is welcome, and technical details regarding measurement of product bulk densities and carton volumes will be provided gladly. Upon

request, weights and measures jurisdictions will be supplied with

recommended minimum volumes for each size carton of BORATEEM and 20 MULE

TEAM Borax. 15 Measurement of actual product volumes should result in volumes equalling or exceeding the recommended minimum volumes, thereby

verifying the conclusions in this report that product volumes do not decrease with weight loss due to loss of moisture, and that the consumer

continues to receive full product value despite the weight loss. BY MR. MANN;

As you can see, U.S. Borax is placed in an unenviable and, I believe,

unfair, position. We can guarantee volume, and volume is surely what

matters to the consumer. But weight is what matters as existing

regulations are enforced, and we cannot guarantee that. I need hardly say

that our inability to do so has caused us many headaches in various

jurisdictions over the years, both in terms of penalties assessed against

us and annoyance to our customers, especially the retail stores and chains

that carry our products.

However, we can commit to specific volumes for our products, and, as Dr. Griffin has shown, we can provide weights and measures officials with an objective, easily repeatable test for volume.

What we hope to obtain from the Conference is the willingness to deal with the peculiar situation of borax-based products, and to work out some

fair and appropriate resolution of the situation. The Conference is the one institution best suited for achieving such a resolution.

274
It would be our preference to have the adoption of a procedure by which

weights and measures inspectors would evaluate products containing borax

for regulatory compliance by a volumetric test. Such a procedure is actually being used now in the State of West Virginia on an experimental

basis, and, I understand, is working to the satisfaction of weights and measures officials there.

It works as follows: Upon finding a shortweight lot, the inspector tests two cartons from the sample for volume, using the method shown by Dr.

Griffin. The cartons are evaluated against a statement of net volume

submitted to the jurisdiction — and this could appear on the label of the

carton. The volumetric test functions as a kind of in-the-field verification or confirmation that the product has not lost volume. If the

volume test is passed, the lot is in compliance.

Adoption of such a procedure might require a change in Handbook 133, and

perhaps also in Handbook 130. That is why Conference involvement is so important.

Thank you for your attention. If there are any questions, Dr. Griffin and

I will answer them now. REFERENCES

1. N. P. Nies "Alkali-Metal Borates: Physical and Chemical Properties,"

in "Supplement to Mellor's Comprehensive Treatise on Inorganic and

Theoretical Chemistry," Vol. II, Part A: Boron-Oxygen Compounds,

Longman, New York, 1980, pp. 361-368.

2. USBRC Report No. TS-7705-2, "The Dehydration Properties of Borax - A

Literature Summary," May 10, 1977, D. W. Bisacchi.

3. USBRC Report No. CP-78-1, "Effect of Weight Loss (Dehydration) of BORATEEM PLUS on Efficacy as a Laundry Additive - Final Report,"

February 13, 1978, D. J. Ferm.

4. USBRC Report No. CP-84-6, "Relative Rate of Evaporation of Water Vapor

From Borax," (in progress at time of presentation to National

Conference, and completed August 13, 1984), D. J. Ferm.

5. USBRC Report No. TS-7705-1, "Analysis of BORATEEM from a Chicago

Retail Store - Underweight Package Problem," May 3, 1977, D. W.

Bisacchi.

6. USBRC Report No. CP-77-9, "BORATEEM Weight Data - Burlington Plant,"

September 6, 1977, D. J. Ferm.

7. USBRC Report No. TS-7711-4, "Effect of a Moisture Barrier Package on Enzyme Stability in BORATEEM PLUS," November 4, 1977, D. J. Ferm.

8. USBRC Report No. TS-8305-10, "Effect of Weight Loss Due to Dehydration

of Borax on Volume of BORATEEM," May 6, 1983, D. J. Ferm.

275
9. USBRC Report No. CP-84-1, "Effect of Vibration and/or Dehydration on

the Bulk Density of Borax and BORATEEM," February 10, 1984, D. J. Ferm.

10. ASTM E 727-80, "Standard Test Method for Free-Fall Bulk Density of Granular Carriers and Granular Pesticides," Part 46, 1982.

11. USBRC Report No. CCP-83-6, "Weight-Volume Relationship for BORATEEM

Available at Retail Outlets," May 18, 1983, D. J. Ferm.

12. USBRC Report No. TS-7512-5, "The Effects of Dehydration on Usage of 20 MULE TEAM Borax," December 10, 1975, J. C. Middleton.

13. USBRC Report No. CP-77-11, "Effect of Weight Loss (Dehydration) of BORATEEM PLUS on Efficacy as a Laundry Additive - Interim Report,"

October 4, 1977, D. J. Ferm.

14. USBRC Report No. CP-84-4, "Replicated Weight Loss Studies of BORATEEM

and 20 MULE Team Borax Under Accelerated Conditions," July 31, 1984, D. J. Ferm.

15. USBRC Report No. CP-84-2, "BORATEEM Bulk Density," July 19, 1984, D.

J. Ferm.

16. The O'Haus No. 104 Density Cup (1 pint) and Cox No. 29 Slide Gate

Funnel are available from the Sweetboro Equipment Co., 1022 W. Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60607.

276
APPENDIX C

I-MARK PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

(PRELIMINARY DRAFT)

The goal of the U.S. I-Mark Program is to establish a voluntary but

widely accepted (by government, industry, and consumers) system to

certify full net contents of packaged products moving in interstate and

intrastate commerce that will be cor' 'stent with Federal law and

compatible with the NCWM uniform State and local laws and regulations

and that will simplify and unify to the maximum extent possible the

policies, procedures, and requirements of net content inspection of packaged products in the United States. Under the U.S. I-Mark Program, inspections of packaged products for net content compliance would continue to be conducted by State or local

jurisdictions at: Level 1 - the plant or packaging site, and/or

Level 2 - wholesaler premises and distribution warehouses,

and/or

Level 3 - the retail outlet or point of final sale. In instances of apparent noncompliance of I-Marked products only at Levels 2 and 3, official sanctions would not be taken by a jurisdiction unless or until confirmation that the product(s) involved had not been

produced in conformance with I-Mark Program standards. Non-I-Marked

products would be treated the same as they presently are ... no changes

are contemplated or intended.

The NCWM will design and register a U.S. I-Mark Program label mark or symbol which it will license for use by each participating firm to place on package labels if the firm operates a net quantity assurance program

that has been approved by NCWM.

A participating firm or an industry trade association, on behalf of several firms within an industry, prepares and submits a written net quantity assurance program (NQAP) description for approval by NCWM. The

program must contain the minimum elements specified by and meet the

standards set by the NCWM.

NCWM will submit the NQAP application to NBS for technical review.

(NOTE: The proposed services to be provided by NBS are outlined in the

draft Resolution from NCWM which is among the detail documents that

follow.) This review will result in either an NBS recommendation of

NCWM approval or a request to the submitter for revisions. If additional

information or revisions are required, NCWM will forward NBS's comments

to the applicant for response. Net quantity assurance programs that are already in existence under the

supervision of USDA or FDA may be the subject of an NQAP application.

Review by NBS and acceptance or rejection by the NCWM will be the

277
same as for other programs. However, in the event that NBS raises technical questions about such a program, the applicant will have the

responsibility for meeting with the appropriate Federal agency and NBS to resolve the issues. It is the intent of the I-Mark Program that, upon

approval of such programs, the participating firm will not be required to operate two separate, different, or inconsistent net quantity assurance programs.

Upon recommendation of approval by NBS, NCWM will make its final review of each proposed NQAP. If everything is in order and the

participating firm provides evidence that the program has been

implemented, the NCWM and the participating firm enter into a Licensing

and Inspection Agreement. In the case of a program that was submitted

by an industry trade association, NCWM would enter into a separate

agreement with each firm that indicated its intent to operate a net quantity assurance program in accord with the approved industry program,

Upon execution of the Licensing and Inspection Agreement, the

participating firm will be entitled to place the I-Mark on its product

labels and will also be entitled to expect that its product would not be

held or ordered off-sale officially during its distribution, prior to a confirmed official finding that either the approved in-plant I-Mark net quantity assurance program standards had been violated for the lot(s) involved or, where applicable, that good distribution practices had not been followed.

In turn, any State or local weights and measures enforcement official would be entitled to ask for certified copies of the net quantity assurance program records for any questioned lot(s) or to schedule a visit to the

plant to review those records for the questioned lot(s). This right to obtain records or inspect records is available whether or not the official represents the State in which the plant is located. If the plant is located

in another jurisdiction or State, it is an I-Mark System objective to ultimately be able to rely on (by means of objective weights and measures program evaluation, upgrading, and accreditation) the nearest

fully qualified local or State jurisdiction to conduct a plant site check and

lot records review when and where deemed necessary. Overall responsibility for developing and administering the U.S. I-Mark

System, including the NQAP minimum requirements and standards would

be a joint NCWM-NBS responsibility (similar to the National Type

Evaluation Program for devices), with advice and comment encouraged

from industry, other Government agencies, and consumer organizations.

The auditing of approved industry net quantity assurance programs would

be under the technical direction or guidance of NBS with assistance from

qualified State and local jurisdictions or, in the case of approved

programs supervised by USDA or FDA, of those agencies. The right to

use the I-Mark would be terminated if a participating firm abandoned the use of the net quantity assurance program or failed to correct audit

findings.

278
- PRELIMINARY DRAFT - SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - I-MARK

PART I - DRAFT DOCUMENTS

Section Subject Page

1 License and Inspection Agreement 279

2 Application to Register Certificate Mark 283

3 Sample I-Mark Sketch 284

4 Draft Resolution of NCWM 285

5 Listing of Major Actions Required to Initiate the Proposed NCWM I-Mark System 287 PART II - LEGAL BASIS/BACKGROUND

6 Federal Statutes and Regulations 288

7 Federal Preemption 289

8 Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction 291

9 Registration of Certification Mark 292

10 Specific Label Rules 292

11 Legal Aspects of Licensing Contracts 293

12 Third Party Beneficiary Law 294

13 Potential Remedies 295

14 Statutory Authority of Federal Agencies 295

15 Conclusions 296 PART I - DRAFT DOCUMENTS

Section 1. LICENSE AND INSPECTION AGREEMENT

This agreement is entered into by the National Conference on Weights and Measures (hereinafter called NCWM) and

(hereinafter called the Processor) on

behalf of and for the benefit of State and local weights and measures

officials who are members or eligible for membership in the NCWM.

WHEREAS, the NCWM is an organization of weights and measures enforcement officials of the States, counties, and cities of the United

States and the NCWM is interested in promoting uniformity of requirements and methods among State and local jurisdictions and in fostering understanding and cooperation among weights and measures

officials and industries, businesses, and consumers; and

WHEREAS, the NCWM is the owner of an inspection mark (hereinafter

designated the I-mark) which certifies accuracy in net quantity in packaging food and/or non-food commodities; and

279
WHEREAS, the Processor is engaged in the production of food and/or

non-food commodities for sale in interstate and/or intrastate commerce;

and

WHEREAS, the Processor wishes to obtain authority to place the NCWM's

I-mark on its packages of food and/or non-food products and in pursuance

thereof prepared and submitted to the NCWM a net quantity assurance program (hereinafter designated the NQAP); and

WHEREAS, the NCWM submitted said NQAP to the National Bureau of Standards/Office of Weights and Measures (hereinafter NBS/OWM) for technical review and evaluation; and

WHEREAS, the Processor's NQAP has been approved by NBS/OWM and by

NCWM and the terms and requirements of that program are described in detail in Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, the Processor has implemented the NQAP, or will do so upon

execution of this agreement; and

WHEREAS, that portion of the Processor's product that is subject to Federal net contents jurisdiction and Federal law and regulation must bear statements of net content that are accurate but that allow deviations

caused by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice and by

loss or gain of moisture during the course of distribution despite the use

of good distribution practices; and

WHEREAS, testing of interstate commodities by State and local weights

and measures enforcement officials at wholesale or retail locations

consequently may not be conclusive as to the cause of any deficiency in stated net contents; and

WHEREAS, the parties believe that the I-mark and NQAP procedures will assist State and local weights and measures enforcement officials in verifying that observed deficiencies may be the result of unavoidable

deviations in good manufacturing practice or of moisture loss during

distribution and thus may not constitute a failure to comply with

applicable law; and

WHEREAS, the parties believe that the I-mark program will assure weights and measures enforcement officials in jurisdictions other than the State in which the plant is located, that the products of the Processor have been subject to an in-plant net quantity assurance program that is sufficient under normal circumstances to certify that packages leaving the

plant bear correct net content labeling, and the parties intend that State and local weights and measures enforcement officials rely upon said certification; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained

herein, the parties agree as follows:

280
1. The processor agrees,

a. to implement and operate the net quantity assurance program

described in Exhibit A, as it may be amended from time

to time by consent of the parties, for the entire term of

this agreement;

b. to designate for each of its production plants a person who

will respond to inquiries of State and local weights and measures enforcement officials concerning the net quantity assurance program with respect to specific lots of product;

c. to provide at the request of any State or local weights and measures enforcement official, certified copies of the production net quantity assurance records for the specific

lot of product being questioned by the State or local weights and measures enforcement official;

d. to make records of specific lots available for inspection by

any State or local weights and measures enforcement

official during business hours upon reasonable notice of a

request to inspect;

e. to make records of the net quantity assurance program

available for audit by NBS/OWM, provided that if the

Processor's program is monitored by the USDA or the FDA, the audits by these Federal agencies may be

deemed sufficient and duplicative audits shall not be

conducted without cause.

2. NCWM agrees, for itself and for the benefit of State and local weights and measures enforcement officials,

a. to permit the Processor to apply to the label of each of its packaged products that have been packed under the

control of the net quantity assurance program described

in Exhibit A, the I-mark symbol delineated in Exhibit B;

b. to forbear the imposition of official sanctions (such as administrative warnings; off-sale orders or injunctions;

civil penalties and diversionary agreements; or prosecution) against the Processor's product until such

time as the Processor's designated plant-contact person

has been notified and has been given reasonable time to produce net quantity assurance records for the lot under

question, provided that if such records show beyond a reasonable doubt that full net quantity was packed, no

official action shall be taken;

c. to obtain an agreement from NBS/OWM to provide technical

and administrative services in reviewing net quantity assurance programs and in keeping records of applications

for and audits of such programs.

281
3. The term of this agreement shall be for years and it may

be renewed by the parties for additional periods of years.

4. This agreement may be terminated at any time by agreement of

the parties or upon 30 days notice following occurrence of the following

events:

a. the Processor terminates the net quantity assurance program

and thereafter fails to seek approval for a substitute net quantity assurance program;

b. NBS/OWM and/or USDA or FDA audits indicate that the

requirements of the net quantity assurance program are

not being met and the Processor has failed or refused to take corrective action;

c. the NCWM terminates its participation in the I-mark

program; or

d. State or local weights and measures enforcement officials unreasonably take official action against the Processor's products without first reviewing net quantity assurance

records.

5. Upon termination of this agreement, the Processor agrees that it will not apply the I-mark to its product labels, provided that any product

that was packed prior to the receipt of notice of termination may be

marked with the I-mark. NCWM agrees that on an after receipt of the

notice of termination, the Processor shall not be obligated to supply

records nor respond to inquiries or visits of State or local weights and measures enforcement officials.

6. This agreement may be amended or modified at any time by

mutual agreement of the parties in writing.

WHEREFORE, the parties have executed this license and inspection

agreement this day of , 19 .

282
Section 2.

(Instruction* on rever CERTIFICATION MARK APPLICATION, PRINCIPAL REGISTER, WITH DECLARATION (Corporation) % (Association)

mark (identify the mark) I-Mark G A. GOODS G B. SERVICES TO THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS:

name or corporation^ Association

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

STATE OR COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION Not applicable, applicant is an association.

business address of CORPORATION E7o office of Weights and Measures

,

National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland

The above identified applicant has adopted and is exercising legitimate control over the use of the certification mark shown in the accompanying drawing^ for the following goods 4 foods and non-food

packaged products

and requests that said mark be registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register established by the Act of July 5, 1946. The ce/tification mark, as used by persons authorized by applicant, certifies^ inspection of food and non-Food packages for net content using procedures approvpH hy applicant ; said mark was first used on the goods (services)'* by a person authorized by applicant on interstate & intrastate was first used by a person authorized by applicant on the goods (i Hi"

(type of commerce) commerce" on .; and is now in use in such commerce.

The mark is used by applying it to 8 the principal display panel (s) of packaged food and non-food products

and five specimens showing the mark as actually used are presented herewith.

Applicant is not engaged in the production or marketing of any goods or services to which the mark is applied. 9

(name of officer of corporation) being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment,

or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may

jeopardize the validity of the application or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that he/she is Chairman

(official title) of applicant corporation and is authorized to execute this instrument on behalf of said corporation; he/she believes

said corporation to be the owner of the certification mark sought to be registered ; to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use said mark in commerce,

either in the identical form or in such near resemblance thereto as may be likely, when applied to the goods

(services) 4 of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; the facts set forth in this application are true; and all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on

information and belief are believed to be true.

