N\sr

United States

Department of

Commerce

Technology

Administration

National

Institute of

Standards and

Technology

REPORT OF THE 8 1 ST

NATIONAL CONFERENCE

as adopted by the 81 st National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1996

1ST Special Qf¥^ Publication iJ\J\J

1996

Report of the 8 1 st

Notional Conference

on Weights and

Measures

Sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Attended by Officials from the Various States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives fronn U.S. Government, Industry, and Consumer Organizations

New Orleans, Louisiana - July 21 -25, 1 996

Editcr:

Ann H. Turner

NISI Office of Weigfits & Measures

Gaitnersburg, MD 20899

Gilbert M. Ugiansky, Ph.D., Chief

U.S. Department of Commerce

Michael Kantor, Secretary

Technology Administration

Mary L. Good, Under Secretary

National Institute of Standards and

Tectinology

Arati Prabhakar, Director

NIST on/;

Special Publication ^\J\J

October 1996
Abstract

TheSlst Annual Meeting ofthe National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held July 21 through 25, 1996,

at the Westin Canal Place, New Orleans, Louisiana. The theme ofthe meeting was "Sharing Information, Delivering Equity."

Reports by the standing and annual committees of the Conference comprise the major portion of this publication, along with

the addresses delivered by Conference officials and other authorities from government and industry.

Special meetings included those ofthe Metrology Subcommittee, the Associate Membership Committee, the Retired OfBcials

Committee, the Scale Manufacturers Association, the Meter Manufacturers Association, the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers

Association, the National Industrial Scale Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Industry Committee on

Packaging and Labeling, the regional weights and measures associations, and the National Association of State Departments

of Agriculture Weights and Measures Division.

Key words: grain moisture; legal metrology; meters; motor-fuel dispensers; safety; scales; specifications and tolerances;

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

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766.

Note: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; in this pubUcation, however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed as they were submitted and, therefore, may contain references to inch-pound units. Opinions expressed in non-NIST papers

are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Non-NIST speakers

are solely responsible for the content and quality of their material.

Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 906, 320 Pages (Nov. 1996)

CODEN: NSPUE2

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1996

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402-9325
Contents

Page

Abstract ii Past Chairmen of the Conference iv State Voting Representatives 1 Organization Chart 3

General Session

President's Address 8

Dr. Peter L. M. Heydemann, Director, Office of Technology Services Chairman's Address : 9

Charles A. Gardner, Director, Suffolk County, NY, Weights and Measures Honor Award Presentations 11 Special Recognition Awards 11

President's Award 12

President's Certificate 14

Standing Committee Reports

Report of the Executive Committee 15 Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee 125 Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances 165 Report of the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs 235

Metrology Report 283

Annual Committee Reports

Report of the Resolutions Committee 295

Report of the Nominating Committee 297

Report of the Auditing Committee 298

Treasurer's Report 299

New Chairman's Address 305

Barbara J. Bloch, Assistant Director, California Division of Measurement Standards

List of Participants 307

iii
Past Chairmen of the Conference

Conference Year Chairman

43rd 1958 J. P. McBride, MA

44th 1959 C. M. Fuller, CA

45th 1960 H. E. Crawford, FL

46th 1961 R. E. Meek, IN

47th 1962 Robert Williams, NY

48th 1963 C. H. Stender, SC

49th 1964 D. M. Tumbull, WA

50th 1965 V. D. Campbell, OH

51st 1966 J. F. True, KS

52nd 1967 J. E. Bowen, MA

53rd 1968 C. C. Morgan, IN

54th 1969 S. H. Christie, NJ

55th 1970 R. W. Searles, OH

56th 1971 M. Jennings, TN

57th 1972 E. H. Black, CA

58th 1973 George L. Johnson, KY

59th 1974 John H. Lewis, WA

60th 1975 Sydney D. Andrews, FL

61st 1976 Richard L. Thompson, MD

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux, CO

63rd 1978 James F. Lyles, VA

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila, OR

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent, TX

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik, MA

67th 1982 Edward C. Heffron, MI

6gth 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM

69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman, AR

70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfino, CA

71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI

72nd 1987 Frank C. Nagele, MI

73rd 1988 Darrell A. Guensler, CA

74di 1989 John J. Bartfai, NY

75th 1990 Fred A. Gerk, NM

76th 1991 N. David Smith, NC

77th 1992 Sidney A. Colbrook, IL

78th 1993 Allan M. Nelson, CT

79th 1994 Thomas F. Geiler, MA

80th 1995 James C. Truex, OH

iv
State Voting Representatives

The following designated State Representatives were present and voted on reports presented by the Conference standing and annual committees.

1996 STATE VOTING REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES

State Representative Alternate

Alabama Charles A. Bums, Jr. Larry Turberville

Alaska Aves Thompson None

American Samoa Silimusa Solomona None

Arizona Sharon Rhoades None

Arkansas Mike Hile billy w. aullivant

CaliTomia Darrell A. Guensler uarbara J. Blocn

Colorado None None

Connecticut Allan M. Nelson Michael Dynia

Delaware None None

District of Columbia None None

Honda Maxwell H. Gray Jack Y. Jeflries

Georgia Jerry Flanders Marvin Pound

Guam None None

Hawaii None None

Idaho James Boatman None

Uhnois bid Colbrook None

Indiana Larry J. Stump Charles b. Critzer

Iowa Jerry L, Bane Darryl L. Brown

Kansas Constantine V. Cotsoradis None

Kentucky Vicki VanHoose Danny Wilhs

Louisiana Melvin Lyons Ronald Harrell

Maine David E. Gagnon Stanley K. Miliary

Maryland Louis E. Straub M. Richard Shockley

Massachusetts Charles H. Carroll None

Michigan Mike Pinagel Tim White

Minnesota Michael F. Blacik None

Mississippi William r. blandge None

Missouri Roy Humphreys Dwain Snider

Montana Jack Kane None

Nebraska Steve Malone Richard Suiter

Nevada None None

New Hampshire Michael Grenier None

1
State Voting Representatives

1996 STATE VOTING REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES

State Representative Alternate

New Jersey Pasquale D'Errico None

New Mexico Gary D. West

I —

None

Ntw York Ross J. Andersen None

North Carolina N. David Smith Ron Murdock

North Dakota None None

Ohio Lewis R. Jones James Truex

Otiahoma Charles Carter None

Oregon George Shefcheck None

Pennsylvania Charles M. Bruckner A. Courtney YelJe

Puerto Rico Otilio Rodriguez Colon None

Rhode Island None None

South Carolina None None

South Dakota Michael Mehlhaff None

Tennessee Robert G. Williams Randy F. Jennings

Texas Ed Price James H. Eskew

Utah David 0. McKay None

Vermont Bruce Martell None

Virginia J. Alan Rogers G. Wes Diggs

Virgin Islands Archie Corbilt None

Washington Robert D. Arrington None

West Virginia Karl Angell, Jr. None

Wisconsin Alan Porter James Akey

Wyoming None None

2
Organization Chart

National Conference on Weights and Measures Organization Chart

1995-1996

Executive Committee and NTEP Board of Governors (BoG)

Chairman: C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

Chairman-Elect: B. Bloch, CA

Past Chair/BoG: J. Truex, OH

Treasurer: J. A. Rogers, VA

Members: B. Adams, MN (2) C. Carroll, MA (2) C. Fulmer, SC(1)

M. Gray, FL (3) R. Suiter, NE (3) A. Thompson, AK ( 1

)

President: A. Prabhakar, NIST Director Executive Secretary: G. Ugiansky, NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Technical Advisors: J. Koenig, NIST

S. Roussy, Canada (Executive Committee only) Associate Member

Representative: R. Davis, James River Corporation Conference

Coordinator: A. Turner, NIST

See Working Groups and Annual Committees to the Executive Committee after the Standing Committees.

hayvs & Regulations Committee Specifications & Tolerances Committee

Chairman: L. Straub, MD (1) Chairman: G. West(l)

Members: K. Angell, WV (4) Members: D. Brown, lA (4) R. Gunja, Kansas City, KS (3) M. Hopper, CA (5)

S. Millay, ME (2) R. Murdock, NC (3)

S. Morrison, CA (5) A. Nelson (2) NIST Technical NIST Technical

Advisors: K. Butcher Advisors: T. Butcher

T. Coleman J. Williams

Canadian Tech. Canadian Tech.

Advisors: G. Vinet Advisor: R. Marceau, Canada

G. Jorowski

Associate Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices

Member Rep.:J. Colman, Idaho Retail Grocers Assn. Working Group

Chair: C. Skonberg, United Parcel Service Petroleum Subcommittee Technical Chairman & Advisor: N. Dupuis-D6sormeaux, Canada

Technical

Advisor: R. Jennings, TN

NIST Handbook 133 Working Group

Chairman: B. Bloch, CA

Technical

Advisor: K. Butcher. NIST

3
President's Address

Administration & Public Afiairs Committee

Chairman: B. DeSalvo, 0H(1)

Members: R. Greek, San Luis Obispo Co., CA (4) N. Kranker, Dutchess Co., NY (5) B. Martell, VT (3)

E. Price, TX (2) NIST Technical

>

Advisor: J. Mindte

Associate Member Rep.:C. Guay, Procter & Gamble

NCWM Safety

Liaison: C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

Program Evaluation Work Group

Chairman: D. Guensler, CA A. Nelson, CT

Members: M. Belue, Belue Associates E. Price, TX

S. Colbrook, IL W. Corey, American Frozen Foods

K. Fraley, OK S. Malone, NE

R. St. John, PA Food Merchants Association G. Vinet, Canada

R. Williams, TN

Technical

Advisor: D. Ripley, NIST

Strategic Planning Subcommittee Nominating Committee

Chairman: J. Truex, OH

T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA Members: o. COlDroOK, IL N. D. Smith, NC T. Geiler, MA

A. Nelson, CT

K. Simila, OR

N. David Smith, NC

S. Rhoades, AZ

Budget Review Committee Auditing Committee

Chairman: C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY Chairman: R. Kalentkowski, CT(1)

Members: D. English, Measurement Members: M. Hopper, Kern Co., CA (2) Systems International (3) R. Philmon, IL (3) D. Guensler, CA (2) R. Williams, TN (3) H. Lodge, Cargotec Inc (1)

S. Malone, NE (4) Coordinator: A. Turner, NIST

G. Ugiansky, NIST

Coordinator: A. Turner, NIST

Credentials Committee Resolutions Committee

Chairman: C. Insalaco, Chairman: Fresno Co., CA (2) Members: J. Bane, lA (2) Members: A. McCoy. OH (2) I.Hile, AR.(3)

M. Coyne, Brockton, MA (3) V. Massey, Shelby Co., TN (3) C. Pittman, TN (3) Coordinator: J. Mindte, NIST J. Silvestro, Gloucester Co., NJ (3) D. Wallace, CO (2)

Coordinator: J. Mindte, NIST

4
Organization Chart

Other Appointed Officers

II Other Elected Officers U Parliamentariin: Vice

B. Adams, MN Chairmen: M. Blacik, MN

Chaplain: J. M. Hile, AR C. Carroll, MA

Assistant Tressurer: V. L. Massey, Shelby Co., TN

F. Clem, Columbus, OH S. Rhoades, AZ

Sergeants-At-Anns: I. Lawson, LA

C. Shivor, LA

Associate Membership Committee

Chairman: R. Davis, James River Corp.

Vice Chair: J. Colman, Idaho Retail Grocers Assn.

SecretarvV Treasurer: P. Zalon, Nestle Members: W. Braun, WHB Resources

R, Fuehne, Ralston Purina

C. Guay, Procter & Gamble

G. Prince, The Kroger Company

F. Holland, Schlumberger Technologies

D. Quinru Fairbanks Scales

5
President's Address

National Type Evaluation Program

Technical Committee

Weighing Sector Measuring Sector

Chair: N. Mills, Hobart Corporation Chair: N. Alston, Daniei Flow Products, Technical Incorporated Advisor: T. Butcher, NIST Technical

Public Advisor: J. Williams, NIST

Members: R. Andersen, NY Public Sector A. Buie, MD Members: R. Andersen, NY

G. W. Diggs, VA T. Butcher, NIST

D. Guensler, CA D. Guensler, CA

R. Marceau, Canada J. Jeffries, FL

P. Peterson, GIPSA S. Malone, NE

R. Pforr, GIPSA R. Marceau, Canada

J. Truex, OH R. Murdock, NC

0. Wamlof, NIST 0. Wamlof, NIST

K. Yee, NIST W. West, OH

Private Sector R. Wotthlie, MD

Members: M. Adams, Fairbanks Scales Private Sector

J. Anlkowiak, Hottinger Baldwin Members: F. M. Belue, Belue Associates Measurements R. Fonger, Bennett Pump

L. Bunow, Sensortronics M. Hankel, Liquid Controls

L. Cemy, Association of American F. Holland, Schlumberger

Railroads Technologies

J. Elengo, Contractor R. Huff, Universal Epsco

D. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, Inc. D. Joines, Wayne Div., Dresser Ind. W. GeMeiner, Union Pacific RR G. Johnson, Gilbarco W. Goodpaster, Cardinal/Detecto M. Keilty, Micro Motion, Inc. K. Haker, BLH Electronics D. Krueger, NCR Corp. D. Hawkins, Thurman Scale C. Mohr, Shell Oil Company/API

D. Krueger, AT&T J. Skuce, Smith Meter, Inc. G. Lameris, Hobart Corporation D. Smith, Gasboy International, Inc. H. Lockery, Lockery Assoc. R. Tucker, Tokhcim Corporation

T. Luna, Scales Unlimited, Inc. K. White, Brooks Instrument Div.

J. MacDonald, Chronos Richardson V. Pandit, Allegany Technology, Inc.

J. Reimer, Weigh-Tronix Inc. D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Assn.

J. Wang, A&D Engineering, Inc.

Automatic Weighing Systems Working Group

Chair: D. Johannes, CA

Technical

Advisor: C. Cotsoradis, NIST

6
Organization Chart

Belt Conveyor Scales Sector Grain Moisture Meter Sector and Near Infrared

Protein Analyzer Sector

Chair: N. Johnson, Merrick Corporation Chair: Vacant

Technical Technical Advisor:

Advisor: C. Cotsoradis, NIST J. W. Barber,- J B Associates

Public Public Members:

Members: A. Buie, MD Canadian Grain Commission

T. Butcher, NIST R. Bums, AR

S. Cook, CA D. Funk, GIPSA

R. Miller, CO G. D. Lee, NIST

L. Turberviile, AL D. Onwiler, NE

0. Wamlof, NIST R. Pierce, GIPSA

Private Sector J. Rothleder, CA

Members: W. Brasher, Southern Co. Services, Inc C. Tew, NC

G. Burger, Consultant R. Wittenberger, MO

L. Burrow, Sensortronics R. Wotthlie, MD

Private Sector

L. Cemy, Association of Members: J. Bair, Millers National Federation American Railroads A. Butler, Perten Instruments

P. Chase, Chase Technology, Inc. M. Emori, Kett Electric Laboratoty*

D. Cockrell, Consultant M. Hall, Sartorius Instruments

R. DeSoUar, Central Illinois C. Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State Public Service Company University R. Dietrich, Kaskaskia Valley Scale D. Kaminsky, Zehex, Inc.

S. Hawkins, ABC Scale J. McClenethan, Growmark, Inc. T. Johnson, Sensortronics T. O'Connor, National Grain &

K. Knapp, Milltronics Feed Association

F. Joe Loyd, CSX Transportation A. Pflug, CSC Scientific*

J. Oliver, Virginia Power T. Runyon, Seedboro Equipment

N. Ortyl, III, Dresser Industries F. Seeber, Shore Sales Co., Grain

P. Sanford, Thayer Scale Elevator & I*rocessors Society D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers C. Watson, Stein Labs, Perstorp Association Analytical, Foss Foods

* (Grain Moisture Meter Sector only)

7
President's Address

President's Address

Dr. Peter L. M. Heydemann, Director of Technology Services, National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST), addressed the Conference July 23, 19%,

representing the NIST Director, Dr. Arati Prabhakar, who is also President of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Dr. Heydemann's speech, which was not recorded and was extemporaneous, focused on new initiatives in uniformity

both nationally and internationally.

8
Chairman's Address

Chairman's Address to the 81st Annual Meeting 1996

Presented by Charles A. Gardner, Director Weights and Measures, Suffolk, Co., NY

Commissioner Odom, Dr. Heydemann - on behalf of the Conference membership, I thank each of you for appearing before us today. Your remarks and your presence are greatly appreciated. To you and to all of my fellow members of the Conference, I welcome you

to our 81st Annual Meeting. It has been my privilege to represent you throughout the past year. I have traveled the countr/ bringing our message of "Sharing Information, Delivering Equity" to all those who are interested in our goal of providing equity in the marketplace.

I want to thank our Louisiana delegation - Ronnie Harrell, Mel Lyons, Fay, and all the rest of the staff who have been so helpful to us

as we planned this meeting. Their support has been terrific! As for the city of N'Orleans itself, the attendance figures for this meeting

speak volumes about the reaction of the membership to meeting here - we heard many times "N'Orleans? In July? Are you crazy??" Well, I guess a lot of us are - crazy about this great city anyway! It's been a great week and our reception here has been wonderful.

As 1 stood before you one very short year ^o, a big concern of many of us was how the change at the top in the Office of Weights and Measures was going to affect the Conference. Little did we know that in a couple of months, our concerns were going to be about the continued existence of NIST itself and the potential impact of that possibility on the future of the Conference. Well, we survived - we're here - we're strong - and we continue to grow. We did that because of the foundation that this group is built upon. I'll say it again... in my opinion, the best example, in the world of a collaboration of govemment/industry/consumer interests working together toward a common goal - equity in the marketplace.

As strong as we are, however, we need to continue our self-examination process - who we are, what we do, how we do it, and why we

are necessary. We need to get that message out not only to our customers but to ourselves as well. We have the vehicles in place to continue that process - I'm talking about the Program Evaluation Work Group and the long-range planning efforts by the Executive Committee. In the past year, we have seen the potential benefits to regulatory officials when information is shared. What we have

seen is truly only the tip of the iceberg. Our system of weights and measures regulations and enforcement will be enhanced and

strengthened by these efforts. The benefits will accrue to industry, consumers, and officials alike - only, however, if we use this information carefully and precisely. How this information is distributed, to whom, for what purpose, and in what form it is presented - these are critical considerations and important to the success of our programs. We need to develop policies that will serve our needs

while at the same time ensuring that unauthorized or inappropriate use of information is minimized. We also must not let our focus narrow so that information sharing is confined to devices or commodities tests. Where there are successful administrative programs, enforcement strategies, public relations programs, for example, we need to deliver that information to those who would need it. We must continue this year's increased pace of delivering training in all areas of weights and measures activities. We must activate the plan for the expenditure of the remaining grant funds. We must maximize the use of the OWM training funds while they last. We

must continue the delivery of training to lab personnel, initiate administrative training seminars, continue the train-the-trainer program, and ensure uniformity in application of standards and procedures. Equity can be delivered and uniformity achieved only by continued

training. We must be ready to respond to NIST if we are asked to assist in weights and measures training in other nations. We should be the international leaders. We should be the pace setters.

I believe that we should be ensuring the delivery of equity by concentrating more time and resources (I didn't say all!) on the final sale or delivery of commodities as opposed to the time-honored tradition of setting a goal of the inspection of all of the different device types in use in the marketplace. This is not a new concept and, in some places, there are already existing similar partial programs. I would rather see a program where only a certain sample number of devices are tested during a particular period of time

with the time that would have been spent testing all of the other devices reserved for test purchases, greater frequency of tests for "problem" locations, increased monitoring of UPC scanning systems - in short a concentration on how the devices are being used and

did the buyers get what they paid for? That's the bottom line, that's what we're all about - the details are important but the final result

is most telling. I believe that we can better measure the effectiveness of a program by the pass/fail results of test purchases, for

instance, as opposed to the pass/fail results of device inspections. Those inspection results still beg the question: did the buyers get what they paid for? I submit to you that many of our customers - our bosses, budget people, business people, consumers, etc. - would

also be more likely convinced of the effectiveness and the worth of our efforts by presenting to them the results of a program that was

focused on ensuring and proving that more people are in fact "getting what they paid for."

I am pleased by the assurances that we have received from Peter Heydemann, Stan Rasberry, and Bob Hebner of their intent concerning the continued support by NIST of the National Conference. The administrative support, technical guidance, publications

schedule, training opportunities, and overall flow of information are critical to our continued success. We appreciate the commitment.

I want to publicly acknowledge the support and help that I have received fi-om Jim Truex and Barbara Bloch. I thought that we were a

pretty fair team, if I do say so myself Jim was a tough act to follow. He was always available to answer questions and help out in any way possible, and 1 know that the Conference will enjoy and prosper under the tenure of Barbara Bloch - a true professional. Our

9
Chairman's Address

still active past chairmen were also a great help to me at different times throughout my tenure first as Chair-Elect and then, as Chairman - thanks DarreJl, David, Sid, AJJan and Tom. Joan Koenig was especiaily helpM in her role as advisor to the Executive Committee, and Gil has ensured that OWM has been there for us, when and as we needed them.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the support of my county executive - Bob Gaffhey - allowing me to travel out and about the country as your representative. To my office staff back home in Suffolk County, my thanks for keeping the ship afloat in my absence.

To all of the membership of this great organization - thank you for the opportunity to serve. I hope that I lived up to your expectations

and, remember, bring back what you learned here, continue to be an active part, we need to hear from you. Thanks again!

!

10
HONOR AWARDS

Honor Awards

10 YEARS

Charles Carter Patrick Samuel Chappell Dean Ely

David English

Bob Fuehne

Max Gray

Paul Hadyka

Dan Kushnir

Marino

Sharon Rhoades

John Skuce

Richard Suiter

Billy Sullivant Chester Szyndrowski Aves Thompson

15 YEARS

Charles Carroll Robert Land

James Truex

20 YEARS

William Braun Chip Kloos

Thomas Geiler Daryl Tonini

25 YEARS

Merrill Thompson James Akey

Special Recognition Awards

The success of this Conference is the result of the dedication and hard work of many individual members. The work of tiie following

members was recognized at the general session for their contributions over the past years within their respective committees and for

their contributions to the National Conference in general.

Executive Committee

Carol Fuimer, State of South Carolina Aves Thompson, State of Alaska

Rene Magnan, Canada

Laws and Regulations Committee

Louis Straub, State of Maryland

Giles Vinet, Canada

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Gary West, State ofNew Mexico

Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Barbara DeSalvo, State of Ohio

Vice-Chairmen

Michael Blacik, State of Minnesota

Charles Carroll, State of Massachusetts Vernon Massey, Shelby County, TN

Sharon Rboades, State of Arizona

11
Honor Awards

Sergeants-at-Arms

Ike Lawson, District Supervisor, New Orleans, LA

Cecil Shivor, District Supervisor, Central Louisiana

Associate Membership Committee

The associate members have contributed immeasurably to the many achievements of the Conference, niost notably the development

and widespread acceptance of the National Type Evaluation Program, the National Training Program, and Handbooks 44, 130 and 133. Today, we have even more involvement with our business partners in such activities as the Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Sectors, Handbook 133 Working Group, Petroleum Subcommittee, Price Verification Work Group, and Multi-Dimension Measuring

Devices Working Group. A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to the Associate Membership from the NCWM, and the Administration and Public Affairs Committee presented the Associate Membership with a Certificate ofRecognition for the scholarships awarded to the States for training. Annual Committees

Budget Review Committee

Harvey Lodge, Cargotec, Inc.

Auditing Committee

Raymond Kaientkowslu, State of Connecticut

Nominating Committee

James Truex, State of Ohio

Sidney Colbrook, State of Illinois Thomas Geiler, Barnstable County, MA

Allan Nelson, State of Connecticut

Sharon Rhoades, State of Arizona

Kendrick Simila, State of Oregon

N. David Smith, State ofNorth Carolina

Special Service Award

A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to Ann H. Turner, Weights and Measures Coordinator, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, in recognition of her years of dedicated service to the NCWM and her tireless etTorts to plan, coordinate, and conduct

high quality meetings of the Conference and its committees.

President's Award

This was the eleventh annual presentation of the President's Award. This award is given for two levels of achievement:

1) A banner presented to those directors representing States that have 100 percent membership, both State and local -weights and

measures officials, in the National Conference on Weights and Measures for the first time in the membership year July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. Those States that repeat with 100 percent membership are awarded a streamer for their banner. A streamer is presented for each year the State qualifies.

2) The second level of the President's Award is a certificate presented to any State in which all of the weights and measures

officials from the State office are members of the Conference.

Awards For First Year Banner

The State of Kentucky received a banner for first year membership of all State weights and measures officials. Congratulations to the State of Kentucky.

Streamer Awards for the Third Year

The State of Nevada

The State of Tennessee

Streamer Awards For The Fourth Year

The Territory of The Virgin Islands

12
Honor Awards

Streamer Awards For The Fifth Year

The ConunonweaJth of Puerto Rico

The State of West Virginia

Streamer Awards for the Sixth Year

The State of Colorado

Streamer Awards for the Seventh Year

The State of Montana

The State of Oregon

The State of Utah

The State of Vermont The State of Washington -

The State of Wyoming

Streamer Awards For The Eighth Year

The State of Arizona

The State of Michigan

The State of New Hampshire

The State of Virginia

Streamer Awards for the Tenth Year

The State of Alaska

The State of Delaware

The State of Idaho

The State of Kansas

The State of New Mexico

The State of South Dakota

Streamer Awards for the Eleventh Year

The following two States have had 100 percent membership in the National Conference on Weights and Measures

for their States since the beginning of the award. These two States continue to participate 100 percent in the

membership program:

The State of Arkansas

and

The State of Nebraska

13
Honor Awards

President's Certificate

Eight States qualified for the President's Certificate with 100 percent of their State office staff members for the

1995-96 Conference year:

Second Year Award

State of Missouri

Third Year Award

State of Connecticut

Fourth Year Award

State of Massachusetts

Fifth Year Awards

State of Illinois State of Indiana

Seventh Year Awards

State of Maine

State of New York

State of Wisconsin

14
Executive Committee

Report of the Executive Committee and

National Type Evaluation Program Board of Governors

Charles A. Gardner, Chairman

Director, Weights and Measures

Suffolk Co., NY

James Truex, Chairman ofthe NTEP Board of Governors

Inspections Manager, Weights and Measures Ohio Department of Agriculture ~

100 Introduction

This is the Report of the Executive Committee and the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Board of Governors for

the 8] st Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The Report is based on the Interim

Report offered in NCWM Publication 16, Program and Committee Reports; the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual

Meeting; and actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session ofthe Annual Meeting.

The Report is divided into two parts: (1) management of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (items in the 101

Series) and (2) management ofNTEP (items in the 1 02 Series), as addressed by the Committee in its role as the NTEP Board

of Governors. Table A. which is an index of reference key items included in the report, lists the reference key number, title, and page nurnber for each item. Voting items are indicated with a "V" after the item number. An "I" denotes issues that are reported for information. Items marked with a "W" have been withdrawn. Table B lists the Appendices to the report, and

Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee's items and the report in entirety.

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

Part I - Executive Committee 18

1 0 J - 1 W Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Member Representative to Specifications and

Tolerances (S&T) Committee 18 101-2 I Constitution and Bylaws: Addition of Mission Statement and Need for Long-Range

Planning Group as a Permanent Part ofthe NCWM Organization 18 101-3 I Constitution and Bylaws: Duties of Officers 19 101-4 I Finances, TTeasuier's Report 19 101-5 I Finances, Auditing Committee 20

101-6 I Finances, Associate Membership Committee 20

101-7 I Finances, Use of NIST Grant to NCWM for Training 20

101-8 I Organization, Appointments, and Assignments, Status Report 20

101-9 1 Publications, Status Report 22

101-10 I Membership, Status Report , 25

101-11 I Meetings, Networking witli Other Associations 25

101-12 I Meetings, Annual and Interim, Future 25

101-13 I Program, OWM and NIST 26

101-14 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology 27

101-15 I U.S. -Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program Report 28

15
Executive Committee

Table A (Continued)

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

Part II - NTEP Board of Governors 29

102-1 A I OlML Certificate Project 29

102- IB I Mutual Recognition 29

102-2 I Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by the States 30

102-3 W NTEP Policy: Verification that Production Meets Type 32

102-4 V NTEP Policy: Examples of Appropriate Language to Use in Conjunction with the NTEP Name and Logo in Advertising and Brochures 33

102-5 I NTEP Policy: Separate CCs for Software 34

1 02-6 V NTEP Policy: Appointments to NTETC Sectors 35

102-7 W NTEP Policy: Remanufactured and Repaired Devices 37

102-8 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report 37

102-9 I NTETC Weighing, Measuring, and Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Reports 38

102-1 0 I NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and Near Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector Reports 38

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

A NCWM & NTEP Budgets for FY 1996 and 1997 101-4 39

B Composition ofNCWM Mailing List 101-10 54

C Report on OIML 101-12 55

D Draft of U.S./Netherlands Mutual Recognition

Agreement on Type Evaluation 102- IB 59

E Report ofthe U.S. Software Work Group 1 02-5 61 F NTEP Participating Laboratories Report 102-8 67

G NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary 102-9 69

H NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary 102-9 75

I NTETC Grain Moisture Sector Meeting Summaries 102-10 89

J NTETC Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Meter

Sector Meeting Summaries 102-10 113

16
Executive Committee

Table C

Voting Results

Reference

Key No.

House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

Results

102-4

102-6

100 (Report in its Entirety)

42 0

40 0

41 0

61

62

61

Passed

Passed

Passed

17
Executive Committee

Detail of Items

Part I - Executive Committee

101-1 W Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Member Representative to

Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee

(This item was withdrawn.)

This item was carried over from Item 101-3 from the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994, and Item 101-lD from the Report of

the 80th NCWM, 1995.

At the 1995 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NCWM membership adopted the Committee's recommendations to appoint

"Associate Member Representatives" (AMR) to the Executive, Laws and Regulations, and Administration and Public Affairs Standing Committees of the Conference on a trial basis. The appointment of an AMR to the Specifications and Tolerances

Committee was not recommended by either the Associate membership or the Executive Committee because there was

disagreement among the Associate members as to the desirability of such an appointment. The Scale Manufacturers

Association (SMA), the Gas Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA), the AMC, and other interested participants said they

would continue to evaluate and develop this proposal. At the Interim Meeting, the Chairman of the Associate Membership

Committee (AMC), Richard Davis, reported that AMC members could not reach a consensus on the item; consequently, the Executive Committee decided to withdraw it.

101-2 I Constitution and Bylaws: Addition of Mission Statement and Need for LongRange Planning Group as a Permanent Part of the NCWM Organization

This item was carried over from Item 101-4 from the Report ofthe 80th NCWM, 1995.

The Executive Committee is preparing a long-range plan for the NCWM, using the OWM long-range plan and reports ofthe Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century as resource materials. In addition, at the suggestion of the Scale Manufacturers

Association (SMA), the Committee will reconsider the "Recommendation For a Legal Mefrology Control System Applicable

to the United States," which SMA adopted and presented to the NCWM in 1978 (see the Report of the 64th NCWM, pages

58 to 87).

The initial step in the planning process was to conduct a "sfrategic planning session" attended by the Executive Committee.

Individuals selected to compose the long-range planning document were: Tom Geiler, Barnstable, MA, and N. David Smith,

NC. NIST Technology Services Deputy Director David Edgerly provided a planning facilitator, Mr. Richard Lefante, The

Lefante Group, for the first session. This meeting was held in Alexandria, VA, on March 23 and 24, 1995. At the meeting,

tlie Executive Committee began development of a long-range plan that includes a new mission statement.

The Committee had hoped to schedule a meeting with OWM staff and Standing Committee Chairmen prior to the Interim

Meeting to review current OWM projects in support of the NCWM and to begin to set priorities for those projects as a preliminary step to identifying fiiture objectives. Tentative plans for a meeting at the Southern Weights and Measures

Association's Annual Meeting were canceled when budgetary constraints made it impossible for OWM staff to attend.

The long-range planning process was resumed at the Interim Meeting. The Committee reviewed the following vision, values,

mission, and goals statements and decided to publish them for comment:

Vision

The National Conference on Weights and Measures will be the national and international leader in measurement standards development and legal metrology training. The Conference will provide a wide area information network for collection, retrieval, and dissemination of information related to weights and measures. An international training center will deliver professional training to all regulatory officials and industry representatives desiring training.

18
Executive Committee

Values

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is dedicated to a fair and equitable marketplace

free from trade barriers and is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards. The National

Conference on Weights and Measures stands for leadership in weights and measures issues, providing

quality service to its members, and promoting continuing quality weights and measures education.

The Conference is dedicated to providing a forum for all points of view and to ensuring open

communications, open deliberations, and preserving a democratic consensus-based decision making

process.

Mission _

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is a standards development organization

comprised of uidivkluals and associations representing government, industry, and consumer interests. The Conference provides an inclusionary forum to promote a fair and equitable marketplace for

anyone involved in buying and selling goods or services by weight or measure.

Goals

I. Enhance the National Conference od Weights and Measures as a national and international resource for standards development

n. Establish a Professional Development Program for industry and government officials.

in. Develop alternatives for the delivery of weights and measures services.

IV. Become an international leader in Legal Metrology.

At tfie Annua] Meeting, the Committee received an update from the co-chairman ofthe Long-Range Planning Subcommittee,

who recommended a special meeting of the full Executive Committee to review the proposed Vision, Values, Mission, and

Goals of the Conference. The Committee agreed with the recommendation and tentatively scheduled such a meeting for the

fall of 1996.

Further, the Committee received a revised Legal Metrology Control Plan from the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA).

This plan was originally reviewed and endorsed by the Conference in 1978. The SMA proposed and the Committee agreed

that much, if not all, of the plan is still relevant to tlie needs of the Conference. The Committee intends to publish the Plan

in its next Interim Meeting Agenda for review and comment,

101-3 I Constitution and Bylaws: Duties of Officers

This item was carried over from Item 101-5 of the Report of the 80th NCWM, 1995.

During the 1996 Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed a draft revision of the Constitution and Bylaws (NCWM

Publication 1) that included policies related to the management of the NCWM that had been adopted by the Conference over

the last 10 years. Some of these policies had been reprinted in NCWM Publication 3, NCWM Policy, Interpretations, and

Guidelines, but others had only been published in the Conference reports. It became obvious as the Committee went through

the Constitution and Bylaws that other changes are needed besides adding a policy section. The Committee is continuing its review of Publication 1 witli the intent of proposing several revisions next year.

101-4 I Finances, Treasurer's Report

NCWM Treasurer J. Alan Rogers presented a report on the Conference's finances to the Executive Committee at the Interim Meeting (see the separate Treasurer's Report for more information). The 1 996 NCWM and National Type Evaluation Program

budgets are shown in Appendix A.

At the Annual Meetmg, the proposal of the Budget Review Committee for the 1997 Operating Budget was reviewed and

accepted by the Executive Committee. (See Appendix A for the 1997 budget.)

19
Executive Committee

101-5 I Finances, Auditing Committee

The actual income and expenses for 1996 were reviewed by the Auditing Committee at the Interim Meeting. Auditing

Committee member Monty Hopper, reporting for Chairman Ray Kalentkowski, told the Executive Committee that the Conference's books were in order. (See the Auditing Committee's report.)

101-6 I Finances, Associate Membership Committee

A status repor was given by AMC Chairman Richard L. Davis. He confirmed that all 20 ofthe training scholarships of $500

dollars each -Jiat were made available by the AMC for the 1995-96 membership year had been awarded. (See the Administration and Public Affairs Committee agenda for further details.) He announced that the AMC was planning to use

its funds next fiscal year to sponsor seminars on dealing with the media in all four regions, pending approval of the proposal

by tlie AMC membership next July.

101-7 I Finances, Use of NIST Grant to NCWM for Training

Funds remaining from the second grant from NIST to the NCWM for the development of training materials total $95,884.28.

Because of the recent success of the OWM-sponsored instructor classes on NIST Handbook 133, it has been suggested that some of the remaining grant funds might be used to pay the costs of holding training classes for frainers, including participant expenses. Tv/o Handbook 1 33 classes were held tn 1995. NIST paid all costs for the classes and all participant expenses.

In return, participants promised to go back to their jurisdictions and conduct similar training. A total of 40 individuals were

trained in the two classes. By January 1996, the 20 participants in the first class had provided more than 700 weights and measures and industry officials with Handbook 133 training. (Figures were not available for the number trained by the individuals in the second class.) Many others could benefit from Handbook 133 training and other trainer fraining classes; however, the resources to pay for such classes are not currently available. The NCWM's training grant from NIST is currently

limited to developing training materials for weights and measures officials.

At the Interim Meeting, the Committee discussed the possibility of using the grant funds to continue the classes for instructors. In addition, the Administration and Public Affairs (A&P) Committee asked the Executive Committee to request an expansion

of the scope of the NIST grant so that they could use the remaining funds not only to update Examination Procedure Outlines

and current fraining programs but to sponsor additional classes for instructors. The Executive Committee agreed to request an amendmen: to the scope ofthe NIST grant.

The A&P Committee also presented a proposal to the Executive Committee to establish a pilot public information officer project in 1997. The project would involve the hiring of a part-time public information officer for a year to implement an ongoing national public relations effort (see the A&P Committee Report Item 405-3). The cost ofthe project was estimated

to be $20,000. Executive Committee members heard the proposal and raised some questions about it; however, they did not

take any action on it.

At the Annual Meeting, it was reported that the Executive Committee's request for a change in the scope ofthe grant had been

approved. Based on that approval, the Executive Committee met with the A&P Committee to discuss the mission, goals, and

objectives of -Jie A&P Committee. The Executive Committee charged the A&P Committee with developing a plan to use the grant funds for tlie purposes oftraining in weights and measures activities. The Executive Committee decided not to fund the part-time public information officer project.

101-8 I Organization, Appointments, and Assignments, Status Report

Chairman Gardner presented a review ofhis appointments since the 1995 Annual Meeting. His appointments include:

To the Executive Committee: To the Laws and Regulations Committee:

Charles Carroll, MA, 3 years Stephen Morrison, San Luis Obispo Co., CA, 5 years Richard Davis, James River Corporation, Jennifer Colman, Idaho Retail Grocers Association,

Associate Member Representative Associate Member Representative

Strategic Planning Subcommittee Co-Chairs: To the Petroleum Subcommittee:

Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, MA Ross Andersen, NY

N. David Smith, NC Randy Jennings, TN, Chairman

20
Executive Committee

David Lazier, CA

RogCT Leisenring, Texaco, Inc.

To the Specifications and Tolerances Committee:

Monty Hopper, Kern Co., CA, 5 years Allan Nelson, CT, 2 years

To the Administration and Public Affairs Committee:

Nelson Kranker, Dutchess Co., NY, 5 years Christopher Quay, Procter & Gamble, Associate

Member Representative

To the Resolutions Committee:

J. Michael Hile, AR, 3 years Vernon Massey, Shelby Co., TN, 3 years Joe Silvestro, Gloucester, NJ, 3 years Cathryn Pittman, TN, 3 years

To the Nominating Committee:

Sidney Colbrook, IL, 1 year Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, MA, 1 year

Allan Nelson, CT, 1 year

Sharon Rhoades, AZ, 1 year Kendrick Simila, OR, 1 year N. David Smith, NC, 1 year

To the Auditing Committee:

Richard Philmon, IL, 3 years Robert Williams, TN, 3 years

To the Credentials Committee:

Mark Coyne, Brockton, MA, 3 years

To the Budget Review Committee:

Steven Malone, NE, 4 years

To the NTETC Weighing Sector: Louis T. Cemy, Assoc. of American Railroads

Darrell Flocken, Metier-Toledo

David Hawkins, Thurman Scale Vijay Pandit, Allegany Technology, Inc.

To the NTETC Measuring Sector: Clyde Mohr, Shell Oil

Kelly White, Brooks Instrument Division

At the Interim Meeting, Executive Committee members reviewed the results of a questionnaire on the need for a subcommittee that would address metrology issues for the NCWM. The questionnaire had been sent to all State weights

and measures directors and metrologists. Of the 24 responses received, 23 indicated that the formation of a metrologist

subcommittee would be beneficial, and only 1 indicated that there is no need for the subcommittee. Based on the

questionnaire's findings and other considerations, Committee members recommended that Chairman Gardner establish a Metrology Subcommittee that would report to the Executive Committee on specific issues of importance to the Conference. The Chairman plans to estabhsh the subcommittee and appoint its members before the next NCWM Annual

Meeting.

Between the Interim and the Annual Meetings, Chairman Gardner made the following appointments:

To the Laws & Regulations Committee:

Michael S. Pinagel, MI

To the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group:

Aves Thompson, AK

To the Petroleum Subcommittee:

Sean Turner, The Natural Gas Vehicle

Coalition

To the new Metrology Subcommittee:

James Akey, Wl

Ron Balaze, MI

Richard Calkins, Rice Lake Weighing Systems

L. F. Eason, NC

Herb Eskew, TX

Joe Rothleder, CA

Jose Torres, PR

Parliamentarian: Bruce Adams, MN

Chaplain:

J. Michael Hile, AR

To the Resolutions Committee:

Melvin Lyons, LA

Sergeants-At-Arms:

Isaiah Lawson, LA

Cecil Shivor, LA

To the NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scales Sector: Kevin A. Alexeff, Stock Equipment Company

To the NTETC Measuring Sector: Rodney Cooper, Schlumberger (Neptune)

Melvin C. Hankel, Consultant

Ken HofFer, Hoffer Flow Controls, Inc. Andre K. Noel, Schlumberger Industries Robert E. Traettino, Liquid Controls Corp.

Marcel Woiton, Endress+Hauser

21
Executive Committee

On the Laws & Regulations Committee:

Gale Prince, Kroger Co., has been substituting for Jennifer Colman, Idaho Retail Grocers

Association

101-9 I Publications, Status Report

During the Committee's review ofthe status ofNIST and NCWM publications, it was reported that NIST Handbooks 44 and

130 and the Report of the 80th NCWM had been delayed as a result of a number of factors impacting the NIST OfiBce of

Weights and Measures (OWM), including budget cuts and Federal Government fiirloughs (see Item 101-13 for more

information). OWM Chief Gil Ugiansky said that his office planned to send prepublication copies ofthe Handbooks to State Weights and Measures Directors as a temporary measure. He noted that continuing fimding problems might further delay

publication of NIST and NCWM documents and asked that the Executive Committee establish publication priorities. The

Committee listed its priorities as follows: 1 ) the Program and Committee Reports for the 8 1 st NCWM, 2) Handbook 44, 3)

Handbook 1 30, and 4) the Report ofthe 80th NCWM.

A summary of the distribution level, income, and costs of selected NIST and NCWM publications as of June 30, 1996, and

OWM's publication calendar for 1996 follow.

22
Executive Committee

1996 NIST and NCWM Publication Summary

(As of June 30, 1996)

m NIST Publications

NIST

Publication Title Quantity Total Printing Costs Total Postage

(NIST)

Total Printing

& Postage

Handbook 44 1996 edition 3,300 $6,977 $5,772 $12,749

SP 894 Report of 80th NCWM 4,200 12,000 5,624 17,624

Handbook 13C 1996 edition 3,100 7,582 3,200 10,782

Totals {All NIST Expense) 10,600 26,559 $14,596 $41,155

If NCWM Publications and Membership Mailing

(Printed at Conference Expense

Publications Mailed at NIST Expense)

iH996 Pub 2 Memoership Directory 3,000 $9,500

(NCWIVl)

$3,996 $13,496

(•'Pub 5 Index of Dev Evals, 8th Ed 400 $2,700 (NTEP) 592 3,292

Pub 15 Inte-im Agenda 3,700 3,700 (NCWM) 6,965

(First Class)

10,665

Pub 16 Prog & Committee

Reports (Announcement Book)

4,000 9,200 5.624 14,824

Totals 11,100 $22,400

(NCWM)

$2,700.00 $17,177 $42,277

f

1996-1997 NCWM Membership Renewals and Invitations to Join

Renewals and Invitations

1 (printing at NCWM expense

j postage & mailing service

j paid by NIST)

Quantity Printing

(NCWM)

Mailing

Service

(NIST)

Total Postage Total Printing,

Postage &

Mailing Service

Totals 27,000 $2,003 $698 $8,506 $11,207

Summary

Total Printing at NIST Expense Total Postage/Mailing Service at NIST ExpenseNiSTGrand Total (Postage and

Printing)

$26,559 $32,471 $59,030

Total NCWM Printing Costs NTEP

(Printing Only Applicable)

$24,403 $2,700

I

23
Executive Committee

1996 OWM Publications Calendar

Status as of 7/1 5/96

Month Publication Comments

Februarj W&M Today Newsletter Completed

March Handbook 44- 1996 edition Template Quality Manual

Completed

Completed

April Handbook 130- 1996 edition Report of the 80th NCWM

NCWM Pub 5, 8th ed. NTEP CCs

Handbook 105-2

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

May Handbook 143 Lab Program

NCWM Pub I NCWM Bylaws

NCWM Pub 2 NCWM Directory

NCWM Pub 14 NTEP Admin.

NCWM Pub 1 6 Prog & Comm Rpt

NCWM Pub 5, Supp 1 , NTEP CCs

W&M Today Newsletter

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

June NCWM Pub 10 Conduct of Annual Meeting Completed

July NTEP Grain Brochure

NCWM Training Resource Catalog

Completed

Completed

August W&M Today Newsletter

Handbook 145 Quality Assurance of Metrological

Measurements - draft

To contain Annual Mtg.

summaries

September NCWM Pub 5, Supp 2, NTEP CCs

Handbook 105-3 S&T for Field Stds Handbook 105-4 S&T for Field Stds Handbook 105-5 S&T for Field Stds Handbook 105-6 S&T for Field Stds Handbook 105-7 S&T for Field Stds

August-October Report of the 8 1 st NCWM

rianQDOOK 't'f - ivy / ^ijci i ) Handbook 130- 1997

October NCWM Pub 9 - Norn Comm Rpt Just for Nominating Comm

November W&M Today Newsletter

Handbook 133 draft

To contain information on

Interim Mtg.

December NCWM Pub 1 5 - Interim Agenda

24
Executive Committee

101-10 I Membership, Status Report

The total meirbership of the NCWM as of June 30, 1996, was 3,483, which is slightly less tlian the total at the same time last year (3,570). The membership breakdown by category is as follows:

State - 855(24.5%) Foreign Industry - 45(1.2%)

County - 401(11.5%) U.S. Government - 53(1.5%)

City - 188(5.3%) Foreign Government - 38(1%)

U.S. Industry - 1,851 (53.1%) State/local, not w&m - 52(1-5%)

See Appendix B for a breakdown of the composition of the NCWM mailing list from 1994-1996.

101-11 I Meetings, Networking with Other Associations

At the Interm Meeting, Chairman Gardner reported that he had attended tlie Southern and Western Weights and Measures

Associations Annual Meetings, the Scale Manufacturers Association Annual Meeting, and a meeting of the National Industrial Scale Associadon since taking office in July 1995.

Alan Rogers reported on the comments he had received from the southern and western regional associations on his draft recommendations for linking the regional associations with the NCWM to improve their membership base. After considering

various alternatives, the Executive Committee decided on a 3-step plan to promote membership in the regional groups:

1) Invite the regional associations to display their membership information at the next NCWM Annual Meeting,

2) Ask the regional groups to provide membership forms and information on officers and meetings for distribution through the NCWM Fax-On-Demand system, and

3) Ask OWM to modify the NCWM membership renewal forms to include a box that members can check to get

information on the regional associations. NCWM Chairman Charles Gardner agreed to contact the regional associations to invite their participation in the Annual

Meeting and to request association information.

101-12 I Meetings, Annual andlnterim, Future

1997 Interim Meeting

The 1997 Interim Meeting will be in Rockville, MD, at the Doubletree Hotel from January 12 to 16.

1997AnnualMeeting

The 1997 Annual Meeting will be in Chicago, IL, at the Swissotel from July 20 to 24.

1998 Interim Meeting

The city selected for the 1998 Interim Meeting is San Antonio, TX, The Conference Coordinator is investigating sites for the meeting.

1998 Annual Meeting

Portland, OR, has been selected for the 1 998 Annual Meeting.

Future Meetings

The year 2001 marks 100 years since the founding of the NCWM's parent organization, the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) in 1901. NIST plans to celebrate its Centeimial with special events throughout the year. In

recognition ofNIST's Centennial, it was proposed that the NCWM's 86th Annual Meeting in 2001 be held in the Washington,

DC, area and that special commemorative activities be planned for that meeting to recognize NIST for its role in promoting

uniformity in weights and measures laws, standards, and practices. The Executive Committee agreed with the proposal and

selected the Washington, DC, area as the site for the NCWM's 86th Annual Meeting in 2001. It is the intention of the Committee to adhere to the following schedule for fijture Annual Meetings of the Conference: 1999 - Northeast region; 2000 - Southern region; 2002 - Central region; 2003 - Western region.

25
Executive Committee

101-13 I Program, OWM and NIST

The NCWM Executive Secretary and Chief of tlie NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), Dr. Gilbert M. Ugiansky,

presented the following chronology of the funding problems and fiirloughs that had a significant impact on OWM since the

fall of 1995:

FISCAL YEAR 1996 FUNDING OF NIST-OWM

September 1995: Travel canceled and purchases required high-level approval.

Beginning bef3re October 1, 1995, all travel for October was canceled due to an expected reduction in funding under the first continuing resolution (CR). For all purchases (including envelopes, mailing, etc.), approval was required by the Executive

Officer of Technology Services (two levels above OWM).

October 1: CR#1.

Above in effect.

Mid-October Reduced travel budget allocated. OWM was albcated a travel budget (too late for the SWMA, Measuring Sector, and NISA meetings) based on a percentage

of Fiscal Year 1995's travel budget. This budget was at the level of 5 percent for the first quarter (Oct.-Dec), and 10 percent

for each remaining quarter. A decision was made to save the travel budget for the interim Meeting. For all purchases, approval

continued to be required by the Executive Officer of Technology Services.

November 13: Furlough #1.

Government workers were furloughed. While on furlough, it was illegal for workers to volunteer their time, including phone

calls. NIST continued to work on funds being held for other purposes until close of business November 16 and then its employees were fijrloughed.

November 20: CR #2. Travel and purchase restrictions continue.

The second CR^ sent government employees back to work. Travel and purchase restrictions stayed in place at NIST.

December 13-18 OWM office moved.

OWM moved to NIST North. Prior to the move, normal operations were interrupted — due to reducing files, packing, and

unavailability of computers, etc.

December 16: Furlough #2.

Government workers were furloughed for a second time. NIST shut down on December 1 8. NCWM Interim Meeting agendas were delivered on schedule to the NIST mail room as furlough was beijig initiated, but not in time to get agendas to the Post

Office before furlough. Request for fimds to mail agendas during furlough was denied.

January 8: CR #3. Funding opened government —snow closed it. Third CR sent government employees back to work; however, snow closed NIST on January 8, 9, 10 and 12. On January II, NIST delivered NCWM Interim Agendas by truck to U.S. Postal Service.

January 19: Short-term travel and purchase budget.

OWM was given a travel and purchase budget good through January 26 (the end of the current CR).

January 26: Third CR expires.

NIST-OWM status is uncertain.

Deliberations on future flmding of agencies (including NIST) will continue between Congress and the President. NIST

management and staff have no control over the direction or outcome of this process.

Because of the uncertainties over fiiture funding for NIST/OWM, the Executive Committee formulated some contingency

plans to ensure that the Program and Committee Reports for the 81st NCWM would be completed and distributed and that the Annual Meeting could go on as scheduled in July.

OWM also reported on the success of the new NCWM Fax-On-Demand information system, which can send a variety of

documents to an individual's fax machine almost immediately 24 hours a day 7 days a week fi-ee of charge. Over 40

26
Executive Committee

documents ar? currently available through the system. Besides providing a service to NCWM members, the system saves OWM staff time.

At the Annual Meeting, Dr. Ugiansky provided a status report on the NIST Office of Weights and Measures since the Interim Meeting.

101-14 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)

Dr. Sam Chappell, Chief of the NIST Standards Management Program, reported on U.S. participation in OIML standards development activities in legal metrology.

Darrell A. Gusnsler, Director, Division of Measurement Standards, CA Department of Food and Agriculture, who attended

tiie Second Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF), the OIML Developmental Council Meeting and Symposium, and

a meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) in Beijing, People's Republic of China, with Dr. Chappell, presented a summary of his trip report to the Executive Committee.

Based on his participation in the APLMF, Mr. Guensler made the following recommendations to tlie NCWM:

1) Continue active participation in the Forum. Its objectives are consistent with other APECforums

and should help promote the elimination ofnon-tarifftrade barriers in the Asia-Pacific region.

2) Participate in the intercomparison on pattern approval testing of nonautomatic weighing

instruments. This study will help to evaluate the possibility ofexpanding the U.S.-Canada Mutual

Recognition Agreement on Pattern Approval to other regional countries. V Urge NIST to become a participant in the "Mutual Recognition Agreement" working party and

volunteer to assist NIST in this endeavor. This working party will perform an important role in identifying appropriate legal metrology links between economies in m.any areas important to NCWM.

Mr. Guensler made the following recommendations to the NCWM based on his participation in the OIML/CIML meetings:

1) Continue active participation in OIML at this level. This will allow the NCWMto be more aware

of and influential in the policy decisions and resolutions of OIML. Our interests in reciprocal

pattern approval systems, production meets type issues, and the general globalization of legal

metrology demand that we have a say in our own destiny.

2) Develop a relationship with other regional metrology groups such as the Western European Legal

Metrology Cooperation (WELMEC). WELMEC is quite similar to NCWM in that it serves as a

collaborating body between legal metrology authorities in Western Europe much the way NCWM

serves the United States. WELMEC 's principal aim of establishing harmony and a consistent approach to legal metrology in Europe is in concert with NCWM aims for the United States. There is an obvious advantage to comparable organizations such as NCWM and WELMEC

working together to share knowledge and develop consistent resolution to similar problems.

Additionally, such a relationship can further the development ofharmonized requirements and

mutual recognition agreements.

3) Consider establishing a program for developing countries that includes sponsoring first time

attendance at NCWM conferences for a delegatefrom such a country. This recommendation is prompted by a suggestionfrom Mr. K. Ramful, Controller of Weights and Measuresfor Mauritius.

Mauritius is a small island country in the Indian Ocean with a population ofapproximately 1.2 million Mr. Ramful informed me that they use Handbook 44 as their guidefor device regulation.

Such a program could further the interests of the NCWM in providing needed information,

harmonization, and trainingfor constituents outside our borders but within our scope ofinfluence.

Because of the significant cost ofparticipation in international activities, the Executive Committee feels it is important to have

input on these recommendations from NCWM members and invites comments in favor of or against participation.

27
Executive Committee

The Executive Committee received an updated report from Dr. Chappell at the Annual Meeting. (See Appendix C for a copy

of his report.) Comments were received by the Committee concerning the level of NCWM/NTEP involvement in OIMT^.

These comments will be addressed by the Committee with representatives ofNIST.

101-15 I U.S. - Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program

Report

Rene Magnan, Director, Policy, Planning, and Program Development, Legal Metrology Branch (LMB), Canada, and Tina

Butcher, Manager, National Type Evaluation Program, NIST reported the following to the Board of Governors on the status and plans of the mutual recognition program.

Weighing Devices:

The Weighing Sector had identified several areas of priority for expansion of the program: (1 ) complex indicators; (2) larger

capacity scales; (3) computing scales; and (4) mechanical scdes. Laboratories began accepting capacities of scales up to 2000

lb following the request of the Weighing Sector. Canada has done a comparison of requirements for computing scales and

complex indicators. Steve Cook, CA, prepared a comparison of requirements for mechanical scales. Preliminary reviews by

representatives indicate that these areas can be included in the mutual recognition program with little training for the

laboratories involved. NTEP representatives met with representatives from Canada's LMB following the NCWM 1995 Araiual Meeting to discuss plans for future work in mutual recognition activities. Canada reported that major revisions were proposed to their scale requirements, and, if accepted, they would become effective in April 1996. It was also noted that several of the NTEP

laboratories had indicated a need for refresher fraining in the Canadian requirements due to turnover in staff and a lack of

practice in applying the Canadian requirements. It was agreed that it would be best to schedule training for tlie U.S. NTEP

laboratories after adoption of the requirements had taken place. A fraining session was tentatively scheduled for June 1996. A notice announcing the expansion of the program was to be distributed after the training session.

Measuring De\>ic^:

Representatives from the measuring industry, LMB, and NTEP met in Ottawa, Ontario, in April 1995 to review Canadian and

U.S. requirements for liquid-measuring devices. An initial comparison indicated some significant differences, but the group

believed that some areas of mutual recognition might be established. Areas of significant difference include Canadian

requirements for testing electronics over a range of ambient temperatures and meters over a range of product temperatures.

While LMB has facilities to enable this type of testing, NTEP laboratory facilities do not currently accommodate this type

of testing. It was suggested that private laboratories witnessed by NTEP representatives might be a possible alternative. Lack

of resources on the part of NTEP may limit progress in this area; however, both NTEP and Canada are interested in pursuing

the issue. Manufacturers who participated in the meetings will be asked to assist in identifying and establishing priorities for this work.

At the Annual Meeting, Tina Butcher (NIST/OWM) and Sonia Roussy (Canada/LMB) gave the Committee an update on the U.S./Canada Mutual Recognition Program. The highlights of their report are:

As of September 1, 1996, the Mutual Recognition Program will be expanded to include complex indicators,

computing scales less than or equal to 1000 kg, and mechanical scales less than or equal to 10 000 kg (certain

dimensional resfrictions may apply).

Until the new Canadian specifications for scales are adopted, the old regulations and tolerances still apply.

*• The inclusion of multiple dimension measuring devices in the Program will be delayed until evaluation procedures

are reviewed and formalized.

28
Executive Committee

Part II - NTEP Board of Governors

102-lA I OIML Certificate Project

This is carried over from the Committee's 1994 Report, Item 102-6, and the 1995 Report, Item 102-1

.

In 1995, the United States informed the International Bureau of Legal Metrology, Paris, that the National Type Evaluation

Program will act as the Issuing Authority for non-automatic weigliing devices (OIML R76). The NIST Force Group also is preparing to offer OIML R60 tests for load cells. NTEP's efforts in this area have been in response to requests from industry

for assistance in eliminating trade barriers for U.S. manufacturers exporting products.

There was general agreement by those at the fall NTETC Weighing Sector meetmg that NTEP should immediately pursue

the completion of steps required for NTEP to issue OIML Certificates for R60, Load Cells. It was reported that the NIST

Force Group is developing software to automate the presentation of test data in tlie R60 Annex A format. An electronic

certificate form will be developed by NIST OWM.

There also was support from Sector members for NTEP to actively pursue work in performing testing to OIML R76, NonAutomatic Weighing Devices. California and Ohio NTEP laboratories agreed to take steps to begin testing to R76 as soon

as possible. The OIML tests will be conducted separately, rather than being combined with the NTEP tests; however, it will be possible to request both sets of tests under the same submission. Before testing can begin, private laboratories near the Ohio laboratory that can perform the required EMI testing need to be identified. The BOG also is interested in knowing what

NTETC and industry representatives think about using EMI test data where the tests were conducted at a manufacturer's

fecility but witnessed by an NTEP representative. Once final arrangements are complete, an announcement will be distributed to provide details on submitting devices for R76 testing. NTEP will also take steps to explore the purchase of software for generating the test report forms for R76; however, it was agreed that testing should proceed using manual recording of test results in Ihe interim period.

NTEP had hoped to be able to offer testing for R60 Certificates by the 1996 Interim Meeting; however, the Federal Government fiirloughs and other problems affecting NIST resulted in a postponement of work on the project.

At the Annual Meeting, comments were received by the Committee concerning the level of NCWM/NTEP involvement in OIML. These comments will be addressed by the Committee with representatives ofNIST.

102-lB I Mutual Recognition

At the July 1995 Annual Meeting, the Executive Committee and NTEP Board of Governors reviewed draft language for an agreement bdween the NCWM and the Nederlands Meetinstituut (NMi) that would establish mutual recognition of tests performed as part of the process of issuing an OIML Certificate. Based upon comments from industry, the Executive

Committee asked that the language be revised to indicate that NMi would recognize testing performed by NTEP laboratories

for use in issuing a European Community (EC) Certificate.

The draft language was presented to NMi during a visit to NMi by NTEP representatives in September 1995. During the visit, NMi representatives advised tliat EC Certificates are not presently issued for components such as load cells; however, a report

of test could be issued by an EC country for reference in an EC Certificate. NMi returned the draft to NTEP with some

additional changes suggested by their legal staff The draft was updated by Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturer's Association,

to indicate the changes suggested by NMi.

The revised draft language was presented to the Weighing Sector of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee for review and comment at the Sector's Fall 1995 meeting. The Sector was unable to come to a consensus on whether or not to recommaid ttiat the NTEP Board of Governors support the agreement. Concerns were raised over the fact that EC Certificates were not available for load ceils and that the agreement would not provide an equivalent benefit to U.S. manufacturers seeking

to sell products in Europe. Some members of industry expressed reservations about entering into the agreement on the basis

that it would put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage. Other manufacturers indicated an interest in pursuing the agreement

since this would offer them an alternative site at which to obtain NTEP testing for load cells, possibly avoiding the current backlog through the NTEP laboratories.

29
Executive Committee

Since a consensus could not be reached by industry representatives at the Weighing Sector's meeting, no recommendation was made by the Sector to the Board of Governors, hidustry representatives at the Sector meeting agreed to further discuss

the issue at the Fall 1 995 meetmg of the Scale Manufacturers Association and to provide feedback on any conclusions to the NTEP Board of Governors.

At the 1 996 Interim Meeting, SMA indicated that it would support going forward with the agreement. (A copy of the draft agreement as adopted by SMA November 18, 1995, and later amended by the BOG in response to comments from John

Elengo, a consultant, is shown in Appendix D.) It was noted that NTEP would like to go forward with an agreement that does

not require oflHcial signatures; however, NMi wants to have signatures on the agreement. According to David Edgerly, Deputy

Director, NIST Technology Services, NIST has said that it will no longer sign bilateral agreements, preferring instead to

paiticipate in regional international agreements; therefore, NIST might not support NTEP going forward with the agreement.

He said that he would like to have the NIST's legal office review the agreement before any further action is taken. Consequently, the agreement was put on hold until the legal review could be completed.

102-2 I Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by the States

Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA), updated the Board of Governors on the status of SMA's drive to assist States to adopt the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation (URNTE) and the Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary

Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies (VRR). See the map on the next page for the status of State adoption

of the URNTE and VRR.

30
ur

So: q:k5 § o

lU^ iro: c o

/ / 1"

0

0

Il

ll

c c

O 3 if

S-B oS

|l

l|

ll

51

a: a: 3>

31
Executive Committee

102-3 W NTEP Policy: Verification that Production Meets Type

(This item was withdrawn.)

This was carried over from the 1994 Report in which it was Item 102-2 and the 1995 Report in which it was item 102-6B.

The BOG is considering whether changes are needed to tlie NTEP process to better ensure that devices installed in the field that are covered by a Certificate of Conformance conform to tlie device type that was evaluated and approved by NTEP (i.e., production meets type). Concerns have been expressed because some States report that they have found installed devices that do not conform to their Certificates, and some manufacturers have reported noncompliance of competitors' devices. In

addition, NTEP labs have found devices and main elements that differ from the original type.

As an augmentation of field verification, the Board discussed additional approaches to verifying that production meets type. One possibility is voluntary cooperation by manufacturers with in-plant inspection visits by NTEP. Although some

manufacturers will cooperate with this approach, not all are in favor.

The question of paying for sampling and testing production devices is of concern to the Board. Estimated cost figures will have to be developed if voluntary sampling or mandatory testing are considered.

At the 80th NCWM in 1995, the Conference adopted a policy to provide due process when claims are made that production

does not meet type. Questions remain on how the information contained in these claims will be evaluated and who will pay

for the evaluation.

At the 1 996 Interim Meeting, the BOG heard testimony from a representative of the Gas Pump Manufacturers Association

that there should not be a blanket way of treating all companies; instead, NTEP should look at the controls a company has in place and its ability to produce a quality product before deciding what additional steps are needed. Anotlier representative

stated that NCWM has the right to evaluate the system; however, this is best accomplished by adequate field enforcement.

It was suggested that a means to improve field enforcement might be to update the NCWM's Examination Procedure Outlines. One weights and measures official noted that some temperature-related problems are difficult to pick up in the field; consequently, supplemental forms of verification may be necessary.

A representative of the Scale Manufacturers Association said that NTEP's role should be to:

1 ) Give manufacturers a means to determine if a model device meets Handbook 44 requirements before tliey go from

hard tooling to mass production;

2) Make it possible for manufacturers to get a device approved just once rather than making them go to individual weights and measures j urisdictions for approval; and

3) Unburden the weights and measures system from equipment that does not conform to Handbook 44.

He said that the United States depends on subsequent verification (field evaluation) more than other countries and suggested

that NCWM look at the broader picture as depicted in SMA's "Recommendation for a Legal Mefrology System Applicable

to the U.S.A." for other approaches to the problem of device verification. NCWM Chairman Gardner noted that the activities of the Program Evaluation Work Group might help with the collection of data needed for a better evaluation of devices.

Based on comments received, the Committee decided to withdraw this item. However, verifying that production meets type

remains an important issue before the Conference. The Committee is not comfortable with either the language or the procedures as proposed in this item (e.g., in-plant inspections). The Committee hopes that the Program Evaluation Work

Group and the Metrology Confrol Plan will provide some alternatives in this area.

32
Executive Committee

102-4 V NTEP Policy: Examples of Appropriate Language to Use in Conjunction with

the NTEP Name and Logo in Advertising and Brochures

(This item was adopted.)

This was carried over from the 1994 Report in which it was part of Item 102-1 and the 1995 Report in which it was item 102- 7B. Last year the BOG published proposed examples of appropriate language to use in conjunction with the NTEP name or logo in advertising or brochures for weighing devices and components. The examples were initially developed by Mettler- Toledo. The Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the Gas Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA) suggested that similar examples of appropriate wording were needed to accompany the logo in advertising for grain moisture meters and motor-fuel

devices. The Board announced its intention to consider the concerns raised by GPMA and the NTETC Grain Moisture Meter

Sector.

Sample wording for grain moisture meter advertising was endorsed by the Grain Moisture Meter Sector at its September 1995

meeting and was recommended to the BOG for consideration at the Interim Meeting. During the Interim Meeting, the BOG

received recommended language for advertising retail motor-fuel devices from GPMA. The wording shown below is not mandatory; it is intended to provide manufacturers with examples of the type of language that they should use in any

advertising or brochures that reference the NTEP name or include an illustration of the NTEP logo.

At the Annual Meeting, the Executive Committee received suggestions for additional sample language for mass flow meters and liquid-measuring devices from the Central Weights and Measures Association and for wholesale and larger volume flow

measuring devices from the Meter Manufacturers Association. These were accepted by the Committee and are included in the recommendation below.

It also was reported at the meeting that NIST is actively pursuing registration of the NTEP logo.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors is recommending that the following examples be printed as an appendix to Part

I in Publication 14:

Examples of Language to Use in Conjunction with the NTEP Name and Logo in Advertising and

Brochures

Truck Scale

The IModel XXXX] Truck Scale meets or exceeds Class III L, 10 000 division accuracy requirements

in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A

Certificate of Conformance (CC), Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation

Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Floor Scale

The [Model XXXX] Floor Scale meets or exceeds Class III, 5000 division accuracy requirements in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A

Certificate of Conformance (CC), Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation

Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Indicating Element

The (Model XXXX] Weight Indicator meets or exceeds Class II, 60 000 division and Class III/III L,

10 000 division accuracy requirements in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of Conformance (CC), Number XX-XXX, was issued

under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

33
Executive Committee

Load Cell

The (Model XXXX] Load Cell meets or exceeds Class III L, 10 000 division accuracy requirements

in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A

Certificate of Conformance (CC), Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation

Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The CC specifies the

maximum number of scale divisions (n^J, load cell verification interval (v„j„), and capacities for the

Model XXXX load cell family.

Grain Moisture Meter

The (Model XXXX] meets or exceeds the accuracy and performance requirements for Grain

Moisture Meters as detailed in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of Conformance (CC), Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type

Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, approving this model for commercial use on the following grains: (append list of grains for which NTEP approval

has been granted for this model).

Retail Motor-Fuel Devices

The [Model XXXX] meets or exceeds requirements in accordance with the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of Conformance (CC), Number XXXXXXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

Or

The {Model XXXX) meets or exceeds the accuracy and performance requirements for Retail MotorFuel Dispensers as detailed in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook

44.A Certificate of Conformance (CC), Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type

Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Mass Flow Meters

The [Model XXXX] meets or exceeds requirements in accordance with the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of Conformance (CC), Number XXXXXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Lignid-Measuring Devices

The [Model XXXX] meets or exceeds requirements in accordance with the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44 for XXXX product families. A Certificate of

Conformance (CC), Number XX-XXXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program

(NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Wholesale and Larger Volume Flow Measuring Devices

The [Model XXXX] meets or exceeds the accuracy and performance requirements of the LiquidMeasuring Devices Code and the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code as detailed in the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of Conformance (CC), Number XXXXXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

102-5 I NTEP Policy: Separate CCs for Software

This item was carried over from Item 102-9 ofthe Report ofthe 80th NCWM, 1995.

34
Executive Committee

The Scale Manufacturers Association asked the NTEP Board of Governors to look at the issue of software as it applies to NTEP. Concern has been expressed over the NTEP policy of issuing separate CCs for software. Although the issue was

initiated by SMA's request, it applies to all types of devices.

In its 1995 Rsport, the Board recommended that NTEP continue, for the present, to evaluate stand-alone software with the same procedures used to evaluate software that is part of a measuring or weighing system; however, it endorsed the establishment of a Software Work Group, composed of volunteers from weighing, measuring, and other sectors, as well as participants from the NTEP Participating Laboratories, the S&T Committee, and Canada, to study this issue.

In December 1994, tfie Work Group was formed. Michael Adams, Fairbanks Scales, was named Chairman. The Work Group

had its initial meeting in April 1995 and a second meeting during the 1995 Annual Meeting. At the 1996 Interim Meeting, Mr. Adams reported on the progress and recommendations of the Work Group (see Appendix E). He said that Work Group

members support NTEP continuing to issue separate CCs for software. They are in the process of reviewing current type

evaluation checklists to determine if they adequately verify the suitability of software to the specifications and tolerances in NIST Handbook 44 and are making recommendations for changes where necessary. They believe that there is more that can be accomplished in such areas as revision of the checklists, development of a definition for "metrologically significant

software," and education; therefore, they are recommending that the Work Group be continued through the next NCWM

Interim Meeting.

The Executive Committee agreed to continue the Work Group through the 1997 Interim Meeting so that members could

complete their evaluations ofNTEP checklists and make recommendations to the appropriate NTETC Sectors.

The Software Work Group met at tlie 81st Annual Meeting, and the Executive Committee is awaiting its report.

102-6 V NTEP Policy: Appointments to NTETC Sectors

(This item was adopted.)

A number of questions have been raised recently concerning appointments to the National Type Evaluation Technical

Committee (NTETC) Sectors, which are classified as special committees in the NCWM structure. According to the NCWM

Bylaws, the Conference Chairman is responsible for appointing members of special committees, task forces, and study groups from the active, advisory, or associate membership; however, since these groups normally are expected to be of limited duration, no mention is made of term lengths, number ofmembers, filling of vacancies, or other details. The NTETC Sectors do not have a limited life span and, as such, are more like standing committees than special committees. The long-term nature of Sector membership has led to questions such as: Should there be term limits for members? Should there be a limit to the number of Sector members? What happens if members never attend a meeting of the Sector—should they be removed? What

happens if individuals do not maintain their NCWM membership? Is Sector membership conferred on individuals or companies? What happens if a member takes a job with another company?

At the Interim Meeting, members of the BOG addressed the questions that had been raised. They agreed that membership

is conferred on individuals, not companies; therefore, the resignation of an individual from a Sector does not automatically

entitle the individual's company to continued Sector membership. The company may, however, nominate another individual

for consideration by the NCWM Chairman, who makes all appointments to the Sectors. Although membership is conferred on individuals, the BOG reaffirmed that each individual does not necessarily have a separate vote. Only one vote per company

or agency is permitted.

Due to the absence of a formal policy on the appointment of Sector chairmen, it is usually left up to each Sector to choose its own chairman. The BOG would like the Sectors to add an item to their next meeting agenda on the appointment of chairmen.

The Sectors should discuss whether or not they have had problems as a result of the lack of formal procedures for appointment

ofthe chairman and whether there should be specified terms for chairmen. If the Sectors have had problems, they should make

recommendations to the BOG on procedures that should be used to appoint chairmen or on tenn limits. The Measuring Sector addressed this issue at its October 1995 meeting; the Sector's recommendations are contained in its report in Appendix H.

The BOG felt that there should not be limited terms for Sector members; however, it is considering establishing criteria for the removal of Sector members who never attend Sector meetings or contribute to the activities of the Sector. If nonparticipants are removed from the list of Sector members, a separate mailmg list could be established of individuals who

are interested in the outcome of Sector activities but do not want to participate in these activities. Comments from the Sectors on the need for such criteria would be appreciated.

35
Executive Committee

The NCWM Bylaws (Article V, Section 5, Duties and Fields of Operation of Committees), state that the Executive

Committee... "3. utilizes the industry members of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation, who will comprise

the NTEP Advisory Committee and who will represent the interest of industry, in advising the Board of Governors."

The Sectors have been operating in such a manner that the entire Sector membership, including both public and private sector representatives, provides advice to the Board of Governors; consequently, the Board decided at the Interim Meeting that a

separate industry advisory committee is not required. It is, therefore, recommending that references to the Advisory

Committee be dropped from Publication 14. If these recommendations are accepted by the NCWM membership at the Annual

Meeting in July, the BOG plans to propose a change to tlie NCWM Bylaws next year to delete references to the Advisory

Committee.

The BOG recommends the following changes to NCWM Publication 14 to clarify some voting and membership issues with

regard to the NTETC Sectors and to delete references to the NTEP Advisory Committee.

Recommendation: Revise Section 2 ofthe NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Procedures as follows (proposed revisions are shown by crossing out what is to be deleted and underlining what is to be added):

2. National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

The National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) is responsible for the development of

test criteria and procedures for use in the evaluation process by the Participating Laboratories. The

membership and voting status of the NTETC is are as follows:

a. Associate Members. The NCWM Chairman will appoint new Associate members on the advice

of the sector chairman and technical advisor. There is no fixed term for this representation; the Associate member will serve until removed by the NCWM Chairman, by the sponsoring

company, or when the member resigns. If one company owns another, or if two companies are owned by the same parent company, only one vote per parent company will be permitted. The

company(ies) involved will decide who will vote. The Associate members olso serve os the NTEP

Advisor)' Committee (sec below).

b. Active Members.

(1) State Participating Laboratory Representation. The NCWM Chairman will appoint

a voting representative from every NTEP Participating Laboratory conducting

complete desi2n evaluations and field tests in the particular device sector. (Those

authorized to perfonrnng enfy field tests will not necessarily may be appointed.) There

will be no fixed term for this representation.

(3) S&T COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION. If funds arc available, the NCAVM

Chairman will appoint a representative from the S&T Committee, based on the recommendation of the S&T Committee. The term of this member will bo eoncurrent

with his/her membership on the SAT Committee.

(32) Other Active Member Representation. Additional Active members may be appointed

(with voting status) by the NCWM Chairman with the advice of the technical

committee sector chairman and technical advisor. If financially feasible, the NCWM

will underwrite their participation to provide additional weights and measures

perspective.

(3) Voting Rights. Active members shall have one vote per jurisdiction.

c Advisory Members Federal Agencies and Federal Participating Laboratories. The NCWM

Chairman will appoint oppropriatc rcprcscntotion from Federal agencies Federal Advisory

members with the advice of the chairman of the sector and its technical advisor. The Executive

Secretary will appoint the technical advisor. Advisory members shall have voting rights within

the sector one vote per agency.

36
Executive Committee

Although the Chairperson will appoint members, an appointed representative may designate an

alternate with full voting rights for an individual meeting whenever necessary.

^.—NTEP Advisor>^ Committee

The NTEP Advisor}' Committee is composed of thos e members of the Notional Type Evaluation

Technical Committee who arc the Ass ociate Members of the NCWM oppointed by the NCWM

Chairman to odvisc the Boord of Governors and represent the interests of industr>'. (See Bylows,

Article V» Section 5.)

The Organization Chart for the Administration of the National Type Evaluation Program is shown

in Figure 1.

102-7 W NTEP Policy: Remanufactured and Repaired Devices

(This item was withdrawn.)

In July 1995, the NCWM amended the NTEP policy with respect to remanufactured and repaired devices. Gordon Johnson

of Gilbarco, Inc., recommended that the newly adopted policy be amended as follows (underlined wording):

a. If a company or individual makes changes to a device to the extent that the metrological

characteristics are changed, that specific device is no longer traceable to the NTEP CC.

b. If companies or individuals repair or remanufacture a device, they are obligated to repair or remanufactiire it consistent with the manufacturer 's original design, as determined by the original

equipment manufacturer: otherwise, that specific device is no longer traceable to the NTEP CC.

The justification for the change was that it is not clear who determines whether the change is consistent with the original

design. The Western, Southern, and Northeastern Weights and Measures Associations endorsed the proposed change. The

Gasoline Pump Manufacturing Association refrained from taking a position on the item.

At the Interim Meeting, the BOG decided to withdraw this item from its agenda. The Board felt that it had not received

sufficient proof that a problem exists with the current wording and could not support the proposed wording. In addition, it was clear to the BOG tiiat many "original equipment manufacturers" were not prepared to accept the added burden suggested

by the proposed language.

The BOG heard substantial testimony that the proposed language could be detrimental to independent companies that remanufacture and repair devices and could result in a restraint of trade. The testimony also indicated that there may be some

misunaerstanding of the NTEP requirements. The BOG agrees that weights and measures officials must be careful not to

dictate who may remanufacture or repair a device. Nonetheless, the existing language clearly states that repairs aiid overhauls of devices must not change the metrological characteristics of the device. Mixing and matching main components may very

well change the metrological characteristics. When this happens, an NTEP evaluation is required by many States.

It was noted that this issue may appear on the agenda of tlie S«&.T Committee in the future, perhaps in the form of a

specification requiring manufacturers to apply a remanufactured label on remanufactured devices.

102-8 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report

A report on the NTEP Participating Laboratories was given at the Interim Meeting. (See the summary of the activities of the Laboratories over the last 4 years in Appendix F.) It was reported that OWM staff have been analyzing the certification process to find areas where unprovements are needed to make the process more efficient. They have quantified the time it takes to complete different stages of the certification process and are now planning to further refine their data by looking at the time it takes to process different types of devices.

The Board reviewed the status of payment ofNTEP maintenance fees in 1995 and noted that, compared to 1994, there was

some improvement in the number of fees paid on time. However, a number of companies still did not meet the initial deadline

set by OWM; therefore, the Board will continue to monitor payments and, if necessary, may consider establishing penalties

37
Executive Committee

for late payments. Delays in fee payments cause a number of problems including delays in the publication of NCWM

Publication 5, NTEP Index of Device Evaluations.

102-9 I NTETC Weighing, Measuring, and Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Reports

The Board received reports from the Weighing Sector and the Measuring Sector at the Interim Meeting. A summary of the decisions made at the Weighing Sector meeting on October 31 to November 1, 1995, in Baltimore, MD, is provided in Appendix G. The Measuring Sector met on October 14, 1 995. Funding problems at NIST at that time made it impossible for OWM staff to attend tlie meeting. Ron Murdock, NC, agreed to serve as Technical Advisor for the meeting and Rich Tucker,

Tokheim Corporation, chaired the meeting because the Sector Chairman v^'as unable to attend. A summaiy of the decisions

reached at the Measuring Sector's meeting was prepared by Frances Holland, Schlumberger, and Steven Cook, CA. (See

Appendix H.) There was no report from the Belt-Conveyor Sector because it had not met in the past year.

102-10 I NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and Near Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector

Reports

A report ofthe progress of tliese sectors was given at the Interim and Annual Meetings. See Appendices I and J for summaries

ofthe September 13-14, 1995, and March 26-27, 1996, meetings of the sectors. At the September meeting, the Grain Moisture

Meter Sector developed an example of appropriate language to use in conjunction with the NTEP name and logo in advertising

and brochures on grain moisture meters. This language has been incorporated into Item 102-4 ofthis report.

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY, Chairman

J. Truex, Ohio, Chairman of the NTEP Board of Governors

B. Bloch, California, Chairman-Elect

J. A. Rogers, Virginia, Treasurer

B. Adams, Minnesota

C. Carroll, Massachusetts

C. Fuhner, South Carolina

M. Gray, Florida

R. Suiter, Nebraska

A. Thompson, Alaska

G. Ugiansky, NIST, Executive Secretary

Technical Advisors:

S. Roussy, Canada Legal Metrology Branch

J.Koenig,NlST

Associate Member Representative: R. Davis, James River Corporation

Executive Committee

38
Executive Committee

Appendix A - NCWM and NTEP Budgets for Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997

NCWM Budget for FY 1996

Category Number

Account Description FY 96 Budget

IINCOML,

410 General Revenues

411 Registration Fees $ 72,000

411,1 Annual Meeting

41 1.2 Interim Meeting

412 Membership Fees 128,000

413 Interest 1,000

416 Other Income

480 Service Revenues

4S1 Special Events 2,000

4s2 Publications 1 C AA

1,500

4s4 N 1 r bemmars O AAA 3,000

AO C 485 Promotional

TOTAL INCOME $207^00

EXPENSES

510 General Expenses

511 Annual Meeting $ 50,000

512 Interim Meeting 33,000

513 Committee Meetings 40,000

513.1 Executive Committee 15,000

513.2 L «& R Committee 6,000

513.3 S & T Committee 5,000

513.4 A & P Committee 11,500

513.7 Annual Committees 2,500

514 Task Forces & Special Committees 18,000

515 Chairman/Chairman Elect 20,000

39
Executive Committee

Account Description FY 96 Budget

516 Administration 25,000

517 Printing and Publications 9,000

518 Train the Trainers

580 Service Revenues

581 Special Events 2,000

582 Publications 1,500

584 NTP Seminars 3,000

585 Promotional 500

TOTAL EXPENSES $202,000

40
Executive Committee

NTEP Budget for FY 1996

Category Number

Accniflnf Dp^crintinn FY 96 Riiflapt

600 GFNERAL REVENIJF

600 1 Maintpnance LVJ.C4.IJ t LWilCU IwW Pep<\ X

<ci 05 000

650 DEDICATED rNCOME

651 rpmt-Orfliti PniiinmpTit (^nnnpr^itivp Acrrppm^^nt 5 000

660

661 UO 1 F UUJ 1 I lUl 1 o

661 1 10 000

661 7 Piihlioatinn S 10 000

665 NTFP T nno

665 1 1 000

670 TNTFR UN 1 JZylxXl/O F<sT1 TMrOlVrF IINV^WIVIJC'

Ml<sPPI T AMPOTIQ TMr'nVfP

/uu nArtilN otlo

7fi1 AaniinisiTaiion

/uz rersonai oervices

/uD Supplies

71/ I nV OUoiU Ul vJUVClllUlo 1 0 000

710.1 Chairman Expenses

710.2 Interim Meeting

710.3 Annual Meeting

710.4 Appeal Hearing

41
Executive Committee

Account Description FY 96 Budget

710.5 Technical Committee Meeting

>

715 •PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES 6,000

715.1 NTEP Laboratory Training

720 INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS

721 OIML 12,500

722 USA/Canada Work Group 10,000

725 SPECIAL COMMITTEES

TIC 1 /ZJ. 1 Software Group 1 CfkA 1,jUU

i bCHNlLAL CUMMll lEE - WblGHlNvj

SECTOR

730.1 Technical Committee Meeting 5,000

730.2 Automatic Weighmg Systems 3,500

730.3 Multiple Dimensional Devices 3,dUU

731 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE - BELT

CONVEYOR

731.1 Technical Committee Meeting T C AA

735 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE - MEASURINO

SECTOR

C AAA 5,000

735.1 Technical Committee Meeting 5,000

750 EXPENDITURE OF DEDICATED FUNDING

750.1 Grain Equipment Cooperative Agreement

Committee

C £\f\f\ 5,000

760 SALES

761 Publications

42
Executive Committee

Category Number

/\vcuuiii ucdvri|iiiun r I ^/o Duugei

IfA 1

/ V I . 1 rUUllL'aUUn JH

IfA 9 1PiiHli^^ii1ir\n UUIlL'ClliL'li S

1 UJ NTFP T OfiO

1 000

7"'n TNTFRFST FXPFNSF

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 1,000

INCOME $131,000

EXPINSE $84,500

43
a

§.1 £ opoo oo oop oo ooo

"l

a3

0\ oooo oooo oo oo

OSo"

OS

so oo oam ooo

oC

VO oooo opooo

ONo opIT) S oooo

>o

so ooo ooo

of esow o s

Pi

•o

ISs

LaBwo

Is,eo

.2

on 00 .S

a

lAeIIuo oue1—4u

4> 02

OS

<a>aC

.2o

.S

(U

"«3CC<

00 -S

(L> 0 Z o VO o00

It

44
&

-O j O

Oooo ooo

«r> OS

•a9 ooo ooo «<

V)

f24a o o W-1 OS 06 ooo Oooso

v-T

O

OS

cs

CTs

CMOoo

ino

Os oo

00 ooo00 oooCM

Os

SO

OsoC

4»»£S

1X4 oooo

so" oo oo

Os" c

.2

CI. •cuVQeso

<ju So

00c

.0«ou

boe

•csO

-So

WDX

52 ca « I I.IcOo y .2 «

«c o « o sB

C5 .ss

<u e

_o

'•Co£2

Oh

U ^ 00 00 00

45
Proposed

for

FY

97

32,000.00 1,000.00

2,000.00

II

2,000.00 j

3,000.00 1,000.00 7,500.00

7,500.00

II

1,500.00 1

57,500.00 1

16,000.00

2,000.00 15,000.00

II

2,500.00 2,500.00

2,500.00 1

FY

96

Budget

50,000.00

FY

95

Actual

18,668.73

373.86 620.35

1,918.35 2,758.66

13,325.00

797.27

38,462.12 18,607.04 1,540.21

6,214.15 1,681.50 2,226.35 2,308.95

FY

95

Budget

47,200.00

FY

94

Actual

23,794.81 1,188.03 2,140.35 2,333.94 2,382.40 1,111.50 384.40

6,644.26 39,979.69 12,193.08

3,094.30 1,274.21 2,062.30 1,870.65

FY

94

Budget

44,000.00

Account

Description

EXPENSES

General

Expenses

Annual

Meeting

Annual

Meeting/HotelTood

AV;

Equipment;

Supplies

Personnel/photo

Print/Copy

Awards

Treasurer/Committee

Expenses

Printing

Announcement

Book

Conference

Outing

Miscellaneous TOTAL

Interim

Meeting

Hotel/Food

Services

Equip/Personnel/Printing

Executive

Committee

L

&

R

Committee

S

&

T

Committee

A

«&P

Committee

1

Category

Number o

ID ID in

<Nm

en

lO in m

in

SDm m hi

1.9

»-( ID

<s

ID

3... 1

512.2

512.3 512.4 512.5 1

512.6

46
Proposed

for |

FY

97 1

1.500.00 1

6,000.00 38,000.00 1

10,000.00

II

4,000.00 6,000.00 4,000.00 2,500.00

26,500.00

6,000.00

II

4,000.00

4,000.00 1

14,000.00

FY

96

Budget

38,500.00 15,000.00 6,000.00 5,000.00

11,500.00 2,500.00 40,000.00 o

6,000.00

1 o1

6,000.00 6,000.00 18,000.00

FY

95

Actual

1,322.51 6,638.00

40,538.71

6,933.17 1,162.31

1 O1

4,312.31 1,652.45 3,915.13

17,975.37

1,495.90 4,992.00 6,487.90

FY

95

Budget

31,000.00 33,500.00 22,000.00

FY

94

Actual

1,758.59 2,778.90

25,032.03 1,232.80

(558.89)

11,395.48 10,524.61

2,271.78

24,865.78

880.76

5,492.60

FY

94

Budget

35,000.00 24,000.00 17,700.00

Account

Description

(Liaison

Committee)

Other

Committees

&

Task

Forces

Printing

Agenda

TOTAL

Committee

Meetings

Executive

Committee

L&R

Committee

S

&

T

Committee

A

&

P

Committee

Annual

Committees

Other TOTAL

Task

Forces

&

Special

Committees

Checkweigher

Group

Program

Evaluation

FPLA

-

Metric

Work

Group

Handbook

133

WorkGroup

Petroleum

Sub-Committee

Miscellaneous TOTAL

Category

Number

512.7 1

512.8 Is

12.9 in

513.2 513.3 513.4 513.7 CIS <» 514.2 514.3 514.4 514.5 514.6 514.9

IT,

47
a

•o 1 2

OhMSs

ON ooooo o o o

00 o OS

VO oooo oo oooooo

o_

irT ooooo ooo o

0\ ooVO

mOno

VO^ o

oo o

<N

VO

ons

ON oo

tn

fn

a(J <

ON

00o

oo' VO

00

Ooo vd

00

vo_^ om o

Onm o

VO

ec

•a9

ON oomVO

(J Q4—B3Ouw co100

o.3c

<uB

.&'3

cr W

Uc H2 HOH

aa

Oh

uE

52E o

T3 o ^

in

vd VO

vd

ON

vd >o

V) in

ON

48
au ' u

its oooodoo o cooooo <

IT, <

ax ooSoo woB3Ow < eo3

T3C oodoo ooooodo o o00 oOodo oodoo Z >oEoc ooo

C3 CUtuo

cSa.

t>

4) id O

acE

iZl a.Hz ou

Cm

IT, 05

IT, a©IT) V-1 < C3

<N r-i (N <N

oc oo OC 00

in I/-. oc 00

49
&£

ex) •oan

0\sU

IT) 0\

>*

t3S

130 V)s<

en

•asn

Oo00oooo eo

••ca

'ZuQ**

ts9Oww

a,©oU5 H

cr w) B ^ I

(J z 00

ID

o.92

eso

1/3

00

HOH iu9

ON

OS

00V9

JO

a.o

.bp o 3Ooo

CO ON

i3

•r; 13C < S W

<N

50
Executive Committee

Proposed 1997 NTEP Budget Compared with Budget for Fiscal Year 1996

Category

Number

Description 1996 Budget Proposed 1997

Budget

600 GENERAL REVENUE <r 1 AC AAA AA

3>1 05,000.00 120,000.00

^ AA 1 600.1 Mauitenance Fees 1 AC AAA AA

1 05,000.00 1 OA AAA AA 120,000.00

650 DEDICAIEL) INCOME c f\(\f\ AA 5,000.00 -U651 Grant-Grain Equipment Coop. Agreement C AAA AA 5,000.00 A-0-

660 bALES OA AAA AA 20,000.00 1 i\ AAA AA 10,000.00

661 Publications

661.1 Publication 14 1 0,000.00

/- r\r\r\ 5,000

661.2 Publication 5

1 f\ f\f\r\ f\r\ 10,000.00 C AAA 5,000

665 NTEP LOGO 1,000.00 1,000.00

665.1 Seals 1,000.00 1 ,000.00

670 INTEREST INCOME 4,000.00

680 TOTAL INCOME —. 135,000.00

700 EXPENSES 10,000.00 25,000.00

701 Administration 10,000.00 5,000.00

702 Personal Services 15,000.00

705 Supplies C AAA AA 5,000.00

710 BOARD OF GOVERNORS 10,000.00 28,000.00

710.1 Chairman Expenses 3,000.00

710.2 Interim Meeting 5,000.00

710.3 Annual Meeting -0-

51
Executive Committee

Number

Prnnncf>rl 1Q07

Budget

710.4 Appeal Hearing 10,000.00

710.5 Technical Committee Meeting > 10,000.00

715 PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES 6,000.00 8,000.00

715.1 NTEP Laboratory Training

720 INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS 22,500.00 20,000.00

721 OIML 12,500.00 10,000.00

722 USA/Canada Work Group 10,000.00 10,000.00

725 SPECLVL COMMITTEES 1,500.00 8,500.00

725.1 Software Group 1,500.00 3,500.00

725 1 RiiHopt Rpvipw S 000 00

TFr'WMTr'AI rTllVfA/TTTTFF wiTinHiiMr;

SECTOR

1 7 ooft no

730.1 Technical Committee Meeting 5,000.00 16,000.00

730.2 Automatic Weighing Systems 3,500.00 -0-

/ jU.j IVlUlUpic LyinicnalUIl 1^CV1L/C5 ^nn no '^nn no

iji.