By

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

(name of corporation) Chairman

(tig nature of officer of corporation, and official title of officer)

PTO Form 4.9» (Certification Mark) (Corporation) Patent and Trademark Office - U.S. DEPT. of COMMERCE

283
Section 3.

SAMPLE MARK SKETCH

284
Section 4. DRAFT RESOLUTION

(date)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

WHEREAS, the NCWM has adopted a voluntary program for assuring correct net content through means of an I-mark label symbol which may

be applied by participating processing or packaging firms to their food and

non-food packages that have been packed under a net quantity assurance program approved by the NCWM, and

WHEREAS, this program is designed to assure weights and measures enforcement officials in jurisdictions other than the State in which the

plant is located, that the products of the participating firm have been

subject to an in-plant net quantity assurance program that is sufficient under normal circumstances to certify that packages leaving the plant

bear correct net content labeling, and this program intends that State and

local weights and measures enforcement officials rely upon said certification, and

WHEREAS, the program will also ease burdens on participating firms by

making net content enforcement decisions more uniform and predictable,

and

WHEREAS, NBS is mandated by Federal law to promote uniformity in weights and measures laws and methods of inspection and to assist members of NCWM on technical matters related to weights and measures, and

WHEREAS, by virtue of these responsibilities and through the development

of procedures and handbooks for use by State and local weights and measures enforcement officials, the NBS has developed technical expertise

in evaluating quantity assurance programs, including sampling and other

statistical matters,

NOW THEREFORE, the National Conference on Weights and Measures

hereby resolves to ask the assistance of NBS in the promotion and

acceptance of the I-mark program in the following ways:

1. to accept from NCWM copies of applications for approval of net

quantity assurance programs submitted by individual firms or, preferably,

by industry trade associations on behalf of similarly situated firms;

2. to review all elements of the application and program, including but not limited to —

type of product;

type of packaging machinery;

technical literature on packaging machinery;

speed of line; rate of sampling;

285
identification of parties responsible for operation of the quantity assurance program (such as technicians, production

employees, or others and the chain of command);

definition of sample, lot, and tare; limits for individual packages, subgroups of packages, and

ranges of deviations;

target weights, volumes, or other fills; procedures for adjusting limits, if any;

rules on rounding;

description of codes on packages;

requirements for record keeping, filing, and reporting,

including length of retention or records; procedures for checking weighing and measuring devices and

packaging equipment to assure accuracy;

methods for assuring that records are accurate.

3. if an application seeks approval for a net quantity assurance plan

that has already been approved by the USDA or the FDA, to conduct a review and prepare specific comments which the applicant may use to conduct discussions with FDA or USDA as the case may be, to the end

that no firm will be required to meet conflicting requirements under

Federal programs and the I-mark program,

4. upon completion of its initial review, to issue to NCWM either a recommendation of approval or a recommendation for clarification or changes in the program in sufficient detail to allow an applicant to present an acceptable substitute and to cooperate with applicants and with

NCWM in the review and approval process,

5. to provide NCWM each year with a report of the number of

applications, the number of participating firms, and other details of the

I-mark program and to provide a reasonable amount of administrative and

clerical support for the I-mark program and to keep records of

applications and actions taken on those applications,

6. to take all steps necessary to assure that the operation of the

I-mark program and the net quantity assurance programs approved

thereunder comply with Federal law and regulations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NCWM, in order to make the I-mark program operate smoothly and efficiently, promptly submit all applications to the NBS for review, conduct a prompt review of its recommendations, assist in the development of policy guidelines for the

program, encourage firms to make joint applications through industry trade

associations, and encourage State and local weights and measures enforcement officials to recognize and adopt the principles of the I-mark

program.

286
Section 5. LISTING OF MAJOR ACTIONS REQUIRED TO INITIATE THE

PROPOSED I-MARK SYSTEM

Action Description

1. Revise NCWM organization and procedures to provide for participation in the I-Mark Program, including designation of a program committee or Board (Executive or a new standing

committee) to administer and supervise the program and explicit

authorization for the President of NCWM or some other appropriate

official to execute the License and Inspection Agreements.

2. Develop minimum requirements for and standards to be met by Net

Quantity Assurance Programs (NQAP) that firms participating under

the I-Mark System would be subject to, including coordination of requirements with the FDA and USDA where applicable.

3. Contract for the design of an I-Mark symbol that is not already

registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and adoption

of the design by NCWM.

4. Obtain commitment from NBS to participate in substantially all of

the areas identified as requiring NBS assistance in Section 4 (NCWM

Resolution).

5. Select prototype industry or firm(s) that have developed a

satisfactory NQAP to begin the program on a trial basis.

6. After the first use of the I-Mark in commerce, file the

certification mark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office.

287
PART II - LEGAL BASIS/BACKGROUND

Section 6. FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

Federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce arises from Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants to Congress the power

"... to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several

States..." Pursuant to this authority, Congress has, over the years, adopted laws providing for the labeling, marking, and inspection of goods

moving in commerce. Historically, the regulation of foods and drugs

preceded the regulation of cosmetics, toys, pesticides, and other consumer

products.

Congress has divided regulatory responsibility among a number of Federal

agencies. However, responsibility over various food products is currently

lodged in only two agencies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and

the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The basic laws granting regulatory authority to the the FDA are:

(1) The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which is codified at 21 U.S.C. Sec. 301 - 392. Section 343 of that act specifies that food is misbranded unless

its package bears a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of contents. Section 374 confers authority on FDA to make inspections, enter establishments, and take samples for the enforcement of the law.

(2) The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act which is codified at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1451 - 1461. Section 1453 requires that packaged "consumer commodities"

be labeled with a separate statement of net quantity of

contents. Section 1459 defines a consumer commodity as any "food" ... except "any meat or meat product, poultry or poultry product

tt The basic laws administered by the USDA are:^_/*

(1) The Wholesome Meat Act codified at 21 U.S.C. Sec. 601 - 695. Section 610 prohibits the distribution of misbranded products

and Section 601(n)(5) requires a label showing "... an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents ..." in order for a package to be properly labeled. Footnotes appear at the end of the draft.

288
Under sections 603, 604, and 606, USDA inspectors are required

to inspect animals before slaughter and the carcasses after

slaughter, and all meat food products, and are granted access

at all times whether or not the establishment is operating.

Section 601(j) defines a meat food product as a product made

from cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other

equines.

(2) The Poultry Products Inspection Act codified at 21 U.S.C. Sec. 401 - 470. Section 458(a)(2) prohibits the distribution of any misbranded

poultry products.

As in the Wholesome Meat Act, a package of poultry must

bear a label showing "... an accurate statement of the

quantity of the product ..." 21 U.S.C. Sec. 453(h)(5).

Section 455 authorizes the ante mortem and post mortem

examination of poultry and poultry products.

Both USDA and FDA have adopted regulations under these statutes. USDA's packaging and labeling regulations for both meat and poultry are found at 9 CFR, Part 317. Section 317.2 outlines the required features

of labels, including the requirement for a principal display panel(s),

specifying type sizes, specifying descriptive information that must appear, and allowing for variations from stated net weight caused by "... loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practices or by

unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice ..." 317.2(h)(2)). In addition, USDA retains preapproval authority over product labels by virtue of 317.4. FDA's packaging and labeling regulations under both the FDCA and the FPLA are found at 21 CFR, Part 101. Subpart A contains general

labeling provisions; subpart B covers specific food labeling requirements;

and subpart F describes exemptions from food labeling requirements.

Section 101.105 deals specifically with net weight requirements and

contains authority to allow variations from stated net weight caused by

"... loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice ..." 101.105(q).

Section 7. FEDERAL PREEMPTION

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains what is popularly known as the supremacy clause, giving precedence to the laws passed by Congress.

The clause reads as follows: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be

made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be

289
bound thereby, and any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any

State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Over the years, the Courts in interpreting and applying this clause have

evolved a legal doctrine known as preemption, which lays down some rules

for deciding in any particular fact situation, whether Federal or State law

controls or whether there is room for regulation by both. The first rule is that if Congress unmistakably ordained that Federal law

will control, then the courts will not enforce a contrary State law. The

Supreme Court in Rath vs Jones found such an unmistakable indication in the Wholesome Meat Act which in Section 678 prohibits the imposition of "marking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements in addition to, or different than, those made under" the Act. The Court said, California's use of a statistical sampling process to determine the average net weight of a lot implicitly allows for variations from

stated weight caused by unavoidable deviations in the manufacturing

process. But California makes no allowance for loss of weight

resulting from moisture loss during the course of good distribution practice. Thus the State law's requirement — that the label accurately state the net weight, with implicit allowance only for reasonable manufacturing variations — is "different than" the Federal requirement, which permits manufacturing deviations and

variations caused by moisture loss during good distribution practice.

A second rule is that Congress may make an unmistakable indication by

implication — where the subject matter requires a uniform national

regulatory treatment or where only national supervision is adequate.

A third rule is that even without explicit preemptory language in the

Federal law, State law may be precluded if (1) compliance with both sets of regulations is impossible, (2) the sets of regulations inevitably collide

or conflict, or (3) the State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. It was this last problem that led the Supreme Court to preempt California's net weight regulations as applied to flour regulated

under the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act. The Supreme Court, thus, did not rely on any statutory

language in either the FDCA or the FPLA, but instead imposed a "common law" preemption.

The Court said,

As Congress clearly stated, a major purpose of the FPLA is to facilitate value comparisons among similar products. Obviously,

this goal cannot be accomplished unless packages that bear the same indicated weight in fact contain the same quantity of the product for which the consumer is paying ... Packages that meet

the Federal labeling requirements and that have the same stated

quantity of contents can be expected to contain the same amount

of flour solids ... Despite any changes in weight resulting from

290
changes in moisture content during distribution, the packages will contain the same amount of flour solids when they reach the consumer. This identity of contents facilitates consumer value comparisons.

The State's refusal to permit reasonable weight variations resulting

from loss of moisture during distribution produces a different effect

... Thus as a result of the application of the California standard, consumers throughout the country who attempted to compare the

value of identically labeled packages of flour would not be

comparing packages which contained identical amounts of flour

solids. Value comparisons which did not account for this difference — and there would be no way for the consumer to make the necessary calculations — would be misleading ... Under the

Constitution, that result is impermissible, and the State law must

yield to the Federal.

Finally, the outcome in the application of these rules depends greatly on

the particular facts involved in any conflict. Therefore, in some

instances,in which there seems to be an irreconcilable conflict between

the two sets of regulations, the Court has held that both can coexist and

in other instances, where the conflict seems less immediate, the Court

has required Federal preemption. An instance of the former situation was

presented by the case of Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc. vs Paul

where California's test for the maturity of avocados was allowed to stand even though it was completely different from USDA's test, because

California was attempting to regulate the final sale while USDA was

attempting to facilitate grower cooperation. The Rath vs Jones case is an example of the latter situation since, theoretically, a packer could comply

with both California's minimum weight requirements and the Federal

requirement of accuracy because the court concluded that Federal agents were not interested in putting a stop to overweight packages.

Section 8. EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

The governments of the States are sovereign within their territorial

limits, except for prohibitions in the Constitution or if their actions

conflict with powers delegated to the national Government or with

Congressional laws.2/ States, thus have exclusive jurisdiction over persons

or property within those limits, but their jurisdiction does not ordinarly

extend beyond the borders.^/ Therefore, a weights and measures official

in one State cannot inspect a plant in another State or demand records of

plant operations carried on in another State.4/

However, over the years the States have evolved a variety of agreements

and practices for dealing with interstate issues. Some of these arrangements are subject to Congressional approval; others don't require consent because they don't impede national sovereignty.^/

In any event, the proposed I-mark system, based on contracts between

participating firms and the NCWM, reaches the same result without the need for elaborate, time consuming implementation. Under the I-mark

system, the State or local enforcement official, as a third party

beneficiary to the I-mark contract, could call and arrange to make a

291
direct on-site inspection of an out-of-State plant or a direct inspection of production records for any lot of product that has come to his attention

as a problem.

Section 9. REGISTRATION OF CERTIFICATION MARK

The label symbol for the I-mark program constitutes a type of property

interest, the ownership of which is recognized under the United States trademark laws upon completion of appropriate registration.^/ The

symbol and its proposed use are classified as a "certification mark." This means it is a mark used in connection with the products of one or more

persons other than the owner of the mark to certify quality or accuracy

of such goods. The Conference will be the owner of the mark; the

participating manufacturers will be the users of the mark.

The registration process is initiated by filing an application with the Patent and Trademark Office. A partially completed application form is attached. The application must also include a drawing of the mark, five specimens or facsimiles, and a nominal filing fee.?/

As to the mark itself, it must be coined, arbitrary, fanciful, or

suggestive, characteristics which earn it the designation of "technical,"

but not something that (1) falsely suggests a connection with persons,

institutions, beliefs, or national symbols; (2) consists of or simulates the

flag, or other insignia of the United States, any State, or municipality;

(3) consists of a name, portrait, or signature of a living person or a deceased President of the United States without permission; or (4) resembles a mark already registered so that its use would cause

confusion, mistake, or deception.

The last requirement has the greatest impact on the actual physical

appearance of the label symbol. We have made a preliminary search of

the registrations and the suggested embodiment of the I-mark appears to be available at this time. When the specific design of the mark is prepared, an exhaustive search of the registrations should be made to assure that registration will ultimately be granted. In addition, certain

marks that are descriptive of the goods, descriptive of their origin, or merely a surname will delay registration for a five-year period.^/

Therefore, in choosing the I-mark design, these characteristics should be

avoided.

The time for filing the application is not critical. In fact, in order to obtain the right to file, the mark must already have been used in commerce.^/ Both the date of first authorization for use and examples

of the actual application of the mark to the label must be provided with

the application.

Section 10. SPECIFIC LABEL RULES

The physical appearance of package labels under FDA is covered by 21 CFR Sec. 101.1 - 101.6, 101.15, and 101.105. Section 101.1 provides for a "principal display panel" and 101.2, which provides for an "information

panel," specifies type sizes and prominanee. Among the variety of

292
mandatory information that must be placed on the principal display panel

and the information panel (where applicable) are (1) a statement of

identity of the contents (21 CFR 101.3); (2) a list of ingredients (21 CFR

101.4); and (3) the name and place of business of the manufacturer,

packer, or distributor (21 CFR 101.5); and the net quantity of contents

(21 CFR 101.105).

The addition of other information, statements, marks, or designs to the

principal display panel is not prohibited except where it might detract,

because of overcrowding or insufficient space, from the prominence

required by the law for mandatory items. Furthermore, supplemental statements of net weight may be placed on the package at locations

other than the principal display panel, so long as they do not exaggerate

the amount of food contained in the package.

USDA's label specifications are outlined in 9 CFR Sec. 317.2. Mandatory

information for the principal display panel includes (1) the name of the product and (2) if fabricated from more than one ingredient, the list of

ingredients, (3) the name and place of business of the manufacturer,

packer, or distributor, (4) an accurate statement of the net quantity of

contents, (5) the official inspection legend and official establishment

number, and (6) information on standards of identity, if required. Section

317.2(h)(8) prohibits use of any term qualifying a unit of weight and

Section 317.8 prohibits "false" indications of quality.

Under the regulatory systems then, the l-mark would be eligible for placement on the package, and more specifically, on the principal display

panel. The only possible limitation would be related to package size and

thus to the potential size of the principal display panel.

Section 11. LEGAL ASPECTS OF LICENSING CONTRACTS

The I-mark program has elements of ordinary contract law, but because

of its sponsorship, it also has elements of a public franchise — a special

privilege to be used for the accomplishment of a public benefit. For example, it is binding mutually upon the parties and is enforceable

according to its terms.*^/ The I-mark would be a nonexclusive license or franchise because NCWM contemplates issuing similar rights to any

participating firm that adopts an approved net quantity assurance program. *V Furthermore, NCWM would reserve authority to review and

audit the operation of the net quantity assurance programs. *£/ However,

the I-mark would not be like a franchise, because its use would not be

perpetual and it may be abandoned by a participating firm without special

penalty.

As with contracts or franchises, the misuse of the I-mark or failure to operate the net weight quantity assurance program in accordance with its terms of approval, will result in a forfeiture of the right to use the I-mark. This forfeiture may be enforced in a court of law. if/ On the

other hand, the I-mark contract itself makes clear that the right will not be forfeited for merely technical violations that are corrected by the

participating firm. Termination will occur if the violations are persistent

and substantial. *£/

293
Finally, also like a franchise, the right to use the I-mark cannot be

transferred to others without approval of NCWM because the right is based upon operation of a net quantity assurance program that is specific to the original participating firm's plant. ^/

Section 12. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY LAW

Under traditional contract law, only persons who are parties to contracts may obtain their benefits or sue to enforce their terms. However, an

exception to this rule has evolved in the law, known as the doctrine of

third party beneficiaries. 1 A third party beneficiary is given the right to sue to enforce a contract between other parties and may obtain all the

benefits of a contract between other parties.

Third party beneficiaries are generally divided into three classes; (1) donee

beneficiaries, (2) creditor beneficiaries, and (3) consequential

beneficiaries. *£/ These types of beneficiaries have different types of

rights. The great weight of authority recognizes a direct enforceable

right, both at law and in equity, arising from a contract promising

performance for either of the first two types of beneficiaries — the

donee beneficiary and the creditor beneficiary. 1^/

The rule, as it has been stated by the Federal courts, is as follows:

It is a general rule in contract law that a third party may enforce a promise as having been made for his benefit, if it appears from the

face of the promise or in the light of the contracting situation that he was intended in fact to be a donee beneficiary of the

promisee or - when the situation is one in which no intention to make a gift appears - if the promise has the effect as a matter of

law, from the nature of the obligation, of according recognition to him, whether directly or by sound implication, as a creditor

beneficiary of the promise, so that in either situation he stands in the position of necessarily being more than a mere incidental

beneficiary as to the promisor's performance. 2 0_/

The State weights and measures enforcement officials are the third party

beneficiaries of the contract between the NCWM and participating firms.

They will not be formal signatories to those contracts. Since they are not creditors of either the NCWM or the participating firms, they would

be classified as donee beneficiaries; that is, they are obtaining rights in the nature of a gift from the contracting parties.

The I-mark license and inspection contract reflects the intention of the

parties, both the NCWM and the participating firms, to benefit State and

local weights and measures officials by granting them the right to inspect

plants and specified records, although located in other States. Since the determining factor is the intention of the contracting parties, 2 V the contract language will assure that the agreement is made for the benefit

of those officials. 2 2/

294
Section 13. POTENTIAL REMEDIES

Ordinarily, in contract law and the law of franchises and licenses there

are judicial remedies short of contract termination that can be used to assure correct and full performance of obligations. 2£/ However, since the sponsor of the I-mark is a voluntary association of weights and measures enforcement officials, the necessity of going to court for each violation would be too burdensome. Therefore, the I-mark contract with

participating firms provides for notice of violations, a period for bringing

the plan into compliance, and failing this, for termination of the right to use the I-mark.

The question then arises as to what remedies might be available in the event that termination of the I-mark contract does not result in cessation

of the use of the I-mark on the label. This is probably a very remote

event since the program is entirely voluntary. In such an event, the

judicial remedy of injunction would be available. An injunction is a court order directing the person named to refrain from doing certain specified acts2£/ and it is granted in situations where there is a continuing violation and compensation by way of a damage award is not feasible or possible. 2£/

While the law allows collection of prospective damages where a contract breach is total 2 ^/ and continued use of tne I-mark would mislead the consuming public, the calculation and proof of such damages would be

exceedingly difficult. The injunction would be the primary avenue of

direct relief. The most rapid remedy, however, will probably lie with USDA and FDA

which have the authority to retain or seize goods that are misbranded. 2 ?/

The unauthorized use of the I-mark would constitute a misrepresentation

of quality and thus a misleading or false indication. Misleading information on package labels is prohibited by Federal law.

In addition, NCWM could ask NBS to compile a list of manufacturers who

are ineligible for use of the I-mark. If a State or local enforcement

official observed unauthorized use, he would be alerted that full compliance testing is warranted.

Section 14. STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AGENCIES

Implementation of the I-mark program will not require additional

legislation at the Federal level. USDA and FDA already have authorization to inspect products under their

jurisdiction as indicated in the section of this report entitled Federal

Statutes and Regulations. The only statutory restriction on inspections is that they be conducted " ... in a reasonable manner ..." 2^/ Moreover, each

of them is authorized to conduct cooperative programs with State and

local officials2^/ and in the case of FDA, local officials may be asked to conduct Federal inspections on behalf of the agency. 3^/

295
In addition, the kinds of issues likely to arise in connection with the I-mark program will involve the details of net quantity assurance plans. Tne currently approved Federal plans (largely in USDA) are not official regulations; they are not published in the Federal Register and, for the

most part, are not of general application. Therefore, modifications in these plans, if they become necessary at all, can be accomplished by

informal negotiations and without lengthy formalities.

The other essential Federal participant is the National Bureau of Standards, which will provide review and audit services for the I-mark

program. The enabling legislation for the NBS is found in 15 USC Sec. 271 - 284. Section 272 (5) requires cooperation with the States in securing uniformity in weights and measures and methods of inspection

and Section 273 authorizes the exercise of this function on behalf of "any

State'' or ''any ... firm engaged in manufacturing ... requiring the use of standards or standard measuring equipment. .."31/ Furthermore, NBS's

regulations authorize "... cooperation with other governmental agencies and

with private organizations in the establishment of standard practices,

incorporated in codes and specifications ..." and "... advisory service to government agencies on scientific and technical problems. .."32/ Section 15. CONCLUSIONS

As noted in the 1983 Task Force Discussion Paper, the initial effort will involve food commodities regulated under the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Wholesome Meat Act, and

the Poultry Products Inspection Act since the procedures and practices

already in place under the regulatory schemes can be readily adapted to use under the U.S. I-mark program. The quantity assurance programs for other commodities will probably require an additional developmental

period.

1_/USD^ also possesses inspection authority for eggs and egg products

under the Egg Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 1031 - 1056; for

seeds under the Federal Seed Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1551 - 1611; and for fresh fruits and vegetables under the Perishable Agricultural

Corrmodities Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 499a - 499s.

2 _/Parker vs Brown, 317 US 341, 87 L Ed 315, 63 SCt 307.

3 _/This principle involves a State acting in its sovereign capacity. In

a proprietary capacity a State may enter into virtually any activity

beyond its borders.

4_/The issue is not what he may be able to get by asking and seeking

voluntary compliance, but whether ultimately he has authority to compel

compliance. Many industries, especially those with large interstate

distribution of product, will comply readily with requests by officials

from a State in which product is distributed and sold.

5 _/The factor that determines whether Congressional consent is necessary

relates to whether the result of the agreement has the potential for an adverse impact on national sovereignty. In an 1893 case the issue was stated as whether the combination ''tends to the increase of political

power in the States which may encroach upon or interfere with the just

supremacy of the United States," Virginia vs Tennessee, 13 SCt 728, 148

296
US 503, 37 LEd 537 (1893). If the I-mark were to be organized in terms

of an interstate compact that would grant inspection authority to agents and employees of other States, it would probably require

Congressional consent since it would tend to create an enforcement

force not dependent on the laws of any one State and yet not subject to Federal supervision.

6_/The Trademark Act of 1946 provides for two types of registrations —

on the Principal Register and on the Supplemental Register. The

Supplemental Register contains a more diverse collection of trademarks

than the Principal Register, but the legal consequences of registration

on the Principal Register are more beneficial. Registration on the

Principal Register carries with it the right to sue in U.S. courts to prevent infringement and also to prevent the importation of goods

bearing an infringing mark. It also constitutes constructive notice of

ownership and prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration,

registrant's ownership of the mark, and registrant's exclusive right to use the mark in conrmerce. Registration on the Supplemental Register

grants only the right to sue in U.S. courts. ^/Certification marks consist of only two classes — goods or services.

A $35 filing fee for each class is required at the time of application.

In this instance only a single fee is necessary.

8_/Such descriptive names ordinarily are refused registration on the

Principal Register because they do not constitute "technical marks;"

however, the law does allow their registration if the applicant can show that they have become "distinctive" of the goods in ccnmerce. The

Patent and Trademark Office will accept as prima facie evidence of

"distinction," the substantially exclusive and continuous use of the

mark for the preceding five years.

9_/"Conmerce" is defined as ccnmerce which may be regulated by

Congress, i.e., interstate or foreign ccnmerce.

10_/Grand Trunk Western R. Co. vs South Bend, 277 US 544, 57 L Ed 633, 33 SCt 303.

n_/Frost vs Corporation Conmission, 278 US 515, 73 L Ed 483, 49 SCt 235.

12_/Atlantic &G- R- Co. vs Georgia, 98 US 359, 25 L Ed 185.

13_/Ohio Public Service Co. vs State, 274 US 12, 71 L Ed 898, 47 SCt 480;

Day vs Tacoma R. & Power Co. 80 Wash 161, 141 P 347.

14_/Los Angeles R. Co. vs Los Angeles, 152 Cal 242, 92 P 490.

15_/New York Electric Lines Co. vs Empire City Subway Co., 235 US 179, 59 L Ed 184, 35 SCt 72.

16_/Branch vs Jesup, 106 US 468, 27 L Ed 279, 1 SCt 495.

17 / 2Williston, Contracts, 3d. ed. Sec. 347.

l9_/Id. at Sec. 356.

297
20 / Johnson Farm Equipment Co. vs Cook , 230 F.2d 119 (CAS).

21 / 2 Williston, Contracts, 3d. ed. Sec. 356A.

22 / 17 Am Jur 2d Contracts Sec. 304. It should be noted that a third

party benef iciary ! s rights are dependent upon, and limited by, the

validity and terms of the contract. In other words, not only must the formal requirements for a valid contract (including consideration) be met by the contracting parties, but the beneficiary's rights are also

subject to the proper performance of all conditions affecting the

promise of which he is the beneficiary. 2 Williston, Contracts, 3d. ed., Sec. 364A . 23 /in contract law, the courts under appropriate ci rcunstances will

order "specific performance" of contract obligations. In franchise

situations, the courts may entertain an information in the nature of quo warranto or mandamus. In addition, private parties may be able to obtain an injunction to prevent injuries from the misuse of a franchise. Madison vs Madison Gas & Electric Co., 129 Wis 249 108 NW

65. 24_/Schubach vs McDonald, 179 Nb 133, 78 SW 1020, cert dismd, 196 US 644,

49 L Ed 632, 25 SCt 797.

25_Afe.tthews vs Rodgers, 284 US 521, 76 L Ed 447, 52 SCt 217; Bartles

Northern Oil Co. vs Jaclcmn, 29 ND 236, 150 NW 576.

26 _Avashington A&G Steam Packet Co. vs Sickles (US) 10 How 419, 13 L Ed

479.

27 _/21 USC Sec. 372 and 21 USC Sec. 455, 457, 467a, 467b, 672 and 673.

28 _/21 USC Sec. 374 (a)(1)(B).

29 _/21 USC Sec. 372 as to FTA; 21 USC Sec. 451, 554, 602 and 661 as to USEA.

30_/21 USC Sec. 372.

31 _/15 USC Sec. 273.

32 /15 CER Sec. 200.100 (4) and (5).

298
APPENDIX D

SUMMARY SURVEY RESULTS

Ar i zona Arkansas

Cal i f ornia

Colorado

District of Col umb i

Flor ida

Georgia

Hawa i i Idaho

Ind i ana Kansas

Kent ucky

Responding States Lou i s i ana Maryland

Massachusetts

Mich igan

Mi ssour i Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Ohi o

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Texas

Vermont

Vi rginia

We st Virginia

Wi scons i n District of Col umb i

Qllle.I_iii£i£^i£ii2IliI_5e.£EP.Il^e.Ili£ Los Angeles County, Seattle, Chicago, and Jim Bird (NJ Ret.)

The final compilation is shown below.

GENERAL_REMARKS

l.(a) What is your overall opinion of Handbook 133?

POSITIVE

18

NEGATIVE

3 NO_COMMENT

17

(b) What is it you like or dislike about Handbook 133?

LIKE DISLIKE

concr eteness , explicitness 5 good for in-plant

inspection 2 NO COMMENT

complex i ty

time consuming

not good for retail

package testing

lack of concise wording

format of handbook

need for examples of

instore weighing

a change in the standard

(from average of sample

having to meet the label)

the amount of training

(and space) needed for

i nspec t i on confusion on which plan

to use positive deviations not

controlled by the

marketp 1 ace need more information

on moisture loss

16

54

1

299
2. Are the procedures easy or difficult to follow for

(a) determining sample sizes and drawing samples?

EASY

10

DI.FFI.CULT

8 TOO TIME CONSUMING3 EASY TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS

BUT HARD TO ACTUALLY SELECT

THE SAMPLE

NEITHER EASY

NOR DIFFICULT

NO_COMMENT

6

NQT_PRACTI_CAL

1 COMPLEX BUT

HELPED WITH

TRAINING

(b) measuring tare and net contents?

EASY DIFFICULT TOO_TIME_CQNSUMING

14 8 1

NEITHER EASY

NOR DIFFICULT

INCLUDE WOLSKI '

S

DISPLACEMENT METHOD

FOR VOLUME NO COMMENT

COMPLEX ALLEVIATED

WITH TRAINING

(c)

EASY

15

1 8 1 determining net content compliance?

DIFFICULT

( 1 when

foil owi ng

Cat . A p 1 ans

I5Q_ITM_QQNsyMiNG

2

EAST TO FOLLOW

INSTRUCTIONS BUT

TOO CUMBERSOME

FOR PRACTICALITY

NO COMMENT

6

COMPLEX, ALLEVIATED

WITH TRAINING

300
3. Do you like having two categories of sampling plans (A&B) c would you prefer to have only one? If one, which one?

PREFER_A PREFER_B LIKE_HAVI^G_BOTH

4 8 16

WANT ONLY ONE (no

in^i£iii2ii_2i_w!ii£!i_2iie.i no_comment

2 5 4. Are the Maximum Allowable Variations (MAV) adequate, too

large, or too small?

ADEQUATE TOO_LARGE TOO_SMALL NO_COMMENT CUMBERSOME

15 7 2 6 1

Other:

- too large between one- and 10-lb labeled weight

- too small for small package sizes

- should be listed as a percent of the label

- sometimes too large, sometimes too small, sometimes

adequate. This whole area should be deliberated by the NCWM Committee on Laws and Regulations for specific

commodities

- adequate to too large (2 respondents)

- should be two percent MAV for packages greater than 50 lb - harmonize MAV's with USDA Meat and Poultry Inspection's

Manual

- some too small; some too large

- adequate if procedures do not challenge it - too large judging from random weight experience under 3 lb

5. (a) Has the issue of moisture loss allowances been handled adequately?

If not what do you recommend be done?

YES NO NO COMMENT

12 14 12

301
Recommendations:

- Establish tables for moisture loss (6)

- Change to correct weight at time of sale (2) - Use different language

- Give more guidance on specific products

- Standardize tare

- If we are not challenged in court, it is ok

Is wet tare part of the moisture loss issue? YES NO NO COMMENT

18 12 8

Comments:

- Use the term "actual"' tare rather than wet tare

- Recommend dry tare (3)

- I support wet tare since it is more in line with

how a consumer would receive product

What changes to the handbook would you suggest before

adopting Handbook 133 for your jurisdiction or recommending

it for Conference endorsement?

OK AS IS NO COMMENT (at this time)

9 10

Suggestions:

- go to a single sampling plan (A-2; 3-1; between AdcB-1)

- simplify (3)

- format the handbook differently (4) - update Handbook 67 (2)
- eliminate decision charts

- give more explanations

- remove audit language from Category B and reduce MAV's

to approximate Handbook 67

- have legally adopted Handbook 133 in a fit of desperation; procedures are still those of Handbook 67

- find out what bothers some jurisdictions and resolve them

- provide MAV's for overpack, moisture loss information,

and one set of sample plans

- make manual practical for field use

7. Does the field manual version of the handbook facilitate field usage?

YES NO NO COMMENT

19 5 7 YES, WITH RESERVATIONS

7 ("better than the handbook"; "step in right direction"; "still too large"; more

simplification still needed.)

8. Would you be interested in having a training program on Handbook 133 presented to your inspectors?

YES NO NOT AT THIS TIME

19 5 4 POSSIBLY YES (want more after having had one)

1 5 ALREADY RECEIVED NOT APPLICABLE

2 1 The results of this survey along with the comments received by the NBS

and summarized on July 1, 1983, are being considered in preparing the

second edition of Handbook 133.

303
REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Charles H. Greene, Chairman

Director of General Services

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

REFERENCE KEY

800

The Nominating Committee met during the interim meetings at Gaithersburg in January and selected the listed persons to be nominated

for officers of the Conference. In the selection of nominees from the

active membership, consideration was given to professional experience,

qualification of individuals, attendance, Conference participation, regional

representation, and other factors considered to be important.

Each of the persons named has been contacted and has agreed to serve if elected. CHAIRMAN-ELECT

VICE-CHAIRMEN

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

(3-year terms)

TREASURER

CHAPLAIN

George E. Mattimoe, Hawaii

James H. Akey, Kansas

Sidney A. Colbrook, Illinois Steven A. Malone, Nebraska

Edison J. Stephens, Utah

Charles E. Forester, Texas

Frank Nagele, Michigan

Allan M. Nelson, Connecticut

Francis W. Daniels, Wayne County, IN

Respectfully submitted:

Charles H. Greene, New Mexico, Chairman

Sydney D. Andrews, Florida

Edward C. Heffron, Michigan

James F. Lyles, Virginia

John L. O'Neill, Kansas

Kendrick J. Simila, Oregon

Richard L. Thompson, Maryland

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

(On motion of the Committee Chairman the report of the Resolutions

Committee, voting key item 800, was adopted in its entirety by the

Conference.)