CONVEYOR

1 ^nn on 'y <nn nn

71 1 1 / J 1 .

1

Technical Committee Meeting Z,J\J\).\JV o cfin nn

"TIC 1 Ji^L-ruNlL-AL. CUMMl 1 1 tLt, - MliiAaUKJIMj

SECTOR

735.1 Technical Committee Meeting 5,000.00 7,500.00

750 EXPENDITURE OF DEDICATED FUNDING 5,000.00 15,000.00

750.1 Grain Equip. Coop. Agreement Committee 5,000.00 15,000.00

52
Executive Committee

Number

1 QQ^ RiiHofkf PmrwicoH 1 QQ7

Budget

760 SALES 8,000.00 16,000.00

761 Publications

761.] Publication 14 5,000.00 10,000.00

761.2 Publication 5 3,000.00 6,000.00

765 NTEP LOGO 1,000.00 1,000.00

765.1 Seals 1 ,000.00 1,000.00

770 INTEREST EXPENSE

780 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 1,000.00 1,000.00

INCOME $131,000.00 135,000.00

EXPENSE $84,500.00 152,000.00
E o

(9 m E t ^ E ^ E ^ g U Z

15

Q

12;SooaoO E

<uEc

D.a EUz O On O V) ^ W 2 S OS O On C ON w 2! o a\

-a rr, e On W On

On

ON

On

CN)

OS

t0\

00

On

Os

ON

ON

ONON

NO

a o ^

(/5

l-i I I • S 4>

11

.2, .S 3auEt

•fi ^ 2 .2 o -a

4) -O 5 <£ i

I" 2

.5 ^

54
Executive Committee

Appendix C

Report on OIML

By

Samuel E. Chappell, Chief

Standards Management Program, NIST

International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML)

The CIML establishes the policy and approves the technical plans and work of the various OIML Technical Committees. Its 30th meeting and a meeting of the Asia Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) was held in Beijing, People's Republic of

China from October 22 through 28, 1995. Representatives of 42 of the 54 OIML member nations attended. I represented

United States as member of CIML and was accompanied by Dafrell Guensler, Director of Measurement Standards in the State ofCalifornia, who also represented the U.S. National Conference on Weights and Measures. The following significant reports

and decisions were made at the meeting:

Reports presented:

• Report on the status of the work of the OIML technical committees and subcommittees was presented by myself

• Report on the status of the program of the OIML Certificate System presented by M. Kochsiek, CIML Member,

Germany. As of September 1995, more than 71 OIML Certificates have been issued for R76 "Nonautomatic

Weighing Instruments" and 40 for R60 "Load Cells." Many more applications have been received and are in the process of evaluation.

• A. Vichenkov of the International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) presented a report on the results of three sepa-ate questionnaires sent to CIML members, issuing Authorities, and manufacturers concerning participation in, implementation of, and future acceptance ofthe Certificate System.

• A panel discussion was held on "Confidence in Pattern, or Type, Approval." During the discussion, I along with

Guensler and A. Johnston of Canada presented the U.S.A.-Canadian experience in cooperation in tliis area. The

result of this discussion is expected to provide guidance in the development of bi- and multi-lateral mutual

recognition agreements.

• G. Faber, President and CIML Member, the Netherlands, established an ad hoc task group to meet with a

comparable group ofthe International Committee of Weights and Measures (CIPM) to discuss a French government

proposal regarding the merger of the Treaties for OIML and the M^tre Convention. The task group would consist oftihe President (CIML Member, the Netherlands), the two Vice Presidents (CIML Members, U.S.A. and Germany),

and the CIML Member, Austtalia.

• Report on the activities of and the proposed budget (1997-2000) for BIML was presented by B. Athane, Director.

• It was reported that Kazakhstan became a member and Mozambique, Thailand, and Uruguay had become

corresponding members of OIML in 1995.

Decisions:

• Recommendations (4 total) were approved. Three of these are of interest to the NCWM:

- "Automatic Catchweighing Instruments" (revision of OIML R5 1 ) developed by the United Kingdom.

- "Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instruments" (revision of OIML R61) developed by the United Kingdom

- "Automatic Rail-Weighbridges" Annexes on the test procedures and the test report format for OIML Rl 06

developed by the United Kingdom

55
Executive Committee

Future Meetings:

• The next meeting of CIML will be held in November 1996 in Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada, in conjunction with the 1 0th International Conference of Legal Metrology.

• Brazil offered to host the CIML meeting in Rio de Janeiro in the fall of 1997, and the Republic of Korea offered

to host the CIML meeting in Seoul in the fall of 1998. OIML Development Council:

• Tlie Council sponsored a Seminar on "Metrological Activities in Developing Countries" that included twenty-one

papers presented on the topic, I presented a paper, co-authored with B.S. Carpenter, Director of International and

Academic Affairs at NIST, on "U.S.A. Participation in the Inter-American Metrology System."

• At a meeting of the Council, a report was provided on the results of the Seminar and other activities by member

nations in support of development including some seminars cosponsored with OIML.

• Mr. G.M. Putera, CIML member for Indonesia, was elected President ofthe Council replacing Mr. M. Benkirane

ofMorocco who had been President since 1988.

Asia Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF):

• This was a one-day meeting attended by representatives of twelve APLMF member nations, six observer nations,

and three observing international or regional organizations.

• The Secretariat, Australia, presented the results of surveys of member nations on "Legislation," "Prepackaged

Products," and "Training" with the aim of identifying needs for development and harmonization. The United states contiibuted to all three surveys.

• Decisions at the APLMF meeting included the approval of initiating among some member nations intercomparisons of "weiglits" and of the "pattern evaluation of non-automatic weighing instruments" (according to OIML R76), with consideration being given to intercomparisons of "pattern evaluation of load cells" in the future.

• A report was presented on activities of other related Asia Pacific specialized bodies, namely for metrology and

accreditation, with which potential cooperation of mutual benefit may be established.

• The next meeting of APLMF is scheduled to be held in conjunction with OIML meetings in Canada in November

1996. CIML Presidential Council

The CIML Presidential Council met from February 20-21, 1996, in Paris, France. The principal items on the agenda were

as follows:

- A review of the current work of the OIML technical committees.

- The status of the OIML Certificate System.

- Preparations for the 31th CIML meeting and the 10th Conference of Legal Metrology to be held in Canada in November 1996.

- Status and preparation for discussion of the French government proposal to merge the treaties for OIML and the Convention of the Mdtre. A meeting was held of the joint task group (representing CIML and CIPM) on February

22.

56
Executive Committee

OIML Technical Advisory Group on Certificates (TAG„rt):

TAGj^was established by CIML in 1994 to monitor and develop the OIML Certificate System. Members include: Australia,

People's Republic of China, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Russia,

Slovakia, Slovenia, United States, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia. A meeting was held in Paris, France on February 19 - 20, 1 996. I participated in the meeting on behalf of the United States and was selected to chair the meeting. The agenda

included:

- a family ofpatterns

- modules of instruments

- accreditation of testing laboratories

- ISO 9000 (Quality Systems) registration

- mutual recognition agreements

- revision of "OIML Certificate System" document.

The BIML is revising the document on the "OIML Certificate System" in response to comments presented at the meeting and

by correspondence.

Activities of OIML Secretariats

This part of the report provides: (1) an identification of work, either Recommendations (Rs) or Documents (Ds), being

developed in Teclinical Committees (TCs) and Technical Subcommittees (SCs) of specific interest to the NCWM and (2) a schedule of activities of secretariats, the U.S. National Working Groups (NWGs), md the International Working Groups

(IWGs) of committees and subcommittees that have recently taken place or are planned for the near future. More details of

tiiese activities have been reported to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee ofthe NCWM.

• TCI Terminology (Poland)

A revision of the "Vocabulary of Legal Metrology" (1978 Edition) has been distributed by the Secretariat for review

and comment. Comments were provided on behalf of the United States. This vocabulary will complement the

"International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology" developed by BIPM, lEC, IFCC, ISO, lUPAC,

lUPAP, and OIML (latest Edition 1993 published by ISO).

• TC6 Prepackaged Products (United States)

The draft revision of R79 "Information on Packaged Products" prepared by the Secretariat has been approved by

CIML and will be presented at the 10th conference for approval.

• TC7 Instruments for Measuring Length and Associated Quantities (United Kingdom)

- TC7/SC5 Multi-dimensional Measuring Instruments (Australia)

The second CD Recommendation on "Multi-dimensional Measuring Instruments" developed by the Secretariat was

discussed at an IWG meeting on September 11 - 12, 1995, in Paris, France. A third CD was developed and

distributed for comment. It will be discussed at an IWG meeting in October 1996 at NIST.

• TCS Instruments for Measuring Quantities of Fluids (Switzerland)

- TC8/SC6 Measurement of Cryogenic Liquids (United States) A third CD revision of OIML R8 1 "Measuring Devices and Systems for Cryogenic Liquids" developed by the Secretariat was discussed at an IWG meeting in Braunschweig, Germany in May 1996. The next draft revision is expected to be distributed to the IWG for comment and vote in October 1 996.

• TC9 Instruments for Measuring Mass and Density (United States) A first CD draft revision of R60 "Load Cells" prepared and distributed for comment by the Secretariat was fiirther discussed at an IWG meeting in Braunschweig, Germany in May 1996. A NWG meeting was scheduled to discuss

57
Executive Committee

the status of the draft revision in conjunction with the Annual meeting of the NCWM in New Orleans in July 1996. The next CD draft revision will take into account the decisions made at these NWG and IWG meetings.

- TC9/SC1 Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments (Gennany and France)

An OIML Seminar "Weighing Towards the Year 2000" was held in Paris, France, fi-om September 13 - 15, 1995. Five papers were presented at the Seminar by persons attending from the United States.

- TC9/SC2 Automatic Weighing Instruments (United Kingdom)

A first CD draft Recommendation on "In-motion Road Vehicle Weigliing Instruments" was developed and distributed by the Secretariat and was fiirtlier discussed at a IWG meeting in Braimschweig, Germany in May 1996. The second

CD on this subject is expected to be distributed in the fall of 1996 and reflect the decisions of this meeting.

- TC9/SC3 Weights (United States)

An OIML workshop on "Practical Test Procedures for Classes E„ E,, F„ Fj, M„ M2, and M, Weights" will be held

in Boras, Sweden, fi^om October 2 -4, 1996, sponsored by the Nordic Task Force for this work related to OIML

Rill.

58
Executive Committee

Appendix D

Draft U.SyNetherlands Mutual Recognition Agreement on Type Evaluation

1. Purpose

The purpose of this Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) is to set out a working relationship to provide for the mutual

recognition of device evaluations administered and performed by the Nederlands Meetinstituut (NMi) and by the National

Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the U.S. National Conference on Weights and Measures.

2. Background

The NMi and NTEP operate ongoing type evaluation systems for commercial measuring devices. The Netherlands and other European countries, many U.S. States, and several U.S. Federal agencies require the evaluation and approval of the design

and performance of device prototypes prior to their sale for commercial use.

Both NMi and NTEP have been appointed by their respective OIML Representatives as Issuing Authorities for OIML

Certificates of Conformity for OIML R60 (Load Cells). NMi, a European Community (EC) Notified Body is also a point of

issuance of EC Test Certificates for load cells. NTEP is the point of issuance of U.S. Certificates of Conformance for load

cells.

Rather than evaluating load cells for the United States market in NTEP laboratories and then evaluating essentially the same

load cell for the European market in EC Notified Body laboratories, or vice versa, manufacturers have requested the utilization of a system based upon mutual recognition of evaluation results.

The Force Group of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which performs NTEP tests of load cells on

behalf of the NCWM, has been collaborating with the Nederlands Meetinstituut to review test procedures and methods and

to exchange data collected on models of devices tested by both laboratories. Both parties have expressed a willingness to recognize the results oftests performed in accordance with OIML Recommendation R60 and issued by the other party for the purpose of issuing NTEP and EC Certificates. Since requirements for these two types of Certificates may include some

variations for the load cells, it may be necessary to conduct separate tests for some aspects ofthe type evaluation process.

3. Agreement

The United States National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) agrees to recognize the results of the tests performed by the Nederlands Meetinstituut (NMi) for the purpose of issuing NTEP Certificates of Conformance for load cells. In the event

tiiat an NTEP Certificate of Conformance is not applicable to the load cell, NTEP will recognize the results for the purpose of issuing the substantially equivalent document, if it has not already been issued.

NMi agrees to recognize the results of the tests performed by NTEP for the purpose of issuing EC Test Certificates for load

cells. In the event an EC Test Certificate is not applicable to the load cell, NMi will recognize the results for the purpose of

issuing the substantially equivalent document, if it has not already been issued.

Each party will:

maintain confidentiality of information unless otherwise agreed upon;

make all information pertaining to the tests and the instruments involved available to the other party, maintaining

confidentiality of proprietary information;

in time and by mutual agreement, collaborate in the development of additional areas of mutual recognition;

» collaborate in the development and maintenance of proficiency and uniformity of evaluation; and

collaborate to preserve the technical capability and competence of their mutual laboratories.

59
Executive Committee

4. Collaboration

Both parties will collaborate to identify and document differences in requirements and test methods so as to enable efficient load cell evaluation.

5. Resolution of Complaints

This MRA does not create obligations which are legally binding. However, each party will investigate complaints that tlie other party brings forward, and both parties will work together to seek satisfactory resolution of such complaints.

6. Duration and Termination

This agreement will become effective on (Date) It will remain in effect for a period of five (5) years and may

be extended by mutual consent. This MRA may be terminated at any time by either party upon six (6) months vwitten notice

to the other party.

60
Executive Committee

Appendix E

MEMORANDUM To: The NTEP Board of Governors

c/o Jim Truex, Chairman

Subject: U.S. Software Work Group's Report to Board of Governors at the Interim NCWM

From: U.S. Software Work Group

Michael Adams, Chairman

Current membership of the U.S. Software Work Group:

Deidre M. Adams

Chris H. Bagiey

Doug Bliss John W. DeFeo

John Hughes

Larry Martens

IBM Corporation

Sooner Scale Inc. Mettler-Toledo Inc Hoffer Flow Controls, Inc Weigh-Tronix Inc UniBridge Scale Systems

Michael Adams Fairbanks Scales Dennis A. Beattie Legal Metrology Branch

Steve Cook CA Measurement Standards Frances Holland Schlumberger Technologies

Dennis Krueger AT&T

Debbie Ripley NIST

Note: This report is based on discussions in which software refers to stand alone software and is not intended to apply to software/programs installed in the device, when a device is submitted for type approval.

The U.S. Software Work Group supports continuing to issue CCs on software.

Charge 1) Deflnition

Investigate the ways software is used in weighing and measuring devices and recommend a definition of "metrologically

significant software." The definition is to contain specific criteria for determining which software is subject to and which

software is not subject to weights and measures regulations.

The definition for "metrological integrity" (of a device), in Appendix D, Defmitions, of H44, suggests that tlie term

"metrological" encompasses three areas:

(1) The accuracy and validity of a measurement or transaction,

(2) compliance ofthe device with weights and measures requirements, or

(3) the suitability of the device for a given application.

The Work Group felt that metrologically significant software would:

a) involve Commercial Transactions as defined in Handbook 130, Uniform Laws and Regulations, (Model

Law),

b) have features or characteristics regulated by H44 and not other documents,

c) be anything which affects the metrological integrity (Parts 1 , 2, and 3), d) involve software located in a system, up to the first fmal ofthe system,

e) be tied to identified hardware system requirements, f ) not involve book keeping.

The Work Group felt that dedicated and stand-alone software are different in that software evaluated in a dedicated device

may not fimction correctly in a general device and vice versa. The assumption is that a dedicated device is not configured the same as a general device. In a specific case where there is not a difference, then a manufacturer would have to provide an

explanation at the time of evaluation to have both considered with one submitted program.

The Work Group has discussed "first final" when discussing what software would need to be submitted for type approval.

The term comes fi-om Pub 14 Administrative Procedures: "all equipment to the point of the first indication or recorded

representation of the fmal quantity on which the transaction will be based." Results are no better then the current description

in Pub 14. The U.S. Work Group members brought with them a good understanding of "first fmal." Many visitors at the Work Group Meetings were not so sure of what a 'first fmal' could be. (The Canadians at the two Canadian software meetings

61
Executive Committee

were confused by the term "first final" as well.) The U.S. Work Group members understanding of "first final" is due in part

because of exposure to the concept in Pub 14.

Getting this concept into H44 would give it more exposure and perhaps device Users will better understand which devices

and software need type approval in their applications. Users could use this 'fu-st final' concept to structure their applications

in such a way as to reduce the extent of type approval impact. Many areas where very few metrological features are being

performed could be delimited by moving the occurrence of the "first final" up in the application system. For example,

software controlling manifests, bills of lading, and loadout sheets can be clearly kept from type approval requirements if a

ticket printer operating from the weighing device is providing a printed ticket to the customer early on in the system.

Software has mimmum system requirements which should be recorded on the CC. The operating system (such as dos or windows), processor requirements, (such as 286 or 486) and CPU clock speed (such as 12 MHz or 66 MHz) were named as part of a minimum system.

The processor and clock speed are required because of real-time considerations (processing speeds). When the program being

run is not real-time dependent, then naming these in a minimum system requirement is not so important.

Conclusion: Price computing systems would not have minimum system requirements in regards to processor or clock

speed.

Marking requirements apply to software. Stand alone software will need to be marked with an identity so that it can be traced back to a CC.

Conclusion: All main elements, including software, must be identified for traceability back to a CC.

Adding a serial number to all individual installations of software would be a burden beyond its value to Field hispectors.

Conclusion: Software should not require a serial number and should be exempt from H44 G.S.I (c).

This would require a change to Handbook 44, or an interpretation from the S&T Committee that G.S. 1 (c) contains the exemption currently.

Charge 2) Checklists

Investigate the current type evaluation checklists and determine if they are adequately verifying the suitability of software to the weights and measures specifications and tolerances in Handbook 44. Recommendations are to be made for modification

of checklists to address software verification, as required.

The current checklists are nearly adequate for evaluation of software. The following checklists have been assigned to be

reviewed to determine if clarifications are needed or if additional items should be added to cover software concerns:

a) Digital Electronic Scales Checklist Steve Cook & Michael Adams

b) Belt-Conveyor Scales Checklist Steve Cook

c) Load Cells Checklist

John Hughes

d) Electronic Cash Registers Interfaced with Scales Checklist

Deidre Adams & Dennis Krueger

e) Electronic Cash Registers Interfaced with Motor-Fuel Dispensers Checklist

Deidre Adams & Frances Holland

f) Liquid-Measuring Devices Checklist

John DeFeo & Frances Holland

62
Executive Committee

The Work Group has reviewed the first draft ofthe "Digital Electronic Scales Checkbst" provided by Steve Cook.

The Work Group plans to have all of the drafts ready for review by the next Annual Meeting of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures.

Charge 3) Field

Study how field enforcement officials handle software in the field and investigate ways to improve effectiveness of the

investigation/verification process. Recommendations are to be made on investigation guidelines.

Since software is not a type of weighing or measuring device, the Work Group believes a separate EPO on software would

be inappropriate. Adding clarification or new references to existing EPOs is more appropriate. EPOs address applicable H44

sections as they pertain to application categories, for example truck scales or hopper scales. In tenns of documentation

structure, EPOs are a vertical sectioning of H44. Applicable code has been pulled out along the length of H44. Software does

not pertain to an application category, it cuts across all categories of application. Software documentation is a horizonal

sectioning of H44. (Other horizonal items would include marking requirements and shift tests.) This structure makes software a candidate to be a portion of each EPO rather than to be a separate EPO.

The Work Group envisions many software concerns would be addressed in the beginning of an EPO as part of a pretest

evaluation. The Woric Group does not plan to address each EPO because of the current need for general updating of the EPOs.

Software concerns should be added when Publication 12 is updated.

The field inspectors present at the various meetings were questioned about their encounters with software in the field and what

support they would find useful.

a) Education on computers. This education would need to start at a very basic level and involve hardware and

software. For instance, many inspectors would not know the significance of the processor identification number (286 vs 486), the processor speed, or operating system on software performance. Also, many

inspectors do not know how to verify these features on a computer.

b) The inspectors indicated that they are routinely encountering systems that are controlled by computers; that they have concerns about the possibility of fraud. These systems are evaluated as best they can with the owner's help. The inspectors were not comfortable with the level of inspection they are able to do. (The

amount of time available to do an inspection was cited as a reason as well as lack of familiarity with

computers and software.)

c) The inspectors felt they needed more information about what to inspect on computer-controlled systems.

Charge 4) Education

Investigate ways to promote understanding about software and its relationship to weights and measures regulations.

Recommend ways of improving the education delivery system and subject matter.

Basic training/education is needed for computers/software. The Administration and Public Affairs (A&P) Committee should

consider offering training m this area. The Work Group believes that a course would be better than a book alone. Possibly some of the scholarship money could be used to provide computer literacy training.

Ifthe A&P Committee pursues computer training, the Work Group is willing to provide a list of important features/terms with

which inspectors should be familiar. The only contact with the A&P Committee was to verify that this is the type of training

they would consider.

Charge 5) User Programmable

Look into the uses of and needs for User Programmable software. Report on findings including conclusions and

recommendations

.

User Selectable features are controlled and should not be considered User Programmable.

63
Executive Committee

Users who reprogram or add to the programming of metrological features would be modifying the type and subject to type

approval requirements.

If there is some point in type approved software that control of a metrological feature was intentionally turned over to a User Programmable section, then this would need to be listed on the CC of the type evaluated family. (The Work Group is not endorsing this concept, just commenting on the necessity of making it clear when such a situation exists.)

"User exit" and "hook" are terms to describe situations where a manufacturer has intentionally left a means for another

programmer to gain control of the program to be executed by the computer.

Charge 6) Third-Party Software

Investigate third-party software and report findings including conclusions and recommendations.

Two defmitions of "third party" are put forward:

a) A party not normally involved with weights and measures considerations.

b) A party who writes software for a dedicated piece of equipment, which they do not manufacture.

It would be constraint of trade to discriminate against either type of tliird-party software writers. Identifying someone as third party and having them agree that they are third party may be difficult. Third-party software writers need to be held accountable

for correct control of weights and measures considerations, the same as any manufacturer. This would include type approval.

Third party "a" software raises concerns that manufacturers who are new to weights and measure applications, may not be

aware that there are regulations to be considered. This situation requires that awareness be raised in three areas:

a) the new manufacturers on regulations they need to meet,

b) users on what to require when purchasing equipment, and

c) regulators on how to identify inadequate software in the field.

Manufacturers "in the business" are concerned that third party programmers do not pay their dues in supporting the culture, nor are they held to the same standards and requirements as "in the business" companies are held to. This gives them an economic advantage in bidding jobs.

Third party "a" software is connected to the "one of a kind" issue in tliat starting manufacturers are more likely to declare their software one of a kind than an established manufacturer. Manufacturers have a concern over advantage in the marketplace

with respect to this situation.

Regulators are concerned that third party programmers are ignorant of requirements and will saddle users and jurisdictions

with inappropriately operating equipment, too expensive to make removal or complete correction practical.

Third party "b" software is a current trade practice. Companies have come forward pointing out that they offer hardware and

hardware/partial software packages to third party "b" types, who then expand the software to suit their application. This does

not diminish the requirement for additional type evaluation if the third party software affects metrological features.

Charge 7) Type Modification

Look into manufacturers modification of software after type evaluation and which modifications need to be reported to NIST

for consideration of impact on documented type. Recommendations to be given on description of modifications which need

reporting.

Most modifications are not in the regulated areas. These modifications are not of concern.

64
Executive Committee

Modification to software type is controlled the same as other main elements. Part "k," "What Constitutes Different Type,"

ofthe Administration procedures would apply. "A type is considered MODIFIED if a change alters a metrological or technical

characteristic."

Adding a regulated feature to a program or changing a metrologically significant part of the software (except for maintenance)

would have to be reported and is subject to type evaluation.

Currently it is the practice not to report maintenance to software or devices. This would include:

a) compliance to new regulations in established product

b) fi:dng of bugs/errors

Charge 8) Main Element

Investigate current practice and impact of issuing CCs on software. Report on findings including conclusions and

recommendations

.

Conclusion: Work Group finds no reason to discontinue the practice of issuing CCs to software.

Conclusion: States will handle "not practicable and enforceable" as they do other parts of NTEP, at the level they feel

is required. (The Work Group is not supporting nonuniform enforcement but merely pointing out that "practicable and enforceable" are State issues with other avenues for being addressed.)

California reported that Software CCs are helpful in regulating weighing and measuring devices. CCs offer a source of

recourse to help administer weights and measures regulations.

Issuing software CCs will add the benefits ofthe type approval process to software products. The benefits of the type approval process include:

1) educates Manufacturers on Weight and Measure requirements.

2) demonstration of ability to manufacture appropriate equipment.

3) increases Field Inspector's confidence in equipment.

4) extensive evaluation of features or characteristics that are difficult or can not be inspected in the field. 5) ir.creases consumer confidence in equipment.

6) registers who is responsible for the design ofthe equipment

7) CCs contain information useful to the Field Inspectors.

Legal Metrology Software Working Group (Canadian Work Group)

1 . The Canadians are interested in the OIML positions on software but clearly want to be aligned with the U.S. positions

if possible.

2. Some form of type approval is appropriate for software.

3. An allowance for modification of software is needed. Maintenance modifications for certain and some degree of

modification allowed for meeting customer needs.

4. It is a foregone conclusion that some form of software legislation will be necessary. It is the intent of the Canadian

Regulators to ask for more demanding regulations than currently apply to devices. Canadian Industr>' wants to be

involved in writing the software legislation. This is, in part, the reason for the Working Group.

5. The Canadians are looking into software security. The WELMEC approach is mentioned as having merit.

6. The Canadians are not using "first final" criteria as a requirement on which type approval is to be based. This means some software that would require type approval in the United States, would not require type approval in Canada. This

may have some impact on Mutual Recognition Work done at the labs. (The area of mismatch is what Canadians call

65
Executive Committee

Type 2 software. The area ofmatch is called Type 1 software. Type 3 software does not need type approval in either country.)

Back in the Definition section ofthis report metrological was split into three parts:

( 1 ) The accuracy and validity of a measurement or transaction,

(2) compliance of the device with weights and measures requirements, or

(3) the suitability of the device for a given application.

Basically the Type 1 software is defmed by the part 1 metrological defmition and the Type 2 is defmed by parts 2

and 3. Type 3 is actually defined as software beyond the mandate of weights and measures.

Work Group Continuing

The Work Group believes there is more which can be accomplished in the area of stand-alone software. Important

areas we would like to work fiirther on are the checklist drafts, definition, and education. We ask that the Work Group be

continued through the next Interim NCWM Meeting.

66
Executive Committee

Appendix F - NTEP Participating Laboratories Report

Participating Laboratories Evaluation July 10, 1996

All Labs 1993 1994 1995

01/01/96-06/30/96

Total TEs

Updates

Requests Assigned' 313 364 395 249 214 35 US Mutual Recognition Requests Assigned 21 40 32

Certificates Effective- 35 68 21 53 0 53

Certificates Issued 237 164 188 213 163 50

Average Time (wks) to Perform Activities for Successful Type Evaluations

TEs: (CCs

Issued 1993)

TEs: (CCs

Issued 1994)

TEs: (CCs

Issued 1995)

TEs: (CCs Issued

1 - 6/30/96)

Updates:

(CCs Issued

1 -6/30/96)

"Date Assigned" to "Equipment Received" 8 8 10 "Equipment Received" to "Type Evaluation Complete"

6 11 8

"T\pe Evaluation Complete" to "CC Effective" 6 6 7

"CC Effective" to "Draft Certificate To NIST" 9 17 17

"Draft Certificate To NIS T' to "Certificate Issued"

9 9 3 2

"Date Assigned" to "Certificate Issued" 34 39 50 46 21

Actrvitv CA MD NY OH NIST OTHER TOTAL

Number of Requests Assigned* 1993 65 24 21 60 134 304

1994 103 39 32 73 93 24 364

1995 64.5 68 44.5 75.5 142.5 22 395

1996(1/1/96-6/30/96) 49 38 18 45 85 '3 249

Number of Certificates Effective^ 1993 8 5 4 4 14 35

1994 14 4 2 23 22 3 68

1995 2 5 3 8 3 21 1996(1/1/96-6/30/96) 4 6 3 7 29 5 53 Number of Certificates Issued 1993 42 11 15 38 131 237

1994 42 9 19 21 71 2 164

1995 37 7.5 8.5 36 89.5 9^ 188

1996(1/1/96-6/30/96) 38 ^7 10 53 91 14 213

' Beginning in 1 994, if a device fails a type evaluation, it is then entered as a new request for a new type evaluation. Previous to 1994, multiple

failures of the same device were still considered as a single type evaluation.

^ "Effective" means the type evaluation is complete but the certificate has not yet been issued.

67

Executive Committee

Appendix G

NTETC Weighing Sector

Summary of Decisions Made at Meeting

October 31 - November 1, 1995

Baltimore, Maryland

1) Review of Procedural Issues

Conclusions of Items (a), (b), and (c):

Meeting Frequency: Meeting agendas must be kept to a manageable level. Current meeting frequency of once per year with

ongoing review by the Chairman and technical advisor is acceptable. To keep Sector members up to date on items

acciunulating on the agenda, a mailing will be done every 6 months.

The Sector agreed tiiat a rigorous deadline must be placed on minutes, especially if meetings are only once per year. The

technical advisor agreed that this is critical especially since manufacturers design using Pub 14 criteria and the NTEP

laboratories need the decisions to incorporate into their evaluations. Members of the Sector are assisting in taking notes during

the meeting in an effort to help make meeting results available in a more timely manner. A summary of the decisions will be distributed to the Sector within a week of the meeting, and a summary of the discussions within a month of the meeting.

Decisions Between Meetings: The process of having labs review decisions and reaching a consensus works well. It is acknowledged that ad hoc decisions are to address situations for which policy or procedures do not currently exist. This is different from a deviation from policy which is not practiced by the laboratories; if current policies are found to be

inappropriate or incorrect, NTEP brings the issue with a proposed change to the pohcy before Uie Sector for review and

decision.

Communication Between Meetings: The Sector agreed that additional avenues of coinmunication such as BB, e-mail, etc. should be explored and taken advantage of to maximize benefit

Reanafysis ofLoad Cell Data: Permitting reanalysis of data is appropriate whether done on data from previous evaluations or reanalysis of current data at different values than originally requested. Members acknowledge that additional costs are necessary and warranted to recover labor costs ofreanalysis.

Timeliness ofNTEP Process: The Sector reviewed a breakdown of several main areas of the process and discussed who is responsible for each portion.

NTEP is reviewing the process to find ways of improving those sections of die process imder control of NIST and/or the NTEP

laboratories. Sector members support this review and acknowledge that improvements are needed in the timeliness of the process. Manufacturers present also acknowledged that manufacturers can help by following the process for submitting

equipment and providing quick feedback on draft Certificates. NTEP will continue to update the Sector on progress in improving the timeliness of the process.

2) Update of Canada/US Mutual Recognition Work

Discussion/Conclusions: The Sector reviewed the activities in this area. It was noted that both the U.S. and Canada are committed to continuing the mutual recognition work and to expanding the scope of the agreement where practical. Canada

has proposed changes to their scale requirements and anticipates that the requirements will become effective in April 1996. Plans will be made to provide additional training in Spring 1996 for the U.S. NTEP laboratories in the areas which are changed.

3) NTEP Testing of Junction Boxes

Conclusions: The Sector agreed that the decision made on the balloted issue is appropriate. The decision was consistent with

other applications and is analogous to requiring an NTEP load cell in the steelyard of an electromechanical scale. It was

acknowledged tliat there may also be other temperature-sensitive components in the box in the scenario; however, these are

69
Executive Committee

not presently subject to test in other types of junction boxes, thus they were not required to be tested in the letter ballot scenario.

The Sector agreed that establishing a rule that says all junction boxes must be tested is not appropriate. There will be cases where it is appropriate to test a j-box in chamber with device; tlie NTEP laboratories will make this assessment on a case-by- case basis based on a review of the device capabilities with the manufacturer. The boxes can be generally placed into categories of "passive" and "active."

An "active" box means that the device has amplifiers, adjustable components such as adjustable load cell summing cards or

a significant component such as an A/D converter. A passive box is one which may have temperature-sensitive resistors, but

not significant components warranting separate evaluation. It is expected that manufacturers choose resistors appropriate for

tlieir applications. If the box is classified as "active," then it would be tested and designated as either an indicator or a platform

rather than as a separate component. The resulting CC would also be for either an indicator or a weighing element; not for a separate junction box.

4) Concrete Decks - Single Piece vs. Multiple-Piece Deck (3/95)

Conclusions: The Sector recognized two possible scenarios in which a scale is offered with a single or multiple-piece deck

option: (1) the weighbridge remains structurally the same for both options; only the deck is different, being offered as either a single, poured piece of concrete or multiple pieces; and (2) the weighbridge itself is structurally different for the single-piece

option vs. the multiple-piece option.

The Sector concluded that for the first scenario ( 1 ) above, the manufacturer can offer both options and have them covered with

a single test since the weighbridge remains structurally the same for both options. The second scenario (2) above addresses

modular vs. non-modular designs, and the two options are structurally different. In this case, separate tests would be required

and, because the designs are different, the devices would be covered under separate Certificates.

5) Concrete Deck Thickness

Conclusions: Concrete deck thickness is a manufacturer design criterion and is left up to the manufacturer. The manufacturer

will select and submit a device with a specific deck thickness for NTEP evaluation. The manufacturer can vary the thickness and still have it covered under the NTEP Certificate. The Sector acknowledged that the manufacturer is sometimes asked by

the customer to vary deck thickness; the Sector agreed that the manufacturer is responsible for assessing the impact on the

scale design and controlling variations to ensure continued compliance with Handbook 44 requirements.

The Sector also agreed to submit a proposal to the S&T Committee to modify Scales Code paragraph UR.4.3. to recognize

modification to deck thickness as an example of a modification which would require approval by a competent engineering

authority, preferably the manufacturer of the scale.

6) Application of v^j,, d/N Applies to Complete Scales Tested in the Errvironmental Chamber

Conclusions: The Sector believes tliat deviation irom formula specified in Handbook 44 is appropriate imder certain conditions. Specifically, deviation should be permitted for scales which have been tested as a complete device and which

utilize automatic zero tracking. This conclusion is to be forwarded to the S&T Committee with a request that the Committee

consider adding it to their 1996 agenda. The proposal would modify paragraph S.5.4. to recognize the deviation under the conditions noted above.

The Sector also encourages the S&T Committee to consider adding a definition for "v^i„" to Handbook 44 to clarify references

to the term in the Handbook.

The Sector recognized that devices submitted for testing as complete scales in the environmental chamber do not have to use NTEP load cells. If a scale is tested for influence factor requirements as a complete device and it uses non-NTEP load cells, current NTEP policy does not permit substitution of the cells without additional testing. The policy was established based on the fact that the NTEP evaluation provides no information to establish whether or not the substitution is metrologically

significant. This is different from a scale using load cells with an NTEP CC since the CC defines metrological characteristics ofthe cell as verified by NTEP.

70
Executive Committee

There is some disagreement among Sector members over current NTEP policy referring to replacement of load cells; however,

the group agrees that current policy should apply unless the group decides to reopen the issue of the current policy as a separate discussion. The group agreed to think about this policy and its application to the scenario in which the cell/scale combination does not comply with the formula specified in S.5.4.

7) Permanence of ID Badges and Labels

Conclusions: Industry representatives present at the meeting do not generally feel that the current criteria are overly stringent

and duplicate conditions normally encountered in the device environments. The Sector does see a need to improve consistency

in applying the requirements. The specific cleaning materials used and the type of eraser will be specified in Pub 14. The

household cleanser to be used is Bon Ami brand, the window cleaner is Windex, and the all purpose cleaner is Fantastic or 409. The pencil eraser is a Number 2 ink eraser.

The Sector considered differentiating the permanence criteria for marking information required by G-S.l . from the permanence

criteria for marking information required by S.6.3.a. However, the Sector agreed with the assessment it originally made in 1993 that the permanence criteria in Pub 1 4 applies to all markings of all weighing devices, including load cells.

8) Muiti-Interval/Multiple Range Devices — Rules for Tare

Conclusions: The Sector acknowledged that there are differences in the way that Handbook 44 and NTEP address the expression of tare values on multi-interval and multiple-range scales. The United States requires representations to be

mathematically correct. This means that representations may not be in units of 1,2, or 5, and, because the tare division is a rounded value, it may not be consistent with the scale division. In addition, the United States does not permit an entry of zero

tare. OIML requires that representations be in increments of 1,2, or 5; this sometimes results in representations that appear

to be mathematically incorrect.

Jim Truex, OH, and Gary Lameris, Hobart Corporation, agreed to review the performance of a sample device and identiiy the primary concerns surrounding this issue. Based upon their findings, they will come back to the Sector with recommendations on whether or not a proposal should be made to the S&T Committee to change Handbook 44 and whedier or not changes

should be made to Publication 14.

9) Software Working Group ~ Update of Activities

Conclusions/Discussions: Mike Adams, Chairman of the Software Work Group, provided an update to the Sector on the work

that has been done since the last Sector meeting. In addition to the information provided in the Sector's agenda, Mike reported

that the Work Group will hold another meeting prior to the Interim and will provide a progress report to the Board of

Governors at the Interim Meeting. The Work Group is reviewing existing checklists for scales, liquid-measuring devices, and

point-of-sale systems to determine if information should be added to these checklists to recognize evaluations of software used

in these applications. The Work Group has referred frequently to a WELMEC document on software and has found the document very helpful in defming commonly used terms and procedures in software applications. Mike also noted that, although the final report and recommendation has not yet been developed, the Work Group has generally found no reason to discontinue issuance of NTEP Certificates of Conformance for software.

10) Test Procedures for In-Motion Monorail Scales

Conclusions: Adopt the proposed modifications to the procedures with the following changes and clarifications.

Testing can be performed in either a laboratory environment to cover a range of capacities, rail sizes, and speeds. Permanence

testing can also be performed in either a laboratory environment or in the field. If permanence testing is performed in a laboratory environment, then, this is to be followed up with a one-time field test using the test procedures outlined in "2. Dynamic Tests with Livestock Carcasses." This latter decision is based on concerns that a laboratory test may not duplicate

performance of the device in an actual installation. NTEP and manufacturer will come to an agreement on best available

installation to be selected for the test. Current NTEP policy for devices is to put the complete device in the environmental chamber and test for compliance with

influence factors requirements. If it won't fit into chamber, it must use type evaluated load cells. The Sector agreed that tfiis policy, like other technical policy specified for all scales, qjplies to in-motion monorail tests.

71
Executive Committee

Change first sentence of part 2.a. to read "No less than 20 carcass weighments should be used..." and change the "Note" in that section to read "In the lab, at least 2 carcasses must be available for the test; multiple weighments of the same carcasses may be used to achieve a total of 20 weigliments."

On Page 9 of the agenda in the last sentence of the second paragraph change "smaller" to "larger" and "ratio" to "number."

1 1) NTEP Laboratory Testing to OIML Requirements

Conclusions: R60: The revised draft language was presented to the Sector for review and comment. The Sector was unable

to come to a consensus on whether or not to recommend that the NTEP Board of Governors support the agreement. Concerns were raised over the fact that EC Certificates were not available for load cells and that the agreement would not provide an

equivalent benefit to U.S. manufacturers seeking to sell products in Europe. Some members of industry expressed reservations about entering into the agreement on the basis that it would put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage. Other manufacturers

indicated an interest in pursuing the agreement since this would offer them an alternative site at which to obtain NTEP testing

for load cells, possibly avoiding the current backlog through the NTEP laboratories. Some members indicated that the OIML

Certificate, which NTEP is already authorized to issue, is what is of most benefit to the manufacturer.

NTEP's efforts in this area have been directed by requests from industry to assist in eliminating trade barriers for U.S.

manufacturers exporting products. Since a consensus could not be reached by industry representatives at the Weighing Sector, no recommendation was made by the Sector to the Board of Governors. Industry representatives at the Sector meeting agreed

to fijrther discuss the issue at the fall 1995 meeting of the Scale Manufacturer's Association and to provide feedback on any

conclusions to tlie NTEP Board of Governors.

There was general agreement that NTEP should immediately pursue the completion of steps required for NTEP to issue OIML

Certificates for R60, Load Cells. It was reported that the NIST Force Group is working to develop software to automate the

presentation oftest data in the R60 Annex A format. An electronic Certificate form will be developed by NIST/OWM. NTEP

expects to be able to offer testing for R60 Certificates by the Interim Meeting.

R76: There was also support from Sector members for NTEP to actively pursue work in performing testing to OIML R76

Non-Automatic Weighing Devices. California and Ohio NTEP laboratories agreed to take steps to begin testing to R76 as soon as possible. It was acknowledged that these tests would be offered as separate tests from NTEP tests, rather than a combined test; however, both sets of tests could be performed under the same submission. Included in the final arrangements

are the identification of private laboratories near the Ohio laboratory for performing some of the required electrical testing.

Once arrangements are complete, an announcement will be distributed to provide details on submittmg devices for R76 testing.

NTEP will also take steps to explore the purchase of software for generating the test report forms for R76; however, it was

agreed that testing should proceed using manual recording of test results in tlie interim period.

12) NCWM Publication 14 Update

Discussion: The 3rd Edition ofNCWM Publication 1 4, dated August 1 995 is now available from tlie NCWM at a cost of $40

for members and $60 for non-members. Order forms were made available to those attending the meeting and are available upon request from OWM. If a company needs a copy of a single checklist, 0WTV1 will provide it at no charge. OWM is exploring the availability of providing the document in an electronic copy, and in the long-term is striving to make the document accessible through electronic means such as the Internet.

The next edition of NCWM Publication 14 is scheduled for May 1996 following completion of the meetings of the Grain

Moisture Meters and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors. The document will be updated annually after that date.

13) Changes to Reflect Handbook 44 Changes at the NCWM 1995 Annual Meeting

Conclusions: Make the following modifications to Publication 14 to reflect July 1995 action of the NCWM.

Include a notation in the Code reference for paragraph G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls to reference the CECIP document

on pictograms as a resource for identifying possible pictograms; however, since all symbols in this list may not be consistent with past NCWM interpretations, NTEP laboratories will continue to review on a case by case basis any submissions of

symbols not already on the list currently included in Publication 14.

Modify Section 9. of the scales checklist to address the changes to paragraphs S.1.8.3. Customer's Indications.

72
Executive Committee

Modily the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 9 to read " Scales indicating in metric units may indicate the price per 100 grams. Otherwise fractional pricing is prohibitedrfe«t4»Multiplier keys that multiply tlie unit price

entry by 2 or 4 are acceptable because the unit price is always in whole units of weight.

Modify Section 9.3.: Customer's unit price displays must be in terms of whole units of weight (price per pound or multiple pound prices, e.g., 3 lb/$1.00) except for scales indicating in metric units which may indicate unit prices

in price per 100 grams. Otherwise, fractional pricing (i.e., 1/4 lb or lb) prices is prohibited.

Modify Section 50. Motion Detection, of the scales checklist as follows:

change part (a) to read: "plus or minus 3 scale divisions for axle load, railway track, mi vehicle scales, and hopper

(other than grain hopper) scales with a capacity exceeding 22 OOP kg (50 000 lb); and...

14) NTEP Evaluation of Portable Vehicle Scales — Installation Surface

Conclusions: Installation surface is significant; however, it is not in the realm of NTEP to verify performance in various types

of installation. There are requirements for NTEP and requirements for field enforcement. It is not up to NTEP to verify the appropriateness of the final installation.

Note: Items 15-18 were added to the Committee 's agenda during the Sector Meeting.

15) Definition of "One-of-A-Kind"

The Committee reviewed a request for clarification of one-of-a-kind devices. The request specifically questioned the designation of a scale design such as a 70 ft x 10 ft truck scale which is not unique or custom made and for which similar designs have been issued NTEP CCs. Also questioned was building one single 70 ft x 10 ft scale, one single 60 ft x 10 ft scale, and one 35 ft x 1 0 ft scale and designating them as "one of a kind."

Conclusions: The Sector agreed that an adequate defmition already exists for one-of-a-kind devices. Jim Truex agreed to research the issue and provide the Sector with the defmition agreed to by tlie NTEP BOG. It was also agreed that the

definition should have been included in the Administrative Procedures and Policy Section (Section 1) of Publication 14. The

Sector also noted that individual States still have the prerogative to treat devices without NTEP CCs as they deem appropriate.

Although a device may not fall into the definition of "one-of-a-kind," the State may elect to perform their own type evaluation on tlie device as a special evaluation. When a State elects to perform its own evaluation on a device, NTEP encourages States

to perform the same type and amount of tests that would be performed in an NTEP evaluation.

Since the Sector's meeting, Jim Truex has provided references from the 77th and 78th NCWM final reports which address

the policy for one-of-a-kind devices. Since the NTEP BOG has already indicated support of these positions, these references

will be incorporated into the next edition of NCWM Publication 14.

16) NTEP Certificates for Retrofit Kits

Can a manufacturer receive an NTEP CC for a "retrofit kit" that significantly changes the original design of another manufacturer's device? (Particularly for tiie case in which the origmal manufacturer's device has an>JTEP CC.)

CoDciusions:

The Sector addressed the following questions:

a) Is this permissible? Sector found no reason that this would be prohibited. However, there was agreement that a type evaluation of

retrofitted device would be required and the resulting CC would limit the use of the retrofit kit to the device used

during the evaluation.

b) Does the OEM have to give their permission?

No, the OEM's permission is not required. The device would be marked by the company making the retrofit kit and

that company would be responsible for the resulting product and ensuring that it continues to be produced consistent with the device originally submitted for NTEP evaluation and continues to comply with all applicable current Handbook 44 requirements.

73
Executive Committee

c) Should any other limitations be imposed?

No other limitations were suggested.

17) Use of Non-NTEP Indicators During Type Evaluation

In 1992, the Sector agreed that NTEP indicators were not required during type evaluation testing of weighing elements in field applications; however, NTEP load cells must be used. The Sector was asked to revisit and discuss this decision.

Conclusions:

It Is acceptable to use non-NTEP device with the full understanding of tlie NTEP evaluator. The issue of special features such

as linearization correction must be understood and accepted. Applies to both laboratory and field evaluations. Still must use NTEP load ce.ls as originally decided in 1992.

18) Review of 1994 Minutes

Conclusions:

The Sector reviewed a copy of minutes from the Sector's 1994 meeting. No additions or changes were suggested, and the minutes were accepted by tiie Sector as presented.

74
Executive Committee

Appendix H

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC)

Measuring Sector

October 14, 1995, Jacksonville, Florida

Outline of Agenda Items

1) Update to NCWM Publication 14

a) Liquid-Measuring Devices Technical Policy Remanufactured Equipment

b) Liquid-Measuring Devices NTEP Logo

c) S,2. L 1 . Guidelines for applying Vapor Eliminators on Loading Rack Meters

d) S.3.1 . Diversion Prohibited Liquid-Measuring Devices

e) T.2.3 . 1 . Measurement of Agri-Chemical Liquids; Tolerances Liquid-Measuring Devices

f) S.2.2. Provision for Sealing; Audit Trail Requirements Liquid-Measuring Devices

g) A.L Application, S.5.2. Discharge Rates Measurement of Water Tolerance for Vehicle-Mounted Water

Meters

h) S. 1 .5 .2. Money-Value Computations; Multi-Unit Price Applications Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and

Anhydrous Ammonia (AA) Liquid Measuring Devices

I) A. 1 . Application Code Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices

j) Vapor Elimination on Loading Rack Mass Flow Meter Systems

k) Provision for Sealing Audit Trail Requirements Mass Flow Meters

1) G-UR.1 .3. Selecting Requirements; Suitability of Equipment for Liquid-Measuring Devices

m) G-S.6 Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features; Use of Pictograms

2) Publication 14 Status 3) Status of the Family of Products List for Mass Flow Meters

4) Status of the Retail Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Meter Examination Procedure Outline

5) Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser-Electronic Cash Register Receipt Fonnat for Recalculated Cash/Credit Prices 6) Changes to Section 3.37 Mass Flow Meters Section ofNIST Handbook 44

7) Status of Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Between Canada and the United States 8) Checklist for Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices

9) Checklist for Mass Flow Meters

1) Update to NCWM Publication 14

The following code or policy changes were adopted by the 80th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) and,

with the exception of items a) and b), which have already been added to Publication 14, will be reflected in the 1996 edition of Handbook 44 and Publication 14. These items are included as part of the agenda to inform the NTETC of the immediate

changes that will take place in National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) procedures as a result ofNCWM actions.

a) Liquid-Measuring Devices Technical Policy Remanufactured Equipment

The addition of new language to the Administrative Procedures section of Publication 14 to address remanufectured devices

resulted in the relettering of paragraphs in the Administrative Procedures. The new policy is located in section M. and states:

M. Policy on Remanufactured and Repaired Devices

a. If a company or individual makes changes to a device to the extent that the metrological characteristics are changes changed, that specific device is no longer traceable to the NTEP CC.

b. If companies or individuals repair or remanufacture a device, they are obligated to repair or remanufacture it consistent with the manufacturer's original design; otherwise, that specific device is no longer traceable to the NTEP CC.

Discussion: Committee consensus to support witli suggested editorial changes.

75
Executive Committee

b) Liquid-Measuring Devices NTEP Logo

The NCWM voted to modify the Administrative Procedures section of Publication 14 on permissible use of statements that reference NTEP and the NTEP logo resulting in changes in the lettering of Section S. to Section T., and deletion of Section

S.2.a(2)(a) and (b), to read:

2. Permissible Use of Statements and NTEP Logo

(1) Use ofNTEP Statement and Logo

The NTEP statement or logo shall be used only in conjunction with products that have been certified in accordance

with this publication and Handbook 44. The statement or logo shall never be used in any manner that could

suggest or imply that certification extends to a product that is not NTEP-certified.

WTiere reference is made to NTEP or an NTEP CC, it is essential to clearly identify which products are NTEP

certified, if the copy also includes products that are not certified. Reference to NTEP must always be located in close proximity to any reference to a certified product when uncertified products are shown on the same page.

Discussion: Committee consensus to support

c) S.2.Li. Guidelines for applying Vapor Eliminators on Loading Rack Meters

The Guideline adopted by the NCWM will be added to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Wholesale and Loading-Rack Meter

checklist, Section 20. The proposed modification to read:

20. 1 . A loading rack.. .enter the system.

The following provide guidelines for determining wholesale metering systems applications in which an air eliminator is not needed. The list is provided for guidance emd is not intended to be all-inclusive. These

guidelines are to be used for systems dispensing petroleum products, such as diesel fiiel, distillate, gasoline, fuel

oil, kerosene, light oil, and spindle oil. These guidelines do not apply to systems dispensing lubricating oils, heated petroleum products, and compressed gases.

1 . The storage tank is above ground.

2. Means are provided to ensure that the level of liquid in the storage tank is such that no air or vapor can be drawn

into the piping to the measuring system, and that the delivery is inhibited and cannot be initiated unless the tank

contains sufficient product. These means may consist of (a) low-level sensors interlocked to the pump, or (b) an

automatic tank gauging system, or © a terminal automation system which monitors inventory and has automatic

daily reconciliation against product receipts and sales, and which is ftirther backed up by manual tank gauging.

3. The pump is installed so that no section of its suction piping exceeds the elevation ofthe minimum operating level ofthe liquid in the tank.

4. The pump supplying the meter is a non-self-priming centrifugal pump.

5. The pump is installed so that there is no possibility of product vaporization at the pump inlet; that is, the pump

inlet pressure is not less than the net positive suction head for that pump when the storage tank is at its minimum

operating level.

6. Where the installation contains control or automatic valves, the sequence of valve openings begins at the control valve nearest the storage tank and ends at the control valve downstream of the meter.

7. There is no common piping between the installation intended for delivery of the product through the meter and

the installation intended for the receipt of product into the storage tank unless proper isolation valves are provided.

The Committee expressed concern aboutfield enforcement being placed in Publication 14. Membersfelt the Conference

voted to place tliis item in Publication 12, EPO 25, and Training Module 19. (See NCWMAnnual Meeting agenda July

76
Executive Committee

1995, Specifications and Tolerances Committee Item 330-1 S.2. 1. 1.) It is the Committee consensus to recommend and

support thefollowing:

a) This is not a checklist item and should not beplaced in Publication 14.

h) Recommendplacement in Publication 12, EPO 25, and Training Module 19, to comply with the NCfVM vote. c) The following foomote be placed in Publication 14 stating: "Guidelines are available in Publication 12, EPO

25."

d) S.3.1. Diversion Prohibited Liquid-Measuring Devices

The NCWM adopted modifications to the language in paragraph S.3.1 . The new language permits manual diversion of

product in the measuring system for specific applications. Modifications will appear under Sections 1 1 and 21 of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code Checklist in Publication 14, Discharge Lines and Discharge Line Valves. The addition of new language will result in the renumbering of subsequent checklist items in Sections 11 and 21. The proposed

modifications to read:

Liquid-Measuring Devices, Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers:

11. Discharge Lines and Discharge Line Valves

Code Reference: S3.\. Diversion of Measured Liquid

To prevent fraudulent practices, it shall be possible to divert measured liquid no means shall be provided by which any measured liquid can be diverted from the measuring chamber of the meter or the discharge line of a device.

b. th^ direction of liquid flow is definitely and conspicuously indicated.

11.1 Except...the device

1 1 .2 Two or ... indicated U.X Except as indicated above, a manually confroUed outlet may be installed to be opened for purging or draining the measuring chamber when the system is measuring food products if suitable means are provided to ensure liquid cannot flow through any such outlet during normal operation and to prevent

advancement of meter indications and recorded representations while the outlet is in use.

Liquid-Measuring Devices, Wholesale and Loading-Rack Meters:

11. Discharge Line and Discharge Line Valves

Code Reference: S.3.1 Diversion of Measured Liquid

21.1 No .... chamber.

21.x. Except a manually controlled outlet that may be installed to be opened for purging or draining the measuring chamber when the system is measuring food products if suitable means are provided to ensure

liquid cannot flow through any such outlet during normal operation and to prevent advancement of meter

indications and recorded representation while the outlet is in use.

Discussion: Committee consensus to support

e) T.2.3.1. Measurement of Agri-Chemical Liquids; Tolerances Liquid-Measuring Devices

The NCWM voted to delete the acceptance and maintenance tolerance table for Agri-Chemicals from paragraph T.2.3.1. and

to change the tolerances to 0.3 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively. Tolerance values are not included in Publication 14; therefore, these changes will not appear in Publication 14. This item is included to alert the Sector and the evaluating

laboratories of the change in tolerance for these products.

77
Executive Committee

Discussion: litis is an informational itent No action required.

f) S.2.2. Provision for Sealing; Audit Trial Requirements Liquid-Measuring Devices

TheNCWM voted to modify Table S.2.2. Category of Device and Methods of Sealing for Category 2 devices. An additional change was made in the effective date for enforcement ofthese requirements. It should be noted tliat all Category 2 mass flow meters will be held to the same requirements as LMD's that are affected by these changes. These modifications will be

reflected in changes to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Common General Code Criteria, Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers Section

10 and Appendix A Table S.2.2. The changes to read as follows:

Category 2 Device (Remote Configuration Capability But Controlled by Hardware)

Discussion: It is a Committee consensus to recommend and support thefollowing:

• The physical hardware enabling accessfor remote communication must be on-site.

• The hardware must be scalable with a security seal.

• An adequate number (see below table) of event counter(s) must be available to monitor the calibration and

configuration parameters ofeach individual device.

Minimum Number of Counters Required:

Minimum Event Counter(s) at Individual Device Minimum Event Counter(s) at System Controller

Only one type ofparameter

accessible (calibration or

configuration)

One (1) event counter One (I) event counterfor each separately

controlled device, or a one (I) event counter, if change are made simultaneously.

Both calibration and configuration

parameters accessible

Two (2) event counters Two (2) event countersfor each separately

controlled device, or two (2) or more event counters ifchanges are made to all controlled

devices simultaneously.

• Event counters located at tlie system controller must be provided with a means to generate a hard copy ofthe audit

trail information.

10. Measuring Elements

Code Reference: S.2.2 Provision for Sealing

10.5 Retail motor-fuel dispensers shall not have remote configuration capabilities and shall be sealed according to Cotegory 1 dcviceB as specified Table S.2.2 in Appendix A, Audit Trail Checklist for Liquid-Measuring Devices and "Category 1" devices under the "Common and General Code

Criteria" section of this checklist

The Committee also recommends that the indicated editorial changes be made to Table S.2.2. The Committee discussed the "unlevelplayingfield" that has been created with the separation ofaudit trail requirements

into specific codes and the differences between the requirements. It was thefeeling that requirements should be the same

tliroughout all codes. However, they are not going to make a recommendation at this timefor a review ofall codes. It was

felt the item, if it is brought before the S&T Committee, should comefrom the regionals.

78
Executive Committee

Table S.2.2. Categories ofDevice and Methods ofSealing

Categories ofDevice Method ofSealing

J. . .... Category 1 : No remote configuration capability. Seal bv physical seal or two evemi^ii^ti-^ounters: one for calibration and

onefor configuration parameters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, but

access is controlled by physical hardware.

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote

configuration mode and record such message if capable ofprinting in this mode or shall not operate

fThe hardware enabling accessfor remote communication must be at the device on-site. The hardware must be €ind sealed usine a physical seal and two ownt counter: one for calibration parameters and onofof

conficuration parameters an event counter for calibration parameters

and an event counter for confisuration parameters. The event counters mav be located either at the individual measuring device or at the system

which wftile in this mode. controller: however, an adequate number ofcounters must be provided

to monitor the calibration and confisuration parameters ofthe individual devices at a location. Ifthe counters are located in the system controller rather than at the individual device, means must be provided to generate a hard copy ofthe information through an on-site device.]*

f*Nonretroactive as ofJanuary /, J 996

J

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access my be unlimited or controlled through a software

switch (e.g. password)

An event logger is required in the device: it must include an event counter (000 to 999), the parameter ID, the date and time ofthe change, and the new value ofthe parameter. A printed copy ofthe information must be

available through the device or through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to 10 times the number ofscalable parameters in the

device, but not more than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not

reauire J000 changes to be stored for each parameter.)

[Nonretroactive and enforceable as ofJanuary 1, 1995.

J

(Table added 1993) (Amended 1995)

g) A.l. Application, S.5.2. Discbarge Rates Measurement of Water; Tolerance for Vehicle-Mounted Water Meters

The NCWM voted to amend paragraph A. 1 . of Section 3.3 1 Vehicle-Tank Meters (VTM) Code to include bulk deliveries of

water and delete specific references to types of pesticides from the language. A new paragraph and accompanying tables for maintenance and acceptance tolerances for vehicle-mounted water meters were added to this code. Tolerance values are not

included in Pid)lication 14; therefore, these changes will not appear in Publication 14. This item is included to alert the Sector and the evaluating laboratories of the change in tolerances and to the expansion of the scope ofthe VTM code.

A.I. - This code applies to meters mounted on vehicle tanks including those used for the measurement and delivery of

petroleum products or agri-chemical liquids such as fertilizers, feeds, horbioideo, pesticides, insooticidos. fungicidoa, and

defoliants, and bulk deliveries of water. (Amended 1985, and 1995)

T.2. Tolerance Values. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as shown in Tables l-esd ^ 2. 3. and 4. (Amended 1995)

79
Executive Committee

Table 3. Tolerances for Vehicle-Mounted Water Meters Normal Tests

Meter size (inches)Rate of flow

(gal/min)

Maximum Rate

Meter indication Tolerances on

over- and

under-registratson gal ft'

5/8 15 50 5

3/4 25 50 5

1 40 100 10

1 '/: 80 300 40 1.5%

2 120 500 40

3 250 500 50

4 350 1 000 100

6 700 1 000 100

Table 4. Tolerances for Vehicle-Mounted Water Meters

Special Tests

Intermediate rate Minimum rate Meter

size Rate Meter Tolerance Rate Meter

(inches) of indication on over- of indication Tolerance

flow and under- flow

(gal/ gal ft' registration (gal/ gal ft' Under- Overmin) min) registration registration

5/8 2 10 1 1/4 5

3/4 3 10 1 '/a 5

1 4 10 1 3/4 5

1 1\2 8 50 5 1.5% 1 Vz 10 5.0% 1.5%

2 15 50 5 2 10

3 20 50 5 4 10

4 40 100 10 7 50 5 6 60 100 10 12 50 5

Discussion: This Ls an informational item. No action required.

h) S.1.5.2. Money-Value Computations; Multi-Unit Price Applications LPG and Ntf Liquid Measuring Devices

The NCWM voted to modify the language in paragraph S.1.5.2. of the LPG and NH3 Liquid-Measuring Device Code to exclude fleet and price contract sales fi-om the requirements. Additionally the new language more specifically addresses the computing capabilities of an LPG device. Changes will appear under Section 3,1 Stationary Retail Devices, of the LPG and

NHj Checklist of Publication 14.

S.1.5.2. Money-Value Computations. - A retail device that computes money value Ghall be capable of computing such values for a singl e unit price or at each of a series of unit prices for ever)' deliver^' possible within eith er the range of measurement of the device or the range of the computing oloments, whichever is loss. A computing device shall compute the total sales price at any single-purchase unit price (excluding fleet sales and other price contract sales") for which the product is offered for sale at any delivery possible within either the measurement range of the device or the range of the computing elements.

80
Executive Committee

whichever is less. The 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 that the values shown in Table 1

.

Discussion: Committee consensus to support

I) A.l. Application Code Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices

The NCWM voted to modify paragraph A.l. to include additional cryogenic liquids and delete the reference to device

installation. The Committee did not recommend that carbon dioxide and liquefied natural gas be included in the application statement. An equivalent paragraph is not included in Publication 14; this item is included on the agenda to alert the Sector of changes to the scope of the Cryogenic LMD Code.

A.I. - This code applies to or>'og0nic liquid measuring devices used for the measurement of cryogenic liquids such as, but not

limited to oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and argon, whether such devices are installed in a permanent location, or mounted on

a vehicle, or mounted on a portable tank. (Amended 1986, and 1995)

No discussion, the Committee was alerted.

j) Vapor Elimination on Loading-Rack Mass Flow Meter Systems

The NCWM voted to add a new paragraph S.3.3.1. to the Mass Flow Meters Code to address vapor elimination on loadingrack liquid-metering systems. Additionally the seven guidelines [see item 1 (c)] developed for vapor elimination for loading- rack meters should also apply to determme whether or not the system is designed or operationally controlled in a manner that

air and/or vapor caimot enter the system.

S.3.3.1. Vapor Elimination on Loading-Rack Liquid-Metering Systems. -

(a) A loading-rack liquid-metering system shall be equipped with a vapor or air eliminator or other automatic means to prevent

the passage ofvapor and air through the meter unless the system is designed or operationally controlled by a method, approved

by the weights and measures jurisdiction having statutory authority over the device, such that air and/or vapor cannot enter the system.

(b) Vent lines from the air or vapor eliminator (if present) shall be made of metal tubing or other rigid material.

Discussion: This is an informational item No action required. The same comments as under 1 (c).

k) Provision for Sealing Audit Trail Requirements Mass Flow Meters

The NCWM voted to modify Table S.2.2. Category of Device and Methods of Sealing for Category 2 Devices and to change

the effective date for enforcement ofthe requirements for Category 2 devices. The modification of these provisions for sealing a Category 2 mass flow meter will hold this device to the same requirements as Liquid-Measuring Devices. Changes to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Checklist in Publication 14 will be made to reflect these changes and those noted in agenda item

1 .f This item is included to alert the Sector and the evaluating laboratories of the changes to sealing requirements for mass

flow meters.

Discussion: It was the consensus of the Committee that the same recommendation madefor Item 1 (f) ofthe agenda be

implementedfor this item in the Mass Flow Meter Checklist

1) G-UR.13. Selecting Requirements; Suitability of Equipment for Liquid-Measuring Devices

NCWM voted to add the following language on suitability of use requirements for LMD's.

G-UR.13. Liquid-Measuring Devices - To be suitable for its appUcation, the minimum delivery for liquid-measuring devices

shall be no less than 100 divisions, except that tlie minimum delivery for retail analog devices shall be no less than 10

divisions. Maximum division values and tolerances are stated in the specific codes.

The Sector should consider adding this information to the technical policy for LMD's.

81
Executive Committee

Discussion: The Committeefeels there is insufficient justification to include this in the technical policy of Publication

14. It is already in HB 44 as a user requirement.

m) G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features; Use of Pictograms

NCWM voted to modify the language in paragraph G-S.6. to read:

G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, Features. - All operational controls, indications, and features, including

switches, lights, displays, push button, and other means, shall be clearly and definitely identified. The use of approved

pictograms or symbols shall be acceptable. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1977.]

(Amended 1978, and 1995)

Section 2 of Publication 14, LMD Checklist and Test Procedures, Common General Code Criteria, will be modified to reflect these changes.

Discussion: Committee consensus to support

2) Publication 14 Status

The August 1995 Third Edition of NCWM Publication 14 is now available through the Office of Weights and Measures

(OWM). The complete 412 page Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures can be

purchased at $40 per copy for NCWM members and $60 per copy for nonmembers. Individual checklists are currently

available at no charge. To obtain copies of Publication 14 contact Terry Grimes (OWM). This item was included to update

the Sector on the status of the latest edition of Publication 14.

Discussbn: Concern was expressed about tJiepublication ofchanges made to Publication 14 during this agenda and when

they are implemented. The nextfullpublication ofthe Checklist is scheduledfor May.

It is the Committee *s recommendation and consensus that updatepages be available to the labs and Committee members

betweenfull printings.

3) Status of the Family of Products for Mass Flow Meters (MFM)

Initially NTEP Certificates of Conformance for metering devices covered applications for those products which were used

during the type evaluation process. Manufacturers found it difficult to anticipate every product the meters might be used to dispense. Testing a meter with every possible product would be too costly to the manufacturer and place a strain on NTEP

resources. In 1991 the Sector adopted a policy to alleviate the need for additional testing and to determine which tests would

cover specific product types. This policy was developed and agreed to based on the principles of measurement demonstrated

by a positive displacement meter; a positive displacement meter tends to perform better as viscosity increases and the change

in its performance with viscosity change is very predictable. Under this policy, common commercially metered products were

categorized into "families" or groups of liquids. Although NTEP routinely evaluates other types of metering technology such

as mass flow and turbine meters, it has no policy which addresses the specific categories of products used with these meters. There are inconsistencies in how an NTEP CC for mass flow meters has listed products covered under the CC; the CC may

list a range of specific gravities, but does not address the differences in performance expected for products dispensed at extreme temperatures or under pressure and the influence of meter size. The Sector has been asked to develop a policy which

serves to reduce the amount of testing and is representative of the device performance over a range of products for other types

of metering technology.

Discussion to address the possibility of creating such a policy and product family list for additional metering technologies

began at the October 1 994 sector meeting, MFM manufacturers have been approached just as PD meter manufacturers to help

establish specific performance parameters for these meters. The 1994 meeting concluded with the formation of a subcommittee consisting of the following associate members present; Mike Keilty (Micro Motion), Randy Smith

(Schlumberger), Norm Alston (Daniel Flow Products Inc.), John Skuce (Smith Meter Inc.), and Tim Scott (Brooks Instrument).

As yet there has not been any guidance from industry on how to proceed on developing a policy.

The lack of a policy raises the question of how NTEP will proceed on verifying claims on a product type application. Mass

flow meter technology is relatively new in its association with a wide range of products. Existing policy for cryogenic and

82
Executive Committee

Ipg meters are not based on specific gravity, thus it would be difficult to derive guidelines from currently observed meter performance in those areas.

The other issues raised by manufacturers are the competitive advantage given to companies with unconditional CC's and the additional restrictions imposed by the requirement to evaluate all product applications.

Discussion: Mike KeUty will draft a letter to other manufacturers within the month soliciting inputfor theproject

4) Status of the CNG Meter Examination Procedure Outline

During the October 1993 meeting, the Sector established a subgroup to work with the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC)

to develop an examination procedure outline (EPO) for use in field testing compressed natural gas meters. The group was

provided with draft procedures from Jim Akey (WI), which were developed on behalf of the NCWM Metrologist Group,

Nebraska Weights and Measures, California Division of Measurement Standards, and with additional guidelines based on OWM work with Maryland Weights and Measures. .

The Sector will be updated on tiie progress ofthis work.

Discussion: A committee was appointed to review the distributed checklists and EPOs developedfor CI^G dispensers. The

committee included Mike KeUty (Chairman), Ricliard Huff, Gordon Johnson, Rich Tucker, Bob Traettino, Dick Sliockley,

and Ross Andersen. Individual members will reportproposed changes to Mike Keiity by l\ovember 14.

5) Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser-Electronic Cash Register Receipt Format for Recalculated Cash/Credit Prices

Industry has approached NTEP for guidelines on the sales receipt information that is required when cash/credit transactions are initiated at the dispenser and, at the transaction end, the method of payment is changed at the console at the customer's

request. The result of a change in method of payment to cash instead of credit or vice versa is precipitated by any number of

circumstances. For example a credit card is forgotten or a customer notices an optional free service (i.e., carwash) is offered

with a minimum fuel purchase. A poll of the NTEP Participating Laboratories did not result in a clear consensus on this issue. This item is being brought to the Sector for guidelines on an acceptable sales receipt format when a customer desires to change

the condition ofthe sale, at the transaction end.

Handbook 44 Section 3.30 paragraph S.1.6.7. Recorded Representation, Point of Sale requires a sales receipt from an

electronic cash register (ECR) interfaced with a retail motor-fuel dispenser (RMFD) to contain the following information:

(a) the total volume of delivery,

(b) the unit price,

© the total computed price, and

(d) the product identity

The following draft text was included in the August 1995 edition of Publication 14 with a request that it be reviewed by the Sector at its next meeting:

Should the customer elect to use another method of payment following completion of delivery, the console

may be used to recalculate the total price-provided the dispenser complies with all applicable Handbook

44 requiranents. For example, the customer selects the credit card unit price on the dispenser and dispenses

product at that unit price; however, the customer discovers that he forgot his credit card and decides to pay

cash. In this case, the console might be used to calculate the total price at the cash unit price. In keeping

with the intent of NCWM action in 1989 to require dispensers to calculate at all unit prices for which a product is offered for sale, it is anticipated that the console would be required to recalculate the new total price using the formula (quantity x unit price = total price). However, specific criteria for recalculation of

the new total prico must be doterminod by the Measuring Sector. Tlte receipt shmfd contain the

infpfmotion required in paragraph at the compietion ofthe transaction. AtA^Mtnimaittfihe

fQtttmektts i0 ttgr^etiyetmen iheiicket and the dispcjiset (<i"S.S,2,2,)4-

Discussion: The Committee discussed whether or not a recalculated price should be clearly indicated as recalculated on

the receipt. How is it justified when tlie customer is fully aware that tlte unit price is being changed? There are no

requirements in HB 44 other than items (a)-(d) in paragraph S.l.6.7. that require additional information on tlte receipt

83
Executive Committee

It is a Committee consensus and recommendation that, at a minimum, the receipt should be printed out with the

informationfor which the transaction was completed. Correction should be made as indicated to the above text

6) Changes to Section 3.37 Mass Flow Meters Section of NIST Handbook 44

Changes are being recommended by California Division of Measurement Standards (DMS) to! incorporate existing code

sections from the Liquid-Measuring Device Code into the Mass Flow Meter Code in Handbook 44. A summary of the additional Sections to be referenced are included in an attachment to the agenda. DMS notes that although these devices

utilize a mass flow meter as a measuring element many other design features are similar to those of a retail motor-fuel

dispenser.

S. 1.6.1. Indication of Delivery. - The device shall automatically show on its face the initial zero condition and the quantity

delivered (up to the nominal capacity).

However, the first 0.03 L (0.009 gal) of a delivery and its associated total sales price need not be indicated.

S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price. - Except for dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck

refueling (e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), when a product or grade is offered for sale at more than one

unit price through a computing device, the selection of the unit price shall be made prior to delivery using controls on the device or other user-activated controls. A system shall not permit a change to the unit price during delivery of product.

[Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1 , 1 99 1

]

S.1.6.6. Agreement Between Indications. - When a quantity value indicated or recorded by an auxiliary element is a derived or computed value based on data received from a retail motor-fuel dispenser, the value may differ from the quantity value displayed on the dispenser, provided the following conditions are met:

(a) all total money values for an individual sale that are indicated or recorded by the system agree, and

(b) within each element, the values indicated or recorded meet the formula (quantity x unit price = total sales price) to the

closest cent. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.]

S.2.5. Z«ro-Set-Back Interlock, Retail Motor-Fuel Devices. - A device shall be constructed so that:

(a) after a delivery cycle has been completed by moving the starting lever to any position that shuts off the device, an

automatic interlock prevents a subsequent delivery until the indicating elements, and recording elements, if the device is equipped and activated to record, have been returned to their zero positions;

(b) the discharge nozzle cannot be returned to its designed hanging position (that is, any position where the tip of the nozzle

is placed in its designed receptacle and the lock can be inserted) until the starting lever is in its designed shut-off position and

the zero-set-back interlock has been engaged; and

© in a system with more than one dispenser supplied by a single pump, an effective automatic control valve in each dispenser

prevents product from being delivered until the bdicating elements on that dispenser are in a correct zero position.

S.5.1. Totalizers for Retail Motor-Fuel Di.spensers Devices. - Retail motor-fuel dispensers shall be equipped with a

nonresettable totalizer for the quantity delivered through the metering device. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1995.]

UR.1.1.1. Length

© shall not exceed 5.5 m (1 8 ft) 3.6 m (12 ft) unless it can be demonstrated that a longer hose is essential to permit deliveries to be made to receiving vehicles or vessels.

UR.2.1. Manufacturer's Instructions. - A device shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, and

the installation shall be sufficiently secure and rigid to maintain this condition.

UR.2.2. Discharge Rate. - A device shall be installed so that the actual maximum discharge rate will not exceed the rated maximum discharge rate. Automatic means for flow regulation shall be incorporated in the installation if necessary.

84
Executive Committee

UR.3.1. Return of Indicating and Recording Elements to Zero. - On any dispenser used in making retail deliveries, the primary indicating element, and recording element if so equipped, shall be returned to zero before each delivery.

Exceptions to this requirement are totalizers on key-lock-operated or other self-operated dispensers and the primary recording

element if the device is equipped to record.

Discussion: Paragraph S.1.6.1., which is applicable to most retail motor-fuel dispensers, is not appropriate for dispensers of highly pressurized products such as CNG. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) retail motor-fuel dispensers are not held to these requirements.

Since these sections are included with the draft type evaluation checklist for retail CNG dispensers, the Committee

recommended this item be addressed and reviewed by the subcommittee appointed for the review of CNG draft

checklist (Item 4.) Mike Keilty requested that Richard Huff solicit information from other CNG dispenser

manufacturers and return to the Committee for review.

7) Status of Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Between Canada and the United States

Members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures and representatives from Canada's Legal Metrology Branch

(LMB) met in the fall of 1992 to discuss mutual recognition efforts for scales. Dialogue began on the harmonization of U.S. and Canadian weights and measures requirements in an effort to reduce existing trade barriers for equipment manufacturers.

It was agreed that the group's fu-st priority would be to gain mutual recognition of type evaluation tests on weighing devices

performed by either the United States or Canada. In April 1993 the U.S./Canadian Mutual Recognition Work Group adopted

a plan for approval of weigliing devices which would eliminate the need for completing the type evaluation process in both

countries. That year the group's work, in collaboration with participating NTEP laboratories, was focused on the identification of similarities, and differences in the two countries' type evaluation processes. Their efforts resulted in the development of

a unified set of testing procedures, checklist, application form and applicant's guide, which satisfy all weights and measures

requirements established for both the United States and Canada. Jji April 1994 the U.S./Canada Mutual Recognition of Type

Evaluation Program accepted its first application for specific types of weighing devices. Devices which are successful in completing the single or multiple set of type evaluation test will receive certification in both countries.

The NCWM began to explore a similar mutual recognition program for liquid-measuring devices (LMD). The Conference

later recommended the issue be brought before the Sector for its input on an approach to mutual recognition for the LMD

industry.

At the October 1 994 Sector meeting, discussions began on mutual recognition of type evaluation for LMD's. Industry was

in agreement that this task warranted a joint effort from members representing both the wholesale and retail manufacturers.

Initially the group decided to look at the dissimilarities between current regulations, policies, and type evaluation procedures

in the United States/Canada, as this might facilitate an earlier mutual recognition for some devices. There appeared to be a number of differences with respect to procedures and volumetric devices. The LMB, unlike the United States, currently

requires meters be tested over a range of temperatures. The Sector decided to examine the successes that were found in the mutual recognition of type evaluation in the weighing device sector. Review of that approach revealed the greatest hurdle was the differences in tolerances. The weighing sector resolved that dilemma by applying the most stringent requirements

of the two countries, and concentrating its efforts on the smaller capacity devices, thus moving away from hanmonization and more in the direction of mutual recognition. Additionally the decision was made not to aim for parallel tests. The weighing

sector accomplished mutual recognition in approximately I year from its inception to the acceptance of the first application

for type evaluation in April 1994. The Measuring Sector agreed that a realistic approach should be taken and it should not

confine itself to too short a time frame for reaching its goals.

The Measuring Sector then began to identify the differences between U.S./Canada LMD type evaluation, highlighting all of

the additional Canadian requirements. The LMB laboratory tests over a temperature range of 0 "C to 40 "C, measuring

temperature in the prover and at the meter in applications of heated and cooled liquids (water, varsol, mineral spirits, diesel) for accuracy; it then lists the specific application on the Notice of Approval (NOA). Additionally the LMB tests for radio frequency interference and conducts both field and laboratory tests on special products. The LMB also has the capability to laboratory test both retail and wholesale meters (turbine, magnetic, etc..) that range in size from 0 inch to 4 inches. The group

concluded tlie LMB test procedures reveal more information about tlie meter performance under varying conditions than the U.S. field tests.

85
Executive Committee

Because the differences were so numerous, the Sector decided to work on the areas of commonality which would allow a

single set of tests be conducted at one laboratory site that satisfies both U.S. and Canadian requirements. The possibility of

locating a U.S. laboratory with temperature capability seemed remote. Some indicated there would be no point in continuing

the process if a U.S. laboratory did not exist. It was noted that manufacturers find it difficult to obtain customer sites in the United States. There were several solutions offered. One involved securing a government facility. Another possibility would

be to conduct parts of the evaluation in Canada and the remaining parts in the United States.

The Sector was aware that OIML is in the process of restructuring and wished to be as consistent as possible with their procedures.

The Sector agreed to go forward with the mutual recognition process for LMD's and formed a subgroup which met the following day. October 23, 1994, to discuss the preliminary details of establishing a process, procedures for differences, and

to agree on a time frame. The members of the subgroup are John Skuce (Smith Meter Inc.), Tim Scott (Brooks Instrument), Grant Obermeier (Irving Oil Limited), Mike Keilty (Micro Motion), Randy Smith (Schlumberger), Norm Alston (DFP Inc.), Bill Raymond (Accurate Metering), Charlie Gardner (Suffolk County Weights and Measures, NY), Mel Hankel (Liquid

Controls Corp.), Jim Truex (OH), Johnny Parrish (Brooks Instrument), Tina Butcher (NIST), and Juana Williams (NIST).

The subgroup agreed that a smaller group should meet in Ottawa to further review the differences between the two countries' requirements. NCWM Chairman Jim Truex recommended there be two representatives from both the Meter Manufacturers

Association (MMA) and the Gasoline Pump Manufactures Association (GPMA), as well as several members from Canada

and the U.S. participating NTEP laboratories involved in the smaller group. The individuals who volunteered to participate were: from GPMA, Frances Holland (Schlumberger) and Rich Tucker (Tokheim) and, from MMA, Bob Traettino (Liquid

Controls) and Johnny Parrish (Brooks Instruments).

NIST agreed to provide LMB with electronic files of Publication 14, Handbook 44, and the OIML standards documents prior

to the meeting tentatively scheduled for April 1 995.

The subgroup held its first meeting April 10-12, 1995, Ottawa, Ontario Canada. The first task was to work to harmonize the

basic requirements to be conducted at a single test site and determine which parts of the CC/NOA would be recognized. Their

first priority would be wholesale meters. The group discussed the differences such as the U.S. requirement for submitting the specific product and Canada's testing of anhydrous ammonia, LPG, and heated products. Time did not peniiit discussion of

reapplying for testing in the event a device fails the initial evaluation. LMB had prepared a matrix to allow a line-by-line

comparison of U.S./Canada test requirements.

An update on these activities will be provided to tlie Sector.

Discussion: Renald Marceau presented an update on mutual recognition activities (MR). Indication was that manufacturers preferred MR as opposed to harmonization. To be able to achieve MR, testing of additional testing

equipment is needed to do the temperature test Two areas were identified as good candidatesforfuture MR agreements:

electronic registers and stand-alone gas pumps, if measuring elements have already been evaluated. At this time the

Committee is in limbo, because ofNIST budget problems. Canada is very interested in perusing the development ofMR

for new electronic equipment Both NIST and Canadafelt the next meeting could not be scheduled until next spring.

8) Checklist for Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices

Publication 14 contains some references to the type evaluation of cryogenic meters in the test procedures; however, specific

code references to the Handbook 44 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code are not included in Publication 14. NTEP

is beginning to get more inquiries about the requirements and test procedures for type evaluating meters delivering these types

of products.

To ensure that NTEP can provide adequate information to manufacturers and to ensure that all code requirements are addressed in type evaluation, the Sector should consider developing a separate checklist for Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring

Devices. Volunteers from industry and participating laboratories are needed to assist in the preparation and review of drafts of such a checklist.

Discussion: California has created a checklist from the current checklists. The Committee requested the Meter

Manufacturers Association to review the checklist and report theirfindings to Steve Cook, John Skuce, John Defoe, and

Bob Traettino.

86
Executive Committee

9) Checklist for Mass Flow Meters

In 1994, the NCWM voted to change the status of the Mass Flow Meters Code from tentative to permanent. At that time all references to mass flow meters were removed from the other measuring device codes. Publication 14 includes a short section

entitied "Additional Checklist and Test Procedures for Mass Flow Meters" and a section detailing the test procedures for these

devices; however, a separate section addressing the specific code requirements of the Mass Flow Meters Code is not included. NTEP continues to get requests for type evaluation of Mass Flow Meters, and must be able to provide guidance to the manufacturers on what testing of these devices will entail.

It is recommended that the Committee consider developing a separate checklist for Mass Flow Meters to assist the NTEP

laboratories in the evaluation of these devices and to ensure that all Mass Flow Meters Code requirements are applied.

Volunteers from industry and participating laboratories are needed to assist in the preparation and review drafts of such a

checklist.

Discussion: The Committee appointed a subcommittee ofthefollowing individuals to review and develop a draft checklist: Will Wotthlie, Eric Kappent, Kelly White, Mike Keilty (Chairman), Monty Hopper, and Schlumberger (Neptune). The

subcommittee was asked to prepare a draft checklist by the NCWMAnnual Meeting in July.

Additional items.

* Proposal was made to implement a policy for rotating chairmanship of the committee. After discussions, it was apparent this problem exits throughout the Conference. The Conference Chairman suggested that in order to assist the current review of this problem, the Committee recommend criteria for membership and

chairmanship be added to the NTEP Technical Policy.

Chairman

- There should be a 2-year rotation for chairman with a vice-chair appointment on the second year of the term.

- Chairman will be appointed by the NTETC Committee.

* Recent interpretations by OWM and a participating lab, have raised a question as to when is it appropriate

to display a price change on a dispenser if the price change is initiated during a delivery.

OWM has interpreted that a price change cannot be implemented until the transaction is completed. Under

G.S.2. the checklist states that ''the system shall prevent a change of unit price during a delivery or, in the case of a retail fuel dispenser, while the operating mechanism is in the 'on' position." This has been confused with

the selection of unit prices by the customer and the completion of a transaction.

The Committee feels that to be out of mathematical agreement is acceptable at this point, as long as the

previous sale volume and price is displayed.

Concern was expressed by several members that several sections appear to have been added to the current

edition of Pub 14 that are not in pervious NTETC meeting minutes. Ron Murdock will bring a list to OWM

for clarification.

87
Executive Committee

Attendees:

NAME COMPANY/JURISDICTION PHONE

Will WotthlB MD Weights and Measures 410-841-5790

Steven Cook CA Measurement Stds 916-229-3050

Michael Keilty Micro Motion 410-546-6699

Rodney Cooper Schlumberger (Neptune) 303-530-8231

Johnny Parrish Brooks Instruments 912-489-0303

Kelly White Brooks Instruments 912-489-0228

Renald Marceau Legal Metrology Branch, Canada 613-952-2629

Richard Hulf Universal Epsco 404-351-2740

Francis Holland Schlumberger (RPS) 804-366-4162

Ronald Murdoch NC Dept. of Agriculture 919-733-3313

Patrick Harcock Legal Metrology Branch, Canada 613-952-0669

Ron Flores CA Measurement Stds 916-229-3032

John Skuce Smith Meter Inc. 814-898-5405

Robert M. Iraettino Liquid Controls Corporation 708-295-1056

William D. West Ohio Weights and Measures 614-728-6290

Ross J. Andersen New York Weights and Measures 518-457-3146

Gordon W. Johnson Gilbarco Inc. 910-547-5375

Mike Belue Belue Associates 903-583-9082

Debbie Joines Dresser Industries, Wayne Division 410-546-6699

Danyl Brovm Iowa Weights and Measures 515-281-5716

Stephan Largford Cardinal Scale Mfg. 417-673-4631

Richard Shcckley MD Weights and Measures 410-841-5790

Robert Kelly YoiV. City ti^nits 2md Measmta

Jack Jeffries PL Dept. OfAgriculture 904-487-2634

Richard Tucker Tokheim Corp. 219-470-4610

88
Executive Committee

Appendix I

NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector

September 13-14, 1995, Des Moines, lA

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

1 . Report on NCWM Annual Meeting

2. NTEP Policy: Examples of Appropriate Use ofthe NTEP Logo

3 . Update on Type Evaluation and Phase II Testing

4. Update on Publication 14

5. Addition of Audit Trail Requirement Details to Publication 14

6. Temperature Range Marking on Devices

7. Maximum Allowable Temperature Difference Between Meter and Grain

8. Sample Temperature Tests

9. Organization of Sample Exchange for Oven Moisture Standardization

10. Collection of Objective Evidence of Grain Moisture Program Effectiveness

1 1 . Phase n - Data Collection and Calibration Maintenance Issues

12. Certificate of Conformance - Listing of Calibration Constants

13. Communication of Calibration Changes to Users

14. Promotion of NTEP

15. Date for Next Meeting

I. Report on NCWM Annual Meeting

The NCWM .Annual Meeting was held July 16-20, 1995, in Portland, ME. The conference adopted the following proposals

by majority vote of both the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates:

356-1 Eliisination of Retroactive Dates from the Grain Moisture Meters Code. This item had been proposed by the Central Weights and Measures Association and endorsed by the Sector at its September 1 994 meeting. (A more

complete discussion of this issue can be found in Publication 16, NCWMAnnual Meeting Program & Committee

Reports.)

Note: The Sector notes that with retroactive dates removed, the Code is very hard to interpret and seems to contain

contradictory requirements in marry areas. It was generally agreed that even with editorial "patches " to these areas, the resvlting code would be very confusing and difficult to interpret properly. The Sector suggests that the code be

reorganized into two sections, one applicable to Meters placed in service before January I, 1998 (other than those

certified as meeting NTEP requirements), and another applicable to NTEP meters and to all other meters placed

in service after January 1, 1998. The Sector requests the S&T Committee to consider approving such re- organization as an editorial change not requiring action by the Conference. The Sectorfurther requests that a draft ofthe reorganized code be submitted to the Sectorfor review before it is published.

356-2 S.1.2.2.(g) Digital Indications and Recording Elements (new paragraph). This item was the Sector's recommendation which requires multi-constituent meters to display and record constituent labels.