304
REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

Thomas W. Kelly, Superintendent

Office of Weights and Measures

State of New Jersey

REFERENCE KEY

701 GENERAL

The Resolutions Committee whishes to express the appreciation of the

members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to those

who contributed their time and talents toward the arrangements for, the

conduct of, and the success of this 69th Annual Meeting. Special votes

of thanks go:

(1) To Ms. Paula Gold, Secretary of Consumer Affairs

and Business Regulations, State of Massachussets

for her warm welcome and description of regulation of commerce in Massachusetts.

(2) To Dr. Ernest Ambler, Director of the National

Bureau of Standards, for his description of

relevant research programs of the National

Bureau of Standards.

(3) To Dr. Stanley I. Warshaw, Director, Office of Product Standards Policy, National Bureau of Standards, for his remarks concerning

Conference study of use of data processing and

computers, and his recommendations regarding

future planning.

(4) To Mr. John A. Goodman, President, Technical

Assistance Research Programs, Inc., for his informative talk on complaint handling and his recommendations for Conference action.

(5) To Mr. Ross Andersen, Metrologist, State of New

York for his talk on the perceptions and reality

of the role of State metrology laboratories.

(6) To officiers and appointed officials of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures

for their assistance and service toward progress on National issues.

(7) To committee members for their efforts throughout the past year preparing and

presenting their reports; to the sub-committees

of the Executive Committee for their discerning

and appropriate recommendations of

reorganization.

305
(8) To governing officials of State and local

jurisdictions for their advice, interest, and

support in weights and measures administration

in the United States; to Charles Carroll and his staff for their assistance throughout the year and at this meeting.

(9) To representatives of business and industry for their cooperation and assistance in committee

and Conference work; to the Associate

Membership organization for its hosting

functions.

(10) To the staff of Westin Hotel for their assistance

and courtesies, which contributed to the

enjoyment and comfort of the delegates in their fine facilities. (11) To the National Bureau of Standards and the Office of Weights and Measures for their outstanding assistance in planning and conducting

the work and program of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

(12) To the Office of Weights and Measures staff: Ann Heffernan

Karen Barkley

Nancy Chapwick

Dawn Alger

for expert and hospitable operation of the administrative opperations of the Meeting.

(13) To the Massachusetts Division of Standards staff: Mary DeYoung

Theresa Albano

Susan Mahoney

for ever-present support and hard work for the Conference and its delegates.

T. Kelly, New Jersey, Chairman

S. Abercrombie, Georgia

S. Malone, Nebraska

C. Pittman, Tennessee

E. Stevens, Utah

C. Tandy, Jr., Alaska

F. Thomas, Pennsylvania

R. Smith, Technical Advisor, NBS

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

(On motion of the Committee Chairman the report of the Resolutions

Committee, voting key item 701, was adopted in its entirety by the

Conference.)

306
REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

William C. Sullivan, Superintendent

Office of Weights and Measures

City of Seatle, Washington

REFERENCE KEY

900

The Auditing Committee met on Wednesday morning, August 1 for the

purpose of reviewing the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer, Mr. Allan M. Nelson. The Committee finds these records to be in accordance with Conference procedure and correct.

W. Sullivan, Washington, Chairman

J. Berguist, Minnosota

R. Williams, Tennessee

R. Smith, Technical Advisor, NBS

AUDITING COMMITTEE

(On motion of Mr. Sullivan, the report of the Auditing Committee,

Reference Key Item 900, was adopted by the Conference.)

307
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER

Allan M. Nelson, Chief

Weights and Measures Division

Department of Consumer Protection

State of Connecticut

REFERENCE KEY

1000 INTRODUCTION

It is my pleasure to report to you on the financial status of the

Conference Treasury as follows: Cash on Hand

RECEIPTS

June 30, 1983 $ 40,742.00*

Account No. 1.1 Registration - 68th Conference $ 13,230.00

1 . 1 Reg i s t ra t i on

1 . 2 Memo e r s h i p F

1 . 2 Memb e r s h i p F

1.3 Publications

1.4 Interest

• 69th Conference

Y. 68

Y. 69

950.00

19,145.00

28,280.00

89.75

3,281.02

TOTAL RECEIPTS

TOTAL CASH BALANCE AND RECEIPTS

DISBURSEMENTS

$ 64,975.77

$105,717.77

Account No. 2.0 Annual Meeting

" " 3.0 Inter im Meet ing

11 " 5.0 Special Program

" "6.0 Chairman's Expenses

" "7.0 Membership

" " 8.0 Printing & Publications

" "9.0 Administration

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

Cash on Hand - June 30, 1984

N.O.W. AccountConn. Bank & Trust Co., Southington, CT.

Money Market Check Book AccountConn. Bank & Trust Co., Southington, CT.

Checking AccountUnion Trust Co., Gai thersburg, MD

TOTAL ASSETS

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS AND ASSETS

$ 14,049.91

19,624.61

3,853.93

6,891.71

4,623.34

522.72

7^336^46

$_56± 902^68

$ 16,777.84

31,723.01

314.24

$ 48^815^09

$105^717^77

* $77,843.00 shown as an asset on last year's Treasurer's

Report contained $37,101.00 of grant money.

308
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

GRANT ACCOUNT

Cash on Hand, June 30, 1983 $ 37,101.00

RECEIPTS

Grant Payments $111,304.00

Interest 4,941.21

TOTAL RECEIPTS $116^245^21

TOTAL CASH BALANCE & RECEIPTS $153^346^21

DISBURSEMENTS

Equipment $ 18,412.00

Contracts 50^882^29

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $_69 ± 294^29

Cash Balance, Money Market AccountConnecticut Bank & Trust Co. $ 84,051.92

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS AND CASH BALANCE $153^346^21

iil£]l£^i_MIiIl_Mj._N£lson±_Treasu£er

(On motion of Mr. Nelson, the report of the Conference

Treasurer, Reference Key Item 1000, was adopted by the

Conference .

)

309
APPOINTMENTS BY CHAIRMAN

Chairman Ezic Deifinc annc the following appointments

reappointments at the General Session :r Thursday, August 2, 19S4: STANDING COMMITTEES

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

Charles Greene. State of New Mexico

Laws anc Regulations Committee

Leo Letey, State of Colorado

Liaison Committee

John McCutcheon. United States Department of Agriculture

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Ross Andersen. State of New York

OTHER APPOINTMENTS

Parliamentarian - Sydney Andrews. State of Florida

Assistant Treasurer - James Akey, State of Kansas

Associate Memoersnip Committee

Art Kroil. Giloaraco, Inc.. Chairman

Harvey Lodge. Dun oar. Vice Chairman

Kenneth Appel. Colgate-Palmolive, Treasurer Richard Davis, James River Dixie Northern, Inc. Chip Kloos. Hunt ".V ess on roods

Walter Kupper, Mettler Instrument Anthony Ladd, A. J. Laoo Weighing k Packaging Systems

Andrew Moore, Grocery Manufacturers of America

Rroert Nelson, General MiDs

Neal Peterson, Legal Council for General Mills Auditing Committee

Rooert Williams, State of Tennessee. Chairman

John Bertuist. City of Minneapolis, MN

Edward Romano, Glenn County. CA

310
Budget Review Committee

Charles Greene, State of New Mexico

Thomas Kelly, State of New Jersey

William Perry, Cardinal Scale Company

Credentials Committee

John Chohamin, New Jersey, Chairman

Arthur Hershbein, Dade County, FL

Gilbert Allen, City of Spokane, WA

Resolutions Committee

Charles Tandy, Jr., State of Alaska, Chairman

Sharon Abercrombie, State of Georgia

William Eldridge, State of Mississippi

Donald Lynch, Kansas City, KS

Earl Maxwell, District of Columbia

Catherine Pittman, State of Tennessee

Fred Thomas, State of Pennsylvania

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation

John Elengo, Jr., Revere Company, has been appointed as Chairman

replacing Harry Lockery, Hottinger Baldwin Measurements.

All incumbents are reappointed.

Task Force on Motor Fuels

No changes were made in the activities or membership of this Task

Force. All incumbents are reappointed.

Task Force on Belt Conveyor Scales

No changes were made in the activities or membership of this Task

Force. All incumbents are reappointed.

Task Force on Commodity Requirements

This new Task Force will report to the Executive Committee. The

members are: Richard Thompson, State of Maryland, Chairman

Mahlon Burnette, American Meat Institute Kenneth Butcher, State of West Virginia

Charles Cavagnaro, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs

Paul Engler, Los Angeles, CA

Edward Heffron, State of Michigan

Tom Klevay, Miller's National Federation

Kenneth N. May, Holly Farms

John McCutcheon, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Allan Nelson, State of Connecticut

John Taylor, Food and Drug Administration

311
Subcommittee on Commodity Standards

This new subcomittee will report to the Task Force on Commodity

Requirements. The members are: Don Stagg, State of Alabama, Chairman

Robert Belliveau, Procter and Gamble Company

Bruce Litzenberg, State of Ohio

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

Chip Kloos, Hunt Wesson Foods

Task Force on Information Systems

This new task force will report to the Executive Committee. The members are: Joseph Swanson, State of Alaska, Chairman

James Lyles, State of Virginia

Joseph Rothleder, State of California

Technical Committee on Dynamic Weighing

A new committee was established. Appointments will be announced at a

later date. Advisory Committee on Grain Moisture Measurement

The Grain Moisture Meters Code was adopted by the Membership. Accordingly, the work of the Advisory Committee is completed. With

appreciation of significant accomplishment, the Committee is not being

continued.

Task Force on Package Control

With the decision to focus resources on the more technical aspects of

package control (moisture loss, HB 133, etc.), this Task Force will phase

out its activities prior to the Interim Meeting in January 1985.

312
REPORT ON STATE LABORATORY METROLOGY WORKSHOPS

Henry V. Oppermann

National Bureau of Standards

The workshops met on Monday, July 30, 1984 and Wednesday, August 1, 1984 and addressed several subjects directly affecting laboratory

operations. Harry B. Haymes of Sanders Associates, Inc., Nashua, New

Hampshire, discussed Military Standard 45662, the information required

from State laboratories when they perform work for private industry

laboratories, and the requirements placed upon private laboratories

performing work under MILSTD45662. He provided an interesting overview

of the operation of a large private laboratory. Ms. Jacquelyn A. Wise of the Temperature and Pressure Measurements and

Standards Division, National Bureau of Standards, discussed the

environmental requirements and equipment needed to establish a laboratory

to calibrate liquid-in-glass thermometers. This was a timely presentation

because several States are planning to establish temperature calibration

laboratories. Ms. Wise answered numerous questions from the metrologists

regarding their particular laboratory conditions and programs.

Tom Scott, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, reported on measurement problems they had encountered using their bottom-fill prover

in comparison to industry provers of a slightly different design. Their

tests revealed a discrepancy in measurement results on gasoline between

the State and the industry provers but fairly consistent results were

obtained on diesel fuel and kerosene. The cause of this effect was

believed to be the increased vaporization of gasoline when the State prover was used to test meters. He also showed how North Carolina

modified their prover to address the problem.

Raymond Wells, Seraphin Test Measure Company, reported on the trends

that exist in the design of large and small provers. The demands by

industry for higher precision volume measurement are increasing. This

has resulted in changes in the design of provers, which he showed to and

discussed with metrologists. These changes and the increased demand for higher precision measurement may place greater demands upon State

laboratories.

A representative from each regional metrology group reported on their

activities and round robin results. This provided an opportunity for the groups to interact at a national level and learn from each other. Henry Oppermann, NBS Office of Weights and Measures, discussed the

measurement control program for glass flasks assigned to the State

laboratories. He also lead a discussion on possible changes to NBS

Handbook 105-1 and issues related to weight specifications for other

classes of weights.

313
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS

AUDITING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN MEMBERS

G KENNEDY. ME

CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE

E KEELEY. DE

J. CHOHAMIN. NJ

A HERSMBEIN FL

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: C. GREENE. NM

MEMBERS: S. ANDREWS. FL

E. HEFFRON. Ml

J. LYLES. VA

J. O'NEILL. KS

K. SIMLA. OR

R. THOMPSON MD

PARLIAMENTARIAN:

SERGEANTS-AT- ARMS.

ASSISTANT TREASURER: J. AKEY. KS REPRESENTATIVE TO OIML PS20 K SIMILA. OR

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN T KELLY. NJ MEMBERS. S ABERCROMBIE. GA

S MALONE. NE

C. PITTMAN. TN

E STEVENS. UT

D. TANDY AK

F THOMAS. PA

NATIONAL CONFERENCE

YEIGHTS AND MEASURES

CHAIRMAN E S. HINOSMAN. AR

CHAIRMAN- E. DELF1NO. CA

ELECT:E PAST C. GREENE. Nil CHAIRMAN:*

VICE J. BARTFAI. NY

CHAIRMEN: B. BOODICKER. SO

L. DEGRANGE. MD

J. SWANSON AK TREASURER* A. NELSON. CN

CHAPLAIN: F DANIELS. IN PRESIDENT E " E- AMBLER. NBS

EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY:*-" A. THOLEN. NBS CONFERENCE

COORDINATOR: A. HEFFERNAN. NBS

HEGIONAL COORDINATOR: R. SMITH. NBS

i Commm»o

N. D. SMITH. NC

S. ANDREWS. FL

B. BLOCH. CA

D. KARLISH. AR

G. UATTIMOE. HI F NAGELE. Ml

C. WILLIAMS. GA

LIAISON COMMITTEE

C. KLOOS. HUNT-WESSON [4] ! P ADAMS. PA I5l

S. HASKO. NBS

S COLBROOK. IL (1) D GUENSLER. CA (2)

F. GERK. NM (3) R PROBST. Wl (4) K BUTCHER. WV (5) 0. WARNLOF. NBS

TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

FOREMOST-McKESSON

R BELLIVEAU. PROCTOR

4 GAMBLE

C. KLOOS. HUNT-WESSON

B. LITZENBERG. OH

D. OFFNER. MO

N. PETERSON. THE MILLER S FEDERATION

D. STAGG. AL

F. GERK. NM

i: L. LETEY. CO

J. AWBREY. SOUTHERN

CO. SERVICE W BOWLES. MIDWAY COAL

S. CISIEWSKI. PEA800Y

COAL

P CHASE. RAMSEY

ENGINEERING

C. DAN! WESTERN

WEIGHING AND

INSPECTION BUREAU

C DUNAW AY. CONSOL

P.. GLUMACK. TECNETICS

M. GRUBER. SOUTHERN

WEIGHING AND

INSPECTION BUREAU

R HURLEY. FAIRBANKS

G. KACHEL. RIEDE SYSTEMS

N KAUTSKEY. ISA

L. WALKER. MERRICK

CORP.

PUBLIC M EMBERS

R. ANDERSEN. NY

L. DEGRANGE. MD

J. LACY. USDA-P4S

D. MAHONEY. FGIS

F NAGELE. Ml H OPPERMANN. NBS

C. SMITH. CA

J. TRUEX, OH

O. WARNLOF. NBS

WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

H. LOCKERY SMA

E. BRATLE. NCR

W. GOODPASTER.

CARDINAL SCALE

R. HURLEY. FAIRBANKS

F KATTERHE1NRICH. HOBART CORP.

J. MACDONALD. HOWE

RICHARDSON

J. ROBINSON. AAR

T STABLER TOLEDO

SCALE

D TONINI. SMA

MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR

314

M 8ELUE. SOUTHWEST

PUMP

A EVANS. VEEDER-ROOT

R FONGER. BENNETT PUMP

A GERDOM. TOKHEIM W KEY TOKHEIM

A KROLL. GILBARCO

L- MURRAY. DRESSER

INDUSTRIES. INC. H POLITI. UNIDYNAMICS W REITZ. LIQUID CONTROLS

R HOCKMUTH. PETROLEUM

METER & PUMP CO
AND MEASURES

BUDGET REVIEW COMMFTTEE

ONE YEAR TERM

E. HEFFRON. Ml"

E. KEELEY. DE'

S. HINDSMAN. AR

C. GREENE. NM (2) J LYLES. VA (1) A NELSON. CT

W. PERRY. CARDINAL SCALE (2) A. THOLEN, NBS

THREE YEAR TERM : J. BLACKWOOD. TXCJ

R. WALKER. INJ 'ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES

SUBCOMMITTEE

^MEMBERSHIP SUBCOMMITTEE

'SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

CONFERENCE REPRESENTATIVE TO

U.S. ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL LEGAL METROLOGY

S. HINDSMAN. AR

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

i LADD. A.J. LADO

SYSTEMS

VICE-CHAIRMAN: A KROLL. GILBARCO.

INC. TREASURER: N. PETERSON, THE MILLER'S FEDERATION

R. FONGER. PUMP CO.

C. KLOOS. HUNT-WESSON

W. KUPPER. METTLER

INSTRUMENT

H. LODGE, DUNBAR

MANUFACTURING CO.

A. MOORE. GROCERY

MANUFACTURERS OF

MEMBERS:

R NELSON. GENERAL

MILLS

R. WELLS. SERAPHIM

TEST MEASURE CO.

LAWS & REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN W. MOSSBERG. CA (1) E. SKLUZACEK. MN (2) D. STAGG. AL (3) G. MATT1MOE. HI («) T BRINK. VT (S) TECHNICAL C. BRICKENKAMP. NBS

ADVISOR:

CHAIRMAN: J. SWANSON. AK (1) T. GEILER. MA (2) B. NIEBERGALL. NO (3) P. STAGG. LA (4) S. DARSEY. FL (S) TECHNICAL J. KOENIG. NBS

ADVISOR:

TRAINING SUBCOMMITTEE

L. LETEY. CO

WftM OFFICIALS

T. ROSSBOTTOM. CA

R. WILLIAMS. TN

R THOMPSON. MD

J O'CONNOR. IA

J. PUGH. SC

S. COLBROOK. IL

T. KIRBY. GA

W. COGBURN. FL

H. SWAIN. MS

METER MANUFACTURERS

D. FUNK. DICKEY-JOHN

T. BARNETT. STEIN LABS

C. CRUMP. SEEDBURO WEIGHTS & MEASURES WEEK

SUBCOMMITTEE

USERS

J. MANNESS. NATIONAL GRAIN AND

FEED ASSOCIATION

J. JOHNSTON. GRAIN ELEVATOR

t PROCESSORS SOCIETY

315
NCWM SCHEDULED EVENTS

7 a.m.

8 a.m. -

9 a.m. —

10 a.m. -

11 a.m. -

Noon —

1 p.m.

2 p.m.

3 p.m.

4 p.m.

5 p.m.

6 p.m.

7 p.m.

8 p.m.

9 p.m.

SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY

STANDING COMMITTEES AGENDA REVIEWS

LU LU ig

hi 2

x O lu o

Z LU O w

a o

LU O

IE

en o

I u

Q LU IE

M

g8

< LU OQ

U. Z

r; <

NASDA

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

DIVISION

ORIENTATION SESSION FOR MEMBERS

SPECIFICATION AND

TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

SESSION

TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ON

PACKAGING AND

LABELING

LUNCH (OPEN)

LAWS AND

REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

SESSION

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

SESSION

METROLOGY WORKSHOP

LIAISON COMMITTEE

SESSION

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

SESSION

LUNCH (OPEN)

GENERAL SESSION —CEREMONIALOPENING CEREMONY

ADDRESSES HONOR AWARDS

PRESENTATION

-TECHNICALASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN'S RECEPTION OPEN

316
69th ANNUAL MEETING

WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

TUTORIAL SCALE CODE-NEW

TOLERANCE STRUCTURE

REGIONAL

ASSOCIATION SESSIONS 1°

9* = li

TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

VOTING SESSION*

1 • VOTING PROCEDURE

2 • EDUCATION COMMITTEE

3 • EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

4 • SPECIFICATIONS AND

TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

VOTING SESSION* (CONTINUED)

5 • NOMINATING COMMITTEE

6 • LAWS & REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

7 • LIAISON COMMITTEE

8 • RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

9 • AUDITING COMMITTEE

10 • TREASURER S REPORT

• CLOSING CEREMONY

BREAKFAST MEETING

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND

OFFICERS

STANDING COMMITTEESPLANNING

SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCESPLANNING V^1

LUNCH (OPEN)

TECHNICAL TEMPERATURE

ADJUSTMENT

ABBREVIATIONS KEY: • P&C = National Measurement

Policy and Coordination Committee

• S&T = Specifications and

Tolerances Committee

• L&R = Laws and Regulations Committee • EDUCATION = Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

• LIAISON = Liaison Committee

OPEN

OPEN

NASDA = National Association of State Departments of Agriculture NCWM = National Conference on

Weights and Measures

'At the two voting sessions the listed items will be voted in the order shown; time availability will determine whether the Wednesday

voting session closes at, after, or before item 4. -H7
STATE REPRESENTATIVES

The following is a list of designated State representatives who were

present and voting on the reports presented by the Conference standing

and annual committees.

State Representative Alternate Alaoama

Alaska Arizona Arkansas

California Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Dlinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky

Louisiana Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi Missouri Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania Puerto Rico

Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota

Tennessee

I t an Vermont

Virgin Lslands Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Don Stagg

J:sepr. Swanson

Patricia Fullinwide: Sam Hindsman

Ezio Delf mo

Leo Letey

Allan Nelson Eugene Keeley None

Stan Darsey

Thomas Kirov 3eorge Mattimoe

Lyman Holloway

Sidney Color ook Rooer: Walker James O'Connor

John O'Neill Charles Prebble

Philip Stagg

Richard Thompson

Edward He: iron Edward Skluzacek James Spencer

Leslie Greiner Gary Delano

Steve Malone None

None Thomas Kelly

Fred Gerk

John Bartfai

N. David Smith

Bruce Nieoergal Bruce Litzenoerg

KencriCK Simila

LVnda Agrestf

"

Jr.arles St.;::. Barbara Roddicker

Robert Williams

Charles Forester

Edison Stephens

Trafzorc Brink

Louis Penn

Ji~.es Lyles William Sullivan Kenneth Butcher Robert Proost

Victor Geroer

John Ra'bb Charles Tandy, Jr. D. L. Sorensen

J. Mike Hile

D. Guensler None

R. Hutchinson None None

S. Andrews

S. Abercrombie None

Dale Hurd

Steve McGuire None

None

Donald Lynch

Tom Dowler James Mahomes

Marshall White

Lacy DeGrange None

Fran.-: Nagele

G. Mac Donald

W EJ d

n

i ~ -* R. Wittenberger None

M. Deisley None

None

J. Siivestro C. Greene

R. Andersen

Thomas Scott None

James Truex

R. Schoenecke

G. Shefcheck

Ronald Crust None

None

John Pugh

R. Osterkamp None

Hero Eskew

Harvey Crook

R. Cioffi Howard Dyer

G. Diggs ; EI

Gilbert Allen

L. Barker None

None

31 =
>

REGISTRATION LIST 69TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

JULY 29 - AUGUST 2, 1984 WESTIN HOTEL COPLEY PLACE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES OFFICIALS ALABAMA

STATE

RABB* JOHN B W 6 M LABORATORY SUPERVISOR

ST OF ALA W £ M OEPT OF AGRI

P 0 BOX 3336 MONTGOMERY AL 36193

(205) 832-6766

STAGG, DON E DIRECTOR

WEIGHTS € MEASURES OIV

P.O. BCX 3336 MONTGOMERY AL 36193

(205) 261-2613 ALASKA

STATE SWANSON. JOSEPH L DIRECTOR DIVISION MEASURE STDS ALASKA OEPT COMM/ECON OEVELOP

PO BOX 111686 ANCHORAGE AK 99511

(907) 345-7346

TANDY JR. CHARLES D CHIEF WEIGHTS € MEASURES

DEPT OF COMMERCE £ ECO DEV

P 0 BOX 11686 ANCHORAGE AK 99511

(907) 345-7846 ARIZONA

STATE FULLINWIDER, PATRICIA M CHIEF ARIZONA WEIGHTS £ MEASURES OIV 3039 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD PHOENIX AZ 85017

(602) 255-5211 X4 ARKANSAS

STATE HINDSMAN, SAM F D I R EC TCP ARKANSAS BUREAU OF ST ANDAP OS 4608 W 61ST ST LITTLE ROCK AR 72209

(501) 371-1736

\mw& c

dhTeP

ll 4 CALIF DIV OF MEASUREMENT STO 8500 FRUITRIDGE PD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

ROTHLEDER, JGSEPH

ME TPOLCG I S T DIV OF MEASUREMENT STANDARDS

8500 FRUITRIDGE ROAD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

ALAMEDA COUNTY PATRICK E DEPT OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

333 FIFTH ST OAKLAND CA 94607

(415) 874-6736

LOS ANGELES COUNTY D^TOR^wilGHTS I MEASURES

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

11012 GARFIELD AVENUE

SOUTH GATE CA 90280

(213) 922-8921 RIVERSIDE COUNTY

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

2950 WASHINGTON

RIVERSIDE CA 92504

(714) 787-2620 SAN_DIEGC COUNTY THUNER. KATHLEEN A tnne AGRIC £0MM SEALER WGTS & MSPS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

5555 OVERLAND AVENUE BLDG 3 SAN DIEGO CA 92123

(714) 565-5781

SONOMA CCUNTY

BOLOGNA,

t GEN|

as SCNGMA COUNTY DEPT WTS ME A

S

2683 VENTURA AVE RM 100S SANTA ROSA CA 95401

(707) 527-2548 CALIFORNIA

STATE

COLORADO

DELFINC, EZIO F ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

CA DIV OF MEASUREMENT STDS 8500 FRUITRIDGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

STATE CHIEF* MEASUREMENT STANDARD DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

3125 WYANDOT DENVER CO 80211

(303) 866-2845

319
CONNECTICUT

STATE CRISTELLI, DAVID

INSPECTOR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIVISION

STATE OFFICE BLOG/CONS PROT HARTFORD CT 06106

(2C3) 566-4778

DYNIA. MICHAEL METROLCGI ST HEIGHTS AND MEASURES

STATE OFFICE DLDG 165 CAPITOL HARTFORD CT 06106

(203) 566-5230

FORREST. FRANK

INSPECTOR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIVISION

STATE OFFICE BLDG/CONS PROT HARTFORD CT 06106

(203) 566-4778

HESLIN. MARY M COMMI SSICNER

CT DEPT CONSUMER PROTECTION

ST OFFICE 8LDG 165 CAPITOL AVE HARTFORD CT 06106

(203) 566-4999 HUTCHINSON, RONALD

INSPECTOR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIVISION

STATE OFFICE BLDG/CONS PROT HARTFORD CT 06106

(203) 566-4778 KALENTKOWSKI , RAYMOND

INSPECTOR WEIGHTS € MEASURES DIVISION

STATE OFFICE BLOG/CONS PROT HARTFORD CT 06106

(2031 566-4778

DELAWARE

STATE

DELAWARE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DRAWER D DOVER DE 19903

(302) 736-4811 X37 FLORIDA

STATE ANDREWS, SYDNEY D DIRECTOR DIVISION OF STANDARDS

FLA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE £ C S 3125 CCNNER BLVD /LAB COMPLEX TALLAHASSEE FL 32301

(904) 488-0645

DARSEY. STAN J CHIEF BUR OF WEIGHT £ MEASURES

FL DEPT OF AGRI £ CONSUMER SVC 3125 CONNER BLVD /LAB COMPLEX TALLAHASSEE FL 32301

(904) 488-9140

DADE COUNTY

HERSHBEIN, ARTHUR DIRECTCR - DADE COUNTY FLORIDA CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION

44 W FLAGLER ST SUITE 2303

MIAMI FL 33130

(305) 579-4222

NELSON, ALLAN M CHIEF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

DEPT OF CONSUMER PROTECTION

STATE OFF BD HARTFORD CT 06106

<203) 566-5230

WILSON, PETER INSPECTOR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIVISION

STATE OFFICE BLDG/CONS PROT HARTFORD CT 06106

(203) 566-4778

CITY: HARTFORD

MOKRYCKI, JOHN CITY SEALER WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIVISION

CITY HALL HARTFORD CT 06103 722-6370

CITY: MI DDL ETOWN TOMMASI, GUY J SEALER OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

CITY OF MIDDLETOWN

CITY HALL

MI DDL ETOWN CT C6457

(203) 347-4671 X215 CITY: NEW BRITAIN

PEARSON, BRYANT

SEALER OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

CITY OF NEW BRITAIN CONN CITY HALL 27 W MAIN ST NEW BRITAIN CT 06051

(203) 224-2491 X230

GEORGIA

STATE

S S

GUAM

ABERCRCMBIE- DIRECTCR

GA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

AGRI BLDG CAPITAL SQ ATLANTA GA 30334

(404) 656-3605

COILE, MARTIN T ASST DIRECTOR WTS AND MEAS GEORGIA DEPT AGRICULTURE

16 FOREST PARKWAY FOREST PARK GA 30050

(4041 363-7611

KIR BY , THOMAS E DIRECTCR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES LABORATORY

16 FOREST PARKWAY FOREST PARK GA 30050

(404) 363-7611

STATE UNPINGC, JUAN REYES SUPERVISOR-WEIGHTS £ MEASURES GUAM DEPT REVENUE/TAXATION

P 0 BOX 3663 AGANA GUAM GU 96910

320
HAwAI

STATE

MATTI MCE, GECRGE E ADMINISTRATOR MEASUREMENT STDS OEPT OF AGRICULTURE

1428 S KING ST/PQ BOX 22159 HONOLULU HI 96822

(808) 548-7152 ILLINOIS

STATE COLBROCK, SIDNEY A W £ M PROGRAM MANAGER ILLINOIS DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

801 EAST SANGAMON AVENUE SPRINGFIELD IL 62706

(217) 782-3817

MCGUIRE. STEPHEN E METROLCGI ST ILLINOIS DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

801 EAST SANGAMON AVENUE SPRINGFIELD IL 62706

(217) 789-8480

INDIANA

STATE

DIR"ECTCR

R° BERT W WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DIVISION

1330 W MICHIGAN ST INDIANAPOLIS IN 46206

(317) 633-0350

CLARK COUNTY BRADSHAW, HAROLD D INSPECTOR/ WE IGHTS£ME ASUR ES DEPT OF WEIGHT AND MEASURES

CITY CCUNTY BLDG ROOM 314 JEFFER SCNVI LLE IN 4713C

(812) 283-4451 X53 GIBSON CCUNTY

SEVIER, WILLIAM R WEIGHTS AND MEASURES INSPECTOR

800 S PRINCE PRINCETON IN 47670

1812) 385-2426

LAPORTE COUNTY

HANI SH * EDWIN M INSPECTOR LAPORTE COUNTY

INDIANA WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

270 FRANKLIN ST MICHIGAN CITY IN 46360

(219) 874-7197 MADISON CCUNTY MOORE t CHARLES W COUNTY INSPECTOR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES OF MADISON MADISON COUNTY GOVT CENTER ANDERSON IN 46011

(317) 646-9359

CLALSSENt RICHARD H DIRECTCR RM 105 PORTER COUNTY WEIGHTS £ ME AS COURTHCUSE ANNEX 1401N CALUMET VALPARAISO IN 46383

(219) 766-2323 X214 TIPPECANCE COUNTY VANDERWIELEN, JAMES INSPECTOR TIPPECANOE CNTY WEIGHTS £ MEAS

20 N THIRD ST LAFAYETTE IN 47901

(317) 423-9229

WAYNE CCUNTY

DANIELS, FRANCIS W ADM OF WEIGHTS £ MEAS WAYNE COUNTY

50 NORTH FIFTH ST RICHMOND IN 47374

(317) 966-5561 X246

CITY: ANDERSON

ERT LCITY ANDERSON MEASURES

8TH ST INSPECTOR 0 DEPT OF WEIGHTS £ PO BOX 2100 120 E ANDERSCN IN 46018

(317) 646-5814

CITY: INDIANAPOLIS

BRUGH. FRANK L ADMINISTRATOR

DEPT OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES ROOM G6 CITY COUNTY BLDG INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204

(317) 236-4272

PHILLIPS, MICHELLE DEPUTY INSPECTOR

DEPT OF WEIGHTS & MEASURES

CITY COUNTY BLDG ROOM 6G INDIANAPCLIS IN 46204

(317) 236-4272

RHOADES, SHARON

DEPUTY INSP WEIGHTS £ MEASURES CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

ROOM 6G CITY COUNTY BLDG INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204

(317) 236-4272

CITY: MISHAWAKA

STAFFELDT, GEORGE W CITY SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES CITY HALL MISHAWAKA IN 46544

(219) 259-5265

CITY: SCUTH BEND S^iVc'I'^GHTS C MEASURES

CITY OF SOUTH BEND IN 701 W SAMPLE ST SOUTH BEND IN 46621

I21S) 284-9273

321
IOWA STATE CCNNOP. JAMES M SUPERVISOR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES HENRY A WALLACE BLDG

DES MOINES IA 50319

(515) 281-5716 KANSAS

STATE

A KEY » JANES H METRCLCGIST

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DIV

PC BOX 5516-2016 W 37TH ST TOPEKA KS 66605

(913) 267-4641

D NEILL, JOHN L STATE SEALER BOARD OF AGRICULTURE W £ M DIV PO BOX 5516 —2016 W 37TH ST TOPEKA KS 66605

(913) 267-4641

CITY: KANSAS CITY

LYNCH, DCNALD L CITY SEALEP CITY CF KANSAS CITY

701 N 7TH STREET KANSAS CITY KS 661C1

(913) 573-5035

DAVIS, CLAYTON F DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE INSPECTIONS DIV STATE OFFICE BLDS STA #28 AUGUSTA V E C4333