356-3 S2Ji. Provision for Scaling. This item was first proposed by the Sector at its March 1 994 meeting and subsequently

modified by the Sector at its March 1995 meeting to explicitly state that the device is not required to display audit

trail information. The Standards and Tolerances Committee accepted the modified wording as an "editorial" change

allowing the proposal to be presented to the Conference for vote in the following form:

S.2.3. Provision for Sealing

(a) Provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal

to be broken, or for using other approved means of providing security (e.g., audit trail available

at the time of inspection as defined in part [b]), before any change that afl^ects the metrological

integrity ofthe device can be made to any mechanism.

89
Executive Committee

(b) If the operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity of the device (e.g., slope, bias, etc.) in normal operation, the device shall use an audit trail. The minimum form of

the audit trail shall be an event logger and shall include:

An event counter (000 to 999)

the parameter ID,

the date and time ofthe change, and

the new value of the parameter (for calibration changes consisting of multiple

constants, the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration

constants).

The device is not required to display this information, but a printed copy of the information must

be available through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five (25) times the number of scalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be stored for each parameter.)

2. NTEP Policy: Examples of Appropriate Use of the NTEP Logo

Policy for the use of the NTEP name and logo is needed to protect the integrity of NTEP and to eliminate false or misleading

advertising that implies NTEP certification. Mettler-Toledo had proposed specific wording for descriptive text to accompany

the logo in advertising for Truck Scales, Floor Scales, Weight Indicating Elements, and Load Cells. At the recent Annual

Meeting, the NTEP Board of Governors (BOG) presented this issue as an "informational" item, not requiring formal action by the Conference, with the recommendation that the examples be printed as an appendix to Part I (Administrative Policies and Procedures) of Publication 14.

The Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the Gas Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA) suggested that similar examples

ofappropriate wording are needed to accompany the logo in advertising for Grain Moisture Meters and Gas Pumps. The BOG

announced its intention to make this issue a voting item next year and said it would consider the concerns raised by GPMA

and the Grain Moisture Sector.

The Sector endorsed the following wording for Grain Moisture Meter advertising noting the comment of one member who

expressed concern that there might not be sufficient room in a small advertisement for all the suggested wording and a list of approved grains.

Grain Moisture Meter

The [Model XXXX] meets or exceeds the accuracy and performance requirements for Grain Moisture Meters as detailed in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of Conformance,

Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weiglits and Measures, approving this model for commercial use on the following grains: (append list of grains

for which NTEP approval has been granted for this model.)

Additional concerns were raised regarding advertising claiming, "designed to meet NTEP requirements," for devices which

had not been submitted for NTEP testing. Several members also questioned the use of the phrase "Currently registered in the NTEP National Type Evaluation Program" in advertising a device which had been submitted for testing but which had

not yet been tested. The Sector decided to forward these concerns to the BOG. Rich Pierce, ofthe Grain Inspection, Packers

and Stockyards Administration/Federal Grain Inspection Service (GIPSA/FGIS), reported that he had seen literature which

stated that a meter used "approved NTEP/FGIS calibrations." He pointed out that although GIPSA/FGIS was the NTEP

laboratory for Grain Moisture Meters, it was inappropriate to infer that NTEP calibrations have FGIS approval or that the instruments have FGIS approval.

3. Update on Type Evaluation and Phase IT Testing

An update of the progress on type evaluation activity was provided by Rich Pierce of GIPSA. As of mid-September, type

evaluation testing had been completed on five grain moisture meter models and Phase II calibration data was being collected on these five models. Certificate of Conformance (CC) numbers had been issued for four of the five models tested. A test report was being prepared for the fifth instrument. A CC number will be assigned to that unit after NIST has reviewed the

test report. Draft CCs have been sent to California for editorial review for two of the five models. Preparation of CCs for two of the remaining models is being held pending review and clarification of calibration names, calibration constants,

90
Executive Committee

calibration ranges, and individual instrument biases. A sixth instrument model had been received for NTEP testing late in May,

Sample temperature tests had been conducted to extend the allowable temperature difference between instrument and grain

sample for three models. There are now two models certified witli allowable temperature differences of 1 6 ° C and two models

with temperature dififerences of 20 °C.

On Phase II testing, Jim Rampton of GIFSA reported that as of September 12, 280 samples had been tested on each of the five NTEP meters and the Motomco 919. Nine grain types were included in these samples: two classes of barley, medium and

long grain rice, sorghum, durum, soft white wheat, hard red winter wheat, and soft red winter wheat. A total of 3500 samples

have been requested from GIPSA field offices and State agencies. These will be supplemented by high moisture com samples

collected by the Technical Services Division of GIPSA on field trips. Sector Chairman Lowell Hill pointed out that commercial field trials would be a good way to obtain high moisture com samples of known variety and background. Will

Wotthlie, Maryland Weights and Measures, reported that Maryland has received high moisture samples which could be made

available for Phase II testing. These are sound samples which, because of their moisture content, are impractical to hold in storage for use in Maryland's moisture meter field testing program. The matter of state participation was discussed. It was

noted that State participation in sample collection left something to be desired. Not all States have been supplying the number

ofsamples requested. Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, offered to work with Jim Rampton to draft a letter which could be sent to these

States by NIST to encourage the submission of samples.

Charles Hurturgh, Iowa State University, raised the question of proper sample identification. He pointed out that it was

important tha information regarding a sample's geographic origin and variety be available to assure that calibration sample

sets exhibit the diversity necessary to be representative of the full population. Jim Rampton noted that the vast majority of

samples were simply collected from marketing channels and that variety and source were not identified. In ftirther discussions on this subject, it was decided that, as a minimum, information regarding the Field Office of origin and sample test weight

would be identified for each corn sample. Test Weight, in combination with the location of the Field Office submitting the sample was thought to be a good proxy for variety and growing conditions as far as selecting samples for calibration was

concerned. Manufacturers expressed the desire to have this information and any additional information which might be

available on the sample.

4. Update on Publication 14

Sample copies of the new edition of NCWM Publication 14 were shown at the NCWM Annual Meeting. The new edition has been sent to the printer for volume reproduction. Diane Lee, NIST OWM, reported that copies of the complete publication

are expected to be available for purchase sometime in October. She told the Sector that the price to NCWM members has now

been set at $40 each ($60 each to nonmembers). Individual checklists will be available to members at no charge (probably

limited to a maximum of three copies per member).

5. Addition of Audit Trail Requirements to the Grain Moisture Meters Checklist in Publication 14

The Sector considered additions to the Grain Moisture Meter Checklist of Publication 14 which had been proposed to reflect the H44 changes approved by the Conference (see Agenda item 1 , Section S.23. Provision for Sealing) In addition, the Sector considered the addition of several paragraphs to the checklist to address problems discovered by NTEP laboratories while evaluating devices incorporating event loggers (paragraphs 4.1.5,4.1 .8, and 4.1.10. below).

During the discussion of the proposed changes and additions, one Sector member raised the question of the relationship of

mechanical and electronic security to the audit trail, pointing out that light sources in NIR instruments were not sealed and

that circuit boards could be removed and changed with no record of these actions appearing in the audit trail. It was suggested

that these actions were repair actions, and that a mechanical seal of the areas containing replaceable parts would be an ^propriate means to alert field inspection to unauthorized tampering with the instrument. Another Sector Member noted that the DRIE (formerly the SIM) in France requires, in addition to a physical seal, that a log book be maintained on-site to record any physical changes which could affect the metrological integrity ofthe device. Log book entries must show the registration

number ofthe authorized service technician making the change or repair.

It was suggested that a similar log book should be required for U.S. grziin moisture meters. Don Onwiler, Nebraska Public Service Commission, questioned how enforcement officials would make use of such a log and the motivation of users to keep

a log. If users or service personnel neglected making entries, there would be no way of detecting this. The Sector set aside fimher consideration of repair logs and decided to confine the remainder of the audit trail discussion to matters associated with

actions which could be performed by a user in the normal operation of the device. Accordingly, the requirement that an event

counter be non-resettable was modified to specify that it be non-resettable by the operator.

91
Executive Committee

It was noted that the checklist for Liquid-Measuring Devices did not require that date and time be scalable parameters. The

necessity for requiring date and time to be scalable in Grain Moisture Meters incorporating an audit trail was questioned. In

the ensuing discussion, it was pointed out that even with an event counter, a user could continue to use an old calibration well

past the date at which a new calibration was to become effective; then, by altering the date, could change the calibration and

make it appear that the change had been made at the proper time. With date and time not scalable, there would be no record

of the date alterations on the audit trail. The Sector subsequently agreed that date and time should be considered scalable parameters and requested the Technical Advisor to add wording to that effect to the checklist cither as a note to item 4.1.6. or as a new item 4.1.11. [Note: the wording appears as an explanatory note in 4. 1 .6. and in Appendix B, Item 3 under "Event

Loggers: Acceptable Form of Audit Trail."]

Also discussed was the matter of whether the 30-day minimum requirement for audit trail power-out memory retention (Paragraph 4.1.8) would be sufficient for moisture meters which may see only seasonal use, and which may be disconnected

from power for periods of 6 months or more. Although it was generally agreed that 30 days was not sufficient, there were

no suggestions forthcoming on how a longer time period might be verified by the Type Evaluation Laboratory. Having to wait

up to 6 months to verify conformance with a period of that length seemed neither practical nor desirable. Unable to arrive

at a better suggestion, the Sector decided to accept the original proposal of 30 days minimum with the hope that new devices

would not rely on battery backed memory for the audit trail.

The following paragraphs which replace all of the September 1995 version of 4.1 and its sub-paragraphs, incorporate the changes agreed to by the Sector (including the additions which the Technical Advisor was asked to make):

Code Reference S.2.3 Provision for Sealing

a. P*rovision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be broken,

or for using other approved means of providing security (e.g., audit trail available at the time of inspection)

before any change that affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any mechanism.

The manufacturer has provided information on how Yes No NA

the device should be sealed.

All calibration and metrological adjustments can be Yes No NA

sealed, or other means of providing security such as

audit trails are provided.

iii. If the operator is able to make changes that affect the Yes No NA

metrological integrity of the device (e.g, slope, bias, etc.) in normal operation, the device creates an audit

trail incorporating an event logger.

If equipped with an event logger:

iv. The event counter is nonresettable by the operator and Yes No NA

has a capacity of at least 000 to 999.

v. The event counter increments appropriately. Yes No NA

vi. The event logger automatically retains the Yes No NA

identification of the parameter changed, the date and

time of the change, and the new value of the parameter

(for calibration changes consisting of multiple

calibration constants, the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants.) Note: For devices incorporating an event logger, date and

time are considered scalable parameters, and changes

to date or time must be logged the same as any other

scalable parameter.

92
Executive Committee

vli. The system is designed to attach a printer which can

print the contents of the audit trail.

viii. The audit traiJ information is capable of being retained

in memory for at least 30 days while the device is without power.

ix. The event logger has the capacity to retain records

equal to 25 times the number of scalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are

required.

X. The event logger drops the oldest event when the memory capacity is fiill and a new entry is saved.

Describe the method used to seal the device or access the audit trail information.

When audit trail requirements were added to other device codes, only essential audit trail information was distilled for inclusion in Handbook 44. Background information and detailed information to clarify how the sealing requirements of H44

Code would be interpreted during type evaluation were then added to Publication 14. Similar modifications had been proposed

for the Grain Moisture Meter Checklist. The Sector reviewed a draft of the proposed background information. Philosophy

for Sealing I Typical Features to he Sealed, and subsequently approved it for addition to the Grain Moisture Meter Checklist

in Publication 14 as Appendix B (See Attachment 1 - Note: This attachment is not included in this publication; it is available

from the NIST Office of Weights and Measures. )

6. Temperature Range Marking on Devices At earlier Sector meetings, questions had been raised regarding the requirement for marking the operating range on the device

(if other than 1 0 "C to 30 °C) as specified by Code Paragraph S. 1 . 1 0.(c). The requirement for marking does not appear in the NIR Code. Some had suggested that the Sector did not intend to require marking of the temperature range on the device if the device did not display or record any usable values until the operating temperature necessary for accurate determination

had been obtained. The necessity for marking the operating range on the device would seem to be superfluous if the meter

cannot display a moisture value and must display an error message when the temperature of the meter is outside its specified

operating range. The Sector considered this matter again and agreed that marking should not be required under these conditions. The Sector also approved changes to S.l.lO.(a) to clarify that this paragraph applies to the device's warm-up

period. The agreed to changes are shown below:

S. 1 . 1 0. Operating Temperature

(a) Warm-up Period: When a meter has first been turned on, it A motor shall not display or record any usable values unfil tihe operating temperature necessary for accurate determination has been attained, or the meter

shall bear a conspicuous statement adjacent to the indication stating tliat the meter shall be turned on for a time period specified by the manufacturer prior to use.

(b) A meter shall meet the requirements of T.2. - Tolerance Values when operated in the temperature range of

10 °C to 30 "C (50 °F to 86 °F) or within tlie range specified by the meter manufacturer.

(c) If the manufacturer specifies a temperature range, the range shall be at least 20 °C (36 °F) and shall be marked on the device.

7. Maximum Allowable Temperature Difference Between Meter and Grain

H44 Code applicable to NTEP meters states:

YesD NoD NAD

Yes No NA

YesD NoD NAD

Yes No NA

93
Executive Committee

The maximum allowable difference in temperature between the meter and the sample for which an accurate moisture

deternination can be made shall be specified. The minimum temperature difference shall be 1 0 °C. No moisture

value may be displayed when the maximum allowable temperature difference is exceeded. An appropriate error message shall be displayed when the difference in temperature between the meter and the sample exceeds the

specified difference.

At its March meeting, the Sector reviewed a letter received from Sid Colbrook, Illinois Weights and Measures, In which he

expressed concern tiiat the temperature differences for which some meters were NTEP approved would lead to occasions when

a moisture determination could not be made before the producer left the buying facility. He proposed several remedies,

including increasing the accuracy tolerance for wider temperature differences between grain and the device.

At that time at least two manufacturers had submitted meters for NTEP evaluation specifying a minimum required t emperature

difference of 10 "C. [Another manufacturer has submitted a meter specifying an 1 8 °C temperature difference.]

Grain trade representatives were of the opinion that a 10 °C difference was too restrictive and would result in unacceptable

delays at.a receiving elevator. A minimum range of 20 "C was proposed.

Several Sector members expressed the opinion that the market would settle this matter. If the demand for a wider temperature

difference capability was real, potential buyers would seek out the meter offering the widest range. Once apprised of this demand, manufacturers would make every effort to qualify to the widest range possible.

Although the data presented by the NTEP laboratory seemed to indicate that some meters might be capable of meeting the present accuracy limits for temperature differences greater than 1 0 °C, manufacturers were reluctant to agree to wider limits without the benefit of further testing of their instruments. Because any proposed changes in H44 could not be cons idered until 1996, the Sector decided to postpone further action on this item until its September 1995 meeting.

In the months following the March 1 995 Sector meeting, several manufacturers have submitted meters for re-testing to extend

the allowable temperature difference between meter and grain. Meters have subsequently been approved for temperature

differences ranging from 1 6 °C to 20 "C.

In the light of tliese new approvals and the availability of at least two meter models with 20 °C temperature difference

capability, the Sector considered this question a moot point with no further action required.

8. Sample Temperature Tests The NTEP Laboratory has pointed out that testing for a meter-grain difference of 20 °C results in samples being at 42 °C for

at least 36 hojrs. There is concern that extended exposure to high temperatures may affect test results. The Lab questions if

it makes sens3 to test for a 30 °C difference which would require holding samples at 52 °C for 36 hours. As an alternative to testing at temperature differences which are symmetrical with respect to room temperature, the NTEP Laboratory had

questioned if it would be acceptable to test and certify for a wider "cold" range than "hot" range? For example, a "hot" grain

temperature of room plus 20 "C and a "cold" grain temperature of room minus of 40 °C.

The Sector agreed that meter-grain temperature differences do not need to be specified symmetrically with respect to room

temperature (22 °C). It was pointed out that, because of grain stability considerations, it was not practical to perform tests with

grain above 45 °C. Tba Sector agireed that 45 °C should be an. uuppec limit foe gram, tsiwjjetatjici aad thai; testing (and

certification) should not be done with grain above that temperature. It was suggested that these decisions be added to the appropriate sections of Publication 14.

[Editor's note: The changed portions of Publication 1 4, resulting from the implementation of the Sector's suggestion, are shown

below.]

Instrument Temperature Sensitivity. Instrument temperature sensitivity tests will be run using three HRW wheat

samples ... at each temperature level.

The "hot" temperature is defined as the upper operating limit claimed by the manufecturer (Mote; Hie maximum **hot" temperature claimed cannot exceed 45 "C.) The "cold" temperature is defmed as the lower operating limit claimed by

the manufacturer. A relative humidity of 65 percent will be maintained for all temperature settings below 22 °C. Above

22 °C, a humidity ratio of 0.01 1 kg of water per kg of dry air will be maintained. To facilitate testing of instrument

94
Executive Committee

temperature sensitivity, manufacturers shall provide a means of disabling the instrument feature for suppressing the display of moisture results when temperature ranges are exceeded. ...

II. Sample Temperature Sensitivity:

Additional testing is required to verify that accurate results are provided when the sample and instrument are at different temperatures. This will be referred to as the sample temperature sensitivity test. The purpose of this test is to verify

that the instrument provides accurate results when the difference in temperature between the sample and the instrument

is at the manufacturer specified difference (a minimum a of 10 °C is required). The sample temperature sensitivity test will be conducted using com, HRW wheat, and soybean samples. Tests will be conducted with the instrument at room

temperature and the sample temperature varying from room temperature + jir^aTa to room temperature - ^tJ^ (where

fs manulfecturer specified dififerea.ce for grain above room tonpeMwre and aT^ is the manufacture specified

il^Hieefia'graiabelowTOomtemperafiire, irnio case will aTh be allowed to exceed 32 'C, but the two differences

9. Organization of Sample Exchange for Oven Moisture Standardization

Under the NTEP program for grain moisture meters, calibrations will be based on GIPSA air ovens and field inspection will be based on State air ovens. For the program to be effective, procedures must be in place to assure that State oven results (and

manufacturers' oven results) agree with the GIPSA air oven which is considered the standard. The air oven method is an

empirical test which may have to be adjusted to account for differences of altimde or other differences between laboratories. The subcommittee chaired by Dr. Charles Hurburgh (Iowa State University) developed a structured program for interlaboratory

comparisons of oven moistures, and, if available, moisture results on various moisture meters. Sector members reviewed the subcommittee's proposal and suggested the following changes:

• Increase sample size from 1 pint to 1 quart to provide sufficient sample for testing on all moisture meter models.

• Add provisions for recording calibration version information to data sheets.

• Expand program to include all meter models a lab may have (not just NTEP meters).

(Attachment 2, dated 9/29/95, incorporates the above changes - Note: This attachment is not included in this publication; it

is availablefrom the NIST Office of Weights and Measures.)

With the exception of GIPSA, lab identities and meter model identities would be coded. Each participating lab and each meter

manufecturer would know only their own codes. Rich Pierce, representing the NTEP Laboratory, said that even though meter

identities would be coded in the collaborative study, he would require a letter from each manufacturer granting permission

to release collaborative study results.

The initial interlab exchange is expected to be initiated after this year's harvest. Originating laboratories for the initial exchange will be: Iowa State (com and soybeans) and tlie Arkansas Department of Standards (soft red winter wheat).

Rich Pierce, GIPSA, pointed out that although GIPSA will be participating in the collaborative smdy, they may not be able

to accommodate every request for testing individually submitted samples. He suggested that any lab wishing to submit

samples independently to the GIPSA contact Bill Burden before sending samples.

10. Collection of Objective Evidence of Grain Moisture Program's Beneflts The objective of tlie NTEP Moisture Meter Program is to bring interstate and intermeter comparisons closer together. To

determine if this objective is being met, it will be necessary to describe the accuracy and precision of U.S. moisture measurements before and after the implementation of the NTEP program. The task of defining a program to compile the necessary data to make this comparison was assigned to the subcommittee already formed to develop an oven moisture

collaborative study (see agenda item 9). Sector members reviewed and endorsed the subcommittee's proposal. (See

Attachment 2, "Objective 2" - Note: This attachment is not included in this publication; it is availablefrom the NIST Office of Weights and Measures.) Manufacturers have pledged $300 each to help defi-ay the costs associated with collecting and

compiling the initial data. The balance of funding will come from Agricultural Extension. The Sector will review the results of the initial effort before deciding whether to repeat the study in 2 to 5 years.

95
Executive Committee

1 1. Phase II - Data Collection and Calibration Maintenance Issues The NTEP Laboratory has begun the collection of data associated with Phase II of the NTEP Grain Moisture Program. Jim

Hampton, GIPSA Moisture Calibration Laboratory, outlined the Quality Assurance steps being taken to minimize errors and

to assure that data was being collected and recorded accurately. He cited a number of potential problems posed by different ^proaches taken by various manufacturers to data file management. He suggested that more consideration needs to be given

to the possibility for data loss and data corruption when designing data collection software. The safest approach appears to be in systems which save an entire season's data in one file. New data is simply appended to the file without overwriting

previous data. Least desirable is a system which overwrites any existing file for a given grain with the data most recently

collected, effectively deleting any information previously collected. Manufacturers considering redesigning their data

collection software are urged to contact Jim Rampton for suggestions before proceeding.

For dielectric meters, monthly installments of data collected can now be sent to manufacturers for review.

Manufacturers were asked to contact Jim Rampton with answers to the following

1 . Regarding File Names - are the GIPSA names acceptable?

2. Separate files are now created for each day's data - would it be acceptable to merge these into a single file? 3. What format is most desirable (ASCII, Lotus, Excel, other)?

4. Can headers (column headings) be eliminated fi-om the files?

If a calibration change is made, manufacturers will be required to "re-predict" moistures fi-om raw data collected during the

past 3 to 5 years. This data in turn, must be supplied to the NTEP Laboratory in a standard format which is compatible with

GEPSA's analysis software (See Attachment 3, "Data Flow Diagram") to allow the NTEP lab to review and approve the change

before a CC can be renewed. Manufacturers were presented with a suggested standard format for submitting NTEP meter data

for cabTjration review, and reports fi"om GlPSA's 1994 Moisture Meter Calibration Study were presented as examples of what

reports might be made available for NTEP Calibration Review. Manufacturers were asked to review the suggested data format

and reports and respond to Rich Pierce by September 30 with their suggestions and comments.

The NTEP Laboratory had raised another question pertaining to calibration changes. In some instruments, temperature

compensation is accomplished by including, in the calibration set, data obtained on samples at various temperatures. For these

instruments, calibration updates may affect the temperature compensation and thus affect performance over temperature. The

NTEP Laboratory asked whether manufacturers should be required to demonstrate tliat calibration changes do not adversely

affect performance over a temperature range, and if so, how might this be accomplished?

The Sector was in general agreement that some form of verification was needed to assure that temperature performance had

not been compromised by a calibration change. It was noted that in dielectric meters, the temperature correction coefficients are independent of other calibration changes. Thus, temperature performance of those meters would not be affected by

calibration changes. It was suggested that "raw" data (spectral data in the case of NIR instruments) collected during type

evaluation could be used to re-predict temperature performance of new calibrations. The NTEP Lab reported that, unfortunately, spectral data had not been collected during temperature testing in type evaluation. It was also suggested that annual temperature tests should be conducted on NTEP instruments in conjunction with the temperature studies GIPSA had

been performing on the Official Meter. Rich Pierce reported that in anticipation of replacing the Motomco with an NTEP

meter in the future, GIPSA was no longer performing temperature studies on the Motomco. He also reminded the Sector that temperature studies were not included in Phase II of the NTEP moisture program and that no temperature testing had been

performed on the "other 13" NTEP grains [i.e., grains other than com, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat].

Some Sector members felt that a program should be established to check the temperature performance of the "other 13" grains.

Manufacturers were concerned about the cost of additional testmg. There was also concern that because some of the "other 13" grains generate a very small portion of moisture meter sales, manufacturers might drop these grains from their list of

supported calibrations if the cost of maintaining the calibrations exceed the revenue generated by sales to markets using the

calibrations. Charles Hurburgh, Iowa State, was of the opinion that manufacturers had two choices: 1) supply data to prove

that temperature performance is O.K.; or 2) pay GIPSA to collect the data. Ole Rasmussen, Foss Food Technology, observed

that of the 16 NTEP grains, 7 were wheat (counting durum), 2 were rice, and 2 were barley. He suggested that it might be

possible to combine the wheats into a single set which could be used for temperature testing, and that similar sets might be

made for rice and for barley. This would cut the number of grain temperature tests from 16 to 8, or in terms ofthe "other 13"

to 6. The Sector was unable to reach a consensus on what should be done with regard to obtaining objective evidence that temperature performance was acceptable for calibrations for the "other 13" grains. Further discussion on this issue was tabled

until the Sector meeting scheduled for March 1996. Manufacturers were asked to review the issue and be prepared to suggest

alternatives or options for providing this data. Other Sector members, particularly those representing the grain trade and grain

96
Executive Committee

processors, W3re asked to poll their members and be prepared to indicate which grains were important enough economically

to justify testJig for temperature performance. The NIST representative was asked to find out how comfortable NIST was

with not havii^ temperature data available for the "other 13" grains.

12. Certificate of Conformance - Listing of Calibration Constants

For multi-variant instruments, a calibration may consist of 1 00 or more coefficients for a single grain. At an earl ier meeting

tiie Sector decided that all calibration constants should be listed on the CC as an aid to field inspection in verifying that correct

calibrations had been installed. The NTEP laboratory has questioned whether calibration constants need be listed on the CC

if they cannot be displayed on the device or recorded on the device's printer. It would seem that there is no advantage to field enforcement knowing the calibration constants if there is no way to access them on-site. Handbook 44, Paragraph S.5.1. provides for two alternate methods of verifying calibrations: 1) display of calibration constants, or 2) display of a unique

identifier (calibration name or calibration version number). After considering the matter the Sector rescinded its previous

decision and agreed to the following:

If a meter can neither display nor print calibration constants, calibration constants need not be listed on the CC. Only

the unique calibration name, or a unique calibration version number which can be used by field inspection to verify that the correct calibration has been installed, will be listed.

13. Communication of Calibration Changes to Users

This issue hac been discussed at the Sector's Meeting in March 1 995. At that time, the Sector agreed that the responsibility

ultimately lies with the owner to see that his instrument is updated when required. It was suggested that announcing

calibration changes on the same date each year would accustom users to expect to receive the information by that date and

would lead them to take action to find the information if they had not received it. A fixed date for announcement would also

facilitate publiciadng, through grain trade magazines, the need for owners to be aware of potential changes and to contact their manufacturer or sales agent for details. Additional details could be announced througti various grain industry newsletters which have shorter lead times for publication. To speed the dissemination of detailed calibration information, it was suggested

that once new calibration information was verified by the NTEP laboratory, manufacturers could make a preliminary release of the information to States and interested parties.

Randy Albnar., Executive Director ofthe Agribusiness Association, has since suggested that State and regional grain and feed

associations can play a key role in the dissemination of calibration updates. He expressed the belief, however, that it is most

appropriate fcr this information to come to these organizations via the State weights and measures officials.

Sector Members considered Mr. Allman's suggestion, but concluded that most States don't want to assume the responsibility for dissemina;ing this information. They agreed, however, that they would be willing, if contacted by a regional association,

to verify that iie information which the association had received fi-om manufacturers was, indeed, the latest calibration. One

Weights and Measures member said that his agency could provide each manufacturer with a list of owners of its meters. Such

lists could be used by manufacturers to notify individual users. At least one manufacturer, however, expressed the desire to use a more economical method to disseminate the information, favoring grain industry publications and grain association

newsletters.

14. Promotion of NTEP

In earlier meetings. Sector members had expressed concern that several grain producing states do not have a viable field inspection program for grain moisture meters, and have cot become NTEP states. It was agjreed that a brochure and a detailed information packet which promoted the program's benefits would be useful in promoting the NTEP Grain Moisture Meter Program. Cliff Watson, Consultant, circulated the draft text of a brochure describing the National Grain Moisture Meter Program for review and comment. Rich Pierce, GIPSA, noting that this program is not an FGIS program, objected strongly

to a cited benefit which stated: "Adoption by GIPSA/FGIS of the new technology NTEP Certified meters in early 1997." Grain Trade representatives were equally strong in their opinion that unless GIPSA/FGIS endorsed the program [as evidenced

by choosing one or more NTEP meters as the Official Meter], then the program wasn't good enough for Grain Handlers. One

Sector Member expressed the belief that GIPSA/FGIS had already publicly committed to adopting an NTEP meter by 1 997. The Sector decided to leave this statement in the next draft. Among other comments received were: 1) suggestions to replace

the phrase "..specific high performance standards" with "..established design and performance criteria"; 2) objections to the plirase "less potential for "fraud," which was thought to be inflammatory; 3) suggestions that it would be more appropriate

to refer to the program as "a cooperative program, coordinated and supported by NCWM, NIST and GIPSA" rather than "Administered by NCWM, NIST, and GIPSA"; 4) recommendations to delete references to printed "tickets," using instead wording which states that printed results will be provided to the customer; and, 5) concerns that NCWM would object to referring to NTEP certified meters as "approved meters." This will be changed to "type approved meters" or "certified

97
Executive Committee

meters." It was also suggested that the appeal of the brochure needed to be broadened and that the regulatory aspects ofthe program should be mentioned. Those present were asked to take the draft back to their organizations for further review and

comment. Comments were to be submitted to Cliff Watson by September 30, 1995, so a final draft could be circulated to Sector Members by mid-October with the goal of printing the brochure early November.

15. Choosing a Date and Site for the Next Meeting

Anticipating the need for extended discussion of Phase 11 test results and the reorganization of the Moisture Meter Code, the Sectors agreed to a 2-1/2-day meeting (1 or 1-1/2 or 2 days for the Grain Moisture Meter Sector with the remainder for the NTR Protein Sector) to be held in St. Louis, MO, during the week of March 25-29. The exact dates will depend on availability

of hotel accommodations and will be announced when arrangements have been made.

98
Executive Committee

Appendix I (Continued)

NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector

March 25-26, 1996, St. Louis, MO

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

1 . Define Eligibility, Duties of, Term of Office, and Procedure for Electing Sector Chairperson

2. Election of Sector Chairperson

3. Report on NCWM Interim Meeting - GMM Issues

4. Editorial Reorganization of H44 - GMM Code

5. Proposed Change to H44 - S.2. 3. Provisions for Sealing

6. Facilitation of Fraud - Clarification & Discussion

7. Update on Type Evaluation and Phase II Testing

8. Performance Verification over Range of Sample Temperatures

9. What Constitutes a Type Change?

10. Report on First Interlaboratory Sample Exchange

11. Progress Report on Compilation of Baseline Performance Data

12. Promotion of NTEP - Review of Draft Brochure

13. Test Weight per Bushel Indications

14. Date for Next Meeting

1. Define Eligibility, Duties, Term of Office, and Procedure for Electing Sector Chairperson

In late September last year. Professor Lowell Hill submitted his resignation as Chairperson of the NTETC Grain Moisture

Meter and Near Infrared Protein Analyzer Sectors. The NTEP Board of Governors (BOG) subsequently decided that Sectors should choose their own Chairperson and determine the term of office for the position. Because the NCWM

Constitution and Bylaws and the NTEP Administrative Procedures do not specify eligibility, duties, term of office, or procedures for electing a Technical Sector Chairperson, the Sector adopted the following definitions and procedures to govern the selection of a Sector Chairperson. The duties of the Sector Technical Advisor were also formally defined to

further clarify the division of responsibilities between the Technical Advisor and the Chairperson.

Sector Chairperson

Eligibility

Any active NCWM member in good standing shall be eligible for the office of Sector Chairperson. The

Chairperson may or may not have experience with Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) or Near Infrared Grain

Analyzer (NIR) devices, but must be able to ensure that the meeting proceeds with order and that the subjects

of discussion do not stray from the intended purpose.

Duties

The role of the Chairperson is to ensure that discussions during the meeting are conducted in accordance with

accepted (Parliamentary) procedure and to ensure timely discussion of each topic. The specific duties of the Chairperson are as follows:

• Review the agenda prior to the meeting to determine proper time allowances for each topic.

• Preside over the GMM/NIR Sector meetings, remind meeting participants of the GMM/NIR NTETC Sector purpose at the opening of each meeting, and oversee the timely and balanced discussion of each agenda item

providing all interested parties present with an opportunity to be heard by the Sector.

• Communicate with the Sector Technical Advisor prior to Sector meetings to obtain any additional information which may be needed to carry out duties.

• Facilitate unbiased discussion during the Sector meetings.

99
Executive Committee

• Perform other duties as necessary to facilitate the development and implementation of type evaluation test procedures and criteria and to promote acceptance of the NTEP program.

Term of Office

The Sector Chairperson shall serve for a 3-year term or until a successor is elected. A Chairperson may be

reelected to succeeding 3-year terms if willing to serve. The Chairperson-elect shall take office immediately

following the close of the Sector Meeting at which the election is held.

Nominations and Election

At the end of a term of service or when a vacancy in oifice occurs, the Sector's NIST representative and

Technical Advisor shall jointly submit a slate of one or more candidates. Additional nominations may be made

by Sector members at the meeting at which elections are to be held. The upcoming election shall be announced

in the Agenda circulated in advance of the regularly scheduled Sector meeting at which the election is to be

held. Voting shall be by means of show of hands. Proxy votes are not permitted. A simple majority of votes of Sector members present shall be sufficient for election. If none of the candidates receive a majority of votes on the first ballot, the slate shall be reduced to the two nominees receiving the most votes and another vote shall then be taken.

Sector Technical Advisor

Duties

The role of the Sector Technical Advisor is to solicit appropriate and essential topics for the NTETC meetings

and to provide the NTETC Sector with background information on the agenda topics. The person holding this position usually has some experiences in grain moisture/protein measurements and/or is able to investigate the specific topic to facilitate discussion during Sector meetings. The specific duties of the Technical Advisor are as follows:

Prepare a detailed written agenda for the GMM and NIR Sector meetings and deliver an electronic copy (a

computer diskette) to the Office of Weights and Measures, in sufficient tune for distribution to Sector members. The agenda is to include a list of agenda items, background information on each issue and a

description of what is to be decided or determined by the Sector. Background information is to include detailed material pertaining to each agenda item such as the latest versions of the Handbook 44 codes and

type evaluation checklists and criteria.

Attend the GMM and NIR Sector meetings to provide technical assistance and guidance and to take meeting

minutes.

Prepare a detailed written summary of the Sector meetings and deliver an electronic copy (a computer

diskette) to the Office of Weights and Measures in sufficient time for distribution to Sector Members and

inclusion of Sector decisions and recommendations on the Agenda for the Interim Meeting ofthe National

Conference of Weights and Measures. The meeting summary is to include, but is not limited to, updated

recommendations for code revision, type evaluation criteria and checklist revision, and other actions as decided.

• Attend the Interim and Annual meetings of the NCWM as appropriate to provide support and information

to the NCWM committees on Sector related topics and issues.

Facilitate unbiased discussion during Sector meetings.

• Perform other duties as necessary to facilitate the development and implementation of type evaluation test procedures and criteria and to promote acceptance of the NTEP program.

2. Election of Sector Chairperson

Richard (Will) Wotthlie, Maryland Weights and Measures, was elected to the post of Chairperson for both the Grain

Moisture Meter Sector and the Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Sector by unanimous vote of those present.

100
Executive Committee

3. Report on NCWM Interim Meeting - GMM Issues Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, reported on actions taken on grain moisture meter issues at the NCWM Interim Meeting held

January 21-25, 1996 in Ft. Lauderdale, FL [Note: Item numbers and item headings shown below correspond to item

numbers and headings of the Interim Meeting Agenda, NCWM Publication 15 dated December 1995. Additional

discussion of these issues can be found in that publication.]

102-4 NTEP Policy - Examples of Appropriate Language to Use in Conjunction with the NTEP Name and Logo

in Advertising and Brochures

The wording suggested by the Sector will be added to the other examples of appropriate language which the NTEP Board of Governors (BOG) is proposing to include as an appendix to Publication 14. The proposed

appendix will be a voting item at the NCWM annual meeting.

In further discussion of this issue at this Sector meeting, Don Onwiler, Nebraska Public Service Commission,

expressed concern that elevators in his jurisdiction may be mislead by advertising which contains the wording

"designed to meet NTEP requirements" when, in fact, the devices have not yet been submitted for NTEP

evaluation. The Sector was in general agreement that little could be done to stop such advertising unless it was

blatantly false. The Sector's concerns in this matter have already been forwarded to the BOG. Sector members

were asked to send copies of advertising containing what are believed to be false or misleading statements regarding NTEP approval to Diane Lee at NIST/OWM.

3S6-1 Elimination of Retroactive Dates; Effective for Devices Placed into Service after January 1, 1998

The Sector had recommended that the code be reorganized. The S&T Committee agreed in principle to

reorganization of the Code into two sections, one applicable to meters placed into service before January 1 , 1 998

(other than those certified as meeting NTEP requirements), and another applicable to NTEP meters and to all other meters placed into service after January 1, 1998. The reorganized code will be presented to the NCWM as a voting item at the annual meeting.

356-2 S. 1.10 Operating Temperature

The S&T Committee considered the Sector's recommendation to remove the requirement for marking the operating temperature range on the device and will make this a voting item at the NCWM armual meeting.

4. Editorial Reorganization of H44 - GMM Code

The Sector had noted that with retroactive dates removed, the Code is very hard to interpret and has contradictory

requirements in many areas. It was generally agreed that even with editorial "patches" to these areas, the resulting code

would be very confusing and difficult to interpret properly. To remedy this situation, the code was reorganized by NIST

Staff into two sections. Sec. 5.56(b) applicable to Meters placed in service before January 1, 1998, and Sec. 5.56(a)

applicable to meters placed in service after January 1, 1998. The Sector reviewed a draft of the reorganized code (see

Attachments) and recommended the following changes:

Changes to Proposed Code Sec. 5.56(a) -

Change sentence describing applicability to read:

This Section, 5.56(a) is applicable to all NTEP grain moisture meters. It is also applicable to any grain moisture meters manufactured or placed into service after January 1, 1998.

In proposed paragraph S.1.3.(d), change the sentence reading "The minimum temperature difference shall be

10 °C." to read:

"The minimum temperature difference shall be 1 0 Celsius degrees."

Change proposed S.1.4. to read like the corresponding section of NIR code:

101
Executive Committee

5.1.4. Value of Indications Design of Measuring Elements. - The display shall permit constituent value determination to both 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent resolution. The 0.1 percent resolution is for commercial

transactions; the 0.01 percent resolution is for type evaluation and calibration purposes only, not for commercial

purposes.

(a) The value of the minimum indicated or recorded moisture indication shall not be greater than 0. 1 percent

(b)—For the purposes of type evaluation, the maximum value for the moismre indication shall bo 0.01 percent.

Charge proposed S.1.5.(a) and (c) to agree with changes to be considered as agenda item 355-2 at the NCWM

annual meeting. Also, revise S.1.5.(c) for clarity. [Note proposed S.1.5. is S.1.10 in the existing Code.]

5.1.5. Operating Temperature.

(a) Warm up Period: A meter When a meter has been turned on, it shall not display or record any usable

values until the operating temperature necessary for accurate determination has been attained, or the meter

shall bear a conspicuous statement adjacent to the indication stating that the meter shall be turned on for a time period specified by the manufacturer prior to use.

(b) A meter shall meet the requirements of T.2. - Tolerance Values when operated in the temperature range of 10 °C to 30 °C (50 °F to 86 °F) or within the range specified by the meter manufacturer.

(c) If the manufacturer specifies a temperature range, the range shall be at least 20 Celsius degrees (36

^

Fahrenheit degrees) and shall be marked on the device.

Change proposed S.4. to read:

S.4. Operating Instructions and Use Limitations. - The manufacturer shall furnish operating instructions for the device and accessories that include complete information concerning the accuracy, sensitivity, and use of

accessory equipment necessary in obtaining a moisture content. Operating instructions shall include the following information:

(a) name and address or trademark of the manufacturer;

(b) the type or design ofthe device with which it is intended to be used;

(c) date of issue;

(d) the kind or classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to measure moisture content; and

(e) the limitations of use, including but not confined to the moisture measurement range, grain or seed

temperature, maximum allowabk temperature difference between tg^in sample and meter, kind

or class of grain or seed, moisture meter temperature, voltage and fi-equency ranges, electromagnetic interferences, and necessary accessory equipment; btrt

(f) values exceeding any measurement range shall not be included. .

Change reference to "Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS)" in footnote I of Section N to "Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)" and change "USDA FGIS" in Section T.3. to "USDA GIPSA"

to reflect change in agency name.

Change proposed UR.1.1. for clarity and to agree with proposed S.1.4. as shown below:

UR.1.1. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary Indicoting and Recording Elements. The value of the smallest unit on a moisture meter, whether the moisture meter reads directly in terms of moisture content, or

102
Executive Committee

when the conventional scale unit is converted or corrected to moisture content, ohall be equal to or l ess than one

half tlie value of the minimum acceptance tolerance.

Display Resolution - the resolution of the moisture meter display shall be 0.1 percent moisture during

commercial use.

Add the note "Effective as of January 1, 1998" to proposed UR.3.4.(b).

Delete proposed UR.3.9. Operating Limitation. This paragraph is redundant. The requirement is covered by

proposed S. 1.3.(d).

Restore deleted UR.3.10, re-number it UR.3.9 and delete all references to calibration charts as shown below:

UR.3.10. Current Calibration Charter Data. - Grain moisture determinations shall be made using only the most

recently published calibration charts or calibration data.

Changes to Proposed Code Sec. 5.56(b) -

Change sentence describing applicability to read:

This Section, 5.56(b) is applicable to all non-NTEP grain moisture meters manufactured or placed into service before January 1, 1998.

Change proposed S.1.9.(c) to be consistent with defining a range in terms of "Fahrenheit degrees" or "Celsius

degrees" as shown below:

(c) If the manufacturer specifies a temperature range, the range shall be at least 1 0^Celsius degrees (20

^

Fahrenheit degrees) and shall be marked on the device.

Delete proposed S.4. and the note following [these paragraphs do not apply to non-NTEP meters manufactured

or placed into service before January 1, 1998.]

SA, Calibration Transfen—The instrument hardware/software design and calibration procedures shall permit

calibration development and the mathematical transfer of calibrations between instruments of lilt e models.

Note; Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer's designated service agency may malce calibration transfer adjustments on moistiu'e meters and, except for instrument failure and repair, only at a prescribed period of time during the year. This does not preclude the possibilit>' of the operator installing the manufacturer specified

calibration constants or standardization parameters under the instructions of tho manufacturer or his designated

sor\'ioe agency.

Change reference to "Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS)" in footnote 1 of Section N to "Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)" and change "USDA FGIS" in Section T.3. to "USDA GIPSA"

to reflect change in agency name.

Restore proposed UR.I.l. to its original wording:

UR.1.1. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary Indicating and Recording Elements. - The value of the smallest unit on a moisture meter, whether the moisture meter reads directly in terms of moisture content, or when ttie conventional scale unit is converted or corrected to moisture content, shall be equal to or less than onehalf the value ofthe minimum acceptance tolerance.

Delete proposed Table S. 1 .6. 1 . [This table is not applicable to non-NTEP meters manufactured or placed into service before January 1, 1998.]

103
Executive Committee

5. Proposed Change to H44 - S.2.3. Provisions for Sealing:

Discussion: Vhen originally considering provisions for sealing grain moisture meters, the Sector concluded th at physical

seals would not constitute a meaningful security measure if frequent bias adjustments were required (as might be the case with multi-constituent NIR meters) and that event counters alone would not provide meaningful information on the

appropriateness of the adjustment. The Sector agreed that sealing requirements for NIR based instruments should equal

or exceed those specified for Category 3 devices in the Scales Code. Accordingly, the Sector decided that audit trails for

all devices with remote configuration capability should include an event counter, the parameter ID, the date and time of

change, and tie new value of the parameter (or the new calibration version number if the change consisted of multiple

constants). The Sector also decided that devices without remote configuration capability should either be sealed by a

physical seal or , if the operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity of the device, should provide

the same audit trail information as a remotely configurable device. At the 1995 Annual Meeting of the NCWM, H44

paragraph S.23., Provision for Sealing, was amended to specify the minimum information which must be contained in the audit trail. As S.2.3. is presently worded, however, the Sector's intent to require an audit trail in all devices capable

of remote configuration (even for Category 2 devices where access to the remote configuration capability is physically

scalable) is not clear. The Sector was asked to consider a change to S.2.3. which would require that any device with

remote configuration capability have an audit trail. One manufacturer objected strongly to this proposal on the basis that there was no difference, from an enforcement point of view, from breaking a seal to allow a change to be made via a device's keyboard and breaking a seal to allow a change to be made from a remote site (e.g., via modem or acoustic

coupler). It uas also pointed out that there was an economic consideration in choosing a physical seal versus incorporating

sufficient memory for an audit d-ail (memory being more expensive than a physical seal). Several other Sector members

favored requiring audit trails for devices with remote configuration capability, whether or not a seal had to be broken

to enable the device to be remotely configured. The Sector was unable to reach consensus on the issue. The Sector Technical Advisor was asked to develop an alternate proposal for consideration by the Sector at its next meeting.

6. Facilitation of Fraud - Clarification & Discussion

Several provisions of H44 General Code and Grain Moisture Meter Code specifically address the goal of minimizing the opportunity for operator error and facilitation of fraud. Some Sector members had raised questions regarding the

applicability cf these provisions to specific device design and operational characteristics of meters which had been issued

Certificates ot Conformance or which were presently undergoing testing by the NTEP Laboratory. The Sector was asked

to consider the questions raised and decide if revisions should be made to the Code to address these issues.

(1) Questior raised: Does a cevice, which incorporates a weighing mechanism into which grain must be poured until a pre determined

quantity or weight) of grain has been introduced, meet NTEP requirements, or must the device be "fully automatic"?

GMM Code cited: S.2.4. Determination of Quantity and Temperature. - The moisture meter system shall not require the operator to judge

the precise volume or weight and temperature needed to make an accurate moisture determination. External grinding,

weighing, and temperature measurement operations are not permitted.

Backgroand:

At the i:s March 28-29, 1994, meeting, in discussing this issue, the Sector agreed that weighing (and taking the

temperatjfit^ -af ^toji siwiW. Hyt wiVam.?A\c, cs-d^ to a\«.v4 vnj 'p/s'i«vA\?i'i bNff?iZi?i ^rr-cyr, v^^Ja Vae ^saal being to eliminate all operator interaction that requires particular care to achieve an accurate reading. The Sector acknowledged that some operator judgement might be needed, but that specific quantities taken to the meter should

not be critical to the final accuracy of the moisture determination. The Sector stipulated that there should be a clear indication when the required sample amount has not been provided by the user. The Code is very explicit in prohibiting external weighing. It would seem that as long as the weighing mechanism is an integral part of the

device, and as long as operator judgement is not required to determine when the predetermined weight has been

reached, that the described device meets the intent of S.2.4. If, however, the accuracy of the readings can be

influenced by the rate at which the operator introduces the sample into the weighing mechanism, there may be reason

to question whether the device complies.

104
Executive Committee

(2) Questions raised:

a) If it is possible to cause an inaccurate reading in a device (in this case, a higher moisture reading) by adding

additional grain into a meter after the predetermined amount has been introduced, would this device be considered one which facilitated the perpetration of fraud?

b) If a device's grain temperature sensing element is accessible to the operator, and if manipulation of the element

affects meter results, would this device be considered one which facilitated the perpetration of fraud?

Code Cited - General Code G-S.2. G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud, - All equipment and all mechanisms and devices attached thereto or used in connection

therewith shall be so constructed, assembled, and installed for use such that they do not facilitate the perpetration of fraud.

Background;

In previous Sector discussions, the operation of a scale has been cited as a benchmark to judge whether a device

facilitates the perpetration of fraud. If the operator places his fmger on a scale as a measurement is being made, the customer will receive an inaccurate reading, but as long as the scale (and the actions of the operator) can be viewed

by the customer (G-UR.3.3. and GMM Code IJR.3.7.), the customer can prevent obvious fraud. If the addition of

grain to a meter or the manipulation of the temperature sensing element is obvious to the customer, then the meter would not be considered in violation of G-S.2. On the other hand, it might be argued that the location requirement

of GMM Code UR.3.7. is not realistic, because drivers delivering grain to an elevator frequently remain on the truck and cannot always observe the actions of the person operating the moisture meter.

3) Question raised:

If it is possible to affect a meter's resuh by placing one's hand near the instrument during the device's automatic

calibration (or auto-zeroing) process, does the device facilitate fraud?

General Code Cited: G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components. - A device shall be designed with provision(s) for applying a security seal that must be broken, or for using other approved means of providing security (e.g., data change

audit tra.l available at the time of inspection), before any change that detrimentally affects the metrological integrity of

the device can be made to any electronic mechanism.

A device may be fitted with an automatic or a semi-automatic calibration mechanism. This mechanism shall be

incorporated inside the device. After sealing, neither the mechanism nor the calibration process shall facilitate fi^ud.

Background:

As mentioned in the discussion of Question 2 above, the determining factor in such cases has been the degree to which the operator's actions can be considered obvious to the user. In this instance, one might also question if placing a hand near the instrument during the measuring process also affects the reading. The Sector might want to consider requiring that warnings be prominently displayed on the device if it is sensitive to the position of the operator during calibration or operation.

A few Sector members expressed the belief that devices which operate as described above did indeed facilitate fraud, citing

the fact that in many instances a grain seller will remain on the delivery truck and will not see what the operator is doing.

Some were of the opinion that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the present Code appeared to be adequate and

tliai the described devices did not facilitate fraud. Others felt that this was a matter of interpretation of the Code by the NTEP laboratory and pointed out that if anyone was in disagreement with the laboratory's interpretation or with the

issuing of a certificate of conformance, there was an established process for filing an appeal with the NTEP BOG. One

Sector membe- asked if the real issue wasn't the question of whether or not open cell instruments should be permitted?

This provoked a quick response from another member who suggested that the question of open cells should have been

brought up 4 years ago. The Sector Chairman expressed concern that this issue was turning into a "shooting match"

betweei manufacturers and stated his belief that the Sector was not the place to settle the issue. He suggested that if any

jurisdiction experienced recurring problems in the field this should be brought to the attention of NIST/OWM for appropriate action. Further discussion on this issue was tabled indefmitely.

105
Executive Committee

7. Update on Type Evaluation and Phase II Testing

Rich Pierce of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA, formerly FGIS), the NTEP laboratory

for Grain Moisture Meters, reported on the progress of Type Evaluations and the collection of Phase II data on 1995 crop. The NTEP laboratory is currently evaluating three additional grain moisture meter models. Testing of those models which

successfully meet NTEP requirements on the first pass is expected to be completed by April 30, 1996. Calibration data and summary reports for 1995 crop samples have been provided to the five manufacturers having models in the Phase II, Calibration Maintenance and Review Program. Sample summary reports were presented for com, soybeans, and hard red

winter wheat (HRW) [see Attachments]. The reports which incorporate data collected on the GIPSA official meter and

the five NTEP meter models, illustrate the type of information which was provided to manufacturers on their individual

models. Dr. Pierce asked the Sector to consider if the format of these reports might be acceptable for tracking

improvement in NTEP meter performance over time. In response, the Sector noted that the summary report for com

included results which were outside the moisture range for which several instruments had been approved. The Sector

generally agreed that if this summary fonnat was to be used to track improvement in NTEP meter performance, it should

not include meter data which was outside the range of moistures claimed for any meter. Dr. Pierce also presented a list of commodities with corresponding calibration change dates presently observed by GIPSA for putting new calibrations

into effect [see Attachments]. The Sector had previously indicated a desire to release calibration changes simultaneously

with GIPSA and also had agreed on a single target date of May 1 for release of all calibration changes. Dr. Pierce noted

that a single date for release of all calibration changes was not consistent with GIPSA's present release schedule. The

Sector reaffirmed the desirability of a single target release date for calibration changes citing two reasons:

1) The logistics of publishing new certificates of conformance (and getting timely information into the midyear

addendum to Publication 5). 2) The logistics of disseminating and installing new calibrations. (A single release date is the only practical

option for a meter in which calibration changes can be made only by retuming a meter to the manufacturer

or distributor for re-programming.)

The following schedule was suggested for each of the significant milestones in the Calibration Review and Maintenance

Program:

1 . GIPSA provides last of summary reports with corresponding meter data March 1 to manufacturers (GIPSA to release report and data for each grain as

it is available. It is assumed that summary reports and data on many

of the grains would be available before the date shown here).

2. Manufacturer makes any required calibration changes and provides the April 15 NTEP laboratory with repredicted values in standard data fonnat.

3. NTEP laboratory validates manufacturer's calibration change and May I forwards information for revised CC to NIST and to manufacturer.

4. NIST issues updated CC's and publishes midyear addendum to NCWM (to be determined)

Publication 5.

Because of delays in getting Phase II data to manufacturers for the 1995 crop, the feasibility of releasing new calibrations by May 1, 1996, was questioned. For this year only, the above schedule will be modified to call for manufacturers to provide the NTEP laboratory with repredicted values in standard data format on changed calibrations by May 1, 1996,

and for the NTEP laboratory to forward validated calibration information to NIST and manufacturers by May 10, 1996.

8. Performance Verification over Range of Sample Temperatures

In some instraments, temperature compensation is accomplished by including, in the calibration set, data obtained on

samples at various temperatures. For these instruments, calibration updates may affect the temperature compensation and

thus affect performance over temperature. At an earlier meeting, the Sector was reminded that temperature studies were

not included in Phase II of the NTEP moisture program and that no temperature testing had been performed on the "other

13" NTEP grains [i.e., grains other than com, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat]. At that time the Sector was imable

to reach a consensus on what should be done with regard to obtaining objective evidence that temperature performance

106
Executive Committee

was acx^ptable for calibrations for the "other 13" grains and for any calibration changes made on the three "basic" grains

subsequent to NTEP testing. Manufacturers were asked to review the issue and to suggest alternatives or options for providing this data. One manufacturer expressed the opinion that manufacturers should submit temperature data for the

"other 13" grains and also for any grain when a calibration change is made. Another suggested that calibration changes

for a given meter model could be evaluated based on spectral or "raw" data if it is available for the moisture and

temperature ranges involved. It was suggested that moisture data be collected on one or two samples at both extremes of tempCTature in each 2 percent interval of moisture over the desired moisture range. The Sector Technical Advisor and

the NTEP laboratory representative were asked to propose minimum data requirements and a detailed procedure for collecting temperature data on: 1) the "other 13" grains and 2) the "standard 3" grains for extended moisture ranges. A

draft proposa. will be presented at the next Sector meeting.

9. What CoQstitutes a Type Change?

The following information was provided to the Sector as an information item in response to questions which had been

raised regarding NTEP policy and procedures for issuing of updated CC's for device changes and annual calibration endorsements of Moisture Meters. There was no discussion of this item at the Sector meeting.

Unlike Certificates of Confomiance (CC's) for scales, CC's for Moisture Meters will be updated (re-issued) annually as evidence that calibrations shown on the CC are appropriate for use for the current year's harvest. When CC's are re-issued (whether to reflect currently approved calibrations or to reflect an instrument modification or to include an additional model) a sequentially assigned identifier (Al, A2, A3, ... etc.) will be appended to the original CC number. For example,

if the original CC number was 95-021 the second update of that CC would be 95-02 1A2. If requests for model changes

or additions to an existing CC are submitted to the NTEP between October and February, those changes can be included on the armual update of the CC and the manufacturer will pay only a single reissue fee. A CC represents conformance of a designated model (or models) to a single type or pattern. NCWM Publication 14 defines "Type" as:

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 ofConformance.

When a manufacturer submits two similar types to the NTEP, a decision must be made whether to conduct one or two

separate evaluation processes. Publication 14, offers the following guidelines for making this decision:

1. Superficial Differences Between Devices

Types that are identical in design, materials, and components used, and measurement ranges, but that differ superficially in their enclosures, detailed size, color, or location of non-metrological appointments (function lights, display location, operational key locations, etc.) will usually be submitted to a single evaluation.

2. Component Variations

Types produced by the same manufacturer with nominally identical components or materials procured from different suppliers can usually be regarded as the same type. They will be covered by a single evaluation if the different components or materials are not likely to affect the regulated raetrological characteristics, reliability, or life of the

types.

If changes in components or materials are likely to affect the performance or operational characteristics of a device, separate

evaluations will generally be required. A type is considered MODIFIED if a change alters a metrological or technical

characteristic.

When a manufacturer makes changes to an approved type, evaluation of the modification may be necessar>'. Publication 14 delineates a manufacturer's responsibilities when making changes or modifications to an NTEP certified device and

lists the options available to the NTEP in such cases:

The manufacturer must report changes that might require the attention of the NTEP; the decision to report is dictated by the significance of the modification.

107
Executive Committee

Notification of Change

The manufacturer notifies the NTEP that a change to an approved device has been made or is contemplated.

The manufacturer may make judgement concerning the modification and request issuance of an approval of a modification by citing the existing Certificate of Conformance, detailing the changes, and giving any data,

analysis, and conclusions concerning the technical or metrological consequences of the changes.

NTEP Options

On the basis of the manufacturer's notification, the NTEP will decide whether or not to require an evaluation

for approving the modification or issuance of a new Certificate of Conformance. NTEP will inform the manufacturer accordingly.

Marking

Any device modified to meet the influence factors requirements must carry a model designation different from

a previous model. The differentiation may simply be a prefix or a suffix to the original model designation. The

device may still carry the same model series designation on the device, but the model designation on the

identification badge must be unique.

10. Report on First Interlaboratory Sample Exchange

Under tlie NTEP program for grain moisture meters, calibrations will be based on GIPSA air ovens and field inspection

will be based on state air ovens. The air oven method is an empirical test which may have to be adjusted to account for differences of altitude or other differences between laboratories. A structured program for interlaboratory comparisons

of air oven moisture determinations has been developed by a Sector Subcommittee chaired by Dr. Charles Hurburgh (Iowa

State University). The first sample exchange under this program has been completed. Three com samples, three soybean

samples, and two wheat samples were sent to each of 37 participants (the NTEP laboratory, Iowa State University, 13 state metrology laboratories, 7 manufacturers, and 15 Iowa NIR Network Elevators). Participants were asked to measure these samples on whatever moisture meters were available at their location, and if they had oven capability to also make oven

moisture determinations on the samples. A summary of results is shown in the following two tables.

NTEP Moisture Collaborative - Oven Data

Grain Data

Sample

1 2 3

Average SD Average SD Average SD

Com ALL (21 labs) 15.02 0.23 14.91 0.23 16.44 0.26 NTEP lab 15.06 14.94 16.45

Soybeans ALL (17 labs) 14.54 0.19 12.42 0.11 11.89 0.10 NTEP lab 14.56 12.39 11.83

Wheat ALL (17 labs) 12.31 0.10 10.58 0.08

NTEP lab 12.36 10.55

108
Executive Committee

Standard Deviation Across Labs,

By Type of Device

(% pts)

Grain Oven NTEP

Approved

Non-NTEP

Com 0.23 0.31 0.23

Soybeans 0.12 0.22 0.13

Wheat 0.07 0.28 0.20

[Editor's Note: Some of the devices classified as "NTEP Approved", although of the same brand and of similar construction, were not necessarily identical to the models submitted for type approval, and may or may not have been

factory aligned with those models. All devices classified as "NTEP Approved" did, however, utilize current NTEP

calibrations.]

Dr. Hurburgh pointed out that the oven procedure was very well done with states' data essentially equivalent to the NTEP

lab. He observed that the units in the NTEP lab for Phase II calibration maintenance were not always well aligned with

other units of the same brand, and was of the belief that the precision (SD across labs) of NTEP meters can be improved

through better standardization.

11. Progress Report on Compilation of Baseline Performance Data

The objective of the NTEP Moisture Meter Program is to bring interstate and intermeter comparisons closer together.

To determine if this objective is being met, data is being compiled from State Weights and Measures existing field test reports to establish a "pre-NTEP" performance baseline which can be compared to data compiled fi-om field tests made

after the NTEP program has been in effect for several years. Dr. Charles Hurburgh, Iowa State University, reported that the collection and compilation of data was well underway with about one megabytes of data entered into the spreadsheet

thus far. An early look at the data seems to indicate that the reference used for the field test (i.e., other meter, oven, or oven modified with a meter re-test) appears to have a profound effect on the variability of results. A full report should

be available for the next Sector meeting.

12. Promotion of NTEP - Review of Draft Brochure

In earlier meetings. Sector members had expressed concern that several grain producing states do not have a viable field inspection program for grain moisture meters and have not become NTEP states. It was agreed that a brochure which

promoted the program's benefits would be useful in promoting the NTEP Grain Moisture Meter Program. A draft (see

Attachments), incorporating comments from the previous Sector meeting was reviewed by the Sector. The following

changes were agreed upon:

Page 1 , modify the first paragraph to spell out the full name of GIPSA:

The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) is a program of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). NTEP is a cooperative program between the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

,

NCWM, states, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA, formerly FGIS), and private

sectors for determining, on a uniform basis, conformance of a type or pattern of device with the relevant provisions

of NIST Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements of Weighing and Measuring

Devices."

Page 1 , last paragraph:

Remove "(NTETC)", it is not used elsewhere in the brochure. Remove the word "regulatory" from the last sentence.

109
Executive Committee

Page 2, change third bullet under "Benefits of NTEP" to read:

• A single evaluation to satisfy all States state agencies.

Page 3, Modify the 4th, 5th. 6th, and 8th bullets to read:

• GIPSA NTEP lab evaluates the device in accordance with the test procedures and technical criteria specified in NCWM Publication 14.

• GIPSA NTEP lab reports deficiencies, if any, to the manufacturer who must correct these deficiencies before the process can continue.

• GIPSA NTEP lab prepares and forwards to NIST a report summarizing the results of the evaluation.

• NIST reviews the type evaluation results. GIPSA NTEP lab prepares the draft Certificate of Conformance (GG) and obtains a certificate number from NIST

if the device passes the evaluation.

Page 3, Modify the section headed "Phase 11" to read -

• Manufacturers must participate in the annual on-going calibration program to keep the certificate current.

• Manufacturers are provided with calibration data collected on the same sample set used by GIPSA for calibrating the Official Meters and must develop calibration updates.

• Manufacturers develop calibration updates as required.

Page 4, Modify the second bullet to read:

• National Conference on Weights and Measures, Board of Governors, establishes administrative policy and

procedures for NTEP and hears and provides resolution of appeals. (See Bylaws, Article V, Section 5.)

Page 5, change sentence to read:

• For more information please contact your local State Weights and Measures Office or call the NCWM 24-Hour

Fax Line listed below at 1-800-925-2453 .

Page 6 (cover), Modify subtitle:

Grain Moisture Meters and Near Infrared Grain Analyzers

NIST/OWM has written the following organizations asking for permission to list their names in the brochure as supporting

NTEP:

National Grain & Feed Association

Grain Elevator and Processor Society

National Com Growers Association

American Soybean Association

National Wheat Growers Association

Rice Growers Association

American Farm Bureau

National Farmers Association

When answers have been received from these organizations, OWM will make arrangements for final design and printing

of the brochure.

13. Test Weight per Bushel Indications

Background: The Grain Moisture Meter Code in H44 contains the following field test requirement for Test Weight per Bushel Indications:

110
Executive Committee

TJ. For Test Weight Per Bushel Indications or Recorded Representations. The maintenance and acceptance

tolerances on test weiglit per busiiel indications or recorded representations shall be 0.193 kg/hL or 0.15 Ib/bu. The test methods used shall be those specified by the USDA FGIS.

(Amended 1992)

Some time ago, when the Sector was discussing this requirement, the reasonableness of the tolerance, was questioned,

especially as it applied to the test weight of com. It was pointed out that the tolerance was taken from FGIS (now

GIPSA) procedures which compared the average of a large number of replicate measurements (10?) using the "standard"

quart container to a like average obtained with the container under test. Only dry hard red winter wheat was used for this

test. The Sector was in general agreement that the test was not realistic as a field test and that tolerances should be revised

to indicate a diiferent tolerance for each applicable grain. The Sector considered dropping this section from the Moisture Meter Code, reasoning that it would be more appropriate to include it in a separate chapter of H44 devoted specifically

to the requirements for test weight per bushel devices. Several members of the Weights and Measures Community

objected, however, stating that deletion of this section, prior to the development of a separate code chapter, would leave them without inspection and enforcement authority over these devices. Consequently, the Sector deferred further action on this matter to an unspecified future date.

There are now at least two NTEP Grain Moisture Meters which have the capability to automatically provide an indication and recorded representation of test weight per bushel. Because of the unrealistic tolerances in the existing Code, however,

the test weight capability of these meters was disabled for the NTEP tests. Some State W&M Officials are permitting

these devices to display and print the test weight information provided that some disclaimer appears on the printed ticket

(e.g., the word "approximate" next to the test weight result) or that a warning against use of the information for commercial purposes is posted prominently on the device.

Discussion: The Sector reviewed this issue and was in general agreement that Test Weight per Bushel devices (Grain

Bulk Density Apparatus) should be addressed in Code separate from the Grain Moisture Meter Code. All Sector members

present expressed an interest in working on this new code noting that the measurement of Test Weight was next in « priority behind moisture and protein measurement when the Grain Quality Incentives Act of 1990 authorized GIPSA to work with NIST and NCWM to standardize commercial inspections. Furthermore, Test Weight meets the criteria for

consideration as a faaor needing standardization: 1) it has economic significance; 2) it is in widespread use; 3) existing

design criteria are in place; and 4) independent reference methods are available. It was brought to the Sector's attention

that GIPSA and the Canadian Grain Commission had undertaken an effort to resolve differences in methods used by the two agencies, and that ISO has recently issued two standards relating to grain bulk density measurement: ISO 7971 and

ISO 7971-2. The Sector decided to undertake development of new code for grain bulk density measurement. This will be an agenda item for the next Sector meeting. All known manufacturers of Test Weight apparatus will be invited to participate in this matter.

14. Choosing a Date and Site for the Next Meeting

The Sector agreed to a two and one-half day meeting to be held September 9-11, 1996, in the Kansas City area. Preliminary plans call for beginning the meeting at 9:00 a.m., September 9. with NIR Sector business. Issues common

to both NIR and GMM Sectors will be considered beginning at 1:00 p.m. (or shortly thereafter) that same day. The

remaining GMM issues will be taken up on September 10 and 1 1. The meeting will adjourn at noon on September 11.

Ill

Executive Committee

Appendix J

NTETC Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Meter Sector

September 14, 1995, Des Moines, lA

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

1 . Report on MCWM Annual Meeting

2. Update on National Type Evaluation Testing Schedule

3. Update on Publication 14

4. Adding Philosophy ofSealing & Typical Features to be Sealed to Checklist

5. Addition of Audit Trail Requirement Details to Publication 14

6. Calibration Identification on Muhi-Constituent Instruments

7. Phase II Testing - On-going Calibration Review

1. Report on NCWM Annual Meeting

The NCWM Annual Meeting was held July 16-20, 1995, in Portland, ME. The Conference adopted the following proposal

by majoritN' vote of both the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates:

357-1 UR2.8 Calibration Adjustments and S.2.5.1. Calibration Transfer. This item was the Sector's recommendation

to eliminate references to user slope adjustments and to more explicitly describe the information which the user must

keep to justify calibration adjustments.

2. Update on National Type Evaluation Testing Schedule

Rich Pierce, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration/Federal Grain Inspection Service (GIPSA/FGIS)

reported that he had just received from NIST the form to apply for certification as the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Near

Infrared Grain Analyzers. To become certified, the lab must submit evidence that: 1) adequate frained personnel are available

to perform the tests; 2) they have an understanding of the test procedures; 3) the necessary reference methods and samples

are available; and, 4) that they have adequate facilities to do the testing. With regard to these four items, Rich noted that

1) Two new technicians had joined his group to replace two who had been transferred to another group. Training will be

required to acquaint the new technicians with the requirements of NIR type evaluation testing; 2) Detailed test plans will have

to be developed; 3) Samples have been in underground storage. These will have to be retrieved and sorted out; 4) The

facilities at Kansas City are being remodeled and the type evaluation lab is being relocated to another space in the building.

With lab certification in process, applications can be accepted for testing. Present plans call for sending out type evaluation

application forms to NIR instrument manufacturers (along with a questionnaire regarding the need for calibration assistance)

around October 1, 1995, with completed applications due October 15 and instruments due on site November 1, 1995.

Rich reviewed the availability of samples for calibration assistance. They include the 100 calibration samples and 50

validation samples per wheat class from '92 and '93 crop years used in developing FGIS' calibrations. Unfortunately, many

ofthese are limited in quantity (somewhat less than 100 g). and the moisture range of these samples is somewhat limited. This

set of samples might have to be supplemented with samples from crop years '93 through '95 which have been used for monitoring. Samples from '93 through '95 crop years will also be used for Type Evaluation Testing. Combustion Nitrogen

Analyzer (CNA) protein data (12% moisture basis) is available for the calibration assistance samples. The CNA tests will not be repeated on those samples.

Charles Hurburgh, Iowa State University, asked how temperature compensation would be handled if calibration assistance was provided. Rich Pierce reported that this had not been determined. The lab will have to consider each case separately. Costs will depend on what additional testing the manufacturer will required to collect sufficient data for temperature

compensation. Ole Rasmussen, Foss Food Technology, asked if manufacturers could arrange to bring samples into the lab and run them themselves on their "standard instruments." Rich Pierce saw no objections to this provided it didn't conflict with

the NTEP Lab's need to collect Phase II or other data. He was not certain what arrangements could be made if CNA analysis was required.

113
Executive Committee

3. Update on Publication 14

See Grain Moisture Meter Agenda Item 4 for general information on availability and cost of the 1995 edition of Publication

14. The Checklist for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers has also been included in the 1995 edition of Publication 14.

4. Adding Philosophy of Sealing & Typical Features to be Sealed to Publication 14

When audit trail requu ements were added to other device codes, only essential audit trail information was distilled for

inclusion in Handbook 44. Backgroimd information and detailed information to clarify how the sealing requirements of H44

Code would be interpreted during type evaluation were then added to Publication 14. Similar modifications had been proposed

for the Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Checklist. The Sector reviewed a draft of the proposed background information,

Philosophy for Sealing I Typical Features to be Sealed, and subsequently approved it for addition to the Grain Moisture

Meter Checklist in Publication 14 as Appendix A. (See Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Attachment 1 - Note: TJvs attachment

is not included in this publication; it is availablefrom the NIST Office of Weights and Measures.)

5. Addition of Audit Trail Requirement Details to Publication 14

The Sector considered the addition of several paragraphs to the checklist to address problems discovered by NTEP laboratories while evaluating devices incorporating event loggers ( paragraphs 3.9.3, 3.9.5, 3.9.8, 3.9. 10 below.) This item was discussed

thoroughly during the Grain Moisture Meter Sector Meeting immediately preceding the NIR Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting.

The NIR Sector approved the proposed additions (subject to incorporation of changes corresponding to those made by the Moisture Meter Sector) without fiirther discussion. A summary of the Grain Moisture Meter Sector's discussion on this issue

is reproduced below. [Note: In the discussion reproduced below, paragraph references have been changed to the corresponding NIR Checklist paragraph numbers.]

During the discussion of the proposed changes and additions, one Sector member raised the question of the relationship of

mechanical and electronic security to the audit frail, pointing out that light sources in NIR instruments were not sealed and

tliat circuit boards could be removed and changed with no record of these actions appearing in the audit trail. It was suggested

that these actions were repair actions, and that a mechanical seal of the areas containing replaceable parts would be an

appropriate means to alert field inspection to unauthorized tampering with the instrument. Another Sector Member noted that

the DRIE (formerly the SIM) in France requires, in addition to a physical seal, that a log book be maintained on-site to record any physical changes which could affect the metrological integrity of the device. Log book entries must show theregisfration

number of the authorized service technician making the change or repair.

It was suggested that a similar log book should be required for U.S. grain moisture meters. Don Onwiler, Nebraska Public

Service Commission, questioned how enforcement officials would make use of such a log and the motivation of users to keep

a log. If users or service personnel neglected making enfries, there would be no way of detecting this. The Sector set aside

fiirther consideration of repair logs and decided to confme the remainder of the audit frail discussion to matters associated with

actions which could be performed by a user in the normal operation of the device. Accordingly, the requirement that an event

counter be nonresettable was modified to specify that it be nonresettable by the operator.

It was noted that the checklist for Liquid-Measuring Devices did not require tliat date and time be scalable parameters. The

necessity for requiring date and time to be scalable, in Grain Moisture Meters incorporating an audit trail, was questioned. In the ensuing discussion it was pointed out that even with an event counter, a user could continue to use an old calibration well past the date at which a new calibration was to become effective; then, by altering the date, could change the calibration and make it appear that the change had been made at the proper time. With date and time not scalable, there would be no

record of the date alterations on the audit trail. The Sector subsequently a^eed that date and time should be considered

scalable parameters and requested the Technical Advisor to add wording to that effect to the checklist in the appropriate

section(s). [Note: the wording appears as an explanatory note in 3.9.6. and in Appendix A, Item 3 under "Event Loggers:

Acceptable Form of Audit Trail."]

Also discussed was the matter of whether the 30-day minimum requirement for audit frail power-out memory retention (Paragraph 3.9.8) would be sufficient for near infrared grain analyzers which may see only seasonal use, and which may be

disconnected from power for periods of 6 months or more. Although it was generally agreed that 30 days was not sufficient, there were no suggestions forthcoming on how a longer time period might be verified by the Type Evaluation Laboratory.

Having to wait up to six months to verify conformance with a period of that length seemed neither practical nor desirable. Unable to arrive at a better suggestion, the Sector decided to accept the original proposal of 30 days minimum with the hope

that new devices would not rely on battery backed memory for the audit trail.

The following paragraphs which replace all of the September 1 995 version of 3 .9 and its subparagraphs, incorporate the changes agreed to by the Sector (including the additions which the Technical Advisor was asked to make):

114
Executive Committee

[Note: Paragraph numbers shown below do not correspond exactly with paragraph numbers in Publication 14. Some items

have been conbined andparagraph levels have been changedfor clarity.]

Code Refereice: S.2.6. Provision for Sealing

i. Provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be broken,

or for using other approved means of providing security (e.g., audit trail available at the time of inspection) before any change that affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any mechanism.

i. The manufacturer has provided information on how the device should be sealed. Yes No O NA

ii. All calibration and metrological adjustments can be sealed, or other means of Yes No NA

providing security such as audit trails are provided.

iii. If the operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity of Yes No NA

the device (e.g., slope, bias, etc.) in normal operation, the device creates an

audit trail incorporating an event logger.

If equipped \\ith an event logger:

iv. The event counter is nonresettable and has a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes No D NA

V. The event counter increments appropriately. Yes No O NA

vi. The event logger automatically retains the identification of the parameter Yes No O NA

changed, the date and time of the change, and the new value of the parameter

(for calibration changes consisting of multiple calibration constants, the

calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants.) Note: For devices incorporating an event logger, date and time are considered

scalable parameters, and changes to date or time must be logged the same as any other sealable parameter.

vii. The system is designed to attach a printer which can print the contents of the Yes No iD NA

audit trail.

viii. The audit trail information is capable of being retained in memory for at least Yes No O NA

30 days while the device is without power.

ix. The event logger has the capacity to retain records equal to 25 times the number Yes No NA

of sealable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are

required.

X. The event logger drops the oldest event when the memory capacity is fiill and Yes No NA

a new entry is saved.

Describe the method used to seal the device or access the audit trail information.

6. Calibration Identiflcation on Multi-Constituent Instruments The NTEP Lab had requested the Sector to consider whether it would be desirable to issue a single (or combined ) CC for multi-constituent instruments. This request was based on the concern that a device approved for both moisture and protein

may have to use a single common name to enable the results for both constituents to be displayed for a single measurement

115
Executive Committee

of the grain sample. If a common identifier is used for both constituents, a change in wheat moisture calibrations will require

that the wheat protein CC also be updated. The Sector discussed the matter, noting advantages in enforcement (a single CC

number for a given instrument) and in updating (only one certificate maintenance fee). The only disadvantage seemed to be

that it would require the effective date of protein and moisture calibrations to be the same. The Sector had previously decided

that May 1 should be the target date for reissuing CCs and that it would be desirable to make protein and moisture changes

simultaneously. The Sector recommended that multi-constituent instruments be issued by a single CC.

In connection with this subject, several Sector members asked how CCs would be renewed each year and what numbering

system would be used. A uniform, easily understood system is needed so field enforcement can determine if calibrations are the most recent. The NIST representative was asked to fmd out how NIST proposed to handle the yearly reissuing of CCs

and to report to the Sector at its next meeting. (Note: Under the Grain Moisture Meter and Near Infrared Grain Analyzer

Program, CCsfor these devices are valid onlyfor a single season. They must be renewed each year with calibrations changed

where necessary. A CC must be renewed even ifno calibration changes are required.)

7. Phase U Testing - On-going Calibration Review

This item first appeared on the Sector's agenda for its September 1994 meeting. It was discussed again in detail at their meeting in March 1995. In the course ofthese discussions, the Sector has agreed that:

• participation in a monitoring program of some sort should be mandatory for NTEP instruments.

• data should be collected (and made available to manufacturers) annually by the NTEP laboratory on instruments

in the on-going calibration review and maintenance program for NIR grain analyzers.

• only reference method protein data (corrected to 12% moisture basis) and basic instrument data would be

provided (i.e., no moisture data would be provided).

• no more than 100 samples per year per class would be required for calibration review or monitoring purposes.

• the problem of capturing new crop problems in local areas would be up to the manufacturer to address [and need

not be part of the monitoring program].

• the accuracy limits used for NTEP approval should also apply to the annual review ofNTEP calibrations.

The Sector had also recommended earlier that should GIPSA/FGIS decide to issue a new calibration for their official instruments, data on the same set of samples used to calibrate the GIPSA instruments (in addition to data on GIPSA/FGIS'

validation sample set) should be collected on the NTEP instruments and should be made available to manufacturers (along

with CNA data on those same samples).

For purposes of discussion, the Sector agreed to the following definitions for the two main elements of Phase II of the NTEP

NIR Grain Analyzer Program:

1. Monitoring - verification that an existing calibration continues to meet accuracy requirements over time or, viewed another way, determining when recalibration is required.

2. Calibration Development and Maintenance - recalibration of NTEP instruments using (as a minimum) data obtained on samples selected from the same sample pool from which GIPSA/FGIS selected samples for calibrating the oSlcial instrument. It is recognized that manufacturers may wish to supplement GIPSA data with

data from additional manufacturer-provided samples. Validation of new calibrations would be done using the same validation set used by GIPSA/FGIS.

[Note: As used above, "monitoring" applies to tests performed on the instruments in the NTEP lab and not to devices

in thefield. "Recalibration " means derivation ofa new set ofcalibration coefficients.]

Wlien an estimate of program costs was presented at the Sector's March 1 995 meeting, manufacturers questioned why they

should have to pay for CNA analyses when GIPSA was already analyzing samples in connection with their own monitoring

program. Manufacturers felt that they should bear only the incremental costs associated with a monitoring program. This concern was addressed by Rich Pierce, GIPSA/FGIS, at the Sector's most recent meeting (September 1995). He stated that as long as GIPSA/FGIS had appropriated funds for collecting reference data (CNA analyses) on monitoring samples (or some

116
Executive Committee

portion thereo:), there would be no charge to manufacturers for the analyses on these samples. He also pointed out that, at present, optical data was not being collected routinely on monitoring samples. Each year some 1 0,000 monitoring samples are run through the "Master" instruments at Kansas City. Only protein is predicted on these samples. Approximately 10 percent

of the monitoring samples are set aside for later compositional analysis by reference methods. He cautioned that the GJPSA/FGIS monitoring program was subject to change as it was still under development and suggested the following for an NTEP monitoring program:

During the first week in January, run 1 00 samples of each variety on each NTEP instrument. Of these 1 00 samples,

80 would be chosen from the wheat monitoring program. The remaining 20 would come from the moisture

monitoring program (to verify the robustness ofthe protein calibration over a wider range of sample moistures).

Charles Hurburgh, Iowa State University, expressed concern that if calibration validation is performed using stored samples,

which are typically drier than samples seen at the first point of purchase, we are not really checking performance under

conditions whi:h will be seen in the field. He recommended that performance be monitored over time using samples collected on a flow of time basis to verify that a calibration is robust and gives accurate results for all varieties, regions, growing

conditions, etc Manufacturers generally agreed that testing over time was preferable to a "one time" test each year.

Considering that one of the goals of the program is uniformity and closer agreement with official measurements, it was

suggested that a useflil monitoring program might be an on-going stream of results on each NTEP instrument compared to the GIPSA/FGIS "Master" um"t. Under this proposal, the standard reference method (CNA) would still be the basis for validation of calibrations.

Dr. Pierce was requested to develop a proposal (including budgetary costs) for an on-going monitoring program that addresses

the concerns expressed above, to be presented to the Sector in March 1996. He was requested to structure the program, as far as practical, to take advantage of GIPSA/FGlS's current procedures for monitoring system performance over time.

117
Executive Committee

Attendance List - Sector Meetings September 13 & 14, 1995 - Des Moines, lA

INalTlc Affiliation uMM NIK

JciCK Dal OCT JD rtssociaies X X

»^oiinic Drown un^rwE. I -)onn i^orp. X X

Dairy1 Brown Iowa Department of Agriculture X X

Randy Burns Arkansas Bureau of Standards X X

Aiien tJuiier Perten Instruments NA X X Bob Davis Illinois Department of Agriculture X

Cassie Eigenmann DiL-rvtY-jonn corp. X X

Arnold Eilert rsran+Lueboe X X

Ricli Flaugh (jor Inc. X X

Lowell Hill University of Illinois X X

David Hopkin Perstorp Analytical X

Charles Hurburgh, Jr. Iowa State University X X

Diane Lee NIST/Office of Weights and Measures X X

Keith Locklin ConAgra Com Processing

(representing (jbArls)

X X

Jetr Martm Steinlite Corporation X X

Chris Morris Die KEY-John Corp. X

r\ HA.. 11^ Don MuUer Bran+Luebbe X X

Pontus Nobreus Perstorp Analytical X X

Don Onwiler Nebraska Public Service Commission X X

Allison Pflug CSC Scientific X

Richard Pierce

' T J.' T\ t J Oa. 1 J_ A J Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Adnun. X X

James Rampton Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Admm. X X

Ole Rasmussen Foss Food Technology X X

Joe Rothleder California Dept. of Food & Agriculture X X Tom Kunyon Seedburo Equipment Co. X X

Cheryl Tew North Carolina Dept. Of Agriculture X X

Cliff Watson Consultant X X

Robert Wittenburger Missouri Dept. of Agriculture X X

Richard Wotthlie State of Maryland X X

118
Executive Committee

Appendix J (Continued)

NTETC Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Meter Sector

March 26-27, 1996, St. Louis, MO

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

1 . Report on NCWM Interim Meeting - NIR Issues

2. Update on National Type Evaluation Testing Schedule

3. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Sample Temperature Sensitivity

4. Proposed Change to H44 - S.2.6. Provisions for Sealing:

5. Phase II Testing - On-going Calibration Review

1. Report on NCWM Interim Meeting - NIR Issues Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, reported that the S&T Committee had accepted the Sector's recommendation, endorsed by the Southern Conference, to amend S.2.2. 1 . to narrow the operating voltage range for NIR grain analyzers (NCWM Interim

Meeting Agenda Item 357-1). This will be a voting item at the NCWM Annual Meeting in July.

2. Update on National Type Evaluation Testing Schedule

Dr. Richard Pierce, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA, formerly FGIS), reported that the GIPSA Laboratory in Kansas City is not yet certified as the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Near Infrared Grain

Analyzers. Detailed test procedures and data analysis procedures are now in place and technicians are being trained. Renovation of the Tech Center lab is complete and ample refrigerated storage is now available for NTEP samples. The

laboratory must next locate and segregate test samples from among the 6000 samples now in underground storage in 400

or so 5-gallon buckets. Unfortunately, the 6000 samples are not presently cataloged. Dr. Pierce was of the opinion that segregation of samples and submission of the final application for certification of the laboratory would not be completed

until some time after June 1, 1996. He asked Sector members if there was interest in having the laboratory provide

calibration development assistance in advance of NTEP testing. Formal certification would not be required for the

laboratory to provide calibration assistance. Members were in favor of any action which would get the program going.

Experience with the moisture program indicated that many calibrations were likely to fail the first time through NTEP

testing. Members believed that calibration development effort in advance of formal NTEP testing would eliminate many

calibration related problems when devices were submitted for formal evaluation. Several manufacturers also indicated

that initially they were not interested in all six classes of wheat. Dr. Pierce suggested that interested manufacturers who

did not already have NTEP moisture instruments at the laboratory submit instruments to the lab by May I so technicians could femiliarize themselves with operation of the instruments. He will contact individual manufacturers to find out the

extent of their interest in calibration services and to determine if 300 gram samples are useable in their instruments [some

of the samples for calibration development are available only in limited quantities, typically 300 grams/sample.]

3. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Sample Temperature Sensitivity

The Sample Temperature Sensitivity test of Publication 14 calls for using two sample sets from each of the six wheat

classes representing low (10 to 11%) and high (13 to 14%) moisture ranges with each set consisting of three samples, one

from each of three protein ranges (the upper third, middle third, and lower third of the protein range for the class). For

those classes of wheat less frequently fraded and those grown in more arid regions, a complete set of high moisture

samples may not be available. The NTEP Lab (to be) had asked the Sector to consider if tempered samples might be used

for this test. Sector members were in general agreement that tempered samples should not be used unless objective

evidence could be obtained to demonstrate that Sample Temperature Sensitivity test results would not be affected adversely

by using artificially moistened samples. One Sector member pointed out that the Canadian Grain Commission had been

using tempered samples in their protein calibration development and evaluation for a number of years. Foss Canada

agreed to submit data to the NTEP lab (to be) to support the use of tempered samples for this test. The NTEP lab (to be) will review the data and will fax a recommendation to Sector Members for consideration.

4. Proposed Change to H44 - S.2.6. Provisions for Sealing

Discussion: At the 1995 Annual Meeting the NCWM approved the addition of wording to the audit trail provisions of

the Grain Moisture Meter Code to explicitly state that the device is not required to display audit frail information. Because

119
Executive Committee

several of the devices currently holding Certificates of Compliance (CC's) under the GMM Code will also be submitted

for evaluation under the NIR Code, it is desirable to keep corresponding provisions of the two Codes in agreement to the

greatest extent possible. The Sector approved the changes shovioi below to bring this portion of the NIR Code into agreement with the GMM Code and will forward their recommendation to the S&T Committee.

S.2.3. Provisionfor Sealing. -

(a) Provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be

brolen, orfor using other approved means ofproviding security (e.g., audit trail available at the time of

inspection as defined in part (b)), before any change that affects the metrological integrity ofthe device can be made to any mechanism.

(b) Ifthe operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity ofthe device (e.g., slope, bias,

etc.J in normal operation, the device shall use an audit trail The minimum form ofthe audit trail shall be m event logger and shall include:

• An event counter (000 to 999)

• the parameter ID,

• the date and time ofthe change, and

• the new value of the parameter (for calibration changes consisting of multiple constants, the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants.)

The device is not required to display this information, but a printed copy ofthe information must be available

through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five

(25j times the number of sealable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are required.

(Noie: Does not require 1000 changes to be storedfor each parameter.)

5. Phase II Testing - On-going Calibration Review

Background: This item first appeared on the Sector's agenda for its September, 1994 meeting. It was discussed again

at length at their two meetings in 1995. In the course of these discussions, the Sector has agreed that:

• participation in a monitoring program of some sort should be mandatory for NTEP instruments;.

• cata should be collected (and made available to manufacturers) annually by the NTEP laboratory on

iastruments in the on-going calibration review and maintenance program for NIR grain analyzeirs.

• only reference method protein data (corrected to 12% moisture basis) and basic instrument data would be

provided (i.e., no moisture data would be provided).

• lio more than 100 samples per year per class would be required for calibration review or monitoring purposes.

• (he problem of capturing new crop problems in local areas would be up to the manufacturer to address [and

need not be part of the monitoring program].

• the accuracy limits used for NTEP approval should also apply to the armual review of NTEP calibrations.

The Sector had also recommended earlier that should GIPSA/FGIS decide to issue a new calibration for their official instruments, data on the same set of samples used to calibrate the GIPSA instruments should be collected on the NTEP

instruments and should be made available to manufacturers (along with CNA data on those same samples).

For discussion purposes, the Sector has accepted the following definitions for the two main elements of Phase II of the NTEP NIR Grain Analyzer Program:

1 . Monitoring - verification that an existing calibration continues to meet accuracy requirements over time, or, viewed another way, determining when recalibration is required.

120
Executive Committee

2. Calibration Development & Maintenance - recalibration of NTEP instruments using (as a minimum) data obtained on samples selected from the same sample pool from which GIPSA/FGIS selected samples for calibrating the Official instrument. Manufacturers may supplement GIPSA data with data from additional manufacturer-provided samples. Validation of new calibrations will be performed using the same validation

set used by GIPSA/FGIS.

[Note: As used above, "monitoring " applies to tests performed on the instruments in the NTEP lab and not to devices in the field. "Recalibration " means derivation of a new set of calibration coefficients.]

Discussion: Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, outlined what GIPSA is presently doing to monitor the performance of the 103

NIR instruments in the Official System. Five "monitor" samples per week per class are requested from locations performing official testing. The actual number of samples received in FY95 ranged from 209 to 10,519 samples per class

for a total of 23,763 samples. From these "monitor" samples, a calibration verification (C/V) algorithm is used to identify a maximum of 8 samples per week for HRW and HRS and 5 samples per week for Durum and Soft White wheat.

Samples are selected to cover a range of growing conditions and protein levels. The C/V algorithm has the effect of

flattening the classic gaussian distribution of protein values. CNA protein values are obtained for the CA'^ samples.

Control charts are maintained to track weekly bias between CNA proteins and master insfrument results. In November

of each year, calibration performance data is reviewed and calibration updates are recommended when indicated. Between

January and April, spectral data is obtained on 100 samples from each year not represented in the current calibration. New calibrations are developed for release in early May or June when stocks are lowest. A detailed outline of GIPSA's

Aimual Calibration Review can be found in the Attachment labeled "NIR96-Item 5."