(207) 289-3841

DCWLING, KENNETH E WEIGHTS L MEASURES INSPECTOR

ME DEPT AGPICUTURE W & M OFFICE BLDG STATION 28 AUGUSTA ME 04333

(207) 289-3841

MILLAY, STANLEY K WEIGHTS £ MEASURES INSPECTOR

ME DE^T AGRICULTURE W £ M OFFICE BLDG STATION 28 AUGUSTA ME 04333

(207) 289-2751 PARENT JR, RICHARD L WEIGHTS £ MEASURES INSPECTOR

ME DE3T AGRICULTURE W £ M OFFICE BLDG STATION 28 AUGUSTA ME 04333

(207) 289-3841

WHITE, MARSHALL M METRCLCGIST

ME DEPT AGRICULTURE w £ H STATE CFFICE BLDG STATION 28 AUGUSTA ME 04333

(207) 289-2751 MARYLAND

STATE

LOUISIANA

STATE

DEGRANGE, LACY H WEIGHTS t MEASURES SECTION

MD DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

50 HAPPY S TRUM1N PARKWAY ANNAPOLIS MD 214C1

(301) 841-5790

DIRECTCR

H WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

LA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

P 0 BOX 44456 CAPITOL STATION

BATON ROUGE LA 70804

(504) 925-3780

PROGRAM hSnAGER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SECTION

50 HARRY S TP UM AN PARKWAY ANNAPOLIS MD 21401

(301) 841-5790

THOMPSON, RICHARD L CHIEF CF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

MD DEPT CF AGRICULTURE

50 HARPY S TRUMAN PARKWAY ANNAPOLIS MD 21401

(301) 841-5790

MAINE

STATE WiKfitoFWiERrS , KE4SURES

c MAINE BUREAU OF WEIGHTS £ M E AS BUREAU CF W £ M STATION 28 AUGUSTA ME 04333

(207) 289-3841

BROWN. CCNRAO

INSPECTOR

MF DEPT AGRICULTURE W £ M STATE HOUSE STATION 28 AUGUSTA ME 04333

(207) 289-3841 5SiPICT^S Sl?^TS 6 MEASURES

STATE CF MAINE W & M STATE HOUSE STATION NO 28 AUGUSTA ME 04333

(207) 289-2751 CLARK, ROBERT E SUPERVISOR W £ M MAINE DEPT OF AGRICULTURE BUREAU CF W £ M STATION NO 28 AUGUSTA ME 04333

(207) 289-3341

MASSACHUSETTS

STATE CARROLL, CHARLES H ASST DIRECTOR OF STANDARDS

MASS DIVISION OF STANDARDS

ONE A SHBURTQN PLACE BOSTON MA 02108

(617) 727-3480 CRITTENDEN, JAMES SUPERINTENDENT OF STANDARDS LB MASS DIVISION OF STANDARDS

ONE ASH3UR TON PLACE BOSTON MA C2108

{617) 727-5698

WALSH, JACK INSPECTOR DIVISION OF STANDARDS

ONE ASH3URT0N PL BOSTON MA 02108

(617) 727-3480

322
CITY: agawam

DRAGHETTI, LOUIS 0 INSPECTOR CP WTS & MEAS TOWN OF AGAWAM

36 MAIN ST AGAWAM MA 01001

(413) 786-0400 X232 CITY: BOSTON

L MEASURES

LYNCH, JOHN SEALER CF WEIGHTS 3CST0N CITY HALL

ROOM 204 BOSTON MA C2201

1617) 725-4540

CITY: OANVERS

CARR. JOHN SEALER CF WEIGHTS L MEASURES

TOWN OF OANVERS

TOWN HALL OANVERS MA 01923

(617) 777-0001 X255

CITY: FPAMI NGHAM BARTCLINI, MARIO G OEPUTY INSPECTOR W L TOWN OF FR AM I NGHAM MEMORIAL BUILDING

FRAMI NGHAM MA 01701

1617) 620-4838

CITY: GLCUCESTER

NOYES JR. FRANCIS P SEALER CF WEIGHTS & MEASURES

CITY OF GLOUCESTER

P 0 BOX 684 -5 STAGE FT ACRES GLOUCESTER MA 01930

(617) 283-7791

CITY: HYANNIS

GEILER, THOMAS F SEALER CF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

TOWN OF BARNSTABLE

367 MAIN ST HYANNIS MA 02601

(617) 775-1120 X0154

CITY: MEDFORD

VINCI, WILLIAM S SEALER CF WEIGHTS & MEASURES

CITY OF MEOFCRO

CITY HALL MEDFORD MA 02155 396-5500 X463 CITY: NEW BEDFORD PRZYBYSZEWSKI , FRANK E SEALER CF WEIGHTS 6 MEASURES

CITY OF NEW BEDFORD

20 IVY RD NEW BEDFORD MA 02740

(617) 999-2931 X388 CITY: REVERE

CITY: SPRINGFIELD

CLARK i ROBERT E SEALER CF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD MASS ROOM 9 CITY HALL COURT ST SPRINGFIELD MA 011C3

(413) 736-2711

CITY: SWANSCN

NIEWOLAi

SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES .MJCH 99 RIDGE ST FALL RIVER MA 02722

(617) 675-6011 X345 CITY: TOP SF I ELD CARVER, JOSEPH H SEALER OF WEIGHTS € MEASURES TOPSFIELD

18 GAEL ST TCPSFIELO MA 01983

(617) 887-5758

CITY: wateptown

MAHCNEY, JCSEPH J SEALER CF WEIGHTS & MEASURES

TOWN OF WATERTOWN ADMINISTRATION BLDG WATERTCWN MA 02172

(617) 924-0460

W & M DEPT

CITY: WELLESLEY

LAAK, FRANK E SEALER OF WEIGHTS L MEASURES

TOWN OF WELLESLEY

525 WASHINGTON ST WELLESLEY MA C2181

(617) 235-0262

CITY: WESTF I ELD SCIBELLI, THOMAS N SEALER CF WEIGHTS L MEASURES

CITY OF WESTF I ELD MUNICIPA BLDG/59 COURT ST WESTFIELD MA 01085

(413) 568-9181 X241 MICHIGAN

MCCAULEY, PETER E SEALER CF WEIGHTS

CITY CF REVERE CITY HALL REVERE MA C2151

(617) 289-7017

L MEASURES

STATE HEFFPCN, EDWARD C CHIEF FCCD DIVISION

MI DEPT OF AGRIC PO BOX 30017 OTTOWA BLDG N 4TH FLOOR LANSING MI 48909

(517) 373-1060 KAZANOWSKI, ANN FOOD SPECIALIST

FOOD & WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIV 4TH FLOOR OTTAWA TOWER N LANSING MI 48909

(313) 693-2265 KOZLOWSKI, JANE INSPECTCR MICHIGAN DEPT CF AGRICULTURE

P 0 BCX 30017 LANSING MI 48909

(517) 373-1060

323
NAGELE * FRANK WEIGHTS £ MEASURES SPECIALIST

MI DEPT CF AGRICULTURE

PC BCX 30017 LANSING MI 48909

(517) 373-1060 MINNESOTA

STATE SKLUZACEK, EDWARD P DIRECTCR

WTS AND MEASURES DIVISION

1015 CURRIE AVE MINNEAPCLIS MN 55403

(612) 341-7200 X7205 CITY: MINNEAPCLIS

BERGQUIST. JOHN A OIR LICENSES & CONSUMER SEP CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

CITY HALL RM 101A MINNEAPCLIS MN 55415

(612) 348-2080

NEW HAMPSHIRE

STATE G'ENIEP, MICHAEL F METRCLCGIST

NH BUREAU OF WEIGHTS £ MEAS PRESCOTT PK 3LDG #1 105 LOUDON CONCORD NH 0331C

(603) 271-3709

WENTWORTH, JEFFREY INSPECTOR AGRICULTURE STATE OF NH PRESCOTT PK BLDG #1 105 LOUDON CCNCORD NH 03301

(603) 271-3700

YOUNG. KEVIN INSPECTOR AGRICULTURE STATE OF NH PRESCCTT P K SLDG #1 105 LOUDON CONCORD NH 033CI

(603) 271-3700

MI SSI SSIPPI

NEW JERSEY

STATE STATE SPENCER. JAMES H DIRECTCR CONSUMER PROTECTION

MISS DEPT OF AGRI £ COMMERCE

PC BCX 1609 JACKSCN MS 39205

(601) 359-3648

MISSOURI

STATE GREINER. LESLIE M DIRECTCR

DIV OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

P 0 BOX 63C JEFFERSCN CITY MC 65102

(314) 751-4278 HCCKEP. RON PROGRAM SUPERVISOR DIVISICN OF WEIGHTS & MEASURES

PC BCX 630 JEFFERSCN CITY MO 65102

(314) 751-4993 WITTENBERGER. ROBERT SCALE PROGRAM SUPV METROLO G 1ST MC DEPT CF AGRICULTURE

PO BOX 630 JEFFERSCN CITY MO 65102

(314) 751-3440

KELLY, THOMAS W STATE SUPERINTENDENT

STATE OFFICE OF WEIGHTS

187 WEST HANOVER ST TRENTON NJ 08625

(6C9) 292-4615 CUMBERLAND COUNTY

FRANKS, GEORGE S COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT

DEPT WTS I ME AS & CCNS PRCT

788 E COMMERCE ST BR I DGE T CN NJ 08302

(609) 451-8000 X37C

NEBRASKA

GLOUCESTER COUNTY

SILVESTRC, JOSEPH SUPERINTENDENT

GLOU CO WTSCMEAS DEPT

49 WOOD ST COUNTY BLDG WOODBURY NJ 08096

(609) 845-1600 X252 MIDDLESEX COUNTY

CHCH4*IN, JOHN M SUPERINTENDENT

MIDDLESEX CTY DEPT WTS & MEAS

841 GECRGES RD NORTH BRUNSWICK NJ 08902

(201) 745-3298 MONMCUTH CCUNTY

STATE DEISLEY. MIKE

AGR INSPECTOR 3 NEBRASKA WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

301 CENTENNIAL MALL SOUTH LINCOLN NE 68509

(402) 471-4292

MALCNE, STEVEN A DIRECTCR

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DIVISICN

301 CENTENNIAL MALL S B0X94757 LINCOLN NE 68509

(402) 471-4292 X208

DOX, WILLIAM G SUPERINTENDENT

MONMOUTH COUNTY DE°T WTS£ M EAS HALL CF RECORDS ANNEX MAIN ST FREEHCLD NJ 07728

(201) 431-7363

SALEM CCUNTY

JONES, ROBERT B SUPERINTENDENT

SALEM CCUNTY DEPT WTS I MEAS

94 PAPKET ST BOX 24 SALEM NJ D8079

(609) 935-7510 X369

324
SOMERSET COUNTY SUFFOLK COUNTY

VROOM, WILLIAM R DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT

SOMERSET COUNTY

BOX 3000 SOMERVILLE NJ 08876

(201) 231-7000

CITY: ATLANTIC CITY KELLY t JOHN F SUPERINTENDENT

WEIGHT MEASURE CONSUMER AFFAIR RM 511 CITY HALL ATLANTIC CITY NJ 08401

(609) 347-5527 X5527

CITY: LINDEN

ESKA, ALEXANDER SUPERINTENDENT

CITY OF LINDEN WTS AND MEASURE

1408 SUMMIT TERRACE LINOEN NJ 07036

(201) 486-8429

GARDNER JR. CHARLES A ASST DIRECTOR WTS £ MEASURES

SUFFOLK COUNTY CONSUMER AFFAIR COUNTY CTR/N COMPLEX VETS HWY HAUPPAUGE NY 11787

(516) 360-4620

NORTH CAROLINA

STATE

SCOTT, TOM CHIEF MEASUREMENT SECTION STANDARDS DIV PCB 26056

NC DEPT OF AGRIC RALEIGH NC 27611

(919) 733-3313

SMITH, N DAVID DIRECTOR STANDARDS DV

NC DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

PO BOX 26056 RALEIGH NC 27611

(919) 732-3313

NEW MEXICO

STATE

NORTH DAKOTA

STATE

SERK, FRED A IR DIV STDS £ CONSUMER SVCS

NM DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

PO BOX 3170

LAS CRUCES NM 88003

(505) 646-1616

NEW YORK OHIO

WliBM11 ' BRUCE " ND WEIGHTS MEASURES

STATE CAPITOL BLDG BISMARCK ND 58505

(701) 224-2400

STATE STATE ANDERSEN, ROSS J METROLCGI ST NYS BUREAU OF WEIGHTS £ MEAS BUILDING 7A STATE CAMPUS ALBANY NY 12235

(518) 457-3449

BARTFAI, JOHN J DIRECTOR BUREAU OF WEIGHTS 6 MEASURES

BLDG 7A STATE CAMPUS ALBANY NY 12235

(518) 457-3452

DAVIS, DELORES D WEIGHTS 6 MEASURES SPEC III BUREAU OF WEIGHTS 6 MEASURES

BLDG 7A STATE CAMPUS ALBANY NY 12235

(518) 457-3452 CLINTCN COUNTY

L I TZENBEPG , BRUCE CHIEF DIVISION OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

3995 E MAIN ST PEYNOLDSBUPG OH 43068

(614) 866-6361 X23C MEANY. JAMES A ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL-OHIO

OHIC ATTORNEY GENERAL

30 EAST BROAD ST COLUMBUS OH 43215

(614) 466-8831

TRUEX, JAMES C METROLCGI ST OHIO DEPT CF AGRICULTURE

8995 E MAIN ST REYNOLDSBURG OH 43068

(614) 866-6361 X230 AUGLAIZE COUNTY

WILSON, WILLIAM J DIRECTOR OF WTS £ MEASURES

PO BOX 172 6 ELM ST PERU NY 12972

(518) 643-8536

STEUBEN COUNTY

KING, ROBERT E INSPECTOR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES AUDITOR AUGLAIZE COUNTY

209 E PEARL ST WAPAKONETA OH 45895

(419) 738-2145 CLARK COUNTY m\m 0UANE G DEPT OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

40 E STEUBEN ST BATH NY 14810

(607) 776-4949

PECK, RCY K INSPECTOR WEIGHTS & MEASURES CLARK COUNTY AUDITORS OFFICE

AB GRAHAM BLDG PCB 1325 SPRINGFIELD OH 45502

(513) 328-2423

325
SUMMIT CCUNTY CITY: PHILADELPHIA ?^i89tR THOM4S 0 SUMMIT CCUNT AUDITOR

522 E CUYHOGA FALLS AV AKRON CH 44310

1216) 923-9546

CITY: AKRON FITZGIBBCNS, JACK SUPERINTENDENT/WEIGHTS £ ME AS CITY OF AKRON

1420 TRIPLETT BLVD AKRON CH 44306

(216) 375-2878

u j s s - y , E ^ w

E T

T ACTING CHIEF

Z3 HILAOEL :3 hTA *EI 3HTS £ " E i S . = E

: : : - - : -

: " -co* 6 3 6

3 -iLi:E.=-M Pi i = io 7 (215) 686-3476 VALTRI, SAM 3173 SOUTH SYDENHAM ST

D ~I LiOE.P- I i =i 1=1-5

(215) 755-9299

CITY: CINCINNATI

PUERTO RICC

STATE PRAGAR, THCMAS

CHIEF CF WEIGHTS £ ME AS CITY OF CINCINNATI OHIO

3845 WILLIAM P DCCLEY BYPASS CINCINNATI OH 45223

(513) 352-3135

CITY: CCLUMBUS

CLEM, FRED P CONSUMER AFFAIRS INSPECTOR OFFICE CF CONSUMER SERVICES

50 kE ST GAY ST COLUMBUS OH 43215

(6 141 222-761L XI

MALDCSADC, U i-Ii A iSSIS'AN T S=C== t a=y DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

PC EC* 4 1059 "IN ILL AS STATION

SAS T „RC: ?= 30940

(809) 726-7585

rosartc. fpec ed*cnd auxiliary laecratzry techs dept consumer affairs pr

p 0 box 41059 manillas station SiN^RCE PR 33940 726-7220

OKLAHOMA

STATE

- - : : E island

S Ti ; E

ASST DIRECTOR MARKET INDUSTRY OKLA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

280G NORTH LINCOLN BLVD OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73105

(405) 521-3861

AGR EST 1 1 LYNDA

SEALE- CF *EI3> T S L *-E AS J- EE

* E R 0 A N

T I LE DIv/wETRCLCGY L i E 386 C EM RAL AVE

PAW T „C*E~ RI 3 2 56 3 (401) 27^-275;

CR EG C N

SC.t-h CAROLINA

STATE

STATE SIMILA, KENDRICK J ADMIN I 5 T R A T 2 R OREGON WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIV

c35 CAPITOL S T NE

S A LE W CR 5 7313

(503) 378-3792

S^I'^j C-A : LES ' 21- 3 0 3 . - E

; S E = , I 0 E S DIVISION

SCwT" CAROLINA 0E- T A

c ! PC BOX 11280 COLUMBIA SC 29211

(3031 758-7478

SE. T - CA<CTA PENNSYLVANIA

STATE

3 T

i r

E

0 C D I 0 * E = - -:CT rp ThC^AS, FRED A DIRECTOR

Pi 8 u R E A U OF WEIGHTS & ^ E A S - c E 230 1 N OA^EPON 3" HARRISEURG Pi L7LL0

(717) 787-6772

BUCKS COUNTY

DIV CCMM INSP £ STATE CAP! T

0 L

3 I ERRE SO 5 750 1

( 6C 5 1 7

i 3 - 2 6 9 7

REG

TENNESSEE

SHELBY CCUNTY

ADAMS » PEGGY H CHIEF SEALER

BUCKS CTY CONSUMER PROTECTION

BROAD AND UNION ST DOYLE STCWN PA 18901

(215! 3A3-74A2

'^CSEY

A L

SEWER'