For the NTEP Calibration Review Program Dr. Pierce suggested collecting instrument protein results and calibration data on 100 samples per class each year, with 80 samples selected from the 100 C/V samples on which GIPSA had obtained

spectral data and the additional 20 selected from moisture survey samples. Existing CNA protein values would be used

for the 80 C/V samples. CNA analysis would be required for the 20 moisture survey samples. Instruments would be

required to simultaneously provide predicted proteins and spectral data. The required data would be collected over time

as samples, instruments, and operators become available with the goal of providing optical and chemical data to manufacturers by January 1 . The estimated cost for collecting and analyzing NTEP calibration performance data for all six classes of wheat as outlined above is $1750 per year per instrument model. Details of the estimate can be found in the Attachment labeled "NIR96-Item 5."

Eh-. Hurburgh commented that if samples were selected on the basis of spectral diversity, all insfrument models must be

involved, because reflectance and transmission instruments will select different samples as spectrally significant.

Dr. Pierce responded to several issues and concerns which the Sector had raised earlier:

1 . Concern: Performance should be monitored using samples collected on a flow of time basis to verify that at calibration is robust for all varieties, regions, growing conditions, etc. The Sector had expressed concern over using

a "one time" test each year.

Response: Moisture survey samples are received as varying moisture levels become available in the field. Weekly

protein "monitors" veflect the samples being marketed in various growing regions at a given point in time. The

C/V selection algorithm is designed to provide a representative sampling of grain samples over a 3-month period.

2. Concern: It would be useful if an on-going stream of results on each NTEP instrument could be compared to the

GIPSA "Master" units.

Response: This may not be an option. GIPSA has just started to review policy and the legal implications of

releasing calibration performance data on official moisture meter and NIR protein instrument models before the Agency has annoimced a calibration update.

3. Concern: When GIPSA updates calibrations, calibration data should be collected on NTEP instruments and

provided to the manufacturer for the same set of samples used to develop the new calibration.

121
Executive Committee

Response: This will not be possible for "historical" samples for which GIPSA has spectral data but no longer has

the sample. Where possible (i.e., where sample size permits) data on current calibration samples will be provided

to manufacturers requesting assistance in calibration development prior to submitting an instrument for NTEP

testing. Looking into the ftiture, the samples used for NTEP calibration review will probably be many of the same

ones used by GIPSA to update calibrations.

Dr. Pierce asked if it is realistic to require NTEP instruments to participate in an on-going calibration review program

forever. He reasoned that the calibration set would eventually cover many years' data and he questioned if a calibration review program would improve performance. He was of the opinion that standardization was the real problem and he

expected that after the first 2 or 3 years calibrations would mature and would not change more frequently than once every

3 years or so. Sector members still favored starting out with a calibration review program of some sort reasoning that

it would take fourth or fifth generation data for calibrations to reach maturity. Dr. Pierce responded that participation in the calibration assistance program would already represent crop from the past 3 to 5 years. One sector member

commented that the stored samples used for the calibration assistance program would not reflect the moisture extremes which would be seen in the previously outlined calibration review program. Additionally, some Sector members were

of the opinion that if a performance problem is addressed through a calibration change, there is a need for a common

validation set to verily that the desired objective has been achieved. Dr. Pierce conceded that he could see the value of

being in a monitoring program for the first 3 years. The Sector agreed that regardless of whatever program is finally

decided upon, it should be reviewed at the end of each year to assess its value and determine if it should be continued,

modified, or abandoned.

As an alternative to regarding NTEP lab instruments as "master" instruments which would be used to collect data used

in calibration development, the Sector considered regarding them as "validation" units with the "master" instruments

maintained at the manufacturer's (or distributor's) site. In this case, the manufacturer would be responsible for performing

whatever adjustments were necessary to keep the NTEP lab instruments closely aligned with the masters. Then, rather

tlian using data on the same set of samples used by GIPSA in developing their calibrations, a common "validation" set selected from the balance of the C/V samples not included in the calibration set would be used to validate calibration changes. One Sector member suggested that manufacturers be allowed to contribute "golden" samples to the validation

set. Another even suggested that the validation set contain samples which had historically shown poor agreement with

the CNA protein values. It was also suggested that it would be usefiil if validation samples could be identified with the residual values obtained on each model. At its next meeting, the Sector will attempt to define the composition of a

validation set and determine if it should be "rotated" or updated each year.

122
Executive Committee

Attendance List - Sector Meetings March 25-27, 1996 - St Louis, MO

Name Affiliation GMM NIR

Jack Barber JB Associates X X

Connie Bro'An DICKEY-john Corp. X

Randy Bums Arkansas Bureau of Standards X X

Dieter Curlis Perstorp Analytical X X

Bob Davis Illinois Department of Agriculture X X

Cassie Eigenmann DICKEY-john Corp. X

Arnold Eilert Bran+Luebbe X X

Rich Flaugh vjbi' Inc. X

Victor Gates Shore Sales Co. X

Mike iiile Aricansas Bureau of Standards X X

CnarJes rlurburgn, Jr, Iowa State University X X

Diane Lee Nib 1 /Otiice of Weights and Measures X X

Keith Locklin ConAgra Com Processing

(representing GEAPS)

X X

Charles Lowden Foss Food Technology X X

Dr. Douglas Martin Bran+Luebbe X X

Jeff Martin Steinlite Corporation X

Chris Morris DICKEY-john Corp. X

Ray Oberg Zellex, Inc X X

Don Onwilcr Nebraska Public Service Commission X X

Allison Pflug CSC Scientific X

Richard Pierce Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Admin. X X

Ole Rasmussen Foss Food Technology X X

Joe Rothleder California DepL of Food & Agriculture X X Tom Runyon Seedburo Equipment Co. X X

Cheryl Tew North Carolina Dept. OfAgriculture X X

CliffWatson Consultant X X

Robert Wittenburger Missouri Dept of Agriculture X X

Richard Wotthlie State of Maryland X X

123

Laws and Regulations Comniittee

Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee

Louis E. Straub, Chief

Maryland Department of Agriculture

Weights and Measures Section

200 Introduction

This is the Report of the Laws and Regulations Conunittee (Committee) for the 81th Aimual Meeting of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based on the Committee's Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program and Committee Reports" (NCWM Publication 16), the addendum sheets issued at the Annual

Meeting, and actions taken at the Voting session at the Annual Meeting. Table A identifies items in the report by

Reference Key Number, item title, and page mmiber. The first three digits of the Reference Key Numbers of the items

are assigned from the subject series listed below. Voting issues are indicated with a "V after the item number. Items marked with an "I" after the item number are for information. The items marked with a "W" were withdrawn by the Committee. This Report contains recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) Handbook 130, 1996 edition, "Uniform Laws and Regulations," or NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net

Contents of Packaged Goods," Third Edition and Supplements 1 (1990), 2 (1991), 3 (1992), and 4 (1994). Revisions

proposed by the Laws and Regulations Committee are shown in bold face print by crossing out what is to be deleted and underlining what is to be added. New items proposed for the handbooks are designated as such and shown in bold

face print. Proposals presented for information are shown in italic type imless otherwise identified as informational.

"SI" means the International System of Units. "FPLA" means the Federal Fair Packagmg and Labeling Act. The section mark, "§," is used in most references in the text and is followed by the section number and title, (for example, § 1.2. Weight.) When used in this report the term "weight" means "mass."

Subject Series

Handbook 130 - General

Uniform Laws

Weights and Measures Law (WML)

Weighmaster Law (WL)

Motor Fuel Inspection Law (MFIL)

Uniform Regulations

Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR)

Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation (MSCR)

Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR)

Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies

for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices Regulation (VREG)

Open Dating Regulation (ODR)

National Type Evaluation Regulation (NTER)

Motor Fuel Regulation (MFR)

Interpretations and Guidelines

Price Verification

210 Series 220 Series 221 Series 222 Series 223 Series 230 Series 231 Series 232 Series 233 Series

234 Series 235 Series 236 Series 237 Series 238 Series 239 Series

NIST Handbook 133

Other Items

General 250 Series 260 Series

125
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

210 NIST Handbook 130 - General 128

210-1 I Ensuring that the PLR is Identical to Federal Regulations 128

223 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Inspection Law 128

223-lA V Amendments to the Uniform Inspection Law 128

223-lB VC Amendments to the Uniform Inspection Law 128

232 Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation 129

232- 1 V § 2.20 Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends 129

233 Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation 129

233- 1 I Updating the Regulation 129

236 Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation 130

236- 1 VC Updating the Regulation 130

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation 130

237- 1 I Define Grades for Diesel Fuel Based on Cetane Rating 130

237-2 V Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends 131

238 NIST Handbook 130 - Interpretations and Guidelines 133

238- 1 VC Editorial Revisions 133

250 NIST Handbook 133 "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods" ... 135

250-1 I Stams of NIST Handbook 133 135

250-2 I Moismre Loss for Pasta and Rice 136

250-3 I Moisture Loss for Meat and Poultry Products 136

250-4 I Maximum Allowable Variations for Count Declarations on

Agricultural Seed 137

260 Other Items 137

260-1 VC Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual 137

126
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

Appendix A: Draft Revision of the Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation 233-1 139

Appendix B: Revision of the Uniform Regulation for National Type

Evaluation 236-1 141

Appendix C: Good Manufacturing Practices for Quantity Control 250-1 144

Appendix D: Point-of-Pack hispection Procedures 250-1 145

Appendix E: Due Process Procedures 250-1 147

Appendix F: Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures Manual 260-1 149

Appendix G: Food Industry Letter 250-1 163

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key No.

House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Results Yes No Yes No

200 (Consent Calendar) 43 0 50 0 Passed

223-1

A

33 8 44 2 Passed

232-1 and 237-2 (Motion to Consider 8 27 10 29 Failed

Amendment)

232-1 and 237-2 42 1 49 2 Passed

200 (Report in its Entirety) 42 0 47 0 Passed

127
Laws and Regulations Committee

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key Number)

210 NIST Handbook 130 - General

210-1 I Ensuring that the PLR is Identical to Federal Regulations

As of the Annual Meeting, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had not issued final regulations to implement the metric

revisions made to the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act in 1992. The Committee will contact FDA to request that

final regulations be issued before the Interim Meetings in 1 997 so that any changes needed in the handbook can be developed

for NCWM adoption at the 82nd Annual Meeting.

223 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Inspection Law

223-lA V Amendments to the Uniform Inspection Law

(This item was adopted.)

The following amendments to the uniform law were recommended by the Petroleum Subcommittee following the Committee's 1995 Interim Meeting. The Committee recommended NCWM adoption of these items at the 81st NCWM

Annual Meeting.

A. Falsely Representing the Brand of a Product - If a purchaser makes an effort to acquire a particular brand, the purchaser

should have some assurance that tlie dispensed product is the brand represented. This is a basic consumer right that weights

and measures/petroleum quality regulatory programs must provide to the public. Although enforcement of this provision

would entail procedures other than routine sampling and testing of the products, there are various means by which

jurisdictions cm effectively enforce this requirement. Effective procedures may include auditing the product bill of lading,

cooperative programs with industry to analyze for proprietary additives, and surveillance programs whereby inspectors

wimess and document product commingling. At the Annual Meeting the Committee received comments fi"om the Petroleum

Marketers Association of America, Arizona, and Virginia indicating that they did not support the addition ofthe word "Brand"

to Section 8.1. The comments indicated there is some concern that placing additional responsibilities on the States for enforcing brand names would be an expensive and unnecessary burden for those jurisdictions that adopt the uniform law.

It was also stated that investigations of this type of violations are often complex and time consuming. The Committee also received comments in support of the recommendation from Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute (API), California, and

Tennessee. API stated that the recommendation from the Petroleum Subcommittee was developed to provide States an

additional tool for use in consumer protection activities. The Committee recommended adoption of the item as proposed in

its Interim Report.

Recommendation: Amend Section 8,1. by adding the word "brand" so the paragraph reads-.

8.1. Represent engine fuels, petroleum products, or automotive lubricants in any manner that may deceive

or tend to deceive the purchaser as to the nature, brand, price, quantity and/or quality of such products."

223-IB VC Amendments to the Uniform Inspection Law

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

B. API (American Petroleum Institute) Service Classification and S.A.E. (Society of Automotive Engineers) Number

Classification for Automotive Lubricants - The Committee believes that the inclusion of a section to reference the API

service classification and S.A.E. viscosity number will provide protection for purchasers by ensuring that products are accurately represented. The Committee modified the original proposal fi-om the Petroleum Subcommittee to include the API

Service Classification commonly referred to in vehicle owners manuals.

128
Laws and Regulations Committee

Recommendation: Amend Section 8 by adding Section 8.6. as follows:

8.6. Represent automotive lubricants with a S.A.E. (Society of Automotive Engineers) viscosity

grade or API (American Petroleum Institute) service classification other than those specified by

the intended purchaser.

232 Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation

232-1 V § 2.20 Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends

(This item was adopted.)

The Committee recommended the following revisions to §2.20 Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends in the Uniform Regulation

for the Method of Sale of Commodities. Identical changes are recommended for §3,26 and §3.27 of the Uniform

Regulation for Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants, See Item 237-2 for details on this proposal.

Recommendation: Revise 2.20 as follows. Revisions proposed by the Committee are in bold face print.

2.20 Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends

2.20.L Method of Retail Sale. - All automotive gasoline or automotive gasoline-oxygenate blends kept,

offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, at retail containing at least 4- 1.5 mass percent by volume of any

oxygenate or combination of oxygenates shall be identified as "with" or "containing" (or similar wording)

the specifto predominant type of oxygenate^ in the engine fuel. For example, the label may read

"contains ethanol" or "with MTBEt^TBE." The oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent

oxygen to the blend shall be considered the predominant oxygenate. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the retailer may post the predominant oxygenate followed by the phrase "or other

ethers" or alternatively post the phrase ^'contains MTBE or other ethers." In addition, gasoiinemethanol blend fuels containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be

identified as "vtith" or "containing" methanol. This information shall be posted on the upper 50 percent

of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver's position in a type at least 12.7 mm (Vz in) in height, 1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width oftype).

2.20.2. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes.— The retailer shall be provided, at the time of

delivery of the fijel, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation, a declaration of

any the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations of at least 1 percent by volume sufTicient to yield an oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. Where

mbctures of only ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the predominant oxygenate

in the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen) or, alternatively, use the

phrase "contains MTBE or other ethers." In addition, any gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass

percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified as "with" or "containing" methanol. This

documentation is only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender to determine the total oxygen content of the engine fuel before blending.

233 Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation

233-1 I Updating the Regulation

In 1993 the Committee was contacted by several weights and measures jurisdictions and retail trade associations requesting that the Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR) be updated to add new commodity groups and pricing

requirements. The comments indicated that many conmiodity groups for nonfood products were not included in the table and tiiat some of the required units may not be appropriate for many of the new products being sold in stores. Another

concern was that the UPR specified pricing only on the basis of price per pound on most products sold by weight. This

has resulted in some jurisdictions not enforcing the requirements on stores that voluntarily unit price on the basis of price

129
Laws and Regulations Committee

per ounce instead of price per pound. The Committee believes that the UPR should be revised to encourage wider

adoption and use of the imiform regulation and that provisions for unit pricing in metric units should be included.

At the 1996 Interim Meeting the Committee drafted a revision of the regulation to permit retail stores that voluntarily

provide unit pricing to present prices using various units of measure. The Committee e^minated the table of product

groupings because it is difficult to keep it up to date and it was not all inclusive so some newer products were not

included imder the uniform requirements. The table was replaced with requirements that specify that the imit price is to be based on price per oimce or pound, or price per 100 grams or kilogram if the packaged commodity is labeled by

weight. For example, the proposed revisions would require the unit price for soft drinks sold in various package sizes

(e.g., 12 fl.oz cans through 2 liter bottles) to be uniformly and consistently displayed in terms of either price per fluid oimce, or price per quart, or price per liter. The Committee also increased the price of commodities exempted from unit pricing from 10 cents to 50 cents. The Committee believes these revisions will ensure that imit pricing information

facilitates value comparison between different package sizes and/or brands offered for sale in a store.

At the Aimual Meeting the Committee reviewed several comments on this item from members of the U.S. Metric

Association (USMA). Several of these comments suggested that the uniform regulation be amended to require unit pricing in metric imits and permit inch-pound unit pricing to be provided voluntarily. When it developed the proposed

revisions the Committee included guidelines for both inch-pound and metric imit pricing and believes this is correct approach to implementing metric revisions in the regulation. The Committee does not support a metric only requirement

at this time. The Committee will consider the other comments received from the USMA members at the 1997 Interim

Meeting. The Committee made no change to the Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation presented in Appendix A of its Interim

Report. The Conmiittee requests that the draft be reviewed and discussed at the State and regional weights and measures

meetings over the next year.

236 Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation

236-1 VC Updating the Regulation

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Several years ago the Western Weights and Measures Association submitted a draft revision of the Uniform Regulation

for National Type Evaluation to incorporate the policies and guidelines adopted by the Executive Comirtittee. The

Committee made further revisions to regulation and sent it for review and discussion to the regional meetings for several

years. At the Annual Meeting the Committee received comments from Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, the Scale Manufacmrers

Association, and the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association concerning this item. Based on these comments, the Committee made editorial changes to improve the clarity of the revised regulation. The changes are presented in the revised NTEP regulation presented in Appendix B. Additions are presented as underlines and deletions are presented

as strikethroughs . Generally it was felt by the Committee that these changes were needed in order to strengthen the Regulation, and provide the Stales necessary latitude to deal with devices which do not have a Certificate of

Conformance. The Committee believed the original intent of the regulation was maintained and recommended adoption

of the revised Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation as presented in Appendix B.

Recommendation: Adopt the amended Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation as presented in Appendix B.

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and

Automotive Lubricants Regulation

237-1 I Define Grades for Diesel Fuel Based on Cetane Rating

The Southern Weights and Measures Association requested that the NCWM adopt a definition of "regular" diesel fuel

(e.g., a cetane rating below 45) and "premium" diesel fuels (e.g., a cetane rating of 45 or more) so that these fuels can be accurately and clearly identified. Refiners have requested product registration from State Motor Fuel programs for

diesel fuels that have been formulated to provide cleaner emissions or higher performance. Several refiners and

marketers want to differentiate these grades of diesel fuels in the marketing process. A cetane rating could be an

130
Laws and Regulations Committee

indicator of fuel quality similar (but not equal to) to the octane rating used for gasolines, and could serve to aid motorists

in comparing the value and cost of the different "grades' of diesel fuels. The Petroleum Subcommittee was charged with

investigatmg the means of defining these fuels. A Premium Diesel Work Group was formed and a work plan developed

to address this issue. The work group consists of representatives of State petroleum programs, fuel producers, the fuel additive industry, and a representative from the Engine Manufacturer's Association (EMA).

At the Aimual Meeting the Committee received a repon on the Premium Diesel Work Group's activities from Randy

Jennings, Chairman of the Peux)leum Subcommittee. Based on Mr. Jenning's report it appears that a cooperative effon

between the NCWM and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) will be the most effective and efficient means to resolving this issue. However, the Comminee urges the Petroleum Subcommittee to complete its work on this issue within two years so that a proposal can be submitted to the NCWM for adoption at its 1998 Aimual Meeting.

Premium Diesel Work Group Report

The Premium Diesel Woilc Group held its first meeting on May 21-22, 1996, in Nashville, Tennessee. At this meeting

the work group identified individual characteristics that were regarded as enhancements to regular diesel fuel. Each

characteristic was evaluated against test ability, regulatory enforce ability, and possible performance benefits to the customer. What was apparent to the work group was the fact that a definition for "Premium Diesel" would encompass more than just a cetane rating. However, the problem faced with some of the other characteristics is the lack of

consensus test methods and/or precision values for test that are less than desirable for enforcement. The workmg group

believes that several other factors including cetane, lubricity, detergency, low temperature, and API specific gravity must

be considered in defining premium grade diesel fuels.

Prior to the formation of the work group the Petroleum Subcommittee was aware that work on the premium diesel issue was being conducted within American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). It was agreed that the ASTM work on

the issue would be monitored in order to determine if the issue would progress at a rate that would offer a timely solution

for the States. However, later in 1995, the work group contacted members of ASTM - D2, Subcommittee that sets diesel

fuel specifications and learned that a resolution of the issue was not expected in the foreseeable future. In June of 1996

a session was held during ASTM - D2 subcommittee meetings in California on this issue. Most of the work group was

present and the session proved an oppormnity to get some valuable feedback from ASTM members. It was suggested

that a joint NCWM /ASTM Task Force be formed to pursue a solution to the premium diesel issue. Reactions were

mixed, but it app>eared that a majority of those present felt that if a set of limits defining premium diesel fuels were to be developed, ASTM was the appropriate forum to move the issue forward. A joint task force would maintain the momentum that the work group has developed to resolve this issue, and keep the interests of the NCWM membership

in the forefront. The work group is currently working on a "Research Report" it will provide to the Committee and

ASTM - D2 Committee members. The goal is to produce a document that will provide background information, identify

industty issues, and provide technical guidance in a format that will help explain the value of the enhanced characteristics

that are commonly associated with premium diesel fuels. The work group is also discussing the possibility of

recommending establishment of a special registration process that would allow marketers to disclose the properties that make their fuel "premium" and possible pump labeling that would allow the consumer to choose the appropriate fuel of

their choice. The work group will keep the Committee informed as it makes additional progress on this issue.

237-2 V Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends

(This item was adopted.)

Background for the Interim Meeting: At the Interim Meetings the State of North Carolina and the Western and

Southern Weights and Measures Associations submitted proposals to revise §2.20 Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends in the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities and §3.26 and §3.27 of the Uniform Regulation for Engine

Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants. When these sections were last amended in 1991, ethanol and

MTBE were the predominant oxygenates then in use. With the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 and the development of more sophisticated, cleaner-buming gasolines, other oxygenates have become more prevalent

and will contuiue to be so. Oxygenates fall into two families: alcohols and ethers. Ethanol is the only member of the alcohol family currently receiving widespread use as an oxygenate or octane enhancer.

Compounding the quandary over combinations or mixtures of oxygenates was the fact that many of these blends are shipped through pipelines that operate on a fungible basis (fungible means that pipelines may combine or commingle

131
Laws and Regulations Committee

shipments that meet the same product specifications.) This allows flexibility and lowers the cost of moving products from

one point to another. For most eastern States, which are served by Colonial Pipeline, virtually all gasoline is shipped on a fiingible basis. Members of the NCWM reported experiences during the past three oxygenated gasoline seasons that show a significant percentage of the gasolines sampled contained more than one oxygenate. Requiring retailers to label dispensers with the specific type of oxygenate or oxygenates in their gasoline creates situations that could result in

retailers being subject to legal sanctions when no actual harm has come to consimiers.

From a consumer information standpoint, there is no reason to differentiate between ethers for labeling purposes since

their chemical characteristics are essentially the same. By using "contains ethers" or "with alcohol" on labels and

supporting documentation, consumer needs are satisfied. Permitting such documentation and labeling requirements will provide much needed flexibility to refiners, pipeline operators, wholesalers and retailers in complying with any such

requirements. Changes in specific ethers from one batch to the next or mixmres within pipeline or terminal systems

would not require costly and time-consuming testing or necessitate changing documentation messages or dispenser labels. At the same time, because the chemical characteristics of the various ethers are essentially the same, the consumer's

interests would not be conqjromised. As proposed, marketers could indicate the specific oxygenate being sold, if they

chose to take that approach, or they can disclose the generic type.

Since the current regulations were adopted some years ago, much has been said about the effectiveness of the requirements. Now that oxygenated gasolines are in common use, a majority of the comments received by the Committee

took the positbn that it was time to resolve the concerns which prevent all jurisdictions from adopting and enforcing the uniform regulations. The Committee believed the North Carolina proposal, which was developed in close cooperation

with American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), provided the best compromise on

this issue and recommended it as the basis for proposing amendments. The Committee believed that amending the uniform

regulations as proposed would provide much needed flexibility to gasoline refiners, pipeline and terminal operators,

wholesalers, and retailers in labeling gasoline-oxygenate blends while still providing adequate information to consumers. The Committee proposal required the identification of the predominant oxygenates but permitted wording such as "contains MTBE or other ethers" to provide the desired flexibility. The higher trigger level of 1.5 percent by mass oxygen eliminated many of the problems associated with smaller amounts of oxygenates often found in gasolines.

Background for the Annual Meeting. - Following the taterim Meeting the Central Weights and Measures Association

voted to carry this item over for further study. This action was primarily, but not solely, based on the concerns raised by the State of Michigan over the fact that the original recommendation was not clear in defining what the predominant

oxygenate is for labeling purposes. Also, the Committee's original recommendation, did not address any trigger levels

for labeling methanol blends. At the Annual Meeting, the State of Michigan submitted a proposal to reduce the trigger

level to 0.5 percent by mass but this proposal was not supported by other jurisdictions, industry, or the Conunittee. The

Committee reminds jurisdictions they have the option of adopting a different trigger level if they can technically justify a different value. However, in the interest of national uniformity the Committee discourages such actions.

In response to the Central Association's action, Randy Jennings, Chairman of the Petroleum Subcommittee, worked with

subcommittee members to develop revisions to the Committee recommendation so a proposal could be considered for adoption at ths Annual Meeting. The Committee incorporated the changes proposed by the members of the Petroleum

Subcommittee and distributed copies of the revised proposal to State Weights and Measures Directors and other interested

parties prior to the Aimual Meeting. At the Annual Meeting the Committee heard supporting comments from Mobil,

American Automobile Manufacturers Association, the Renewable Fuels Association, the American Petroleum Institute, and the States of Illinois, New York, Connecticut, and Tennessee. The Committee supports adoption of the following

revisions to the recommendation in Item 237-2 on pages 96-97 of NCWM Publication 16.

Revisions

1. A sentence was added to require methanol blends of more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen to be identified. This level was selected because it correlates to 0.3 volume percent, the maximum concentration level that does not require the addition of a co-solvent under the Environmental Protection Agency's Substantially Similar Rules.

2. The reconunendation was revised to make it clear that "predominant" means the oxygenate that contributes the largest mass percent oxygen to the blend.

132
Laws and Regulations Commitici'

3. The labeling options for mixed ethers were clarified.

4. The term weight was changed to "mass" so that the requirement will be consistent with ASTM standards.

Other Comments

1. Petroleimi Subcommittee members, including several motor vehicle manufacturers, continue to strongly suppon the 1.5 mass percent trigger level as presented in the original Committee recommendation. These members believe thai consumers will be adequately informed and protected with the proposed trigger level.

2. Petroleum Subcommittee members believe that revising the requirements to base labeling on "mass" instead ot "volume" will not complicate compliance or enforcement procedures.

Recommendation: Amend Section 3.2.6 and Section 3.2.7. in the Uniform Regulation for Engine Fuels, Petroleum

Products, and Automotive Lubricants by adopting the following revisions.

3.2.6. Method of Retail Sale - Type of Oxygenate Must be Disclosed. -- All automotive gasoline

or automotive gasoline-oxygenate blends kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, at retail containing

at least 4- 1.5 mass percent by volume of any oxygenate or combination of oxygenates shall be identified as "with" or "containing" (or similar wording) the specific predominant type of oxygenatet^ in the engine fuel. For example, the label may read "contains ethanol" or "with MTBE/&F&E." The

oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen to the blend shall be considered the

predominant oxygenate. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the retailer may post the

predominant oxygenate followed by the phrase ^or other ethers" or alternatively post the phrase

"contains MTBE or other ethers." In addition, gasoline-methanol blend fuels containing more

than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified as "with" or "containing"

methanol. This information shall be posted on the upper 50 percent of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver's position in a type at least 12.7 mm ('/^ in) in height,

1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width of type).

3.2.7. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. — The retailer shall be provided, at the time

of delivery of the fuel, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation, a declaration of any the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations

of at l east 1 p

ercent by volume sufficient to yield an oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent

in the fuel. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the

predominant oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent

oxygen) or, alternatively, use the phrase "contains MTBE or other ethers." In addition, any

gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified as "with" or "containing" methanol. This documentation is only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender to determme the total oxygen content of the engine fuel before

blending.

238 NIST Handbook 130 - Interpretations and Guidelines

238-1 VC Editorial Revisions

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Background: The Comminee reviewed this section of Handbook 130 and identified several areas that are either out of

date or were found in other NIST Handbooks. The Committee has identified the sections below along with the action

it recommends that the NCWM take on the issue. The Committee is recommending that the items either be revised or deleted because many of the policies, guidelines, or interpretations have been addressed by the adoption of specific

requirements.

Recommendation: Amend the Interpretations and Guidelines Section of NIST Handbook 130 by deleting or amending

the following sections as indicated:

133
Laws and Regulations Committee

1 . ) 2.2.4. Net Contents Declarations (L&K, 1982, p. 147)

Item: this interpretation relates to declaring, converting, and rounding metric declarations.

Action: delete this section because specific requirements for metric labeling were incorporated in the Uniform Packaging and

Labeluig Regulation in 1993.

2. 2.3.10. Wiping Cloths (L&R, 1972, p. 146)

Item: this interpretation related to the method of sale for wiping cloths

Action: delete this section because a specific method of sale for wiping cloths (§2.24) was adopted in 1991.

3. 2.3.14. Potpourri (L&R, 1983, p. 209)

Item: this interpretation related to the method of sale for potpourri.

Action: delete this section because a specific method of sale for potpourri (§2.26) was adopted in 1992.

4. 2.3.17. Ready-to-Eat Food - Guideline on Selling Whole Chicken by Count (L&R, 1991,p. 212)

Item: this guideline related to selling whole ready-to-eat chickens by count.

Action: delete this section because a specific method of sale for ready-to-eat food (§ 1.12) was adopted in 1993.

5. 2.5.1. Net Weight at Retail (P&C, 1977, p. 160)

Item: this policy relates to net weight requirements at the time of sale but does not reflect the NCWM adoption of gray areas

for dry petfood, flour, and some meat and poultry products.

Action: delete this section because the requirements for net weight are specified in the 3rd Edition of NIST Handbook 133

as amended in supplements 1 through 4.

6. 2.5.2. Bakery Products: Variations from Declared Net Weights (L&R, 1983, p. 153)

Item: this guidelme or interpretation relates to the Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) pemitted for bakery products.

Action: delete this section because the Maximum Allowable Variations in NIST Handbook 133 have been in use for more

than 1 5 years and there has been no indication that there have been any problems with the existing values for the MAVs.

7. 2.5.3. Commodity Requirements, Flour (Exec, 1987, p. 64)

Item: this policy relates to gray area moisture allowance for flour.

Action: delete this section because the requirements for recognizing moisture loss in flour are specified in in § 3.17 of the 3rd Edition of NIST Handbook 133 as amended in supplements 1 through 4.

S. 2.5.4. Wet Tare Tests on Packages from Federally Inspected Plants (Exec, 1988, p. 51)

Item: this policy relates to gray area moisture allowance for use with meat and poultry products when wet tare testing is used.

Action: delete this section because the requirements for recognizing moisture loss in wet tare tests is specified in in §3. 1

8

of the 3rd Edition of NIST Handbook 133 as amended in supplements 1 through 4.

134
Laws and Regulations Commitiec

9. 2.5.5. Model Agreement Between a State or Local Government and Food Safety and inspection Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the Determination of Net Contents of Federally Inspected Meat and

Poultry Products (Exec, 1988, pp. 86-92)

Action: according to the USDA this model can be deleted because the agency adopted NIST HB133 in 1992 and the 4th Supplement in 1995.

10. 2.6.5 Cereal Grains and Oil Seeds

Action: Add a note to this section reflecting USDA adoption of regulations prohibiting the addition of water to grain

250 NIST Handbook 133 "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods"

250-1 I Status of NIST Handbook 133

Background: This was Item 240-2 in the Report of the 78th NCWM, 1993, (page 236) and Item 250-1 in the Repon

of the 79th NCWM, 1994 (page 222). In the NCWM's petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 9, 1992, States requested an exemption from preemption under Section 403 A(b) of the Federal Food. Drug,

and Cosmetic Act to permit continued use of NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods."

for testing foods for the accuracy of their quantity declarations. Extensive revisions were made to the handbook at the 79th NCWM Annual Meeting, and were published in November 1994 in a 4th supplement to the handbook. The Office

of Weights and Measures has provided several successful training classes on the 4ih supplement since its adoption, and

its acceptance and implementation are already underway in many States. As of 1996 Annual Meeting FDA had not responded to the NCWM proposal nor published proposed regulations to adopt NIST Handbook 133. The Committee

has included a copy of the letter the food industry submitted to the Food and Drug Administration requesting publication

of the proposal to adopt NIST Handbook 133 in Appendix G. The Committee appreciates the efforts of the food industry on this important issue. If the FDA publishes a proposal prior to the 1997 Interim Meeting, a presentation on the proposal will be made during the public session of the Committee's hearing.

NIST Handbook 133 Working Group

At the Annual Meeting the Committee received comments on the following items from the Grocery Manufacturers of

America (GMA). The comments recommended several revisions that have been incorporated in each item. The changes

are reflected in the documents presented in the appropriate appendix for each item.

The NIST Handbook 133 Working Group met in December at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland to finish work on several draft guidelines relating to package inspection at the point of pack and recommended due process procedures. The

working group presented these proposed guidelines to the Comminee for consideration at the 1996 Interim Meeting. The

Committee agreed that the proposals should be distributed as information items for consideration by the NCWM over

the next year. The draft guidelines were developed to provide mformation and assistance to weights and measure officials and industry on a variety of subjects related to net quantity of contents inspection procedures. The Committee would

like to consider recommending the guidelines for NCWM adoption so that they can be included in the Interpretations and

Guidelines section of NIST Handbook 130 or in an appendix in NIST Handbook 133.

Good Quantity Control Practices

In 12.1.1. Variations from Declared Net Quantity contained in the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation are permitted from the declared net weight, measure, or count when caused by unavoidable deviations in weighing,

measurmg, or countmg the contents of individual packages that occur in current good manufacturing practice. Up to now

the term "good" has not been defined. In Appendix C, the Committee is presenting guidelines it believes will help

weights and measures officials and industry define what procedures constitute "good" manufacturing practices related

to net quantity so that it is clear that "variations" from the declared net quantity of contents are only permuted in circumstances where the packer has implemented "good" quantity control practices.

135
Laws and Regulations Committee

Point-of-Pack Inspection Procedures

As part of its agenda the NIST Handbook 133 Working Groxip explored the potential benefits of conducting net quantity

of contents inspections at the point-of-pack. As the concept of in plant testing was discussed several jurisdictions that have not conducted inspections in manufacturing or packaging plants requested guidance on how to get the most out of

the inspection. In response to these requests the working group, which includes both industry and regulatory members,

developed the outline which is presented in Appendix D. The outline provides guidelines to assist the inspector in opening, conducting, and closing inspections. Tips on how to conduct a thorough inspection are also included.

Recommended procedures for plant personnel are also provided. The Committee supports the working group's goal of

increasing the use of point-of-pack inspections to improve the effectiveness of net quantity of contents enforcement and

urges NCWM members to review the draft outline on point-of-pack inspection procedures and send comments and

suggestions to the Committee.

Due Process Procedures

In the course of their work, weights and measures officials often take enlbrcement actions that prohibit the use of devices or sale of packaged goods (e.g., "stop-sale" or "off-sale" orders for packages and "stop-use" or "condemnation" tags

issued on devices.) Improper actions, (e.g., not following prescribed test procedures, enforcing labeling requirements on exempted packages, or incorrectly citing someone for a "violation") place the official, or the jurisdiction in the

position of being liable for the action if it results in lost business, or if it is found that the action was "illegal." In some

cases the wei^ts and measures jurisdiction could be ordered to pay monetary damages to compensate the affected party

for the improper action. Recognizing these concerns the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group developed an outline of

an administrative review procedure that is intended to ensure that persons affected by certain "inspection fmdings" (e.g.,

price misrepresentations or shortweight packages), or who are deprived of the use of their property (devices or packages

placed under "stop" or "off-sale" order), have access to a timely independent review of the action. The Committee is presenting these guidelines in Appendix E for review and comment. The procedures outlined are based on New York

State procedures that were implemented in 1990 following settlement of a case regarding "due process" in the U.S.

District Court of New York. The procedures will enable them to provide evidence which could be relevant in determining wiiether the action was proper. The purpose of the procedure is to ensure that a person's ability to conduct

business is not hindered by improper enforcement actions. These procedures would be used independently of any other

action (e.g., administrative penalty actions) that may be taken by the enforcement agency.

250-2 I Moisture Loss for Pasta and Rice

Background for Pasta: See Item 240-5 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990 (page 107); Item 240-4 in the Report

of the 76th NCWM, 1991 (page 219); Item 240-4 in the Report of the 77th NCWM, 1992 (page 154); Item 240-3 in the Report of the 78th NCWM, 1993 (page 237); and Item 250-2 in the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994, (page 225) for background. A field study protocol has been developed by the National Pasta Association (NPA) for nationwide study

to determine the moisture losses on various pasta products in different packaging materials. The study will be used to develop a gray area proposal for pasta products which lose moisture to the atmosphere.

Background for Rice: This was Item 240-7 in the Report of the 76th NCWM, 1991, (pages 221-222); Item 240-5 in the Report of the 77th NCWM, 1992 (page 154); and Item 250-3 in the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994 (page 225).

The U.S.A. Rice Federation (Federation) (formerly known as the Rice Millers Association) has requested that the Conference address the moisture loss of packaged rice in a maimer similar to that used for flour, namely, to establish a gray area for packaged rice. A field smdy protocol has been developed by the Federation for a nationwide study to determine the moisture losses of various rices in different packaging materials.

The Committee will delay action on these items until the Food and Drug Administration publishes a final regulation

regarding net quantity of contents testing.

250-3 I Moisture Loss for Meat and Poultry Products

Background: See Item 240-7 on page 239 in the Report of the 78th NCWM for background on this issue. The

Committee will develop a workplan to implement studies on ice packed poultry for the spring of 1996. Parties interested

in participating in these smdies should contact the Committee's Technical Advisor at the Office of Weights and Measures.

136
Laws and Regulations Committee

The Committee decided to provide support and resources to develop a gray area for ice-packed poultry since this commodity continues to be the subject of complaints about underweights from small retailers. The Corimiiitee will consider work in the other categories when resources permit.

1 . Ice-packed bulk poultry

2. Raw meat products (chopped beef, ground beef, hamburger, and beef patties)

3. Cured pork products (hams, shoulders, and loins)

4. Cured beef products (corned beef, corned beef brisket, and tongues)

5. Ham patties, chopped ham, pressed ham, and similar products

6. Dry salami and other meat or poultry products that lose moisture to the atmosphere

250-4 I Maximum Allowable Variations for Count Declarations on Agricultural

Seed

This issue relates to the values of the Maximum Allowable Variations appropriate for count declarations on packages of

agricultural seed. The Committee has assigned this issue to the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group. The Working

Group will cooperate with industry, trade associations, and other interested parties to develop a proposal for consideration

by the NCWM at the appropriate time. The American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) has established a work group

comprised of industry and govenunent representatives to study this issue so that recommendations can be developed for consideration at the 1997 NCWM hiterim Meeting. At the Annual Meeting, Leslie Cahill, Vice President, Government

Affairs,of the American Seed Trade Association updated the Committee on the association's work with the United States Department of Agriculture to develop data to justify a revision to the Maximum Allowable Variation for items that include a declaration of count. The ASTA work is focusing on standardizing the procedures used to insure the accuracy of

electronic seed counters, and on developing uniform operational procedures for their use. Another issue is tlie need to identify the impact of moisture loss on the accuracy of seed counts. Ms. Cahill advised the Committee that she will attend the 1997 Interim Meeting and bring the NCWM up-to-date on its efforts.

260 Other Items

260-1 VC Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

The Petroleum Subcommittee developed and submitted a "Petroleum Products Sampling and Procedures and Safety

Manual" for adoption by NCWM. The manual is intended for use by agencies that have petroleum inspection programs. The Committee reviewed the manual and agreed to recommend NCWM adoption at the 81st Atmual Meeting of the NCWM so that it can be published and sold as a conference publication. A copy of the manual is presented in Appendix

F. The Committee received comments at the Annual Meeting suggesting the manual be revised to make the references

to security seals in Section F. Identifying Samples and Sealing Containers on page 123 of Publication 16 generic by

eliminating references to lead and wire security seals. These changes are included in the manual presented in Appendix

F.

Recommendation: Adopt the "Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual" as presented in Appendix

F as an NCWM Publication.

L. Straub, Maryland, Chairman

K. Angell, West Virginia

M. Pinagel, Michigan

S. Millay, Maine

S. Morrison, San Luis Obispo County, California

Industry Representative: Gale Prince, Krogers

NIST Handbook 133 Working Group: B. Bloch, California, Chairman

Petroleum Subcommittee: Randy Jeimings, Temiessee, Chairman

Canadian Technical Advisors: G. Vinet and G. Jorowski

137
Laws and Regulations Committee

NIST Technical Advisors: K. Butcher and T. Coleman

Committee on Laws and Regulations

138
Laws and Regulations Conimittee

Appendix A

Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation

Section 1. Application

Except for random and tmiform weight packages that clearly state the unit price in accord with existing

regulations, any retail establishment providing unit price information for packaged commodities, in addition to the total price, shall provide the unit price

information in the manner prescribed herein.

Section 2. Terms for Unit Pricing

The declaration of the unit price of a particular

commodity in all package sizes offered for sale in a

retail establishment shall be uniformly and

consistently expressed in terms of:

1 . price per kilogram or 100 grams, or price per pound or ounce if the net quantity of contents of the commodity is in terms of weight.

2. price per liter or 100 milliliters, or price per dry

cpiait or dry pint if the net quantity of contents of the commodity is in terms of dry measure or volume.

3. price per liter or 100 milliliters, or price per

gallon, qtiart, pint, or fluid ounce if the net quantity

of contents of the commodity is in terms of liquid

volume.

4. price per individual imit or multiple units, if the net quantity of contents of the commodity is in terms of count.

5. price per square meter, square decimeter, or square centimeter, or price per square yard, square

fool, or square inch if the net quantity of contents of

the commodity is in terms of area.

Section 3. Exemptions

(1) Small Packages

Commodities shall be exempt from these provisions

when packaged in quantities of less than 28 g (1 ounce) or 29 ml (1 fluid ounce) or when the total

retail price is 50 cents or less.

(2) Single Items

Commodities shall be exempt from these provisions

when there is only one brand in only one size offered for sale in particular retail establishment.

(3) Infant Formula

For "infant formula" unit price information may be

expressed based on the reconstimted volume. "Infant formula" means a food that is represented for special

dietary use solely as a food for infants by reasons of

its simulation of himian milk or suitability as a complete or partial substitute for human milk.

(4) Variety and Combination Packages

Variety and Combination Packages as defmed in §2.9

and §2.10 in the Uniform Packaging and Labeling

Regulation'^ shall be exempt from these provisions.

Note 1: See NIST Handbook 130 "Uniform Packaging

and Labeling Regulation. "

Section 4. Pricing

(1) The unit price shall be to the nearest cent when

a dollar or more.

(2) If the unit price is under a dollar, it shall be

listed:

(a) to the tenth of a cent, or

(b) to the whole cent.

(c) the retail establishment shall have the option of

using 2(a) or (b) but shall not implement both

methods.

(d) the retail establishment shall accurately and

consistently use the same method of rounding up or down to compute the price to the whole cent.

Section 5. Presentation of Price

(1) In any retail establishment in which the unit price

information is provided in accordance with the

provisions of this regulation, that information may be

displayed by means of a sign that offers the unit price for one or more brands and/or sizes of a given

commodity, by means of a sticker, stamp, sign, label, or tag affixed to the shelf upon which the commodity

is displayed, or by means of a sticker, stamp, sign,

able, or tag affixed to the consumer commodity.

(2) Where a sign providing unit price information

for one or more sizes or brands of a given

139
Laws and Regulations Committee

commodity is used, that sign shall be clearly and in a nondeceptive manner in a central location as close

as practical to all items to which the sign refers.

(3) If a single sign or tag includes the unit price

information for more than one brand or size of a given commodity, then the following information

shall be provided:

(a) the identity and the brand name of the commodity.

(b) the quantity of the packaged commodity if more

than one package size per brand is displayed.

(c) the total retail sales price.

(d) the price per appropriate unit, in accordance with

Section 2. Terms for Unit Pricing.

Section 6. Uniformity

(1) If different brands or package sizes of the same

consumer commodity are expressed in more than one

unit of measiu^ (e.g., soft drinks are offered for sale in 2 liter bottles and 12 fl. oz. cans), the retail establishment shall unit price the items consistently.

(2) When metric units appear on the consumer

commodity, in addition to the other units of measure,

the retail establishment may include both units of measure on any stamps, tags, labels, signs, or lists.

Section 7. Effective Date

This regulation shall become effective on 199_.

Given under my hand and the seal of my office in the City of , on this day of , 199 .
Laws and Regulations Commiitee

Appendix B.

Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation

Section 1. Application. ~ This regxilation shall apply to i^pcttia ^ anv type clajces of device

and/or equipment covered in National Institute of

Standards and Technology Handbook 44 for which

evaluation procedures have been published in National Conference on Weights and Measures,

Pdblication 14, "National Type Evaluation Program,

Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy,

Qiecklists, and Test Procedures."

NOTE 1: This section can be amended to include a

list of devices, or device rypes to which NTEP

evaluation criteria does not appb;. Additionally, a

Stale can amend this section to allow it to conduct a

Type evaluanon and issue a "Cenificaie of Approval.

This approach should be limited to occasions where

formal NTEP Tvpe Evaluanon criteria does not apply,

and to new technolosies or device applications where

the development of criteria is deemed necessary by

the director.

Section 2. Definitions

2.1. Certificate of Conformance. - A

National Type Evaluation Program Cenificate of Conformance is a document issued by the Chief of

the Office of Weights and Measures of the National

Institute of S:andards and Technolog)' establishing

that the comnQrcial weighing and measuring device,

based on testing bv a Participating Laboratory , said document constituting evidence of conformance of a t>pe with mee'ji the requirements of National Instimie of Standards and Technology Handbook 44 as demonstrated using the test procedures in National

Conference on Weights and Measures. Publication

14, "National Type Evaluation Program.

Administrative Procedures. Technical PolicN'. Checklists, and Test Procedures."

2.2. Device." Device means any weighing and

measuring device as defined in 2.12. Commercial and

Law Enforcement Equipment.

2.3. Director. -- Means the of the department of

2A. National Type Evaluation Program. — A program of cooperation between the National

Instimte of Standards and Technologv', other Federal agencies, the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, the States, and the private sector for deter- mining, on a uniform basis, conformance of a type

with the relevant provisions of National Institute of

Standards and Technology Handbook 44,

"Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices"

and National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Publication 14. 'National Type Evaluation Program.

Administrative Procedures. Technical Policy.

Checklists, and Test Procedures."

2.5. One-of-a-Kind Device. -- A device

manufactured for sale that has been categonzed and

tested as a "one-of-a-kind" device. If the manufactiu-er constructs an additional device or devices, the device is no longer considered to be

"one-of-a-kind." This definition also applies to any

device that has been determined to be a "one-of-a-kind" device by a weights and measiu-es

jurisdiction in one Slate and the manufacturer decides

to manufacture and install the device in another State. Ln this case, the device must be traceable to a Cenificate of Conformance, the manufacturer must request an NTEP evaluation on the device through

the normal application process, tmless NTEP decides

that a Certificate of Conformance will not be

required.

2.6. Participating Laboratory. - Any State Measurement Laboraton.', that has been accredited by

the National Institute of Standards and Technology',

in accordance with its program for the Certification of Capabilitv' of State Measurement Laboratories, or any State Weights and Measures Agency or other

laboratory that has been authorized to conduct a type

evaluation under the Nafional Type Evaluation

Program.

2.7. Person. — The term "person" means both

plural and the singular, as the case demands, and

includes individuals, partnerships, corporations,

companies, societies, and associations.

2.8. Remanufactured Device. - A device to which an overhaul or replacement of parts has been

performed so the device can be installed in a new

location.

2.9. Repaired Device. ~ The maintenance or replacement of parts for a device to remain or return

to service in the same location.

2.10. Type. - A model or models of a particular

device, measurement system, instrument, or element

that positively identifies the design. A specific type

may varv' in its measurement ranges, size,

141
Laws and Regulations Committee

performance, and operating characteristics as specified

in the Certificate of Conformance.

2.11. Type Evaluation. -- The testing,

examination, and/or evaluation of a type by a

Participating Laboratory under the National Type

Evaluation Program.

2.12. Commercial and Law Enforcement

Equipment. - (a) Weighing and measuring

equipment 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, (b) Any accessory

attached to or used in connection with a commercial

weighing or measuring device when such accessory is so designed that its operation affects the accuracy of

the device, (c) Weighing and measuring equipment

in official use for the enforcement of law or for the collection of statistical information by government

agencies.''°TM'''"P*8'"

NOTE 2: The section is identical to G-A.L, §1.10,

General Code. National Institute of Standards and

Technology Handbook 44 for definition of "commercial" and "law enforcement equipment.

Section 3. Certificate of Conformance

The Director shall require a device Commercial or Law Enforcement Equipm ent to be traceable to covered by a Certificate of Conformance prior to its installation or use for commercial or law enforcement

purposes.

Section 4. Certificate of Conformance;

Specific Requirements.

(1) Except for a device exempted by this section, no

person shall sell a commercial we ighing or measuring

device unless it is traceable to a Certificate of

Conformance, has been issued for the dovico,

(2) Except for a device exempted by subsection (3), (4), or (5) of this section, no person shall use a commorcial weighing or measuring device unless it is traceable to a Certificate of Conformance, hao been

issued for th e device prior to use.

(3) Commercial weighing or measuring A device in service prior to , 19_, which meets the

specifications, tolerances, and other technical

requirements of National Institute of Standards and

Technology Handbook 44 shall not be required to be

traceable to a fee—

e

xempt—meeting the requirements for the Certificate of Conformance.

(4) Commercial weighing or measuring A device in service prior to ^ 19_i removed from service

by the owner or on which the department has issued

a removal order after , 19_, and retumed

to service at a later date shall be modified to meet all specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements of National Institute of Standards and

Technology Handbook 44 as

adopted—fey—the

Legislature, effective on the date of the return to

service. Such a commercial we ighing and measuring

device shall not be required to be traceable to feave a

Certificate of Conformance.

(5) Commercial weighing or measuring A device in service prior to ,19_, which are remanufactiired, modified, or upgraded is repaired after such date

shall meet all tlie specifications, tolerances, and other

technical requirements of National Institute of

Standards and Technology Handbook 44 adopted by

the Legislature on the date of the modification or upgrading, and shall not be required to be traceable

to a Certificate of Conformance. Such devices shall not be required to have a Certificate of Conformance.

(6) A device in service prior to , 19_, that is are still in use may be installed at another location in

this State and are no longer b eing manufactured may

be sold to another jurisdiction, provided the device meets requirements in effect as of the date of

installation in the new location jurisdiction; however,

the device shall not be required to be traceable to a ne Certificate of Conformance, is required.

(7) A device in service in another State prior to ,19 , may be installed in this State; however,

the device shall meet the specifications, tolerances,

and technical requirements for weighing and

measuring devices in National Institute of Standards

and Technology Handbook 44. and be traceable to a

Certificate of Conformance.

(8) One-of-a-kind Device. ~ A "one-of-a-kind

device" is not required to be traceable to an

Certificate of Conformance. However, if the manufacturer decides to make an additional device or

devices, the device will no longer be considered to be

"one-of-a-kind" and it shall be traceable to a

Certificate of Conformance, an NTEP evaluation must be conducted on the device. For scales, the load

142
Laws and Regulations Committee

cells and electronic indicators must be traceable to a have a Certificate of Conformance.

(9) Repaired Device. — If a person company or individual makes changes to a device to the extent

that the metrological characteristics are changed, that

specific device is no longer traceable to the Certificate of Conformance.

(10) Remanulactured Device. - If a person company

or individual repairs or remanufactures a device. the\

are obligated to repair or remanufacture it consistent with the manufacturer's original design; otherwise,

that specific device is no longer traceable to a Certificate of Conformance.

(11) Copy of a Device. - The manufacturer compan>'

who copies the design of a device that is traceable to a has a Cenificate of Conformance, but which is made by another compan}' for th e d e vice, must §et obtam a separate its: ovi Ti Certificate of Conformance

for t^i pe evaluation on the device. The Certificate of

Conformance for the original device shall not apply to the de vic e that is a copy.

(12) Device Components Scale or Weighing

System Components. — If a person buys NTEP a load cell(s) and an NTEP indicating element, which

are traceable to Certificaies of Conformance, and then

manufactures a device scale or weighing oyctem from

the pans, that i>erson shall nvdsi obtain a Cenificate of

Conformance for the device, th e compl e te de vice must b e submined for tvp e e valuation.

Section 5. Participating Laboraton and

Agreements

The Director is authorized to:

(1) Operate a Participating Laboratory as pan of the National Type Evaluation Program. In this regard, the Director is authorized to charge and collect fees

for type evaluation services.

(2) Cooperate with and enter into agreements with

any person in order to cany out the purposes of the acL

Section 6. Unlawful Acts

It shall be unlawful for any person to:

(1) Use a commerci'aj weighing and measuring device

in a commercial application unless a Certificate of

Conformance has been issued for such device unless exempt in Section 4.

(2) Sell a we ighing and moa&uring device for use in

a commercial application unless a Certificate of

Conformance has been issued for such device unless exempt in Section 4.

Section 7. Revocation of Conflicting

Regulations

All provisions of all orders and regulations heretofore

issued on this same subject that are contrary to or

inconsistent with the provisions of this regulation, and

specifically , are hereby revoked.

Section 8. Effective Date

This regulation shall become effective on .

143
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix C

Good Manufacturing Practices for Quantity Control Practices

Good Manufacturing Practiceo for Quantity Control

Practices means that the plant managers should take all reasonable precautions to ensure the following quantity control standards or their equivalent are met:

1. A formal quantity control function is in place with

authority to review production processes and records,

investigate possible errors, and approve, control, or reject

lots.

1 1 . Controls over automated data systems and software

used in quantity control ensures that information is accessible, but changeable only by authorized personnel.

12. Tare materials are monitored for variation. Label

changes are controlled to ensure net quantity matches

labeled declaration.

2. Adequate facilities (e.g., equipment, standards and work

areas) for conducting quantity control functions are provided and maintained.

3. A quantity control program (e.g., a system of statistical process control) is in place and maintained.

4. Sampling is conducted at a frequency appropriate to the product process to ensure that the data obtained is representative of the production lot.

5. Production records are maintained to provide a history

of the filling and net content labeling of the product.

6. Each "production lot" contains on the average the labeled quantity and the number of packages exceeding

the specified maximum allowable variation (MAV) value

in tlie inspection sample shall be no more than permitted

in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 in NIST Handbook 133.

7. Packaging practices are appropriate for specific

products and measurement procedures (e.g., quantity

sampling, density and tare determinations) and guidelines

for recording and maintaining test results are documented.

8. Personnel responsible for quantity control follow

written work instructions and are competent to perform

their duties (e.g., background, education, experience and

training). Training is conducted at sufficient intervals to ensure good practices.

9. Recognized procedures are used for the selection,

maintenance, adjustment, and testing of filling equipment

to insure proper fill control.

10. Measurement standards and weighing and measuring

devices are suitable for their intended purpose and

traceable to national standards. This includes a system of

equipment maintenance and calibration to include recordkeeping procedures.

144
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix D

Point-of-Pack Inspection Goidelines

A. Weights and Measures Officials' Responsibilities

1 . Conduct iBspections during hours when the plant is normally opei for business. Open the inspection by

making contact with the plant manager or authorized

representative (e.g., the quality assurance manager or the production menager.)

2. Present the proper credentials and explain the reason

for the visit ^e.g., routine or follow-up inspection or consumer complaint, etc.)

4. Request access to quantity measurement equipment in the packing room, moisture testing equipment in the

laboratory or Li the packing room, and to product packed

on premise or stored in warehouse areas.

5. Do not use a tape recorder or a camera without prior

authorization by plant representative.

6. Conduct inspection related activities in a professional

and appropria;e maimer, and if possible work in an area

that will not interfere with normal activities of the establishment

7. Abide by all the safety and sanitary requirements of

the establishment, and clean the work area upon

completion of the inspection/test. Return borrowed

equipment and materials

8. To close tke inspection recheck inspection reports in

detail and ascertain that all information is complete and

correct.

9. Sample qu2stions and tasks for Inspectors

a. Inside Buildings and Equipment

(i)ls all filling and associated equipment in good repair?

(ii) Are net content measurement devices suitable for the purpose being used?

(iii) Are standards traceable to NIST used by the firm to verify device accuracy?

b. Packing Room Inspection

(i) Observe if the program for net quantity of content

control in the packing room is actually being carried out.

(ii) Ensure the weighing systems are suitable and tare determination procedures are adequate. If there is any

question regarding tare determination, weigh a representative number of tare and/or filled packages.

(iii) For products labeled and filled by volume and then

checked by weight, insure proper density is used.

c. Warehouse Inspection

If a inspection is conducted:

(i) Select lot(s) to be evaluated.

(ii) Determine the number of samples to be inspected.

Use the appropriate sampling plan as described in NIST

Handbook 133.

(iii)Randomly select the number of samples or use a mutually agreed on plan for selecting the samples.

(iv) Determine the average net quantity of th<e sample and

use the standard deviation factor to compute the Sample

Error Limit (SEL) to evaluate the lot.

(v) Look for individual values that exceed t:he applicable

Maximum Allowable Variation as fourad in NIST

Handbook 133.

(vi) Apply moisture allowances, if applicable.

(vii) Review the general condition of the warehouse

relevant to package integrity, good manufacturing quantity control and distribution practices.

(viii) Prepare an inspection report to detail findings and

actions.

10. Closing the Inspection - Review findings with Plant Representative.

ATter t'ne inspection meet w'rtn fne management

representative to discuss inspection findings and

observations. Provide additional information as needed

(e.g., information on laws and regulations or explanations

of test procedures used in the inspection.) Be informative, courteous and responsive. If problems/violations are found during the inspection/test, bring this to the attention of the appropriate person.

B. Plant Management Responsibilities

1 . Recognize inspectors are enforcing a Federal, State or Local law.

145
Laws and Regulations Committee

2. Assist the official in conducting inspection activities in a timely and efficient manner.

3. During the initial conference with the inspector, find out whether the inspection is routine, a follow-up or the

result of a conauner complaint. If a complaint, obtain as much information as possible concerning the nature of

the complaint, allowing for an appropriate response.

4. The plant nanager, quaUty assurance manager, or any

designated reprxentative should accompany the inspector.

and wimess tha inspection and tests.

5. Plant personnel should take note of the inspectors

comments during the inspection and prepare a detailed writeup as soon as the inspection is completed.

6. When an official presents an inspection report, discuss

the observations and if possible provide explanations for any changes deemed necessary as a resuh of the

inspection/test

Plant Management: information that must be shared

with the Inspector.

1 . Establishment name and address.

2. Type of fimi and information on related firms or applicable information (e.g., sub contractor, servant or

agent.)

3. General cescription and location of shipping and

storage area.

4. Commodties manufactured by or stored at the

facility.

5. Names of responsible plant officials.

Plant Management: information that may be shared

with the Inspector.

1. Simple flow sheet of the filling process with

appropriate net content control checkpoints.

2. Weighing or measuring device maintenance and

calibration test records.

3. Type of quantity control tests and methods used.

4. Net content control charts for any lot, shipment, or

delivery in question or lots which have previously been

cited.

5. Method of date coding the product to include code

interpretation.

6. Laboratory reports showing the moisture analysis of

the products which are in question or have beem previously

cited.

7. Product volume of lot sizes or related information.

8. Distribution records related to a problem lots including names of customers.

146
Appendix E.

Due Process Procedures

Laws and Regulations Committee

A. Purpose.- These review procedures were developed to ensure that persons affected by "inspection findings" (e.g., price misrepresentations or shortweight packages), or who

are deprived of the use of their property (devices or packages placed under "stop" or "off-sale" order), are provided a timely-independent review of the action. The

procedures ensble affected persons to provide evidence

which could be relevant in determining whether the enforcement action was proper. The piupose of the procedure is to ensure that a person's ability to conduct

business is not hindered by improper enforcement actions. These procedures are independent of any other action

(e.g., administrative penalty actions) that may be taken by

the enforcement agency.

B. Background.- In the course of their work, weights and measures officials take enforcement actions that may

prohibit the use of devices or the sale of packaged goods

(e.g., "stop-sale" or "off-sale" orders for packages and

"stop-use" or 'condemnation" tags issued on devices).

Improper actions, (e.g., not following prescribed test procedures, enforcing labeling requirements on exempted

packages, or incorrectly citing someone for a "violation")

place the official, and the jurisdiction in the position of

being liable for the action if it is found that the action was

"illegal." In some cases weights and measures jurisdiction

could be ordered to pay monetary damages to compensate

the affected party for the improper action.

These procedures provide affected persons an opportunity

to present evidence which may be relevant in determining

whether the order or finding has been properly made to an independent party. The procedure enables business

operators to obtain an independent review of orders or

findings so that actions affecting their business can be

evaluated administratively instead of through litigation.

This ensures timely review, which is essential because of

the impact that such actions may have on the ability of a

business to operate, and in cases where perishable

products may be lost

C. Due Process Provisions. - Parties affected by

enforcement actions must be given access to appeal

enforcement actions. The following guidelines are provided to assist weights and measures programs in establishing an informal administrative review process.

- Inspectors are the primary contact with regulated firms

and thus have the best opportunity to ensure the enforcement actions they take are "proper". "Proper" means that inspections are conducted, (I) within the scope of the autliority granted by law, (2) according to recognized procedures and standards, and (3) that enforcement actions are lawful. The "burden" for proving

actions are "proper" falls on the weights and measures

program, not on regulated firms.

- Weights and measures officials are law enforcement

officers. Therefore, they have the responsibility to exercise their authority within the "due process"

provisions of the U.S. Constitution. As weights and measure programs carry-out their enforcement

responsibilities in the future, more and more challenges to their actions and authority will occur. It is in the best

interest of any program to establish strict operational

procedures and standards of conduct to prevent the occurrence of improper actions which may place the

jurisdiction in an untenable position in a court challenge

of an enforcement action. The foundation for ensuring

"proper" actions is training, clear and concise

requirements, and adoption and strict adherence to uniform test procedures and legal procedures.

- Prior to taking enforcement actions the inspector should

recheck test results and determine that the information on which the action will be taken is accurate.

- Inspections shall be conducted with the understanding

that the findings will be clearly and plainly documented

and reviewed with the store's representative.

- During the review of the fmdings with the firm's representative information may be provided by the representative which must be used by the inspector to resolve the problems and concerns before enforcement

actions are taken. In some cases, relevant information

may be provided which does not persuade the inspector to forego the action. In some cases the inspector and

business representative may not understand the circumstances surrounding the violations or there may be

a conflict between the parties that they cannot resolve. In other cases, the owner, or manufacturer may not find out

that an enforcement action has occurred until long after the inspector leaves the establishment.

Steps:

1 . Provide a framework that will help in resolving most

of these situations where "due process" is of concern. Make sure the responsible party on the package label is notified of violations and receives copies of inspection

reports. Establish standard operating procedures to ensure

the affected party timely access to a representative of the weights and measures program so the fum can provide the relevant information or obtain clarification of legal

requirements.

147
Laws and Regulations Committee

2. Make the process as simple and convenient as possible.

Especially in distant or rural areas where there are no local

offices, the review should be conducted by a supervisor of

the official taking the action if agreed to by the person

filing the request for review.

3. The process should include notice that the firm can seek review at a h.gher level in the weights and measures program or an independent review by a third party. The

following procedures are recommended.

- Any owner, distributor, packager, or retailer of a device

ordered out of service, or item or commodity ordered

"off-sale" (or inspection finding e.g., a price

misrepresentation or a shortweight lot of packages) shall be entitled within three (3) business days of the date of

receipt of a written request for review of such order, to a prompt, impar.ial, administrative review of such off-sale order or finding.

The following notice should be included on all-inspection

reports or official documcnta orders or reports of findings or violations and should be communicated to both the

retailer and responsible firm identified on the product

label:

-The administrative review shall be conducted by an

independent party designated by the Director or before an

independent hearing officer appointed by the Department.

The officer shall not be a person responsible for weights

and measiu"es administration or enforcement.

- No fees should be imposed for the administrative review

process.

- The firm responsible for the product or the retailer may

introduce any record or other relevant evidence including,

but not limited:

(i) Commodities subject to the off-sale action or other findmgs were produced, processed, packaged, priced, or

labeled in accordance with appUcable laws, regulations or requirements.

(ii) Devices subject to the "stop-use" order or "condemnation" were maintained in accordance with

applicable laws, regulations or requirements.

(iii) Prescribed test procedures or sampling plans were not followed by the inspector.

(iv) Mitigating circumstances existed which should be

considered.

- The reviewer must consider the inspector's report, findings, and actions as well as any evidence introduced

by the owner, distributer, packager, or retailer as part of

the review process.

- The reviewer must provide a written recommendation

within five business days of the review imless additional time is agreed to by the department and the petitioner.

- The reviewer may recommend to the Department that an

order be upheld, withdrawn or modified. Ifjustified the reviewer may recommend other action including a reinspection of the device or commodity based upon

information presented during the review.

- All actions should be documented and all parties advised

in writuig of the results of the review. The report of

action should be detailed in that it provides the reasons for the decision.

Notice

You have the right to Administrative Review of

this order or Hnding. To obtain a review, contact the Director of Weights and Measures

by telephone or send a written request (either

postmarked, faxed, or hand delivered) to:

(Name, Address or Fax Number of the Director or other Designated Official)

Your request should include reference any

information that you believe supports the

withdrawal or modification of the order or

finding.

148
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix F.

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Petroleum Products

Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual

NCWM Publication 20

October 1996

149

Laws and Regulations Committee

Safety Manual Contents

I. Purpose and Scope 152

II. Petroleum Products Handling and Safety 152

A. Introduction 152

B. Safety Equipment 152

C. Gasoline - General 153 D. Static Electricity ^. . . 153

E. Recommended Safety Precautions for Transporting Petroleum Samples 154

F. Spills, Containment, and Clean Up 154

G. Material Safet>' Data Sheets 154

in. Inspection Procedures 156

rV. Sampling Procedures 156

A. Types of Samples 157

B. Types of Sample Containers 157

C. Suggested Container Types and Minimum Sample Sizes 157

D. Collecting Samples 157

E. Sampling From Blended Product Dispensers and Single Hose Multi-Product Dispensers 158

F. Identifying Samples and Sealing Containers 158

G. Procedure for Transmittal to Laboratory 159 H. Chain of Custody (Possession) and Custody Transfer 159

I. Timeliness of Samples 159

V. Off-Sale Procedures 160

A. Engine Fuel Off-Sale Guidelines 160

VI. Referenced Documents 160

Appendix A - Safety Equipment Inspection Form 161

Appendix B - MSDS Log 162

151
Laws and Regulations Comnxittee

Petroleum Products

Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual

I. Purpose and Scope

This manual has been designed to assist you in conducting inspections of petroleum products. It contains procedures for:

• Handling Products and Safety

• Inspection

• Sampling

• Ordering Products Off-Sale

One purpose of the manual is to provide uniform

inspection, sampling, and enforcement procedures for petroleum products in order to protect consumers and

businesses from economic loss resulting from

substandard products. The manual is also intended to help you avoid injury when you are handling petroleum

products.

Tliis manual does not purport to address all of the safety

problems associated with the use of petroleum products.

It is the responsibility of each agency to establish appropriate safety and health practices.

II. Petroleum Products Handling and

Safety

A. Introduction

One of the primary considerations a person must have

while at work is safety. Certain occupations carry varying degrees of potential hazards particular to the type of work, the tools involved, and the products

encountered while at work. For individuals who sample

and test petroleum products, the materials that may be

encountered on a day-to-day basis not only may have

potential toxic effects, but may be explosive and

flammable.

The best protection is to learn and observe the correct

safety rules for the job and to use common sense. This

manual provides some guidelines for properly and safely

conducting specific tasks. You also should know and

follow the safet)' requirements established by your agency and the safety rules in effect at the location where you are testing.

B. Safety Equipment

The following is a list of some of the safety equipment

that an inspector of petroleum products might use:

1 . Eye-wash kit - filled with fresh water.

2. Eye protection - safety goggles.

3. Protective gloves - impervious to gasoline, diesel

fuel, kerosene or fuel oil.

4. Fire extinguisher, dry chemical, rated for class "A",

"B", and "C" fires, with current inspection tag - Be

sure you know how to use it! Reference NFPA

10, "Portable Fire Extinguishers," for additional guidance on selection of an appropriate fire extinguisher.

5. Hazard reflector kit (plastic type, non-burning).

Do not carry or use road flares.

6. Bag of absorbent material (e.g., sand, kitty litter) - to minimize flammability and environmental

impact in the event of a petroleum product spill.

7. Barrier cream and waterless skin cleanser.

8. First-aid kit.

9. Reflective vest.

10. Flashlight - explosion proof; UL listed for Class I, Groups C «fe D.

1 1 . Tools made of nonferrous materials.

12. Activated carbon canister respirator

You should ensure that your safety equipment is maintained in proper working order at all times. A

safety equipment inspection form, such as the one shown in Appendix A, can be used to facilitate periodic

evaluation of the condition of safety equipment. The

form should be completed at least on a monthly basis and submitted to your supervisor or safety officer. Any

problems with safety equipment should be noted on the form and corrective action taken immediately.

152
Laws and Regulations Committee

C. Gasoline - General

The primary petroleum product encountered in the field

is gasoline. When you handle this product, remember

the following.

1 . Gasoline is Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed

• Never siphon gasoline by mouth.

• If someone swallows gasoline, do not induce

vomiting - Call a doctor immediately.

2. Gasoline Vapor is Harmful; Long Term Exposure

to Vapor Has Caused Cancer in Laboratory.

Animals

• Avoid prolonged breathing of gasoline vapor. Use

gasoline only in an area where there is plenty of fresh

air. When taking samples, place yourself up-wind so vapors are blown away from you. Keep yoiu" face away from any gasoline container opening.

• If you must work in a high vapor concentration

situation, such as when you are emptying sample

cans, wear a protective mask with an organic vapor

cartridge. Masks should be available at each

petroleum laboratory for use by petroleum personnel.

• Keep gasoline containers closed when not in use.

• Do not overfill or top off a gasoline tank. Make sure the cap is put back on when the gasoline tank has

been filled

3. Avoid eye and skin contact

• Use of a barrier cream is advised.

• Have eye-wash bottles available in case petroleum

products are splashed into your eyes. If you get

gasoline in your eyes, flush them for 15 minutes with

clean water. If irritation continues, see a doctor.

• Never use gasoline to wash your hands.

• Rubber or plastic gloves which are impervious to petroleum liquids should be worn.

• If you get gasoline on your skin, wash promptly and

thoroughly with soap and water.

• Remove gasoline-soaked clothes, dry them in open air (away from heat sources), and then launder them

before re-using.

4. Gasoline is extremely flammable

• Use only as an engine fiiel. Do not use for cleaning,

pressure appliance fuel, or any other such use.

• Do not use or store near flames, sparks, or hot

siufaces.

• Keep containCTS closed - clean up spills immediately.

• Be aware that gasoline presents an extreme fire hazard. Liquid evaporates very quickly, even at low

temperatures, and forms vapor (fumes) which can

catch fire and bum with explosive violence.

• Realize that invisible fuel vapor is heavier than air and spreads easily and can be ignited by sources such

as pilot lights, welding equipment, electric motors,

and switches.

Remember the Fire Triangle:

Removing any side of the triangle will prevent or eliminate a fire.

D. Static Electricity

No safety manual regarding potentially explosive liquids

would be complete unless this hazardous subject was

addressed. Static electricity or any spark, regardless of

its source, can ignite gasoline vapors, propane, and other

volatile liquids and gases. This potential hazard should

be kept in mind when sampling and handling these types

of products.

Tank trucks and other rubber-tired vehicles are potential

generators of static electricity. An accumulation of this static electricity is often demonstrated by electrical sparks when a person touches the body of the vehicle, or by a slight shock when entering or leaving the

vehicle.

When sampling products described in this manual,

always ensure that a solid metal-to-metal bond is made

between a fill no2zle and your sample can to reduce the

risk of this potential hazard. Do not fill the sample

container while it is in contact with a plastic-lined

pickup bed or the trunk of an automobile.

153
Laws and Regulations Committee

For a more detailed guide on the hazards of static

electricity, refer to ASTM D 4865, "Standard Guide for Generation and Dissipation of Static Electricity in Petroleum Fuel Systems." This publication describes in detail how static electricity may be generated in petroleum fuel systems, the types of equipment

conductive to charge generation, and methods for the

safe dissipation of such charges. The guide is intended

to increase awareness of potential operating problems

resulting from electrostatic charge accumulation.

E. Recommended Safety Precautions for Transporting Petroleum Samples

1 . Use suitable sample containers - Samples should be

collected and transported in a suitable container

which can be tightly closed. Sample containers should not be filled above 80 percent of capacity to allow for expansion of the liquid sample.

2. Do not transport samples in the passenger compartment of vehicles. Petroleum sample

containers should be placed in a closed metal box

and properly secured in the trunk of a sedan or bed

of a pickup for transportation.

3. Have a suitable fire extinguisher available - A dry

chemical type rated for class "A", "B", and "C"

fires is the most effective extinguishing agent for flammable liquid fires.

4. Control accidental spills - Carrying sample

containers in a metal box will contain a spill or accidental leak from a sample container.

5. In case of a collision or vehicle breakdown, do not use burning emergency flares. Emergency

reflectors are recommended.

6. Store samples in fireproof cabinets away from

sources of ignition.

7. Smoking in vehicles used to transport petroleum

samples is not recommended.

F. Spills, Containment, and Clean Up

1. Gasoline - Eliminate all sources of ignition in the vicinity of the spill. Clean up small spills using

appropriate techniques such as absorbent materials

and/or suction pumps appropriate for liquid

petroleum product clean up. Place recovered

gasoline in approved container for proper disposal.

2. Diesel and Fuel Oil - Soak up residue with

absorbent material such as clay, sand, or other

suitable material. Place in non-leaking containers

and seal tightly for proper disposal. Flush area with water to remove trace residue. Properly

dispose of flush solution.

3. Kerosene - Take up with an absorbent material and

place in a sealed container for proper disposal.

If product spills onto soil, where feasible and

appropriate, remove contaminated soil and/or contact

local environmental authorities.

G. Material Safety Data Sheets

Federal and State laws require vendors of hazardous

products to provide purchasers with a Material Safety

Data Sheet (MSDS) for any hazardous product

purchased.

MSDS's provide valuable information about materials,

ranging from general product data to specific details on

the health hazards and first-aid procedures applicable in case of spills or exposure. They also contain reactivity

data, which is important because many materials will

react, sometimes violently, with other substances such as strong acids.

You should have copies of the MSDS's for use in the

field. In addition, they should be kept in each

petroleum laboratory for review when needed. The

MSDS's should be neatly arranged in notebooks or files, and one individual should be given the responsibility of

keeping the information up to date.

You should review the MSDS's at least semiannually

(e.g., June and December). A record should be kept of

this review on a form such as the one shown in Appendix B; you should initial and date the form when

you complete your review. First-line supervisors or

safety officers should have the responsibility of ensuring

that the reviews are completed in a timely manner.

Listed below are materials found in the laboratory and

in the field for which MSDS's should be obtained.

Materials Encountered in the Petroleum Laboratory

Acetone

Acetylene

r-amylmethylether (TAME)

154
Benzene

Buffer solution - 10 pH - sodium chloride, sodium

tetraborate, potassium chloride and sodium glycinate

Buffer solution - 7 pH - dibasic sodium phosphate,

monobasic potassium phosphate, dibasic potassium

phosphate

Buffer solution - 4 pH - hydrochloric acid, potassium

hydrogen phthalate, formaldehyde

Butyl alcohol, nonnal

sec-butyl alcohol

r-butyl alcohol

Calcium sulfate

Compressed air

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)

Diesel fuel

Diisopropylether (DIPE)

1,2 Dimethoxyethane

Ethyl alcohol (Ethanol)

Ethyl /-butylether (ETBE)

Ethylene glycol

Fuel oil

Gasoline

Gasoline-oxygenated blend

Glycerin

Helium

Heptane, normal

Hexane, normal

r-hexylmethylether (THeME)

Hydrochloric acid

Hydrogen

Iodine

Laws and Regulations Committee

fsobutyl alcohol

isooctane (2, 2, 4 trimethylpentane)

Isopropyl alcohol

Kerosene

Lead in reference fuel (tetraethyl-lead and 2,2,4

trimethylpentane)

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

Mercury

Methyl alcohol (Methanol)

Methyl isobutyl ketone

Methyl f-butylether (MTBE)

Methylene chloride

Mineral oil

Nitric acid

Nitrogen (gas)

Nitrogen (liquid)

/-pentyl alcohol

Potassium dichromate

Potassium hydroxide

Precipitation naphtha (aliphatic hydrocarbons)

Pressure appliance fiiel

Propylene glycol

Sodium hydroxide

Sulfuric acid

Toluene

Xylene

Materials Encountered During Field Work

Diesel Fuel

Gasoline

155
Laws and Regulations Committee

Kerosene

Compressed Natural Gas

Liquefied Natural Gas

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Water Indicating Paste

Ethanol

Methanol

Fuel Oil

Pressure appliance fuel

III. Inspection Procedures

The suggested procedure for routine service station inspections is:

1. Identify yourself to the owner or manager and state the nature of your business.

2. Record the business name, address, and telephone

number, and the name of the owner/operator.

3. Check the labeling on all petroleum product

dispensers, containers, and storage tanks for diesel and gasoline.

4. Obtain all necessary evidence (such as photographs,

drawings, samples, product level and totalizer readings, and statements) for use in any possible

administrative or judicial proceeding.

The following is an example of an inspection check list: CHECK LIST

Showed credentials?

Recorded information on business?

Checked for sign and label violations?

Diagram of dispensers?

Diagram of underground tank locations?

All dispensers inspected?

Samples collected?

Product level and totalizer readings taken?

Chain of custody procedures followed?

All relevant areas of sample form filled in?

Samples packed for transportation?

All samples paid for?

Copy of form left with someone at the site, if required?

Flushed gasoline returned to storage or placed

into a vehicle?

rv. Sampling Procedures

Extreme care and good judgement are necessary to ensure samples are obtained that are representative of

the product being sold.

It is necessary to protect all volatile samples of petroleum products from evaporation. In most circumstances,

the produa sampled should be put directly into a sample

container as it is obtained. This is mandatory for vapor

pressure samples. When it is necessary to obtain

product with a sampling apparatus, such as from an underground storage tank, transfer the product to a sample container immediately. Keep the container

closed except when material is being transferred. Never

completely fill a sample container; allow adequate room

for expansion. To prevent the loss of liquid and vapors during transport, screw the caps of containers down

tightly and check for leakage. Label and seal the containers immediately after the sample is obtained.

156
Laws and Regulations Conunittee

A. Types of Samples

There are two reasons for obtaining samples:

1 . Routine samples - these are samples collected in the normal course of business to verify compliance with

established specifications.

2. Complaint samples - these are samples that are collected in response to a consumer or business

complaint.

Samples can be obtained in one of two manners;

1 . Open Samples - you enter the station and identify

yourself, state the reason for being there and obtain

the necessary sample(s).

2. Undercover Samples - you obtain a sample(s) of the product(s) in question without announcing yourself

to the station operator/owner. This can be done by means of a "trap tank" in an undercover vehicle or by purchasing the product into a UL or FM listed, approved gasoline container as though it were for a lawn mower.

used once and then disposed of, this will help prevent

leakage and loss of reliability of the sample.

C Suggested Container Types and Minimum

Sample Sizes

As a general rule, a sufficient amount of product should

be collected to allow for the initial test, a repeat test, and retention of some product for evidence in a possible

legal action. Some suggested container types and

minimum sample sizes are listed below:

Product/Test

Gasoline

General

Alcohol/Ether

Vapor Pressure Trace lead

Diesel Fuel

General

Kerosene

General

Container Type

Glass or Metal

Glass

Glass

Borosilicate

Glass

Glass or Metal

Glass or Metal

Minimum

Sample Size

2 L

2 L

1 L

1 L

2 L

2 L

B. Types of Sample Containers

Sample containers may be clear or brown glass bottles, or metal cans. The clear bottle is advantageous because

it may be examined visually for cleanliness, and also allows visual inspection of the sample for free water or

solid impurities. The brown glass bottle affords some

protection from light. Plastic coated bottles are available which provide protection against shattering.

The only suitable metal cans are those with the seams

soldered on the exterior surface with a flux of rosin in a suitable solvent that is easily removed with gasoline.

NFPA 30A 9.2 (1994 edition) states "No delivery of any

Class I or Class II liquid shall be made into portable

containers unless the container is constructed of metal or

is approved by the authority having jurisdiction, has a

tight closure, and is fitted with a spout or is so designed

that the contents can be poured without spilling." If a

jurisdiction is operating in an area where NFPA

requirements are adopted, this should be considered in selecting sample containers that will be used at retail locations.

Screw caps made of either plastic or metal may be used;

the caps should provide a vapor tight closure seal. The

screw caps must be protected with liners made of metal

foil, teflon, polyethylene, or other material that will not be destroyed by or affect the sample product.

Sample containers can be cleaned and used repeatedly

as long as they are still serviceable. The caps should be

Fuel Oil

General Glass or Metal 2 L

Aviation Gasoline

General Glass or Metal 2 L

Aviation Turbine Fuel

General Glass or Metal 2 L

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

General Floating piston 1 L

cylinder

D. Collecting Samples

When collecting samples at a retail location, follow

procedures in 40 CFR Part 80, Appendix D. At

wholesale locations, collect samples in accordance with

ASTM D 4057, "Standard Practice for Manual Sampling

of Petroleum and Petroleum Products."

Use a sample container which is clean and free of water,

dirt, lint, corrosion, rust or other visible contamination.

Exercise care when obtaining samples to ensure that your sample is representative of the product to be tested. Sufficient product should be purged from the system to ensure that you are obtaining fresh product. The sample

container should be rinsed with the product that will be

sampled immediately prior to collecting the sample to ensure all possible contaminants are removed.

157
Laws and Regulations Committee

It is necessary to protect all volatile samples of

petroleum products from evaporation. It is important

that samples sensitive to light be kept in the dark. Do

not over fill - allow room in the sample container for product expansion. As a general rule the container

should be filled to no more than 80 percent of capacity.

In 40 CFR Part 80, use of an extender tube to bottom

fill the sample container is required in the case of

samples that will be analyzed for vapor pressure.

Seal the sample container tightly, complete and attach the sample tag/chain of custody tag (if required to be

attached) and affix the security seal. Use reasonable

care to keep the sample container away from excessive

heat and light.

Submit only samples collected by authorized personnel.

Do not collect a sample for enforcement purposes from

private storage, vehicle fuel tanks, etc. You can not

attest to such sample as being truly representative of the product which is being sold.

E. Sampling From Blended Product Dispensers and

Single Hose Multi-Product Dispensers

F. Identifying Samples and Sealing Containers

You must be able to vaify or authenticate your samples

in court. A petroleum products sample tag should be

completed for each sample and permanently affixed to

the container (if required). Containers should be sealed

as follows:

1 . Metal cans with security seals - The top opening of

the container should be closed tightly with a screw

cap. The closure should then be sealed with a

security seal should be attached as shown in Figure

1.

When taking gasoline samples from these dispensers, the samples should be collected after an observed sale of the

particular grade or product to be tested, or sufficient product should be purged from the hose to ensure the sample is representative of the grade or product being

sampled. The National Conference on Weights and

Measures policy on procedures for taking samples for octane verification is as follows:

Figure 1. Attachment of Security Seal

The petroleum products sample tag should be attached

to this side of the seal. All slack should be removed

from the circuit prior to securing the seal. Check screw

cap for tighmess to ensure that there are no leaks Pull

security seal tight to secure it.

"A minimum of 1 liter (0.3 gallon) of engine fuel shall be flushed from the dispensers before

taking a sample for octane verification. This

flush shall be returned to the storage tank

containing the lowest octane."

The approximate volume of the listed hose sizes per 3 meters (10 feet) of hose is:

Inside diameter

13 mm ('/z inch)

16 mm (5/8 inch) 19 mm (3/4 inch)

25 mm (1 inch)

Approx. Liters (galV3 m(10 ft) 0.4 L (0.10 gallon) 0.6 L (0.16 gallon)

0.8 L (0.23 gallon)

1.6 L (0.41 gallon)

NOTE: Seals are attached in this manner so that they

may be cut to permit laboratory analysis while the petroleum products sample tag will remain permanently

affixed to the container.

2. Glass bottles with adhesive paper seals - The top

opening of the container should be closed tightly with a screw cap. The closure should be sealed with an

adhesive paper seal attached as shown in Figiu-e 2:

158
Laws and Regulations Conunittee

V. J

Figure 2. Attachment of Security Seal

The seal should be placed over the cap and down the sides of the bottle to seal the cap. One (or more if necessary) additional seals should be placed around the

bottle overlapping the ends of the seal across the cap.

G. Procedure for Transmittal to Laboratory

Engine fuel samples should be shipped to the petroleum

laboratory if delivery by program personnel is not

practical. Department of Transportation (DOT)

regulations regarding the shipment of hazardous

substances should be consulted for proper packaging and

labeling before shipment.

There will obviously be variants to any routine delivery

system. However, in general, you need to make some

definite arrangements for delivery.

Examples might be:

Ask area official to pick up sample.

• Deliver sample via another program's personnel.

• Deliver sample to a certain pickup point.

Ask State courier to pick up sample.

Arrange for common carrier to pick up sample.

Some private carriers have requirements for shipping

that are more restrictive than DOT regulations. These

requirements could influence the type of sample

containers that can be used, in addition to packing

materials required. Additionally, some private carriers require that the individuals preparing and packaging the sample for shipment be trained and certified according

to DOT criteria. If common carriers are used for shipment of samples, contact the individual company for specific packing and shipping requirements.

A sample left in an office or vehicle for any length of

time has lost its reason for priority handling due to new

deliveries having been made to the service station and

other factors.

H. Chain of Custody (Possession) and Custody

Transfer

Chain of Custody (Possession) is a record of each

person who hais come into possession of the sample

from the time it is obtained until the time it is presented

as evidence in an administrative or judicial proceeding.

It may be the only way to prove that the sample

presented in the proceeding is the one obtained at the location in question.

It becomes mandatory that a record be maintained which

lists all those persons coming in contact with the evidence. This is particularly true when a scientific analysis of the sample is to be made. It must be proved

that there was no tampering with, alteration of, or

substitution of the sample between the time it was

collected and the time the analysis was made by the

laboratory. The burden of proof is on the party offering the sample into evidence.

Samples must be passed from the field person who

obtained them to the laboratory personnel. When this takes place, the record must indicate to whom and when

the sample was released. In other words, the chain of

custody must be maintained. This means that the

transfer of the sample must be documented each time,

and that the record must remain with the sample. If this proof is not available, the sample and its analysis may

be excluded from evidence.

Although an accurate and complete record is maintained

of the chain of custody, it is still highly advisable that the samples go through as few people as possible. The

fewer people involved, the less chance there is the sample may be tampered with, altered or lost. Also, fewer wimesses will be needed to be called to establish

the fact that the sample analyzed is the sample collected

at the location.

L Timeliness of Samples

A sample that fails to arrive at the laboratory within 2

days for analysis is usually of little value in preventing

low octane or contaminated engine fuel from being sold

to the public. This is because of the fast turnover of

dealers' inventories in today's market.

159
Laws and Regulations Committee

Off Sale Product Disposition Letter

In accordance with tlie provisions of

Section of the Code, please be

advised that on at o'clock, .m., I will be

prepared to properly dispose of the products condemned and sealed by

officials of the Department of

Weights and Measures on , at ,

.

I request that a representative of the Department of Weights and

Measures be present at the above noted

address at the time specified to remove

all seals and required sealing notices,

and to supervise the removal and

disposition of the condemned products.

Signed:

V. Off-Sale Procedures

A. Engine Fuel Off-Sale Guidelines

1 . Upon notification from tlie laboratory that a product

sample did not meet specifications, go to the location where the product was obtained and identify yourself

to the manager or person in charge.

2. Explam what the test results on the sample were, what the specifications for that product are, and what

action you are going to take. Refer questions on the

test results to the appropriate laboratory or management personnel. Do not recommend how to correct or bring the bad product into specification.

3. Read the pump totalizers and determine the number

of gallons in the storage tank from which the sample

originally was collected; also check to see if there is water in the tank with water-finding paste and record

the amount.

4. If additional product has been added to the storage

tank smce the sample was collected, resample the product, and properly label and seal it.

5. If no additional product has been added to the storage

tank since the sample was collected, label and seal the storage tank fill pipe(s) and/or product

dispenser(s) for the grade of product in question in accordance with the procedures in your jurisdiction.

6. Explain to the manager your jurisdiction's policy on

the disposition of off-sale product. Leave a written copy of your instructions with the manager. (See

Figure 3.)

7. When the storage tank(s) are to be pumped out, check

the tags and seals to see that they are intact. Also

8.

Figure 3. Sample Off-Sale Disposition Letter

9. Take the appropriate enforcement action (issue a Notice of Violation, or citation, etc.) witli a

responsible party.

VI. Referenced Documents

The following documents are referenced in this manual:

ASTM D 4067, Standard Practice for Manual

Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products;

check the totalizer readings and measure the amount

of product in the tank to determine if product has

been removed. Break the seals and allow the product

to be pumped out of the storage tank. Have the lines and filters flushed with sufficient good product to assure all off-specification product is removed before

releasing for sale.

Obtain a sample of replacement product fi"om the delivery truck and of the new product through the dispenser after it has been dumped into the storage

tank.

ASTM D 4865, Standard Guide for Generation and

Dissipation of Static Electricity in Petroleum Fuel

Systems;

40 CFR Part 80 (Vapor Pressure Control Standards

issued by the U.S. EPA under the authority of the Clean Au- Act);

NFPA 10, Portable Fire Extinguishers;

NFPA 30A, Automotive and Marine Service Station Code.

160
Laws and Regulations Committee

Safety Manual Appendix A.

Safety Equipment Inspection

TO: Date:

Office:

Absorbent Material

Eye Protection

Eye-Wash Bottle - Date filled with clean water

Fire Extinguisher Exp. Date:

First-Aid Kit

Replacement Items Required (First-Aid Kit)

Gloves

Barrier Cream

Reflective Vest

Investigator's Signature:

Hazard Reflector Kit

Hand Cleaner

Vapor Proof Flash Light

Vehicle Lie. No.:

Corrective Action Taken

Investigator's Signature: Date:

161
Laws and Regulations Committee

Safety Manual Appendix B.

MSDS LOG

I have reviewed the enclosed Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on the dates indicated by my initials.

NAME DATE-INIT. DATE-INIT. DATE-INIT. DATE-INIT.

162
Laws and Regulations Commitiee

Appendix G

Food Industry Letter to the Food and Drug Administration

June 5, 1996

William Schultz

Deputy Commissioner for Policy

Food and Drug Administration, HF-22

5600 Fisliers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

RE: Proposed Regulation on Net Quantity of Content Testing Procedures

We, the undersigned, request that FDA act on a matter of importance to our organizations, represented industries and the consumers of America - the development of a uniform, science-based standard for verifying the net contents of packaged

goods. As manufacmrers and marketers of packaged products, we strongly support truth and accuracy in labeling.

As you know, national uniformity of regulatory requirements at the federal, state and local levels is of extreme importance

to the manufecturers of food and other consumer products. Differing and conflicting regulatory requirements and standards

for compliance are burdensome to national manufacturers. Uniformity of regulation and enforcement creates a "level playing field" and is essential to fair competition.

The food industry has experienced a variation in the enforcement of net quantity of contents verification due to lack of

uniformity between state and local regulators, resulting in an imnecessary burden on the food industry. This can be

alleviated by the uniformity provisions of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, which we strongly advocated

and continue to support.

We have been encouraged by the Agency's wo± with the National Instimtes of Standards and Technology (NIST) to apply

science-based procedures for checking net contents of packaged goods. When evenly applied, a science-based standard

:^is in the best interest of constmiers, regulators, wholesalers, retailers, and manufacturers.

We understand that FDA has prepared a proposed regulation on net quantity of contents testing procedures. We urge the Agency to publish this proposed rule as soon as possible, and, subsequently, to act as quickly as possible to finalize the

regulation. We appreciate your consideration, and welcome any discussion that might assist the Agency in this area.

Respectfully submitted,

American Bakers Association

American Frozen Food Institute Grocery Manufacturers of America

Food Marketing Institute International Dairy Foods Association

National Fisheries Institute National Pasta Association

National Food Processors Association

Pet Food Institute Snack Food Association

USA Rice Federation

163

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Report of the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances

Gary D. West, Chairman

Department of Agriculture

New Mexico

300 Introduction

This is the Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances for the 81st Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based on the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program and

Committee Reports" (NCWM Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting.

Table A identifies the items in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item numbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. Voting items are indicated with a "V" after the item number. Consent

calendar items are marked with a "VC." Items marked with an "I" after the reference key number are information items. The

items marked with a "W" were withdrawn by the Committee. Items marked with a "W" generally will be referred back to

the regional weights and measures associations because they either need additional development, analysis, and input, or did

not have sufficient support of the Committee to bring them before the NCWM.

The attached Report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) Handbook 44, 1996 Edition, "Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and

Measuring Devices." Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by crossing out what is to be deleted,

and underlining what is to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in italics. Entirely new

paragraphs or sections proposed for addition to the handbook are designated as such and shown in bold face print.

Note: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication

as they were submitted and may therefore contain references to inch-pound imits.

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

General Code

310-1 W User-Programmable Software; Manufacturer-Modified Software 168

Scales Code

320-1 VC Test Procedures for On-Board Weighing Systems 169

320-2 V Concentrated Load Capacity; Declaration of Other Than Dual-Axle Configurations 171 320-3 W Markings on Load Cells 173

320-4 W Marking of Scale Multiples 1 73

320-5 W UR.X. Position of Equipment - Indicating Element; Vehicle Scales 173

320-6 V Amend S.5.4.'s to Exempt Complete Scales and Weighing Elements 174

165
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

320-7 VC

320-8 vc

320-9 VC

320-10 w

330-1 V

330-2 vc

330-3 I

330-4 vc

330-5 I

330-6 vc

332-1 V

332-2 I

337-1 I

356-1 VC

356-2 VC

357-1 W

360-1 W

360-2 VC

360-3 1 360-4 V

Definition for Load Cell Verification Division (v„i„) 175

Amend UR.4.3 Scale Modification to Include Platform Thickness 175

Amend N. 1.3 .6.1. In-Motion Monorail Scales 176

Add S. 1 . 1 . 1 .(c) to Specifications Section 176

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

T.2.3.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems; 177

Recognition of Small Volume Provers in Routine Field Testing 1 79

S. 1 .6.4. 1 . Unit Price Exceptions; Exclusions for Fleet Sales, Other Price Contract Sales and Truck Refueling Dispensers 180

S.l .6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price, S.1.6.5.5. Display of Quantity and Total Price; User-Activated Controls 182

UR.3.4.X. Printed Ticket; Cash-, Credit Card-, or Debit Card- Activated

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser 183

S.3. 1 . Diversion Prohibited; Exception for Agri-Chemical Applications 184

Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

T.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems 185

T.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems 185

Mass Flow Meters

UR.3.7. Return of Product to Storage; Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers 186

Grain Moisture Meters Code

Elimination of Retroactive Dates; Effective for Devices Placed into Service after January 1, 1998 1 88

S . 1 . 1 0 . Operating Temperature 1 90

Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers Code

S.2.2.1. Power Supply, Voltage, and Frequency 191

Other Items

Change in Tolerance Determination for All Metering Devices 191 Proposed Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 193

OIML Report 193

Clarification of Handbook Application, Emergency Action Item 195

166
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

A. Table UR.3.2.1 320-2 198

B. Proposed Tentative Code for Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices 360-2 200

C. Proposed Code 5.56(a) for Grain Moisture Meters 356-1 213

D. Proposed Code 5.56(b) for Grain Moisture Meters 356-1 226

Voting Results

Reference Key No.

House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Results Yes No Yes No

360-4 (Motion to Hear Emergency Item) 43 0 56 0 Passed

360-4 44 0 58 0 Passed

Consent Calendar Passed

320-2 40 4 57 3 Passed

320-6 43 0 60 0 Passed

330-1 44 0 61 0 Passed

332-1 42 0 55 0 Passed

330-5 (Motion to Remove from Consent

Calendar)

43 0 61 0 Passed

330-5 (Motion to Table) 41 2 51 3 Passed

330-5 (Motion to Move to Remove from

Table)

37 0 52 0 Passed

330-5 (Motion to Return to Information

Status)

41 0 44 0 Passed

300 (Report in its Entirety) 44 0 51 0 Passed

167
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Details of All Items

General Code

310-1 W User-Programmable Software; Manufacturer-Modified Software

(Tliis item was withdrawn.)

Source: Carryover Item 310-2

Discussion: The Committee received few comments on this issue during the 1996 Interim Meeting and pending the outcome

of the Software Working Group, made no recommendations on this item at that time.

The Committee recognizes the importance of resolving the many issues surrounding software and encourages a timely

resolution to the issue, particularly as these issues relate to the field inspection of software- based weighing and measuring

equipment. The Committee believes that this issue deserves the continued attention of the NCWM and ftilly supports the continued work of the Software Working Group. However, the Committee does not believe that there are areas in which the S&T Committee can contribute at this time. Consequently, the Committee is withdrawing the issue from its agenda.

Background The Executive Committee was questioned regarding the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) practice

of issuing NTEP Certificates of Conformance for software that nins on PCS. Some software is programmable by the user; other software is not programmable by the user, but is routinely modified by the manufacturer. There are some in industry

who are particularly concerned about software developed by "third parties," that is, software houses that develop software

to interface directly with weighing/load-receiving elements. However, weights and measures cannot limit technology and

how it is used in commercial weights and measures applications (as long as it complies with H44).

A meeting on software was held in conjunction with the December 1994 NTEP Weighing Sector meeting. Members from

the NTEP Board of Governors, the Weighing Sector, and the Measuring Sector were present and discussed this item. Due

to the complex nature of this issue, it was decided that a request should be made to the Board of Governors to form a working

group to study this issue. Representatives of the Weighing and Measuring Sectors voted to continue the ongoing evaluation

of software under NTEP, pending fiirther recommendations by the proposed working group.

At the 1 995 Interim Meeting, the Board of Governors agreed that NTEP should continue its evaluation of software and

recognized the formation of a working group chaired by Michael Adams, Fairbanks Scales, including representatives from

the weighing and measuring industries and at least one representative from a participating NTEP laboratory. Issues to be

addressed by the group include the evaluation of software by NTEP as well as routine examinations conducted by weights

and measures officials. The Software Working Group has had five meetings since its inception and while progress is being

made, no formal recommendations have been put forth by the Working Group. A preliminary report was presented to the Executive Committee after the January 1996 meeting.

Canada established a work group to investigate issues related to the security of software and how to track the changes made

to software used in commercial applications; they will collaborate with the NCWM work group on this issue.

Comments forwarded to the Committee on this issue have indicated support for the goals for program design and for identifying the metrologically significant portion of the software. It is believed that weights cind measures officials need more

extensive examination procedure outlines and field manuals for the inspector to identify those critical features and device

operations that must be checked in the field to ensure compliance with Handbook 44 requirements. Many device parameters

and features are selectable at the time of installation, but some are more critical than others. The most critical parameters and

features should be checked during routine field inspections.

At the 1995 Annual Meeting, the Committee discussed concerns in several areas dealing with softweire. The Committee noted

confusion on the part of some weights and measures officials and industry as to when an evaluation of software is subject

to NTEP evaluation. Minimum standards arc needed for the development of the metrological portion of software. NTEP

evaluations encourage standardization of metrological infoirnation in the software and may provide a forum to communicate

168
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Handbook 44 requirements to software programmers who are developing software for weights and measures device

applications. The Committee recognizes that additional work may be needed to ensure that all NTEP laboratories are uniformly applying criteria to software and that this information is communicated to device manufacturers and software

developers.

At the 1995 Annual Meeting, the committee discussed specific applications in which a manufacturer needs maximum

flexibility for marketing a product and feels that the manufacturer should not be restricted to specific hardware if weights and

mezisures can verify that the metrological portion of the software meets all applicable requirements of Handbook 44. Regardless of whether or not a decision is made to continue with the NTEP evaluation of software, the Committee recognizes

a need to develop guidelines which will assist the field official in verifying that the software package is appropriate for the

application, is set up to enable the weighing or measuring system to comply with Handbook 44, and, if NTEP evaluation of

software is required, that the version in the field has not been metrologically modified from the version originally evaluated by NTEP. If NTEP discontinues evaluation of software, the Committee recognizes that a bigger burden may be placed on

weights and measures officials to evaluate software and may encourage lack of uniformity in the development of software.

Isolation and physical or electronic sealing of the metrological portion of the software is an option that has been discussed

in the past, and the Committee continues to favor such an approach.

Scales Code

320-1 VC Test Procedures for On-Board Weighing Systems

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-5

Recommendation: Endorse the following test procedures for on-board weighing systems and use them as a basis for an examination procedure outline to be included in NCWM Publication 12.

Performance Tests for Electronic Vehicle On-Board Weighing Systems

Note: These tests apply to systems such as lift truck scales, scales mounted on refuse vehicles, etc. It has generally been

agreed that scales with a capacity of 30 000 lb and less will be considered Class III since they would be used in a weighing

operation where a Class III scale would normally be used. Likewise, scales with a capacity of more than 30 000 lb will be

considered Class III L when they are used in a weighing operation where a Class III L scale would normally be used.

Field Testing

Because of the design of the device and/or abnormal test conditions, it may be necessary for the manufacturer, owner, or user

to supply special testing apparatus (mounting frames, test baskets, etc.) for testing purposes. Likewise, a normal size commercial wood skid can be used as the load receiving element for a lift truck scale under evaluation. As much testing as possible may be performed in a stationary condition to save evaluation time and other possible hardships. In most cases, as- used testing will have to be conducted.

1. Initial Field Verification Test

1.1. Test Considerations

As-used testing is very important for vehicle on-board weighing systems to properly simulate actual use conditions. As-used

conditions must be considered and tested when evaluating a system. Depending on the type of device, consider the following:

• Performance when the vehicle engine is running.

• Performance when the vehicle is moving.

169
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

• Test apparatus performance versus normal load receiver performance (e.g., test pan vs. refuse container). For ease and

safety reasons test apparatus may be used, but like performance must be verified.

• Depending on the type of vehicle and mounting of the on-board weighing system, consider performance when the wheels are on unlevel terrain and the frame is under a twisting effect.

• It may not be possible or advisable to use known test weights, so pre-weighed loads of varying weights need to be used

(e.g., a dynamic refuse dumping system).

• Load shift on dump systems such as refuse dumpers (pre-weighed sandbags may be used).

• It may not be possible to utilize known test weights to capacity or at all on some larger on-board systems (e.g., a 50 000-

Ib tank wagon). In these cases a platform scale, vehicle scale, or mass flow meter may need to be used.

• Locate a safe location for out-of-level testing (e.g., a remote ramp or parking lot).

1.2. Determine performance of the width of zero, center of zero, discrmiination near zero, center of zero, discrimination near

zero, and discrimination near capacity.

1.3. Increasing/Decreasing Load Test

Increasing/decreasing load tests shall be conducted using at least five test loads. When practical, these tests should include weights close to the upper range of each tolerance level.

Remember that decreasing load tests may be especially important for on-board weighing systems since they may be used to back-weigh.

1.5. Shift (off-center) Tests

1.5.1. Shift tests with one-half capacity test load centered in the center of each quadrant should be conducted.

1.5.2. Shift tests with one-quarter capacity test load placed on the comers should be conducted.

Note: The shift test for a vehicle on-board weighing system shall be conducted in a manner consistent with its normal use

(N.I.3.7.). Normal shift tests, as described above, may not be practical for some on-board weighing systems (e.g., when the load-receiving element is a home refuse container). These systems may be susceptible to off-center loading or to load

shifting, but it may be more practical to test for these circumstances during the as-used part of the evaluation.

1.6. Out-of-Level Tests

A vehicle on-board weighing system shall operate within tolerance when the weighing system is out of level up to 3 degrees

(or 5%) (S.2.4. 1.). The system is not prohibited from operating when out of level beyond 3 degrees (or 5%). However,

beyond the 3 degrees (or 5%), if the accuracy of the system is affected by out-of-level conditions normal to the use of the

device, the system shall be equipped with an out-of-level sensor that inhibits the weighing operation when the system is out of level to the extent that the accuracy limits are exceeded.

1.6.1. Place one side of the vehicle 3 degrees (or 5%) out-of-level. Conduct an increasing load test, decreasing load test, and

shift test. Additional tests need to be conducted to the extent that the system continues to operate while out-of-level in this direction.

1.6.2. Place the opposite side of the vehicle out-of-level 3 degrees (or 5%) and to the extent that the system continues to operate. Perform tests.

1.6.3. Place the front of the vehicle out-of-level 3 degrees (or 5%) to the extent that the system continues to operate. Perform

tests.

1.6.4. Place the back of the vehicle out-of-level 3 degrees (or 5%) and to the extent that the system continues to operate.

Perform tests.

170
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Discussion: No unfavorable comments were received on this issue and the Committee believes that the test procedures are ready to be included in NCWM Publication 12.

Based upon comments received from the regional associations, the Committee modified the test procedures originally

considered to clarify the application of the procedures to both increasing and decreasing load tests. The Committee

recognized that the test procedures must reflect the intended use of the device. For example, some on-board weighing systems

may be used predominantly in a decreasing direction; the test procedures should include sufficient test points in the decreasing

direction to ensure an adequate test.

320-2 V Concentrated Load Capacity; Declaration of Other Than Dual-Axle

Configurations

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-8

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph, UR.3.2.1, to the Scales Code as follows:

UR.3.2.1. Maximum Loading for Vehicle Scales. - A vehicle scale shall not be used to weigh loads exceeding the

maximum load capacity of its span as specified in Table UR.3.2.1.

Add a new table, Table UR.3.2.1., to the scales code as shown in Appendix A.

Discussion: The Committee reviewed an "r" factor proposal from Cardinal Scales. The Cardinal proposal is essentially the same as the original 'V factor proposal except that it simplifies the procedure by dividing the FHA Bridge Weight Formula

table by 34 000 lb, thus eliminating a step to obtain the "r" factor.

The Committee supports the Cardinal proposal and believes that the determination of the maximum load of the span (distance

between load bearing points) using table UR.3.2.1. will aid the user in selecting a suitable scale based on their weighing

needs. Additionally, this approach should help prevent manufacturers from declaring a CLC that is not representative of the

scale's actual weighing capability. The "r" factor will not be required to be marked on the scale since it is derived from the CLC and CLC is required to be marked on the scale; however, the table of multipliers will be included in Handbook 44 as a new table UR.3.2. 1 . (Note: The values in the third column with footnotes correspond to the maximum loads in which the inner bridge dimensions of 36, 37, and 38 ft are considered to be equivalent to 39 ft, allowing a weight of 68 000 lb on axles 2 through 5. The 48 ft and 53 ft vans are long enough to not require a bridge exception).

A proposal from Thurman Scale Company, which was previously reviewed by the Committee, was withdrawn by Thurman

prior to the 1996 Interim Meeting and was not considered by the Committee.

Instructions for using Table UR.3.2.1

1 . Determine the scale's CLC.

For example, consider a scale with a CLC of 80 000 lb

2. Count the number of axles on the vehicle in a given span and determine the distance in feet between the first and

last axle in the span.

For example, 5 axles and 40 feet between axle 1 and axle 5

3. Multiply the CLC by the corresponding multiplier in the table.

In our example, this would correspond to: 80 000 lb x 2.147 = 171 760 lb

4. The resulting number is the scale's maximum concentrated load for a single span based on the vehicle configuration.

171
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

At the 1996 Annual Meeting, the Committee considered other changes submitted by Scale Manufacturer's Association,

including changes to paragraph N. 1 .3.4. and the addition of a definition for "r factor." However, the Committee felt that these changes were too significant to include in the Committee's recommendation without additional study and review by the NCWM membership.

Background information from past Committee discussions of this issue are included below for reference.

Background At the 1995 Annual meeting, the Committee considered two proposals for establishing the ratings of vehicle configurations other than dual axle load ratings: (1) The use of the FHA Bridge Gross Weight Formula B and an "r" factor as a means for establishing these ratings, as discussed in the Committee's 1994 Final Report; and (2) Permitting other axle configurations as a percentage of the declared CLC, as proposed by Thurman Scale in the Committee's 1995 Interim Agenda.

The Committee heard a presentation from Bruce Reirson, Mettler-Toledo supporting the use of the FHA Bridge Gross Weight

Formula and the "r" factor.

Comments during the open session indicated concern over the exaggeration of CLC ratings and ratings for other axle configurations in advertisements. Vehicle scale users indicated that they would like to have a meaningful way to equitably

compare vehicle scales and determine whether or not the scale is suitable for the intended application. Some comments

supported the use of the bridge formula and the "r" factor as a reasonable way for uniformly rating scales; other comments

indicated that the bridge formula is not appropriately applied to the design of scales.

Group of Two Axles Provides Basisfor Comparisons

For the 1994 Interim Meeting, the Committee received a proposal to relate axle loads and the different vehicle axle configurations through the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B and an "r factor." The

Committee received a second proposal suggesting that a separate definition for a dual axle rating be added to Handbook 44

and that the definition of CLC be modified so that it applied to only the test of a scale. The Committee opposed a separate

definition for a dual axle rating because it had always intended for the CLC and axle-load ratings to be the same. However,

since the defmition of CLC did not address the various axle configurations, the Committee decided to specify in the definition that the CLC is to be established based upon a group of two axles with a specific spacing. This is an effort to provide a

consistent basis for manufacturers to rate their scales. The axle spacing is for rating the scale with its CLC; it does not restrict the types of vehicles that may be weighed on the scale provided that the loading does not exceed the corresponding axle load weights computed from the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B (see below).

Other Axle Configurations

The Committee concluded that the "r" factor had merit, but decided not to include it in Handbook 44 due to concern that it may be too complex for field enforcement and the ratings would be difficult to assess. However, the "r" factor may be a basis for scale purchasers to compare CLC ratings for vehicle scales and to relate the CLC to the types of vehicles and axle configurations that will be weighed by the scale owner. Since the factor and the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B establishes a way to convert axle ratings for groups of more than two axles to an equivalent rating

for a group of two axles, the Committee decided to specify that tlie CLC be based upon a group of two axles with the specified

spacing. Consequently, scale companies may use the "r" factor to relate the CLC rating to vehicles with other axle configurations to aid the scale purchaser to select the appropriate scale for the application.

To make the relationship of the "r" factor available for comparison purposes, the relationship of the "r" factor and the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B is stated below.

Scale Load Limits. - The manufacturer shall specify the scale load limits for consecutive vehicle axles according to the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B, as modified by the "r" factor":

where W is the maximum load in pounds carried on any group of two or more consecutive axles;

r is the factor assigned by the manufacturer that specifies the maximum load;

172
specifications and Tolerances Committee

L is the distance in feet between the first and last axle of that group; and

N is the number of axles of that group, where N ^ 2.

For a single axle, the weight limit is W = r x 20 000.

320-3 W Markings on Load Cells

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-1

1

Discussion: The Committee reviewed a proposal to add the following sentence to Note 1 1 of Handbook 44 Scales Code

Table S.6.3. (b):

Effective January 1, 19XX, all required markings will be placed directly on the load cell. An accompanying document

may no longer be substituted. Nonretroactive as of January 1 , 1 9XX.

The Committee believes that requiring all marking requirements to be placed on the load cell is unreasonable due to die limited space on some load cells. Further, some scales cannot be designed to have the marking information on the load cells accessible, so marked. information would not be available to the field inspector. Several States have indicated that the accompanying docimient is a necessary tool, especially in instances where inspectors are prohibited from entering scale pits

due to safety rules and regulations and when the load cell marking information is not accessible due to the design of the scale. The proposal was submitted in part because the accompanying document is not always left at the scale site or is lost before

the weights and measures inspection. The Committee recognizes this problem, but believes that the proposed requirement

would not conect that situation. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn this item from its agenda.

320-4 W Marking of Scale Multiples

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-12

Discussion: The Committee reviewed a proposal to add a nonretroactive requirement to specify that the scale multiple must

be marked on the device if the multiple is greater than 1 ; this requirement would have been be added under the category of

"Weighing and load-receiving element not permanently attached to indicating element."

Since the proposed requirement was nonrefroactive, the proposal would not have required the multiple to be marked on

devices already in service. Thus, it would not have solved the problem for which it was proposed. For this reason, the Committee withdrew the item from its agenda. The Committee suggests that weights and measures jurisdictions work with

the service firms in their area to obtain the scale multiples when scales are converted from mechanical to electro-mechanical.

320-5 W UR.X. Position of Equipment - Indicating Element; Vehicle Scales

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Southern "Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: A proposal was submitted to add a new user requirement to the Scales Code requiring the indicating element on vehicle scales used in direct sales to be visible from the driver's position.

This item was withdrawn by the Committee. The Committee supports the intent of the proposal, but feels that it is not

necessary to create another requirement to address this issue. General Code requirement G-UR.3.3. Position of Equipment

173
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

is applicable to vehicle scales and may be used to require the indicating element of a vehicle scale to be visible from a reasonable customer position. The customer position in most cases will be the driver's seat. Consequently, firms requiring

the truck driver to remain in the truck during the weighing process and whose indicating element is not visible from the truck,

may be required to use a remote indicating element (e.g., a scoreboard display). The Committee also recommends that the EPO's for vehicle scales be updated to reference G-UR. 3.3. Position of Equipment.

The Committee was asked whether or not a truck stop scale used to determine axle-weights is a direct sale and should have

its indicating element visible to the truck driver during the weighing process. The Committee does not believe that type of

weighing operation is a direct sale and because the weight of the truck is what is essentially being sold to the truck driver,

it is not feasible to require that the indicating element be visible during the weighing operation.

320-6 V Amend S.5.4.'s to Exempt Complete Scales and Weighing Elements

(This item was adopted.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee, Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Amend Section S.5.4. Relationship of Load Cell Verification Interval Value to the Scale Division, by

adding the following additional paragraph after the formulae:

This requirement does not apply to complete scales and weighing elements which satisfy the following criteria:

(1) The device has been evaluated for compliance with T.N.8.1. Temperature under the National Type Evaluation

Program (NTEP);

(2) The device has received an NTEP Certificate of Conformance; and

(3) The device must be equipped with an automatic zero-setting mechanism which cannot be made inoperative in the normal weighing mode. (A test mode which permits the disabling of the automatic zero-setting mechanism is permissible, provided the scale cannot function normally while in this mode.)

Discussion: Tlie Committee supports the proposal as written. Part 3 of the proposal was changed at the Interim Meeting to

clarify the intent of the Weighing Sector. Some additional changes were made at the Armual Meeting for further clariiy the permissible operation of the device in the test mode. The original wording left some question as to whether or not the scale could have a feature that would allow the user to disable AZSM. The intent of the Weighing Sector was to have AZSM

functioning at all times since this feature is used to enhance the performance of the load cell and disabling it may

detrimentally affect the scale's performance. A test mode which permits the disabling of the AZSM is permissible, but the

scale shall not function normally when in this mode.

The minimum load cell verification interval is a value determined by a load cell manufacturer for which its load cell will comply with the temperature effects on zero requirement (see item 320-7). Occasionally, NTEP will receive a request from

a manufacturer for type evaluation of a complete scale or weighing element that does not comply with the formulae in the Handbook.

NTEP has required the scale manufacturer to use load cells that comply with the fonnulae because devices submitted to NTEP

must comply with the applicable requirements of the Handbook. Scale manufacturers contend that the formulae should not be applied to complete devices or weighing elements undergoing type evaluation provided certain conditions are met. Their

justification is: (1) that while they do not comply with the formulae, the device is tested for compliance with the temperature

requirements to determine if it is accurate over the temperature range and that should be sufficient; (2) the use of an automatic

zero-setting mechanism (AZSM) can be used to enhance the performance of the device in relation to the temperature effect on zero; and (3) the formulae are not applicable to devices using non-NTEP load cells since the v^j„ value is not required

to be declared or marked on non-NTEP load cells.

174
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

NTEP believes these are valid arguments; however, since the Handbook does not currently make an exception for these devices neither can NTEP. The issue was put forth to the Weighing Sector whose members agreed that an exemption should

be made for NTEP scales and weighing elements using an AZSM under the conditions specified in the proposal and asked

that the S&T Committee consider amending the Handbook.

320-7 VC Definition for Load Cell Verification Division (v„in)

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee, Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Add the following definitions of Load Cell Verification Interval and Minimum Load Cell Verification

Interval (v„jn) to the Defmitions section of Handbook 44:

load cell verification interval (v). The load cell interval, expressed in units of mass, used in the test of the load cell for accuracy clas5ification.f2.20. 2.21)

minimum load cell verification interval (V n, J. The smallest load cell verification interval into which the load cell measuring range can be divided. [2.20. 2.21]

Discussion: Tne Committee supports this item, noting that the terms "v" and "v„i„" are referenced in NIST Handbook 44

and NCWM Publication 14, but are not defuied. The Committee believes that future consideration should be given to including the definitions for n„„ and e^j^ and including cross references to the definitions for d, e, and n.

320-8 VC Amend UR.4.3 Scale Modification to Include Platform Thickness

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee, Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Amend UR.4.3. Scale Modification as follows to include the thickness of concrete scale platforms.

UR.4.3. Scale Modification,- The length or the width dimensions (e.g.. length, width, thickness, etc) of the load

receiving element of a scale shall not be inc reased changed beyond the manufacturer's specifications-design

di mensions, nor shall the capacity of a scale be increased beyond its design capacity by replacing or modifying the

original primary indicating or recording element with one of a higher capacity, except when the modification has

been approved by a competent engineering authority, preferably that of the engineering department of the manufacturer of the scale, and by the weights and measures authority having jurisdiction over the scale.

Discussion: The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) supported this item at the Interim Meeting, but suggested different wording. The Committee supports the proposed language as amended by SMA. The Committee believes that the amended

proposal meets the intent of the Weighing Sector and is clearer and simpler than the wording originally proposed.

The thickness of a concrete load-receiving element is sometimes changed from that which was submitted for the NTEP type

evaluation to accommodate existing installations and different weighing applications. Scale manufacturers present at the fall NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting acknowledged this practice, but contend that it is necessary and that there is an acceptable range of platform thickness that can be tolerated without affecting the scale's structural integrity or performance. However,

they also noted that changing the thickness beyond acceptable limits could adversely affect the scale.

While the manufacturer may be aware of the platform thickness limits of its scale, distributors, scale repair firms, and other

parties who may be requested to alter the thickness might not be aware of these limits. Consequently, the Weighing Sector asked the S&T Committee to consider including platform thickness to UR.4.3 Scale Modification.

175
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-9 VC Amend N.1.3.6.1. In-Motion Monorail Scales

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Add a test note as follows for In-Motion Monorail Scales:

N.1.3.6.1. Ill-Motion Monorail Scales.- Dynamic Tests with Livestock Carcasses: The dynamic test should be

conducted to duplicate actual use conditions. No less than 20 carcasses of the type normally weighed shou id be used

in the dynamic test; two additional carcasses may be included in the test run for use in the event that 1 or Z carcasses are rendered unusable during the dynamic test. Prior to starting the dynamic test, the test carcasses must be

positioned far enough ahead of the scale so that their swaying motion settles to duplicate the normal sway of a continuously-running plant chain. If the plant conveyor chain does not space or prevent the carcasses from touching one another, dynamic tests should not be conducted until this condition has been corrected.

All carcasses shall be individually weighed statically (after an accurate static test with test weights) on either the same

scale being tested dynamically or another monorail scale with the same or smaller divisions and in close proximity.

If multiple dynamic tests are conducted using the same carcasses, static weights should be obtained before and after the multiple dynamic tests. If a carcass changes weight between static tests, the amount of the weight change should

be taken into account or the carcass should be disregarded for tolerance purposes. It is preferable to use the gross weight of thecarcass and trolley for the dynamic test.

Discussion: The Committee supports this item. It was submitted because there is not a test procedure in the Handbook for in-motion mororail scales. In-motion monorail scales need to be tested as used because of the dynamic effects from weighing

in motion. TliC test results from static testing do not reflect the actual performance of the device when it is used to weigh

carcasses in motion. The addition of a test procedure to the Handbook will provide inspectors with a test procedure in a document thai they already possess and ensure uniformity in test methods

The Committee recognizes that some existing scale systems cannot physically accommodate 20 carcasses at one time. In these cases the Committee suggests that the maximum number of carcasses that can be accommodated by the system be used

until 20 weighments are achieved. This may entail, for example, using 4 groups of 5 carcasses or 5 carcasses 4 times to obtain

the 20 weighnents. Since the test procedure is designed to simulate acmal use, consideration should be given to obtaining

the 20 weighments without stopping and starting the system. Installations or existing installations which undergo major

overhauls or renovations should be designed to accommodate at least 20 carcasses. A "rail-out and around" area with a checking scale installed is the preferred installation for in-motion monorail scales.

At the 1996 Annual Meeting the Committee made some additional changes to the proposed language based on w ritten input

received fron: the USDA Grain Inspection Packers & Stockyards Administration and comments received during the open

hearings.

320-10 W Add S.l.l.l.(c) to Specifications Section

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: At the 1996 Interim Meeting, the Committee considered a proposal to place an identical requirement to T.N. 8. 1.4. in the Specifications section of the Scales Code numbering it as S. 1.1.1. (c) as follows:

S.l .1.1. (c) Except for Class I and II devices, and indicating or recording element shall not display nor record any usable values until the operating temperature necessary for accurate weighing and a stable zero balance condition have been

attained.

176
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The original justification for moving T.N. 8. 1.4. from the T.N. section to the Specifications section was that it was a design

requirement and not a performance requirement. The Committee did not agree and initially decided to withdraw the item

and retain T.N.8.1.4. in the T.N. section. However, further justification was provided to the Committee which prompted it to propose adding an identical requirement to the Specifications section. The Committee was not unanimous in its decision

to incorporate T.N.8.1.4. into the Specifications section.

The justification provided by the Central for adding an additional requirement to the Specifications section is that scales used

at some fruit stands and livestock markets indicate usable, but out-of-tolerance, weight indications before they are at the proper operating temperature. Once the devices warm up they operate within tolerances. Since T.N. 8. Influence Factors

states that the requirements are to be conducted under controlled conditions only, the Weights and Measures Officials did not

feel they could apply that section as a basis for rejecting the scales.

The Committee oelieves that the devices could be rejected for exceeding accuracy requirements, but understands the concern and confusion created by the situation. At the Interim Meeting, the Committee supported adding the requirement to the Specifications section to provide the weights and measures official with an additional tool for addressing the problem.

However, the Committee at received comment at the Annual Meeting from the regional weights and measures association which originally submitted the proposal indicating that the regional association no longer supports the item. In addition, the Committee received no comments during its open hearing to support the item. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn

the item from its agenda.

Liquid-Measuring Devices

330-1 V T.2.3.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems;

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 330-3A

Recommendation: Modify paragraph T.2.3.4. as follows to allow for the use of small volume provers in official tests:

T.2.3.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. - TIte difference between tite meter error (expressed as a percentage) for results determined with and without the automatic temperature compensatiitg system activated sltall not

exceed:

(a) 0.2 percent ofthe test draftfor mechanical automatic temperature compensating systems; and

(b) 0. 1 percent ofthe test draftfor electronic automatic temperature compensating systems.

The delivered quantities for each test shall be approximately the same size. The results of each test shall be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance. [Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1988.J (Added 1987) (Amended 1992 and 1996>

Discussion: The Committee received clarification from Mr. Chuck Michell, Shell Oil Company, on the original intent of

paragraph T.2.3.4. for automatic temperature compensating systems. He noted that the requirement evolved because of the

inability to obtain a representative temperature from a separate prover during the metering of large volumes of product in loading rack applications. Additionally, he noted that application of a tolerance with respect to the accuracy of the temperature

probe is prohibited by what is often the absence of any visual means of reading a temperature probe. It was also pointed out

the small volume prover has the capability to indicate both net and gross. It was noted that a temperature difference of as little as 1 °F between the small volume prover and the meter under test can give invalid test results. In such instances, the

177
Specifications and Tolerances Comminee

temperature and pressure of the small volume prover and the meter must be brought into equilibrium to ensure valid test

results.

It was suggested that performing tests with and without the automatic temperature compensating system activated were

nonessential in he evaluation of these devices. This proposal was supported with the argument that testing with these systems

deactivated did not demonstrate an "as used" condition of the device. However, it was noted that this procedure had merit

because it provided information on the meter performance and maintenance and whether or not the automatic temperature

compensating system is being adjusted to correct for meter error.

The Committee's Canadian Technical Advisor noted that the Examination Procedure Outline (EPO) Number 25 describes

test procedures with and without the automatic temperature compensating (ATC) system activated. It was also noted that there are numerous factors in these test procedures which account for a relatively high level of uncertainty, and thus require a larger tolerance for the ATC. Some examples of the factors which contribute to uncertainty are the inaccuracy of the ATC

system, the meter's inability to repeat indications, temperature differences at the meter and prover, and systematic errors within the instrumentation for reading pressure, temperature and volume. It was pointed out that many electronic measuring

devices or systems intended to be tested with small volume provers have the capability to display and print both compensated

and uncompensated volume for a single run. The Committee heard the suggestion that the test procedure be revised to allow

for a procedure in which both the compensated and uncompensated ATC tests are performed during one single run, thus reducing some of the uncertainties in the test method. It was felt that a tighter tolerance for ATC's may be achievable and

warranted if some of the uncertainties of the test method are reduced.

After lengthy discussion, the Committee decided that the test for automatic compensating systems should be retained and that the requirement must be modified to address the applicable sections ofNIST Handbook 44 on the special minimal size of the small volume prover test draft. Initial discussions focused on the small volume (e.g., 10 gallons) of each pass through the prover and determining a sufficient number of passes to be required by the prover in relation to the inconsistent amount of

product the meter measures with each run. This generated a question as to which test draft amount should the tolerances be

applied to in Liquefied Petroleum Gasoline Meter applications. It was noted that the current practice is to apply the tolerance

to the indicated amount which yields the larger permissible tolerance to the meter. The Committee concluded that changes were needed in what defines a "test draft", not the "test draft" size, which is used the evaluation of a metering system. Based

on meeting discussions the Committee decided the amended language should read "delivered quantity" which would cover

all applications.

The tolerance specified in T.2.3.4. limits the difference in performance between a test with the automatic temperature

compensator activated and a test with the automatic temperature compensator deactivated. It is important to eliminate other

variables such as flow rate or test quantity so that differences observed are attributed to the effects of the temperature

compensator.

The Committee received comments at the Annual Meeting indicating that some jurisdictions use two different size provers

in the testing of a meter. (For example, two different size provers may be mounted on the same trailer and the jurisdiction uses both provers in the course of the test to minimize evaluation time.) Because of the importance of eliminating other

variables in the test process, the Committee decided to recommend the addition of language to the paragraph to emphasize

the need to keep the test quantities the same when comparing compensated and uncompensated runs.

Background The following discussion is excerpted from the 1994 S&T Committee's fmal report as background information.

The S&T Committee originally specified the tolerance for automatic temperature compensating systems in terms of the meter

test results for compensated and uncompensated runs because the temperature probe is often at a considerable distance from

the meter in many loading rack systems. In addition, many installations do not have a thermometer well adjacent to the temperature probe that can be used to compare the accuracy of the system temperature probe to a reference thermometer.

The normal test draft for the application of the tolerance is a neck-type, large volume prover.

The Committee received comments indicating that the tolerance expressed in T.2.3.4. is not practical when small volume

provers are used. The Committee understands the term "small volume prover" to refer to a compact prover rather than to a neck-type prover of a smaller capacity. Due to the small size of the test draft when small volume provers are used, the tolerance as a percentage of the test draft is too small to be used to check the accuracy of the temperature probe. The

178
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Committee was aslced to consider expressing the tolerance for a temperature probe in degrees, such as 1 °C (2 °F),

particularly when small volume provers are used to test meters, and to consider specifying all tolerances for automatic

temperature compensating systems as a temperature value instead of a deviation in the test results for the compensated and

imcompensated test results.

Some members of industry expressed opposing views to these comments, indicating that evaluating the performance of the temperature probe alone and permitting a tolerance of 2 °F is excessive, suggesting that the proposal would inappropriately

relax the tolerances. Comments at the Interim Meeting indicated that it is reasonable to specify a tolerance for the temperature

probe, but the variance should be no more than 0.5 °C or 1 °F.

The API provided to the S&T Committee four sections from its Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards to assist the Committee in its understanding of the design and use of small volume provers. The Committee received input concerning

typical sizes of small volume provers and has identified typical configurations used in the applications addressed by paragraph

T.2.3.4.

The Committee also received information from Mr. Chuck Michell, Shell Oil Company, concerning the potential difference

in product temperature if the temperature probe for the metering system is not adjacent to the meter. He noted that API

Chapter 7.2 indicated "Where it is impractical to mount the temperature sensor in the meter it should be installed either immediately downstream or upstream of the meter... Where several meters are manifolded in parallel, one temperature sensor

located in the total liquid stream is acceptable,... providing the temperature agrees within 1 .0 °F of the meter temperature."

330-2 VC Recognition of Small Volume Provers in Routine Field Testing

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Canyover Item 330-3B

Amend paragraph N.3. as follows to recognize the minimal size of the small volume prover test draft:

N3. Test Drafts.

N.3.5. Wholesale Devices, - Test Drafts The delivered quantity should be equal to at least the amount delivered

by the device in 1 minute at its maximum discharge rate, and shall in no case be less than 200 L (50 gal).

(Amended 1987 and 1996>

Discussion: At the Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that the recognition of the small volume prover was a separate

issue from the determination of tolerances for systems equipped with temperature compensation. Consequently, a proposed

definition for "small volume prover" was moved from item 330-1 and originally included in this item; this definition was

modified from the version originally considered based upon comments made by Brooks Instruments to include small volume

provers with a volume between detectors eqidal to 100 gallons and to recognize metric equivalents. Although the Committee

originally considered adding this definition for "small volume prover" to the Definitions section of Handbook 44, the Committee's fmal recommendation to modify paragraph N.3.5. did not contain a reference to the term "small volume prover."

Consequently, the Committee deleted the proposed definition from its recommendation at the Annual Meeting.

Comments received at the Interim Meeting on this issue did include numerous cautions on the importance of establishing good

maintenance, training, and operating procedures for these devices. Overall, comments to the Committee on the issue of small volume prover performance and test data were generally in favor of recognizing this device in routine field testing operations.

S&T Committee members who have witnessed several small volume prover tests and demonstrations also had favorable comments.

At the Interim Meeting, the Committee expressed a desire to move forward in its recommendation that the small volume

prover be recognized for field testing at the 1996 NCWM Annual Meeting. The Committee noted that a draft version ofNIST

Handbook 105-7 (Specifications and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures 7.

179
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Specifications and Tolerances for Small Volume Prover Field Standards), revisions to NIST Handbook 145 ( Handbook for the Quality Assurance of Metrological Measurements), and Examination Procedure Outline Number 25 for Loading Rack

Meters, which collectively establish the criteria necessary to small volume prover recognition as a traceable standard and as a guide in field operation, are under review by the Metrologist's Group and the S&T Committee. The Committee expressed

hope that a fmal review of the device will be completed prior to the Aimual Meeting, and noted Aat, if that review is favorable, the Committee will proceed with its recommendation at that time.

The Office of Weights and Measures prepared a report in June 1996 analyzing the use ofthe small volume prover. This report

is included as part of the Metrologists's Report. The Committee wants to thank Georgia Harris for preparing this comprehensive and thorough report. The Committee appreciates the time that Georgia and the Metroiogists Group as well

as representatives from Brooks Instruments; members of the S&T Committee; the technical advisors from NIST OWM; and

the many others who have contributed thier time, effort, and devotion to this project.

The Committee urges all NCWM members and particularly the Executive Committee to review the report prepared by OWM

and to give particular attention to the special considerations listed in the report. Of significant concern is the need to devote

attention to the training of inspectors testing meters with all types of provers and to the laboratory equipment needs required

to maintain traceability of small volume provers and other test standards.

Background The following discussion is excerpted from the 1995 S&T Committee's fmal report as additional background

information on this issue.

This item was added to Committee's agenda as a result of discussion during the 1995 Interim Meeting. This item is related

to the woric in conjunction with 330-3A and was added as a separate item to highlight work on comparing the performance

of small volume provers with that of volumetric neck-type provers. Since this may result in the recommendation to revise Handbook 44 to recognize the use of small volume provers in routine field testing, the Committee wanted to inform NCWM

members and provide a forum reporting progress.

The issue of small volume provers was discussed at the October 1993 meeting of the National Type Evaluation Technical

Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector. Mr. Tim Scott, Brooks Instruments, is working on a project to compare the performance of a small volume prover with that of a conventional neck-type prover. It is expected that some of the

difficulties that might typically be encountered in tlie testing of temperature compensating systems when using a small volume

prover might be observed during this testing. It is noted that these devices are currently accepted for use in routine field tests by industry and in NTEP evaluations, and some weights and measures jurisdictions currently permit use of small volume

provers when witnessing tests of larger meters or meters that are used to deliver certain products. Mr. Scott seeks eventual NCWM acceptance through the NCWM Metroiogists' Group.

Comparison testing performed by Brooks Instruments has been witnessed by representative from Florida Weights and

Measures and also by Ron Murdock and other representative of North Carolina Division of Standards. These tests compared

the performance of small volume provers relative to the volumetric neck-type prover.

The calibration procedures for small volume provers must be done very carefully to obtain a valid calibration; proper

operation of small volume provers is very operator-dependent. Dr. George Mattingly, NIST, has said that companies

manufacturing small volume provers (piston provers) must participate in a round robin calibration to verify that the design

and calibrations of their small volume provers are correct.

330-3 I S.1.6.4.1. Unit Price Exceptions; Exclusions for Fleet Sales, Other Price

Contract Sales and Truck Refueling Dispensers

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association/Southern Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: The Committee is considering a recommendation to amend paragraph S.1.6.4.1 . as follows to correct inconsistencies betu'een the exclusion of fleet and price contract sales in the unit price posting requirements and other requirements in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code;

S.1.6.4.1. Unit Price.

ISO
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) Except for dispensers used exclustvelv for fleet sales, other price contract sales, or truck refueling Ce.f.. truck stop

dispensers used only to refuel trucks), ifa grade, brand, blend or mixture is offeredfor salefrom a device at more

than one unit price, then all ofthe unit prices at which that product is offeredfor sale shall be displayed or shall be

capable of being displayed on the dispenser using controls available to the customer prior to the delivery of the product, h is not necessary that all ofthe unit pricesfor all grades, brands, blends, or mixtures be simultaneously

displayed prior to the delivery ofthe product.

(Effective and nonretroactive as ofJanuary I, 1991.)

(Amended 1989 and 1996)

Discussion: In 1 99 1 , the NCWM amended paragraph S. 1 .6.5.4. to exempt dispensers used exclusively for truck refueling

from the requirement for user-activated controls. The rationale given for this decision was that there does not appear to be

a strong demand for user-activated controls on dispensers installed at truck stops. It should be noted that part of past S&T

Committee discussions of S. 1 .6.5. considered that truck stop dispensers had to compute at the unit prices at which the products

are offered for sale; however, the unit price selection did not have to be made through controls on the dispenser. The console

operator could select the unit price and transmit the information to the dispenser for the purpose of computing the total price

for the transaction. This discussion also applies to UR.3.2. which currently requires posting of unit prices.

Not all truck refueling is limited to fleet sales or prearranged price contracts, nor are all fleet sales or contract sales for truck

refueling. It is suggested that the same requirements and exemptions should apply to fleet sales, contract sales, and truck stop

dispensers used exclusively for refueling trucks, all of which serve similar customers.

The Committee received several proposals to amend the unit price requirements in the Liquid-Measuring Device Code

Sections. The Committee supports the Southern recommendation for changes to paragraph S. 1.6.4.1.

The Southem noted the original intent of past modifications to the unit pricing requirements in tiie Liquid-Measuring Devices

Code were made based on casL'credit pricing and the posting, selection, and display of unit prices on retail motor-fuel

devices. Additionally, some of these same paragraphs have exemptions for fleet and other price contract sales applications.

The Southem felt this has created confusion for weights and measures officials enforcing these requirements collectively.

The Southem recommendation received support from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Gasoline Pump

Manufacturers Association (GPMA).

The Central indicated there are inconsistencies in NIST Handbook 44 requirements for the display and computation of unit price in retail motor-fuel dispenser applications. The Central proposed an exemption to paragraph S. 1 .6.4. 1 . for truck stop

dispensers used solely to refuel trucks. It was felt the exemption would allow sufficient time for manufacturers to design

disp>ensers for truck stop operations that are not required to display multi-unit pricing information. The exclusion would also allow oral communication as a method of unit price selection. The Central acknowledged this may necessitate a new

requirement for these dispensers to be marked with a limitation of use to truck refueling only.

A third recommendation from Wisconsin Weights and Measures was to amend paragraph S. 1 .6.4. l.(b) to exclude fleet and

price contract sales operations until January 1, 1999 and to allow that same exclusion in paragraphs LfR.3.2.(a)(l) and

S. 1.6. 5. 4. to remain in effect until January 1, 1999. This change would ensure uniform application of the exclusion to all

retail motor-fuel dispensers imtil paragraph UR.3.3.(b) (which requires computing devices to be used only for sales in which

the device computes and displays the sales price for that transaction) becomes effective and retroactive on January 1, 1999.

TTie Committee also heard a suggestion to modify the language to include posting of the highest sales price.

Comments received during the 1996 Annual Meeting indicate that including the exemption to "truck refueling" in paragraph

S. 1.6.4.1. (b) would conflict with the intent of paragraph UR.3.3.(d). (Paragraph UR.3.3.(d) requires that a truck stop

dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks either comply with the requirements of paragraph S. 1 .6.4. 1 . or post the highest

price on the dispenser.) The Committee was not able to reach a clear consensus on whether or not a conflict actually exists and whether or not an exemption from both S.1.6.4.1.(b) and UR.3.3.(d) should be given to tmck stop dispensers used

exclusively for refueling trucks.

181
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Since the NCWM specifically voted in 1993 to include UR.3.3.(d), the Committee was reluctant to add language to

S. 1 .6.4. 1 .(b) wkich might create a conflict. Therefore, the Committee changed the status of this item to "Informational" status

until further study of the issue can be made and additional input obtained from NCWM members on whether or not such an exemption wo«ld be appropriate. The Committee encourages input on this issue from the regional associations; and from

manufacturers and users of the equipment.

330-4 VC S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price, S.1.6.5.5. Display of Quantity and Total

Price; User-Activated Controls

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Change "user-activated" to "customer-activated" in paragraphs S.1.6.5.4. and S.1.6.5.5 as follows:

S.1.6.5.4. Szlection of Unit Price. - Exceptfor dispensers used exclusivelyforfleet sales, other price contract sales, and

truck refueling (e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), when a product or grade is offeredfor sale at more than me unitprice through a computing device, the selection ofthe unit price shall be madeprior to delivery using

controls on the device or other uscr-aetivated customer-activated controls. A system shall not permit a change to the

unit price during delivery ofproduct

[Effective and nonretroactive as ofJanuary I, I991.J (Added 19?9)(Amended 1991, 1992,-afifJ 1993 and 1996>

S. 1.6.5. 5. Display of Quantity and Total Price. - When a delivery is completed, the total price and quantityfor that transaction shall be displayed on theface ofthe dispenserfor at least 5 minutes or until tlte next transaction is initiated by using controls on the device or other user-activated customer-activated controls. [Effective and nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1994.]

(Added 1992>(Amended 1996>

Discussions: The amendment to the paragraph is proposed to clarify that the "controls" pertain to those utilized by the customer zmd not the owner or operator.

During the Interim Meeting, Gilbarco acknowledged in a majority of cases, Handbook 44 users understood the term

"user-activated"; however, it was noted that the current language in paragraphs S.1.6.5.4. and S.1.6.5.5. requiring "useractivated" controls may be misinterpreted to apply to the owner or operator based on current references to "user requirements"

in Handbook 44. Paragraphs S.1.6.5.4. and S.l .6.5.5. relate to the design of a device; therefore, clarity in their application

is important tc equipment manufacturers.

The Committee confirmed that part of the original intent of paragraphs S. 1 .6.5.4. and S. 1 .6.5.5. was to help ensure that, for dispensers capable of multi-tier pricing, the customer using the device will be made aware of the unit price at which the device

is set to compute; the paragraph requires that the device be equipped with controls through which the customer selects the

unit price prior to the delivery. Paragraph S. 1 .6.5.5. was intended to further reduce the potential for fraud by requiring the dispenser to display that information for five minutes or until the next transaction is initiated, thus, giving the customer

additional time to gather transaction information.

The Committee also heard a suggestion that the term "customer" may need to be defined; however, the Committee felt that adding an additional definition was not warranted at this time.

182
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-5 I UR.3.4.X. Printed Ticket; Cash-, Credit Card-, or Debit Card- Activated

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: TTie Committee is considering the addition of a new paragraph as follows to require dispensers which

accept bank cards and/or cash to issue a printed ticket;

UR.3.4. 1 Ticket Requirement. - A device which is card and/or cash -activated shall be equipped with a ticket printer. Except

for fleet sales and other price contract sales, a printed receipt providing the following information shall be available for all transactions:

(a) the total volume/quantity of the delivery.

(b) the unit price.

(c) the total computed price.

(d) the product identity bv name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number.

(e) the date of the transaction.

(f) the identity of the seller, and

(g') except for cash-activated sales, the identity of the purchaser

Discussion: This proposal would establish requirements for a recording element and the specific transaction information to be recorded by retail motor-fuel dispensers which accept cash, credit cards and debit cards. The NTETC Measuring Sector has required a receipt for some time for card- and cash-activated retail motor-fuel dispensers. The existing criteria in Publication 14 for evaluation of cash-operated systems addresses attended locations only.

Weights and Measures officials indicate consumer complaints result when there is no record of the transaction to compare

with the credit card company billing statement. In the event of a cash transaction the consumer is left with no record to verify

any portion of the transaction.

The S&T Committee acknowledged the requirement for a record of sales information at card-activated dispensers installed

at unattended locations has not been addressed. The absence of an operator in unattended locations hinders the resolution of monetary discrepancies for the customer. It was suggested that the proposed requirements be incorporated into paragraph

S. 1.6.7.; however, it was pointed out that, consistent with Vehicle-Tank Meter Code, ticket requirements and other invoice code sections are found in the "User Requirements."

Comments received during the Interim Meeting from GPMA and a weights and measures representative, indicate that this requirement should apply to all installations regardless of whether the payment acceptor location is attended or unattended. A second recommendation was to include an additional requirement to identify the specific dispenser in the recorded

information. Based upon suggestions made at the Interim Meeting, the Committee modified section (a) of the proposed

paragraph to cover quantity of product delivered in alternative fueling operations.

Based upon its review of this issue at the 1996 Annual Meeting, the Committee felt that the requirements in UR.3.4. 1. should

be consistent with the criteria in NCWM Publication 14 (NTEP Checklist). Consequently the list of parameters required to be printed was expanded to include date, identity of seller and, in the case of credit sales, the purchaser.

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee also discussed the possibility of addressing these issues by modifying S. 1 .6.7. rather than UR..3.4.1 .; however, the Committee did not believe that it was appropriate to modify a different section of the Handbook

183
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

without circulating the issue before the regional associations and industry. The Committee plans to include an issue on its agenda for next year to explore similar modifications to S. 1.6.7.

The Committee acknowledged that there is difficulty in verifying this requirement during field testing because jurisdictions

do not possess "test" credit cards or debit cards. It was suggested that upon proper identification to the customer, officials may then review a copy of the customer's receipt.

Industry expressed concern that the proposed language might by interpreted as requiring each device to be equipped with a separate ticket printer. In addition, the Committee was advised there may be a conflict with UR.3.3. (c). UR.3.3 . (c) states that truck stop dispensers used exclusively for refueling trucks are exempt from the requirement which states that devices are

to be used only in sales for which the device computes and displays the sales price, provided that if all purchases are accompanied by a printed receipt containing the applicable price per gallon, total gallons delivered, and total price of the sale. The Committee also heard additional comments that this requirement is more appropriate as a specification rather than a user requirement. This issue was tabled for a period during the Committees voting session to enable the Committee to address

these concerns. After lengthy discussion the Committee found no conflict with UR.3.3. (c). However, it could not reach a clear consensus on the appropriate language which would clarify the exemptions to the requirement. Consequently, the NCWM voted to give this item informational status to allow additional study of the item.

330-6 VC S.3.1. Diversion Prohibited; Exception for Agri-Chemical Applications

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Amend paragraph S.3.1.(b) as follows to include an exception for agri-chemicals:

S.3.1. Diversion ofMeasured Liquid. - No means shall be provided by which any measured liquid can be diverted

from the measuring chamber of the meter or its discharge line.

(a) liquid can flow from only one outlet at a time, and

(b) the direction of flow for which the mechanism may be set at any time is clearly and conspicuously indicated.

A manually controlled outlet that may be opened for purging or draining the measuring system or for recirculating

product in suspension shall be permitted only when the system is measuring food products or agri-chemicals. Effective means shall be provided to prevent passage of liquid through any such outlet during normal operation of

the measuring system and to inhibit meter indications (or advancement of indications) and recorded representations

while the outlet is in operation.

(Amended 1991, ««d 1995, and 1996^

Discussion: At the 1995 NCWM Annual Meeting the Committee agreed to revisit paragraph S.3.1. by adding specific

product applications if they received adequate justification. Comments from the Central indicate that clay-based pesticides

in the marketplace are routinely recirculated to keep their active ingredient in the proper suspension. Because Handbook 44

requirements prohibit diversion of product, operators maintain product suspension by placing the delivery nozzle in the product tank and running product through the meter. This practice may necessitate the need for a longer hose to place the nozzle into the tank. In addition to the need for special hoses, this procedure creates a potential safety hazard by requiring the operator to climb to reach the tank opening and increasing the operator's exposure to hazardous chemicals.

During discussions at the Interim Meeting, some concern was expressed at the prospect of the list of products granted an exception to S.3.1. requirements becoming unwieldy. An additional comment was that perhaps this may be an issue thai should be addressed at the jurisdictional level. The Committee expressed a continued interest in establishing a definition for agri-chemical products. It was noted these substances often have multipurpose industrial uses which are determined by the product formulation. One point that was under consideration was that in paragraph S.3.2.(b) the exception for discharge

184
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

outlets 1 .5 inctes in diameter may already address agri-chemical applications. However, it was noted that many agri-chemical

operations die not fall into this category nor did this exemption exist in the Vehicle-Tank Meter Code. The Meter

Manufacturers Association supported the proposed changes to paragraph S.3.1. The Committee agreed agri-chemicals be

considered as an exception to paragraph S.3.1.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia

Liquid-Measuring Devices

332-1 V T.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Cair/over Item 332-1

Recommendation: Modify paragraph T.4. of the LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Code as follows to address the application

of tolerance when a small volume prover is used.

T.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. - The difference between the meter error (expressed as a percentage) for results determined with and without the automatic temperature compensating system activated shall not exceed:

(a) 0.5 percent of the test draft for mechanical automatic temperature compensating systems; and

(b) 0.25 percent of the test draft for electronic automatic temperature compensating systems.

The delivered quantities for each test shall be approximately the same size. The results of each test shall be within the

applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance. (Added 199i;(Amended 1992 and 1996)

Discussion: The proposed modifications to this paragraph will align the "test draft" requirements in the LMD and LPG and

Anhydrous Ammonia Code Sections to accommodate small volume prover applications. (See Item 330-1 for additional discussion on this item.)

The tolerance specified in T.4. limits the difference in performance between a test with the automatic temperature

compensator activated and a test with the automatic temperamre compensator deactivated. It is important to eliminate other variables such as flow rate or test quantity so that differences observed are attributed to the effects of the temperature

compensator.

The Committee received comments during the 1996 Annual Meeting indicating that some jurisdictions use two different size provers in the testing of a meter. (For example, two different size provers may be mounted on the same trailer and the

jurisdiction uses both provers in the course ofthe test to minimize evaluation time.) Because of the importance of eliminating

other variables in the test process, the Committee decided to recommend the addition of language to the paragraph to emphasize the need to keep the test quantities the same when comparing compensated and uncompensated runs.

See also additional discussion in Item 330-1 concerning the report prepared on the issue of small volume provers.

332-2 I T.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: The Committee is considering a recommendation to modify paragraph T.4. to change the difference between the meter error from 0.5 percent and 0.25 percent to 1.0 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively, for automatic

185
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

temperature-compensating systems. (Note: Tlie Committee recommended changes to paragraph T.4. to accommodate tests performed with small volume provers under agenda Item 332-1.)

T.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. - The difference between the meter error for results determined with

and without the automatic temperature compensatmg system activated shall not exceed:

(a) Orf Lfl percent of the test draft for mechanical automatic temperature compensating systems; and

(b) 0:3f 0^ percent of the test draft for electronic automatic temperature compensating systems.

The results of each test shall be within tlie applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance. (Added 1 991 )(Amended 1992 and 1996)

Discussion: Maryland Weights and Measures reports that its records indicate a 1 00 percent increase in the failure rate for

liquefied petroleum gas liquid-measuring devices after the implementation of the 0.5 percent and 0.25 percent requirement.

In addition, Maryland noted the unstable nature of the product propane and the inherent uncertainties within the testing

procedure make these tolerances too struigent. The example cited was a test using a 100-gallon standard with meter errors of +0.3 gallons and -0.3 gallons for temperature-compensated and non-temperature-compensated tests; these runs would meet

the acceptance tolerance for a normal test (0.6 percent or 0.6 gallons), but would fail T.4.

Past tolerances adopted by the Committee were adjusted proportionately to meter tolerances for the compensated and

uncompensated applications Originally the intent was to limit the amount of error in an automatic temperature compensating

system without creating a separate test on the temperature probe. This established error was equivalent to an acceptable

corresponding temperature error in the temperature probe. Eventually in 1992, the Committee adopted tolerances which

aligned Handbook 44 with Canadian and OlML requirements. These new tolerances were tighter because they reflected the more stringent Canada/OIML requirements for temperature sensors.

Additionally, it is recommended that this paragraph be amended to accommodate the special minimal size of the small volume

prover test draft. (See Item 330-1 for additional discussion of this issue.)

Comments submitted to the Committee by weights and measures officials did not indicate a clear consensus on the ability

of these devices to attain the tolerances in T.4. In its review of this item the Committee considered the device performance

characteristics and that the performance of the device is operator dependent. The Committee also discussed a suggestion

made at the Interim Meeting to use a single, tighter tolerance for both mechanical and electronic automatic temperature

compensating systems, respectively; however, the Committee anticipates mechanical devices may have difficulty in meeting

the tighter tolerances, and a single tolerance for all devices would, therefore, not be practical. In light of the comments

received at tlie Interim Meeting and the predisposition of devices to underegister on delivery the Committee originally decided

to support the proposed changes to T.4.

Comments during the open hearing at the 1996 Annual Meeting indicated that a clear lack of consensus still exists on this issue among NCWM members. Several jurisdictions agreed to conduct further studies to determine if there are variables

which influence a meter's ability to attain the 0.5 percent and 0.25 percent maintenance and acceptance tolerances,

respectively. Pending additional study by the weights and measures jurisdictions of California, Maryland, and other interested

states die Committee has given this item informational status. The Committee encourages participation in this study by other

jurisdictions and interested parties.

Mass Flow Meters

337-1 1 IIR.3.7. Return of Product to Storage; Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers

Source: Carryover Item 337-4

Recommendation: The Committee is considering the addition ofa new paragraph to the Mass Flow Meters Code as follows:

186
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.3.7. Return of Product to Storage, Retail Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers. - Provisions shall be made for returning

product to storage during testing operations.

Discussion: At the Interim Meeting, the committee expressed its belief that this item is a safety concern to weights and

measures officials and industry representatives and therefore, should receive priority status. It also believes the technology

already exists to permit return of CNG product after completion of the testing process. The method for return of product

should be determined by the user. Because the Committee was unanimous in its concern for this requirement, it crigmally

recommended this item become a retroactive requirement.

Comments indicate that the Western supported the proposal as a retroactive requirement. The Southern supported this item

as proposed, however, it was suggested the proposal be given informational status pending additional studies which can

identify methods for return of CNG product to storage.

During the Interim Meetings, the Committee was advised that a subgroup from the NTETC Measuring Sector is currently

reviewing a proposed procedure to address the return of product during the testing of compressed natural gas meters. The

proposed procedures will be reviewed by the Committee prior to the Annual meeting.

Annual Meeting: In June 1996, the National Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC) sponsored a meeting to develop field test procedures for compressed natural gas dispensers and to discuss Item 337-1 on the S&T Committee's agenda. The meeting was attended by the Chairman of the S&T Committee in addition to weights and measures officials, members of industry,

and users of compressed natural gas dispensers. At that meeting, a consensus could not be reached on how best to address

the issue of returning product to storage. It was noted that a number of possible methods exist and that different methods may

be used at different installations. The group expressed a particular concern about the safety issues surrounding this issue and

emphasized the importance of establishing procedures which will not create unsafe conditions nor create environmental

issues. Industry representatives in the group noted the importance of ensuring that each site is evaluated by a regulatory

agency such as the fire marshal's office to ensure that all safety issues have been addressed for the specific installation. Weights and measures officials expressed concern that safety evaluations of these installations by such agencies is often delayed well past the date that the devices are placed into service because of the heavy workload of these agencies. Since

the NGVC's Technical Committee NGV4 is plaiming to meet at the end of July 1996, it was suggested that this group might

be better able to refine the possible approaches to safely discharge the product after testing since the group is very familiar with the technology and the restrictions to be addressed when working with the product.

The Committee received a letter from National Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC) affirming that the Coalition's Technical

Subcommittee NGV4 plans to discuss the return to storage issue at its meeting at the end of July 1996. The NGVC committee

asked the Committee to consider returning the issue to an informational status pending this meeting. The NGVC believe that they can develop safe, cost-effective, and technically sound solutions for dealing with this issue from a systems approach.

The S&T Committee heard testimony from several weights and measures jurisdictions emphasizing the safety concerns

surrounding this issue and these jurisdictions voiced the need to move forward as quickly as possible to prevent injury to the

field ofTicial. V/hile the Committee was reluctant to delay the issue further, the Committee was uncertain whether or not the proposed change to UR.3.7. would fully address the safety concerns as it is currently written. Consequently, the Committee

decided to return the item to "Informational" stams to allow the NGVC Subcommittee additional time to develop an alternate proposal. The Committee takes this action with the understanding that the Subcommittee will return to the NCWM soon after their July 1996 meeting with possible solutions to be circulated among the regional weights and measures associations and

possibly included in a draft examination procedure outline for trial use by field staff.

Background. The following excerpts from the 1995 S& T Committee final report are included for background information on this item:

In 1994, the NCWM adopted requirements to address the sale and delivery of compressed natural gas (CNG). At that time,

the Laws and Regulation Committee suggested that a user requirement be added to Handbook 44 for provisions to be made

for returning product used in testing to storage at all retail CNG locations. Weights and measures officials now encounter

installations without a way to return product to storage once cylinders have been filled during the testing process. In some

cases, device owners and servicepersons vent the product into the atmosphere to empty the cylinder used in the testing process. Weights and measures officials have expressed concern over the safety and environmental impact of this practice;

187
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

however, there are no Handbook 44 requirements to require means to return product to storage. The L&R Committee noted

that the Environmental Protection Agency has no specific regulation requiring the return of CNG test product to storage,

although air quality can be preserved only by eliminating venting to the atmosphere. Initial discussions with the Natural Gas

Vehicle Coalition indicates that similar concerns may be shared by their members and that no significant opposition to such

a proposal is anticipated.

The 1995 NCWM Aimual Meeting concluded with recommendations firom industry and weights and measures officials that additional study was needed to identify how the product will be returned to storage and what restrictions such as pressure might prove to create problems in returning product to storage.

Grain Moisture Meters

356-1 VC Elimination of Retroactive Dates; Effective for Devices Placed into Service

after January 1, 1998

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee, Grain Moisture Meter Sector

Recommendation: Reorganize Section 5.56 Grain Moisture Meters as shown in Appendices C and D into (1) Section 5.56(a) to address NTEP grain moisture meters and any grain moisture meter manufactured or placed into service after January 1, 1998; and (2) Section 5.56(b) to address all non-NTEP grain moisture meters manufactured or placed into service prior to January 1, 1998.

Discussion: At its September 1995 meeting, the Grain Moisture Meter Sector notes that with retroactive dates removed in 1995, the Code is very hard to interpret and seems to contain contradictory requirements in many areas. It was generally

agreed that even with editorial "patches" to these areas, the resulting code would be very confusing and diiTicuU to interpret

properly. The Sector suggested that the code be reorganized into two sections, one applicable to meters placed into service before January 1, 1998 (otlier than those certified as meeting NTEP requirements), and another applicable to NTEP meters and to all other meters placed into service after January 1, 1998. The Sector asked the S«&T Committee to consider the reorganization of the code and to allow the Sector editorial review of those changes.

The Conunittee has heard no opposition to the proposed reorganization of the code. The Committee agrees with the Sector's recommendation to reorganize the Grain Moisture Meter Code to ensure these requirements will be properly applied to the appropriate generation of meters in commercial operations. NIST Technical Advisors agreed to submit a draft code for review at the Sectors' 1996 March Meeting, in anticipation of having proposed language for a vote at the 1996 NCWM

Annual Meeting.

The reorganization of the code into the two parts considered by the Commitlee at the Annual Meeting, consisted of largely

editorial changes to separate the code into two parts. However, there were a small number of changes which were more than

strictly editorial in nature. For the convenience of NCWM members in their review of the two separate codes, the Committee

has highlighted these additional changes in the following two tables.

The Committee also considered a suggestion from the Sector to change the sentence in Section S.1.3.(d) of 5.56(a) reading

" The minimum temperature difTerence shall be 10°C (degree Celsius)" to read "Tlie minimum temperature difference shall be 10 Celsius degrees." Tlie Committee decided not to make this change because: (1) NIST Special Publication 81 1 "Guide

for the Use of the International System of Units (SI)" recommends the use of degree Celsius (°C) for a temperature interval or a temperature difference; and (2) this would not be consistent with existing NIST HB 44 language.

188
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

NIST Handbook 44 Section 5.56(a) Grain Moisture Meters

Additional Comments on Editorial Changes

| No Location of Change Comments

|

1 New Sections. 12. Grain

or Seed Kind and Class

Selection and Recording

A HB 44 editorial comment was submitted to NIST, OWM that pointed out a conflict in the existing Code.

Old Section S. 1.6.1 (New S.1.2.) and the associated tables are in conflict. The code states . . using a minimum of four characters .

. " the table gives examples of three characters. An editorial change was made to eliminate this conflict.

2 New Section S.1.4. Design of Measuring

Elements

>' Recommended changes in this Section state that the display on commercial moisture meters shall be 0.

1

percent. The previous Code wording did not restrict the display of commercial moisture meters to 0.1 percent, but

stated that the meter could not display greater than 0. 1 percent.

3 New Section S.1.5. (old Section S. 1 . 1 0) Operating

Temperature

•• Additional changes are proposed for new Section S.1.5 (old Section S.1.10) (a) and (c) as per NCWM

S&T agenda Item 356-2.

4 Section S.3.2.

Thermometers and Other

Temperature Sensing

Equipment

Section SJ.2 was removed and placed in Code 5.56(b) because it applies to external thermometers used with non-NTEP meters. Thermometers on NTEP meters are built into the device; no external thermometers are used with NTEP grain moisture meters.

5 Section S.4(e). Operating

InQtnir'tionc nnH T Icf* Limitations

Section S. 1 .3(d) states that the maximum allowable meter/grain temperature difference shall be specified,

ocuiiuii o.H^c^ vias cuiicu lo rc(fuirc uiai uiis iiiiui iiiaiion ue spcciiico m uic opcraiuig msuuciions.

0 occiion UK. I.I. value 01

the Smallest Unit on

Primary Indicating and

Recording Elements

The text in section UR. 1 . 1 was edited for clarity and to agree with the new Section S. 1 .4. The edited text specifies that the meter display (minimum indication) of commercial moisture meters shall be 0. 1 percent. The term "Display Resolution" is used in the edited text. This term is consistent with the proposed NIR

code but not consistent with other NIST HB 44 language.

The following is additional wording that can be considered for Section (JR. 1.1 which does not restrict the minimum indication (display resolution) of Commercial meters to 0.1 and agrees with the previous

language of old Section S.I.6.4 (new Section S.1.4)

»• UR-1.1. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary Indicating and Recording Elements. - The value of the smallest unit on a moisture meter, whether the moiaturc meter reads directly in terms of moisture

content, or when the conventional scale unit is converted or corrected to moiaturc content, shall be equal

to or less than one half the value of the minimum acceptance tolerance. 0. 1 percent.

7 UR.3.9. Operating

Limitation

Section UR.3.9 was removed because it is redundant. The requirement is covered by new Section S. 1 .3(d)

8 Removal of Effective Dates at the End of Each

Section

It was suggested at the Sector meeting that the effective dates be place in the new section for enforcement

purposes. Effective dates are not included in this section because this section applies and must be enforced for all NTEP devices and moisture meters manufactured or placed into service after January

1, 1998.

i

.

,j Note: Each "Location of Change" on this list corresponds to the revised Code 5.56(a) and is identified in the revised Code with a check mark

189
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

NIST Handbook Section 5.56 (b) Grain Moisture Meters

Additional Comments on Editorial Changes

No Location of Comments

1 UR. 1.1. Value of

the Smallest Unit on

Primary Indicating

and Recording

Elements

Current wording in this section conflicts with new Section S.l .6.3. The following is additional wording that can be considered for Section UR. 1.1. which would be

consistent with new Section S.l.6.3.

UR.1.1. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary Indicating and Recording Elements.

The value of the smallest unit on a moisture meter, whether the meter reads directly

in terms of moisture content, or when the conventional scale unit is converted or

corrected to moisture content, shall be equal to or less than one-half the value of the minimum Qcceptancc tolerance 0. 1 oercent.

356-2 VC S.l. 10. Operating Temperature

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee, Grain Moisture Meter Sector

Recommendation : Modify paragraph S. 1 . 1 0. as follows to clarify the intent of the marking requirements for the temperature

operating range:

S.l. 10. Operating Temperature,

(a) A meter Warm up Period: When a meter is turned on it shall not display or record any usable values until the

operating temperature necessary for accurate determination has been attained, or the meter shall bear a

conspicuous statement adjacent to the indication stating that the meter shall be turned on for a time period

specified by tlie manufacturer prior to use.

(b) A meter shall meet the requirements ofT.2.. - Tolerance Values when operated in the temperature range of 10 °C

to 30 °C (50 °F to 86 "F) or within the range specified by the meter manufacturer.

(c) Ifthe manufacturer specifies a temperature range, the range shall be at least 20 °C (36 °F) and shall he marked, on the device. INonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 1998.]

(Added 1993)(Amended 1995 and 1996)

Discussion: The Grain Moisture Meter Sector examined paragraph S. 1 . lO.(c) requirements of marking the temperature range

information for devices in which the manufacturer specifies an operating range outside of 10 °C to 30 °C. Similar marking

requirements do not appear in the Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Code. It was suggested that the marking requirements for temperature range information did not apply because the design of the device does not permit displaying or recording of

usable values until the device has reached the temperature necessary for accurate determination. These devices could not

display a moisture value and would indicate an error message when outside the specified temperature operating range. It was

noted the original intent of this paragraph was to be applied to the device's warm up period.

Based on the Sector's comments on paragraph S.l. 10. the Committee believes these proposed changes will bring the code

into alignment with the original intent of the operating temperature requirements for grain moisture meters. Consequently,

the Committee supports the Sector's proposal to modify paragraph S.l. 10.

190
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Near -Infrared Grain Analyzers

357-1 W S.2.2.1. Power Supply, Voltage, and Frequency

(This item was witlidrawn.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee, Near-Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector

Recommendation: Amend S.2.2.1. as follows to narrow the voltage range of the power supply:

S.2.2. 1. Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency. - An analyzer that operates using alternating current must perform within tolerance requirements over the line voltage range -fOO 105 V to -f^ 129 V and over the frequency range of59.5 Hz to 60.5 Hz. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 2000. To become retroactive as ofJanuary 1, 2005

J

Discussion: At the conclusion ofthe Near-Infrared Protein Sector's 1994 Meeting, the members agreed that the voltage range

referenced in paragraph S.2.2.1. should be narrowed from 100-130 volts to 105-129 volts for near-infrared (NIR) protein

analyzers to correspond to voltage ranges applied during NTEP testing. This proposal would bring Publication 14 and

Handbook 44 requirements into agreement. The 105-129 voltage range is typical of the operational environment for NIR

protein analyzers; it reflects actual line voltage available in the United States, which is not subject to wide fluctuations; and

it is more symmetrical (e.g., 117 + percent).

Although this item was originally submitted by the Near-Infrared Grain Sector, the Committee received a report from the Sector following the Interim Meeting indicating that not all Sector members continued to support this item. Some concern was expressed that the difference between the range listed in Handbook 44 and that listed in NCWM Publication 14 may have

arisen from the request of one meter manufacturer who had older groimd grain analyzers in use in the field. It was noted that

it is anticipated that most NIR devices submitted for NTEP evaluation will also be submitted for evaluation as grain moisture

meters; this would mean that the devices must meet the wider range of 100 V to 130 V. Consequently, the variance in range

in the NIR Code may not be required. Some concern was expressed at the regional weights and measures association meetings over creating an exception to accommodate a single manufacturer without adequate technical reason. A letter ballot was distributed to Sector members to ask whether or not the issue should continue to be supported by the

Sector. Based upon the results of the letter ballot, tiie S&T Committee was asked by the Sector to consider withdrawing tlie item. Consequently, the Committee decided to withdraw the item from its agenda. The Committee notes that the Sector needs

to take steps at its next meeting to modify the checklist for NIR grain analyzers in NCWM Publication 14 to be consistent with the language in Handbook 44.

Other Items

360-1 W Change in Tolerance Determination for All Metering Devices

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: The Committee reviewed a proposal to change the tolerance determination procedure for all metering devices

to be consistent with the scale code.

The Western believes that present procedures for determining tolerances for metering devices are inconsistent with application

of tolerances to weighing devices. Changes to the existing procedures were suggested after a review of Handbook 44

191
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

indicated that what appears to be an inconsistency between the application of tolerances to the indications of a liquefied

propane gas (LPG) meter and the application of tolerances which occurs during scale testing procedures. Additionally, it has been suggested that tolerance procedures in a number of the liquid-measuring device codes sections, be changed to specifically state that tolerances are determined based on "measured volume or mass".

An opposing argument for consideration is that tolerances are established based on the inherent nature of the measurement

system and testing equipment available. A tolerance may be expressed in terms of three types of units: (1) the appropriate

unit of weight or measure (e.g., cubic inches for retail liquid-measuring devices; inches for fabric meters); (2) percentage

of test quantity (e.g., LPG meters in terms of the indicated quantity; taximeters in terms of the interval under test); and (3) relative units (e.g., scales in terms of numbers of scale divisions). In testing a closed measuring system such as the LPG

meter, officials are prevented from adding or subtracting product in a manner similar to that which is used to determine the

error for a mechanical scale with error weights or labeled net contents of packaged liquid commodities with glass volumetric

standards. However, the principal does not change because the tolerance is the allowable error or departure from true performance or value (e.g., graduations, indications) of the equipment under test.

While the method of applying tolerances to a scale versus a measuring device are different, the fundamental principle of

tolerance application are essentially the same. Most inspectors test a scale using direct readings from the scale to determine

the device error. The following examples are provided for consideration.

Automatic-Indicating Scale: A 5-lb weight is placed on an automatic-indicating scale and the scale indicates 5.01 lb. The

tolerance is based upon the test load or amount of standards added to the scale, in this case, 5 lb.

For one method of testing the error is determined to be 0.01 lb by reading it d'u-ectly from the scale instead of using error weights to determine the exact error. Using another method of testing, "error weight testing," standards are added to or removed from the test load (in this case, 0.01 lb would be removed from the scale) until the scale indicates a quantity equal

to the original test load (in this case 5.00 lb). The error is determined based upon the difference between the original test load (5.00 lb) and the standards on the scale (4.99). However, it should be noted that the test load represents the original amount

of standards added to the scale before the error determination and the "test load" for purposes of tolerance determination is equal to the amount indicated on the scale.

A Non-Automatic Indicating Scale. For a scale such as a beam scale, the scale is made to indicate an amount of weight using

a poise or other means, and standards equal to the indicated amount are added to the scale. Standards or "error weights" are then removed from or added to the scale until the scale indicates a balance condition, and the error is determined based on

the difference between the standards on the scale and the scale indication. The tolerance in this case is applied to the "test load." However, it should be noted that the test load represents the amount of standards added to the scale before the error determination (not the total amount of standards after error weights were added or removed) and the "test load" for purposes of tolerance determination is usually equal to the amount indicated on the scale.

Liquid-Measuring Devices - Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser. When an inspector tests a retail motor-fuel dispenser with a 5- gallon test measure, the inspector typically stops the indication on 5 gallons and reads the neck gauge on the prover. As

specified in paragraph T.2., the tolerance is applied to the indicated amount of 5 gallons rather than to the amount acmally

delivered.

In considering this issue, it should be noted that the inspector typically attempts to stop the meter indication at a convenient

quantity indication on the device under test; since the inspector tries to duplicate the indication for each test run, the tolerance may not change from test run to test run. In contrast, determining tolerances as proposed in the recommendation (based on measured volume or mass) would require that the inspector calculates a different tolerance for each run since the measured

volume or mass typically differs for each test run.

Comments received indicated the suggested change in tolerance procedure applications would necessitate changes to current examination procedures, which would encumber field testing procedures. The Committee concluded that some valid points

have been raised in the discussion of this issue; however, the Committee does not feel that sufficient justification has been

provided to warrant altering existing tolerance application in the measuring devices code sections. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn this item from its agenda.

192
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

360-2 VC Proposed Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee added text to the beginning of the code to identify the code as tentative in status.

This tentative code has only a trial or experimental status and is not intended to be enforced. The requirements are designed for study prior to the development and adoption of a flnal code for Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring

Devices.

Source: California/Western Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Add a tentative code to NIST Handbook 44 for Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices as shown

in Appendix B.

Discussion: Although, carbon dioxide liquid-measuring operations are becoming prevalent, there is no code to address this application in NIST Handbook 44. Following discussions at the Interim Meeting, the Committee recognized the need to address this application and recommends the proposed Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices Code be voted on as a

tentative code.

In the past, the S&T Committee has considered incorporating requirements for carbon dioxide liquid-measuring devices into the Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code since many of the carbon dioxide applications were similar to the existing

code for cryogenic liquid measuring devices; however, it was noted that carbon dioxide is not truly a cryogenic product due

to its boiling point. Additionally, industry noted that carbon dioxide deliveries required substantially different equipment

than other cryogenic liquid products. The Committee was also advised that industry had requested a separate code because

a separate code would be more easily understood and applied.

The Meter Manufacturers Association suggested that the tolerances should be tightened as the technology becomes available. The Committee received no unfavorable comments on the proposed code.

The following information was provided by Mr. O. K. Wamlof, Standards Management Program, NIST, on OIML activities of significant importance to the NCWM. It is a list of the International Recommendations (R), Documents (D), and

International (IWG) and National Working Group Meetings (NWG) that are of interest to the NCWM members and are generally within the purview of the S & T Committee:

* R 49 Water meters intended for the metering of cold water (under revision)

* R 63 Petroleum measurement tables (1994)

* R71 Fixed storage tanks. General requirements (1985)

* R72 Hot water meters (1985)

* R80 Road and rail tankers (1989)

* R 81 Measuring systems for cryogenic liquids (3rd CD Revision, February, 1996)

360-3 I OIML Report

OlML INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR LIQUID MEASUREMENT (TC 8)

193
specifications and Tolerances Committee

R 85 Automatic level gauges for measuring the level of liquid in fixed storage tanks (1989)

R86 Drum meters for alcohol and their supplementary devices (1989)

R 96 Measuring container bottles (1990)

R 105 Direct mass flow measuring systems for quantities of liquids (1993)

Annex - Test report format (being printed)

R117 Measuring assemblies for liquids other than water (1995)

R 1 1 8 Testing procedures for pattern examination of fiiel dispensers for motor vehicles (1995)

R 1 19 Pipe provers for testing of measuring systems for liquids other than water (1996)

R 120 Characteristics of standard capacity measures and test methods for measuring systems for liquids other than water (1996)

D 7 The evaluation of flow standards and facilities used for testing water meters (1984)

D 26 Glass delivery measures - Automatic pipettes (being printed)

OIML INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR WEIGHING INSTRUMENTS (TC 9)

R 47 Standard weights for testing high capacity weighing machines (1979)

R 50 Continuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments (Belt Weighers) (1994) Test procedures (1995)

Report forms (1995)

R 5 1-1 Automatic Catchweighing Instruments. Par 1: Metrological and technical requirements - Tests (1996)

R 5 1-2 Automatic Catchweighing Instruments. Part 2: Test report format. (1996)

R 60 Metrological regulation for load cells (1991)

Annex - Test report format for the evaluation of load cells (1993)

R 61 Automatic gravimetric filling instruments (being printed) Test procedures (being printed)

Report forms (being printed)

R 76-1 Nonautomatic weighing instruments Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements -Tests (1992)

Amendment No. 1 (1994)

R 76-2 Nonautomatic weighing instruments Part 2: Pattern evaluation report (1993)

Amendment No. 1 (1995)

R 106 Automatic rail-weighbridges (1993)

Test procedures (being printed)

Report forms (being printed)

* R 107 Discontinuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments (totalizing hopper weighers) (1993)

Test procedures (being printed)

Report forms (being printed)

194
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

* R 1 11 Weights of classes E„ E^, F„ F,, M„ Mz, M3 (1994)

OTHERS

* OIML CERTIFICATE SYSTEM FOR MEASURING INSTRUMENTS ( 1 995)

INTERNATIONAL WORKING GROUP MEETINGS

1996

TC 9 "Instruments for measuring mass and density" (responsibility U.S.), May 20-22, Germany

Revision of R 60 "Metrological regulation for load cells."

TC9/SC2 "Automatic weighing instruments" (responsibility U.K.), May 22-24, Germany

2nd CD R "Automatic road weighbridges."

TC8\SC6 "Measurement of cryogenic liquids" (responsibility U.S.), May 13-15, Germany

3rd CD Revision R 81 "Measuring systems for cryogenic liquids."

TC7/SC5 "Dimensional measuring instruments" (responsibility Australia), October 28-30, NIST, USA

3rd CD R "Multi-Dimensional measuring instruments."

TAGcert "Technical Advisory Group on Certification" (responsibility U.S.), February 19-20, Paris

OIML "Tenth OIML International Conference," November 3-8, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

NATIONAL WORKING GROUP MEETINGS

1996

TC 9 "Instruments for measur'mg mass and density" (responsibility U.S.), January 23, Florida

Revision of R 60 "Metrological regulation for load cells."

TC9/SC2 "Automatic weighing instruments" (responsibility U.K.), April, Gaithersburg (provisional)

2nd CD R "Automatic road weighbridges."

TC7/SC5 "Dimensional measuring instruments" (responsibility Australia), October 28, 1996, Gaithersburg

3rd CD R "Multi-Dimensional measuring instruments."

TAGeert "Technical Advisory Group on Certification (responsibility U.S.), July 21, New Orleans

Revision of "OIML Certificate System."

TC 9 "Instruments for measuring mass and density" (responsibility U.S.), July 22, New Orleans

Revision of R 60 "Metrological regulation for load cells."

TC 9 "Workshop on Practical test procedures for Weights of classes Ei, E,, F„ F,, M,, M2, M3," October 2-4, SP, Boras,

Sweden

360-4 V Clarification of Handbook Application, Emergency Action Item

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Emergency Action Item Submitted by the State of Illinois

195
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Discussion: The S&T Committee was asked to consider addressing as an emergency item the addition of text to the

Introduction Section of Handbook 44 to clarify the intent of the application of the various requirements in Handbook 44. While the S&T Committee believes that it is essential that due process be preserved in all issues brought before the NCWM

as does the jurisdiction presenting the item, it recognized the urgency of the situation for the jurisdiction which submitted the emergency item.

The State of Illinois reported that an overweight truck case was heard in the city of Chicago; in this case, the defense argued

that unless a jurisdiction applies all requirements in NIST Handbook 44, the jurisdiction could not certify that device. Questions were specifically raised over whether or not testing must be performed over a range of temperature and barometric

pressure during a field test. The court's decision supported the defense's argument and extends beyond the scale involved

in the case to other types of devices tested by the jurisdiction. The case was appealed and the decision of the lower court upheld.

The State enlisted the support of NIST and well as industry members in providing written interpretation of how Handbook

44 paragraphs are intended to be applied, but this correspondence was not successfiil in overcoming the arguments presented

in the court. Illinois also attempted to amend their State Law to clarify the intent of Handbook 44's application; however,

concerns were raised over the proposed action by the legislative committee who questioned whether the amendment would

create non-uniformity with other jurisdictions enforcing Handbook 44. Meanwhile, Illinois is unable to try overweight truck

cases and there is concern that this interpretation may spread, not only to other areas of their State, but to other States as well.

Since the attempt to work through their individual State legal system has been unsuccessful, Illinois is mming to the NCWM

to clarify the intent of the Handbook's application. TTie S&T Committee considered several proposals submitted prior to and

following the open hearing in which this issue was raised. The Committee concluded that the issue would best be addressed

in an area of the Handbook that would enable the philosophy to apply to all devices which fall under Handbook 44. Consequently, the Committee is recommending that language be added to the Introduction Section of Handbook 44.

The Committee recognizes that many tests in Handbook 44 are intended to be conducted only under controlled conditions

such as those found in a laboratory environment and a number of paragraphs in Handbook 44 already include language

emphasizing the conditions under which these tests are to be conducted. Some tests require special equipment not available

in the field while others can be conducted in the field only if specific conditions exist which enable the test to be performed;

to expect the owner to duplicate such conditions or for the inspector to conduct all tests under such circumstances is not

realistic.

If the Conference agrees to discuss this emergency item, the following recommendation will be presented for a vote.

196
Specifications and Tolerances Commiltee

Recommendation: The Committee recommends the following be added to the end of Section 6, Introduction of Handbook

44:

It is the intention of this Handbook to supply criteria which enables the inspector to determine the suitability, accuracy, and repetitive consistency of a weighing or measuring device, both in the laboratory and in the field. However, not

all code sections can be appropriately applied in both settings. Some sections are designed to be applied specifically to tests performed under laboratory conditions, and it would be impractical or unrealistic to apply those sections to

field tests. Not all tests described in the ''Notes" section of the Handbook are required to be performed in the field as an official test An inspector may officially approve a device which has been tested in accordance with those sections

applicable to the type of test being conducted.

Gary D. West Chairman

Darryl L. Brown, Iowa

Ronald D. Murdock, North Carolina

Monty H. Hopper, Kern County, CA

Allan M. Nelson, Connecticut

Renald Marceau, Canada, Technical Advisor

Juana Williams, NIST, Technical Advisor

Tina G. Butcher, NIST, Techincal Advisor

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

197
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table UR.3.2.1 Span Maximum Load

Distance in feet between the Ratio of CLC to maximum load ("r" factor) carried on any eroup of 2 or more consecutive axles extremes of any croup of 2 or more consecutive axles 2 axles 3 axles 4 axles 5 axles 6 axles 7 axles 8 axles 9 axles

4' 1.000

5' 1.000

6' 1.000 INSTRUCTIONS:

7' 1.000

1 . uetermme ine scaie s

2. Count the number of axles on tlie vehicle in a given span

e first and last O ttllU ICm I 000 1 .uuu and determine the distance in feet between th axle in the span. More thai) 8' 1.118 1,235 3 . Multiply the CLC by the corresponding multiplier in the

table*. 9 1.147 1.250 4. Tlic resulting number is the scale's maximum concentrated

load for n sinele soan based on the vehicle confiininition. 10 1.176 1.279 *See note and formula on next page.