VERN°N L SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT

5 14 JEFFERSON

3 T

N 3 513 5 (901) 528-3456

326
VIRGINIA

TEXAS

STATE

STATE ESKEW, HERB CHIEF ME TR CL CG I ST ST OF TEXAS TEXAS DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

119 CUMBERLAND RO AUSTIN TX 78704

(512) 475-3720

FORESTER, CHARLES E SUPERVISOR

TX DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

PO BOX 12847 AUSTIN TX 78711

(512) 475-6577

SANTOS, CHRISTI ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN

TEXAS DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

PO BOX 12847 AUSTIN TX 78711

(512) 475-6577

CITY: DALLAS BLACKWOOD, JAMES C ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

DEPT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

1500 W MOCKINGBIRD RM A-19 DALLAS TX 75235

(214) 670-6414

CITY: FCRT WORTH

BOWERS. JAMES P WEIGHING EQUIPMENT SUPERVISOR

VA DEPT TRANSPORTATION £ HWYS

1221 BROAD STREET RICHMOND VA 23219

(804) 786-6785

LYLES

-'III

. JAMES F CHIEF VIRGINIA WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

P 0 BOX 1163 ROOM 403 RICHMOND VA 23209

(8C4) 786-2476 MUSSER, R E REGIONAL SUPERVISOR

VIRGINIA WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

P C BOX 1163 ROOM 403 RICHMOND VA 23209

(804) 786-2476

SOUTHALL, BILLY W VIRGINIA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

1100 BANK ST RICHMOND VA 23219

(804) 786-3534

WASHI NGTON

UTAH

WATSON, DAVID CONSUMER PRODUCTS SUPERVISOR

CITY OF FORT WORTH TEXAS

1800 UNIVERSITY RCCM 208 FORT WCRTH TX 761C7

(817) 870-7572

STATE STEPHENS, EDISON J DIRECTOR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

MOTOR FUEL TESTING £ MARKET LC

350 NORTH REDWOOD ROAD

SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116

(801) 533-5421

CITY: SEATTLE SULLIVAN, WILLIAM C SUPERVISOR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

DEPT LICENSES £ CONSUMER AFFPS

102 MUNICIPAL BLDG SEATTLE WA 98104

(206) 625-2717

CITY: SPOKANE ALLEN^ GILBERT R CITY OF SPOKANE

WEST 808 SPOKANE FALLS BLVD SPOKANE WA 992C1

(509) 456-4306

WEST VIRGINIA

STATE VERMONT

STATE BRINK, TR AFFORD F DIP WTS £ ME AS £ RETAIL IMSP VERMONT DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

116 STATE ST MONTPELIER VT 05602

(802) 828-2436 CIOFFI. RAYMOND P ME TRCLCG I ST DIVISION OF WEIGHTS AND MEAS

116 STATE ST MONTPELIER VT 05602

(802) 828-2436

HOWARD. ROBERT L WEIGHTS-MEASURES-RETAIL INSP VERMONT DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

STAR ROUTE WAITSFIELD VT 05673

(802) 496-3945

BARKER, LAWRENCE COMMISSIONER

WV DEPT OF LABOR

1900 WASHINGTON ST EAST CHARLESTON WV 25305

(304) 348-7890 BUTCHER, KENNETH S DIRECTOR

DIV OF CONSUMER PROTECTION

DEPT OF LABOR CHARLESTON WV 25305

(304) 348-7890 WISCONSIN

STATE PROBST, ROBERT W SUPERVISOR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

WI DEPT AGRI TRADE CONSUMER PR 801 W BADGER RD-BCX 8911 MADISON WI 53708

(608) 266-7241

327
I l nf- , _1.» ; ' 1

s;-liC*ri> *: 52:1:

: II- E " • E " r

3t- z N : 5 £ CI*'3

: 5 5 r ~ - : r I r

- - - • :: - ; e: : :€mt

2 : : 3-= -5

1 . _ i :

i._ *E" : : : . i.« E

: : : : •

JQWSIOI.. JO-M i -" he :

- - 5 - - : r

I E

1"* 1 5+ 2- 12 -I
TURNER, A LEE EXECUTIVE STAFF REPRESENTATIVE

COCA CCLA CO

PO DRAWER 1734 ATLANTA GA 30301

(40*) 898-2623

APPELL i KENNETH C DIRECTOR-QUALITY ASSURANCE COLGATE PALMCLIVE CO

300 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10022

(212) 310-2022

PICTON, C THOMAS SYSTEM SUPERVISOR SCALE INSPEC CONRAIL

6 PENN CENTER ROOM 163* PHILADELPHIA PA 19104

(215) 977-1617

BURGER, GERALD R FOSSIL FUELS SPECIALIST CONSUMERS POWER CO 19*5 W PARNALL RD JACKSON MI 49201

(517) 788-0114

HARSHMAN, JACK MANAGER PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

DANIEL INDUSTRIES INC

PO BOX 19097 HOUSTON TX 77024

(713) 827-5131

LEE i CLYDE E ENGINEERING CONSULTANT

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

ECJ 6.900 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN TX 78712

(512) 471-4379

MURRAY, L E CHIEF ENGINEER DRESSER INDUSTRIES INC 124 W COLLEGE AVE PO BOX 1859 SALISBURY MD 21801

(301) 546-6600

LODGE, HARVEY M VICE PRESIDENT-SALES

DUNBAR MANUFACTURING INC 307 BROADWAY

SWANTCN OH 43558

(419) 244-3021 DOUGLASS. KEVIN M SALES MANAGER EASTERN POLYOLEFINS-SUNBELT PL 315 PECK ST NEW HAVEN CT 06525

(203) 787-2600

STEWART, WILLIAM C ENGINEERING SERVICES COORD

EXXON COMPANY USA 38719

P 0 BOX 4388 HOUSTON TX 77210

(713) 656-6170

HURLEY, DICK MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIV COLT IN 711 EAST ST JCHNSBURY PD

ST JOHNSBURY VT 05819

(802) 748-5111 X349 HAMMER » KENNETH F PRESIDENT FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIVISIGN

COLT INDUSTRIES

ST JOHNSBURY VT 05819

(802) 748-5111 X300 ANDREWS, GEORGE C EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT

FERRANTI INDIANA INC 4211 ENGLE ROAD

FT WAYNE IN 46804

(219) 432-4214

WEARY, SHERCN E DIRECTOR TECHNOLOGY AND DATA FLEXIBLE PACKAGING ASSOCIATION

109C VERMONT AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20005

(202) 842-3880 REENSTRA, ARTHUR L DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

FRANKLIN ELECTRIC CO PACK/WHG

PO BOX 666 LEVI TTOWN PA 19058

(215) 949-2400 X63 O'NEIL, BILL

GAS TOWN 23660 MILES AVE BEDFORD HEIGHTS OH 44128

(2161 475-9212

CALL I HAN, RCBERT E VICE PRESIDENT £ GENERAL MGR GENERAL ELECTRODYNAMICS CORP

P C BCX 15008 ARLINGTON TX 76015

(8171 572-0366 X220 WALZER, HARVEY A MANAGER CORP QUALITY ASSURANCE GENERAL FOOOS CORPORATION

250 NORTH ST WHITE PLAINS NY 10625

(914) 335-5515

NELSON, RCBERT L MGR PHYSICAL TESTING-BAKING SE GENERAL MILLS INC 9000 PLYMOUTH AVE N MINNEAPOLIS MN 55427

(612) 540-2729

TULLIEP, A S GETTY REFINING £ MARKETING CO 1437 S BOULDER BOX 1650 TULSA CK 74102

(913) 560-6981

KROLL, ART AUTHORITIES € STANDARDS GP LDR GILBARCC INC 7300 W FRIENDLY AVE GREENSBORO NC 27420

(919) 292-3011 X255 PARENT, CLAUDE R DIRECTOR-NATIONAL ACCOUNTS GILBARCO REGIONAL CENTER

9820 KITTY LANE OAKLAND CA 94603

(415) 43C-9487

HOPKINS, LARRY K ELECTRICAL ENGINEER GOLDEN RECYCLE CO 3000 YCUNGF I ELD SUITE 230 LAKEWOCD CO 80215

(303) 277-5794

ODAY, DAVID M PRODUCT MGR MECH RECYCLING DEV GOLDEN RECYCLE COMPANY

3000 YCUNGF I EL D ST SUITE 230 LAKEWOCD CO 80215

(303) 277-5771

BERKE, LAWRENCE C SR DIRECTOR

GULL INC 395 OSER AVE SMITHTOWN NY 11787

(516) 231-3737 MOONEY » LERCY E PLANT MANAGER HENDRIES INC

131 ELIOT ST MILTON MA C2187

(617) 696-7606

329
iGLE, DCSALD 5 QUALITY ASSURANCE HENDSIES ISC

131 E L I C

T ST

W ILTCS «i C21S7

(617) 696-7600

lANAGEf RAINES, 3RIAN W CCS=>C=ATE 2 A w A S A 3 E 5 lawpy* s foods i sc 57C * AVENUE 26 LC5 ANGELES CA 90065

(213) 225-2491 K361

L * N

A NO ASS DC I AT

:

ST N* SjITE • TON DC 20037

IRACK. JA«ES A LEHlih .'ALLEY -EI3HIN3 SYSTEMS

551 *CCD AVENUE

5- T - = A 13014

<ATTE= -= I S- I

C

J

, F==0 H 2rB«pf

R rr^ 4CYi' 5£S

'IGN 3 ° LICY

3:! ; ^ Pf03E AVENUE

T=CY 3H 45374

(513) 235-7171

AQUADRC, JOHN r VICE PRESIDENT ISDU5TC IAL 01 HCrE RICHARDSON

680 VAN -CUT EN AVE CLIFTCN SJ 07015

(201) 471-3400 X243 <LCDS, CHI? SECTICS_HE ' ~

- " L _ 7-ST «ESSOS FCCOS ISC 1645 * VALENCIA FJLLE C TCS CA G2633

( ? I4) 6 3 0-1098 XI 09

3

3 = YD:

(714) 6 3 0-1096 X1C93

VOCN, DA»S H DI=ECTC = ?U3LIC AFFAIR

1ST ASSS ICE C==AM «F5 333 I6 T - ST Si,

" *AS* J IS3TCS DC 20006 *

"

1 I 202) ?96—425€

Y E - T

T S VIC. - INTERS

o n

2 50

r 'VICE PRESIDENTST GEN u 3 = INTER5A<E FOCDS ISC D

A

? 0 30X1286

FAI=FIELD SJ C7C06

(201) 3 5 2- 3500

r I TTE * 3LESS P VICE =>e ESI DENT ISTL ASSS IC C C= C AM *F

33 3 16T- S T \m

~

DAVIS. RIC-APD L ADMISIST5ATPC CEGULATrJ A E S RIVER-DlXIE/SCcf

SEESA- TECh C T 5 1915 m SEES Ah nl 5-95 6 (-14) 729-317^

GLYNN, JCHS D REGIONAL SALES "ASAGER

JCHS CHAT I LL ON £ SCSS

32 ELIZA5ET-. AVE

'"ESTFIELD «A 01035

(413) 563-7424

"ELOTT , DC.3LAS D KYJOSEN CORPORATION

:py div

ry : A 5 A

1 INC HCN

LOTT, DCoGLAS 0 KS jOSEN CC 53 ^!

231 EAS- 23=! S T LCS ANGELES C A 9 (213) 744-7-300

ICS

Oil

XEL, -EL. IS C CHIEF 0 c S I G N ENGINEER

li ;u:o ccntqcls cc=pcrat ion «AC<E- 2-

3 12) SEES IN

G

L

v N * C 0 D rA -5:3c

(206) 775-6471 ha==isgt:s, r:ee=t j supervisor ^eas^e^e'. t

3 c I S D L A Y CH ^55

(41=) 422-2121

jdhanscn, alf-ed

SEN IGfi COUNSEL HCKESSCN CC=P LAM 0 E 3 A 3 THEN T 155 EAST 44 ST SEW YCC* \Y ICQ 17 (212) 372-0232 X333

SEATTLE MA 93163

(236) 767-7433

-^jSHE£=, n A lT E ' DIP ^3-T SERVICES

m, c j T l E R T S * T R U

u F N

T ( 3DX fl -IG-TSTDrS SJ 05523

I6C91 443-33 3 3

MTERNTl

< J??ER

MAS; A5<=TIN3 3E- MENT CORP HIGHTSTCrN NJ 03520

(509) 443-3000

« V SE, GARY

DI S T = 13'wTI CN w A S A 3 E R

« I C H I 3 AN P E A t r c 2242 w lL c :-3 3 T HCUSTCN TX 7709 5 (713) 522-0711 CCLPITTS, DDSALD 3 FILLERS NATIONAL c EDE-i T ICS

5 3 . T E H 53X 1155 *0=LEY ID 3 3 376

(205) 656-1911

LEAHY, DAVID ? TEC-SI CAL CONSULTANT

<RC3ES CO

2 CAM33ELL DRIVE HIGHLAND HEIGHTS <Y 41076

(606) 572-2200

= CE«:<E, ST^ <rcGe= C0 W ?ANY

1212 STATE AVE CINCINNATI CH 45204

(513) 244-3660

K LEV AY, TC« DIRECTCR OF TECHNICAL A F F A IRS MILLERS SATICNAL FEDERATION

600 MARYLAND AVENUE SUITE 3 3 5

? T C

c AGRICULTURE

JEF^E=SCS CI T v m : 55102

(314) 751-2922

330
PETRELL I f JOSEPH A MGR MKTG OPERATIONS ENVIRONMT MOBIL OIL CORPORATION

3225 GALLOWS RO ROOM 4N004 FAIRFAX VA 22037

(703) 849-3730 BIDGOOD, THOMAS I EASTERN DIST SALES MGR MONSANTG CO

200 NORTH 8TH STREET

KEN I LWCRTH NJ 07033

(2011 276-2900 X256 WEAVER f HARRY B DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT ACTIVITY

MOTCR VEHICLE MANUF ASSN

300 NEfc CENTER BLDG DETROIT MI 48202

(313) 872-4311

MURPHY CARDINAL SCALE CO

1610 N C ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814

(9161 441-0178 BUTTERBAUGH, WILLIAM H ASST VICE PRES TECHNIC SERV NATIONAL LP-GAS ASSN

1301 WEST 22ND ST OAK BROOK IL 60521

(312) 986-4800

"' C mh d8l¥

P BE eATI0NS ATTORNEY

NATL MARINE MANUFACTURERS ASSN

401 N MICHIGAN AVE ROOM 2950 CHICAGO IL 60611

(312) 836-4747

POLITI, HENRY L PETROL MGMT SYSTMS-USG3

NCR

1700 S PATTERSON BLVD DAYTON CH 45479

(314) 991-0273

BRATLEt EDWARD

INDUSTRY STANDARDS 6 RELATIONS

NCR CGRPCRATION

WORLD HEADQUARTERS 4TH FLOOR DAYTON OH 45479 DIRECTOR INDUSTRY STDS £ REL

NCR CORPORATION

1700 S PATTERSON BLVD WHQ DAYTON OH 45479

(513) 445-1310

PAUGSTAT, JOHN F ENGINEERING €, MFG CAMBRIDGE

NCR CORPORATION

P 0 BOX 728 CAMBRIDGE CH 43725

(614) 679-2436

BAUMANN, JOHN S VICE PRESIDENT

NEW BRUNSWICK INTERNATIONAL

5 GREEK LANE EDISON NJ 08817

(201) 287-2288

RHOADS, AUSTIN T NORTHEAST ICE CREAM ASSN SUITE 213 9811 MALLARD DP LAUREL MD 20708

(301) 953-9117 "h

p

p

I'o!5u£t'

, Aan; a§E r

p ohaus scale co

29 hancver rcad florham park nj 07932

(2011 377-9000

COOK, CHARLES F OSCAR MAYER € CO 910 MAYER AVE MADISON WI 53704

(608) 344-6819 HELMICK, RAYMOND H MANAGER-WEIGHING SYSTEMS PEABODY COAL CO ARIZONA DIV 1638 E CINNABAR AVE PHOENIX AZ 85020

(602) 943-3837

HOCKMUTH. RICHARD L MECHANICAL PRODUCTS ENGR MGR PETROLEUM METER & PUMP CO INC 25 SECURITY DRIVE POB 422 AVON CT 06001

(2031 677-9656

JACKSON, WILLIAM C MARKETING ENG SERV COORD PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO

752 ADAMS BUILDING BARTLESVILLE OK 74004

(918) 661-7011

SOUZA, CLIFF A PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO

754 ADAMS BLDG BARTLESVILLE OK 74004

(918) 661-7010

FAULCONER, HAL M PRINCIPAL TECH REPRESENTATIVE

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY

SENECA BLDG BARTLESVILLE OK 74004

(918) 661-6334

FREYFR, RCNALD

MANAGER QUALITY GROCERY PILLSBURY COMPANY

P I LLSBURY CENTER MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 TAUBERT, CARL A DTRECTGR QA TECHNICAL SERVICES PILLSBURY COMPANY-MS 9441

311 SECOND STREET S E MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414

(612) 330-4477

STURGES. MAX S MGR QUALITY ASSURANCE t FLAVOR POPSICLE INDUSTRIES INC 110 ROUTE 4 P G BOX 200 ENGLEWCOD NJ 07631

(201) 567-8500 LAMBERT, MARVIN A QUALITY CONTROL DIRECTOR

PRESTO PRODUCTS INC PC BOX 2399 APPLE TCN WI 54913

(414) 739-9471 X265 LECLAIRE JR. R08ERT A LABORATORY SERVICES DIRECTOR

PRESTO PRODUCTS INC

P 0 BOX 2399 APPLE TCN WI 54913

(414) 739-9471

BPAUN, WILLIAM H PACKAGING SECTION HEAD PROCTER £ GAMBLE 6100 CENTER HILL RD CINCINNATI OH 45224

(513) 659-5233

BELLIVEAU, ROBERT E ASSOCIATE MANAGER

PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY IVORYDALE TECHNICAL CENTER CINCINNATI OH 45217

(513) 763-5203

331
CAB kKC 8iR8f?S8E IySTEHS DEVELOP

PRCCTCR £ GAMBLE CO.