11 1.294

12 1.324 t.471

13 1.338 1.485

14 1.368 1.515

15 1.382 1.529

16 1.412 1.544 1.706

17 1.426 1.574 1.721

18 1.456 1.588 1.735

19 1.471 1.603 1.765 20 1.500 1.632 1.779 1.941

21 1.515 1.647 1.794 1.956 22 1,544 1.662 1.809 1.956 23 1.559 1.691 1.838 2.000 24 1.588 1.706 1.853 2.015 2.176 25 1.603 1.721 1.868 2.029 2.191 26 1.632 1.750 1.882 2.044 2.206 27 1,647 1.765 1.912 2.059 2.221 28 1,676 1.779 1.927 2.088 2.250 2.412 29 1 691 1.809 1.941 2.103 2,265 2.426 30 1,721 1.824 1.956 2.118 2,279 2.441

31 1,735 1.838 1.985 2.132 2.294 2.456 32 1,765 1.868 2.000 2.147 2.309 2485 2.647

33 1.882 2.015 2.176 2.324 2.500 2.662

34 1.897 2.029 2.191 2.353 2.515 2.676

35 1.926 2,059 2.206 2.368 2.529 2.691 36 1.94P 2,074 2.221 2.382 2.544 2.706 37 1.956' 2,088 2.235 2.397 2.559 2.735 38 1.985' 2,103 2.265 2.412 2.574 2.750 39 2.000 2.132 2.279 2.427 2.603 2.765 40 2.015 2.147 2.294 2.456 2.618 2.779

41 2.044 2,162 2.309 2.471 2.632 2.794 42 2.059 2.176 2.324 2.485 2.647 2.809

43 2.074 2.206 2.353 2,500 2.662 2.824 44 2.103 2.221 2.368 2.515 2.676 2.838 45 2.II8 2.235 2.382 2.529 2.691 2.868 46 2.132 2.250 2.397 2.559 2,721 2.882 47 2.162 2,279 2.412 2.574 2.735 2.897 48 2.176 2.294 2.441 2.588 2.750 2.912 49 2.191 2.309 2,456 2.603 2.765 2.926 50 2.221 2.324 2.471 2.618 2.779 2.941

198
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Tabic LIRJJ.I Span Maximum Load

Distance in feet between the extremes of any croup of 2 or more consecuuve axlesRatio of CLC to maximum load ("K* factor) carried on any group of 2 or more consecutive axles

2 axles 3 axles 4 axles 5 axles 6 axles 7 axles 8 axles 9 axles

51 2.235 2.353 2,485 2.632 2.794 2956

52 2.250 2.368 2.500 2.662 2.809 2.971

53 2.279 2.382 2.529 2.676 2.838 3.0CO 54 2.294 2.397 2.544 2.691 2 853 3.015

55 2.309 2.426 2.559 2.706 2.868 3.029

56 2.338 2.441 2.574 2.721 2.882 3.044 57 2.353' 2.456 2.588 2.735 2.897 3.059 58 2.471 2.618 2.765 2.912 3.074

59 2.500 2.632 2.779 2.926 3.088

60 2.515 2.647 2.794 2956 3.103 *Note: TTiis table was developed based upon the following formula. Values may be rounded in some cases for ease of use. LN = r X 500 N - 1 UN + 36

' Tandem Axle Weight.

^ Exception - These values in the third column correspond to the maximum loads in which the inner bridge dimensions of

36, 37, and 38 feet are considered to be equivalent to 39 feet. This allows a weight of 68 000 lb on axles 2 through 5.

^ Corresponds to the Interstate Gross Weight Limit.

199
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Appendix B (Item 360-2)

Section 3.38. Proposed Carbon Dioxide

Liquid-Measuring Device - Tentative Code

This tentative code has only a trial or experimental status and is not intended to be enforced. The requirements are designed for study prior to the development and adoption of a final code for Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring

Devices. (Tentative Code Added 1996)

A. Application

A.l. This code applies to carbon dioxide liquid measuring

devices used for the measurement of liquid carbon dioxide.

A.2. This code does not apply to devices used solely for dispensing a product in connection with operations in which

the amount dispensed does not affect customer charges.

A.3. See also. Sec. 1.10; General Code requirements.

S. Specifications

S.l. Design of Indicating and Recording Elements and

of Recorded Representations.

S.1.1. Primary Elements. -

5.1. 1.1. General. - A device shall be equipped

with a primary indicating element and may also be equipped with a primary recording element.

5.1. 1.2. Units. - A device shall indicate and

record, if equipped to record, its deliveries in terms of pounds or kilograms; or decimal

subdivisions or multiples thereof.

5.1. 1.3. Value of Smallest Unit. - The value of

the smallest unit of indicated delivery, and

recorded delivery, if the device is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

(a) for small delivery devices:

( 1 ) one kilogram ( 1 kg), or

(2) one pound ( 1 lb)

(b) for large delivery devices:

( 1 ) ten kilograms ( 1 0 kg), or

(2) ten pounds (10 lb)

S.l. 1.4. Advancement of Indicating and Recording

Elements. - Primary indicating and recording

elements shall be susceptible of advancement only by

the normal operation of the device. However, a device

may be cleared by advancing its elements to zero, but only if:

(a) the advancing movement, once started, cannot be

stopped until zero is reached, or

(b) in the case of indicating elements only, such

elements are automatically obscured until the elements reach the correct zero position.

S.l. 1.5. Return to Zero. - Primary indicating

and recording elements shall be readily returnable to a definite zero indication. Means

shall be provided to prevent the return of primary

indicating elements and of primary recording

elements beyond their correct zero position.

S.1.2. Graduations. -

5.1.2.1. Length. - Graduations shall be so

varied in length that they may be conveniently

read.

5.1.2.2. Width. - In any series of graduations,

the width of a graduation shall in no case be

greater than the width of the minimum clear

interval between graduations. The width of main

graduations shall be not more than 50 percent

greater than the width of subordinate

graduations. Graduations shall in no case be less

tlian 0.2 mm (0.008 in) in width.

5.1.2.3. Clear Interval Between Graduations.

- The clear interval shall be not less than 1.0 mm

(0.04 in). If the graduations are not parallel, the measurement shall be made:

(a) along the line of relative movement

between the graduations at the end of the

indicator, or

(b) if the indicator is continuous, at the point of

widest separation of the graduations.

(See also S. 1.3.6.)

200
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5.1.3. Indicators. -

S.1.3.1. Symmetry. - The index of an indicator

shall be of the same shape as the graduations at least throughout that portion of its length

associated with the graduations.

S. 1.3.2. Length. - The index of an indicator

shall reach to the fmest graduations with which it

is used, unless the indicator and the graduations

are in the same plane, in which case the distance between the end of the indicator and the ends of

the graduations, measured along the line of the

graduations, shall be not more than 1 .0 mm (0.04

in).

5.1.3.3. Width. - The width ofthe index of the indicator in relation to the series of graduations

with which it is used shall be not greater than:

(a) the width ofthe widest graduation, and

(b) the width of the minimum clear interval between graduations.

When the index of an indicator extends along the

entire length of a graduation, that portion of the index of the indicator that may be brought into coincidence with the graduation shall be of the same width throughout the length of the index

that coincides with the graduation.

5.1.3.4. Clearance. - The clearance between the index of an indicator and the graduations shall in no case be more than 1 .5 mm (0.06 in).

5.1.3. 5. Parallax. - Parallax effects shall be

reduced to the practicable minimum.

5.1.3.6. Travel of Indicator. - If the most

sensitive element of the primary indicating

element utilizes an indicator and graduations, the

relative movement of these parts corresponding

to the smallest indicated value shall be no less than 5 mm (0.20 in).

5.1.4. Computing-Type Devices. -

S.1.4.1. Printed Ticket. - Any printed ticket issued by a device of the computing type on which there is printed the total computed price

shall have printed clearly thereon also the total quantity of the delivery and the price per unit.

S. 1.4.2. Money-Value Computations. - Money-value computations 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.

The total price shall be computed on the basis of

the quantity indicated when the value of the smallest division indicated is equal to or less than

the value specified in S. 1.1. 3.

S. 1.4.3. Money-Values, Mathematical

Agreement. - Any digital money-value

indication and any recorded money value on a computing-type device shall be in mathematical

agreement with its associated quantity indication or representation to within one cent of money

value.

S.2. Design of Measuring Elements.

5.2.1. Vapor Elimination. - A measuring system

shall be equipped with an effective vapor eliminator or other effective means to prevent the measurement

of vapor that will cause errors in excess of the applicable tolerances.

5.2.2. Reverse Flow Measurement. - Effective means, automatic in operation, shall be installed to prevent reverse flow measurement.

5.2.3. Maintenance of Liquid State. - A device shall be so designed that the product being measured will remain in a liquid state during passage through the device.

5.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density

Compensation. - A volumetric device shall be

equipped with automatic means for adjusting the indication and recorded representation of the measured

quantity of the product to indicate or record the quantity of the product measured in terms of pounds.

5.2.5. Provision for Sealing. - Adequate provision

shall be made for applying security seals in such a manner that no adjustment or interchange may be

made of:

(a) any measurement element.

201
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) any adjustable element for controlling delivery

rate when such rate tends to affect the accuracy of deliveries, and

(c) any automatic temperature or density

compensating system.

Any adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible

for purposes of affixing a security seal.

5.3. Design of Discharge Lines and Discbarge Line

Valves.

S.3.L Diversion of Measured Liquid. - No means

shall be provided by which any measured liquid can be

diverted from the measuring chamber of the device or

the discharge line therefrom, except that a manually

controlled outlet that may be opened for purging or draining the measuring system shall be permitted.

Effective means shall be provided to prevent the passage of liquid through any such outlet during

normal operation of the device and to indicate clearly

and unmistakably when the valve controls are so set as

to permit passage of liquid through such outlet.

S.3.2. Discharge Hose. - The discharge hose of a measuring system shall be of a wet hose type with a shutoff valve at its outlet end.

5.4. Marking Requirements.

5.4.1. Limitation of Use . - If a measuring system is intended to measure accurately only liquids having

particular properties, or to measure accurately only

under specific installation or operating conditions, or

to measure accurately only when used in conjunction

with specific accessory equipment, these limitations

shall be clearly and permanently marked on the device.

5.4.2. Discharge Rates. - A meter shall be marked to show its designed maximum and minimum discharge

rates. The marked minimum discharge rate shall not exceed 20 percent of the maximum discharge rate.

5.5. Level Condition, On-Board Weighing Systems. - Provision shall be made for automatically inhibiting the delivery of liquid carbon dioxide when the vehicle is out of

level beyond the limit required for the performance to be

within the applicable tolerances.

N. Notes

N.L Test Liquid. - The test liquid shall be carbon dioxide

in a compressed liquid state.

N.2. Vaporization and Volume Change. - Care shall be

exercised to reduce vaporization and volume changes to a minimimi. When testing by weight, the weigh tank and

transfer systems shall be precooled to liquid temperature

prior to the start of the test to avoid the venting of vapor

from the vessel being weighed.

N.3. Test Drafts.

N3.L Gravimetric Test. - Weight test drafts shall be

equal to at least the amount delivered by the device in two minutes at its maximum discharge rate.

N3.2. Transfer Standard Test - When comparing

a meter with a calibrated transfer standard, the test draft shall be equal to at least the amount delivered by

the device in two minutes at its maximum discharge

rate.

N.3.3. Volumetric Prover Test Drafts. - Test drafts

shall be equal to at least the amount delivered in one minute at normal discharge rate.

N.4. Testing Procedures,

N.4.L Normal Tests. - The "normal" test of a device

shall be made at the maximum discharge flow rate developed under the conditions of installation. Any

additional tests conducted at flow rates down to and

including one-half of the sum of the maximum

discharge flow rate and the rated minimum discharge

flow rate shall be considered normal tests.

N.4.2. Special Tests. - Any test except as set forth in N.4. 1 . shall be considered a special test. Tests shall be

conducted, if possible, to evaluate any special

elements or accessories attached to or associated with

the device. A device shall be tested at a minimum

discharge rate of:

(a) not less than the minimum rated capacity or 20

percent of the maximum rated discharge rate of

the device, whichever is less, or

(b) the lowest discharge rate practicable under the conditions of installation.

"Special" tests may be conducted to develop any

characteristics of the device anticipated under the conditions of installation as circumstances require.

202
N.4.3. Density. - Temperature and pressure of the metered test liquid shall be measured during the test for the determination of density or volume correction when applicable. Table 1, contained in this Article, shall apply.

N.4.4. Automatic Temperature or Density

Compensation. - If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature or density compensator, the compensator shall be tested by comparing the quantity

indicated or recorded by the device (with the compensator connected and operating) with the actual delivered quantity. Table 1, contained in this Article, shall apply.

T. Tolerances

T.l. Application.

T.1.1. To Underregistration and to Overregistration. - The tolerances hereinafter prescribed shall be applied to errors of

underregistration and errors of overregistration.

T.2. Tolerance Values.

T.2.1. On Normal Tests. - The maintenance

tolerance on "normal" tests shall be two and one-half percent (2.6%) of the indicated quantity. The

acceptance tolerances shall be one and one-half

percent (1 .5%) of the indicated quantity.

T.2.2. On Special Tests. - The maintenance and

acceptance tolerance on "special" tests shall be two

and one-half percent (2.5%) of the indicated quantity.

T.3. On Tests Using Transfer Standards. - To the basic tolerance values that would otherwise be applied, there shall be added an amount equal to two times the standard

deviation ofthe applicable transfer standard when compared

to a basic reference standard.

UR. User Requirements

UR.1. Installation Requirements.

UR.1.1. Discharge Rate. - A device shall be so

installed that the actual maximum discharge rate will not exceed the rated maximum discharge rate. If necessary, means for flow regulation shall be

incorporated in the installation.

UR.1.2. Length of Discharge Hose. - The discharge

hose shall be of such a length and design as to keep

vaporization of the liquid to a minimum.

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.13. Maintenance of Liquid State. - A device

shall be so installed and operated that the product

being measured shall remain in the liquid state during passage through the meter.

UR.2. Use Requirements.

UR.2.L Return of Indicating and Recording

Elements to Zero. - The primary indicating elements

(visual) and the primary recording elements shall be

returned to zero immediately before each delivery.

UR.2.2. Condition of Discharge System. - The

discharge hose, up to the valve at the end of the discharge hose, shall be completely filled and

precooled to liquid temperatures before a "zero" condition is established and prior to the start of a commercial delivery. Means shall be provided to fill the discharge hose with liquid prior to the start of a delivery.

UR.2.3. Vapor Equalization Line. - A vapor

equalization line shall not be used during a metered

delivery unless the quantity of vapor displaced from

the buyer's tank to the seller's tank is deducted from

the metered quantity. Table 1, contained in this Article, shall apply.

UR.2.4. Temperature or Density Compensation.

UR.2.4.L Use of Automatic Temperature or

Density Compensators. - Devices equipped

with an automatic temperature or density

compensator shall have the compensator

connected, operable, and in use at all times. Such automatic temperature or density

compensator may not be removed.

UR.2.4.2. Tickets or Invoices. - Any written invoice

or printed ticket based on a reading of a device that is equipped with an automatic temperature or density

compensator shall have shown thereon that the quantity delivered has been temperature or density

compensated.

UR-2.5. Ticket in Printing Device. - A ticket shall not be inserted into a device equipped with a ticket printer until immediately before a deliver>' is begun,

and in no case shall a ticket be in the device when the vehicle is in motion while on a public street, highway,

or thoroughfare.

UR.2.6. Sale by Weight - All quantit>'

determinations shall be made by means of an approved

203
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

and sealed weighing or measuring device. All sales

shall be stated in kilograms or pounds.

D. Definitions of Terms

The terms defined here have a special and technical meaning when used in the Code for Carbon Dioxide

Liquid-Measuring Devices.

automatic temperature or density compensation.

Hie use of integrated or ancillary equipment to obtain,

from the output of a volumetric meter, an equivalent mass indication.

carbon dioxide liquid-measuring device. A system

including a mechanism or machine of (a) the meter or

(b) a weighing type of device mounted on a vehicle designed to measure and deliver liquid carbon dioxide. Means may be provided to indicate automatically, for one of a series of unit prices, the total money value of

the quantity measured.

large-delivery devices. Devices used primarily for single deliveries greater than 1000 pounds or 500

kilograms.

small-delivery device. Any device other than a largedelivery device.

transfer standard. A measurement system designed

for use in proving and testing carbon dioxide liquidmeasuring devices.

vapor equalization credit. The quantity deducted

from the metered quantity of liquid carbon dioxide

when a vapor equalizing line is used to facilitate the

transfer of liquid during a metered delivery.

vapor equalization line. A hose or pipe connected

from the vapor space of the seller's tank to the vapor

space of the buyer's tank that is used to equalize the pressure during a delivery.

wet-hose type. A type of device in which it is intended that the discharge hose be completely filled prior to each commercial delivery.

204
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 1 Temp Pressure Liquid Density Vapor Density Vap Dis

DegF

PSIA PSIG Ib/ga! flh-ozVpal Ib/cu ft lb/gal

%

- 30.00 177.89 163.19 9.127 9 - 2.0 1.989 0.266 2.9

- 29.75 178.75 164.05 9.122 9 - 2.0 1.999 0.267 2.9

- 29.50 179.62 164.92 9.117 9-1.9 2.008 0.268 2.9

- 29.25 180.49 165.79 9.113 9-1.8 2.018 0.270 3.0

- 29.00 181.36 166.67 9.108 9-1.7 2.028 0.271 3.0

- 28.75 182 24 167.54 9 103 Q . 1 7 2.038 0.272 3.0

- 28.50 19 168 49 9 098 9-16 2.048 0 974 3.0

1S4 no 169 3

1

Q - 1 5 9 058 n 975 3.0

- 98 on 184 89 170.19 9-14 y i .*T 2.067 0.276 3.0

- 27.75 1 85 78 171 08 9 084 2 077 0 978 3.1

- 27.50 1 86 67 171 98 9y .\jo\j 080 9-13 2.087 0.279 3.1

- 27.25 1 87 57 1 79 87 9 075 9-19 7 1..^ 2.098 0.280 3.1

- 11 00 188.47 173.77 9.070 9-1.1 2.108 0.282 3.1

- 26.75 1 89 37 174 67 9y ,\JyJ.J 065 9-1.0 2.1 18 0.283 3.1

- 26.50 190 28 175 58 9 061 9-1.0 2.128 0.284 3.1

- 26.25 191 18 176 49 9 056 9-09 7 \j .y 2.138 0.286 3.2

- 26.00 109 in 1 77 4f) Q ns 1 Q . n 8 9 148 0 987 3.2

- 25 75 iQ"^ ni 1 78 0-07 7 - U. / 9 1 50 n 980 3.2

- 95 50 1 70 o-j Q flA 1 0 n 7 7 1<^0 .i. I U7 nU.Z9on7U 3.2

- 9S 9<i 1 04 oc lyH.oD loU. lO Q f\T.l y.\)j 1 Q (\ ft y - U.O 9 170ly n 901 3.2

- 9^ on lyj. /o 1 a 1 .Uo Q n ^ V - U.J 7 1 on n 70"? 3 2

I 70. / VJ 1 oZ.V 1 Q n77 Q C\ A y - U.M 9 9nn nU.Z7*T 9Q4

- 94 "^n 197.64 182.94 9.022 9-0.4 2.211 0.296 3.3

- 24.25 198.57 183.87 9.017 9-0.3 2.221 0.297 3.3

- 24.00 199.51 184.81 9.013 9-0.2 2.232 0.298 3.3

-23.75 200.45 185.75 9.008 9-0.1 2.243 0.300 3.3

-23.50 201.39 186.70 9.003 9-0.0 2.253 0.301 3.3

-23.25 202.34 187.64 8.998 9-0.0 2.264 0.303 3.4

205
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 1

1 einp Pressure Liquid Density Vapor Density Vap UlS DegF

PCI A ID/gal (lb-02)/gal ID/CU II iD/gai

%

01 f\(\ ZVj.Zy 1 00.ou c 001 0 - o.y 0 ooc 2.2 / J n i(\A 0 A 3.4

- ZZ. fj ZU4.Z5 ley. J J

C O6O o.yoy Q ICO 0 - 15.8 0 oo< 2.2oo n OAiC U.3U6 0 A 3.4

- ZZ.jK) OA< on 1 on ^ 1 c.yo4 s 1 ^ 0 0 - 1 J.

/

0 OQA 2.290 nU.3Uim/ 1 A 3.4

- ZZ.Zj OA/; 1 /C zUo. 10 1 y 1 .4 / o.y /y 9 1 < 0 0 - 15./ 02.3Umo/ A "^AO 3.4

- zz.w OAO 1

"3 zU / . 13 1 QO A 1

<s.y /4 0 - 1 5.0 0 'J 1 0 2.3 1

0

A 1 A U.J 10 3.5

- Zl./j OAO AO 1 Qi An 6.969 0 1 c < 0 - 1 5.5 0 '300 2.329 A "3 1 1 0.3 1 1 3.5

0 1 CA oAQ aa; zU9.Uo 194.3 / o.yo4 0 - 15.4 0 "iAn 2.34U 0.3 13 0 c 3.5

O 1 o^ 0 1 A f\A ZIU.U4 1 AC lA 195.34 o.yjy Q ^ < A 0 - 15.4 2.3 OKIJ 1 A 0 1 /I 0.3 14 3.

J

- Zl .UU oil AO zl 1 .02 1 C\£. "lO 196.32 0 ACC 0.955 6 - 15.3 0 0<CO 2.362 A 0 1 0.3 16 J.J

- ZU. / J 010 AA iilZ.UU 1 oo in ly /.3U fi Q<n 0 - ICO 15.2 0 lO/l 2.3 /4 A 0 1 0 0.3 1 / 0 C 3.5

on <A 010 AO zlz.ya 1 AO 00 198.20 0 A/I C 0.945 0 - 15.1 0 ooc 2.385 A 0 1 n

0,3 19 •J A 3.0

OA 0 c 0 1 T AO 1 AA 00 199.27 0 A>1A 0.940 0 1 C A - 15.0 0 OAil 2.396 A OOA 0.320 •J /; J.O

- on AA zU.UU 0 1 >1 A^ 214.96 OAA 0^ 200.26 0 AO <r 8.935 0 1 C A

8 - 15.0 0 AO 2.4U7 A 000 0.322 3.0

1 A OC - 19.75 215.95 201.26 0 ATA 8.930 6 - 14.9 0 y! 1 A

2.419 A TOO 0.323 3.0

- 19.50 216.95 202.25 8.925 8 - 14.8 2.430 0.325 3.6

- 19.25 217.95 203.25 8.920 8 - 14.7 2.441 0.326 3.7

- 19.00 218.95 204.26 8.915 8 - 14.6 2.453 0.328 0

J.

7

- 18.75 219.96 205.27 8.91

1

8 - 14.6 2.464 0.329 3.7

10 C A - 18.50 220.97 206.28 8.906 8 - 14.5 2.476 0.331 3.7

- 18.25 221.99 207.29 8.901 8 - 14.4 2.488 0.333 3.7

- 18.00 223.01 208.31 8.896 8 - 14.3 2.499 0.334 3.8

- 17.75 224.03 AA ^ 0 209.33 8.891 8 - 14.3 2.51

1

0.336 3.8

1 0 CA - 17.50 225.05 210.36 8.886 8- 14.2 2.523 0.337 1 0 3.0

- 17.25 226.08 211.38 8.881 8-14.1 2.534 0.339 3.8

- 17.00 227.11 212.42 8.876 8- 14.0 2.546 0.340 3.8

- 16.75 228.15 213.45 8.871 8- 13.9 2.558 0.342 3.9

- 16.50 229.18 214.49 8.866 8- 13.9 2.570 0.344 3.9

- 16.25 230.23 215.53 8.861 8- 13.8 2.582 0.345 3.9

206
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 1 Temp Pressure Liquid Density Vapor Density Vap Dis Dee F

PSIA PSIG lb/gal (lb-oz)/gal Ib/cu ft lb/gal

%

- 16.00 231.27 216.58 8.856 8- 13.7 2.594 0.347 3.9

- 15.75 232.32 217.62 8.851 8 - 13.6 2.606 0.348 3.9

- 15.50 233.37 218.68 8.846 8- 13.5 2.618 0.350 4.0

- 15.25 234.43 219.73 8.841 8- 13.5 2.630 0.352 4.0

- 15.00 235.49 220.79 8.836 8- 13.4 2.643 0.353 4.0

- 14.75 236.55 221.86 8.831 8- 13.3 2.655 0.355 4.0

- 14.50 237.62 222.92 8.826 8- 13.2 2.667 0.357 4.0

- 14.25 238.69 223.99 8.821 8- 13.1 2.680 0.358 4.1

- 14.00 239.76 225.07 8.816 8- 13.1 2.692 0.360 4.1

- 13.75 240.84 226.14 8.811 8 - 13.0 2.704 0.362 4.1

- 13.50 241.92 227.22 8.806 8- 12.9 2.717 0.363 4.1

- 13.25 243.00 228.31 8.801 8- 12.8 2.729 0.365 4.1

- 13.00 244.09 229.39 8.796 8- 12.7 2.742 0.367 4.2

- 12.75 245.18 230.49 8.791 8- 12.7 2.755 0.368 4.2

- 12.50 246.28 231.58 8.786 8- 12.6 2.767 0.370 4.2

- 12.25 247.37 232.68 8.781 8- 12.5 2.780 0.372 4.2

- 12.00 248.48 233.78 8.776 8 - 12.4 2.793 0.373 4.3

- 11.75 249.58 234.89 8.771 8- 12.3 2.806 0.375 4.3

- 11.50 250.69 236.00 8.765 8 - 12.2 2.819 0.377 4.3

- 11.25 251.80 237.11 8.760 8 - 12.2 2.832 0.379 4.3

- 1 1 .00 252.92 238.22 8.755 8 - 12.1 2.845 0.380 4.3

- 10.75 254.04 239.34 8.750 8 - 12.0 2.858 0.382 4.4

- 10.50 255.16 240.47 8.745 8-11.9 2.871 0.384 4.4

- 10.25 256.29 241.60 8.740 8-11.8 2.884 0.386 4.4

- 10.00 257.42 242.73 8.735 8 - 1 1.8 2.897 0.387 4.4

-9.75 258.56 243.86 8.730 8- 11.7 2.911 0.389 4.5

-9.50 259.70 245.00 8.725 8 - 1 1 .6 2.924 0.391 4.5

-9.25 260.84 246.14 8.719 8 - 11.5 2.937 0.393 4.5

207
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 1 Temp Pressure Liquid Density Vapor Density Vap Dis

DegF

PSIA PSIG lb/gal (lb-oz)/gal Ib/cu ft Ib/gal

%

-9.00 261.98 247.29 8.714 8-11.4 2.951 0.394 4.5

-8.75 263.13 248.44 8.709 8- 11.3 2.964 0.396 4.5

-8.50 264.29 249.59 8.704 8- 11.3 2.978 0.398 4.6

-8.25 265.44 250.75 8.699 8 - 1 1 .2 2.991 0.400 4.6

-8.00 266.60 251.91 8.694 8- 11.1 3.005 0.402 4.6

-7.75 267.77 253.07 8.688 8-11.0 3.019 0.404 4.6

-7.50 268.93 254.24 8.683 8-10.9 3.032 0.405 4.7

-7.25 270.11 255.41 8.678 8- 10.8 3.046 0.407 4.7

-7.00 271.28 256.59 8.673 8- 10.8 3.060 0.409 4.7

-6.75 272.46 257.76 8.668 8- 10.7 3.074 0.411 4.7

-6.50 273.64 258.95 8.662 8 - 10.6 3.088 0.413 4.8

-6.25 274.83 260.13 8.657 8- 10.5 3.102 0.415 4.8

-6.00 276.02 261.32 8.652 8- 10.4 3.116 0.417 4.8

-5.75 277.21 262.52 8.647 8- 10.3 3.130 0.418 4.8

- 5.50 278.41 263.72 8.641 8- 10.3 3.144 0.420 4.9

- 5.25 279.61 264.92 8.636 8- 10.2 3.159 0.422 4.9

-5.00 280.82 266.12 8.631 8 - 10.1 3.173 0.424 4.9

-4.75 282.03 267.33 8.626 8- 10.0 3.187 0.426 4.9

-4.50 283.24 268.55 8.620 8-9.9 3.202 0,428 5.0

-4.25 284.46 269.76 8.615 8- 9.8 3.216 0,430 5.0

-4.00 285.68 270.98 8.610 8-9.8 3.231 0.432 5.0

-3.75 286.90 272.21 8.604 8-9.7 3.245 0.434 5.0

-3.50 288.13 273.44 8.599 8-9.6 3.260 0.436 5.1

-3.25 289.37 274.67 8.594 8 - 9.5 3.275 0.438 5.1

- 3.00 290.60 275.91 8.589 8-9.4 3.289 0.440 5.1

-2.75 291.84 277.15 8.583 8-9.3 3.304 0.442 5.1

-2.50 293.09 278.39 8.578 8-9.2 3.319 0.444 5.2

-2.25 294.33 279.64 8.573 8-9.2 3.334 0.446 5.2

208
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 1 Temp Pressure Liquid Density Vapor Density Vap Dis

Dee F

PSIA PSIG Ib/gai (lb-oz)/gal Ib/cu ft lb/gal

%

-2.00 295.58 280.89 8.567 8-9.1 3.349 0.448 5.2

- 1.75 296.84 282.14 8.562 8-9.0 3.364 0.450 5.3

- 1.50 298.10 283.40 8.556 8-8.9 3.379 0.452 5.3

- 1.25 299.36 284.67 8.551 8-8.8 3.395 0.454 5.3

- 1.00 300.63 285.93 8.546 8-8.7 3.410 0.456 5.3

-0.75 301.90 287.21 8.540 8-8.6 3.425 0.458 5.4

-0.50 303.18 288.48 8.535 8-8.6 3.440 0.460 5.4

-0.25 304.46 289.76 8.530 8-8.5 3.456 0.462 5.4

0.00 305.74 291.74 8.524 8-8.4 3.471 0.464 5.4

0.25 307.03 292.33 8.519 8-8.3 3.487 0.466 5.5

0.50 308.32 293.62 8.513 8-8.2 3.503 0.468 5.5

0.75 309.61 294.92 8.508 8-8.1 3.518 0.470 5,5

1.00 310.91 296.21 8.502 8-8.0 3.534 0.472 5.6

1.25 312.21 297.52 8.497 8-8.0 3.550 0.475 5,6

1.50 313.52 298.82 8.491 8-7.9 3.566 0.477 5,6

1.75 314.83 300.13 8.486 8-7.8 3.582 0.479 5.6

2.00 316.15 301.45 8.480 8-7.7 3.598 0.481 5.7

2.25 317.46 302.77 8.475 8-7.6 3.614 0.483 5,7

2.50 318.79 304.09 8.469 8-7.5 3.630 0,485 5.7

2.75 320.11 305.42 8.464 8-7.4 3.646 0.487 5,8

3.00 321.45 306.75 8.458 8-7.3 3.662 0.490 5,8

3.25 322.78 308.08 8.453 8-7.2 3.679 0.492 5.8

3.50 324.12 309.42 8.447 8-7.2 3.695 0.494 5,8

3.75 325.46 310.77 8.442 8-7.1 3.712 0.496 5,9

4.00 326.81 312.11 8.436 8-7.0 3.728 0.498 5,9

4.25 328.16 313.46 8.431 8-6.9 3.745 0.501 5,9

4.50 329.52 314.82 8.425 8-6.8 3.761 0.503 6.0

4.75 330.88 316.18 8.420 8-6.7 3.778 0.505 6.0

209
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 1 Temp Pressure Liquid Density Vapor Density Vap Dis

ueg r PSIA PSIG lb/gal (lb-oz)/gal Ib/cu ft Ib/gal

0/Vo

5.00 332.24 317.54 8.414 8-6.6 3.795 0.507 6.0

5.25 333.61 318.91 8.408 8-6.5 3.812 0.510 6.1

5.50 334.98 320.28 8.403 8-6.4 3.829 0.512 6.1

5.75 336.35 321.66 8.397 8-6.4 3.846 0.514 6.1

6.00 337.73 323.04 8.392 8-6.3 3.863 0.516 6.2

6.25 339.12 324.42 8.386 8-6.2 3.880 0.519 6.2

6.50 340.51 325.81 8.380 8-6.1 3.897 0.521 6.2

6.75 341.90 327.20 8.375 8-6.0 3.915 0.523 6.3

7.00 343.30 328.60 8.369 8-5.9 3.932 0.526 6.3

7.25 344.70 330.00 8.363 8-5.8 3.949 0.528 6.3

7.50 346.10 331.41 8.358 8-5.7 3.967 0.530 6.3

7.75 347.51 332.82 8.352 8-5.6 3.984 0.533 6.4

8.00 348.92 334.23 8.346 8-5.5 4.002 0.535 6.4

8.25 350.34 335.65 8.341 8-5.4 4.020 0.537 6.4

8.50 351.76 337.07 8.335 8-5.4 4.038 0.540 6.5

8.75 353.19 338.49 8.335 8-5.4 4.038 0.540 6.5

9.00 354.62 339.92 8.323 8-5.2 4.073 0.545 6.5

9.25 356.06 341.36 8.318 8-5.1 4.091 0.547 6.6

9.50 357.49 342.80 8.312 8-5.0 4.110 0.549 6.6

9.75 358.94 344.24 8.306 8-4.9 4.128 0.552 6.6

10.00 360.38 345.69 8.300 8-4.8 4.146 0.554 6.7

10.25 361.84 347.14 8.295 8-4.7 4.164 0.557 6.7

10.50 363.29 348.60 8.289 8-4.6 4.183 0.559 6.7

10.75 364.75 350.06 8.283 8-4.5 4.201 0.562 6.8

11.00 366.22 351.52 8.277 8-4.4 4.220 0.564 6.8

11.25 367.68 352.99 8.271 8-4.3 4.238 0.567 6.8

11.50 369.16 354.46 8.266 8-4.2 4.257 0.569 6.9

210
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 1 Temp Pressure Liquid Density Vapor Density Vap Dis

DegF

PSIA PSIG ib/gal (lb-oz)/gal Ib/cu ft lb/gal

%

11.75 370.64 355.94 8.260 8-4.2 4.276 0.572 6.9

12.00 372.12 357.42 8.254 8-4.1 4.295 0.574 7.0

12.25 373.60 358.91 8.248 8-4.0 4.314 0.577 7.0

12.50 375.09 360.40 8.242 8-3.9 4.333 0.579 7.0

12.75 376.59 361.89 8.236 8-3.8 4.352 0.582 7.1

13.00 378.09 363.39 8.230 8-3.7 4.371 0.584 7.1

13.25 379.59 364.89 8.224 8-3.6 4.390 0.587 7.1

13.50 381.10 366.40 8.219 8-3.5 4.410 0.589 7.2

13.75 382.61 367.91 8.213 8-3.4 4.429 0.592 7.2

14.00 384.13 369.43 8.207 8-3.3 4.449 0.595 7.2

14.25 385.65 370.95 8.201 8-3.2 4.468 0.597 7.3

14.50 387.17 372.48 8.195 8-3.1 4.488 0.600 7.3

14.75 388.70 374.01 8.189 8-3.0 4.508 0.603 7.4

15.00 390.24 375.54 8.183 8-2.9 4.527 0.605 7.4

15.25 391.78 377.08 8.177 8-2.8 4.547 0.608 7.4

15.50 393.32 378.62 8.171 8-2.7 4.567 0.611 7.5

15.75 394.87 380.17 8.165 8-2.6 4.587 0.613 7.5

16.00 396.42 381.72 8.159 8-2.5 4.608 0.616 7.5

16.25 397.98 383.28 8.153 8-2.4 4.628 0.619 7.6

16.50 399.54 384.84 8.147 8-2.3 4.648 0.621 7.6

16.75 401.10 386.41 8.141 8-2.2 4.669 0.624 7.7

17.00 402.67 387.98 8.134 8-2.2 4.689 0.627 7.7

17.25 404.25 389.55 8.128 8-2.1 4.710 0.630 7.7

17.50 405.82 391.13 8.122 8-2.0 4.731 0.632 7.8

17.75 407.41 392.71 8.116 8- 1.9 4.751 0.635 7.8

18.00 409.00 394.30 8.110 8-1.8 4.772 0.638 7.9

18.25 410.59 395.89 8.104 8-1.7 4.793 0.641 7.9

211
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 1 Temp Pressure Liquid Density Vapor Density Vap Dis

/O PSIA PSIG lb/gal (lb-o2)/gal Ib/cu ft lb/gal

18.50 412.19 397.49 8.098 8-1.6 4.814 0.644 7.9

18.75 413.79 399.09 8.092 8- 1.5 4.835 0.646 8.0

19.00 415.39 400.70 8.085 8- 1.4 4.857 0.649 8.0

19.25 417.00 402.31 8.079 8- 1.3 4.878 0.652 8.1

19.50 418.62 403.92 8.073 8- 1.2 4.900 0.655 8.1

19.75 420.24 405.54 8.067 8- 1.1 4.921 0.658 8.2

20.00 421.86 407.17 8.061 8-1.0 4.943 0.661 8.2

212
5. 56. (a) Grain Moisture Meters

Appendix C (Item 356-1)

Sec. 5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters

Section 5.56 has been reorganized into two sections. This Section, 5.56fa). is applicable to all NTEP grain moisture meters. It is also applicable to any grain moisture meter manufactured orplaced into service after January 1. 1998. (Code reorganized and renumbered

imi

A. Application

A.l. - This code applies to grain moisture meters; that is, devices used to indicate directly the moisture content of

cereal grain and oil seeds. The code consists of general

requirements applicable to all moisture meters and specific

requirements applicable only to certain types of moisture

meters.

A.2. - This code does not apply to devices used for in-motion measurement of grain moisture content or seed

moisture content.

A.3. Type Evaluation - The National Type Evaluation

Program will accept for type evaluation only those devices

that comply with the nonretroactive rcquircmcnta scheduled

to take effect on January' 1, 1998. this code. State enforcement will be based upon the effective dates

identified with each requirement when specific dates are shown.

(Added 1993)

(Note: Edited because the entire code is applicable to NTEP

meters and meters manufactured or placed into service after January 1, 1998)

A.4, - See also Sec. 1.10; General Code requirements.

S. Specifications

S.l. Design of Indicating, af»4 Recording Elements, and

of Recorded Representations Measuring Elements.

S.1.1. Primar}' Elements, General.—A meter shall be equipped with a primary indicating element and

may also be equipped with n primary recording

clement.—If the meter indieatca directly and/or is equipped to record, the meter ahall indicate ond/or

record its measurements i n terms of percent moisture

content, wet basis. (Subdivisions of th i s unit shall be

in terms of decimal subdivisions (not fractions)).

(NOTE: This portion in brackets {}, moved to new

Section S.l. 1(e)) If the meter indieotcs in the conventional—seek—and

requ i res—conversion—©f

correction tables, the resulting values after use of such

tables shall be in terms of percent moisture content, wet basis. Subdivisions of this unit shall be in terms of decimal subdivisions (not fractions).

S.1.2. Digita l Indications.

S.1.2.1, Measurement Completion.—A digital

indicating clement shall not display any velucs

(cither moisture content or conventional scale) before the end of the measurement cycle.

(Note: Old Section S.1.2 and S. 12.1 removed,

and covered in new Section S.l.1(d).)

6.1.2.2 S.1.1. Digital Indications and Recording

Elements.

(a) Meters shall be equipped with a digital indicating element.

(b) The minimum height for the digits used to display moisture content shall be 10 mm.

(c) Meters shall be equipped with a communication

interface that permits interfacing with a recording element and transmitting the date, grain type, grain moisture results, and calibration version identification.

(d) A digital indicating element shall not display,

and a recording element shall not record, any

moisture content values before the end o:" the measurement cycle.

(e) Moisture content results shall be displayed and

recorded as percent moisture content, wet basis. Subdivisions of this unit shall be in terms of

decimal subdivisions (not fractions").

(f) A meter shall not display or record any moisture

content values when the moisture content of the grain sample is beyond the operating range of the device, unless the moisture representation

includes a clear error indication (and recorded

error message with the recorded representation).

213
5.56. (a) Grain Moisture Meters

(g) On multi-constituent meters (e.g., meters which

also measure grain protein), provision shall be

made for displaying and recording the constituent label (such as moist, protein, etc.) to make it clear which constituent is associated with

each of the displayed and recorded values. (Added 1995)

(Added 1 993 )( Amended 1994 and 1995)

(Note: Section S. 1.2.2 renumbered and moved to new Section S.1.1. New Section S, 1.1(e) contains noted portion of old S.l . 1)

S.1. 6.1 S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection and Recording. - Provision shall be made for selecting and recording, if equipped to record, the kind

and class (as appropriate) of grain or seed to be measured. The means to select the kind and class of grain or seed shall be readily visible and the kind and class of grain or seed selected shall be clearly and definitely

identified, in lctter3 (auch an Wheat or WlIT, IIRV>^^

eter)? Meters shall bo capable must have the capability

of indicating the grain type using a minimum of four

characters. Abbreviations for grain types indicated on

the meter must meet the minimum acceptable

abbreviations efe listed in Table S.1.6.1. S.1.2. (Amended 1993 and 1995)

(Note: Section S.l .6.1 renumbered to new Section

5.1.2. See attached comments on editorial changes.)

5.1.3. Graduations.

5.1.3.1. Length.—Graduations shall be so varied

in length that they may be conveniently read.

5.1.3.2. Width. In any scries of graduations,

the width of Q graduati on shall in no case be

greater than the width of the min i mum clear interval between graduations, and the width of

the mai n graduations shall be not more than 50

percent greater than the width of subordinate

graduations . Graduations shall in no case be less than 0.2 mm (0.00 8 in) in width.

5.1.3.3. Clear Interval Between Graduations.

- The clear interval shall be not less than 0.75 mm (0.03 in) between graduations. If the graduati ons arc not parallel, the measurement

shall be made:

(a)

along the—hrte—of relative—movement

between the graduations at the end of the indicator, or

(b)

if the indicator is continuous, at the point of

widest separation of the graduations:

(Note: Old Section S.1.3 removed, and icovercd in Code 5.56(b), which is applicable to non-^NTEP

meters manufactured or placed into service hbefore January 1, 1998.)

S.1.6.3. S.1.3. Operating Range. - A meter shall automatically and clearly indicate when the operating range of the meter has been exceeded. The operating range shall specify the following:

(a) Temperature Range of the Meter The temperature range over which the meter may be used and still comply with the applicable

requirements shall be specified. The minimum

temperature range shall be 10 °C to 30 °C. No

moisture value may be displayed when the temperature range is exceeded. An appropriate

error message shall be displayed when the temperature of the meter is outside its specified

operating range.

(b) Temperature Range of each Grain or Seed

The temperature range for each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used shall be specified.

The minimum temperature range for each grain

shall be 0 °C to 40 °C. No moisture value may

be displayed when the temperature range is exceeded. An appropriate error message shall be

displayed when the temperature of the grain

sample exceeds the specified temperature range

for the grain.

(c) Moisture Range of the Grain or Seed

The moisture range for each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used shall be specified.

A moisture value may be displayed when the moisture range is exceeded if accompanied by a

clear indication that the moisture range has been

exceeded.

(d) Maximum Allowable Meter/Grain

Temperature Difference

The maximum allowable difference in temperature between the meter and the sample

for which an accurate moisture determination can be made shall be specified. The minimum

temperature difference shall be 10 °C. No

moisture value may be displayed when the maximum allowable temperature difference is exceeded. An appropriate error message shall be

displayed when the difference in temperature

214
5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters

between the meter and the sample exceeds the specified difference. (Added 1993)(Amended 1995)

i^ote: Section S.1.63 renumbered, titles added to each

paragraph (a> - (d), and moved to new Section S;L3 . See

additional comments on suggested sentence change for ^Iew section^. 1.3(d).)

S.1. 4. Indi cators.

6.1.4.1. Symmetry. - The index of an indicator shall be aymmetrical with res pect to the graduations, at least throughout that portion of its length associated with the graduati ons.

S. 1. 4.2. Length. - The index of an indicator shall reach to the finest graduations with which it is used, unless the indicator and the graduations arc in the same plane, in which case the distance between the end of the indicator and the ends of the graduations,

measured along the line of the graduations, shall be

not more than 1 .0 mm (0.04 in).

S.1.4.3. Width. - The width of the index of on in - dicator in relation to the series of graduations with

which it is used shall be not greater than:

(a)

the width of the widest graduation, nor ^—the width of the minimum clear interval between

graduations.

When the index of an indicator extends along the

entire length of a graduation, that portion of the index

of the indicator that may be brought into eoineidcncc

with the graduation shall be of the same width as the graduation throughout the length of the index that coincides with the graduation.

S.1.4.4;—Clea rance. - The clearance between the index of an indicator and the graduations shall in no

case be more than 1.5 mm (0.06 in).

S.1.4. 5. Parallax. Parallax effects shall be reduced

to the p

racticable minimum.

(Note: Old Section S.1.4 removed, and covered in Code

5.56(b), which is applicable to non-NTEP meters manufactured or placed into service before January 1, 1998.)

%^ S. 1.6.4 S.1.4. Value of the Indications . Design of Measuring Elements. - The display shall permit

constituent value determination to both 0.01 percent

and 0.1 percent resolution. The 0.1 percent resolution

is for commercial transactions: the 0.01 percent

resolution is for tvpe evaluation and calibration purposes onlv. not for commercial purposes.

(a)—The value of the minimum indicated or recorded moisture indication shall not be greater than

0.1 percent.

(b)—For the purposes of t^yc evaluation, the maximum

value for the moi sture indication shall be 0.01

percent.

(Added 1988) (Amended 1993 and 1995)

(Note: Section S.l .6.4 renumbered and moved to new

Section S.1.4. with editorial changes. See attached comments on editorial changes.)

S.1.5. Recording Elements.

S.l. 5.1.—General.—If a meter is equipped with a recording element, it shall record in terms of percent

moisture content, wet basis only, and not in terms of

conventional scale.

S;1.5.2. Meas urement Completion. - A recording

clement shall not record any values before the end of

the measurement cycle.

S.1.5.3. Range of Moisture Content.—A record i ng

clement shal l not record any values when the moisture

content of the grain sample is beyond the operating range of the device. (Note: Old Section S.l;5. removed. Covered iniNew

Section S.l. 1. d, e and f.)

S.l. 10. S.1.5. Operating Temperature.

(a) A meter warm up period: when a meter is turned on it shall not display or record any usable values

until the operating temperature necessary for accurate determination has been attained, or the meter shall bear a conspicuous statement adjacent

to the indication stating that the meter shall be

turned on for a time period specified by the manufacturer prior to use.

(b) A meter shall meet the requirements of T.2. - Tolerance Values when operated in the temperature range of 10 °C to 30 °C (50 °F to 86 °F) or within

the range specified by the meter manufacturer.

215
5. 56. (a) Grain Moisture Meters

(c) If the manufacturer specifies a temperature range, the range shall be at least 20 °C (36 °F) and ahall be marked on the device. (Added 1993)(Amended 1995)

(Note: Section S. 1.10 renumbered and moved to inew

Section S.L5. See additional comrhente on other proposed editorial changes.)

S.1.6.—Design of Direct Reading Grain Moisture

Meters.

S.1.6.1 G rain or Seed Kind and Class Selection

and Record i ng.—Provision shall be made for selecting and recording, ifequipped to record, the kind and class (as appropriate) of grain or seed to be measured. The means to select the kind and class of groin or seed shall be readily vi sible end the kind ond class of grain or sced

selected—shaH—be

clearly—anddefinitely identified in letters (such as >^T)cat or WIIT,

IIRWW, etc.).—Meters shall be capable of

indicating the grain type using a minimum of

four—characters: Minimum—acceptable

abbreviations are listed in Table S. 1.6.1 [Nonretroactive—and—effective—as—e/" January I. l99Sf

(Amended 1993 and 1995)

(Note: Section S.1.6 covered as new S.l. Section

S.1.6.1 renumbered and moved to new Section S.12.)

S. 1.6.2. Operating Range.— A—meter shall automatically and clearly indicate when tlie operating

range ofthe meter has been exceeded or the manufac- turer shall:

(a)—clearly - and conspicuously mark the opemting

ranges on the meter; or

{b)—furnish tlie operating ranges oftire meter and the means to clearly and cottspicuously display this information on or immediately adjacent to the device.

The operating range shall specify tliefollowing:

(tt)—the temperature range over which tire meter may

be used and still comply with tlie applicable

requirements;

(b)—the moisture range for each grain or seedfor which the meter is to be used;

^—the temperature rangefor vach grain or seedfor

wlt ich tlte meter is to be used; and

{d)—the—maximum—allowable—difference w

temperature betMven the meter and the sample

for yvhich an accurate moisture determination can be made.

Examples of clearly indicating these conditions

include an error ittdication, flashing the displayed

moisture—vahte-, or—blanking—the—display.

[Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1 989]

(Amended 19 8 6 and 1988 ) (Note: Section S.1.6.2 removed and covered in Code

5.56(b), which is applicable to non-NTEP meters

manufactured or placed into service before January 1, 1998)

S. 1.6.3.—Operating—Range:

•—y4—meter shall automatically and clearly indicate when

the operating range ofthe meter has been

exceeded. TIk operating range shall

specif' tliefollowing.

(a)—The temperature range over which the meter may be used and still comply with tlie applicable

requirements shall be specified.—The minimum

temperature range shall b\s 10 "C to 30 °C. No

moisture value may be displayed yx^ten the temperature range is exceeded. An appropriate

error message shall be - displayed M'hen the

temperature ofthe meter is outside its specified

operating range.

(bj—Tlie moisture range for each grain or seedfor

wliich the meter is to be used shall he specified.

A moisture value may be displayed wlten the moisture range is exceeded ifaccompanied by a

clear indication that the moisture range has

been exceeded ^—The temperature range for each grain or seed

for which the meter is to be used shall be

specified.—The minimum temperature rangefor

each grain shall be 0 °C to 40 °C. No moisture

value may be displayed when the temperature

range is exceeded. An appropriate error message—shall—he—displayed—when—the temperature of the grain sample exceeds the specified temperature rangefor the grain.

ft^>

The—maximum—allovable—difference—in temperature betyvcen the meter and the sample

216
5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters

for which an accurate moisture determination can be made shall be specified.—The minimum

temperature diffetvnae shall be JO "C.—Nrs moisture value may be displayed wlien the maximum allowable temperature difference is exceeded. An appropriate error message shall be displayed when the difference in temperature

between the meter and the sample exceeds the specified differertcc. P^onretroactive and effective as ofJanuary }, 199S.]

(Added 19!)3)(Amcndcd 1995)

(Note: Section S. 1,6.3. renumbered and moved to new

Sections. 1.3,)

S.1.6. 4 Value of Minimum Indication.

(a)The value of the minimum indicated or recorded moisture indication shall not be greater than

0.1 pcrecnt.

^—For the purposes—of type evaluation,—the maximum valuefor tire moisture indication shall be 0.0 } percent.

[Nonretroactive and effective as of January> ],

(Added 1988) (Amended 1993 and 1995)

Note: (Section S.1.6.4. renumbered and moved to new

Sections. 1.4.)

SHt?—Electric Power Supply.

5.1.7.1.—Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency.

^—A meter that operates using alternating current must perform within tlie tolerances defined in Section T.2. - Tolerance Values over the line voltage range 100 V to 130 V, or 200 Vto 250 V

rms as designed, and over the frequency range of59. 5 II: to 60.5 III.

(h)—Battery-operated instruments shall not indicate or—record—values—outside—the—applicable tolerance limits when battery pover output is excessive or deficient. [Nonretroactive as ofJanuary /, I9S9}

5.1.7.2.—Power—Interrupti on. A—power

interruption shall not cause an indicating or recording element to display or record

any valuet outside tlie applicable tolerance

limits. [Nonretroactive as ofJanuary I, 1989]

(Added 1988)

moved to new Section S.22., S^^.l ., 5.2.2.2.)

Srirfi

Level Indicatin g Means.—A meter shall be

equipped with a level indicator and leveling

adjustments if its performance is changed by an amount greater than th^ applicable tolerance wlten the meter » movedfrom a level position to a position tltat is out of level in any upright

direction by up to 5 percent (approximately 3

degrees).

The level- indicating means shall be readable without

removing—ar^—meter—parts—requiring—e—to^

[Nonretroactive as ofJanuary' I, I9S9]

(Added 1988 ) (Amended 1994) (Note; Section S.l<;8. renumbered and moved to new

SeG^p^Si23.)

S.1.9. Operating Temperature.

(a)—A meter shall not display or record afty usable

values until the operating temperature necessary for accurate determination has been attained, or

the meter shall bear a conspicuous statement adjacent to the indication stating that the meter

shall be turned onfor a time period specified by the manufacturer prior to use.

{b)—A meter shall meet the requirements of T:2:—

Tolerance Values when operated in tite temperature range of2 Vlo -tO V (35 Tto 104 T) ot within

the range specified by the meter manufacturer.

fe)—Ifthe manufacturer specifies a temperature range,

the range shall be at kast 10 °C (20 T) Miidsliall he marked on the device. [Nonretroactive as ofJanuary I, I9S9J

(Added 19 8 8) (Note: Section S.1.9 removed and covered in Code

5,56(b), which is applicable to non-NTEP meters msmufactured or placed into service before January 1

,

1998)

S.1.10 Operating Temperature.

•(a)—A meter shall not display or record arry usable

values until the operating temperature necessary for accurate determination has been attained, or

the meter shall bear a conspicuous statement adjacent to the iitdicalion stating that tlie meter

217
5. 56. (a) Grain Moisture Meters

shall be turned onfor a time period specified by the manufacturer prior to use. ^—A meter sivall meet the requirements of T.2. Tolerance Values yvlwn operated in tlte temperature

ivingeoflO Vti3 30 V (SO ''Fto86 °F) or within the range speeified by the meter manufacturer.

{e^—Jfthe manufacturer specifies a temperature range,

the range sliall be at least 20 °C {36 °F) and shall be marked on tlte device. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary I, 199S. (Added 1 993 )( Amended 1995)

(Note: Section S. 1 .10 renumbered and moved to new

Section S.l;5^

6:3

Des ign of Meas u ring El ements.

5.2.1. Design of Zero-Setting and Test Point

Mechanisms.—If a grain moisture meter i s equipped

with a izcro setting anA^or teat point mcchani3m(3), this (these) mcchani3m(3) shall be adjustable only with a tool outside and entirely separate from this mechanism or enclosed in a cabinet. This requirement shall not apply

to manual operations that the operator must make

(following operating instructions) in order to obtain a meter reading on a grain sample.

5.2.2. Provision for Scaling. - Provision shall be made

for applying a security seal i n a manner that requires the

sceurit)' seal to be broken before an adjustment can be made to any component of the grain moisture meter that

is set by the manufacturer or authorized service representative and not intended to be adjusted by the

user. (Note: Old Section S.2, S.2.1., S.2.2. removed, and

covered in Code 5.56(b), which is applicable to non- NTEP meters manufactured or placed into service before January i, 1998.)

SrirSProvisions for Scaling.

a. Provhion sliall be madefor applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be broken, or for using other approved means of providing

security (e.g., audit trail available at the time of

inspection as defined in part (b)), before any change

that affects the mctrological integrity oftlu) device can be made to any mechanism.

b. Iftire operator is able to make changes that affect tlte metro logical integrity ofthe device (e.g., slope, bias,

etc.) in normal operation, the device sitall use an audit

trail Tlte minimumform oftlte aitdit trail shall be an

event logger and shall include;

• An event counter (000 to 999),

• tlte parameter ID,

*—the date and time oftlte change, and

• the new value of tlte parameter (for calibration changes consisting of multiple eottstants, the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants.)

(Paragraph Added 199S)

Tlte device is not reqttiredto display this information, but a printed copy of the information must be a\' aiiable through anoilter on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to tyventyfive

(25) times the number of scalable parameters in tlte

device, but not more titan 1000 records arc required.

(Note; Docs not require 1 000 changes to be storedfor

each parameter.)

pionretroactive and effective as ofJanuary I, 199S.J

[Note;—Zero-setting and test point adjustments are

considered to affect metro logical characteristics and

must be sealed.]

(Added 1993)(Amendcd 1995)

(Note: Old Section S.2.3. renumbered and moved to new

S.2.5.)

St3t4—Determi nation of Quantity and Temperature.

-Tlte moisture meter system shall not require the operator to Judge tlte precise volume or weight

and temperature needed to make an aeeuratc

moisture determination. External grinding,

weighing,—and—temperature—measurement operations are not permitted.

[Non-retroaetive as ofJanuary I, 1 99S.J (Added 1994)( Amended 1995) (Note: Old Section S2.4. renumbered and moved tonew

Section S.2,6.)

S.2. Design of Grain Moisture Meters

Sr47 S.2.1. Minimum Sample Size. - Meters shall be

designed to measure the moisture content of

representative-size grain samples. The minimum

allowable sample size used in analysis shall be 100 g or 400 kernels or seeds, whichever is smaller. (Added 1 993 )(Amended 1995)

(Note: Old Section S.4 renumbered aiid moved to new

Section S.2.1)

218
5. 56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters

Srlr?T S.2.2. Electric Power Supply.

5.1.7.1. S.2.2. 1. Power Supply, Voltage and

Frequency.

(a) A meter that operates using alternating current must perform within the tolerances defined in Section T.2. - Tolerance Values

over the line voltage range 100 V to 1 30 V, or 200 V to 250 V rms as designed, and over the frequency range of 59.5 Hz to 60.5 Hz.

(b) Battery-operated instruments shall not

indicate or record values outside the applicable tolerance limits when battery

power output is excessive or deficient.

5.1.7.2. S.2.2.2. Power Interruption. - A power

interruption shall not cause an indicating or recording

element to display or record any values outside the applicable tolerance limits. (Added 1988)

(Note; Section S,L7, S.i'^.ljM'S.1.7X2'^|^g^^

iandmoved to S.2.2, S,2. 2,1, and S.2.2.2.)

S.1.8. S.23 Level Indicating Means. A meter shall be

equipped with a level indicator and leveling adjustments

if its performance is changed by an amount greater than

the appUcable tolerance when die meter is moved from a

level position to a position that is out of level in any

upright direction by up to 5 percent (approximately 3 degrees).

The level-indicating means shall be readable without

removing any meter parts requiring a tool. (Added 1988) (Amended 1994)

p^ote;. Secfion SA:.?r iemBdx^

S:5t S.2.4. Calibration Integrity

5.5.1. S.2.4.1. Calibration Version. - A meter must

be capable of displaying either calibration constants, a unique calibration name, or a unique calibration version number for use in verifying that the latest version of the calibration is being used to make

moisture content determinations.

(Added 1993)(Amended 1995)

5.5.2. S.2.4.2. Calibration Corruption. - If calibration constants are digitally stored in an

electronically alterable form, the meter shall be

designed to make automatic checks to detect

corruption of calibration constants. An error message

must be displayed if calibration constants have been

electronically altered. (Added 1993)(Amended 1995)

S.2.4.3. Calibration Transfer. - The

instrument hardware/software design and calibration procedures shall permit calibration development and

the mathematical transfer of calibrations between

instruments of like models.

Note: Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer's

designated service agency may make calibration transfer adjustments on moisture meters and, except for instrument failure and repair, only at a prescribed period

of time during the year. This does not preclude the

possibility of the operator installing the manufacturerspecified calibration constants or standardization

parameters under the instructions of the manufacturer or

his designated service agency. (Added 1994)

§iote: Old -SeqtiOits iS3, S^5il^' S;5.2, and S.5.3,

^umbered and moved;|o^ne\¥-S<K^ti<JnS:^ S2A^l,

S.2.3. S.2.5. Provision for Sealing

(a) Provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a maimer that requires the security seal to be

broken, or for using other approved means of

providing security (e.g., audit trail available at the time of inspection as defined in part (b)), before

any change that affects the metrological integrity of

the device can be made to any mechanism.

(b) If the operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity of the device (e.g., slope,

bias, etc.) in normal operation, the device shall use an audit trail. The minimum form of the audit trail shall be an event logger and shall include:

• An event counter (000 to 999),

• the parameter ID,

• the date and time of the change, and

• the new value of the parameter (for calibration changes consisting of muhiple constants, the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants.)

(Paragraph Added 1995)

The device is not required to display this information,

but a printed copy of the information must be available through another on-site device. The event logger shall

219
5. 56. (a) Grain Moisture Meters

have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five

(25) times the number of scalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are required.

(Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be stored for each parameter.)

[Note: Zero-setting and test point adjustments are considered to affect metrological characteristics and must

be sealed.]

(Added 1993)(Amended 1995)

(Note: Old Section S2.3 renumbered and nioved to new

Section S.2.5.)

S.2;4; S.2.6. Determination of Quantity and

Temperature. - The moisture meter system shall not require the operator to judge the precise volume or weight and temperature needed to make an accurate moisture determination. External grinding, weighing,

and temperature measurement operations are not

permitted.

(Added 1994)(Amended 1995)

(Note: Old Section S2;4 renumbered and TOOved to new

Section S.2.6.)

S.3. Accessory Equipment - When the operating

instructions for a moisture meter require accessory equipment separate from and external to the moisture meter, such equipment shall be appropriate and complete for the measurement.

(Note: No change to Section S,3)

S.3.1. Grai n- Test Scale.—If the moiaturc meter requires the weighing of the grain s ample, the weighing device

shall meet the requirements of the General Code and

those applicable portions of the Scales Code.

S.3.2. Thcrmomctcfs or Other Temperature Sens ing Equipment. -

(a)ThC' temperature sensing equipment or thermometer

shall be designed to be in direct contact with a grain sample in a closed container. It is acceptable

to insert thermometer through a small hole in the

lid of the container used to hold the grain sample. —A seporatc thermometer or other temperature

sens ing equipment shall have temperature divisions not greater than the temperature increments used by

the manufacturer in the correction table. (Amended 19 8 8)

S.3.3. ConvcrsioB—and

Correction—Tables.—

Conversion and correction tables, charts, graphs, slide

rules, or other apparatus to convert the conventional

scale values read fi-om a moisture meter to moiaturc

content values, if such apparatus is required, shall be appropriate and correct for the moisture meter being used

and shall be marked with the following information ;

(a)—name—and—address—or

trademark—of—the manufacturer;

(b)—the type or design of the device with which it is

i ntended to be used;

(e)date of i ssue; ^—the kind or classes of grain or seed for whi ch the device is designed to measure moisture content;

(e)

the limitations of use, including but not confined to the moisture measurement range, grain or seed

temperature, ki nd or class of grai n or seed,

moisture meter temperature, voltage and frequency

ranges,—electromagnetic—interferences;—and

necessary accessory equipment; but

if)—values exceeding any meoaurcmcnt range shall not bcineludcd.

(Added 1984 ) (Note: Section S.3.1, S.32, and S;3.3 removed and covered

in Code 5.56(b), which is applicable to non^NTEP meters manufacturered or placed into service before January 1

,

1998. Section S.3.3 (a - f) renumbered, edited and moved

to new Section S.4. (a - e). See attached comments on

editorial changes to S.3.2.)

S.3.4. Operating Instructions and Use Li mitations . - Operating instructions shall be—furnished by the manufacturer—with—each—device—with—aH

of the information required by paragraph S.3.3. Complete

i nformation concerning the accuracy, sensitivity* , and use of accessory equipment (e.g., test weight per bushel equi pment, thermometer, etc.) necessary in obtaining a moisture content shall be included.

(Note: Old Section S.3.4 remmibered andmoved to new

Section S.4.)

StA—Minimum Sampl e Size. Meiers shall be designed to measutv the moisture content vf representativC' Sisc grain samples.—Tlic minimum allo^vable sample sisc used in analysis shall be 100 g or 400 kermis or

seeds, whichever is smaller. [Nonretroactive atrd effective as ofJanuary }, 199S.]

(Added 1 993)(Amcndcd 1995)

220
5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters

6J.4. S.4. Operating Instructions and Use Limitations.

- The manufacturer shall furnish operating instructions

shall be fiimishcd by the manufacturer with each device

with all of the information required by paragraph S.3.3. for

the device and accessories that include complete

information concerning the accuracy, sensitivity, and use of

accessory equipment i^rgr,—test

weight—per bushel

equipment, thermometer, cte.) necessary in obtaining a

moisture content ahall be included. Operating instructions

shall include the following information:

(a) name and address or trademark of the manufacturer;

(b) the type or design of the device with which it is intended to be used;

(c) date of issue;

(d) the kind or classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to measure moisture content;

(e) the limitations of use, including but not confined to the moisture measurement range, grain or seed

temperature, maximum allowable temperature

difference between grain sample and meter, kind or

class of grain or seed, moisture meter temperature,

voltage and frequency ranges, electromagnetic

interferences, and necessary accessory equipment*

TtTTC ^—values cxeccding any measurement range shall not be

' The U.S. Department of Agriculture, rcderal Grain

Inspection Service (FGIS) Grain Inspection Packers and

Stockyards Administration (GIPSA^ uses a single brand

and model of moisture meter for official inspection of

moisture content in grains and other commodities. The

calibrations for the model are based on the official air-oven method and are developed and monitored on an established schedule using a broad range (with respect to geographical

source, kind, class, moisture content, maturity, etc.) of

grain samples at its central laboratory. The FGiS GIPSA

uses a hierarchical series of meter-to-meter

iniercomparisons to determine whether its field meters are operating within acceptable tolerances (±0.2% with

respect to standard meters). It has been shown that field meters checked by FGfS GIPSA procedures perform

within H-44 maintenance tolerances (T.2.) when tested (N.l.) using official grain samples. Agencies lacking a sample capability representing the entire nation and

traceable to the official laboratory reference method shall not use meter-to-meter field testing.

included. (Added 1984)

(Note: Old Section S.3.4 renumbered and moved;to new

Section S.4. Old Section S.3.3(a - f) renumbered, edited and 'moved to new Section S.4(a - e).) Section S.4(f) removed and covered in Gode 5.56(b) which is applicable

to moistm-e meters manufactured and placed into service

before January 1, 1998. This Section relates to meters used

withcharts and corrections.)

S.5. Calibration Integrity.

S.5.J.—Calibration Version. • A mctvr must be capable

of displaying either calibration constanl3, a

unique calibration name, or a unique calibration version number for use in verifying that the

latest version ofthe calibration is being used to make moisture content determinations. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary I, J99S.]

(Added l!)93)(Amcndcd 1095)

5.5.2. Calibration—Corruption. -—

calibration comtants are digitally stored in an electronically alterable form, the meter shall be designed to make automatic checks to detect corruption of

calibration constants. An error message must be

displayed if calibration constants have been

electronically altered. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 199S:]

(Added 1 993 )( Amended 1995)

5.5.3. Calibration—Transfer. -—The

instrument

hardware/software—design—and

calibration procedures shall permit calibrotion development

and the mathcmatieal transfer of calibrations between instruments of like models.

Note!—Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer's

designated service agency may make cal i bration transfer adjustments—m—moisture—meters

and, except—for instrument fai lure and repair, only at o preseribed period

of time during the year.—This docs not preclude the possib i lity of the operator i nstalling the manufacturer

specified—col i bration—constants—er

standardization parameters under the instructions of the manufacturer or

his designated service agency. (Added 1994) (Note: Old S.5, S.5.1, S.5.2, S.5.3 renumbered and moved

to new Section S.2.4, S.2.4.1, S.2.4.2, and S.2.4.3)

221
5. 56. (a) Grain Moisture Meters

N. Notes

N.l. Testing Procedures.

N.1.1. Transfer Standards.' - Official grain samples

siiali be used as the official transfer standards with

moisture content values assigned by the reference methods. The reference methods shall be the oven

drying methods as specified by the USDA GIPSA.

Tolerances shall be applied to the average of at least three measurements on each official grain sample.

Official grain samples shall be clean and naturally moist,

but not tempered (i.e., water not added).

(Amended 1992)

N.1.2. Minimum Test.' i»««"p»k«i . a minimum test of

a grain moisture meter shall consist of tests:

(a) with samples (need not exceed three) of each grain or seed for which the device is used, and

(b) with samples having at least two different moisture

content values within the operating range of the device. (Amended 1986, 1989)

(Note: No changes to Section?>};l , "N.l 1, and N.1.2)

N.1.3.—Temperature Measurin g Equipment. - The

accuracy of accessor^' temperature mcoauring equipment

shall be determined by comparison with o calibrated temperature—sensor,—stieh—as—a—total

immersion

thermometer with—0ri—^€—(d:9

°F) subdivisions,

indicating over a range of from 0 °G to 40 °C (j2 °F to 104 T) with a maximum error of xO.1 °C (0.2 °F). Tc3t3 shall be conducted at two temperatures using liquid baths (e.g., ice water and room temperature water). The

two temperatures selected shall not exceed the range of

temperatures identified in the moisture meter operating

instruct i ons. (Amended 1988 ) (Note; Section N.1.3 removed; arid covered in Code

5.56(b) which is applicable to non-NTEP meters manufactured or placed into service before January 1, 1998.)

T. Tolerances"

T.l. To Underregistration and to Overregistration. - The tolerances hereinafter prescribed shall be applied to errors of under registration and errors of overregistration.

T.2. Tolerance Values. - Mainteinance and acceptance

tolerances shall be as shown in Table T.2. Tolerances are expressed as a fraction of the percent moisture content of

the official grain sample, together with a minimum

tolerance.

T.3. For Test Weight Per Bushel Indications or Recorded Representations. - The maintenance and

acceptance tolerances on test weight per bushel indications or recorded representations shall be 0.193 kg/hL or 0.15 Ib/bu. The test methods used shall be those specified

by the USDA-fGIS GIPSA. (Amended 1992)

(Note: No change to Section T.1,T.2. Section T.3 edited to

reflect change in agency name.)

Tr4:Thermometers or Other Temperature Sensing

Equipment. - The tolcfonce for a separate thermometer or temperature sensing equipment used to determine the temperature of grain samples for the purpose of making

temperature corrcctiona in moisture determinations shall be

±0.5 °C(1 °F). (Added 1988) (Note: Section T;4*reiaoved, ari^ iitBode5^56(1^;; which is applicable to non-NTEP meters manofactureFed or placed intoservicebeforeJantiaiy 1, 1998;^

UR. User Requirements

UR.1. Selection Requirements.

UR.1.1. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary

Indicating and Recording Elements. - The value of

the smallest unit on a moisture meter, whether the moisture meter reads directly in terms of moisture

content, or when the conventional scale unit is converted or corrected to moisture content, shall be

equal to or less than one half the value of the mi nimum acceptance tolerance. 0.1 percent

Display Resolution - the resolution of the moisture meter displav shall be 0.1 percent moisture during

commercial use. (Note: Section UR. h i edited. See attached comments

on editorial changes.)

UR.1.2. SeeG-UR.1.2.

UR.2. Installation Requirements. - The grain moisture meter shall be installed in an environment within the range of temperature and/or other environmental factors specified

(a) in the operating mamial instructions., and (b) on the

222
5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters

convcfsion or coircction tables if such tabtc3 ofc neecsaary

for the operation of the device.

(Note: Section UR.2(b) removed, covered in Code 5.56(b),

which is applicable to non-NTEP manufactureredor placed

into service befpre January 1, 1998.)

UR.3. Use Requirements.

UR.3.1. Operating Instructions. - The operating

instructions for the use of the grain moisture meter shall be readily available to the user, service technician, and

weights and measures official at the place of installation.

It shall include a list of accessory equipment -, convera ion

charts if any arc required to obtain moisture content

valuca, and the kinds of grain or seed to be measured

with the moisture meter. (Amended 1988)

(Note: Strickout portion of Section yR3. 1 removed,

covered in Code 5.56(b), which is applicable to non- NTEP meters manufactured or placed into service before January 1, 1998.)

UR3.2. Other Devices not used for Commercial Measurement. - If there are other moisture meters on the premises not used for trade or determining other charges

for services, these devices shall be clearly and

conspicuously marked "Not for Use in Trade or Commerce."

UR.3.3. Maintaining Integrity of Grain Samples. - - Whenever there is a time lapse (temperamre change)

between taking the sample and testing the sample, means

to prevent condensation of moisture or loss of moisture

from grain samples shall be used. For example, a cold

grain sample may be kept in a closed container in order

to permit the cold grain to come to the operating

temperature range of the meter before the grain moisture measurements are made.

URJ.4. Printed Tickets.

(a) Printed tickets shall be free from any previous

indication of moisture content or type of grain or seed selected.

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing the date, grain type, grain moisture results, and calibration version identification. The ticket shall be generated by the grain moisture meter

system.

(Amended 1993 and 1995)

UR.3.5. Accessory Devices. - Accessory devices, if necessary in the determination of a moisture content

value, shall be in close proximity to the moisture meter and allow immediate use.

UR.3.6. Sampling. - A grain sample shall be obtained

by following appropriate sampling methods and

equipment. These include, but are not limited to grain

probes of appropriate length used at random locations in the bulk, the use of a pelican sampler, or other techniques and equipment giving equivalent results. The

grain sample shall be taken such that it is representative

of the lot.

UR.3.7. Location.- See G-UR.3.3.

UR.3.8. Level Condition. - If equipped with a level indicator, a meter shall be maintained in a level condition. (Added 1988)

(Note: No t^ange t(fe5ections UR.3.2; through^ UR.3 .8.)

XJR.3.Q. Operating Limitation.—Unless otherwise

specified—by

the meter manufacturer,—moisture

determinations shall not be made when the differonec

in temperatures bcrwccn the grain sample and the meter exceeds 10 °C (20 °F). (Added 198 8) (Note: Section UR.3.9 removed, covered in Code

5.56(b), applicable to non-NTEP meters manufactured or placed into service before January 1, 1998. Section

S. 1.3(d) of the new code states this requirement for NTEP meters. See attached comments on editorial changes.)

^RrSrWrURiMi Current Calibration Cha r t or Data.

- Grain moisture determinations shall be made using only

the most recently published calibration—charts or calibration data. (Added 1988)

(Note: Section UR3; 10. Renumbered and edited as UR.3.9.)

UR.3.11. UR.3. 10. Posting of Meter Operating

Range. - The operating range of the grain moisture meter

shall be clearly and conspicuously posted in the place of

business such that the information is readily visible from

a reasonable customer position. The posted information

shall include the following:

(a) The temperature range over which the meter may

be used and still comply with the applicable

^ These tolerances do not apply to tests in which grain

moisture meters are the transfer standards. 223
5. 56. (a) Grain Moisture Meters

requirements. If tie temperature range varies for different grains or seed, the range shall be specified for each.

(b) The moisture rzmge for each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used.

(c) The temperature range for each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used.

(d) The maxlnum allowable difference in temperature

that may exist between the meter and the sample

for which an accurate moisture determination can

be made. (Added 1988)

(Note: Section UR.3 . 11 renumbered as UR.3 . 10)
5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters

Table-S:i:6:Tl: S.1.2. Gram Types Consideredfor Type Evaluation and Calibration

and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations

Grain Type Minimum Acceptable Grain Type Minimum Acceptable

Abbreviation Abbreviation

Corn CORN Soybeans SOW

Durum Wheat DURW Two-rowed Barley TRB

Eastern White Wheat EWW Six-rowed Barley SRB

Western White Wheat WWW Oats OATS

Hard Red Spring Wheat HRSW

Hard Red Winter Wheat HRWW

Soft Red Winter Wheat SRWW

Hard White Wheat HDWW

Sunflower seed (Oil) SUNF Long Grain Rough Rice LGRR

Medium Grain Rough Rice MGRR

Grain Sorghum SORG or Small oil seeds (uruler consideration)

MILD

(Table Added 1993)

(Note: Table S. 1.6.1 renumbered as S.1.2 to reflect change in numbering of the Code)

Table T,2. Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances for Grain Moisture Meters

Type of grain or seed Tolerance Minimum Tolerance

Com, oats, rice, sorghum, sunflower 0.05 of the percent moismre content 0.8 percent in moisture comeni

All other cereal grains and oil seeds 0.04 of the percent moisture content 0.7 percent in moismre comeni

225
5.56.(b) Grain Moisture Meters

Appendix D (Item 356-1)

Sec. 5.56.(b) Grain Moisture Meters

Section 5.56 has been reorganized into two Sections. This Section. S.S6(b) is applicable to all non-NTEP grain moisture meters manufactured or placed into service before January 1. 1998. ICode reorganized and renumbered 1996

J

A. Application

A.l. - This code applies to grain moisture meters; that is, devices used to indicate directly or through conversion

and/or correction tables the moisture content of cereal grain

and oil seeds. The code consists of general requirements

applicable to all moisture meters and specific requirements

applicable only to certain types of moisture meters.

A.2. - This code does not apply to devices used for in-motion measurement of grain moisture content or seed moisture content. (Note: change to Section A.l -bf>?^;)

A.3. - The National Type Evaluation Program will accept

for type evaluation only those devices that comply with the nonretroactive requirements scheduled to take effect on

January' 1, 1998 . State enforcement will be based upon the effective dates identified with each requirement when

specific dates arc shown.

(Added 1993)

(Note: Old Section A3 rembved^^thd cowred^^lri^ 5.56(a), which is applicable to NTEP meters and meters manufactured or placed into service after January 1, 1998.)

Ar4: A.3. - See also Sec. 1.10; General Code requirements.

(Note: Section A.4 renumbered as A.3)

S. Specifications

S.l. Design oflndicating and Recording Elements and

of Recorded Representations.

S.I.I. Primary Elements, General. - A meter shall be

equipped with a primary indicating element and may also be equipped with a primary recording element. If the meter indicates directly and/or is equipped to record, the meter shall indicate and/or record its measurements in terms of percent moisture content, wet basis. Subdivisions of this unit shall be in terms of decimal sub- divisions (not fractions). If the meter indicates in the conventional scale and requires conversion or correction

tables, the resulting values after use of such tables shall be in terms of percent moisture content, wet basis.

Subdivisions of this unit shall be in terms of decimal

subdivisions (not fractions).

S.1.2. Digital Indications.

S.l.2.1. Measurement Completion. - A digital

indicating element shall not display any values (either moisture content or conventional scale) before the end

of the measurement cycle.

(Note: No change 4q Section >^;lpS.l.l, S.1.2,

5.1.2. 1. )

5.1.2.2. Digital Indications and Recording Elements.

fts^

Meters—siwU be—equipped—with—a digital

indicating element.

{b)—The minimum height for tite digits used to display moistwe content sltall be 10 mm.

{e)—Meters sliall be equipped with a communication

interface—that permits—interfacing—with—a

recording element and transmitting the mlc,

grain—type-,—g^rain—moisture—results,—and

calibration version identification.

{d)—A digital indicating clement sliall not display;

and a recording clement shall not record, any

moisture content values before the end of the measurement cycle.

(e)—Moisture content results shall be displayed and

recorded as percent moisture content, wet basis. ^—A meter sliall not display or record any moisture

content values when tlie moisture content oftltc grain sample is beyond the operating range of

the device, unless the moisture representation

includes a clear error indication (and recorded

error message with the recorded representation).

fgf

On multi-constituent meters (e.g., meters which

also measure grain protein), provision shall be

madefor displaying and recording the constituent label (such as moist, prof, etc.) to make it clear

226
5.56, (b) Grain Moisture Meters

which coitstituent is associated with each of the displayed attd recorded values. [Nonretroactive and effeetive January I, 199SJ

(Added 1 993) (Amended 1994 and 1995)

g|[6ti|g3|<^ covered m Code

5;56;(a), whidi is applicable to NTEP meters

Ihanufactured or placed into, service after January 1

,

(a) the width of the widest graduation, nor

(b) the width of the minimum clear interval between

graduations.

When the index of an indicator extends along the

entire length of a graduation, that portion of the index

of the indicator that may be brought into coincidence

with the graduation shall be of the same width as the graduation throughout the length of the index that 5.1.3. Graduations. coincides with the graduation.

S.1.3.1. Length. - Graduations shall be so varied in length that they may be conveniently read.

S. 1.3.2. Width. - In any series of graduations, the width of a graduation shall in no case be greater than

the width of the minimum clear interval between

graduations, and the width of the main graduations

shall be not more than 50 percent greater than the width of subordinate graduations. Graduations shall in no case be less than 0.2 mm (0.008 in) in width.

S.13J. Clear Interval Between Graduations. - The

clear interva. shall be not less than 0.75 mm (0.03 in) between graduations. If the graduations are not

parallel, the measurement shall be made;

(a) along tne line of relative movement between the graduations at the end of the indicator, or

(b) if the indicator is continuous, at the point of

widest separation of the graduations.

(Note: No change to Section S.1.3)

5.1.4. Indicators.

S.1.4.1. Symmetry. - The index of an indicator shall be symmetrical with respect to the graduations, at least througiout that portion of its length associated with the graduations.

S. 1.4.2. Length. - The index of an indicator shall reach to the finest graduations with which it is used, unless the indicator and the graduations are in the same plane, in which case the distance between the end of the indicator and the ends of the graduations,

measured along the line of the graduations, shall be

not more than 1 .0 mm (0.04 in).

S. 1.4.3. Width. - The width of the index of an in- dicator in relation to the series of graduations with

which it is used shall be not greater than:

5.1.4.4. Clearance. - The clearance betu'een the index of an indicator and the graduations shall in no

case be more than 1 .5 mm (0.06 in).

5.1.4.5. Parallax. - Parallax effects shall be reduced

to the practicable minimum.

i(Npte; No change to Section S. 1 .4)

5.1.5. Recording Elements.

5.1.5.1. General. - If a meter is equipped with a recording element, it shall record in terms of percent

moisture content, wet basis only, and not in terms of

conventional scale.

5.1.5.2. Measurement Completion. - A recording

element shall not record any values before the end of

the measurement cycle.

5.1.5.3. Range of Moisture Content. - A recording

element shall not record any values when the moisture

content of the grain sample is beyond the operating range of the device. (Note: No change to Section S.l .5.)

5.1.6. Design of Direct Reading Grain Moisture Meters.

S.1.6.1. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection

and Recording. - Provision shall be made for selecting and recording, if equipped to record, the kind and class (as appropriate) of grain or seed to be measured. The means to select the kind and class of

grain or seed shall be readily visible and the kind and

class of grain or seed selected shall be clearly and

definitely identified in letters (such as Wheat or WHT,

HRWW, etc.). Meters shall be capable of indicating the grain type using a minimum offour characters. Minimum acceptable abbrc^'iations are listed in Table

S.l. 6. 1.

221
5.56.(b) Grain Moisture Meters

QlJpte: Strikeouttext infection S.l.6.1 removed, and

^vered in Code 5.56(a), which is qjplicable to NTEP

meters and meters manufactured or placed into service

after January 1, 1998.3

S. 1.6.2. Operating Range. - A meter shall automatically and clearly indicate when the operating

range ofthe meter has been exceeded or the manufacturer shall:

(a) clearly and conspicuously mark the operating

ranges on the meter; or

(b) furnish the operating ranges ofthe meter and the means to clearly and conspicuously display this information on or immediately adjacent to the device.

The operating range shall specify thefollowing:

(a) the temperature range over which the meter may

be used and still comply with the applicable

requirements:

(b) the moisture range for each grain or seedfor

which the meter is to be used;

(c) the temperature rangefor each grain or seedfor

which the meter is to be used; and

(d) the maximum allowable difference in temperature between the meter and the sample

for which an accurate moisture determination can be made.

Examples of clearly indicating these conditions include an error indication, flashing the displayed

moisture value, or blanking the display.

[Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1989]

(Amended 1986 and 1988)

(Note: Ko change in Section S. L6.2.)

S. 1.6.3. Operating—Utrnge-.—-

A—meter shall automatically and clearly indicate wlicn the operating

range ofthe meter itas been exceeded. The operating

range shall specijy the following.

{a)—The temperature range over which the meter may be used and still comply with the applicable

requirements shall be specified.—The minimum

temperature txxnge shall be 10 °C to 30 °C. No

moisture value may be displayed when tlte temperature range is exceeded An appropriate

error message shall be displayed witen the

temperature oftire meter is outside its specified

operating range. ^—r/tc moisture range for each grain or seedfor

which tite meter is to be used shall be specified.

A moisture value may be displayed when the moisture range is exceeded ifaccompanied by a

clear indication that the moisture range has

been exceeded.

(e)—The temperature range for each grain or seed

for which tlie meter is to be used shall be

specified.—The minimum temperature rangefor

each grain shall be 0 °C to 40 °C. No moistwT

value may be displayed when the temperature

range is exceeded. An appropriate error message—shall—be—displayed—wlien tlic

temperature of the grain sample exceeds tlie

specified temperature rangefor tlie grain.

{d)—The—maximum—allowable—diffcivncc—in temperature bei^veen the meter and the sample

for which an accurate moisture determination can be made shall be specified.—The minimum

temperature difference s/tall be 10 °C.—N«

moisture wlue may be displayed when the maximum allowable temperature differeiwe is exceeded. An appropriate error message shall be displayed wlien the difference in temperature

between the meter and the sample exceeds the specified difference. Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary I, 1 99S

(Added 1993) (Amended 1995)

(Note: Old Section S. 1.6.3 removed^ and covered in Code 5.56(a), which is appUcable to NIEP meters and

meters manufactured or placed into service after January 1, 1998.)

6.1.6. 4. S. 1.6.3. Value of Minimum Indication.

(a) The value of the minimum indicated or recorded

moisture indication shall not be greater than

O.I percent.

(h)—F«r—the purposes—of type—evaluation,—the maximum valuefor tlic moisture indication shall be 0.01 percent.

[Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1,

(Added 1988) (Amended 1993 and 1995)

(Note: Section S.1.6.4 remunbered as new Section

S.1.6.3. Part (b) removed and covered in Code

228
5.56.(b) Grain Moisture Meters

5-.56(S>r 'Whier is ^p'plicdble io NTEP - meters

meters manufactured or ,placed^^;into ^service after ^iiary J, 1.9984

S.1. 7. Electric Power Supply.

S.1.7.L Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency.

(a) A meter that operates using alternating current must perform within the tolerances defined in Section T.2. - Tolerance Values over the line voltage range 100 V to 130 V. or 200 V to 250 V

rms as designed, and over the frequency range

of59.5 Hz to 60.5 Hz.

(b) Battery-operated instruments shall not indicate or record values outside the applicable

tolerance limits when battery power output is excessive or deficient [Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1989]

S.l. 7.2. Power Interruption. - A power interruption

shall not cause an indicating or recording element to display or record any values outside the applicable

tolerance limits. [Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1989]

(Added 1988)

5.1.8. Level Indicating Means. A meter shall be

equipped with a level indicator and leveling adjustments

ifits performance is changed by an amount greater than

the applicable tolerance when the meter is movedfrom a

level position to a position that is out of level in any

upright direction by up to 5 percent (approximately 3 °).

The level-indicating means shall be readable without

removing any meter parts requiring a tool [Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1989]

(Added 1988) (Amended 1994)

(Note: No change tCK. Section SAX)

5.1.9. Operating Temperature.

(a) A meter shall not display or record any usable

values until the operating temperature necessary for accurate determination has been attained or

the meter shall bear a conspicuous statement adjacent to the indication stating that the meter

shall be turned onfor a timeperiod specified by the manufacturer prior to ttse.

(b) A meter shall meet the requirements of T.2. - Tolerance Values when operated in the temperature

range of2 °C to 40 "C (35 °F to 104 "F) or within

the range specified by the meter manufacturer.

(c) Ifthe manufacturer specifies a temperature range,

the range shall be at least 10 °C (20 °F) and shall be marked on the device. [Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1989]

(Added 1988)

S.l. 10. Operating Temperature. ^—A meter sltall not display or record atty usable

values until the operating temperature rtecessaiy

for accurate dcternunation lias been attained, or

the meter sliall bear a conspicuous statement adjacent to tlte indication stating that the meter

sliall be turned onfor a time period specified by tlie manufacturer prior to use.

(b)—A meter shall meet the requirements of T.2. - TolemtKC Values when operated in tlie temperature

range of 10 °C to 30 °C (SO T to 86 T) or within

the range specified by the meter manufacturer.

(e)—Ifthe manufacturer specifies a temperature range,

tlte range sltall be at least 20 °C (36 °F) and sliall be marked on the device. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 1998. (Added 1 993 )(Amended 1995) fNote: Section S.l.IO Temoved and covered in Code

|

.56(a), which is applicable to NTEP meters and meters manufacturgdn<?X ;plaged irtto ; service after January i|

|998.)

S.2. Design of Measuring Elements.

5.2.1. Design of Zero-Setting and Test Point

Mechanisms. - If a grain moisture meter is equipped

with a zero setting and/or test point mechanism(s), this (these) mechanism(s) shall be adjustable only with a tool outside and entirely separate from this mechanism or enclosed in a cabinet. This requirement shall not apply

to manual operations that the operator must make

(following operating instructions) in order to obtain a

meter reading on a grain sample.

5.2.2. Provision for Sealing. - Provision shall be made

for applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be broken before an adjustment can be

made to any component of the grain moisture meter that

229
5.56. (b) Grain Moisture Meters

is set by the manufacturer or authorized service representative and not intended to be adjusted by the

user. (Note: No change to Section S.2, S.2.1, and S.2.2)

S.2.3. Provision for Sealing

^—Provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner ihat requires the security seal to be broken, or for using other approved means of

providing security (e.g., audit irail ttvailahle at the time of inspection as defined in part (b)), before ai^ change tliat affects (lie melrological integrity of

the device can be made to an\f mechanism.

(b)—If the operator is able to make changes that affect

tlie melrological integrity ofthe device (e.g., slope,

bias, etc.) in normal operation, (he device shall use an audit trail. The minimumform ofthe audit trail shall be an event logger and shall include:

• An event counter (000 to 999),

*—the parameter ID,

*

the date and time ofthe change, and

'—the new value of the parameter (for calibration changes consisting of multiple constants,—the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants.)

(Paragraph Added 1995)

Tlie device is not required to display this information, but a printed copy of the information must be

available through another on-site device. The ewnt

logger sltali Ivsve a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five—(BS)—times—the—number—of scalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000

rccordi arc required. (Note: Does not require 1000

changes to be storedfor each parameter.)

[Nonretroactive and effective as of January 7,

[Note:—Zero-setting and test point adjustments are considered to affect metrological characteristics and

must be sealed.]

(Added 1993)(Amcndcd 1995)

(Note: Section S.2.3 removed and covered in Code

5.56(a), which is applicable to NTEP meters and

meters manufactured or placed into service after January I, 1998.)

Determination of Quantify and Temperature. - The

moisture meter system shall not require the operator to judge the precise volume or Mvight aitd temperature needed

to make an accurate moisture determination.—External

grinding,—weigii ing,—and—temperature—measurement

operations are not permitted.