PO BOX 599 SPACE 8C-G0 CINCINNATI OH 45201

(513) 562-2721

T ° P QUALfTY°ASSUPANCE COMPLIANCE

QUAKER CATS CO JOHN STUART LAB 617 W MAIN ST BARRINGTCN IL 60010

(312) 381-1980

CHA

vi£e

P president of res £ devel RAMSEY ENGINEERING COMPANY

1853 W COUNTRY RC AD C ST PAUL MN 55113

(612) 633-5150

HALLBERG, DAVID E presi6ent/cec renewable fuels assoc

499 sc capitol st sw washington dc 20003

(202) 484-9320

ELENGO JR. JOHN J VICE PRESIDENT REVERE CCRPORATION OF AMERICA

845 N COLGNY RO P 0 BOX 56 WALLINGFORD CT 06492

(203) 269-7701

SH1 Kii ik£ii

D«lNAG6B REXNORD INC 45 GREAT VALLEY PARKWAY MALVERN PA 19355

(215) 647-7200

MERICLE. GERALD E Reynolds ALUMINUM

REYMET ROAD RICHMOND VA 23237

(804) 743-6757

^ A

*"R ICE* 'LAKE*"' BEARING INC

P 0 BOX 272-230 W COLEMAN ST RICE LAKE Wl 54868

(715) 234-9171

' in Slg^fo?8

B ^Jhlnclogy divn SAFEWAY STORES INC 430-A JACKSON ST OAKLAND CA 94660

(415) 891-325C

TONINI, DARYL E TECHNICAL DIRECTOR „ T . TTOIll SCALE MANUFACTURER ASSOCIATION

6802 POPLAR PLACE MCLEAN VA 22101

(703) 821-0622

BOCCHI, GREGORY J TECHNICAL ASSISTANT

SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSN

1133 15TH ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20005

(2C2) 429-9440

LLOYD, RAYMOND J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR .

. SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSN

1133 15TH ST N W WASHINGTON DC 20035

(202) 429-9440 ""SH&fcFMMlMTIONS INC 300 S PARK AVE POMCNA CA 91766

(714) 623-6711

LOYD JR. F JOE SUPERVISOR SCALES £ WEIGHING

SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD

500 WATEP ST RCOM 1010 JACKSONVILLE FL 32202

(904) 359-1024

WELLS, RAYMOND P VICE PRES - SALES SERAPH IN TEST MEASURE CO

30 INDEL AVE RANCOCAS NJ 08073

(609) 267-0922 FURBER, GEORGE R STAFF REPRESENTATIVE

SHELL CIL CO TWO SHELL PLAZA HOUSTON TX 77001

(713) 241-4950

SCHISSLER, D 0 MGR MEASUREMENT £ LOSS CONTROL

SHELL CIL CO

TWO SHELL PLAZA HOUSTON TX 77001

1713) 241-2346 MITCHELL, CHARLES W SR LOSS CONTROL REPRESENTATIVE

SHELL OIL COMPANY

TSP ROOM 1140 HOUSTON TX 77001

(713) 241-0455

VAN INWAGEN

STAFF

- n t CHARLES NGINEER

SHELL CIL COMPANY HOC MILAM PC BOX 31C5 HOUSTON TX 77001

(713) 241-1778

SWANSON, PHILIP E SR ENGINEER

SMITH METER INC 1602 WAGNER AVE ERIE PA 16514

(814) 899-0661 X268 KILCOYNE, MARY P DIRECTOR LEG £ REG INFO SOAP £ DETERGENT ASSN 475 PARK AVE S NEW YORK NY 10016

(212) 725-1262 X21 GRUBER JR. MARTIN R DIRECTOR OF SCALE TESTING

SOUTHERN WEIGHING £ INSP BU

151 ELLIS ST NE #306 ATLANTA GA 30303

(404) 659-9266 X266 BELUE, F MICHAEL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPT SOUTHWEST PUMP COMPANY

PO DRAWER 280 BCNHAM TX 75418

(214) 583-3134 X47 CALDICCTT. JACK R VICE PRESIDENT

STREETEP AMET

155 WICKS ST GRAYSLAKE IL 60030

(312) 223-4801 SCHROEDER. MELVIN W MANAGER REGULATORY £ SAF SERV SU8UR8 AN PROPANE GAS CORP

P 0 BOX 206 WHIPPANY NJ 08807

(2011 887-5300 ROSFELDER, TERRY

SUN REFINING £ MARKETING

1801 MARKET ST PHILADELPHIA PA 19103

(215) 977-6502

332
MORROW t THCMAS L

R ANO D SUPERVISOR

TEC AMERICA INC 19250 VAN NESS AVE TORRANCE CA 90501

(213) 320-3900 X67 SCHAFFER, DENNIS

SCALE SERVICE COORDINATOR

TEC AMERICA INC 19250 VAN NESS AVE TORRANCE CA 90501

(213) 320-3900

BEPGER » GERALD J SALES MANAGER TECHET ICS INDUSTRIES

2180 CLD HIGHWAY 8 ST PAUL MN 55112

(612) 780-4880 MICHAELSON, EDGAR A MANAGER-DELIVERY EQUIP BRANCH TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER USPS

1524 ASP STREET P 0 BOX 1400 NORMAN CK 73070

(405) 325-1034 X235 HARTLEY SR. DAVID B ASST MGR QUALITY ASSURANCE

THE NESTLE CC INC 100 BLCOMINGDALE ROAD

WHITE PLAINS NY 10605

(914) 682-6857

YOUNG » JCHN C ASSISTANT/GENERAL COUNSEL

THOMAS J LIPTON INC 800 SYLVAN AVE ENGLEWOCO CLIFFS NJ 07632 GERDOM JR. WALTER F MANAGER- TECHNICAL SERVICES TOKHEIM CORPORATION

P 0 BCX 360 FORT WAYNE IN 463C1

(219) 423-2552 X316 TUCKER, RICHAPD

ASST MANAGER CUSTOMER SERVICE TOKHEIM CORPORATION

1602 WABASH AVE FORT WAYNE IN 46801

(219) 423-2552

STABLER, THOMAS M MANAGER-WTS AND MEAS TOLEDO SCALE

P 0 BOX 658 WOPTHI NGTON CH 43085

(614) 438-4548

PERINO, PETER R PRESIDENT TRANSDUCERS INC 14030 8CLSA LANE CERRITCS CA 90701

(714) 739-1991 GRIFFIN, SCOTT MANAGER CONSUMER PRODUCTS RES

U S BORAX RESEARCH CORP

412 CRESCENT WAY ANAHEIM CA 92801

(714) 774-2670

HUELL INGHORST . THOM ENGINEERING MANAGER UNIDYNAMICS/ST LOUIS INC 1326 ASHBY RD

ST LOUIS MO 63132

(314) 991-0240

ROGERS. ALAN F MANAGER QUALITY ASSURANCE

UNICN CARBIDE H & A DIVISION

88 LONG HILL STREET

EAST HARTFCRD CT 06108

(203) 728-6086 X350

KITCHEN, C E OPERATICNS ENGINEER

UNION CIL OF CALIFORNIA

P 0 BCX 7600 LOS ANGELES CA 90051

(213) 977-6108

MANN, JOHN M SENIOR COUNSEL

US BORAX

3075 WILSHIRE BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90010

(213) 381-5311 X1534

ITO, THOMAS

US TOBACCO CC

100 WEST PUTNAM AVE GREENWICH CT 06830

(203) 661-1100

HALVER SON , JCHN C DEPUTY DIR STANDARDIZATION USDA-FEDERAL GRAIN INSP SERV BLDG 221 P ICHARD-GABAUR AFB GRANDVIEW MO 64030

(816) 348-2484

EVANS, ALFRED C VICE PRESIDENT ENGINEERING VEEDER-ROCT CO

70 SARGEANT ST HARTFCRD CT 06102

(203) 527-7201 LOMBAPOO. PHILLIP J MGR ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT VEEDER-ROCT CO

70 SARGEANT ST HARTFORD CT 061C2

(203) 527-7201

RAY, B D VICE PRESIDENT ENGINEERING

VINCE HAGAN CO

PO BCX 225141 DALLAS TX 75265

(214) 339-7194

WARP. HARCLD G WARP 8RCTHERS

4647 WEST AUGUSTA BLVD CHICAGC IL 60651

(312) 261-5200

CRE^L^_D AN I EL J PRESIDENT WEIGHING L CONTROL SYSTEMS INC

P 0 BCX 1483 BRANDCN FL 33511

(813) 681-5733 CHRISTIE JR. SAMUEL H RETIREO STATE SUPERINTENDENT

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

123 HILLCREST RD WARREN TWP NJ 07060

(201) 647-3267

•STATEDENNY. CHARLES J MGR CUSTOMER £ TECHNICAL SERV WILLIAM M WILSONS SONS INC

8 £ VALLEY FORGE RDS LANSDALE PA 19446

(215) 855-4631 X37

WILL^IA _ . ROBERT R WNER WILLIAMS PETROLEUM SVC € EQUIP

RR 6 BCX 328 BEMIDJI MN 56601

(218) 586-2038
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

BAPKLEY, KAREN L NATIONAL BUREAU CF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-24-01

BRICKENKAPP, CARROLL S PROGRAM MANAGER NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDAPDS

OFFICE OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2401

CAPINO, h AND

FISCAL ANALYST NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDAPDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3751 CAVAGNARO, CHARLES R DIRECTOR DIV CONSUMER EDUCATIO

N1009 PREMIER BLDG 1725 I ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20201

(202) 634-4345

CHAPWICK, NANCY C SECRETARY CW" NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDAPDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

1301) 921-2401

EDGERLY, DAVID E CHIEF CFC DOM £ I NTL MSMT STDS NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDAPDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3307

HASKO, STEPHEN ENGINEER NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDAPDS

OFFICE OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

1301) 921-2401 HEFFERNAN, ANN P CONFERENCE COORDINATOR

NATIONAL CCNFERFNCE CN W & M PC BOX 3137 GAITHFPSBURG M D 20878

(301) 921-3677

KIM, JOE ENGINEER

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDAPDS OFFICE CF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3677

KOENIG* JCAN A TECHNICAL COCRDI NATGR NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS OFFICE CF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(3011 921-2401

LACY, JOHN CHIEF SCALES £ WEIGHING BRANCH

USDA PACKERS OF STOCKYARDS ADM 14TH £ INDEPENDENCE WASHINGTON DC 20250

(202) 475-3209 MCCUTCHECN, JOHN W DEPUTY ADMINISTPATORY

US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

14TH ST £ INDEPENDENCE AVE WASHINGTON DC 20250

(202) 447-3521

OPPERMANN, HENRY V GEN PHYS SCI NATIONAL BUREAU CF STANDAPDS

OFFICE CF WTS 6 MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2401

PFORR, RICHARD R CHIEF-SCALES £ WEIGHING BRANCH

USDA EQUIPMENT BRANCH WEIGHING

SECTION ROOM 0631 SOUTH BLDG WASHINGTON DC 20250

(202) 382-1716

SMITH, RICHARD N TECHNICAL COORDINATOR

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

OFFICE OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3677

THOLEN, ALBERT D CHIEF CFF CF WEIGHTS £ MEASURE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2401

VADELUND, EPIC A SENIOR STANDARDS SPECIALIST

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3307

WAPNLGF, OTTO K MANAGER-TECHNICAL SERVICES NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS OFFICE OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2401

WARSHAW, STANLEY I CHIEF OFFICE PRODUCT STDS PCL NATIONAL BUREAU CF STANDAPDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3751

FOREIGN REGISTRANTS

BRU£!t.5S

B ! BTHIEF WTS AND MEASURES CONSUMER £ CORPORATE AFFAIRS OTTAWA CNT K 1 A 0C9 CANADA

DEMPSTER, C J GRAIN RESEARCH LABORATORY CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION

1404-3C3 MAIN ST WINNIPEG R3C 3G8 CANADA

HEILIK, JACOB REGIONA GRAVIMETP.IL SPECIALIST WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 201-260 ST MARY AVE WINNIPEG R3C 0M6 CANADA

HODS MA N , G F LEGAL METROLOGY EXECUTIVE

W £ T AVERY LTD SMETHWICK WARLEY WEST MIDLANDS B662LP ENGLAND

334
MISCELLANEOUS

BIRO, JAMES R BOX 194 BELLA BRIDGE R D RD *1 MEDFORO NJ 08C55

(609) 267-5520

CAUSGRCVEt H PENNY

R ET IREO/SEALER OF WTS £ MEAS

18 DAVIS ST NEW HAVEN CT 06515

(203) 387-4913 X32 KOSITSi FFANK A RETIRED INSP CUYAHOGA COUNTY

17500 OALEVIEW LAKEWCCD QH 44107

(216) 228-8839

MOSSBERG, WESLEY P 1637 EAST PALM DR COVINA CA 91724

(818) 332-9920

NOE, VINCENT

CITY SEALER

20 BROCKDALE RD STCUGHTON MA 02072

(617) 344-2341 PAINCHAUD, PHILLIP A CONSULTANT

1110 W DCPGTHY DR BREA CA 92621

(7141 529-6604

SCHCCK, HAPVEY PRODUCT ASSURANCES CONSULTING

P 0 DRAWER 130 HADDONFIELD NJ 08033

(609) 428-7236

STADOLNIK, EDWARD H 11 MCNTCALM AVE BRIGHTON MA 02135

(617) 254-5330

335
NBS-114A =»e .. z-s:

1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA REPORT NO. January 1985 SHEET See instructions; NBS/SP-684

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Report of the 69th National Conference on Weights and Measures 1984

5. AUTHOR(S) Albert D. Tholen, Louis E. Barbrow, Ann P. Heffernan, Editors

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION or other than NBS. see /nstructi'ons) NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State, ZIP) Same as in item 6 above.

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 26-27766

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual Summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here) The 69th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures was held

at the Westin Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts, during the week of July 29, 1984. Attendance totaled 396 (341 paid registrants and 55 guests) from forty-six (46) States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The theme of the meeting was "Transferring Tech- nology for Trade: A Team Effort." Adoption of a NCWM Constitution and By-laws and a new Scales Code were major actions

taken by the membership. The new Scales Code, which will be effective January 1, 1986, represented a significant advancement for device control. Other items addressed

included such issues as labeling of gasoline-alcohol blends and national type

eva 1 uat i on

.

Special meetings included those of the Task Force on Package Control, Metrolog i sts 1 Workshops, the Associate Membership Committee, the Scale Manufacturers Association,

the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, the State regional weights and measures associations, and OIML Pilot Secretariat 20 (Prepackaged Products). Reports by the several standing and annual committees of the Conference comprise the major portion of the publication. Also included are the addresses and technical papers delivered by Conference officials and other authorities from Government and industry.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons) legal metrology; specifications and tolerances: training; type evaluation; uniform

laws and regulations; weights and measures.

13. AVAILABILITY ~X Unlimited For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTI5

~7\ Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

I Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

339

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80
Technical Publications

Periodicals

Journal of Research—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad

range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic technology underlying

standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Bureau's

technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete citations to

all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non-NBS media. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and

technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide pro- gram coordinated by NBS under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published quarterly for NBS by

the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements are available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and perfor- mance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety

characteristics of building elements and systems. Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a

subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject

area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies. Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized re- quirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS aclministers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private

sector standardizing organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background

knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the official source of

information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented

by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations). NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by NBS

for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in paper copy or microfiche form.

NBS
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg. MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID NBS

PERMIT No. G195

C H H C4426 F'4°5 095

STANLEY I kAFSHA*

: [- ECTOR CFF CF PPCD S t NjS ^CL

NATIONAL 3U-EAU OF STANDARDS

3 A I T H r

: SE J?G 10 20899