[Non- retroactive as ofJanuary /, 199S.J

(Added 1 994)(Amended 1995)

(Note: Section S,2.4 removed and covered in Code 5M(&),

which is applicable to NTEP meters and meters

raanufectured or placed mto service afterJanuary 1, 1^^^

S.3. Accessory Equipment - When the operating

instructions for a moisture meter require accessory equipment separate from and external to the moisture meter, such equipment shall be appropriate and complete for the measurement.

S.3.1. Grain-Test Scale. - If the moisture meter requires the weighing of the grain sample, the weighing device

shall meet the requirements of the General Code and

those applicable portions of the Scales Code.

SJ.2. Thermometers or Other Temperature Sensing

Equipment -

(a) The temperature sensing equipment or thermoneter

shall be designed to be in direct contact with a

grain sample in a closed container. It is acceptable

to insert thermometer through a small hole in the

lid of the container used to hold the grain sample.

(b) A separate thermometer or other temperature

sensing equipment shall have temperature divisions not greater than the temperature increments used by

the manufacturer in the correction table. (Amended 1988)

S.3.3. Conversion and Correction Tables. - Conversion and correction tables, charts, graphs, slide

rules, or other apparatus to convert the conventional

scale values read from a moisture meter to moistoire content values, if such apparatus is required, shall be

appropriate and correct for the moisture meter being used

and shall be marked with the following information:

(a) name and address or trademark of the manufacturer;

(b) the type or design of the device with which it is intended to be used;

(c) date of issue;

(d) the kind or classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to measure moisture content;

230
5.56.(b) Grain Moisture Meters

(e) the limitations of use, including but not confined to the moisture measurement range, grain or seed

temperamre, kind or class of grain or seed,

moisture meter temperature, voltage and frequency

ranges, electromagnetic interferences, and

necessary accessory equipment; but

(f) values exceeding any measurement range shall not be included. (Added 1984)

S.3.4. Operating Instructions and Use Limitations. - Operating instructions shall be fiimished by the manufacturer with each device with all of the information required by paragraph S.3.3. Complete

information concerning the accuracy, sensitivity, and use of accessory equipment (e.g., test weight per bushel equipment, thermometer, etc.) necessary in obtaining a moisture content shall be included. (Note; No chan ge to Section S.3 .)

5.4. Minimum Sample Size—Meters shall be designed to measure the moistwe content ofreprcsentative'sise grain

samples.—The minimum allo'^vable sample size used in analysis shall be 100 g or 400 kernels or seeds, whicltever

is smaller. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary I, 199S.}

(Added 1993)(Amcndcd 1995)

(Note: Section S.4 removed and covered in Code 5.56(a),

which is applicable to NTEP meters and meters

manufactured or placed into service after January 1, 1998.)

5.5. Calibration integrity

5.5.1. Calibration Version. ' A meter must be capable

of displaying either calibration constants, a unique

calibration name,—or a unique calibration version numberfor use in verifying that the latest vcrsioit oftite calibration is being used to make moisture content

determinations. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary i, 1 99S.}

(Added 1993)(Amended 1995)

5.5.2. Calibration Corruption. - ffcalibration constants arc digitally stored in an electronically alterable form,

iIk meter shall be designed to make automatic checks to detect corruption of calibration constants.—An error message must be displayed ifcalibration con.stants have

been electronically altered. [Nonrctroactix-e and effective as ofJanuary I, 199S.J (Added 1993)(Amcndcd 1995)

6. S.3. Calibration Transfer.——Theinatrumcnt

hardwarc/softwofO" design and calibration proecdufea shaH—permit

calibration—development—and—the mathemati cal—transfer—ef

calibrationsbetween

instruments of like models. ' (Amended 1993)

Note;—Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer's

designated service agency may make calibration transfer adjustments—©n

moisture—meters—tm6;—exeept—fef instrument failure and repair, only at a prescribed period

of time during the year.—This docs not preclude the poss i bility of the-opcrator installing the manufacturer specified calibration—constants—or

standard tzfition parameters under the instructions of the manufacturer or

his designoted service agency. (Added 1994 ) (Note: Section S.5 removed and covered in Code 5.56(a), which is applicable to NTEP meters and meters

maiiufactured or placed into service after Januaiyi^l,

1998.)

N. Notes

N.l. Testing Procedures.

N.1.1. Transfer Standards." - Official grain samples

shall be used as the official transfer standards with

moisture content values assigned by the reference methods. The reference methods shall be the oven

drying methods as specified by the USDA FGIS.

Tolerances shall be applied to the average of at least three measurements on each official grain sample.

Official grain samples shall be clean and naturally moist, but not tempered (i.e., water not added).

(Amended 1992)

N.1.2. Minimum Test.' i»«""'p«««i . a minimum test of

a grain moisture meter shall consist of tests:

(a) with samples (need not exceed three) of each grain or seed for which the device is used, and

(b) with samples having at least two different moisture

content values within the operating range of the

device. (Amended 1986, 1989)

231
5.56.(b) Grain Moisture Meters

N.1.3. Temperature Measuring Equipment. - The

accuracy of accessory temperature measuring equipment

shall be determined by comparison with a calibrated temperature sensor, such as a total immersion thermometer

with 0.1 °C (0.2 °F) subdivisions, indicating over a range of from 0 °C to 40 °C (32 °¥ to 104 °F) with a maximum

error of ±0.1 °C (0.2 °F). Tests shall be conducted at two

temperatiu^es using liquid baths (e.g., ice water and room

temperature water). The two temperatures selected shall not exceed the range of temperatures identified in the moisture meter operating instructions. (Amended 1988) (Note: Mo change to Section N. l .)

T. Tolerances^

T.l. To Underregistration and to Overregistration. - The tolerances hereinafter prescribed shall be applied to

errors of imder registration and errors of overregistration.

T.2. Tolerance Values. - Maintenance and acceptance

tolerances shall be as shown in Table T.2. Tolerances are expressed as a fraction of the percent moisture content of

the official grain sample, together witli a minimum

tolerance.

T.3. For Test Weight Per Bushel Indications or Recorded Representations. - Tlie maintenance and

acceptance tolerances on test weight per bushel mdications

or recorded representations shall be 0.193 kg/hL or 0.15 Ib/bu. The test methods used shall be those specified

' The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) Grain Inspection. Packers and

Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) uses a single brand and

model of moisture meter for official inspection of moistxire content in grains and other commodities. The calibrations for the model are based on the official air-oven method

and are developed and monitored on an established schedule using a broad range (with respect to geographical

source, kind, class, moisture content, maturity, etc.) of

grain samples at its central laboratory. The FGIS GIPSA

uses a hierarchical series of meter-to-meter

intercomparisons to determine whether its field meters are operating within acceptable tolerances (+0.2% with

respect to standard meters). It has been shown that field meters checked by FGIS GIPSA procedures perform

within H-44 maintenance tolerances (T.2.) when tested (N.l.) using official grain samples. Agencies lacking a sample capability representing the entire nation and

traceable to the official laboratory reference method shall not use meter-to-meter field testing.

by the USDA ¥GiS GIPSA. (Amended 1992)

T.4. Thermometers or Other Temperature Sensing

Equipment.- The tolerance for a separate thermometer or temperature sensing equipment used to determine the temperature of grain samples for the purpose of making

temperature corrections in moisture determmations shall be

±0.5 °C (1 °F). (Added 1988) (Note: No change to Section

T.l, T.2, T.4. Section T,3 edited to reflect aj:b^ttge in agency name.)

UR. User Requirements

UR.1. Selection Requirements.

UR.1.1. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary

Indicating and Recording Elements. - The value of

the smallest unit on a moisture meter, whether the moisture meter reads directly m terms of moisture

content, or when the conventional scale unit is converted or corrected to moisture content, shall be

equal to or less than one-half the value of the minimum acceptance tolerance.

UR.1.2. SeeG-UR.1.2.

(Jvlot^^No.change to S€a}<^^fL^^^)

UR.2. Installation Requirements. - The grain moisture meter shall be installed in an environment within the range of temperature and/or other environmental factors specified

(a) in the operating manual, and (b) on the conversion or

correction tables if such tables are necessary for the operation of the device. 0^ote: No change to Section UK 2.)

UR.3. Use Requirements.

UR.3.1. Operating Instructions. - The operating

instructions for the use of the grain moisture meter shall be readily available to the user, service technician, and

weights and measures official at the place of installation.

It shall include a list of accessory equipment, conversion

and correction charts if any are requu-ed to obtain

moismre content values, and the kinds of grain or seed to be measured with the moisture meter. (Amended 1988)

^ These tolerances do not apply to tests in which grain

moisture meters are the transfer standards.

232
5.56.(b) Grain Moisture Meters

UR.3^. Other Devices not used for Commercial Measurement. - If there are other moisture meters on the premises not used for trade or determining other charges

for services, these devices shall be clearly and

conspicuously marked "Not for Use in Trade or Commerce."

UR3.3, Maintaining Integrity of Grain Samples. - - Whenever there is a time lapse (temperature change)

between taking the sample and testing the sample, means

to prevent condensation of moisture or loss of moisture

from grain samples shall be used. For example, a cold

grain sample may be kept in a closed container in order

to permit the cold grain to come to the operating

temperature range of the meter before the grain moisture measurements are made.

(Note: No change to Section UIL3,,lJR.3.1^C^^^^ttd

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets.

(a) Printed tickets shall be free from any previous

indication of moisture content or type of grain or seed selected. ^—The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing the date, grain type, grain moisture

results, and calibration version identification. The

ticket shall be generated by the grain moistwe

meter system. [Nonretroactive and effectiw as of

Januaiy 1, 1998.]

(Amended 1993 and 1995)

j@Npte; No change to Section UR3v4(a). Section

tIR.3.4(b) removedand covered in Code 5 .56(a), which

is apfrficable to W£P meters aad meters manufactured

Hipiaced into service after January 1, 1998.)

UR.3.5. Accessory Devices. - Accessory devices, if necessary in the determination of a moisture content

value, shall be in close proximity to the moisture meter

and allow immediate use. f?ote: No ehatige to UR.3.5.)

UR.3.6. Sampling. - A grain sample shall be obtamed

by following appropriate sampling methods and

equipment. These include, but are not limited to grain

probes of appropriate length used at random locations in the bulk, the use of a pelican sampler, or other

techniques and equipment giving equivalent results. The

grain sample shall be taken such that it is representative

of tlie lot.

UR3.7. Location. - See G-UR.3.3.

(Note: No change to yR.3,7.)

UR.3.8. Level Condition. - If equipped with a level

indicator, a meter shall be maintained in a level condition. (Added 1988)

^ote; No change to UR.3J^^

UR.3.9. Operating Limitation. - Unless otherwise

specified by the meter manufacturer, moisture

determinations shall not be made when the difference in temperatures between the grain sample and the meter

exceeds 10 "C (20 °F). (Added 1988)

§«Iote: No change to UR.3||^

UR.3.10. Current Calibration Chart or Data. - Grain

moisture determinations shall be made using only the most recently published calibration charts or calibration

data. (Added 1988)

UR.3.11. Posting of Meter Operating Range. - The

operating range of the grain moisture meter shall be

clearly and conspicuously posted in the place of business

such that the information is readily visible from a reasonable customer position. The posted information shall include the following:

(a) The temperature range over which the meter may

be used and still comply with the applicable

requirements. If the temperature range varies for

different grains or seed, the range shall be specified

for each.

(b) The moisture range for each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used.

(c) The temperature range for each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used.

(d) The maximum allowable difference in temperature

that may exist between the meter and the sample

for which an accurate moisture determination can be made.

(j^dded 1988)

233
5.56.(b) Grain Moisture Meters

Table S. 1.6.1. Grain Types Consideredfor Type Evaluation attd Calibrathn

andMinimum Acceptable Abbreviations

Grain Type Minimum Acceptable

Abbreviation Grain Type Minimum Acceptable

Abbreviation Com CORN Soybeans sew

Durum Wieat Eastern Wliite Wheat

Western Wft ite W:eat

Hard Red Spring Wieat

DURW

r'Tinir ETTTT

YY yy YT HRSW

Tywrowed Barley

Sbcrowed Barley

— -

IKu

onn OKU

Hard Red Winter WJieat

Soft Red Winter Wfieat

Hard Wliite Wlt eat

riRWW

SRWW

IIDWW

Sunflower seed (OH) SUNF Long Grain Rough Rice

Medium Grain Rough Rice

kGRR

M&iR

Grain Sorghum SORG or Mite

Small oil seeds (under consideration)

[ Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 1998.] (Table Added 1993)

(Note: Table S. L6.1 removed and covered in Code 5 ;56(a), which is applicaMe to t«iTEP metfe^

into service iiftci i^viai^dy 1?98.)

Table T.2. Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances for Grain Moisture Meters

Type of grain or seed Tolerance Minimum Tolerance

Com, oats, rice, sorghimi, simflower 0.05 of the percent moistiure content 0.8 percent in moismre content

All other cereal grains and oil seeds 0.04 of the percent moisture content 0.7 percent in moisture content

234
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Report of the Committee on

Administration and Public Affairs

Barbara J. E>eSalvo, Chairman

Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Ohio Department of Agriculture

Introduction

This Report of the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs (A&P) for the 81st Annual Meeting of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures consists of the Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16, "Program and

Committee Reports," as amended by the Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual Meeting.

Table A identifies all of the issues contained in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. All items are informational and are indicated by the suffix I.

Table B lists the appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee's

report in its entirety.

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

400 I Regional Weights and Measures Activities 237

401 I Program Evaluation Work Group 237

402 I National Training Program (NTP) 238

402-1 I Associate Membership Scholarship Fund-Training Delivery 238

402-2 I Redesignof the NTP' s Training on Scales 238

402-3 I NCWM Training Materials Update and Maintenance 239

402-4 I Organization and Utilization of Certified Trainers 241

402-5 I Industry Training 241

402-6 I Instructor Training 241

402-7 I Training Advisory Work Group 242

403 I Legislative Strategy 242

404 I Weights and Measures Round Tables 243

235
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Table A (Continued)

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

405 Public Affairs 243

405-1 I Industry Relations 243

405-2 I Public Relations 243

405-3 I Marketing Weights and Measures in the United States 243

405^ I Advertisement of the 81st NCWM 1996 - New Orleans, Louisiana 244

405-5 I NCWM Commimication Processes 244

406 I Administrative Priorities and Budget 244

407 I Safety Information Clearinghouse 245

In addition, the Report contains several appendices that are related to specific Reference Key Numbers as follows:

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

A. Program Evaluation Work Group Meeting Report 401 246

B. NTP Certification Summary 402 261

C. NTP Registry Summary of Activity 402 262

D. Associate Membership Scholarship

Fund Training Delivery 402-2 273

E. Application for Scholarship Fimds 402-2 277

F. Anonymous Accident/Incident Report

(Form for inclusion in State and local safety program,

and for completion and return to NCWM) 406 279

236
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key No.

House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Results Yes No Yes No

400 (Report in its Entirety) 41 0 64 0 Passed

Details of All Items

(In order of Reference Key Number)

400 I Regional Weights and Measures Activities

The Committee reviewed and discussed the following:

1. The final report of the Annual Meeting of the Central Weights and Measures Association (May 1996}.

2. The final report of the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (May 1996).

3. The final report of the Administration and PubUc Affairs Committee to the 38th Annual Technical Meeting of the Western Weights and Measures Association Conference (September 1995).

4. The final report of the Administration and Public Affairs Committee to the 50th Annual Southern Weights and

Measures Association Conference (October 1995).

5. Committee responsibilities to the regional associations were discussed.

The positions taken by the regional associations on specific items appearing in this report are noted as part of the discussion

of the items. The Committee would like to thank all of the regional associations for their invaluable input and expressions

of support for the work of this Committee.

401 I Program Evaluation Work Group

The Program Evaluation Work Group (PEWG) had its last meeting at the Interim Meeting in January 1 996, in Fort Lauderdale,

Florida. Since then, work has continued to develop code for the collection of data for the pilot data management system and

to develop interactive access to the system via the Internet. There will be a meeting August 19-21, 1996, to be held at NIST

in Gaithersburg, Maryland. (See Appendix A for a summary of the January 1996 meeting.)

Gilles Vinet, Industry Canada, presented an overview of his organization's project to automate weights and measures program information. This Canadian effort complements the activities of the Program Evaluation Working Group on which

Mr. Vinet participates. Management and justification of our weights and measures efforts continue to be a challenge. Mr.

Vinet provided a window to view possible approaches for meeting the challenges.

237
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

402 I National Training Program (NTP)

A summary of current participation by individual jurisdictions in the NTP Certification Program is provided in Appendix

B. Appendix C contains a stmamary of activity and information in the NTP Registry from 1985 through 1996.

The status of the funds remaining under the second grant provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) to the NCWM for the development of training materials for weights and measures officials is as follows (as of Jxme

30, 1996):

Gilbert M. Ugiansky, Ph.D., Chief of the NIST Office of Weights and Measures and Executive Secretary of the NCWM,

participated in a disctission regarding the status of carryover grant fimds. The Committee is investigating options available

for the most effective use of remaining grant funds. Areas imder consideration include: redesign of NTP's training on

scales (see Item 402-2); development of short courses, correspondence courses, interactive videos, and CD-ROMs;

maintenance and updating of existing training materials; updating NCWM Publication 12, Examination Procedure Outlines

(EPOs) (a contract for which is in progress); sponsoring additional instructor training courses (see Item 402-6).

402-1 I Associate Membership Scholarship Fund-Training Delivery

The Committee received a report covering the awarding of 20 $500 scholarships provided by the Associate Membership

Committee (AMC) to U.S. weights and measures officials. The scholarships were authorized for use during the period

August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996; that activity is shown in Appendix D. All scholarship funds for this period were

committed.

With participation from the Associate Membership Committee, the A&P Committee discussed the success of the scholarship

program and explored avenues for continuing the project. The Committee expressed appreciation to the Associate

Membership Committee, as well as gratitude to all industry members for their support of the scholarship program.

The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) continues its commitment to training of weights and measures personnel.

During the 81st Aimual Meeting, the Associate Membership provided four $5,(XX) grants, one to each region, for the following purposes, all undenakings to be completed by July 31, 1997:

A standard Application for Grant/Scholarship Fund, Request for Disbursement, and Reimbursement Voucher have been

developed by the Committee and are in Appendix E.

402-2 I Redesign of the NTP's Training on Scales

The Committee has submitted a proposal to the Executive Committee requesting that a Training Advisory Work Group be

established (see Item 402-7). Part of the mission of this group is to identify resources and a process for the redesign of

training courses, including the five current scales training classes, namely: retail computing, medium-capacity, vehicle and

axle-load, meat beam and monorail, and livestock and animal scales. This item will not be pursued at this time and other avenues are being explored.

Net outlays to date: Total grant funds authorized: Total unliquidated obligations

Balance of funds:

$ 84,115.72

180,000.00

7,100.00

$ 88,784.28

media or public relations training (the A&P Committee is to be given the opportunity review the course

outline and credentials of any proposed trainer);

printing and/or mailing expenses related to regional newsletters; or

as $500 scholarships for field training.

238
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

402-3 I NCWM Training Materials Update and Maintenance

The chart on the following page presents a summary of the revision status of all currently published NCWM training materials; the chart also reflects the new course numbering system, approved by the 80th NCWM for implementation on

January 1, 1996. The Committee proposed and the 80th NCWM adopted the following system which is similar in format

to the order of the sections in Handbook 44 and allows for expansion of course activity:

Introductory: Level 100

101 Weights and Measiu-es Regulation in the United States 102 Introduction to Handbook 44

103 Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring Systems

Scales: Level 200

201 Introduction to Handbook 44 Scales Code (planned)

202 Retail Computing Scales 203 Medium-Capacity Scales 204 Livestock and Animal Scales 205 Meat Beams and Monorail Scales 206 Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales

Meters: Level 300

301 Introduction to Meters (planned)

302 Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers and Consoles

303 Vehicle-Tank Meters 304 Loading-Rack Meters 305 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices

Measures: Level 400

Other Devices: Level 500 (linear, taximeters, etc.)

Commodities: Level 600

601 Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

602 Commodity Regulations

239
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Revision Status of NCWM Training Materials

(As of June 30, 1996)

New Course Numbers (Module

Numbers Appear in Parentheses)

Date of

Publication

Date of

Last

Revision

Revision

Status^

Comments

103-lntro to Electronic

Weighing and Measuring

Systems (27)

1/28/85 5/95 N Revision has been completed and

copies sent to the States on 5/1/95.

601 -Checking the Net

Contents of Packaged

Goods (10)

11/29/85 9/90 R The Committee is planning to split the course into two segments. The

NCWM NIST Handbook 133 Work

Group will assist in the revision of the training materials.

202-Retail Computing ScalesElectronic (2 and 1)2/26/86 5/94 C K. Butcher, OWM, has updated the

Inspector's Manual for changes to Handbook 44

302-Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers

and Consoles (8)

7/14/86 9/90 U T. Butcher & J. Williams, OWM, are updating the Inspector's Manual for changes to Handbook 44.

206-Vehicle and Axle-Load

Scales (5)

10/17/86 12/91 U OWM has updated the Inspector's Manual for changes to Handbook

44. It is being reviewed by the A&P

Committee.

303-Vehicle-Tank Meters (20) 10/31/86 12/91 U J. Williams of OWM has completed an update of the Inspector's Manual.

205-Meat Beams and Monorail

Scales (6)

4/3/87 U Revision is undenvay by Jim

Vandenwielen, USDA/GIPSA

204-Livestock and Animal Scales

(7)

5/27/87 U Paul Peterson, USDA/GIPSA, has

submitted a second draft of the

inspector's Manual.

305-Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices (21)8/5/87 U T. Butcher & J. Williams, OWM,

have completed an update of the

Inspector's Manual for changes to Handbook 44.

203-Mediun>Capacity Scales (4) 6/22/88 10/92 N

102-lntroduction to NIST Handbook 44 (24)5/18/89 6/93 U J. Mindte, OWM, has updated the

materials for changes to Handbook

44, 1996-edition; materials are being reviewed by OWM.

602-Commodity Regulations (22) 6/8/90 N

304-Loading-Rack Meters (19) 7/18/90 N

101-W & M Regulation in the U.S.

(23)

6/14/93 N

*Key to revision status abbreviations:

N = No revision planned in 1996 R = Revision is planned for 1996

U = Revision is underway

240
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

402-4 I Organization and Utilization of Certified Trainers

As of June 1996, the following 10 individuals have attained the status of National Training Program (NTP) Certified Trainer: Ken Butcher, NIST/OWM; Barbara J. DeSalvo, Ohio; Frank W. Forrest, Connecticut; Paul Peterson,

USDA/GIPSA; Richard L. Phihnon, Illinois; Thomas M. Stabler, STR, Inc.; Richard C. Suiter, Nebraska; Jose A. TorresFerrer, Puerto Rico; James A. Vanderwielen, USDA/GIPSA, and Kenneth A, Wheeler, Ohio.

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) has identified as one of its goals the attainment of one Certified Trainer in each of its member States. There are four Certified Trainers from CWMA (representing States) and three additional individuals are continuing to progress toward trainer certification. It is envisioned that each of the identified trainers will participate in a mentoring program to assist others through the certification process.

402-5 I Industry Training

The Committee reviewed training materials provided by Giant Food, Inc., entitled, "The Weighting Game, A Guide to Weights and Measures." The material is distributed to Giant Food employees as part of the company's ongoing Quality Assurance Program. The Committee agreed that this information is a valuable training resource. Copies are available by

request to the Committee's technical advisor.

The Committee discussed the ongoing education and training parmership projects with the Associate Membership, including the Food Marketing Institute, The Pet Food Institute, The Peimsylvania Food Merchants Association, Tlie Kroger

Company, International Dairy Food Association, Construction and Agricultural Film Manufacturers Association (CAFMA),

The Central Illinois Public Service Company (belt-conveyer scales), as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The

Committee viewed and commented on a videotape covering testing of polyethylene sheeting, which is currently in production by CAFMA.

The Committee has developed a tri-fold weights and measures brochure entitled: "Quality Weights and Measures for Industry." Electronic templates of the document were made available to Conference members during the Annual

Conference in July. The material is designed to be used to promote weights and measures services to industry. The

material can be used in its original form or may be customized to the needs of individual jurisdictions. The tri-fold brochures are available either on discs (send two 3-1/2" formatted discs) or by e-mail. The brochures may also be added

to the NCWM Fax-On-Demand system.

402-6 I Instructor Training

The National Conference on Weights and Measures continues to emphasize the need for experienced, qualified personnel

to maintain and develop new methods of training delivery in response to the numerous requests for training and education.

The A&P Committee endorses the need for increased training. In response to the demand for more efficient methods of

training delivery, NCWM and NIST sponsored two NIST Handbook 133 Instructor Training courses during 1995. Both

classes were conducted at the Maryland State Weights and Measures facilities in Annapolis, Maryland. Participants were

selected from jurisdictions agreeing to the following conditions:

• to fiiliy implement the NIST Handbook 133 provisions in their State or jurisdiction within 3 months of

completing the course;

• to use the class participant as an instructor to provide Handbook 1 33 training to officials in their State or

jurisdiction within 3 months of completion of the course; and

• to permit the participant to serve as a trainer for the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) in other regions of the country.

This method of training delivery has proven to be extremely successful. The core group of Handbook 133 instructors which

resulted from conduct of the two courses during 1995 had trained in excess of 1500 officials prior to the 81st NCWM Annual

Meeting in July 1 996.

241
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

The A&P Committee strongly supports the NIST Training Academy/Instructor Training concept. As a result of the success of this program, the A&P Committee recommended that $50,000 of the remaining funds from the second training grant from

NIST (subject of Item 402) be designated to provide two Instructor Training classes during 1 996. Four additional classes have

been planned for 1996.

402-7 I Training Advisory Work Group

A proposal to establish a National Training Program (NTP) Training Advisory Work Group has been submitted to the Executive Committee. The A&P Committee has requested approval of this project so that members may be appointed and

a meeting may be held prior to the 81st Annual Conference, with funding to be allocated from the current A&P budget.

The objective of the Training Advisory Work Group will be to organize trainers and other interested parties to address

national training issues. If this proposal is approved, five members will be appointed to the group: one from each of the regional associations (one of the regional representatives to be a metrologist), and one representative from the Associate

Membership.

Issues to be addressed by the Training Advisory Work Group will include but not be limited to the following:

• Training material updates;

• Identify incentives for becoming NCWM Certified Trainers;

• Make recommendations for development of Voluntary Training Standards;

• Mentoring and assisting trainers in the certification process;

• Training delivery;

• Field Certification of inspectors;

• Redesign of NTP's training on scales;

• Instructor training;

• Customized training;

• Evaluation of computer-based training and other state-of-the-art training techniques and self- study programs;

• Development of CD-ROMs; and

• Redesign of Examination Procedure Outlines (EPOs).

Organization of this group will not be pursued at this time.

403 I Legislative Strategy

There was extended discussion by the Committee regarding development of proactive strategies for use by weights and measures administrators in dealing with legislators at the local. State, and national levels. The Committee reviewed

materials prepared by members Richard Greek and Bruce Martell.

The Committee previously sent a survey to the major weights and measures jurisdictions to elicit information regarding

individual experiences in dealing with legislatures on such issues as how budgets are justified, the results of which were

published in die Proceedings of the 80th Annual Meeting in Portland, Maine. The survey indicates four legislative-related

priorities:

(1) general guidelines;

(2) cost-effectiveness;

(3) laboratory development; and

(4) fee implementation.

Draft Legislative Guidelines were forwarded to the Executive Committee for review and use in developing long-range plans.

The A&P Committee's goal is to publish the resource guide and distribute it to the 1997 Conference attendees, so that all State, local, and regional persons with leadership roles in weights and measures will have a viable tool to assist in networking with legislators at all levels.

242
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Committee member Richard Greek will provide feedback to those jurisdictions expressing an interest in the identified

legislative-related priorities.

404 I Weights and Measures Round Tables

There was agreement that the A&P Committee member in each of the regions would continue to work with the individual

association chairs to discuss items at the Directors' Round Tables. Suggested items for the next regional meetings include: Assessing Training Needs of Local Officials and Program Evaluation Data Collection.

405 Public Affairs

405-1 I Industry Relations

The Committee examined education and training partnership projects with associate members, such as the Food Marketing

Institute, International Mass Retailers, and the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association.

405-2 I Public Relations

The Committee previously reviewed and commented upon the incorporation of weights and measures functions in "Measurement in the Classroom, an Elementary School Curriculum" (formerly entitled "Ag in the Classroom"). This

doctmient was finalized and copies were made available to interested parties at the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 1996

(see also Item 402-5). It is suggested that State Directors tailor the document for use in their individual State and local jurisdictions. The document can serve as a stand-alone weights and measures handout and is designed to be used in conjunction with the "Getting What You Pay For" brochure. The Committee acknowledges the need to educate today's

young people who will become tomorrow's consumers. The material is an educational unit designed to help young children understand measurement. Lesson Plans include teacher background information and resources, student information,

activities, and worksheets.

The Committee has developed three tri-fold weights and measures pamphlets entitled: "How to Avoid Getting Burned,"

"(Quality Weights and Measures for Industry" (see Item No. 402-5), and "Providing Quality Services to Consumers." The

Committee made the brochures available diu-ing the Annual Meeting and will make electronic templates of the latter two

documents available to Conference members upon request.

As part of the Committee's discussion, comments about the NCWM W&M Week 1996 information packets were positive

and were followed by general dialogue regarding topics suitable for inclusion in the 1997 W&M Week material. The

Committee encoiu^ages NCWM members to use these materials along with those included in NCWM Publication 7, "Weights and Measures Week Guide" throughout the year as public relations tools.

As part of the Conmiittee's Open Session, an educational forum was held during the 81st Annual Meeting. Brian Callaghan

of Commcore, a 20-year veteran of the Washington press corps and communications consultant, provided insight and advice

about media skills. Mr. Callaghan has worked extensively as a television correspondent, written and produced news

documentaries, as well as developed news and arts programming for public television. As a media advisor and consultant,

he has served IBM, Bell Atlantic, Johnson & Johnson, and the Federal Aviation Administration, to name a few.

The Committee's Open Session also included a presentation by Gilles Vinet, Industry Canada, which gave an overview of

their project to automate weights and measures program information. The Canadian effort complements the work of the Program Evaluation Work Group in which Mr. Vinet participates.

405-3 I Marketing Weights and Measures in the United States

The A&P Committee proposes to establish a pilot public information officer project to run from January 1, 1997, through

December 31, 1997.

In recognition of the need to publicize the impact of the work of weights and measures, the A&P Committee has been and

will continue to identiiy methods and means to implement an ongoing public relations effort. To that end, the Committee

243
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

intends to implement a continuing national public relations effort for weights and measures using the experience and

expertise of a public information officer.

Items to be accomplished by implementation of the pilot project:

• Preparation and provision of up-to-date fact sheets for the media dealing with the effects of

weights and measures programs on consumers and industry;

• Provision of support to States and local jurisdictions for their public relations efforts;

• Provision of a centralized contact for media requests;

• Arranging for needed public relations and media coverage for the 1 997 Weights and Measures

Week;

• Establishment of a preliminary network with other public relations professionals, associate members, and Federal, State, and local jurisdictions, and industry;

• Identification and establishment of projects for utilization of interns (college smdents);

• Initial review of the Program Evaluation Work Group data firom a PR perspective;

• Coordination of national media coverage for the 1997 NCWM Annual Meeting; and

• Other duties as assigned.

This item is discussed in the Executive Committee Report under Item 101-7, wherein it is reported that the Executive

Committee decided not to fund the part-time pubUc information officer project. Therefore, this project will not be pursued

at this time.

405-4 I Advertisement of the 81st NCWM 1996 - New Orleans, Louisiana

The A&P Committee worked with the Louisiana Department of Agriculture's press secretary to promote the 81st NCWM.

The NCWM Standing Committees supplied briefs of current weights and measures issues affecting industry and consumers

to Press Secretary Michaud for his incorporation into press releases covering meeting agendas and contact information.

Mr. Michaud disseminated the press releases to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio media throughout the State of Louisiana.

In addition, the NIST Public Affairs Office issued its customary press releases nationwide.

The Committee will explore avenues for promoting the 82nd Annual Meeting to be held in Chicago, July 20-24, 1997.

405-5 I NCWM Conmiunication Processes

The Committee met with the Executive Committee to clarify priorities, mission, and goals. The presentation prepared for the Executive Committee was also presented to the membership during the Committee's Open Session.

406 I Administrative Priorities and Budget

The Committee, in a continuing effort to evaluate its priorities and resources while meeting the highest needs of the Conference membership, working in conjunction with the long-range plan being developed by the Executive Committee,

identifies and recommends the following administrative priorities:

• To partner with NIST to coordinate maximum benefit from instructor training and to streamline,

update, and maintain training materials;

244
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

• To continue to develop and implement Public Relations efforts for the benefit of the NCWM,

weights and measures jurisdictions, industry, and consumers; and

• To manage and support the Program Evaluation Work Group to insure the maximum utility of

their results and recommendations.

407 I Safety Information Clearinghouse

The A&P Committee has as one of its responsibilities the establishment of a clearinghouse for the collection and publication of reports of incidents involving State and local weights and measures officials. The Conmiittee has worked with NCWM

Chairman and Safety Liaison Charles A. Gardner to finalize the Incident/Accident Simimary form (Appendix F).

The form, which has been sent to all State Directors, is designed to further the prevention of avoidable accidents and

incidents in the weights and measures environment. To date, there have been 13 responses from the States. It is suggested

that States and local jurisdictions incorporate this summary into their own safety program documentation procedures.

Completion and return of the report will allow NCWM to alert organizations and jurisdictions to the existence of hazards,

as weU as possible solutions to problems and corrective actions. The completed form is designed to be remmed unsigned.

The jurisdiction, organization, and individual may be assured of remaining anonymous.

It is planned that the safety reportmg form will be accessible through the Weights & Measures 24-Hour Fax-Line

(telephone: 1-800-925-2453). Ultimately, the information received will be made part of the national database tmder

development.

B. DeSalvo, Ohio, Chairman

R. Greek, San Luis Obispo County, California N. Kranker, Dutchess County, New York

B. Martell, Vermont

E. Price, Texas

Industry Representative: Chris Guay, Procter and Gamble

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, New York, Safety Liaison

T. Coleman, NIST, Technical Advisor

J. Mindte, NIST, Technical Advisor

Committee on Administration and Public Affairs

245
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Appendix A

Meeting Report

Program Evaluation Work Group to the

Committee on Administration and Public Affairs

The third meetjig of the Program Evaluation Work Group was held on January 26, 1996 at the Radisson Bahia Mar Hotel

in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The next meeting is tentatively set for August 19-21, 1996 at the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, Maryland.

The Attendees

MikeBelue, Belue Associates

Bill Corey, American Frozen Foods

Richa-d Greek, California

Darrell Guensler, California (Chairman)

Sid Colbrook, Illinois Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Ed Price, Texas Debbie Ripley, NIST, Office of Weights & Measures

Daryl Tonini, SMA

Gilles Vinet, Canada

Bob Williams, Termessee

Background

NCWM Chairman Jim Truex, at the recommendation of the Privatization Work Group (1992-1994), appointed the Program

Evaluation Work Group in April of 1994. The work group's mission is to assist the Committee on Administration and

Public Affairs in establishing a standard core of national data to be collected which would provide measures:

• to determine the effectiveness of weights and measures programs

• to determine whether changes in programs or processes were effective

• to share information and data thus enabling jurisdictions to make marketplace and cost/benefit analysis

In its review o: recent attempts to privatize weights and measures ftmctions, the group recognized that there was an absence

of usable data needed to justify programs and demonstrate the full scope and merit of weights and measures' activities.

Endorsements for establishing a national database and computerizing some field inspection procedures were the result of

earlier subcocunittee smdies on future challenges to Weights and Measures (W&M) and the National Conference on

Weights and Measures (NCWM). The Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century (also known as "The Blue: Sky Task

Force") (1990-1992) recognized the advantages of developing an electronic communication information system and network.

This infrastru^mre would benefit the program areas of education, administration, and in the uniform interpretation of

regulations. The task force noted that this communication ability would aid in mcreasing program effectiveness and impact

by avoiding the delays created by paper trails. It would eliminate a large portion of time-consuming standardized

administrative tasks involved in the record management of field data. Additionally, and most important, the task force

felt that compiterization would help field inspectors in their documentation of reports. These inspection reports would

provide data .hat could be compared and used to determine program effectiveness and efficiency, to justify program

functions, and to demonstrate where to allocate resources.

Meeting Summary

• The welcome and agenda review were given by Chairman Guensler. The Chairman noted that Illinois has joined

the working group and will be partaking in the pilot program.

• OWM Report Status of Work on National Database:

OWM/NIST gave a status report on the national database pilot program. As part of the presentation two areas were defined: the proposed uniform codes and the proposed pilot database. At the last meeting in August, 1995

NIST was tasked to: contact the State database administrators; develop draft standards for a pilot program; develop

data/file transfer protocol; establish a data collection point; determine the network and the server needs; and, issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop a database. System administrators from the pilot States have been

246
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

contacted. Information on each system has been collected and compiled. The design data of each database system was requested from each State. The data/file transfer protocol consists of two variations. The data collection point

is to be at NIST. Network and server needs have been established and were discussed at this meeting. It was

agreed that issuing an RFP at this time would be premature.

For the proposed pilot program, draft codes and draft fields were developed. There are two options for die network

and server: purchase a server and network system or utilize the services of NIST'S Information Technology

Laboratory (ITL) and the Internet. To purchase a server (i.e., a Pentiimi Processor with 128 MB RAM, 2 GB hard

drive (min), NIC, modem, tape backup and UPS, MS Windows NTAS, MS Access (front-end), MS Access or Oracle (NIST Standard for back-end), and an independent telephone line) the cost would be approximately $30,000.

If ITL's service are used, using their IBM Rise 6000, UNIX Operating system, the WWW Interface as the front- end, Oracle or MS Access as the back-end, 24 hr/day maintenance available, already coimected to Internet, the cost is virtually free. Since this system is available immediately, as well as the services of Tom Kurihara, a Computer Specialist ft-om ITL, to assist in the development of the database, development can begin immediately

and possibly have a July startup date.

The issues that need to be considered are the diversity of systems in pilot and economics. The program requires

minimal cost to States participating in pilot and minimal cost to NIST. Therefore, the reconunendation is to initiate a pilot program on ITL's system where there will be minimal cost and a tentative July, 1996 starmp date for the alpha phase of the program. Assessment of the program and modification will be handled as needed. The plan is to run the alpha phase for one year before proceeding into the beta phase. Each State would send its file directly

to NIST monthly, via e-mail or physical disk, to be appended to the main database, or they could access it from

the WWW and enter the data manually.

Review of the meeting summary report of August 1995 meeting:

The meeting summary report of the August, 1995 meeting was reviewed. There were no comments by the Committee or modifications to Core Data Requirements in the report. The Industry Committee on Packaging and

Labeling received a copy of core data requirements and output. Concern was expressed as to how closely the data

collected would match the reports in NIST Handbook 133. The importance of accuracy was also expressed by the Committee. There was also concern expressed that now this will be public information. Much of the data to be

collected will be the same as that contained in the reports in HE 133; although, there will be some new information

required to support the database.

Feedback from reports given at WWMA & SWMA:

One concern was in the sampling. When you take a sample and extrapolate 100 percent over the entire market,

your data would be skewed. This is true if you are sampling only problem areas. Another area of concern is with

totaUzer readings. The length of time between test and gross count may cause a skewed result. Overall response was positive. Several members said they were encouraged by the progress the group had made on the project.

Code uniformity/conformity and Standards of Pilot Program:

Several tables of codes and draft field data were presented, discussed and modified to suit the needs of the pilot program. Copies of the revised tables are in an Appendix format and are available upon request. At design time,

there could be some modifications to these tables in order to accommodate the database management system utilized for the pilot program. The participants are to develop jurisdictional codes for their areas and will be responsible

for getting them to NIST.

Current status of each pilot State (i.e., readiness to begin pilot):

California has adopted NIST HB133 and is ready in the package inspection area. Presently, they are purchasing

WinWam weights and measure software for package inspection to implement the project. They are not ready on

retail motor fuel except by manually entered data. Presently, California plans to have 15 laptops spread out to counties so they may partake in the pilot. Kern County hopes to be ready by July. Connecticut is fine with

packaging and is still working on retail motor ftiel; however, they plan to be ready by July. Texas has adequate

247
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

hardware and plans to have five inspectors to partake in the pilot program. Presently, there is no automation but

the information could be put in some software for both programs. Tennessee has no laptops at the present time but

plans to send the data in the proper format on disk. Illinois plans to enter data into their personal computers (pc)

and send a disk to NIST. Nebraska currently has no computers in the field and their database does not currently

capmre several of the required fields for the pilot program. Tentative plans are to utilize one inspector to get the data to NIST either through a physical disk or e-mail.

248
Administration and Public Affairs Conunittee

1

u 9 9

a O

V5o O

o o

tations o - .a

uni rcs!

uding 1

"3

Creaj

iBrkf. ucts o

•9

-

Sour

Cream

and

Yogurts,

incI

Ice

Cream

and

Ices

Ice

Cream

Mix

and

Ice

Milk

IV

'

Bars,

Popsfcle,

Ice

Cream,

Ice

'

Cannd

and

Evaporated

Milk

Dry

MUk

Prods.

&

Non-Dairy O

9

i

I

g1

ButtermiUi,

Choc.

Drink,

ofhe

Other

Dairy

Drinks

•

Puddbigs,

Toppings,

&

Instani

'

Dips

and

Salads

Dairy-Type

Products,

N.E.C.

•

Prepackaged

Dairy-Type

Prod

0

BAKERY

GOODS

-

CANNED

OZEN '

Bread

and

Bread-Type

Rolb

Breading,

Crumbs,

Croutons,

-

Soft

Cakes

Pies

1

a

•a9&

Pastries

and

Cookies

Sweet

Roils

and

Coffee

Cake

Biscuits,

Crackers,

and

Pretze

Other

Dry

Bakery

Products

Chips,

Potato,

Corn,

etc.

-

TortUlas

and

Allied

Products

-

Sandwiches

2.09- 9 «s •« w> s o r» n 3.04- V)

3.07. 3.09- o r< ^ri ri ri pi ri ri ri in

r« o

ri ori or! ri ri ri ri ri

u

a

z

ai> I

U

249
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

a

8I

I

OS Ia1

81

"S

Produce,

N.E.C.

Prepackaged

Fruits

and

Vegetables

(Audi

- tm:

i

Jams,

Jellies,

&

Preserves

Peanut

Butter

&

P.

Butter

Mixes

Uoney

&

Honey

Nfixes

Pickles

&

other

Pickle

Products

1

aa

Canned

Soups

Frozen

Soups

Frozen

IMnners

Catsup

&

other

Tomato

Sauces

Canned

Baby

Food,

Except

Meat

Other

Canned

Specialties

Desserts,

Ready-to-ML\

Health

Foods

Other

Food

Preparations,

N.E.C.

-

Other

Food

Preparations

(Audits)

BEVERAGES

s1

eaM

e

a

cr 3

1

Wine,

Brandy,

&

Brandy

Spirits

Bottled

Liquors

Pack,

Ready-to-Serve

Mixed

Drinks

Packaged

Soft

Drinks

•

Flavoring

Syrups,

Soft

Drinks

Beverage

Bases

except

Syrups,

Concentra

Frozen

Fruit

Juices

and

Ades

7.40- 7.S0- 8.01

•

8.02- 8.03- 8.04- 8.05- oe

8.07- 8.08- 8.09- 8.10 oe

8.12 ae

8.40- 8.50- OS9.01- 9.02- 9.03- 9.04-

9.0S. OS

9.08

8

I

.s31

S

1u I

I

&w>

§

I

s

250
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

1

« S3

251
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

252
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

DISPOSITION CODES

Result Codes

p Pass Result Failure Codes •

Fl Accuracy

F2 other

Result Codes for

Package Inspection

P iPass Resuit Failure Codesi

Fl

F2

package label package fail for MAV

F3 package fail for Avg

Device Codes

0 No Device Type

1 mFD

Motor/Fuel Grade Codes

RU Regular unleaded

MG Mid-grade unleaded

PU Premium unleaded

Inspection Type Codes

11 Routine

12 FoUow-up/Recheck

13 Consumer complaint/Special Request

14 Placed \n Service (!^ew insxai\aiion)

15 Other

Business Codes

R Retail W Wholesale

P Packer

253
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

ESTABLISHMENT TYPES TABLE**

Establishment Types

Code Establishment Tvne Code Establishment Tvne

SECTOR 01 FOOD SECTOR 05 ' SERVICES

0101 0501 Pnct Offirps

0103 Bakeries and Baked Goods 0503 Government Agencies

0105 Confectionaries and Nuts 0505 Cleaning and Latmdry

0107 Fruit and Vegetables 0507 Cartage and Moving (including scale at the airoort^ 0109 Meat - Retail 0509 Restaurant/Cafeteria

0110 Meat - Wholesale 0511

0599

Waste/DumD/Recvclinp waste/uump/Kecycimg

0111 Delicatessens SECTOR 06 : METAL

0114 Dairies 0602 Mining

0115 Fish - Retail 0604 Metal - Processed

0116 Fish - Processing and Wholesaling 0606 Metal - Scrap (Cars)

0120 Beverage 0607

0699

Metal - Precious

Other

0122 Food - Canmng and Processmg (non-meat) SECTOR 07 : FORESTRY

0199 Other food (Health Food Stores) 0702

0704

Forestry (logging)

Pulp and Paper

SECTOR 02 : PETROLEUM 0799 Other

0201 Service Station SECTOR 08 rCONSlmjCtiON

0204 Liquefied Gases 0802 Road Construction

0205 Marinas 0804 Rock, Fill and Gravel

UZVJo X5U1K 07 in ivciiiicrica UOUO Duiiuujg xvidicriais Aucraii reiueimg xlaTuWarC

0299 Other

SECTOR 03 : AGRICULTURE

0899 Other

SECTOR 09 : CHEMICAL APft)

PHARMACEUTICAL

0302 Livestock 0901 Drugs and Cosmetics

0304 Grain Elevator 0904 Chemical and Industrial 0306 Feeds 0999 Other

0308 Seeds SECTOR 10 : GENERAL

MERCHANDISE

0310 Fertilizer 1001 Department Stores 0312 Pest Control Product 1003 Piece Goods and Textiles 0399 Other Agricultural Products

SECTOR 04 : DEVICES

1005

1099

General Stores Other

SFXTTOR 11 : MANUFACTURING

0402 Device Manufacturing 1102 Manufacturing - General

0404 Device Repair/Rental

0406 Accredited Company SECTOR 99 : OTHER

0499 Other 9999 Other

**Courtesy of Industry Canada, "STARS"

254
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

CO

T3

- N -S U W UJ b U.

UUUUUUUU Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O Q Q Q Q a

Q

H OS -J O w

< O Q Q J ^ .coOH

o

5 I s2 53 on a - c

•c S 1 ,1 I i s

n n 01 n U U U U

o o o U U U

OaeQCOCQCQEOCQOQOQBQCQOQCQaJEQ

•<§S^c«c50iori6ri„HW--uaj<«&oj<<BiE-S~-fc:S<oU <«i?<c«asa<<<S<uuu)iiiuuwHEoa:ri:3:u-SQQSoowu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuooo

CQ 03 CQ OQ Q •« < ^ < 5 <<<<<< :<5<<<<<<<<:<:<<<<<<< H H U a O CO D ^ H Z < U

CQ CQ Oa CO

255
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

^ >J >^

Ji W

in U

•a X

1 o

« J

5 S

S OS

x: c a> 5

§ = .S

3 u

C

o

•ce

o&

a o o U a «

E

CO a 1-

3 o —

o a ^6 .a o 5 t § £ 2 ^

o

C w

iO i>

« 23 U 3 w a, J « e c

U O

' a »L y C t/i c

t> o -a -a 5

2 S S S 2

5 C/3

ou

g> •a3

a,E

o < ^

CP

E -J

t/5

.1* •CSCE

an 24

C

1 a

E £

O C 3 ^ < « S S S S Z

a

I

'3

o§ B

a .2

•O BO C u

E iS u

c/3 U 2

Sec o o o B -a -o z z z

k. e o

a, o g

« 2 E

05 o «

5 <= o 2

COa

O 32 ?

ca M u z z z

g • &

•St . £

O V9

2 := 5 s;^

o W

.2 «

s u

z z z z

ail

Q w -g

I ri

z z z

T3V

2

Ii S >; E 00

Q, eo

"J •« •§ a o

e ^H

o to ?* z z z

u

"(3 o

g I

.2^

°

, S

trt tS Cf

llt

U eo J=

I O O O

. u

2 t« O H SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

00 55 < U S E

o o o

1 o o o I hT« 1^ t^M

I H-» **4

UliJS!pQ„coQ U^co2ncnc<op>< 03 c/, S Z g g pa u O u ? > « „ z a

ti, CO H < CO S tKS Ui5 t>2 i>i ^ Uh ^ « ^ ^ uuShSco^oo

•aa

.a .a c

S 2

CO a

E

•a w ^ ac

bO

. s

> 00 "3 S

o tRJ A CQ u, u. u. tu

o

_ u

O j5 cj 2•ft > a 60 X c n lu -3

C!l

&

sa

& s

E " o « u u

§ 2

a

OJ O CO

"=! "= 3 « <u i3 •a -a :H. "C "E 3^

U. U. U.

C5 u

5 y

Bo o o o a o

a <9 "3 .5 «

J3 J5 O ^ uo.-=°^52-

u 3 o

2 ^ £ Si -3 o u o o o

oo

.3M

X

.2

o

u .5 6 S B<^ 6

^ a ^ I -S ^- - S - £ < -S « « 5 2^ ?^ a

:§ S ^ ^ t s w <Q etf cd nS AS X X X X X X X

g) BO

i'i

a: K

" E U. s g

X X

Q o (3 e

<8 Egg,

4> (U O XXX

CO to oi eUi <

E E E E t £ E E t£ Uh E E li, E £ a a o o o o o a o o o o ^ o a a o o xxxxx

H<P0i=QOcoWO

X X X X X X X X

256
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

oO

1 -2 C ii «

x: o ^ a i

3 >, X) X) .2?

cti u u ^ ? ^ ^ ^ ^

J c<o - ^ - Q X CQ Z ^ U bO

C/3 U a „

OQ ct: b u. s 00 >>>>>>

U > OQ _ S

O < U c/3 H

5: ^ > ^ >

S2 S < W

> 2 on Z ^ ft, OS o o o o o o o &5&oUU<<<m<ut/3U<w>ESooOoSt/3HH ft,ft,ft<ft,ft<ft<ft<ft<a«ftaft<ft<ft,ft«ft<a<ft<ft<ft<ft,ft<ft*»ift< < - > _ „ > ^ oa ce: e< 0^ osccetSccosoiBiio: t/3 CO

257
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

3 -J < W

X o

258
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

RETAn.

MOTOR/FUEL

DISPENSERS

Description

Inspection

ID

Type

of

inspection

being

performed

|

State

entering

data

1

Date

of

inspection

(mo/da/yr)

1

Total

number

of

items

inspected

1

Name

of

business

where

device

is

located

|

Street

Address

of

where

device

is

to

located

>, U

State

where

business

is

located

Code

for

the

manufacturer

of

the

device.

Point

to

database

of

manufacturers.

|

Type

of

device

being

inspected.

Currently,

only

RMFD

=1

or

NONE=0.

Point

to

separate

tables

for

Model/SN

|

Model

number

of

the

device

being

inspected.

Separate

table

(More

than

one

model

number

per

inspection)

Serial

Number

of

the

device

being

inspected.

Separate

table

(More

than

one

serial

number

per

model

number)

NTEP

CC

Number

(Associated

with

each

model

number)

3

o

II o

6

3

"o

x:

t/i 'C

P3

II tu

Ohn

in

II W

COo

o

«sX

aH

11 X

u

iS 15o

:s

II COo

o

X

XU

II X

X

u

•ao^ § ^ > E U

O uj S K

o u

Grade

Code

of

the

product

(Associated

with

each

serial

number)

price

per

gallon

(Associated

with

each

serial

number)

|

prover

volume

(25,

50,

100,

1000

gal)

Result

of

inspection

P

or

Failure

Code

(Associated

with

each

serial

number)

|

"+/- in

cubic

inches

|

"

+/-

in

terms

of

cubic

inches'*

|

error

in%

volume

for

normal

test

(Norm

Test/Prover

Volx

231) x

100%

|

error

in%

volume

for

normal

test

(Special

Test/Prover

Volx

231) x

100%

(Associated

with

each

serial

number)

|

Volimie

since

last

test

(odometer

reading).

Actual

-lookup

for

delta

(Associated

with

each

serial

number)

Number

of

Locations

|

Number

of

meters

Annual

sales

volume

by

product

|

Number

of

Inspectors

by

PY

|

Program

cost

per

hour

|

Total

time

spent

on

retail

meters

(travel,

training)

Jurisdictional

Code

(need

to

be

defined)

]

Width oen o o<s o m oo <s ri- m o VO so CO

ata

Counter

Character Character

Cliaracter Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Numeric

Character Numeric Numeric Numeric Numeric Numeric Numeric Numeric Numeric Numeric Numeric Numeric

Character

Field

Name

Inspection

ID

Inspection

Type

State Date

Sample

Size

Business

Location

Address

City

State

Manufacturer

Code

Device

Type

Device

Model

Device

SN

CC

Number

Company

Code

Grade

Code

Price

Gal

Prover

Vol

Result

of

Inspection

Norm

Test

Special

Test

Error

%

Norm

Error

%

Special

Totalizer

Reading

Number

of

Locations

Number

of

Meters

Annual

Vol

Sales

Number

of

Inspectors

Cost Time

Jurisdiction

Code

is ® £ -a Z

CO •a- 00 ON o \o r- 00 0\ o m in

(N

ooC4 OS oCO CO fSCO

259
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

PACKAGE

INSPECTION

Description

Counter

assigned

by

system

Type

of

inspection

being

performed

1

State

entering

data

Date

of

inspection

Name

of

location

where

inspection

is

taken

place

(mandatory)

I

Street

Address

of

where

inspection

is

taking

place

City

1

state Code

for

the

type

of

Business

(R,

W,

P)

I

Trade

Sector

Code

Commodity

Classification

Code

1

specific

commodity

being

inspected

(I.e.

whole

milk)

packer

or

brand

name

of

commodity

being

inspected

(I.e.

Bordens)

I

date

code

on

package

being

inspected

(lot

codes)

I

other

identification

codes

(packer

codes)

I

type

of

package

I.e.

box,

can

standard

or

random

pack

.001

lb

or

drams

(Need

to

ask

if

solid

or

liquid)

1

lot

size

of

packages

available

for

inspection

I

total

number

of

items

inspected

(12,

24,

48)

1

average

tare

weight

1

Is

Moisture

loss a

consideration?

Y/N

1

percent

error

1

error

per

unit

of

measure

(If

liquid

use

dram;

If

solid

use

.001

lb)

I

Standard

Deviation

1

Result

of

Inspection

Pass

or

Failure.

If

Failure

use

failure

code

I

Is

Surveillance

requested?

Y/N

1

Number

of

Inspectors

by

PY

1

Program

cost

per

hour

1

Total

time

spent

on

package

inspections(travel,

training)

1

Jurisdiction

code

-

needs

to

be

defined

I

Width

CM ofn o o o IT) n oo o\ Ov VO rt

a

Counter

Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Character Numeric Numeric Numeric

Character Numeric Numeric NumericCharacter Character Numeric Numeric Numeric

Character

i

Field

Name

Inspection

ID

Inspection

Type

State Date

Inspection

Location

Address

City

State

Business

Code

Trade

Sector

Code

Commodity

Classification

Specific

Commodity

Brand

Name

Date

code

OT

Codes

Tare

Description

Labeled

Quantity

Unit

Meas

Lot

Size

Sample

Size

Avg

Tare

Moisture

Loss

Avg

Error %

Avg

Error

Unit

Std

Dev

Result

Surveillance

Number

of

Inspectors

Cost Time

[Jurisdiction

Code

-o.2 6 m

1

re- 00 o CO 00 <s<N

•<* <o VO r- oo o om CO

HB133

Standard

Pack

Report

Form

Field

added added Date

Location

(Name,

Address)

Retailer

(R)

Wholesaler

(W)

Packer

(P)

1

added

1

1

added

1

Lot

Code(s)

1

Container Description <N VO en m oo 0\ 24/25

260
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Appendix B

Certification Summary

(As of June 30, 1996)

State

Total No;

ofOertlf.

Totar

Naof

Course No. m

tot a03 204 302 Zm 304 305 601

Vtode Mod 20 Modl^ Mod 21 Mod 10^ AL

AZ

CO

DE

FL

HIiA

ID

IN KS

LA

m

ME

MN

MT

NV

MH

NM

NC

ND

OH

OR

^ PA

PR

$D

TN

tfii

VT

Vii

VA

lAii

wi

other

GIPSA**

43

23

28

129

7

86

99

29

94

1a

9

70

2

42

15

7

42

13

MM

32

39

1

91

28

40

ea

23s

3

21

4

48

24

13

28

42

7

36

5

4

80

Z4

12

1

8

9

^7

3

14

15

719

119

22

35

49

13

29

17

9

6

3

4

6

16

4

14r

28

12

8

11

3

12

2

4

10

8

2

2

1

7

1 s

9

$

15

20 4 7

33

7

6

4

10

1

10

ill

7

11

12

10

40

20

3

44

17

8

8

29

4 t

27

1

15

r

1 159

2 $

13

3

33 SI

S 10

8 27

33

12

5

€

29

13

5 8

21

14 7

1

47 7 1€

25

NTP Module 1 was incorporated in Module 2, now Course No. 202 (May 1994)

*USDA Grain Inspection/Packers and Stockyards Administration

261
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Appendix C

262
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

ON

0\

o

3

O

<

m Tt IT) o o o o o t<i m m

2

•o

•au6

_csoa

C/3

CO

1

3

— _^ '5

o •a o

"Oc SI K W

o o « "5 c c t § -2 .2

>ij U U

« b i3 O E> 1—

c

Wsoo

is —< <N S O O O

"3« « fS m •g- >r> ^ Q Q O O Q Q

123

O

o

>%

i3

T3IOC

S2 1-

3

T3

>

T3

: C

3

E3

z

oo

oz

e

3Oo

2 S •

o o §

O 2|

0) «M "

o zs

3

*^ = O Z 5

0) m <a w o a 5 «^ a O 2 I

a, <s <M II

o z I

=» 5 u z|

0)re

<^ T^- <r -o- T-

<N CN

CM O CO £M

PO T- CM OO

CM

OCO

O _ CM

If) ^ r- O t- lO CM

_isr:Ntt<ot-:»u <<<<OOOQ

CO <S (S CM «S <S

263
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

•2

CO o

00

CM o

COo

in CO CD

a . "o ! o o £ o z *

d £

o ^

S <N

S2O

o

J3

c

3

c

0)E

3

z

12

: 3oo

2 «» o o

(3

5 • "g

2 2 • o o 'S O 2£

4) rj »

o o 1 o z *

3oo 2 a

0) m <o 0)0 0 § 3

o d 1

o o z s

4) M ""^ (A O « 3

'" o o IS o z s

v> c; Oo dl

z s

o 6 f o z|

go©

a 3

o £ 5

0> J12 Si!

s - 5 o z|

o

oto

«> ° - f5

oCM CM

<D •«}• Li CN

<r CM CM

CM

inCM

T- CM »- CM

o 1^ co

CM

5

00

CM

2 <2

cn 00 o

•J- 00 CO fM O ,o ^ rs. S

^ CO ^ ^ CO

^ •^f 5 ? S *° CO CM CO

to T- CM _ CD 'ICJl ^ CO CM r-- »^

CM

CO CJ) fo o CM CM in

CM CO

T- «0

CM CM

00 CD

ro 00 COto

CO

0) *•

CO to O

O IL. O X !=! 5 < S

Ui Q

s s si £ O t uj S S £ Z

X -» - s >• Z 2 Z Z

264
Adminisiration and Public Affairs Commiltee

o

CM

in CM 52 in m ^, cu in

to in o CO

CD in into h-t^^-*cM^ o>*^;^

12O

o

>%

i •oo

c

w

"«3

T3>

0) X3

oo

2 S £

<^ I"

O £

« 5 _

2 « o o

00°

o z *

d) «2 8

5il

t. -CO 022

5 M 3

O Z I

4) U> «>

« t f~ Co « U 2 S

in o 4> o 6? O 2 E

O CO CM <£) 00

»- m CM T- m

to ^

CO

1- CM Tz s

o z 5

020

O 2 I

<0

S

CO in

T- CM

S ^

55 -^r eo 00 CD Jif

4_ CD CD CD CM TCO

O CO

T3- Tto CO o)

CO cMiiitD ooin o m co

to o CM CNj rsj

^! O CM «o ^

to CO

to <- CM CM

to

to

9

CO

ZZOO O CLll^tOW h-l- Di>>>g

265
Administration and Public Affairs Comm

J23

O

o

t •ao

c

2

I-«

"15 3

"O

!Ec

0) XI

523

oo

|2

« £J S

2 g 5 o z I

2*

o * ^ 1

2 a «

2 «> o o O "

3 . "S S o o 5

4> rt S

o 6^ ozs

Z £

O 5 z s

W O e 3 1 P O O z S

O o

e ? « 3

~ oo

« IN ^ go*

g dl

111

111

3

•aoS

0)

9> O

^ CO

COo

lO

5

55

In.

rvi

oCM

rr

eo

CO

CO

o

oo _

e «

« CO <

CO

a.O 5

1

O)

CM

5

to

00

u>

CM

CO

Z

CO

*- "S ? = iS ,S • o £_

Q> «

e

Uio

c

_o

c3uC4> U

H

Z

o 1> 2 §

:s g

a ."2

CO .S

2 -o « ^ .£ IIS

4> C

u 3

OU

e ^ « .S

.2 § -o II. 3 S

C ^

C5« O ^

2

"5? 5« 1|

» _ I

266
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM REGISTRY

SUMMARY OF METROLOGY SEMINAR ACTIVITY

(Asof June 30, 1996)

Courses Listed in the NTP Registry:

No. 201, Basic Metrology I No. 203, Intermediate Metrology

No. 202, Basic Metrology II No. 204, Advanced Metrology

Individuals Trained by Course

State 201

Course No.

202 203 204 Totals

AL 1 1 AK 1 2 1 4

AZ 3 3 3 1 10

CA 1 1 2

CO 2 2 1 5

CT . 2 . 2

DE 1 1 2 1 5

FL 4 8

GA 1 1 3

HI 0Cm. 2 4

ID 1 1 1 3

IL 4 4 1 9

IN 1 1 2 4

lA 1 1 3

KS 2 2 2 1 7

KY 2 2 4

ME 2 2 4

MD Q 6 8 20

MA 1 1 2

Ml 1 1 3 5

MS 1 1 1 3

MO ., 1, ,

,

.

1 3

NE 2 2

NV 1 1 2

NH 1 1 1 3

NJ 1 1

267
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

individuals Trained by Course

Course No.

State 201 202 203 204 Totals

NY 2 2 2 6

NC T 7 4 , -1 19

ND 2 2 2 6

OH ..

, 2 .

, .„., ...2,. :5 OK 1 2 3

OR 1 1 2

PA 1 1 2 4

PR 2 2 9

Rl 1 3 4

SC 1 1 2

SD 1 1 2

TN 3 3 1 7

TX 3 3 2 8

OT 1 1 VA 3 3 3 9

WV 2 2 1 5

Wl 2 2

Other

Canada 2 2

Associate

Members

47 17 16 12 92

GIPSA 1 1

Totals 120 93 82 19 314

268

Administration and Public Affairs Committee

oooooooo

o o o o o o o

N CO 10 CO CsJ T270
Adminisiration and Public Affairs Committee

•o —

cS o g § «

6

<N N ^ » ^ « S

O «E M

S S

a o O CO

^ to

CM <- 1-

o

S 5 CD >-

03 to

n e

^ CM CN

s S

o C

= O

2 (£ 54

O) a, o T CM S CN

CD <»• ra 2 g

•S SB)

Z3o II

T *

n o CO CO CN

f to «D

g

-2 3

2j e

271
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

O s

•3 1

•8 wi §3(-0 0 H

431.50 1

325.50 260.80 47.50 i1,065.30

1996 Total None

0m 0 0 0

rf<N

o\ r-' rf

1994

Total V

e

0

Z

5; 3 28.80 28.00 6.20 5.00 00'89

1992 Total 7.20 14.00 37.60 58.80

S\ 3 8

0 0<^ ©

o\ 0 ^ H >n <n 0 4I-*

1990 Total 97.20 101.50 49.60 1

V)B1

«r

0 m0 00

* Id

3.60 3.50 ore 2.50

V)

v

t. *.

S5 0

u

»—

(

0r4 0 S

To

0 b2 M NH .8 .S Ills

5 2

'-31 i

" .a s « » ea & <

Q aO S2p 2O r5 <S d o ^ o Z Z Z Z

^ i> h u

S S S 3

O O 9 O

u u o u

eo§

u3

131

II

8 a

"S i

| s

oa 1

|1

1.^

S XI o

4... o o

is o

§

° O <U 11

n (u •3

(A 3

m a(3 S -s

(U u o s

*

*

272
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

«:

COc

g

10

II

ro O

O CO J3

0)

V) 2 w

c

£ ^

2 -a JS

0) 0) 0) Q. > E «o E 2 >-:; o Q- S

0)w

o w

<U C

roc

Z3

2 -D C to 0 0) 0) 9?

Q. > E

E 2 >.Ji! o S- S

(U Q) oj S?

9^ S

<3 So.

ro

o

asc

c

re CL

C/5 w

<D 0

00 w

C c

0 0

Q. Q. X X

0 0

0 ©

c c

'ro ro 1- 1-

0w

c

0

Q.X

0c

0

T3

CO T3

ro o)

ro "D 2 o

c m

0 fc^ X ro

<^ -D 0 ro

0

C

"2

CO c c

ro 0

Q. C X

0 0 D

CO

\oo

• amm

.2

J- so on -

c

C s

.« s

c«

3 < U

s

.2

*S

o

c

'E

"«5

fa. I-

<*>o

a

o

CME

3 -cr- E o

X o

I

2—c

« 35 §5 E

< ICM 0

0 5

3 <^ D

O

ro o ro

S m

° c O § _

o £ o 2

£ ^CN Ifl c

C3) O

o Q

o o

0 0

roc

oO

0 ^3 in

CJ" 05 0 03 ^ ^ Sou

« coi= n k w

o 2 c -or: 0 <n

D. ro

CO c

0 — <

O CO P C O) O 5?? ^ o

w CO C\ -JS CO ^§ ro CD R

^ 0

o

CO

(0

00

2 ro ^ O

CO ro X

c 0

t

E ro^

3 ^ CO « .CM o r: t- 0 ro w

1^ o « "G 0 ro c: o CO c W co « o 0 c

D0

o>

0

~ 0

^1

c w

0 ^

E Ci. 0

.E CM oi.|

c t5 S 3^

CO c 0 .E ^

CO -g O

m ro 5 ro 0 i: E'*' CO ._ m c

C CM —

<^

- 0

CO c

"D 0 o c CO _

ro to c ^ i5 —

o o <u 2 ci 'i 0 ir> 0^ —' ^ ro CM >

3

T3O

re w a> o .9-*i

to <

re « o £ £ cr a) o « o

<n a:

in CM +

CM CM

(J) 3 . ° DC

O

re

Ln

CM

00o

S2o

COo

o5o

c

o

'5)

re

if) <

<

in

CM

o5o

CO

<

m

95

o5

CM55o

in9?

?3o

COo

O

273
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

5k

X) ^

Q) O

o

O C3lO CN O CLIO O

Q. > S o Q.O r~ OQ.IO o

CO Oi

0) S <i>

o 9- 5 CO

0) 0) 0) O) E 2 s^'S o 9- 5 CO

B c A 0) Co

0)Q.E

o

m

« (u

;

e2c

O S- E

too.

0)c

c

Q.

0)(0 3

<o

U)c

0)CLX

0)

k-<uc

(0

<1> I

*- 0) T3 W

C C

(0 <U «^ Ql C X

<U <D

CO

c

2

E

o2

O)c

<u

0)

CO 0} = g

C CL 5 S

(0 0)Q. o

c ^ — -—3

CO

a>

(0c

<ua.X

0)

T3

0)

C C

(0 <U 4^ Q. C X

0) 0) XI3

CO

C

RI IQ.

- <D II

c ^

a 2 3 o w S

CM c QO

S CO

Q) £5 = S o

(0 (A O

£ x: o

O « —

;

(0 <

« <5 S

x: x: O" fl> O tf> <u

o 8

c

o

'5)

<u

0)

(S

in

05o

CO

>-

(A 3 o o

o iCtj O w ? ^ ^ c

(0

_ w «

o c c

«= Q ^

0) C «A

CD S- - O 8 CD

(0 oS =

CO > t

0) < «

[9 5 r

> «> CO O) <» C C ^ 0)

,2 i

c: CM

0)

CO

(0 x>

i2 = tD S

g 25 o

t CD P O) « CN £

.E O - —

CO sT" T3 .E g TJ <D

ofl <^ CO • - CO CO

T- c

E O

o S

{2o

ts - 0) c

S i

T- TO

. CO CD

CO ii "g

CO ® 2

u. ^ %B

egCO CL

CO o

ffl I

2 -

ilc

CO

ql 0) .E < Li.

o CO

0.

UJz

(0

l- c > < -55 oa> oS o

o

c

CO><

OQ c:> 1

5

lO

C7> q5

00o

UJ

lO

115 o

Hi

m

00

o5o

0)u

il"

iS ® «

o

«<

CO

•c

cu

e2CO (O •o c < Z

a> £ o w

E «

OQ E

. c

(0 <D Hi0)CO

CO

o>o

o

0)

to COE

o

Ico •"So

c 2 5

§ « to

^- .E O O)

CM OCN

CB • U CD Is

o

CM

a>

oo

CN00o

274
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

34-) (0 (0

0) (U 0) ^

E 2 >«5

o 9- S CM

oa>c

<i> O

S I ^ c Q. 0) in O O CL E O)

5 -£5

0)

(0c3

CO o -S P:

S; •»-

CL >

Q. ©

roQ.

oj c X - <n c h- "o S r-C r51

XI^ O 0?

ro z. ^

0)W Q

c x:

OT <U it ^

(U

3o

O) <

C

£

a

0)

(0 D

o

a

S i

H

U

§

(A(Oc

0)Q.X

0)

k0)c

(0

•D

tn

V)c

a>

liJ E

o ^

c ro

ro 5 b 0)

0) £ O £« 2|5

<A

0)

V)c

<BQ.X

0) X3c

(0c

o

(A

(U

COc

a>Q.X

' C

<u T33

CO

0)

(/>

.E o ro ^ i E o

(A

0)

(AC

a>Q.Xc

(U T>3« CO

: c

c

:

'5

t

CO is

<A

o $

a g

_j iB

- CO CM W

11

isc

o

o

3 O)

CA O

jp o < i=

(1) S E

E Ci

!= tf)

CD C»

CD <N

£i!

(A

to<U E

CDo

<

in <

f be

T—

T—

i_ S

COcE

CD or)

0) COw eler, 1

truct

(0 3 c

x: < ^

C c

CD a>

1his: 0 c

1

a> D3 X -<—

(A

c

0 0 0 t) < stru c

UJ c

CDE

«

0) 0

CD 0

se E

Co 0

h-

(A cd"

j«: cn 0 o> 3 s

CQ

CM, CM

1 CO 0

CO

'C

CM>>

HB Ma

COm

X >i

on UJc

CtOI

ons Dea istru w ca" (A ' c <U c CO

(A (D

k— T3 3 3 0

0 (A 00 1 to 0

>. c

CD 0

1 tA Q

T

0

nal Q- CD UJ D)0 0 co" U. CO

03

to3

O

x:

CM

CO

ca" cu

(A

(A

rao

CM

X> (A

CD O

.A 2

o u.

CO - CD Q >

Q-fB ro _i X

TM| § CO in CO J-- ^

(0 
 O (0 W <

•ac

a; O

t- (A

«J « 0

o .9- 3 "o £ x: o- o

u «f> V

CO QC

CM CM

Q 0;

10

o>

CM

CM

OiO

IT)

COo

COo

in

00o

in

<3>

o

in

tji

00o

in5>

CMo

,0

OH

inz o

UJ LUz (O

(0 X

o

<

CO ^ ^ c

CD o

<

275
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Associate

Membership

Training

Scholarships

(0696)

(July

1,

1997

-June

30,

1996)

Status

Completed

(approved

for

payment

12/08/95)

Completed

(1

student

only)

$330.33

approved

07/12/96 Completed (approved

08/09/96)

1

Use

Planned

|

Expenses

of

students

.

Student

expenses

Student

expenses,

destructive

package

testing,

instructor

travel

Type

of

Training

HB1

33

Supplement

4

during

period

9/95-

12/95

(32

w&m

officials

in4

regions,

Wes

Diggs

instmctor)

HB

133

(2

students

to

attend

NEWMA

May

1996

conference,

Tom

Coleman

instructor)

HB

133

(2

classes

minimum,

eariy

1996,

total

38

State

&

local

inspectors,

Kathy

Dresser

instructor)

Scholar- ships

1

Allotted T— o i

n (A

x: jc o o w

Scholar- ships i

Request ed o>

<»>

Date

of

Request

i

08/04/95 09/25/95 09/27/95

Region w z O

If tD

State i

276
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Appendix E

Application for Associate Membership Scholarship/Grant Funds

The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) continues its commitment to training of weights

and measures persormel. During the 81st Annual Meeting, the Associate Membership provided

four S5,000 grants, one to each region, for the following purposes, all undertakings to be

completed by July 31, 1997:

• media or public relations training (the A&P Committee is to be given the

opportunit}' review the course outline and credentials of any proposed trainer);

• printing and/or mailing expenses related to regional newsletters; or

• as $500 scholarships for field training.

Purpose of request:

Dates of event:

Instructor(s) if appropriate:

Total number to be trained:

Estimate of Expenses

Instructor Fee(s)

Travel Lodging Meals Other

( identify)

Total

$ $ $ $ $ $

/Signed: Date:

Applicant

(Please print or type)

Name/Title:

Agency/Organization:

Matltng Address:

Gity/State/Ztp:

Telephone: E-Maii:

Please mail completed form to:

Tom Coleman/Joan Mindte

NCWM

Post Office Box 4025

Gaithersburg, MD 20885

277
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

NCWM Committee on Administration and Public Affairs

Associate Membership Grant/Scholarship Fund

Request for Disbursement of Grant/Scholarship Funds

Please provide the following information upon completion of training:

Type of training

Dates

Location

instriJctor(s)

Total # in the Class Please return completed participant evaluations

Summary

Date Instructor

Fee(s)

Travel Lodging Meafs Total

$ $ $ $ $

Total Grant to each Region: $5,000 Note:Each scholarship is limited to $500

(Receipts are required for all items claimed)

I hereby certify that the expenses listed are true and accurate.

Signed: Date:

Claimant Approved NCWM Executive Secretary

Make check payable to:

Mail to: Please mail completed fomi and vouchers to: Tom Coleman/Joan Mindte

NCWM, Post Office Box 4025

Gaithersburg, MD 20885

Telephone 301-975-4868/301-975-4003

278
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Appendix F

Incident/Accident Summary

(Thirteen forms have been completed and received as of June 30, 1996)

The purpose of this form is accident prevention. Please incorporate this summary into your safety program

documentation procedures. Completing this bnef report will allow NCWM to alert other organizations and

jurisdictions o' hazards and possible corrective actions.

1. What weights and measures function was the employee performing, where, and when?

Responses:

a. Routine small scale inspection in grocery store.

b. Using bottJe cage & bottle to retrieve tank samples at coastal fuel facility, c Employee was exiting K-Mart foliov;ing package inspection.

d. Inspector opened lower cabinet panel to inspect security seals, etc.; gust of wind blew dirt particles into eye.

e. Cleaning trie floor drain in calibration bay in metrology lab.

f-' Testing gas pumps.

f-2 Testing gas pumos.

f-3 Testing livestock scaiae - with cart. f-4 Testing bulk oil meter.

g. Driving weight truck. h. Personal injury in performance of employee's job. L Two employees were inspecting marina gasoline pumps.

j. Employee involved in vehicle accident resulting in personal injury.

2. Briefly describe the incident

a. Carried 30 lb. Weight kit. slipped on a wet surface (did not fall). b. Employee extended arms & equipment in front of himself to lower into tank opening. The

fuel terminal policy requires inspector to stand on walkway above the tank opening and not on the floating tank top.

c. Inspector stepped off curb, twisted ankle, landed on right knee.

d. Gasoline pump inspe^ction at oil company.

e. Employee was picking up debris covering floor drain to allow water used in prover

calibration to drain out of area.

f-1 Camying 2 five-gallon test measures over uneven terrain: strained neck.

f-2 Carrying 2 empty five-gallon test measures down incline; severe ankle sprain.

f-3 Moving weight cart with handle in folded position; hand cut wtien cart whipped.

f-4 After weighing full 55 gallon ban^el of oil. moving off scale, barrel slipped: employee

grabbed it to keep from falling and strained sphincter muscle.

g. Rounded bend in road on foggy day; 500 lb. weight slid out of carrying compartment and

fell off truck, bouncing on pavement into oncoming lane and across (no cars were in opposite lane). h. Slipped on wet spot on floor while wearing steel-toed safety shoes.

i. Flash fire of gas vapor at fill box and opening of 6000 gallon fiberglass tank reported to fire marshal, who stated there was no fire; that a vapor fire extinguished itself. Ignition sources

sought.

J. Employee was using seat belts; there was no mechanical or system failure.

279
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

3. Contributing factors (check afl that are appropriate):

inexperience

lack of training

f-3 employee error

f-4 insufficient personnel

haste

d. g. weather conditions

o equipment failure

failure to follow procedures

job fatigue

a. f-1 f-2 i environmental conditions

improper equipment

e. lack of protective gear

i. hazardous materials

c. unsafe work surface

e. housekeeping

b.d. other

Comments:

c. Crack and hole in the road.

d. Incident could occur in number of outdoor work environments; employee wears corrective

glasses; short of wearing safety shield, accident was unavoidable.

g. Installed a better compartment for carrying weights.

i. Potential of static ignition present when: low humidity, static charge potential on one or two

surfaces, spark discharge of adequate energy, ignltable vapor to air mixtures, and means

to generate static charge.

j. No preventive action taken, planned, or needed to prevent recurrence.

4. Recommendations for corrective action:

a. Use non-skid shoes, watch for wet areas.

b. Request assistance when sampling this type of tank.

c. Get in shape and start a daily exercise routine.

d. None at this time.

e. Employees will be advised to wear protective gloves when picking up debris

f. In testing gas pumps, if uneven surface, only carry one (1) can at a time; only move weight

cart with handle extended; directive to staff: companies are to provide personnel to handle

55 gallon drums.

g. Install better compartments for carrying weights; possible regulation for carrying mass

standards on highways (i.e., chaining in).

I. Investigate for potential source(s) of ignition of gasoline vapor; full inspection by gasoline

pump service organization for electrical connections to tank and dispenser; fire marshal

suggests bond and ground wires from funnel to gasoline container, and the funnel to available ground.

A blank summary form follows for your use.

280
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Incident/Accident Summary

(To be completed & submitted unsigned, anonymously)

The purpose of this form is accident prevention. Please incorporate this summary into your safety

program documentation procedures. Completing this brief report will allow NCWM to alert other

organizations andjurisdictions of hazards and possible connective actions.

1. What weights & measures function was the employee performing, where, and when?

Briefly describe the incident

Contributing factors (check alt that are appropriate):

inexperience

lack of training

employee error

insufficient personnel

haste

weather conditions

equipment failure

failure to follow procedures

job fatigue

environmental conditions

other

improper equipment

lack of protective gear

hazardous materials

unsafe work surface

housekeeping

Comments:

4. Recommendations for corrective action:

You may continue your comments on the back of this sheet

Please mail completed form to: Tom Coleman/Joan Mindte,

NCWM, Post OfTice Box 4025, Galthersburg, MD 20855

(telephone: 301-975-4868 or 301-975-4003))

281
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Continuation of Comments on Numbered Items

1.

2.

3.

4.

Miscellaneous remarks:

The NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs greatly appreciates your making

the effort to complete and return this information for inclusion in the planned Safety Information

Clearinghouse.

282
Metrology Subconuninee Repon

Metrology Subcommittee & Metrology Meetings

L.F. Eason, Chairman

North Carolina

Subcommittee Activities

Organization, Vision, Goals, and Strategy

The subcommiitee was recently formed in response to the perceived need for cx)inmunication between the Executive

Committee and the metrology group. The group will have regional representation as appointed by the NCWM Chairman

v-ith a subcomminee chairman voted on by the group. The group discussed the mechanism for selection of the chairman,

and decided that the position will be a 2-year rotation, selected by the group, with a vice chairman working closely with

the chairman. L. F, Eason will continue as the Chairman of the Subcommittee for 2 years, and Ron Balaze will be the Vice

Chairman. The subcomminee wiU focus efforts on issues that affect the entire NCWM and communication issues that affect

all State laboratories and programs.

Small Volume Prover Evaluation

The Metrology Subcomminee reviewed the OWM Technical Evaluation and voted in support of changes to Handbook 44

that allow use of the small volume prover in meter testing. See the attached report in Appendix B. The section on Special

Considerations is of particular concern.

Recommendations for Handbook 130

The Metrology' Subcommittee re\iewed drafts of Handbook 130, Uniform Weights and Meastires Law, and Uniform

Regulation for the Voluniaiy Registration of Ser\'icepersons and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing and Measuring

Devices. Updates are being proposed to add definitions and changes in support of laboratory accreditation. The current language addresses the issue of maintaining traceabilit>'. Proposed language recognizes laboratory accreditation as the mechanism for ensuring traceabilii)' at the laboratory level. The second draft will be circulated to all metrologists for comment prior to submission to the Laws and Regulations Committee in the fail of 1996.

Status of Publications: Handbooks 105-2, 105-3, 105-4, 105-5, 105-6, 105-7

Handbook 105-2 regarding field standard glass flasks was published in June 19%. A final draft of Handbook 105-7 on

small volume provers was circulated at the meeting. Expected pubhcaiion dates for Handbook 105-7, Handbook 105-4 on LPG and .Anhydrous Ammonia Provers, and Handbook 105-3 on Graduated Neck Type Provers are set for September.

Handbooks 105-5 on timing devices and 105-6 on temperature measuring de\'ices are expected in either September or October. OWM hopes to have all pubhcaiions updated by the 19% Combined Regional Metrology Meeting.

Regional Group Reports & Concerns

Regional reports were presented for the regional measurement assurance groups by the individuals listed below. Items of concern included past or current round robin activities, summary of past meetings, and plans for the 19% Combined

Regional Metrology Meeting or the dates and locations of the 1997 meetings.

• Western Regional Assurance Program (WRAP) - Joe Rothleder, CA

• Southeastern Measurement Assurance Program (SEMAP) - L. F. Eason, NC

• Northeastern Measurement Assurance Program (NEMAP) - Ron Balaze, MI

• MidAmerica Measurement Assuran^ce Program (MidMAP) - James Akey, WI

• Southwest Assurance Program (SWAP) - Herb Eskew, TX

• Caribbean Meast^emem Assurance Program (MidMAP) - (Jose Torres, PR) presented by Archie Corbitt, USVI

• Industry Representative - Rick Calfcins, Rice Lake Weighing Systems.

OWM Activities

State Laboratory Needs Assessment

Appendix A to this report Usts a ntimber of ideas obtained during a brainstorming session on State laboratory needs. The

session focused on what NIST and OWM are doing or can do to support State weights and measures laboratories.

283
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Draft Standard Administrative Procedures

Draft Standards Administrative Procedures were distributed for comment and discussion. Administrative procedures were

intended for inclusion in NIST Handbook 145; however, based on input, the procedures will likely be published in a

separate publication since laboratories will need to modify the procedures for their specific applications rather than simply

adopt them.

Laboratory Accreditation & TraceabUity Panel

A laboratory accreditation panel was held during the General Session to provide an overview of traceability and laboratory

accreditation. The session provided an opportunity for questions and answers regarding the direction of laboratory

accreditation. The following people presented topics during the session:

• Opening Remarks, L. F. Eason, NC

• Traceability, Georgia Harris, OWM

• Mutual Recognition Agreements, Status of State Applications, Jim Cigler, NVLAP

• MN Laboratory Accreditation, Mike Blacik, MN

• CT Laboratory Accreditation, Mike Dynia, CT

NIST Handbook 143, Georgia Harris, OWM

Status of NCSL Reconunended Practice on Interlaboratory Comparisons

Process Measurement Improvement and alternative mechanisms for the conduct of interlaboratory comparisons and round

robins were discussed. Input was provided for inclusion to the NCSL Recommended Practice.

Status of Publication Updates: Handbooks 143 & 145

NIST Handbook 143, Program Handbook, was published in June 1996 and advance copies were made available during the Laboratory Accreditation Panel. The updated Handbook 145 is still in draft form.

284
Metrology Subcomminee Repon

Appendix A

State Laboratorj' Support from NIST and OTOI

Tbe following list of items was obtained during a brainstorming session on OWM and NIST suppon for State Laboratories. Ideas were categorized in nine areas as follows.

1. Internationa] Recognition of State Measurements

• needed, based on customer requests;

• costs the State for NVLAP; possibilit>' for incremental fee; long-term possibility of Congressional set aside?

• costs in time for docxmienting and implementing; and _

• time: it is a real issue; labs must prioritize and put first things first.

2. Accreditation

• training on interpretation of Handbook' 143;

• assistance in documenting "what is done";

• docimienting uncertainties;

• training - demonstration of modifv'ing documents;

• training - implementaiion of documents; and

• feedback on qualit)' manuals.

3. Survey

• needed to determine State lab workload - suppon for weights and measures acti\ities vs. economic growth

for businesses;

• What do the States need? What is the payback on investmenis?

• Wttat is the foundation for measurements?

• Estimates of workload:

NC, MI, OK estimate: 5 percent to 25 percent legal metrolog)' (internal staff and registered agents); estimates for registered agents are 10 percent to 25 percent of their work is in legal metrolog>'; 75 percent + for support to industry: pharmaceutical, nuclear, health, enwonmental.

CA estimates; 75 percent weights and measures, 25 percent indusrr\- [lab is shut down].

CT estimates 25 percent internal staff, 25 percent registered agents, 50 percent industr>'.

[Suppon for legal metrology includes commercial weighzs and measures tofidjill Consnnmonal requirements and high level measuremerus to ensure traceability of laboratory' standards and standards used in Federally regulated explications, e.g., DOD, DOE, FAA, NRC, FDA. USDA, and EPA.]

• Need information to help influence NIST priorities (with Peter Heydemann's support);

• Write to NIST requesting suppon; and

• Evaluate what NIST does not need to do; what Stales do not need to do.

4. Training

• uncertainties;

• operation of new mass comparators;

• standard deviations, between-time standard deviations [attend Advanced Mass Hands-On class];

• automation [attend Advanced Mass Hands-On class];

• Andy's software suppon - good;

• Calibration inter.' als - getting data; • new handbook review; and

• imerpretation of HB 143.

5. Software

• update current spreadsheets;

• automation and interfacing;

• current de facto sofrware memo; and

• number who have e-mail and Web access (5)

.

285
Metrology Subcommittee Report

6. Consultation Services

• NIST focus on training and consultation - changes over the years;

• new laboratory and updated laboratory design review;

• contact and consultation with calibration services to resolve problems;

• get calibration staff to professional meetings for interaction;

• e-mail, Web support;

• fax-on-demand service; and

• defme questions collectively among the labs to get: write-ups, manuals, tech notes, software.

7. Other NIST Support

• free/reduced calibrations;

• equipment;

• on-site assessments, training, consultation, support; and

• current NIST focus with Omnibus Trade Act is on industry, instead of basic measurements, yet

measurement supports industry.

8. Calibration Intervals

• Workload adjustment - proper setting of calibration intervals and discussion [collect data, provide

education].

9. Federal Agency Auditor Requirements

• ICSP, ACIL laboratory accreditation and uniform standards requirements (contact Belmda Collins, Pat Cook);

• Education of customers; and

• Training for auditors.

286
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Appendix B

NIST Technical Evaluation on

the Use of the Small Volume Prover as a Field Standard

Submitted by: Georgia L. Harris, Tina G. Butcher, and Juana S. Williams

Objective

Brooks Instruments has requested that the Small Volimie Prover be recognized as a field standard for weights and measures

meter verification activities in the United States. The only standard previously recognized has been the field standard test measure identified by NIST Handbook 105-3. Therefore, the objective of the technical evaluation was to determine the

acceptability of the small volume prover as a standard and to evaluate the comparability of meter testing measurement

results.

Recommendation

The NIST Office of Weights and Measures recommends that the dynamic small volume prover be recognized as a field standard for use by weights and meastires officials in the official examination and verification of liquid metering devices. Based on data from laboratory tests, field tests, and associated measurement uncertainties due to known factors, the dynamic

small volume prover has shown sufficient comparability to neck-type field standard provers and it operates adequately to meet the tolerance requirements of NIST Handbook 44. OWM concerns regarding the tests and practical implementation

of the standard are addressed in the Special Considerations section.

Summary of Tests and Data Used in this Evaluation

The following lists include test data reviewed as a part of this evaluation of the small volume prover.

Calibration of the Small Volume Prover

(all witnessed by weights and measures officials)

• North Carolina Standards Laboratory February 1994

• Florida Weights and Measiu-es Laboratory June 1994

• Brooks Instruments Facility (Statesboro, GA) May 1996

Field Test Comparisons of Field Standard Test Measures and the Small Volume Prover

(all witnessed by weights and measures officials; testing a variety of meters and products)

• STAR Enterprise, Apex, NC March 1994

Southern Facilities, Sehna, NC September 1994

• Chevron, Jacksonville, FL October 1995

• Amoco, Doraville, GA May 1996

• Brooks, Statesboro, GA June/July 1996 (not wimessed)

Existing Approvals and Countries Using the Brooks Compact Prover

(by foreign weights and measxires authorities)

Germany 1982

Canada 1982

Netherlands (Van Swinden Laboratorium) 1983

Norway 1987

Australia 1988

Malaysia 1990

Netherlands (NMI) 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992

Japan 1991

Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Scotland currently used for verification activities

287
Metrology Subcomminee Report

Special Considerations

This section includes comments on the following issues:

• Traceability

• Publications

• Laboratory Equipment, Standards, and Training

• Field Operations

• Economics

• Opportunity for Improvements

• Traceability

Evaluation and acceptance of new standards must include a technical evaluation of the entire measurement process to ensure

that technical decisions are based on valid data. Using an accredited laboratory for the evaluation of the standard does not provide evidence as to the validity of measurements made beyond the laboratory. Therefore, until evidence of accuracy and traceability has been verified throughout the entire system, all data must be thoroughly evaluated. Accreditation

criteria, used to evaluate laboratories for the capability of making accurate and traceable measurements can be used to evaluate the measurement system beyond the laboratory. Laboratory accreditation requirements were established to ensure

that a laboratory has the capability to make traceable measurements and proficiency tests are used to ensure that traceable measurements are made. Acceptable measurements at all levels require 1) the presence of suitable starting standards with

verifiable traceability and sufficiently small uncertainties and 2) appropriate and documented procedures in which staff have

received training. Proper use of the standards and proper adherence to the procedures is critical.

When evaluating this measurement data and its validity, the factors described below are considered departures ft^om recommended practices and contribute additional uncertainties to the measurement process.

1 . None of the field standard test measures used in field tests against the small volume prover met the specifications

of NIST Handbook 105-3, 1979 edition.

2. Field standard test measures compared in field tests against the small volume prover were not all tested by

accredited laboratories.

3. Based on training data in NCWM Publication 16, 1996, of the three States where field tests were conducted only one has completed training in Module 19 [now Course Number 304].

4. Field tests were not consistently performed in accordance with the Examination Procedure for Loading Rack

Meters in NCWM Publication 12 (or the modified version of this submitted by Brooks in September 1993). For

example, a slow flow test was not performed in all cases to enable analysis of the results over a range of flow

rates. This was possibly due to a lack of standardized protocol for the comparison test and/or an unfamiliarity with

the established test procedure in the EPO. None of the field tests included a slow flow test until specifically

requested by NIST during the Doraville, GA tests on May 30, 1996.

5. Differences between laboratory calibration methods (gravity drain) and field testing applications (pump drain) for graduated neck-type provers add to the bias observed in these tests.

• Publications

A number of publications or draft modifications to current publications have been prepared by Brooks Instruments. These

publications address each level of the measurement system - from calibration to field test of meters and training. The

following handbooks are at various stages of development and must be published to fully implement the use of the small

volume prover as a weights and measiu'es field standard:

• American Petroleum Institute (API) Publications: API has had publications addressing the design and use of small

volume provers since the 1980's; these publications are referenced as appropriate in the other drafts.

• Handbook 44, Specifications and Tolerances: Modifications are proposed to Handbook 44 by the NCWM S&T

Committee as a voting item in 1996.

• Handbook 105-7, Specifications and Tolerances for Small Volume Provers: This draft handbook was prepared

and circulated for comment in 1994 throughout the metrology laboratories and industry (through the API). It was

presented at the 1994 NCWM Meeting in San Diego. It is expected to be published in 1996.

• Handbook 145, Draft SOP 26, Standard Operating Procedure for the Calibration of Small Volume Provers: This

draft procedure was prepared and circulated for comment in 1994 throughout the metrology laboratories and

industry (through the API). It was presented at the 1994 SEMAP metrology meeting in Richmond, VA, and the NCWM Meeting in San Diego. A calibration video was shown at the SEMAP meeting as well. It is expected

288
Metrology Subcommittee Report

to be published in 1996 with the Handbook 145 update. Uncertainties may be further improved by gravimetric

calibration of these devices.

• Publication 12, Examination Procedures Outline: Draft modifications were prepared in 1994.

• Training Course Niunber 304 (Module 19): Draft modifications were prepared in 1994.

• Laboratory Equipment, Standards, and Training

Metrologists will need specialized training on the operation of these unique devices since the procedure is different from

routine volume transfer methods. The procedure was presented at the 1994 SEMAP and NCWM meetings. It will also be presented at the 1996 Combined Regional Metrology Meeting. Based on the complexity of the tests, it is recommended

that hands-on training and interlaboratory comparisons be conducted to ensure proficiency.

State laboratories do not have suitable equipment and standards to test small volume provers. A list of equipment and

estimates have been requested from Brooks. Laboratories will need a large water storage tank with suitable plumbing,

valves, and pumps. Volumetric standards are currently used to test small volume provers. Manufacturers of small volume

provers manufacture various size provers, which all reqtiire different size test standards. There is no uniformity between

the manufacturers regarding the standards which would be needed in the laboratory as noted in the examples shown below.

Brooks

20 L

(5 gal)

40 L

(10 gal)

60L

(15 gal)

120 L

(30 gal)

250 L

(65 gal)

650 L

(170 gal)

Smith

57 L

(15 gal)

159 L

(42 gal)

318 L

(84 gal)

A "calibration kit" consisting of valves and connections can already be purchased with a small volume prover. Until

laboratories are established to conduct this test, weights and measures jurisdictions will have no local source for calibration.

It is recommended that laboratories be established for testing small volume provers on a regional basis, based on current

large volimie calibration capabilities, staffing, and likelihood of support and maintenance for such a program.

Improvements in the imcertainties associated with the calibration of small voliraie provers could be achieved through

gravimetric calibration. This would require a suitable scale and mass standards rather than various size laboratory standards

as noted above and may be less expensive. A gravimetric procedure has not been developed for laboratory calibration.

• Field Operation

Stability

Until recently, no data was available to evaluate how long a small volimie prover might remain stable in field applications.

The Brooks Compact Prover that has been used for collecting field data in the United States has been in service for 6 years and was rebuilt in June 1996 (seals were replaced). The prover was rebuilt as a result of inconsistencies between fast flow

and slow flow tests observed in May 1996. The calibration history for this small volume prover shows relatively good

stability over time. A 6-month calibration cycle is recommended for new devices imtil the device has shown values

repeating within the measurement imcertainty over three consecutive tests. At that time, the calibration interval may be

extended to a 1-year cycle. Based on the operation of most weights and measures jurisdictions, where a prover is not in continuous use, it is reconmiended that the small volimie prover be calibrated prior to a test and verification cycle.

• Maintenance and Care

Only one small volume prover has been used for collecting data in this report; it is a Brooks 12" model. A nimiber of other small volume provers are in use by industry for in-line applications. Under these conditions, the provers are in constant use and are maintained in a "wet" condition. Small volume provers in weights and meastires enforcement applications will

likely be maintained similar to other large volume field standards; that is, provers will alternatively be used and stored,

in wet and dry conditions where the seals have an opportunity to dry out.

• Training

The small volume prover technology is quite different from the neck-type large volume prover. Therefore, specialized

training is critical for proper operation and use as a field standard. Publication modifications for training materials have

already been prepared. As was recommended with the calibration of this device, it is expected that hands-on training is the only way to ensure proficiency in the use of a new standard with this level of complexity.

289
Metrology Subcommittee Report

• Economics

The cost of a small volume prover system regarding purchase, maintenance, vehicles, laboratory setup, and training for both laboratory and field staff should be compared to field standard test measures and large volume provers. Establishing a network of calibration laboratories and jurisdictions using small volume provers, sufficient training for laboratory and

field personnel, and obtaining adequate equipment and standards will be quite expensive.

The current calibration facilities, training (for laboratory and field staff), and traceability to NIST for the use of current volumetric standards is inadequate and resources must be devoted to improve these areas. Detailed evaluation of

laboratories testing large volume provers indicated a number of deficiencies which will be addressed individually with each

laboratory.

• Opportunities for Improvement in the Volumetric Measurement System

The implementation of the small volume prover as a field standard provides a number of opportunities for improvement

in the volumetric measurement system:

• Test data from the fuel oil tests at Apex, NC showed the potential for adjusting meter linearity based on the flow

rates. This is not possible with neck type large volume provers.

• Elimination of a meniscus reading will improve measurement uncertainties.

• The small volume prover is a closed system. Therefore, vaporization is minimized. Also, other products can be

measured: viscous, toxic, cryogenic, LPG.

• During follow up tests at Brooks on the small volume prover, some discrepancies between the neck-type provers and the small volume provers were identified based on drain times on the neck-type prover. Discussion over how

the laboratory should test the neck-type provers have been ongoing. The current procedure requires emptying by

gravity rather than by pump; since the provers are used witii a pump, discrepancies have been suspected. Since

the small volume prover must be tested in the same maimer it is used, then this discrepancy should also be

eliminated.

• It has already been recommended that a gravimetric calibration procedure be developed to minimize calibration uncertainties.

Data Analysis

Many of the tests evaluated in this report were conducted with the idea that they were a "demonstration" for weights and measures officials rather than as a method to carefully collect data that would be evaluated at a later date. A strict test protocol was not developed and observed for most tests. Specific details and data are maintained in the NIST Office of

Weights and Measures.

• Laboratory Calibration

Tests were conducted at the following laboratory facilities:

• North Carolina Standards Laboratory February 1994

• Florida Weights and Measures Laboratory June 1994

• Brooks Instruments Division (Statesboro, GA) May 1996

Table 1 contains a summary of calibration data for the water draw calibration of the small volume prover. Both Brooks

and NIST have developed spreadsheets (Quattro Pro and Excel) to handle the numerous calculations involved in the laboratory calibration of the small volume prover. Data is now available for the development of data sets that can be used

at various laboratories to validate software prior to use. Review of calibrations using these spreadsheets revealed calculation errors from the field tests. The development of these spreadsheets should assist with uniform calculations and the minimization of calculation errors. The spreadsheets will be made available to State laboratories choosing to develop small volume prover calibration capabilities.

290
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Table 1. Summary of Water Draw Calibration Data

Test No. Lx)cation Repeatability % Standard Deviation (gal)

1 FL 1 Downstream 0.03380 0.00255

FL 1 Upstream 0.03254 0.00262

2 FL 2 Downstream 0.00896 0.00073

FL 2 Upstream 0.01011 0.00078

3 NC Downstream 0.01574 0.00128

NC Upstream 0.00589 0.00045

4 Brooks 1 Downstream 0.00159 0.00012

Brooks 1 Upstream 0.01105 0.00091

5 Brooks 2 Downstream 0.00631 0.00050

Brooks 2 Upstream 0.02756 0.00232

Average All 0.01536 0.00122

Average Downstream 0.01328 0.00103

Average Upstream 0.01743 0.00141

Laboratory calibration of the small volume prover was conducted lising a 15 -gallon neck-type prover which has been

calibrated at NIST (with the exception of a neck calibration). Brooks has a documented procedure for calibration of the small volume prover in their facility. The water draw calibration was observed m the Brooks' facility in May 1996 and

evaluated against the documented procedure. No significant technical concerns were raised; however, several sections of

the procedure will be revised since they are used for construction of a small volume prover rather than for routine

calibration.

Metrology staff in the North Carolina and Florida laboratories observed water draw calibrations in their facilities with numerous suggestions, particularly in Florida. The test reports indicated a number of concerns thai were corrected in the second set of Florida data.

There was not a statistically significant difference in repeatability between the upstream and downstream operations. The

overall repeatability using API methods was 0.015 percent. The overall standard deviation of the calibration process was

0.00122 gal (0.282 in^). Using this standard deviation for the process and an uncertamty of 0.416 in^ for the standard (the 1-sigma value for the 15-gallon standard from the NIST calibration report) according to the ISO Guide to the Expression

of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), the root-sum-square uncertainty with a k-factor of 2 (for 95%) is at least ± 1 .01 in^ or 0.029 percent.

Additional components of uncertainty have been theoretically evaluated by Brooks and include: calibration of the standard prover (included);

• measurement process variability (included);

• corrections for temperature on the prover, measure, and water (calibrated and traceable equipment is used with

suitable uncertainties; however, this does not account for possible errors or variability m use; storage and use of water temperature close to the reference temperature will minimize uncertainties);

• coefficient of expansions (for all materials);

• corrections for pressure (pressure gauges are calibrated with suhable uncertainties however this does not account

for variability in the expansion of the prover under pressure); and

• compressibility of water used as a calibration medium.

291
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Theoretical analyses (conducted prior to the GUM) show an estimate of 0.028 percent for the systematic error in the

transfer of the laboratory standard to the small volume prover at reference conditions which is fully consistent with these

initial observations. Additional data from interlaboratory comparisons is needed to ftilly evaluate the presence of errors or

bias that will contribute to variability in the measurement system.

Field Tests Comparison tests between the small volume prover and graduated neck-type provers were conducted at the locations noted

below. Data was collected for a variety of products and both turbme and positive displacement meters. A description of

the tests that were conducted at each facility is described later.

• STAR Enterprise, Apex, NC March 1994

• Southern Facilities, Selma, NC September 1994

• Chevron, Jacksonville, FL October 1995

• Amoco, Doraville, GA May 1996

• Brooks, Statesboro, GA June/July 1996 (not witoessed)

Table 2 contains a summary of results for meter testing using both the small volume prover and a graduated neck-type large

volume prover. Figure 1 is a graph of the differences showing the relation to the acceptance tolerance and 1/3 of the acceptance tolerance as specified by NIST Handbook 44. The repeatability values noted in Table 2 for both the neck-type

prover and the small volume prover for the seven data points evaluated were slightly less than one-third of the tolerance (0.067 %). Data shown in the simmiary table is an evaluation of the repeatability of meter factors for the entke set of data over time. The actual data for the small volume prover is collected in sets of 3 passes during the collection of product in the graduated neck-type prover. Agreement of the data for the individual passes is usually within 0.02 percent.

The overall comparability (bias) between the neck-type field standard and the small volume prover was within one-third

of the NIST Handbook 44 acceptance tolerances and within the repeatability values for the tests. The agreement between

the standards was less than 0.02 percent, which is very good considering all of the components of measurement uncertainty

mentioned previously.

Observed discrepancies were noted during the Apex, NC, test due to meter linearity problems. Discrepancies were also noted in the Doraville, GA, slow flow test and later due to seal leakage in the small volume prover which was corrected by rebuilding the standard. It should be noted that even with leakage in the system, the results agreed to within one-half

the acceptance tolerance. Another significant discrepancy was noted between the small volume prover and the neck-type

standard due to drain times diu-ing follow up testing done at Brooks' facility in Statesboro, GA.

In evaluating the measurement uncertainty determined by combining the uncertainty for the calibration of the standards and

the variability observed in use, both standards exceed one-third of the NIST Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance of 0.2

percent. This phenomenon is observed with 5-gallon field test measures as well. The acceptance tolerance for a 5-gallon

test is 3 in'. Data from laboratory calibrations, the measurement control systems, interlaboratory comparisons show an

overall uncertainty of 1 in\ When the standard is then used in the field by a service agent or weights and measures official, the uncertainty is at least doubled due to field conditions, conditions inside the prover, reading the meniscus, and drain

times. The combined uncertainties therefore take approximately two-thirds of the Handbook 44 tolerance (or 0.17%).

292
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Table 2. Summary of Field Test Comparison Data

Test Meter Product No. Runs

Flow Rate

(ave gpm)

SVP* %

Repeatability

TM** %

Repeatability

Bias %

Test TM Unl Reg 12 400 0.0608 0.0467 0.0175

A2 TM Urvl Sup 2 600 0.0015 0.0129 -0.0058

A3 TM #2 FO 6 450 0.0713 0.2027 -0.3385 not included in averages A3 TM #2F0 3 460 0.2169 0.0281 0.4936 not included in averages Ai 1 JVl nL rU 5 0.0162 0.0281 0.0363 weighted for meter

linearity, not included

SI PD Unl Reg 3 545 0.0173 0.0287 -0.0297

S2 PD Unl Reg 4 595 0.0301 0.0192 -0.0266

Jl TM Unl Reg 5 500 0.0635 0.0853 0.0265

Dl TM #2FO 4 600 0.0159 0.01 0.0217

IM itI rU t) 0.183 0.12 0.1153 slow flow test leakage

notpri

0.0532 0.0461 0.0169 not including A3 points

(7 data points)

SBl TM Water 3 400 0.0255 0.0152 0.0322 SVP evaluation

SBIA TM Water 14 200 1.2719 1.3445 -0.0342 SVP evaluation

SB2 TM Water 6 165 0.0122 0.0235 0.0505 rebuilt SB2A TM Water 5 400 0.0815 0.121 0.0835 rebuilt SB3 TM Water 4 150 0.1195 0.0165 0.0091 rebuilt SB3A TM Water 3 300 0.0084 0.0093 0.0468 rebuilt SB3B TM Water 5 500 0.0462 0.018 0.041 rebuilt SB4 TM Water 5 550 0.3934 0.3938 0.174 normal drain

SR4A TM Watf>r 4 550 01934 0 07,6 fi min drain

Average: 0.135 0.1239 0.0477 not including SBIA

*SVP = Small Volume Prover **TM = Graduated Neck-Type Prover (Test Measure)

Description of Tests

STAR Enterprise, Apex, NC March 1994

Al : Fast flow tests were conducted on unleaded regular gasoline with turbine meters; nothing unusual is noted. Results were good and data is included in the analysis.

A2: Fast flow tests were conducted on unleaded super gasoline with turbine meters; nothing imusual is noted. Results were good aivd data \s vn&luded mthe analysvs.

A3: Fast flow tests were conducted on #2 fiiel oil with turbine meters. Results from the first two runs were analyzed

and it was noticed that the meter linearity was a problem. These two points are shown in Figure 1 as the points

outside the acceptance tolerances. The third A3 point shows a randomized analysis of the second set of small volimae prover data and is weighted for meter linearity from the start-up, shut-down, and fast flow passes of the small volume prover. It is not possible to conduct this type of analysis with the graduated neck-type prover. Agreement between the two provers is shown in the third set.

Southern Facilities, Selma, NC September 1994

SI: Fast flow tests were conducted on tmleaded regular gasoline with positive displacement meters; nothing unusual

is noted. Results were good and data is included in the analysis. S2: Fast flow tests were conducted on tmleaded regular gasoline with positive displacement meters; nothing unusual

is noted. Results were good and data is included in the analysis.

293
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Chevron, Jacksonville, FL October 1995

Jl : Normal tests were conducted on unleaded regular gasoline with turbine meters; nothing unusual is noted. Results were good and data is included in the analysis.

Amoco, Doraville, GA May 1996

Dl : Fast flow tests were conducted on #2 fuel oil with turbine meters. Restilts were good and data is included in the

analysis.

D2: Slow flow tests were conducted on #2 fuel oil with turbine meters. Results showed poor repeatability and poor

agreement between the small volume prover and the graduated neck-type prover. Leakage in the small volimfie prover was suspected. Data is included in the analysis and additional testing was conducted at the Brooks'

Statesboro, GA, facility to follow up.

Brooks, Stat^boro, GA June/July 19% (not witnessed)

SB: A number of tests and analyses were conducted on water with turbine meters as a follow-up to the Doraville, GA,

tests. This data is considered "experimental" in comparing results between the small volume prover and the graduated neck-type provers. Agreement between the provers is within one third of the tolerance. SBl: Comparison between the fast flow and slow flow tests again showed a discrepancy resulting in a replacement of

the small volvune prover seals. SB: Subsequent tests were an investigation of proper drain times and evaluation of retention characteristics in the gradiated neck-type prover. The prover was calibrated by the Fuel Division of the State of Georgia prior to these

tests, but was washed during these comparisons.

SB4: Comparison of drain times shows the bias resultmg from the normal use of the graduated neck-type prover and

a 6-niinute pmnp off with a 6 minute drain. The 12 minutes approximates the calibration time from a gravity

delivery according to the SOP followed by a 30-second drain.

0.6 -

a; 0.4 -

o

c

2: i

0.2 - o

0) 0 --

a> CL -0.2 -

-0.4

Small Volume Prover Comparison

Large Volume Prover Meter Tests

ii

. \ _i _ ^

^ -^-^^^-^^

_— ^ ^^^^

' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I A1 A3 S2 D2 SB2 SB3A SB4A

A2 A3 Jl SB1 SB2A SB3B

A3 S1 D1 SB1A SB3 SB4

Location

+ Accept Tol —- Accept To! + 1/3 Tol 1/3 Tol

IFigure 1 Comparison of Small Volume Prover to Field Test Prover.

294
Resolutions Committee

Report of the Resolutions Committee

Archie Lambert, Chairman

Program Manager Weights and Meastires Division

Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry

Reference

Key No.

700

GENERAL

The Resolutions Committee wishes to express the appreciation of the members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to those persons who contributed their tune and talents toward die arrangements for the conduct and success of

this 81st Annual Meeting. Special votes of thanks are extended:

(1) to Bob Odom, Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry, State of Louisiana, for his welcoming remarks during

which he indicated his support of the work of the Conference, and all of weights and measures;

(2) to the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, particularly Director of Weights and Measures Ronald

Harrell, Assistant Director of Weights and Measures Melvin Lyons, and all of the Louisiana Weights and Measures staff for the hospitality extended to the Conference and their assistance in the preparation for and conduct

of the 81st Aimual Meeting;

(3) to Sergeants at Arms, Ike Lawson and Cecil Shivor, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Weights

and Measures;

(4) to Captain Tom Marhevko, United States Coast Guard, the U.S. Coast Guard, New Orleans, Regional Color

Guard, and Mona Bond, Associate Professor of Voice, Loyola of New Orleans University, for their professional

and enjoyable contributions to the Opening Session of the 81st Annual Meeting;

(4) to Dr. Peter L, M. Heydemann, Director of Technology Services of the National Institute of Standards

Technology (NIST), for his remarks to the membership concerning the importance of uniformity in national and

international weights and measures standards and practices;

(5) to Charles A. Gardner, Chairman, and the officers and appointed officials of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures for their assistance and service toward progress on national issues;

(6) to committee members for their efforts throughout the past year preparing and presenting their reports; to the subcommittees and work groups for their discerning and appropriate recommendations;

(7) to regulatory officials of State and local jurisdictions for the advice, interest, and suppon of weights and measures

administration in the United States;

(8) to representatives of btisiness and industry for their cooperation and assistance in committee and Conference work,

most especially the continuing support as demonstrated by the granting of scholarships for training; to the Associate Membership organization for the hospitality exhibited in sponsored social functions and in partictilar to Richard L. Davis, Manager of Product Safety and Industry Standards, James River Corporation, for arranging

the excursion to Mardi Gras World for the enjoyment of Conference members and their guests;

295
Resolutions Committee

(9) to the staff of the Westin Canal Place Hotel for their assistance and courtesies, all of which contributed to the enjoyment and comfort of the delegates widiin their outstanding facilities; and

(10) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and its Office of Weights and Measures for their dedicated

assistance in plaiming and conducting the work and program of the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

especially to Ann Turner, Phillip Bryson, and Michele Krebs, for their professional and hospitable conduct of the administrative operations of the meeting; to Dr. Gil Ugiansky for his participation ahd for his continued support.

On this occasion of the 81st Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, the Committee wishes

to recognize and express its appreciation to the following individuals:

(1) to Otto K. Wamlof, now retired, former Technical Advisor to the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances

Committee and a public sector member of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee, for his contributions to these technical programs, and especially for serving as the NCWM liaison with relevant technical

activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology in his former position as Senior Standards

Specialist, Standards Management Program, NIST Office of Standards Services.

(2) to Ann H. Turner, Weights and Measures Coordinator, NIST Office of Weights and Measures, upon her

impending retirement, in grateful appreciation for her 19 years of dedicated service to the National Conference on Weights and Measures and her tireless efforts as Conference Coordinator in the planning, coordination, and

conduct of meetings of the Conference and its committees that have been consistently enjoyable and always of the highest quality.

A. Lambert, Chairman

J. Bane, Iowa

J. Hile, AR

V. Massey, Shelby Co., TN

C. Pittman, TN

J. Silvestro, Gloucester County, NJ

D. Wallace, CO

J. Mindte, NIST, Coordinator

Resolutions Committee

296
Nominating Committee

Report of the Nominating Committee

James C. Truex, Chairman

Inspections Manager Weights and Measures

Department of Agriculture

Ohio

Reference

Key No.

800

The Nominating Committee met during the Interim Meeting at the Radisson Bahia Mar Hotel, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,

and nominated the persons listed below to be officers of the 82nd National Conference on Weights and measures. In the

selection of nominees from active membership, consideration was given to professional experience, qualifications of

individuals. Conference attendance and participation, and other factors considered to be important.

Two members of the committee were unable to be present during the meeting; members Ken Simila and N. David Smith were consulted by way of telephone in reaching consensus. The following slate of officers was selected by unanimous vote of the Nominating Committee:

CHAIRMAN-ELECT:

VICE-CHAIRMEN:

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:

TREASURER:

J. Truex, Ohio, Chairman

S. Colbrook, IlVmois T. Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts A. Nelson, Connecticut

S. Rhoades, Arizona

K. Simila, Oregon

N. David Smith, North Carolina

Nominating Committee

Steve Malone, Nebraska

Mike Pinagel, Michigan

Lou Straub, Maryland

Aves Thompson, Alaska

A. Courtney Yelle, Bucks County, Pennsylvania

Sharon Rhoades, Arizona

Gary West, New Mexico

J. Alan Rogers, Virginia

297
Auditing Committee

Report of the Auditing Committee

Monty Hopper, Acting Chairman

Director of Weights and Measures

Kern County, California

Reference

Key No.

900

The Auditing Committee met on Sunday, January 21, 1996, during the NCWM Interim Meeting in Fort Lauderdale,

Florida. The purpose of the meeting was to review the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer.

Committee member Richard PMlmon, Illinois, was imable to attend the meeting. The following persons were also in attendance:

Fred Clem, Assistant Treasurer

J. Alan Rogers, Treasurer Ann H. Turner, Weights and Measures Coordinator

The Auditing Committee finds the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer to be in order and correct, according to Conference procedure.

M. Hopper, Kern County, California, Acting Chairman

R. Kalentkowski, Chairman, Connecticut

R. Philmon, Illinois R. Williams, Tennessee

Ann H. Turner, NIST, Technical Coordinator

Auditing Committee

298
Treasurer's Report

NCWM GENERAL ACCOUNT

FISCAL YEAR REPORT

1/1/95 - 12/31/95

Category Description

NCOME/EXPENSE

INCOME

Income Accounts:

Associate Membership Tran -1 5.00 Account Origination Fee 1 .00 Earned Interest 2,763.95

'Grain Equip. Cooperative Agreement 9.328.27

12,078.22

Membership Fees: Associate Membership Fees 70,605.00

Government Membership Fees 51.135.00

Total Membership Fees 121,740.00

NTEP Seminars:

Metrology Seminars 25.260.00

Total NTEP Seminars: 25,260.00

Other Income:

Industry Non-Member CEU 31.50

^Miscellaneous 1,647.05

Other Income - Other 31.50

Total Other Income 1,710.05

Promotions 497.70

Publications: HB-133 Third Edition Sales 1,749.25

NCWM Publications Sales 502.00

NTEP Training Module Sales 395.00

Videos Sales 142.50

Total Publications 2,788.75

Registration Fees: Annual Meeting 45,525.00

Interim Meeting 3?i375.09

Total Registration Fees 70,900.00

Services Revenues: Annual Mtg. Opt Evening 2Q.Q0

Total Services Revenues 20.00

Total Income Accoimts 234.994.72

TOTAL INCOME 234,944.72

299
Treasurer's Report

EXPENSES

Expense Accounts:

Administration:

Bank Charges 86.51 Contracts/Personnel 19,292.92

Equipment/Supplies/Stationary 1,174.40

Mailing/PO Box 172.00

Miscellaneous 160.00

NTP/CEU/Copyright/Equipment 1,921.00 Treasurer Bond 698.00

Total Administration

^Chairman/Chairman Elect 16,696.50

'Grain Moisture Task Force 5.441.12

NCWM Annual Meeting Expenses.:

AV Equipment & Supplies 373.86

'Awards 2,758.66

Hotel/Food Service 18,668.73

Print Announcement 13,325.00

Photographer 620.25

Printing/Copying 1,918.35

Miscellaneous 797.27

Total NCWM Annual Meeting

NCWM Interim Meeting Expenses:

Hotel/Food Service 18,607.04

Print Agenda 6,638.00

S & T Committee 2,226.35

L & R Committee 1 ,68 1 .50 A & P Committee 2,308.95

Other Committees/TF's 1 ,322.5

1

1,540.21

Printing/Personnel/Equipment/Misc. 6.214.15

Executive Committee

Total NCWM Interim Meeting

NTP Seminars: 9.686.92

Metrology Seminars

Total NTP Seminars

Other Meetings-Committees 6,933 . 1

7

Exec. Com. Strategic Planning 1,162.31

L&R/Hl 33 Work Group 4,3 12.3

1

Education 1,652.45

Annual Committees 3.915.13

'Other

Total Other Meetings-Committees

Otiier Meetings/Task Force 1.495.90

Petroleum Subcommittee

Total Other Meetings/Task Force

Printing 10,618.14

Membership 12,817.00

NCWM Pubs for Members 1.362.00 Miscellaneous

Total Printing

23,504.93

22,137.62

38,462.12

40,538.71

9,686.92

17,975.37

1,495.90

24,797.14

300
Treasurer's Report

Promotional

Special Events Task Force & Special Meetings

Total Expense Accounts

TOTAL EXPENSES

TOTAL INCOME/EXPENSES

Carryover 12/31/94

Year Ending Balance 12/3 1/95

Account Balance 12/31/95

Difference

Year End Adjusted Balance

9,786.35

-1,847.99

4.992.00 12,930.36

191.529.07

191.529.07

43,465.65

105,078.54

148,544.19

148,544.19

-0-

148.544.19

1 . Grain Equipment Cooperative Agreement moved to NTEP mid-year.

2. Other Income - Miscellaneous includes: $733.30 return of travel advance

$733.50 return of deposit for multi-dimensional meeting

3. Chairman/Chairman Elect - Includes annual cost and advances for FY 1996.

4. Awards - Includes costs for current year and FY 1994.

5. Other meetings includes costs for HB 133 training and Budget Review Committee & Strategic Planning.

301
Treasurer's Report

NCWM NTEP ACCOUNT

FISCAL YEAR REPORT

1/1/95 - 12/31/95

Category Description

INCOME/EXPENSE

INCOME

Income Accounts: Account Origination Deposit

Earned Interest NTEP Operations

CoC Maintenance Fees

Publications S & 14 Sales Sales of NTEP Sales

118,795.00

7,136.25 3.475.00

1.00 739.59

Total NTEP Operations

Total Income Accounts 1?PJ46,?4

TOTAL INCOME 130,146.84

EXPENSES

Expense Accounts:

Administration: Bank Charges 43.51

Total Administration Grain Moisture Task Force NTEP Operations:

Board of Governors NTEP Publication 5 and 14 NTETC Belt Conveyor Scale NTETC Measuring Sector NTETC Weighing Sector

Participating Lab Training

Automatic Weighing System

US/Canada Work Group

Personnel

895.31

10,019.87 689.69

6,967.76

10,327.25 260.20

2,682.50

6,403.21

506, 10

43.51 5,700.61

Total NTEP Operations Software Work Group Meeting

38,751.89

l.09S.?0

Total Expense Accounts 45.549,21

TOTAL EXPENSES 45,594.21

TOTAL INCOME/EXPENSE 84.552.63

Carryover 12/31/94 185,754.13

Year Ending Balance 12/31/95 270,306.76

Account Balance 12/31/95 270,307.16

Difference .40

Year Ending Adjusted Balance 270.307.16

302
1

1 Treasurer's Report

NCWM ASSCM:IATE ACCOUNT

FTS^CAL YEAR REPORT

1/1/95 - 12/31/95

jj Category Description

INCOME/EXPENSE

INCOME

Income Accounts Account Originction Fee

Earned Interest Membership EHes

Deposits Returmd

30,000.00

2.544.00

1.00 265.17

Tota] Income Accoxmts 32.810.17

TOTAL INCOME - 32,810.17

EXPENSES

Expense Accoimu:

Service Charges

Training Granti Conference Ou ing

12.49 7,303.00

15.154.66

Total Expense Accotmts 22-470.15

TOTAL EXPENSES 22.470.15

TOTAL INCOME/EXPENSE 10.340.02

Carryover 12/31/94 21.118.38

Year Ending Balance 12/31/95 31,458.40

Account Balance 12/3 1'95 31,458.40

Difference -0-

Year Ending Adjusted Balance 31.458.40

303
's Report

NCWM GRANT ACCOUNT

FISCAL YEAR REPORT

1/1/95-12/31/95

Category Description

INCOME/EXPENSE

INCOME

Income Accounts: Earned Interest

Total Income Accounts

TOTAL INCOME

EXPENSES

Expense Accounts:

Purchase of Slides

Total Expense Accounts

TOTAL EXPENSES

TOTAL INCOME/EXPENSE

Carryover 12/31/94

Year Ending Balance 1 2/3

195

Account Balance 12/3 1/95

Difference

Year Ending Adjusted Balance

30.01

257.50

3,338.79

3,111.30

3,111.30

-0-

3.111.30

30.01

30.01

257.50

257.50

227.49

304
New Chairman's Address

New Chairman's Address

Barbara J. Bloch, Assistant Director

California Division of Measurement Standards

Good morning, everyone. Charlie, would you please remain at the podium, and I would ask Steve Malone, our Chairman

Elect, and Paul Zalon, our new Chairman of the Associate Membership Committee to join us up here for the remainder

of the session.

It is truly an honor and a privilege to be here today assuming the role of Chairman. In 1983, when I attended my first National Conference, it never seemed possible to me that day that I would be standing here as Chairman. It is a very

sobering thought, following in the footsteps of the many fine former Chairmen, and living up to the standards they have

set. However, I will do my level best to serve you and die Conference.

This past year has been one of the most challenging and enjoyable of my entire career. I've crisscrossed the cotutry several times attending various meetings, having the "easy" job of Chairman in training, watching and admiring the professionalism

and expertise of Charlie Gardner. He has been an outstanding role model and mentor. Thank you, Charlie, it has been

a real pleasure to work with you.

Also, this was certainly not an easy year to serve as Chairman, with the Federal budget problems, the furloughs, and the weather problems, but Charlie was pretty unflappable. I've already been offered my first challenge, with Ann Turner's

retirement announcement. Since I can't imagine a Conference without Ann, it was great news to hear that she may continue

to work part time, handling meeting planning, the newsletter, and other projects.

I am a strong supporter of the team approach in getting things done, and it is my plan to work closely with Charlie, Steve,

Paul and the Associate Membership Committee, and Gil Ugiansky and his fine staff, to guide the Conference through this next year. I would like to call on all the Conference membership to actively participate in our future. Over this past year,

I've had many offers of assistance, and in making the appointments to the various Committees, everyone has enthusiastically

accepted. This is a fine organization, and working together, there is no limit to what we can accomplish.

Over the past year and a half, die Executive Committee and the Strategic Planning Subcommittee have worked to look to our future, and while we're not as far ahead as we hoped we would be at diis time, we have published vision, values,

mission, and goals statements, which sets the tone for the future.

As is traditional with all new Chairmen, I've selected a theme for this coming year. I hope it adequately demonstrates my

interest and strong support for the global marketplace in which we play such a major role, and for our ability to influence emerging economies with U. S. standards. This year's theme is:

Tostering International Harmony in Legal Metrology."

Because of the work in progress before us, my goals for the coming year are to focus on areas identified in our long range

planning efforts. These incJude;

• Continuing to develop and refine the Conference long range plan, with a next step of working to identify our

objectives. Your input is critical to this project. Visions, values, goals, and objectives are only words without

commitment and action.

• Expanding the training efforts-this year NIST has played a major role in providing "train the trainer" classes, which

have been outstanding. I would like to add my thanks to Peter Heydemann for demonstrating his suppon to this effon

by providing the necessary funds. There are several classes still plaimed, and the Conference has additional grant

funds which are also planned for training.

• Continuing the work of the Program Evaluation Work Group, which is currently piloting a data management project

for package inspection and retail motor fuel dispensers. Their next meeting is in August, when they will be reviewing

their progress.

305
New Chainnan's Address

• Continuing our mumal recognition projects with Canada and expanding into reciprocal agreements with OIML. The

"one stop shopping" approach has many benefits for all of us. I would like to ^laud the efforts to dale, as we have

seen that it can work.

• And finally, continuing to encourage and support the work of the Committees, Subcommittees, working groups, and

task forces of the Conference. You do a yeoman's job, and through your efforts the Conference moves in a positive direction.

At this time, it is my pleasure to make the following appointments:

Speciflcations & Toierances Committee: George Shefcheck, State of Oregon, a 5-year term;

Laws & Regulations Committee: Robert Williams, State of Tennessee, a 5-year term;

As Associate Member Representative to the Laws & Regulations Committee, Claire Regan of the Grocery

Manufacturers of America;

Administration & Public Affairs Committee: Richard Philmon, State of Illinois, a 5-year term;

Budget Review Committee: William Corey, American Frozen Foods, a 4-year term;

Assistant Treasurer, Fred Clem, Columbus, Ohio a 1-year term;

Chaplain, Mike Hile, State of Arkansas, a 1-year term;

Nominating Committee: a 1-year appointment -

N. David Smith, North Carolina

Tom Geiler, Massachusetts

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Darrell Guensler, California

Sid Colbrook, Illinois Jim Truex, Ohio.

I would also like to announce the new officers in the Associate Membership Committee; in addition to Paul Zalon, as Chairman, Bob Fuehne is Vice-Chairman, and Frances Holland is Secretary-Treasurer. As always, your suppon is very much appreciated.

To all of the new appointees, thank you for your continued commitment to the Conference.

I would also like to acknowledge the importance of the retirees and guests and the contribution they make to a meeting

environment that is so productive.

In closing, I owe many thank you's for all the support and encouragement I've received over the years. I sincerely

appreciate your faith in me, and pledge to serve to the best of my ability.

306
List of Participants

NCWM 81st Annual Meeting

New Orleans, Louisiana

July 21-25, 1996

List of Participants

Adams, Bruce 8920

Metrology Manager

MN Div of Weights & Measures

2277 Hwy 36

RoseviUe, MN 55113

Telephone: 612-639-4010

FAX: 612-639-4014

Adams, Deidre 700

Staff Product Planner

roM Corp

5505 Six Forks Rd Dept DDV

Raleigh, NC 27609

Telephone: 919-301-5810

FAX: 919-301-5521

Adamis, Michael F. 11447

Manager of Technical Support

Fairbanks Scales 711 E St Johnsbury Rd

St Johnsbury, VT 05819

Telephone: 802-748-5111 x326

FAX: 802-748-5216

Akey, James H. 2414

State Metrologist

WI Dept Agr Trade & Cons Prot PO Box 7883 4702 University

Ave

Madison, WI 53707-7883

Telephone: 608-267-3510

FAX: 608-266-1560

Alexeff, Kevin A. 7012

Group Leader Mechanical Design

Stock Equipment Co

16490 Chillicothe Rd

Chagrin Falls, OH 44023-4398

Telephone: 216-543-6000

FAX: 216-543^24

Almarode, Oscar T. 9741

Retired Regional Supervisor

244 Buckboard Rd

Waynesboro, VA 22980

Telephone: 703-949-5149

Alston, Norman A. 2S90

Manager P D Meter Sales Daniel Flow Products Inc 9720 Old Katy Rd PO Box

19097

Houston, TX 77224

Telephone: 713-827-3857

FAX: 713-827-3880

Alviene, Robert 24249

Assistant Superintendent

Morris Co Wghts & Meas

PO Box 900 Wghts & Meas

Dept

Morristown, NJ 07963

Telephone: 201-285-2955

FAX: 201-285-6075

Amestoy, Gregory E. 25898

Vice President Marketing

Pricer Inc 101 Merrin 7 Fifth Floor

Norwalk, CT 06851

Telephone: 203-846-6800

FAX: 203-486-6966

Andersen, Ross J. 2994

Acting Director

NY Bureau of Wghts & Meas

1 Winners Circle

Albany, NY 12235

Telephone: 518-457-3452

FAX: 518-457-5693

Andrews, Ted M. 19815

Quality Assurance Manager

WAWA hic 260 Baltimore Pike

Wawa, PA 19063

Telephone: 610-358-8180

FAX: 610-358-8165

AngeU, Jr., Karl H. 9698

Director

WV Weights & Measures

570 MacCorkle Ave West

St Albans, WV 25177

Telephone: 304-722-0602

FAX: 304-722-0605

Arrington, Robert D. 23514

Program Mgr Wghts & Meas

WA Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 42560

Olympia, WA 98504-2560

Telephone: 360-902-1856

FAX: 360-902-2086

Baker, John A. 1195

Merchandise Admin Manager

Pier 1 Imports

301 Commerce Suite 600

Fort Worth. TX 76161-0020

Telephone: 817-878-8306

FAX: 817-332-5727

Balaze, Ron 8988

Metrologist

MI Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 30017O

Lansing, MI 48909

Telephone: 517-373-9897

FAX: 517-335-3404

Bane, Jerry L. 10636

Chief Wgts & Meas Bureau lA Dept of Agriculture

H A WaUace Bldg

Des Moines, I A 50319

Telephone: 515-281-5716

FAX: 515-281-6800

BeU, Doyle D.

Inspector

Delaware Co Weights &

Measures

Room 208 Coimty Building

Muncie, IN 47305

Telephone: 317-747-7714

7211

307
List of Participants

Belue, F. Mictiael 691

President

Belue Associates

PO Box 701 2004 Liberty St Bonham, TX '5418

Telephone: 9(i3-583-9082

FAX: 903-5B-8949

Blacik, Micluel 8924

Director

MN Div of Wsights & Measures

2277 Highwa> 36

St Paul, MN 55113-3800

Telephone: 612-639-4010

FAX: 612-6J9-4014

Blalock, Chris 5022

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 534-925-3780

Bioch, Barbara J. 7004

Assistant Director

CA Measurement Standard

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: S 16-229-3007

FAX: 916-229-3026

Boatman, James 7148

Chief

ID Bureau of Wghts & Meas

2216 Kellogg Lane

Boise, ID 83712-8245

Telephone: 208-332-8690

FAX: 203-334-2170

Bonner, Brett 25453

Sr Tech Advisor

Federal Expiess Corp

164 Wahiut Bend

Cordova, TN 38018

Telephone: 901-395-7401

FAX: 901-395-7451

Bradshaw, Harold D. 2738

Inspector

Clark Co Wghts & Meas

City County Bldg Room 314

Jeffersonville, IN 47130

Telephone: 812-283-6289

Brasher, WUUam D. 4417

Production Support Specialist

Southern Co Services Inc 42 Inverness Center Parkway

Birmingham, AL 35242

Telephone: 205-877-7653

FAX: 205-877-7288

Braun, William H. 2983

Sole Proprietor

William H Braun Resources 5743 Jeffrey Place

Fairfield, OH 45014-3524

Telephone: 513-829-2106/9892

FAX: 513-829-2501

Broussard, Pete 8430

Asst Comm Agr-Consumer Srvcs LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

Brown, Darryl L. 1 1437

Agr Program Supervisor

lA Dept of Agriculture

H A Wallace Building

Des Moines, lA 50319

Telephone: 515-281-5716

FAX: 515-281-6800

Bruckner, Charles M. 8876

Director Bur of Ride Meas Stds PA Dept of Agriculture

2301 N Cameron St Harrisburg, PA 17110

Telephone: 717-787-9089

FAX: 717-772-2780

Brumbaugh, Robert T. 297

President

Systems Associates Inc 1932 hidustrial Dr

Libertyville, IL 60048

Telephone: 847-367-6650

FAX: 847-367-6960

Bryson, PhiUip 30881

Secretary

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4004

FAX: 301-926-0647

Bums, Jr., Charles A. 7575

Chief Inspector

Birmingham Wghts & Meas

City Hall Rm 207 710 M 20th St Birmingham, AL 35203

Telephone: 205-254-2246

FAX: 205-254-2925

Butcher, Kenneth S. 2512

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 2089^

Telephone: 301-975-39-91

FAX: 301-926-0647

Butcher, Tina G. 8236

Physical Scientist NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 208S»9

Telephone: 301-975-2196

FAX: 301-926-0647

Cahill, LesUe 2694

VP Government Affairs

American Seed Trade Assn

601 13th St NW Suite 570 South

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-638-3128

FAX: 202-638-3171

Caime, Gerald 5027

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

Calkins, Richard 9100

Senior Metrologist & Manager

"Rice Lake 'Weighing Systems

230 West Coleman St Rice Lake, WI 54868

Telephone: 715-234-9171 x11

FAX: 715-234-6967

Carlsen, Stacy K. 105

Director

Marin Co Weights & Measures

1682 Novato Blvd Ste 150-A

Novato, CA 94947-7021

Telephone: 916-741-7500

FAX: 916-741-7510

308
List of Participants

Carlton, Doug 20S39

Sales ReprescLtative

Micro Motion

290 Walnut Bend South Ste6

Cordova, TN 38018

Telephone: 9(il-751-8360

FAX: 901-757-8386

Carroll, Chades H. 4393

Assistant Director

MA Division of Standards

One Ashburtoa Place

Boston, MA 02108

Telephone: 6.7-727-3480

FAX: 617-7:7-5705

Carter, Charles D. 9838

Prog Adm Ag: Resources PICS

OK Dept of Agriculture

2800 N Lincoln Blvd

Oklahoma Cit/, OK 73105-4298

Telephone: 405-521-3864 x261

FAX: 405-521-4912

Casanova, Max C. 362

Mgr Cust Sen Ramsey Products

Ramsey Technology Inc 501-90th Avenue NW

Minneapolis, MN 55433-8006

Telephone: 612-783-2659

FAX: 612-783-2525

Causgrove, H. Penny 3847

Retired Sealer of Wts & Meas

18 Davis St New Haven, CT 06515

Telephone: 203-387^913

Cemy, Louis T. 30640

Executive Dirsctor Engineering

Assoc of American Railroads

50FStNW Room 7702

Washington, DC :2fiOC>\ Telephone: 202-639-2189

FAX: 202-639-2183

Chaney, Patrick P. 13503

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

5825 Florida Blvd

Baton Rouge, LA 70806

Telephone: 504-922-1380

FAX: 504-922-1289

Chapman, Tracy 31089

President

Fluid Power Products

PO Box 466

Tickfaw, LA 70466

Telephone: 504-542-5200

FAX: 504-542-7394

Chappell, Samuel E. 10610

Chief Standards Management

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 162

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4024

FAX: 301-963-2871

Cigler, James L. 31093

NVLAP NIST

820 Diamond Ave RM 282

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975^171

FAX: 301-426-2884

Clark, Buddy 1865

Inspector

Hamilton Co Wghts & Meas

101 Monticello Court

Noblesville, IN 46060-5442

Telephone: 317-896-9001

Claussen, Richard H. 103

Inspector Porter Co Weights & Measures

155 Indiana Ave

Valpariso. IN 46383-5555

Telephone: 219-465-3585

Clay, Christine 21366

County Inspector

Lake Co Wghts & Meas

2293 North Main Street Crown Point, IN 46307

FAX: 219-755-3064

Clem, Fred P. 169

City Sealer

Colvmibus Weights & Measures

240 Greenlawn Ave

Columbus, OH 43223

Telephone: 614-645-7397

FAX: 614-645-3994

Colbrook, Sidney A. 47

Wghts & Meas Bureau Manager

IL Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 19281 801 E Sangamon

Ave

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Telephone: 217-782-3817

FAX: 217-524-7801

Cole, BiUy 18%9

Service Manager

Precision Weight Scale Co Inc 315 Rickertt Rd

SellersvUle, PA 18960

Telephone: 215-723-9523

FAX: 215-723-7727

Coleman, G. Thomas 8246

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4868

FAX: 301-926-0647

Cook, Steven E. 7915

Program Supervisor

CA Measurement Standards

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-229-3050

FAX: 916-229-3026

Cooper, WiUiam R. 8850

Product Engineer

Schlumberger Industries 1310 Emerald d

Greenwood, SC 29646

Telephone: 864-942-2226

FAX: 864-223-0341

Corbitt, Archie 2606

Acting CYnti Wgjritj* & Measures

VI Dept Licensing & Cons Affs Golden Rock Shopping Center

Christiansted St Croix, VI 00820

Telephone: 809-773-2226 X 25

FAX: 809-778-8250

309
List of Participants

Corey, Jr., WilUam J. 16337

Secretary

American Frozen Foods

355 Benton Street Stratford, CT 06497

Telephone:

203-378-7900EXT3405

FAX: 203-386-8676

Corson, Alan 31074

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 232

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone:

Costanza, Patricia 4608

Agr Specialist I LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

Cotsoradis, Constantino V. 8232

Director

KS Weights and Measures

2016 SW 37th Street Topeka, KS 66611-2570

Telephone: 913-267-4641

FAX: 913-267-2518

Coyne, Mark P. 220

City Sealer

Brockton Weights & Measures

City Hall Rm B12 45 School St Brockton, MA 02401

Telephone: 508-580-7120

FAX: 508-559-7960

Craft, Lenord L. 9799

Agr Commissioner/Sealer

Tulare Co Dept Agr

Comm/Sealer

2500 Burrel Avenue

Visalia, CA 93291-4584

Telephone: 209-733-6391

FAX: 209-733-6568

Cripe, Donald O. 9794

Sealer

Stanislaus Co Dept AgrAV&M

725 County Center Three Court

Modesto, CA 95355

Telephone: 209-525-4610

FAX: 209-525-4619

Critzer, Charles F. 163

Inspector

Bartholomew Co Wghts & Meas

Cnty Off Bl-Rm 305 440-3Rd St Columbus, IN 47201

Telephone: 812-379-1507

FAX: 812-379-1765

D'Errico, Pasquale 6046

Chief Supervisor

NJ Weights & Measures

1261 US Route 1 & 9 South

Avenel, NJ 07001

Telephone: 908-815-4840

Dalton, Larry 7895

Field Suprv Fuel & Meas

GA Dept of Agriculture

RR 1 Box 4560

Alapaha, GA 31622-9773

Telephone: 404-656-3605

FAX: 404-656-9380

Daniels, A. Raymond 343

184 Freyn Dr

Centerville, OH 45458-2235

Telephone: 513-433-8435

Davis, Gerald E. 968

System Supvr Scale Insp

Conrail

2001 Market St #10 B

Philadelphia, PA 19101-1410

Telephone: 215-209-1620

FAX: 215-209-4943

Davis, Richard L. 3806

Mgr Product Safety&Compliance

James River Corp

1915 Marathon Ave PO Box 899

Neenah, WI 54956-0899

Telephone: 414-729-8174

FAX: 414-729-8089

Decker, Carl 10966

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

DeFiesta, Angel S. 30221

Technical Advisor

Mobil Oil Corp

8260 Willow Oaks Corp Dr

Fairfax, VA 22031

Telephone: 703-849-5331

FAX: 703-849-6790

DeSalvo, Barbara J. 3842

Supervisor Weights & Measures

OH Dept of Agriculture

8995 East Main St Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-728-6290

FAX: 614-728-6424

Dickson, Denny 26084

Sevice Technical Analyst

Federal Express Corp

3671 Miac

Memphis, TN 38118

Telephone: 901-360-4038

FAX: 901-360-4182

Diggs, G.W. (Wes) 9034

Supervisor

VA Products & Industry Stds POBox 1163 Room 402

Richmond, VA 23218

Telephone: 804-786-2476

FAX: 804-786-1571

Donahoe, William 10109

Inspector Weights & Measures

CT Dept of Consumer Protection

165 Capitol Ave

Hartford, CT 06106

Telephone: 203-566^778

FAX: 203-566-7630

Dryden, Cameron 31094

Business Manager

Adaptive Optics Accociates

54 Cambridge Park Dr

Cambridge, MA 02140

Telephone: 617-864-0201

FAX: 617-864-1348

Dudley, WUiiam F. 27500

Lake County Weights &

Measures

2293 North Main Street Crown Point, IN 46307

Telephone:

310
List of Participants

Dynia, Michaef 7196

Metrologist

CT Dept of Consximer Protection

165 Capitol Ave

Hartford, CT 36106

Telephone: 203-566-4778

FAX: 203-566-7630

Eason, L.F. 3886

Metrologist Standards Division

NC Dept of i^riculture

4040 District Dr

Raleigh, NC 27607

Telephone: 919-733^11

FAX: 919-733-8804

Eckhardt, Sttve K. 10643

Product/Marlet Manager

Micro Motion Inc 196 South Brcwn Road

Long Lake, MN 55356-9134

Telephone: 612^75-0067

FAX: 612-475-2779

EhrUch, Chuck 8551

Deputy Chief Tech Stds Act Prg

NISI

820 W Diamcnd Ave Rm 130

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 331-975^834

FAX: 301-926-1559

Eldridge, Wffliam P. 33

Director Wghts & Meas Division

MS Dept of Agr & Commerce

PO Box 1609

Jackson, MS 39215-1609

Telephone: 601-354-7080

FAX: 601-354-6001

Ely, Dean F. 9648

District Supervisor

PA Dept of A^^MivciSt

332 Washington Avenue

Jersey Shore, PA 17740-1419

Telephone: 717-327-3560

FAX: 717-327-3563

English, David C. 2153

President

Measurement Systems Intl 14240 Imerurban Avenue South

Seattle, WA 98116

Telephone: 206^33-0199

FAX: 206-244-8470

Erickson, Mark A. 22638

Approvals Engineer

Rice Lake Weighing Systems

230 West Coleman Street Rice Lake, Wl 54868

Telephone: 715-234-9171 Ex622

FAX: 715-234-6967

Eskew, James H. 3435

Coord for Metrology/Wts &

Meas

TX Dept of Agriculture

119 Cumberland Rd

Austin, TX 78704

Telephone: 512-462-1441

FAX: 512-475-1642

Farrant, Rob 30455

President

CubiCcal International 111 Peter Street Ste 520

Toronto Ontario, M5V 2H1

Canada

Telephone: 416-599-2225

FAX: 416-593-6771

Faulkner, Faye M. 8478

Special Events Coordinator

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3334

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3334

Telephone: 504-922-1277

FAX: 504-922-1289

Feezor, Robert K. 1 1200

Superintendent Scales Norfolk Southern Corp

Building Box 142 99 Spring

Street Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone: 404-527-2538

FAX: 404-527-2769

Fisher, KeUy C. 25532

Mgr Food Technology

&Nutrition

Intematl Dairy Foods Assn

1250 HStNW Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-737^332

FAX: 202-331-7820

Flanders, Jerry 8129

Division Director Fuel & Meas

GA Dept of Agriculture

Agric Bldg 19 MLK Drive

Room 321

AUanta, GA 30334

Telephone: 404-656-3605

FAX: 404-656-9380

Flocken, Darrell E. 30642

Mgr Internal '1 Wghts &. Meas

Mettler-Toledo Inc 1150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH 43085

Telephone: 614-438-4393

FAX: 614^38-4355

Fowles, WiUiam 31088

Colgate Palmolive Co

8708 Nottingham Pkwy

Louisville, KY 40222

Telephone: 502-426-9641

Fraley, Ken L. 4148

State Metrologist

OK Bureau of Standards

2800 N Lincoln Blvd

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Telephone: 405-521-3864 x370

fax": 405-521-4912

Frieders, David 30012

Director of Weights & Measures

San Francisco County

501 Army Street # 109-A

San Francisco, CA 94124

Telephone: 415-285-5012

FAX: 415-285-8776

Fuehne, Bob 10443

Manager QA Pet Foods

Ralston Purina Co

Ctet1tei\>02flA Sqciait - 4RN

St Louis, MO 63164

Telephone: 314-982-2916

FAX: 314-982-4240

Gagnon, David E. 30890

Director

ME Quality Assurance and Regs

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

311
List of Participants

Gallo, Michele Robert 30912

Sr Prod Support Engineer

Wayne Div-Dresser Industries 124 W College Ave PO Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21802-1859

Telephone: 410-546-6859

FAX: 410-548-6913

Gannon, John F. 7867

Marketing Manager

Hoffer Flow Controls Inc 107 Kitty Hawk Lane

Elizabeth City, NC 27909

Telephone: 919-331-1997

FAX: 919-331-2886

Gardner, Charles A. 3438

Director

Suffolk Co Wghts & Meas

County Center N BIdg 340

Hauppauge, NY 1 1788

Telephone: 516-853-4621 X20

FAX: 516-853-4578

Gardner, K.W. 24697

Quality Assurance Manager

Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Rd Rm 6A913

Fairfax, VA 22037

Telephone: 703-846-4261

FAX: 703-846-5245

Geiler, Thomas F. 219

Director

Barnstable Consumer Affairs PO Box 2430 230 South Street Hyannis, MA 02601

Telephone: 508-790-6251

FAX: 508-778-2412

Gray, Maxwell H. 7991

Chief Weights & Measures

FL Dept of Agr & Cons Services

3125 Conner Blvd Lab 2

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Telephone: 904-488-9140

FAX: 904-922-6655

Greek, Richard D. 2875

Agr Commissioner Sealer

San Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas

2156 Sierra Way Suite A

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Telephone: 805-781-5910

FAX: 805-781-1035

Gregory, Larry 28607

Design Engineer

Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Road Rm 7W323

Fairfax, VA 22037-0001

Telephone: 703-849-6206

FAX: 703-849-5645

Grenier, Michael F. 77

Supervisor II NH Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 2042

Concord, NH 03302-2042

Telephone: 603-271-3709

FAX: 603-271-1109

Guay, Christopher B. 840

Reg Affrs Mgr Health Care Res

Procter & Gamble Co

8700 Mason-Montgomery Rd

Mason, OH 45040

Telephone: 513-622-2222

FAX: 513-622-1907

Guenslcr, Darrell A. 38

Director

CA Measurement Standards

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-229-3000

FAX: 916-229-3026

Guzik, Cara 30851

Marketing Coordinator

American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-682-8228

FAX: 202-682-8222

Hadyka, Paul 9402

Industrial Specialist

USDA GIPSA

PO Box 96454 1400

Independence Ave

Washington, DC 20250-6454

Telephone: 202-720-0262

FAX: 202-720-1015

Hankel, P.E., Melvin C. 9094

Consulting Engineer

MCH Engineering Associates Inc 6926 Balmoral Drive

Fort Wayne, IN 46804-1442

Telephone: 219-436-9234

Hannigan, Philip G. 25712

Technical Assistant Scale Manufacturers Assn

9384 D Forestwood Lane

Matiassas, VA 20110-4702

Telephone: 703-330-7079

FAX: 703-330-7984

Harrell, Ronald 8622

Director of Wghts & Meas

LA Dept of Agr &. Forestry

5825 Florida Blvd

Baton Rouge, LA 70806

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-1289

Harris, Georgia 9324

Metrologist Office Wts & Meas

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4014

FAX: 301-926-0647

Hebner, Robert E. 31076

NIST

Admin/A1134

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-2300

Heck, David K. 11242

Mgr Mkt Legislation & Regs

Chevron USA Products Co

575 Market St Room 2236

San Francisco, CA 94105-2856

Telephone: 415-894-0910

FAX: 415-894-5038

Heflin, Van 30869

Instrument Mechanic

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems

PO Box 2003

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7219

Telephone: 423-574-8353

FAX: 423-574-5037

Hegele, Frederick A. 25880

Director Quality Assurance

General Mills Inc PO Box 1113

Minneapolis, MN 55440-1113

Telephone: 612-540-2053

FAX: 612-540-2109

312
List of Participanis

Herman, Marilyn J. 9091

President

Herman & Asjociates

2300MStN\/ Suite 800

Washington, DC 20037

Telephone: 202-775-1630

FAX: 202-293-3083

Hicks, John £. 11126

President

H P Global Tiansportation Srvc 906 Olive St Suite 480

StLx)uis, MO 63101

Telephone: 314-231-1919

FAX: 314-231-0044

Hile, James Michael 7 153

Director

AR Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st St

Little Rock, AR 72209

Telephone: 501-324-9681

FAX: 501-562-7605

Hochstetler, Herman R. 5855

hispector

Elkhart Co Wghts & Meas

117 N 2nd Room 107

Goshen, IN 46526-3231

Telephone: 219-535-6472

FAX: 219-535-6747

Hoffer, Kenneth R. 7192

President

Hoffer Flow Controls Inc 107 Kitty Havk Lane POBox21

Elizabeth Cit>, NC 27909

Telephone: 919-331-1997

FAX: 919-331-2886

Holland, Frances P. 15654

Regulatory Affairs Schlumberger T^tYnrtAogit^s

825 Greenbriar Circle #M

Chesapeake, VA 23320-2638

Telephone: 804-366-4400 xl62

FAX: 804^24-2746

Hoover, Brian 9397

Key Account Manager

Endress & Hauser

2350 Endress Place

Greenwood, IN 46143

Telephone: 317-535-1437

FAX: 317-535-1497

Hopper, Monty H. 1 1 1 32

Director

Kern Co Weights & Measures

1 1 16 East California Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93307

Telephone: 805-861-2418

FAX: 805-324-0668

Huff, Richard M. 10608

Vice President Electronics

Universal Epsco Inc 1494 Ellsworth Ind Dr Box

93544

Atlanta, GA 30318

Telephone: 404-351-2740

FAX: 404-351-2899

Humphreys, Roy 30272

Director

MO Dept of Agriculmre

1616 Missouri Blvd

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0281

Telephone: 573-751-4316

FAX: 573-751-0281

Hunter, Milton 13504

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

lannelli, Gerard C. 2690

Director Metric Program

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 306

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-5019

FAX: 301-948-1416

Insalaco, Cosmo C. 107

Agr Conmiissioner Sealer

1730 South Maple

Fresno, CA 93702

Telephone: 209-456-7510

FAX: 209-456-7379

Issaev, L. K. 3829

Vice-President

Coram of Russian Fed Standards

9 Leninsky Prospect

Moscow, 117049

Russia

Telephone: 7-095-236-7560

FAX: 7-095-237-60

Jackson, Shelby 10967

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821,-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

Jarreau, Lucien 14320

Manager

Fairbanks Scales -

216 Plauche Ct

Harahan, LA 70123

Telephone: 504-733-6985

FAX: 504-733-5257

Jeffries, Jack Y. 2199

Consumer Protection Adm

FL Division of Standards

3125 Conner Blvd Rooan 133

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Telephone: 904-487-2634

FAX: 904-922-8971

Jennings, Randy F. 10648

Petroleum Administrator

TN Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 40627 Mehose Station Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0147

FAX: 615-360-0335

Joelson, Mark R. 4238

General Counsel

Gasoline Pump Mfg Assn

1800 M Street N W

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: 202-467-7240

FAX: 202-467-7176

Johnson, Gordon W. 3351

Principal Regulatory Engineer

Gilbarco Inc lW()'^i£AYTK!ii{iry AA'enue Greensboro, NC 27420

Telephone: 910-547-5375

FAX: 910-547-5516

Johnson, Robert L. 2645

1

Director Work Methods

Winn-Dixie Stores Inc 5050 Edgewood Ct

Jacksonville, FL 32254-3699

Telephone: 904-783-5239

313
List of Participants

Joines, Debbie A. 11709

Sr Design Engineer

Wayne Div-Dresser Industries 124 College Ave PO Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21802-1859

Telephone: 410-546-6699

FAX: 410-548-6913

Jones, Kenny 471

Regional Manager

Fairbanks Scales 1114 Wilshire

Trophy Club, TX 76262

Telephone: 214-357-9170

FAX: 214-351-4253

Jones, Lewis R. 30860

Chief Weights and Measures

Ohio Dept of Agriculture

8995 East Main Street Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-728-6290

FAX: 614-728-6424

Jones, Nolan 16428

Division of Wghts & Meas

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

Jorowski, Gerry A. 9396

Program Officer Consumer Prod

Consumer Products Branch

Place du Portage 50 Victoria

Street Hull Quebec, KIA 0C9

Canada

Telephone: 819-953-3645

FAX: 819-953-293

Kane, Jack 13470

Bureau Chief

MT Bur of Weights & Measures

Capitol Station

Helena, MT 59620

Telephone: 406-444-3164

FAX: 406-444^186

Karas, Randy 766

Mgr Petro-Mech Mktg & Sales NA

Veeder-Root Co

PO Box 1673

Altoona, PA 16603

Telephone: 814-695-4476 xl25

FAX: 814-695-7605

Keilty, Michael J. 11672

Industrial Marketing Manager

Micro Motion Inc 7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301

Telephone: 303-530-8231

FAX: 303-530-8209

Kidder, Suzanne 2276

Training Coordinator Food Div

MI Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

Telephone: 517-373-1060

FAX: 517-373-3333

Kloos, Chip 3453

Assoc Dir Technical Statistics Colgate-Palmolive Co

PO Box 1343 909 River Rd

Piscataway, NJ 08855-1343

Telephone: 908-878-7101

FAX: 908-878-7844

Koenig, Joan A. 9036

Weights & Measiures Coordinator

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4007

FAX: 301-926-0647

Kolsun, Dennis J. 20157

Manager Food Regs & Stds H J Heinz Co

1062 Progress Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212

Telephone: 412-237-5376

FAX: 412-237-5922

Koziol, Alfons F. 2542

Retired Sealer 73 Colonial Rd

Stamford, CT 06906

Telephone: 203-323-6056

Kranker, Nelson 9394

Director

Dutchess Co Dept of Cons Affrs

38 A Dutchess Turnpike

Poughkeepsie, NY 12603

Telephone: 914-486-2949

FAX: 914-486-2947

Krebs, Michele 23997

NCWM

PO Box 4025

Gaidiersburg, MD 20885

Telephone: 301-975-4093

FAX: 301-926-0647

Krueger, Dennis 4898

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NCR Corporation

2651 Satellite Boulevard

Duluth, GA 30136-5810

Telephone: 770-623-7743

FAX: 770-623-7827

Kushnir, Dan 9902

Sales Manager

Seraphin Test Measure

PO Box 227

Rancocas, NJ 08073

Telephone: 800-573-6322

FAX: 800-373-6322

Lambert, Archie 10968

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-1289

Lameris, Gary 14148

Design Engineer & NTEP Rep

Hobart Corp

Executive Offices 701 Ridge

Avenue

Troy, OH 45374

Telephone: 513-332-3053

FAX: 513-332-3007

Lammers, Leon 28830

Chief Engineer

Weigh-Tronix Inc 1000 Armstrong Dr PO BoxlOOO

Fairmont, MN 56031

Telephone: 800-533-0456

FAX: 517-238-4195

314
List of Participants

355 Lyons, Melvin L. 8632

Asst Director Wghts & Meas

LA Dept of Agr and Forestry

5825 Florida Blvd Ste 1064 Baton Rouge. LA 70806

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-1289

Land, Robert L. 187

Inspector

Anderson Weights & Measures

PO Box 2100 120 E 8th St Anderson, IN 4601

1

Telephone: 317-646-9839

FAX: 317-646-5668

Langford, Stephen 14657

Cardinal Detecto Scale Mfg Co

203 East Daugherty PO Box 151

Webb City, MO 64870

Telephone: 417-673^631

FAX: 417-673-5001

Lawson, Ike 9462

Agr Spec District Supervisor

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

Lawson, Isaiah 10969

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-1289

Lee, G. Diane 30662

Physical Scientist NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4405

FAX: 301-926-0647

Leisy, Craig 30290

Supervisor Weights & Measures

Seattle Licenses & Cons Affs

805 S Dearborn Street

Seattle, WA 98134

Telephone: 206-386-1298

FAX: 206-386-1129

Lewis, Billy 9420

Agr Specialist Dist Supervisor

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

Lodge, Harvey M.

Product Manager

Cargotec Inc 307 Broadway

Swanton, OH 43558

Telephone: 419-825-2331

FAX: 419-826-8439

Lori, Anthony 3160

Superintendent

Morris Co Wghts & Meas

PO Box 900

Morristown. NJ 07963

Telephone: 201-285-2957

FAX: 201-285-6075

Lormand, Willie 10970

Agr Specialist 11 LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

Loyd, Jr., Forrest Joe 9086

Sr Mgr Eng Matls & Scales CSX Transportation Inc 500 Water St J350

Jacksonville. FL 32202

Telephone: 904-359-1024

FAX: 904-359-7476

Lunceford, David 94

Regional Laboratory Manager

Inchcape Testing Services

7305 South State Road 69

Mt Vernon, IN 47620

Telephone: 812-838-9546

Lurie, Brad D. 10022

Marketing Manager

Brooks Instrument PO Box 450 Hwy 301 North

Statesboro, GA 30459

Telephone: 912-489-0200

FAX: 912-489-0425

Lyng, Bruce 30846

Reg Pkg & LabelltDg Specialist

Industry Canada Cons Pro Dir

330 Portage Ave

Winnepeg Manitoba R3J 2E5,

Canada

Telephone: 204-983-8905

FAX: 204-983-5511

Malone, Steven A. 554

Director

NE Div of Wghts & Meas

Box 94757/301 Centennial Mall

South

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757

Telephone: 402-471-4292

FAX: 402-471-3252

Marceau, Renald 1 02 1

1

Senior Program Officer LML

Legal Metrology Branch

110 O'Connor St 2nd Floor

Ottawa, KIA 0C9

Canada

Telephone: 613-952-2629

FAX: 613-952-1736

Marcouiller, Sheryl A. 16244

Senior Food & Drug Counsel

Kraft Foods Inc Three Lakes Drive N4F

Northfield, IL 60093-2758

Telephone: 708-646^206

FAX: 708-646^31

MarteU, Bruce 10126

Supervisor Consumer Assur Div

VT Dept of Agriculture

116 State St Drawer 20

Montpelier, VT 05620-2901

Telephone: 802-828-2436

FAX: 802-828-2361

Martens, Larry 12934

General Manager

Unibridge Systems Inc POBox 8 Knowles, OK 73801

Telephone: 405-254-3131

FAX: 405-254-5658

315
List of Participants

Massey, Vernon Lee 3534

Sealer Shelby Co Weights & Measures

157 Poplar Su te 402

Memphis, TN 38103

Telephone: 901-576-3920

FAX: 901-576-3796

McCartney, Danny 13505

Regional Enforcement Spvr

LA Dept of A»r & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

McConahay, Erica 11219

Major Accourt Manager

Monarch Marking Systems

249 W BaywoDd Ave Ste A

Orange, CA 92665

Telephone: 7.4-974-0880

Ext4093

FAX: 714-9^4-0151

McCoy, Angilique 1 1497

OH Dept of i^riculture

8995 East Maai Street Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg. OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-728-6290

FAX: 614-728-6424

McGrath, Rcfcert 10683

Deputy Sealer Boston ISD

1010 Massachusetts Ave

Boston, MA 02118-2606

Telephone: 617-635-5328

FAX: 617-635-5360

McKay, David O. 8438

Supervisor Weights & Measures

UT Dept of i^riculture

PO Box 1465(ya

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500

Telephone: 801-538-7158

FAX: 801-538-7126

McKinney, WilUam R. 2286

Marketing Manager

U5X Engineers & Consultants

9000 Tech Center Drive

Monroeville, PA 15146

Telephone: 412-825-2930

FAX: 412-825-2937

McMurry, Richard 30374

Inspector

Monroe Co Wghts & Meas

119 W 7th St Bloomington, IN 47404

Telephone: 812-349-2566

FAX: 812-339-6481

Mehlhaff, Michael J. 2176

Director Div Comm Insp & Reg

SD Weights & Measures

118 West Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501-2080

Telephone: 605-773-3697

FAX: 605-773-6631

Metcalf, Kathy 31092

Director of Regulatory Affairs Sun Company

1801 Market St Philadelphia, PA 19103

Telephone: 215-977-6109

FAX: 215-246-8562

Micheli, Jr., Charles W. 9082

Staff Loss Control Rep

Shell OU Co

PO Box 2099 TSP 1164

Houston, TX 77252

Telephone: 713-241-0455

FAX: 713-241-1139

Millay, Stanley K. 74

Weights & Measures Supervisor

ME Dept Agriculture MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

MiUs, Nigel G. 25005

Sr Consulting Engineer

701 Ridge Avenue

Troy, OH 45374-0001

Telephone: 513-332-3205

FAX: 513-332-3007

Mindte, Joan 12500

Training Coordinator

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4003

FAX: 301-926-0647

Mittermaier, Armin 25605

Representative

Data Action

3401 Kirkwood Drive

Ft Wayne, IN 46805

Telephone: 219-484-8827

FAX: 219-484-8827

Moody, KeUeen K. 10960

Metrologist

AZ Dept of Weights & Measures

9535 E Doubletree Ranch Rd

Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5539

Telephone:

602-255-521 lExt2229

FAX: 602-255-1950

Moore, Charles W. 2739

Retired Inspector

PO Box 84

Lapel, IN 46051-0084

Telephone: 317-534-3328

Morrison, Stephen F. 7853

Chief Deputy Sealer

San Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas

2156 Sierra Way Suite D

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Telephone: 805-781-5910

FAX: 805-546-1035

Mousseau, Robert 12766

Chief of Weighing

Canadian Grain Commission

900-303 Main St Winnepeg Manitoba, R3C 3G8

Canada

Telephone: 204-983-2799

FAX: 204-983-7550

Murdock, Ronald D. 8366

Program Mgr Meas Sec Stds Div

PO Box 27647 Dept SD

Raleigh, NC 27611

Telephone: 919-733-3313

FAX: 919-715-0524

Nealy, Elizabeth 9419

Agr Specialist I LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

316
List of Participants

Nelson, Allan M. 2515

Director Weights & Measures

CT Dept of Consumer Protection

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Telephone: 203-566-4778

FAX: 203-566-7630

Nichols, Patrick E. 110

PO Box 688

Jacksonville, TX 75766

Telephone: 903-589-0337

Nichols, Phil G. 5660

President

H P Global Transportation Srvs 906 Olive St Suite 450

St Loms, MO 63101

Telephone: 314-231-1919

FAX: 314-231-0044

Noel, Andre K. 3043

Industrial Product Manager

Schlumberger Industries 1310 Emerald Road

Greenwood, SC 29646

Telephone: 864-223-1212 X2247

FAX: 864-223-0341

Nover, Neal J. 15476

VP Marketing

Nover-Engelaein & Assc Inc 100 Springdale Rd Bldg A3 Ste 226

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003-3360

Telephone: 609-489-1817

FAX: 609-489-1817

O Bryan, O.R. "Pete" 2595

QA Manager

Foster Farms

PO Box 457

Livingston, CA 95334-9900

Telephone: 209-394-6914 X4610

FAX: 209-394-6913

Olwin, Phillip M. 30857

Manager Prodtact Quality

Texaco Refing & Marketing Inc 10 Universal City Plaza

Universal City, CA 91608

Telephone: 818-505-2462

FAX: 818-505-2485

Onwiler, Don 25584

Moisture Tester Inspector

NE Public Service Comm

PO Box 94927 1200 N St Ste 300

Lincohi, NE 68509-4927

Telephone: 402-471-3101

FAX: 402-471-0254

Otto, Jeffrey B. 30703

Metrology Lab

3M Corporation

3M Center Building 544-1-02

St Paul, MN 55144-1000

Telephone: 612-733-9029

FAX: 612-736-7325

Parrish, Johnny 28288

Project Engineer

Brooks Instrument Division

Hwy 301 North PO Box 450

Statesboro, GA 30458

Telephone: 912-489-0303

FAX: 912-489-0410

Pearson, Reginald T. 2680

Inspector Fort Wayne Wghts & Meas

1 Main Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Telephone: 219-427-1157

FAX: 219-427-1277

Peeples Esq., James E. 7505

Constiltant Polar Molecular Corp

5894 South Sixth Street

Falls Church, VA 22041

Telephone: 703-578-3655

FAX: 703-578-3230

Pekor, James S. 23993

Manager-Energy Services

Equitable Gas Co

Allegheny Center Mall Suite 2000

Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5352

Telephone: 412-442-3106

FAX: 412-442-3155

Peterson, Paul L. 248

Chief

USDA GIPSA Packers &

Stockyard

14th & Independence SW Rm

3414 S

Washington, DC 20250

Telephone: 202-720-3140

FAX: 202-690-1506

Phillips, Jim 28854

Deputy Inspector

Delaware Co Weights &

Measures

County Bldg 100 West Main

Room 20

Muncie, IN 47305

Telephone: 317-747-7714

Pierce, Richard 13794

Leader Type Approval Group

USDA GIPSA

10383 N Executive HUls Blvd

Kansas City, MO 64153

Telephone: 816-891-0449

FAX: 816-891-8070

Pinagel, Michael S. 22299

Wghts & Meas Spec Food Div

MI Dept of Agriculmre

PO Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

Telephone: 517-373-1060

FAX: 517-373-3333

Pittman, Cathryn F. 2403

Technologist

TN Dept of Agr Wghts & Meas

440HoganRd PO Box 40627

Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0159

FAX: 615-360-0608

Pittman, Dail 8671

Branch Manager

SGS Control Services Inc 5209 Linbar Drive Suite 600

Nashville, TN 37211

Telephone: 615-83 l-lOW

FAX: 615-831-1236

317
List of Participants

Pond, Douglas 25609

Science Director

IN Commodity Licensing

150 West Market 414 ISTA

Center

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Telephone: 317-232-8770

FAX: 317-232-1362

Porter, Alan 8752

Program Manager Wghts & Meas

WI Dept Agr Trade & Cons Prot PO Box 8911 2811 Agriculture

Dr

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Telephone: 608-224-4945

FAX: 608-224-4939

Pound, Marvin G. 7830

Field Supervisor

GA Dept of Agriculture

815 Milledeville Hwy

Devereux, GA 31087

Telephone: 404-444-5052

FAX: 706-656-9380

Price, Edwin J. 2434

Director for Consumer Programs

TX Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 12847 1700 Congress

Street Austin, TX 78711

Telephone: 512-463-7607

FAX: 512-463-7643

Prince, Gale 10651

Manager Regulatory Compliance

Kroger Co

1014 Vine St Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100

Telephone: 513-762-4209

FAX: 513-752-4372

Quasebarth, Chris 25228

Deputy Commissioner

WV Div of Labor

1900 Kanawha Blvd E

Charleston, WV 25305

Telephone: 304-558-7890

FAX: 304-558-3797

Quinn, David W. 11509

V P Service Operations

Fairbanks Scales 821 Locust Kansas City, MO 64106

Telephone: 816-471-0231

FAX: 816-471-5951

Rasberry, Stanley D. 30292

Dir Office of Measurement Svcs NIST

Bldg820 Rm232

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4861

Regan, Claire 26003

Director Scientific Affairs Grocery Manufacturers America

1010 Wisconsin NW Suite 900

Washington, DC 20007

Telephone: 202-337-9400

FAX: 202-337-4508

Reinfried, Robert A. 9388

Executive Director

Scale Manufacturers Assn

9384 D Forestwood Lane

Manassas, VA 22110

Telephone: 703-330-7079

FAX: 703-330-7984

Rhoades, Sharon 8157

Chief Enforcement Officer

AZ Dept of Wghts & Meas

9535 E Doubletree Ranch Rd

Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5539

Telephone:

602-255-521 lExt2963

FAX: 602-255-1950

Rhodes, Lyn A. 2598

Manager of Quality Control

Foster Farms

843 Davis Street PO Box 457

Livingston, CA 95334

Telephone: 209-394-7901 x4348

FAX: 209-394-6913

Ripley, Debbie 10028

NIST

820 W Diamond Ave Rm225

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4406

FAX: 301-926-0647

Robidoux, Jeff 30844

OEM Sales Manager

HBM Inc 19 Bartlett Marlboro, MA 01752

Telephone: 508-624-4500

FAX: 508-485-7480

Rodriguez Colon, Otilio 14372

Weights & Measures Official Puerto Rico Consimier Affairs

41059 Minillas Station Santurce, PR 00940

Telephone: 809-724-5153

Rogers, J. Alan 9374

Program Manager

VA Product & Industry Stds POBox 1163 Rm402

Richmond, VA 23218

Telephone: 804-786-2476

FAX: 804-786-1571

Rothleder, Joseph 3495

Principal State Metrologist

CA Measurement Standards

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-229-3022

FAX: 916-229-3026

Roussy, Sonia 12899

Dir Policy Planning Prog Devpt

Legal Metrology Br Ind Canada

110 O'Connor St 2nd Fl

Ottawa Ontario, K1A0C9

Canada

Telephone: 613-952-4285

FAX: 613-952-1736

SchafTer, Dennis 391

1

Marketing Product Manager

TEC America Inc 4401 A Bankers Circle

Atlanta, GA 30360

Telephone: 404-449-3040

FAX: 404^9-1152

Seested, Chris 25547

Lab Manager

SGS Control Services Inc 20 Lafayette Street Carteret, NJ 07008

Telephone: 908-541-7200

FAX: 908-541-1336

318
List of Participants

Shefcheck, George S. 6241

Field Op Mgr Measurement Stds OR Dept of Agriculture

635 Capitol St NE

Salem, OR 97310-0110

Telephone: 503-986-4668

FAX: 503-986-4734

Shiver, CecU 10971

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

Shockley, M. Richard 9057

Program Mgr Weights &

Measures

MD Dept of Agriculture

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Telephone: 410-841-5790

FAX: 410-841-2765

Silvestro, Joseph 2809

Superintendent

Consumer Protection/Wgts &

Msr

152 N Broad St Box 337

Woodbury, NJ 08096

Telephone: 609-853-3358

FAX: 609-853-2770

Simmons, Gerald 8645

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

Simon, Mary C. 8613

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

Simpkins, Curtis E. 2632

Inspector Grant Co Wghts & Meas

418 S Adams St Grant Co

Complex

Marion, IN 46953

Telephone: 317-668-8871 xl70

Skuce, John C. 10442

Manager Mechanical Engineering

Smith Meter Inc PO Box 10428

Erie, PA 16514-0428

Telephone: 814-898-5405

FAX: 814-899-3414

Slaydon, Damon G. 6340

Regulatory Program Specialist

TX Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 12847

Austin, TX 78711

Telephone: 512-463-7659

FAX: 512-463-7643

Smith, Martm R. 4808

Product Analyst

Schlumberger Industries 1310 Emerald Road

Greenwood, SC 29646-8800

Telephone: 803-223-1212

FAX: 803-223-0341

Smith, N. David 2391

Director Standards Division

NC Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 27647 Dept SD

Raleigh, NC 27611

Telephone: 919-733-3313

FAX: 919-715-0524

Snider, Dwain 28852

Program Administrator

Missouri Weights & Measures

PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630

Telephone: 573-751-5639

FAX: 573-751-0281

SoUeau, Kyle 9275

Agr Specialist I LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

Solomona, Silimusa 3189

Chief Weights and Measures

AS Dept of Legal Affairs PO Box 7

Pago Pago, AS 96799

Telephone: 684-633-5647

Straub, Louis E. 6248

Chief Weights & Measures

MD Dept of Agriculture

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Telephone: 410-841-5790

FAX: 410-841-2765

Stump, Lawrence J. 13717

Director

IN Weights & Measures

1330 West Michigan St Indianapolis, IN 46206

Telephone: 317-383-6350

FAX: 317-383-6776

Suiter, Richard C. 2368

Agr Inspector Supervisor

NE Div of Wghts & Meas

PO Box 94757/301 Centennial

Mall S

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757

Telephone: 402-471-4292

FAX: 402-471-3252

Sullivant, BUly W. 2466

Laboratory Supervisor

AR Biueau of Standards

4608 West 61 St LitUe Rock, AR 72209

Telephone: 501-324-9681

FAX: 501-562-7605

Szyndrowski, Chester 10302

Inspector East Chicago Wghts &. Meas

1102 W 151 Street East Chicago, IN 46312

Telephone: 219-397-3409

Tanaka, Yuji 7527

General Manager

Cosmo Oil of USA Inc 280 Park Ave 22nd Fl East Bldg

New York, NY 10017

Telephone: 212-949-9710

FAX: 212-949-8136

Thomas, Earl 16429

Div of Weights and Measures LA Dept of Agr &. Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

319
List of Participants

Thomas, Lawrence E. 5893

Inspector Terre Haute Wghts & Meas

3010 North 5th St Terre Haute, IN 47804

Telephone: 812-466-1546

Thomas, Scott 31087

Brownie Tank Manufacturing Co

1241 72nd Ave NE

Fridley, MN 55432

Telephone: 612-571-1744

Thompson, Aves D. 10201

Chief

AK Div of Measurement Stds 12050 Industry Way Bldg O

Anchorage, AK 99515

Telephone: 907-345-7750

FAX: 907-345-6835

Thompson, Merrill S. 590

Attorney

Baker & Daniels

PO Box 8500 Main Street Bridgeton, IN 47836

Telephone: 317-548-2211

FAX: 317-548-2214

Throsseli, Carole M. 30856

Manager State Gov't Relations

Food Marketmg Institute 800 Connecticut Ave NW

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: 202-429-8296

FAX: 202-429-4549

Thmier, Kathleen A. 5869

Agr Comm Sealer Wghts & Meas

San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Ave Bldg 3

San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2741

FAX: 619-565-7046

Tonini, Daryl E. 1336

Technical Director

Scale Manufacturers Assn

9384-D Forestwood Lane

Manassas, VA 22110

Telephone: 703-330-7079

FAX: 703-330-7984

Traettino, Robert M. 8923

Vice President of Quality

Liquid Controls Corp

105 Albrecht Drive

Lake Bluff, IL 60044-9951

Telephone: 847-295-1056 x300

FAX: 847-295-1089

Truex, James C. 2178

W&M Inspection Manager

OH Dept of Agriculture

8995 E Main St Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-728-6290

FAX: 614-728-6424

Tucker, Richard L. 9070

Manager Dept of Authorities

Tokheim Corporation

PO Box 360

Ft Wayne, IN 46801

Telephone: 219-470-4610

FAX: 219-470-4720

Twberville, Larry M. 15341

Inspector Wghts & Meas Div

AL Dept of Agr & Industry

PO Box 346

Cherokee, AL 35616

Telephone: 334-240-7134

FAX: 334-360-2453

Turner, Ann H. 236

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NCWM

PO Box 4025

Gaithersburg, MD 20885

Telephone: 301-975-4012

FAX: 301-926-0647

Ugiansky, Gilbert M. 30690

Chief OWM

NIST

Building 820 Room 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4005

FAX: 301-926-0647

VanHoose, Vicki 30090

Director Wghts & Meas

KY Dept of Agriculture

106 West 2nd Street Frankfort, KY 40601

Telephone: 502-564-4870

FAX: 502-564-5669

Vmet, GiUes 11941

Regional Manager Ontario 2

Legal Metrology Br Ind Canada

110 O'Connor St 2nd Fl Ottawa Ontario, KIA 0C9

Canada

Telephone: 613-952-2628

FAX: 613-952-1736

Vormittag, Thomas 13774

Lab Manager Black Mesa

Commercial Testing & Eng Co

PO Box 474

Kayenta, AZ 86033

Telephone: 520-677-5006

Vroom, William R. 4474

Retired Deputy Superintendent

PO Box 6165

Bridgewater, NJ 08807

Telephone: 908-722-1770

Waldrop, Ross 9359

Agr Specialist 1 LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

Walters, Abe 7208

Sales Engineer

Petrospec

257 Cedar Hill St Marlboro, MA 01752

Telephone: 508-480-9999

EXT139

FAX: 508-480-9997

Wamlof, Irene B. 7145

Retired Wts & Meas Official 9705 Inaugural Way

Gaithersburg, MD 20879-2014

Telephone: 301-926-8155

Wamlof, Otto K. 233

Retired Standards Specialist

Bldg 820 Rm 287

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4026

FAX: 301-963-2871

320
List of Participants

Watson, Clifford A. 16558

Consultant

249 NE71st

Warrensburg, MO 64093

Telephone: 816-429-1311

FAX: 816-429-1311

Watson, Crawford 5039

Division of Weights & Measures

LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 5(14-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

Wells, Raymcnd R. 3484

President

Sensitive Measurement Inc 200 S Westhampton St PO Box

72

Pemberton, NJ 08068

Telephone: 609-894-2292

FAX: 609-894-0387

West, Gary E. 8345

Director Stds & Consumer Serv NM Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 3000f Dept 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

Telephone: 505-646-1616

FAX: 505-646-3303

Williams, Juana 10827

Physical Scientist NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-3989

FAX: 301-926-0647

Williams, Robert G. 8797

Standards Administrator

TN Dept of Agr Wghts & Meas

PO Box 40627 Melrose Station Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0109

FAX: 615-360-0608

Willis, Danny 4207

Deputy Commissioner

KY Dept of Agriculture

Capital Plaza Tower 7th Floor

Frankfort, KY 40601

Telephone: 502-564-4696

FAX: 502-564-5669

Wise, Randy 10293

Prog Coordinator Wghts & Meas

KY Dept of Agriculture

106 West 2nd Street Frankfort, KY 40601

Telephone: 502-564-4870

FAX: 502-564-5669

Yafle, Theodore H. 10872

Program Manager

US Postal Service

8403 Lee Highway

Merrifield, VA 22082-8101

Telephone: 703-280-7055

FAX: 703-280-8402

Yelle, A. Courtney 16354

Chief Sealer Bucks Co Wghts & Meais

50 North Main Street Doyiestown, PA 18901

Telephone: 215-348-7442

FAX: 215-348-4570

Yurek, Richard S. 3153

QA Administrator

Saybolt Inc 400 Swenson Drive

Kenilworth, NJ 07033

Telephone: 908-245-3100

FAX: 908-245-2747

Zalon, Paul 7312

Director Regulatory Affairs

Nestle USA

100 Manhattanville Rd

Purchase, NY 10577

Telephone: 914-251-3487

FAX: 914-251-3600

White, Kelly 8203

Engineering Manager

Brooks Instrument Division

PO Box 450

Statesboro, GA 30459-0450

Telephone: 912-489-0228

FAX: 912-489-0410

White, Timothy 4415

Inspector Reg 7 MI Dept of Agricrffcure

4th Floor Ottawa Building

Lansing, MI 48909

Telephone: 517-343-1060

FAX: 517-373-3333

Williams, Jamie 9347

Agr Specialist I LA Dept of Agr & Forestry

PO Box 3098

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3098

Telephone: 504-925-3780

FAX: 504-922-0477

Woiton, Marcel 30858

Product Manager

Endress+Hauser Instruments 7350 Endress Place

Greenwood, IN 66143

Telephone: 317-535-1393

FAX: 317-535-8698

Woodward, Cary 497

Deputy Inspector

HKno5fitm Co ^eigYfis &

Measures

2224 W 186th St Westfield, IN 46074

Telephone: 317-896-5700

WotthUe, Richard W. 8257

Program Mgr Weights &

Measures

MD Dept of Agriculture

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Aimapolis, MD 21401

Telephone: 410-841-5790

FAX: 410-841-2765

Zards, Andrew A. 1344

Engineering Manager

Amoco Corp

200 East Randolph Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: 312-856-4073

FAX: 312-856-3401

Zulfugarzade, Eldar 25766

Guest Researcher

Bldg 820 Rm 282

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4412

FAX: 301-963-2871

321 *U.S. Government Printing Office: 1996 — 417-392/67913




U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards & Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

SPECIAL STANDARD MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

NIST

PERMIT NO. G195

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED